Dasaria II - A NWN2 Roleplay and Story-driven Persistent World

Wyvern wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Shadow Skin"?

He meant shadow shield but why should we hold Pere to knowing what hes talking about?

Stormknife wrote:You know why they did that? If they didn't, you just have to decalre (sic) the 1 person you want to nuke hostile, then drop IGMS (sidestepping its only weakness). Sounds good to me.

So the person would then take 10 missiles for 20d6, or if I had my way, 5 missiles for 10d6, and waste the other 10 to 15 missiles? I'd agree if a target could still take all the missiles from an IGMS, but as it stands, the other missiles are wasted... Besides, the way spells are set up now, if you have one target you want to do massive damage to, you'll just use Disintergrate.

Stormknife wrote:One potion of clarity and I don't care about Phant Killer.

Damn you.... damn you and your logical plans!

Grayle wrote:I find these statements contradictory.

After Dasaria's infamous item wipe, which occured before you arrived here Pere, a distinct class imbalance occured due to unaltered defensive magics and a significant reduction in the power of magic items available.

You're right, as far as NWN1 is concerned, but for NWN2, you're wrong.

Remember, even after the item wipe it was relatively easy to get your hands on a +3 weapon, if the DMs took that under consideration, Adamantine weapons would still be common enough that the DR from Shadow Shield (my bad, I was thinking of the animation effect heh) to negate its DR. Meanwhile, the best gear a caster could get would be a +3 bonus to his casting stat, meaning the absolute maximum bonus a caster could have would be a 26 (18 base +5 from leveling, +3 from an item), meaning a +8 casting modifer total, so the absolute highest save a spell could have would be a DC 29 (Base + Spell level + Casting Mod + Feats; 10 + 9 + 8 + 2). Meanwhile, a fighter with middle-line equipment, say a cloak of resistance +2, and and amulet to buff his con by +2, and a 14 Con (16 with the item) and the feat Great Fortitude would have a fort save of +19. A typical Dasarian rogue, with a 24 Dex, a cloak of resistance +2 and gloves of dex +2, and lightning reflexes would have a Reflex save of +24. Suddenly all the saving throws are a lot easier to make, meaning that mages have to throw more spells and get luckier to kill things, or resort to spells that prey on the target's weaknesses more (in other words things like IGMS for clerics, Phant Killer for Rogues, Hold Monster for Fighters), and then get yelled at for "cheap tactics." Should mages have it easy? No, of course not, but when meleeists can shut down spellcasting by simply knocking them down, mages can't even afford to let them get close. Anytime a mage can't cast a spell, its the same as if the meleeist was hit by a Bigby's Grasping Hand. Without the oftimes ridiculously high saving throw DCs on mage spells, they would easilly be outclassed by the tougher meleeists, especially with NWN2's reduction of IWIN spells.

Do I think things for PvP were balanced in NWN1 Dasaria? No. I knew of rogues who would only take damage from a Flame Arrow spell from Falson if they rolled a 1 on their saving throw, and could keep him on the ground indefinately. Meanwhile Falson could respond with a death spell (cheap), damage spells without a reflex save (Magic Missile, ILMS, IGMS... all either to little damage or to cheap), or use a Bigby's Grasping Hand (again, cheap). Fighters meanwhile were screwed all around, with the +3 cap on armor, their AC couldn't get high enough to make it so that rogues would regularly miss if trying to KD, and mages, well, at least fighters were generally immune to death spells due to their good fort saves. Clerics and Druids if properly built and played, could kill everyone, and Bards just smiled and kept singing as they died. I hope things will be better balanced this time around... I hope that mages will still hold the alpha strike edge, while rogues are the suprise attack masters; fighters should be able to endure through the battles and clerics and druids will hopefully not be quite so "uber." I suspect the bards will still be singing, but won't be free kills to everyone anymore, they'll actually have to work for it now.

I look forward to Bronc's responce about the "bards were crap in NWN1" comment.

Peregrinus wrote:...saving throws are a lot easier to make, meaning that mages have to throw more spells and get luckier to kill things, or resort to spells that prey on the target's weaknesses more.

...when meleeists can shut down spellcasting by simply knocking them down, mages can't even afford to let them get close.

These assertions which you cite as negatives sound ideal to me. You seem to believe that spell-casters should be entitled to assurity more than have to rely on some luck and actual tactics. Knowing that you play D & D at home, I would expect that you would want to roll the dice more to kill an opponent, rather than only having to roll them once.

Neither of us have played NwN II yet, Per, so we have no idea what's in store for us...and hopefully, the games rules will be 'Dasarianized' (If necessary) to reflect the staff's outlook on this particular campaign, in the name of balance of power. I already offer them my sympathy.

I think Jae summed it up best:

JaeEleutheria wrote:Personally, I think it's pointless to complain of the possiblility of being broken until the game comes out (we only have a few more days). We should wait until we see how this is actually implemented in game before we make the call.

I apoligize if I have derailed the subject of spells towards that of game balance. There will be more than enough of those topics to debate in the years ahead.

Grayle wrote:These assertions which you cite as negatives sound ideal to me. You seem to believe that spell-casters should be entitled to assurity more than have to rely on some luck and actual tactics. Knowing that you play D & D at home, I would expect that you would want to roll the dice more to kill an opponent, rather than only having to roll them once.

I'm not saying that tactics and luck shouldn't be involved, but half of the tactics of playing a mage involve preying on other classes weaknesses, which is then yelled at as being "cheap" or "broken." The remaining "tactics" involve twitch gaming, which has nothing to do with the character involved and everything to do with the quality of the computer and how good a player's reaction time is.

Honestly, I hate relying on luck, in my case, so long as I am playing, it tends towards the bad rather than the good. Example, in one PnP game, in one afternoon, I rolled two 1s on a D20 in a row... not once, but TWICE. I rolled a nat 20 once the entire session. If I'm DMing on the other hand... well, let's just say I've had two entirely different DnD groups request that I stop using a certain set of dice when DMing... (Stormknife knows what I'm talking about. *EG*)

What this means in application is that if I have the choice, I take the route that minimizes random chance.

Grayle wrote:Neither of us have played NwN II yet, Per, so we have no idea what's in store for us...and hopefully, the games rules will be 'Dasarianized' (If necessary) to reflect the staff's outlook on this particular campaign, in the name of balance of power. I already offer them my sympathy.

I think Jae summed it up best:

JaeEleutheria wrote:Personally, I think it's pointless to complain of the possiblility of being broken until the game comes out (we only have a few more days). We should wait until we see how this is actually implemented in game before we make the call.

I apoligize if I have derailed the subject of spells towards that of game balance. There will be more than enough of those topics to debate in the years ahead.

And you're right, we really should move on.

So... umm... how about Greater Magic Fang?

lankycheese wrote:I look forward to Bronc's responce about the "bards were crap in NWN1" comment.

Of course they were crap, I mean a class where you would actually have to think and use tactics? That's so gimpy.