Jump to content

ancalimohtar

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ancalimohtar

  1. By (2) you mean SCS is dependent on this component? And what if IR is also dependent on its version of the component? Since you're suggesting I was foolish to install both, and wouldn't have done so if I read the readme, which should I install? I didn't find anything about the interaction of these two components in the readmes or in the forums. Wouldn't a solution that doesn't involve you talking to Demi about every little placement (since that is the time-consuming aspect, right?) simply be for the two versions to adopt the same name and stats for the weapons (ideally the same item file), so a player could install both (to prevent the aforementioned dependencies from being broken) and not be smacked in the face by the obvious in-game evidence of two mods doing the same thing slightly different ways?
  2. One of them is my interpretation of the best way to do a certain thing; the other is Demivrgvs' and Mike1072's. What's the advantage in us trying to reach an agreement? (I'm not saying that there isn't one, just that I haven't yet been told what it is.) You've read enough of my whiny angst-filled posts about how there isn't a more unified approach to modding BG2 to know that I'm always in favor of more coordinated efforts to do things. So there's that as a foundation. Number two, it increases the amount of uncertainty and ambiguity for players when modding to know that these two mods try to do the same thing, but they're not the same, and so now the player has to waste time researching before the installation--do they really do the same thing? what are the differences in the placement? should only one be installed, or should I install both? is it better to install this one or that one? which one is more balanced? are there even mechanical differences? (yes, but you won't know until you post about it and Mike answers like he did above) are there incompatibilities if one mod is installed without its component? Secondly, it's really confusing to have both Masterwork and Excellent items in the game. At the end of the day, what would either you or Demi/Mike lose by giving control of this component to the other (coupled with a "hey, I think these items should be excluded from the change because _______, what do you guys think?") It's not such a huge big deal that I would think either mod author feels emotionally attached to his own choice of placements. I contend that the less overlapping work done by different mod authors, especially ones who are so in demand by the community, the more new stuff can be created/bugs can be fixed, the better we are off. But I'm doing none of this work myself clearly, so this is just my loudmouth opinion.
  3. Aren't they trying to do the same thing? Do these two components serve different purposes?
  4. Oh. The SCS components refer to them as "fine" weapons/ammo, but in-game they are referred to as excellent weapons and masterwork ammo. Don't look at me. Well then since "Fine" and "Excellent" are rather less cool-sounding and PnP than "Masterwork," maybe DavidW and you IR guys could come to an agreement on a list of +1's to replace; then have IR and SCS use the same list, and have SCS skip the component if IR's already got it installed?
  5. Masterwork weapons are from IR; fine weapons are from SCS. AFAIK, they both currently work by overwriting the associated +1 weapons. If you are seeing both types, it's probably because the mods affect a slightly different list of items. IR sticks to melee weapons while SCS also modifies bows. Both components achieve similar results, but their implementation is different: fine weapons are like +1 weapons without the speed factor bonus and ability to hit things immune to non-magic weapons. Masterwork weapons are like +1 weapons without the +1 bonus to damage and ability to hit things immune to non-magic weapons. I can't think of a good reason to install both. What about Excellent weapons? I've seen very few Fine weapons. It's mostly Excellent (which have a very hard-to-distinguish greenish tint to them usually), and sometimes Masterwork.
  6. Also, I've found Masterwork, Excellent, and possibly also Fine weapons in my game. Where they all come from, I don't remember. I really don't think they all need to exist, do they? Just one level between normal and +1 is needed, right?
  7. Posted this bug on the UB forum, but I thought I'd post it here just in case. The gist is that the component of UB where Bodhi chases you through Spellhold--something's wrong with the spawn script and when you kill her buddies or take down her HP, instead of disappearing, two more Bodhis spawn with their vampire/Grimwarder buddies, and so on and so forth. The catch is that this ONLY happens if CHARNAME is above 2M XP. If he's under that cap, she goes away normally. I suspect it has to do with some script that checks party's level to determine difficulty of spawns, so maybe it's related to SCS? Here's the original post.
  8. Yeah I always felt the lack space-control abilities in BG2 was the main culprit for most balance concerns. (Did 2E have AoO?) I only played 3E, 3.5E, and a little bit of 4E, but to me, the most satisfying part of being a fighter was getting buffed to have 10' reach and tripping fools with AoO all day long. Re: aura that slowed people down, people have come up with that specific mechanic for other games, and I've thought about it before, and it's not bad, a rather easy, rough n' ready way to implement space-control. The issue is with true AoOs, you can limit the number of targets these space-controllers can affect, whereas one Fighter with an aura stops 10 vamps around him from moving past. It's not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, and certainly an improvement over their current uselessness. Anyway, this whole reason is why melee have to do damage in BG2, because they're no good at controlling space. This is also why party-unfriendly AoE is so mediocre except when you're cheesing, because you have limited control of enemies' placement, except early on in the fight. You know, there are some shield-based warrior skills in Dragon Age that stopped enemies cold. But then you kind of run into the problem that tabletop D&D rules never gave any respect to shields; everybody always realized running around with a 2-hander or dual-wielding gave you more damage or battlefield-control for not much defensive tradeoff. Not sure if you're willing to implement a Fighter kit that specializes in 1h+ shield and space-control--it would have nothing to do with tabletop rules. But I would totally get one of those...
  9. And then f/m's Contingency triggers, trigger is cast, sequencer goes off etc. He can cast uninterruptible spells via scrolls as well. Don't forget that Firkraag is alone vs 6, and 3 of them in your party cast arcane spells. That's a lot of time he would be forced to waste just to debuff everything, including breaching f/d as well. He can't cast 10 spells in a single round, without some hacked casting time increase. Why not apply the same idea to Firkraag that we talked about regarding mindflayers--give him some backup. Change the quest some so he doesn't pit his pet mage against you just for shits and giggles (which made NO sense at all), and at the beginning of the fight, his pet mage unloads antimagic? Or give him two pet mages. Either way, I don't think it's absurd if his backup is mainly there to antimagic/Breach you. Anything which allows a save, sooner or later, becomes autosave. What? Why? Just because of potions that guarantee a successful save? Fix those potions then, not the mechanic. In 3.5E a Great Wyrm red dragon has a pin DC of 40, a grapple check bonus of +73. Seventy three. You are not going to win against the dragon if he wants to keep you in his mouth/under his claw. Make the save penalty -12, or hell, do away with it, who cares? Let him crush someone, and knock others back. Take away the save on lower fire res. Give dragons an ability to crush stoneskins, and some kind of unblockable TS. Have the combat log say "Charname- Stoneskins crushed" and "Firkraag- Dragon senses" followed by "CHARNAME- Illusions dispelled" or something to alert the player dragons have special abilities. I agree, but they're such underdogs in BG2 usually - their equipment aren't Carsomyr, Red dragon Armor, Vecna and Equilizer. And still they stand in the face of the almighty Bhaalspawn after killing 1000's of oponnents; Beholders, Dragons, Gibberlings, Ghasts and Demons alike. Realistically, I'd run. No, Firkraag's equipment is "millions of pounds of magical muscles toned over hundreds of years of killing things layered with natural armor better than any a dwarf could make, with special eyes and senses and ancient magical abilities." What's a sword compared to that? Players have to put on gear, but dragon's have it in their physiology, magical nature, and development over eons. I really don't think giving dragons special abilities is crazy. It would be cool if he could jump on you . Aerie: "oh my....I won't let my friends be hurt!" Firkraag: SPLAT! Don't really need an animation, do we? Just anyone in melee range who gets targeted gets the unconscious animation, but is treated as held, and the combat text says "CHARNAME- Crushed and pinned". I agree. If I know all the ins and outs of the system, and know what's coming, AND rest specifically for this fight, then I should be able to win. That's perfectly fine. No, because I kept the rest of the party at the entrance. Just the F/M and a sorc standing at a distance antimagicking. Regarding immunities in general, it's all fine and good to be immune to fear, magical or otherwise, but to put on an item that makes you immune to being held (presumably against magical Hold effects) that somehow prevents the dragon from stepping on your face and pinning you there with tens of thousands of pounds of pressure--I'm not sure that makes sense. Would it make sense to give dragons the ability to pin one or two targets, regardless of PfMW or stoneskins or whatever? Also, slightly off-topic, but I had two questions: 1) Since I never played PnP 2nd Edition, I always wondered if it was close to BG2? Mage battles are one of the most iconic aspects of BG2, and I always wondered if the spell protection and antimagic system came out of nowhere, or whether it was an adaptation of 2E? and 2) How many hit dice does a multiclassed character have, for the purposes of spells like SR's Holy Word, etc? Say, 1.5M XP F/M, so 11/12.
  10. Imo, it's too easy to fight anything with an F/M, dual probably being the "worse" kind of the two, loosing only in HLA department. It's just how things are in BG2 - f/m's are virtually unstoppable, given a few mage levels above 11th. My suggestion is to play some balanced party compositions, rather than make assumptions on dragons being too easy with 2 f/m's, berserker-cleric, f/d, f/t and a sorcerer, which can wipe all of ToB clean without taking a single point of damage, SCS or not. It's how the game is, it has nothing to do with either SCS nor Revisions mods - neither one of them adresses this, apart locking away Vecna, but that doesn't really matter much for multiclasses anyway - it takes Alacrity to fully abuse this robe. I completely disagree. Your attitude that fighter/mages are just inherently broken is especially unproductive given that we're (ostensibly) coming up with iterative improvements on an install with SCS, SR, IR, aTweaks, and in the future, KR. Almost anything is possible to mod, and there's nothing wrong with brainstorming, even if nothing comes of it. You don't need such ham-fisted tactics to defeat a F/M. Players have only the same spells AI do--actually even fewer. AI mages put up their web of protections, and players tear them down. How about the dragon just casts Khelban's followed by a Spellstrike, followed by a Pierce Shield? F/M debuffed completely. And the dragon could start off with much more in the way of combat protections, or should just have more innate damage resistance. Also recasting stoneskin every time it's down would help a lot. Maybe giving him 6 attacks a round (taking 3rd Edition as inspiration), or the ability to crush multiple targets at a time and pin them to the ground on a failed save with massive penalties, etc. I still see the main problems as his main tools--knockdown/pushback and fire breath--being negated by gear. I wouldn't mind some kind of lower fire resistance spell, and I do think maybe immunity to knockdown/pushback is unrealistic at best. The dragon is knocking you down by pure strength, rather than magic.
  11. I cannot imagine a way to do this. Yeah I figured it must have been a game engine limitation.
  12. No no no. What I'm saying is, it's TOO easy to fight a dragon with F/M right now because of 1) SI: Abj, 2) the Dragonslayer set making my character immune to knockdown/pushback. The first will be somewhat addressed by SR v4, but then F/M will just cast Spell Shield instead. The dragon can keep casting Secret Word, the F/M can keep casting Spell Shield, and the whole time the F/M will chop on the dragon. I'm not sure how the dragon is supposed to gain an upper hand here. As for issue #2, like I said earlier, I really like the flavor etc of the Dragonslayer set, it's just that when wing buffet does nothing, I'm already practically immune to physical damage with stoneskins/MI, I'm already immune to dispels with SI/future Spell Shield, and I'm immune to fire from buffs/potions, there's literally nothing Firkraag can do. I don't really have a well thought-out solution. Maybe give dragons two spells a round? (Is that possible?) Maybe remove the knockdown immunity of the Dragonslayer set? I don't know. I do think 1.5M XP is about right for dragon-chopping. I agree. Mind flayers are supposed to be masterminds; they're supposed to have legions of thralls to do the fighting while they bombard from the back. It would actually make fighting mind flayers very fun if their lairs were filled with all kinds of crazy creatures, combinations that you'd never see otherwise--druids and drow and assassins and giants and ogre magi etc. And you always fight mind flayers with their thralls; they're never caught alone. They're scripted to run around and not get caught in melee; if it's possible, script their thralls to defend them at all costs. Imagine! Instead vanilla just gives us... Umber Hulks. Useless since you'll have Chaotic Commands up anyway. THIS. I second this, which is a similar approach to what I suggested above for mind flayers. I mean, this is what D&D and all semi-faithful adaptations of D&D do best--party-based combat, where everybody has different abilities and fill different niches and clever cooperative tactics make groups more than the sum of their parts. Please no, don't turn warriors into even more spellcasters. BG world already has too much magic involved. If necessary just make AI mages try to tear down PC defences more. Okay, no adding fighter-mages, fair enough. But I don't think enemy mages hellbent on antimagicking/Breaching party mages is a good idea, because the only way to make that a credible threat is to script the AI to send all their melee after a naked party mage, and then combat would be horrendous. Wait, actually I just realized something. I had WAY more trouble keeping Xan alive in BG1 than BG2, partially because he didn't have stoneskin then, but also potentially because he was my only mage. Now in my BG2 party, I have a F/M multi, a F-M dual (dualed at 9), Berserker-Cleric dual, Fighter/Druid (Jaheira), Fighter/Thief, and Xan (sorcerer). Does the SCS AI treat my multi/dual mages as mages and try to attack them instead of going after Xan? Maybe that's why enemies in the BG2 portion have seemed really not that difficult. I never have to babysit Xan now. My melee are free to do their thing.
  13. Oh I see. So Non-detection doesn't help anyone who is merely Imp Invis at all; it only protects full invis. Once someone loses full invis Non-Detection is useless (except for non-invisibility-related illusion spells). That makes a lot more sense. I really like this actually. Combined with the Breach change, it: 1) gives enemy mages at least an extra round of full protection since antimagickers need to cast a buff first 2) yet offers a viable path for antimagickers to strip said protections (makes the untargetability aspect of Imp Invis less overpowered) 3) while still leaving mages post-antimagic/TS/Breach some protections, so they're not butchered in 1/3 of a round Well now there's a reason for the mage/sorc to pick TS instead of having the clerics/druids always do it. And level 2 and 6 slots will be in even higher demand. Thanks for answering my questions by the way!
  14. On a failed save invisibility is gone, but Improved Invisibility is not. On a successful save the enemy remains fully invisible. Mirror Image is never affected by Detect Invisibility or Invisibility Purge. The mage using See Invisibility will try each round, once per round, to "breach" Non-detection. As soon as the protected creature fails a save the mage will be able to see that creature. Assume the mage has already semi-revealed himself (full invis gone, imp invis remains) before you even cast Detect/Purge. So at this point, the player sees the enemy, everybody can whack at the enemy (though with PfMW etc it's pointless), but he's untargetable by Breach or antimagic. If the party mage/cleric casts Detect/Purge, how will you (the player) be visually alerted to the fact that the enemy failed his save? If the enemy's imp invis animation is gone, you (the player) will think the enemy is fully visible to your fighter as well. If nothing changes (enemy still appears imp invis to you, the player), you won't be able to tell your mage/cleric can now target him. And since regardless of successful or failed save, your mage has the portrait icon, it's not like situation 3. If looking for "Save successful" in the combat log is the only way to do it, I don't like it. Since BG2 doesn't alert to failed saves (only successful saves), in a hectic fight with a bunch of stuff happening, multiple mages who are all going to have to save (and potentially many spells going off at the same time that will require saves), it's going to be very unclear whether your mage can or can't target someone with antimagic, a crucial part of the game. Also, when you "breach" non-detection, is non-detection dispelled, or does it remain and still apply for potential future re-casts of invisibility? If it's dispelled, does it take an extra round, or is it dispelled the same round invisibility is dispelled? Gotcha
×
×
  • Create New...