Aielund Saga Improvements (Need Input/Feedback)

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

I am not certain it would actually be a good idea to implement this, since altering things in this way would now create an incentive not to solo (no compensation for losing henchman support) which some people might prefer to do.

 

Technically there's an incentive to solo as much as possible and then get the followers if you run into a problem -- that way both you and the followers are higher level than if you always brought them.

 

I agree with this. There is no need to change the experience penalty for having henchmen, becuse the modules are balanced with henchmen in mind.

 

That would actually be a reason TO change the penalty -- because in most modules you're better off soloing.  Making it so using henchmen didn't give an experience penalty would make it clear you're expected to use both followers and that it's balanced assuming you will -- otherwise players may try to solo or only use one follower and then think the module is too difficult.

Regardless, 99% likelihood I wouldn't change anything as it's something that you're better off designing from the start and it would be a very low priority, but it is something interesting to think about.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

In the old version I have, the master weapon smith in Twilight in Ch 4 part 3 says that the katana will be the best weapon he even made, which obviously should be ever.

 

That should tell you about where I am in my current play-through.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Kylepc]

               

why not a port to nwn 2 engine or dragon age?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I know I am late to the discussion about the PC(s) having associates along in the Aeilund modules and modules in general. But, I think that the goal should be that having associates doesn't change either 1) the general challenge level of the encounters or 2) the XP acquisition for the PC(s). I think that the second of those should be relatively straightforward in tweaking the XP awards to essentially cancel out the party-size penalty. The first goal is more difficult, particularly since so many modules place enemies statically in a way that doesn't scale for party size (or level, really). Ideally both goals would be accomplished in one step by scaling the encounters so that additional and/or more difficult opponents spawn according to the party composition and beating them down results in the same XP for a larger or stronger party as if a single PC had beaten them.

 

I understand the goal of attempting social engineering to incentivize the PC to take henchmen along or not. But, at the end of the day it may be best to make it clear there is nothing to be gained or lost in terms of quantifiable rewards, though the story will be more enjoyable with henchmen (or without). Then, let the PC determine what he prefers to do, knowing that his decision won't result in a weaker or stronger character. (Obviously, this doesn't apply to henchmen who are mandatory for story progression.)

 

BTW, at least one module I have played has partly discouraged the PC from using the tactic of plowing recklessly through the module and then simply reloading a saved game when he hits an encounter where that doesn't work. The technique was simply to put the best shops in the fugue plain that the PC only had access to by respawning. Basically, the PC will never get a chance at the best gear if he always reloads instead of respawning. And, if he legitimately never dies, then he obviously doesn't need the best gear, so no great loss.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

why not a port to nwn 2 engine or dragon age?

 

I don't think you understand what building involves.  Making these changes will take 2-3 weeks of work (mainly for the stuff like upgrading the Fort Highmarch battle).

 

Porting it to NWN2 or Dragon Age would take years.

 

I know I am late to the discussion about the PC(s) having associates along in the Aeilund modules and modules in general. But, I think that the goal should be that having associates doesn't change either 1) the general challenge level of the encounters or 2) the XP acquisition for the PC(s).

 

I don't agree with 1 in this circumstance and it's a moot point regardless as that would be far too much of an overhaul.  2 would be easier if designed from the ground up -- doable in general but it's debatable about whether it's a good idea to do.  Something that's low priority regardless.

 

BTW, at least one module I have played has partly discouraged the PC from using the tactic of plowing recklessly through the module and then simply reloading a saved game when he hits an encounter where that doesn't work. The technique was simply to put the best shops in the fugue plain that the PC only had access to by respawning. Basically, the PC will never get a chance at the best gear if he always reloads instead of respawning. And, if he legitimately never dies, then he obviously doesn't need the best gear, so no great loss.

 

Guessing you're referring to Careena: Krakona Rising (or some spelling like that).  Seemed rather silly, frankly, especially since you wound up with some items that could only be used in the Fugue Plane -- so if you never died you were left wondering what the point of the tomes was.  Had to intentionally die to see that -- and it seems quite odd to encourage people to die to grab those items.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I agree that, for Aeilund, it would be a huge task to redesign encounters to accommodate henchmen (or other associates) in a challenge- and XP-neutral way. I was thinking more in terms of the approach one might take to mod-making in general, where I think players will prefer being able to play with the style they most enjoy without feeling like they are being penalized for doing something that the module author allows.

 

Regarding fugue stores: The particular items available in Careena aren't relevant to the point. I just thought it was an interesting approach to changing that aspect of game play. Lots of players treat an encounter where the PC dies trivially - basically as a scouting mission - knowing that there is no incentive (in terms of game mechanics) not to simply reload and a moderate disincentive to respawn. For instance, for a single player in the OC, assuming the player saves somewhat regularly, is there any reason the player is likely to respawn? Having some items available only after a respawn gives the mod-maker another way to tweak incentives and possibly affect how people play. Obviously, there are limits to the approach and possibly perverse incentives as well. E.g., some scripting would be needed to change items available if the PC dies more than once, if that's desired. Does it make sense for the PC to accumulate lots of gold and then die? Etc.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

I agree that, for Aeilund, it would be a huge task to redesign encounters to accommodate henchmen (or other associates) in a challenge- and XP-neutral way. I was thinking more in terms of the approach one might take to mod-making in general, where I think players will prefer being able to play with the style they most enjoy without feeling like they are being penalized for doing something that the module author allows.

 

Fair enough.  Perhaps make a different thread to discuss this?  Would rather not clutter this one up -- but I do find what you're saying interesting (even if I disagree with a lot of it).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Out of curiosity, did the subrace system in Aielund work? I seem to recall that it was mentioned in one of the walkthroughs, but I don't recall ever seeing it in action. At least, my "Dwarf-Wild" barbarian never saw any effect.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Actually, now checking the walkthrough, I see that it mentions chapter 4, so maybe it is only functional in the later chapters. I would assume most players are continuing their toons from chapter 1+, though.

 

Hmm. Now I see that the OnClientEnter script has the subrace initialization commented out, even in chapter IV part 1. Ah, well.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_werelynx]

               

How does the upgrade go?

 

Subraces would be nice to add.

 

Hmm, you could keep horses as pseudohorses = phenotype only only like in old CEP modules.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

I've done probably about half the stuff mentioned here -- gotten sidetracked by the ABC, helping BortSonOfBort with Small Village Woes, and some other things.  Will try to get this updated with current progress sometime in the next week or two.

 

What exactly are you proposing in terms of Subraces?  Never really liked myself, to be frank, I already don't like the stat differences that already exist!

 

When you say psuedohorses, you mean the player just can't mount them?  At the moment I've just removed the horses the player would have used and left the mounted NPCs alone.  So you can still see NPCs on them but there's no horses for the player to actually mount.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_werelynx]

               

Pseudohorses are pre 1.69 horses that had no rules and are basically an alternate phenotype (like CEP flying). They do not have any rules, they are just there.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

It's worth noting

 

Never really liked myself, to be frank, I already don't like the stat differences that already exist!

I have never made much use of subraces, either. They might provide some value in terms of favored class, assuming that actually worked properly. The idea that the most natural class for a wood elf might be ranger or druid or whatever instead of wizard has an appeal to me.

 

The subrace ability stat increases are usually of marginal relevance, though. At least with the subrace approaches I have seen in the normal game engine (not using NWNX, etc.), any ability score change counts toward the cap, so those changes start to lose impact at higher levels and in moderate-or-higher magic environments.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

The subrace ability stat increases are usually of marginal relevance, though. At least with the subrace approaches I have seen in the normal game engine (not using NWNX, etc.), any ability score change counts toward the cap, so those changes start to lose impact at higher levels and in moderate-or-higher magic environments.

 

True enough.  So basically, if you implement them well the stat changes are problematic, if you implement them poorly then the stat changes are counter-productive.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I probably missed an earlier discussion where the racial ability stat changes were discussed. Why are the +2 to one ability and -2 to another for various races problematic? (I'm not saying that they aren't; there are trade-offs associated with almost every game feature. I am just curious.)