Kit Revisions (Fighters)

[Dakk]

Loosing control is something player won't like, but keeping control is overpowered.

I don't care about vanilla description. In every books with berserkers, they do loose control, but still, they are fearsome fighters.

I'd look at tuning/tweaking/nerfing the rage instead, because believe me, making a berserker lose control would make the kit horrible (from a player perspective). It's like a Wild Mage, but with wild surge on every cast.. and he can wipe out your entire party when someone throws a rock at him.

 

EDIT: I should mention that in this is probably the way KR will go in some shape or form; so if you're making your own mod and want them to go uncontrollable - you should!

[aigleborgne]

Maybe loosing control, but not attacking his friends, if it is possible to do...

 

Loosing control is something player won't like, but keeping control is overpowered.

I don't care about vanilla description. In every books with berserkers, they do loose control, but still, they are fearsome fighters.

I'd look at tuning/tweaking/nerfing the rage instead, because believe me, making a berserker lose control would make the kit horrible (from a player perspective). It's like a Wild Mage, but with wild surge on every cast.. and he can wipe out your entire party when someone throws a rock at him.

 

EDIT: I should mention that in this is probably the way KR will go in some shape or form; so if you're making your own mod and want them to go uncontrollable - you should!

[Dakk]

Maybe loosing control, but not attacking his friends, if it is possible to do...

That sounds like a very sensible compromise, if possible (and I'm sure there's some green_circle wizardry that can be done).

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Also, as aVENGER reported, the berserk opcode only affects party members (not berserk resulting from morale failure though, that can affect anyone) - SCSII makes quite a few enemy fighters into berserkers, they would not share this hindrance at all.

 

To clarify, opcode #3 only affects party members. However, opcode #247 works on both party members and enemies.

[polytope]

Maybe loosing control, but not attacking his friends, if it is possible to do...

That sounds like a very sensible compromise, if possible (and I'm sure there's some green_circle wizardry that can be done).

 

I don't think it is possible, you'd need to script it, and the only effect that can be called through spell and used to set AI scripts is opcode #82, unfortunately this permanently unsets whatever script a creature previously had. You might be able to use an "invisible creature trick" to override the berserker's actions, but the invisible creature can't be made to follow a character between areas.

 

To clarify, opcode #3 only affects party members. However, opcode #247 works on both party members and enemies.

 

Neither effect is really an accurate representation of how berserking should work, as the affected creature will attack only the nearest creature, not their nearest enemy or their last attacker.

 

Berserkers in 2nd ed are actually immune to healing spells while enraged (as well as Aid and Bless), this would be a serious disadvantage and is easier to implement than an uncontrollable berserker.

[Demivrgvs]

To clarify, opcode #3 only affects party members. However, opcode #247 works on both party members and enemies.

Ah ok, I knew I saw it working back then. Thanks for confirming it.

 

Berserkers in 2nd ed are actually immune to healing spells while enraged (as well as Aid and Bless), this would be a serious disadvantage and is easier to implement than an uncontrollable berserker.

If you looked at the new kit description I've made enraged characters unable to perform actions that require concentration (e.g. casting spells, using thieving skills, etc). I don't remember off hand how strict I currently am because I haven't messed with those files since ages, but back then I also made the enraged character unable to use quick item slots (e.g. potions, item's special abilities, etc).

 

That being said, while I'd agree with making enraged characters unable to heal themselves, I'd surely wouldn't make them "immune to party buffs". If an ally casts a heal spell on an enraged character I really don't see why it should not work (both conceptually and balance-wise).

[Dakk]

Berserkers in 2nd ed are actually immune to healing spells while enraged (as well as Aid and Bless), this would be a serious disadvantage and is easier to implement than an uncontrollable berserker.

I don't remember off hand how strict I currently am because I haven't messed with those files since ages, but back then I also made the enraged character unable to use quick item slots (e.g. potions, item's special abilities, etc).

 

That being said, while I'd agree with making enraged characters unable to heal themselves, I'd surely wouldn't make them "immune to party buffs". If an ally casts a heal spell on an enraged character I really don't see why it should not work (both conceptually and balance-wise).

 

A few thoughts.

 

First, as Demi said, being unable to receive healing from a party member casting a spell feels too strict (and weird).

 

Secondly, I get the idea that that an enraged Berserker/Barbarian is supposed to go all in swinging and not care about his safety - and therefore not be able to use spells, potion, thieving skills. The idea has merit. The problem is this, the player is the one controlling the berserker; and he surely cares! So in practice the effect is going to this:

Berserker: Raaargghh! Ugh, I'm badly wounded.

Player: Chuck a potion of healing and continue swinging your sword, like a boss!

Berserker: I can't use healing, I'm too awesome!

Player: *click click* Run away!! Like a chicken!

Berserker: Awww....

 

Of course no player is going to let his fighter die, so what we will have is retreating berserkers - i.e. the reverse of what we want to achieve.

 

Thirdly, if you disable quickslots, surely it's just an inconvenience as you can drink potions from the inventory?

[Quester]

Is there no way to script a *partial* loss of control? As in, the berserker cannot be controlled by the player but will only attack enemies, not allies? Or something to that effect.

 

Edit: just noticed this was already suggested, never mind me.

[aigleborgne]

There is no easy solution to implement this. Eventually, a player can role-play his berserker by simulating a lost of control

But if protagonist is berserker, it's difficult to let him die instead of running away hehe.

[polytope]

A few thoughts.

 

First, as Demi said, being unable to receive healing from a party member casting a spell feels too strict (and weird).

 

Secondly, I get the idea that that an enraged Berserker/Barbarian is supposed to go all in swinging and not care about his safety - and therefore not be able to use spells, potion, thieving skills. The idea has merit. The problem is this, the player is the one controlling the berserker; and he surely cares! So in practice the effect is going to this:

Berserker: Raaargghh! Ugh, I'm badly wounded.

Player: Chuck a potion of healing and continue swinging your sword, like a boss!

Berserker: I can't use healing, I'm too awesome!

Player: *click click* Run away!! Like a chicken!

Berserker: Awww....

 

Of course no player is going to let his fighter die, so what we will have is retreating berserkers - i.e. the reverse of what we want to achieve.

 

Thirdly, if you disable quickslots, surely it's just an inconvenience as you can drink potions from the inventory?

 

True, and now that I think about it, it would create AI problems; i.e. enemy clerics would attempt to heal enraged enemy berserkers (in at least a couple of SCS fights). Also, the effect #144 (disable button) which can be used to "gray out" quickslot items will still allow scripted use of potions by enemies.

 

The real problem with opcode #247 (or #3, for PC's) for berserking, even if it's set to trigger only when the berserker is struck is this: A berserker struck with a ranged weapon or spell by a distant enemy will turn around and start attacking his or her comrades if they are nearer, ignoring their actual attacker. This is very unrealistic behaviour.

 

To actually implement the penalties of berserking I'd propose the following: -20 THAC0 with missiles (including those throwing weapons berserkers are allowed to specialize in, such as axes) to avoid a strange wraparound bug you'd need to use a -20 THAC0 penalty through #54 and a +20 melee THAC0 bonus through #284.

 

A stronger penalty when the rage expires... In AD&D it's equivalent to a Ray of Enfeeblement with no save. I'd definitely use stunning damage when the rage expires, as vanilla (crushing) damage can be resisted, and also you sometimes see an enemy berserker with very few hp left explode as he takes the 15 crushing damage (bizzare).

 

The berserker's bonus to saving throws against mind affecting magic (rather than blanket immunity) can be implemented like so: If the target succeeds at a save vs spells with a +4 bonus, he is immune (through #206) to blindness, hold person, dire charm etc. if he succeeds at a save with a +2 bonus he is immune to confusion etc. and so forth. This benefit can be recalculated per round through delayed #146, although it will spam the dialogue bar with "save vs spells" messages (or not).

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Neither effect is really an accurate representation of how berserking should work, as the affected creature will attack only the nearest creature, not their nearest enemy or their last attacker.

 

 

You could try asking Ascension64 to look into the berserk opcode(s).

 

Using TobEx, he might be able implement a new setting which would make a berserk character only attack enemies while retaining the loss of control (yellow circle).

[Demivrgvs]

I've updated the first post to match the current status in my first beta build. Let me know what do you think.

 

Just that I'm here, a bunch of my classic last minute doubts...

 

True Fighter

I thought I would have not implemented any combat style in the first release (for many reasons), but I changed my mind again. That being said, I'm only going for two stances, offensive and defensive. The two stances work more or less as we discussed back then (pretty much identical to PnP Power Attack and Combat Expertise), but I wouldn't mind making them slightly more unique/interesting. For example I was thinking about granting fighters free ++ in Sword and Shield style when fighting defensively. What do you think?

 

Conceptually I still have doubts about these abilities being temporary innates instead of actual at-will stances, but for now I'm making them work more or less as Blade's Offensive/Defensive Spins (aka 1 use per day at 1st lvl, +1 use/day for every 4 lvls).

 

Barbarian

Being enraged won't prevent the use of potions as planned (Dakk's point convinced me it could end up causing even less roleplaying), but it should still prevent the use of quick item slots and items ablities which require activation (aka x/day special abilities). Enraging will break any invisibility state revealing the character's position, but if affected by Improved Invisibility the partial invisibility will stay. Last but not least, being enraged won't prevent the use of innates because I think we need to let an enraged character use HLAs such as Whirlwind Attack.

 

While working on WS and reading again the whole topic I ended up having one more doubt: should we alter the current progression of Barb/WS's physical/magical resistance? Right now vanilla's 10% resistance at 11th level has been split into 5% at 7th and 5% at 11th (and I made WS follow the very same progression), which is a simple but effective tweak, at least for BG2. I'd probably prefer to leave this unchanged because remaining as close as possible to vanilla and PnP is always a good thing imo, but:

- at 7th lvl warriors already receive +1/2 attack per round (I tend to not give warriors any new feature at 7th and 13th lvl)

- many players think WS absolutely need to have some magic resistance early on, even at 1st lvl (aVENGER's WS has 10% at 1st lvl)

Well, you know I don't like to grant them too many things at 1st lvl for balance reasons (especially WS, unless we block dual classic as aVENGER did - but you seemed to vote against blocking dual classes in general), but moving those resistances slightly earlier may be possible. What do you think?

 

Berserker

Berserkers is able to dual class (despite my hate for that system) thus rage needs to also prevent the use of thief's skills, cleric's turn undead ability, and spellcasting in general. Let me know if there are certain innates that I should absolutely block (e.g. I should probably prevent the use of shapeshifting innates while enraged, but bhaalspawn's power may instead remain usable).

 

I'd really like to add at least one feature to this class (and one hindrance to balance it), because right now a berserker is just a fighter who can enrage (giving up ranged weapons). I really cannot find any appropriate disadvantage other than having a chance to go berserk (uncontrolled), but when it comes to one permanent advantage, what about granting the class a fast healing (aka small regeneration rate) feature? Wouldn't it suit the class? Have you any other better idea?

 

Kensai

The current solution is more or less fine imo, playtesting will hopefully decide if we have to further refine or tweak something.

 

Wizard Slayer

Man this class is really a pain to handle. Yesterday I tried again to make a Breach-like ability for him, but I really cannot implement it in a flawless way. What do you think of aVENGER's solution? I think that having a x/day Breach-like feature which doesn't work against PfMW and similar spells isn't much appealing but I may be wrong. Otoh I still have a plan B WS where the class gets such feature as a permanent passive ability on every hit (perhaps allowing a save - or gained later on as HLA), and ages ago I suggested a similar feature could even replace Detect Illusions innate too (each hit could remove one illusionary protection - but the problem I have with this is that it can't counter true invisibility until partially revealed).

[DrAzTiK]

many players think WS absolutely need to have some magic resistance early on, even at 1st lvl (aVENGER's WS has 10% at 1st lvl)

 

The fact is that physical resistance is in general more usefull and powerfull than magic resitance.

 

 

So,maybe we should give to WS more magic resistance ... (maybe at least +10% at level 1 yes)==> Avenger WS have +50% MR at level 20.(and his WS can use potions and some magical items)

 

 

The more enemy mages use PfMW and the more the WS slayer need to survive a little bit . So magic resistance become more important..

 

Your Reflect Magic once per day looks interessing. At middle-hight level, a WS should still be able to survive more, reflecting Breach and lower magic resistance. ( magic resistance level 5 would be very interressing for the WS if he can protect himself from breach)

 

From my experience, at midle-Hight levels there is still many ways to hit a mage who have a lot of Pfmw memorized. (I mean a mage under chaos/sphere of chaos/disrupted by a fog... will not be able to cast again PFMW)

 

If the breach like ability cannot bypass PfmW, I don't see what would be the benefit to remove combat protections considering disrupt passive ability is supposed to kill the mage already.

 

If we think that 10% disrupting is not enought against hight levels enemy mages, maybe we could increase the % or the duration of this ability a little bit? surely it needs a lot of playtestings...

 

Speaking about it, what is the duration of your disrupt spellcasting ?

 

 

I like the idea of a WS who is waiting the good timing for hit an enemy mage while being able to resist magic . (even if some offensive spell ignore Magic Resistance).

 

In comparaison, the inquisitor will have a more offensive gameplay. (dispell magic works and the fight takes end or it doesn't and the fight will be really difficult for the inquisitor)

 

 

Breach Ability as HLA may sound good for WS but with some drawbacks. Maybe an Avenger Shatter Magic HLA bypassing PfmW would be interessing.

[Demivrgvs]

many players think WS absolutely need to have some magic resistance early on, even at 1st lvl (aVENGER's WS has 10% at 1st lvl)

The fact is that physical resistance is in general more usefull and powerfull than magic resitance.

Is it? I actually always thought having x% magic resistance is better than having x% physical resistance in most cases...though comparing them isn't easy because they work in a different way, and apply to really different situations.

 

For example:

* 20% magic resistance means 1 spell every 5 spells COMPLETELY fail to hit you

* 20% physical resistance means your warrior takes 1 less dmg every 5 points of physical dmg

Now, if I had to pick one for my warrior I'd go with the first, because BG is full of incredibly powerful magical abilities that instantly disable or even kill my tank, whereas more often than not warrior's hit points and good AC are enough to survive most melee encounters imo. I'd say physical resistance is useful more often, but it's also less crucial (or "life saving") in the direst situations.

 

In the end I don't feel enough sure to say one is objectively better than the other, and within IR I consider them equally powerful when determining an item's power lvl (aka both +5%mr and +5%ps are considered +1 enhancement bonuses).

 

So,maybe we should give to WS more magic resistance ... (maybe at least +10% at level 1 yes)==> Avenger WS have +50% MR at level 20.(and his WS can use potions and some magical items)

What you say is only true when installing the separate component which loosens the item restrictions, else you have to give up quite a lot of items.

 

Btw, aVENGER is also able to use higher base magic resistance without creating serious balance issues because he has made WS unable to dual class. If we want our KR to remain balanced even if dual-classed, I cannot allow a lvl 7 WS to have 24%mr, because then you'd have tons of unbalanced WS-thieves (which in vanilla BG is one the most ridiculous OP combo with UAI HLA), and WS-clerics running around.

 

The more enemy mages use PfMW and the more the WS slayer need to survive a little bit . So magic resistance become more important..

 

Your Reflect Magic once per day looks interessing. At middle-hight level, a WS should still be able to survive more, reflecting Breach and lower magic resistance. ( magic resistance level 5 would be very interressing for the WS if he can protect himself from breach)

Actually Reflect Magic has a lot more potential than it seems imo. If a caster dares to cast Breach against your WS (e.g. because he is buffed by cleric's Magic Resistance) he actually ends up being breached himself! The way I've implemented Reflect Magic makes it hugely more effective than your standard Spell Reflection spell. It isn't just an incredibly effective defensive tool, but an offensive one as well. A mage facing a KR's Wizard Slayer is actually endangering himself more by casting spells against him because wasting one round of casting and a high lvl spell slot to then see your Finger a Death or Disintegrate spell coming back to you isn't going to be pretty.

 

A mid lvl aVENGER's WS may have 30% magic resitance compared to KR's 10% (unbuffed), but the latter may end up turning the tide of a battle more often by reflecting back (with 100% chance) the most crucial spell.

 

That being said, playtesting is indeed needed to determine the true effectiveness of this class and further refine it, and for example I would have probably thought about adding one use of Reflect Magic at 1st lvl if dual-classing wasn't allowed.

 

If the breach like ability cannot bypass PfmW, I don't see what would be the benefit to remove combat protections considering disrupt passive ability is supposed to kill the mage already.

That's exactly how I feel about it, and that's why I'm not implementing something like aVENGER's Shatter Magic). I was so close to find a decent implementation of a true Breach-like effect, and I would have been able to implement it in an almost perfect way if I had not to take into account ranged weapons, but in the end I had to give up.

 

If we think that 10% disrupting is not enought against hight levels enemy mages, maybe we could increase the % or the duration of this ability a little bit? surely it needs a lot of playtestings...

 

Speaking about it, what is the duration of your disrupt spellcasting ?

Sorry, the info on this is not up to date because I'm still working on it. We actually agreed back then that we need a much higher % to make this ability matter (multiple hits would kill the mage anyway). I've planned a non-cumulative 50% spell failure for 2 rounds on each hit, and I'm thinking to make the save to avoid this effect more difficult depending on WS lvl (e.g. no penalty for a 1st lvl WS, -4 penalty for a 20th lvl WS).

 

In comparaison, the inquisitor will have a more offensive gameplay. (dispell magic works and the fight takes end or it doesn't and the fight will be really difficult for the inquisitor)

In theory an Inquisitor should be more focused to fight divine spellcasters imo, but I doubt I'll manage to make it look like that. I really don't know how to make these two classes not overlap too much in terms of role in the battlefield.

 

Breach Ability as HLA may sound good for WS but with some drawbacks. Maybe an Avenger Shatter Magic HLA bypassing PfmW would be interessing.

The problem about its implementation remains, HLA or not. It's surely impossible to implement it as a passive ability such as aVENGER's Shatter Magic (though I may end up suggesting something similar perhaps with anti-summon or anti-illusion properties) while for implementing it as an innate ability the difficult task (if not impossible imo) is making its animation not look like a spell-like ability (even as a touch like spell a la Laying on Hands isn't acceptable imo).

[Ardanis]

the difficult task (if not impossible imo) is making its animation not look like a spell-like ability (even as a touch like spell a la Laying on Hands isn't acceptable imo).

Instant activation, coupled with Graphics: Character Animation Change [138] opcode, can get the job done.

 

 

I also continue to think dual-classing issues should be left at players' discretion, with a "don't do it" sticked to it.