New Dispel

[Vuoqadis]

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.

Like the developers said earlier, it "doesn't make sense", the mechanic is how it is solely for balance reasons. So, looking at it from a "does this make sense thematically?" perspective isn't a fruitful endeavor.

Anything that would increase the CL to resist dispels for casters would be an unnecessary buff to classes that do not need it.

Small 3 level dips aren't the only "problem." Problem in quotation marks because there is no problem, as long as the dispel counter-play exists, but if you remove that, it is one. Spells in general are more powerful than passive abilities that are "on" constantly, and in PvP, that's balanced by the fact they can be gotten rid of, unlike the passive abilities.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

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.

Interesting stuff, but my hunch is that you're just stirring the pot and not achieving better balance. If you tip the scales towards builds like 15 bard/15 fighter, what you're really doing is boosting bards, clerics, spellswords, and anything that is a "half-caster" to the point where it becomes ubiquotous.

Not that it's bad, per se, but suddenly mundanes are totally lame because, as mentioned, a 17 clr 7 WM 6 ftr would be a total gongshow in comparison to your 27/3 or your 20/7/3.

Buffs to dispel resilience buffs half-casters, and in turn, makes all non-spellcasters less viable. This would take us back to the meta of battleclerics, which isn't bad, but it's not really achieving anything better - just different.

[preggy]

Thanks Seven, that reply actually addressed the core of the issue I was trying to get at - you're quite right, at least with that (very quickly scribbled) formula it would probably invite just another host of builds which are not necesserily desired either.

Apologies if it has come across as me being stubborn of persistant but It has long been drilled into me by my corporate overlords not to accept "Because it is" as an acceptable reason as why something is the best way to do things.

It does admittedly personally ring with me that taking small levels in certain classes for super large bonuses should be something to discourage and I know this is something that Arelith has taken steps to do in the past (Many paths for example loose a key feature by taking a dip, healer looses respite, Warlocks their final spells, wildmage full -fate accuracy etc) but this fails to really address more core nwn builds that utalise them so it can feel like it kinda leans a little heavily on certain classes and builds over others. Still, perhaps dispel-vulnerability isnt the best way to address that, even if it currently feels like it more overwhelmingly effects caster builds than it does non-caster builds.

[Archnon]

So the more I think about this, the more I get worried about it. Specifically the 6CL magic override on potions. Let's think about a potion. All of it's magic is in it already. It is designed to be consumed by anyone, magic or non-magic alike. Arguably, it should grant the same benefits, not matter what. So:

27 Mage/3 Ranger - 27
30 Fighter - 30
21 Cleric/9COT - 21
10 Ranger/20 AA - 10
16 Bard, 10 PDK, 4 Fighter - 16

etc.... should all get the same benefit, However, I have included the dispel rating for these next to them.

So, are potions acting differently if you already have magic. Does my magical ability reduce the caster level of a potion, does it conflict. The whole point is you drink it and you get it.

This shift was actually a nerf to all magical classes which could use potions and wands to keep low-tier wards up. In the end, this really affects bard, ranger builds most. You can't even take a 6 ranger dip for the very RP focused companion now (it would be worthless in PVE and PVP) without torching your build. You would not survive epic content. However, I do agree that a mundane should not have a CL for dispel higher than a trained mage. What if instead:

CL of items (Spell book would still be your raw CL) is the higher of either:
1.) Your highest magical caster level
2.) Hit Dice*0.9

So:
27 Mage/3 Ranger - 27
30 Fighter - 27
21 Cleric/9COT - 27
10 Ranger/20 AA - 27
16 Bard, 10 PDK, 4 Fighter - 27
and
30 Mage - 30

[xanrael]

It's said on the 1st page of the thread that this is a patch until Beamdog fixes what they broke. To use your examples for the past month and a half it has been:

fighter 30 - 0
ranger 10/AA 20 - at most 10

Almost no one is worse off than they were before, and many are much better off than they were post bug. At some point Beamdog will either fix it or say "working as intended"; spending a lot of time working on something that could be fixed and reverted back next month isn't ideal. And I say this running a build that didn't see a benefit from the patch, but I've dealt with the Beamdog bug for awhile and I'm happy that I can make a mundane now that isn't dispel bait.

IMO the biggest problem with the dispel mechanic is a large chunk of the server didn't know how they worked. Whatever is final whether it is Beamdog reverting or this a wiki page going up describing how it works with some examples would be great.

[Archnon]

Thanks!!! You guys are heroes!

[Aeralad]

Does this mean that if a mundane casts a spell effect on a caster ally, that it will be level 30 as well? Or will that be the caster level of the caster?

[garrbear758]

Dudes, this was a bug fix, not a balance change.

[MissEvelyn]

----

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.

I agree with this approach and believe it would make so much more sense. As it stands, and has been for years, it's silly and doesn't make sense that a 27/3 mundane with a caster dip is harder to dispel than a 27/3 caster with a mundane dip.

[Kobayashimaru]

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.

No, you're not the only one.

That an epic mage with 25 levels + 5 mundane is more easily dispelled than a lvl 30 mundane is ridiculous. Another ridiculous situation was the current 0CL of mundanes, of course (much more ridiculous, in fact). I'd hope to see a sensible upper limit to mundane CL, something akin to AB. Everyone gets AB by getting more levels, but some are just better at it than others. For CL: If you take more spellcaster classes, you're better at it. If you take more mundane classes, you're not so good. But they would all add to CL when defending against dispels.

[Ork]

For CL: If you take more spellcaster classes, you're better at it. If you take more mundane classes, you're not so good. But they would all add to CL when defending against dispels.

What would be the point of playing a fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc. if one mage can cast lesser dispel to strip you of all buffs? This wouldn't just effect PvP, but every monster with some dispel would cripple every class that isn't wizard, sorcerer or cleric.

[Kobayashimaru]

That is a question of balance.

Lesser dispels have an upper cap, so a mundane could easily be over that cap.

Not wanting a mundane to be better than the tower's archmage at keeping their magical defenses together in no way shape or form is the same as saying that mundanes should just suck at magical defense.

Much like I'm not arguing for mages to simply have the same AB of mundanes.

The upper limits should be different. It's not a matter of 0 vs 100. It's a matter of balance, and making some sense.

Edit: Fighter 3000 comes rushing at a mage, mage casts a greater dispel. Barely anything noteworthy goes down. Just for funsies, the fighter then reads a scroll and dispels the mage of nearly all their buffs. Because 24 wizard/6 ftr is better at defensive wards than that 30 barbarian.

[Ork]

Fighter buffs from scrolls, wands or potions have a fixed CL attributed to those items that maintain the balance. While a caster can achieve better versions of these spells (Magic vestments gives 5 AC not 1, or barkskin gives 5 AC, not 4), mundane are forced to use the fixed CL of these spells.

If we want to talk about balance, having a 30 CL is balanced in that mundanes won't be crippled against casters. Casters, currently, are leagues above most mundane class combinations that any nerf to mundane CL would shatter that fragile edge.

Fighter would also not have much a shot at dispelling a caster because Mords (which requires 80 lore - near impossible to get) is capped at 17 CL.

[Arigard]

I appreciate this was a bug (p.s thank you for the 10 lvl hotfix), but even if Beamdog fix it, it still doesn't really make RP sense why this is the case (that mundanes have better defense than majority of mages out there).

Why not simply make it so that any item made, be it scroll or wand has the defense of the creator CL and whoever that item is used on has that defense. I admit, I have zero idea how much work this would involve, but imagine a world where a:

- Lvl 27 Caster
- Lvl 27 Caster with abj Defense
- Lvl 30 Caster
- Lvl 30 Caster with abj Defense

Could all produce different qualities of wands/scrolls that represent their skills as mages and their investment that would then enter the world and the economy and have real impact. Lvl 30 casters and those with abj defense would get recognized for being the really elite mage practitioners they are supposed to be and some extra bonus for not dipping.

A) - You would have a whole another level of politics in the world as people sought to find the spell-casters that could create the most powerful and readily sought after magical items.

B) It would form a consistent series of rules that makes sense within the world and is easy to understand. If a melee wished to be as hard to dispel as they possibly can be, they'd need wands, potions, or scrolls made by mages with the skills to be able to give them that power.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I never know what the objective of the dispel conversation is.

Do achieve more "fantasy realism"?

Do achieve more "balance"? (but as stated, this won't make things a better balance, but a different balance)

[Xerah]

Having only one very specific build of character be able to make the only wands that everyone wants is a huge negative situation.

The dispel mechanics may not make sense. It doesn't matter. That is how the game is designed around. There is absolutely 0 desire to give a sweeping rework of this. Complaining about this situation, calling it ridiculous, or asking for a full-scale change is absolutely not going to happen. The fact that someone spent time putting this together to closely replicate the way it was should show you how serious this is for server balance.

[Kobayashimaru]

Fighter buffs from scrolls, wands or potions have a fixed CL attributed to those items that maintain the balance. While a caster can achieve better versions of these spells (Magic vestments gives 5 AC not 1, or barkskin gives 5 AC, not 4), mundane are forced to use the fixed CL of these spells.

If we want to talk about balance, having a 30 CL is balanced in that mundanes won't be crippled against casters. Casters, currently, are leagues above most mundane class combinations that any nerf to mundane CL would shatter that fragile edge.

Fighter would also not have much a shot at dispelling a caster because Mords (which requires 80 lore - near impossible to get) is capped at 17 CL.

Balancing is necessary. But the current situation makes.no.sense.

[Xerah]

Balancing is necessary. But the current situation makes.no.sense.

It doesn't matter. See above.

[SkipiusEsq]

----

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.

I agree with this approach and believe it would make so much more sense. As it stands, and has been for years, it's silly and doesn't make sense that a 27/3 mundane with a caster dip is harder to dispel than a 27/3 caster with a mundane dip.

Assuming my initial suggestion was possible from a coding standpoint and one of our selfless volunteers who give their free time to make the game better wanted to do it, my suggestion meets the concerns of both balance and RP sense.

Balance: If a 24 cleric wants the benefit of a 30 DC Freedom of Movement, then they need to take the limited duration. If they want the longer duration, they need to use their spellbook and the reduced DC. Same is true for things like Barkskin. Want +5, welp that'll cost you some DC. Want +4, then use a wand like everyone else and get the same benefit.

RP Sense: A powerful spell cast from a spellbook of a powerful wizard is complex, intricate, and requires extreme concentration. A spell like that has a greater chance of holes or weaknesses (i.e., greater dispellable properties). But the spell cast from a wand doesn't care who is casting it, the strength and dispellability is the same regardless. Further, that spell will not all of a sudden function differently because the Fighter decided to take 11 levels of bard instead of 10.

[a shrouded figure]

This is actually interesting because it opens up the option of splashing some caster classes, for example barbarian 20, wizard 10

Wouldn’t this be a CL30 mundane that can cast level 5 spells?

[Xerah]

This is actually interesting because it opens up the option of splashing some caster classes, for example barbarian 20, wizard 10

Wouldn’t this be a CL30 mundane that can cast level 5 spells?

You’re gonna be really disappointed when the fix happens and this change is reverted.

[Biolab00]

Having only one very specific build of character be able to make the only wands that everyone wants is a huge negative situation.

The dispel mechanics may not make sense. It doesn't matter. That is how the game is designed around. There is absolutely 0 desire to give a sweeping rework of this. Complaining about this situation, calling it ridiculous, or asking for a full-scale change is absolutely not going to happen. The fact that someone spent time putting this together to closely replicate the way it was should show you how serious this is for server balance.

Yep, you're absolutely right.
In fact, i believed that this topic won't even be created if Beamdog did not glitch the Dispel mechanic in the first place.
This is because it seems to me that somehow, something that wasn't being discussed and already accepted by the community over tens of years was suddenly being debated over.
The topic itself is also wrong because it's not "New Dispel" since it was never new in the first place but it always have been that way.
RP sense or not is important but server balance is the most important ( at least to me ).
Weighing both important points, I will definitely choose the most single important point.
That's all.

[Void]

Having only one very specific build of character be able to make the only wands that everyone wants is a huge negative situation.

The dispel mechanics may not make sense. It doesn't matter. That is how the game is designed around. There is absolutely 0 desire to give a sweeping rework of this. Complaining about this situation, calling it ridiculous, or asking for a full-scale change is absolutely not going to happen. The fact that someone spent time putting this together to closely replicate the way it was should show you how serious this is for server balance.

Yep, you're absolutely right.
In fact, i believed that this topic won't even be created if Beamdog did not glitch the Dispel mechanic in the first place.
This is because it seems to me that somehow, something that wasn't being discussed and already accepted by the community over tens of years was suddenly being debated over.
The topic itself is also wrong because it's not "New Dispel" since it was never new in the first place but it always have been that way.
RP sense or not is important but server balance is the most important ( at least to me ).
Weighing both important points, I will definitely choose the most single important point.
That's all.

As I said before, there were servers where dispels were altered to match PnP.
Meaning default wand would have CL in ballpark of 7, and would be easily dispellable. Additionally, in the same place it was possible to make something like CL30 potion (for ridiculous amount of gold - something like 12k, I believe), and create wands and scrolls using wands and scrolls. Meaning with high UMD, you could use existing wand of barkskin to make more wands of barkskin, And if you got hand on holy scroll you could turn it into a wand. As long as you pass the UMD check and have the craft wand feat, that is.

This resulted in a fairly different build distribution and different balance/economy.

[Tarkus the dog]

Dudes, this was a bug fix, not a balance change.

So, for as long as you don't cast spells on a 20 CL bard, for example, you keep 30 CL?

[Aniel]

Dudes, this was a bug fix, not a balance change.

So, for as long as you don't cast spells on a 20 CL bard, for example, you keep 30 CL?

The dispel resistance is based entirely off of your class level spread (and to a minor extent your ability scores.) This is to say that if you have 20 bard levels then you'll have 20 CL for dispel resistance. If your base charisma is below 10 then your 20 bard levels wouldn't count towards the 10 CL marker.