Fiann of the Silver Hand Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Liches are supposed to be hard enemies, not something which dies to a single hit from Mace of Disruption and similar stuff. This is really more of a problem with the mace than the lich. Link to comment
cipher Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Likewise, I don't feel as if Remove/Dispel are all that OP as stated in this thread. It doesn't remove Spell protections even if it's succesfull. If used against player, careful positioning mitigates it. If used against AI, SI:Abj and levels can work for them. For a player of your experience I'm puzzled you can't see how Dispel is both OP and a detriment to the gameplay. That's the main reason Inquisitor is so strong a kit (broken I would say). The only ones that can be protected by it are mages with SI:Abj. Everyone else has no counter. That results in making item passive properties even more important and takes the focus from what a character can do to what they wear, skewing the balance even more towards the (prepared) player. F.e. try fighting an aTweak'ed Baalor. Permanent fire aura, 15% no save death on hit, dispel at will. Buffed with fire protection and death wards the party moves to engage the demon. A moment later heads fly and bodies crisp, since all the buffs are gone from the whole party. There's no other way to win the fight than don items that grant the same protections and charge at it. Who's the culprit on this case? Dispel makes spells worth much less and make items invaluable. Takes away from character progression and makes item hunting more important. One solution (wishful thinking, I know) would be for dispel to remove a single random buff on a successful attempt. Even dispel bombs in triggers would remove at most 3 buffs from the party. For a 3rd level spell it would still be strong, but not OP methinks. Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Or have a power level of 3. (Or 4, maybe.) Or be single-target. Something, anything. Link to comment
toxin Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 That's the main reason Inquisitor is so strong a kit (broken I would say). To be fair, at least SCS offers to tone it down: Reduce the power of Inquisitors' Dispel Magic Inquisitors have a very fast powerful Dispel Magic ability, which is cast at twice their level. In most bits of the game, this is usually much higher than the majority of spellcasting enemies. This component reduces the power of the Dispel a little; you can choose to use it at 1.5xlevel or at 1xlevel. Regardless, I agree that Dispel is extremely strong for a lvl3 spell. Apparently it is stronger than it should be according to the spec: Area Dispel When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius. For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. An interesting solution would be a "Mass Spell Immunity" spell (lvl6 maybe?). Link to comment
Fiann of the Silver Hand Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 One solution (wishful thinking, I know) would be for dispel to remove a single random buff on a successful attempt. Even dispel bombs in triggers would remove at most 3 buffs from the party. For a 3rd level spell it would still be strong, but not OP methinks. Welp, that's a great idea. Want "cipher" as credit, or pm me the alternative to list in my mod. Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 What mod is that...? Link to comment
Fiann of the Silver Hand Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 ny Link to comment
cipher Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Welp, that's a great idea. Want "cipher" as credit, or pm me the alternative to list in my mod. Not sure if joking, but in case you are not, two things: First, my suggestion is more or less the same as the one posted in the d20 site by toxin. Thanks toxin, I had no idea the same rule was used by WotC and I'm glad they do. It means that even PnP dispel was over the top, let alone the IE implementation. Second, I think it's preposterous to ask credit for blurting out an idea. If I had some details at least on how to code the stuff, then maybe a shoutout would be appreciated. BTW I had thought that changing how the opcode works would need exe hacking, akin to Tobex. Is there any other way? Link to comment
Fiann of the Silver Hand Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Actually the implementation it made me think of was making use of the CONTIN or whatever 2da, making a new single target DM and disallowing normal DM. I was half-joking about credit, but I do like to recognize ideas that strike me as particularly creative. Link to comment
toxin Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Note that the d20 site enables the caster to choose between an area dispel and a targeted dispel, where the latter is similar to how it's implemented today, only on a single target (like subtledoctor suggested): Targeted Dispel One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature. The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell’s caster level. If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect. If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by monster summoning), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature. Link to comment
toxin Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 BTW having reached Bodhi's lair I came to the conclusion that protection from negative energy is ridiculously short-lived and I'm going to do something I should have done a long time ago - install Spell Revisions. I guess I might as well install Item Revisions as well to be consistent. Let me know if I got it right: Uninstall breachier breach (subtledoctor's fix) Uninstall SCS Install IR Install SR Install SCS Install breachier breach Sounds about right? Link to comment
Demivrgvs Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 @toxin yep, that's the correct order. Btw, do you want IR/SR V4? They are infinitely better than V3 imo, especially SR. Regarding Dispel Magic, I decided I'll do something about it for the next build. New IR later today, around dinner, but SR should be ready next weekend. Link to comment
toxin Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Thanks, SR v4 sounds great! I assume it plays nicely with scs v30? If so, how do I get it? Or would you recommend using v3 for now and upgrading when v4 is publicly released? Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Get a copy of SRv4 and use it now. I've loved using SRv3 these last years, but v4 is so much better it's crazy. My perfect mod setup is coming together, should be ready by this winter: - IRv4 - SRv4 - Faiths & Powers - Tome & Blood - Might & Guile - SCS - garnish liberally with quest and NPC mods Link to comment
toxin Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Well I'd love to but I don't have a link for V4 (still in closed beta it seems) [EDIT - scratch that, Demivrgvs just sent me a link in a PM, thanks!!] Regarding the mod setup, what about the BG2 Tweak Pack and aTweaks? And when you say "quest and NPC mods", do you include Unfinished Business and Ascension? I Finally, Turnabout and Homeward Bound sound really cool, but I couldn't gather whether they's work on EE (and are compatible with the other mods we mentioned)... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.