Dispel Check Discussion
Moderators: Active DMs, Forum Moderators, Contributors
-
- Arelith Supporter
- Posts: 2028
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:57 pm
Dispel Check Discussion
The purpose of this thread is to generate discussion on ideas to alter the dispel caster level check Arelith presently uses into something that isn't completely overshadowed by the ability to breach after level 20.
My thought process is to completely uncap all dispel check caster level limits. In exchange for this;
1: Lesser Dispel, Dispel Magic, and Greater Dispelling will all only target spells that are not already on the Breach List.
2: They will only affect spells up to their innate level (so greater dispelling could be used to remove true seeing, or monstrous regeneration, but not Aura vs. Alignment. Lesser dispel could be used to strip someone of see invisibility).
3: Mordenkainen's disjunction is the ultimate breach, but should also function as above up to a level 9 spell- in exchange, limit it to clvl 25. This means an epic-focused abjurer using it at level 30 has exactly a 50/50 chance of dispelling level 9 or lower spells on a level 30 caster.
OR
1: Remove the ability for Mordenkainen's disjunction to breach. Make it the ultimate uncapped dispel/counterspell and let it work on all spells equally.
Thoughts?
My thought process is to completely uncap all dispel check caster level limits. In exchange for this;
1: Lesser Dispel, Dispel Magic, and Greater Dispelling will all only target spells that are not already on the Breach List.
2: They will only affect spells up to their innate level (so greater dispelling could be used to remove true seeing, or monstrous regeneration, but not Aura vs. Alignment. Lesser dispel could be used to strip someone of see invisibility).
3: Mordenkainen's disjunction is the ultimate breach, but should also function as above up to a level 9 spell- in exchange, limit it to clvl 25. This means an epic-focused abjurer using it at level 30 has exactly a 50/50 chance of dispelling level 9 or lower spells on a level 30 caster.
OR
1: Remove the ability for Mordenkainen's disjunction to breach. Make it the ultimate uncapped dispel/counterspell and let it work on all spells equally.
Thoughts?
Bane's tyranny is known throughout the continent, and his is the image most seen as the face of evil.
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Changing the math formula of how it works for casters and mundane would suffice, without changing how the spells work.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
I'm with Cortex.
My vote would be the following change:
Caster Level for dispel checks = Highest spellcasting class level or, if PC has no spellcasting class levels, character level divided by two.
This feels realistic, in the sense that casters will be harder to dispel than mundanes. But then again the NwN engine is full of arbitrary rules and idiosyncrasies so...
My vote would be the following change:
Caster Level for dispel checks = Highest spellcasting class level or, if PC has no spellcasting class levels, character level divided by two.
This feels realistic, in the sense that casters will be harder to dispel than mundanes. But then again the NwN engine is full of arbitrary rules and idiosyncrasies so...
-
- Arelith Supporter
- Posts: 2028
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:57 pm
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
I would agree with this, except the entire reason it was changed to how it is to begin with was to better support the play-style of those who rely on UMD/item buffs (i.e. the specific desire for a level 30 caster to be unable dispel all of a character's buffs in one spell).Cortex wrote:Changing the math formula of how it works for casters and mundane would suffice, without changing how the spells work.
If this logic remains true, then what you're suggesting is literally the opposite of what the Team is willing to entertain as viable.
Bane's tyranny is known throughout the continent, and his is the image most seen as the face of evil.
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Something simple like keeping caster CL the same but reducing mundane CL to Character Level-6 or some such would be the most elegant option, IMO. It doesn't cripple mundane and gives casters an advantage equal to an epic abjurer's, which would stack.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
1d20 + 20 + 6 vs 36 (12+24)
55% chance for abjurer to remove each mundanes buff seems strong.
Especially since, mages are already strong.
55% chance for abjurer to remove each mundanes buff seems strong.
Especially since, mages are already strong.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
-
- Arelith Silver Supporter
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 5:29 pm
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
If it was lvl - 6 for mundanes, would it be possible to make it "the higher of caster level, or character level - 6" for everyone, as it still seems somewhat unfair that a completely mundane character would have a higher dispel check than an epic battle cleric.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
I agree, but (and check my math):Sockss wrote:1d20 + 20 + 6 vs 36 (12+24)
55% chance for abjurer to remove each mundanes buff seems strong.
Especially since, mages are already strong.
a CL 30 epic abjurer having only a 20% chance to dispel a level 30 mundane's clarity potion also seems strong. I am sure there is a balance we can reach, though. Mundanes being undispellable by non-abjuration focused mages and only barely dispellable by epic abjurers is a bit silly.
Current character: Abigail Duskwood
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
25%
1/4 is pretty good. Especially since a decent mage can cast /at least/ 4 dispels with good positioning and using the tools at their disposal (gsanc, invis, timestop) - invis of course is repeatable if you get rid of ts/si.
It's also pretty good considering if you dispel something important, then you're going to followup with a near-guaranteed save vs effective death.
Clarity has a CD and casters can easily play around the duration, without making any attempt to dispel, before following up with a mind spell.
It's silly in the context of the very logical way that you're viewing magic, in a very logical linear sense caster level = greater power. However, that's not the case for the overwhelming majority of spells, they are all capped somewhere (or they're just flat ridiculous pnp spells)
It's also not silly in the context of creating a competitive environment in which everything, ideally, has a fair chance.
1/4 is pretty good. Especially since a decent mage can cast /at least/ 4 dispels with good positioning and using the tools at their disposal (gsanc, invis, timestop) - invis of course is repeatable if you get rid of ts/si.
It's also pretty good considering if you dispel something important, then you're going to followup with a near-guaranteed save vs effective death.
Clarity has a CD and casters can easily play around the duration, without making any attempt to dispel, before following up with a mind spell.
It's silly in the context of the very logical way that you're viewing magic, in a very logical linear sense caster level = greater power. However, that's not the case for the overwhelming majority of spells, they are all capped somewhere (or they're just flat ridiculous pnp spells)
It's also not silly in the context of creating a competitive environment in which everything, ideally, has a fair chance.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
-
- Arelith Silver Supporter
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:21 pm
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
This is a very theoretical example. Very few mages carry around 4+ dispels and several invisibility spells, unless they are expecting a pvp fight. And let me tell you as an epic abjurer, there is no time to micromanage what buffs are and are not dispelled if you'd even get off a spell before you're knocked down. Fort spells are useless against fighter types, they have good innate saves, have most likely dump-skilled spellcraft to the max, as well as items which also applies to the +1 save vs spells/5 ranks.Sockss wrote:25%
1/4 is pretty good. Especially since a decent mage can cast /at least/ 4 dispels with good positioning and using the tools at their disposal (gsanc, invis, timestop) - invis of course is repeatable if you get rid of ts/si.
It's also pretty good considering if you dispel something important, then you're going to followup with a near-guaranteed save vs effective death.
Clarity has a CD and casters can easily play around the duration, without making any attempt to dispel, before following up with a mind spell.
It's silly in the context of the very logical way that you're viewing magic, in a very logical linear sense caster level = greater power. However, that's not the case for the overwhelming majority of spells, they are all capped somewhere (or they're just flat ridiculous pnp spells)
It's also not silly in the context of creating a competitive environment in which everything, ideally, has a fair chance.
There is one chance, that's a mind spell, unless said melee type has a paladin or BG dip, that won't work either then. And keep in mind that if this melee is a good player, he has access to most of your control spells (time stop, g.sanc, invis) because UMD doesn't discriminate between a mage armor or a timestop scroll.
Odds are better if you are fully buffed before the fight, if not, you can run away or try and control the distance until his clarity runs out and hopefully, get up a few buffs. If he gets you knocked down, you're dead. And that probably goes even if you did manage to remove every single buff he has through dispelling attempts, when you could have taken your chance with a Bigbies. In the end, you're depending on extremely good luck on your behalf, or extremely bad luck on your opponents behalf.
I've always been a fan of the different progression of the classes, with fighters ruling the early levels, whereas wizards would become very powerful later on after a gruesome leveling process depending on everyone else. That said, a wizard played here is novelty, because you like the RP or the diversity of their spells. The old mantra (sort of) sticks - if you're prepared, you've got a fighting chance, if not, you will lose, and capping supposedly epic spellcasters into requiring several spell level 6 or even 9 dispelling attempts to remove mere potions that can be bought for a few hundred gold is a large contributing factor to this.
That which doesn't kill you, simply makes you... stranger.
-
- Arelith Gold Supporter
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:56 am
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Having played a Wizard recently...
I always felt the scales were tipping towards other people. Saves are extremely high, UMD is prevalent in almost every build (offering immunities), you barely have time to breach sometimes, much less do other things. Dispel is almost never an option.
Other than the Evo Combo, Dragon Knight and IGMS, mages don't have that much more.
That said, I haven't had much experience with pure casters, I was probably doing things wrong.
I always felt the scales were tipping towards other people. Saves are extremely high, UMD is prevalent in almost every build (offering immunities), you barely have time to breach sometimes, much less do other things. Dispel is almost never an option.
Other than the Evo Combo, Dragon Knight and IGMS, mages don't have that much more.
That said, I haven't had much experience with pure casters, I was probably doing things wrong.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
The big problem is that if you make removing protections against save or lose spells too easy, then there's no reason to play anything but a wizard. Ditto embracing the "fighters are good early game, wizards good late game" dichotomy. That just ensures that no one plays fighters, and breaks the unspoken "rule" of D&D mechanics, that a level of x is roughly equivalent to a level of y.
Dispelling mundanes is a problem, but let's not rush into a perceived solution that's going to break the class balance wide open. I say this as someone who predominantly plays wizards, and is currently playing a disable-based wizard (that is to say, someone who'd stand to benefit from this change).
On a related note: If your epic level wizard is unable to get a single spell off in a fight before dying, then the fault probably lies squarely on your shoulders. Which is fine - some people prefer to play that way, or don't feel inclined to mechanically educate themselves because they don't think it's important, or they don't have the time, or whatever. It's perfectly fine to play that way, and I don't think anyone would disagree. Balancing the server around that assunption, however, is a very bad idea, because then someone who does view that sort of mechanical chicanery as important can come along and break things much more easily. This isn't directed at anyone specific, and more just a general explanation of thought process, driven by a lot of recent forum posts.
Dispelling mundanes is a problem, but let's not rush into a perceived solution that's going to break the class balance wide open. I say this as someone who predominantly plays wizards, and is currently playing a disable-based wizard (that is to say, someone who'd stand to benefit from this change).
On a related note: If your epic level wizard is unable to get a single spell off in a fight before dying, then the fault probably lies squarely on your shoulders. Which is fine - some people prefer to play that way, or don't feel inclined to mechanically educate themselves because they don't think it's important, or they don't have the time, or whatever. It's perfectly fine to play that way, and I don't think anyone would disagree. Balancing the server around that assunption, however, is a very bad idea, because then someone who does view that sort of mechanical chicanery as important can come along and break things much more easily. This isn't directed at anyone specific, and more just a general explanation of thought process, driven by a lot of recent forum posts.
UilliamNebel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:24 pmYou're right. Participating in the forums was a mistake. Won't do this again.
Anime Sword Fighter wrote: I have seen far too many miniskirt anime slave girls.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
This seems all wrong; maybe you're not playing optimally.
I mean, surely casters are always expecting a PvP fight - because what else would you do with those slots, aside from buffs? Once you have your summon up, you're not there to consistently blast things in PvE, you're there in case it goes pear-shaped.
You have spells to disable (effective death) or kill outright for any save. There are some builds with great all around saves, but most will have one leaves a decent chance of killing outright.
And if you're using mind fog, like you should be, most people will fail will saves.
The difference between innate casting and non-innate casting is half a round. Which is massive.
Mages are strong through their entire lives, caster levelling is much easier compared to non casters (See: Summons).
DC spells tend to be less reliable than the nuking counterpart because many people neglect CON (for whatever reason) and there's artefacts which can give super saves with little investment.
I mean, surely casters are always expecting a PvP fight - because what else would you do with those slots, aside from buffs? Once you have your summon up, you're not there to consistently blast things in PvE, you're there in case it goes pear-shaped.
You have spells to disable (effective death) or kill outright for any save. There are some builds with great all around saves, but most will have one leaves a decent chance of killing outright.
And if you're using mind fog, like you should be, most people will fail will saves.
The difference between innate casting and non-innate casting is half a round. Which is massive.
Mages are strong through their entire lives, caster levelling is much easier compared to non casters (See: Summons).
DC spells tend to be less reliable than the nuking counterpart because many people neglect CON (for whatever reason) and there's artefacts which can give super saves with little investment.
Thankfully this team is no longer being used.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
Sockss#5567 for nwn mechanics questions.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
What bothers me mostly is the fact that you need to choose between keeping mundane caster lvl OR going deep into a class with a spellbook. So you're not ever going to see builds like 21 monk 9 cleric, or 15 pally 15 sorc or any interesting and suboptimal hybrid build that would do just fine if it weren't for dispels.
I'd also suggest checking the approach of not changing how dispels work but rather WHAT they dispel (how many spells, or spell circles, or even how many spell lvls they dispel, aka how spell mantle works)
I'd also suggest checking the approach of not changing how dispels work but rather WHAT they dispel (how many spells, or spell circles, or even how many spell lvls they dispel, aka how spell mantle works)
Currently playing: Seth Xylo
-
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:10 pm
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
I'm quite certain someone using scrolls would not have access to greater sanctuary. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I've never been able to scribe it. Unless only clerics can scribe it? I've also never see one for sale in a player run shop.Karris the Anarchist wrote:There is one chance, that's a mind spell, unless said melee type has a paladin or BG dip, that won't work either then. And keep in mind that if this melee is a good player, he has access to most of your control spells (time stop, g.sanc, invis) because UMD doesn't discriminate between a mage armor or a timestop scroll.
I do agree with Astral that the advantage mundanes have versus dispel limits certain hybrid builds. I've wanted to try cleric/mage combination again, but it really feels like shooting oneself in the foot. High resistance or near invulnerability to monsters' dispel is very powerful, not to mention just very convenient. Why take 9 sorcerer when wands potions and scrolls are easily obtained, -and- on top of it they also will be harder to dispel.
I'm just not sure there's an easy solution. If we mess with this dispel situation it'll offset class balance. If we take that dispel resistance away casters are going to have to lose something to compensate. Perhaps discipline would no longer be available to skill dump, and all those highly invested in caster levels would have to fear knock down. Is the dispel issue worth that?
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Mages are already top 5 in terms of PvP on the server, in addition to Wizard being one of the strongest PvE classes also. I don't understand the fixation with making them stronger.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Because there isn't a reason to make them stronger. They are, however, not immune to tweaking to change their interactions with other classes without buffing or nerfing them. They are strong due to certain aspects of the class rather than the full kit.Prestige wrote:Mages are already top 5 in terms of PvP on the server, in addition to Wizard being one of the strongest PvE classes also. I don't understand the fixation with making them stronger.
If any dispel change was to be made, it'd still have to be midly in favor to mundane IMO.
-
- Posts: 1860
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:44 pm
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
... or we'd have to nerf some other aspects of casters (e.g. tone down battle clerics).Cortex wrote:If any dispel change was to be made, it'd still have to be midly in favor to mundane IMO.
Either would be fine, but it's not as simple as just, like, making dispels the same across the board, or introducing PnP dispels, or whatever.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Tying dispel resistance to character level across the board would unlock a slew of new and unique build concepts, like Sharran Sorcerer/Monks or legitimate spellsword builds.
Dispel would then have to be buffed, however, and arcane defense: abjuration would need to be given a different function.
Dispel would then have to be buffed, however, and arcane defense: abjuration would need to be given a different function.
Current character: Abigail Duskwood
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Tying dispel resistance would also make builds like battleclerics too difficult to deal with; Their primary weakness is that, sure, they can slap on several buffs and be a better fighter, and do this multiple times per day, but if they get dispelled they're significantly worse.Wytchee wrote:Tying dispel resistance to character level across the board would unlock a slew of new and unique build concepts, like Sharran Sorcerer/Monks or legitimate spellsword builds.
Dispel would then have to be buffed, however, and arcane defense: abjuration would need to be given a different function.
UilliamNebel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:24 pmYou're right. Participating in the forums was a mistake. Won't do this again.
Anime Sword Fighter wrote: I have seen far too many miniskirt anime slave girls.
Re: Dispel Check Discussion
Is this it... is nerf clerics finally happening for real?Peppermint wrote:(e.g. tone down battle clerics)