Recommendation re horrid wilting etc.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Horrid Wilting not damaging undead is sensible for the reason that the water (if there is any at all) doesn't have the same function that it has for living creature.

If that would be the only reason, then the Google would know the answer. And it indeed does say that a normal bone does damage by similar effects as Horrid Wilting.

 

PS: but it's not the only reason. Which is enough, for me. So, no undead destruction with Horrid Wilting.

[lac]

Uhm... Mists? When will a mist not contain water?

 

Icen

 

When it is not a real mist but an illusion of a mist instead. The question is, what is a Vampiric Mist anyway?

[Icendoan]

Should it kill a vampire's Gaseous Form?

 

Icen

[Demivrgvs]

Horrid Wilting

Horrid Wilting not damaging undead is sensible for the reason that the water (if there is any at all) doesn't have the same function that it has for living creature.

If that would be the only reason, then the Google would know the answer. And it indeed does say that a normal bone does damage by similar effects as Horrid Wilting.

 

PS: but it's not the only reason. Which is enough, for me. So, no undead destruction with Horrid Wilting.

Yes, it's not the only reason, and though I wouldn't justify a spell with scientific proofs keep in mind that ADHW has nothing to do with microwaves (thus there's no physical damage due to water loss), it just evaporates water, and my point is that even if ghouls, vampires and the like had a small amount of water within themselves they surely don't need it to sustain themselves.

 

P.S Should I also make Horrid Wilting not affecting Air, Earth, and Fire Elementals? I'm quite sure these creatures don't "contain" water.

 

Spellcasters Power

As regards spellcasting classes supposedly being more powerful in BG2. I'd have to disagree. The Inquisitor, for example, is able to defeat most protections with dispel magic and true seeing, and several weapons introduced by mods dispel magical protections etc.

The Inquisitor is not your common warrior, he's a very unique kit, all the other fighter/ranger/paladin classes and kits can do exactly nothing against things like PfMW (not even with a dispelling weapon).

 

I do agree that at low levels warriors are much more useful party members (and are incredibly better at soloing a NWN game), and I do think that they may remain more reliable even at higher levels because they don't necessarily need to rest in order to fight multiple consecutive fights...but a mage with spells like contingencies, Simulacrum, PfMW, and Time Stop will always beat a warrior on a 1vs.1 duel.

 

One really notices the weaknesses of spell-casters in Neverwinter Nights, where I had to rest before virtually every single potential encounter in order to regain necessary spells against fighter-type villains, especially at low levels. In the case of BGT, I'm currently in the BG1 portion of the game, and am finding the SCS1-/Big Picture-enhanced gibberlings etc. to be a real challenge, for the very first time. So, having more powerful spell-casters is necessary for me, since all my NPCs in the game are set at maximum hitpoints etc.

First of all let's make it clear: soloing a low level caster in NWN has nothing to do with the statement I've made about high level spellcasters being more powerful than fighters. Not to mention that even at higher levels NWN's mages don't have all the spells that make BG's mages so powerful: they don't have contingencies, spell triggers, PfMW, Time Stop (removed in NWN II for balance reasons), Improved Alacrity, and so on.

1) Even in BG the problem about mages being forced to rest quite often has nothing to do with power level comparison, though it does matter when you compare the reliability of a class during a campaign.

2) I do agree that at low levels spellcasters are at disadvantage, and as you've noticed I've improved many low level spells.

3) What I'm talking about is the power of high level spellcasters and "nerfing" a few overpowered high level spells surely won't make an archmage weak.

[Salk]

P.S Should I also make Horrid Wilting not affecting Air, Earth, and Fire Elementals? I'm quite sure these creatures don't "contain" water.

 

It could be fine but now I wonder if there aren't more creatures that should also then not be affected.

 

Changing HW so that some creatures are completely immune is anyway a good way to nerf it so why not?

[Ardanis]

Should I also make Horrid Wilting not affecting Air, Earth, and Fire Elementals? I'm quite sure these creatures don't "contain" water.

That's an interesting and reasonable suggestion. I'd include golems as well, though it probably won't make any difference, since they're already magic resistant.

 

 

a mage with spells like contingencies, Simulacrum, PfMW, and Time Stop will always beat a warrior on a 1vs.1 duel.

But all of those are mainly just a single big load, after which the wizard will be at most equal to fighter. Of course, there aren't that many times when shots like this are needed more than once per day.

 

PfMW - don't forget about non-enchanted weapons

[Salk]

Should I also make Horrid Wilting not affecting Air, Earth, and Fire Elementals? I'm quite sure these creatures don't "contain" water.

That's an interesting and reasonable suggestion. I'd include golems as well, though it probably won't make any difference, since they're already magic resistant.

 

That was my first instinct too.

[Shaitan]

Should I also make Horrid Wilting not affecting Air, Earth, and Fire Elementals? I'm quite sure these creatures don't "contain" water.

That's an interesting and reasonable suggestion. I'd include golems as well, though it probably won't make any difference, since they're already magic resistant.

 

That was my first instinct too.