In reverse! Mostly.
WhiZard wrote...
Granted that the initial list of fixes doesn't look that bad as far changing relative balance if one spell script is used and not another; the +50%, +75% seems much more imbalancing if it is only partially applied.
95% of damaging spells get between a 71% and 77% bonus by default Maximize.
In this case a Maximized Fireball would do 2% more damage than the default Maximize Fireball.
Note that I didn't actually suggest 75% specifically (a better "safeguard" would be 70% bonus and an actually fair Maximize would be an 84% bonus (sqrt(1.5)^3)) but this won't change much.
ShaDoOoW wrote...
My point is that at the same time you could also install a modification that triples the base spell damage and removes all caps from damage calculations aka fireball would be 3d6 per caster level without maximum.
You see my point now? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]
No. Your point is that you could make spells insanely overpowered.
His point is that if he Maximizes a Fireball, Chain Lightning, IGMS, and Negative Energy burst he should get roughly the same damage bonus from Maximize each time (actually you could argue that NEB should get a LARGER bonus but that's a more subtle point and something I specifically haven't argued here).
He wants consistency with Maximize spell, that's all.
ShaDoOoW wrote...
Absolutely agree in all three points. MM is very upset here that the CPP or PRC changes the balance of the game that is highly unbalanced in a first place. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/kissing.png[/smilie]
I'm not upset about the PRC, I'm making sure people understand that it brings insanely powerful things into the game that most authors don't account for. If someone wants to use it, fine, they're knowingly installing it. I just want them to know that they're bringing in broken classes/feats compared to vanilla NWN and thus they should keep that in mind.
The CPP isn't even close to being as bad but the difference is that people don't EXPECT it to be doing balance changes.
ShaDoOoW wrote...
BTW, Magical Master, The CPP wont change spells in your Siege of the Heavens module because you have their modified spellscript inside (so Bogdanov, if you want this empower/max modification in his module thats the exactly the case where this wont work) - as the version from the module version has a higher priority. You effectively disabled also most of the AI improvements because you have modified versions of nw_c2 and nw_ch_ac scripts in your module as well.
The funny thing is that like 90% of the modified spell scripts (which aren't that many) were modified to make sure sure NPC casters couldn't kill themselves with their own spells (thus only friendly fire AoEs generally got changed plus a few other specific things like damage shields). Firestorm wasn't modified, though, so it would get the 20d6 cap versus 40d6 cap (which I could change to make sure it gets 40d6 but I'm still considering it).
AI wise, the only significant difference is that I added the following for ch_ac
// Don't do anything if we have have been recently commanded
if (GetLocalInt(OBJECT_SELF, "commandstatus"))
{
return;
}
and the following for nw_c2
// We're busy casting (even if interrupted), don't react
if (GetLocalInt(OBJECT_SELF, "casting"))
{
return;
}
Regardless, I'm guessing you never read the post I asked you to read, so I'll repost what I said here:
"And no, those specifically won't have much effect in Siege. The Firestorm fix will make a big difference and caster clerics/druids will be underpowered but that is technically a bug fix that clearly was a mistake in the code (you can tell by looking at the code itself). But...what else is possibly changed? I don't know. Once you start changing things in the name of balance rather than clear bugs who knows what could get messed up? I'd have to try to pore through every change to every ability and see if you changed some AI routines just to make sure nothing you did messed my module up!
If I didn't see those blatant balance changes I'd be less worried -- but you started down a path, I don't know where it leads, and I don't want players to suffer for it."
ShaDoOoW wrote...
No. forget about OC campaigns - they are great and I love them (except the SoU [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/alien.png[/smilie]) but there is whole new world out there! Fan-made single player modules on vault, multiplayer servers and toolset - thats what is NWN about. And a huge ammount of custom content of course. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]
I went ahead and bolded/italicized/underlined this to demonstrate its importance. If you only play the official campaigns you're missing out on what makes NWN so amazing -- the custom content which includes over a DOZEN campaigns that are much better than the three official ones.
WebShaman wrote...
It seems that you, MM, are dumping on the PRc (both here, and another thread).
You seem to be mistaking dumping for informing.
I never said not to use the PRC. I'm saying to be aware of what you're doing and that you're likely incredibly unbalancing a single player module if you use the PRC where it wasn't intended.
WebShaman wrote...
The PRC does not have a Class that makes the Light Hammer the "best" weapon, blah blah blah. To the point - these Classes come from the PnP source. Second, balance issues are rampant in the vanilla version of the game (Dev Crit, anyone? How about Perma-Haste?). Third, the Epic Spellcasting System is much better than the Epic Spells included in the vanilla version (and truer to PnP).
Dev Crit is taken into account by module builders (and often disabled or the module doesn't even get into epic levels).
Perma-haste is also taken into account by module builders (or not allowed or whatever).
But the improved Epic Spellcasting System? And other stuff? That's not taken into account. That's all I'm saying, Webshaman.
WebShaman wrote...
But comments like the Light Hammer crap, I mean, that is below even you. Perhaps you are having a bad day?
Maybe there was some miscommunication, but you basically said "Yeah, Arcane Archers are incredibly powerful, but here's a PRC class that is even MORE obscenely overpowered and it's awesome!" You seemed to be bragging that PRC brought in tons of stuff that was far more powerful than vanilla NWN.
Was that not what you meant?
Bogdanov89 wrote...
Is there any adequate creature or object in the original NWN campaign (and it's 2 expansions) that can be used as a "targeting dummy" when i want to test out my damage or healing attacks/spells?
I am hoping such a creature exists, since i love trying out various spells and character builds just to see which one is good at what 
'>
No, there isn't.
However, I would not-so-humbly suggest the Siege of the Heavens module in my signature if you want to test builds -- it'll level you up and equip you for level 40 and pit you against very strong bosses. There's even a boss timer which tracks how long a fight takes if you want to see which build can kill a boss faster or something.
ShaDoOoW wrote...
My thought is to keep the Conjuration in the description and change the real implementation to the Necromancy again. Since, for clerics this has no effect on gameplay nobody spots the difference 
.
That works. Not like Spell Focus or anything actually matters for Greater Restoration.
Will respond to the rest later.
Modifié par MagicalMaster, 06 février 2014 - 06:24 .
