New Dispel

[Cataclysm of Iron]

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

Purely out of curiosity, is that because it is mechanically impossible/more work than would ever justify RoI? Or is it because, for the same balance-based reasons (which make total sense to me even though they thematically pinch a bit), it's a decision the design team don't and won't support?

[preggy]

Well, just indulge me a moment Garrbear.

Let us say that Mundane characters still got effective caster levels for the purposes of dispelling, but simply had a hard cap, or deminishing returns in epic levels?

Again, what if it capped at say, 24? - Would that truely break balance? If so, what would be so "Broken" -- how do you envision it happening?

Just purely asking to try and understand.

[garrbear758]

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

Purely out of curiosity, is that because it is mechanically impossible/more work than would ever justify RoI? Or is it because, for the same balance-based reasons (which make total sense to me even though they thematically pinch a bit), it's a decision the design team don't and won't support?

It's an incredible amount of work without even getting into the balance implications.

[Cataclysm of Iron]

Yeah that makes sense, I'm not surprised - appreciate the reply!

[Void]

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

Purely out of curiosity, is that because it is mechanically impossible/more work than would ever justify RoI? Or is it because, for the same balance-based reasons (which make total sense to me even though they thematically pinch a bit), it's a decision the design team don't and won't support?

It is possible, and there were servers that had this done, but that's plenty of scripting work. Additionally, using specific caster level for consumables throw a lot of builds out of the window.

[helitron]

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.

I agree with the points above, but I don't think that raising the cut to CL16 would be a problem.

CL16 would prevent 21 spellsword builds from gaining mundane CL and at the same time give a fair treatment to melee builds with 16 levels of Bard or PMs. With this current change they have no chance to resist dispels at CL6.

[Xerah]

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

Purely out of curiosity, is that because it is mechanically impossible/more work than would ever justify RoI? Or is it because, for the same balance-based reasons (which make total sense to me even though they thematically pinch a bit), it's a decision the design team don't and won't support?

So much is balanced around knowing what is reasonably possible to obtain. I get that you'd love to get that +5 barkskin wand, but so many would chomp to get CL30 wands/scrolls/potions and dump millions of gold to buy these

[Anachorn]

Hi,
I would just like to point out that if I understand correctly this breaks various builds that use more than 6 levels of semi-caster classes such as bards, rangers and paladins but are not fully invested in them and don't cast spells.

Until now these builds usually had a choice whatever to use spells and become dispel baits or just ignore their spell-casting capability and use wands and get CL of 30 against dispels. (which is what they usually chose if they knew the mechanics)

a completely melee character with 10 levels of ranger for example will no longer have that choice now and have CL 10 against dispels no matter what, making those builds terrible.

is there a way the determination if a PC is mundane or not can be decided by which levels of spells he is capable of casting? if we say for example that a mundane character is any character that cannot cast level 4 spells we will still get that 7 levels of wizard make you non-mundane but it would take 16 or so levels of ranger to make you non-mundane.

Its not perfect but would make it so more build options are fixed by the patch until it is fully fixed by beamdog.

[Void]

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

Purely out of curiosity, is that because it is mechanically impossible/more work than would ever justify RoI? Or is it because, for the same balance-based reasons (which make total sense to me even though they thematically pinch a bit), it's a decision the design team don't and won't support?

So much is balanced around knowing what is reasonably possible to obtain. I get that you'd love to get that +5 barkskin wand, but so many would chomp to get CL30 wands/scrolls/potions and dump millions of gold to buy these

Actually... another possible take on that would be not to allow CL30 wand, but set them to fixed CL (which reflects their current effective CL), which would make them easier to dispel compared to pure caster's spell.

On related note, CL30 barkskin wand would cost 7920 gold using current arelith formula, which would be definitely a concern.

[Archnon]

Hi,
I would just like to point out that if I understand correctly this breaks various builds that use more than 6 levels of semi-caster classes such as bards, rangers and paladins but are not fully invested in them and don't cast spells.

Until now these builds usually had a choice whatever to use spells and become dispel baits or just ignore their spell-casting capability and use wands and get CL of 30 against dispels. (which is what they usually chose if they knew the mechanics)

a completely melee character with 10 levels of ranger for example will no longer have that choice now and have CL 10 against dispels no matter what, making those builds terrible.

is there a way the determination if a PC is mundane or not can be decided by which levels of spells he is capable of casting? if we say for example that a mundane character is any character that cannot cast level 4 spells we will still get that 7 levels of wizard make you non-mundane but it would take 16 or so levels of ranger to make you non-mundane.

Its not perfect but would make it so more build options are fixed by the patch until it is fully fixed by beamdog.

This! 10 ranger levels is very common for archers and dual wield melee builds.

[Ork]

It'd be nice for this to work for full casters, and half-casters is their caster level/2 to qualify. Still means the 15 Paladin or 17 bard gets the hit, but the 10 ranger isn't dinged.

[Aeralad]

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.
...

Question...
It seems to me by the definition of "mundane" in my mind that 21 ss / 4 fighter / 5 wm and 21 ss / 6 fighter / 3 monk have caster level 30 with this new update right? They don't have 6 caster levels in anything so they get caster level 30?

Is that what was meant?

[Xerah]

They clearly have 21 caster levels.

[Aeralad]

Oh okay I'm sorry I thought it was Shadowdancer not spellsword. Carry on. I didn't get it.

[Arigard]

Mm this certainly leaves ranger based builds with the short end of the stick, considering they still rely on wands and don't really have a real place as a 'true' spellcaster. Perhaps, as mentioned the requirement can be raised a little, or ranger can be given a pass?

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

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.

You're not the only one, but you're among a small handful of voices amidst a sea of voices who want full mage capability without actually being a mage, whom also tend to think that mages are OP - so clearly classes that aren't mages and get other perks should cast just like them and be even MORE op- all in the name of keeping mages from being op. Personally, this is one of the "enhancements" that I greatly approved of.

With that said, the time and effort that went into this is appreciated, and I'm quite certain it was hard work, even if I obviously share your unpopular opinion.

I don't like some of the changes that are coming out, but I am definitely impressed with the speed and quality of the work. Keep it up, guys!

[Wuthering]

Mm this certainly leaves ranger based builds with the short end of the stick, considering they still rely on wands and don't really have a real place as a 'true' spellcaster. Perhaps, as mentioned the requirement can be raised a little, or ranger can be given a pass?

If this actually does apply to rangers I hope that can be looked at. 10 ranger levels is very common in archer builds and 9 is not unheard of with things like quarterstaff monks. This would wreck their viability and those are builds that never even touch their spellbooks.

I mean, a little out-there but maybe rangers could opt-in to disable their spellcasting permanently and be treated as a mundane class if they choose, or something like that.

(I'd like to see a non-divine variant of the ranger with no spellbook and that could start with 8 wisdom, now that I think of it.)

[Marisakis]

It's an incredible amount of work without even getting into the balance implications.

Would seperating caster levels from classes and caster levels from items be similar levels of hard work, or too disruptive?
I can understand wanting mundanes to use their character level as caster level for items .. but can't casters use their character level for items, too, while maintaining their caster level from classes for any spells and buffs they cast?

I can sure imagine that a bard26/4fighter would like their NEP potions to be as hard to dispel as those of mundanes, while their Haste or Imp Invis might be subject to the 26 class caster level. Or is that exactly what the development team is trying to avoid?

[garrbear758]

It's an incredible amount of work without even getting into the balance implications.

Would seperating caster levels from classes and caster levels from items be similar levels of hard work, or too disruptive?
I can understand wanting mundanes to use their character level as caster level for items .. but can't casters use their character level for items, too, while maintaining their caster level from classes for any spells and buffs they cast?

I can sure imagine that a bard26/4fighter would like their NEP potions to be as hard to dispel as those of mundanes, while their Haste or Imp Invis might be subject to the 26 class caster level. Or is that exactly what the development team is trying to avoid?

We do not want that to happen for balance reasons.

[Hazard]

I have to admit. I don't really understand the balance reasons either, and this doesn't make sense to me.

If anyone could explain it to me like I'm a child, I'd appreciate that. I know it's how we've had it for nearly 20 years, but I always thought that was ... undesirable, not desirable. What exactly would be some of the balance implications if we made it 'make more sense' .. ?

I am genuinely oblivious and not trolling.

[Kalopsia]

I have to admit. I don't really understand the balance reasons either, and this doesn't make sense to me.

If anyone could explain it to me like I'm a child, I'd appreciate that. I know it's how we've had it for nearly 20 years, but I always thought that was ... undesirable, not desirable. What exactly would be some of the balance implications if we made it 'make more sense' .. ?

I am genuinely oblivious and not trolling.

Here's a good explanation:

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.

TL;DR:
Dispel vulnerability has been an important component of this server's balance for a long time. Removing it would lead to many overpowered class combinations.

[a shrouded figure]

17/6/7 would be... wow, lol. Do want!

[Hazard]

I have to admit. I don't really understand the balance reasons either, and this doesn't make sense to me.

If anyone could explain it to me like I'm a child, I'd appreciate that. I know it's how we've had it for nearly 20 years, but I always thought that was ... undesirable, not desirable. What exactly would be some of the balance implications if we made it 'make more sense' .. ?

I am genuinely oblivious and not trolling.

Here's a good explanation:

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.

TL;DR:
Dispel vulnerability has been an important component of this server's balance for a long time. Removing it would lead to many overpowered class combinations.

Aah, okay! Thanks. That helps me understand.

[preggy]

Okay so with that in mind..

Why should people who do heavily - but not completely - invest themselves into spellcasting classes be more at a disadvantage than a mundane person doing the reverse? I.e - Why is a Wizard/Fighter 27/3 More at risk to being dispelled than a Fighter/Bard 27/3

Why should *Not* investing in something, make you intrinsically better at it, somehow?

Would the following be broken? Dispel Effective Caster level = *Total Caster Level - (Higher of"Spellcasting/Mundane Levels - Lower of "Spellcasting/Mundane" levels)* with a few exceptions for prestige classes (Such as Arcane Archer potentially being considered as either)

If you want to use "Dispellability" as a sort of balancing tool for otherwise overpowered builds then things like 3 level monk/rogue dips or 3 level divine dips For skills, AC, saves etc - or 3-4 level fighter dips for feats seem like the sort of things you'd want to be punishing, whereas more balanced and non "Dip" builds like 15/15 Bard Fighter seem like the sort of thing you'd want to encourage without penalising - which is what the current system kinda allows for.

Again - to be clear - i am not suggesting that we just have a huge overhaul of everything, I'm just looking for input and thoughts.

[Void]

Okay so with that in mind..

Why should people who do heavily - but not completely - invest themselves into spellcasting classes be more at a disadvantage than a mundane person doing the reverse? I.e - Why is a Wizard/Fighter 27/3 More at risk to being dispelled than a Fighter/Bard 27/3

Why should *Not* investing in something, make you intrinsically better at it, somehow?

Would the following be broken? Dispel Effective Caster level = *Total Caster Level - (Higher of"Spellcasting/Mundane Levels - Lower of "Spellcasting/Mundane" levels)* with a few exceptions for prestige classes (Such as Arcane Archer potentially being considered as either)

If you want to use "Dispellability" as a sort of balancing tool for otherwise overpowered builds then things like 3 level monk/rogue dips or 3 level divine dips For skills, AC, saves etc - or 3-4 level fighter dips for feats seem like the sort of things you'd want to be punishing, whereas more balanced and non "Dip" builds like 15/15 Bard Fighter seem like the sort of thing you'd want to encourage without penalising - which is what the current system kinda allows for.

Again - to be clear - i am not suggesting that we just have a huge overhaul of everything, I'm just looking for input and thoughts.

...It is largely because Bioware, when developing neverwinter nights 1, did not bother to implement item caster level. Meaning caster level for scrolls, wands, and potions, when they're used and triggered. Actually they cut, modified and simplfied quite a lot of PnP content, for example, Discipline as a skill shouldn't exist, and DR had more complex rules than just resisting +X weapon, there was no improved knockdown and improved expertise, expertise should be allowed to select how much AC you want to gain, and so on and so on and so on. Part of those oversights has been addressed in nwn2 by obsidian. But lack of item caster level is one of those oversights.

This oversight has been active for 20 years, and many people expect it to continue working this way. And fixing it would require some investment into scripting item caster level.

This is the only only reason, pretty much, why current system is still in place.

------

I played on nwn2 server where item caster level is implemented, and it is actually not bad. Whether this would work on arelith is not for me to decide, however.