374 replies to this topic

[Jinnai]

Well as to reaearching spells themselves, this does have some merit, but not enough to warrant the fact that every spell is listed there. I think once the spell is chosen being able to chose it again would be an option perhps.

Remember most spells are resaeched by mages who don't go adventuring much, unlike our hero(in)es

[Littiz]

Ok Caedwyr, but "take those 4 new abilities and throw them away" is not a point to start from for me: as I repeat, that stuff required heavy work, AND I really like the results and the abilities themselves.

I've read all of Rathwellin's argumentations, I see some merit here and there (ex: Inner Focus must be retouched, even for version 1), but... don't take this comment the wrong way @Rath!, most seem the argumentations of a powergamer. You don't want to lose power, you want that everything fit with your combination of items perfectly, you say that everything must have a clear and definite technical-strategical usage.

We are trying to do another thing with this mod.
We're trying to help in defining alive characters.
I don't really care about how Energy Storm can be used: I think it's extremely fitting for a sorc to be able to decide, in a desperate moment, maybe to save his companions, to unleash all the energies that he's able to channel through his body, taking his risks in doing it.
It's fitting, and it portraits the character better.

And again, we want to create more unique characters and new game situations.
Come on, do you find really fulfilling to use your sorc always in the same way:
-Cast Improved Alacrity
-Cast Dragon Breath x 5
-Everything dies.

If you find this kind of strategies fulfilling and fun, then you have no need at all of Refinements, the original game is more than enough.

But my personal opinion is just that they used the same table for sorcs and mages, for the simple reason that they couldn't be bothered to spend more time with ToB.
Was the fighter's table fitting for Monks, maybe?
Come on.
Improved Alacrity is now the top of the Wizards' abilities. It's something other classes cannot have, and something that may render a mage more interesting compared to the other classes.
But the other classes, in their turn, have abilities/peculiarities that cannot be emulated.

As a last note, I did a run through the game with Kelsey once, in which I let him learn all elemental-based spells (No time stops, Project image and all).
Absolutely fun, and a little harder, too. No, you cannot convinced me that TWO (I repeat, TWO) element-based abilities have to be REMOVED
Sorcs have a direct connection with magical forces, so also with magical fire, magical cold and all, imho.
I really don't see the problem here, other than the fact that such abilities seem less powerful than a Dragon Breath.

We are making changes that people CANNOT accept well, at first (or even later maybe). People is used to the old system, which is grossly wrong imho, but still, it has been there for years.
Separate components are not an option: after all, the whole component can still be skipped. I don't want to disrupt the work that we're trying to do.
A load of refinements and adjustments (with losses too) to all the classes + Sorcs that still cast Project Image x3 and Dragon's Breath x15?
No thanx.
Still, as you say @Caedwyr, we'll try to give more power and more options to Sorcs if testing proves that it's REALLY needed (time allowing!)

EDIT: there's another class that loses very much: Thieves lose UAI.
I think thieves "gained" a lot from this loss...

[Caedwyr]

Like I mentioned, I'm fine with the current arrangement until/if playtesting proves otherwise. (Incidently, have you had any luck in getting the beta to me?)

[Galactygon]

Don't wish to criticize or anything, but I strongly suggest that before releasing the Beta, you correct all the spelling errors (I spotted them aplenty).

-Galactygon

[Rathwellin the Bard]

I've read all of Rathwellin's argumentations, I see some merit here and there (ex: Inner Focus must be retouched, even for version 1), but... don't take this comment the wrong way @Rath!, most seem the argumentations of a powergamer. You don't want to lose power, you want that everything fit with your combination of items perfectly, you say that everything must have a clear and definite technical-strategical usage.

Actually let me tell you a bit about how I play. My favorite character of all time is the bard I took my namesake from here. I discovered BG & ToSC literally a few months before BGII came out. Rathwellin was my first character. Took him all the way through the ToSC and had a blast. When I got BGII I gave him the Blade kit & never looked back. I scrupulously tried to base him on the PnP blade. I put all his proficiency slots towards swords, daggers, and the weapon styles. The *only* compromise I made was to give him a single blunt proficiency so that he could help fight clay golems ? and that was made with much anguish. I was picky about his companions too. As he had adventured with Minsc and Jahiera in BG they were in his party in BGII.

However I must take an aside here. I am an obsessive player. I look for every quest and try to search every nook & cranny of every area. It?s not so much the power to be gained by doing this ? it?s just that I can?t stand to think that I?ve missed anything in the game. I want to see it all!

About half way through ToB I got bored with Celestial Fury. It had been Rathwellin?s main weapon for a good bit of the game ... but I wanted to try out others so I never used it again even though it would have been ?more powerful? or better in most situations.

Since then I?ve played quite a few characters & as many games, but I?ve never tried the dreaded Kensai/Mage, Berserker/Cleric, or most of the other ?power? combos and classes (save the sorcerer once and a dual class Cleric/Ranger another time). I only spent a few days trying to solo before getting bored at the lack of party interaction. Only in my last two games have I dared to try any of Wiemer?s mods since it looked to me like they would be too ?powergamerish? for my tastes.

I usually forget to activate the Staff of the Magi?s Spell Trap ability when I do have it.

I?ve never beaten Ascension, though I?ve tried a number of times.

I?m not what I would call a powergamer.

But I do read several boards & have followed with great interest the various cheese guides and threads. I?ve even tried out more than one of the various engine exploits, smiled, and reloaded to do it again the ?right? way.

When possible I prefer my party to just walk around hording spells and potions. If they use any pre-battle preps they are usually the long lasting ones like Iron Skin or Melf?s MM. I hate it when I have to do lots of buffs before entering an area. I push my parties as far as they will go before sleeping & that alone limits some of what you mention below ... well until Wish (sometimes) anyway.

And again, we want to create more unique characters and new game situations.
Come on, do you find really fulfilling to use your sorc always in the same way:
-Cast Improved Alacrity
-Cast Dragon Breath x 5
-Everything dies.

Actually I *do* find this boring. The one ?power? party that I?ve played to date was lead by my Sorcerer Milandibar and had Keldorn, Anomen, and Jan in it. I did get bored with this game about half way though ToB ? though I think it had as much to do with the party members as it did with the tactics.

And I also want to note that this tactic doesn?t always work ? especially in some mod encounters?.

EDIT: there's another class that loses very much: Thieves lose UAI.
I think thieves "gained" a lot from this loss...

I?ve meant to comment on this. I saw the thread in Avenger?s & am glad you did this here. This is one area where I am in 100% agreement with you that less is more.


In general my major beefs seem to be:

1. My conception of the Sorcerer as implemented in BG2 & ToB is different than you guys. I see him as a mage sub-type & think that he should be treated as such. Is my view true to 3rd ed? Not really, but it is I think truer to BG as is. YMMV. I don?t mind small changes, but more than any other class you are changing underlying conception the sorcerer IMO. To me it as if you were saying that Paladins, as champions of a deity, should be only able to do the things their deity can. That?s a cool idea, but it?s very different from the BG implementation.

2. I really don?t care for HLAs that are hard to ?set up? or that have huge penalties. It?s not a matter of ?power,? but rather play style. If you make it too hard to use then I (and I suspect others) will not use it in play. Also thematically existing HLAs don?t usually have big penalties. I tend to view them as the ultimate programs ? ones that have all the ?bugs? worked out. By the time your PC is 20th level he should have the experience to do things the ?right? way that don?t leave him vulnerable or excessively open to counterattacks. What good is it to you or us to create something that isn?t really useable in the game no matter how neat the idea is on paper? Designing elements that are neat in theory or in a story or even in PnP are far different than designing useable computer game elements.

3. That I like too much of this mod too much ? or else I wouldn?t be writing these book length posts?.


A final unrelated suggestion ? I?ve long thought that I would be really cool if non-kitted bards could gain a single 7th and a single 8th level spell via HLAs much like the existing mage extra spell option.

[Caedwyr]

Don't wish to criticize or anything, but I strongly suggest that before releasing the Beta, you correct all the spelling errors (I spotted them aplenty).

-Galactygon

The current list of HLAs do not have the most uptodate versions, so there are a fair number of spelling corrections that have already been made.

That said, I have just gone over the documents again and sent off another long list of corrections. The work just never seems to end.

[T.G.Maestro]

Rathwellin, I'm happy to see that players like you still exist in the BG community! We have much in common, you and I.

Now to the comments:

My conception of the Sorcerer as implemented in BG2 & ToB is different than you guys. I see him as a mage sub-type & think that he should be treated as such.

As I told you in one of my previous posts, this is a very critical area where our opinions may never be the same. I see Sorcerers much different than mages, and I always disliked the way they were implemented in BG2. I've found it a shame to see them degraded into a plain mage with a different casting method. Again, I don't see them as a wizard subtype, I see them as a unique class with SOME common abilities with wizards. The whole conception we use in Refinements for them aims to further point out this difference.

more than any other class you are changing underlying conception the sorcerer

Yes, we do that. We find the "original" concept very weak and flawed. The same one goes for monks, they were changed entirely too.
***

By the time your PC is 20th level he should have the experience to do things the ?right? way that don?t leave him vulnerable or excessively open to counterattacks.

I don't agree with this statement. Reaching higher levels should allow one to ACCESS greater powers, but again, power often comes at a price. Try to remember IWD and the "Mythal". It was a high-elven magic with incredible effects, yet it was enough to destroy an entire community once it went wrong. And we use the "drawback" effect only at more powerful abilities - if one could use Energy Storm without any penalties, it would result in limitless destruction - trust me, if you use that one with some brain, very few can withstand its power. Most of our weaker HLAs don't have penalties however, nor should they. Having some disadvanteges at a spell doesn't mean that it is useless, it only means that one should use it with greater consideration. Are you saying that the Enrage ability of Berserkers is useless? Or the Restoration spell for clerics?
Divine Intervention (evil version) is the perfect example for our efforts to point this out: if one dares to address a greater power, there is a chance that the results will be disastrous - but there is a chance that his attempt will result in wonders... .
***

I?ve long thought that I would be really cool if non-kitted bards could gain a single 7th and a single 8th level spell via HLAs much like the existing mage extra spell option

May be, though I don't see this overly fitting for that class.

[Galactygon]

I?ve long thought that I would be really cool if non-kitted bards could gain a single 7th and a single 8th level spell via HLAs much like the existing mage extra spell option.

This has already been done with the level 50 rules. Also, Paladins can learn level 6 spells and rangers can learn level 5 spells.

-Galactygon

[Littiz]

I've just re-inputted practically EVERY DAMN single spell's description, as per Caedwyr's complete revisions of the docs.

After this last piece of crazy work, I've decided that components planned for versions 2 and 3 will be moved to version 6 and 7.

Versions 2 and 3 will be released next year, and will be absolutely identical to version 1.

(thanx to Caedwyr anyway )

[T.G.Maestro]

LOL!!!
Have a break pal!

[Caedwyr]

Luckily, all you have to do to fix the documents themselves, is to remove the (spellchecked) from the file names.

[Jinnai]

Anyway, T.G.Maestro do any of my ideas for a LG monk HLA sound promising? Anyway i think a neutral monk should be able to chose either, but only one.

And yea they way they did the 3 3rd edition classses was very poorly done.

[T.G.Maestro]

About all i can say is that it might be better to think in the way of some passive martial arts styles here. FE giving him a +5 AC penalty, against melee attacks, -1 attack/round to get all criticals (all attack rolls will be 20 for the next round) and +5 damge. This is based upon one of the more passive types in that you wait until your opponent is at his most vulnerable

This one sounds good. I'll work on it as soon as we begin to prepare v2. It will need some balancing, but again, it sounds good.

[Scar]

In all seriousness, i would make all level 10 spells scrolls and make new abilites for mages that aren't spell specific. This is because even at such high levels mages never instant "know" spells, they still haveto find the scrolls for them

You know, this is a GREAT idea! I love it, really. Though it would need a few touches here and there, yet I see this as a most intriguing addition to v2. Thanks for this one!

Well, I don't want to dilute an interesting idea, but according to the rules for High-level Campaigns, a 10th-level spell or True Dweomer "can never be written onto a scroll, fully recorded in a spellbook, or stored in a magical device". It's more the way Caedwyr suggested, with the spellcaster doing her own research and developing her own spell.

Yet, if I'd include 10th level scrolls, I'd do it the Crom Faeyr way: have a scroll that is not a spell but rather a building instruction, listing all components you need for the dweomer (E.g. a valuable gem, a dragon?s tooth or dust from an lich?s lair; of course, that'd mean a lot of work for your graphics artist, painting icons and stuff). Now, once you've got everything, you say an incantation (hence, read the instruction scroll, which should only be usable by mages of level 21+) and get in turn either a spell scroll, the spell directly inscribed in your spell book, or an inate ability.

A final unrelated suggestion ? I?ve long thought that I would be really cool if non-kitted bards could gain a single 7th and a single 8th level spell via HLAs much like the existing mage extra spell option.

The "official" high level spell progression is a good deal more progressive than implemented in BG II. A Bard would get 7th level spells at level 21, ranging up to 5 at level 28, and one 8th level spell at level 29. There are a couple of mods out there implementing this, including Weimer's Ease-of-Use. I'd rather go for that than implement Bard bonus spells via HLA.

Armin

[T.G.Maestro]

Well, I don't want to dilute an interesting idea, but according to the rules for High-level Campaigns, a 10th-level spell or True Dweomer "can never be written onto a scroll, fully recorded in a spellbook, or stored in a magical device". It's more the way Caedwyr suggested, with the spellcaster doing her own research and developing her own spell.

You're right, I see things clear after reading that topic. Thanks for the info!
By the way, this brings up another question.

True Dweomer "can never be written onto a scroll, fully recorded in a spellbook, or stored in a magical device

This means that the current implementation that is copying these 10th level spells into the spellbook isn't very accurate either. I guess this leads to a new option, one that Galactygon would like to use in his upcoming TC (Lost Crossroads) - namely that every 10th level spell (be it a True Dweomer or a Quest spell) can only be aquired as an "innate", e.g. the wizard or a priest can only "memorize" it, but not copy it to a book or scroll.
Technically, this could be easily implemented, these HLAs can easily turned into innates instead of spellbook spells, yet this can lead to other problems and severe balancing issues. This way wizards and priests could easily spend more slots for their original 9th/7th level spells, they wouldn't have to share those with HLA spells anymore - in other words, they would get much more spells/day than before.
Another question is the method of HLA selection. should these HLAs only be memorizable one time (e.g. they would become 1/day innates), or maybe selectable multiple times? The latter would easily result in overpowering and would require heavy balancing efforts.

Anyway, this is something to consider for v2, I pretty much like the idea.
Thoughts?

[khay]

Another question is the method of HLA selection. should these HLAs only be memorizable one time (e.g. they would become 1/day innates), or maybe selectable multiple times? The latter would easily result in overpowering and would require heavy balancing efforts.

Well if you make them 1/day innates then I believe there isn`t much to worry about wizards/priest getting more level 9/7 spells/day; Before they had the posibility to cast the HLA spells more than once per day, this time they won`t. Balance restored, as Cernd would say.

[T.G.Maestro]

Before they had the posibility to cast the HLA spells more than once per day, this time they won`t. Balance restored

Hmm, somehow this doesn't seem the best choice for me - making these HLAs 1/day would be a great blow on the gameplay (and would reduce the useability of these as well significantly), something I don't really want to do.
Some other solution would be needed - something that would allow the player to choose the HLA spells more than once, but still it would have greater prerequisites. I haven't decided yet.
The only real problem with the current/original by Bioware implementation is that it greatly reduces the number of possible new HLAs for Wizards (the case is better for clerics). They have 15 9th lvl spells already, even without any of the HLAs. The 9th page of the wizard spellbook can contain 24 spells, which means that the maximum nuber of new spell-like HLAs for them cannot go above 9. This hinderance makes it quite hard to grant a greater and more balanced variety of True Dweomers for this class (remember, they have 3 Invocation HLAs, while no Necromancy, Illusion, Divination, Abjuration, Alteration spells. Refinements changes this and adds one Necro (Death Field), one Divination (Foresight) and one Abjuration (Aegis) HLA to the base pool - the same goes for kits, but with a slightly different/specialized selection.

[Littiz]

I hope you're kidding.
You want a mage to cast 7-8 10th level spells, in addition to 4-5 9th level ones?!

Mages have been already nicely rebalanced, imho, they don't need to be crazily boosted.

[T.G.Maestro]

Balanced they are, but there are still a few obvious flaws. The missing spell schools from the base table, missing opposing school-spells for a few mage kits, etc.
Not to mention the fact that we used up almost all free slots for new True Dweomers for them already. The problem is not serious aat all, yet it is enough to disturb me - some of the mage tables (including the base pool) aren't perfect, not even with Refinements. We did a great job on rebalancing the tables themselves, but there is still the balance issue of spell-schools - some of them have more than 3 spells, while others have only one.

[Jinnai]

Well according to the books one must also have atleast 18 int (for wizards) and 18 wis (for priest). Beacause epic spells in 3rd edition are handled differently than true dweomers, i suggest 18 cha (if we use charisma elswhere for them) for them.

From DMO:HLC, Chapter 6:

Although a true dweomer is not actually memorized the way a standard spell is, the process of preparing and casting one is taxing. No mortal can prepare, cast, or have ready to cast more than four true dweomers in a single day, and most characters cannot manage that many (see Table 44, page 157). When characters reach their limits, their minds are too drained and befuddled to attempt any more true dweomers, though they are fre to pursue any other activities they are normally able to undertake.

Table 44:
Wizard Spell Progression

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
20	5	5	5	5	5	4	3	3	2	1
21	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	2	1
22	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	3	1
23	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	3	2
24	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	2
25	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	2
26	6	6	6	6	5	5	5	5	5	3
27	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	5	5	3
28	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	3
29	7	7	7	7	6	6	6	6	6	4
30	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	6	4

While our hero, imoen and a few others aren't eactly moratls, they would come close enough to use this chart. If we continue onto level 50 then at level 32 they can cast 5, 35 6, 38 7.

The priest must be in good standing with the deity, having observed the requirements of both the character?s alignment and the deity?s ethos. This is true of all priest spells, and a priest who has strayed too far from the path might not be able to cast any spells at all

Which means that the reputation chart, for all its flaws, would haveto be low for evil, middle for neutral and high for good.

Any priest with access to true dweomers can receive a quest spell without sacrificing any spellcasting ability

Table 47:
Priest Spell Progression
Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	*
20	9	9	9	8	7	5	2	1
21	9	9	9	9	8	6	2	1
22	9	9	9	9	9	6	3	2
23	9	9	9	9	9	7	3	2
24	9	9	9	9	9	8	3	2
25	9	9	9	9	9	8	4	3
26	9	9	9	9	9	9	4	3
27	9	9	9	9	9	9	5	4
28	9	9	9	9	9	9	6	4
29	9	9	9	9	9	9	7	4
30	9	9	9	9	9	9	8	4

As you can see similar results for this would mimic the wizard's.