Feedback

[Demivrgvs]

Just noticed Mordenkainen's Sword is missing from the summons documentation here on the forum - it would be nice if it was added for completeness and ease of comparison. Thanks.

Mordenkainen's Sword is not a summon but an Evocation. It doesn't have physical and mental stats nor a HD value (well, it has for technical reasons within BG, but you should consider it as it doesn't). Afaik I haven't tweaked it much (except for relatively small but crucial things such as making it not affected by Horrid Wilting), and the in-game description in not standardized like summoning spells on purpose. That being said I might add it to the on-line documentation anyway.

 

Also, I noticed planetars hit as +3 which seems a bit weak considering Mord Swords and demons hit as +4. I also wonder if neutral mages can choose to summon both planetar types (more useful now with the greater variety between the two in SR), or if you pick one and have to stick with it.

Most fiends are supposed to be more powerful than celestials when it comes to raw melee power (though planetar's vorpal weapons are a serious threat in melee), and just so you know +3 weapons work on pretty much any BG creature (except 3-4 unique beings). Neutral characters has to choose between one of the two celestial for obvious roleplaying reasons.

[urdjur]

crucial things such as making it not affected by Horrid Wilting

 

Whoa! This is excellent news. I reckon this is because ADHW isn't supposed to be pure magic damage, but rather an evaporation effect, meaning constructs and undead are immune? So this should mean that Magic Missile and Skull Trap are the only ways to actually deal damage to the Sword?

 

Mordenkainen's Sword is not a summon but an Evocation.

 

I'm mostly interested in its immunities. Does this imply immunity to Death Spell? Charm/hold/sleep/paralysis etc?

 

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

[Demivrgvs]

HLAs

I'm not so worried about players becoming more effective. But I think this will be seriously useful to enemy wizards. 9th level spell slots are a fairly significant constraint on my scripting.

Good for your scripts then! If the AI takes advantage from something players can use I don't see any problem. Within IR V3 I think I'm giving non-spellcasting characters A LOT more tools to counter spellcasters (e.g. not dispellable potions above everything else imo), and within KR I can try do do something if we think mages rule the battlefield too much.

 

Having enemy wizards spam Spellstrike could be a serious threat for PC mages, but as long as we restore Spell Shield it should be ok.

 

One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players.

 

(That's only an issue as and when I take SR properly into account, but doing so has got most of the way to the top of my to-do list.)

Cool!

 

 

Horrid Wilting & Mordenkainen's Sword

crucial things such as making it not affected by Horrid Wilting

Whoa! This is excellent news. I reckon this is because ADHW isn't supposed to be pure magic damage, but rather an evaporation effect, meaning constructs and undead are immune?

Exactly.

 

So this should mean that Magic Missile and Skull Trap are the only ways to actually deal damage to the Sword?

They are not the only ways because Disintegrate can now be used too (right now it's not a 100% sure counter because the sword takes only 5d6 dmg on a successful save - but I'll add an EFF to make it always destroy the sword as per PnP), a Black Blade of Disaster can destroy Mordy quite easily, and now even a Dispel Magic spell can destroy it (as per PnP - though I just noticed I haven't included the workaround we needed to use for Nishruu's similar weakness, will fix asap). On the other hand, Skull Trap is a grey area because in PnP it unleash "negative energy" dmg (aka it shouldn't affect undead beings - though it still does in BG), and I don't know if Mordy can be harmed by it in PnP, but I've not added any mentioned of it within the revised description, thus it still works against Mordy.

 

Mordenkainen's Sword is not a summon but an Evocation.

I'm mostly interested in its immunities. Does this imply immunity to Death Spell? Charm/hold/sleep/paralysis etc?

It's immune to all mind affecting spells, and it should be immune to pretty much any spell that doesn't work on incorporeal beings (e.g. polymorph, petrification, etc.). I've checked it right now though and noticed I have to seriously refine it to match V3 standards because it's currently missing a bunch of immunities that it should have imo (e.g. entagle, grease). Right now the sword and its immunities are almost identical to vanilla.

 

Death Spell shouldn't work on it, but to not break the AI I've left this unchanged. That being said, within V4 Death Spell resource will be turned from a necromantic spell into an abjuration one, Banishment. This way such spell will keep its anti-mordy and anti-undead properties without so blatantly ignore its concept (a death spell which kills undead beings and a sword made of energy? )

 

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile. Edited January 21, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[Suttree]

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

...and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.

Off-topic (apologies) but relevant to urdjur's game: SCS AI will change targets when weapons are ineffective. It is difficult to tank melee opponents with Swords if there are other (vulnerable) targets in play. Ex. If you yourself aren't running PfMW expect fiends to simply ignore the swords, beam in, and attack your PC.

[Shaitan]

One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players. rolleyes.gif

How about two then?

[DavidW]

One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players.

Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors.

 

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.

 

This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.

[Demivrgvs]

One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players.

Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors.

Jokes aside, my point was that having the AI summon a Pit Fiend with 100% chance of it not turning hostile to his summoner is fine, but three would make really hard to believe imo.

 

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.

This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.

Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield.

[DavidW]

One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players.

Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors.

Jokes aside, my point was that having the AI summon a Pit Fiend with 100% chance of it not turning hostile to his summoner is fine, but three would make really hard to believe imo.

 

I hear what you're saying but I don't agree.

[Ardanis]

Hadn't we agreed to grant extra XP for summoned fiends? Also, by the time the party starts encountering casters capable of three Gates in a row, I think they ought to be at least mid-level with modest selection of +3 weapons.

The only exception was Edwin's lich with Nether scroll, whom I've already reported to David as effectively preventing Edwin's quest from completion (given the amount of time it takes).

 

And, lastly, I imagine the situation can change with v4's new regular summons. If there's something else to conjure on 8th/9th levels besides fiends, that would mean one main demon aided by elementals/monsters.

[DavidW]

Is SCS still treating it as a summon, as in trying to attack it even though it's immune?

Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.

This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.

Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield.

 

I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.)

[Constantine]

Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield.

 

I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.)

I take it this is a change based on PnP rules AND common sense.

[DavidW]

Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield.

 

I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.)

I take it this is a change based on PnP rules AND common sense.

 

Perhaps you could clarify how your "common sense" is intended to differ from my "realism".

[phordicus]

I take it this is a change based on PnP rules AND common sense.

PnP rules (relevant to BG) are notoriously arbitrary and inconsistent. there's a 2nd level spell that counts as a full night's rest including refreshed spells. in BG2 this is a Wish/9th/epic level spell. i'm not sure "PnP says so" is good argument for coding something into a computer game.

[Demivrgvs]

there's a 2nd level spell that counts as a full night's rest including refreshed spells.

Which spell would it be?

 

"PnP says so" is a very good argument imo, as long as we don't blindly take it as god's law. It's only a matter of using a standard setting most players can feel comfortable with. Then, home made changes over it are indeed fine, and PnP itself is far from being immune to criticisms, but going "wild" isn't a good idea imo. Ignoring PnP might really appeal some players (e.g. IA is an example), but the majority of D&D (and BG) players generally prefer to remain more true to the system they are familiar with.

 

Regarding SR's ADHW not affecting constructs, undead and incorporeal beings it's both for PnP and realism's sake. I'd personally add to this "variety", because I like spells to have some uniqueness. Horrid Wilting isn't a simple damage dealing spell like most Evocations, it's a dehydrating effect, which doesn't deal direct damage (I wanted to replace magic dmg with lower hp a la IR V3's vampiric effect, but it would have caused issues with the AI), and shouldn't affect creatures that doesn't depend on water at all.

 

P.S Speaking of which, I just noticed ADHW still affects fire/air/earth elementals, and it shouldn't imo. I'll "fix" it asap.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[phordicus]

i didn't mean ignore it entirely, but PnP presumes an immediate and infallible arbiter of inconsistencies. here we're dealing with fixed solutions to fixed obstacles. as an example, in some PnP contexts the Inquisitor kit is no more and perhaps less powerful than a Cavalier, but within BG2 where True Sight and a 2x level Dispel Magic can solve virtually any encounter with mages combined with immunities to two of the most common and powerful attack effects, the Inq is without question more powerful. since "common sense" was his only other argument i just wanted to discourage over-reliance on the ancestral ruleset.

 

http://www.purpleworm.org/Library/Rules/TM/DD04281.htm

Nap (Alteration)

Sphere: Time

Range: Touch

Components: V, S, M

Duration: Special

Casting Time: 2

Area of Effect: One creature/level

Saving Throw: None

Creatures affected by this spell are put to sleep for one hour. Upon awakening, the creature is as refreshed as if he had slept for eight hours. The affected person recovers lost hit points as if he rested for a full night. Wizards can memorize spells as if real time had passed.

Because the rest is so complete and rejuvenating, a character does not feel fatigued after waking. Attempts to use nap more than once in an 18-hour period are ineffective (the character simply is not sleepy). Only willing subjects can be affected by nap.

The material components are a scrap of pillow ticking, a feather, and a pebble that the caster has kept in his pocket for seven nights.

Edited January 24, 2011 by phordicus