149 replies to this topic

[Caedwyr]

A couple of suggestions, these could possibly be used as stand alone, or as part of a combined ability:

Archer: Combat Archery. This ability allows the archer to fire a bow in melee combat without allowing the enemy any bonuses.

Archer: Swarm of Arrows. As a full round action, the archer may fire one arrow at all enemies within range.



For general/all rangers, here are a couple of additional ideas:

Bane of Enemies: Any weapon wielded by the Ranger against his racial enemy is considered a bane weapon (increasing its effective enchantment level by 2, and dealing additional damage (+xd6?)





I have shamelessly lifted most/all of these from the 3rd edition epic level handbook.

[Littiz]

Doing version 1 took more time than we planned for version 1.
Debugging version 1 will take more than we planned for the debugging of version 1.

Please, I don't think that one proficiency point is so vital that we must push ourselves in doing new abilities, new icons, rebuilding tables and all.
This mod is about to be released for one reason: I irresponsibly moved to modding a big fraction of the time I should employ in other important RL issues, which absolutely cannot be delayed further.
TGM wanted a release at all costs now, and I accepted *many* of his "absolutely last" changes.

Now, I'm open to opinions, if you want all of these corrections for version 1 (corrections that should be also debated, let me add), we will apply them when I'll have the time, for real, again (which is currently highly undefined, don't ask me to guess ).

My opinion is that the current version is already an absolutely fine addition to the game. If we are able to debug it and release it, people will be able to become comfortable with the new HLAs system (the ones who will use it, at least). Further revisions will be done if necessary, but I don't see the need to do everything now and leave the mod unreleased (but I may be wrong).

[Baltrek]

Gentlemen, I would like to interject my opinion on Rangers, Fighters, and all the preoficiency and specialization hoo-hah.

First off, the fighter is the ONLY class that should get more than 2 stars in any weapon. Actually, the ability of a fighter dualled to another class' ability to continue to specialize is a bug. In the AD&D rules, once you dual, you may no longer advance in your original class, to include specialization. Remember that this is the only advantage of a vanilla fighter. Rangers, paladins, and everyone else have different advantages. You may as well say, "Why don't we give the ranger a wizard spell table, too."

The dual wielding ranger stigma does not come from that "certain drow". They have always been that way in the AD&D rules. I cannot remember if they were that way in the original rules, but I know they were in the 2d Edition (and only in studded leather or less), which came out before that book with that "certain drow", if I am not mistaken. I mean think about it, try creeping through the woods with a large shield or a halberd. I bowhunt, and even my recurve bow is a pain moving in the brush.

What does this mean? When you make a character, you make trade offs. If you take a ranger, you accept that he is not quite as good a fighter as, well, a fighter. He is a skilled woodsman, hunter, and animal handler. While this may not be reflected well in the game from a RP standpoint, that's the way it is. Giving them HLA's to make them better "fighters", is perhaps the wrong way to approach it, make them better "rangers". Ambidexterity fits that bill. Increased specialization, and that sort of thing do not. Rangers do not train solely in combat arts like a fighter, they train in wood-craft, and field skills, of which the ability to use a weapon in a help, not the sole purpose.

My biggest complaint is 10th level magic being memorized as 9th level spells, which was not the way it was intended in PnP. I think it should be even more powerful, but the caster should be able to use it less frequently. When the "True Dweomer" rules were published, a spell could be fashioned that would effect an entire plane of existence! Now we have spells that really are not used too much in place of Improved Alacrity and Time Stop. Think about it, the ability to STOP ALL TIME ON THE PLANET, is a lower level than a boost in casting speed. Hmmm...

True Dweomers were meant to be absolutely world shaking, but a time consuming, draining experience.

I think many of the problems discussed above with balancing HLA's could probably be remedied with a more careful consideration of the character class. Do I see a ranger using a halberd or two handed sword as a primary weapon? Not really. As someone who spends a huge amout of time in the woods, a halberd would be entirely too unwieldy and cumbersome. He may know how to use one, to be a more well rounded individual.

All HLA's should be carefully scrutinized to ensure they follow the spirit and intent of the PnP class. Not just, "because they would be cool". (Which is not really a problem, I'm just making a point)

[Baltrek]

One more quick point.

On the combat archery and swarm of arrows-

The reason there is not an armor penalty when using your melee weapon in close combat, is because you are using that weapon defensively as well. You cannot do that with a missile weapon. The armor penalty for missile weapons in close combat should by all means stay.

Swarm of arrows. Look at the speed factor of a bow in PnP. Very slow. As an avid archer, I can attest to that. I shoot a bow every single day. You simply cannot fire the quickly. Here is the liitle known reason why they have a slow speed factor, and a high attack rate: There is noone in your face attacking you, letting you concentrate 100% on offense. While a melee weapon may attack faster, remember 50% of your time (maybe more) is devoted to using that weapon and any shield in a defensive manner.

As a reference for weapon speed-

I am a pretty decent archer. I hit a 8" circle every single time with my recurve at 20 yards, with no sights. Just instinct shooting. 6 arrows take me about 45 seconds or so if I am shooting rapidly at a completely stationary target, and taking a minimum amount of time to aim. (I shoot better quickly anyway) In PnP AD&D, a bow had a nominal attack rate of 2/round, or about 2 per 60 seconds. Sounds about right for shooting a moving target, taking careful aim, and having to wait for your buddy to fight himself out of your way so you don't shoot him in the back. In any case, though your character IS a superhero, 3 per round is really about the human maximum.

[Caedwyr]

Don't worry about the issue too much Littiz. All my suggestions are just that. Suggestions. They can be implemented in later versions if they are found appropriate. The issue about the ranger HLA table, isn't too big. Yes, non-dual wielding rangers don't have as many HLAs to choose from, but they still have a nice selection that is more than adequate for playing a fun game.

If I come across something that really needs fixing, then I will say so in big letters.


Regarding Time stop. In AD&D, the time stop spell only affects a certain area around the caster. Individuals entering this frozen time field, fall under the effects of the time stop.

[Galactygon]

I really beleieve (since this is a CRPG not an RPG) that entertainment and balancing is primary while matching the PnP rules is secondary.

Sometimes I get this faint idea that people taking PnP too seriously (as if it were a holy bible) levy confines towards creativity, which make BG2 "come alive" (quoting Rastor's motto).

-Galactygon

[Caedwyr]

Definately. The PnP rules should be guidelines, not constraints. There many instances where the PnP rules are impossible to implement, or would so radically change the way the game is played to make it more worthwhile to just create a new game engine.

That said, in some things like new creatures, races, items, spells, deities, major cities and other events don't fit nicely into the established world, and would be more appropriate to a new game setting. In these cases, it becomes an issue of not fitting in.

[Jinnai]

Well as to slots, we should be using here pages taken from the PO:S&P, not the PHB. I say S&P because other classes, such as rogues, take abilites from here also.

Anyway, it says that any warrior group class (and this would likely include barbarians and monks from 3E) can master (3 stars) at higher levels than fighters, but may not achieve a rank beyond mastery. Only true fighters can. This makes snese as fighting is what they do most, esp pcs which is what the classes were desgined around.

Now as to ambidexterity...unfrotunatly they screwed this up with the ranger. Ambidexterity is not something you can learn, it is something you are born with. A wizard has just as much chance as being ambidexterious as a ranger (and it can come in quite handy for the former...it can speed up the process of copying texts, among other things).

The ability the ranger gets acts like ambidexterity, under the right circumstances, as there are no true ambidexterios people (atleast recruitable) in BG2. As such IA does not make sense, even a true ambidexterious person would not be that skilled at such a level. If we give it to rangers, their is no logical reason to not give it to thieves and fighters as they can be just as good, if not better than a ranger as two-weapon style. This is because benifit they get is not, but a learned ability, an ability that can be learned by anyone who uses two-weapon style.

If it were just while wearing studded leather or below i could see dropping it for thieves, but not fighters...you can't tell me a fighter that takes up dual wielding as his speciality will be worse off at wielding those 2 blades than a ranger.

[T.G.Maestro]

This is because benifit they get is not, but a learned ability, an ability that can be learned by anyone who uses two-weapon style.

No, I don't agree here. While warriors can achieve a great rank in dual-wielding, they don't use this weapon style as a primary technique. Classes and kits like Rangers and Blades are well known of their skills with 2 weapons, and this is already pointed out by their starting skills - rangers get more stars in the D.Wield slots at start, while fighters don't get any. Yes, a fighter CAN reach that level with massive training, but again, a ranger has that skill by nature. It is only logical to assume if he achieved that state faster, with proper training he/she will have the chance to get to an even higher level (IA) way faster than others of the fighting profession.

[T.G.Maestro]

Again folks, we have two passives here that need urgent modification: Arcane Knowledge for wizards (doesn't apply the lore bonus, and I really can't find a way to do it) and Inner Focus for Sorcerers.
Both of these abilities need some minor bonus, which is fitting for the class. I've collected a few ideas, but I don't want to make any moves without discussing them:

Inner Focus:
- I would like to keep the CHA bonus (+1).
- 1st option: +1 bonus to ALL saves;
- 2nd option: immunity to INT modification (INT Drain for example);
- 3rd option: immunity to "drain wizard spells";
- 4th option immunity to level drain.

Arcane Knowledge (similar ideas):
- keep the INT bonus (+1).
- 1st option: SOMEHOW add that lore bonus;
- 2nd/3rd/4th option: as listed above.

Any other good suggestions are welcome, keep 'em coming!

[Baltrek]

First in reply to TGM-

My initial thoughts on inner focus would be that Immunity to drain (of any type) do not really fit. They are a result of a creatures power, and as such are really out of the player's control. Level/strength drain is like an open conduit to the negative energy plane. Immune to level drain, IMO, would be more in line for a Monk or Preist ability, not sorcerer. I like the saving throw bonus, but rather than +1 to all, perhaps a higher bonus to just magic, something like +2, 3, or 4 vs. only Magic. I fail to see how supreme inner focus could protect him from a basilisk gaze or dragon breath. Although of course, you could also argue that by the time they get this ability, the character saves on any roll but a 1 anyway. Tough call. I think lore bonus is a must on Arcane Knowledge. Perhaps on Inner focus, making the character's magic more effective? Something like reducing the opponents saving throw? Much like the opponent being under a permanent lesser version of malaison or lower resistance?

Now as for this being a CRPG instead of PnP, and literally taking the rules-

I fully realize this, and anyone who knows me, and I have posted before, that I beleive the original 1st Edition AD&D rules were the best. The rules were very broad guidelines, that fostered creativity and originality. What I am saying that you need to be careful of, is blurring the lines between classes. I am saying that the original intent of the classes shoul dbe of utmost consideration, not a literal translation of the rules, per se.

For example, in the original rules, the thief is more of a thief. Not a dual wielding swashbuckler, a la three musketeers. He is a burgaler, cutpurse, assassin (note the connotation to attacking by stealth here), and a lockpick. The ranger had a gift of dual wielding with exceptional ease (hence the extra 2 stars), although to make use of this ability, they had to be wearing studded leather or less. And I beleive that they were the only ones that could use 2 weapons of the same size.

These were all things that made each class unique, and to blur that by letting one class use advantages of another class, is not in line with the spirit or intent of the game. This has nothing to do with being a rules wizard, or it being a CRPG or PnP.

[Littiz]

Since I've found the problem with Arcane Knowledge, it remains Inner Focus.

I agree that Immunity to drain isn't fitting, but immunity to spell drain might do, since sorcerers don't really memorize spells.
Personally, I'd choose that one.

Much like the opponent being under a permanent lesser version of malaison or lower resistance?

This is a fine idea, I don't know ATM how many implementation problems it would arise.
TGM what about adding this one to the list of future revisions.
You DO have a list, don't you?

[Baltrek]

Agreed, I think that increasing spell effectiveness would be difficult to implement, would take a hell of a workaround. The whole spell drain thing, I guess it fits, but, I never really even consider spell drain a problem. I really never remember having it done, or maybe never noticed. I waste those funky summons as soon as they appear anyway. Glad to see Arcane Knowledge fixed, it is always nice when people solve problems.

[T.G.Maestro]

I've found the problem with Arcane Knowledge

Good one Littiz. But since you are already messing with that HLA, please set the bonus to 15 points. 10 is a bit weak.

I agree that Immunity to drain isn't fitting, but immunity to spell drain might do, since sorcerers don't really memorize spells

I would agree completely, but we cannot do that Littiz. Simply take a look at Energy Storm, you'll understand what I mean.

a fine idea, I don't know ATM how many implementation problems it would arise

Extreme amount of work, I doubt it is worth the effort. It can be easily done in IWD2, since there is a special hardcoded opcode for that. It is a shame, but BG2 completely lacks that kind of opcode.

[T.G.Maestro]

So again, Inner Focus is open for debate. Please post any suggestions!

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Again folks, we have two passives here that need urgent modification: Arcane Knowledge for wizards (doesn't apply the lore bonus, and I really can't find a way to do it) and Inner Focus for Sorcerers.
Both of these abilities need some minor bonus, which is fitting for the class. I've collected a few ideas, but I don't want to make any moves without discussing them:

Inner Focus:
- I would like to keep the CHA bonus (+1).
- 1st option: +1 bonus to ALL saves;
- 2nd option: immunity to INT modification (INT Drain for example);
- 3rd option: immunity to "drain wizard spells";
- 4th option immunity to level drain.

Arcane Knowledge (similar ideas):
- keep the INT bonus (+1).
- 1st option: SOMEHOW add that lore bonus;
- 2nd/3rd/4th option: as listed above.

Any other good suggestions are welcome, keep 'em coming!

Well I?m not in the BETA group but that?s not going to stop me from posting my 2 cents!

Inner Focus:
-CHA bonus is fine
-1st Option: this would be OK
-2nd Option: IMO this doesn?t fit very well. It?s a very useful ability ? but I just don?t see it. Better for the Psionic kit you are looking at in future versions.
-3rd Option: I like this pick the best off all the choices ? it seems to fit the sorcerer well.
-4th Option: Like #2 this is useful, but just doesn?t fit very well IMO.

Arcane Knowledge:
-INT bonus is fine
-1st Option: +10 is a bit low IMO but I wouldn?t stress too much over this one
-2nd to 4th Options: I don?t like any of these for the wizard.

If *all* high level wizards had the 3rd option then your new Spell Worm HLA for Enchanters would be pretty useless. Giving to one class of wizards like Sorcerers or Diviners is fine ? but when they all have it this becomes problematic IMO.

Some other suggestions I have would be to:
-Option 5: Some spells cap out at less than 20th level (like Fireball) increase the cap on these spells to 20th level like all other spells.
-Option 6: Leave the ?Hard Capped? spells like Fireball alone but increase the maximum cap on ?Uncapped? spells like Horrid Wilting to 25th or even 30th level. (Suddenly Mages have an advantage over Bards!)
-Option 7: Bonus of +10% to Magic Resistance
-Option 8: Give an innate ?Identify? ability like the spell useable 3 times per day.
-Option 9: Increase the XP that scribing scrolls gives after this HLA is chosen

[T.G.Maestro]

-3rd Option: I like this pick the best off all the choices ? it seems to fit the sorcerer well

It might fit the class well, but we cannot give it to sorcerers. it'd ruin Energy Storm in some aspects.

Arcane Knowledge:
-INT bonus is fine
-1st Option: +10 is a bit low IMO but I wouldn?t stress too much over this one

Agreed, I intend to raise the bonus to 20 points.

-Option 8: Give an innate ?Identify? ability like the spell useable 3 times per day

A very good idea, though it would be pretty much useless if we grant enoug lore to the class, or vica versa. Either the Lore bonus, or the innate Identify, useable at will, unlimited/day.

I'm still waiting for suggestions on Inner Focus.
+ 5-10% Magic Resistance maybe?

[Baltrek]

My vote goes to improved saving throws towards magic only. Something in the +2 to +4 range.

MR should not be given. It is plenty available through items anyway.

A bit wierd, but I always thought Sorcerers to me more susceptable to magic, is that not how they have innate ability to begin with? Eh, who, knows, I'll quit being philosophical about it now.

[Baltrek]

I think a level 20 horrid wilting is just fine. Time stop, alacrity, lower resist x (how many you want), malaison, 4 horrid wiltings, and you just won a battle.