MagicalMaster wrote...
Bogdanov89 wrote...
Is there any way to quickly buy a lot of potions or first aid kits?
Buying one by one is quite annoying and takes forever 
'>
If currently there is no such option, can it be added to the CPP?
As ShaDoOoW said, it requires the module builder to do so. It's not something that can be done in a patch.
Actually it would be a great feature if it would be technically possible
.
Official DnD Description: Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus
on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you
have (at least +1, maximum +3). The bonus doesn’t apply to spell damage.
Battletide tooltip: You create an aura that steals energy from your enemies. Your enemies suffer a -2 circumstance penalty on saving throws, attack rolls,
and damage rolls, once entering the aura. On casting, you gain a +2
circumstance bonus to your saves, attack rolls, and damage rolls.
Official DnD Description: Can't seem to find one.
Perhaps you could explain why Battletide should be changed from unresistable "magic" damage but Divine Favor should not?
Im not sure what are you talking about, what I changed was the -2damage from the reason that it didnt affected those without any magical damage. In this exact spell this is questionable indeed because it grants both bonus and penalty and the bonus is magical. But this was actually a global change that affected also Hell inferno, Ghoul touch and few others while those spells didnt have a magical bonus, so it made no sense there that the penalty is magical and I believe it was an oversight there because the original scripter didnt specified the damage type - if he did it would be absolutely clear that the magical damage type there is intented, but it isn't.
Im not going to explain my decision further since Im not sure you were aware of the fact that I changed only the penalty damage type. Waiting for your response.
The problem is I'm not sure you DO have a coherent vision of what the CPP should be.
Of course I have, maybe I just doesn't know how to describe it in my, hopefully at least medium, english level?
CPP is about fixing, improving and sometimes balancing the original NWN content both for players and builders. The goal is to make a more stable, more clear, more balanced, and more modern (in the terms of graphic) version of the NWN.It is
not meant to be a 3.0 or 3.5 rules modification where whats not exactly following the rules must be changed. I really like the 3.5 edition personally and I consider it as a patch on 3.0 but its something completely different and it changes the overall balance extremely. And Im still trying to keep a number of balance changes on absolute minimum and adding them only when I'm sure they won't cause any serious balance issues in modules, only the global unpopularity. This is a reason I haven't added the evasion limitation on the light armor althought it does work like this even in the 3.0 rules. Its not broken, so no reason to repair it. Also when doing changes it is important to take into consideration already existing player characters. For example changing the school of the spell would have impact on a specialized wizard. So some issues weren't changed from this reason.
In a patch readme you can often see in parenthesis
(3.0/3.5 rules), (3.5 rules) though. This is there to inform that since the change was done from some reason there, that change was done following the DnD rules this game is based of and not my own decision. (3.0/3.5) means that this actually works that way even in the original 3.0 rules the NWN is based on and havent changed in 3.5 patch, (3.5) means that I either haven't checked 3.0 or that the 3.0 versions is different.
Its also not meant to be a facelift project. In terms of graphic I added some modification that keeps the original textures/models and only improving them. A little exception are the Amethyst Dragons' colored spell icons as some of them are completely replacing the original image with brand new one. Since this is true for only around a ten spells and AD refused (or just forget?) my request to make a special version for this project that would used the original images I decided its worth it nevertheless and added it regardless. Now quite a lot peoples are actually blaming CPP for adding this. But I won't change this, believe it or not colored icons are a standard for a long time ago. What Im saying to those who hate AD's excellent mod is to make an vanilla override version - noone did, half the blamers get used to, second half immediatelly uninstalled and trashed CPP - thats the price for doing this and Im willing to pay it.
In other words: it's like you're doing a balance patch that isn't really a balance patch. Everyone would be happy with a bug fix patch. Some people might be interested in a balance patch. But what's the point of a partial balance patch that only randomly does some balance changes and ignores massive other issues?
Now to this balance changes vs fixes issue.
BTW there is nobody official who would confirmed what are bugs and what aren't. Where someone sees a bug someone else doesn't. (This is an exaplanation for other readers MM.)
I think we both agree with the fact that not everything what changes balance is a balance change. Because in fact every non-graphical bugfix actually changes a game balance. I think you realized this when you spoke about firestorm. I also determine a "new feature" category which also changes balance since player is able to do things he couldn't before
(Sunbeam for example). But the main indicator for me is intent of the change and logic behind that change. In alimited scope also the Bioware's intent (which can be sometimes guessed from source scripts or comments in them), which is however disscussable (aka Bioware specificaly wrote the DC is X+3 - so its very possibly intented). But Im taking this into consideration too in the decision whether to change something or not. There are also an "unification changes". Im not able to reason it, but this is not a balance imo either.
Some examples because Im missing words to explain this deeper:
Firestorm - spell has been capped properly in CPP to 20d6 max
Clear bug since there is missing one "=". Thought there will always be disbelievers.
Greater restoration - spell school has been changed to match lesser versions of this spell.
Now this is not clear, someone could say this is clearly Bioware's intent. Such opinion is completely based on a personal feel and Im not satisfied with that. Logic suggest to me that the spell school should be consistent, so either its GR wrong or LR and R. I've checked the DnD manuals and come into conclusion that its the GR wrong. Fortunately this has no effect on a gameplay, but if it was a wizard spell this would be a different matter and I wouldn't changed that.
Regeneration - stacking has been disabled
Very unpopular change, even in the eyes of a builders who didnt even knew that clerics are abusing this to solo their dungeons and bosses. For me its absolutely clear this is a bug. For you and plenty of other it isn't of course. The logic behind my change is that no spell (should) stacks with itself. Effects of the same spell does overlap, not stacks this is a basic magic concept in DnD and its correctly applied in most NWN spells. Now many peoples counterargument with the fact that the Monstrous regeneration doesn't stacks (by the intented code in the spellscript which is missing in the Regeneration). So its "clear" that Bioware intented the Regeneration to stacks. Well this is again based on personal feel, I would say that this further supports my claim. It doesn't even matter to me since this was changed because of the first fact that I've wrote.
Monstrous regeneration - balance change to make it useful (duration united with the usual round/level that a Regenerate uses as well)
There I agree that what I've done is a balance change. Reason for this is that it makes no sense that it is lasts 1round per 2levels. Some even argument about the name that it makes no sense as it suggests its better. Anyway, reason I changed it is that since Regenerate now doesn't stack with itself it is needed to supply this gap with this change, but the vanilla duration is just absolutely unusable in real gameplay (I play druids a lot so I have a gameplay experience with this). Changing this took me few seconds, reason and justify several hours. I've reasoned it in the CPP own thread since this spellchange came with one of the 1.71 betas. So, Monstrous regeneration has nothing to do with a spell Regenerate, its completely different concept - it should work like troll's PnP regeneration. Bioware decided to house rule this from whatever reason. One time it was 10hp/round, later a balance change came as it oushined Regeneration spell. Therefore I applied my own house rule and doubled the duration to unite it with Regeneration spell. Seemed to me as a better choice than to apply the PnP effects of a troll regeneration
'>. What I thought of, was to rename this spell to "Lesser" but haven't seen this as much important so I didn't. It is balance change but I believe it was needed and it doesn't break anyone's module and its generally acceptable (change itself, not that Ive dared to do it - thats unforgivable I know
).
Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.
Description specifically mention that there is a saving throw. When compared to inflict spells and short consultation with the DnD rules its clear the problem is not in description but in a spell. Description differs from implementation so I corrected this. This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf. I've taken this into consideration, I don't like it either, healing an unded has almost no sense now, but rules are clear.
Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation
Finally getting to the change you hate the most. The intent there was to unite the calculation (which is one of the CPPs goal - more stable, clear, balanced and modern version of the NWN). I dont think there was ever different choice of how to do it, if to do it regardless of what are the problems with the empower/maximize. And, I believe it should have been done and would have done it even if there weren't secondary issues related to this. This of course results sometimes (3 spells imo) into serious nerf, but it was wrong anyway and since the intent was to unite spells I don't think it is a balance change. Same as with Fire Storm. By the way I also united a saving throws roll behavior (into "if immune don't roll"), targetting routine (to the one from HotU that excludes NPC's from the same faction) and few other things. These changes also results in a balance change, are they (rhetorical one)? :innocent:
I could have write to the death of hunger as each spell change is usually unique. Believe it or not but when I changed something Ive taken into consideration everything I can think of. You just not see these behind the scene decisions so you assume they are missing there. Also, although Im the only one with the final decision (since nobody ever wanted to participate on this project, at least officially on a long term) I am also abusing the advice and law services of several NWN community members. Also every critique even when you think I dont (For example I remove the scare and Aura vs alignment changes).
Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 février 2014 - 09:16 .
