Feedback

[DrAzTiK]

Vhailor's Helm :

 

In my game, Vhailor's Helm provides no script for the clone witch mean that I am forced to micromanagement the clone witch is boring, especially when Chailor's helm is wielding by a pure fighter.

 

But I don't think it was working like that in vanilla or in previous release of IR ?

A standart attack script for clone could be welcome.

 

More problematic : Gromnir clone doesn't fight at all now :/ .

[Demivrgvs]

Vhailor's Helm

In my game, Vhailor's Helm provides no script for the clone witch mean that I am forced to micromanagement the clone witch is boring, especially when Chailor's helm is wielding by a pure fighter.

 

But I don't think it was working like that in vanilla or in previous release of IR ?

A standart attack script for clone could be welcome.

 

More problematic : Gromnir clone doesn't fight at all now :/ .

Very strange, it always worked fine. Anyway it surely isn't IR's fault, because this helm still works as ever. Did you override simulacr.spl file after installing SCS? For example installing SR after SCS could do that...

[DrAzTiK]

Non IR and SR are installed previous SCS. Nervermind :/

[phordicus]

Namarra is seriously OP. free per-hit Silence spells? i'm all for making things useful but you might as well set it to Petrify mages or lamely force all mages to auto-prep Vocalize.

 

the % should be 33% max (which still equates to once/round for 3 APR... and unlimited once/round spells need a bonus to saves).

[Demivrgvs]

Namarra

Namarra is seriously OP. free per-hit Silence spells? i'm all for making things useful but you might as well set it to Petrify mages or lamely force all mages to auto-prep Vocalize.

 

the % should be 33% max (which still equates to once/round for 3 APR... and unlimited once/round spells need a bonus to saves).

Well, petrifying a mage is quite different from makng them lose 1 round on hit once in a fight (note that once they cast Vocalize they are immune to following silence effects). That being said, it's harder than you might think to balance this.

 

You say that 33% means once per round the mage have to save to avoid the effect, but actually that means your mage is going to be dead. If a mage can be hit up to 3 times in a row then silence is the last of his/her problems. Mages also have very good saves vs spell, thus granting th effect a +2 bonus to saves may end up making it almost never trigger.

 

Now, Silence is a completely different story when used against priests, because they have absolutely no way to counter it, and they don't have PfMW, making them extremely vulnerable to it.

 

Thus, you have an effect that against mages is almost trivial if it doesn't trigger very often, but against priests is very effective, perhaps too much. Fortunately, priests can generally survive even without spells, or at least they do it better than mage.

 

On a side note, I'd like to point out tha PnP Namarra is even more powerful, because it emanates a silence effect at will, without even having to hit the target (in fact I previously made it work as an aura-like effect).

 

To make Silence a more balanced effect vs clerics I suggested to introduce within BG the Potion of Vocalize, but unless SCS starts taking into account IR's revised potions AI would ignore such potion.

 

Sorry for the long preamble. In conclusion I have actually many doubts regarding the true effectiveness on this sword, but if by using it you felt a sense of overpowerness vs spellcasters than we may have indeed to nerf it. As a start the effect may not have an AOE anymore, which would mean mages under MI/PfMW would be almost/completely unaffected by it.

 

I'd like to have more feedback on this matter, does anyone else think the sword is OP? (obviously it's even better if you have really used it, like phordicus)

[Salk]

Namarra

 

I'd like to have more feedback on this matter, does anyone else think the sword is OP? (obviously it's even better if you have really used it, like phordicus)

 

I don't think it's overpowered and it doesn't need to be nerfed, in my opinion.

[Ardanis]

You need to actually land a hit on a mage, which is tricky because of PFMW, fireshields and lots of offensive spells that he farts around with amused expression on his face. And even if by chance the tactic succeeds, there's still Vocalize.

Long story short, counting on melee to overcome a wizard is retarded, no matter what melee you've got.

[phordicus]

You need to actually land a hit on a mage, which is tricky because of PFMW, fireshields and lots of offensive spells that he farts around with amused expression on his face. And even if by chance the tactic succeeds, there's still Vocalize.

Long story short, counting on melee to overcome a wizard is retarded, no matter what melee you've got.

no, what's retarded is not knowing what you're talking about.

 

namarra's effect is an area, so you only have to hit anything -- including friendlies/neutrals if desperate/clever -- to have the silence trigger. physical protections on the mage are also irrelevant in other ways since scoring a hit on him has almost nothing to do with weapon abilities affecting him (e.g. stoneskin vs weapon elemental damage).

 

there are lots of ways to balance -- some chance for the silence to affect friendlies, target struck only, less % occurance, save bonuses, etc. i haven't played p&p in decades so i have no idea if N is supposed to be awesome or not. not sure it's relevant.

 

i couldn't care less if it's nerfed or not as i tweak these things for myself anyway.

[Demivrgvs]

Namarra

You need to actually land a hit on a mage, which is tricky because of PFMW, fireshields and lots of offensive spells that he farts around with amused expression on his face. And even if by chance the tactic succeeds, there's still Vocalize.

Long story short, counting on melee to overcome a wizard is retarded, no matter what melee you've got.

no, what's retarded is not knowing what you're talking about.

Guys, let's not fight for something like that, only I and Jarno can do that!

 

namarra's effect is an area, so you only have to hit anything -- including friendlies/neutrals if desperate/clever -- to have the silence trigger. physical protections on the mage are also irrelevant in other ways since scoring a hit on him has almost nothing to do with weapon abilities affecting him (e.g. stoneskin vs weapon elemental damage).

 

there are lots of ways to balance -- some chance for the silence to affect friendlies, target struck only, less % occurance, save bonuses, etc. i haven't played p&p in decades so i have no idea if N is supposed to be awesome or not. not sure it's relevant.

I more or less covered all of this in my last post, and making it single target would be the best solution imo. The question was: is it needed?

 

@phordicus, I forgot to ask you...do you play with SCS or without it? Because I'm pretty sure SCS mages do use Vocalize.

 

i couldn't care less if it's nerfed or not as i tweak these things for myself anyway.

Well, even if I'm a modder I do prefer to install a polished mod and then just play the game rather than having to constantly tweak it breaking my immersion (if done during the game) or wasting tons of time (if done after every install). Not to mention that I "need" to know my game is the same of other players, not something I manipulate to follow my wishes, to fully enjoy it and then share my opinion on it (the "share" part is truly important, because I find discussing it with the community as fun as playing the game itself).

 

Anyway, the point is that most players care about it, and despite your claim you probably do too, else you would have not offered us your feedback (I always appreciate it).

[Ardanis]

Guys, let's not fight for something like that, only I and Jarno can do that!

I'm not sure I see a fight (an awkward word maybe), but whatever you say.

 

no, what's retarded is not knowing what you're talking about.

 

namarra's effect is an area, so you only have to hit anything -- including friendlies/neutrals if desperate/clever -- to have the silence trigger. physical protections on the mage are also irrelevant in other ways since scoring a hit on him has almost nothing to do with weapon abilities affecting him (e.g. stoneskin vs weapon elemental damage).

You might be surprised, but you do not know what you're talking about either The AoE effect, should it come from a neighbour being struck, is blocked by Globe of Invulnerability, which most of wizards have always on. IIRC this is even more reliable than shortlasting PFMW.

 

Yes, both statements about melee and GoI are obviously only relevant if you play with AI enhancing mods, SCS in particular. But then again, vanilla AI can be beaten without trouble by anyone, so assuming no AI mod installed when designing items' abilities is imo counterproductive.

[DrAzTiK]

If globe and minor globe also protect from silence, I think Namarra should be ok.

 

Does it allow a save like the clerc spell ?

[Demivrgvs]

If globe and minor globe also protect from silence, I think Namarra should be ok.

Yes it does, because the effect still have power lvl 2 like the original spell. Generally on-hit effects of weapons have spell lvl 0 (bypassing any resistance and/or spell protection), but I made an exception here, probably following vanilla's Club of Detonation template, which doesn't even used a cloned spell, but the very original one. Also note that, being treaded as an actual spell, it's affected by magic resistance.

 

Is it correct? I don't know. If we make it single target than I'd surely grant it "power lvl 0" and "bypass magic resistance" but as an AoE spell cast on hit I don't know.

 

Does it allow a save like the clerc spell ?

Yep, vs spell, with no penalty nor bonus.

[Salk]

If we make it single target than I'd surely grant it "power lvl 0" and "bypass magic resistance" but as an AoE spell cast on hit I don't know.

 

I would like this solution better, actually. Make it single target but with spell lvl 2. Should be an easy modification, right?

[Ardanis]

I never use Namarra, so frankly speaking I couldn't care less too.

 

I'd take AoE over single target. A bit closer to PnP, that is.

 

But there's another thing to consider, namely depleting Spell Deflections/Turnings (and doing it en masse with SR v4 Spell Mantles) with fast melee attacks. GoI still should prevent it from happening, but you get the idea, I think. For the same reason I'd set the Club's power level to zero as well (which it is, btw?).

 

PS Erhm, does 146 go through target's spell protections btw? Only self-targeted things do, but suddenly I have doubts how 146 counts in this case.

[Demivrgvs]

Namarra

I never use Namarra, so frankly speaking I couldn't care less too.

Am I the only one to care here?

 

I'd take AoE over single target. A bit closer to PnP, that is.

 

But there's another thing to consider, namely depleting Spell Deflections/Turnings (and doing it en masse with SR v4 Spell Mantles) with fast melee attacks. GoI still should prevent it from happening, but you get the idea, I think. For the same reason I'd set the Club's power level to zero as well (which it is, btw?).

Well, the "deplete spell protections" thing is quite a point indeed.

 

I wasn't daring to suggest it but with the recently fixed opcodes I could also make it work exactly as per PnP by restoring the aura-like effect. That would have the advantage ok capping the effectiveness to "1 save per round" instead of 1/hit, but the disadvantage of turning the weapon into a off-hand weapon (well, not that WS would complain to use it as off hand while keeping Adjatha in the main) with no reasons to use it as main (no combat abilities ).

 

Else, it's a pity to move it away from PnP but I fear we have to make it "single target - power lvl 0" as all other weapons, for both consistency and balance.

 

 

PS Erhm, does 146 go through target's spell protections btw? Only self-targeted things do, but suddenly I have doubts how 146 counts in this case.

I think 146 doesn't bypasses them, but it may be worth double-checking.