Dispel Bait

[CaptainLocke]

So, I've learned a few things about nwn since starting my time on Arelith. Namely, Dispel mechanics. As I understand it, if you drink a potion or cast from a scroll the effective caster level versus dispel is actually your own caster level instead of the item's. However, if you are a non-caster it simply takes your character level instead. Is this correct?

Now on to the question. What about PRCs? For example, Blackguard, Assassin, Harper Scout, Champion of Torm. Does using their special abilities (IE: Assassin's Invisibility) switch you over to using assassin levels for dispel checks?

[Karris the Anarchist]

Does your character have a spellbook? Caster class level applies.

Does your character not have a spellbook? Character level applies.

This is good rule of thumb - PrC abilities do not contribute to the caster level, since they are technically not spells, but abilities. In the case of a PrC providing spellbook progression (some harper paths), if you use spells from the spellbook, you will use the caster level for dispelling purposes.

[Opustus]

Somebody told me that the caster class level applies only when a spell has been cast from the spellbook by the character. This might not be true, or it might have changed with the EE fixes, dunno.

[PinataPlethora]

Somebody told me that the caster class level applies only when a spell has been cast from the spellbook by the character. This might not be true, or it might have changed with the EE fixes, dunno.

After a server reset, your character's effective caster level gets reset, as well. As long as you don't cast any spells from your spellbook, you will use your total character level for any wands, scrolls, or potions, for the purpose of dispel resistance. Once you cast a spell from your spellbook, the level of the class you cast from is used for your caster level.

[Rwby]

What if you've got multiple caster levels?

Say, I dunno, I've got a Paladin 26, Sorcerer 4.

If I don't cast any class spells, and use a wand, I'm caster level 30?
If I cast a Paladin Spell, then a wand, it's caster level 26?
If I cast a Sorcerer spell, then use a wand, is that only caster level 4?

[Baron Saturday]

Not quite! To ue your example...

If you don't use any of your class spells, then yes, you've got a CL of 30.
If you DO use any of your class spells, from either class, then the CL on items changes to what's listed (in parentheses) after the spell in the item description.

Thus, if you used a Shield potion before casting anything from your spellbook, it would have a CL of 30 for the purpose of resisting dispels. If you used a Shield potion after casting something from your spellbook, it would have a CL of 5.

Or so I have been told.

[MissEvelyn]

Is there a plan in works to fix this?
As it stands, a mundane class is far more efficient at not getting dispelled than a caster class is, when it comes to wands/scrolls/potions etc.

[Hunter548]

Is there a reason this hasn't been fixed yet to work with all classes? As it stands, a mundane class is far more efficient at not getting dispelled than a caster class is, when it comes to wands/scrolls/potions etc.

It's probably still hardcoded, and it'd be a fairly large balance paradigm shift to change overnight even if it wasn't; Most non-caster classes would immediately go into trashcan tier if they couldn't natively get their saves high enough (This'd include things like ranger, rogue, fighter, WM, barbarian, assassin, etc) because the immunity sources they rely on to have a chance versus mages cap out at like CL 15 and would be trivial to dispel.

[MissEvelyn]

Most non-caster classes would immediately go into trashcan tier if they couldn't natively get their saves high enough (This'd include things like ranger, rogue, fighter, WM, barbarian, assassin, etc) because the immunity sources they rely on to have a chance versus mages cap out at like CL 15 and would be trivial to dispel.

I definitely agree that it would be a disaster for most builds. But a proposed solution would be to always use character level, regardless of class, when using items.

[Peppermint]

You've raised that solution before. And as we mentioned back then, that solution would be a significant (and frankly, unnecessary) buff to caster builds.

It's not for nothing, for example, that the Spellsword's dispel resistance was removed.

Neither solution works without significant tweaks across the board.

[Lurch]

Related question: Is there a benefit to taking abjuration focus / arcane defense feats if one only intends to cast spells from items?

[Durvayas]

I'm not sure why having casters be on par with melee characters who rely on UMD in regards to dispelling is a bad thing.

It makes sense that characters who are actual masters of the arcane should be at the very least, as good, or better, at blocking incoming dispel magic than johnny rogue who simply knows how to flick a wand.

This is a gamey, fairly immersion breaking, issue that makes zero sense within the game world itself.

As is, all the system does is punish any and all builds with less than full caster levels that do not go all in on UMD, because they cannot use any of their spells without wrecking their caster levels. You can dip any caster class, but gods forbid you should actually use any of their spells.

[Hunter548]

I'm not sure why having casters be on par with melee characters who rely on UMD in regards to dispelling is a bad thing.

It makes sense that characters who are actual masters of the arcane should be at the very least, as good, or better, at blocking incoming dispel magic than johnny rogue who simply knows how to flick a wand.

This is a gamey, fairly immersion breaking, issue that makes zero sense within the game world itself.

As is, all the system does is punish any and all builds with less than full caster levels that do not go all in on UMD, because they cannot use any of their spells without wrecking their caster levels. You can dip any caster class, but gods forbid you should actually use any of their spells.

Are you also one of those people who thinks no non-caster should be on the same level, mechanically, as a spellcaster? That one set of classes should inherently be better than another set?

That's the end result of making UMD effects dispel at the item caster level is non-spellcasters no longer being viable.

[flower]

You've raised that solution before. And as we mentioned back then, that solution would be a significant (and frankly, unnecessary) buff to caster builds.

It's not for nothing, for example, that the Spellsword's dispel resistance was removed.

Neither solution works without significant tweaks across the board.

Make dispel check a fixed number, where oppisition gets bonus for total character levels? And Abjuration feats would lower this bonus.


Like casting lesser dispel is set at 18+ to roll for dispel an effect. Dispel spell would make it roll on 15+ and greater + mordekayns (diespel effect, not breaching) would be at 10+. Each second character level post 20th would add +1 to resisting dispels. Each abjuration feat -2 from dispel resistence.


Level 30 character would thus have + 5 to dispel checks.


This means: Lesser dispel would need 23, dispel 20+ and greater dispel 15+ to dispel you.


Epic abjurer would need 17+ on lesser dispel, 14+ on dispel, and 9+ on greater/mord.

Arcane defense: aburation would add +2 resistence per feat.

Edit: the numbers can be of course shuffled. You could also make that abjuration feat would cancel abjuration feat (abjurer knows the tricks of other abjurer?) and both would get no dispel bonus at each other.

[Lurch]

While I second the notion that it makes absolutely zero sense for character who is 90% fighter and 10% bard, having zero spell casting potential from a spellbook (due to <10 charisma) to be in any way a better spellcaster than a 90% wizard 10% fighter, it's an unfortunate necessity from a balance standpoint.

If everyone could use items at 30th level, there would be next to no mechanical reason to play a pure caster when dipping into other classes offers so much more in terms of class-skills, better BAB and build-defining class features. Levels 28-30 for a pure wizard, sorcerer, cleric or druid would have to become stupidly powerful as a consequence. Which would mean mundane characters would have to get a huge buff in turn. Power creep all around.

[Durvayas]

I'm not sure why having casters be on par with melee characters who rely on UMD in regards to dispelling is a bad thing.

It makes sense that characters who are actual masters of the arcane should be at the very least, as good, or better, at blocking incoming dispel magic than johnny rogue who simply knows how to flick a wand.

This is a gamey, fairly immersion breaking, issue that makes zero sense within the game world itself.

As is, all the system does is punish any and all builds with less than full caster levels that do not go all in on UMD, because they cannot use any of their spells without wrecking their caster levels. You can dip any caster class, but gods forbid you should actually use any of their spells.

Are you also one of those people who thinks no non-caster should be on the same level, mechanically, as a spellcaster? That one set of classes should inherently be better than another set?

That's the end result of making UMD effects dispel at the item caster level is non-spellcasters no longer being viable.

We're playing D&D, not WoW.

Magi have always been stronger than non-casters. They've always been inherently better at burst damage, but they lack any long term sustain. Thats why their power is limited by number of castings per day. Why they're inherently vulnerable to KD, why they have small HP pools, and fight like a wet noodle if they run out of spells. They're vulnerable to archers, sneaks, and melee. They're designed to be glass cannons; Heavy hitters, but fragile.

Being able to dispel non-casters or not has never changed these weaknesses.

Even if the dispel was brought up to Canon, you seem to be forgetting that spellcasters can still easily be dispelled with breaches and mords. Non-spellcasters will never be nonviable. Slightly more vulnerable in PvP, perhaps, but to claim that they'd be utterly useless is a strawman arguement. Steps could easily be taken to rebalance PvP by giving majority caster builds a heftly penalty to discipline unless they took combat casting as a feat.

That would be the opposite of power creep. It would be a slight serverwide nerf, to mage builds(costing them a feat in building to cover a weakness), and the mundanes.

Changing the dispel cap won't stop that WM from using UMD to cut a wounded mage to ribbons with a TS, or that rogue from dropping out of stealth using mords on that caster while he's not expecting it. Most of what it will do, is make UMD mildly more expensive (spell effects won't last as long) for mundanes, and force a slight change in tactics on both sides.

[Cortex]

arelith is barely d&d

[Lurch]

arelith is barely d&d

Not to mention that the best part of D&D (pen and paper especially) is not the fact that mages can cast fireballs to emulate being a walking piece of artillery in robes. That's in fact the quality of mages most akin to soulless MMO:s where they have a single role and that is to spam lightning bolts from their arse all day.

Mages are cool because of everything else that they bring to the table in pen and paper, stuff that no mundane character can hope to replicate: controlling the battlefield with web, walls of fire, and black tentacles, messing with and brainwashing enemies with illusions and enchantments, ability to turn into beasts, or fly, or go invisible, or teleport across vast distances. Ability to scry, commune with spirits, to know what's coming, to combine vastly different spells in creative ways to turn the tables of an otherwise unwinnable battle. Ability to have complex spell duels between rival spellcasters (think Baldur's Gate 2).

The closer a computer RPG can get to this aspect of spellcasters, the better it is, in my opinion: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... ing-Batman

Anyway, crazy tangent over. Bottom line, mages shouldn't be more powerful across the board compared to mundane fighters. In fact, I think pure damage dealing should be left to warriors and archers almost entirely, otherwise what's the point of playing one, when the casters can do everything else much better?

Thematic reasons are no excuse. Balance must be considered in order to make content that is playable and enjoyable for everyone in the party, and not just the mages.

[Wrips]

How I miss those discussions about Contingent Spells + Celerity + Time Stop + Dimensional Lock/Forcecage + a gigaton of other combos that wizards can do in 3.5.

[MissEvelyn]

I'm not sure why having casters be on par with melee characters who rely on UMD in regards to dispelling is a bad thing.

It makes sense that characters who are actual masters of the arcane should be at the very least, as good, or better, at blocking incoming dispel magic than johnny rogue who simply knows how to flick a wand.

This is a gamey, fairly immersion breaking, issue that makes zero sense within the game world itself.

As is, all the system does is punish any and all builds with less than full caster levels that do not go all in on UMD, because they cannot use any of their spells without wrecking their caster levels. You can dip any caster class, but gods forbid you should actually use any of their spells.

As Peppermint stated, I've raised this point before. But alas, Mechanical balance comes before immersion, sadly. Someone please make a meme about this.

Not that we couldn't reach an ultimatum that doesn't topple balance too much. I think we could. Casters don't have to be the gods they are in D&D, but having them be worse at casting spells than a character who dipped 3 levels into Rogue makes absolutely no sense. And it DOES punish those who play half-casters or anything that doesn't go pure caster levels.

Also, I didn't mean to turn this thread into a Feedback thread

[Lurch]

Half casters have always been terrible in 3rd edition D&D, it's hardly the fault of any single server. That's why gish classes like eldritch knight started popping up in splatbooks, but even then the synergy between swordfighting and spellcasting has been somewhat lackluster.

Baldur's gate and 2nd edition arguably did this better as well, since multiclass characters lost much less of their level progressions and fighter/mages combined the best of both worlds, namely the best offense (force of arms) with the best defenses (arcane magic), resulting in what many called the most powerful character build of them all.

[Peppermint]

I guess I just don't really understand.

When I'm dispelled, I don't really suffer any immersion-based ramifications. I just think to myself, "Gee, I got dispelled. That really sucks."

I feel like the 'immersion' argument is really overblown at times, but maybe it's just a failure to roleplay on my part. I dunno.

[Tourmaline]

Without adding too much fuel to the fire. I've wondered why non-casters couldn't have their "caster level" max out in the mid-20s to make them easier to dispel. That would even things out a little bit, though certainly wouldn't solve all the problems.

[flower]

Without adding too much fuel to the fire. I've wondered why non-casters couldn't have their "caster level" max out in the mid-20s to make them easier to dispel. That would even things out a little bit, though certainly wouldn't solve all the problems.

All critical wards making them vulnerable to spells are already breacheble, there is not a single reason why to make them dry dispelled.

[Hunter548]

Without adding too much fuel to the fire. I've wondered why non-casters couldn't have their "caster level" max out in the mid-20s to make them easier to dispel. That would even things out a little bit, though certainly wouldn't solve all the problems.

All critical wards making them vulnerable to spells are already breacheble, there is not a single reason why to make them dry dispelled.

Neither clarity or death ward are breachable.