The Wizard Experience

[Void]

riding allows characters to move faster. Riding a horse confers arcane spell failure and even though arcane steeds exist in the module, this mechanic was clearly

Taking "Mounted Combat" feat removes spell failure from all horses.

True Flames on horseback are a lot of fun, by the way.


Unfortunately, you cannot ride horses in underdark or inside of caves. That greatly reduces their utility.

[-XXX-]

It arbitrarily imposes a feat slot tax that should have never even been there. Same argument could be used for the entire still spell line of feats.

ASF is bad game design. It actively nerfs arcane spellcasters for no other reason than flavor.

[Void]

It arbitrarily imposes a feat slot tax that should have never even been there. Same argument could be used for the entire still spell line of feats.

ASF is bad game design. It actively nerfs arcane spellcasters for no other reason than flavor.

In pnp casting while riding requires dc 15+spell level check to cast while on the move. Obviously in nwn1 engine a caster has no problem getting concentration up to 50 ranks, so even this sort of check would be meaningless. Hence ASF.

Pnp has Mounted Casting feat which increases riding concentration rolls by 10.

It is not a bad design.

You do not have ride as a class skill on a wiz/sorc anyway, so you'll be thrown off the horse from time to time anyway. Even with mounted combat feat. And a dedicated rider will be faster than you are for the same reason.

[-XXX-]

How is ASF not bad design?
How is ASF working only for the arcane spell list not indicative of arbitrary game design decisions? (if anything, this gives us a proof of how redundant this mechanic is, because clerics and druids do not overperform even though they are not a subject to ASF)

"because that's the way it works in PnP" is a weak argument. It's just perpetuating flawed game design concepts from a game that has never been designed with a persistent world multiplayer environment in mind.

[Void]

How is ASF not bad design?

I'd honestly advise to play a different game instead of trying to change or challenge that part. As the trope of unarmored wizard has been since early dnd and is unlikely to go away.

The original arcanist archetype is someone who doesn't have time to study combat. That's why wizard have 1/2 attack and no armor proficiency. Clerics are different due to being chosen by god and bound by that god's tenets. While wizard aren't bound by anything. The difference shows in spell selection where clerics don't get IGMS, but mages don't get Restoration.

Good design and bad design are subjective. All you're saying is that you dislike that, and that it doesn't make sense - for you. But your words are just your opinion.

If there is no tradeoff, than why wouldn't every wizard wear full plate armor? If every wizard wears a full plate armor, why would anyone ever pick a fighter or a barbarian over a wizard? The mechanic exists to introduce a weakness. A weakness that you compensate for by teaming up with other people. That's the point of the design.

[-XXX-]

Following that logic UMD and Lore shouldn't be a thing because fighters do not have the time to study magic and it'd introduce a weakness that can be alleviated by teaming up with other people.


Lingering on preexisting tropes caters to flavor, but it does not translate well into balance. Waiving some tropes while retaining others only actively creates greater imbalance.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion. If a game works with game pieces that all have A and B components, but one of the game pieces has the A component removed with the reasoning "it does B and can always be combined with a piece that has an A component" then this results in game imbalance, because:
- the game piece with AB components is obviously better.
- there's no upside in combining an AB game piece with a B game piece when you can combine it with another AB game piece instead.

The main problem stems from the idea that the original design worked with mages working as a BB game piece, but that turned out to be an unfun concept in a PW multiplayer environment, so one of the B components got removed and now we have a B game piece in an environment populated by AB pieces.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

i think a problem is people are wantign to add tiers of effects to spells are that die or pass. And thats a hard no no. Spells that have partial effects when you pass the save, also don't instagib you when you fail the save. That's how dnd balances the spells. So you would only modify spells like slow, or add new spells.

The idea for partial effect spells actually specifically comes mostly from save-or-die spells.

https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Slay_living
https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Finger_of_death
https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Weird
https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Wail_of_the_banshee
https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Phantasmal_killer
https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Destruction

Most of these spells were adjusted here from vanilla because Arelith's save meta is in the realm of utterly ridiculous, and save-or-die spells, for the most part, were intended to still have at least a noticeable effect when they were resisted (which was meant to be a lot less than 95% of the time, but players don't really enjoy that dynamic against hundreds of other players).

If there were no pass-or-die spells and everything just did damage, there wouldn't be a need to discuss partial saves at all - most of the spells above that were adjusted were specifically adjusted because they can be expected to be resisted, yet do practically nothing in comparison to a damage spell of equal (or even lower) level in our particular save meta in their vanilla form.

Ok fair but its not just pass or die spells vs damage spells and i feel discussion is still warranted even if save or die spells didnt exist. (NEB as an example or the modifications we done to spells like mindfog). And rather than reworking all the spells (im glad weird had the fear part expanded as a double save spell). We can have more spells with guranteed debuffs or control of the battlefield. Like slow is even more useless than save or die spell because its a save or debuff
Making partial debuff on passed save when freedom protects works.

We could also add spells like waves of exhaustion (which are saveless but we could do a partial save version) wall obstacles, etc. Things that are fun/inspiring for a dev vs fishing through all the old spells. Though some could take a look (like slow)

[Void]

Following that logic UMD and Lore shouldn't be a thing because fighters do not have the time to study magic and it'd introduce a weakness that can be alleviated by teaming up with other people.

Yes, they shouldn't be a thing.

You're trying to touch a core element which is a royally bad idea. Hence I suggest to play another game.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion.

It is. You think it is wrong. I think it isn't. Hence it is a matter of subjective opinion.

then this results in game imbalance

D&D is not meant to be balanced. It is not a MOBA. Characters do not have an equal chance, and neither do classes. The game is, and always was about trying to find what works best with your limitations. And not being spoonfed. When you can't do something, you team up. If something is more powerful, that does not mean it is the only choice either. YOu can pick another thing instead and make it work.
----
The way I see it, in fighting game there are often tiers. Tier 1 to 4, for example. With players of equal skill, Tier 1 character will rip to shred Tier 4 character. But if Tier 4 character is controlled by a very skilled player, it can destroy Tier 1. The tiers are not decided by developers, most of the time, but by the players/community.

Same thing applies here. All things being equal, class A will mop floor with class B, but... that usually happens under specific circumstances, and you have powers of plot at your disposal. Because of that a level 3 is capable of causing death of level 30.

[-XXX-]

Following that logic UMD and Lore shouldn't be a thing because fighters do not have the time to study magic and it'd introduce a weakness that can be alleviated by teaming up with other people.

Yes, they shouldn't be a thing.

You're trying to touch a core element which is a royally bad idea.

Core elements have been touched before. Nothing is sacred when it comes to balance. The Loremageddon is undeniable evidence of this.

Hence I suggest to play another game.

Please take a moment to look at your own post count and how many of those forum posts consist of criticisms and nitpicks aimed at the mechanical aspect of the game. Now imagine how consturctive would you yourself have considered the "if you don't like it go play another game" response to these.
Just because I criticise something does not mean that I do not like the game or don't enjoy it. On the contrary, I am invested in seeing the game improved because I DO like it.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion.

It is. You think it is wrong. I think it isn't. Hence it is a matter of subjective opinion.

We can argue over a hypothetical chess game where I'd insist on you playing without the rooks and the queen. The question of game balance in such scenario would not be a matter of subjective opinion there now, would it?

then this results in game imbalance

D&D is not meant to be balanced. It is not a MOBA. Characters do not have an equal chance, and neither do classes. The game is, and always was about trying to find what works best with your limitations. And not being spoonfed. When you can't do something, you team up. If something is more powerful, that does not mean it is the only choice either. YOu can pick another thing instead and make it work.

This is not D&D, this is a multiplayer persistent world. D&D has been designed to be played primarily as a cooperative PnP game with constant DM supervision. As such, it can get away with glaringly unblanaced game elements, because DM correction is assumed in situations where these'd ruin the game. A PW does not have this luxury and needs to address these design flaws.

[Void]

Please take a moment to look at your own post count and how many of those forum posts consist of criticisms and nitpicks aimed at the mechanical aspect of the game. Now imagine how consturctive would you yourself have considered the "if you don't like it go play another game" response to these.

Ad hominem?

I wouldn't care much of that advice, and could've followed it. As in situaiton when you dislike a core element it may be indicative that you would be happier playing something else.

I would be very happy playing a shadowrun PW myself, but sadly, those are not a thing.

This is not D&D, this is a multiplayer persistent world.

That is based on D&D and its lore. A D&D wizard brings a specific image in mind, and people seeking FR lore will be trying to make that kind of wizard and not a custom homebrewed freely armored one...

If I was looking for balance and equal chances, I'd be playing a moba or something along those lines. However the way I see it so far, trying to "equalize" and "balance" things instead attempts destroys elements I enjoy. Those are choices that matter and characters that stand out in their abilities or try to overcome their weaknesses.

As for criticism...

We're currently in a midst of pandemic, and I treat those forums as a social gathering. If your ideas are sound they would withstand the criticism. If they're not, it will give you a reason to question yourself.

Speaking of which, I've encountered "anyone can roll their own PW if they dislike something about arelith" on those forums several times. That's another possibility.

[-XXX-]

The way I see it, in fighting game there are often tiers. Tier 1 to 4, for example. With players of equal skill, Tier 1 character will rip to shred Tier 4 character. But if Tier 4 character is controlled by a very skilled player, it can destroy Tier 1. The tiers are not decided by developers, most of the time, but by the players/community.

Same thing applies here. All things being equal, class A will mop floor with class B, but... that usually happens under specific circumstances, and you have powers of plot at your disposal. Because of that a level 3 is capable of causing death of level 30.

What you're referencing here is called perfect imbalance, which in its purest version takes the form of rock-paper-scissors.
The saves meta essentially ensured that paper is made of rock on Arelith with arcane spellcasters being the scissors.

As for the D&D core concepts... this is all nonsense. Just take a look at the Barbarian class - it's meant to have a low will save by design. Arelith overcompensates this flaw threefold - first by enabling ridiculously high saves through hear, secondly by allowing characters to overcome CC effects by the -prays mechanic and finally by granting the barbarian CC immunity through their rage.
So no, Arelith does not hold true to the core principles of D&D, neither do I think it should.

We're currently in a midst of pandemic, and I treat those forums as a social gathering. If your ideas are sound they would withstand the criticism. If they're not, it will give you a reason to question yourself.

"Go play another game if you don't like X" is not how I'd imagine constructive criticism. Neither do I think that "X should remain unchanged because that's how it works in D&D" to be a valid argument considering the environment at hand.

[BHR55]

...

...
Circle of Death scales as Pale Master (HD Cap = Caster Level if > 9)...

Technically Circle of Death should be uncapped for all casters now. The different was at last check that pale master and necro spec get 1d4 x 30 HD of creatures effected vs 1d4 x 20 for everyone else. It should still effect things with > 9 HD. In theory you could roll horribly and effect only 20HD of creatures which disqualifies it from working on any level 21 and up PC. Maximized it's a weaker wail of banshee that does not cost spell components.

This is also why some NPCs since that change have been able to kill PCs when they throw the spell out, where as in the past it did nothing. This is not a comment as to the balance of spells in general, just an update to the spells effects.

[Void]

"Go play another game if you don't like X" is not how I'd imagine constructive criticism. Neither do I think that "X should remain unchanged because that's how it works in D&D" to be a valid argument considering the environment at hand.

"You're trying to challenge concept so deeply ingrained into the settings that at this point playing a different game altogether may be a better option rather than considering such radical change".

Exact same thing, exact same meaning.

In pillars of eternity Wizards have six packs, as they max might in addition to intellect. "I cast fist!" is a reality there.

[BHR55]

Ultimately I think everyone here enjoys the game, enjoys the D&D themed experience and Roleplay or we wouldn't be here. It's clear we all have our own idea of what core concepts we like and dislike, so it's unlikely everyone will be satisfied 100% of the time. Lets just stick to offering feedback about what we like and not pick apart one another preferences about how the server is run. More than one point of view or desired play style can exist in feedback. For everything else we can agree to disagree.

[Void]

Ultimately I think everyone here enjoys the game, enjoys the D&D themed experience and Roleplay or we wouldn't be here. It's clear we all have our own idea of what core concepts we like and dislike, so it's unlikely everyone will be satisfied 100% of the time.

Yes.

On the topic of ASF I think the idea has merit and trying to get rid of it would be unwise. I don't have anything else to add to it.

[-XXX-]

Yes.

On the topic of ASF I think the idea has merit and trying to get rid of it would be unwise. I don't have anything else to add to it.

Well, you yourself reopened a two months old thread pointing out that wizards do indeed seem to underperform ATM.

I suggested that the core problem is their lack of survivability. Unless you're going div dip sorcerer with auto still spell, the character's AC will cap somewhere in mid 40's which is on par with the AB of most melee builds (i.e. same result as having no AC whatsoever).

Multiple players expressed their preference of having the arcane spell list reworked, which has been identified as too much work repeatedly.

So what's left there? Going back to the AC problem. Of course waiving ASF is not the only option here. The most unsophisticated approach might have been a simple EMA buff, but then the div dip matter would need to be addressed as well, before we'd have AC80 sorcerers running around.

[Nintendo Entertainment System]

It'd be more than a little jarring to suddenly see a number of bookish characters suddenly clanking around in dragonbone armor and hefting de-weighted serpent woe aegis tower shields. You'd also virtually eliminate cloth crafting/gearing for arcane casters.

The development direction of Arelith has been unclear at times, but it's always tried to adhere at least to the aesthetic foundation of D&D. I don't think robe-wearing wizards are going away anytime soon.

[Void]

I suggested that the core problem is their lack of survivability.

I have an epic level wizard right now. Three visits to the fugue so far, total.

Survivability is okay if you know what you're doing. Although having experience of playing a kamikaze 100 hp 10 ac (at level 21) trueflame helps.

In the later levels spellbook utility opens up and offers possibilities, but the core point is that it still feels like you're largely a monster herder. With more ESF it'll be an utility character, I guess.

[MRFTW]

I suggested that the core problem is their lack of survivability.

I have an epic level wizard right now. Three visits to the fugue so far, total.

What's your approximate PvP win/loss? It's not hard to not die in PvE, generally speaking.

[Void]

What's your approximate PvP win/loss? It's not hard to not die in PvE, generally speaking.

PVP does not exist. I have zero interest in that aspect of the server, and it always had zero interest in my characters.

Generally speaking an opponent interested in PVP will have their saves through the roof, will wield blade and armor +infinity with seven 5% enchants applied each, and there will be 10 of them. So the idea would be to just skedaddle to safety. Which should be doable by current character.

[BHR55]

More spells and options sounds like fun, and fits the wizard niche of being the flexible caster I think. Some spells might be worth looking at, or an option for heightened metamagic.

Specialists in nwn suffer from a lack of options and spell equivalents in their respective schools that would otherwise let them get by or around a "critical" need in PnP where spell options are vast. More spells for all casters and more options for how to employ them sounds like something worth looking into.

[MRFTW]

What's your approximate PvP win/loss? It's not hard to not die in PvE, generally speaking.

PVP does not exist. I have zero interest in that aspect of the server, and it always had zero interest in my characters.

Generally speaking an opponent interested in PVP will have their saves through the roof, will wield blade and armor +infinity with seven 5% enchants applied each, and there will be 10 of them. So the idea would be to just skedaddle to safety. Which should be doable by current character.

I don't think PvE is a good metric for judging performance. For reference, I avoid PvP 100% of the time, all the time. I hate it. But that doesn't make it "not exist".

[-XXX-]

What's your approximate PvP win/loss? It's not hard to not die in PvE, generally speaking.

PVP does not exist. I have zero interest in that aspect of the server, and it always had zero interest in my characters.

Generally speaking an opponent interested in PVP will have their saves through the roof, will wield blade and armor +infinity with seven 5% enchants applied each, and there will be 10 of them. So the idea would be to just skedaddle to safety. Which should be doable by current character.

I don't think PvE is a good metric for judging performance. For reference, I avoid PvP 100% of the time, all the time. I hate it. But that doesn't make it "not exist".

This is spot on! Player skill beats AI. It's perfectly possible to level up a mechanically weak character to lvl 30 with 0 deaths.

PvP is the only relevant metric for build balance. It's also desirable for builds to be as balanced as possible so that players don't shy away from PvP simply because they know that their character underperforms there.

[Void]

More spells and options sounds like fun, and fits the wizard niche of being the flexible caster I think. Some spells might be worth looking at, or an option for heightened metamagic.

Specialists in nwn suffer from a lack of options and spell equivalents in their respective schools that would otherwise let them get by or around a "critical" need in PnP where spell options are vast. More spells for all casters and more options for how to employ them sounds like something worth looking into.

I think there might be a hardcoded limit on maximum number of known spells for a wizard. It should be in ballpark of 253. The limit was present in nwn2, and BGTSCC hit it with all the custom magic they added. Something to keep in mind. But yes, more magic spells would be nice, although new magic being added tends to screw over sorcerers. I recall fun I had when gust of wind got moved around.

I don't think PvE is a good metric for judging performance. For reference, I avoid PvP 100% of the time, all the time. I hate it. But that doesn't make it "not exist".

I have one pvp encounter per two years on average so far. So it does not exist for me.

I don't think that pvp survivability matters, because a person interested in pvp is likely to be a heavily invested player who doesn't mind spending 2.5 million to get a 5% enchantment on a sword and then doing that again to get another sword like that. Regardless of who they are, they will be someone who should be murdered by overwhelming numbers, and not in 1 on 1 encounter. So the way to win pvp is to bring a lot of high level friends along, and not to have a good build.

Last pvp encounters I saw (or saw aftermatch of) were normally six(or more) vs one. So either you're in a larger group or you get slaughtered. It doesn't look like it is possible to pull off an "indestructible dwarf" sort of build on arelith, meaning if you're outgunned, you die. Now there's a very accessible way of running away and skedaddling at the first opportunity, but that doesn't count as a win or loss.

A wizard has limited number of spell slots, so a group activity is preferred in the first place.

PVE, on other hand, brings you resources. Resources you can spend on that 2.5 million sword, if you're so inclined.

[BHR55]

...

I think there might be a hardcoded limit on maximum number of known spells for a wizard. It should be in ballpark of 253. The limit was present in nwn2, and BGTSCC hit it with all the custom magic they added. Something to keep in mind. But yes, more magic spells would be nice, although new magic being added tends to screw over sorcerers. I recall fun I had when gust of wind got moved around.

...

This is technically true, though it might have been altered- or will be by BD. Still there is room, and radial spells to exist + old spells can get a fresh coat of paint to better fit their purpose or intended goal. A lot of t he newer spells have seen a good deal of success in their use both in PvP and PvE.

This conversation has overall been good food for though. There might be hard limits though, just means we need to consider our options wisely for all casters.

*edited to get my response outside of a quote