1

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The Spell Nerf/Buff please thread

« on: November 24, 2018, 12:36:38 am »

"Why it needs to be Nerfed: Evard's tentacles are an AoE spell with no SR, a fort-save vs. Paralysis, and 1d4 tentacles + 1 / caster level (maximum 20) tentacles, that do  1d6+4 points bludgeoning damage each. That is a potential total of 20d6+80 damage against a character at level 16."

That is not how it works. The maximum number of tentacles that can reach a target in a round is half. Maximum mind you. Meaning the maximum is 10D6+40.

Additional notes: "Though this spell is not mind-affecting, immunity from mind-affecting effects still blocks the paralysis."
The Damage is dealt per tentacle. This means any form of DR (Ghostly Visage) will knock off damage PER tentacle. You can almost entirely ignore the damage with a Ghostly Visage.
Each tentacle also performs a grapple check to deal any damage. Meaning at higher levels high BAB classes tend to get hit less as well.

2

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The Spell Nerf/Buff please thread

« on: November 23, 2018, 02:54:17 am »

I think you mean the aura effect yeah? The spell is different.

3

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The Spell Nerf/Buff please thread

« on: November 12, 2018, 10:55:03 pm »

You skipped the spell level Immunity on Ghostly (Circle 1 and below) and Ethereal (Circle 2 and below).

Just for the record. I've seen Ethereal Visage made Turn/Level on other servers. Quite liked it. Could also link these effects to Spell Focus: Illusion. Just a thought.

4

Feedback and Bugs / Re: The Spell Nerf/Buff please thread

« on: November 12, 2018, 01:35:42 am »

You linked the 5E version.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibilityGreater.htm - 3.5E version

Which has invisibility not break on attack. Which in NWN prevents targeting and so was balanced to give 50% concealment to account for this. In DnD PnP 3.5E every attack made from Greater Invisibility makes the target flat footed. It's also got a shorter duration.

I don't disagree that it needs a nerf. I just think we should be using the correct information to make these decisions.

5

General Discussion / Re: Death penalties

« on: October 23, 2018, 10:17:39 pm »

I think the penalties are too light. Death should have a heavy impact. Players need to fear it else they won't work to actively avoid it.

6

General Discussion / Re: pvp discussion

« on: September 18, 2018, 02:40:06 am »

Grim, if that is the way you behave then you're not the problem. But a player being IC abusive constantly without consequence is just as disrupting to gameplay as a murder hobo. PvP has a time and place I believe but there are clearly problem players on both sides who abuse the rules. While this opinion may not cause a change in the rules regarding PvP I think it's important to recognise that from what little anecdotal information has been supplied here that the issue is not the rules or PvP but problem players who abuse the rules at the expense of others.

7

General Discussion / Re: pvp discussion

« on: September 17, 2018, 11:41:23 pm »

I'd love to respect peoples desires to stay clear of PvP but in my anecdotal experience the people who wish to remain outside of PvP often use this excuse to be openly IC insulting, provocative and degrading to other party while using their desire to stay clear of PvP as a screen to avoid consequence. If I wanted to trade insults in the playground like a child perhaps I would be more open to handling the situation this way but when one side wants to behave in such a way without consequence then I begin to see issues with the implementation of such a ruleset.