Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Suggestions Should Be Posted in Their Respective Categories

Moderators: Moderator, Quality Control, Developer, DM

Post Reply
User avatar
Kitunenotsume
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:57 pm
Location: UTC -7

Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Kitunenotsume »

On Discord earlier, there was a conversation on Breaches, Dispels, and the scaling effect of epic levels.
This thread is being started out of an interest to provide formal discussion for the suggestions.

Background:
Spell Breach exists in NWN2 to provide high-level counter-play against targets with many buffs, and against casters who are immune to Greater Dispel.
This spell does not exist in P&P, and was pointed out by one user to have possible oversights in the list of affected spells (specifically FoM in the initial comment).

The maximum CL of Greater Dispel (1d20+20 ∴ maximum 40), cannot affect spells cast by a level 30-caster (DC 11+CL ∴ DC 41). This results in full-caster characters being immune to any of the Dispel line of spells, and require a Spell Breach[link] or Mordenkainen's Disjunction[link] to remove effects.
This corner-case does not prevent a cast Dispel Magic of various strengths from being highly effective against low-level effects or many UMD buffs.

Suggestions proposed:
These are for consideration individually or collectively.

1) Review and expand list of Breachable spells and update Wiki.
  • Reason: The list on the wiki[link] appears to be outdated (per the comment at the bottom of the pages), and the publicly visible list does not include many divine spells such as Freedom of Movement. This makes FoM a hard-counter to various other effects like Grapple and Bigby spells without having apparent counterplay outside of Disjunction.
  • Effects:
    • Increased visibility of affected spells
    • Address current hard-counters or spell-source biases. (For example, OG-list was almost exclusively Arcane)

2) Increase the CL of Dispels by a die equal to the epic-CL of the caster (from +1d1 at CL 21, to a maximum +1d10 at CL 30).
  • Reason: The Dispel Line of spells (Lesser, normal, greater, wall, greater wall) and effects that duplicate the spells (Pilfer Magic, warlock invocations, etc) are designed in P&P with a 1-20 level scale, and quickly become nonfunctional as epic levels increase. At endgame states, the primary utility provided is to target partial-casters, lower-level targets, and targets using consumables; while being completely ineffective against CL30 targets, even when the caster is themselves CL30.
    This results in buff-counterplay to rely on Spell Breach (which is limited to a curated list, and a constant fixed number of buffs removed per cast), or Disjunction (a 9th level Arcane/Magic spell). Spell Breach variants are available on wands to anyone with UMD and independent of CL and are of Arcane nature, making them readily accessible and useful to many groups outside dedicated casters. Disjunction is unavailable outside a limited selection of spell-lists, and scrolls do not have innate CL to address CL30 spell-effects.
    Increasing the effect of Dispels helps address this dichotomy where the options for buff-removal are "common consumables" vs "mage pulls out big-guns" with very little between, and allows non-wizards/sorcs/Magic clerics to get involved in caster-counterplay. While a static value was considered, it would simply replicate half the effect of Disjunction, and completely swamp utility against partial-casters and consumables. A variable value preserves that difference, while improving the ability of many casters to use 5 common spells in late-game engagements and content.
  • Effects:
    • Provides distinction from Disjunction while still enabling the spells to have utility late-game. (Dispel being variable, Disjunction as full maximum CL)
    • Permits an Epic Caster (and only an Epic Caster) to potentially remove buffs applied by a CL 30+ caster using Greater Dispel (5% to ~20% chance depending on level).
      (Yes, this would include CL30 elixirs by definition and permit possible counterplay without resorting to Disjunction).
    • Increases random roll window, improving statistical effectiveness against lower CL effects without guaranteeing certainty in most cases.

3) Change Mordenkainen's Disjunction to apply Partial Spell-failure instead of Breach effect.
  • Reason: Disjunction as a potent, 9th level spell in P&P[link] is described to decompose magical effects, render items mundane, and sunder Antimagic Fields and Artifacts (at the minor trade-off of permanently risking your spellcasting abilities and the ire of one-or-more deities). In NWN2, it appears to be one of the few effective means of removing buffs on high-level targets, while offering no ability to address permanent effects or consumables being used to replenish those buffs. The extra 6 spells removed by the Breach effect make the spell highly effective at its already pinnacle role in spell-removal, but offers no utility against a target bearing additional consumables or magical sources that the spell implies.
    As Disjunction is already cast with full CL, and is the only Dispel check that may reliably impact high-end casters, replacing the Breach effect with Partial Spell failure for [1 minute || 1 round/level] would be a thematic and interesting option. This would give Arcane casters a high-level proxy to Silence at disabling other casters and inhibit immediate replenishment of buffs by spells or consumables.
    Options discussed for the Failure% were:
    A) Fixed percent (example: flat 50%);
    B) Opposed roll (example: roll difference x 5%);
    C) Increasing with dispelled effects (example: 20% + 5% per dispelled buff)
    The third option appeared the most dynamic and incentivizes the use of the spell and target-selection strategically, and is the recommendation of this post.
  • Effects:
    • Unique effect rather than being a merged super-Dispel + super-Breach
    • Provides distinct caster counterplay, akin to Silence
    • Provides proactive utility of the spell, with higher potency against buffed vs unbuffed targets

I am aware that I tend to make giant walls of text, but hopefully the reasoning and provided suggestion works to open up constructive conversation.
I continue to invite and appreciate any comments, concerns, and perspectives.
Cheers,
Kit
I play a baker. Sometimes she provides counseling or treatment.
Ask about our Breadflower daily special to save five coppers off a purchase of five pastries.
She seems unusually interested in cursed items.
She has also been seeking a variety of gems and stones.
Gadwin
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Gadwin »

Exceptionally well written. I agree wholeheartedly with all of the given points, and want to bring doubled attention to the fact that having to rely on extra high CL casts of mordenkainen's disjunction to even have a chance at stripping extremely important spells is simply whack.

As for what spells could or should be added to the breachable list: Death Ward was added to the list of breachable spells and Mind Blank was there from the beginning, so logic follows that spells which grant large sweeping potent immunities should all be breachable, such as the aforementioned Freedom of Movement. In the same vein, Shield, Mage Armor, Shadow Shield, Improved Mage Armor, and Shield of Faith are all spells that grant AC that are breachable, so Barkskin, Spiderskin, Magic Vestment, and Tortoise Shell should be on this list of breachable effects as well. Stoneskin, Greater Stoneskin, Shadow Shield, Premonition, Ghostly and Ethereal Visage; these all provide DR and are breachable. Stone Body and Iron Body should be a no-brainer on account of providing DR and Immunities both. Angel Skin is another source of DR that should be breachable. Dark Premonition is a source of DR that is listed as breachable on its own page, but not on the breach page. Dragonskin is +AC and +Ele Resist and not listed as breachable. Resistance and Protection from Spells are breachable, but not Greater or Superior resistance, nor any other save-boosting spell. I do not have expansive knowledge of every spell, but these are the big and simple ones that immediately come to mind.

tl;dr spells that I think should be added to the breachable list, in a list, with accompanied reasoning for their listings by brief comparison with what spell effects are currently breachable :

Barkskin (AC)
Spiderskin (AC)
Magic Vestment (AC)
Tortoise Shell (AC)
Stone Body (DR / Immunity)
Iron Body (DR / Immunity)
Angel Skin (DR)
Dragonskin (DR / Ele Res)
Greater Resistance (+Saves)
Superior Resistance (+Saves)
Freedom of Movement (Sweeping Immunities ala Death Ward)
Last edited by Gadwin on Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Steve »

How would counterspelling factor into any of these proposals?

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
User avatar
Kitunenotsume
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 10:57 pm
Location: UTC -7

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Kitunenotsume »

Steve wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:49 pm How would counterspelling factor into any of these proposals?
An excellent question, and not one that was brought up during the Discord conversation.

I will be referencing the rules on the wiki for Counterspelling Mechanics [link] in a preliminary response, but invite suggestions or considerations from others who may be more involved or experienced with the system.

It appears that the various Dispels are hard-capped by the current system.
Dispels are also only chosen as a last resort, and when they have over a 75% success rate.

This affects Suggestion #2 only, as Breaches(#1) are not valid for Counterspelling that I can see, and Disjunction (#3) is not materially affected in this role.

Given these factors, I do not see reason that Counterspelling would need to see much adjustment, as inclusion of even a second D10 does not vastly improve counterspelling ratios against a single spell, and would see substantially greater value against many wards on a single target.

As such, my current recommendation would be to increase the Caster Cap of Dispels by 1 per 3 epic CL. With the intention of attempting to remain near the 75% success rate, and that on any die, it adds at least +1 CL with a mean of [(n-1)/2+1] to the roll; and that +1 cap per 4 epic-CL only adds +2 over 10 epic CL. This could be foregone entirely if the system does not merit any increase in complexity, as other avenues for counterspelling exist and Dispels are a last-priority choice.
Due to the increased complexity of probabilities with a second die, I do not recommend any adjustment to the current calculations on when to select a higher Dispel, should that be the only recourse for maintianing a >75% success rate.

Feedback or suggestions from someone familiar with Counterspelling would be appreciated on this aspect.
I play a baker. Sometimes she provides counseling or treatment.
Ask about our Breadflower daily special to save five coppers off a purchase of five pastries.
She seems unusually interested in cursed items.
She has also been seeking a variety of gems and stones.
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Steve »

I very much dislike the Breach line of spells. I personally would prefer just Dispels, but with a “fair” chance of working/not-working, so that a) randomness remains a factor; b) Counterspelling is always an option for a Caster to prepate with.

My main concern is that, unlike PnP, and specifically to BGTSCC, every damn epic caster mob and every damn Boss casts Gr. Dispel or Mords, and thus we are in this funky situation where a Caster can never counterspell enough in a single dungeon crawl, and magic becomes useless in epic levels unless one builds for max CL.

So…what is being evaluated is whether or not or how and not a Caster can remain “untouchable” or not, with CLs and Dispels as they are. Well…casters are kinda wet noodles unless their Wards remain up, and considering the mob/Boss design of BGTSCC, unwarded Caster play would be a joke.

I do however like the idea of how caster-versus-caster, there should be some more randomness to success when in combat.

Above all, what I think would be the worst choice, either in what we have or what to change to, is 100% certainty.

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
Gadwin
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Gadwin »

Magic is exceptionally strong between things like premonition, displacement, and mirror image. Most PC casters pop fighting defensively and nab CE on top of this, and altogether it gives them an extremely solid defense. I do think mobs should start casting things that counter displacement and mirror image in particular rather than full strip wards, because those 2 are the most effective in the entire game at what they do.

However, with the current undesired mob design, it may be best to wait on the dispel buffs until mobs 2.0 happens so that they aren't any more frustrating than current.

I will also argue in favor of the other side, where the total removal of spells like breach gives even more incentive to wallet warrior wand spam gameplay by removing common counterplays, and brings full casters even higher above the others for it in that they would then absolutely require an epic level arcane caster to ever reliably remove any of their spells, which plainly sucks.

Important to note, though, is that breachable spells remain almost exclusively arcane in nature. I do not think it is fair for one side of the spellbook to be effected when the divine side at large is not, and I do not think advocating for the removal of breach entirely will promote any healthier of a server balance. The addition of death ward and little else sounds like an old decision by someone with an agenda, and I don't think it's a good idea to allow such changes to exist in permanence on the server.
User avatar
metaquad4
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:51 pm

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by metaquad4 »

Steve wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:50 am My main concern is that, unlike PnP, and specifically to BGTSCC, every damn epic caster mob and every damn Boss casts Gr. Dispel or Mords, and thus we are in this funky situation where a Caster can never counterspell enough in a single dungeon crawl, and magic becomes useless in epic levels unless one builds for max CL.
I don't see a problem with that - this is something people should have to play around (or could play around).

Either you counterspell, you send a summon/familiar in (either to eat the dispel of to use a spell to disable it), or you have your other party members go in first to deal with the caster so you don't get dispelled. OR you use invisibility (can wand it to save on spell slots) and disable the caster first.
aka aplethoraof

2010 - 2023 (on permanent? leave)
Playing Arelith/NWN1 now. Still on discord (aplethoraof on discord).
User avatar
Tantive
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:40 am

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Tantive »

Some of the illusionary buffings, should they not be seen through with true seeing?
Elyssa Symbaern - Bladesinger
Isioviel Fereyn - Elven Ranger
Charisa Flomeigne - Scion of Siamorphe
Gadwin
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Gadwin »

Tantive wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:29 pm Some of the illusionary buffings, should they not be seen through with true seeing?
the wiki tl;dr's to:

CL17+ true seeings check its own CL + 1d20 against CL of mirror image and/or displacement + 1d20 every round
if true seeing beats displacement check, the concealment is negated for a round
if TS beats MI check, the MI user sustains -5 AC penalty for a round

true seeing therefore does not counter either defensive ward unless used at a high CL
User avatar
Steve
Recognized Donor
Posts: 7894
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:42 am
Location: Paradise in GMT +1

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by Steve »

metaquad4 wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:44 pm
Steve wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:50 am My main concern is that, unlike PnP, and specifically to BGTSCC, every damn epic caster mob and every damn Boss casts Gr. Dispel or Mords, and thus we are in this funky situation where a Caster can never counterspell enough in a single dungeon crawl, and magic becomes useless in epic levels unless one builds for max CL.
I don't see a problem with that - this is something people should have to play around (or could play around).

Either you counterspell, you send a summon/familiar in (either to eat the dispel of to use a spell to disable it), or you have your other party members go in first to deal with the caster so you don't get dispelled. OR you use invisibility (can wand it to save on spell slots) and disable the caster first.
Yes, those are strategies. But I also see it as metagaming, cause one always knows how to win because of mob action reliability, and one can have these surefire methods that the mobs/bosses have no creative AI to counter.

ARTHAYER ZORASTRYL — A Magistrati & Magefriend [Bio] * [The Wanderings of...]
PANLOS PAWFOOT — The Essential Nature of...
ERMMAR STONESORROW — Cavestalker of the Darkshard Deviants. Herb Trader.
User avatar
metaquad4
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:51 pm

Re: Thoughts on Dispels and Breaches

Unread post by metaquad4 »

Steve wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 6:04 am
metaquad4 wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:44 pm]
Steve wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:50 am My main concern is that, unlike PnP, and specifically to BGTSCC, every damn epic caster mob and every damn Boss casts Gr. Dispel or Mords, and thus we are in this funky situation where a Caster can never counterspell enough in a single dungeon crawl, and magic becomes useless in epic levels unless one builds for max CL.
I don't see a problem with that - this is something people should have to play around (or could play around).

Either you counterspell, you send a summon/familiar in (either to eat the dispel of to use a spell to disable it), or you have your other party members go in first to deal with the caster so you don't get dispelled. OR you use invisibility (can wand it to save on spell slots) and disable the caster first.
Yes, those are strategies. But I also see it as metagaming, cause one always knows how to win because of mob action reliability, and one can have these surefire methods that the mobs/bosses have no creative AI to counter.
I mean, I don't know what to say to that. The medium is a video game. This is standard cRPG stuff. And even in PnP, you'd strategize to the best of your ability with mobs (presumably, unless your DM is taking it very easy on you).

Either you use strategy (aka your OOC brain, because ultimately your character doesn't actually exist as a person and is all you), or you ask for encounters that are easy to faceroll.

Personally, I'd prefer to have some interesting encounters. Instead of just PvE combat just being something you brain off for and mash buttons.

I don't really see it as too OOC anyway - are you saying that ICly the caster WOULDN'T be the first one to target/circumvent?
aka aplethoraof

2010 - 2023 (on permanent? leave)
Playing Arelith/NWN1 now. Still on discord (aplethoraof on discord).
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions and Discussion”