|
Post by chirality on Nov 27, 2011 1:11:35 GMT
Well if your BK doesn't have evo focus you need to obtain an item or rebuild. That is not really a class balance issue. Basically you are saying that without certain feats BK isn't worth playing. This sounds like a balance issue to me. Any quasi is already severely restricted in feats as it is, and you're essentially saying that without Evo foci he needs to somehow find items that make up for that, or rebuild his toon...regardless of the fact that -HC- toons can't reinc, this seems fairly nonchalant for saying that "your build sucks, but with these feats, it will be ok". I'm not sure how attractive it is for players to only gain any benefit out of BK changes if they take certain feats, which would *only* be useful for those spells. I know I'm certainly not attracted by it, nor am I attracted by the fact that the Str SP bonus actually doesn't end up being any better (and in fact worse given feat expenture costs) than simply taking full LSF Evo. Parcelled together, this means that not only do BKs virtually "need" Leg Evo, but also that unless they have the perfect race for it, they will likely need to drop useful feats for all 10 Great Strength feats (if they can even get them all) in order to max their Str for everything else. Essentially we have a situation where due to these current mechanics, BKs are forced to split their feats between two "equally-important" trees--Str and Focii--in order to be effective. Maybe it sounds balanced on paper, but then again, take a look at public opinion and the amount of BKs in comparison to other tanks, and I see a problem and it's resultant consequences. The real problem is why play a blackguard over a baneknight. If you give them access to summons beyond the 1x per day summon fiend, that becomes a much bigger problem all of a sudden. How is that a problem? I don't see that as a problem now, and given the general consensus of "BG is <better, more fun, etc.> than BK", I can't see people suddenly not playing BGs in favor of poor BK even with summon improvements. If that happened...which again, I highly, highly doubt...then ok, solution is simple: make these suddenly-all powerful BK summons less...powerful. Theurges have nothing to do with baneknights. If you want to compare baneknights to any quazi it really should be staffmasters, as they were created around the same time and in opposition to each other. No one is making this comparison, except precisely as far as I stated. Are you saying that Theurges should have weaker summons than BKs? If not, then I don't see what you're getting at with those comments. It does make sense that sorcerer levels ought not impede the blackguard summon fiend ability. Sorcerer is a class that can summon fiend like beings. Usually quazi classes make use of all of their innate class abilities. The only question should be is it to be different in some way. It is a one time ability so my thought would be ...no. Making it full powered isn't going to make a big difference. So you are saying that sorc levels should stack with bg levels for BKs using a bg ability? If anything that seems to have reverse logic as far as "why play a BG". If you're proposing that BKs have even more powerful innate BG abilities than BGs...obviously that is a huge bonus for BKs, and a lack of bonus, or even a knock, for BGs. And yes, it would be more powerful, given that BKs are composed mainly (or even completely in most cases) of sorc and bg levels, while BGs have 10 other levels to fill out. So that's quite a huge difference in fully-stacking BK CLs for summons--even splash BK--in comparison to even pure BG builds.
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Nov 27, 2011 2:07:17 GMT
Quazi classes are by nature restrictive. They are intentionally designed to be so. Else you will have balance issues. You already get a ton of bonuses from being in the quazi class itself. It is a trade off. Power at the cost of flexibility. The only choices you really should have is blackguard cc or sorcerer cc and the supporting build for those choices. If you want flexibility, make a control class fighter.
Eliminating spell penetration (or the need for extra feats) effectively freed up 3-4 feats. You don't need evocation to play the class. It is a powerful melee class with good defense as is and most of the other spells (except forceful hand) work decently without any other focus. You can get evo focuses via randomization and on set items. My BK is old school I plan to demi and reincarnate. I don't feel any urgency to reincarnate because my character is so bad it is unplayable. I do have the problem of too many characters to play. But, I enjoy playing BK. I think its a fun and powerful quazi.
Hard core is what it is. The sever has and will continue to shift. Are you saying we should base class changes on how will affect a couple of HC characters? That doesn't seem feasible at all. Sometimes you need to make big course corrections in quazi classes to make them more playable. I guarantee you it won't be the last. Since its creation there has been absolutely no reason to do a sorcerer CC baneknight. That has shifted slightly with the addition of vile damage, but the spell book is far too limited to really play a caster only BK.
Hardly anybody plays blackguards. It has always been this way for a variety of reasons. Mainly because paladins > blackguards. People do play lashes and to a less extent baneknights more often than blackguards. That has been a problem on and off for some time now. Blackguards have been improved slightly but I don't see how they have a massive edge over any of the blackguard quazis out there.
As far as summon fiend is concerned, there is no gap in logic here. Blackguards cannot "cast" summoning spells in the same way a sorcerer can. There is no reason to give blackguard control class baneknights full access to a summon spell. It doesn't seem consistent to what they are. Now you could argue that sorcerer control class baneknights, could be given this privilege. However, summon fiend IS a blackguard ability and sorcerer levels would be consistent with that ability (assuming you are evil). The ability is very much more limited (as it should be) from spontaneous casting endless fiends. It is more like summon familiar or animal companion. A nice bonus but one that can end abruptly if you have to unsummon or the summon dies.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Nov 27, 2011 3:06:47 GMT
As far as the hardcore comment went--no, I definitely wasn't suggesting that at all. I only mentioned it because--although I can't be certain--Poli likely could have been referring to his -HC- BK. Of course, I could have made an assumption and he wasn't. Anyway, I just said it specifically because of the context of you addressing his comments. I completely agree with you. As for your second paragraph--well, I don't intend to argue over whether or not spell penetration is still needed for BKs. The fact remains that without a sufficiently high Str, LSP is simply a better option. Even with the Str to equal LSP, it's still a (to use the phrase that Funky has made famous ) a cost-benefit imbalance when it takes 2 Grt Str feats to obtain +1 mod, and then 4 mod points to obtain merely +1 SP--versus +2 SP per SP feat. Naturally this imbalance only becomes more acute the less "ideal" your subbie is. So, for most cases, this Spell Pen edit really doesn't help much. Again, I don't know and don't intend to argue whether or not SP is necessary for a BK. Either way, however, that edit doesn't seem to do much unless SP really isn't needed at all, in which case a few extra points can't hurt. But if SP is needed for spells to land...well, comparing Str-based SP vs. SP feats seems to result in a clear winner. (Also..totally meant LSP not Evo in my last post when I was talking about SP). As for BG vs. BK, well, I can't agree. I see really more of an advantage playing BG CC than I do BK. That's just me though, and I'm sure there are plenty who share your view on it. As for the last part--well, although I do feel like giving BKs (and BGs!) impressive summons would improve their power, I do agree that giving them full spellcasting summon capability could be imprudent. However, given severe lack of BK spell flexibility/utility, and the fact that giving them a powerful summon wouldn't allow them to hide behind it while they spam massive, effective insta/damage spells (like true casters), I wonder if it would be too imbalanced. After all, the whole point of BK is that he can tank himself right? So if anything this would be more of a fellow tank companion, rather than something that can truly be taken full advantage of by a real caster with real spells. Sure, you could let the summon tank while you toss out ineffective Bigby's at the mobs? Shrug. That said, I agree that giving full access to real caster summon spells could easily turn ugly. On the one hand I want to say maybe granting only less powerful summon spells? But then they would likely be ineffective and not worth learning in the first place (let alone casting). The bg summon ability is the best option, I think, but that still leaves the problem of BK vs. BG CLs for this ability. I think if BKs could/would get full sorc/bg levels for theirs, then CC BGs should get either a flat CL bonus (to make up for the 10 pre-epic levels) or something else to level the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Nov 27, 2011 6:02:06 GMT
Quazi classes are by nature restrictive. They are intentionally designed to be so. Else you will have balance issues. You already get a ton of bonuses from being in the quazi class itself. It is a trade off. Power at the cost of flexibility. The only choices you really should have is blackguard cc or sorcerer cc and the supporting build for those choices. If you want flexibility, make a control class fighter. Well, I agree.. the point of a quasi is gaining one big stick in return for being kicked in the butt in another way. The problem is that, of late, the point seems to have veered off from "Quasi is the one-trick pony" to include ".. but to make it play as well as it's plain class peers it needs other tricks". I've spent some time rebuilding the quasi builds I enjoyed once upon a time, to the point that I've got two quasi's that I play regularly - a BK and a LoH - and neither would I pick over a straight-up ranger or even a straight blackguard. There just isn't anything special enough to give either a niche that makes them good enough to play. Both are running on recommended BUR classes, and both are very feat tight. I get the feeling that the team are somehow embarrassed about the quasi classes and are finding ways to make them either irrelevant, or not the one-trick-pony that they once were valued for. Nothing else makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Nov 27, 2011 7:57:01 GMT
Basically you are saying that without certain feats BK isn't worth playing. This sounds like a balance issue to me. Any quasi is already severely restricted in feats as it is, and you're essentially saying that without Evo foci he needs to somehow find items that make up for that, or rebuild his toon...regardless of the fact that -HC- toons can't reinc, this seems fairly nonchalant for saying that "your build sucks, but with these feats, it will be ok". I'm not sure how attractive it is for players to only gain any benefit out of BK changes if they take certain feats, which would *only* be useful for those spells. I know I'm certainly not attracted by it, nor am I attracted by the fact that the Str SP bonus actually doesn't end up being any better (and in fact worse given feat expenture costs) than simply taking full LSF Evo. Let me use a parallel: This sounds to me like you made a PM, barred necro and illu and then wondered how come that it sucks. [/end of inappropriate joke] If you do not spend a slightest amount of effort into any build's casting ability, you can hardly complain its casting abilities suck (unless, naturally, the build is very special and you precisely know what you are doing). Even more so for BKs: they are quintessential Bigby line casters and if you skip evo foci, well, you get the picture yourself. Oh, they do. BGs (and SDs) do receive +10 to "CL" of their summons, in order to be on par with other summoners. simpetar
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Nov 27, 2011 8:29:35 GMT
Even more so for BKs: they are quintessential Bigby line casters and if you skip evo foci, well, you get the picture yourself Sorry, but I don't think comparing a BK lacking Evo Foci is comparable at all to a PM lacking Necro and/or Illusion Foci. The differences are quite large. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not a legitamate parallel could be drawn between a casting build lacking primary casting feats, and a tank/caster hybrid lacking casting feats for the 4 spells of that school that are somehow simultaneously the definition of the class and also ineffective...even if that parallel could be drawn, if I recall correctly Evo Foci weren't always a "requirement" for a BK to land grabbies. Wasn't that the whole point of the Str as caster mod thing? Or is it just a coincidence that not a single one of the BK builds on the forum (excluding Talamanthalon's more recent one, which--surprise surprise, takes Evo Foci...I wonder if that was in response to an edit? ) takes any Evo Foci at all? I find this to be a broken topic, about a broken class with a broken fix for the break. Comparing a tank/caster quasi that is already spread far too thin with essentially the single most specialized class in the game (PM) and saying that there is any sort of equivalency whatsoever between required feats and reasonable room for those feats in builds does not fly, in my opinion. Of course I see what you were getting at, but let's be honest with each other--that's just a a slightly silly assertion to make. It would be one thing if BK wasn't a tank at all, and had no expectations or desires to do anything other than stand there and cast Bigby's. If that was the case, then yes I can surely see your comparison being pretty spot-on. But that's not the case. You are trying to squeeze in enough feats to be a passable tank (yes, yes, crazy BK buffs help hugely), and then now it's required to have another 4 feats, just for a couple spells, which are supposed to be the niche of the class in the first place? No thanks...how about they actually, you know, are good at the stuff their niche calls for, rather than having to sacrifice more of every other aspect of their niche, just to be better at nothing BUT one aspect of their niche, which when all is said and done really is no better than anyone else. Vile damage? Cool...but no, that's really not fixing anything.
|
|
|
Post by maljin on Nov 27, 2011 14:58:08 GMT
I kinda like BKs how they are now and I don't see a problem in reading the evo tome instead of the spell pen tome as most BKs did before the update. With 60 str you've got a 25 str mod, so for a pure BK without spell pen feats that's a 66 spell penetration. Imho that's plenty for a character that isn't meant to live on spells like casters do (and clerics do fine with 66 spell pen as well). Besides a str score of 60 is rather easy to get with the +4 extra str/cha BGs get in LLs, no need for BUR/UR subraces or multiple demi iterations.
I mean if something has got a notoriously high sr, either bash it until someone has lowered its sr (or do yourself with mord/bestow curse) and then use your spells or don't bother with spells at all and just hack away. A BK has this option while a caster does not...all that said caster can do is waiting or try spells that don't respect sr.
I do agree that's it's inconvenient for BKs with a high str score that have read the sp book and now have to reincarnate (or rebuild if it's a -HC- toon) to use an evo tome instead to fully benefit from those options. But that isn't related to BKs in any way, it's rather a necessary part when stuff changes (which is exciting and a reason why I'm still playing nwn after that many years).
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 27, 2011 18:34:46 GMT
The problem is that, of late, the point seems to have veered off from "Quasi is the one-trick pony" to include ".. but to make it play as well as it's plain class peers it needs other tricks". That isn't a problem, and quasis were never designed as one-trick ponies. It simply difficult - often VERY difficult - to strike a balance between too little and too much. This is even more the case when confronted by players who irrationally insist that unless an ability is the best of its kind, it's useless. That view sees usefulness as a binary switch, which I won't dwell on the absurdity of. What on earth gives you that idea? We pimp quasis in our advertising, and again, they were never 'valued for' being a one-trick pony. We have consistently, for longer than you've been on the server, striven to make all classes and quasis multifaceted. That means boosting weak classes/quasis, and nerfing overpowered abilities. It's not complicated. Funky
|
|
|
Post by KnightErrant on Nov 27, 2011 22:46:14 GMT
Hardly anybody plays blackguards. It has always been this way for a variety of reasons. Mainly because paladins > blackguards. People do play lashes and to a less extent baneknights more often than blackguards. That has been a problem on and off for some time now. Blackguards have been improved slightly but I don't see how they have a massive edge over any of the blackguard quazis out there. I rarely ever play my Blackguard anymore it's spells, abilities and available in game gear really seems to pale in comparison to my Paladin. IMHO--they should get Aura of Courage at level 3, 4 or 5. (maybe Disease Immunity too) They should probably get a Unholy Sword Spell similar to the Paladin version...they should also have Vampiric Regeneration as a spell or attached to Corrupt Weapon spell maybe. (Why Rangers get this attached to Blade Thirst and BG's and Assassins don't have it seems odd to me) Would be nice if their Cold Weapon buff granted attack bonus also like the Paladins Deafening Clang does. Sorry to derail this thread, should probably start a new one for ideas on upgrading BG's. KE.
|
|
|
Post by Raj on Nov 28, 2011 21:53:00 GMT
As we are in the mood for BK suggestions, their spell list is depressing: there're so many spell coming from different schools, but in so little quantity that focusing in anything beside evocation is a waste of feats.
They can cast energy drain, but no enervation, no horrids, nor any istakill and not even fear, and focusing in necromancy just for ONE spell, with a nerfed dc due to 9/10 strmod is something I'm sure nobody ever though to do.
They can cast pw:stun but not pw:kill, or even cla/cla so the divination foci would only help premo soak; then enchantment only grants confusion and mass blindness, abjuration helps banish but dispels/mord aren't bk spells either, bestow curse and balagarn horn are the only trans spell...
I toyed a bit with the idea of making a bk with illusion focii just for weird and a bonus conceal on displacement ( that is not a bk spell so would last very short anyway ), but the dc even on 2xD+, bur builds wasn't so hot; strength arti on any str malee toon isn't that hot either these days, with the dozens of poison checks, and bk can't invest high in constitution either.
In the end looks like there is only one viable BK build.
Are there any plans to just rework a bit their spell list to add any valid choice?
Some fast suggestions just to update them a bit: shock weapon (because, well, it's a malee and staffies got it); needle point/weapon of impact to not force them to get trans foci to buff their own weapon; rebuke/dominate monsters in place of energy drain so that legendary enchantment could actually bring something on the table beside gmw; greater dispel; pwk.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Nov 28, 2011 22:20:19 GMT
I'm open to suggestions for either BK or BG.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Nov 29, 2011 7:41:32 GMT
Okay my 2 cents on spells for baneknights....
I think there really should be more of a "fear" component. I was thinking more on lines of "aura of fear" like a battle-tide type affect but not helpful to your allies. More along the lines of parry reduction (higher crits) and loss of monster AB (small drop). Much like a hopelessness affect. It could scale based on charisma. Mindfog (already a baneknight spell) could help with this. In this case fear (4) ought to be an illusion focus. I was also thinking that Vampiric touch and Energy Drain should take some kind of different spin in the Illusion school direction. Instead of actually draining, the opponent thinks they are being drained and eventually actually dies. In the same way vampiric touch would some esoteric damage due to its new illusionary origin. The idea is to effectively eliminate necro altogether and make it possible to make use of a Sorcerer focused baneknight (who would get a bigger spell selection by nature). An alternate "orb of force" series (illusion) might be a nice addition for this school.
The other thread I would like to see is Enchantment. Things that would seem to go with the Baneknight theme might be Dominate monster (9), mass charm (8), Rebuke (7), hold monster(5), dominate person(5), and hold person (3). This would make it more worthwhile to invest in better GMW and mass blind/deaf d/c. Dominate person, I believe, is not modded yet, so it could be made into something applicable (persuade affect perhaps).
I also agree with the addition of the alternative keen spells.
That would give a sorc/caster bane knight 3 schools to focus on.
You might want to give sorc cc bks some way to melee with high charisma. Perhaps an alternate version of rapier wit....maybe with club. (the possibility to use rapiers is already there....it just strikes me that it should be something else)
|
|
|
Post by Raj on Nov 30, 2011 12:00:13 GMT
If BK are going to get a weapon of choice, plz not the lame club.
Bane's favoured weapon ( from FR lore) is morning star (spiked gauntlet), and looks evil enough.
Alternatively, in order to differentiate them a bit from battle clerics ( that imo are a better fit in any party, given their # of attacks->dmg comparable to BK one, same gear choices, same stats balance, but a lot nicer array of spells+epics ) any two handed weapon could work, if they are given the same shield ac of no-quasi bg.
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Nov 30, 2011 14:59:43 GMT
Hey I agree club is lame. Rapiers would already work with the above idea. Sorcerer cc baneknights would already have problem with strength checks and wouldn't qualify for crit immunity.. They would also need to spend more feats on spell focuses to take advantage of their spell selection. Maybe that is enough to keep them a lesser meleer than the blackguard cc baneknight? Then a weapon other than rapier would be cosmetic. In which case maybe pick something that is more ....thematic (for medium sized characters). Their "gig" is to be able to use shields so it should be something one handed....so maybe morningstar should be it?
|
|
|
Post by Torin on Nov 30, 2011 15:22:13 GMT
I like Light Flails (for 18-20 base crit range) but morningstar would work for me.
|
|