Arelith

There is also Mords to remove that and other avenues of waiting for Clarity to drop and enchantment isn't your only spell school to utilize.

As far as using dom monster, yes you spam blind and some epic stuff either has great saves against it or blind sense etc. So having the monster/from person tanking is still hand plus you effectively double dmg output which can be critical esp. If certain npcs are dominated.

Once a day by typing -pls you can make a person roll will, if they fail they must agree with your next forum post.

Dr_Hazard89 wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:27 pm Once a day by typing -pls you can make a person roll will, if they fail they must agree with your next forum post.

That would be hilarious!

Versatile wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:53 pm Is it honestly that hard to find that we need to open it up so that 75% of the server can make their own enchanted gear and runic items?

There's board at the Arcane Tower to request custom work.

For a multiplayer game, I've found a lot of focus on self-sufficiency. With the new writ changes, I've found it near impossible to get even a twosome for anything.

Versatile wrote: I also wonder, am I the only one reading this thread that thinks "Well here comes yet another change that will effect one of my toons that will change the concept of what I was after when I made them." ?

My enchanter may not be viable for end game at all. I really don't care that Diviners are better at stunning. She's made for tinkering, crafting, and most specifically enchanting. She's had exactly one person ask her for enchanting, and one for wands.

BrutalForce48 wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:24 pm There is also Mords to remove that

http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Dispel
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Mordenkainen%27s_disjunction
Please read these.

Mords is useful because of it's heavy breaching effect (which Clarity again, is not breachable) and SR drop. The dispel isn't something anyone should ever be relying on because at CL 30, you're fishing for dispel 20's (maybe 19's been a minute since I did the math) and that's something every builder worth anything will tell you is bad. Dispel hasn't been relevant since Peppermint wisely reverted the cap to CL 20.

BrutalForce48 wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:24 pmother avenues of waiting for Clarity to drop

Are you being serious? The fight will be over. The entire time of which an entire school is totally useless. No other school has to deal with that. None.

BrutalForce48 wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:24 pmand enchantment isn't your only spell school to utilize.

You are absolutely right here! Using only one spell school is folly and very limiting (just ask True Flames), and an effective spellcaster will make use of all their chosen spell schools, in concert. But once again, Enchantment is unique in that it's usefulness tanks to zero with the press of a button. There is no 'utilizing it together with other spell schools' because it has no use against Mind-Affecting Immunity, a property that is remarkably easy to acquire and keep on a PC for the duration needed & pervasively widespread across arelith mobs. That is the crux of the mechanical side of the issue here. It is way to easy to neuter it entirely.


Honestly, I think if it were possible to code, a x% chance to penetrate immunity at ESF is probably one of the ways to go here.

I'm not sure I see the logic between 'Peppermint wisely reverting the changes.' and 'Dispel is now useless.'

If dispel is now a non-spell because of these changes, isn't that not great? Indeed, arn't we now specifically having a problem because dispel is useless and is now incapable of removing mind warding effects, thus crippling enchantment?

Perhaps if CL 30 is bad, and CL20 is useless, we should be looking at CL 25 dispels?

Rwby wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:34 pm I'm not sure I see the logic between 'Peppermint wisely reverting the changes.' and 'Dispel is now useless.'

The dispel effect is not relevant because it is too unreliable on an even field. It is still useful in uneven fields and it serves a purpose for being the 'answer' to lower CL builds such as Battle-clerics.

Before Greater Dispel could achieve a dispel CL of 30, which was guaranteed to just absolutely shred anyone's wards. That's why it was a wise decision to curtail it's power. Unfortunately, tweaking the formula would require a very labor intensive retooling of arelith's mechanics. As this thread is about enchantment, I'm not really keen to get into it, and encourage you to run a forum search on dispel caps and see for yourself why, as it has been discussed at length before several times already (and also stated not likely to happen).

"My enchanter may not be viable for end game at all. I really don't care that Diviners are better at stunning. She's made for tinkering, crafting, and most specifically enchanting. She's had exactly one person ask her for enchanting, and one for wands."

That is pretty much mine also. I didn't make an enchanter to 'get rich'. I didn't make an enchanter to be able to solo epic dungeons. Tbh my enchanter is pretty much pathetic and at lvl 18 could get devoured by rats if I wasn't paying attention. But that is what I made because for me it isn't about the grind. It is about the rp and I personally love playing in the enchantment basin. I think it is fun, not tedious. I'm sure I'm one of the odd/rare ones who feel this way though.

It isn't about keeping other people from doing a certain thing. It is about keeping yet another change from altering what a lot of people have already made. If for some reason it must change then offer a redo on the spell school focuses, please.

Versatile wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:22 pmThat is pretty much mine also. I didn't make an enchanter to 'get rich'. I didn't make an enchanter to be able to solo epic dungeons. Tbh my enchanter is pretty much pathetic and at lvl 18 could get devoured by rats if I wasn't paying attention. But that is what I made because for me it isn't about the grind. It is about the rp and I personally love playing in the enchantment basin. I think it is fun, not tedious. I'm sure I'm one of the odd/rare ones who feel this way though.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. But this trend of constantly wanting to min-max and powerbuild and 'be the best' in every possible way has been increasing dramatically lately, and it's worrisome. And that's actually a bit ironic, because people like to bring D&D into the argument, which is silly, when D&D alone is about being a party and accomplishing things as a party, not as a self-sufficient solo who can do it all.

Furthermore, on Arelith Enchanters have to pick 3 feats to be able to master the Enchantment process. In D&D, there's plenty of items and variants that let you take extra feats, retake feats, take feats with drawbacks, and so on. Arelith is NOT D&D, and mechanically it cannot and will not even come close to being the same. To keep using the argument that 'it works this way in D&D!' is not a valid argument. It's like comparing apples to oranges at this point, with the two only having the common denominator of being a fruit and nothing else.

To reinforce my point, Wizards in D&D who specialize have to ban not one, but two schools of magic. There's even a variant to ban 3 schools of magic for a little extra fluff. But the point is, it doesn't happen on Neverwinter Nights, and it doesn't happen on Arelith. Until it does, we cannot rightly demand to get all the goodies that a wizard in D&D gets.

MissEvelyn wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:59 pm But this trend of constantly wanting to min-max and powerbuild and 'be the best' in every possible way has been increasing dramatically lately, and it's worrisome.

Can you please go through this thread and quote some people who want to min-max and powerbuild so it can be responded to directly, rather than make the 'subtle' (it's not) generalized claim that anyone who finds the current implementation flawed is a min-"maxer/powerbuilder"?

Edit: Which btw I take issue with that vernacular in general, as A) min-maxing/powerbuilding is not exclusive of RP and B) it's derogatory and trying to frame the otherside of an argument as something it is not.

MissEvelyn wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:59 pm To keep using the argument that 'it works this way in D&D!' is not a valid argument. It's like comparing apples to oranges at this point, with the two only having the common denominator of being a fruit and nothing else.

This is seriously inaccurate hyperbole. Arelith is heavily grounded in D&D and Forgotten Realms.

Honestly, I'm not even thinking about the mechanical balance on the school. The largest reason I wish it see changed, really, is simple; it's boring, and unthematic.

Sure, it's useful. It's convenient, it's nice. It isn't engaging, though. It's not even very unique, literally everyone can enchant. There's no visible difference, aside from the floaty number increase in your conversation window.

The bonuses aren't even fitting. Enchanting basins, and Enchantment as a school, are very different and far from each other. It's a school about manipulation of mind, charms, and compulsion. It's one of, if not the furthest away from imbuing magical properties.

My thoughts are summarized as the following:
- Enchantment is part of a larger issue, in that I think the entirety of the spell school bonuses are designed strangely.

- Remove the basin bonuses from enchantment. Grant it to high level casters, those with high spellcraft? Honestly, anything that isn't tied to the school.

- Give enchantment a mechanical benefit; e.g. bonus duration to domination spells on creatures, etc.

- Give enchantment a roleplay benefit. This is the biggest one for me, really. Having some sort of ability that facilitates interaction is an important part. I find it strange that some of the schools have this (e.g. -yoink in conjuration, -scry, -send_image), but some don't (Enchantment, Evocation, Necromancy at least.)

Whatever this roleplay benefit, or tool is, I can't say for sure. Ideally, it isn't something mechanically focused, but something with mechanical backing. Much like the design of yoink, supported through design.

Whether it's a mass dance, compulsion, charm, or some other enchanting spell, I'm pretty neutral. As long as there's something that makes the school more interesting than a basin breather, I'd be in favor.

In response to everyone who's enchanter cannot find work cause no one askes them:


Meanwhile in the Arcane Tower:

Maybe give master craftsmen the ability to enhance items they've crafted as if they were an epic enchanter? So a tailor could add +2 skills and abilities or whatever to customize a piece of clothing they made, but only items they made.

MissEvelyn wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:59 pm

Versatile wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:22 pmThat is pretty much mine also. I didn't make an enchanter to 'get rich'. I didn't make an enchanter to be able to solo epic dungeons. Tbh my enchanter is pretty much pathetic and at lvl 18 could get devoured by rats if I wasn't paying attention. But that is what I made because for me it isn't about the grind. It is about the rp and I personally love playing in the enchantment basin. I think it is fun, not tedious. I'm sure I'm one of the odd/rare ones who feel this way though.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. But this trend of constantly wanting to min-max and powerbuild and 'be the best' in every possible way has been increasing dramatically lately, and it's worrisome. And that's actually a bit ironic, because people like to bring D&D into the argument, which is silly, when D&D alone is about being a party and accomplishing things as a party, not as a self-sufficient solo who can do it all.

Furthermore, on Arelith Enchanters have to pick 3 feats to be able to master the Enchantment process. In D&D, there's plenty of items and variants that let you take extra feats, retake feats, take feats with drawbacks, and so on. Arelith is NOT D&D, and mechanically it cannot and will not even come close to being the same. To keep using the argument that 'it works this way in D&D!' is not a valid argument. It's like comparing apples to oranges at this point, with the two only having the common denominator of being a fruit and nothing else.

To reinforce my point, Wizards in D&D who specialize have to ban not one, but two schools of magic. There's even a variant to ban 3 schools of magic for a little extra fluff. But the point is, it doesn't happen on Neverwinter Nights, and it doesn't happen on Arelith. Until it does, we cannot rightly demand to get all the goodies that a wizard in D&D gets.

No one is talking about min/maxing. <3 chu but there's another side to this, too - and that is that this is a roleplaying *game*. There are mechanical aspects to the *game* that need be talked about. Enchantment is not fun to play, from a *gameplay* perspective.

That's what a lot of us are talking about, here. Not "my character isn't powerful enough, buff pls" but "these three feats are only really good for making the same +1/1 +2/2/2 gear over and over again until I -delete_character out of boredom."

This is gonna sound snarky as heck, but not everyone is satisfied with creating a character just to stand around an enchantment basin. Some of us want to actually play the game, to go out and muddle some minds, to bend the will of others, to play an actual enchanter.

Baron Saturday wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:12 amYou say that you have yet to hear a convincing reason for why basin bonuses should be decoupled from Enchantment foci, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for them to remain there that isn't "because they always have been."

Had a much longer discussion in a PM because I didn't want to clutter up the thread with a wall 3 pages in a row. Short and to the point;

Because in order to use the basin at all, you should have three (four really, but I'm counting rod and staff as one) different item creation feats that no one is taking.

Every single person on the server using the basin to make so much as a +1 str +1 con set of gear is getting three free feats (that you can normally only take as a spellcaster) just by being able to use the basin at all. Why is it bad that the people who take the three "most useless" spell foci are better at it?


To extend the current line of logic to its most absurd conclusion, should we also give everyone craft wand and brew potion for free? Why not? What if they have bad playtimes and can't find a wand crafter?

Wytchee wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:33 pmNo one is talking about min/maxing. <3 chu but there's another side to this, too - and that is that this is a roleplaying *game*. There are mechanical aspects to the *game* that need be talked about. Enchantment is not fun to play, from a *gameplay* perspective.

That's what a lot of us are talking about, here. Not "my character isn't powerful enough, buff pls" but "these three feats are only really good for making the same +1/1 +2/2/2 gear over and over again until I -delete_character out of boredom."

This is gonna sound snarky as heck, but not everyone is satisfied with creating a character just to stand around an enchantment basin. Some of us want to actually play the game, to go out and muddle some minds, to bend the will of others, to play an actual enchanter.

That's absolutely fair. Everyone enjoys something different and there should be room for that.

But this thread shows that a lot of people are actually able, willing, and more than happy to play an enchanter that is relied upon. In fact - and this is going to be an unpopular opinion, I bet - being relied upon in any way is a reward in itself. The reason people enjoy playing classes like the Healer is because most people could definitely rely upon one. The same goes for Enchanter. And Rogue. And so on. The other classes are certainly also ones you could rely on (Ranger or any tracker comes to mind, for example), but they are more self-sufficient and less reliant upon others, especially when you tread into multi-class territory where you can Track, Tank, DPS, read scrolls, wave wands, and pick locks all by yourself. Also, no hate on multi-classers. You do you =)


Additionally, everything Aelryn Bloodmoon said in the post above nails it down very well. Take my +1.

I'm finding, as this debate goes on, that I care less about where basin bonuses come from and more about getting Enchantment some decent RP and mechanical bonuses that are actually relevant to the spell school. If that can be done while leaving basin bonuses tied to Enchantment foci, I will shed no tears.

That said, I would love to see more enchantment foci ideas.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:09 am Every single person on the server using the basin to make so much as a +1 str +1 con set of gear

Every single person can already do this, with some risk or a magic deity.

JediMindTrix wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:52 pm

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:09 am Every single person on the server using the basin to make so much as a +1 str +1 con set of gear

Every single person can already do this, with some risk or a magic deity.

Not saying they can't. Saying the fact that they can means everyone is already getting three free feats (including some non-spellcasting builds that normally wouldn't be able to), and if they want better gear than they can make thanks to that they should have to invest the extra three feats. IMO.

This last quote kept pinging my notifications over and over, for w/e reason.

Anyways, I would agree with you if you could create the items in NwN that you can in PnP. But you can't. You're actually pretty limited by what you can do in a basin. So I suppose we can agree to disagree on that?

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:09 am Every single person on the server using the basin to make so much as a +1 str +1 con set of gear is getting three free feats (that you can normally only take as a spellcaster) just by being able to use the basin at all.

How do people (on both sides) feel about moving the basin bonuses to scribe scroll/brew potion/craft wand? Having one of those feats gives the SF bonus, two gives the GSF bonus, and all three gives the ESF bonus. This opens up full basin bonuses to all caster classes without requiring otherwise useless feats, but at the same time restricts the bonuses to those willing to invest feats in them, and frees up Enchantment foci to have their own thing. It also makes sense that people practiced in creating magical items... would be better at creating magical items.

Baron Saturday wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:30 pm How do people (on both sides) feel about moving the basin bonuses to scribe scroll/brew potion/craft wand? Having one of those feats gives the SF bonus, two gives the GSF bonus, and all three gives the ESF bonus. This opens up full basin bonuses to all caster classes without requiring otherwise useless feats, but at the same time restricts the bonuses to those willing to invest feats in them, and frees up Enchantment foci to have their own thing. It also makes sense that people practiced in creating magical items... would be better at creating magical items.

I like this, so long as enchanters as they are now are grandfathered.

Baron Saturday wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:30 pm How do people (on both sides) feel about moving the basin bonuses to scribe scroll/brew potion/craft wand? Having one of those feats gives the SF bonus, two gives the GSF bonus, and all three gives the ESF bonus. This opens up full basin bonuses to all caster classes without requiring otherwise useless feats, but at the same time restricts the bonuses to those willing to invest feats in them, and frees up Enchantment foci to have their own thing. It also makes sense that people practiced in creating magical items... would be better at creating magical items.

very positively. and seconded the enchanter grandfathering

EDIT: do want to note, we may need another gate to get through, or we'll have "epic enchanter" level characters at level 10

I like how that sounds! It would mean a crafting focused character (with the feats) is still able to enchant! Yay! It's much closer to the lore as well and that makes me happy.

HOWEVER~ What do you mean about grandfathered? Why/how is that useful? What is the point of having ESF and all three crafting feats (which I do, and I assume most craftywizards do)? I'm ignorant.