Feedback

[Dakk]

But is 10% enough to make a difference? 20% phys. res sounds MUCH better than 10% all res.

[Jarno Mikkola]

But is 10% enough to make a difference? 20% phys. res sounds MUCH better than 10% all res.

That totally a case by case situation... in one you can take fireballs and this and the Protection from Fire and use the first to heal your character while the enemies takes damage, in the other it's easier to gain 100% physical resistance... and get healed by being hit.

[Ardanis]

But is 10% enough to make a difference? 20% phys. res sounds MUCH better than 10% all res.

 

Supposedly this is meant to stack with IR's armor resistance bonus.

[Dakk]

 

But is 10% enough to make a difference? 20% phys. res sounds MUCH better than 10% all res.

 

Supposedly this is meant to stack with IR's armor resistance bonus.

 

Then it's more interesting. As I said above I'm theorygaming here and kreso bases his opinion on gameplay. With the caveat that kreso is a powergamer (in the positive sense that he's an accomplished player) and errs on the side of more difficulty, a change sounds reasonable.

[kreso]

What I want to avoid like the plague of Nurgul itself is over-the-top physical resistance stacking.

IR has 2 items which grant 10% - Rocharanas horn helmet (or whatever its name is) and Fortress shield.

Simple addition goes like this:

 

- Full Plate - 20

- shield -10

- helmet - 10

- KR Hardiness - 20

- Potion of Absorbtion - 20

- Armor of Faith - 20

 

Mix all these, you have immunity to physical damage. Usable by fighter/clerics and paladins. If you don't have Kit Revisions, it's even easier.

What I'd do is:

a) remove physical resistance from Fortress shield

b) Potion of Absorbtion toned down (10%) or doesn't stack with Hardiness HLA

c) Armor of Faith toned down to 10%

 

Then you'd have

10% helmet

20 full plate

Hardiness 20

Absorbtion 10

AoF 10

 

Equals 70 % reduction, max.

Barbarian could get 75 (15 armor, 10 helm, 20 hardiness, absorbtion 10, innate 20) or 80 by using Orc Leather.

 

If Hardiness wouldn't stack with Absorbtion potion then even more sensible numbers are gained - 60 for f/cs and paladins, 65-70 barbarians.

[kreso]

Here's some more feedback/tweak suggestions, in additon to stuff mentioned before (Armor of Faith etc.)

 

Blindness - too long duration. Against AI, this is glaringly OP spell. This spell is so much better than lvl 2 Deafness that it isn't even funny

True Stike - duration is way to low to warrant a slot, even for mage/thieves this isn't practical to use

Haste - this spell is almost unusable at low (BG1) levels, since the duration is so short that fatigue penalties usually matter more than bonuses.

Protection from Missiles - I don't know how I didn't notice this spell before - it's so powerful (ranged Apsolute Immunity, 120 seconds, castable on others, 4th level). 5 rounds, self-only? Won't mess AI none since it never uses it apart self-buffs.

Ice Storm - I'd tone the duration a bit. No-save slow + damage = this spell has no real competition at it's level regarding the overall effect on combat.

Teleport Field - duration is imo slightly too long.

 

Draw Upon Holy Might - "winded" is too long of duration. I wouldn't use this spell if it was castable at will, let alone a 2nd level slot.

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades - why do these spells allow a save for no damage at all? I'd rather if the damage was toned down but no save against it. It has a big deficiancy since one usually wants clerics away from melee anyway...

[Demivrgvs]

@Salk & Sergio, I will leave kreso answer for himself, but I think both you and him have a point, and I generally try to please both types of players (sometime it's not possible). When it comes to Armor of Faith, I'm taking into consideration the suggested tweak (10% res against all dmg type instead of 20% vs physical dmg only) because I do want to take into account possible uber-combos, but at the same time I would not opt for a tweak which makes a spell appealing only in limited circumstances or only when used in those uber-combos. I'm not 100% sure I will implement it, but I think 10% res against all would not make the spell unappealing at all, especially if we are rasing the currently short duration. It would still be better than vanilla's AoF for BG1 (it was 5% for levels 1-4, and extremely short lasting until level 10), and still good for the entire game because of the increased duration and great interaction with TONS of stuff (physical and/or elemental resistances are almost everywhere).

On a side note, I have no intention of removing Fortress Shield's physical res. I really like its current state and do not find it a "problem" for the above mentioned uber-combos.

Blindness
I'm aware of this spell OP-ness against AI and I'm trying to figure out a way to change it "with style". Simply reducing its duration would make it kinda against players though (at least imo). They already ignore its most prominent feature because the blinded character field of view is not limited as long as you have another party member nearby, and the extremely long duration was meant to make this spell "annoying" for players (AI obviously cannot care less of such duration).

On a side note, I'd like to remind that Deafness will no longer be the useless spell you are used to but a much cooler one. Check here.

True Stike
Mmm...I have to think about it.

Haste
Yeah, that's a common problem of all those spells with 1 round/lvl duration, they last too little within BG1. What about a fixed 1 turn duration?

Protection from Missiles
I'm in favor of making it self-only. I cannot reduce the duration so heavily because afaik SCS uses it as a long lasting pre-buff. Maybe we could try 1 turn instead of 2, but it requires testing to see if it lasts long enough.

Also note that Arrow of Dispelling still work against this spell.

Ice Storm
I'm sure you know it, but just to remind everyone, this spell "only" reduces the movement rate of those within the storm, they are not affected by a slow opcode (thus no apr reduction and related stuff). Considering it is not party-friendly I'm not convinced that this spell needs a nerf. Mmm...

Teleport Field
Why do you feel duration is too long? It's only 10 rounds...

Draw Upon Holy Might
The winded duration is the standard one, and it's not long imo. In theory it's there to force you to time the use of this spell instead of spamming it as you please, especially at high levels where this spell becomes both cheap and powerful.

Otoh one thing I always felt wrong of this spell is its scaling. Similarly to vanilla's AoF this spell starts as an underwhelming spell (+1 to all stats is meh unless you are so lucky to go from STR 18 to 19) but later on turns into an absolute monster (+6 to STR, DEX and CON is insane for a 2nd lvl spell imo). Am I the only one feeling this?

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades
I don't remember why it's working like this, but I guess it can work with a save for half dmg too. I'm not sure instead about heavily reducing the dmg in favor of no save at all.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Demivrgvs

[Incantatar]

Damn it, i had a long answer vanishing in the abyss.

 

Just two quick notes: Contingencies take too much time to fire. This really should be fixed but i can imagine is hard coded? Triggers are interruptable in my experience, they have a casting time of 1 right? Should be 0.

[Salk]

Blindness

I'm aware of this spell OP-ness against AI and I'm trying to figure out a way to change it "with style". Simply reducing its duration would make it kinda against players though (at least imo). They already ignore its most prominent feature because the blinded character field of view is not limited as long as you have another party member nearby, and the extremely long duration was meant to make this spell "annoying" for players (AI obviously cannot care less of such duration).

 

On a side note, I'd like to remind that Deafness will no longer be the useless spell you are used to but a much cooler one. Check here.

 

 

Forgive me for suggesting something that to my own ears sound too simple to be right: but couldn't you just reduce the malus instead of the duration? Would it have "style" enough?

[kreso]

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades

I don't remember why it's working like this, but I guess it can work with a save for half dmg too. I'm not sure instead about heavily reducing the dmg in favor of no save at all.

Blindness - if it sticks on an enemy, it's in effect, save or die. Against PCs, it's annoying, and if one doesn't have means to cure it memorized, forces a rest due to neverending duration. 5 rounds is enough of a disable for 1st level spell. It almost completely takes a fighter's damage output away from him, and makes any ranged attacker useless. What's wrong with it, even if 5 rounds duration? BG1 casters are completely shut down with this spell. You can even squeeze it into triggers and such.

 

Haste - 1 turn sounds fine.

 

Pro Missiles - go half the current value, then? 1 turn? AI can cast 10 spells during that time, it's enough. 2 turns is a chore in BG1 where every mage and his mage friend and his pet bard has this spell memorized. And no Breach to get rid of it anywhere...

I know Dispel arrows work, but they're very expensive, and you only see two of them in BG1 before you get to Baldur's Gate where you can (maybe, depends on install) buy them for a ton of money. No enemy uses IR Dispel arrow.

 

Ice Storm - it's always my first level 4 pick for a sorcerer. It's that good. It also bypasses Minor Globe, which is a huge boost in spell power. -1 round duration, perhaps just slightly higher damage in return? Keep in mind this is a "combo" spell (entangle, web and similar work splendidly with this, forcing numerous saves).

 

 

Telly field - am I the only one who hates this spell? It's utter annoyance.

 

DUHM - at later levels, who needs this anyway? 19 strenght is enough for entire game imo. Your fighters will probably have 20-22 strenght, and why bother with penalties later on?I don't see this spell powerful, unless I'm playing a halfling or a monk, even then it's very limited.

If I wanted strenght which is the most important stat for a fighter, I'd pick "strenght of one" any day over this.

 

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades - I don't think every spell in this game needs a save allowed. In addition, every "save or x" ends up favouring the player, not AI. Any buff to clerics, especially melee-wise, is fine imo.

[Incantatar]

 

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades

I don't remember why it's working like this, but I guess it can work with a save for half dmg too. I'm not sure instead about heavily reducing the dmg in favor of no save at all.

Haste - 1 turn sounds fine.

 

I don't think it is bad or overpowered as it is and 1 turn flat is just nerfing it.

 

Pro Missiles - go half the current value, then? 1 turn? AI can cast 10 spells during that time, it's enough. 2 turns is a chore in BG1 where every mage and his mage friend and his pet bard has this spell memorized. And no Breach to get rid of it anywhere...

I know Dispel arrows work, but they're very expensive, and you only see two of them in BG1 before you get to Baldur's Gate where you can (maybe, depends on install) buy them for a ton of money. No enemy uses IR Dispel arrow.

 

It's a good spell for the AI it's not a very good spell for the player. I play solo no reloads with mages and don't memorize it. Invisibility is the plain better defense for a mage.

 

Ice Storm - it's always my first level 4 pick for a sorcerer. It's that good. It also bypasses Minor Globe, which is a huge boost in spell power. -1 round duration, perhaps just slightly higher damage in return? Keep in mind this is a "combo" spell (entangle, web and similar work splendidly with this, forcing numerous saves).

 

There are imo better spells at lvl 4. It's a combo spell you're right but it's not overpowered on its own.

 

 

Telly field - am I the only one who hates this spell? It's utter annoyance.

 

I think it's too weak in SR and the stackability in vanilla is overpowered.

 

DUHM - at later levels, who needs this anyway? 19 strenght is enough for entire game imo. Your fighters will probably have 20-22 strenght, and why bother with penalties later on?I don't see this spell powerful, unless I'm playing a halfling or a monk, even then it's very limited.

If I wanted strenght which is the most important stat for a fighter, I'd pick "strenght of one" any day over this.

 

I really can't see how you think this spell is weak. I think it's great. For every character.

 

Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades - I don't think every spell in this game needs a save allowed. In addition, every "save or x" ends up favouring the player, not AI. Any buff to clerics, especially melee-wise, is fine imo.

 

It's a bit lame for pure clerics with the save but just right for a f/c imo.

[Demivrgvs]

@Incantatar, thanks for joining the discussion.

 

Armor of Faith

What Kreso described with his graphic is the very same reason that made me tweak AoF in the first place back then (from an increasing 5-25% to a fixed 20%). A % dmg reduction scale by itself exponentially the more the character gains hp, and the more dmg he has to sustain from his opponents. I am sympathetic to what Salk says in general, but uber high damage resistance in this game can be easily achieved even by "random players" with many different setups without meta-gaming, with or without Revisions mods. Btw, 80-100% res for extremely short duration may not be a huge deal (it is imo), but values above 100% that makes you fully heal because the enemy is using Critical Strike against you -that's just stupid imo.

 

My only concern is that at low levels a 10% reduction doesn't "look cool" by itself for many players, and unless coupled with other resistances it's clearly inferior to something like ProEvil imo. This is not really a problem with IR's armors (e.g. a cleric casting AoF in medium or heavy armor would have res 20-30%), but without IRv4 you have to wait for BG2 to make this spell shine imo. That being said, even without IR the suggested change would still make this spell work better than vanilla's one for BG1 (higher or equal %, better duration).

 

Draw Upon Divine Might

Well, +6 to all stats means you can get to 23-25 STR/DEX/CON very easily imo. Unless your starting stats are a joke it means you are probably going to get at least +3 thac0, +5dmg, +3 AC, a good bunch of hit points and a slow regeneration. With certain stats it gets even better, such as STR 17 becoming 23 for a ridiculous +10 dmg bonus on each hit. Doesn't that sound great to you for a 2nd lvl spell? That's why I put the winded effect there, which btw was there even in PnP (and harsher!).

 

If I had to remove the fatigue effect I do think the bonus to STR/DEX/CON should not be higher than +3.

 

Blindness

@Salk, I cannot reduce any penalty because what makes this spell a "save or die" for the AI isn't the -10 thac0 or -4 thac0/AC, but its "no field of view" hardcoded effect. What I don't like of this spell is that it's waaay more powerful when used by players against the AI. The only case where the player would "feel" blindness the same way would be an AoE Blindness which blinds the entire party.

 

When I say I'd like to change it "with style" I mean something daring like I've done with Deafness (I love that change). I'm talking about something like replacing it with Fog Cloud (blinds - or almost blinds - everyone within it making it "fair" when used against players) or moving it to its appropriate level (it's a 2nd lvl spell in PnP, not a super cheap 1st lvl). I'm not suggesting this, it's only to try explaining my point, but if this spell had a heavily reduced duration, but caused both blindness and deafness it would still be better than now imo (AI casters do not cast spells anyway while blinded, thus no change for them, but finally players would be limited too).

 

I know I'm crazy.

 

Teleport Field

This spell was OP in vanilla because of its no-save and "stackability" but I would not nerf it more than I already did. @Incantatar, I'm slightly boosting its save penalty (save at -4 vs. spell is harsh enough to work extremely well against its intended targets, melee warriors) but while I don't think its still too powerful like kreso I also do not think it's too weak.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Demivrgvs

[Ardanis]

Haste

And other 1/lvl duration spells - change to 1 turn + 1/2 lvl

 

True Strike

Change to 1 critical hit, max duration 1 turn.

[janoha]

True Strike

Change to 1 critical hit, max duration 1 turn.

 

I like your suggestions and have also considered how to make that spell more usefull myself.

 

My original thought was to take the original +10 THAC0 concept, but increase duration to two or even three rounds.

 

I think I prefer your solution though, but would decrease duration to two or three rounds to avoid overpowered spell combinations (harm for instance).

 

Just my 2 cents on that spell.

[Demivrgvs]

True Strike

Change to 1 critical hit, max duration 1 turn.

I like your suggestions and have also considered how to make that spell more usefull myself.

My original thought was to take the original +10 THAC0 concept, but increase duration to two or even three rounds.

I think I prefer your solution though, but would decrease duration to two or three rounds to avoid overpowered spell combinations (harm for instance).

My problem with Arda's suggestion is that it makes a 1st lvl spell look like a copy of a warrior's HLA, Critical Strike. Even if coded to last a single hit it would still look like an extremely cheap HLA imo. Am I the only one disturbed by this?

 

Otoh, I do thought about making it increase the chance to score a critical hit, but I wanted such feature to be the main appeal of a new higher lvl divination spell, Executioner's Eyes.

 

Beta testers have suggested to simply reduce the thac0 bonus (e.g. +4) while increasing the spell duration (e.g. 10 rounds).

 

One more random idea I had was to make this spell grant the caster fighter's base thac0 for a prolonged amount of time, but I fear it would change PnP concept too much.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Demivrgvs