New Ideas to Balance NWN Classes - Have you? (Persistent World)

[Legacy_The Mad Poet]

               

I have no idea what you are responding to. Whatever it is that stresses you out in my post remains unclear. Care to elucidate?

 

Your post doesn't stress me out. Just worrying too much about balancing each class would be stressful... at least for me. 

 

I just believe that for the most part the system is fine. I'm sure someone can write up the individual percentages as to why this is better than that... and so on and so forth. And in a competitive environment that would be not only valid, but essential. However competition is rarely an issue in most RP servers that I've been on. For the most part the play is 99% cooperative.

 

It is definitely nice, as the point was made, to ensure that a server caters to each archetype (warrior, skill, arcane, divine, as I see them anyway) in some way. It's boring to play a rogue that fights undead all the time. A builder should make sure that there are traps or locks in those dungeons so that the rogue still has a role. Make sure some of the encounters on your server are undead so the cleric can use Turn Undead. Make sure there are some enemies with DR that the fighter has a hard time with so that the wiz/sor can blast them apart and be a useful part of the party.

 

I just don't feel like it is a GM, or a builders, responsibility to make everyone 'Feel' like their character is just as good as everyone else. Bioware (or WotC if you prefer) did a pretty decent job of balancing the classes. I can't get my dog to like her new food. I doubt I can change anyone feelings any easier.

 

If someone seriously is so distracted by another person being 'Cooler' than them that it distracts them from having fun and enjoying the game then I pity their self-esteem.

 

If someone is so powerful that they outshine everyone else in the party there might be something else at fault. Such as they are either much higher level than the other players and should probably have a PC that is around, or close to the parties level. Has equipment that is well above their usable level (thank you Bioware for level requirements for equipment). The encounters of the area are built where their character would have an advantage (cleric in a tomb, enchanter among giants, fighter among mooks). Or perhaps they have focused a lot on making their character VERY combat capable, where the other PC's have not focused on that. If the last one is the case... them the player is rewarded for the time and effort they put into making their character combat capable. Next time he's got to speak to the king... make him roll that 8 charisma. See what happens '> I bet no one bad mouths the bard's +33 Persuade when it keeps the fighter from ending up beheaded in the courtyard.

 

Just my approach to roleplaying. Storyteller. Not a grade school guidance counselor.   '>

 

 

And thanks for the heads up Terrorble!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Mad Poet]

               

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't NWNCX pull the 2da's from the server machine for character creation? It works for my class changes in Avernostra.

 

Of course that's irrelevant if your players don't have NWNCX... but it might be a solution.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

*edit*

I think henesua's post below is saying that this type of 2da edit would require any players connecting to the server to also have the 2da in their override to work. Please correct me if that isn't it.

To be specific. Anyone without this 2da in his override would get that feat for free and if ELC is in effect it would make those characters invalid and didnt allowed to enter into game. In case you dont use ELC then player would be able to log in and wear the heavy armor anyway. Neither using hak makes a difference because haks arent loaded without NWNCX and you cannot rely on this.

 

Also relying on a override is absolutely bad idea. I mean why the hell are you guys making NO-HAK servers and then force players to download some 2da and put it into override? Not only that its exactly the same as downloading the hak, but it also messes game on other servers.

 

For servers without haks, it could been scripted in OnEquip event, unequipping any medium/heavy armor unless the cleric also possess some fighter type class. Bad solution but if you are making module without haks and without NWNX, its a price you will pay for that.

 

Best way to implement this is to use NWNX and remove the feat from the character upon entering.

 

The Mad Poet,

good point and I basically agree with you in the fact that the classes are balanced from certain point of the view, its not so simple.

 

This is not entirely true because NWN is based on a 3.0 version which was something like beta and some time later WotC created a patch for it - 3.5 edition. I found this edition to be extremely well designed and balanced and everything works very well there and its not overcomplicated with extra stuff unlike Pathfinder.

 

The other problem is that Bioware, who made this game often found things they couldn't implement per rules or that they misunderstood and they implemented it on their own way creating balance issues. The discipline and possibly taunt skill are one of the better ideas, but almost everything else proved to be badly designed: generalized bard song, monk UBAB, bard being able to take Pale Master, Parry or inclusion of stuff from the worst DnD commercial book "Players guide to the Faerun". Also, you cant just randomly pick what you will implement and what not without creating balance issues. Absence of the combat movements such as "Fight defensively", "Charge", "Grapple" and others made playing warriors extremely limited and boring as there is only one what you can do and that is click and wait.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiteTiger]

               

"Best way to implement this is to use NWNX and remove the feat from the character upon entering.".

 

Yeah, it's NO-HAK module but we also have NWNX.

Are this configuration module-side? 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Mad Poet]

               

 

The Mad Poet,

good point and I basically agree with you in the fact that the classes are balanced from certain point of the view, its not so simple.

 

This is not entirely true because NWN is based on a 3.0 version which was something like beta and some time later WotC created a patch for it - 3.5 edition. I found this edition to be extremely well designed and balanced and everything works very well there and its not overcomplicated with extra stuff unlike Pathfinder.

 

The other problem is that Bioware, who made this game often found things they couldn't implement per rules or that they misunderstood and they implemented it on their own way creating balance issues. The discipline and possibly taunt skill are one of the better ideas, but almost everything else proved to be badly designed: generalized bard song, monk UBAB, bard being able to take Pale Master, Parry or inclusion of stuff from the worst DnD commercial book "Players guide to the Faerun". Also, you cant just randomly pick what you will implement and what not without creating balance issues. Absence of the combat movements such as "Fight defensively", "Charge", "Grapple" and others made playing warriors extremely limited and boring as there is only one what you can do and that is click and wait.

 

People have debated 3.0 and 3.5 to death over which was better... I'd hate to try to dig that battered corpse up.  '>

 

I personally prefer 3.0 edition over 3.5. I prefer Pathfinder's changes over 3.0. 3rd edition DnD had the absolutely worst rules involving anything in melee combat except 'Roll to Hit'. You could probably write a thesis on the headache that was 'Grapple'. Implementing them in NwN would likely give someone an aneurysm. 

 

And yeah... NWN does a good job of taking that PnP and putting it to digital. Just not a perfect one. 

 

 

"Best way to implement this is to use NWNX and remove the feat from the character upon entering.".

 

Yeah, it's NO-HAK but we also have NWNX.

Are this configuration module-side? 

 

I think nwnx_funcs is what you want. Has a RemoveFeat function. 

 

http://www.nwnx.org/...opic.php?t=1535

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Sorry for my last post. I wrote that badly and it appears im contradicting myself.

 

So to clarify this: the classes in DnD/NWN has a role. In this sense they are all balanced already provided your module has a meaning and support for all roles. If it doesn't, then changing the class, its feats or its spells rarely help as it usually shift the role of that class somewhere else.

 

But one can compare classes on their power and features, and if you look at them this way you will find they aren't balanced. This point of view is usually redundant for certain play styles, but if you are making an action module, whether hack&slash or something else, or perhaps PvP module this becomes a valid point and some of the balancing might be needed.

 

 

People have debated 3.0 and 3.5 to death over which was better... I'd hate to try to dig that battered corpse up.  '>

 

I personally prefer 3.0 edition over 3.5. I prefer Pathfinder's changes over 3.0. 3rd edition DnD had the absolutely worst rules involving anything in melee combat except 'Roll to Hit'. You could probably write a thesis on the headache that was 'Grapple'. Implementing them in NwN would likely give someone an aneurysm.

I would really like to know why so many NWN peoples prefer 3.0. AFAIK this is not the case of PnP-ers as WotC no longer even support 3.0. Yes a lot of PnP players favors 2E and I understand why, also I understand why some peoples prefer Pathfinder, athought I havent found a delight in it myself. But I can't think of single rule, spell, feat neither class that is better in 3.0 than 3.5. Mean in terms of balance, 3.5 is overally downgraded in term of strength thats for sure.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Aelis Eine]

               

Honestly, you can't because from the ground up the class system is unequal.

 

Some classes get a passive that scales indefinitely with a stat rather than with class level, e.g. Monk AC, Dark Blessing, Divine Grace, making it innately attractive to simply beeline for a class feat and forget about that class afterwards.

 

Some classes get a abilities that scale indefinitely with class level, e.g. Enchant Arrow, Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Sneak Attack, Caster Levels, making it innately attractive to invest heavily in that class compared to others that don't.

 

Some classes have very common counters to their main ability, e.g. Sneak Attack which is resisted by anything with Crit Imm, Sneak Imm, Uncanny Dodge, Defensive Awareness 2+ etc, while others have abilities that will always be useful, e.g. Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Divine Might.

 

Some classes get bonuses at very slow increments - compare Ranger FEs vs. Arcane Archer Enchant Arrow, Barbarian DR vs Dwarven Defender DR.

 

Some classes have abilities that are not just disadvantaged by being temporary, but also limited by game engine caps - Paladin buffs vs Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Barbarian Rage vs RDD Stats.

 

The skill system is innately broken - you can hoard skill points and have a level 2 Rogue/Level 38 Wizard be a better trapper and lockpick than a Rogue 40.

 

Some classes are incomplete - Rogues for example are limited in ways to set up Sneak Attacks by themselves and hampered by low AB.

 

The game also heavily revolves around instant win mechanics and stacking immunities to ignore instant win mechanics - HiPS Stealth vs. True Seeing, Instant Death vs Death Immunity/Crit Immunity (if Dev Crit)/Mantles (Implosion), Mind Spells vs Mind Spell Immunity, Time Stop vs Counterspell, Harm vs. Shadow Shield/Conceal/Negative Prot and so on.

 

Think hard about what you're going for - if you're doing a really RP-oriented server, just do a light touch approach and live and let live. Your dev time is better spent on things that improve quality of RP. If you're going for a more Action-oriented approach, one method is to adopt a light touch approach as well and compensate with skill-based content - see Magical Master's Siege of the Heavens for an example, where challenge is based more on not standing in bad stuff and doing the right thing at the right time than optimizing your stats. Alternatively, consider a ground-up redesign where every class follows the same rules, receives class features at the same interval, and preferably, does away with the instant win mechanic vs. immunity meta in favor of universal mechanics.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

I would really like to know why so many NWN peoples prefer 3.0. AFAIK this is not the case of PnP-ers as WotC no longer even support 3.0. Yes a lot of PnP players favors 2E and I understand why, also I understand why some peoples prefer Pathfinder, athought I havent found a delight in it myself. But I can't think of single rule, spell, feat neither class that is better in 3.0 than 3.5. Mean in terms of balance, 3.5 is overally downgraded in term of strength thats for sure.

As a PnP DM for many years I loved 3.0, and found that 3.5 was a pointless revision with a number of changes that were a step backwards and expensive if you were foolish enough to buy more books describing the same game system you already had books for. As far as my experience goes, I was not an uber-geek, but I ran a number of games (like Amber Diceless (my favorite), Call of Cthulu, Star Frontiers ... but 3.0 was a mainstay since people love D&D) at gaming conventions as well as for my core group of friends which spanned two cities for awhile since I moved at the time, so my experience was at least broad. I miss those times.

 

In general my thoughts are that d20 was a brilliant design in its simplicity and interoperability. It was very clean and allowed for people with imagination to use the system to create all kinds of things. 3.0 D&D reflected this and its spare design allowed me to do a great number of things without having to fight the rules. 3.5 however just became bloated with a bunch of things other people had made and stuffed in more expensive rulebooks, and so all the cruft got in my way. For a computer game I can see the value of 3.5 as it made a lot of little tweaks that if you rigidly stick to the math of the game as written in all situations as a computer does it is an improvement. I never played table top that way, and to be honest I find a rigid play style unimaginative and boring - and would tell players that had that attitude to stick with videogames or to learn how to open their minds and play with me. As a DM I'd make any change on the fly as needed to suit the moment. If a player overused an ability that was too powerful I adjusted an encounter to compensate and stay interesting. For that reason I saw no value in 3.5. Almost all of its positive changes were little math changes more or less that don't really make a difference.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

I've been looking at adding fighting style feats, based off Ragz' Alternate Combat Animations that would provide bonuses for someone trained in them. Certain styles would be restricted to specific classes, while some of the other more generic styles would be open to all classes. Furthermore, certain classes would get greater benefits from certain styles.

 

I haven't worked out any specifics - the system is just a bunch of scribbled notes. The bonuses from the feats would either be added to the creature skin or added as a extraordinary bonus (so it can't be dispelled) when the feat is active. When you rest, you would revert back to the generic "fighting style" all PCs use (aka the normal phenotype) and the bonus would expire.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Mad Poet]

               

In general my thoughts are that d20 was a brilliant design in its simplicity and interoperability. It was very clean and allowed for people with imagination to use the system to create all kinds of things. 3.0 D&D reflected this and its spare design allowed me to do a great number of things without having to fight the rules. 3.5 however just became bloated with a bunch of things other people had made and stuffed in more expensive rulebooks, and so all the cruft got in my way. For a computer game I can see the value of 3.5 as it made a lot of little tweaks that if you rigidly stick to the math of the game as written in all situations as a computer does it is an improvement. I never played table top that way, and to be honest I find a rigid play style unimaginative and boring - and would tell players that had that attitude to stick with videogames or to learn how to open their minds and play with me. As a DM I'd make any change on the fly as needed to suit the moment. If a player overused an ability that was too powerful I adjusted an encounter to compensate and stay interesting. For that reason I saw no value in 3.5. Almost all of its positive changes were little math changes more or less that don't really make a difference.

 

Almost 100% in agreement. 3.5 just wasn't a large enough of a difference to be meaningful. 

 

I think my biggest pet peeve was weapon sizing. In 3.0 a greatsword was a large sized weapon. Medium creatures used large weapons in two hands. Simple. A large sized creature could use a large weapon, such as a greatsword, in one hand. Simple.

 

In 3.5 a large sized creatures longsword became a large weapon. If a Medium creature picked it up it was a large weapon, and could only be used in two hands at a -2 penalty for being a size category too large. Where as a greatsword was a large two handed weapon, and could be used without penalty. Even though they may, in many ways, be pretty much the same.

 

It was just too overly complicated for something that wasn't of such great importance.

 

I like in NwN that a human can hand his halfling friend a longsword that the halfling can use without penalty in two hands. In 3.5... the halfling gets a size penalty for not having a 'Small Sized Longsword'. Blah...

 

 

I've been looking at adding fighting style feats, based off Ragz' Alternate Combat Animations that would provide bonuses for someone trained in them. Certain styles would be restricted to specific classes, while some of the other more generic styles would be open to all classes. Furthermore, certain classes would get greater benefits from certain styles.

 

I haven't worked out any specifics - the system is just a bunch of scribbled notes. The bonuses from the feats would either be added to the creature skin or added as a extraordinary bonus (so it can't be dispelled) when the feat is active. When you rest, you would revert back to the generic "fighting style" all PCs use (aka the normal phenotype) and the bonus would expire.

 

Sounds promising. Like gaining an extra +2 dmg with two handed weapons when using the heavy style, or maybe a bonus to hit if using daggers with the assassin style. Am I on the right track?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

 

I think my biggest pet peeve was weapon sizing. In 3.0 a greatsword was a large sized weapon. Medium creatures used large weapons in two hands. Simple. A large sized creature could use a large weapon, such as a greatsword, in one hand. Simple.

I like in NwN that a human can hand his halfling friend a longsword that the halfling can use without penalty in two hands. In 3.5... the halfling gets a size penalty for not having a 'Small Sized Longsword'. Blah...

So you prefer 3.0 over 3.5 because something that isnt even factor in nwn? I agree this feature isn't much good and I didn't know about it. But it makes sense because the oversized scimitar/longsword would trump any normal twohanded weapon (over 100% damage), which probably lots of players in 3.0 realized and started abuse. WotC simply must put something to fix this. The generalization in NWN works well though as long as you don't allow tiny and large sized creatures to be played by the PC.

 

Anything else?

 

Honestly, you can't because from the ground up the class system is unequal.

 

Some classes get a passive that scales indefinitely with a stat rather than with class level, e.g. Monk AC, Dark Blessing, Divine Grace, making it innately attractive to simply beeline for a class feat and forget about that class afterwards.

 

Some classes get a abilities that scale indefinitely with class level, e.g. Enchant Arrow, Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Sneak Attack, Caster Levels, making it innately attractive to invest heavily in that class compared to others that don't.

 

Some classes have very common counters to their main ability, e.g. Sneak Attack which is resisted by anything with Crit Imm, Sneak Imm, Uncanny Dodge, Defensive Awareness 2+ etc, while others have abilities that will always be useful, e.g. Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Divine Might.

 

Some classes get bonuses at very slow increments - compare Ranger FEs vs. Arcane Archer Enchant Arrow, Barbarian DR vs Dwarven Defender DR.

 

Some classes have abilities that are not just disadvantaged by being temporary, but also limited by game engine caps - Paladin buffs vs Epic Superior Weapon Focus, Barbarian Rage vs RDD Stats.

 

The skill system is innately broken - you can hoard skill points and have a level 2 Rogue/Level 38 Wizard be a better trapper and lockpick than a Rogue 40.

 

Some classes are incomplete - Rogues for example are limited in ways to set up Sneak Attacks by themselves and hampered by low AB.

 

The game also heavily revolves around instant win mechanics and stacking immunities to ignore instant win mechanics - HiPS Stealth vs. True Seeing, Instant Death vs Death Immunity/Crit Immunity (if Dev Crit)/Mantles (Implosion), Mind Spells vs Mind Spell Immunity, Time Stop vs Counterspell, Harm vs. Shadow Shield/Conceal/Negative Prot and so on.

Most of this is problem only because Bioware badly implemented it in NWN, didnt implemented secondary features of that class or added something that shouldn't be there etc. Also, some issues arise only above epic level which we in NWN use usually in a way that wasn't really intented. In 3.5 almost all of this what you pointed is not a problem. Only the instant win mechanic regarding immunities wasn't handled (which is where Pathfinder strikes but at the big cost imo).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Aelis Eine]

               

Most of this is problem only because Bioware badly implemented it in NWN, didnt implemented secondary features of that class or added something that shouldn't be there etc. Also, some issues arise only above epic level which we in NWN use usually in a way that wasn't really intented. In 3.5 almost all of this what you pointed is not a problem. Only the instant win mechanic regarding immunities wasn't handled (which is where Pathfinder strikes but at the big cost imo).

 

I play both NWN1 and NWN2, and yes, NWN2's 3.5E-inspired system does avoid many of the issues in NWN1. However, it comes with its own set of problems like a very big preference for self-buffing melee casters because of immunity stacking like I mentioned. 6-second spells are also IMO way too slow for a CRPG.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Mad Poet]

               

So you prefer 3.0 over 3.5 because something that isnt even factor in nwn? I agree this feature isn't much good and I didn't know about it. But it makes sense because the oversized scimitar/longsword would trump any normal twohanded weapon (over 100% damage), which probably lots of players in 3.0 realized and started abuse. WotC simply must put something to fix this. The generalization in NWN works well though as long as you don't allow tiny and large sized creatures to be played by the PC.

 

Anything else?

 

I was speaking from a pure PnP point of view. I prefer 3.0's weapon size rules. For NwN... yeah it's irrelevant.

 

A longsword is a longsword in 3.0. It's always the same size. Medium. It always deals 1d8 dmg. For a small creature it is a two handed weapon. For a medium creature it is a one handed weapon, and for a large creature it is a light weapon.

 

In 3.5 a longsword is made for the size category. So a longsword for a halfling is small sized, and deals 1d6 dmg. In the hands of a human it deals 1d6 damage and is light, but the human takes a -2 penalty because it is not sized for him. A longsword for a human deal 1d8 damage, and is a medium sized weapon. In a halflings hands it deals 1d8 damage, but is two handed and the halfling takes a -2 penalty to hit. A longsword for a large creature, such as an ogre, deals 2d6 damage and is a large weapon. In a humans hands it deals 2d6 damage, but they take a -2 penalty to hit because it is a longsword not sized for them.

 

This means that there is no real difference. A greatsword made for a halfling is 1d10 damage in 3.5... which is just only a touch bit better than the 1d8 longsword a halfing would use in 3.0. Both would be two handed. Both would be 1 + 1/2 strength. But the halfling can't let his human buddy use the small greatsword without him taking a -2 penalty to hit.

 

The change just... to me... added unnecessary complexity to what was essentially not an issue. DM's would have to size all weapons in the game meaning you might treasure roll that +2 Holy Longsword for the parties human paladin, but then end up it is just a size too small for him to use without a -2 penalty, so it has to go to the halfling fighter. Where as a +2 Holy Longsword in 3.0 could be used by the human paladin without penalty, and given to the halfling fighter to use as a two handed weapon if you wanted.

 

I liked a lot of the skill changes 3.5 came with, but removing scry was a mistake to me. I much preferred it being a skill.

 

I thought it was a mistake to get rid of Mass Haste, and allow third level Haste to affect multiple party members. Haste is potentially (not certainly) one of the most damaging spell in the game. When you consider the extra attack damage a hasted fighter can put out over five rounds easily averages a 5d6 fireball, if it's not just plain better. At least in 3.0

 

In 3.5 you can haste multiple party members meaning the rogue can get an extra 3d6 sneak attack in each round, each fighter can add another 10 dmg from a 2d6 greatsword attack per round. In a party where the morningstar wielding cleric deals 1d8+2 dmg per hit (avg 7 [maybe 6] I think), the fighter deals avg 2d6+3 dmg (avg 10 I think) with the greatsword, and the 3d6 sneak attack rogue (avg 11 dmg I think)... over five rounds? That's an average of 35 dmg for the cleric, 50 dmg for the fighter, and 55 for the rogue. 140 dmg for the casting of a single 3rd level haste spell. Fireball maxes at 60 dmg. Sure some of the party members may miss... and they might roll poor damage. They might also crit. Haste at caster level ten, in that same party, is over 280 dmg average. A fireball is 60 tops , not counting metamagic.

 

Though even I'll admit the ability to cast 2 spells per round as a mage under haste in 3.0 was too much. 

 

There are more examples. And there are examples of things that, IMO, 3.5 improved on. I loved almost every change they did with the ranger... except dropping the hit points to a d8. I just never understood that decision. The 3.0 ranger was bland, and just felt like a worse fighter. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Aelis Eine]

               

A Fireball still has a few advantages. For one, a Fireball is an AoE, so your number of 60 tops is per target. Taking the average of 35 damage per target, suppose there's a cluster of 8 goblins, the Fireball would have matched the damage of a Haste spell. Another advantage is that the fireball's damage is all done in a single burst, which means it's faster and cleaner when it works - less risk of taking hits and incurring damage.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

 

Sounds promising. Like gaining an extra +2 dmg with two handed weapons when using the heavy style, or maybe a bonus to hit if using daggers with the assassin style. Am I on the right track?

 

 

Yup, exactly what I'm looking at.