PvP unbalance Edit

Why is this spell and the other Bigbies ( e.g. forceful ) so unbalanced for PvP? 13:07, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

  • The grapple check is very hard to make, especially for non-Strength characters. -- Alec Usticke 13:50, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Just seems like such a ridiculous thing for Bioware to implement and than to allow PvP. I mean with no modifications to them they are basically "I WIN" buttons. Especially with such a long duration. -- 20:32, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Well, BioWare's primary focus is on single player modules. It's easy enough for a module owner to alter the spell script to balance it. -- Alec Usticke 21:00, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Well Alec, is there a place on the Wiki or a resource that will describe how to go about doing that? Furthermore, is there a decidedly "best way" by the community to "balance" these spells with more of a PvP fairness in consideration? 09:30, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
  • There's plenty of NWN scripting information available, but not much here on NWNWiki. I doubt there's a consensus on how to "fix" the spells for PvP. -- Alec Usticke 16:39, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

I've seen some servers (Badlands 3127, in particular) that change the opposed check to roll against the target's Discipline score instead. Even Dexterity based builds have some chance to resist it if they build for having as much Discipline as possible. However, being cursed by Bard Song, or hit with Negative Energy Burst will make them more vulnerable to the Bigby. -- 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Caster vs. character Edit

I just changed the second "casters" in "For these checks, casters with wizard levels use their intelligence modifier, and all other casters use charisma." to "characters". Since I'll forget why, I thought I would jot down a note here. There was a question on my talk page from someone who either didn't see that note or saw it and thought "caster" == "character with a caster class". Changing "other casters" to "other characters" should prevent future questions about non-casters. I left the first "casters" as-is because the wording is technically correct, provided you realize "caster" == "character who cast the spell, possibly from an item".

So that's my take at the moment. While most edits do not require justification on the talk page, something tells me this is something I'll need to be reminded of eventually. --The Krit (talk) 23:46, October 11, 2017 (UTC)

Use of dispel magic to remove effects Edit

Seeing the back-and-forth edits over use of dispel to remove the immobilization reminds me that there may be some value in a note about this. Not because dispel magic et alia are special ways to remove spell effects. But, because the immobilization effect is particularly easy to dispel, as the immobilization caster level is treated as 0. I am not sure of the most concise wording of such a note. Perhaps

The "normal" version of this spell can be removed with remove paralysis, freedom of movement, or restoration. Those methods will not be effective against the immobilization effect. However, dispelling, is particularly effective against certain effects, including immobilization.

MrZork (talk) 08:03, December 18, 2019 (UTC)

  • That seems familiar. Let's see... oh, right, that's listed in the dispel article. Yeah, there probably should be more mentions of that. I might have another proposal when I have more time to work on it, but I'm fine with that going into the article in case I get distracted by other wiki business. --The Krit (talk) 12:34, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • I added the "more mentions" to various articles and edited in my proposal for this article. I think the wording is accurate, but I'm not the one who tested the ease of dispelling immobilization. --The Krit (talk) 01:03, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot to mention something before, in case you were referring to (or even just thinking of) the recent edit where I simply undid a revision. That was a special case and is not normal for me. The person who added that note had been given a time-out and was attempting to bypass it. When the time-out is over, and if that person is willing to behave courteously, then that person's contributions will not be so summarily dismissed. (I think that person would have some valid points to make. They just got completely overshadowed by animosity.) --The Krit (talk) 02:28, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.