11 wisdom requirement for rangers

[the grim yeeter]

Hi,

This might've been asked before, but I'm wondering whether it'd be possible code-wise, to remove the minimum wisdom requirement of 11 for e.g. rangers at character creation. In Arelith's current meta and with the way dispel CL works currently, it is not at all beneficial to cast your spells as a ranger, as ranger builds typically don't take more than 23 ranger levels, and one cast would turn CL for the purpose of resisting dispels from 30 to 23. This is why, if you know what you are doing, you never cast and only use wands. What it comes down to is that having to take 11 wisdom instead of 8 is a waste of attribute points.

Anyway, I'd like to know if it's possible to change the minimum requirement. I suppose before the hak era this question would've been given the standard "no, it's hardcoded" answer, but maybe these days it's possible to change this? Thanks.

-tgy

[Aardra]

Take other levels first, eg fighter or rogue. You are able to use the -path command to choose archer path later.

[the grim yeeter]

Take other levels first, eg fighter or rogue. You are able to use the -path command to choose archer path later.

Of course I am aware you can do this. But there are certain builds that you'll have to start as a ranger as, because the other two classes are prestige classes.

[Baron Saturday]

Rangers seem plenty strong right now without giving them the chance to further optimize their stats - though admittedly I feel like most rangers builds go for 14 base Wis anyhow, for the monk synergy?

[strong yeet]

I think this would be a good thing to do for all classes, if only to avoid things like the "duergar bug." I guess that comes with being able to play an 8 INT wizard, but, I think if you're doing that it's on purpose.

[Ork]

While I don't know the answer, I do think it's problematic to change starting stats for base classes. If ranger can drop the wis stat investment, so could paladin, and bard. I could see a paladin 4/CoT16/10 PDK being very strong with an extra 3 stat points to put somewhere (or potentially more for races that have negatives in these stats).

[the grim yeeter]

There is only a relatively small selection of builds (i.e., builds that have a gish class in them, that cannot start as any class other than that gish class, and which do not obtain a high enough CL in that gish class) that would benefit from this. And while significant, having looked into the most potent of these builds, removing the minimum casting stat requirement would never be a detrimental enough improvement such that it makes a "good" build "too strong". In other words, for example, if removing the minimum wisdom requirement from pal4/pdk10/cot16 would make this build too powerful, then it already was prior to the change, for sure.

The thing is not so much that I want to see more min/maxing made possible. Rather, the way dispel CL works now causes these minimum casting stat requirements to be a complete waste for gish classes (e.g., paladin, ranger, bard) in most cases (bar builds like divbard, heavy paladin, etc., and these builds would remain as strong as they already are, anyway). If spellcasting was somehow made valuable on a build with, say, 24 gish levels, then I'd be all for the minimum requirement. It's just that it simply isn't. In the majority of these cases, it's nothing more than (at least) three stat points flushed down the toilet at character creation.

[...] - though admittedly I feel like most rangers builds go for 14 base Wis anyhow, for the monk synergy?

Not necessarily.

And even if, there is a considerable amount of ranger builds without a monk dip (especially since div/monk synergy has been taken care of).

[Ork]

In the instance of say a duergar bard, we're talking a difference of 8 points. For a orog ranger, the difference is 5 points. Those are a lot. 3 points is a lot. You can still have your class combo, but there's a tax of 3 points.

[Definately Not A Mimic]

I'm sure this is going to sound bad, but it basically seems like you are wanting to min max your build. I would assume most rangers, city or forest, have some sort of common sense in their head, to assist with what it is that rangers do, ie directions, not touching poison toads, not walking into a gelatinous cube..
Not every single build has to be done as the utmost strongest thing out there.

[the grim yeeter]

In the instance of say a duergar bard, we're talking a difference of 8 points. For a orog ranger, the difference is 5 points. Those are a lot. 3 points is a lot. You can still have your class combo, but there's a tax of 3 points.

I would, of course, be all for making it a limit of 8 to avoid these race-specific cases.

And yes, as I said, 3 points is significant, but:

And while significant, having looked into the most potent of these builds, removing the minimum casting stat requirement would never be a detrimental enough improvement such that it makes a "good" build "too strong".

But yes, a duergar bard (I suppose the charisma-less bard build you're referring to here is the con-based bard20/pdk10, as really, you'd want to throw a divine dip in heavy-bard build otherwise, which means you'll want charisma anyway) or an orog ranger would benefit from this more. And some other race/build combinations as well, surely. So tuning the minimum casting stat from 11 to 8 would be a solution here, then.

I'm sure this is going to sound bad, but it basically seems like you are wanting to min max your build.

Yes. Of course I want to min/max my build. I always min/max my build. And I would expect nothing more from any other player. It's what the majority does. And there is nothing wrong with that, at all. It does not make me a worse roleplayer, either. Are there still players frowning upon min/maxing in 2020?

But that's not the point of this thread.

Not every single build has to be done as the utmost strongest thing out there.

Can we, for once, have a thread without someone feeling the need to say this? Phrases like these have never helped a thread on these forums, ever.

[Baseili]

I suppose it begs the question of what defines a class, rangers are supposed to be aware of their surroundings and adaptable with the wiki even going as far as having this little section:

It should be a given, from this, that rangers have a great range, as all classes do, in their personalities and interests. The only way one can possibly go wrong with a ranger is to have one that comes off as completely ignorant of their environment, and incompetent in a new situation.

Which is it to be followed, roleplay the stats and breach the above statement or ignore stats and have player choice dictate?

[Drowboy]

What defines a class is the mechanics and actual description, both of which are entirely arbitrary. If I start 3 fighter, take 8 wis, and go for 21 ranger levels, is that somehow less a ranger than someone who took 14 wis, but shifted into being a monk/AA after 10 ranger?

[Baseili]

According to the definition, yes you would be less a ranger due to having no awareness (sub 11 wisdom). You would have the skills but be entirely ignorant of your surroundings.
The level split is rather murky but if we take anything below half of you total levels as not being dedicated then at best the ranger/monk/AA wouldn't be a ranger either.

If following definition, the stat requirements and at least half of your levels to be considering playing the class then nothing more than a 16 ranger with at least 11 wisdom can be called a true ranger.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

According to the definition, yes you would be less a ranger due to having no awareness (sub 11 wisdom). You would have the skills but be entirely ignorant of your surroundings.
The level split is rather murky but if we take anything below half of you total levels as not being dedicated then at best the ranger/monk/AA wouldn't be a ranger either.

If following definition, the stat requirements and at least half of your levels to be considering playing the class then nothing more than a 16 ranger with at least 11 wisdom can be called a true ranger.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's very player-and-character-sheet focused. Makes a lot of sense in a PnP setting when there are less than 10 PCs, and 1 DM, and everything is very cooperative.

Arelith is not that. The identity of your character is formed through your own roleplay only in part. 99% of it is how other characters perceive, or mis-perceive, you. There are endless examples of where not only characters but PLAYERS thought character 1234 was X build, but turns out they were Y build.

And mostly, it's not the fault of character 1234.

Mechanical purism really has no place. There is no correct way to play any single class. Some classes have more responsibilities, but those are not inherently restrictions or predeterminations.

The only argument against changing the 11 stat rule for gish builds is whether or not is a balancing one. And I'm too amateur to weigh in on that. I'd only say that I'm all for build diversity because that increases character diversity which means more roleplaying diversity. If this does that, I'm all for it.

[Curve]

Ranger Archers would benefit from this big time as they have little reason to have Wisdom above 8. Three ability points is huge, though. It is the difference between a main stat being 16 and 17, thus saving an epic feat.

[Baseili]

That line of thinking is a combination of official wiki information and server rule, the exception being the half of max level which is largely an opinion, however the perception of others was not part of the scenario only what was defined as a ranger as per the given information.

I suppose it could be considered a clash of mechanical purism versus mechanical optimisation, which is the lesser of the two evils? A hard definition or increased power?

[Gouge Away]

The 11 starting stat thing is a base NWN rule not something Arelith added, so I don't think balance was a consideration... NWN's developers never cared about class vs class balance at all and certainly couldn't have predicted where we'd be on a modified PW in 2020. So I don't think it's set in stone... though it may be hard coded.

Anyway sounds like a good idea though 8 wisdom paladin/WM/Cot divine might shenanigans or something may prove me wrong.

[the grim yeeter]

I suppose it could be considered a clash of mechanical purism versus mechanical optimisation, which is the lesser of the two evils? A hard definition or increased power?

Guess what, neither of these two are evil. And one is no more "evil" than the other, either (actually, if I did have to choose one, I would say a hard definition is worse, in general). Or were you trying to ask a rhetorical question?

Anyway, the reason I asked the question in my original post, is because I'd like to know if it is at all possible to change the minimum casting stat requirement before I spend a good amount of time diving into all the builds that a change like this would affect. If it then turns out that the change enables/creates problematic builds (that cannot be tweaked), I would not be for it either.

[AstralUniverse]

Nothing new to add here. As said above, allowing classes to start with 8 casting stat is problematic and buffs some already strong builds by 1 starting str or dex, which is a big deal.

I will say tho that because of how dispels work in nwn, from logic and intuition perspective, I really feel like starting with 8 should be allowed, but again, if it didnt buff some already strong builds.

[Xerah]

We've already had a detailed disucssion about this prior to this thread existing and we're not looking at changing anything at the moment in regards to this.

[the grim yeeter]

Thank you very much for the answer, Xerah. Saves me time working out the balance-related side of it.

Can we see a rundown of the conclusions of this discussion?