Physical Resistance

[kreso]

Excuse me, but what does the PfMW do to a dragon other than give him total physical immunity from weapons of any sort ? Temporary, but that's not the point.

It doesn't give him "total physical immunity". All dragons in the game can be hit by normal weapons. Unlike physical resistance, PFMW can be dispeled.

 

And what of the Jan's AdventureWear ? That's +25% physical resistance, hay.

What about it? If it had 40, it would be ok for me. He can't wear armor if he wears it. IR Full plate has +20% resistance, hay.

While I can see Salk's viewpoint (to an extent at least, but it's probably a matter of his view on game and my view of what happens if one creates a fighter with resistance of 75 or above), what you're writing here is nonsense.

How does Dragons' PFMW casting and Jansen's armor correlate to resistance stacking? UAI? Wear a full plate then, it's much better overall than Jan's armor, and with IR, it has the same damage reduction, + better AC score.

 

don't force others to resolve to your methods.

What methods? Buffing prior to a decent SCS battle? Using triggers? It's only reasonable to use them, same as using Chaotic Commands when fighting Mind Flayers. Any SCS mage of a relevant level has a Minor Trigger, a Sequencer, and a Trigger ready. Now, if one should prohibit his mages from doing the same, fine by me, do as you see fit, that's completely irrelevant for this discussion anyways.

 

 

game to take days time to face a few encounters with all optimized spell on, then yes, you can rape and pillage the world for all the centuries it's going to take...

I don't really "optimize" spells and re-write spellbooks; nor use sequencer-type spells unless I am:

a) fighting dragons, Kangaxx or WK Demilich

b) fighting Irenicus in Hell

c) fighting Ascension Five battles and Ascension finale

 

That makes a rather interesting amount of three SoA dragons (all optional battles), one Kangaxx(optional) , one WK Demilich (very optional), one Irenicus in Hell, one WK dragon (very optional), one Illasera, one Draconis, one Abazigal, one Yaga-Shura, one Gromnir, one Ascension finale.

Ammounts up to a grand total of 13 battles, (six are optional, and only one is in SoA which be fought - Hell Irenicus) were I think SCS metagame knowledge is vital to survive. In the course of a full game, where battles you fight are measured in thousands?! That's a drop in the sea.

(In a BGT install)

Theorycrafting about what might happen in some crazy scenarios, which in fact, never come true in BG (unless you're playing Anvil) isn't productive, meaningful, or from a gamer's perspective, at all relevant.

[Salk]

kreso,

 

There aren't any. Enemies don't use potions which increase damage resistance, nor have access to Rocharnar's Horn/Fortress Shield.

 

 

 

Magic resistance can be lowered, there's a number of spells which completely bypass it. Enemies can not lower your physical resistance.

 

 

 

You surely know better than me how the game works. I didn't play for ages so point taken.

 

Golem resistance has been in the game since it was released. Physical resistance on items/potions wasn't. You had only 2 items (Roch.Horn helmet nd Def.of Easthaven flail, and they were both absurd).

Fire Elemental immune to fire and similar stuff is fairly realistic in PnP terms.

 

 

The fact that some resistances and immunities have always been there from the beginning and/or the fact that they have a legit PnP background is not a factor in terms of pursuing a fair rebalancing of the powers in play.

 

I try and look on both courts and see where the odds can be evened out. In terms of sheer power, there are in the game encounters where the odds of survival are so blatantly against the player that, as I said, I wouldn't worry too much about case-limit scenarios. Even if I'd concede the point of such case not being very rare (but this would require all another discussion), the situation you presented is going to affect one specific class in a party of six members. What about all the rest? Just because one PC might find himself formidably protected against physical attacks, it doesn't necessarily imply an automatic victory.

 

In my view (and I accept that not many might share it), a true rebalancing requires the player to have the means to face the most challenging battles with a reasonable chance of success without requiring:

 

1) Full metagaming knowledge (a series of optimizations made specifically for one encounter: buffing, spellbook, equipment, strategy)

2) Intimate knowledge of the opponent's strategy / weaknesses / equipment

 

The fact that the game forces me to either or both is, to me, a failure in terms of making a challenge reasonable. Again, I am speaking in very general terms.

 

Which side? By the time physical resistance really comes to play, my party is usually equiped with at least four +4 weapons, and

start to resemble sort of a rape-train, blasting through encounters and enemies as if they're made out of paper. This is especially true at end of SoA.

 

 

You nailed the problem.

 

The game should not be such that you can go through most of the encounters as easily as you'd open a bag of chips and at the same time require you to prepare well in advance other selected fews. From what I remember, SoA and, even more, ToB do that. For those like me, who see surviving as the ultimate challenge, this is unacceptable.

 

PCs can do the same. Nothing prevents Edwin from memorizing a sequencer prior to batte, or quaffing a Potion of Magic Shielding.

 

 

But that's exactly what I meant when I spoke of "escalating power". In BG1 I can play with my party of adventurers and have decent odds to survive fights against any kind of enemy. Both sides do not wield god like powers or equipment that later on in the game become almost common. In ToB, the power in play is so high that battles become a pure matter of knowing "what tricks you need to know" in order to beat otherwise insurmountable odds.

 

I don't think I need to mention how I believe BG is way superior to its sequel in practically all aspects, except for the obvious engine/technical improvements.

 

Any physical resistance above 70 is broken, yes, since it's counter-productive - AI will choose different target if possible.

As I said, enemies simply don't have that resistances, apart two mentioned before. Golems do, but that's really nothing new.

Besdies, check the graph. Notice how effective HP "explodes" at values above 70%

 

.

The AI will have a choice of prioritizing targets that do not have a physical resistance above 70%. Since, in the case you presented, that kind of resistance is temporary, I don't see a problem with it.

Also, we think differently when it comes to the "exceptions". To me, even the presence of one single fight in the whole game, where the enemy presents itself with an innate physical resistance that is, to use your same term, "broken", is a valid enough reason to allow the player to have the same, considering that it'd happen under very specific conditions.

[kreso]

the situation you presented is going to affect one specific class in a party of six members. What about all the rest? Just because one PC might find himself formidably protected against physical attacks, it doesn't necessarily imply an automatic victory.

Maybe not, but it's a big advantage. It's not that hard to "force" all enemies on an single PC, either by hiding them, keeping them invisible, etc.

 

In BG1 I can play with my party of adventurers and have decent odds to survive fights against any kind of enemy. Both sides do not wield god like powers or equipment that later on in the game become almost common. In ToB, the power in play is so high that battles become a pure matter of knowing "what tricks you need to know" in order to beat otherwise insurmountable odds.

 

I don't think I need to mention how I believe BG is way superior to its sequel in practically all aspects, except for the obvious engine/technical improvements.

 

Fully agreed. I also like the (rather simple and straight-forward) BG1 gameplay more than BG2 .

 

All in all, what I'd suggest for all this:

- tone down Fortress & Rocharan's to 5%, maybe add something extra in return. While this is very little by itself, it stacks with other resistances so it's also very powerful.

- tone down Absorbtion to 10%

- keep armor resistance as it is

- AoF spell 10%

 

Paladin max res - 20 armor, 10 spell, fortress+roch 10, Absorbtion 10, Hardiness 20 = 70

Barbarian - 15 armor, roch 5, 20 innate, 20 Hardiness, Absorbtion 10 = 70, 75 if he has Orc Leather.

Even without KR, max value is 95, which is 2000% increase in effective HP pool against physical damage.

Toughts?

[Dakk]

What came of this discussion? While it would seem kreso was somewhat shouted down (without any unpleasantness), I think he makes a very very valid point regarding high PR.

[Demivrgvs]

What came of this discussion? While it would seem kreso was somewhat shouted down (without any unpleasantness), I think he makes a very very valid point regarding high PR.

Beta testers do not reported much on this matter, but Kreso is about to finish a ToB run, thus he will soon have more to say about this for sure.

 

I didn't fully turned down Kreso's opinion, I'm just not hugely worried because I think we can keep an eye on this matter and easily tweak stuff if/when necessary.

 

Btw, not everyone will install all the three Revisions mods, thus we cannot give all the separate tweaks for granted. We have to make sure each mod can work fine by itself, even though it's obvious that the best results are reached when every aspect of the game is tweaked accordingly.

 

On a side note, making Potion of Absorption not stack with Hardiness could be a good thing.