235 replies to this topic

[Littiz]

I used to play PnP, up to some years ago.
Well, I remember Multiclasses were even restricted in level. A maximum could be something like 15/15!
This had "philosophical" and balance reasons that, I admit, are not entirely portable in BG2.

In BG2 a multiclass is allowed to simultaneously advance in both classes far higher than that, AND to acquire high level abilities, as well (a dualclass hardly can be in the situation of combine HLAs from different pools)
A multiclass has *always* means to combine different strenghts, and this counts a lot.

A dualclass is a different concept, you must invest in earlier disadvantages to become a bit "abusive" later.
In Refinements we have already removed some cheesy options (kensai/thieves learning UAI, for instance): this is the only kind of balancing we're doing about dualclasses ATM... basically I think they're fine the way they are.
Also consider that you must spend a lot of stat points to be able to dualclass, while a multi doesn't have this problem (of course, if players "cheat" to obtain more starting Stat points, it's not something I have to care about)

Edited by Littiz, 14 October 2004 - 06:15 AM.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Actually IMO one of Refinements few failings is that it actually *encourages* dual classing over multiclassing.

Take the Ranger/Cleric for example. With MC he gets some nice HLAs but misses out on the really 'good' stuff like Divine Intervention. I was considering playing a multiclass but after looking at the HLAs I realized that I wouldn't really be happy with the results. Dual classing from Ranger to Cleric was really much 'better' in terms of HLAs never mind all the advantages a dual class character already gets like more HP, more WPs, faster advancement, etc.

I understand that you guys are doing a bit more for the multis in 2.0 but I'm still a bit worried about this issue.

As for early PnP level restrictions it had nothing to do with multiclassing. Instead all *non-humans* had level caps. The benifit that they got was that they could multiclass where humans could not. Still both a pure elf Fighter and a multi elf F/M were both limited to level 12 fighter. Most folks I know disliked that system & I for one am glad that it's gone in 3.x.

Edited by Rathwellin the Bard, 14 October 2004 - 07:13 AM.

[Jinnai]

A very good idea Littiz. In fact, we should add another twist that restricts mages with lower INT(?) to only 1 use of this base ability, as discussed before. It is an essential point of this addition to allow the maximum (4) uses for mages with 20-21 INT only.

Atleast 4 should be hard to get for any character without some dedication to it. I mean this is serious dropping of the bar for intelligence for what TD are meant to be as really only those of level 20+ with 18 intelligence can even have a chance of casting them and here your giving every wizard classed npc a chance.

Not everyone is TD material, that doesn't mean they're not useful, but they could put their talents elsehwhere.

And yes i think 25 intelligence for 4 TDs is good...it will make you haveto work to keep getting the most out of your mage when you need to. True you can cheat and get 25 int permenatly, but you can cheat and be invisable as well

Edited by Jinnai, 15 October 2004 - 12:01 AM.

[Ieldra]

Actually IMO one of Refinements few failings is that it actually *encourages* dual classing over multiclassing.

As if it needed more encouraging

@Jinnai:

You can't get more dedication, regarding intelligence, than starting with INT 18 and applying every INT upgrade (2 of 2) to one character. A requirement of 25 is ridiculous since you need a character permanently doped by Potions of Genius. If you say "TDs aren't for everyone", then I agree - I made a point about restricting, for instance, Nalia and Imoen by limiting TDs severely for anyone but single-class mages. I still think that would be good, but as I gather from the answers, it isn't going to happen. I can live with that since I can always choose not to give these NPCs any TDs when I play. An INT requirement that you can't fulfil, on the other side, is something I'm not prepared to accept.

[GreyViper]

And yes i think 25 intelligence for 4 TDs is good

Same here the more you have TD in head the more complex things get.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Save that you *can't* legally get 25 Int.

18 + BGI book + Deck of Many things + Machine of Lum = 21 Int

[Caedwyr]

Or 22 with a gnome (+1 int). Either way, I'd say that you shouldn't have to cheat to have a decent number of these TDs. However, given that Littiz says he doesn't even know how to do an int based restriction on the number of TDs available, its a moot point.

[Ieldra]

Save that you *can't* legally get 25 Int.

18 + BGI book + Deck of Many things + Machine of Lum = 21 Int

Can you get the +1 INT from the Deck reliably? If not - I don't think something as important as TDs should depend on luck. And Gnomes - who plays them? Be realistic, any restriction above 20 will only serve to get players to cheat.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Amen.

[Littiz]

Have you tried soloing a dualclass, from start?
I soloed once up to spellhold, did the vampire lair with a lousy lvl 6 mage or something...
the only way I could kill Tanova was a bouncing Lightning Bolt cast with care on the wall, aimed while invisible.

I repeat, multiclasses have different advantages. Anyway, they'll get something new in v.2, and they'll get some TDs when it's time. Consider also that "freeing" 9th level slots is actually more convenient to multiclasses (just think a moment about it, they have less 9th level slots, and they gain more of them very slowly... adding some TDs via innates is actually a great boost for them).

About dualclasses, consider that -technically speaking- they share the same tables as single classes. To alter the behaviour of the tables, I'm forced to use very tricky scripts, and I can only apply subtle changes anyway.
I want to avoid this unless it's desperately needed (for example, I did it to prevent a dualclassed Sword Angel from having access to Death Field), also because these scripts would have to be added once again to the Baldur.bcs scripts, which are already too much "polluted" (those scripts are supposed to run continuosly, so it's not a good idea to keep adding stuff to them... and we already add more than 1 thousand lines of script to them (as the first versions of Virtue as I remember, which is basically a script-based mod.. don't know about the last ones).

Or 22 with a gnome (+1 int). Either way, I'd say that you shouldn't have to cheat to have a decent number of these TDs. However, given that Littiz says he doesn't even know how to do an int based restriction on the number of TDs available, its a moot point.

God bless you Caedwyr, I was starting to fear I was trapped in a nightmare where nobody hears me or something
(though I'll add that IIRC you can also gain INT in the hell tests..)
In my proposed solution INT would be checked at the moment of selecting the available spells, so if one with low INT wanted to use potions in order to obtain a few castings of a particular Dweomer, he would be allowed to.

Edited by Littiz, 15 October 2004 - 09:40 AM.

[hlidskialf]

The abilities could always be granted by some "entity" and done through a dialog much like the wish spells. It'd let you script the bejeezus outta that cre for fancy HLA distribution.
While I like the idea of these TD on paper, am I the only one seeing them as a unecassary uber-power ability? I like Refinements, but I'd like to see it expand backwards. More spells at the lower levels, refined by previous spell selection. ie) If your character focuses on elemental fire spells, then down the road they should be granted/replaced versions of fire spells. (For example, with enough fire spells known, AND no nasty ice spells to take away from it, a new version of fireball, etc... is learned. These ones do more damage, have a secondary effect, that kinda thing.) You've already done a nice setup for this on the HLA, and if you're up for doing more I'd like to see this instead of the, "Cataclysmic uber-ctrl Y Spell of Divine Regurgitation.". Just my 2 copper.

[Littiz]

I agree with you @Hlid, in fact my aim would be to finalize the system, and render the already existant 10th level spells a bit harder to obtain and to cast.

I might like the idea of adding 2/3 new ones (with the necessary balancing measures) but frankly I don't support TGM's idea of adding 20 Dweomers

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Have you tried soloing a dualclass, from start?
I soloed once up to spellhold, did the vampire lair with a lousy lvl 6 mage or something...

I repeat, multiclasses have different advantages. Anyway, they'll get something new in v.2, and they'll get some TDs when it's time.

Solo is a valid playstyle. I would be surprised if most BGII repeat players haven?t tried it at least once. However my impression is that the game was designed for party play and most folks play the game that way most of the time.

While solo play really emphasizes the downside of dual classing party play can largely mask it. In either case though it?s pretty easy to minimize the downsides by dualing just prior to large XP rewards.

In any event while I *like* your approach of giving the single classes and kits something ?special? to encourage them and I agree that a MC shouldn?t get *everything* that a single class character should the bottom line is that I?m just not happy with the 1.x MC tables. I?ll reserve judgment on 2.0 until I have a better handle on what is coming down the tubes. However as a general guideline I will say that I wish that instead of being close to a 50/50 split on HLAs from each class with around the same number total that MC characters instead got around 75% or so of each of their classess HLAs.

In my mind the idea solution would look something like the Druidic Sorcerer HLAs in that there would be more long ?tracks? that you could take. A MC character might have *all* the tracks and choose to develop just down the ?fighter? ones for instance without getting *any* mage HLAs or they could develop all mage only HLAs, eventually getting some the best mage stuff but loosing out on *all* the fighter HLAs or they could get some of both sets of HLAs but none of the ?better? ones since they would never reach the ends of the HLA ?tracks.?

I don?t really expect to see this, but IMO it would be the ?perfect? solution. However even just granting a bit more than just half of the class HLAs, but not all, would make me happy.

[T.G.Maestro]

OK folks, according to our latests discussions on this topic, we will go back to my original suggestion and use the "Spell Immunity-like" submenu for these spells. As said before, the base TD HLA will be accessable from the HLA table. The number of picks will be different for true and multi mages: while the latter will have only 1 or 2 picks, normal mages will have the chance to use TDs up to 4 times/day.
Most TDs will have an XP level requirement. Until these aren't met, one won't be able to cast that specific Dweomer. This means that as one levels up, there will be more and more choices available once he activates the base TD innate. There is a good chance that some/most of these spells will require material components and gold too, and some XP loss isn't completely out of question either. I know, many of you don't like this idea, but we'll have to discuss it, and its balancing factor. I think it works very well in 3rdE.
There is a problem with the scripting of INT checks however. Littiz can say much more than me about this issue, but I think chances are that it won't affect TDs.

I like Refinements, but I'd like to see it expand backwards.

If you take a look at the TODO (or even simpler, the discussed topics here and there in this forum), you'll surely notice that there are much more general or SoA component plans than those for ToB. As I remember we only have the TDs and the Five Revisions for ToB ATM.

[T.G.Maestro]

Oh, one addition I almost forgot to mention in my last post: as discussed before in this thread, many spells from the current mage HLA tables will be made TDs (I.Alacrity, Dragon's Breath, Rune of Immunity for example). The freed slots in the tables will be filled with a few 9th level spells (like Weird).

As a summary, the proposed version of a new mage table would look like this:
- a few passive bonuses (as in the actual tables);
- a few innates (like Scribe Scrolls);
- extra 9th level spells (like Comet, Foresight, Reveal);
- the TD HLA.

[Feanor]

The freed slots in the tables will be filled with a few 9th level spells (like Weird).

"Weird" ? I don't remember such a spell...

[Schatten]

like wail of banshee somewhat.

edit: has two saves instead of one.

edit2: first save for death then save for damage.

Edited by Schatten, 18 October 2004 - 04:01 AM.

[Littiz]

As said before, the base TD HLA will be accessable from the HLA table. The number of picks will be different for true and multi mages: while the latter will have only 1 or 2 picks, normal mages will have the chance to use TDs up to 4 times/day.

My choice would be 1 and 3. You seem to have forgotten balance, recently, TGM

There is a good chance that some/most of these spells will require material components and gold too, and some XP loss isn't completely out of question either.

No chance... if we use the menu, we'll use just the simple level requirements for a whole 2da set (no sense in providing a spell which you can select but not cast).
If you want scripts, INT checks, and the chance to use material components (in two words: fine tuning) we'll have to use my alternative solution, so I could safely run scripts before assigning the spells. Otherwise, we'd mess with the spell effects themselves, with targeting issues and all, and I don't want to mess with those (in many cases it wouldn't even be possible)
Hope I've been clearer

Anyway, I'd request a sort of "pool" here.
How many Dweomers would players want?
I'd say the original ones (the 10th level spells) + max 3 more.

Reasons:
-I won't ever start work on this component if we plan to do 20 TDs
-Balance.
True, we'd make TDs a harder to cast, ok.
But we're also freeing 9th level slots, and each pick CANNOT grant too many choices, because this goes against the way mages work.
They're supposed to be less flexible than a sorc, who chooses spells on the fly.
Wizards are supposed to memorize them.
Now, if we free all the 9th level slots, AND we grant a choice between 20 TDs everytime the ability is used, we grant mages a power they aren't supposed to possess, really: real-time flexibility, more than a sorc.
This is a most important point imho.
Opinions welcome (hush TG!!! )

Edited by Littiz, 18 October 2004 - 09:36 AM.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Can you not add a few 'component' items to the game that permanantly grant your PC additional TD menu selections when used?

A character could get the TD HLA at any level with some menu items there by default. However additional menu items would only come with items or some such later in the game.

This would also cut down on all magic parites from having all characters with the same HLAs.

[T.G.Maestro]

Opinions welcomed (hush TG!!! )

Huh..? Who summoned me..?!!

My choice would be 1 and 3.

Good for me.

No chance... if we use the menu, we'll use just the simple level requirements for a whole 2da set (no sense in providing a spell which you can select but not cast).
If you want scripts, INT checks, and the chance to use material components (in two words: fine tuning) we'll have to use my alternative solution, so I could safely run scripts before assigning the spells. Otherwise, we'd mess with the spell effects themselves, with targeting issues and all, and I don't want to mess with those (in many cases it wouldn't even be possible)

Which means we won't be able to anything, since you don't want to start the scripting madness with many TDs involved. Adding only 4-6 new ones is pointless however, really not worth any work IMO. See below.

I'd say the original ones (the 10th level spells) + max 3 more.

And I'd say we need variety. Variety and options are almost always better according to my experiences - thats the pure logic of our HLA System too. We could have easily leave them as they are, adding the same options for at least 4-5 different classes and many kits. Yep, it'd have made these years easier, but once we took the first step...

Anyway, to get a better picture, I'll post my actual collection of TDs. Littiz, note that not every 10th level spell (made by Bioware) is good for a TD - Comet is a good example. It is good for a 9th level spell, but nothing more. The same goes for many of the existing HLA spells in out mage tables. Either way, even if we decide to choose your version, we must add at least one TD for every spell school, to make it balanced for all kits. Anyway, here is the complete list of (possible) TDs:

Existing TDs:
- Dragon's Breath;
- Improved Alacrity;
- Summon Celestial;
- Rune of Immunity;

New suggestions/options to choose from:
- Ratecliffe's Deadly Finger;
- Nullification;
- Barrier of Toth;
- Whisper's Malicious Elemental Gates;
- Tenser's Telling Blow;
- Crimson Wall of Lictilon;
- Montero's Retaliation;
- Negative Storm;
- Crown of Vermin;
- Damnation;
- Eternal Freedom;
- Rain of Fire;
- Ruin;
- Greater Spell Resistance;
- Prismatic Globe;
- Demon Lord Summoning.

Reasons:
-I won't ever startspellholdstudios.net work on this component if we plan to do 20 TDs

As I said, it is enough to add one for each spell-school if we aim for a minimalized version.

-Balance

Few options won't help balance, just as the same HLA tables never helped to balance the unmodded classes bfore Refinements. The point is to balance these TDs and their uses with all the tools and options we have - if we intend to balance by "not adding them", it is better not to start the component at all.

But we're also freeing 9th level slots, and each pick CANNOT grant too many choices, because this goes against the way mages work.

Mages learn their spells and MAYBE they have the knowledge and experience to learn/create TDs. By the new HLA tables there would be 9th level spells (nothing wrong with them IMO), and the TD HLA (with heavy prerequisites).

Wizards are supposed to memorize them

TDs cannot be memorized Littiz. Wizards aren't supposed to memorize them.

Now, if we free all the 9th level slots, AND we grant a choice between 20 TDs everytime the ability is used, we grant mages a power they arent supposed to possess really: real-time flexibility, more than a sorc

Thats where the material components and the experience requirement comes in play.