View unanswered posts | View active topics * FAQ    * Search
* Login   * Register




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Sun, Jun 04 2017, 2:39 AM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

So, I had a chance to implement the following system in an attempt to Re-balance the non-mordenkainen dispel_* spells. In the spirit of transparency, here is the English version of how it works. The idea is to create a dispel that is fair, fun, and clings to the original spells as closely as possible. It's not not necessarily the final version, but before tearing it apart, I ask that you try it and ask yourself the following things to see objectively if you think it accomplished the goal we set out for:

Goals of this change1) In PvM, were you overwhelmingly dispelled? Or was it once in a while? If you adapted your play style could you avoid it entirely, to the point where it was not un-fun? It's not supposed to happen that often.
2) In PvP, can you use greater dispel with decent effect? Not even close to being as good as mord's, but has a niche role anyways, potentially.
3) Mords still seems like the go-to (not trying to undo the balance here)


Feedback on whether or not the mechanical tuning of these feelings are represented would be greatly appreciated.

Dispel Notes- The colored numbers on this page change depending on which version of the spell you cast for ease of reading.
- A single dispel can only successfully remove a debuff with a randomized bonus roll (3 / 2 / 1) times (Greater Dispel Magic,Dispel Magic,Lesser Dispel Magic)
- If the caster's level is 7 below its target, it can't get a bonus roll at all.
- If the dispel is a PvP dispel, the roll is going to be much more aggressive to pick a higher multiplier (the proc roll gets 50 25 subtracted to it, so the dispels are more likely to be successful)
- All dispels respect abjuration feat investment.
- Bonus roll has a 30 second cooldown.


The Modified Dispel FormulaCASTER Rolls:
1d20 + 1 (Lesser Dispel [ 5 ], Dispel [ 10 ], Greater Dispel [ 15 ]) + Feat-given DC
vs
VICTIM Rolls:
12 + Hit Dice of Target


The Dispel Bonus Roll Nitty Gritty[ Begin Additional Randomizer Lesser / Regular / Dispel Routine ]

Lesser Dispel: This can happen 25% of the time dispel rolls against a debuff.
Dispel Magic: 50% of the time.
Greater Dispel: 100% of the time.

* 1d100 roll is thrown *, as a saving throw to check against item types for common versus rarer dispel targets
An effect created by a potion DC: 70 85 90
An effect created by a wand DC: 80
An effect created by a scroll DC: 90
An effect created by a mage DC: 95 (optional)

If DC is failed, then no modifier is given to help dispel on this effect. [Do not continue]

The DC was passed... so we continue!

* Another 1d100 roll is thrown * And we have a DC range chart to decide the outcome! Also, check if the caster is higher caster level than victim. If so, get the caster's level minus the victims caster level as a bonus to the roller in this randomizer to help people who are naturally gifted at magic.. cap this bonus at 5, then subtract that number from the 1d100 roll to apply that bonus.

Roll Total Note: All Examples are simulating level 30's.
1-5: Caster Level Multiplier [4] ( 20, 40, 60)
// greater dispel avg. 70 vs 42 (success)
// dispel avg. 50 vs 42 (success)
// lesser dispel avg. 30 vs 42 (fail)

6-20: Caster Level Multiplier [3] (15, 30, 45)
// greater dispel avg. 55 vs 42 (success)
// dispel avg. 40 vs 42 (fail)
// lesser dispel impossible

21-50: Caster Level Multiplier [2] (10, 20, 30)
// greater dispel avg. 40 vs 42 (fail)
// dispel impossible
// lesser dispel impossible

else: Base multiplier [1] (5, 10, 15)
// greater dispel impossible
// dispel impossible
// lesser dispel impossible


So lets bring it all together ..When this 'randomly' procs (with all of the aforementioned criteria, the dispel roll becomes)

CASTER Rolls:
1d20 + ( 1 (Lesser Dispel [ 5 ], Dispel [ 10 ], Greater Dispel [ 15 ]) * Caster Level Multiplier ) + Feat-given DC
vs
VICTIM Rolls:
10 + Hit Dice of Target.


Whenever the server resets as of this post these changes will be live. It is beta. Please be gentle.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gribbo
 
PostPosted: Sun, Jun 04 2017, 2:49 AM 



Player

Joined: 08 Nov 2015

how does the abjuration focus bonus play into this, does it still provide increased cap per foci?


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Sun, Jun 04 2017, 3:01 AM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

Thank you for pointing that out, I have added that to the spells, and they will be updated to function in that fashion of

( ( Caster Level that respects caps ) * Multiplier ) + 2 for each feat [[ not multiplicative ]]

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gribbo
 
PostPosted: Tue, Jun 06 2017, 3:02 AM 



Player

Joined: 08 Nov 2015

Another question.

how does this interact with holy and unholy swords dispell on hit?


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Tue, Jun 06 2017, 3:42 AM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

Really depends what the Item Property onHit IP_CONST_ONHIT_GREATERDISPEL does when it fires; if its bioware default, then the change does not apply to holy/unholy weapon(s)... Testing ingame would yield quicker results (see if it does old or new method in combat log) than digging through stuff I suspect might be hardcoded. Unfortunately I don't have a character like that to test with.

It continues to work as if casting a greater dispel, using the new formula for that.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gribbo
 
PostPosted: Tue, Jun 06 2017, 4:05 AM 



Player

Joined: 08 Nov 2015

thanks


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Tue, Jul 18 2017, 20:17 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

So, an invitation for criticism here. I've heard rumblings that it's overpowered and such and such.

Can I get screen captures of what anyone feels to be 'abusive dispelling'. Not Combat log text please (as anyone can modify that to prove their point), but actual screenshot of the combat log showing the number next to the dispels, etc.

A couple things to remember:

1) Potions are no longer going to be ridiculously undispellable
2) NPC's are going to start casting less dispel, as it seems to upset the flow of leveling

What I'm looking for:

1) Situations where it's wonky. Situations where you're like "Wait, how did that happen?"

2) What happens to a fully buffed caster wearing 65+ AC after 2 rounds of silence/dispel arrows.

3) Did someone find that greater dispel works better than mords? I doubt it, but if you did, post it.

Hint: If the number in the (#) is very high, then you rolled very lucky in your attempt to dispel the other individual.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Sat, Nov 11 2017, 15:07 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

Could this be explained a bit better?

The formula up top seems to say the max a caster can roll is 20 (d20) + 1 × 15 + 6 = 41. This would mean that any victim is immune to dispel at level 30. But then the numbers go into any absurd 70 versus 42, which would mean it -always- dispels...

Both doesn't seem to fit with the point of the changes somehow...

So I feel like I'm too dumb to understand it...

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Sat, Nov 11 2017, 16:42 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

Actually, I think I finally understood it. That said, it's a weird change, and takes a while to read into...

So, mostly for fun, out of curiosity, I kind of want to calculate the chances for Dispelling. I'm putting in two situations, which are the four likeliest to happen: 5 CL difference, (that's 29 versus 24, 28 versus 23, in common builds, or any higher attacker) 5 CL difference with ESF Abj, equal caster levels and equal CL with ESF Abj. All of these are for Greater Dispel, since the others are very lucky to dispel anything. Also, since 5 CL is the max, the first two lists go for, say, a 15Clr/15Rog as well.

5 CL, no ESF:
We roll a 1d100. 10% chance to get to the second roll. If first roll fails, dispel fails.
The second roll has a 10% chance to have a times 4, meaning 100% dispel.
It has a 15% chance to have a times 3, also 100% dispel.
It then has a 30% chance for times 2, which is a 45% dispel.
The rest, 45%, is times 1, which can't dispel.
-> 3.85% to dispel

5 CL, ESF Abj:
10% base chance.
10% -> times 4 -> 100%
15% -> times 3 -> 100%
30% -> times 2 -> 75%
Rest can't dispel
-> 4.75%
Equal CL, no ESF:
10%
5% -> times 4 -> 100%
15% -> times 3 -> 100%
30% -> times 2 -> 45%
rest can't dispel
-> 3.35%

Equal CL, ESF Abj:
10%
5% -> times 4 -> 100%
15% -> times 3 -> 100%
30% -> times 2 -> 75%
rest can't dispel
-> 4.225%


Dos this look right? Did I do the math correctly? And did I understand how it works correctly now?

How does this work for items, or for Assassins? (I believe the game doesn't count them as spellcasters, so it should do it just like items, unless that was changed)

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
MightNMagic
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 0:38 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Space Australia

The formulas looked like gibberish to me and I didn't want to bother spending an hour figuring it out. I do know that random mobs hitting my level 23 CL with gr dispel were taking spells off him rather easily it seemed.

I don't really like that since it's basically just tacitly saying, "Don't bother spellcasting here unless you're CL 30." This is pretty bad for spellswords and builds that diversify, making them too vulnerable and in some cases, useless and unplayable. To me, nothing about dispel was broken to begin with. You wanted to dispel, you made a master of magic (mage), not a cleric or bard (of all things... bards).

I think it's rather telling that the staff knows it's broken... and quietly removed greater dispel from pretty much every mob that had it (almost).

It wasn't a good change. It wasn't a necessary change. It wasn't even an asked-for change. It's a power grab by classes going beyond their party role and idiom who are now stepping on mages shoes. Up next, mages casting Greater Restoration! :?

_________________
Rashad the Azure, Zakharan Merchant-lord Most Fair and Master of the Desert Wind
Loremaster Tukson Devers, Oghmanyte Wrestler of Knowledge and Child of the Passive Voice

(No tells for Rashad while I'm playing other characters please.)


 
      
Dark Immolation
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 5:31 AM 

User avatar

Tester

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Actually, I do remember asking for Greater Dispel to be removed from most mobs, regardless of what was done to to actual spell. In general, dispels on mobs are cheap, and even if you try to focus down the caster, they usually get one off. It makes those dungeons suck for everyone, causing you to have to apply and reapply buffs, a resource drain rather than an actual challenge.

So, yeah. That was probably going to happen regardless of the dispel change. Please stop trying to make it sound like something sinister. No one here is out to get you, or your build, and I say that as like the spellsword player besides like you and two others. Sometimes the fixes dont go as planned. That was kind of the point of the dev who created the change making this post.

That being said, what is your suggestion? Revert it? Simplify it? And if so, how?

_________________
Image
You think Magic is your ally... but you merely adopted the Art. He was born in it. Molded by it.
Sometimes, an angel is simply a devil with better intentions.


 
      
Amarice-Elaraliel
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 12:02 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 20 Jan 2006

I'm afraid I am not happy with the changes, and never was.

The 'very' least would be to remove it post haste from all mobs, which I also have emphasized repeatedly.

But imho dispel is not far too strong in general, in a department, mages were already rediculously good with disjunction.

P.S. and no of course this was nothing sinister, but a well meant fix to something that was pretty useless. It (in my opinion) just went a bit much from zero to hero. So could possibly use a bit more tweaking. Removing it from hunting zones would be a first good step.

Another thing would be to make it not touch certain things (as dispell does not either) like weapon buffs. Which it now also completely strips and is something not even disjunction can do (and not even the beolder anti-magic! cone).

_________________
Image
Image


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 14:05 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

Zayn, my 20Clr/4Ftr/1Rog honestly doesn't have a problem leveling. And I like the fact that it doesn't matter whether you are 16BG, 13/10/7 WM or 24 Wizard, you're always being dipelled the same.

At the same time, the places that -do- dispel (which as far as I've seen is Maximus and the Balors of FGK) do tend to dispel some pretty important buffs. Sill, it's not too bad, considering Zayn is level 25, and fighting against epic bosses.

As for it being on random mobs, I think it's good that a lot had it removed (like the Fire Giant Witches don't seem to cast it) and I think it just kills certain builds more than other uselessly, and it did previously as well.

That said, I haven't seen (or noticed) it too much in combat, so I don't know how it behaves in, say, PvP, or in any place where mobs still spam dispel.

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
Mushidoz
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 18:14 PM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 08 Oct 2012

I just got dispelled all of my buffs in one go from the duergar psionics... including my level 25 bard song. Makes sense?

_________________
Account Name: Karnak_71
Character Name: Hanamori Saya
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68657&p=1134526#p1134526


Last edited by Mushidoz on Sun, Nov 12 2017, 21:06 PM, edited 1 time in total.

 
      
T0mc4t89
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 18:21 PM 



Player

Joined: 17 Oct 2012
Location: A hut in Howness. (GMT+2)

I myself think that removing greater dispel from most mobs was kinda cheap, now dungeons feel even more easier. And you could just invis or use line of sight in order to not let one of the firegiant witches/sahuagin priests from dispelling you too easily.

_________________
Characters:
Elder Torsten Eadgarsson
"He’d only shown the best of intentions. Firm but not unreasonable. Eager to protect what was his but not eager to overextend his reach, to push himself on to others."


 
      
Dark Immolation
 
PostPosted: Sun, Nov 12 2017, 20:03 PM 

User avatar

Tester

Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Location: The downeaster "Alexa"

Quote:
And you could just invis or use line of sight in order to not let one of the firegiant witches/sahuagin priests from dispelling you too easily.


If the best solution to an annoying mob is to avoid engaging it or take advantage of its limited AI, that's probably a sign that things could be done better. Also, breaking the line of sight to avoid a spell is pretty finicky. It's more about lucky timing than skill. The only ones that can do it somewhat reliably are SDs.

Dungeons can be made more difficult in ways that don't involve an essentially random chance at losing a random amount of spells every few spawns. For PCs that do nothing but chug potions, it really doesn't matter. But for casters I feel it does nothing but re-enforce the meta of constantly hiding behind a summon, because "I'll be damned if I lose the only Mindblank I slotted today." Dispelling creatures can and will remain in some places(Duergar are an example). But it's very possible to make dungeons where it was removed more challenging, without having mobs that dispel.

_________________
Image
You think Magic is your ally... but you merely adopted the Art. He was born in it. Molded by it.
Sometimes, an angel is simply a devil with better intentions.


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Tue, Nov 21 2017, 20:29 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

If it's not desired, it can simply be undone pretty easily. It was an attempt to fix a gaping problem which made or break builds based on a bioware bug. Mobs dispelling or not dispelling you wasn't really added difficulty, it was just which side your numbers fell on a bugged mechanic. One of the reasons in favor of this change is that at least this at least made PvP not carry that arbitrary bug to it as well.

But if alas, a few files being reverted can curb the angst most seem to have with this change, I see no reason why to keep it. It was an experiment.

Note: I wasn't really in support of removing it from mobs when I envisioned this change; I think dispel should've been retained on them. I don't see why mobs can't ever have a chance of dispelling a player, but I was outspoken, with the notion that dispel is just annoying and nobody had fun with it.

Anyways, 4 script swaps to a few versions ago should revert it.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Amarice-Elaraliel
 
PostPosted: Tue, Nov 21 2017, 21:22 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 20 Jan 2006

Maybe we could still tweak it a little instead of just fully revert it?

I agree it was not very good as it was originally.

_________________
Image
Image


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Wed, Nov 29 2017, 21:39 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

MightNMagic wrote:
The formulas looked like gibberish to me and I didn't want to bother spending an hour figuring it out. I do know that random mobs hitting my level 23 CL with gr dispel were taking spells off him rather easily it seemed.

I don't really like that since it's basically just tacitly saying, "Don't bother spellcasting here unless you're CL 30." This is pretty bad for spellswords and builds that diversify, making them too vulnerable and in some cases, useless and unplayable. To me, nothing about dispel was broken to begin with. You wanted to dispel, you made a master of magic (mage), not a cleric or bard (of all things... bards).

I think it's rather telling that the staff knows it's broken... and quietly removed greater dispel from pretty much every mob that had it (almost).

It wasn't a good change. It wasn't a necessary change. It wasn't even an asked-for change. It's a power grab by classes going beyond their party role and idiom who are now stepping on mages shoes. Up next, mages casting Greater Restoration! :?


Just saw this post and wanted to address a few things as I can tell from the hostile tone, that it upset you.

1) If you don't take 3 minutes to read the first post, and begin understand the formula at all, how can you understand how it has changed the game so indepth? Perhaps it would be nice for you to know how it works before lambasting it. It essentially was designed to make the 3 dispels have a chance to dispel something, as well as remove the obvious imbalance the Bioware bug that made potions completely undispellable if you had no caster classes or pure, meanwhile people with actual caster levels get dispelled like a joke. That being said, the impact shouldn't be huge; the chance of having a bonus to your dispel roll is heavily capped.

2) Maybe it was not a good change, that's not only for me to say. But as the idea was floating around for months before I tried to tackle it on, I knew it would be challenging and met with resistance, because simply put there is not a "best solution" to this problem; only some thought to lessen the gaping issue. Overall, the plan was to discuss that exact thing after putting together both the formula, and the solution for players to try and adjust with feedback, which did happen (see the revisions?)

3) A power grab? ... Take off the tin foil hat. No power grab happened here, I don't have time to play Amia and haven't for years, and have -1 stake in this change. By all means, you guys do what you want. I was just trying to help.

4) If the staff knows it's broken, and ridicules the change with you, or whatever, there is nothing stopping them from reverting it or asking me to if they can't themselves.

Maybe you get dispelled once in a while now. Good. That's what dispel is supposed to do, sometimes. No? If before you never got hit by dispel, that wasn't something you did right, that's just illogically being on the right side of a severe bug.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Wed, Nov 29 2017, 21:58 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

I don't care about the change too much, to be honest. I mean, I kind of like that Dispel does stuff in PvP, and I dislike dispel in PvE in general. It just emphasizes certain builds over others. (Best example off the top of the hat is BG, which apparently is a caster class now, and can always be dispelled easily)
That said, I have to admit, I took over an hour of reading in a bus before I actually started to understand the formula, so...
Especially the stricken out parts confused me a lot.

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Wed, Nov 29 2017, 22:03 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

Yeah, maybe there's a way to put it into more English, I admit, it's a bit of handful unless you're willing to sink your teeth into it. The striken words idea wasn't the cleanest execution ever, but I did want to keep a written log of the changes it's endured, while attempting to balance the change as I wanted people to see/feel their voices being heard (as each of those strikeouts was a result of re-balancing that was done based on screenshots I received in PM's from ingame player-testing P.S. That which, I owe a belated thanks for!).

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Wed, Nov 29 2017, 23:27 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

Lets go step by step of a very lucky greater dispel roll:

Roll 1 [Attacker]: 1d100 [ DC: 90 ]
    Note: In PvP, add 25 to the 1d100 (more likely to happen in PvP)
    Attacker rolls a 95. This is enough to beat the DC and potentially earn a bonus.
Roll 2 [Attacker]: 1d100
    Attacker rolls a 2, which is in the 1-5 range and gets a *4 multiplier
      Attacker Rolls: 1d20 + Feat DC + 60
      If no bonus is awarded (i.e. they roll a 99), the roll continues as vanilla NWN.
        Attacker Rolls: 1d20 + Feat DC + 15
Roll 3 [Victim]: Victim defends with: HitDice + 10
Finally: Decide if bonus works based on result from Attacker vs. Victim.
    Bonus applied, implement 30 second cooldown for any additional bonus to work.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
MightNMagic
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 3:50 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Location: Space Australia

RaveN wrote:
Just saw this post and wanted to address a few things as I can tell from the hostile tone, that it upset you.

1) If you don't take 3 minutes to read the first post, and begin understand the formula at all, how can you understand how it has changed the game so indepth? Perhaps it would be nice for you to know how it works before lambasting it. It essentially was designed to make the 3 dispels have a chance to dispel something, as well as remove the obvious imbalance the Bioware bug that made potions completely undispellable if you had no caster classes or pure, meanwhile people with actual caster levels get dispelled like a joke. That being said, the impact shouldn't be huge; the chance of having a bonus to your dispel roll is heavily capped.


I don't need to take a refresher course in Algebra II to understand the formula. Usually, even doing so would be pointless anyways as in most cases, it comes out that the formula "wasn't working as posted/intended" anyways, most typically.

As to how I have such an in-depth understanding is simple, I went to one of the few places where Greater Dispel is still used, Illitihids on B. Fully buffed, CL 23, I entered and watched it at work many times. Some of those spawns spawn 4 illithid at a time and Gr. Dispel is the first thing they rip off. Each time, they rip off 3+ spells each, 100% of the time. One encounter can nudify an epic mage before he has even cast 1 spell. Who wants that? And apparently, in PvP it works even better!

RaveN wrote:
2) Maybe it was not a good change, that's not only for me to say. But as the idea was floating around for months before I tried to tackle it on, I knew it would be challenging and met with resistance, because simply put there is not a "best solution" to this problem; only some thought to lessen the gaping issue. Overall, the plan was to discuss that exact thing after putting together both the formula, and the solution for players to try and adjust with feedback, which did happen (see the revisions?)


And now you're getting feedback from people who have experienced this change.

My first notion is it's "frivolous." It doesn't seem like it "fixes" anything. It doesn't seem like it "adds" anything. It seems like there would be a whole lot of other things that could be fixed instead of breaking what isn't broken. You say "a "best solution" to this problem" and I don't think a single person has ever even said "this is a problem." What it does do is creates problems. Now half-baked arcanists and divines can strip 3+ spells off anyone with impunity. Now epic casters who have built their builds specifically to inoculate themselves against Gr. Dispel (at the cost of diversifying their builds for more power, mind you) have had their sacrifices nulled, by level 15 bards of all things.

RaveN wrote:
3) A power grab? ... Take off the tin foil hat. No power grab happened here, I don't have time to play Amia and haven't for years, and have -1 stake in this change. By all means, you guys do what you want. I was just trying to help.

4) If the staff knows it's broken, and ridicules the change with you, or whatever, there is nothing stopping them from reverting it or asking me to if they can't themselves.

Maybe you get dispelled once in a while now. Good. That's what dispel is supposed to do, sometimes. No? If before you never got hit by dispel, that wasn't something you did right, that's just illogically being on the right side of a severe bug.


No. That's not what dispel is supposed to do. Dispels have limits, that's the point. That's class/role balance.

D&D is a game not of classes, but of party roles. This character is a tank. This character is a healer. This character is a dispeller. This character is a skill-monkey. This character is support. This character is a face. Game balance dictated that if you want to be a meaningful dispeller, be a mage and huck Mordy's. What you've done is made everyone with a spellbook a more than adequate dispeller. Multiple spells. 100% of the time.

Even worse, gishes and everyone without 30 CL have built (pointlessly) to resist this, now they would have been just as well off going to CL 15 or whatever gives them more diversified power with this change.

Finally, there are good reasons why no one stocks each encounter (on any server) with an epic mage with Mordy's: It's tedious and lopsided. Stripping spells off everyone every attempt and encounter with certainty is seen as off-balance and broken. This change has now lowered the bar to... everyone.

If you want to dispel an epic spellcaster, you should be a dedicated dispeller of the dispeller class - not just "anyone with a spellbook." That's where the "wizard with greater restoration" comes from. If I want to play a healer, I should be a dedicated healer, not just sue so my wizard now has the capability to heal. This isn't WoW where players of one class, jealously whine til all classes end up watered down and have the same roles.

I'd rather have fire giant witches with greater dispels restored making CL 15 casters skittish, rather than greater dispel on everybody being 100% effective, every time against everyone as I have seen.

_________________
Rashad the Azure, Zakharan Merchant-lord Most Fair and Master of the Desert Wind
Loremaster Tukson Devers, Oghmanyte Wrestler of Knowledge and Child of the Passive Voice

(No tells for Rashad while I'm playing other characters please.)


 
      
Gravemaskin
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 8:32 AM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls

Well CL for dispels got changed to character level so every level 30 should be immune to the old greater dispels, regardless of build... seems to me we need at least SOMETHING to open up use of greater dispel, otherwise it will be -completely- useless as there are no more builds with less than 23 CL, and sorc/wizs end up as the only ones that can dispel others.

Personally, I'd like to see the formula be less complex though. Maybe something like bumping up the 15 CL cap on greater dispel to 30 and thus letting high level people with greater dispel (yes, even bards) be adept at dispelling but still far shy of disjunction (due to the breach component) and opening up for wiz/sorc abjurers to pad their dispelling/counterspelling book with greater dispels as well. And at the same time bump up the 12 counterroll to 15. (1d20+CL vs 15+CL)

That way a pure mage fighting a level 30 whatever would have 1d20+30(31-50) vs 45. Or a 25% chance of dispelling per spell. Mord in the same situation would have a 40% chance. At the same time, for each level you multiclass you loose 5% of that chance, meaning if you go below 26 CL (greater dispel) or 23 CL (mords) then you will never dispel anything. Another bonus of using a modified version of the standard script is that weapon/bard buffs and similar ones shouldn't get dispelled anymore.

Another version of the same thing could go with bumping the 15 CL cap to 25, and keeping the counterroll at 12. meaning you have 1d20+25 vs 42, meaning there's about a 15% chance of dispelling something, but multiclass builds are punished less in their dispelling powers. a level 24 Cleric/1 monk/5 KC would here have a 10% chance of dispelling a level 30 PC with their greater dispel, and 0% chance with the above suggestion. (For 15% chance above, you need 28 Caster levels)
Side note: Think this would be the best one to implement because for the life of me I couldn't find where the 1d20+15 vs 12 + CL check is.. Figure it's tied to the EffectDispelMagicAll effect since the check is not in the nw0_s0_grdispel, nw_i0_spells or x0_i0_spells scripts but I couldn't find where the effect is defined either... Good lord the dispel scripts are a nightmare.

Personally I like these better, because they don't involve the multiplier wildcard. I mean, sure it's not reliable but it can feel extremely unfair when it does land or come into play. By unfair I mean it is a 5% chance to get 1d20+30 vs 12+30, 2% chance of getting 1d20+45 vs 12+30, which would always beat out the defender. Basically get normal dispels at the rate of 1 rolls but with twice that rarity, always dispel everyone. If you hunt enough, you know that those 1 rolls come into play more often than not when faced with quantity. When you're fighting 10-20-30 mobs it will happen, and if that 2% chance ticks in it means that you're either dead if you rely on buffs to survive, or have to rest.

I personally think it's better to reward higher caster level with a higher CL cap on the spell, than that type of bonus because it's more consistent and hopefully wouldn't feel unfair on either side, and by keeping the dispels to do what dispels always have done in NWN (and ignore weapon buffs and certain other ones), then it'll feel more like it always did, but just with a tweak to make it more viable to go with/balance out the tweak to how CL is calculated on PCs. Dispel isn't a bugged mechanic, like all things in dnd it's a numbers game and if you fall outside the range of the spell's DC to harm you, then it can't. The NWN bug that goes with it is it ignoring weapon buffs, bard spells, summons etc. (Only summons if you aren't directly targetted. Targetting a caster with a summon directly can and will remove it. This was complete BS for PMs who WOULD loose their winterwight if hit by a disjunction from a level 30 sorc/wiz).

I think people are used to and rely on it at this point though, same with other unique NWN quirks that go against how things work in pnp. If it's been that way for 12-13-14 years, then it might be too late to fix that particular bug, because people have gotten used to it and build their expectations with it in mind. Just my guess though. I think it would be neat to remove it from all dispels and allow them to remove bardsongs and weaponbuffs and everything... but that might be too mean to the poor clerics who need their magic vestments.

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 18:27 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

I appreciate your post, Gravemaskin. Funny enough, the DispelAllEffects() method or whatever is at the bottom of that pile (no parameters) calls a hardcoded function. That's where all the fun stops and why these compromises weren't easier to make.

I think your last paragraph more or less sums up why I'm becoming more of the "fuck it, undo it, not worth the stress" camp.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gravemaskin
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 19:13 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls

Well if it does go that way and reverting seems to be the better option to please the majority, you could always change the 2 15 cap numbers in the greater dispel script to 25 instead, as a nice compromise to keep it useful with the CL changes that got made, and to keep the spirit of the change alive (Keeping greater dispel useful). Who knows, if it goes over well it might open up the doors for greater dispel's two little brothers as well.

Code:
   if(nCasterLevel >15 )
    {
        nCasterLevel = 15;
    }

to
Code:
   if(nCasterLevel >25 )
    {
        nCasterLevel = 25;
    }


As I understand it (and mind my grasp on nwn scripts is highly limited) the hardcoded part of the dispel function is in the target CL check portion (2+targetCL) of the EffectDispelMagicAll() variable, not the caster CL check that's in all the dispel scripts.

It would have been cool to see not only greater dispel, but all dispels get reworked to some degree, and make it both more potent and give non arcane casters the ability to throw some weight around in that department too. On paper I liked the dispel changes, but I understand the reasons why it's mostly disliked. (the 2% chance I mentioned above and the "annoyance" factor that can come with it, and the fact that it doesn't "behave" as people are already used to in terms of what it can and can't dispel)

I appreciate the fact that you saw something that's bugged and tried to implement a fix for it though, and I think most agree with me there. (Even if they disagree with the how of it)

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 19:54 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

Unfortunately the "CL changes" are tied into the change as a whole. Effectively, I reverse engineered what dispel does from scratch (ditching the spellsDispelMagic) using a mix of of a nwnx plugin/nwscript. It doesn't appear that it's possible to easily decouple the CL problem on potions from dispel in general because of where the procedure of dispelling cuts off into a hardcoded bioware function. That's unfortunately, where the bugged caster levels live on spell effects. To fix that, it would require a modification to a plugin for nwnx on a deeper level; the one I don't have any source code for.

If I recall, everything past spellsDispelMagic(x,x,x,x,x,x) is hardcoded, and you can't make parameters with the logic we'd be looking for. At best I'd have to extend my code to implement your change which is time consuming and probably won't be liked the same way this one wasn't.

Is really too bad, but I think it should be reverted since I don't think anyone will be happy with the compromises. The bug we attempted to solve admittedly was one of the things about PvP that always irked me the most when I played; the ability for people with no spellcasting ability to be completely undispellable, meanwhile your level 22 caster gets dispelled like it's nothing.. And well, PvM-wise, it never made sense to pop a crappy consumable and have that not be dispelled no matter what if you're a muggle, and of course, the opposite number level 22 mage, or even someone unfortunate enough to cross-class caster levels like BG/Bard gets fully dispelled by the first group of illithids casting greater dispel. That being said; if the solution is less desirable than the above, then a solution it is not.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gravemaskin
 
PostPosted: Thu, Nov 30 2017, 20:51 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls

I thought a change got made so that spellcasters get the same benefit now? As in if you have 23 caster levels then you still count as 30 against dispels or whatever (which made spellblades everywhere rejoice).. That change is tied in with the dispel change?

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer


 
      
Mushidoz
 
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 01 2017, 1:58 AM 

User avatar

Player

Joined: 08 Oct 2012

Problem with dispel is that if that it works against less optimal classes too. Clerics and sorcerers / wizards are ridiculously overpowered when buffed. A class like bard though....? I mean, seriously, bards spellcasting potential is a serious joke compared to sorcerers / wizards / clerics.. but at least they have their song!!... wait no, now they pretty much get automatically dispelled unless they're level 30 bard.

If Saya, a level 25 bard, has been auto dispelled every single time by random encounters, INCLUDING HER BARD SONG, then I think this "fix to a problem" is far worse than the problem itself. I hate to tell someone their hard work and time dedicated is not welcomed.. but that's just how I feel about this. And that's coming from someone who keeps saying that casters (clerics / sorcs / wizards) need to be nerfed.. it's just not the right method.

_________________
Account Name: Karnak_71
Character Name: Hanamori Saya
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68657&p=1134526#p1134526


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 01 2017, 13:31 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

Bard honestly is a pretty strong class. Arguing that Bard is bad doesn't work. now, yeah, having the song dispelled sucks, but I'm a bit confused what you're fighting that you get dispelled so often. Hardly any 'random encounters' have dispel, and I feel like it's a way more strategic thing now, some places have dispel, some don't, so if you're so easy to be dispelled, don't go there.

Yeah, I admit, I think for example Duergar are a bit crazy. But honestly, when epic bosses can actually dispel you, I don't see where the problem with that is. They're -epic- bosses.

But back to the strength of Bards. Bards aren't primary spellcasters. Yes, they can cast spells, but they are supports. And, for being essentially supports, they're pretty damn powerful, fully buffed and Bard Song'd.

And especially when Bards are built to maximum potential, it hurts. A lot. Above par AB, AC, Damage, Skills, etc.

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
Amarice-Elaraliel
 
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 01 2017, 13:40 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 20 Jan 2006

Well it is an error.

These things should not be dispellable:

Ioun stones
Bard song
Weapon buffs

Because making those effected by dispel puts dispel above Disjunction, which is wrong, balance wise and level wise and lore wise, simple as that.

I am against dispel being useless again but it needs those exceptions else it is stronger than disjunction as even disjunction (and antimagic) can’t effect the above mentioned buffs. So it is simply wrong. And I am fairly sure it can and should be fixed.

_________________
Image
Image


 
      
robbi320
 
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 01 2017, 13:48 PM 



Player

Joined: 04 Jan 2015

What do you mean about Iouns? Unless something was changed for Amia, something like a 23 Caster can still have his Ioun dispelled, in the original, unchanged NWN.

(Not sure about Bard Song, but I think I remember some discussion in the build topic, that Bards would want 24 Bard, to not be dispelled)

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point...

_________________
I like to write long texts, sorry for that. Please don't hate me for it.

Don't be sad, because sad backwards is das.

Und das ist nicht gut.


 
      
RaveN
 
PostPosted: Fri, Dec 01 2017, 16:31 PM 

User avatar

Administrative Developer

Joined: 08 Jun 2010

That stuff you listed, Amarice, can be fixed. Unfortunately, those items were forgotten from the giant list of exclusions that had to be written since I couldn't use the hardcoded list, had to make one from scratch (honestly surprised the list of 'missed' ones is that small); those were missed (except the Ioun, as those have always been dispellable to my knowledge).

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata


 
      
Gravemaskin
 
PostPosted: Sat, Dec 02 2017, 16:33 PM 

User avatar

DM

Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls

Fixing those would probably fix 90% of the gripe people have with the change tbh..

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer


 
      
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group