level 11 avenger stoneskin

[Guest iou0]

Think stoneskin for druids is bugged. Description says it should last for 8 hours but only last for 2.

 

Running g3 fixpack and tweakpak with druids using cleric progression.

[Demivrgvs]

Think stoneskin for druids is bugged. Description says it should last for 8 hours but only last for 2.

You're right, it probably has to do with an old idea I had to reduce vanilla's ridiculously long duration. I discarded it fearing it would cause strange behaviour with SCS's pre-buffing mages, but it seems I haven't restored the original duration. I've already fixed it, and fortunately 2 hours already is quite enough, I hope it doesn't create too much inconvenience. Thanks for reporting it.

 

Anyway if you really need more than 2 hours duration and you're willing to reinstall the mod:

- the following is the spell with corrected duration

- just put the file in the sppr## folder

- reinstall

 

May I ask you how's going so far with the mod?

[Guest Guest]

Think stoneskin for druids is bugged. Description says it should last for 8 hours but only last for 2.

You're right, it probably has to do with an old idea I had to reduce vanilla's ridiculously long duration. I discarded it fearing it would cause strange behaviour with SCS's pre-buffing mages, but it seems I haven't restored the original duration. I've already fixed it, and fortunately 2 hours already is quite enough, I hope it doesn't create too much inconvenience. Thanks for reporting it.

 

Anyway if you really need more than 2 hours duration and you're willing to reinstall the mod:

- the following is the spell with corrected duration

- just put the file in the sppr## folder

- reinstall

 

May I ask you how's going so far with the mod?

 

Stoneskin is not "ridiculous" having 12 hour duration--12 hour lets it be cast then rest 8hr with the spell slot switched to another spell, thus gaining a "free" casting of that level (albeit with 4 hr duration vice 8hr).

Very useful and APPROPRIATE when traveling/camping outdoors and expecting random encounters that .

The long duration is not chees, it is there for a good reason--same goes for other "ridiculous" duration spells like ironskin, minute meteor, enchanted weapon, skeleton warrior.....

[Demivrgvs]

Stoneskin is not "ridiculous" having 12 hour duration--12 hour lets it be cast then rest 8hr with the spell slot switched to another spell, thus gaining a "free" casting of that level (albeit with 4 hr duration vice 8hr).

Are you the same one of the first post? Anyway, I'm surely not going to restore vanilla's 12 hours exactly because of what you've just said. I think even 8 hours are too much but I've opted for them so that players can still use the spell exactly as before, the only thing I've removed is the aforementioned exploit of resting and still having stoneskins on, which is clearly not something I would ever call appropriate.

The long duration is not chees, it is there for a good reason--same goes for other "ridiculous" duration spells like ironskin, minute meteor, enchanted weapon, skeleton warrior...

I've nothing against 8 hours duration of Animate Dead, Enchanted Weapon, and Minute Meteors. In fact I've haven't reduced it.

[geethreeuser]

Stoneskin is not "ridiculous" having 12 hour duration--12 hour lets it be cast then rest 8hr with the spell slot switched to another spell, thus gaining a "free" casting of that level (albeit with 4 hr duration vice 8hr).

 

 

It was me who posted.

Sorry to disagree, but I was taking you at face value as to your claim:

 

"The Spell Revisions mod aims to fix/tweak/enhance arcane and divine spells in Baldur's Gate II. This originally started as a project to make the spell system more balanced: weaker spells have been improved, overpowered ones have been (or will be) nerfed, save-or-else spells now benefit from increased saving throw penalties, and so on."

 

That seems straightforward to me, and I am certainly not trying to deride anybody or disrespect anyone, quite the opposite, I was attempting to lend a constructive feedback to help out. Thought that was the whole point.

If my comments are taken as officious, please disregard. It must be my "misunderstanding".

 

That being said. I have to say I am getting concerned with what I keep seeing here as personal bias being marketed as "more balanced".

 

I say this with respect, because I see good potential here, and by offering unbiased feeback, maybe it will be of some small degree of help.

 

The more I read on this mod, the less inclined I am to believe any sense of "balance" is being included at all. What I see is "talking me out of" being interested.

Please convince me otherwise. I am certainly going to withhold judgment until AFTER the work is done, but please take what I say here as friendly, not malicious.

 

It is clear that most folks these days really have no clue what the phrase "more balanced" really means.

Surely it is subjective in nature, but far too often people fall to the temptation to employ "more balanced" as a twisted mandate to toss internal consistency out the window in favor of whatever suits their personal preference of the moment--usually to the detriment of the subject at hand. Not that I am calling foul on anybody, but if that is the case, let's be more clear as to what the stated purpose really is, and save helpful souls like myself from butting in where not wanted.

 

To be fair, I will put up my ante here and take the heat for it--here is what I consider "more balanced" to mean.

 

1. First and foremost, if EVERYBODY (all "sides" in the game) can do it, then it is BY definition "game balanced"--period; end of discussion.

If player A can make a given play, and player B can elect to make the SAME play, and "the game" (engine/AI) can make the same or SIMILAR counterplay (or vice versa), and it COSTS everyone the SAME resources to do it, then it is simply NOT honest to "change it" in favor of this or that using "more balanced" as the "justification".

That reasoning simply does not hold water and needlessly brings into question credibility.

 

2. At some point, arbitrary changes indeed cross over the line and become "personal preference". Well and good, but let's call a spade a spade, and admit that it is not reasonable to insist that everyone else drink YOUR kool-aide. That's just lame--speaking as a "player" and as such the end user of your "product", this smacks of an attitude that is a big turn-off for me. I have too many mods to play with to waste time tracking down all the lame bits and pieces I want to discard so I can get one or two bits I like.

 

3. to maintain credibility, whenever you choose to employ the "game balance" card, it is a pretty good idea to first run that by the "ethics" filter to make sure that one is--for lack of a more appropriate phrase--"putting the good of the game first"...

Sounds corny, but it is very true. That is what makes "great" mods "great", and lack thereof makes "lame" mods "lame".

Also doesn't hurt to goto "listen mode" and "consider mode" BEFORE going to "dictate mode", and consider honest feedback a blessing, not "just another obstacle".

 

Please understand, I am not pre-judging anyones' work; I am merely putting what ought to be obvious common sense on the table.

 

BTW: thanks for the good work so far---keep going.

 

Are you the same one of the first post? Anyway, I'm surely not going to restore vanilla's 12 hours exactly because of what you've just said. I think even 8 hours are too much but I've opted for them so that players can still use the spell exactly as before, the only thing I've removed is the aforementioned exploit of resting and still having stoneskins on, which is clearly not something I would ever call appropriate.

The long duration is not chees, it is there for a good reason--same goes for other "ridiculous" duration spells like ironskin, minute meteor, enchanted weapon, skeleton warrior...

I've nothing against 8 hours duration of Animate Dead, Enchanted Weapon, and Minute Meteors. In fact I've haven't reduced it.

 

Precisely illustrates the point made above.

 

I --LIKE--12 hr stoneskin (12 hr skelies, minutemeteors, 24hr enchanted weap, etc), and consider it them a charming bonus---and , seeing how they CAN be (and commonly ARE) wiped out by a single scripted dispel/remove magic......clearly these are NOT "exploits"/cheese.

 

You nerf them, you are then arbitrarily detracting from the game experience I have come to expect, not adding to it.

 

Is a spare tire in your car "appropriate"?

So is planning on getting jumped if you let your guard down.

Resting with a stoneskin/meteors/summons is totally appropriate.

 

Please don't dictate to the assumption that the player/gamer is an idiot; let them decide on THEIR OWN to be an idiot...it is their "fun" either way.

[Guest Guest]

May I ask you how's going so far with the mod?

 

 

Thanks for the file but I resolved the situation by installing without iron skins being modded. Just wanted to let you know because the spell didn't match the description.

 

Everything is working with tweakpak so far, but then again, I removed anything I thought might conflict (ie no fatigue with restoration spells)

 

Also just wandering if the avenger's extra spells will remain vanilla.

[Demivrgvs]

1. First and foremost, if EVERYBODY (all "sides" in the game) can do it, then it is BY definition "game balanced"--period; end of discussion.

I don't think a spell which kills all opponents without allowing a save would be balanced just because all "sides" in the game can use it.

2. At some point, arbitrary changes indeed cross over the line and become "personal preference".

Indeed, it's inevitable.

Also doesn't hurt to goto "listen mode" and "consider mode" BEFORE going to "dictate mode", and consider honest feedback a blessing, not "just another obstacle".

Your statement is not "fair" to me. I think many players could testify that I do listen to feedback, and sometimes I even chose a solution I don't particularly like just because players prefer it and convinced me there's a good reason for it.

I --LIKE--12 hr stoneskin (12 hr skelies, minutemeteors, 24hr enchanted weap, etc), and consider it them a charming bonus---and , seeing how they CAN be (and commonly ARE) wiped out by a single scripted dispel/remove magic......clearly these are NOT "exploits"/cheese.

 

You nerf them, you are then arbitrarily detracting from the game experience I have come to expect, not adding to it.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter, though I'm quite convinced that 12 hours instead of 8 only adds the aforementioned exploit to the game experience (it may not be cheesy, but it surely is an exploit).

 

Anyway, if I can't nerf something like this without being accused of "detracting from game experience", I can't probably touch a single spell. One may just say that trying to prevent 20 rounds of infinite backstabs while misleaded, or allowing a save against 100% failure rate of Summon Insect spells is "arbitrarily detracting from the game experience". Same goes with every change I've made. I'm not saying you have no rights to think that way, I'm just saying that unfortunately I can't agree with everyone.

 

Everything is working with tweakpak so far, but then again, I removed anything I thought might conflict (ie no fatigue with restoration spells)

Note that SR's fatigue after a restoration spell is quite different from vanilla's one. It only lasts one turn (and I'm thinking about reducing it to 5 rounds), you don't have to rest anymore after casting these spells.

Also just wandering if the avenger's extra spells will remain vanilla.

Unfortunately yes, same goes for Beast Master's Animal Summoning Spells. Next version will solve this.

[Salk]

Geethreeuser,

 

I think I understand your point although there are some gray areas:

 

1) You speak about the duration of some spells like Stoneskin. Nerfing its duration so that after resting the spell is no longer available sounds sensible to me. Since the enemy uses (at least I think) the same revised spells, I doubt you can say it's not balanced. On the contrary, after resting both player and opponent now need to cast Stoneskin again to enjoy its valuable protection. That makes the game more fair.

 

2) The fact that nerfing the Stoneskin duration to 8 hours instead of 12 detract from your gaming experience is not a valid argument for saying that the change is "wrong" from the balance point of view. The fact is that we grow accustomed and fond of some particular aspect of the game so that a change to it is always seen as a menace. At that point, we no longer are very objective about it. Demivrgvs is certainly more unbiased than I am when judging what spells or items or kits need "rebalancing". Myself, I would tend to "overprotect" my original choices.

 

3) Demivrgvs' job is an ungrateful one. His project has a wide and interesting scope but is going to make lots of people (practically all) unhappy to some extent. Nobody will be entirely satisfied of all the hundreds of changes that SR (and soon IR) are going to make. They will be sometimes unpopular. But that doesn't automatically mean they are unfair. Rather the opposite often.

 

Finally, I - like you and most people - like to play a fair game. With that meaning that both the party and the opponents live by the same rule. I am also a sucker for AI though and maybe you also are. Do you use SCS (and/or SCS II)? Well, that mod is great at enhancing the enemy's AI but can not do it without the core component "Detectable Spells". In this there are unfair means for the enemy to know what your protections are in order to not make them behave stupidly. It's unfair and I don't like it, but still it helps a lot to make the game more of a challenge.

 

All this is to tell you that it's really hard to create the perfect game of our dreams but that some mods like SCS and SR and many others, do help to make it closer. And you know what's best about it? They accept feedback. And even though we can't always dictate the changes (and it is right so because of what I said above), there is a chance that our suggestions will be approved.

 

I guess that we users need a "rebalancing" also about our own demands sometimes (and I put myself in the first line here).

 

Regards!

[geethreeuser]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry for me being such a pain in the arse.

 

I don't think a spell which kills all opponents without allowing a save would be balanced just because all "sides" in the game can use it.

 

Taking most anything to the ultimate extreme becomes ridiculous, and so your above assertion frankly leads me--once again--to wonder what the agenda here really is, because it is looking to me to *not* be about implementing sensible tweaks to *improve* internal consistency--more like obliterating it entirely in pursuit of arbitrary control for its' own sake.

(and I am NOT saying ANYBODY is "wrong" to have such an agenda here...just not saying it is "right" either, not when it is marketed as something else, so please don't dismiss me for not drinking the kool-aide too; it just smacks a bit too much of the old "bait-and-switcheroo").

 

As this demonstrates, too many gamers mistake "balanced" for "fair", when these are not the same things even remotely, and never have been, never will be.

I feel like a heel for pointing that out so bluntly but that IS how I see it here.

 

It is certainly possible to press an in-game advantage, and still NOT cheat in the process, and--here is the key point guys--the "choice" rightly ought to lie with the player or the AI script writer, not the code technician mis-applying some notion of moral equivalency applied to game mechanics.

 

This is the difference between "exploit" and "deliberate intent".

The challenge for the contender is from overcoming adversity, and you don't get that adversity from force-feeding everyone the same spoonfulls of bland, luke-warm pablum. You get to overcome adversity from the unpleasantness inherent in strife, and living with it.

Part of being a "wise" or "good player" is carefully managing ALL the precious resources at hand, knowing full well you will be outnumbered and outgunned, leaving little choice but to be prudent in using what few rolling buffs you have at your disposal. There is nothing stopping the AI script from doing the same, when appropriate.

 

I can see no way to legitimately dismiss the "deliberate intent" that clearly WAS put in place for *some* buffs to be particularly long lasting--24hr (regular) invisible, 12hour stone/ironskin, 24hr minutemeteors, 8hr skeleton warrior, 24 hr "enchanted weapon"; in practice these "spells" are not so radically different from buffing via enchanted ("+X") weapons/claws of ALL sorts (and nicely countered by debuffing ammunitions in particular BTW), equipable buff items, special class abilities, or even HLAs, the spell buffs are just a different flavor of implementation--and to nerf the "long spell" buffs, but not the others is lame, and certainly not internally consistent. D@mn right the spell chukers should keep their handful of long duration buffs!

 

Furthermore what IS looking ridiculous here is an apparent personal bias that a long period time-out on a buff is somehow "unfair" in spite of the glaringly obvious fact that a whole STACK of such "overpowered" buffs can effortlessly be demolished with ONE single dispel magic scroll/trap/rod/debuff in a fight or an ambush (*especially* in ambush, at MOST forcing the ambusher to dispel as the opening gambit).......and in fact that is exactly what you see good AI do. Heck even one good LEVEL ONE magic missile volley will wipe out a decent **L4** stoneskin buff (that's an exponential leverage there).

It is pointless me trying to "convince" anybody of what ought to be so painfully obvious. No, stoneskin is not "overpowered".

 

I say again the game IS "balanced"--if and only if--all contenders are forced to pay the same "cost" for making a given "play" (time/money/energy).

If a contender chooses to blow the wad on the "big gun" or the "good package", then it is by definition "game balanced" even though it may very well not be "fair" to the OTHER contender who--for whatever reason--cannot afford pay the requisite ante to get one too (ant and the grasshopper fable). If the disadvantaged contender thinks he cannot win, then he folds HIS hand, otherwise he takes his chances and tastes the consequences--it is lame to "force" the adversary to tip his hand just because he "might" have been dealt an "unfair" superior set of cards.

Let the stats, and the dice decide who wins.

 

..Your statement is not "fair" to me. I think many players could testify that I do listen to feedback, and sometimes I even chose a solution I don't particularly like just because players prefer it and convinced me there's a good reason for it.

Quite right. Obviously it is myself who is in the wrong here.....

 

...I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter, though I'm quite convinced that 12 hours instead of 8 only adds the aforementioned exploit to the game experience (it may not be cheesy, but it surely is an exploit).

 

What you call "exploit", I call "deliberate, justified designer intent", with good merit...

 

Anyway, if I can't nerf something like this without being accused of "detracting from game experience", I can't probably touch a single spell. One may just say that trying to prevent 20 rounds of infinite backstabs while misleaded, or allowing a save against 100% failure rate of Summon Insect spells is "arbitrarily detracting from the game experience". Same goes with every change I've made. I'm not saying you have no rights to think that way, I'm just saying that unfortunately I can't agree with everyone.

 

Funny, but I don't recall either of these extreme counterexamples of yours ever being options available in the BG game, even as a bona fide exploit.....sorry but that's a pretty lame non-justification.

 

Geethreeuser,

 

I think I understand your point although there are some gray areas:

 

1) You speak about the duration of some spells like Stoneskin. Nerfing its duration so that after resting the spell is no longer available sounds sensible to me. Since the enemy uses (at least I think) the same revised spells, I doubt you can say it's not balanced. On the contrary, after resting both player and opponent now need to cast Stoneskin again to enjoy its valuable protection. That makes the game more fair.

Sorry but this is simply highlighting what I am seeing as change merely for the sake of change, and the maxim: "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies--and a few long duration buffs obviously is NOT "broke"...

And furthermore, if you DO "fix" (i.e. "nerf") it, what do I get out of it in return???

I *might* trade you 20% fire&cold resistance PLUS 2 skins per level for a nerfed stoneskin, but you have to make it worth my while for the loss of the most useful 1/3rd of my post-resting burn time....otherwise leave those spell durations as is.

 

2) The fact that nerfing the Stoneskin duration to 8 hours instead of 12 detract from your gaming experience is not a valid argument for saying that the change is "wrong" from the balance point of view. The fact is that we grow accustomed and fond of some particular aspect of the game so that a change to it is always seen as a menace. At that point, we no longer are very objective about it. Demivrgvs is certainly more unbiased than I am when judging what spells or items or kits need "rebalancing". Myself, I would tend to "overprotect" my original choices.

 

3) ...They will be sometimes unpopular. But that doesn't automatically mean they are unfair. ...

 

Finally, I - like you and most people - like to play a fair game....

 

It appears that a moderate conservative viewpoint has gotten me judged, found guilty and convicted of being 'afraid of change', and 'lacking objectivity", I would remind you that "fair" only applies on the kindergarten playground.

However, if that is what we want this sandbox to be, then so be it....

 

I say changes must maintain or improve internal consistency, not break it down.

[Salk]

Nobody here is judging you.

 

When I spoke about being "not objective" I spoke of myself but I extended it implicitely to you and all other players that grew accustomed to some particularly juicy spell or item. Stoneskin is - like you also said - an extremely powerful spell which, at its level, offers a very valid protection. You speak about internal consistency and deliberate game design choice for "long term" buffs. Despite me having always suggested to Demivrgvs to not care in the least about possible exploitable situations (because - in my opinion - the mod should not be modelled for those who like to "exploit" - which is practically another way to say cheat), I believe his nerfing the Stoneskin duration being a sensible choice.

 

I am just replying to your legitimate concerns with my own arguments: Stoneskin is widely considered one of the best level 4 spells. Spell Revisions mainly aims to make some spells more appealing while at the same time nerfing down those that are way superior. Stoneskin is an example of the latter category.

 

I believe that there is a strong correlation between your crusade for mantaining the original Stoneskin duration and your way of playing the game.

 

I can only repeat myself here saying that some choices are surely unpopular because they are going to change the way we used to play and prepare ourselves for the challenges ahead. SR is going to present the player with a different scenario. It might take time to get used to it and dealing with some toned down spells will be a challenge itself at first. But on the other hand, there are revisions that make other spells a much better alternative for the player. The trade off here is not - like you mistakenly believe - inherent to the spell itself but in the bigger picture. Now the player needs to rethink its priorities when selecting spells to memorize. The conditions are different but you can't say that the new scenario breaks the internal consistency of the spells because consistency was broken from the beginning. SR has a logic in the way it does it. At least I see a red thread in it. We will always be free to give feedback, suggestions and ultimately free to not like the final product and create our own customized set of spells. Critic is good as long as our word as single player doesn't have to become THE word for all the others (this is a responsability for the mod author to have).

 

Regards!