Jump to content

mercurier

Members
  • Content Count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mercurier

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Bartimaeus I found a very impressive walkthrough using EET+SCS+SR+IR here: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/75857/ir-sr-scs-no-reload-attempt-no-999-or-so I would recommend you read this post: IMO the walkthrough itself is already enjoyable; the bugs and tweaks it mentioned are also worth considering. Examples: Failed placement of Evermemory ring and Ankheg armor in EET+IR due to using BGT area codes.
  2. 1. Yes I agree that externalizing wand effect would make save vs. wand useless, but I don’t think it will bring out significant drawback. If you take wands as devices that store spells (aka a condensed pile of non-copyable scrolls), then externalizing will be the natural approach to make those spells behave properly in terms of saving throws, magic protection, etc. Saving against wand of fire/cloudkilll/Paralyzation with the same ST type looks weird to me as these effects apparently requires different character traits to save against. 2. Sorry if I didn’t state it clearly. The caster level of wand is actually borrowed from 3e where a wand can have different versions as if the hosted spell is casted by different caster levels. It is not the level of the character who use it, which won’t impact the effectiveness of wands. For example, regular wand of fire do 6d6 damage, which is equivalent of a level 6 mage casting fireball (lv3 spell). A more potent (and expensive) version could do 10d6, mimicking a level 10 mage’s casting. IMO the CL attribute is easier to interpret than “enchantment level of wand”, as by knowing CL you will know exactly what effect to expect if you are familiar with the spell it hosts.
  3. 1. Externalize wand effect to spells Demi proposed some wand tweaks 11 years ago, with both pros and cons: Recently SCS has externalized Wand of Spellstrike's effect so the major con is no more. So I think it's probably a good time to necro this design. In addition to the benefits mentioned above, externalizing enables more sensible saving throw types vs. different wands if combined with SR (e.g. save vs. breath for Wand of Fire, save vs. spell for Wand of Paralyzation, etc.). It will be even more interesting if further combined with revised saving throw tables (available in some mods), which will be leveraged by both PC and SCS to adjust saving throws of party members and classed critters, making choosing which wand to use against whom more of a tactical move. 2. Standardize wand price Using the formula given in 3.5e, wand price = spell level * caster level * 750. So the Wand of Fire would cost 3 * 6 * 750 = 13500 before shop markup. A quick glance got me feel that applying this tweak would raise wand price by 20%~50%, which would, IMHO, balance wand recharging a little bit (though I am personally against it). On the other hand it will slightly boost the fortune of players who don't use wands and just sell them out right. Anyway, it's more of a cosmetic change. 3. Wands variants of higher caster levels Wand of Fire at caster level 10 that does 10d6? Yes! Might be achieved through a macro (and an 2DA for possible CLs for each wand) that adds variants to stores that sell wands already. What do you think?
  4. Adding some new thoughts here: Removing thac0 and damages bonuses from ammo, can render regular +1/2/3 ones mostly useless, however we can add other effects to “justify” their enchantment level, e.g. keen, elemental burst, sundering, weakening, etc. This could offer ranged builds more choices between damage output, debugging, and crowd control.
  5. Thanks subtledoctor, I feel your current implementation should be working fine. I was posting because the readme only covered a portion of your implementation, which worried me a little bit.
  6. Hi all, Do you know if it is possible to enable backstabing against helpless opponents regardless of the attacker's stealth state?
  7. Hi subtletdoctor, The feat system looks really interesting to me. To my impression, fighters are getting combat advantages that were not accessible in vanilla game, and rogues can be built more combat-oriented even at low levels. While it is great fun doing so, I am concerned that non-joinable NPCs (i.e. mobs) will fall behind. Is it possible for MnG to grant them appropriate feats as SCS does for proficiencies? Here are some suggestions: - Grant feats per class, kit, and level - While generic rogues may want to select a mixture of adventure and combat feats, "professional" rogues, for example, those from a large organization and trained purely for assassination (sometimes with the word "assassin" in their names) may want to max-out their murdering skills - If active feats involve complicated AI tuning, how about restricting the feat pool for NPCs to passive feats and pseudo-active feats that grant permanent on-hit effects?
  8. Thanks for bringing this up. The component responsible for this tweak looks mostly valid for EE(T). The tweak can be further improved by moving the script block for summoning the "helper creature" from baldur25.bcs to the avatar morphing script in TA. I'd say this will be good addition to TA provided that Cam and TheBigg are both comfortable with it.
  9. I would like to see a tweak that enables adjusting difficulty in map/creature scripts WITHOUT interfering with the GUI difficulty slider bar. It could be something like this: COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.bcs~ ~override~ DECOMPILE_BCS_TO_BAF REPLACE_EVALUATE ~DifficultyLT\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~GLT("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ REPLACE_EVALUATE ~DifficultyGT\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~GGT("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ REPLACE_EVALUATE ~Difficulty\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~G("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ COMPILE_BAF_TO_BCS BUT_ONLY Then difficulty in scripts can be controlled through the console. More noob-friendly access might be implemented as well.
  10. Totally agree. It was a chore that I just cannot stop doing... Can you please share your code so that I and other guys can use it right away?
  11. Spot a potential glitch: Delay High Level Abilities Looks like this component does not consider the choice about vanilla/cleric's exp table for druid. So a druid (single or multi-class) with vanilla exp table will actually get fist HLA at level 21 would require 3.9M exp, which is too much.
  12. Not want to be rude, but I am personally against about the current implementation of the poisonous dagger, because: 1. Tactical-wise, If the purpose was to bring more tactical challenge by beefing up kobolds, the undroppable version should do it well. Making it droppable empowers players with increased combat power and/or monetary gain, therefore reducing the tactical challenge. 2. RP-wise, I think a permanent enchantment like secondary damage is not trivial task, and the kobold tribe has to mass-produce it, which looks unrealistic to me. The "normal dagger plus applied venom" rationale looks more natural and achievable. 3. Undroppable items are indeed immersion-breaking, because it is just a shortcut for implementing a combat ability (in this case, it mimics Assassin's poison weapon skill. We can surely use an alternate but more complex approach, say, create a SPL that do the trick, and set their script to use the trick, yet I am not sure if it really worth all the hassle.
  13. Good to know! Will be on my mod list for my next playthrough @Bartimaeus, I think subtledoctor had made the point for me. In IR/IRR's framework, we need either +4 arrows or some longbows that conjure +4 arrows to make this launcher type complete. This is exactly why I am starting this topic. And I am not sure the proposed designed is OP: Manabow +4 with +2 arrow will have 4+2+1d6 = 9.5 damage on average, an easily available option at the end of SoA. The proposed Taralash will be 4d4=10 (5d4=12.5) damage on average, slightly higher, but still does not bypass PFMW or stoneskin due to its blunt damage type. It will be more effective against armored mobs as AC and resistance against blunt is usually worse than that against missile. The on hit effect can be tuned by adjusting the save penalty, as most ToB mobs have already good saves. With this design implemented, the net effect would be that Longbows, usable by warriors, generally hit harder; other launcher types have more utility, and are usable by more classes.
  14. This. I suppose it is the same story as the special flame arrow added to Kobolds by SCS. In my last game experience the party was getting rich really fast by just selling these daggers... IMO the poison should be coming from some venom applied by kobolds, which vaporize soon after battle. Not sure if it is possible to have kobolds still use the poisonous dagger but drop the normal version.
  15. Hi K4thos, Do you think it would be worthwhile to add the tweak stated in the title to complement the XP-related tweaks? It might be the only thing left... Could be offering options like no change, 50% XP, 10% XP, and no XP at all. Occasionally random treasure looted/pickpocketed from mobs in BG1 may contain high level scrolls, which is unrealistic at all. Not sure if this has already been fixed in EE; if not we can minimize its impact through this tweak.
×
×
  • Create New...