Can We Talk Game Balance and Design Here?

[But Will It Blend]

So I was hoping to get an idea on design philosophy. I want to check in on something I'm noticing and I'm not sure if it's actually going to be helpful or not long term. Maybe some of the team can provide some ideas here but.

Historically if I look at most... games in general. The idea of swinging the nerf bat at things massively across the board isn't often considered a good way to go about fixing things. If people are having amazing fun playing and doing things, and you take that away, it is going to cause resentment. And it isn't a small thing, and it does cause a good deal of problems.

I guess my question is: Why is the ideal to nerf things, and take things away, rather than bringing other things up to the same level? I understand that power creep can exist. But it looks like you're trying to reverse literal years of design decisions rather than making some changes to other classes that need it. Cutting everything else down to the level where they are as unfun to play as say, a wizard or sorcerer, feels like the wrong way to do this.

Also you mention warlocks, hit invokers, loremasters, paladins, and weaponmasters. But also not clerics? I don't really know what the overall goal is, but can anyone on the dev team bring up why they think that this is the best/healthiest approach? I know it can be 'easier' (Please, I'm not trying to be flippant with this by suggesting BaLaNcE iS eAsY).

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. And it's not very transparent

[Starbridge]

A level headed discussion I'm sure is always welcomed. As far as if that changes anything in the future, you have to have that talk and find out.

The idea of nerfing:
It's easier to change one class than to change everything but that to level the playing field. The problem with many online games swinging the nerf bat is that they swing it too hard, which ends up--in many cases--making the subject unplayable or desirable to play.

The idea of buffing:
Making something better. So if the reverse of a nerf is to buff everything but the subject in question--lets say Loremaster since it was the most recent update that has effected me in a larger way--if everything else gets a buff, many people that mainline the one thing that didn't get buffed will feel jilted and left out, which leads to a considerable wave of people that complain or in extreme cases, quit playing.

I'm not apart of the team that talks about things and sometimes I really wish I was. I may not be able to code, but I am an very deep and analytical thinker. Over the years I have many a lot of homebrew D&D things that balance out quite well with the current order of things--3.5e--and my players have always loved what I've done. Had I know about the LM update that was coming I would have been number crunching and trying to advocate for other changes before an update like this happened, in hopes that it better balance could be found.

Really it just comes down to... as long as you are being respectful and have a good thought out idea and plan of executing it, I'm sure the admin team will look at it to see how well it would work. They might not use it, they might use some, they might use all. It just depends on how detailed you make your argument and balances.

[Security_Blanket]

Personally, I don't know that buffing is the right approach over nerfing. I'm not saying that it's ideal, it messes up builds, plans you may have established for your character. I'm not a fan of power creep in any game or setting, it feels like similar to the power creep in Magic the Gathering, some may argue that it's better but I think all the veteran MTG players can agree, the game is vastly different now to when it started out and I don't think that's a good thing. There needs to be a limit, if Devs accidently push past that limit then I think it's on them to back peddle at least a little bit.

Balancing both PvP and RP mechanics can't be easy, if we didn't live in a world where you can always expect that 1 out of 100 people will abuse the living hell out of cookies offered we'd probably have a lot more cool stuff.

[But Will It Blend]

I think some things are definitely overtuned. But at the same time it's hard to know if what is being put on the table is exactly... healthy? A lot of these changes happen suddenly without any real testing to see how it actually feels to play. So then it falls to players to have to bare the brunt of the changes. And if things aren't enjoyable, or it makes a character you had fun with feel mechanically frustrating/bad/not enjoyable to play any longer... do you just delete them because I guess you need to deal with the design decisions people have made?

I'm not talking about small little adjustments. Like, sure. One of my builds/characters got hit with the Great STR III being removed and I had to change 2 feats to different but still nice options. That's whatever, I'm not going to be upset about that.

I do look at hemomancer and invoker and think 'Do I want to just stand around doing basically nothing for 4 rounds? Fights will be potentially over then'. Unless the point is that you really only exist to throw one spell per fight. And buffing just yourself suggests your focus will no longer exist. IDK it feels questionable but I'll wait until the invoker/hemomancer players get into it more.

I guess my concern is that suddenly how you play/exist as a character can suddenly be upended without a moments notice and I guess you're just either entirely different or just kind of bad now?

Like. Real talk. Trying to suggest wizards/sorcerers are now more viable because they shifted 2 CL off a mords scroll is one of the things that made me laugh and roll my eyes at because if they think that's the only issue right now they really have no idea what they are doing.

I'd like to think they do, and this was just an attempt to justify a change needed. But Loremasters still cast that at a 20 CL. A 2 CL difference is not going to be the thing that suddenly makes wizards good again. The breaches alone on a mords are what does it for most classes, the dispel is an added treat.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

changes like the ones you are seeing today often take months if not an entire year of discussion, consideration, and planning plus any time needed for work.

these changes may look sudden to those who aren't involved with the development team but in reality it often takes quite a long time to shift established norms.

adjusting mechanics upwards makes certain outliers often more powerful. this necessitates tweaking the bottom line or the top bar (like with the Great Ability change).

we want to see changes on a macro side rather than a micro side, but we're often limited by disagreements on what is balanced, what is not, and how best to implement things a) rationally b) while keeping damage and fatigue to a minimum and c) having the time, motivation, and capability to implement changes.

most if not all of the devs play the game, and despite the gossip that we don't listen to feedback, we do actually pay attention to trends.

i would say more but i'm typing on a phone and i don't speak for the entire development team.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

Like. Real talk. Trying to suggest wizards/sorcerers are now more viable because they shifted 2 CL off a mords scroll is one of the things that made me laugh and roll my eyes at because if they think that's the only issue right now they really have no idea what they are doing.

I'd like to think they do, and this was just an attempt to justify a change needed. But Loremasters still cast that at a 20 CL. A 2 CL difference is not going to be the thing that suddenly makes wizards good again. The breaches alone on a mords are what does it for most classes, the dispel is an added treat.

this was not what was said, though.

moving mords scrolls from 17 cl to 15 cl means that mundane 5 dips are no longer in the realm of dispelling other mundanes with mords (this was previously quite possible)

the other side of this was clerics and other non wizard, non sorcerer classes taking LM and 80 lore to acquire epic abjuration mords. this made other classes competitive with sorc/wizard when using this spell.

no one said:

1. this magically makes wiz/sorc good again.
2. this fixes the problem with wiz/sorc.
3. this makes wiz/sorc better.

we said:
it adds value back to sorc/wizard that was previously lost due to loremaster mords.

that's it.

[But Will It Blend]

Like. Real talk. Trying to suggest wizards/sorcerers are now more viable because they shifted 2 CL off a mords scroll is one of the things that made me laugh and roll my eyes at because if they think that's the only issue right now they really have no idea what they are doing.

I'd like to think they do, and this was just an attempt to justify a change needed. But Loremasters still cast that at a 20 CL. A 2 CL difference is not going to be the thing that suddenly makes wizards good again. The breaches alone on a mords are what does it for most classes, the dispel is an added treat.

this was not what was said, though.

moving mords scrolls from 17 cl to 15 cl means that mundane 5 dips are no longer in the realm of dispelling other mundanes with mords (this was previously quite possible)

the other side of this was clerics and other non wizard, non sorcerer classes taking LM and 80 lore to acquire epic abjuration mords. this made other classes competitive with sorc/wizard when using this spell.

no one said:

1. this magically makes wiz/sorc good again.
2. this fixes the problem with wiz/sorc.
3. this makes wiz/sorc better.

we said:
it adds value back to sorc/wizard that was previously lost due to loremaster mords.

that's it.

Thank you for responding.

I'll admit the way I worded it was not fair exactly. I did see it as a very minor thing though. Most of the value of mords against most targets is the sheer power of the breach against so many wards certain people use/require. Especially for powerful builds.

In terms of changes being prepared months in advance, I guess that it would be a balance because if you tell people ahead of time they might get worried. But IDK having some idea as to what might be coming next could also help with things. Balancing by popular opinion isn't usually a good way to do things either, but sometimes it feels like some of these are blindsiding.

Even if there's just a post somewhere that outlines what's sort of being looked at going forward it could be beneficial? I will say it's good to see reasoning behind certain things. It does help. I'm speaking to a point of frustration about the whole wizard/sorcerer thing. It's one of my favorite classes but it's been one of the worst experiences playing one that I've had.

RP is great. But I'm a firm believer that the RP of a thing and the mechanics should go hand in hand in making things enjoyable. And seeing/hearing that wizards and sorcs have just been more and more nerfed into the ground because of everything that exists around it hurts. And I'd consider myself pretty competent mechanically, there's just not much that you can do that others just do better. Even as a specialist.

I also don't suspect you speak on behalf of the entire team and just yourself either.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I personally think going forward a good idea would be to have a biannual nerf day, with a brief summary of whats on the watch list about a month before each date. For an easy example, nerf days are june 1st and december 1st, watch list announcements are May 1st and november first.

I just don't think the explanation "while you may not have known about it, we have been discussing it for a year" does much to alleviate the shock factor of these changes. For example, I would have never in a million years thought that cutting the greater feats past 2 would be on the table, because even after the announcement it still doesn't make sense to me. Weapons master inc is still going to be incredibly powerful with the change, but meme builds and more fun options took a massive hit. That seems backward to me, and while there may be a good reason I am missing I think it would have been better overall if I knew it was an issue on peoples minds as I would have had time to try and understand it. Or at the very least, not make a character with 3 great strengths two and a half weeks before it got nerfed.

I know you can't reveal everything out of fear of people doing the crafting system thing where they use the knowledge for a future benefit, but a bit of a heads up would have been nice.

[Rei_Jin]

The issue with revealing intended changes is that people inevitably game such things.

When the new dweomercraft system was announced as being in development and that hard 5%s would not be part of it, folks started rushing to do them to get ahead of the change. This was NOT why it was announced, it was announced to get player feedback and to have folks not feel like they’d been blindsided by the change.

If every nerf was announced, even if it was in terms of a possible nerf or a general vibe of a direction of a nerf, not only would every man and his dog post their opinion for or against it, the team would no doubt cop a lot of antagonism for daring to do such.

That’s certainly what has happened in the past with proposed changes to Shadowdancer and Shifter, as well as Monk.

There’s enough hostility when changes are implemented as it is, adding a month of hostility beforehand makes it even less likely that genuine issues in the game will be addressed.

I’d like to think that everyone who plays Arelith is mature, considerate, and gracious. That they never have a bad day and lash out at others in frustration and ignorance.

But I know what people are like (myself included), and the best of us will still do things to hurt others despite our best intentions.

So for mine, I can see both why folks would love advance notice of changes, possible changes, or the broad direction of changes, as well as why that’s generally a bad idea to implement and would result in more toxicity and bad outcomes.

[Xerah]

I would consider this on the list of things that will likely change:

Including but not limited to: WMs, warlocks, paladins, div dip, consumables, LMs, ESF features, +4 weapons, +6 enhancement.

I would also add AA to that list as it sounds like more is coming.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I think you need to reread my post. I'm suggesting a preset pair of dates every year where you know nerfs are coming, and a watch list a month prior to that date so people aren't making characters of that build.

While it's true that there are changes that can be "gamed", I can't for the life of me see how you game a build nerf, and even if you can I never said they needed to lay out the specifics. Usually, you have a general sense of when something is lined up for a ban anyways (the epic great feats were a shocker to me though), so all this does is give people a heads up on when its coming so they don't make a character right before hand, or know they have a month to wind down if they are the type to say their character is dead after a nerf.

[ArelithMarketCrash]

I would consider this on the list of things that will likely change:

Including but not limited to: WMs, warlocks, paladins, div dip, consumables, LMs, ESF features, +4 weapons, +6 enhancement.

I would also add AA to that list as it sounds like more is coming.

poor WM keeps getting hit with strays

[IUseMagicalHatsToHideOblivion]

Bit painful.

Made a ranger AA liberator, using a greater award but took the Guld start. This change essentially makes the build I was messing with and thus the concept pointless. Rolled her for a minor award.

Would also appreciate some more clarity on classes that will recieve big adjustments, and for this to be visible somewhere such as the announcements section. Can't say I was expecting ranger to lose access to AA, that came far out of left-field for me and just wasted an award.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

And seeing/hearing that wizards and sorcs have just been more and more nerfed into the ground because of everything that exists around it hurts.

this is unfortunately the reality. buff spells that are in these shared spellbooks, it affects inficasters too.

buffing just for wiz/sorc creates abstraction and confusion when the classes are using the same spells. it's not easy to make one class stronger without making all the others stronger, when dealing with spells. features are a different story, but take more time.

that's a limit to the design space.

so to fix that, we would adjust the extremes, and then we go back in and give upwards tweaks to the classes that are left behind.

it just takes a while to do that, so it looks like we're nerfing and never buffing things.

[But Will It Blend]

And seeing/hearing that wizards and sorcs have just been more and more nerfed into the ground because of everything that exists around it hurts.

this is unfortunately the reality. buff spells that are in these shared spellbooks, it affects inficasters too.

buffing just for wiz/sorc creates abstraction and confusion when the classes are using the same spells. it's not easy to make one class stronger without making all the others stronger, when dealing with spells. features are a different story, but take more time.

that's a limit to the design space.

so to fix that, we would adjust the extremes, and then we go back in and give upwards tweaks to the classes that are left behind.

it just takes a while to do that, so it looks like we're nerfing and never buffing things.

I don't think one necessarily has to buff spells specifically. There's a number of ways to give wizards or sorcerer's a facelift without directly buffing spells, or shared abilities. Because yes, if you just hit those you are going to cause pain across the board. Having wizard/Sorcerer exclusive feats that grant abilities or even modify spells in ways that other classes wouldn't get access to without investment is a way this can be done.

Special metamagic feats for example that allow for wizards or sorcerers to do things like split fireballs, or use a gust of wind spell to push cloud spells across an area rather than disbursing it. Feats that allow wizards or sorcerers to empower familiars or summons in a way. Or even feats that allow certain spells to have increased effect.

I feel like there's a lot of ways it can be done without exactly giving other classes boosts simultaneously. Locking them behind 10 levels of wizard/sorcerer for example... nobody is going to be investing 10 wizard levels unless it's an arcane archer. And even then it'd be limited in scope if they don't buff the sort of things an AA cares about.

[Anomandaris]

And seeing/hearing that wizards and sorcs have just been more and more nerfed into the ground because of everything that exists around it hurts.

this is unfortunately the reality. buff spells that are in these shared spellbooks, it affects inficasters too.

buffing just for wiz/sorc creates abstraction and confusion when the classes are using the same spells. it's not easy to make one class stronger without making all the others stronger, when dealing with spells. features are a different story, but take more time.

that's a limit to the design space.

so to fix that, we would adjust the extremes, and then we go back in and give upwards tweaks to the classes that are left behind.

it just takes a while to do that, so it looks like we're nerfing and never buffing things.

I don't think one necessarily has to buff spells specifically. There's a number of ways to give wizards or sorcerer's a facelift without directly buffing spells, or shared abilities. Because yes, if you just hit those you are going to cause pain across the board. Having wizard/Sorcerer exclusive feats that grant abilities or even modify spells in ways that other classes wouldn't get access to without investment is a way this can be done.

Special metamagic feats for example that allow for wizards or sorcerers to do things like split fireballs, or use a gust of wind spell to push cloud spells across an area rather than disbursing it. Feats that allow wizards or sorcerers to empower familiars or summons in a way. Or even feats that allow certain spells to have increased effect.

I feel like there's a lot of ways it can be done without exactly giving other classes boosts simultaneously. Locking them behind 10 levels of wizard/sorcerer for example... nobody is going to be investing 10 wizard levels unless it's an arcane archer. And even then it'd be limited in scope if they don't buff the sort of things an AA cares about.

While there are some issues with the spellbook, the spellbook could be more or less fine as it is. Prior to making certain AoE spells "respect" spellcraft, spell diversity was higher, as saves vs. spells are very high. Negating spellcraft bonuses made things more workable. This is why some mundane DC effects have become vogue. Mundane saves aren't nearly as high (generally).

I really would hate to see some broad overhaul of arcane casting that made the game feel less like DnD and more like some MMO. I really hope that whatever happens with "the spellbook" and spellcasting stays true to the roots of the mechanics and game we all love; that's why many of us playing this 20+ year old game. Adding some meaningful damage to spells with DC effects when the DC check is passed is one option that's been discussed. Reducing CC duration but increasing the likelihood it succeeds is another. These are all minor changes that don't require us to totally re-think spellcasting and allow us to still leverage DnD arcane lore and 3.5 mechanics.

There are however glaring issues outside of the spellbook. People generally acknowledge saves are too high, but we have a dweomercraft system coming in that will allow one to fit way more saves on gear. While I like the new system for a number of reasons, this power creep is obviously counterproductive. Divine save bonuses need to be heavily limited, given to fewer classes, be part of soft-cap, and/or have their scaling changed. This avoids any risk of hurting balance by adding spells into the module that are OP and need to be balanced by virtue of their presence in other spellbooks. It just brings divine saves more in line with other builds and make the existing spellbook more useful.

No matter what you do with the spellbook, a mage still needs to cast a spell. With base damage numbers exceeding maximum concentration levels, and crits in the hundreds, if you get touched you get interrupted. This is not a good or balanced dynamic. Find a way to allow casters to cast spells more reliably (e.g. make lvl 7-9 uninterruptible like epic spells and scrolls) Stop adding Arcane Spell Failure everywhere into the module via loot matrix and new CD abilities. Improve the reliability of using the spellbook mages already have, and you've made incremental progress without risking balance.

Lastly, I still don't understand why no one has changed wiz/sorc to d6. There's no reason to have them be the only two classes at d4. This doesn't demonstrably improve their kill threat, it just gives them enough hp to survive more than one flurry from the current meta martial builds. Pretty simple and low risk.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

I don't think one necessarily has to buff spells specifically. There's a number of ways to give wizards or sorcerer's a facelift without directly buffing spells, or shared abilities. Because yes, if you just hit those you are going to cause pain across the board. Having wizard/Sorcerer exclusive feats that grant abilities or even modify spells in ways that other classes wouldn't get access to without investment is a way this can be done.

Special metamagic feats for example that allow for wizards or sorcerers to do things like split fireballs, or use a gust of wind spell to push cloud spells across an area rather than disbursing it. Feats that allow wizards or sorcerers to empower familiars or summons in a way. Or even feats that allow certain spells to have increased effect.

1. we actually, sadly, cannot add metamagic feats. it won't be added to the radial. tried.
2. spell combos are very cool, always wanted to do that.

[Iceborn]

Keep in mind that everything I talked about (as always) was from my own perspective, and I'm just a fraction of the team. There are things that I perceive as issues that other parts of the team think are perfectly fine, and viceversa.

It's not ideal to nerf things, it never is. But it is necessary.
In regards to balance, we'd much rather buff the build choices we have, but that also introduces more power creep, which if it overshoots our goal will result in painful nerfs in the future, or worse, we will have to double down and bring up the general power level of all other competing choices to par, which risks overshooting the target in a constant cycle of power creep. That's how we ended with +4 weapons as the norm, and some characters being able to get +6 weapons.

Whereas, consider if there's a single outlier. A feature, an item, a spell, a class that is clearly the one item that is out of line. It might be fun to use, it might be fun to play, but its existence overshadows every competing choice and makes not using it a mistake, which is not healthy for any build environment.

If there's a choice between power and a cosmetic choice, well, that's not really a choice, is it? The choice is if you want to shoot yourself in the foot to play an objectively inferior character, because you chose to disregard the obvious meta path to still build the concept you wanted to do. "RP" builds are certainly a thing, and we don't try to make a wizard 16/spellsword 4/druid 10 viable, but there are certainly 'intended' builds that are always inferior to mechanical alternatives.

Ideally, we'd like to mix buffs and nerfs together. Bring down the outliers, but compensate for the features that those outlier brings to those builds so that their design can be more self-sufficient and less reliant on external factions to be viable and kit complete. But that is not always possible, or we might have to take a step forward with a nerf/buff, take some breathing time to figure where we stand, and aim again for our next move. It might be slow, but you have to consider that ultimately this is a passion project, and none of the devs are paid - we have to sustain real lives with real jobs, and we can't devote the entirety of our time to the incredibly taxing process that is working here, which includes but is not limited to: Discussing potential changes ad nauseam, presenting them in a concise manner, discussing them some more, going back to the drawing board and starting from zero, doing it all over again, coding the changes, testing the changes, reviewing the changes, implementing the changes, babysitting the builder so that it doesn't explode. And sometimes we still do anyway.

[Darkstorn42]

I think balance and design are really simple. Buff my character and nerf everyone else. Simple.

Okay, in reality, I want to thank the team for their hard work. I am not against or for any of these changes, but I have an open mind and am looking forward to seeing how the landscape changes with these updates.

I love how much the team cares. Please keep it up!

[AskRyze]

I would consider this on the list of things that will likely change:

Including but not limited to: WMs, warlocks, paladins, div dip, consumables, LMs, ESF features, +4 weapons, +6 enhancement.

I would also add AA to that list as it sounds like more is coming.

poor WM keeps getting hit with strays

I just hit level 17 on my genasi wm. Guess that's a greater I'm never getting back...

[AstralUniverse]

This thread again...
Sorry I dont have anything especially nice to say here.
Welcome to Arelith.
Here, no character is ever safe.
No build is ever safe.

I over all like the update at large. Most of it makes perfect sense. My one criticism would be that the great stat nerf really doesnt accomplish what they think it accomplishes but to be fair, perhaps there's an even larger picture I'm not seeing yet.

To answer a few points mentioned in this thread...

Historically if I look at most... games in general. The idea of swinging the nerf bat at things massively across the board isn't often considered a good way to go about fixing things.

First of all I dont even think it's true, but even if it were, we dont take examples from other games. We're here for 20 years and we just keep on going. How many games who do not ever swing nerf bats can say that? Probably zero.

Why is the ideal to nerf things, and take things away, rather than bringing other things up to the same level?

Because of something that's called powercreep, it makes the game orders of magnitude harder to balance when things reach absurd numbers. In smaller numbers things are easier to control. We dont want to see god-like characters, we dont want to see fights in pvp lasting even shorter and being more shot-gun than they are now. So as it turns out sometimes you HAVE TO swing the nerf bat. It's the reality of things.

Also you mention warlocks, hit invokers, loremasters, paladins, and weaponmasters. But also not clerics? I don't really know what the overall goal is, but can anyone on the dev team bring up why they think that this is the best/healthiest approach?

Cleric is really not that good. It has vital drawbacks (being to buff reliant and thus too prone to dispels, even when built with very high cl, and long arse wind up in combat regardless). Instead of asking the devs to write a freaking thesis on why they're taking the approach they take, maybe enlighten us with your math and logic, on what you suggest would be a better approach and why.

[-XXX-]

Nerfs to reign in stuff before embracing power creep seems preferable for two main reasons:

• there's a vast PvE content that would have (and to a considerable degree already has) been turned into an academic excercise. It'd take somebody to continually & intensively curate all PvE content to keep up with the updates.
• there's a complex magic system in place that would have (and to a considerable degree already has) been power crept into obscurity. It'd take somebody to continually & intensively curate all spells to keep up with the updates.*

I wouldn't say the above are reasonable expectations, considering Arelith has a volunteer development team.

---

*This would also imply steadily moving the magic system further away from D&D over into its own thing.

[Ferretmancy]

Would honestly be great if all the numbers could be crunched some. Pretty silly that every Adventurer and their mothers can singlehandedly take down Ancient Dragons, Pit Fiends and Baloors like they're on a Sunday stroll. Those Enemies should really require a well prepared group to take on or dish out Team Wipes in the process.
Also removes the need for DM Events to exclusively spawn Creatures with CRAZY numbers on everything, just so they can be more than a minor annoyance when inevitably a whole Islands worth of Lv 30s swarm in.

[Dreams]

The stat nerf is how you quietly nerf WMs because someone hurt you.

[Second Breakfast]

Would honestly be great if all the numbers could be crunched some. Pretty silly that every Adventurer and their mothers can singlehandedly take down Ancient Dragons, Pit Fiends and Baloors like they're on a Sunday stroll. Those Enemies should really require a well prepared group to take on or dish out Team Wipes in the process.
Also removes the need for DM Events to exclusively spawn Creatures with CRAZY numbers on everything, just so they can be more than a minor annoyance when inevitably a whole Islands worth of Lv 30s swarm in.

It’s hard enough to make money as it is (unless you live on a boat; don’t even get me started on Sail, I will seriously never stop); we do not need to make PvE more difficult, even though that is what is quietly being done at every turn.

I will share an example:

“The Colder Crags” used to be a writ I would always take, because it concluded with killing 12 spriggans in the Abandoned Grotto. Challenging, but quick to see done if you know what you’re doing. Now, you have to kill a High Bloodstalker, which means clearing the entire dungeon.

That one change transformed what was a challenging writ that could be done in a short period of time to a lengthy exercise in masochism. It is one I will avoid on all future characters for that reason.

No, thank you. We do not need to transform Arelith into Prisoners of the Mist. There is a reason I am here now, and not there.