A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Longbow because Arcane Archers have to use bows -- and they're the best archers by far. ~snip~

Oh, that is not true, unfortunately,

With vanilla NWN, yes, it pretty much is.

But with the PRC, we can instead go :

:: Bowman ::

         (BASE CLASS)

The Archer is a variant of the Fighter class, relying upon their skill with a bow.



- Hit Die: d10.

- Proficiencies: Bowman are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and light and medium armour.

- Skill Points: 6 + Int Modifier.



ABILITIES:



Level  BAB   Ref   Fort  Will  Abilities

----------------------------------------------------------------

1      +1    +2    +2    +0    Sneak Attack +1d6, Fast Movement

2      +2    +3    +3    +1    Bonus Feats, Archer's Focus 1/day

3      +3    +3    +3    +1

4      +4    +4    +4    +2    Sneak Attack +2d6

5      +5    +4    +4    +2    Sniper's Skill, Archer's Focus 2/day

6      +6    +5    +5    +3    Bonus Feats

7      +7    +5    +5    +3

8      +8    +6    +6    +2    Sneak Attack +3d6, Archer's Focus 3/day

9      +9    +6    +6    +3    Agile Focus

10     +10   +7    +7    +3    Bonus Feats

11     +11   +7    +7    +3    Archer's Focus 4/day

12     +12   +8    +8    +4    Sneak Attack +4d6

13     +13   +8    +8    +4    Adept Focus

14     +14   +9    +9    +4    Bonus Feats, Archer's Focus 5/day

15     +15   +9    +9    +5

16     +16   +10   +10   +5    Sneak Attack +5d6

17     +17   +10   +10   +5    Archer's Focus 6/day

18     +18   +11   +11   +6    Bonus Feats

19     +19   +11   +11   +6    Supreme Focus

20     +20   +12   +12   +6    Sneak Attack +6d6, Archer's Focus 7/day

Which, of course, is a much better Archer.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WebShaman, 04 février 2014 - 08:39 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

WebShaman wrote...

With vanilla NWN, yes, it pretty much is.

But with the PRC, we can instead go :

I'm pretty sure the PRC has a class that will make the Light Hammer the most powerful weapon in the game.  Some people might find it interesting but it's not even remotely balanced (standard NWN certainly isn't close to perfect but PRC makes it far worse).

ShaDoOoW wrote...

This is odd objection but I also met a guy who condemned the whole project only because it added a nymph hair retexture which he though the patch shouldn't have.

Why do you find it to be an odd objection?  Let's say in this patch that you decided Clerics were too powerful by default and decided to nerf some spells like Divine Favor/Power, Heal/Harm, and some other things.  And you successfully made Clerics far more reasonable power wise.

Unfortunately, Bob the module author planned his module on standard NWN and knew Clerics were brokenly overpowered.  Therefore he gave special gear and bonus XP to non-Clerics so things would be more equal.

But then Dave the player installs your patch and plays Bob's module -- and Clerics are now extremely UNDERPOWERED because they got doubly nerfed.  Once by your patch and once by Bob.  It messes up the balance of the module and clerics become effectively unplayable as a result.

This kind of problem is what you can find when you start messing with balance in a general non-Bioware patch.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Bogdanov89 wrote...
I am a bit confused as far as the large weapons go, since some of them seem completely bad compared to others:

Halberd (1d10 x3)
Greataxe (1d12 x3)
Spear (1d8 x3)
Trident (1d8 x2) - wikia mentions a bugged weapon focus (or specialization) for Trident?!
Heavy Flail (1d10 19-20/x2)
Scythe (2d4 x4)
Greatsword (2d6 19-20/x2)

To me, it seems that Greatsword and (maybe) Greataxe and Scythe are the best?
What is the purpose of the other large weapons?
Do they have any advantage when compared to the Greatsword (or Greataxe/Scythe)?

Any more fellas willing to give their opinions about large weapons?

Scythe is the best versus crit vulnerable foes but requires Exotic.  Greatsword/Greataxe are basically the same unless you have Devastating Critical in which case Greatsword is better.

Halberd/Heavy Flail are what you might pick if you're worried about damage immunities/resistances (Halberd does both Piercing AND Slashing while Heavy Flail does Bludgeoning which TENDS to be better versus something like a skeleton -- but that's entirely up to the module author and an author could make slashing BETTER versus a skeleton if they wanted).

Spear is good for people who can't take Martial Proficiency but does 2 damage less per hit compared to Greatsword/Greataxe.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Actually it would be a great feature if it would be technically possible {smilie}.

Oh, I agree -- would be a great time and frustration saver that doesn't affect balance at all.  Most games these days (and even many back when NWN was released) would let you specify how many of something you wanted to buy.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

The *SOMETIMES* part is my problem because I'm not seeing a consistent reasoning behind it.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

This has nothing to do with my objections to your patch, but I don't like the colored icons.  I like colored icons in GENERAL but I prefer the default NWN ones to TAD's icons.  His are...too colorful, really.  Too vibrant.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.)

This simply isn't true in many cases.

Take Firestorm, for example -- you can clearly see how the coder MEANT to cap it at 20.  There's literally no reason to have an if check like that at that position if it wasn't meant to be.  AND the description claims 20 cap as well.  It's obvious that they simply forgot an equals sign going by both the text description and the code itself.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Sure.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Firestorm - spell has been capped properly in CPP to 20d6 max
Clear bug since there is missing one "=". Thought there will always be disbelievers.

I'd be very interested to find anyone who actually thought this wasn't a bug given the description and the code.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Technically changing it means Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation Wizards would be unable to use the scroll, no?  I'm guessing that might be why Bioware did that, to make sure all Wizards could use the scroll.  However, I don't really see Wizards picking those three schools unless they're clueless and it's the official campaigns -- but in such a situation they can easily get by without the scrolls anyway.

Definitely makes more sense to have everything in the (Lesser/Greater) Restoration line be in the same spell school, though.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Explain how this is the case.  A level 40 cleric would have something like 600 HP (more with max constitution from items).  This means if you cast Heal while at 100 HP you instantly heal 500 HP.  And you don't even need full Cleric for that.  But even a level 40 Cleric EXTENDING Regeneration will only heal 480 HP over a time period of EIGHT minutes.  That's STILL less even in the best case scenario.  And a lot of that regen might be wasted at full HP too.

I mean, maybe if the boss auto-silenced you or counterspelled you or something I could see a point to stacking Regeneration versus just using Heal...but from my perspective the ability to stack Regeneration was the only thing that made the spell have a possible use compared to Heal.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.

This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf.

I don't even know what you're talking about here, I don't recall mentioning it.  Refresh my memory?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation

Which implementation?  Combust, which was added in HotU, doesn't use it -- like I said in my LAST post.  Combust just does the standard +50%.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

First of all, it wasn't 3 spells, it was 17 spells!  Including the whole line of Cure/Inflict and the Cleric Healing domain.  Look at my previous post for a list.

Second, here's the problem, ShaDoOoW, and I think this is what you don't understand.

Fireball
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 71% more damage.

Chain Lightning
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 71% more damage.

Hammer of the Gods
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 78% more damage.

Finger of Death
Empower makes it deal 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 15% more damage.

Here's your reaction: "Fireball is fine, Chain Lightning is fine, Hammer of the Gods is fine, Finger of Death is odd...better nerf Empower."

Your change turns Empowering the spell from being useFUL to useLESS.  If Empower gives a 50% bonus in 100% of spells and Maximize gives a 70-80% bonus in 95% of spells...which is the inconsistency that should be changed (if a change is somehow absolutely needed)?

Hint: it's not Empower.

You've changed it from a situation where a few odd spells only benefit from ONE of Empower/Maximize to a situation where a few odd spells benefit from ZERO of Empower/Maximize.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 04 février 2014 - 06:31 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.)

This simply isn't true in many cases.

Take Firestorm, for example -- you can clearly see how the coder MEANT to cap it at 20.  There's literally no reason to have an if check like that at that position if it wasn't meant to be.  AND the description claims 20 cap as well.  It's obvious that they simply forgot an equals sign going by both the text description and the code itself.

It is true. What matter is a subject, but when two or more peoples doesn't agree, and given how diverse is the NWN community there always gonna be someone who doesn't. There is nobody who could say how it was meant to work and if its really a bug or not. That is my point. Some issues are clearer and some are less, where you see something, I do not and backwards.

I'd be very interested to find anyone who actually thought this wasn't a bug given the description and the code.

In this case I overexaggerated, but there are many other cases where implementation doesnt match description and you and the peoples you do represents see this suddenty different. Changes done into Cure spells, Ball of lightning, Sunbeam and plenty of others fall into this category. And suddenly it doesnt matter what description says, my change is incorrect and a balance one. I dont understand this.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Technically changing it means Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation Wizards would be unable to use the scroll, no? 

Oh, I didnt knew that a wizard cannot use clerical scrolls of the opposite school. This smells with a bug because I have wiz/cleric and he is able to cast self prepared bless spell normally (illusions spec.). Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all. I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

Explain how this is the case.  A level 40 cleric would have something like 600 HP (more with max constitution from items).  This means if you cast Heal while at 100 HP you instantly heal 500 HP.  And you don't even need full Cleric for that.  But even a level 40 Cleric EXTENDING Regeneration will only heal 480 HP over a time period of EIGHT minutes.  That's STILL less even in the best case scenario.  And a lot of that regen might be wasted at full HP too.

I mean, maybe if the boss auto-silenced you or counterspelled you or something I could see a point to stacking Regeneration versus just using Heal...but from my perspective the ability to stack Regeneration was the only thing that made the spell have a possible use compared to Heal.

Okay, ignoring the basic fact Ive brought before that spells shouldnt stack by a definition of the magic in DnD.
Its weird that you dont know this (given you are a powergamer - in a good meaning) but the regeneration is the most powerfull effect in NWN. Extended regeneration cast by the 28cleric (28/2/10 you follow), lasts almost 6minutes, healing 336hit points itself. Cast it twice and its 660hit points, still not enough? Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal? Hmm I cant see how, but ok lets say its less usefull than heal, what do you dont account into is the fact that you can still use Heal spell while you have ten ongoing extended regenerations on you! Another thing which you are missing is a fact that you dont have to be damaged to the critical ammount that would required healing at all. This is particulary usefull in a case you cant heal yourself - and I see a plenty of reason for this, being a druid in a dragon shape, fighting a boss that deals huge damage which might get your concentration broken or the other cases you mentioned. And there are much more possibilities how it can be abused, if you actually played some persistant action world such as Higher Ground, you wouldnt have ask. You seems to me highly focused on a one particular environment you know which isnt diversed. Your opinions on other character building issues lead me to this too. Try imagine a world where you can find all kinds of possible combinations of creatures's statistics. One time you fighting a boss with 60ac and 65ab, second time its a bosse without any ac, third time you are beating a huge ammount of the devastating critical food.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.

This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf.

I don't even know what you're talking about here, I don't recall mentioning it.  Refresh my memory?

You didnt, I draw this for better explaining my goal - in this situation the description mentions the saving throw but implementation doesnt have it. And I changed that to match description.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation

Which implementation?  Combust, which was added in HotU, doesn't use it -- like I said in my LAST post.  Combust just does the standard +50%.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

First of all, it wasn't 3 spells, it was 17 spells!  Including the whole line of Cure/Inflict and the Cleric Healing domain.  Look at my previous post for a list.

Second, here's the problem, ShaDoOoW, and I think this is what you don't understand.

Fireball
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 71% more damage.

Chain Lightning
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 71% more damage.

Hammer of the Gods
Empower makes it do 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 78% more damage.

Finger of Death
Empower makes it deal 50% more damage.
Maximize makes it deal 15% more damage.

Here's your reaction: "Fireball is fine, Chain Lightning is fine, Hammer of the Gods is fine, Finger of Death is odd...better nerf Empower."

Your change turns Empowering the spell from being useFUL to useLESS.  If Empower gives a 50% bonus in 100% of spells and Maximize gives a 70-80% bonus in 95% of spells...which is the inconsistency that should be changed (if a change is somehow absolutely needed)?

Hint: it's not Empower.

You've changed it from a situation where a few odd spells only benefit from ONE of Empower/Maximize to a situation where a few odd spells benefit from ZERO of Empower/Maximize.

ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.

So to me, what actually changes doesnt matter at all. Thats a secondary effect of something Im absolutely sure it was neccesary to do. Now - given that I later found this is not correct and it should be slightly different, there is a possibility to change this according to rules. But for now I dont see this needed, it wont fix the problem you see there - it wont affect the spells you believe the patch made useless.

Third, gameplay results didnt registered any change. The spells in question werent used before for damaging anyway and their greatest benefit of emp/max was ability to cast them more times. I know this because I was playtesting this patch on a Arkhalia, PW I already mention. I was playing myself and I still have FoD in the spellbook of my sorcerer and yes I still cast this spell empowered. Something you cannot counterargument because you do intentionally refuse to try it. You are only sitting behind the scene where you cannot se what things actually are for the real.

Note I do not deny your calculations. You are correct in that, but you are incorrect of the vision what should maximize and empower do. Its written in a description. Maximize is absolutely clear so changing a result of maximized spell would be huge balance change without valid reasoning because its against rules. Empower is unclear to many, but to me it is not. Ive already explained how I think its meant to be and why I think it. You do not agree, fine, that doesn't mean Im wrong about this and mainly it doesnt matter because Ive havent changed spells with my vision of the empower calculation but Bioware's.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 04 février 2014 - 09:08 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

It is true. What matter is a subject, but when two or more peoples doesn't agree, and given how diverse is the NWN community there always gonna be someone who doesn't. There is nobody who could say how it was meant to work and if its really a bug or not.

In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no (like the Firestorm example).  I didn't say ALL potential bugs were that clear-cut, just that some were.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all.

Er...Conjuration is an opposite school for THREE schools.  I even listed all three!

Evocation, Abjuration, Transmutation.  If you make a wizard and pick the Evocation school, you cannot use a normal Restoration scroll (which has no class restriction).

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware. {smilie}

I'm sure it was intended by Bioware for the reason above -- to make sure everyone could use it.  However, the line itself is based on Conjuration AND I don't think anyone actually picks Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation due to the default meta-game so I don't see it as an issue.

If Evocation was the main choice for wizards for some reason then I WOULD have an issue with it since you're changing the balance of the meta-game.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal?

Yes, because you could cast 10 Heals to heal 5000 HP instead.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Another thing which you are missing is a fact that you dont have to be damaged to the critical ammount that would required healing at all.

Sure, that's true, but how typically is that even a benefit?  And in the cases where that's a benefit then you're probably taking damage slowly enough where taking 3 seconds to heal is not a big deal.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

This is particulary usefull in a case you cant heal yourself - and I see a plenty of reason for this, being a druid in a dragon shape

Sure, that's a non-typical example.  But why is that a problem?  Isn't being able to use Regeneration to be able to get healing in Dragon Form usually a GOOD thing -- since Heal is useless unless it's in potion form?

Unless Dragon Form is meant to be insanely overpowered while you're in it and you're not supposed to stay in it for long or something.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

fighting a boss that deals huge damage which might get your concentration broken or the other cases you mentioned.

Sure.  But if the boss is doing THAT much damage then you will need to be casting Heal ANYWAY -- it's just a matter of having to cast Heal 25% more often or something.  And if you're drinking Heal potions then your Concentration won't get broken, obviously.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And there are much more possibilities how it can be abused, if you actually played some persistant action world such as Higher Ground, you wouldnt have ask. You seems to me highly focused on a one particular environment you know which isnt diversed. Your opinions on other character building issues lead me to this too. Try imagine a world where you can find all kinds of possible combinations of creatures's statistics. One time you fighting a boss with 60ac and 65ab, second time its a bosse without any ac, third time you are beating a huge ammount of the devastating critical food.

I'm guessing you never saw this thread.

I've played on over a dozen PWs and a bunch of non-official campaigns as well.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.

I'm not ignoring ANYTHING, ShaDoOoW.  Name the spells introduced in HotU that use a different Empower calculation than +50%.  I can't find any at all and you said a bunch of them existed.  What I DID find was stuff like Combust which WAS introduced in HotU and uses +50%.

Your claim was that HotU spells use a different Empower formula.  Please provide examples -- as I've given an example where this is NOT true.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.

CLW and ILW have a massive nerf post level 2-3.  CMW/IMW post level 4-5.  CSW/ISW post level 6-7.  CCW/ICW post level 9-10.  Nothing at all to do with max level caster.

Combust is a big nerf past level like 4-5.

Negative Energy Burst past level 4-5.

Finger of Death is a big nerf as soon as you even GET the spell (29 damage versus 35) and that gap only increases.

All of these causes a large nerf practically as soon as you get the spell (presumably you'd agree that a 20% change is a large nerf).

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Third, gameplay results didnt registered any change. The spells in question werent used before for damaging anyway and their greatest benefit of emp/max was ability to cast them more times. I know this because I was playtesting this patch on a Arkhalia, PW I already mention. I was playing myself and I still have FoD in the spellbook of my sorcerer and yes I still cast this spell empowered. Something you cannot counterargument because you do intentionally refuse to try it. You are only sitting behind the scene where you cannot se what things actually are for the real.

As mentioned above you're completely incorrect about me refusing to try PWs, I've played on many.

And I'm actually talking about something YOU apparently haven't experienced --  a sitation where you ARE using FoD to do DAMAGE and ignoring the instant death part (because the mobs are immune to Death Magic but to get past their damage resistance you need a large amount of negative energy damage).  Ditto on Negative Energy Burst.  Those spells are the only way FOR a mage to do Negative Energy Damage (technically Negative Energy Ray too as a level 1 spell).

On top of that you've cut the benefit of Empowering Cure Serious Wounds in HALF.  28 normal versus 35 for your Empowered versus 42 for standard Empowered.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Maximize is absolutely clear so changing a result of maximized spell would be huge balance change without valid reasoning because its against rules. Empower is unclear to many, but to me it is not.

So don't change EITHER.  You've said that it is BIOWARE'S fault for making a spell like Spell Mantle which is 1d8 + 8 instead of 3d8 (which is basically the same result).  If it was 3d8 then Empower clearly SHOULD give +50% and its behavior would be the same, on average, as 1d8 + 8 with a bonus of 50%.

Why are you trying to make Empower useless for some spells when the intention is clearly to give a 50% bonus to effect?  Whether it be Sleep, Fireball, Hammer of the Gods, Chain Lightning, Blade Barrier, Magic Missile, Cat's Grace, Ice Storm, and beyond...ALL 50%.

If Fireball does 10d6 damage with an average of 35 and Pyroblast does 5d6 + 18 with an average of 35.5 then why should Fireball do 52 damage Empowered while Pyroblast does 44?

Both are clearly meant to have the same behavior except Pyroblast has less randomness.  This is WHY Spell Mantle is 1d8 + 8 -- so you didn't wind up with only absorbing 3 spell levels or possibly 24.  It establishes an upper and lower bound on the spell to keep the randomness under control.  It's NOT a reason to make Empower give a bonus of less than 50%.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 05 février 2014 - 05:35 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...
In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no (like the Firestorm example).  I didn't say ALL potential bugs were that clear-cut, just that some were.

?? You changed the point. Ive said that in case of questionable issues, there is nobody who could say it was meant this way or another.

And even a Firestorm can be disputed. Look at it this way, lets say that there is someone who doesnt understand what going on in a script, never going to understand and never going to accept the opinion/truth of the others. A blind man. What you get is exactly the same story as this here, only with one diference, a number of peoples who sees this differently. For some of us, given issue is clearer than for others. What if you are simply the blind man? Or what if I am? Either way there is nobody who could arbitrate this argument.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all.

Er...Conjuration is an opposite school for THREE schools.  I even listed all three!

Evocation, Abjuration, Transmutation.  If you make a wizard and pick the Evocation school, you cannot use a normal Restoration scroll (which has no class restriction).

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware. {smilie}

I'm sure it was intended by Bioware for the reason above -- to make sure everyone could use it.  However, the line itself is based on Conjuration AND I don't think anyone actually picks Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation due to the default meta-game so I don't see it as an issue.

If Evocation was the main choice for wizards for some reason then I WOULD have an issue with it since you're changing the balance of the meta-game.

Sorry I am sick and having headaches, ive completely confused this you are absolutely right. I didn't knew about this issue and I agree that it might have been set to necromancy intentionally from this reason. Something to reconsider than.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal?

Yes, because you could cast 10 Heals to heal 5000 HP instead.

and blabla

Again. You can still cast 10 heals with an ongoing 10regenerations on you. I can export you a boss from the Arkhalia that you've been able to solo with this easily while you wouldnt be without. 7 aprs with a sling, something around 80ab i think, 50dmg usual hit *2critical, over 4000hitpoints, not immune to critical hit/vorpal but saves over 60. Players usual AC is 70 (well top actually). I really wonder you havent encountered such hostile creature already.

But really, im tired of argumenting about something that is clearly a bug. All of this doesn't even matter, the fact that it have stacked wasn't intent. And a fact that they haven't fixed it till 1.69 doesn't prove anything (saying in advance predicting your next move). Its so clear to me as its the uncapped firestorm to you. All this doesnt matter, even if you were right and it would have made the spell completely useless, which doesnt - for a druid its a must boost, even clerics still use it when they are going solo or are playing the "tank" role. And they all use it along with monstrous regeneration now.

So, if you want to continue in this discussion forget about how it changed the gameplay and balance and bring some proofs and opinions why this was an intent of the Bioware, or perhaps maybe proof that spells should stack with itself?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.

I'm not ignoring ANYTHING, ShaDoOoW.  Name the spells introduced in HotU that use a different Empower calculation than +50%.  I can't find any at all and you said a bunch of them existed.  What I DID find was stuff like Combust which WAS introduced in HotU and uses +50%.

Your claim was that HotU spells use a different Empower formula.  Please provide examples -- as I've given an example where this is NOT true.

Okay. I wasn't entirely correct. This concept was introduced in a SoU actually.
List of spellscripts using this:
OC: acid arrow, vampire touch
SoU:acid splash, aura glory, bigbies, earthquake, electric jolt, inferno, sunburst
HotU: aura of glory cursed, gedlees electric loop, stonehold

Does the fact that its not used in the majority of HotU spells means the Bioware abadoned this concept? I don't think so. For example, neither the acid arrow, or the vampire touch spells weren't changed in a SoU but in the HotU actually.
To be honest I haven't studied all the spells checking if there is possibly some intent for this. I've take a quick look and it didn't appeared to be that case to me. But I accept the possibility that there actually really was, since I've stumbled upon the same discovery when I was unifying the targetting routine (SpellsIsTarget). It appeared that the target routine wasn't built for a spells with a single target area of effect and it caused those spells to be inefficient against neutral NPCs. But that could have been a coinsidence actually. Anyway, if you gonna prove there is intent in the fact that various spells uses different empower calculation Im willing to pull this change off. Hopefully, you want to help and will make this research.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.

CLW and ILW have a massive nerf post level 2-3.  CMW/IMW post level 4-5.  CSW/ISW post level 6-7.  CCW/ICW post level 9-10.  Nothing at all to do with max level caster.

Combust is a big nerf past level like 4-5.

Negative Energy Burst past level 4-5.

Finger of Death is a big nerf as soon as you even GET the spell (29 damage versus 35) and that gap only increases.

All of these causes a large nerf practically as soon as you get the spell (presumably you'd agree that a 20% change is a large nerf).

Yes I do agree, that this is what happened with my change into empower calculation. I do not agree the 20% change is a large nerf. The percentage itself yes, but it matters what the base. The average difference of the empowered neg bursts before and with patch is a 5points of damage. I dont think thats a large nerf. I havent really calculated the percentual difference before/after, but I have calculated the min/max before and after and I see only a three spells in particular to be really huge nerf. And I don't think its a big problem.

[And I'm actually talking about something YOU apparently haven't experienced --  a sitation where you ARE using FoD to do DAMAGE and ignoring the instant death part (because the mobs are immune to Death Magic but to get past their damage resistance you need a large amount of negative energy damage).  Ditto on Negative Energy Burst.  Those spells are the only way FOR a mage to do Negative Energy Damage (technically Negative Energy Ray too as a level 1 spell).

Yes I havent experienced that, I imagined that really I did because im not just player but also a builder and im designing monsters. I dont think its a possible to do a monster intented to be killed with a wizard or bunch of wizards by only the negative energy spells. Unless such monster have a low ammount of hitpoint in which case the patch change to the empower shouldnt cause difference (hell you gonna account the fact that no everyone even have an empower) or its some serious boss with huge ammount of hitpoints which can never be killed only via negative energy spells itself. Now I did experienced a whole dungeon of monsters only vulnerable to negative, but at the same time also to the magic and ice. Therefore Ive used horrid on 8 and silent horrid on 9, burst only for a lowering ab and killing near deaths in order not to waste horrid.

On top of that you've cut the benefit of Empowering Cure Serious Wounds in HALF.  28 normal versus 35 for your Empowered versus 42 for standard Empowered.

Yes, exactly. And I dare to believe it should actually be this way and its entirely correct now.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Why are you trying to make Empower useless for some spells when the intention is clearly to give a 50% bonus to effect? 

No the description doesnt say the the output damage is 50% more. there is "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by 50%." with the example of maggic missile which is 1d4+1.

And I am absolutely and unshakeably convinced that what is the variable, numeric effect is the (1d4+1) part, not the (+1 per 3levels maximum of +10). I've already explained why do I believe that. This is the intent of the Wizards of the Coast, the creators of the Dungeon and Dragons. Bioware latest intent is somewhat different. As Ive said somewhere on the previous page, Im am willing to correct this despite the fact that Bioware wanted it this way (because it doesnt match with the description now since the +1 for magic missile isn't added into calculation). But not in a way to completely ignore whats written in the description of Maximize and apply some made up house rule.
BTW: The explanation of what is numeric, variable effect is written in the wiki by The Krit. Though Im sure this won't persuade you as its not official - apply my first paragraph.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 février 2014 - 02:42 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               While i am a noob in NWN, i have played a lot of other RPGs:

In my experience, a 5% nerf to a spell's damage is quite noticeable.
A 10% nerf is big, while a 15% nerf is huge.
Anything above a 20% nerf to damage would probably make me never want to use that spell again.

Shadooow, personally i think you should not leave these specific few spells to be utterly crippled by your new Empower.

Perhaps change how those nerfed spells (like Finger of Death and Negative Burst) calculate their damage, so that they become properly boosted by your new Empower?

Either way, i definitely do not recommend just leaving those spells "down in the dump"...
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 05 février 2014 - 12:03 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

While i am a noob in NWN, i have played a lot of other RPGs:

In my experience, a 5% nerf to a spell's damage is quite noticeable.
A 10% nerf is big, while a 15% nerf is huge.
Anything above a 20% nerf to damage would probably make me never want to use that spell again.

Shadooow, personally i think you should not leave these specific few spells to be utterly crippled by your new Empower.

Perhaps change how those nerfed spells (like Finger of Death and Negative Burst) calculate their damage, so that they become properly boosted by your new Empower?

Seems you are trapped in the numbers the MM posted. I even wonder you would have ever noticed Bogdanov, if MM didn't brough this up.

All that MM is worry about it a total outcome of the spell which has been nerfed. This is absolutely correct and the changes I did indeed caused this, I even wrote the damage output before/after in my spell readme so its clearly seen.

MM still intentionally ignores and don't want to understand two basic facts
1) adding the +x per level into empower calculation is wrong
2) these spells did more damage empowered (lvl+2) than maximized (lvl+3)

So to me, these spells were broken and I fixed them. Thats it. Its absolutely the same as with stacked regeneration - all you see is the fact its no longer possible which itself is a huge - in case of regeneration, the biggest - nerf ever. But its a bugfix in a first place, it shouldn't have been possible. Again the basic argument of mine - not every change that affect game balance is a game balance change. Every non-graphical (and sometimes even graphical) fix actually changes the game balance but that doesn't mean it is a balance change. For me this is another Firestorm, but you guys can't see it that way.

Summary:
If someone brings a valid proof that there is an intent in the fact that half spells were using original empower calculation from OC and the rest from SoU I am willing to pull this change down.

I am willing to discuss the possibility of correcting the Bioware's SoU empowerspell calculation per ingame description and DnD rules that is taking the direct bonus into dice into calculation. I already stated reason why I didn't do it already, but if this helps and a user of this patch will want this I have no problem to change this regardless its a Bioware's intent.
Keep in mind however that this correction will not change the spells that MM pointed, only a few other spells which have almost no impact on gameplay (magic missile, ability buffs...).
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 février 2014 - 12:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               Keep in mind i have no ties to DnD book rules or mechanics;

Personally, i would like something like this:

Empower improves the total spell damage done by 50%
Maximize improves the total spell damage done by 75%

In both cases the increase is 25% per increased spell slot level.

Personally i would prefer that the TOTAL spell damage done is increased by 50% for Empower and 75% for Maximize for all spells, regardless of the way they calculate damage (XdY or the +Z)

I think that is the most modern thing to do.
It is the most clear, it is the most fair to all spells, it is the easiest to understand.

It might not be according to some ANCIENT 3.0 dnd rules - but honestly, gameplay is much more important than "loyalty" to an outdated set of rules.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 05 février 2014 - 12:46 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Keep in mind i have no ties to DnD book rules or mechanics;

Personally, i would like something like this:

Empower improves the total spell damage done by 50%
Maximize improves the total spell damage done by 75%

In both cases the increase is 25% per increased spell slot level.

Personally i would prefer that the TOTAL spell damage done is increased by 50% for Empower and 75% for Maximize for all spells, regardless of the way they calculate damage (XdY or the +Z)

I think that is the most modern thing to do.
It is the most clear, it is the most fair to all spells, it is the easiest to understand.

It might not be according to some ANCIENT 3.0 dnd rules - but honestly, gameplay is much more important than "loyalty" to an outdated set of rules.

Agree from a high-magic point of view (which I am) but thats out of the scope of this patch. There are some balance changes like Monstrous regeneration, but this is something completely different are more serious. I don't think that CPP can add this. Actually I think that the new behavior suits the majority of the environments such as HCRP low-magic persistant worlds, single player modules etc. In a high magic, casters are "weak" anyway and lots of builders are boosting them with increased DC, relaxing the damage caps etc. etc. In my opinion nerfs are treated more gratefully then boosts.

Anyway. What MM suggest is really a good idea. Given that the empower has various damage outputs even in vanilla, what MM can do is to make his own modification of the empower/maximize and put it on a vault. Its however not something that should be added into this project. Its a house rule that has no justify in rules (and im not considering the outdated 3.0 but the 3.5) which are absolutely clear in this regard.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 février 2014 - 01:10 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               ShadoOow, can you please make a separate (optional) file mod for 1.71 RC3 NWN that would change Empower and Maximize to affect the total damage of all spells in the same way we talked about (50% for empower and 75% for maximize)?

It can be completely optional and i suppose it would not take you more than a few moments to create such an optional modification for the Community Patch.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               Yes I can do this, give me a hour '> (5minutes to do that, 30minutes to make a package and readme, 10minutes to upload it on new vault and 15minutes on a one round in unreal tournament '>)
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 février 2014 - 05:49 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               Okay, thank you!

Do please post us a link so we know where to get it from '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 05 février 2014 - 06:22 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Okay, thank you!

Do please post us a link so we know where to get it from '>

Here. Was a bit faster .

Still, I am amazed how easily MM influenced you. I am absolutely sure you woulnd't notice in a gameplay.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               I just like my magic to be powerful, and i honestly do not want to think for each spell "ordinary vs empower vs maximize".

Or, in other words, when i do a maximized spell - i like to know i will be kicking MAXIMUM ass with it!

Thank you again for the mod!

Edit:
I got a question about this line:

"!This is designed for a Community Patch project, as normally only a
several spells uses the function MaximizeOrEmpower that contains this
adjustment.!"

Does this mean that this mod will only affect a few spells in the Community Patch?
Does it mean that this mod will not be functional without the Community Patch?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 05 février 2014 - 06:46 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Does this mean that this mod will only affect a few spells in the Community Patch?
Does it mean that this mod will not be functional without the Community Patch?

No it works standalone. What I meant is something different. Hard to explain. Will try to modify the description on vault to explain this.