Feedback

[kreso]

t your butt roasted by the dragons breath weapon or what ever it wants to cast at you. I said, that the Hold spell would hold(in place) the monster, not stun it, like the current spell would do if it is not immune to it(the totality of the spells affects). Yep, this is done with the single target entangle opcode with it's own save vs. penalty etc.

Yeah. And nobody uses Fire/Acid whatever protection when facing dragons. If you take away their mobility and melee power, they are nothing. Even with SCS buffs, they are usually outnumbered 6 to 1. If one is smart enough to have all party hit by Remove magic he deserves to be roasted anyway.

Entangled dragons? Good luck getting Demivrgvs to implement this....

[yarpen]

Also a cool change coming from D&D Next.

Protection from Evil is broken in BG, right? In D&D Next it grants +2 bonus to AC/Saves vs Undeads and Demons (and immunity to some of effects applied by them). Seems really neat and fitting.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Protection from Evil is broken in BG, right? In D&D ...

Well, if you mean that it actually does what the priest rituals do in the books, then perhaps, but in a computer RPGs like the BG is there's really no other ways to go about it. The original AI and the spell working this way is made to fit... but if you wish to change one, you have to take all the others into account as well. And do you want to summon the more powerful ally that doesn't count into the summon cap or the not so powerful one that has the summon cap ?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Jarno Mikkola

[yarpen]

In terms of brokeness, I mean fact that it gives you large defensive boost against 90% of creatures in the game.

[Demivrgvs]

Hold vs. Stun

... the Hold spell would hold(in place) the monster, not stun it, like the current spell would do if it is not immune to it(the totality of the spells affects). Yep, this is done with the single target entangle opcode with it's own save vs. penalty etc.

... Entangled dragons? Good luck getting Demivrgvs to implement this....

LOL "entangled dragons"

 

Regarding hold & stun effects I do remember me and Arda discussing about it and trying to understand how to handle them. Right now stun generally have a shorter duration but they are pretty much the same thing. Is it possible to clearly differentiate them? And if it is, would it be beneficial or detrimental?

 

I tried to write down a standardized concept behind them (e.g. one of them is a physical effect and the other is a mind affecting one?) but both of them are widely used in too many instances with different concepts. Hold is used for all kinds of things, from physical paralysis caused by different sources (ghoul's touch, envenomed blade, web etc.) to enchantment spells.

 

Also note that both effects are hardcoded, and changing how they behave is out of question imo.

 

Short story: if anyone has a clear idea in mind to "standardize" the two concepts and/or thinks he can suggest a cool way to handle both effects better than how we currently do, I'm always open to suggestions, but personally I gave up.

 

 

Protection from Evil

Also a cool change coming from D&D Next.

Protection from Evil is broken in BG, right? In D&D Next it grants +2 bonus to AC/Saves vs Undeads and Demons (and immunity to some of effects applied by them). Seems really neat and fitting.

The "cast this 1st lvl spell and any ultra-mega-powerful demon lord, worth of a 9th lvl spell, cannot even touch you" was beyond stupid for me yes, but within SR I already removed this aspect.

 

The current ProEvil isn't broken anymore, though I still don't like one thing about it: its evil variant. An eventual ProGood spell would be of very limited use for the AI (tons of neutral and evil PC controlled characters), and a terrible spell for an evil party. The very concept itself of the ProGood variant is bad imo. While "good creatures" don't fight each other in a fantasy setting like D&D, evil forces do and quite often, so they would still pick ProEvil if allowed.

 

In terms of concept I do like what D&D next decided to do, but I don't know if it works for us considering the established use of this spell.

[yarpen]

Stun should mostly come from head injury. Either powerfull noise, bash in the head or explosion. It should be short-lasting secondary effect of some spells, and there shouldn't be many ways to become immune to it (I'd even risk to say: none). It shouldn't last longer than 4-5 rounds (1s Stun on some kind of effect would be cool).

 

Hold is just being ... well, held by something. For example Hold Person spell creates an image in the mind of affected creature that it's tied with powerfull, metal bars. It's specific effect, so certain items/spells/creatures can either grant immunity to it or be already immune. If it's possible to implement, affected character should get a chance to make a saving throw every round while being held (with progressively worsened modifier).

 

Paralysis is disabling your brain's capability to send informations to your muscle. Mostly applied by poison and in some freakish situations, fear.

 

I still don't understand: why you don't let me to use charm magic on dragons. Or nearly anything in the game as nearly everyone has protection from this stuff. I mean, if he fails a save and I'm spending Level 5 slot to cast Level 2 spell, what's wrong with that? I know, he's supersmart and stuff but he's not smart enough to avoid fighting me - so that's his problem.

Edited May 22, 2014 by yarpen

[Jarno Mikkola]

LOL "entangled dragons"

I don't get what's so fun about that ? There's known cases where dragons have been chained to a cave... it's not immobile.

 

Also note that both effects are hardcoded, and changing how they behave is out of question imo.

The opcode yeah, but there's nothing that says you can't attach the spell another effect that is affects everyone. It might be even short effect, one that in most cases has no overall effect at all.

[kreso]

Stun should mostly come from head injury. Either powerfull noise, bash in the head or explosion. It should be short-lasting secondary effect of some spells, and there shouldn't be many ways to become immune to it (I'd even risk to say: none). It shouldn't last longer than 4-5 rounds (1s Stun on some kind of effect would be cool).

 

I like this. Stun should be shorter (somewhere about 1-2 rounds or similar), no save, no Free Action preventing it. Make those Symbol:Stun hurt. PW:Stun as it is now.

[yarpen]

I wouldn't say it shouldn't have a saving throw. At least not everywhere. For example, if Demi would like to improve Delayed Fireball and turn it into some kind of "enhanced Fireball", I'd consider having Stun or Knockback there if opponent doesn't suceed in saving throw against breath. Or it could be a possible effect for Sound Burst (deafness with no saving throw, stun/damage if save is failed).

Edited May 23, 2014 by yarpen

[kreso]

A small proposed tweak to Armor of Faith spell - this spell is very very powerful for it's availability and level. SR reduces it's power somewhat, but imo it's still hugely powerful.

My tweak would be 10% to all resistances, much longer duration (similar to Cavalier's Shield of Faith - 5 turns). Personally, I'd make unaffected by Breach/Dispel also. This way it's useful throughout the game, but nothing wild.

[yarpen]

Or just maybe switch it into Shield of Faith? It's cleric's spell in D&D3.

[Demivrgvs]

Armor of Faith

A small proposed tweak to Armor of Faith spell - this spell is very very powerful for it's availability and level. SR reduces it's power somewhat, but imo it's still hugely powerful.

My tweak would be 10% to all resistances, much longer duration (similar to Cavalier's Shield of Faith - 5 turns). Personally, I'd make unaffected by Breach/Dispel also. This way it's useful throughout the game, but nothing wild.

You know you almost convinced me on this matter 5 months ago. I would keep it affected by dispel though.

 

Or just maybe switch it into Shield of Faith? It's cleric's spell in D&D3.

I'm against this because an AC bonus heavily overlaps with ProEvil.

[Dakk]

So 20% phys. res. -> 10% all res, and longer duration? I'm ok with whichever, but I'm not sure at what caster level the changed version is supposed to shine/make a difference? Feel free to enlighten me

Edited June 1, 2014 by Dakk

[kreso]

So 20% phys. res. -> 10% all res, and longer duration? I'm ok with whichever, but I'm not sure at what caster level the changed version is supposed to shine/make a difference? Feel free to enlighten me

I don't feel that all spells should scale with levels. Resistances "scale" itself as you take more damage from attacks (i.e. a roll of 10 damage becomes 9, you substract one point of damage; while a roll of 20 damage becomes 18, you substract 2 etc.).

[Demivrgvs]

Armor of Faith

So 20% phys. res. -> 10% all res, and longer duration? I'm ok with whichever, but I'm not sure at what caster level the changed version is supposed to shine/make a difference? Feel free to enlighten me

I don't feel that all spells should scale with levels. Resistances "scale" itself as you take more damage from attacks (i.e. a roll of 10 damage becomes 9, you substract one point of damage; while a roll of 20 damage becomes 18, you substract 2 etc.).

Yep, that's pretty much the reason I used a fixed %. If you instead make the % itself scale, as per vanilla which started with 5% and ended with 25%, instead of performing well the entire game you had an extremely weak spell at low levels and a ridiculously OP 1st lvl spell a high levels.