235 replies to this topic

[Jewish]

Question: just how powerful are going to be these spells? Your casting restrictions might not provide too much of an impediment if, let's say, a mage (or sorc, duh) with Mirrored Image can spam TD's all over the place.

Sorry if I've been rude tho.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Why not just make most of your already existing new mage school specific HLAs into TDs?

I don't see the need for unique HLAs *and* TDs for each school. One or the other should be fine IMO.

[Littiz]

Adding only 4-6 new ones is pointless however, really not worth any work IMO. See below.

Who decides it?
For me it would be well worth it.
You'd free 9th level slots, and you'd move 10th level spells to their place.
Adding 2/3 would add some needed flavour, but certainly we don't have to grant more 10th level spells that the total of 9th level ones!
What about balance, and about the supposed rarity of such spells?

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.

Is Contagion as powerful as Stoneskin?

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:

Unless they're used like the old ones (available to anyone).
And if you plan to add this feature, be warned: you'll have to rely on scripting, or you'll have to make a lot more 2DAs than you're counting ATM.
Try to make some calculations: you'll have to make a set of different 2DAs for each mage kit, assigning in each moment a specific 2DA basing on level or whatever.
With 15+ TDs, how many different combinations do we obtain?

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

But they aren't supposed to have more flexibility than a sorc, especially with such powerful stuff, and they're not supposed to have the option to choose from a set of 20 TDs every day.

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

But the solution you want to use doesn't allow scripting to take such things in account (only the level can be checked).

Question: just how powerful are going to be these spells? Your casting restrictions might not provide too much of an impediment if, let's say, a mage (or sorc, duh) with Mirrored Image can spam TD's all over the place.

You mean clones?
Good question and very good point.
I think that they shouldn't be all that powerful: Improved Alacrity should remain the most powerful of all.
And of course they should be limited in number...

Edited by Littiz, 18 October 2004 - 11:28 AM.

[T.G.Maestro]

Who decides it?
For me it would be well worth it.

For me it'd look like if trying to make the unmodded HLA tables "unique for each kit" by adding 1 special HLA to every kit...

You'd free 9th level slots, and you'd move 10th level spells to their place.

Please don't tell me you don't see my problem here! If we only add a few amount (say 5), one could easily ask: why only these? Or why is that that all my mages tend to learn the very same TDs?

Is Contagion as powerful as Stoneskin?

Good point.

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:


Unless they're used like the old ones (available to anyone).

Which is something I'd lik to get rid of at all costs. Bioware's universal 10th level spells was one of the sickest cheats in ToB.

And if you plan to add this feature, be warned: you'll have to rely on scripting, or you'll have to make a lot more 2DAs than you're counting ATM.

No, you don't understand me: every kit would use the very same list, but some spells wouldn't be useable by some kits. Nothing complicated.

But they aren't supposed to have more flexibility than a sorc, especially with such powerful stuff, and they're not supposed to have the option to choose from a set of 20 TDs every day.

First off, that "set of many TDs" is only imagineable at very high levels (above lvl30). Second, I don't think we can call it flexible if a mage casts a 10th level spell from a list, loses some XP, than has to wait at least 4 gameplay hours to try again, while suffering from fatigue for example...

You mean clones?
Good question and very good point.

Actually, as I said above, it would be entirely impossible for a mage to cast another TD while under the effects of another. Simulacrums and their cheesy nature can be a painful exception here, thanks for pspellholdstudios.netointing this out.

Question: just how powerful are going to be these spells?

That depends. Some are more powerful while others are "only" significant in power.

[Jewish]

I think it is a fine idea anyway. Just freeing slots from 9th level spells is worth the effort imho, but it also can be used to control the casting of the most powerful spells (HLAs) that would fall under the category of TDs. Which is good.

If you put some thought moving to the TDs table some of the already existing very powerful 9th level spells, while adding others to compensate their more restricted use, it does not necessarily have to unbalance the game. Rather the opposite if it is well done.

About simmys and clones.. do you think it would be possible to control it via scripting?
Let's say that each time a simulacrum or projected image casts a True Dweomer, the side effects also affect the original caster, and the TD is gone in his casting list. Would this be possible?

Perhaps it would be too much work just to prevent cheese, but on the other hand TDs could be made really powerful if needed without risk...

Just my thoughts.

[Stone Wolf]

That could probably be scripted in, and it does sound reasonable.

[Galactygon]

I remember coding up a rebalanced project image that can cast spells only up to level 5 without using scripting...

-Galactygon

[T.G.Maestro]

I remember coding up a rebalanced project image that can cast spells only up to level 5 without using scripting...

-Galactygon

Yes, I remember you saying this somewhere many months ago.
Could you prevent some well-known bugs with Simulacrums? I'm talking about the bug for example, where the Simmy gets ALL the innates of the character, instead of their 60%... if so, and these modifications of yours are free to use, I'm interested in trying them. If you could PM me the details of your changes, I'd be grateful.

[Schatten]

I remember coding up a rebalanced project image that can cast spells only up to level 5 without using scripting...

-Galactygon

i would never use that. what balance is that? pi is that, a copy of the caster.

[Ieldra]

I agree with Schatten here.

TGM: It seems you still think of an xp cost for using a TD. That feels too much like a permanent level drain (if you come to use enough TDs). Please don't do that! I'm very much for the time/fatigue thing, even rare material components that are available only 3 times in the whole game for the more powerful TDs would be OK - if you can check for them. But please, no xp costs.

[Jewish]

I remember coding up a rebalanced project image that can cast spells only up to level 5 without using scripting...

-Galactygon

i would never use that. what balance is that? pi is that, a copy of the caster.

But if the same code is used to prevent pi's just from casting TDs, at least the most powerful, surely it'd be a good idea. Just for the sake of balance.

Edited by Jewish, 19 October 2004 - 01:54 AM.

[Stone Wolf]

That sounds reasonable. TDs are above and beyond normal magic, so it makes sense that there would be even more limits on casting them. Maybe divinely mandated limits?

[T.G.Maestro]

TGM: It seems you still think of an xp cost for using a TD. That feels too much like a permanent level drain (if you come to use enough TDs). Please don't do that! I'm very much for the time/fatigue thing, even rare material components that are available only 3 times in the whole game for the more powerful TDs would be OK - if you can check for them. But please, no xp costs.

we haven't decided on this issue, but one thing is sure: I'd never grant such power to playing characters without proper downsides to balance it. And I really don't have to introduce anything new to the game here: XP cost appears for almost every single TD in 3rdE. And for a good reason I say.

Such spells are considered VERY draining on the caster (if someone can cast them at all!) - note that even a simple spell like Haste is supposed to make the affected character a few years older...!

[Schatten]

i must agree with Ieldra here. level drain is teh most hatred nemesis for me. i hate it. loosing unique item is more balancing. i never cast a spell that drains my exp. on top of that is that even in 2ed or is that a thing from 3rd ed? why do i loose memory/wisdom/experience by casting a spell? imo its better to have long casting times to simulate preperations for the spell and unique items as ingredients.
so you have the choice of using the unique dragon head of doom for the unique world breaking blaster device of ultimate destruction or casting a spell to summon the balor god lord of 1000 pain stacking honey bees.
then the question how much exp to sacrifice 1000 is not enough and 100.000 is too much. sorry, i am for valuable items and not for vampiric spells.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

All I can say if that XP costs are added then I will probably sadly avoid using 2.0.

I hate even the idea.

Can XP costs be a balancing factor? Yes they can. But not a good one. As for 3x yes they are there ... but there is also a balancing factor. The XP you get for an encounter is based on *your* level so higher level characters advance slower. Lowever level ones ... or characters who spent XP building items for instnace ... advance a bit faster and can make up some ground.

[Schatten]

we haven't decided on this issue, but one thing is sure: I'd never grant such power to playing characters without proper downsides to balance it. And I really don't have to introduce anything new to the game here: XP cost appears for almost every single TD in 3rdE. And for a good reason I say.

since when do i play bg2 in 3rd ed? xp loss is such a stinking way to balance god powers. seriously, why do you loose things you just learned anyway? does a bolder drop on your head?
when crafting items and you must invest your own magical energy its more logical to sacrifice slots for n items then xp, imo. because, well, you use magical energy to make items.
as an example.
xp sacrifice sucks. i for one would never use anything with that as side effect.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Schatten I agree.

Might as well add an XP cost to the Fighter's Whirlwind and heck, that trap was *really* hard to disarm, might as well make the Thief pay XP to do it.

XP costs suck.

[Schatten]

i have very blurry memory of a rpg game with age effects. might and magic? dont know.
the older you get the more age side effects you get. more fragile (lower const=less hp, senile= less int= less magic ect...). perhaps as an idea, let the caster get older and older per global variabel for all magician who can cast this. lets say 3 casts results in one age category, 5 for the next and so on to a total in which the next casts means death or something. just an idea. i dont know if the concept of age is in ad&d. those effects seem more logical. i mean strength of 10 or 9 is for a wizard in bg2 not much a difference. when its start to reduce your int i would really think if i must cast that exploding chicken slinger.
i dont know how often you plan to use tds. somewhere in the end of like 8 casts you can start to reduce int as well.
as i said the consequences seem more logical somehow but somehow....ach forget it. is too much work, isnt it?
just an idea... :drunk: :help:


"that trap was *really* hard to disarm, might as well make the Thief pay XP to do it."

[Nerik]

As an alternative method of balencing, how about using preparation times (a feature of many 2nd. ed. true dweomers as well as their predecessors, psionic enchantments). Although some of the PnP true dweomers had preparation times that would be a bit long (60 days IIRC), a preparation time of 1-2 days should be managable.

How this would work: the True Dweomer innate ability would allow the selection of a TD to prepare. A timer would be set for the preparation time, when the timer expires, the True Dweomer becomes available for use. Each TD 'slot' can only ever have one TD either prepared or in preparation at any one time.
(I think this should be code-able).

I agree with the use of rare or magic items as required components for some or all TDs (this is also a feature of PnP 2nd. edition true dweomers), and strongly disagree with the use of an XP cost.

Charles

[T.G.Maestro]

I see. I just knew this won't work, but anyway, at least I tried. This was one of the few scripting-free options I could come up with, and would have made the work much-much easier. Idea dropped then.

the question how much exp to sacrifice 1000 is not enough and 100.000 is too much

XP costs were calculated between 1.000-10.000.

when crafting items and you must invest your own magical energy its more logical to sacrifice slots for n items then xp, imo. because, well, you use magical energy to make items

Honestly Schatten, what do you think you use while casting a TD? Nuclear energy? If you find it more logical for items, I fail to see why you see it wrong for TDs.

Might as well add an XP cost to the Fighter's Whirlwind and heck, that trap was *really* hard to disarm, might as well make the Thief pay XP to do it.

I'm very much positive that having great skills in combat or being extremely dextrous and able to unlock the most complicated locks aren't at the same level as casting a 10th level spell.

Eh, no matter, we will use Gold and material components then. In addition to the longer casting times of course.

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 19 October 2004 - 06:15 AM.