Arelith

Forewarning: All parts of the introduction marked with * at the end are opinion points.

As outlined in yellowcateyes's post here, the CL base for Dispels was changed from 20 to 22, with SF/GSF adding +1 to dispel CL (from +2) and ESF adding +2 as before. Effectively this turned it from 20 + 6 from SF/GSF/ESF into 22 + 4 from SF/GSF/ESF. This was done, I am told, with the goal of making Abjuration not a necessary thing to dispel others. It has also counterproductively destroyed older, lower-CL class spreads that may have suffered more versus Abjurers but were still viable otherwise. Now the meta is dominated by 27/3 builds (either Cleric/Bard or Spellsword/Bard, and in some cases even Paladin/Bard) instead of previous splits that made these classes more interesting/dynamic. So much fear is placed into playing something with below near-pure CL that most builds are neglected immediately if they don't near-pure class*. In addition to what it's like on the "receiving end," it also subtracts from the glamour of being an Abjurer and being a dominant threat, reducing some of the spell school's mainstay appeal*.

Quite bluntly, revert it. Go back to 20 + 6. Return viability to playing something that wasn't one of two viable builds for dominant classes like Clerics and Spellswords. Grant player freedom when it comes to building without such steep penalties that it becomes horridly unoptimal. Give Abjurers back their specialty.

Alternatively, remove the SF: Abjuration requirement from AD: Abjuration and make AD: Abjuration grant a higher CL vs. Dispel. Or create some sort of stacking feat to go with it so that there can be an investment to make getting dispelled by some yahoo not completely ruin a build.

While I am not opposed to giving abjuration back a little of its dispel allure - and being one of those "dispel bait" builds is very much an unpleasant fact - I'd like to see entirely-mundane characters become more susceptible to dispelling in the same vein as half casters.

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:38 am While I am not opposed to giving abjuration back a little of its dispel allure - and being one of those "dispel bait" builds is very much an unpleasant fact - I'd like to see entirely-mundane characters become more susceptible to dispelling in the same vein as half casters.

This is mildly off-topic, but I'll humor it because it's an argument I see come up a lot. The issue with making mundane characters more susceptible to dispels is threefold: 1) they don't usually get anywhere near the benefit from UMD items as Casters do, 2) the stuff they do get big bonuses from is usually dispellable, and 3) they need the stuff they can buff with to survive encounters, otherwise the meta would literally only be "play a Wizard because you can dispel everything from everyone else and then hit them with a save spell they can no longer block."

Jack Oat wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:43 am

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:38 am While I am not opposed to giving abjuration back a little of its dispel allure - and being one of those "dispel bait" builds is very much an unpleasant fact - I'd like to see entirely-mundane characters become more susceptible to dispelling in the same vein as half casters.

This is mildly off-topic, but I'll humor it because it's an argument I see come up a lot. The issue with making mundane characters more susceptible to dispels is threefold: 1) they don't usually get anywhere near the benefit from UMD items as Casters do, 2) the stuff they do get big bonuses from is usually dispellable, and 3) they need the stuff they can buff with to survive encounters, otherwise the meta would literally only be "play a Wizard because you can dispel everything from everyone else and then hit them with a save spell they can no longer block."

I am not saying "drop their CL to 1".
I am saying "make them vulnerable".
A mundane character has a CL 30, which does make it harder to dispel than... everything that is not a full caster in the server.
Casters do have a lot of options, yes, but it will never make an ounce of sense, even in terms of balance, that an epic abjurer can throw a Mord at Mr Scimmy WM and watch it do absolutely nothing.

Thoughts on how dispel is in current Arelith Meta

I don't mind if Dispel is improved for all casters across the board. Arelith players on the mechanics side often make these janky builds where they want to rely on using maximized magical buffs, or stacking stats. Being able to dispel that is fine in my opinion. That's the tradeoff to making a character design dependent on maximized or high stat rolls during casting magical enhancements.

Dispel is the grand equalizer in most player conflict scenarios, and I think having a mechanic like dispel, one that is easily accessible for all characters, is a good thing because it lowers the barrier to entry for PvP activity.



Suggestion: Spell Gestalt Mechanic

As far as improving the situation of 'half casters' I think creating a 'spell gestalt' system could help. Make classes with the same kind of arcane or divine casting share half CL when leveled in another class that shares that type of casting. For example, a wizard 26/bard 4 could have a CL of 28, or a 21/9 Ranger cleric would have a combined caster level of 25. However a Wizard 27/ranger 3 would still only be CL 27. Then adjust accordingly with this perk added. Maybe set the combined maximum "Gestalt' CL level to 26 to avoid making already existing class combinations not as dominant. I also think certain PRCs such as Dragon Disciple should count for gestalt.

On Mundane CL:
As far as mundanes go, it's surprisingly hard to dispel a mundane character, but if it wasn't they would be utterly useless compared to a caster. I don't really want to go back to base NWN where a party of clerics was better then a balanced party, and that's what the result of adjusting mundane dispel resistance too low would do.


On builds:

There's always been a few builds that are overwhelmingly used due to their versatility, and any change in mechanics won't really change that fact.
27/3 builds were also already dominant for a long time, and generally outperformed lower CL build in actual PvP scenarios. It was a case of theory versus application. Yeah a 23/4/3 paladin/fighter/rogue was better on 'paper' but the 27/3 paladin/rogue was better in practice even before this change. I do think adding a spell gestalt mechanic would make lower CL dips more viable however.

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:49 am

Jack Oat wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:43 am

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:38 am While I am not opposed to giving abjuration back a little of its dispel allure - and being one of those "dispel bait" builds is very much an unpleasant fact - I'd like to see entirely-mundane characters become more susceptible to dispelling in the same vein as half casters.

This is mildly off-topic, but I'll humor it because it's an argument I see come up a lot. The issue with making mundane characters more susceptible to dispels is threefold: 1) they don't usually get anywhere near the benefit from UMD items as Casters do, 2) the stuff they do get big bonuses from is usually dispellable, and 3) they need the stuff they can buff with to survive encounters, otherwise the meta would literally only be "play a Wizard because you can dispel everything from everyone else and then hit them with a save spell they can no longer block."

I am not saying "drop their CL to 1".
I am saying "make them vulnerable".
A mundane character has a CL 30, which does make it harder to dispel than... everything that is not a full caster in the server.
Casters do have a lot of options, yes, but it will never make an ounce of sense, even in terms of balance, that an epic abjurer can throw a Mord at Mr Scimmy WM and watch it do absolutely nothing.

What spells would you like to be able to dispel? A lot of the UMD buffs are on the breach list and already vulnerable to being stripped. The only buffs I can think of that aren't vulnerable are zoo buffs and haste. Stripping those won't improve your chances as a caster v. melee by leaps and bounds.

Ork wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 1:02 pm

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:49 am

Jack Oat wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 5:43 am
This is mildly off-topic, but I'll humor it because it's an argument I see come up a lot. The issue with making mundane characters more susceptible to dispels is threefold: 1) they don't usually get anywhere near the benefit from UMD items as Casters do, 2) the stuff they do get big bonuses from is usually dispellable, and 3) they need the stuff they can buff with to survive encounters, otherwise the meta would literally only be "play a Wizard because you can dispel everything from everyone else and then hit them with a save spell they can no longer block."

I am not saying "drop their CL to 1".
I am saying "make them vulnerable".
A mundane character has a CL 30, which does make it harder to dispel than... everything that is not a full caster in the server.
Casters do have a lot of options, yes, but it will never make an ounce of sense, even in terms of balance, that an epic abjurer can throw a Mord at Mr Scimmy WM and watch it do absolutely nothing.

What spells would you like to be able to dispel? A lot of the UMD buffs are on the breach list and already vulnerable to being stripped. The only buffs I can think of that aren't vulnerable are zoo buffs and haste. Stripping those won't improve your chances as a caster v. melee by leaps and bounds.

Clarity, displacement, death ward, haste, all zoo buffs, and the infinite stack of buffs that a fully self-warded meleer with UMD can have, which include but are not limited to:
Premonition, Shadow Shield, Spell Mantles, Stoneskin, Energy Buffers, PaA, mindblank, barkskin, shield, mage armor, and I'm sure I'm missing a few.
I am fully aware that some of those are breachable, but if anybody can breach them with the same proficiency as an abjurer, what is the point of being an abjurer? And then again, I will never see any reason for mundane characters to have practically the highest CL in the game, not when every other caster (including paladins, bards, rangers), which may depend just as much of their buffs, get utterly shafted by the fact that just because they can cast those spells, they are eligible to suck Mord and be left practically naked.

The majority of those are breachable, and the point of being an abjurer is disabling the builds that actually threaten you like paladins, clerics, other casters and SSs.

Ultimately, I feel that a reversion to 20 + 6 would make abjurers feel more like an abjurer than the current meta. Tweaking mundane CL would negatively impact the build-diversity we enjoy now and ultimately restrict melee to clerics and paladins.

I like the reversion idea because it would open up more avenues of build development, and make abjurers effectively more potent against those new builds.

Iceborn wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 1:23 pm Clarity, displacement, death ward, haste, all zoo buffs, and the infinite stack of buffs that a fully self-warded meleer with UMD can have, which include but are not limited to:
Premonition, Shadow Shield, Spell Mantles, Stoneskin, Energy Buffers, PaA, mindblank, barkskin, shield, mage armor, and I'm sure I'm missing a few.
I am fully aware that some of those are breachable, but if anybody can breach them with the same proficiency as an abjurer, what is the point of being an abjurer? And then again, I will never see any reason for mundane characters to have practically the highest CL in the game, not when every other caster (including paladins, bards, rangers), which may depend just as much of their buffs, get utterly shafted by the fact that just because they can cast those spells, they are eligible to suck Mord and be left practically naked.

Clarity: 8 Round max with 1 minute cooldown
Displacement: 6(?) rounds from UMD, does not affect Casters greatly since concealment doesn't hamper many of their spells
Death Ward: The ability to dispel this even remotely more than can already be done hyper-buffs Abjuration/Necromancy combinations and results in players being required (moreso than already) to gear Fortitude.
Haste: This one is understandable.
Zoo Buffs: Not really an immense gain from most melee characters, usually 1-3 AB and 30-60 HP. Sometimes 1-2 AC.
Premonition: Breachable
Shadow Shield: Breachable
Spell Mantles: Breachable
Stoneskin: Breachable
Energy Buffers: Breachable
PfA: Small save bonus, but understandable
Mindblank: Breachable
Barkskin: No major effect on most caster spells, a la my comments on Displacement, but still understandable.
Shield: Breachable
Mage Armor: Breachable

Not just some, but most of those are breachable and both can and will be stripped without save or check by a Mord's or GSB scroll. Their CL as far as dispels go is, yes, 30. Their CL as far as duration, however, is not. Saying that they have anything more than other builds do as far as UMD is plainly wrong. A Wizard that dips Bard can likewise have full access to UMD items such as everything you mentioned before. Their CL vs Dispel on those items is also 30, same as a mundane build's.

Like I said earlier, however, this steers somewhat away from the point of this thread.

Ditto the return to prior dispel calculation.

Jack said it best.

I yearn for the day when we implement something to Haste like 2E or 5E has for it.

When the balance team originally pitched changing the dispel calculations to me a while back, the following rationale was offered:

- Prior to the change, non-breaching abjuration spells were a binary experience. Either one had Abjuration feats, in which case they were extremely potent. Or one did not have Abjuration feats, in which case making use of dispel was a generally a waste of one's time.

- While dispel options are available on both arcane and divine spellbooks, in practice only wizards (and a few sorcerers) were able to make use of dispel mechanics. Wizards were the ones best positioned to pick up Abjuration in addition to two other useful spell foci, making the dispels largely a tool only available to wizards.

Here's a few questions with regard to the proposed reversion:
- What prevents a reversion to the binary experience that many spellcasters experienced prior - where they either had Abjuration feats or generally ignored the existence of those spells?

- Would a reversion improve build diversity, as argued, or will it just lead to changing the optimal level spread on existing archetypes? Is the gameplay between 23/4/3 and 27/3 battleclerics so different that shifting the meta focus from one to another unlocks any new and interesting archetypes?

- What kind of costs should a Gish-type character have to pay in order to pick up Fighter (or WM) feats and perks?

yellowcateyes wrote: Wed May 08, 2019 10:41 pm When the balance team originally pitched changing the dispel calculations to me a while back, the following rationale was offered:

- Prior to the change, non-breaching abjuration spells were a binary experience. Either one had Abjuration feats, in which case they were extremely potent. Or one did not have Abjuration feats, in which case making use of dispel was a generally a waste of one's time.

- While dispel options are available on both arcane and divine spellbooks, in practice only wizards (and a few sorcerers) were able to make use of dispel mechanics. Wizards were the ones best positioned to pick up Abjuration in addition to two other useful spell foci, making the dispels largely a tool only available to wizards.

Here's a few questions with regard to the proposed reversion:
- What prevents a reversion to the binary experience that many spellcasters experienced prior - where they either had Abjuration feats or generally ignored the existence of those spells?

- Would a reversion improve build diversity, as argued, or will it just lead to changing the optimal level spread on existing archetypes? Is the gameplay between 23/4/3 and 27/3 battleclerics so different that shifting the meta focus from one to another unlocks any new and interesting archetypes?

- What kind of costs should a Gish-type character have to pay in order to pick up Fighter (or WM) feats and perks?

I feel like I've heard the opposite argument before, in which people say 'not all spells' will be useful, and it's not an especially productive use of one's time to keep all spells relevant. Breach is still very useful, and there are abjuration DC spells like Dismissal and Banishment that always make good use of the foci.

This might be convoluted to read on paper, but since the engine would be handling calculation behind the scenes, what if it worked like this:

Have Mundane Caster level cap at something like 20. Then make every X amount of UMD boosts that number higher? It would give a reason to go deep into UMD, and makes sense, considering UMD is how mundane casters, cast, in the first place. Makes thematic since that those more skilled with using magic items, are harder to be rid of their effects. Most folks don't dip UMD more than 20, so if it was every 5 points, that'd put the standard mundane caster at CL 24. This puts the dispel check at 36, which gives a non-abjuration focused Greater Dispel from a lvl 20+ caster (pre change) a 25% chance to remove a given spell.

Meanwhile with abjuration foci (again, before the most recent changes) this would go up to a 50% chance to dispel Mundane Casters, under the same circumstances.

Seems legit to me. Did I miss anything?

That would make UMD even more necessarily that it already is... and...
I wouldn't be opposed to that, but only as long as UMD is opened as a crossclass skill for all mundane classes.
Which is not going to happen, but that'd be an interesting shake to how things are.

Iceborn wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 2:19 am That would make UMD even more necessarily that it already is... and...
I wouldn't be opposed to that, but only as long as UMD is opened as a crossclass skill for all mundane classes.
Which is not going to happen, but that'd be an interesting shake to how things are.

Not necessarily agreeing with the suggestion, but I supposed it's not too far fetched. Artefacts sometimes had you going 100% into UMD.

Iceborn wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 2:19 am That would make UMD even more necessarily that it already is... and...
I wouldn't be opposed to that, but only as long as UMD is opened as a crossclass skill for all mundane classes.
Which is not going to happen, but that'd be an interesting shake to how things are.

Agreed, with the part I don't agree with fixed.

Side question: Does anyone actually find the dispel part of the game fun? I know it would be a nightmare if not impossible to figure out an alternative but still, it isn't fun to plan a character around avoiding dispels, it isn't fun to plan a character who can dole out competent dispels (both at the expense of more fun and interesting abilities) and it really isn't fun to be dispelled.

I find dispel to be fun when it actually works as a player. I don't think anyone likes how dispel heavy the monsters are though since they're all programmed to throw 1-2 dispels each at a minimum to every caster they see. Adjusting that would make the dispel scene more interesting, and frankly I think mundanes should be dispel bait and anyone with a lot of caster levels and full abjuration focus should be feared for making all your magical enhancements go "poof."

Furthermore, most of the powerful classes that are a problem actually are very resistant to dispels, and getting around that strength would be a great way to make that power less overwhelming in general play. A class that relies on many buffs should fear something that can take all those buffs away.