Not Used: Various suggestions

1. Remove curse!
Having the spell remove curse allow the caster to make an attempt to remove cursed gear. It might not work on some of the higher-end cursed gear to prevent it from becoming a substitute, but allows it to act as a low-level substitute for players who can't afford a 10k payout (or survive the trip to macedonia)

2. Bigby balance!
http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Scripts.Detail&id=526
Bigbys is pretty much an insta-disable+death sentence spell. The way the grapple checks work are...

1d20 + caster level + (casting ability modifier + 10) + 4 vs.
1d20 + target's BAB + target's strength modifier + target's grapple size modifier.

To hit...

The spell hits upon a successful check: d20 + caster ability modifier + caster level + 10 vs. armor class.

Thats easily a 57 with a roll of 10 and 30 caster levels.

On a level 40 server, the best you can manage in a generic scenario with the "best" for the defender is this though...
1d20+40 (level 40 caster)+17 (42 caster stat)+4=81 with a roll of 20
1d20+30 (highest possible BAB at level 40)+17 (42 str)+0 (grapple size mod. for med. characters is 0)=67 with a 20 roll

More often than not, you'll get caught and held by it unless the caster is something grossely lower leveled than you. The above link changes it so that bigbys (except the 8th level one, as it already has a save) to substitute a reflex save instead of a near-impossible to make reflex save.

I know this isn't a pnp-ish change, but its a spell that really makes or breaks a fight without any real way to defend against it. And, unlike death spells or whatnot, you don't even need to focus in evocation to get the full results of the spell, as its dc-less and works completely off caster levels.

3. Books for sale/starting books
Maybe adding a store that sells various books to help provide information about the server? I've noticed there are quite a few books like that, but findign them is rather a game of luck with the random book cases that generate books.

In addition, maybe adding a few diety books in the on-creation area when picking dieties? Not everyone knows what the heck each diety does/stands for, and some quick reading material in the dieity-picking room might help with that. especially since your diety may or may not have a serious impact on your roleplay.

msterswrdsmn wrote:
2. Bigby balance!
http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Scripts.Detail&id=526
Bigbys is pretty much an insta-disable+death sentence spell. The way the grapple checks work are...

1d20 + caster level + (casting ability modifier + 10) + 4 vs.
1d20 + target's BAB + target's strength modifier + target's grapple size modifier.

To hit...

The spell hits upon a successful check: d20 + caster ability modifier + caster level + 10 vs. armor class.

Thats easily a 57 with a roll of 10 and 30 caster levels.

On a level 40 server, the best you can manage in a generic scenario with the "best" for the defender is this though...
1d20+40 (level 40 caster)+17 (42 caster stat)+4=81 with a roll of 20
1d20+30 (highest possible BAB at level 40)+17 (42 str)+0 (grapple size mod. for med. characters is 0)=67 with a 20 roll

More often than not, you'll get caught and held by it unless the caster is something grossely lower leveled than you. The above link changes it so that bigbys (except the 8th level one, as it already has a save) to substitute a reflex save instead of a near-impossible to make reflex save.

I know this isn't a pnp-ish change, but its a spell that really makes or breaks a fight without any real way to defend against it. And, unlike death spells or whatnot, you don't even need to focus in evocation to get the full results of the spell, as its dc-less and works completely off caster levels.

Side note: a 42 ability score yields a bonus of +16.

I can agree that a 40th level, pure caster would have an advanatge in the above scenario. Anything less than pure caster with maxxed casting stat, and the spell is balanced just fine, as it *IS* a 9th level spell and *should* be VERY nasty.

I dont see an issue with this, personally. A pure caster who seeks to immobilize a foe with magical force thru the use of a **9th level spell** *should* have an almost guarantee that if the target has no spell defense, they will be grappled.

There are various caveats, like the hand not being attackable in NWN (it can be killed in PnP, but a grappled target is at a *severe* disadvantage to do so), but this is balanced by the "range" of long range spells being pure garbage in NWN compared to what is possible in PnP. Simply put, if a high level caster cannot immobilize a foe with such a spell, they are mincemeat without Timestop... and Timestop is not available in Aenea.

A reflex save sounds fine on paper, except that its much easier to crank up your saves than it is
to raise your BAB, and saves offer a great deal more defense against a caster than BAB.

Also relexes are a strong point of builds that the Bigby's spells were designed to exploit
a weakness of (ie. low str+suboptimalBAB). So making these spells give a reflex save goes against the intent of the spells to begin with.

The above example assumes the optimal caster level and ability bonus for the caster, which is fine, as it indicates that the spell would be successful against a target without spell defenses. However,
keep in mind that the spell would still need to be useful and worthwhile to a non-optimized character.

Also bear in mind that the example *assumes* a roll of 20 for BOTH combatants. If the caster rolls a 3 and the defender rolls an 18, guess what? No grapple. Or lets say a Pale Master casts it, so they only have 30 caster levels, and they roll a 10, and the defender rolls a 15? Still, no grapple. Casters with 40 caster levels who have access to the bigby's spells are going to need them. And lets not forget that the hand could ALSO miss the defenders AC. In Aenea, it isnt that hard to get an AC over 57, even *before* level 40.

A caster with suboptimal caster levels (ie pale masters), and sub optimal stat bonuses would still need to have a solid chance of the spell being effective. As it is, most of the high level spells are *easily* nullified by other players. Immunity to death magic (stops weird, FoD, and wail of the banshee), True Seeing (stops invis, greater sanc, and weird), and improved evasion (nerfs any dmg spell that allows a reflex save) are ALL available in-game as it is, to ANY character, and they render inert just about EVERY high level weapon a caster has.

Characters who have been grappled are not dead. Damage reduction can easily reduce or negate the dmg from the spell. There are a number of ways to still be able to act while grappled, and even Crideas has had his bigby's dispelled by Rods of Reversal. It truly is not the "death sentence" mentioned above. Not by a longshot.

Im not sure if anybody is familliar with the spell "forcecage", but if you are... be thankful that spell isn't in NWN. No save, no SR. You're just automatically stuck in an indestructible cage... and it lasts a LONG time, and isn't even a 9th level spell.

A canny caster can use the "barred cage" version, and proceed to dissassemble their victim safely from range. And "forcecage" is not subject to normal dispelling.

Bigby's hand spells are tame in comparison.

<blockquote>(note: if this seems heated or whatnot, its not! Its been a loooong time since I had anything remotly resembling an intellegent debate, so...yeah...sorry for the wall of text! If something seems flamish, feel free to pm me and point it out)

Also bear in mind that the example *assumes* a roll of 20 for BOTH combatants

</blockquote>
I assumed a lot of things in that example, like both the caster and the defender were level 40, the defender had maxed BAB and STR...etc. The above example I threw out was just in a "best case" situation for the defender. More often than not, I dont think your going to be throwing the spell at level 40 full ab/full STR characters. Level 40 characters seem to be pretty rare, much less, ones that have 42+ STR. Is it easy to get that? Sure, but it takes an awful long time, and it isn't commonplace. And even then, theres better things to throw at them than bigbys in that situation.
More often than not, even suboptimal characters are going to have about a very high chance of of hitting/holding their target in most situations (without taking immunities into account).

Its not just a sounds-good-on-paper change either...its been done before quite often on pvp-heavy servers and works. Rather than throwing something thats more or less guarenteed, it forces the caster to be a bit more selective about when/what they cast

Even with a DC, its a pretty high one at that. With 42 INT and spell focuses, the DC comes out to around 42 for the 9th level version, which is still a pretty tough dc to beat if your shooting at their weak saves (16 base at level 40). There aren't a whole lot of dc-less spells either, so if the fact a dc=problematic at higher levels, wouldn't that be, well, a universal problem playing a caster rather than just a bigby-only problem?

While the hand can be dispelled if a player is hit with it, either by yourself or with a teammates help, doing so runs the risk of dispelling your own buffs as well, which can leave you in an even worse situation than before you started out. This also requires the dispell check, which can be a futile effort if the caster who threw the bigby at you is more than XXXX levels higher than you. Which, if they have access to bigbys or 9th level spells, is entirely possible.

And its true, anything under the sun that a mage can throw can be nullified by another person, it requires said person to be thinking ahead, playing smart, and actively maintaining said nullifications throughout the fight. Bigbys hold effect and to some extent, the damage effect can be nullified, but how commonplace is that really? Not only that, defenses like those are going to be unreliable if they arent used/casted by an even higher level mage due to the risk of dispelling/shorter durations with potions and scrolls.

As for pnp...well, theres a lot of spells that are worse than bigbys: imprisonment, soul bind, etc (btw, was it forcecage your refering to Dave? I need to try that next time i play pnp....). Its kind of a moot point though, as said spells generally werent included in the pnp-nwn transfer. Even from a pnp standard, bigbys doesn't work the way its supposed to. This is for the crushing hand, for example in pnp (3.5, but i'm assuming its the same/similar to 3.0...can't find a 3.0 book!)

caster level + your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier (for a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer, respectively), +12 for the hand’s Strength score (35), +4 for being Large

That comes out to a 73 with a level 40 caster with 42 INT, but doesn't fluctuate since theres no die roll.

Edit: I have no idea how other people might feel about the bigby thing, so I dug up another alternative from an epic pvp-server I used to screw around on...Bastions of War, if anyones heard of it

Bigby's Forceful Hand, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Bigby's Clenched Fist, Bigby's Crushing Hand: Based on Discipline check. DC = caster level + spell level - 15 + caster ability modifier + Spell Focus bonus + size modifier (vs. large size) + d20. Arcane Defense lowers the DC by 2. The damage from Clenched Fist and Crushing Hand is 2.5x to compensate for the reduced duration.

Obviously, tweaking might be needed, but I thought id throw that out there regardless.

I do agree bigbys need a slight nerfing in regards to PvP, but only a slight nerfing. Since PvP is only done at arenas and not everyone likes to participate the nerfing would likely be unfair for many spellcasters who are attempting to survive against epic monsters.

To say the least, we could probably make it so there are allowed saves with each hand that offers no saves, and choose a save that would be common amongst players in all areas (reflex saves tend to be higher than fortitude if you ask me, and will save would mean spellcasters will primarily be the only ones affected by the nerf).

[quote="msterswrdsmn]

Also bear in mind that the example *assumes* a roll of 20 for BOTH combatants

</blockquote>
I assumed a lot of things in that example, like both the caster and the defender were level 40, the defender had maxed BAB and STR...etc. The above example I threw out was just in a "best case" situation for the defender.

But it was *also* a "best case" for the caster. If the caster isn't best case, and the defender is, the spell is unreliable at best. Only useful if other spells are not working, due to immunities.... but in that case, bigby's is needed, and balanced. Remember, 9th levels spells are the best of the best pre-epic. And ALSO, pre-epic, there is *no* disconnect between a pure caster's caster level and a pure warrior's BAB, so it is perfectly balanced at lower levels as well. They arent supposed to be easy to avoid or resist, no matter what build the caster has. If A smart caster casts the right spell to exploit an opponent's weakness, they have *earned* the tactical advantage it will gain them.

More often than not, I dont think your going to be throwing the spell at level 40 full ab/full STR characters. Level 40 characters seem to be pretty rare, much less, ones that have 42+ STR. Is it easy to get that? Sure, but it takes an awful long time, and it isn't commonplace. And even then, theres better things to throw at them than bigbys in that situation.

There being better spells to use isnt a reason to justify making the spell easier to resist. Those "better" spells, just like bigby's are situational, and can be avoided with the right defenses/precautions. Lack of proper defense or preparation should always have consequences against a powerful wizard. Always. That's like, all-time, classic D&D canon. No reason to change it, none at all.

More often than not, even suboptimal characters are going to have about a very high chance of of hitting/holding their target in most situations (without taking immunities into account).

Immunities while not "commonplace" in Aenea, are VERY easy to obtain. They *should* be taken into
account, because they affect the game balance, just as your proposed change would affect game balance.

If the defender doesn't have relevant immunities, and also has not prepared themself with one or more of the myraid defenses against bigby's, they really don't have a leg to stand on to complain about getting grappled. And even then, as I mentioned, one use of a Rod of Reversal, a scroll of Mordenkainen's Disjuction, or even a scroll or potion of Greater Dispelling, can rid them of the effect. Otherwise, they can simply obtain potions or scrolls or items to gain damage reduction (VERY easy to get), to reduce or even negate the damage the spell does. If they happen to be a focused melee character, this means their lack of defense puts them, justifiably, at a disadvantage... but they still have avenues of attack left to them, *and* the potential to survive the duration of the spell and resume their chosen tact.

Its not just a sounds-good-on-paper change either...its been done before quite often on pvp-heavy servers and works. Rather than throwing something thats more or less guarenteed, it forces the caster to be a bit more selective about when/what they cast

We will have to disagree about Bigby's being "more or less guaranteed". In the perfect situation, will it have a high success rate? Sure. Not 100%. Not even 90%. Closer to 70%. Thats not unbalanced for a 9th level spell,
*especially* one that doesnt kill the target outright.

In *most* situations will it have a good success rate? Sure. Is this reason to rebalance the spell? Nope. Its a 9th level spell. It needs to be nasty if the target doesnt put real effort into any sort of defense.

The change having been "used" on other places isnt really a reason to use it on Aenea, and it really doesn't make the change a "good" one. It does sound more like the change was implemented to ease complaints about the spell being overpowered. And on those servers, if the players did not have the options available to the players in Aenea, I might be inclined to agree. As it stands, I absolutely disagree. Aenea is not a PvP world, and there should never be changes made to the (edit:) *intended* mechanics to accomodate PvP concerns. Arena is completely voluntary, and players have more than a few ways of dealing with anything a spellcaster can throw at them.

Even with a DC, its a pretty high one at that. With 42 INT and spell focuses, the DC comes out to around 42 for the 9th level version, which is still a pretty tough dc to beat if your shooting at their weak saves (16 base at level 40). There aren't a whole lot of dc-less spells either, so if the fact a dc=problematic at higher levels, wouldn't that be, well, a universal problem playing a caster rather than just a bigby-only problem?

Well, sidestepping the original intent and purpose of the spell seems a poor way to justify a change.
The spell was designed to exploit a weakness. The change will break that design concept. The change is also
solely targeted at PvP. Casters in Aenea who have any desire of completing certain quests/plotlines will absolutely *need* the spell to work the way it currently does if they want any chance of success. All the more reason to leave it as is, and simple expect more premeditation and ingenuity out of players who wish to PvP on Aenea.

While the hand can be dispelled if a player is hit with it, either by yourself or with a teammates help, doing so runs the risk of dispelling your own buffs as well, which can leave you in an even worse situation than before you started out.

This is the same for ANY debuff in the game. Should we also make "blindness/deafness" and "web" and "mind fog" easier to resist? Of course not. When you try to dispell a debuff, that is a risk you take. Its part of the game, and it works for both parties.

This also requires the dispell check, which can be a futile effort if the caster who threw the bigby at you is more than XXXX levels higher than you. Which, if they have access to bigbys or 9th level spells, is entirely possible.

Well, I do apologize for totally debunking this statement, however, I have had *many* of my Bigby's spells dispelled by *items* used by non-casters. Those item's caster levels were *far* inferior to my own caster level.
The above statement is entirely untrue. Please ask Manny and Jay Braysin to verify this.

And its true, anything under the sun that a mage can throw can be nullified by another person, it requires said person to be thinking ahead, playing smart, and actively maintaining said nullifications throughout the fight. Bigbys hold effect and to some extent, the damage effect can be nullified, but how commonplace is that really?

The easiest and truest answer to this question is... it is as commonplace as player's who decide to think their way thru such a tactical situation. Casters have to spend quite a bit of thought on what defensive spells to use and what offensive spells to use based on what they intend to engage. And the ways to nullify their choices are many and easily obtained. There is very little applicable defense to being pummelled in melee, especially if a caster has not been allowed to buff themself to the gills before combat begins, as spell interruption is quite possibly the *worst* tactical situation for a caster to have to deal with. Why should their opponent's have it any easier? Tactics has and ever will be and *should* be at the heart of any PvP battle, or battle in general. If you don't want to have to be tactical to avoid defeat, my best advice is to avoid PvP at the very least.

Not only that, defenses like those are going to be unreliable if they arent used/casted by an even higher level mage due to the risk of dispelling/shorter durations with potions and scrolls.

Defenses like what? items that dispell things? Nope... those work fine, as I and others have seen. Spell resistance? Nope, thats passive... Spell Immunity from an item? Nope, also passive. potions that give damage reduction? Wait.. oh... ok, I think I get it... so when you get DR from the potion, and the caster uses bigby's he can just dispel your DR, right? Guess what ALSO happens? He almost always dispels his own Bigby's. What about AC? Nope... no way to dispel that... so the Bigby's can just outright miss. And there are *still* others ways I can think of to defeat Bigby's, but out of self interest, Im not going to write a manual on the topic. Rest assured, this is just scratching the surface.

As for pnp...well, theres a lot of spells that are worse than bigbys: imprisonment, soul bind, etc (btw, was it forcecage your refering to Dave? I need to try that next time i play pnp....). Its kind of a moot point though, as said spells generally werent included in the pnp-nwn transfer.

In *most* persistent worlds, it might be a moot point. You will find in Aenea, PnP is not a moot point. Thats one of the best things *about* Aenea, is 's work to make the game more like Pnp.

Even from a pnp standard, bigbys doesn't work the way its supposed to. This is for the crushing hand, for example in pnp (3.5, but i'm assuming its the same/similar to 3.0...can't find a 3.0 book!)

caster level + your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier (for a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer, respectively), +12 for the hand’s Strength score (35), +4 for being Large

That comes out to a 73 with a level 40 caster with 42 INT, but doesn't fluctuate since theres no die roll.

Its actually 72. And the die roll is done on the defender's side, as a grapple check. This math is actually MUCH worse for the defender than in NWN. All the defender gets in Pnp is BAB+ Str mod+size mod+d20. Which, with a 42STR and a natural 20 on the roll = only 66. At least in NWN, the defender in your example has a chance to avoid the spell with his AC and *then* a 30% chance to resist the grapple. As I have been saying all along, by game design, 9th level spells are supposed to be incredibly nasty.

Edit: I have no idea how other people might feel about the bigby thing, so I dug up another alternative from an epic pvp-server I used to screw around on...Bastions of War, if anyones heard of it

Bigby's Forceful Hand, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Bigby's Clenched Fist, Bigby's Crushing Hand: Based on Discipline check. DC = caster level + spell level - 15 + caster ability modifier + Spell Focus bonus + size modifier (vs. large size) + d20. Arcane Defense lowers the DC by 2. The damage from Clenched Fist and Crushing Hand is 2.5x to compensate for the reduced duration.

Obviously, tweaking might be needed, but I thought id throw that out there regardless.

[/quote]

The grapple check for the hand has *nothing* to do with the spellcasters spell focus. Its not supposed to.
The casters caster level (about the only benefit a caster gets for taking levels in their casting class), and their ability mod are the only things that were included in the spell's design, and thats for a reason. The spell was designed to pit the caster's caster level against the BAB of the target, and the casters casting stat against the str stat of the target. The fact that its a 9th level spell to boot is why the hands strength and size puts the defender at a disadvantage, as the spell only grapples and slowly damages the target. If the spell had a more deadly immediate effect, then I could see it being easier to resist. As it is, it is balanced just fine.

Just jumping on board to verify with dave that Bigby's cast by a high level caster (such as Crideas ) can indeed be dispelled by a simple use of a Rod Of Reversal... in fact most of his spells can be dispelled by that wonderful rod... an area targetted dispel will likely bring down some of his defenses too ((unless he's in an anti-magic shell - in which case he cant buff anymore either, then its a waiting game)).. .. and the risk of dispelling your own buffs is near neglegent if you think about it.. use the items that give permanent buffs.. they need no more then re-equiping (and in the case of the ioun stones waiting 18 seconds).. also any caster is going to be thinking "hey I got them pinned/grabbled" - wat till a second later and your re-buffing yourself and melee-ing them whilst thier casting more spells thinking your stationary.... and all that from a "common" rod.... hell and Jay's not even a caster.. he uses UMD to use the damn rod in the first place...........

I think you don't need UMD or to be a caster to use the Rod of Reversal. I could be remembering it wrong.

Once Crideas has buffed himself, those buffs cannot be taken off of him (until they wear off). Because Dave has is intelligent and made some good choices. Either that, or he's convincingly bluffed me...

I don't mind being held by Bigby's in principal. Unless you have some "instant kill" ability, Phyllick can weather being held for a while. It's part of a Wizard's arsenal of spells, does exactly what it's supposed to do...

And ALSO, pre-epic, there is *no* disconnect between a pure caster's caster level and a pure warrior's BAB,

True, pre-epic being the key word though.

Well, I do apologize for totally debunking this statement, however,
I have had *many* of my Bigby's spells dispelled by *items* used by
non-casters. Those item's caster levels were *far* inferior to my own
caster level.
The above statement is entirely untrue. Please ask Manny and Jay Braysin to verify this.

Actually, that really should be impossible. O_o Why its working, i've got no idea. Rods of Reversal use greater dispelling, right? The check for greater dispelling works like this...

1d20 + 1 per caster level (to a maximum of +15) against a DC of 11 + the spell effect's caster level.

Crid had 28 caster levels, right? Any of your buffs flat out shouldn't be removed by a rod of reversal or greater dispelling, even if its at its level 15 cap....a bug, maybe?

"blindness/deafness" and "web" and "mind fog" easier to resist?

They -are- easier to resist though. In addition to saving throws Blindness/deafness is negated by truesight (somewhat), web by freedom, and mind fog by an immunity to mind affecting spells.

when you get DR from the potion, and the caster uses bigby's he can
just dispel your DR, right? Guess what ALSO happens? He almost always
dispels his own Bigby's

Actually this goes back to the same thing with dispel checks. Aside from mords, dispelling spells of all levels stop working after the casters buff/attack reaches a certain level. Potions are generally classed as 3rd, 5th level buffs, and can easily be stripped by even a lesser dispelling. Theres also spell-specific dispelling, such as greater/lesser spell breach that target buffs and SR only.

Well, sidestepping the original intent and purpose of the spell seems a poor way to justify a change.
The spell was designed to exploit a weakness. The change will break that design concept.

Not really, its just changing one exploitable weakness for another one. As for it being a pvp-oriented change..

All the more reason to leave it as is, and simple expect more
premeditation and ingenuity out of players who wish to PvP on Aenea.

Actually,
I probably should clarify, but I didnt really come to aenea with pvp in
mind. I just came to run around, have fun, and meet new people. Theres
entire servers dedicated to pvp...why would I try forcing that on
people here?

If you don't want to have to be tactical to avoid defeat, my best advice is to avoid PvP at the very least.

Not everyone has access to those options though. For example, i'll just throw out Sei' vs Phyllic. Sei was level 19, Phyillic was level...something epic (sorry, I never knew..) and Sei was still able to incapacitate phyillic for a good 3, 4 rounds with the same spell. When someone who hasn't even hit epic levels yet incapacitates someone repeatedly who has good gear and epic levels, high AB build and good STR, isn't that a sign that maybe something is wrong?

In *most* persistent worlds, it might be a moot point. You will find in
Aenea, PnP is not a moot point. Thats one of the best things *about*
Aenea, is 's work to make the game more like Pnp.

I'd think it actually is a moot point until those spells are added. Yes, is working towards making aenea more pnpish (and doing a good job of it!) but the 100% intergration isn't there, and pointing at things working outside of the immediate situation might be seen as a moot as a result.

What about AC? Nope... no way to dispel that.

Are you refering to the generic full AB person? Or a broad group people like rogues, clerics, spellcasters, etc here?

Not sure about using the rod to dispel Crid's buffs, but using the rod on oneself does make his groping hand of creepiness go away.

And I've not crunched any numbers, but I'm not entirely sure how effective AC is vs the spell. The couple of times Crideas has cast the spell on Angelica, it's hit, and her AC isn't anything to sneeze at, and her strength isn't too poor either. The grapple checks aslo can be near impossible to beat to the point where I think the check is a pointless calculation most of the time.

That being said, I got no problem with the spell. It annoys the hell out of me, but then again, my characters have abilities that annoy the hell out of others, so it works out I guess

If there were to be any powering down of the spell, I think the only reasonable change would to be to remove the +10 to casting stat modifer for the grapple check or reduce it to +5, but no more powering down than that. That would put it within the realm of possibility to avoid the grapple, but not very likely, and the spell is supposed to be highly effective anyhow.

Oh, and a comment on the other suggestions....

Remove curse: I like that idea. Versatile spells are great.

Books: Yes, the bookshelf in the char-gen deity room would be great, or just some info on the deities' stones If I recall correctly, the signpost in that room says a description of the god would pop up when you clicked on their stone, but I've never gotten one, and there's nothing on the examine of the object either. It's not so much a problem to alt-tab back and forth to the website to check up on the info, although it's something of a hassle when it induces the white-icon glitch.

D'oh! I'll get those deity descriptions back in. They vanished when I consolidated the deity selection stuff from about 60 scripts into 1 this summer.

msterswrdsmn wrote:

And ALSO, pre-epic, there is *no* disconnect between a pure caster's caster level and a pure warrior's BAB,

True, pre-epic being the key word though.

I have to think that if you honestly believe it is a problem for an *pure* Epic level caster to have
a heavy (70%) numerical advantage in the calucations of a *9th level* spell that doesnt instantly kill
the target, that there is some reason other than what you have stated thus far... It just doesnt add up.

Crid had 28 caster levels, right? Any of your buffs flat out shouldn't be removed by a rod of reversal or greater dispelling, even if its at its level 15 cap....a bug, maybe?

I don't believe it is a bug, no. A good roll on the dispel check is all. Perfectly legitimate, and a VERY strong reason why the proposed changed is unnecessary and will possibly cause more harm than good to game balance.

"blindness/deafness" and "web" and "mind fog" easier to resist?

They -are- easier to resist though. In addition to saving throws Blindness/deafness is negated by truesight (somewhat), web by freedom, and mind fog by an immunity to mind affecting spells.

And are you somehow mistakenly under the impression that there is no immunity that works against bigby's?
I can think of FOUR separate passive immunities off the top of my head that will fully or partially negate the effects.

And while the above spells only allow for a SINGLE roll to avoid them, the bigby's spells allow for no less than TWO separate checks for the target to avoid them, one being the attack roll, one being a grapple check. The above spells are NOT easier to resist, as they allow only a SINGLE chance to avoid their effects. The inherent spell DCs might be lower, but can be augmented to equivalence with spell focus feats which do not and should not apply to Bigby's.

when you get DR from the potion, and the caster uses bigby's he can
just dispel your DR, right? Guess what ALSO happens? He almost always
dispels his own Bigby's

Actually this goes back to the same thing with dispel checks. Aside from mords, dispelling spells of all levels stop working after the casters buff/attack reaches a certain level. Potions are generally classed as 3rd, 5th level buffs, and can easily be stripped by even a lesser dispelling. Theres also spell-specific dispelling, such as greater/lesser spell breach that target buffs and SR only.

The lesser buff spells are *not* easily removed by lesser dispelling spells. Why? because they severely limit the benefit of the caster's caster level bonus on the dispel check, which makes it quite likely they will *fail* to dispell buffs gained from potions and scrolls. The only way the enemy caster is going to have near certainty of successfully dispelling those buffs is by using their higher level dispels, and those dispels will almost always remove debuffs as well as the buffs in question. I am speaking from direct experience here as well. Ask rustydios and Manny about what happens when they have used stoneskin, premonition, shadowshield, and other spells while they have been grappled by Crid's Bigby's, and Crid decided to try and dispel them? Bye bye bigby's.

Well, sidestepping the original intent and purpose of the spell seems a poor way to justify a change.
The spell was designed to exploit a weakness. The change will break that design concept.

Not really, its just changing one exploitable weakness for another one. As for it being a pvp-oriented change..

By this logic, the proposed change serves no worthwhile purpose. It doesn't fix anything. Which is good,
because the spell isnt broken. Nor does this logic address the intent of the spell's design.

All the more reason to leave it as is, and simple expect more
premeditation and ingenuity out of players who wish to PvP on Aenea.

Actually,
I probably should clarify, but I didnt really come to aenea with pvp in
mind. I just came to run around, have fun, and meet new people. Theres
entire servers dedicated to pvp...why would I try forcing that on
people here?

Excellent question, so are you saying the change you put forward is aimed at correcting an issue with how
the spell operates outside PvP? I just want to understand, I dont mean to sound like I am accusing.

If you don't want to have to be tactical to avoid defeat, my best advice is to avoid PvP at the very least.

Not everyone has access to those options though. For example, i'll just throw out Sei' vs Phyllic. Sei was level 19, Phyillic was level...something epic (sorry, I never knew..) and Sei was still able to incapacitate phyillic for a good 3, 4 rounds with the same spell. When someone who hasn't even hit epic levels yet incapacitates someone repeatedly who has good gear and epic levels, high AB build and good STR, isn't that a sign that maybe something is wrong?

Everyone does indeed have access to the options I have put forward. Every single character on Aenea. Yes. You read that right. Every last one. The only reason a character would not have several or all of those options is because the player decided not to pursue them.

As for Sei successfully grappling phyllick with a bigby's... when you manage to accomplish that feat 30 times in a row with no failures, I would be concerned. Getting lucky rolls two or three times in a row doesnt make the spell broken... and lets just say for hypothetical that you *did* get phyll grappled 30 times straight. Did that one spell alone kill him? No way in heck. I bet he lived through everything you had to throw at him (barring the 'web' bug), and got back to melee anyhow. That example doesnt really make a case for the spell being overpowered, because as strong as Phyll is, he is not as strong as a focused caster's stat mod. He has invested points elsewhere which afford him the ability to absorb more damage and resist other types of attacks. Hence, the spell exploits this weakness in his character build, on top of his lack of high AC and lack of SR. If phyll were to rebuild and focus on str, I would be very surprised if sei could get better than one in ten grapples off... if that many. (at least until sei's caster level equals or eclipses phylls BAB)

In *most* persistent worlds, it might be a moot point. You will find in
Aenea, PnP is not a moot point. Thats one of the best things *about*
Aenea, is 's work to make the game more like Pnp.

I'd think it actually is a moot point until those spells are added. Yes, is working towards making aenea more pnpish (and doing a good job of it!) but the 100% intergration isn't there, and pointing at things working outside of the immediate situation might be seen as a moot as a result.

I think you missed the point here. The spells were an example to demonstrate PnP game balance, which is relevant to Aenea, and thus this specific proposal whether or not those spells exist in Aenea yet.

What about AC? Nope... no way to dispel that.

Are you refering to the generic full AB person? Or a broad group people like rogues, clerics, spellcasters, etc here?

[/quote]

AC, as in Armor Class.... not AB as in attack bonus. Dispelling someone doesnt lower their inherent armor class. it might affect AC of they relied on temporary buffs for AC boost, but my previous statement that AC 57 was not that hard to achieve, even before level 40 , stands without any use of temporary buffs.

Just to point out guys..

.. are we argueing or discussing here ? ..

.. lets not let things get out of hand... and I can see this topic eventually heading that way.... ...

May I suggest a summary of your above statements on the topic of Bigby's... one for and one against... and then we can get back to the other suggestions....

Remove Curse : Great Idea...
Books on the history of Aenea/ the dieties : there is a bookseller in Tradeholme market place.. maybe his inventory needs another look by .. and the various alters could have a "mantra-book" placed on-top/ in them (that might cause problems with the talkto conversation/ OnUsed)
Diety Descriptions in the creation area's: Already addressed by !

RustyDios wrote:Just to point out guys..

.. are we argueing or discussing here ? ..

.. lets not let things get out of hand... and I can see this topic eventually heading that way.... ...

May I suggest a summary of your above statements on the topic of Bigby's... one for and one against... and then we can get back to the other suggestions....

Discussing. Nothing personal whatsoever on my end.

Im a little frustrated personally, because I am repeatedly failing to grasp or understand the logic offered for the proposed change... which I would normally chalk up to there not being effective logic behind it, but I know mstswrdsmn isnt ignorant or unintelligent.

I am challenging his points directly in hopes of drawing something out that will make this whole concept click, all the while concerned that it might not happen and this thought and effort is wasted.

*cough*
I was about to hit "send" on a big long reply but I probably should stop. Maybe Dave and I can agree that we disagree? Maybe discuss it in the chatbox/whatnot where it won't derail things a tad?

Sorry about that. I've been bored and intellectually starved and I jumped all over the first thing that looked like intellegent discussion. >_< Its a bad habit of mine.

.. are we argueing or discussing here ? ..

Discussing, but I can definetly see why it would look otherwise. Sorry about that again

Hey , no need to say sorry.. I like the flow of ideas and the tennis match discussion, I just wanted to stop this going too far off topic or becoming a heated arguement.. .. often a debate looks like a brawl to the ones on the outside...

Match Point :: Who's serve is it?

I think Mster was right. We should stop here.
I don't think we are going to be able to make one another able to see things the same way, unfortunately.

Agree to disagree. Move on.