235 replies to this topic

[T.G.Maestro]

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).

Maybe. This part is entirely up to Littiz however. If he finds it implementable, I can accept the idea.

[Schatten]

i said spell slots, not exp. i said if you craft lets say 10 items you must sacrifice 2 spell slots.
i cant see any fantasy-reality reason why you should loose experience by managing to create difficult items.
i also like the ravenloft vampire drains more then the exp drains. in ravenloft vamps can also drain abilities. seems better then exp to me. perhaps i cant comprehend the exp system entirely and see exp in ad&d the way it is in reality. there you can only loose exp due to amnesia ect...

Edited by Schatten, 19 October 2004 - 07:44 AM.

[Jewish]

I think you guys overreacted a bit against the idea of XP loss. Personally I think that 1000-10000 XP is a so piss poor ammount that you are not going to notice it. Honestly.

The casting was going to be restricted anyway, so it's not like you are going to spam a TD in every fight. It certainly should be discouraged if you ask me, in fact not even possible.

If the loss is ranked between 1000 and 10000 xp (too little btw), give me this before item losses any day of the week. In BGII there are already egregious ammounts of XP floating around for god's sake, and you know that.

Now I can understand the logic against it if you measure XP only as what you have learned. It is true. However I also see XP as the character's real power, and this is what feeds a True Dweomer imho, the caster's power, his energy (therefore energy drain spell btw).

You know, it is a pain in the arse to lose XP, I hate it. Regardless, I also see it as the perfect way to control myself. I thought we were talking about paying a real price for casting TDs after all.

[T.G.Maestro]

I think you guys overreacted a bit against the idea of XP loss. Personally I think that 1000-10000 XP is a so piss poor ammount that you are not going to notice it. Honestly.

The casting was going to be restricted anyway, so it's not like you are going to spam a TD in every fight. It certainly should be discouraged if you ask me, in fact not even possible.

If the loss is ranked between 1000 and 10000 xp (too little btw), give me this before item losses any day of the week. In BGII there are already egregious ammounts of XP floating around for god's sake, and you know that.

Now I can understand the logic against it if you measure XP only as what you have learned. It is true. However I also see XP as the character's real power, and this is what feeds a True Dweomer imho, the caster's power, his energy (therefore energy drain spell btw).

You know, it is a pain in the arse to lose XP, I hate it. Regardless, I also see it as the perfect way to control myself. I thought we were talking about paying a real price for casting TDs after all.

AT LEAST!

Someone who actually understands what I keep saying all the time...

Edited by T.G.Maestro, 19 October 2004 - 08:40 AM.

[Schatten]

i hope understanding what you meaning equals not with being on your side.
i understand it, too. i am only strongly against it.


"I think you guys overreacted a bit against the idea of XP loss. Personally I think that 1000-10000 XP is a so piss poor ammount that you are not going to notice it. Honestly."

if i follow by the letter of that, please explain to me the downside then...



"However I also see XP as the character's real power, and this is what feeds a True Dweomer imho, the caster's power, his energy (therefore energy drain spell btw)."

hmm.... *scratches head*.... if you look at it this way....

[T.G.Maestro]

i hope understanding what you meaning equals not with being on your side

Of course not. I only find it strange that people are SO much against this solution... but I guess I know the reason: we have found the only real factor that could make people think twice before casting these terrible spells.

Really guys, don't get this component wrong: its definitely not about making mages more and more stronger, not while I'm here. Its about granting a slight access to a pool of secret knowledge, but this knowledge comes at a price, even for those who are capable of using it to form TDs. And its not about miserable material components or gold that would encourage epic level mages from using these: no, it is the fact that they are dangerous to toy with. They require much more from the caster than simple components - normal spells are for such easy ways. As I pointed out before, creators of 3rdE put there that XP loss for a reason, and I can fully agree with it. There is no real need to argue about its "realitiy factor", it IS there. And btw Jewish made a very good point about XP in his post above.

As a starter, you must know that NOT all of these would require a sacrifice in XP. If you browse through pnp sources, you'll notice TDs with no XP penalty as well.
As for those that would require some XP (again, between 1.000 and 10.000), players would have the freedom to decide wether they are ready to pay this price or decline.

Thinking about it, I more and more like the fact that many of you are against the idea, it proves my theory mentioned at the top of my post. If a decent percentage of users would avoid TDs and go for 9th level spells and more XP instead, so be it, its exactly how it should happen in pnp.

[Jewish]

"I think you guys overreacted a bit against the idea of XP loss. Personally I think that 1000-10000 XP is a so piss poor ammount that you are not going to notice it. Honestly."

if i follow by the letter of that, please explain to me the downside then...

Yep, it is too little experience loss (I said that too).

I consider that a sacrifice of experience, gold and certain reagents are more feasible that the loss of let's say a very powerful artifact. I think TGM was giving a very good alternative, easy to balance.

If we disregard the XP loss, even minimal, to compensate then he is forced to require more powerful items as reagents or more gold. And let's face it, you can gather so much gold in the game that it's not even funny. So my guess is that he will choose the first.

In any case, I respect your opinions too whatever they are, I'm just giving mine aswell. For me, if the requirements are balanced versus the power of the TD and its castings, I don't care what they are. But do not disregard the XP loss yet, I'm sure TGM has very interesting ideas to tell about it.

EDIT:

Thinking about it, I more and more like the fact that many of you are against the idea, it proves my theory mentioned at the top of my post. If a decent percentage of users would avoid TDs and go for 9th level spells and more XP instead, so be it, its exactly how it should happen in pnp. wink.gif

Heh, I really was against the idea of losing XP, but then I realized that my reasons to not do it were one strong motive to implement it. Although the spell has to be worth it, the same way I don't cast indiscriminately spells that can hurt my party in the worst situation, I will not cast a spell that can hurt my mage if the result is not worth the consequences.

But you already know that, I think.

Edited by Jewish, 19 October 2004 - 10:43 AM.

[Littiz]

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.

Ehm, and how would you make them unusable by some kits, if all kits will use the same set of lists?

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).

Actually I thought about this myself. I decided I didn't truly like the idea since it could happen to "complete" the preparations while fighting for instance... not much full of sense.
Don't know.. debatable, I suppose.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Thinking about it, I more and more like the fact that many of you are against the idea, it proves my theory mentioned at the top of my post. If a decent percentage of users would avoid TDs and go for 9th level spells and more XP instead, so be it, its exactly how it should happen in pnp.

Actually it does not 'prove your theory'. It merely proves that we have a different point of view.

I agree that XP drain can be a valid balancing method. I just happen to think that it's a poor choice both design wise in terms of 2nd ed / BG & that overall concept is broken. XP = experience = learning. XP by itself is not power in 2nd ed. A mage shouldn't permanently 'forget' the lessons he has learned simply for casting a spell.

XP loss in PnP *does* happen in 3x. It does not in 2nd. 3x has other factors that balance this out. 2nd ed does not.

If a 2nd ed GM told me that I just lost XP for casting a spell I would thank him for running the game, collect my stuff, and take a hike. I say this having only quit 2 games in nearly 20 years of RPGing.

[hlidskialf]

I see the simple solution of just having the casting of the TD be so strenuous and draining that the caster loses HP. No permanent HP, but healable ones. This means that in the thick of things, the caster might think twice about using one. The uber-protected-by-magic caster is unassailable, except now with a hp reduction they have to spend a round keeping out of the fracas while drinking potions, etc...

[Rathwellin the Bard]

This would also make them more vulnerable to Power Word Kill and the like.

[Ieldra]

I think you guys overreacted a bit against the idea of XP loss. Personally I think that 1000-10000 XP is a so piss poor ammount that you are not going to notice it. Honestly.

If the loss is ranked between 1000 and 10000 xp (too little btw), give me this before item losses any day of the week. In BGII there are already egregious ammounts of XP floating around for god's sake, and you know that.

I disagree. I'd gladly part with most items, even unique ones if the TD is especially powerful. I lose power, maybe a lot, yes, but so what? Items are only what my character has, while xp, attributes, spell slots and suchlike, that's what my character *is*, and has become. If anything, I did not react as strongly as I feel about this. Yes, maybe it's not rational. It just feels wrong.

For the more rational argument, let me put it like this: permanent costs in an integral aspect of a character should be reserved for permanent gains - so if you say gaining additional spell slots from a HLA costs me a point of constitution, I'd say this is OK. But losing xp for the temporary benefit of, say, a Dragon's Breath spell? No thanks.

[Ieldra]

I see the simple solution of just having the casting of the TD be so strenuous and draining that the caster loses HP. No permanent HP, but healable ones. This means that in the thick of things, the caster might think twice about using one. The uber-protected-by-magic caster is unassailable, except now with a hp reduction they have to spend a round keeping out of the fracas while drinking potions, etc...

I like this idea, but it may be hard to balance for different classes. The F/M I'm currently playing has 150 hp - losing 20 of them would be no big deal. For a mage with CON 12, things would be very different.
What about temporary attribute losses, for instance, -5 to STR, DEX and CON until rested?

[hlidskialf]

Well, as I understand it the multiclasses won't get as many/as effective TD as the single class mages. There's also the option of removing HP by a percentage instead of a flat number. That'd ding MC and SC the same.

[Jewish]

I disagree. I'd gladly part with most items, even unique ones if the TD is especially powerful. I lose power, maybe a lot, yes, but so what? Items are only what my character has, while xp, attributes, spell slots and suchlike, that's what my character *is*, and has become. If anything, I did not react as strongly as I feel about this. Yes, maybe it's not rational. It just feels wrong.

I'm sure you would gladly part with items that you don't value as much as XP. There are plenty of items in the game so that choosing one that is not vital to you, means little. However XP is something you use, day after day. That's the point.

I think something. What is exactly a True Dweomer? Something that you can cast 100 times during the course of the game with little to no meaning for your party? With little to no cost? If that is a TD, then I agree, don't make me sacrifice anything *really* valuable. But then don't tell me that a TD is something special, because it will not. It will be just another spell for me to be honest.

What is 100k experience for you in the whole game?
That would be the cost of casting 100 times a minor XP draining TD.

What is 1 million experience?
That would be the cost of casting a major TD 100 times.

That's the range of a TD system that drained XP. That's all of it. Measure the cost and answer yourselves. Casting 100 True Dweomers is going to cost me an average of 500k XP in the "whole" game time, and that counting with 'every' TD costing experience. Which TGM said it wouldn't be the case.

Is that so irrational? I don't think so.
That's my reasoning tho.

I agree that XP drain can be a valid balancing method. I just happen to think that it's a poor choice both design wise in terms of 2nd ed / BG & that overall concept is broken. XP = experience = learning. XP by itself is not power in 2nd ed. A mage shouldn't permanently 'forget' the lessons he has learned simply for casting a spell.

XP loss in PnP *does* happen in 3x. It does not in 2nd. 3x has other factors that balance this out. 2nd ed does not.

Yes, I partly agree with you. Your reasoning is not only valid, but also has strong points againt the idea of making a mage to forget his lessons permanently.

There is a part with which I disagree tho. XP loss DO happen in BG2, and it means more than a learning curve. I don't know if 2nd Ed rules catter this, but surely BG does. Energy Drain (spell) and Draining attacks (vampires, negative plane creatures, etc..) exist in BG and they consume your energy in form of experience.

But not permanently.

This leads me to believe that maybe a form of energy draining to the caster, would be a temporal level drain... restorable with resting, and maybe Restoration spells.

What do you think? Is an alternative solution to permanently losing XP?
It is less sacrificing, but can be compensated with longer casting times, special reagents and gold requirements.

[Stone Wolf]

In a way, the downtime caused by casting some major spells has a more realistic effect than draining xp. It takes you out of action for a while, thus slowing your leveling a little, but it doesn't make the next level any further away. How about making spells KO the mage until he's rested for a week or so?

[T.G.Maestro]

Ehm, and how would you make them unusable by some kits, if all kits will use the same set of lists?

By simply assigning a special spell-school to them. AFAIK, specialist mages cannot cast spells that is opposed to their school. Or is that only for learning them?

I see the simple solution of just having the casting of the TD be so strenuous and draining that the caster loses HP. No permanent HP, but healable ones

Maybe for a few Necromany based TDs (actually, this is already present in Refinements: simply take a look at our Necromancer HLas...)

losing xp for the temporary benefit of, say, a Dragon's Breath spell? No thanks.

As I said 100 times before, not all TDs will cost XP. Dragon's Breath -being one of the less powerful- will be one of those that won't.

I'm sure you would gladly part with items that you don't value as much as XP. There are plenty of items in the game so that choosing one that is not vital to you, means little. However XP is something you use, day after day. That's the point.

Exactly. By sacrificing a potent item or a component of an item, you don't lose anything: you merely lose the possibility to gain another power, for example an uber-item. Since the game (especially ToB) is swarmed with these already, we'd require around 4-5 existing powerful items for each castings to balance, which won't happen. Understand that *not gaining more power* not equals with *sacrificing power*. THIS is the point here.

I think something. What is exactly a True Dweomer? Something that you can cast 100 times during the course of the game with little to no meaning for your party? With little to no cost? If that is a TD, then I agree, don't make me sacrifice anything *really* valuable. But then don't tell me that a TD is something special, because it will not. It will be just another spell for me to be honest.

As Jewish said. Most of you don't fully comprehend the meaning of a TD. This is NOT a simple spell, marked by the nice little "10th" level label. No. These work different in many aspects. Normally these wouldn't be useable by mortals, at least not without terrible costs. If a lower level mage would somehow understand a TD and would be able to cast, the process would most likely kill him. These magics are special, and completely optional. No one is forced to TRY them. As I said earlier, there will be more than enough 9th level spells and other abilities to compensate.

This leads me to believe that maybe a form of energy draining to the caster, would be a temporal level drain... restorable with resting, and maybe Restoration spells.

If the mage could re-gain the lost XP by a simple Restoration spell at a temple, it would be even cheaper than the Gold and Items idea.

In a way, the downtime caused by casting some major spells has a more realistic effect

The problem is that many of the TDs have short casting times. Some have above 30 seconds, but some can be activated in 2 seconds.

[Stone Wolf]

I was referring to after the spell is cast. Maybe a period of time where the caster can't cast any other spells?

[Ieldra]

TGM: I still don't like the idea, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt until I see some details...

[Schatten]

"I agree that XP drain can be a valid balancing method. I just happen to think that it's a poor choice both design wise in terms of 2nd ed / BG & that overall concept is broken. XP = experience = learning. XP by itself is not power in 2nd ed. A mage shouldn't permanently 'forget' the lessons he has learned simply for casting a spell.

XP loss in PnP *does* happen in 3x. It does not in 2nd. 3x has other factors that balance this out. 2nd ed does not.

If a 2nd ed GM told me that I just lost XP for casting a spell I would thank him for running the game, collect my stuff, and take a hike. I say this having only quit 2 games in nearly 20 years of RPGing."

that conviced me. :thumb:




"That's the range of a TD system that drained XP. That's all of it. Measure the cost and answer yourselves. Casting 100 True Dweomers is going to cost me an average of 500k XP in the "whole" game time, and that counting with 'every' TD costing experience. Which TGM said it wouldn't be the case."

this you say is your argument for td exp loss? its more against it. you can cast 100 tds because you loose the knowledge to breath (exp.) but you cannot do it because this td uses the holy avenger +6 as component. go figure.




"Exactly. By sacrificing a potent item or a component of an item, you don't lose anything: you merely lose the possibility to gain another power, for example an uber-item. Since the game (especially ToB) is swarmed with these already, we'd require around 4-5 existing powerful items for each castings to balance, which won't happen. Understand that *not gaining more power* not equals with *sacrificing power*. THIS is the point here. "

replace items with exp and you have a counter argument.


my last post here. tgms mind is set and mine is also. i dont use it then.