A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               MM, no, I wasn't "bragging" - case in point : The Bowman is a BASE Class, not a PrC (Prestige Class).

I think you can do the math from there, right?  

Of course, with a Melee Weapon, it is not so good.  As with most well-balanced things, what you get, you also give.

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.

C'mon, give me and us all a break here!  The Shadowdancer is not broken?  Utterly?  Either you give your Bosses and M0bs Truesight, or get HiPS to death!  No cooldown, nothing, just hit that magic button, queue up your stuff, rinse, repeat!

There is nothing more broken than this!  And I distinctly remember debates where you mention things like this in the game (and, of course, Dev Crit comes up as well, because it is also broken).

The PRC, however, DOES allow one to at least wrinkle out the Dev Crit problem (because there are ways to deal with the high DC in the PRC NOT available in vanilla, plus the switches, of course).  Also, one can put HiPS on a timer (again, switches) if one so chooses.

The PRC is all about flexibility.

As for Mods, unbalance, yadda yadda yadda.  The ONLY place where this matters in in Multiplayer (Online).  In SP, all I have to do is activate the Console, or various other means (trainer for overpowered Character, items, whatever) and that basically is all she wrote!  I can even open the Mod, and edit it to my tastes (which I normally do anyway).  

Of course, in an Online environment where the PRC is active, such content IS accounted for, and controlled accordingly.

The PRC introduces nothing that is not available to the PnP Player, tbh.

MM, you could have just said "The PRC introduces content that a Mod developer has not accounted for".  That is factual, true, and to the point.  I know you are capable of writing such easy sentences, because I have witnessed such from you before.

Normally when you write something, you do it for a reason.  So...I think it is easy to see why I come to the conclusion you are "dissing" on the PRC due to your word choice, and "color", not to mention hyperbole.

And that is really below you.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

since the number of balance changes the community patch brings is not all that big, is it possible to make a "community patch light" that will not apply these balance patches if people want to play player made content?

it would be like a "compatibility mode" of the community patch, that would be aimed at making changes that would not affect the balance in any player created content?

Oh gosh! Every fix changes game balance in some way. The general game balance has not been changed however. Cleric is still the best class, WM still best damager and so on.

Thus, answer is no. Definitely no way. This is a "patch", not a compilation of things that can be turn on and off. Its all or nothing and its intent.

While there are a few extra optional features that can be turned on and off, the intent of this project is that every player still played the same game. Add the possibility to turn this, that and this again and what you get is an unique gameplay each time and nobody will be able to compare theirs character builds/game progress/difficulty anymore.

If you hate those few balance changes that CPP brings so much you have two choices:
1) stop using CPP itself
2) override those changes with either vanilla version or your own modification
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 07 février 2014 - 07:21 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               Note: ARGH.  Not caught up now.  More posts.  But tired, have to answer tomorrow.

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

Holy moley this is LONG.  But all caught up now.  Definitely read the whole thing first since some things are semi out of order in their responses.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But yes, I am aware that there is a relatively large group of mostly builders that you do represent MM. Yours point is that every balance change is an evil and therefore you wont ever use CPP nor support it. Considering this opinion comes from peoples who very often brings their own balance changes into game, I consider this point of view to be completely hypocritical.

No, we don't think every balance change is evil.  We think every balance change *in something that is trying to be a general patch* is "evil."

Let me give you an easy example.  The fact that Heal always heals you to full health and Harm takes you down to 1-4 HP is incredibly stupid.  You know this.  I know this.  95%+ of people will agree to it. It's ridiculous that a 10000 HP Dragon with immunity to death magic would take 9996-9999 damage with no save from a Harm.

So what if you changed Heal/Harm to be like the 3.5 rules?  10 HP per level, cap of 15.  I doubt many people would agree that it is a perfect solution but I suspect pretty much everyone would agree it's a lot better than the default.  So what's the problem?

Well, in Siege of the Heavens the player is expected to have unlimited healing.  And I initially did this by making a potion with unlimited Heal uses per day.  So a player comes into Siege, grabs the potion...and gets completely destroyed by the first boss because his Heal is only doing 110 HP instead of healing him to full (likely 300+ HP).

He has an awful time and quits my module in disgust and proclaims how it's incredibly stupid and unbeatable.  All because you made an innocent change to Heal/Harm that just about everyone would support and it broke a system my module was using.

Or, alternatively, imagine I designed the module for the 110 HP potions for your patch and then someone plays without the patch and heals to full and proclaims it laughably easy.

That's the danger of making even extremely agreed upon and reasonable balance changes in a general patch (as opposed to specific modules making those changes).

Now, in this case, I wound up making the potion a Unique Power so Undead Shifters could use it so fortunately it wouldn't be an issue now...but in some earlier versions of the module it would have completely broken the module.

When we make balance changes, we know exactly what they are and can account for them.  We know they won't mess something up (like your example with Greater Restoration and an Evocation school wizard who can't complete the quest) on accident.

If you made a hak with a ton of balance changes to spells, feats, and classes and they were good changes there's a reasonable chance that some builders would want to incorporate it (like the Enhanced Magic System in Aielund) -- but those same builders will yell in outrage if they were included in the CCP for the reasons above.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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

Think of it as airbags in a car, to use a metaphor.

95%+ of the time you won't be in an accident.

80%+ of the time that you're in an accident, you won't need airbags (this now covers 99%+ of all possible cases).

But in that <1% where you do need airbags, they are REALLY REALLY important.

95% of the time you won't be using Empowered spells that involve damage per level bonuses.

80% of the time where you do, you're doing so to get more uses of the spell rather than extra damage (like the instant death of Finger of Death (though Wail would be better in such a case) or strength drain of Negative Energy Burst).

But that 1% of the time where you're using Empowered FoD or NEB for negative energy damage, you will DEFINITELY notice FoD doing 56 damage (normal damage of 50.5)  instead of 76.  Or NEB doing 27 damage (normal damage of 24.5) versus 37 damage.

So the damage part of the spells is usually irrelevant, but when it does matter, it REALLY matters.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

MM still intentionally ignores and don't want to understand two basic facts

1) adding the +x per level into empower calculation is wrong

I'm not even sure this is the case for two reasons.

First, on a technical reason:

Example...

"The average penalty inflicted by an empowered caster level 10 Ray of Enfeeblement (12.5) is higher than the penalty inflicted by a maximized caster level 10 Ray of Enfeeblement (11 points). Similarly, an empowered caster level 10 False Life grants more temporary hit points on average (23) than a maximized False Life (20)."

Ray of Enfeeblement: "A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject’s Strength score cannot drop below 1."

False Life: "You harness the power of unlife to grant yourself a limited ability
to avoid death. While this spell is in effect, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1d10 +1 per caster level (maximum +10)."

Another thread saying you should multiple the entire damage value (because the variable number of 1d6 + 5 is 6-11).  No one is saying otherwise there.

Yet another thread (with some disagreement from a person or two).  Some choice quotes:

"Correct. And 4d8+9 is simply a mathematical notation for saying "any variable between 13 to 41". The reason why they broke it up is so that you know just how to generate said figure.

Really, the magic missile example pretty much clarifies beyond reasonable doubt just what wotc meant by "variable". You can argue until the cows come home about what variable should entail based on your own layman interpretation, and how 9 is a fixed value, but that is obviously not what the designers intended.

So what you do is first roll 4d8+9 to get a figure between 13 to 41, then multiply this "variable" by 1.5."

"The magic missile example given in the empower spell feat entry itself.

It explicitly states to first roll 1d4+1, then multiply this result by 1.5.
I see no other way in which this can be misinterpreted...

If you empowered a spell dealing 1d2+100 damage, it will deal (1d2+100)*1.5 damage."

"I've studied some math too, but not in french, which is lucky, because my PH isn't written in it. A lot of arguing over what a variable is, and what I don't see is the classic algebraic definition of the unknown quantity, usually represented by "x". That's the variable in an equation. Since these spells that are being empowered are always equations, the "x" in determining the final results of the spell should be the variable. In DND, the x is usually a function of a dice roll added to a modifier. 1d4+1. We solve for x by rolling the die and adding the mod. That function is the variable, it's added to 50% of itself (1d4+1)x1.5. Happily, the PH gives us an example demonstrating exactly that.

I don't think we need esoteric definitions for a variable when we have one that applies to equations, which is all this is."

"And once again, I am astounded by how complicated people make things, when the subject is not complicated at all. Empower Spell is a simple feat. However, everyone has this idea in their head that "Magic is complicated", so anything associated with it should be, too.

I have plyed DnD for years before I started coming here. I have used Empower Spell quite a bit before then, and I would roll the appropriate amount, then add half of the result. Then I get on these boards, and it is somehow confusing to people, even though it clearly states in the feat description what it does. I have no degrees in math, nor do I really remember all that much of what I learned in High School about math. Only the basics I need for day to day life. If it is beyond that, I have a calculator. And yet, I make a big effort to not overcomplicate things, as Man is wont to do.

I have found that in most cases, the simple solution to any quandry ends up being the correct one. 9 times out of 10.

Folks, if 1D4+9 is the example numeric variable, then why would 4D8+190 or any other number be any different? 10D4+120+8D6+5+230+6D6+350 is also a numeric variable. 100+20 is not a variable. I could look up the actual definition of variable, but I know what it means. Variable is a range of possibility. There is no range of possiblilty in 100+20, any more than there is any range of possibility in the range of a 5th level casters given spell, unless there is a die roll involved in determining that range.

So quit over complicating things, folks, and you will find this game a heck of a lot more fun."

That's just halfway through page 1.

Second, on a practical reason.  I see no reason why a spell that does 1d4 per caster level should do more damage Empowered than a spell which does 2d2 + 1 damage per 2 caster levels.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

2) these spells did more damage empowered (lvl+2) than maximized (lvl+3)

And I most certainly am NOT ignoring this.

I mean, I even listed specific examples of how I was completely aware of it.  To quote myself from earlier...

"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.""

I agree that, in an ideal world, Maximized Finger of Death should do more damage than Empowered Finger of Death.  But in said ideal world, a Maximized Finger of Death should get more than a 15% damage bonus for 3 spell levels higher!

So here are our options in order of what is best for Community Patch...

Best: leave it alone.  Yes, Maximized FoD doing so little is weird but we're better off not fiddling with it in a patch like this.

Acceptable: make Maximized FoD do a more reasonable amount of damage, like 75% more (arguably should be like 150% more but I'm keeping it simple).

Terrible: nerf Empower to only do a 10% damage increase for 2 spells levels and making it worthless.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

I went and tried to do some online research on this.  I mainly found two things.

One, bonuses without specific types should stack, which makes it sound like regeneration should stack since it's not an actual attribute like AB or AC. And this holds true because regeneration from different items in NWN do stack (unlike actual DnD where +4 str gloves and +3 str belt only gives +4 str).

Two, apparently regeneration in general is actually NOT supposed to stack.  Like actual DnD where +4 str gloves and +3 str belt only gives +4 str.  But because regeneration is allowed to stack from items in NWN it seems it should be allowed to stack from spells (again, because it's not an actual attribute on the character sheet).

However, I don't really care much either way about Regeneration.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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...).

Hang on, are you saying you made Magic Missile (1d4 * 1.5) + 1 rather than (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 when it explicitly says otherwise not only in NWN but also in the player's handbook?

Sixth post on this page:

"Page 93 PHB disagrees with you. It says roll (1d4+1) then empower (multiply by x1.5) this amount.

You have to empower it all according to the designers."

ShaDoOoW wrote...

?? 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.

We may be talking past each other since originally you said:

"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.)"

My point was that, despite not having someone official to confirm it, there are many things where everyone sees a bug (like Firestorm).  Maybe there's an idiot or two who claims otherwise but anyone remotely reasonable sees a bug due to the description and the logic error in the code. 

There are basically three general categories of bugs (assuming they actually affect balance):

1, bugs everyone agrees on (or as close to everyone as possible) such as Firestorm

2, bugs that basically split the community (large group of supporters on both side of whether it's a bug)

3, bugs that only a few people think are a bug and the vast majority don't see as an issue

I'm saying that the CCP should be fixing #1 and leaving #2 and #3 alone.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And a fact that they haven't fixed it till 1.69 doesn't prove anything (saying in advance predicting your next move).

Just so we're clear, I never have nor ever will use that "argument."

ShaDoOoW wrote...

You can still cast 10 heals with an ongoing 10regenerations on you.

How many spells per day do these clerics HAVE?  I've only seen one server that had casters with more than 15 spells per day of a certain level and that was Higher Ground.  I assume we're talking about CASTED Heals and not Heal POTIONS, yes?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

I have.  And it involved chugging Heal potions or casting lots of Heals.

Let me put it this way: presumably you're going to actually have to CAST Heals during the fight, right, even if you stack Regenerate?  If you can consistently get those spells off then you could get more off.

In theory you might be able to save like 5-10% of the boss fight in terms of time by not having to stop and cast Heal as much -- but at the expense of burning through spell slots far more quickly.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But really, im tired of argumenting about something that is clearly a bug....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.

I'd like to suggest, ShaDoOoW, that your view of the spell is colored by your extremely high magic world with hordes of spell slots.  And that on MOST worlds and campaigns, the fact that it could stack was the ONLY reason anyone ever used it instead of prepping another Heal.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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

So...literally the only two spells in all of NWN that didn't get a +50% bonus when Empowered were...Bigby 8 and Bigby 9.  The way they also calculated that in that function would mean Magic Missile (as per the PHB and the feat description) would be Empowered incorrectly if it used that function -- which it doesn't.

Why would only two spells that act differently with your version of Empower use that function -- especially something like Combust which was made AFTER SoU?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

I've seen things like monsters with 20 resist to all damage plus Improved Evasion, crit immunity, and 100% immunity to Cold.  Needed large amounts of physical damage or large amounts of non-Evadable non-cold damage (damage shields weren't viable due to environment, would get hit too hard).  Empowered Finger of Death would still deal 56 damage, though (and your version would deal 36, so would a Horrid Wilting).

I think said monsters were completely terribly designed but (Empowered) Finger of Death and Empowered NEB were my tools.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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'm not even sure what you think is supposed to be correct for Magic Missile now -- but given you just said the "variable, number effect is the 1d4 + 1 part" I'll assume you think Empowered Magic Missile should be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5.


So if Magic Missile is supposed to be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 in your view, why would Bigby 9 be (2d6 * 1.5) + 12?

Shouldn't Bigby 9 be (2d6 + 12) * 1.5 according the same logic for Magic Missile?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 07 février 2014 - 10:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               Personally i don't mind the Community Patch changes, only additional thing i am using is the Empower/Maximize (50%/75%) you made a day or two ago.

Some folk do seem to have a problem with those changes they call balance affecting changes, so i just thought a compatibility version of the community patch might make those folks like the project more '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Some folk do seem to have a problem with those changes they call balance affecting changes, so i just thought a compatibility version of the community patch might make those folks like the project more '>

They wouldn't.

Peoples we are talking about have never used the patch and never will, they just read the changelist and laughed how stupid it is, they are convinced they doesnt need CPP for anything, that their worlds are too advanced to use it and that they are better to fix everything on their own in their modules. I realized I cannot please them so I am no longer trying.

This project is mainly about the idea, if someone dumps the whole idea only because a three changes from thousand... that doesn't seems reasonable to me.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

There are basically three general categories of bugs (assuming they actually affect balance):

1, bugs everyone agrees on (or as close to everyone as possible) such as Firestorm

2, bugs that basically split the community (large group of supporters on both side of whether it's a bug)

3, bugs that only a few people think are a bug and the vast majority don't see as an issue

I'm saying that the CCP should be fixing #1 and leaving #2 and #3 alone.

I accept your point and opinion. But I choosed the different path. Unfortunately, when I started this project and announced it back in 2009(or 10?) nobody gave a sh.. so I choosed possibly the wrong path. Too late now and I believe this path is right anyway. The attitude of those who don't like it (including you MM) supports me in that opinion.


The rest... MM you are totally off. You forgot the whole yesterday debate or you never understood what I said in a first place. I dont even understand what you meant in the most parts of your latest response.

So again to be clear.

What Ive done was to unite calculation of the empower spell feat to the one introduced by the Bioware in expansions, namel SoU and used across spells from OC and HotU later regardless of whether its correct or not. I believe the unification was needed and I havent found any intent in the fact that part spells used it and part not.

Thats covering the question of why I did it the way I did it.

Now, I am aware that  this calculation from SoU is incorrect per the DnD rules. To be honest Ive learned this long time after Ive introduced the empower unitification. When I learned this, Ive checked spells this is conern and looked how it would changed them. Also I tried to implement a new way to script this. In short, I found the new results more suitable than what it should be and I found out its quite a problematic to script it in a nice way without a new function, changing the old function parameters and so on. Plus the ever  lasting balance change argument - this is what Bioware most probably wanted, so why should I force my own version. The empower calculation was wrong before, and its slightly incorrect even now. But all empower issues were resolved and this change would bring some of them back again.

EDIT: However, to be honest, I didn't noticed till you brough this up, that there is Magic Missile mentioned in the Empower spel lfeat description and that description is empowering the +1 direct bonus together. Quite a good reason to perform the correction based on the DnD then, still to do it, I need more votes/opinions on this regard.

Thats covering the question why I intentionally kept the empower incorrectly ignorint the direct bonus to the dice.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 07 février 2014 - 11:01 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               If you guys are trying to align Empower with the PnP rules then you really need to check the FAQs - if you can still find them online. I've been playing DnD since 1980 - stopping with 3.0/3.5, so I have a pretty good collection of material to work from.

Empower spell increases all variable numeric effects by one-half.

For example, the Druid spell Produce Flame deals 1d6 damage +1 additional point of damage per caster level (maximum +5 damage). If cast from a 5th level Druid and Empowered would you multiply just the 1d6 or the 1d6 + the bonus damage?

The Answer:

It's the damage that varies, so its the damage that gets multiplied, ALL of it. So, in the example above the damage would be (1d6 + 5) * 1.5.

The key words here are "variable numeric effects" - whenever you are using a multiplier calculation in DnD you need to:

1. ID the variable you are multiplying.
2. Determine what modifiers are applied before the multiplier (eg. under normal circumstances).
3. Apply those modifiers.
4. Apply the multiplier.

And just to compare with Maximize Spell - lets assume the example above and that a 6 was rolled on the die...

Empowered = (6 + 5) * 1.5 = 16.5
Maximized = 1d6 + 5 = 6 + 5 = 11

In this case Empower Spell is the way to go. However in the case of a level 5 Fireball with a 3 rolled on each die...

Empowered = (3+3+3+3+3) *1.5 = 22.5
Maximized = 5d6 = (6+6+6+6+6) = 30

In this case Maximize Spell works out better. However, were a 6 rolled for each die in that example then the Empowered version would deal 45 damage. Thus, as you can see Empower Spell is only better than Maximize when the die rolls beat the average, making it about a 50/50 split as to which is better in any given situation. Too bad we couldn't combine metamagic - I love Maximized Empowered spells...
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 07 février 2014 - 12:01 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Oh, and while you are at it, could you see if you can somehow add in 10th, 11th, etc spell slots, so that one can use Metamagic on high level spells?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

WebShaman wrote...

Oh, and while you are at it, could you see if you can somehow add in 10th, 11th, etc spell slots, so that one can use Metamagic on high level spells?

Funny...although I wan't actually stating a request when I said "too bad we couldn't combine metamagic..." - more just musing. 
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 07 février 2014 - 01:48 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

WebShaman wrote...

Oh, and while you are at it, could you see if you can somehow add in 10th, 11th, etc spell slots, so that one can use Metamagic on high level spells?

Correct, finger of death cannot be maximized normally, except for that item usage bug.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

Funny...although I wan't actually stating a request when I said "too bad we couldn't combine metamagic..." - more just musing.

Well, if one is talking about combining Metamagic, we are going to need to talk about having higher than 9th level spellslots, right? *nudge, nudge*

Empowered, Quickened, Still [insert spell here] is going to be...yeah.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But yes, I am aware that there is a relatively large group of mostly builders that you do represent MM. Yours point is that every balance change is an evil and therefore you wont ever use CPP nor support it. Considering this opinion comes from peoples who very often brings their own balance changes into game, I consider this point of view to be completely hypocritical.

No, we don't think every balance change is evil.  We think every balance change *in something that is trying to be a general patch* is "evil."

Let me give you an easy example.  The fact that Heal always heals you to full health and Harm takes you down to 1-4 HP is incredibly stupid.  You know this.  I know this.  95%+ of people will agree to it.  It's ridiculous that a 10000 HP Dragon with immunity to death magic would take 9996-9999 damage with no save from a Harm.
So what if you changed Heal/Harm to be like the 3.5 rules?  10 HP per level, cap of 15.  I doubt many people would agree that it is a perfect solution but I suspect pretty much everyone would agree it's a lot better than the default.  So what's the problem?

Well, in Siege of the Heavens the player is expected to have unlimited healing.  And I initially did this by making a potion with unlimited Heal uses per day.  So a player comes into Siege, grabs the potion...and gets completely destroyed by the first boss because his Heal is only doing 110 HP instead of healing him to full (likely 300+ HP).
He has an awful time and quits my module in disgust and proclaims how it's incredibly stupid and unbeatable.  All because you made an innocent change to Heal/Harm that just about everyone would support and it broke a system my module was using.

Or, alternatively, imagine I designed the module for the 110 HP potions for your patch and then someone plays without the patch and heals to full and proclaims it laughably easy.

That's the danger of making even extremely agreed upon and reasonable balance changes in a general patch (as opposed to specific modules making those changes).

Now, in this case, I wound up making the potion a Unique Power so Undead Shifters could use it so fortunately it wouldn't be an issue now...but in some earlier versions of the module it would have completely broken the module.

When we make balance changes, we know exactly what they are and can account for them.  We know they won't mess something up (like your example with Greater Restoration and an Evocation school wizard who can't complete the quest) on accident.

If you made a hak with a ton of balance changes to spells, feats, and classes and they were good changes there's a reasonable chance that some builders would want to incorporate it (like the Enhanced Magic System in Aielund) -- but those same builders will yell in outrage if they were included in the CCP for the reasons above.

Yes you are absolutely right, and thats why I for example didn't changed the Heal/Harm spells, neither True seeing or Implosion.

When making changes I am trying to account all these possibilities you are talking about and if I see any possible issue like this I abadon it. I am not claiming I always take all the possibilities into consideration and that I have perfect senses for this. But I believe that there is no change in CPP that would caused such troubles (now except the GR which I didnt know about the scroll issue and I am reconsidering this - actually already decidedto pull this off).

Bring me some proof that the balance change I've done in Monstrous regeneration, Bombardment, the new features I added into Implosion (immunity), Sunbeam/Sunburst (plant/oozes), Hellball (possibility to exclude caster if cast right) and something else I forget now or dont consider as a balance change at all breaks something.

I am not fixed on a single gaming environment I do enjoy and play (very very high magic) - afterall if I were why would I "nerfed" so many spells? On the contrary you seems to be, for example the regeneration stacking is extremely overpowered in a low-magic harsh type of world (where usually Heal is nerfed) - way more than in a high magic environment where a lvl 30+cleric has around 40 slots for healing and 10 for extended regeneration.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 07 février 2014 - 09:47 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               Sorry to drop basic questions like these amongst all your philosophical debate, but i am really confused:

Can someone please explain, in very simple english, how does Attack Bonus help counter enemy AC?

Does Attack Bonus help counter enemy damage resistance/reduction/immunity?

Does Damage Bonus help counter enemy AC, or their damage resistance/reduction/immunity?

If i want to bash a very strong chest, do i need more Attack or more Damage?

Thank you for helping me out '>


addition:
ShadoOW, would you (or anyone else) ever consider continuing the work of Tony K's AI project?
I am really loving his improved AI, and i was hoping someone would consider continuing the AI improvements - since Tony K seems to no longer be active?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 07 février 2014 - 08:33 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               Damnit, my copy/paste stripped all of my links in my latest post.  And trying to copy/paste without using notepad has the indentations all messed up.  Fixing indentations atm, will reply more later, but my previous post should make more sense.

And ShaDoOoW, are you saying I'm "totally off" when I give a specific example of where I was using Empowered Finger of Death to do damage?  How can I be "totally off" when I'm factually relaying an event that happened?

Edit: formatting is fixed, links should be be obvious.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 07 février 2014 - 10:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               In a nutshell :

Attack Bonus helps counter enemy AC (Armor Class).  The higher the Attack Bonus (up until the limit), the better the chance to land a blow against a particular AC.

If a blow lands (we call this a hit), THEN we need to determine what, exactly, that hit does.

In most cases, we are talking about damage (not always, however).

Then Damage Bonus kicks in here.  It counters (if you will) their damage resistance/reduction/immunity accordingly.  The higher the damage bonus, the more damage can be dealt to the target that has been hit.

So, in the case of your very strong chest.

It is stationary, and cannot move.  Thus, it is going to have a poor AC (it is going to be easy to hit it).  So no, you do not need more attack in order to bash it.  Because it does not fight back, and thus time will probably not be an issue, any attack will eventually succeed in hitting it.

However, that strong chest is going to have damage resistence - DR, for short.  Thus, the more Damage one can do in one hit, the better the chances are in bashing it.  For if your damage cannot overcome said DR, then it does not matter how often it gets hit - it will never "take" damage.  

That is, the chest will resist said damage and remain closed.  One will have to overcome the DR per hit to reduce the total hit points (structural points) of the chest before it will be bashed open.

Attack bonus -> is for hitting the target.
Damage bonus -> is for damaging the target.

If you do not hit, you do not damage.

As for Tony K's AI project : there are a number of alternative AI's for NWN available, not just tony K's.  Tony K's is really the only AI for Players, however, as Tony put it in an easy-to-use package (Override) and it became the defacto Player's Aid.

But there are also other AIs, some of them better than Tony K's.  They are mainly for builders, however, as they are quite complicated.

AFAIK, no-one in the Community really has the time to make a better system than Tony K's for Player use.  Such a thing is really time intensive from what I understand.