Feedback

[urdjur]

To be fair, 2nd edition PnP is broken beyond belief and a DM's nightmare of inconsistencies and leaking holes, at least if he's facing a player who knows how to use an arcane caster. In 3.0 or 3.5, clerics and druids (of the base classes) are probably more broken than arcane casters, but if we start adding expansion books it gets really, really convuluted. (Don't get me started on my immortal epic level psion who had swapped minds with a hellwasp swarm and only had a humanoid form by virtue of his skin of proteus). 4.0 isn't really the same game anymore, but at least warrior types achieve some sort of balance when compared to casters, for the first time in the game's history. Long story short, let us not turn to PnP for play balance or consistency - only an argument of familiarity and nostalgia can be made here. Balance needs to be decided based on the gaming environment, and a computer game is a pretty far cry from PnP (where there are no save points, for instance - though the theoretical optimization boards have created something similar using a combination of high level spells).

 

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.

 

Please don't change damage types of powerful spells beyond the existing ones. Having a spell that bypasses all immunities (such as Protection from Energy) is bad for both sides IMO. When you speak of air elementals, do you include Invisible Stalkers?

 

Slightly off topic, I was also wondering what the limitations of Grease is - more specifically which summons are unaffected by it (the description mentions something about larger creatures being immune, but dragon-large or skeleton warrior-large?)

[Shaitan]

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.

Good

[DavidW]

"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.

 

While I don't have any problem with writing a PnP mod, it's a non sequitur to go from "players generally prefer to remain more true to the system they are familiar with" to "PnP is the baseline". BG2's system is not a verbatim port of 2nd edition AD&D. It's pretty closely based on it, but it imports both modifications from 3rd edition (e.g. Holy Smite) and many changes based on the needs of a CRPG (such as ADHW being party-friendly). There are plenty of players who are familiar with BG2 but not at all with 2nd edition AD&D, and there are plenty more (like me) who are familiar with both but are relaxed about the fact that they're different, though related, systems.

 

 

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.

 

The problem with this is that none of the AI (not SCS, not Tactics, not vanilla) knows this, and so it all treats ADHW as what it game-mechanically is (and how it's used in vanilla BG2): a straightforward, magic-damage-inflicting attack. This isn't critical, but it's likely to be visible, and it's certainly exploitable, accidentally or deliberately. (Swords remain my most pressing concern.)

Edited January 24, 2011 by DavidW

[Demivrgvs]

Regarding the whole PnP thing, I thought it was clear I wasn't saying "if it's in PnP go for it", but "if it's in PnP many players are familiar with it, thus are more likely to accept it". Anyone familiar with my mods knows that I don't feel so much restricted by PnP rules and books if I think something there is broken or can be done better, but still I do look there everytime because I'd feel uncomfortable inventing "ex novo" too many things. For example, if I add Snilloc's Snowball Swarm I doubt anyone would find it odd (it's a spell for the specific setting BG is based on, FR, and IWD has it too), but if I add an invented "Glacial Prison" spell which "kills" the target by turning it into ice many D&D players may feel uncomfortable with it, and it would be even worse if I make it replace Flesh to Stone. That's it, only a matter of "familiarity".

 

Regarding many PnP things being broken and unbalanced I obviously agree, but tweaking it seems more smooth than reinventing the wheel. Anyway, that's my opinion, not the established and absolute truth.

 

P.S Nap isn't included in the official AD&D Spell Compendium, and as urdjur says expansion books are the worst nightmare of DMs (though it's easily resolved by telling players: "NO"). Whatever the source of that spell is, the spell is beyond OP. If it's from an official book than it's a good example of how PnP can be seriously broken.

 

Please don't change damage types of powerful spells beyond the existing ones. Having a spell that bypasses all immunities (such as Protection from Energy) is bad for both sides IMO.

I haven't changed it exactly because of that, and specifically because I know SCS heavily relies on Pro(Magic)Energy to counter ADHW.

 

When you speak of air elementals, do you include Invisible Stalkers?

Good question. I don't because even if they belong to the same plane, they aren't air elementals. Just like fire salamanders are not fire elementals.

 

Slightly off topic, I was also wondering what the limitations of Grease is - more specifically which summons are unaffected by it (the description mentions something about larger creatures being immune, but dragon-large or skeleton warrior-large?)

Giants and dragons are immune to it, skeleton warriors are not (though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway).

 

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.

The problem with this is that none of the AI (not SCS, not Tactics, not vanilla) knows this, and so it all treats ADHW as what it game-mechanically is (and how it's used in vanilla BG2): a straightforward, magic-damage-inflicting attack. This isn't critical, but it's likely to be visible, and it's certainly exploitable, accidentally or deliberately. (Swords remain my most pressing concern.)

I know, but unless I'm seriously understimating the whole thing it's not a game-breaking issue. The entire party and most summons are still affected in the same way, and SCS itself prioritize other ways to counter the sword (e.g. Death Spell and Magic Missiles). I do hope I don't have to revert it for SCS sake, because having a dehytrating spell destroy a sword made of magic energy is really unbearable for me.

 

On a side note I've made it dispellable, and SCS seems to use Dispel/Remove Magic, especially early on during the encouters, which means any pre-cast sword is likely to get dispelled too. I know it's not intentional on SCS side, but it's probably effective anyway. No?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[Shaitan]

though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway

CR anyone

[Dakk]

Slightly off topic, I was also wondering what the limitations of Grease is - more specifically which summons are unaffected by it (the description mentions something about larger creatures being immune, but dragon-large or skeleton warrior-large?)

Giants and dragons are immune to it, skeleton warriors are not (though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway).

Does MR work against Grease? IMO that shouldn't be the case, the greasy surface is there ("real") whether you are immune to magic or not. Case in point; Dispel Magic doesn't remove the greased surface.

[Demivrgvs]

Slightly off topic, I was also wondering what the limitations of Grease is - more specifically which summons are unaffected by it (the description mentions something about larger creatures being immune, but dragon-large or skeleton warrior-large?)

Giants and dragons are immune to it, skeleton warriors are not (though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway).

Does MR work against Grease? IMO that shouldn't be the case, the greasy surface is there ("real") whether you are immune to magic or not. Case in point; Dispel Magic doesn't remove the greased surface.

Eh, I do agree with you but this is a long story. The short one would be: I didn't do this kind of tweaks for "AI friendliness".

 

If you ask me all Conjuration spells should ignore magic resistance, and such feature is indeed addressed in 3rd edition, but I don't know if I can implement it without running into more "conflicts" with either AD&D purists or SCS scripts (which cannot take such changes into account unless David really have the time and willingness to work on it).

 

Not long ago I also suggested to make Insect spells bypass mr, and in that case it's even more obvious imo because those insects are summoned creatures, it's only that they attack in a different way (no to hit roll).

 

The only two spells I'd be unsure of are Acid Arrow and Fire Arrow (though the latter even had partial physical damage, reminding its "physical" nature and setting it apart from Evocations).

 

Obviously such change would have to be taken into account when it comes to balance those spells, because bypassing magic resistance is a HUGE asset for any spell.

 

Let's say I'm open to discuss this matter for SR V4.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[Dakk]

If you ask me all Conjuration spells should ignore magic resistance, and such feature is indeed addressed in 3rd edition[...]

Agreed.

 

Not long ago I also suggested to make Insect spells bypass mr, and in that case it's even more obvious imo because those insects are summoned creatures, it's only that they attack in a different way (no to hit roll).

Agreed.

 

[b ]ut I don't know if I can implement it without running into more "conflicts" with either AD&D purists or SCS scripts (which cannot take such changes into account unless David really have the time and willingness to work on it).

As much as I'd like the above mentioned changes, making sure the AI (SCS) can cope with it takes precedence. So what is DavidW's opinion?

 

Obviously such change would have to be taken into account when it comes to balance those spells, because bypassing magic resistance is a HUGE asset for any spell.

Understood, and that any balancing will always have to adhere to the framework set upon us by SCS.

 

Let's say I'm open to discuss this matter for SR V4.

 

EDIT: The bottom line for Grease is that no change to "bypass" MR will be done now, out of compatibility concerns with SCS?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Dakk

[Daulmakan]

Regarding many PnP things being broken and unbalanced I obviously agree, but tweaking it seems more smooth than reinventing the wheel. Anyway, that's my opinion, not the established and absolute truth.

IMO it's blown out of proportion. SOME things being broken/unbalanced is a far cry from making the entire 2E system broken, that is simply nonsense.

 

P.S Nap isn't included in the official AD&D Spell Compendium,

Yes it is. Volume 2 of the Priest Spell Compendium. And I don't think it's that big of a deal. IIRC there aren't that many deities with access to the Time sphere, and most that do have access to it are restricted from other useful spells from different spheres.

 

Of course, introducing it into BG2 would clash with the ingame implementation of Wish, given the nature of the game. But complaining against something that hasn't been done seems moot.

[Demivrgvs]

Regarding many PnP things being broken and unbalanced I obviously agree, but tweaking it seems more smooth than reinventing the wheel. Anyway, that's my opinion, not the established and absolute truth.

IMO it's blown out of proportion. SOME things being broken/unbalanced is a far cry from making the entire 2E system broken, that is simply nonsense.

I never said the entire 2E is broken, nor would I think something so radical, else I wouldn't spend half of my modding time reading 2E books (despite having played only 3E in my youth) and I wouldn't always try to stay as close as possible to PnP in general.

 

P.S Nap isn't included in the official AD&D Spell Compendium,

Yes it is. Volume 2 of the Priest Spell Compendium. And I don't think it's that big of a deal. IIRC there aren't that many deities with access to the Time sphere, and most that do have access to it are restricted from other useful spells from different spheres.

 

Of course, introducing it into BG2 would clash with the ingame implementation of Wish, given the nature of the game. But complaining against something that hasn't been done seems moot.

My fault, I was thinking we were talking about arcane spells. Found it. It would have some limits compared to Wish, because it wouldn't be usable during a fight (the targets really sleeps for 1 hour) and cannot be used more than once per day...still, a 2nd lvl spell which grants full rest and refreshed spells/abilities to the entire party is outstandingly broken imo (especially in BG because its limits would count nothing in such environment). Edited January 24, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[DavidW]

If you ask me all Conjuration spells should ignore magic resistance, and such feature is indeed addressed in 3rd edition, but I don't know if I can implement it without running into more "conflicts" with either AD&D purists or SCS scripts (which cannot take such changes into account unless David really have the time and willingness to work on it).

 

Don't stress it on my account. I'm not particularly in favour of this personally, but the only major consequence for SCS scripting is that wizards will erroneously avoid using their Flame Arrow and Acid Arrow spells on high-MR targets.

 

On ADHW, ultimately it's your call. There's nothing mysterious as to what this will do in an SCS context: wizards will tend to use ADHW on suboptimal targets, which will have varying levels of consequence depending on party strategy and how large the combat zone is. I'm reasonably confident that will have a visible effect in some situations, occasionally causing a caster to do something foolish. I'm also reasonably confident that it won't be massively widespread, and won't be dramatic in its effect on wizard efficacy. Within those parameters, do as you will. There are SR changes that will have no negative impact on an SCS install; this isn't one of them. There are SR changes that will break SCS, this isn't one either.

 

(It's also likely that the next SCS release will be significantly more sensitive to whether SR is installed, so that's also a reason to err on the side of being gung-ho in changes. I don't support changes to the core antimagic/magic defence system, and I wouldn't support any change that I thought was completely daft, but this isn't either of those.)

[DavidW]

P.S Nap isn't included in the official AD&D Spell Compendium,

Yes it is. Volume 2 of the Priest Spell Compendium. And I don't think it's that big of a deal. IIRC there aren't that many deities with access to the Time sphere, and most that do have access to it are restricted from other useful spells from different spheres.

 

Of course, introducing it into BG2 would clash with the ingame implementation of Wish, given the nature of the game. But complaining against something that hasn't been done seems moot.

My fault, I was thinking we were talking about arcane spells. Found it. It would have some limits compared to Wish, because it wouldn't be usable during a fight (the targets really sleeps for 1 hour) and cannot be used more than once per day...still, a 2nd lvl spell which grants full rest and refreshed spells/abilities to the entire party is outstandingly broken imo (especially in BG because its limits would count nothing in such environment).

 

(Sorry for iterated posting; only just saw this.)

 

Actually, I think in BG it would be pretty harmless: hardly any BG2 encounters are time-critical.

[Daulmakan]

I never said the entire 2E is broken, nor would I think something so radical, else I wouldn't spend half of my modding time reading 2E books (despite having played only 3E in my youth) and I wouldn't always try to stay as close as possible to PnP in general.

I know, I was just extending on your general point about the intrinsic value of PnP.

[Dakk]

(It's also likely that the next SCS release will be significantly more sensitive to whether SR is installed, so that's also a reason to err on the side of being gung-ho in changes.

This is so awesome I'm getting all tingly thinking about it

Edited January 24, 2011 by Dakk

[Dermit]

Well it sounds like you aren't going to touch it, but if you think about it from a lore standpoint Conjuration bypassing MR doesn't make complete sense. While Conjuration is distinct from Evocation in that; rather than bringing forth forces or items of pure magic or elements, Conjuration calls up a real item or creature either from another plane, place or possibly from a conception in the caster's mind (presumably a conjurer could call up one of Plato's ideal perfect triangles). Nevertheless that item or creature owes its existence or connection to the current plane to an act of magic, you might say it is tethered or bound by magic. Thus a dismissal spell will banish summons and extra-planar creatures, even though they are "real". So presumably if an insect plague spell hit someone with high magic resistance and they passed their percentage check the insects would simply disappear in little puffs of smoke as the magic guiding and keeping them there is gone (same reason these spells have durations). Having never played much 3rd Ed. I can't speak for how it worked then or how the rationale went, but the merit of this argument is that it doesn't require any extra work!

 

Also regarding adherence to PnP, I'd say the greatest merit there is acheiving some kind of consistency, in the original game and between mods. I'm biased in favor of 2nd Ed. PnP but as you say there are some things that just don't make sense, or at least don't work well in a CRPG context (the 2nd Ed. Stat system for instance).

 

Just my two cents. Demi, no pressure or nothing, but I sincerely hope you don't get burnt out on modding in the near future. I'm looking forward to the day I can play a near perfect BG experience with IR,SR,KR (QR, CR?) and SCS.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Dermit