New Dispel

[Skibbles]

This isn't really feedback but a question of clarity (though I'm putting it here assuming there will be feedback).

- Mundane characters now correctly have their total level as their dispel resistance for effects they create. A character is considered mundane when their caster level is 6 or less.

Does this mean that a maximum level mundane character has a caster level of 30?

I ask because I already thought this was the case so I'm not sure if it was reverted earlier (I can't find any updates about it) or if I'm just plain misunderstanding.

[Aren]

This isn't really feedback but a question of clarity (though I'm putting it here assuming there will be feedback).

- Mundane characters now correctly have their total level as their dispel resistance for effects they create. A character is considered mundane when their caster level is 6 or less.

Does this mean that a maximum level mundane character has a caster level of 30?

I ask because I already thought this was the case so I'm not sure if it was reverted earlier (I can't find any updates about it) or if I'm just plain misunderstanding.

Correct.

[Kalopsia]

A recent EE update introduced a bug that gave mundanes CL 0 against dispels. This new update fixes that :)

[Shadowy Reality]

If I have 7 levels of bard and 23 levels of Fighter and use solely wands/potions is my CL considered 7 as I am not mundane?

The wording made it seem like that, but I am not sure.

[garrbear758]

If I have 7 levels of bard and 23 levels of Fighter and use solely wands/potions is my CL considered 7 as I am not mundane?

The wording made it seem like that, but I am not sure.

Yes that will make you considered CL 7 for everything. It hurts a few builds, but it is much better than the alternative. This is also just a patch (in the literal sense) until Beamdog fixes what they broke.

[Shadowy Reality]

If I have 7 levels of bard and 23 levels of Fighter and use solely wands/potions is my CL considered 7 as I am not mundane?

The wording made it seem like that, but I am not sure.

Yes that will make you considered CL 7 for everything. It hurts a few builds, but it is much better than the alternative. This is also just a patch (in the literal sense) until Beamdog fixes what they broke.

Absolutely, I do not think many builds builds fall in that category, I was just making sure I got it right, thanks!

[preggy]

Hm. Unpopular opinion perhaps but maybe i'm missing some context that people can help me with?

Am I the only one that thinks a fully invested mage should have better - or at least equal prospects of dispelling a non-magical person that has used a wand, scroll or potion? As things stand currently, it looks like, even with a 3 feat investment its easier to defend against a dispel than it is to successfully operate one.

Purely from a PVP standpoint I admit, PVE dispelling is another whole kettle of fish.

[Drowboy]

You are the only one.

They've returned it to, roughly, how dispels have worked since 2003 or so, and only broke within the past couple months by Beamdog update.

[preggy]

Oh - No I understand that! - And having 0CL is obviously broken as all heck.

I was just wondering the context of why it is considered better to give mundane chars 100% Char level to Effective caster level, as opposed to say.. capping mundane characters at an ECL of 25 and giving dedicated Abjurors a a slight edge in dispelling rolls.

The numbers for dispelling rolls seem very intentionally chosen, I am more curious about the decision making of it than "we should change this"

[Cataclysm of Iron]

Hm. Unpopular opinion perhaps but maybe i'm missing some context that people can help me with?

Am I the only one that thinks a fully invested mage should have better - or at least equal prospects of dispelling a non-magical person that has used a wand, scroll or potion? As things stand currently, it looks like, even with a 3 feat investment its easier to defend against a dispel than it is to successfully operate one.

Purely from a PVP standpoint I admit, PVE dispelling is another whole kettle of fish.

I agree it doesn't sit right that a potion is harder to dispel than an epic mage, but I think it's a reasonable concession to quality of life. Teens onwards are basically impossible on Arelith in PvE without extensive buffs.

[Void]

Hm. Unpopular opinion perhaps but maybe i'm missing some context that people can help me with?

Am I the only one that thinks a fully invested mage should have better - or at least equal prospects of dispelling a non-magical person that has used a wand, scroll or potion? As things stand currently, it looks like, even with a 3 feat investment its easier to defend against a dispel than it is to successfully operate one.

Purely from a PVP standpoint I admit, PVE dispelling is another whole kettle of fish.

No, you're not the only one, invested mage should produce effects that are harder to dispel than an item.
Or there should be an option to set caster level of an item when creating it, whihc would increase price.

At least, that's how PnP approach works.

Also, most likely dispel shouldn't work on non-magical items (mundane) at all.

I've seen this implemented before, what happens is that more people chose to become full CL casters instead of being a gish, people purchase wands more often, and treat wand/potion effects as disposable. On other hand, hard to dispel potions cost more and sought by specific interested buyers.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

Yes! Finally won't have to play defensive against mages in PvE.

[the grim yeeter]

I must say, at first glance, these updates honestly look surprisingly calculative and thoroughly considered. I'm impressed.

[Cataclysm of Iron]

Or there should be an option to set caster level of an item when creating it, whihc would increase price.

If the CL of a Wand/Potion/Scroll could be influenced by the CL of the creator, with or without control on their side, that would be amazing.

[preggy]

Now all you need to do is convince Beamdog to change all instances of: cast spell: X on items to be specific chosen level of spells (I.E Barkskin (3), Barkskin (12) etc) to allow the level to be independantly set to any caster level (1-40) - like they are for onhit effects.

Orrrr convince the devs to impliment it manually, that wands and potions save the caster level as some sort of variable and check it when casting.

Do one of those and ... well. you'd probably just have completely differently arguements for "Balancing" things!

Shame its probably an absurd amount of work mind!

[Void]

Now all you need to do is convince Beamdog to change all instances of: cast spell: X on items to be specific chosen level of spells (I.E Barkskin (3), Barkskin (12) etc) to allow the level to be independantly set to any caster level (1-40) - like they are for onhit effects.

Orrrr convince the devs to impliment it manually, that wands and potions save the caster level as some sort of variable and check it when casting.

Do one of those and ... well. you'd probably just have completely differently arguements for "Balancing" things!

Shame its probably an absurd amount of work mind!

This has been done on some NWN2 servers, and can be scripted. Not really beamdog problem, as they wanted to replicate original game and original game didn't bother with this mechanic.

[helitron]

If I have 7 levels of bard and 23 levels of Fighter and use solely wands/potions is my CL considered 7 as I am not mundane?

The wording made it seem like that, but I am not sure.

Yes that will make you considered CL 7 for everything. It hurts a few builds, but it is much better than the alternative. This is also just a patch (in the literal sense) until Beamdog fixes what they broke.

Hi,
while I fully appreciate the addition of this patch which should solve the current issue for many mundane builds, can you please explain the rationale for CL6 as a cutoff? Why not 17, 21 or 25? (just throwing random numbers here)

I can think of several builds that would be disproportionally hurt by this because they invest a bit more than 6 lvls in a caster class but do not reach high CL (e.g. builds that rely on 16 Bard levels, melee PMs). They would be more easy to dispel compared to random Bob the Barbarian who can reach CL 30 with no investment in spell casting.

I suggest to reconsider to increase the cutoff for mundane CL.

Thanks

[Nitro]

Maybe casters should get the same treatment? If they have 6 or less mundane class levels their caster CL counts as 30 for dispel?

[ReverentBlade]

Why not just make it character level across the board....?

[garrbear758]

1. Character level across the board would be terrible for balance. It would make things like 21 ss, 4 ftr, 5 wm, or 21 ss, 6 ftr, 3 monk builds too strong. There would be literally 0 reason to go heavier into the classes, and they would be objectively better than 27/3 builds because their one weakness (dispels) would be erased. You could even get away with some craziness like 17 cleric 6 ftr 7 wm if this were done.

2. Allowing casters to get the same benefit from up to 6 mundane levels would have the same result, and will not be done for the same reason.

[Aren]

1. Character level across the board would be terrible for balance. It would make things like 21 ss, 4 ftr, 5 wm, or 21 ss, 6 ftr, 3 monk builds too strong. There would be literally 0 reason to go heavier into the classes, and they would be objectively better than 27/3 builds because their one weakness (dispels) would be erased. You could even get away with some craziness like 17 cleric 6 ftr 7 wm if this were done.

2. Allowing casters to get the same benefit from up to 6 mundane levels would have the same result, and will not be done for the same reason.

Garrbear is correct.

[SkipiusEsq]

Perhaps I am missing something so please forgive me, but I am still a bit confused on the logic.

Step 1: Wally the Wizard, who is 26 Wizard / 4 Fighter casts Bull's Strength on a blank wand to embue it with the spell.
Step 2: Wall the Wizard gives the wand to his friend Brenda the Barbarian, who is Barbarian 27 / Rogue 3.
Step 3: Brenda uses the wand and the Bull's Strength on her now has a dispel to beat of 30.

Alternatives:
Step 4 (A): Wally the Wizard makes a second wand for himself, uses it on himself, and now has a dispel to beat of 26
Step 4 (B): Wally the Wizard uses Bull's Strength from his spellbook but has the same dispel to beat of 26

So ... the very same spell, cast from the very same person, in the very same way, somehow results in it being harder to dispel when the wand is used by someone who has very little understanding (beyond a 3 level dip for UMD) of how magic words when compared to someone who has studied it for most of their life?

----

If the above is correct, can it be solved by making it so when a caster uses a wand/potion/etc. that person gets the character level for dispels, but when used from the spellbook, it gives the castor level? This would make Zoo buffs have the same dispel across the community while still lowering the dispel check for things like Shadow Shield.

---

Again, if I misunderstand the mechanics, I apologize and welcome any help in understanding.

[garrbear758]

Perhaps I am missing something so please forgive me, but I am still a bit confused on the logic.

Step 1: Wally the Wizard, who is 26 Wizard / 4 Fighter casts Bull's Strength on a blank wand to embue it with the spell.
Step 2: Wall the Wizard gives the wand to his friend Brenda the Barbarian, who is Barbarian 27 / Rogue 3.
Step 3: Brenda uses the wand and the Bull's Strength on her now has a dispel to beat of 30.

Alternatives:
Step 4 (A): Wally the Wizard makes a second wand for himself, uses it on himself, and now has a dispel to beat of 26
Step 4 (B): Wally the Wizard uses Bull's Strength from his spellbook but has the same dispel to beat of 26

So ... the very same spell, cast from the very same person, in the very same way, somehow results in it being harder to dispel when the wand is used by someone who has very little understanding (beyond a 3 level dip for UMD) of how magic words when compared to someone who has studied it for most of their life?

That is correct. It may not make a lot of sense, but that is how NWN has worked for almost 20 years. It is very important that it stays that way for balance reasons.

[Xerah]

This is just a temporary fix that works as close to how it did as possible given reasonable time investment.

Setting your own caster level on consumables on creation is not going to happen.

Get over the idea that there is some thematic issue here because the server was balanced around the idea of it working like this.

[SkipiusEsq]

Perhaps I am missing something so please forgive me, but I am still a bit confused on the logic.

Step 1: Wally the Wizard, who is 26 Wizard / 4 Fighter casts Bull's Strength on a blank wand to embue it with the spell.
Step 2: Wall the Wizard gives the wand to his friend Brenda the Barbarian, who is Barbarian 27 / Rogue 3.
Step 3: Brenda uses the wand and the Bull's Strength on her now has a dispel to beat of 30.

Alternatives:
Step 4 (A): Wally the Wizard makes a second wand for himself, uses it on himself, and now has a dispel to beat of 26
Step 4 (B): Wally the Wizard uses Bull's Strength from his spellbook but has the same dispel to beat of 26

So ... the very same spell, cast from the very same person, in the very same way, somehow results in it being harder to dispel when the wand is used by someone who has very little understanding (beyond a 3 level dip for UMD) of how magic words when compared to someone who has studied it for most of their life?

That is correct. It may not make a lot of sense, but that is how NWN has worked for almost 20 years. It is very important that it stays that way for balance reasons.

Thank you for the clarification. While I haven't thought through all possibilities on balance purposes, I will say that just because it is the way it has worked for 20 years does not mean it is the right way. Arelith is repleat with changes to make the game (in my opinion) better.

However, I don't see how allowing a weaponmaster to buff with strength and con and have it dispellable 5% of the time for non-abjurers and 25% of the time for epic abjurers but not having the same benefit to castor classes is unbalanced when most weaponmasters rely on strength and con to make them better in combat while many castor's don't.