Time in ALFA - Spells

[Ithildur]

We'll never be exactly like PnP, sure. But I have to ask, what the hell were folks doing when they put in hard work to covert stuff like NWN2's skills to match PnP skills? Or Background Regions and languages per the FRCS/PGtF?

Both of which are, for all intents and purposes, fluff. Skills are only as important as a DM chooses to make them. Background regions and languages are nice to have, but they are just seasoning.

Neither are mechanical changes, or changes that will affect class balance and how people play a class.

Add all the fluff from PnP that you want, they aren't game breakers. It is the mechanics of the game that start to break down when porting 1 for 1 from PnP to 24 hour accessible CRPGs and is why we shouldn't be holding it up as an end goal like many are increasingly doing.

Um, no. Skills are not fluff, 'for all intents and purposes' or otherwise.

You can look up the vast number of mechanical things ACR tweaked from the vanilla NWN2 game to move closer to canon/pnp rules, both nerfs and boosts (far more nerfs than boosts)... this line of 'we ain't pnp and wee aint porting stuff 1 for 1' (which btw we know isn't possible) is neither here nor there.

[FoamBats4All]

Except we aren't PnP, never have been PnP and PnP rules often simply do not work or are not appropriate for the type of world we are running.

The blind acceptance that "everything should be like PnP" is laughable to me, because we aren't playing PnP here. We are playing a CRPG. We are playing a round the clock accessible persistent world.

The type of D&D we are playing is about as far removed from PnP as you can get while still calling it D&D.

Except that our pillars say we do use D&D, try to be D&D, etc.

But the point isn't necessarily to be D&D 100%. You're right, some things just don't work.

However, I don't see the validity of that argument here, and your argument is often used to block change when it just doesn't make sense.

It's as Rumple says:

There is no perfect solution, we work within an imperfect system. Any improvements and standardisation towards pnp is a good thing.

Here's how I see it: ALFA House Rules > PnP > horse shit > Obsidian's changes

Here's your original argument, arranged to the other side:

Except we aren't singleplayer NWN2 OC, never have been singleplayer NWN2 OC and singleplayer NWN2 OC rules often simply do not work or are not appropriate for the type of world we are running.

The blind acceptance that "everything should be like singleplayer NWN2 OC" is laughable to me, because we aren't playing singleplayer NWN2 OC here. We are playing a D&D-based persistent world. We are playing a round the clock accessible persistent world.

The type of D&D we are playing is about as far removed from singleplayer NWN2 OC as you can get while still calling it NWN2.

Why is there a balance preference to make spells that are 10min/level in PnP greater in power than spells that are supposed to last 1hour/level? Why is there a balance preference to accept Obsidian's decisions to buff spells like Death Ward from 1min/level to 1hour/level?

I propose that we reject that viewpoint. I instead suggest that we favor PnP when it can be done, both to keep the flavor that our pillars suggest, and as a baseline of balance that we can evolve from. From that base (and not the crazy one Obsidian gave us), we can manipulate our rules and content to provide a better player experience.

[Adanu]

There is no perfect solution, we work within an imperfect system. Any improvements and standardisation towards pnp is a good thing.

Except we aren't PnP, never have been PnP and PnP rules often simply do not work or are not appropriate for the type of world we are running.

We are as close to PnP as we can reasonably get and getting better daily. Are you saying that because we can't get 100%, we shouldn't try at all?

[Swift]

Um, no. Skills are not fluff, 'for all intents and purposes' or otherwise.

Oh please. How often are skill rolls done outside of DM adventures? Almost never and even when they are, players are free to ignore the rolls if they so desire. We have almost no scripted skill based checks and even if you have a DM, your skills only tend to matter if the DM asks for a roll.

We could just as easily have left the skills the way Obsidian gave them to us and it would not have changed the way the game is played by anyone.

There is no perfect solution, we work within an imperfect system. Any improvements and standardisation towards pnp is a good thing.

Except we aren't PnP, never have been PnP and PnP rules often simply do not work or are not appropriate for the type of world we are running.

We are as close to PnP as we can reasonably get and getting better daily. Are you saying that because we can't get 100%, we shouldn't try at all?

No. For your benefit, I have emphasized the pertinent statement.

Some things we can get real close to PnP. A great many things that work in PnP either do not work or would not be balanced if we implemented them here. Making changes on the argument that "This is how it is in PnP so we should do it" just isn't appropriate for us.

For example (and keeping it on topic) the changes to spell durations that this thread discusses should not be made or even discussed in a vaccuum. Extending how long buffs last for is a direct power increase and should be balanced against the idea of charging for spell reagents even on a limited basis for the most powerful of our spells. PnP spells are, in part, balanced by the monetary cost in the form of reagents to cast those spells (yes, some you can find without paying but buying them is generally how they are obtained). Here, we are discussing increasing spell durations almost completely independently of the PnP system that helps to balance the power of wizard spells.

Now, considering our wealth levels in ALFA and the fact that one of the most common complaints is that too many DM events leave players with a net loss (ie the cost of consumables used is more than the reward at the end), reagent costs for spells has been an understandably prickly and unpopular topic.

[Ithildur]

Oh please. How often are skill rolls done outside of DM adventures? Almost never and even when they are, players are free to ignore the rolls if they so desire. We have almost no scripted skill based checks and even if you have a DM, your skills only tend to matter if the DM asks for a roll.

We could just as easily have left the skills the way Obsidian gave them to us and it would not have changed the way the game is played by anyone.

Well, I'm sure the hard working folks who worked on ACR changes as well as players and DMs who actually do see skills come into play on a rather regular basis would disagree. Perhaps if you played the game you might see differently.

[Swift]

Well, I'm sure the hard working folks who worked on ACR changes as well as players and DMs who actually do see skills come into play on a rather regular basis would disagree. Perhaps if you played the game you might see differently.

Wouldn't be the first time people have worked on something that had a negligible impact on the overall project

[jmecha]

I like Skills.

[Rumple C]

I like skills. Especially as I tend to play skills based pc's (as opposed to effective pcs!)

[Galadorn]

I believe adding "gold charge" to spells is so completely seperate an "issue" to time compression as some kind of "quick fix" if a spell is more powerful and gets a longer duration as a result, or whatever, really cannot be a justified quick fix-and-be-done-with solution to balance it all out.

I think "Spell charging at casting" must be completely dealt with seperately, and the counter balance must also have something relative and relevant involved, like other ways gold is sunk from non-casters, etc (how could a system be well balanced this way I do not know) - i don't know, a counter that calculates how amny HITS a suit of Armor takes, and Sheilds, and after 200, well lookee there, your armor is "not as good anymore" (-1 Armor/Defense), and must be fixed? i.e. the "durability" factor.
Case now in ALFA? Fighter level 2 gets his Full plate armor! Woohoo! By 10th level, it's been hit 23,956 times with slashing/bludgeoning/piercing weapons, fireballed, splashed with acid, rained on, pissed on, rolled down hills, dropped from 40' heights, burned, clipped, cut, pummeled and drenched for YEARS... but is still 100% fine, and has cost the Fighter... ZERO gold in upkeep? Comon.



OR!........

....the spell charge "thing" be left out completely as the balancing element against the time compression thing.

Of course, if it is that much of an issue for some, that if PnP spells that should cost "considerable" gold cost to cast, must be addressed, it should be handled seperately with relevant balancing fixes for non-casters (like the durability thing for example - yes, not perfect, but it was just an example).



STOP READING IF YOU CARE NOT FOR OFF TOPIC (partial off-topic?) COMMENTS:

Skills and their "use":

I use skill rolls very often, and most others in closed RP sessions (non-DM'd), reciprocate very often with me. I think they are of paramount importance, and many a decision I (OOC) would not want my PC to make HAS been altered in game (RP instances) due to opposing skill rolls by other PCs with no DM around. "Usually" altered action is creative and to promote more fun RP...

In years of doing it, not one person has ever "Disagreed" openly to following quite closely to that "unwritten honor system" of playing along with the skill roll result realistically within those instances.

IMPORTANT: None of those hundreds of instances 'really' meant life or death, so that argument does not fit 100%, because if it meant life or death somehow, or even say a sizeable amount of gold, due to a skill roll, i'm just not sure how far it would go based on skill rolls... but now-a-days, with the ever growing decrease in allowable CvC etc, skill rolls are (as i see it) and I assume will be taking on a much bigger and more influencial part between players RP'ing outside of DM'd sessions. Since it is slowly becoming the only "PC/PC allowable conflict" 'sort-of'...and some people really seem to enjoy that especially the more hardcore realistic you want it.

Example #1 comes to mind: PC1 power levels Intimidate Skill. By 3rd level with feats, etc, the modifier to Intimidate could be pretty much (and dare i say) unrealistically high when the chips are down?
(conservatively??... +10?)

PC1 demands 2000 gold from PC2 on the road.

(((And it's not hard to make a 15-20 roll anytime. roll 16? 16+10= 26....(3rd level PC) ))

Counter d20 rolls to that, no matter what they are, can just as easy be 1-5. The counter roll modifier would in most cases would be low!
(since first of all PC1 might approach with demands, a PC who most likely 9 chances out of 10 does NOT have a skill leveled that would be of any use against an intimidate skill roll).
Conservative average?? +5? Roll 4? 4+5= 9.
And more often than not i am bettin' +5 is being very generous.

Now, whatever level PC2 is... and it could be any level - many (not ALL!) players maximize other skills!
Might even be HIGH level.
He/She just suffered an intimidation by a 3rd level PC... at a "conservative" 26 vs. 9.
Will that PC hand over the 2,000 gold? hmmmm
If he/she does not pay, and because of any level of meta knowledge present, just decides to SMASH PC1 into the ground because "the rules say PC skill rolls without DM present need not be heeded"...is that cool?

[kid]

Again?
People. You are increasing the power if our most powerful classes. Classes that at the moment gain benefits that are not up to par with pnp, mainly,
Being covered with strong buff for far too long a period of their play.
Being able to cross great distances with these buffs, and I'm not talking OLM, even a single outdoors map likely takes more than an hour to cross from side to side,
And no cost for casting (which honestly, considering our wealth doesn't bother me as much)

Now we come to "solve" something. Which I'm not yet convinced needs fixing, but lets say it does, fine.
You want longer hours, you need thAt power increase (because you can't RP without it or what not) fine.
All you have to do is stop being covered for nearly the entire duration of your play with powerful 10min buffs that were never meant to be used as they are used in ALFA (as I'm assuming a dnd adventure hardly ever takes 1-2 hours IG time.)
Cut those buffs to 5min a level and you'll have balance, you'll have very long hourly buffs for RP, and no more arguments.

[Swift]

Case now in ALFA? Fighter level 2 gets his Full plate armor! Woohoo! By 10th level, it's been hit 23,956 times with slashing/bludgeoning/piercing weapons, fireballed, splashed with acid, rained on, pissed on, rolled down hills, dropped from 40' heights, burned, clipped, cut, pummeled and drenched for YEARS... but is still 100% fine, and has cost the Fighter... ZERO gold in upkeep? Comon.

And the trade off is that while the level 2 wizard walks around in his 5gp robe of looking swag and chucking up mage armour when he needs it, the fighter has spent 1600gp to clad himself in armour.

Fast forward to level 10 and you have the level 10 wizard walking around in his robe of swag, tossing up mage armour, stoneskin, protection from alignment etc etc while the level 10 fighter has spent increasing amounts of money getting his armour and shield enchanted to keep up with the AB of the creatures he is facing.

Lets not forget, Stoneskin in PnP costs 250gp per casting. Foam quite rightly argued in standards that 250gp for a spell that lasts far less time for us than PnP is rubbish, but if we are intent on increasing how long some of these powerful spells last, then component costs for those spells has to be introduced alongside it to keep it balanced. The vast majority of spells either have no component requirements or negligible cost requirements like spider legs, pieces of leather, feathers etc

Food for thought, it was worked out that under current time compression, Stoneskin should currently cost around 35gp per casting if we chose to charge for spell components.

Note: Slightly off topic, as this change would only be affected by an overall change to time compression as SS was scheduled to be changed back into a 10 minute/level spell.

[t-ice]

Even a peep of "10 mins somehow being 10 RL mins maybe never made sense either, change as part of the package" seems to elicit boos and hisses. Doubt anyone'd say "whatever you pick for hours, make 10 minutes 1/6th of that", but imagine we had an 11 minute hour... vs. 10 minute as 10 minute, hah. Not as bad as the 10:7 reversal issue at the moment, but kinda close.

This. Particularly because the 10min spells are some of the go-to's in defense buffs. Most of them would even be well worthwhile as 1min/level.

Missing Silence from it though, jack that one up, love seeing AI use that one now and again

Silence I don't think should be increased from round/level. It is unbalanced as it can cripple an AI caster because the AI isn't smart enough to simply move outside the zone, whereas a player easily can.

[kid]

AI does move away from the zone I believe. Just from experience though, have not tested so uncertain.

[Galadorn]

Case now in ALFA? Fighter level 2 gets his Full plate armor! Woohoo! By 10th level, it's been hit 23,956 times with slashing/bludgeoning/piercing weapons, fireballed, splashed with acid, rained on, pissed on, rolled down hills, dropped from 40' heights, burned, clipped, cut, pummeled and drenched for YEARS... but is still 100% fine, and has cost the Fighter... ZERO gold in upkeep? Comon.

And the trade off is that while the level 2 wizard walks around in his 5gp robe of looking swag and chucking up mage armour when he needs it, the fighter has spent 1600gp to clad himself in armour.

Fast forward to level 10 and you have the level 10 wizard walking around in his robe of swag, tossing up mage armour, stoneskin, protection from alignment etc etc while the level 10 fighter has spent increasing amounts of money getting his armour and shield enchanted to keep up with the AB of the creatures he is facing.

Lets not forget, Stoneskin in PnP costs 250gp per casting. Foam quite rightly argued in standards that 250gp for a spell that lasts far less time for us than PnP is rubbish, but if we are intent on increasing how long some of these powerful spells last, then component costs for those spells has to be introduced alongside it to keep it balanced. The vast majority of spells either have no component requirements or negligible cost requirements like spider legs, pieces of leather, feathers etc

Food for thought, it was worked out that under current time compression, Stoneskin should currently cost around 35gp per casting if we chose to charge for spell components.

Note: Slightly off topic, as this change would only be affected by an overall change to time compression as SS was scheduled to be changed back into a 10 minute/level spell.

i know i know, like i said was just an example thought up quickly, i did say it was not a good one perhaps?

I was NOT trying to STOP the eventual implementation of spells costing gold per casting. My PC's life is more important than 35gp even a few times a session... in fact if it still cost my PC 250gp per casting, i'd STILL Cast Stoneskin every time I "usually" do without a thought.

buutttt....
Any suggestions on how it could be balanced more though? Unless we all agree that yes! casters are too tough! so add cost to spells like SS since it's so good and maybe other spells, and do not "charge" any non-casters "anything extra" even if it makes sense: I.E. Armor damage. ((do you really think that's realistic? just a question...))



but of course ANY example would come up against thoughtful counter-argument since so many people will have issue with others opening opinions, which is much appreciated of course. More input helps the issue.



One thing to again realise is the ongoing "few" bottom lines about ALFA/D&D/PnP...

The realism will never be perfect, and in the end as long as we have fun, we can continue to fix things to get closer and closer to that.

[t-ice]

I'd prefer to keep spell components costs to RP-spells only (like scry, raise dead etc. In fact I would love to add a component cost to pretty much all spells that circumvent the need for a skill in a RP situation (charm, circle of truth, but that is another story ...)). Because
1) We are nowhere close to PnP rewards for defeating an encounter, which could far too easily lead to wizard PCs de facto needing to farm outside DM events to keep up the losses they accrue during events. Because otherwise we would break gold vs xp balance for other classes that don't rely on gold per use abilities. It's a horror for DMs to balance. Furthermore, many spells deal in xp casting cost as opposed to gp.
2) We don't have fixed parties of PCs of different classes, and the cost of consumables that help the party defeat an encounter is generally born by a PC not the party. That complicates item consumables enough, no need to add spell castings to the list.

Stoneskin is the central spell here, and it's easy to balance (to be better if not perfect): 1 min / level duration and no material component. Still very worthwhile spell.
For another example, take planar ally/binding: The NWN2 version is a simple summon that certainly doesn't need costs. The pnp complex version of the spell with the costs (both xp and gp) is clearly DMd RP-only. Otherwise casting planar ally could easily negate all xp gains the caster has from the encounter.

For what it's worth, I think we'd be better off with a fixed 24-hour duration mage armor now that we have the spell fixed so that it is an armor replacement. (However keep improved mage armor as 1 hour / lvl, as that can be powerful also on someone else than the wiz)

And while at it, how about the energy resistance/immunity line of spells with 24 hour durations (except for the 2nd level resist energy)?

I think one big issue with buff duration is that players expect to to cast min/level and 10min/level buffs in advance of entering "high danger zone". And then rushing against buff duration ensues. What I'd rather see happening is that if the party succeeds in getting the initiative on their enemies then they have the chance to up their minute buffs before battle (Not the initiative roll, but the party gets to choose when to fight). If the tables are turned, minute buffs need to be cast while the enemy is already attacking. Cue in usefullness of scout (skill) classes. Players generally attempt to pre-empt a DM trying to do this because they know when danger is likely and IG buffs last long enough to pass through an area even if RP-wise the PCs buffs don't last nowhere near enough to cast "when entering area of high danger". Naturally it is a difference in DM styles as well.

But do keep in mind that if you cast min spells upon entering a cave (or such), tossing time-consuming RP to out-last your buffs might not be entirely just to OoC annoy you