235 replies to this topic

[Stone Wolf]

There's the fallen solar you fight just before the end.

[T.G.Maestro]

Yep, but that is pure Ascension stuff, and quite powerful OTOH (although they don't use any spells or abilities) - I'm not sure if I'd touch it.

[Feanor]

Tsk-tsk Feanor, you haven't played enough with Refinements I see...
The clerical innate Divine Intervention (good and evil version) has the chance to summon a Solar or a Fallen Solar...

I did not try all the classes... yet.

[T.G.Maestro]

And now back to the topic, which is True Dweomers...

[Littiz]

I'll further examine this issue, but right now I'm concentrating on Refinement's Improved Celestials, and a proper documentation.

When you'll have further examined you'll let me know ok? And maybe you'll offer me a pizza, right?
Oh my, I should be declared saint... :nana:

Edited by Littiz, 25 October 2004 - 11:09 AM.

[Caedwyr]

Actually if you are looking on making changes to the evil versions of the Deva/Planetar spells, I'd recommend summoning a controllable, improved version of the Pit Fiend or Balors. The reason I tend to balk at fallen Devas and Solars as being the equivalent of their good counterparts is that by definition, they've lost some of their abilities and are weaker than their non-fallen counterparts. If a fallen-deva/planetar/solar goes far enough, they can turn into a demon/devil. However, a celestial can also fall, if they break from their deities allowed alignments (eg, a Lawful Good deva of a Lawful Good patron god, becomes Chaotic Good means the deva has fallen and loses some of his abilities.)

[Jinnai]

How about a permanent non-healable 1 point constitution loss each time you cast a TD? If people don't like it, then that would only reflect the fact that casting a TD is something some wizards are willing to do and others aren't.

This was my way of reasoning too with th permanent XP loss, but people got freaked out even by mentioning it. CON loss would be the same thing, but even less logical.

As i said though, perhaps it could be loss based on gameplay hours that cannot be otherwise healed and the contitution loss can be made longer or shorter depending upon the power of the spell. This is definatly within reason, assuming the player cannot heal it outside of waiting.

[Feanor]

Actually if you are looking on making changes to the evil versions of the Deva/Planetar spells, I'd recommend summoning a controllable, improved version of the Pit Fiend or Balors.  The reason I tend to balk at fallen Devas and Solars as being the equivalent of their good counterparts is that by definition, they've lost some of their abilities and are weaker than their non-fallen counterparts.  If a fallen-deva/planetar/solar goes far enough, they can turn into a demon/devil.  However, a celestial can also fall, if they break from their deities allowed alignments (eg, a Lawful Good deva of a Lawful Good patron god, becomes Chaotic Good means the deva has fallen and loses some of his abilities.)

Well, a deva is more powerful than a Balor. Once, in BG2, a deva summoned by me was able to face 2 Balors simultaneously (of course, not the improved versions prepared by TG hehe )

[T.G.Maestro]

Well, a deva is more powerful than a Balor. Once, in BG2, a deva summoned by me was able to face 2 Balors simultaneously

A shame, really.
Things like this make me want that Creature Revisions more and more.
A normal Deva should fall before a true Balor. Planetars should be near equals, while Solars should be superior without question.

[T.G.Maestro]

As for the mechanism of the whole TD system, we should follow this track for now:

we use the starting method of my proposed version (e.g. the base TD ability applies the selected spell (from a 2DA list, containing all the TDs) to the innates bar). Here the player has to be able to pay the development costs (experience level, material components, gold) of the selected 10th level spell, or the selection and the ability is wasted. This would be the only part where scripting is needed. After this, the TD innate would be removed, and the player would have to re-select it from the HLA table to develop another spell.
At castings there would be no scripting, no costs, nothing. Once developed, the mage could cast the spell without any further costs, he should only deal with the negative effects of the actual casting (Fatigue, Winded state).

Since the cooldown period will not be implementable in this case (see the discussion in the Help forums about this problem), we need something else to balance/control the castings. Lets summarize what we have ATM:
- limited development of TDs (max 3-4 for normal mages and max 1-2 for multis);
- material components, but only at the development part;
- gold, but again, only at development;
- experience level checks (at casting);
- heavy Fatigue, cumulative after every TD (can be removed by rest);
- a winded state for a limited duration after each TD casting (this would apply a massive spell failure effect, and some other negative bonuses);
- also, we can make it so that the same TD wouldn't be useable in a fixed time period (5 hours for example).

I think combining all these drawbacks would balance this quite effectively. Opinions, further ideas?

[Littiz]

Since the cooldown period will not be implementable in this case (see the discussion in the Help forums about this problem),

also, we can make it so that the same TD wouldn't be useable in a fixed time period (5 hours for example).

I believe something is clashing here, @TGM.
Hope you don't plan to implement this just for a part of the spells...

[T.G.Maestro]

I believe something is clashing here, @TGM.
Hope you don't plan to implement this just for a part of the spells...

Yes and no.
True, this way the "cooldown" would only protect from the same TD, the mage would be able to cast others without dealing with the 4-8 hour limit (as he should be able to, according to pnp... ). Yet, since there will be MAX 3-4 TDs available for the mage (at very high levels!) because of the limited development, this would be balanced well. A mage would be able to develop his first TD around 22-23rd level, and many of these 10th level spells will require higher experience levels too! So lets say we have a pure mage with 3-4 TDs (around 26-28th level). If he casts one the developed spells, he will become fatigued until rest. This affects all saves and rolls negatively of course. Also, he'll become winded (for 6 rounds maybe), and won't be able to cast spells sorrectly for that duration. In addition, he'll be unable to use that specific TD again until the cooldown expires (4-8 hours, depending on the TDs power). If he decided to cast another TD just after the winded state ends, he'll suffer a doubled-fatigue effect, and so on.
This is completely reasonable IMO, its almost TOO much of a punishment already.

[Littiz]

True, this way the "cooldown" would only protect from the same TD,

Ok, but how are you going to implement it for spells with targets other than the caster?

Why don't you just believe me that if you want a cool-down you'll have to use my solution, or something similar?
This is getting somewhat grotesque...

Edited by Littiz, 28 October 2004 - 07:14 AM.

[T.G.Maestro]

Ok, but how are you going to implement it for spells with targets other than the caster?

Simply adding 2 casting effects the same way I did for the Celestials (I believe even YOU used this for the SA somewhere, maybe Merciful Fighting):
- "Remove Spell" permanently (the specified TD);
- "Give Innate Ability " (delayed by 4-8 hours, the very same TD).
It is working this way. At least I think so, according to my recent tests...

This is getting somewhat grotesque...

Grotesque? Really? The fact that you keep showing zero constructivity, that you keep telling me the same thing all the time (no matter if I ask you, warn you, notify you, sing to you the fact that it HAS some problematic points - no, you don't even hear me) about the "only possible solution", no matter if we could examine several other different implementation methods.. even declare that "You are not available for such solutions" just because I gently told you (at least 100 times) that your idea is not perfect (oh, of course, that means neglecting your stuff out of prejudice) and we need to find better solutions, alternatives, call it as you please... thats grotesque.

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 28 October 2004 - 08:25 AM.

[Littiz]

Simply adding 2 casting effects the same way I did for the Celestials (I believe even YOU used this for the SA somewhere, maybe Merciful Fighting):
- "Remove Spell" permanently (the specified TD);
- "Give Innate Ability " (delayed by 4-8 hours, the very same TD).

This solution isn't correct: you forget that they should be recovered after resting, not after a fixed amount of time.
Merciful fighting is different, as it gives no real bonuses, and it supposed to be activable at will.
Also, if you take this route, you cannot allow more than 1 pick for each ability (but this might be by design, if you want).

even declare that "You are not available for such solutions" just because

I'm not available for working in something I believe too tricky, or with no chances of reaching a positive end; I've already said what the technical problems are in my opinion. I've also said how I would like the implementation, but you leave no hope of a middle-point solution since of course, by default, you must decide.
No problem, I'll leave it to you.
If you can produce a working, correct and technically sound version, I'll welcome it. I just want to avoid wasting more of my time

[T.G.Maestro]

This solution isn't correct: you forget that they should be recovered after resting, not after a fixed amount of time.

Really not to argue, but you are partially wrong. They shouldn't be recovered after resting - they are not memorized and copied into books as normal mage spells, they work more like innates powers. By this method we can take full control over their use (we can set different "cooldown" for each of them, depending on power - another nice balancing tool!).
And since a normal resting takes 8 hours, you'll get them back either way, right?

Also, if you take this route, you cannot allow more than 1 pick for each ability

Again, this depends on the cooldown length: for weaker TDs we could set it for a shorter duration (4 hours), so that ability would be useable more than once per day. But of course -as you pointed out- this solution makes it imopossible to "develop the same TD twice" (which sounds rather impossible itself).

I'm not available for working in something I believe too tricky, or with no chances of reaching a positive end

And you think this solution has no positive ends?

I just want to avoid wasting more of my time

Littiz. Modding is a waste of time, if you look things from this PoV. All that we accomplished, all that we made real can be called a big waste of time this way. I don't agree with your philosophy here - do you remember me telling you that I "won't waste my time with your ideas"? Surely not. And not because you don't have any - you can fight till your very last breath when it comes to the SA, I'm sure you remember . And although I tend to be a bit pushy even there, I always respect your decisions (even if I don't like some of them personally).

Really, Andyr is right - we spend more time with arguing than with real modding

[SimDing0]

Can we have a joinable Littiz and TGM NPC pair, please?

[T.G.Maestro]

Can we have a joinable Littiz and TGM NPC pair, please?

A stunning idea, actually...

[Stone Wolf]

The only question is how long it would take for them to go at it. I'd suggest:

JoinParty()
SmallWait(120)
StartDialog...

[SimDing0]

I was thinking absolutely LOADS of MakeUnselectable().