What if these two skills were reworked?

[Slapstick]

The "what if" of the day: What if the discipline and tumble skills were reworked to non-mandatory status? Right now people are dipping like mad to get these skills. It makes sense build-wise, but it's strange to have so many bards, monks and rangers running around which are absolutely not bards, monks, or rangers except for a little bit at the end just for the skills.

Neither discipline nor the way tumble exists in NWN was part of the 3e ruleset - and for good reasons I might add. They're mandatory skill-sinks that doesn't change how a character plays. Having locks and traps as skills for rogues and their ilk makes for a great character type. As does UMD, Lore, Listen/Spot, Hide, craft mastery, etc. It is only these two that doesn't fit in at all.

What if...:
- Remove the flat AC bonus from tumble. Instead, let it give twice the current bonus against attacks of opportunity. If you want to run around a lot in combat you now can, but it is not something that everyone will need or for some reason get an unreasonable amount of AC from.
- Make discipline unavailable to all classes and give a flat +4 & +1 per level. It's a rubbish and unexciting skill compared to everything else, yet it is so mandatory every single build includes it and a dip that enables it.

Is there a good reason why we like the current version of these two skills? It certainly would allow for greater flexibility (or even - solo classing) and less ridiculousness if they were not mandatory. There could be some good reasons I just don't see, but I admittedly don't see it.

- Slapstick

[Griefmaker]

I personally would be fully in favor of this implementation.

[Hunter548]

It's worth mentioning that your tumble change would lower AC across the board pretty significantly - which means builds focused on high alpha-strike burst damage will become significantly stronger. AC vs attacks of opportunity is irrelevant.

Meanwhile your discipline change would be a really big buff to any build that has to choose between powerful abilities and discipline currently. Both wild mage and monolith druid come to mind.

[Drowboy]

The phrase you're looking for, op, is rocket tag. It would devolve further into strongest-first-strike possible memery, as above.

[NMan7496]

It's worth mentioning that your tumble change would lower AC across the board pretty significantly - which means builds focused on high alpha-strike burst damage will become significantly stronger. AC vs attacks of opportunity is irrelevant.

Meanwhile your discipline change would be a really big buff to any build that has to choose between powerful abilities and discipline currently. Both wild mage and monolith druid come to mind.

This is my feeling on this as well. Having to multiclass for tumble and/or discipline bars many classes from their top tier abilities, which, in the end, balances out.

This tumble change would disproportionately benefit high AB builds, and, additionally, with how tumble functions, as it is, AC vs. AoO is irrelevant because you can often just avoid AoOs from your tumble skill check or spring attack.

For discipline, as much as I hate how it works in NWN, I do not think this is the right solution to the issue. Personally, I think mages should be vulnerable to KD, and a move back to how it works in PnP, with opposed strength/dexterity checks, would work much better to do away with discipline.

[NPC Logger Number 2]

I like dipping. Give me one reason why dipping is bad that isn't totally opinionated and full of crap.

[DM Wraith]

So first I want to weigh in that this is a more appropriate topic for feedback sub forum or builds/mechanics.

Now dipping as was mentioned before plays into the overall balance by key features of classes being missed (Bonus damages. Ac, feats, etc.), and ergo serves to help balance the playing field of classes. As well from a rework standpoint this would have huge implications as well from dev's into how pve encounters are set up etc. Which would be a monumental workload in itself.

Now each player is free to dip into whichever they prefer. Perhaps a shadow dancer prefers to use their ability to Hide in Plain Sight as a defensive measure over dipping into a class with discipline. Now to use a real life example to illustrate why dipping can be explained, look at football. Plenty of football players make that their career let's say. Now they dont just do football, a middle linebacker may "dip" into Tennis in the off season to help with their lateral movement, while a running back may "dip" into ballet to help with their footwork. Both of these football players are Football players by their career but are augmenting their skillset with skills learned from another profession. This can be translated with. Fighter training with a monk to learn to be more fluid on the battlefield. The onus is on each of us as a player to properly reflect our character sheets etc. And incorporate that into our roleplay.

[Emotionaloverload]

They're mandatory skill-sinks that doesn't change how a character plays.

I may be misunderstanding the phrasing here but I find that discipline does change how a character plays. At least for me personally. I lean hard on discipline for rp. Especially if a character is focused in it.

I like dipping. I rarely do it for the pvp/pve skill needs. Just because a character has some of a class doesn't mean they have to play as entirely that class. Otherwise only pure class builds would be allowed. After all if you have 27 ranger/3rogue then more of the ranger will come through in rp because there is more of it. I don't see why the dip is bad nor is it really explained above.

The skills mentioned are not mandatory. It may seem that way but this is not a single player game. Obviously playing without them means that you need a party or some compromises need to be made but the same is true of other skills (the one that jumps to mind is playing a big evil without access to -disguise).


-S

[Biolab00]

Perhaps things over-complicates themselves.

Discipline / tumble dips does change how a a character play because these belongs to combat skillset rather than interactive skillset.
Hence, the moment you entered combat, it changes how a character plays.

A dip into these classes can be role-played in many ways. A simplified method can be, a 26 bard has the "exploration" attitude and likes to brave dangerous places hence, he also trained himself in the fighter way, so that he can better protect himself.
It's just a simple way of describing.

If the Discipline and Tumble changes in any way that affects combat capability, it defeats the purpose of the skill set itself, the very meaning of it.

[fading]

Probably terrible, not sure what exactly would be the outcome, but I'd just make discipline available to everyone since it's such a maandatory skill.

[jomonog]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class. See monk UBAB and wis to AC, BG/pally for divine might/shield. SD/HIPs, etc. Easy solution is capping the power some way by reference to number of class levels.

Similarly the real issue with tumble, discipline, UMD etc is the combination with skill point dumping. Other servers I have seen deal with the issue by making all skill points have to be spent on level up, or alternatively capping skill point totals to a formula based on number of class levels with the skill as a core skill.

[Biolab00]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class. See monk UBAB and wis to AC, BG/pally for divine might/shield. SD/HIPs, etc. Easy solution is capping the power some way by reference to number of class levels.

Similarly the real issue with tumble, discipline, UMD etc is the combination with skill point dumping. Other servers I have seen deal with the issue by making all skill points have to be spent on level up, or alternatively capping skill point totals to a formula based on number of class levels with the skill as a core skill.

Following this path set, the server will have to do a re-level of all character, possibly rebuild as well.
It's simply not feasible, as a solution.
Then again, since it's matter pertaining to discipline / tumble. It's best not to include other skill / feats / class combi as well since it will once again, over-complicates matter.

Like i've said in one of my earlier post, it's only human nature, to look for every possibility, to be as strong as you can, until it becomes a norm. The cycle simply repeats itself. The million dollar question is, whether the current situation calls for such extreme measures.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class.

I don't want to sound snide - but this isn't a generic issue with NWN. This is literally in almost every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.

Ironically, I think 4th Edition (the one people like the least) had the least "dip mandatory" mantra because of how class abilities scaled and how "everyone could do a bit of everything" design philosophy in some of the daily powers.

But DnD has always been about the dip.

The balancing problem is not the dip, it's the variation WITHIN the dip, man. Look at what 4 levels of fighter, monk, rogue, ranger, paladin, or bard get you in comparison to 4 levels of barbarian. Even spellsword gets you more.

Note how I basically listed off 6 classes vs the 1.

The problem thus isn't the 6, it's the 1.

We should be looking at bringing antiquated classes into a better meta where you're constantly asked "do I dip, or do I grab more? is it worth it? what's the trade off?" rather than trying to abolish the dip. The dip is great. The fact a 27/3 ranger/rogue can be so fundamentally mechanically different than a 27/3 ranger/monk is just wicked cool.

[Kaeldre]

I would like to add that you dont have to multiclass to get ac from tumble. Any class can get at least 15 ranks for 3 ac. So, I would not call it mandatory to dip for an additional 3 ac even if it is common to do so.

[Shadowy Reality]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class.

I don't want to sound snide - but this isn't a generic issue with NWN. This is literally in almost every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.

There are strict rules in 3.5 about multiclass, in general you have the multiclass penalty, which was removed in Arelith and more particular restrictions with classes such as monk, paladin and surely there are others. In some you retain your abilities but can never take levels in that class again, in others you lose class abilities. For many of these if you want to multiclass you have to take a special prestige class, which usually is entirely dependant on orders.

[-slave]

I just want to point out that every single character in D&D and Forgotten Realms official lore multiclassed and took 1-3 level dips in like 3-4 classes...

Edit: Who is statted for 3.5

[Drowboy]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class.

I don't want to sound snide - but this isn't a generic issue with NWN. This is literally in almost every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.

There are strict rules in 3.5 about multiclass, in general you have the multiclass penalty, which was removed in Arelith and more particular restrictions with classes such as monk, paladin and surely there are others. In some you retain your abilities but can never take levels in that class again, in others you lose class abilities. For many of these if you want to multiclass you have to take a special prestige class, which usually is entirely dependant on orders.

Tell that to my bard/druid/fochlucan lyrist/spellsword/cleric/seeker of the song/ur priest/swordsage dude he'll blast you with 9th level everything

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I reckon there is a generic issue across the board in nwn with small dips that allow access to the power of a class without having to invest in too many levels of the class.

I don't want to sound snide - but this isn't a generic issue with NWN. This is literally in almost every iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.

Ironically, I think 4th Edition (the one people like the least) had the least "dip mandatory" mantra because of how class abilities scaled and how "everyone could do a bit of everything" design philosophy in some of the daily powers.

But DnD has always been about the dip.

The balancing problem is not the dip, it's the variation WITHIN the dip, man. Look at what 4 levels of fighter, monk, rogue, ranger, paladin, or bard get you in comparison to 4 levels of barbarian. Even spellsword gets you more.

Note how I basically listed off 6 classes vs the 1.

The problem thus isn't the 6, it's the 1.

We should be looking at bringing antiquated classes into a better meta where you're constantly asked "do I dip, or do I grab more? is it worth it? what's the trade off?" rather than trying to abolish the dip. The dip is great. The fact a 27/3 ranger/rogue can be so fundamentally mechanically different than a 27/3 ranger/monk is just wicked cool.

It doesn't come off as snide, but, if we're presenting the terms in arguments of D&D, dipping in D&D does not work as efficiently as it does in NWN. You can't 'bank' skill points in D&D, and dump 30 of them into three new class skills at level 27. NWN allowed you to do that because Bioware was feeling too lazy to code half-ranks for cross-class skills, and it quickly became a community staple of building to take advantage of it by holding out skill points for a single-level-dip; which we all inherently acknowledge as a busted way the game shouldn't work, which is why almost every RP server has rules about minimum levels in a class/build.

In PnP, if you waited until level 27 to take a level of rogue, you'd get 8+int modifier+1(if human) skill points, and if you had a 14 in INT, you could put all 11 of those points into one skill. That's a huge difference from 90 to split into three skills, and characters were never meant to multiclass that way- it's just an unintended consequence of the lack of half-ranks in NWN.

There are other restrictions that others brought up, but this is my biggest beef with dipping in NWN; while it's widely accepted in the community, dumping 90-120 skill points in one level really wasn't how the game was designed- it's an exploit that we've grown so accustomed to we take it for granted.

Edit: Also, I am completely on-board with bringing level 28+ builds up with capstone abilities to be comparably viable to dip variations of them, but that ideology gets a lot of pushback, and I haven't really figured out why yet. My observation is that people conflate "make pure-classing a better option than it is" with "give it the same things multiclassers get," and things start to go downhill from there.

[DangerDolphin]

while it's widely accepted in the community, dumping 90-120 skill points in one level really wasn't how the game was designed- it's an exploit that we've grown so accustomed to we take it for granted.

Just wanted to agree with this point. I don't have any anti-skill point dumping agenda and I'm not looking to change it, as it would have huge ramifications and I'm not even sure it would be a benefit - but the line between very effective strategy and exploit in NWN tends to vary from server to server - for instance, I've played ones where corner sneaking is banned. Likewise people seem to think that if something has existed in NWN for long enough then it should never change.

Edit: Also, I am completely on-board with bringing level 28+ builds up with capstone abilities to be comparably viable to dip variations of them, but that ideology gets a lot of pushback, and I haven't really figured out why yet. My observation is that people conflate "make pure-classing a better option than it is" with "give it the same things multiclassers get," and things start to go downhill from there.

People often take level 28 perks as an attempt to kill multi-classing (And hence variation in builds), when in reality they are just trying to offer one more potential option for a build. Certainly though, if we make the 28 perk too powerful then we will kill every multi-class, so they have a valid point there.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

You want to see some dirty dipping, check this out-

Wizard 24
arch wizard 5
cleric 3
Rogue 2
Fighter 1.

Those are Elminsters classes in 3ed.

[Kuma]

Neither discipline nor the way tumble exists in NWN was part of the 3e ruleset - and for good reasons I might add.

yeah, because nwn is a videogame adapted from that ruleset. the ruleset in question doesnt have these, and the usual philosophy is "skill vs skill", "attack roll vs attack roll/AC". from nwnwiki's article on this:

"For example, in pen and paper, disarm is opposed by an attack roll, and the analogies to knockdown (trip and overrun) are opposed by strength checks."

from the same article:

This skill violates the principle (held by some) that skills should only oppose skills, not feats. In the NWN system, a low-level character who takes a special attack feat has a distinct advantage over a higher-level character who has not invested in discipline.

Counter: The "skill vs. skill" principle is not part of the design philosophy of NWN, nor is balance for player vs. player. (Balance for player vs. monster is implemented by a module's designer. Since balancing discipline and special attacks is no different than other balance issues, only the player vs. player format is of concern for this debate.)

it's a skill tax, but then the abilities themselves are a feat tax: if we're going to make it easier to resist these abilities, then these abilities should be given for free. in P&P, you don't take KD as a feat. combat manoeuvers can just be done - you can try to trip someone, disarm someone, etc, normally, at a penalty.

i actually would like to see base KD/Disarm given to all chars for free, tbh, it'd increase build diversity hugely. some other servers do this already.

[-slave]

It should also be noted that this isn't a straight copy form D&D either. This is just how the game works, and the server made the conscious decision to state that they want this to be allowed, and have given their own rules for it. They have formulated the balance of the server, from a PVE and PVP perspective around this fact.

However it 'may or may not have been intended' as of this point 18 years in, this is just how life works, and that is just how this server chooses to operate. Changing this sort of a thing now would simply cause a lot more issues than it solves. Taking class dips like this is just how things go. Trying to say it's 'wrong' to do so or somehow somebody is 'bad' or 'worse' because they do creates a false dichotomy where people seem to think that people who don't do this are somehow 'better at roleplay' or things of this nature.

Being mechanically sound and good at the game isn't a down side. It's a benefit. It means that people can design better content and more challenge. It means that developers should have a general idea as to what sort of capabilities a group or person may have some some sort of consistency, without also needing to hamstring their own content because they want even the people who refuse to accept or build their character for any amount of competence to be able to experience it.

You don't need to take discipline on a character. I typically don't. Instead I rely on my positioning on characters such as mages, or, I find other ways around it. Does it leave vulnerabilities? Sure. Do I gain other things instead from it? Absolutely. It is still a choice you can make. You don't -need- discipline or tumble. But having them can be safer at the cost of other things. If you want to learn them, dip into a class that has them, make the mechanical and RP investment, and just move on from there.

Something is no longer an 'exploit' if it's existed for longer than some people have been alive, has been used on this server specifically for that amount of time, and has become an integral part of the way things are balanced, and builds are set up and run and is expected by the majority of both the playerbase and the staff.

And if it really bothers you then... don't do it?

[MissEvelyn]

yeah, because nwn is a videogame adapted from that ruleset. the ruleset in question doesnt have these, and the usual philosophy is "skill vs skill", "attack roll vs attack roll/AC". from nwnwiki's article on this:

"For example, in pen and paper, disarm is opposed by an attack roll, and the analogies to knockdown (trip and overrun) are opposed by strength checks."

NWN2 works the exact same way as P&P when it comes to Knockdown and Disarm. They got rid of Discipline and managed to pull it off nicely. It's not impossible to implement.

The game also only allows you to bank 5 skill points on level up; any more and you're not allowed to finish leveling up.

It is, admittedly, also a game that stays more true to 3.5. For example, you can't just stack Strength on every piece of gear. Only the highest bonus will count if you were to do so.

[Aodh Lazuli]

NWN2

Isn't a very good game, in fairness.

[Cybren]

Neither discipline nor the way tumble exists in NWN was part of the 3e ruleset - and for good reasons I might add.

yeah, because nwn is a videogame adapted from that ruleset. the ruleset in question doesnt have these, and the usual philosophy is "skill vs skill", "attack roll vs attack roll/AC". from nwnwiki's article on this:

"For example, in pen and paper, disarm is opposed by an attack roll, and the analogies to knockdown (trip and overrun) are opposed by strength checks."

from the same article:

This skill violates the principle (held by some) that skills should only oppose skills, not feats. In the NWN system, a low-level character who takes a special attack feat has a distinct advantage over a higher-level character who has not invested in discipline.

Counter: The "skill vs. skill" principle is not part of the design philosophy of NWN, nor is balance for player vs. player. (Balance for player vs. monster is implemented by a module's designer. Since balancing discipline and special attacks is no different than other balance issues, only the player vs. player format is of concern for this debate.)

it's a skill tax, but then the abilities themselves are a feat tax: if we're going to make it easier to resist these abilities, then these abilities should be given for free. in P&P, you don't take KD as a feat. combat manoeuvers can just be done - you can try to trip someone, disarm someone, etc, normally, at a penalty.

i actually would like to see base KD/Disarm given to all chars for free, tbh, it'd increase build diversity hugely. some other servers do this already.

You can also attack and move from a prone (or supine, I hate that games don’t know those are different things..) position in pen and paper, so KD in NWN isn’t really analogous to a trip attack in pen and paper