Aielund Saga Improvements (Need Input/Feedback)

[Legacy_Mac-Biodiesel]

               

I've switched between using EMS and not so many times, I'm not sure which I have now, nor am I sure how to even tell.  I've got a file called "EMS.hak" in my hak folder, and it has a lot of text in it, so maybe it's installed?

 

If I switch the file, does it immediately impact all saved games, or is it only used when loading a new module?

 

 

Also, I just read through the notes of the file to learn the spell changes.  I definitely don't understand all of the acronyms used, but I got enough of the context to get the gist.

 

A couple questions:

 

1. What do you all mean by auto-maximized and auto-empowered?  What change is this?

 

2. The EMS notes say that UMD sucks.  How so?  It seemed like an ultimate cheesy munchkin move to me.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

If your EMS.HAK is about 9.5 MB, then it's likely the real one and if it's about 1 KB, then it's likely the "fake" that leaves things as the Bioware default spell system. 

 

If you swap them, the effect should be immediate. I am not sure if there is any problem with lingering AoE spells calling different versions of the scripts. But, probably, if you swap EMS HAKs and load a saved game and it doesn't crash within a minute or two, then you are fine.

 

I am not sure what the auto-metamagic is doing or is supposed to do. MM probably knows.

 

I think EMS changes how UMD allows toons to cast spells from scrolls. Many consider the default Bioware system to be bugged and/or poorly designed. (I agree that it is at least bugged.) I think EMS makes it so that a toon has to have the minimum ability stat to cast a scroll spell. For example, a UMD rogue would not be able to cast a level 3 spell from scroll unless he had at least in the casting stat (I am not sure how EMS decides whether that should be INT, WIS, or CHA). The EMS notes also say that mage scrolls cannot be cast while wearing armor without the risk of arcane spell failure. Once again, I am not sure how one decides whether a scroll like protection from elements is an arcane or divine spell for such situations.

 

(Things like that latter ambiguity make me think that I have missed some of the EMS documentation, since it isn't really clear how this is implemented without digging into the source code, which I don't see for spells or the UMD check.)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

For instance, here is the entry for Evard's Black Tentacles, with numbers added in square brackets for review

 

Okay, but I'm not sure what your overall point is?  That's one spell that's been problematic/stupid/confusing in every implementation I've ever seen, be it Bioware or EMS or PW specific.  My point was that 95%+ of stuff seemed to be perfectly clear and generally better (balance wise) than Bioware.  What stuff beyond EBT seems poorly documented to you (not saying there isn't any, just saying focusing on that one spell seems silly)?

 

For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.

 

I didn't say "sort of works," I said "perfectly fine."  I mean, look at Ball Lightning. There is absolutely no reason for it to completely suck compared to Cone of Cold/Firebrand.  And unless you're obsessed with abusing a few broken spells (like default IGMS) then EMS offers a lot better balance and a lot more casting variety...and if you read the EMS_Changes then you'll know in pretty decent detail what the spells will do anyway in 95%+ of the cases.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I play WoW and I love the detailed tooltips and being able to easily theorycraft and knowing exactly what is going on.  But I'd rather deal with a few spells that are poorly documented in an overall substantially better system (EMS) than a much worse system where people have figured out the poor documentation if you go to a Wiki (default Bioware).

 

Besides EBT, what other spells would you not know how they worked in pretty decent detail?

 

But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.

 

It works to the target's detriment less than 25% of the time (it's only a detriment if the player has an odd stat AND would have gotten the 5).  So more like 87.5% of the time the EMS version is equal or better (and it's far more consistent).  Empower/Maximize seems simple -- the buffs simply always just give 4, period.  Guaranteed +2 modifier to the stat of your choice, period.

 

Ultimately the player is using Bull's Strength because they want to increase their Strength.  And until now I've never seen anyone complain about getting 4 every time compared to 2-5.  People like consistency in buffs.

 

I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.

 

Then you were either not playing a caster or not abusing the default spell system.  I can think of quite a few cases off-hand where the default system would make fights a complete joke for one or more reasons.

 

I've switched between using EMS and not so many times, I'm not sure which I have now, nor am I sure how to even tell.  I've got a file called "EMS.hak" in my hak folder, and it has a lot of text in it, so maybe it's installed?

What MrZork said.  The 1 KB file is fake, the larger one is real.

 

1. What do you all mean by auto-maximized and auto-empowered?  What change is this?

 

2. The EMS notes say that UMD sucks.  How so?  It seemed like an ultimate cheesy munchkin move to me.

 

1. As you go into epic levels your spells will become auto Empowered and/or auto Maximized if you have the feats (possibly auto Extended as well).  This means you keep gaining in power versus stopping at 20, more or less, and higher level spells become very relevant (say you have a case where an Empowered level 6 spell > normal level 8 spell for the same spell slot.  If both are auto Empowered then suddenly the level 8 spell is going to be better for the same spell slot).  I don't entirely agree with the implementation or even the general idea, but I still think it's a hell of a lot better than the default (and it's less problematic than trying to rescale every spell up to 40 or something).

 

2. Guessing that the author means UMD is implemented horribly by default ("Hi, I'm a level 1 rogue with 8 int/8 int/8 cha, lemme just summon a Balor with Gate real fast").

 

The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.

 

Why is that?  Worst case scenario it's the 3.5 version of Heal -- hopefully you don't honestly think a completely instant full heal (or all but 1d4 HP against undead) for a level 6 spell with no save and disregarding cleric level entirely was remotely balanced?  I mean, it still heals up to 150 HP (110 HP in potions), 200 HP with Greater Restoration, and 250 HP with Mass Heal.  And in the epic levels you get potions that heal 250 HP anyway.

 

I mean, I think overall Heal could have afforded to go higher in epic levels as an Epic Cleric, but that also means making more radical changes to the magic system and given the context I'm not sure it was really necessary.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Okay, but I'm not sure what your overall point is? That's one spell that's been problematic/stupid/confusing in every implementation I've ever seen, be it Bioware or EMS or PW specific.

My point is that poorly documented changes to spells are a downside IMO and which one reduces the likelihood I will use the system if it is optional and reduces the likelihood I will play the mod if the system is not optional. Evard's is just an example I used of an EMS spell that I recalled reading the doc entry for and having several questions about what it meant. Sure, Bioware's implementation has problems, but I feel like I know how Bioware's works. As I already stated, that would not be the case without the wiki, but that isn't relevant because the wiki is there. (And, since, as far as I can easily see, EMS is a black box. The change documentation isn't always adequate, IMO, and I cannot easily read the source code to know what's actually going on.)
 

My point was that 95%+ of stuff seemed to be perfectly clear and generally better (balance wise) than Bioware.

And, I disagree with the "95% perfectly clear" number. I am certainly not going to go through the described changes for each and every spell that EMS tweaks, but here are things I consider to be less than "perfectly clear" in the first 20.
Charm Person
Is not the same as Charm Animal
Correctly is considered a hostile action
Duration raised to R/L
How is Bioware's Charm Person the same as Charm Animal? And, since there is no Charm Animal spell in NWN, the comment is unclear even if Charm Person is the same as some other unnamed spell.
Color Spray
Correctly does not affect Blind creatures
Combines effects correctly
Unclear what "Combines effects correctly" is supposed to mean, either in terms of some error in the Bioware version or in terms of a correction in the EMS version.
Scare
Fear for 1d4 R (W) or Shaken for 1R
Players aren't told what shaken means. I am guessing the whole line is supposed to mean the target is either feared for 1d4 rounds or shaken for 1 round, depending on a will save. Does that mean there is no chance of not being affected if the target makes the save?
Ability Buffs
Per PHB +4 rather than 1+d4, and T/L rather than H/L
There's actually real value to casting these rather than drinking them now
Not clear why the Bioware version has no real value between cast versions and potions. I would guess this is some complaint that the Bioware versions last too long. But, if that is the point, then it would have been clearer to say that standard CL 3 potions will only last three minutes. Since the big change is the non-random strength of the buff, many readers might assume that was the issue and that maybe EMS potions don't give a constant +4 buff.
Combust
Stupidly overpowered: 10x the damage of Acid Arrow
Now correctly requires a successful melee touch attack
Lasts R/L max, primary and secondary damage both just L fire, max 10
Frankly, it's still stupidly overpowered
Correctly can be cast at a target more than once
Not clear why Bioware's Combust is 10x the damage of Melf's. (Not saying there can't be some set of assumptions about caster level and saves that make it 10x damage; just that the description doesn't make it clear why.)
Continual Light
Actually works now
Assuming we are talking about Continual Flame, no indication is given of how Bioware's version doesn't work or how EMS fixes it.
Darkness
This ridiculously overpowered spell is now PHB's 20% concealment
20% concealment for whom? Even if the attacker has ultravision/TS?
Flame Weapon
Completely rewritten to work at least somewhat decently
Note that per BW the duration is actually 2T/L, not T/L like Darkfire
From other discussion, it seems likely the first line means the spell stacks in a more limited way than Bioware's version, but this description doesn't say that at all. Bioware's version is already 2 turns per level (though the description was wrong), so there is no change to that aspect of the spell.

So, among the first 20 spells in EMS_Changes.txt, the descriptions for 8 already strike me as less than perfectly clear. BTW, my problem wasn't that the EMS descriptions weren't clear for 95% or more of the modified spells; that was your claim. I was only saying that the change descriptions left me less confident that I know what the spell actually does than I do for the Bioware versions.

(BTW, I want to re-emphasize that I am not saying that the Bioware versions of any of the above spells are superior to the EMS versions. Which version is superior by whatever metric one chooses is irrelevant to my point about poor documentation.)
 

What stuff beyond EBT seems poorly documented to you (not saying there isn't any, just saying focusing on that one spell seems silly)?

I wasn't trying to focus on one spell. I used one spell as an example because I recalled reading the doc entry for it and having several questions about what it meant and a non-trivial curiosity about whether the described improvement was even scriptable.
 

For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.

I didn't say "sort of works," I said "perfectly fine."

In the context of documentation, I was referring to how well the player will understand how the spell works, not the spell's adequacy or which version better or worse by someone's subjective judgment. I was trying to say that I often want to know in some detail what the spell does and having to simply assume that it works in some way that isn't easy to look up is a problem for me.
 

But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.

It works to the target's detriment less than 25% of the time (it's only a detriment if the player has an odd stat AND would have gotten the 5). So more like 87.5% of the time the EMS version is equal or better (and it's far more consistent). Empower/Maximize seems simple -- the buffs simply always just give 4, period. Guaranteed +2 modifier to the stat of your choice, period.

LOL. I agree with your reasoning, but you have to apply it both ways. By the same reasoning, the EMS version is only better than the Bioware version 37.5% of the time because a buff of 4 is no better than a buff of 3 when the player otherwise has an odd ability score.
 

Ultimately the player is using Bull's Strength because they want to increase their Strength. And until now I've never seen anyone complain about getting 4 every time compared to 2-5. People like consistency in buffs.

I never said people wouldn't prefer a straight ability buff of 4 or even that I wouldn't prefer it. I was commenting that a person who read the in-game description wouldn't know what the EMS version was doing. (BTW, since my casters typically use empowered ability buffs for important stats, once they can spare the level 4 slots, then it becomes more important how EMS deals with empowered buffs.)
 

I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.

Then you were either not playing a caster or not abusing the default spell system. I can think of quite a few cases off-hand where the default system would make fights a complete joke for one or more reasons.

I was playing a caster. Whether or not I was or wasn't "abusing" the default system in some undefined way I can't say. Obviously, in a particular situation, it would be possible to use some spells in a way that nerfed an opponent or a fight. I doubt that EMS eliminates that possibility. But, it wouldn't matter, since I never said it was impossible that certain fights might end up a "a complete joke" in the default system; I only said that Aielund was playable without EMS.

BTW, sorry if this post is a little mangled. On top of the annoying system where quoting someone's post deletes nested quotes, Bioware apparently has some limit on the number of quote blocks one can have in a post, so I had to get rid of some to get this accepted.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bawookles]

               One weird little thing I just noticed in Aielund regarding EMS: if you are using the EMS fake HAK and you get level drained, restoration spells or scrolls don't work. I have to put the real EMS file into the game to get restoration to work.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_livegood]

               

Just finished my playthrough of the whole Aielund saga as a Wizard.

 

What a great module. The writing is reasonably good throughout - it definitely starts out a little bit weak imo but gets much, much better as the saga goes on. The module's main strengths however are its combat and characters. I really liked Big T, RB and the female rogue/wizard character - names avoided for spoilers - but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus. RB struck the right chord between being a functional character and not being too OP.

 

Thank god there is no "adult" content because that stuff is so awkward.

 

The really big battles that forced you to use all your precious resources were the main highlights of the module - particularly in Act III.

 

I strongly approve of EMS's inclusion in future iterations of the Saga - it was great and I never really felt overpowered/underpowered while still making it rewarding to take base caster classes above lvl 20. The auto maximise/auto empower abilities were really welcome as they mixed things up quite a lot when it came to later levels of Wizard - I really felt the higher level spells were more viable rather than empowered/maximised versions of older ones. Weird/Wail of the Banshee were powerful but didn't tend to dominate like they would have in the OC as many enemies in act 3/4 are either fear immune, death immune or mind immune. I'm happy with the number of immunities that various enemies had e.g. fire resistance, ice resistance, acid resistance, magic resistance etc ... as it really forced you to mix things up. Like I said, combat is the strongest aspect of this series.

 

I think the key problem and hurdle to enjoying the saga, as has been discussed frequently in this thread, is documentation with regards to the changes that EMS makes which will ultimately affect how good or effective whatever build your trying is.  

 

Items and the strengths of various items were pretty good, I don't think there really need to be any balance changes there.

 

Even though I had difficulty set to hardcore/insane friendly fire was turned off throughout - I'm not sure whether this is what happens with most people but I'm sure it definitely improved the experience of being a wizard. With FF turned on I would have much rather played a melee character I think because what a chore that would have been. 

 

Overall fantastic module!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lilura]

               

I used EMS in my recounting and just played the Saga as normal and had fun.

 

The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.

 

Even with that nerf, I still found healing spells and potions to be a lil' too liberal, overall...

 

but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus

 

I loved her in my party, casting spells. As my recounting shows, she's very powerful doing that...

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_livegood]

               

Actually, I forgot to ask, does anyone have any recommendations for modules that would be similiar to the Aielund Saga? Not necessarily 1-40, maybe 10-40 or something like that with lots of combat and a decent story and nice characters.

 

I've read that Sands of Fate is good to do after HOTU but can be a bit a slog ...

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

The Aribeth's Redemption series follows the OC and takes you to level 28. It is a love story between the PC and Aribeth, but there is a lot of action, too. I've played it twice and plan to again. I have enjoyed the Sands of Fate several times. If you played HotU as evil, The Gods Themselves is a good evil follow-up, but it is short.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

I used EMS in my recounting and just played the Saga as normal and had fun.

 

Even with that nerf, I still found healing spells and potions to be a lil' too liberal, overall...

 

I loved her in my party, casting spells. As my recounting shows, she's very powerful doing that...

 

What Lilura said.

 

but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus.

 

I strongly approve of EMS's inclusion in future iterations of the Saga - it was great and I never really felt overpowered/underpowered while still making it rewarding to take base caster classes above lvl 20. The auto maximise/auto empower abilities were really welcome as they mixed things up quite a lot when it came to later levels of Wizard - I really felt the higher level spells were more viable rather than empowered/maximised versions of older ones. Weird/Wail of the Banshee were powerful but didn't tend to dominate like they would have in the OC as many enemies in act 3/4 are either fear immune, death immune or mind immune. I'm happy with the number of immunities that various enemies had e.g. fire resistance, ice resistance, acid resistance, magic resistance etc ... as it really forced you to mix things up. Like I said, combat is the strongest aspect of this series.

 

Even though I had difficulty set to hardcore/insane friendly fire was turned off throughout - I'm not sure whether this is what happens with most people but I'm sure it definitely improved the experience of being a wizard. With FF turned on I would have much rather played a melee character I think because what a chore that would have been.

 

You can give her a 1H + Shield and she'll do decently.  Sadly nowhere as good as a Cleric should be due to AI limitations but I'm not sure it's really worth giving her an XBow at all.

 

Agreed on EMS working well.

 

Agreed on FF -- FF realistically just means you can only use a much smaller variety of spells and renders the experience far more dull as a caster.

 

Sure, Bioware's implementation has problems, but I feel like I know how Bioware's works.

 

I realize I'm probably going to sound like a jerk here, but your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance.

 

People who understand NWN less aren't going to care about EMS because they'll just play as normal and be fine.  People who understand NWN more will understand or easily figure out the EMS changes.  You're in an awkward middle place where you're trying to care about the EMS changes but don't know enough to understand some of them.

 

And, I disagree with the "95% perfectly clear" number. I am certainly not going to go through the described changes for each and every spell that EMS tweaks, but here are things I consider to be less than "perfectly clear" in the first 20.
Charm Person

Is not the same as Charm Animal

Correctly is considered a hostile action

Duration raised to R/L

How is Bioware's Charm Person the same as Charm Animal? And, since there is no Charm Animal spell in NWN, the comment is unclear even if Charm Person is the same as some other unnamed spell.
Color Spray

Correctly does not affect Blind creatures

Combines effects correctly

Unclear what "Combines effects correctly" is supposed to mean, either in terms of some error in the Bioware version or in terms of a correction in the EMS version.
Scare

Fear for 1d4 R (W) or Shaken for 1R

Players aren't told what shaken means. I am guessing the whole line is supposed to mean the target is either feared for 1d4 rounds or shaken for 1 round, depending on a will save. Does that mean there is no chance of not being affected if the target makes the save?
Ability Buffs

Per PHB +4 rather than 1+d4, and T/L rather than H/L

There's actually real value to casting these rather than drinking them now

Not clear why the Bioware version has no real value between cast versions and potions. I would guess this is some complaint that the Bioware versions last too long. But, if that is the point, then it would have been clearer to say that standard CL 3 potions will only last three minutes. Since the big change is the non-random strength of the buff, many readers might assume that was the issue and that maybe EMS potions don't give a constant +4 buff.
Combust

Stupidly overpowered: 10x the damage of Acid Arrow

Now correctly requires a successful melee touch attack

Lasts R/L max, primary and secondary damage both just L fire, max 10

Frankly, it's still stupidly overpowered

Correctly can be cast at a target more than once

Not clear why Bioware's Combust is 10x the damage of Melf's. (Not saying there can't be some set of assumptions about caster level and saves that make it 10x damage; just that the description doesn't make it clear why.)
Continual Light

Actually works now

Assuming we are talking about Continual Flame, no indication is given of how Bioware's version doesn't work or how EMS fixes it.
Darkness

This ridiculously overpowered spell is now PHB's 20% concealment

20% concealment for whom? Even if the attacker has ultravision/TS?
Flame Weapon

Completely rewritten to work at least somewhat decently

Note that per BW the duration is actually 2T/L, not T/L like Darkfire

From other discussion, it seems likely the first line means the spell stacks in a more limited way than Bioware's version, but this description doesn't say that at all. Bioware's version is already 2 turns per level (though the description was wrong), so there is no change to that aspect of the spell.

 

Charm Animal.  Not sure about what was changed, though, possibly an old Bioware bug that allowed both to be applied to animals or both couldn't be applied to animals.

 

Color Spray combining effects correctly means that a 1-2 HD creature, for example, will be slept plus blinded plus stunned rather than *just* slept.  The idea is that stronger creatures are able to resist some of the effects as HD increases but weaker ones are subject to all status ailments.

 

Shaken is a default D&D term, see for example the Terrifying Rage entry.  Also other sources like this.  And yes, it means the target is always affected by Fear (if they fail) or Shaken (if they succeed).

 

The Bioware potions have at least two major potential problems.  One, as you noted, they last a good length of time (especially on servers with altered time for hour length)...which means those precious spell slots at lower levels are much more valuable for other spells.  Two, their random nature means that you could hard cast it and only get a result of 2.  Whereas the potions are so cheap and plentiful that simply buying tons and spamming several of them per rest until you get a 4 or 5 (depending on what you need) is a much better strategy.  Changing the duration to T/L means that higher caster level can actually be more valuable and the constant +4 means you don't have to worry about your cast being "wasted" if you get a bad roll.

 

At level 3 (earliest you can get it), Combust does 10 damage on impact plus another 10 damage per round until the save is failed.  Melf's does 10.5 damage on impact plus 3.5 more one round later.  So a single failed Reflex save means Combust is about 50% better and Combust can keep on ticking.  At level 10 (point at which Combust mostly stops scaling), Combust does 17 damage on impact plus another 17 damage per round until the save is failed.  Melf's does 10.5 damage on impact plus another 10.5 over three rounds.  So the initial impact already basically does as much damage as Melf's impact plus two rounds of Melf's...and after two rounds of Melf's it's up to 17.5 damage while Combust is up to 51 damage.  And that gap keeps widening every round.  This obviously relies on the enemy's reflex being low enough to consistently fail the Reflex save but that is pretty common at lower levels.  Oh, and while the DoT effect of Combust won't stack, you can keep casting it for initial damage...while Melf's won't even work on a target already affected by the DoT from Melf's (at all, not even the initial damage).  So versus a tough enemy who makes reflex saves (or doesn't, who cares) you can at least still spam Combust...but you can't *ever* spam Melf's.  10x damage is usually going to be an exaggeration but the point was more how much Melf's is terrible compared to Combust (and how good Combust is for its level).

 

Continual flame I don't know.  I already avoid the spell because it's usually used for merchant exploits.

 

20% concealment for everyone under Darkness presumably, don't see why you'd think otherwise.  Not sure about TS/Ultravision under EMS, presumably it negates it.  Again, spell I avoid because it's so broken by default.

 

He didn't change Flame Weapon's duration, he's saying that if you're wondering WHY it's 2 turns per level when it says otherwise it's because he's leaving it at what Bioware set it at.

 

In the context of documentation, I was referring to how well the player will understand how the spell works, not the spell's adequacy or which version better or worse by someone's subjective judgment. I was trying to say that I often want to know in some detail what the spell does and having to simply assume that it works in some way that isn't easy to look up is a problem for me.

 

I guess this just seems inconsistent to me -- you already don't know how much of Bioware's stuff works by default so you're not looking that up anyway.  Like I said, a person who cares more (like me) either knows what the EMS changes are or is willing to figure it out if they're confused.  A person who cares less (like most people) will just play the game and have a much better caster experience without knowing the details.  It's like you can't "commit" to either camp or something.

 

LOL. I agree with your reasoning, but you have to apply it both ways. By the same reasoning, the EMS version is only better than the Bioware version 37.5% of the time because a buff of 4 is no better than a buff of 3 when the player otherwise has an odd ability score.

 

No, you don't have to apply it both ways because people are naturally risk averse.  For most people avoiding the worst case scenario (only getting +1 modifier from the spell) is the primary worry.

 

I doubt that EMS eliminates that possibility.

 

It does due in large part to making IGMS less powerful (among several other things).  It's not that I think Aielund is particularly difficult as is, but you could completely faceroll it with the default spell system in general.  Again, this goes back to how you're stuck in the middle -- someone with less understanding doesn't care about any of this and someone more "hardcore" knows just how much EMS improves the default balance (at least for Aielund, you could design a module around the default spell system...but Aielund is not).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               We are largely talking past one another here. Possibly, I did not made it clear (though I did try) that I am not telling people that EMS is functionally inferior or even that people wouldn't find it worth trying. Neither of those has been my claim nor my opinion. I said that EMS' documentation wasn't very clear and that's largely why I decided to play without it, despite the (unargued) problems with the default spell system.

So, this discussion ensues. I said that my problem with EMS is that, IMO, it is poorly documented. Initially, I gave an example of that (Evard's, since another poster had already mentioned the spell) and you asked what besides Evard's struck me as poorly documented. So, I looked at the first 20 spells and pointed to issues I had with the author's documentation of the changes in several of them. You went through and explained what some of the unclearly explained bits in the documentation meant. Nice work; you often did a better job of documenting what EMS changes were than the author's docs. And, if I had been saying that the author's changes were unexplainable, you would have shown my error. However, every time you clarified what the author should have, you sort of made my point that the original docs were lacking.

In some cases, I pointed out that the EMS documentation refers to a fix for a problem with Bioware's implementation but never explains what the problem was or what the new behavior will be. To me, that's an example of unclear documentation, which is what I was listing. Oddly, you seem to misinterpret pointing out such problems with the documentation as not understanding Bioware's version. At least it's a misinterpretation if things like that were the basis for the "your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance" silliness. To be clear, when I said something like, "the author says Bioware's version is broken and doesn't explain why", I have neither said nor implied that I don't know what Bioware's version does. That's peripheral to my point that the author mentioning that there is a problem and not saying what it is or how he fixes it is an example of poor documentation. Documentation may be poor even if someone can ultimately noodle out what it means.

(To be doubly clear: I am also not claiming an exhaustive knowledge of every quirk or bug in Bioware's implementation of things.)

The temptation here is to go through your post point by point, but the forum software renders that an exercise in tedium. And, it really isn't going to get us anywhere, as I sense that the minutia ends up encouraging debate over the details and obscuring the central points. If I have your understood position correctly, it is that EMS fixes problems with Bioware's spell system and generally improves the play experience for casters. My point was that initial annoyance with the poor documentation of EMS' changes put me off of using it. Those positions do not actually contradict each other. I am not against EMS and I may even try it the next time I play the module. Maybe at some point you may feel that the EMS documentation is lacking. Either way, we have probably already said plenty about this aspect of the module.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

We are largely talking past one another here. Possibly, I did not made it clear (though I did try) that I am not telling people that EMS is functionally inferior or even that people wouldn't find it worth trying. Neither of those has been my claim nor my opinion. I said that EMS' documentation wasn't very clear and that's largely why I decided to play without it, despite the (unargued) problems with the default spell system.

 

Unfortunately, in this case, you're the one who's talking past me.  I understand your position -- you feel that EMS's documentation isn't clear enough for *you* to play with it.  What I am telling you is that your position is an extremely uncommon position.  In general there are three groups of people.

 

A. people who just play Aielund with EMS without really understanding or caring about the details of *either* Bioware's or EMS's spell system (this is most people)

B. people who care enough about the two spell systems to want to know some details but who *don't* care enough to fully understand either system (this is you)

C. people who care enough about the two spell systems to understand how both work and who can easily figure out anything they potentially find confusing *because* of their mastery of the systems (this is me and other "hardcore" players)

 

Group A is the largest group by far.  Group C is also a reasonably large group though much smaller than A.  And group B (which includes you)...is very, very small.  Because people either don't care much in general (A) or care a lot ©.

 

You went through and explained what some of the unclearly explained bits in the documentation meant. Nice work; you often did a better job of documenting what EMS changes were than the author's docs. And, if I had been saying that the author's changes were unexplainable, you would have shown my error. However, every time you clarified what the author should have, you sort of made my point that the original docs were lacking.

 

Except, for the most part, they're *not* lacking.  Group A doesn't care in the first place.  And they're more than clear enough for Group C.  It's only the few people in that weird middle ground (Group B ) who find it unclear.

 

Oddly, you seem to misinterpret pointing out such problems with the documentation as not understanding Bioware's version. At least it's a misinterpretation if things like that were the basis for the "your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance" silliness.

 

You weren't aware of what the term "shaken" means when used in EMS...when the term "shaken" was taken from Bioware in the first place (and Bioware took it from actual D&D before that).  So that's not a documentation problem, that's a not understanding Bioware's system problem.

 

Maybe at some point you may feel that the EMS documentation is lacking.

 

I certainly feel that the EMS documentation could have been improved in quite a few ways.  But, due to the reality of how people actually behave...I don't think it's a big deal in practice.  Very, very few people are going to be seriously bothered by it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               

Like MrZork, i think the EMS documentation is poor, which is made worse by the fact that it contains some changes nobody would expect from a "magic system" like changes to hp and skillpoints per lvl or changes to perks. I play without the ems therefor most of the time, too

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

You went through and explained what some of the unclearly explained bits in the documentation meant. Nice work; you often did a better job of documenting what EMS changes were than the author's docs. And, if I had been saying that the author's changes were unexplainable, you would have shown my error. However, every time you clarified what the author should have, you sort of made my point that the original docs were lacking.

Except, for the most part, they're *not* lacking. Group A doesn't care in the first place. And they're more than clear enough for Group C. It's only the few people in that weird middle ground (Group B ) who find it unclear.

Really? In other words, the documentation is fine for people 1) who aren't that concerned about understanding or 2) who can use the poor documentation to piece together what it's supposed to mean on their own. If you don't think that makes the documentation lacking, then I suspect it is you who are in the minority of opinion.
 

Oddly, you seem to misinterpret pointing out such problems with the documentation as not understanding Bioware's version. At least it's a misinterpretation if things like that were the basis for the "your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance" silliness.

You weren't aware of what the term "shaken" means when used in EMS...when the term "shaken" was taken from Bioware in the first place (and Bioware took it from actual D&D before that). So that's not a documentation problem, that's a not understanding Bioware's system problem.

Incorrect on two counts. You misread my original comment about the scare spell. My comment regarding shaken was that "Players aren't told what shaken means." I never said that I did not understand what shaken means. I mentioned it because its a non-NWN term with a specific meaning and should be explained in docs for NWN players. Further, shaken is not a term taken from Bioware. Bioware does not use the term in its description of the rage feats. Search the talk file and see.

(BTW, though I think this was pretty clear, I will emphasize that my list of issues with the first 20 doc entries was meant to provide examples of inadequacies in the docs - things they fail to explain, questions they would raise, etc. In very few of the examples do I say whether I was personally able to figure out what the poor documentation likely meant. Why would I have? That's not the point. Assuming that I don't know how something works because I say the documentation isn't very clear about it is a mistake.)
 

I certainly feel that the EMS documentation could have been improved in quite a few ways. But, due to the reality of how people actually behave...I don't think it's a big deal in practice. Very, very few people are going to be seriously bothered by it.

So, we mostly agree on that. Fine.