Arrows of Dispelling

[DavidW]

I think that if you hit a mirror imaged wizard, it doesn't really matter if you hit the wiz or an image, the dispel kicks in.

Correct.

 

I would gladly use dispelling arrows with 25% possibility to dispel the effects, if their cost is lowered to a reasonable level

 

I think a tweak like that would fit SCS, so I'm waiting to know if David is interested in making it himself for his next SCS release, but if he don't want to I'll do it myself, obviously without forcing anyone to install it if they don't want to.

 

I'll think about it. (It takes maybe 90 seconds to write, so it wouldn't be difficult for me to add it.)

[Demivrgvs]

I'd personally go with allowing a save vs. spell instead of assigning a fixed 25% chance to dispel. That should keep the arrows reasonably powerful against low level mages and progressively less effective against higher level ones.

 

For the record, I do agree with almost anything kthxbye said in his last post. I actually thought about doing something like this for IR, but reaching a consensus on this matter is probably impossible.

[kthxbye]

Yup the 25% chance was just there as a numeric example, I'll leave the hard part to the experts.

 

Edit: actually, I kinda like your save vs spell, Demi, but I fear this would mean that the arrows will be almost useless at high levels, given the high price too. I do understand how difficult it is to balance an item like this from the beginning to the end of the whole game anyway.

[OneEyedPhoenix]

Yup the 25% chance was just there as a numeric example, I'll leave the hard part to the experts.

 

Edit: actually, I kinda like your save vs spell, Demi, but I fear this would mean that the arrows will be almost useless at high levels, given the high price too. I do understand how difficult it is to balance an item like this from the beginning to the end of the whole game anyway.

 

First of all you did not misquote me kthxbye. I agree with your arguments.

 

Secondly I chose a save vs spell in my own game simply because it was the easiest way to implement a chance of failure. The point that the arrows will become progressively more useless later in the game is as it should be. We are talking about a level3 spell after all. At higher levels it makes sense that you need to rely on your own spell casters to defeat these kinds of enemies.

 

Ideally these arrows should behave in the same way as the spell when dispel chance is determined, but I fear this would render the arrows almost useless/pointless. The point of "spell caster" vs target level doesn't make any sense with arrows either.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Ideally these arrows should behave in the same way as the spell when dispel chance is determined, but I fear this would render the arrows almost useless/pointless. The point of "spell caster" vs target level doesn't make any sense with arrows either.

Well, actually the arrows have the same level as their enchanter, not their shooter. This is the argument I base the no save, no chance of failure...

PS, the arrows target rate is really small compared to the Dispel spells target zone. Etc. arguments...

[Demivrgvs]

Well, actually the arrows have the same level as their enchanter, not their shooter. This is the argument I base the no save, no chance of failure...

Wow, then the creator must have been Ao himself to have 100% dispel against demiliches, Draconis, Abazigail, and any kind of godly powerful creature!

 

PS, the arrows target rate is really small compared to the Dispel spells target zone.

This can actually be a huge advantage imo! It lets you target the enemy mage (how many times you need to hit more than 1-2 of them at the same time?) without worrying of dispelling tons of buffs on your party.

 

I'm not suggesting to implement this, but here it is AD&D PnP version of these arrows. Arrow of Dispelling: "When a missile with this talent hits, it creates a dispel magic effect centered on the point of impact (a 20-foot-cube) as if cast by a 15th-level caster."

[Jarno Mikkola]

Well, actually the arrows have the same level as their enchanter, not their shooter. This is the argument I base the no save, no chance of failure...

Wow, then the creator must have been Ao himself to have 100% dispel against demiliches, Draconis, Abazigail, and any kind of godly powerful creature!

Erhm, or the enchanter was a 5st level mage, but he "build up the spell", everyday the last 6 months. That's 2x3x30*6= 1 080 dispel spells , and let's remember that 100 should be enough to get critical success.

[DavidW]

Well, actually the arrows have the same level as their enchanter, not their shooter. This is the argument I base the no save, no chance of failure...

Wow, then the creator must have been Ao himself to have 100% dispel against demiliches, Draconis, Abazigail, and any kind of godly powerful creature!

Erhm, or the enchanter was a 5st level mage, but he "build up the spell", everyday the last 6 months. That's 2x3x30*6= 1 080 dispel spells , and let's remember that 100 should be enough to get critical success.

 

Wouldn't that cost 1080 x the cost of enchanting the "base" item?

 

Assuming conservatively that said cost is at least 1,000 gp (what magic item in 2nd edition D&D didn't cost that much?) and the cost is comfortably enough to buy Beregost...

[Salk]

I wouldn't install a component that makes Arrow of Dispelling give a saving throw chance nor I believe that raising their price is the way to go.

 

The only solution I can see is to make them rare.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Wouldn't that cost 1080 x the cost of enchanting the "base" item?

 

Assuming conservatively that said cost is at least 1,000 gp (what magic item in 2nd edition D&D didn't cost that much?) and the cost is comfortably enough to buy Beregost...

Yeah, and the Arrow +1 costs 1000 gp, not, it costs hefty 5 gp with a sale of 25% of if you have CHA of 20, and sale of 30% if your reputation is 20, making the total cost about 2 gp if one wishes to make profit out of the thing.

[Demivrgvs]

Well, actually the arrows have the same level as their enchanter, not their shooter. This is the argument I base the no save, no chance of failure...

Wow, then the creator must have been Ao himself to have 100% dispel against demiliches, Draconis, Abazigail, and any kind of godly powerful creature!

Erhm, or the enchanter was a 5st level mage, but he "build up the spell", everyday the last 6 months. That's 2x3x30*6= 1 080 dispel spells , and let's remember that 100 should be enough to get critical success.

Nothing wouldn't change the fact those arrows would cast dispel as a mage of 5th lvl in PnP (if the maker is a mage of 5th lvl), thus they would be completely useless.

 

The possible solutions imo are:

a) reduce % chance to dispel from 100% to something like 20-25%

b) allow a save vs. spell

c) make the arrows as per PnP

d) make them very rare

e) make Protection from Arrows grant immunity to them

 

a) effectiveness would remain the very same at every stage of the game, against any kind of enemy

b) effectiveness would be reduced in later stages of the game against more powerful mages

c) effectiveness would depend on opponent's level (100% dispel vs <5th lvl, 50% vs 15th lvl, 1% dispel vs >20th lvl)

d) is not really a "solution" imo. Even 40 arrows are more than enough for me, as I would simply keep them for the 10-15 most powerful foes. I remember the first time I faced SCSII Irenicus and my archer protagonist disintegrated him in a few rounds thanks to these arrows.

e) PfMW grants immunity to Carsomyr after all (I suppose only few hardcore players would like this)

 

In terms of "balance" a 100% chance to dispel on hit a la vanilla's Carsomyr is without doubts overpowered in my eyes, but than again, BG makes a lot of overpowered things look like normal.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Nothing wouldn't change the fact those arrows would cast dispel as a mage of 5th lvl in PnP (if the maker is a mage of 5th lvl), thus they would be completely useless.

Not entirely, as the Dispel spell has a 1% chance to succeed even vs. Ao, in BG2, so the chance of it not to be able to dispel a spell becomes 0.99^1080= 0.000193201354

[Salk]

d) is not really a "solution" imo. Even 40 arrows are more than enough for me, as I would simply keep them for the 10-15 most powerful foes. I remember the first time I faced SCSII Irenicus and my archer protagonist disintegrated him in a few rounds thanks to these arrows.

 

This can't be taken as argument because you are assuming that:

 

1) There is an archer in the party

 

2) That the player saves all the dispel arrows and uses them for the toughest enemies just as you have done

 

3) That no number is low enough to justify this as solution (what if there were only 3 arrows, example, available in the whole campaign? Would those be still too many for you too?)

[Demivrgvs]

d) is not really a "solution" imo. Even 40 arrows are more than enough for me, as I would simply keep them for the 10-15 most powerful foes. I remember the first time I faced SCSII Irenicus and my archer protagonist disintegrated him in a few rounds thanks to these arrows.

This can't be taken as argument because you are assuming that:

 

1) There is an archer in the party

 

2) That the player saves all the dispel arrows and uses them for the toughest enemies just as you have done

 

3) That no number is low enough to justify this as solution (what if there were only 3 arrows, example, available in the whole campaign? Would those be still too many for you too?)

1) any character with decent THAC0 can fit this role, and any warrior class can do it extremely well (e.g. Mazzy, Minsc, ...)

 

2) well, I'm assuming you wouldn't "waste" these arrows against low level mages who can be dealt with easily without such a powerful tool. Would you use a Time Stop scroll against a low level mage?

 

3) well, such "solution" would be really unpleasant imo. I'd prefer to lower the effectiveness rather than making them so rare that I have to keep them in the inventory for ages and use them twice in a game.

 

I do think as an "argument" makes sense, at least it can be taken into account, while you're obviously free to disagree with the argument itself.

[Salk]

I do think as an "argument" makes sense, at least it can be taken into account, while you're obviously free to disagree with the argument itself.

 

I will just disagree then...