149 replies to this topic

[T.G.Maestro]

Time stop, alacrity, lower resist x (how many you want), malaison, 4 horrid wiltings, and you just won a battle

You should forget that Improved Alacrity - Sorcerers no longer get it . So it would look:
Time Stop
Lower Resist (you may want more, but have time for only one )
Greater Malison
ONE Horrid Wilting
...
And the battle goes on . Sorry, time for newer tactics...

[Schatten]

wtf.... I should pay more attention to what you are doing. dare you remove my alicrity.

my vote is option 6.

[Caedwyr]

I like the third option:

3rd option: immunity to "drain wizard spells

Since this is a sorcerer only skill, and I don't think you fight all that many sorcerers or enchanters in ToB, I don't see how either of these classes would be affected by each other from a balance perspective. What this would do, is prevent Hakeshars and their ilk from draining the sorcerer's spells away. If you want the Energy Storm ability to still drain all the spells, then could you have that ability remove/supress the immunity for the duration of energy storm, and then reactivate the immunity afterwords?



As for increasing the damage progression range, if possible, an option to maximize the damage/duration for all the sorcerers spell would be a better choice in my opinion. That way you don't have an enormous escalation in power, but still have a noticeable difference in the effect. If you are looking at the third edition sorcerer, this feat is a suggested ability for the HL sorcerer.

About the no more improved alacrity. It requires a bit more planning ahead, and makes taking spell sequencers more useful (stick 3 lower resists, or 2 lower resists and a greater malison in a sequencer)

[T.G.Maestro]

dare you remove my alicrity

I dare.

Since this is a sorcerer only skill, and I don't think you fight all that many sorcerers or enchanters in ToB, I don't see how either of these classes would be affected by each other from a balance perspective. What this would do, is prevent Hakeshars and their ilk from draining the sorcerer's spells away. If you want the Energy Storm ability to still drain all the spells, then could you have that ability remove/supress the immunity for the duration of energy storm, and then reactivate the immunity afterwords?

Maybe. If I can inplement it, then the "immunity to Drain Wizard Spells" effect is ok for Inner Focus.

As for increasing the damage progression range, if possible

Its not possible. At least not in BG2. Again, if we would talk about IWD2, the story would be much easier, since that game has this as a hardcoded effect too. In BG2 the best we could do is to manually script the HLA to alter every single spells damage cap by modifying them one by one. Too much work for one plain effect IMO.

[Baltrek]

No more alacrity for sorcs is a nice move. Definitely make wiser use of triggers and sequencers. This is a good thing.

Now for the dumb question. I am playing a sorc for the first time now, and am just now in act 3. When they get a spell drained, is it from the number they can cast per day, or their spellbook? If it is from the spellbook, that would be a bit horrifying!

[T.G.Maestro]

No more alacrity for sorcs is a nice move. Definitely make wiser use of triggers and sequencers. This is a good thing.

Glad to hear someone who sees the logic in it!

When they get a spell drained, is it from the number they can cast per day, or their spellbook?

From the number of spells they can cast of course .

[Baltrek]

Just updated my avatar, nice, huh? Someday I'll zip all my photo's and make them available, I have some very nice ones. Not too many female fighters without a chain mail bikini, this one has full plate.

[Caedwyr]

The strange thing is, there are actually more good female portraits out there (non chainmail bikini or less) than there are good male portraits. My consideration for a good portrait is how well it compares to the prepackaged portraits, and would that person actually wear that set of clothing if they were going adventuring (and not to the local strip club, etc.). It seems that most of the male pictures are the wrong format, or wearing a loincloth.

[Jinnai]

You missed the key point of my post:

Ambidexity is a born ability. Ask any physician. You cannot learn true ambidexity as what the PHB and BG series describes!

That said, you can learn to use two weapons with the same hand with ease. I'm not saying the inital benifit of giving rangers better use at dual wielding isn't unfair or without merit, but giving them imporved useage and above and beyond what a fighter could ever hope to achieve is. A same fighter who decided to train with 2 swords, lets say broad swords, (because both are usuable by the same class and both are considered weapons of size category to aquire the penalties mentioned). With practice and training if a fighter had the ability could do just as well as the best ranger.

If you want, have ambidecity a chosen ability that must be picked first for fighters before they get IA, but they have the same potential, if not moreso because they, unlike their ranger counterpart, don't haveto spend their time memorizing spells, learning about nature, etc. Here a fighter should ALWAYS outclass a ranger. Fighting is what a fighter does and a dual wielding fighter and vs a dual wielding ranger using only their swords and all other things being equal should always win over the ranger, except maybe if they're really low level because the ranger's special training he had gotten, but a fighter, if you devote him to dual wielding should ALWAYS be able to suprass the best ranger in all pure fighting techniques and potential in every manner. The ranger has skills that help augment this, that is why he's a ranger and not a fighter.

Still on that term they are warriors and along with monks and barbarians should be able to get 3 stars in a weapon prof.

Also as to thieves dual weilding, that was mostly with daggers or short swords, although the penalty doesn't (or shouldn't) apply if the offhand weapon is either reguardless of the size of the other (although i'd haveto say trying to do so with a claymore or no-dachi should give them penalties the same, but as they can't be done in BG2, it doesn't matter).

[T.G.Maestro]

a fighter should ALWAYS outclass a ranger

How do you explain the fact that rangers start much more experienced in Dual-Wielding style than fighters? While fighters can reach that level with proper training, rangers have it naturally. Fighters are not born with that talent while rangers are. Thats the main point - with heavy excercise, any fighter classed character can get to a point where they handle two weapons with ease, but rangers already have this skill, which means they can concentrate on a more specialized training - thats what IA was meant to show.

[Schatten]

"Ambidexity is a born ability. Ask any physician. You cannot learn true ambidexity as what the PHB and BG series describes!"

sure? i know in the past left hander in school must have used their right hand. so later they can use both hands nearly equally.

[rreinier]

sure? i know in the past left hander in school must have used their right hand. so later they can use both hands nearly equally.

But they won't be ambidextrous. Rather, they'll be less capable with both hands than other people would be with their right. Ambidexterity, just like left- and righthandedness, is a trait with which one is born, or not.

About the precision skill: It's true that one cannot remain focused forever, but would it be a good idea to have characters with certain ability scores able to keep up the concentration longer? Intelligence would be best, since it's a trait not often used by rangers, and because we're talking about mental concentration here.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

On the whole Ambidexterity thing ? Rangers have been associated with dual wielding since the early days of AD&D. It?s been one of the things that set them apart from normal fighters forever. It was only with the publication of the 2nd ed Complete Fighters Handbook that the mechanism for normal fighters learning to dual wield as a skill was added.

Logically by ?real world? criteria should ?ambidexterity? be something all rangers should have? Maybe not but given the history of AD&D & the current version it is a very fitting HLA IMO.

In BG I *want* my Blades, Swashbucklers, and Rangers dual wielding better than the vanilla fighters.

[T.G.Maestro]

Logically by ?real world? criteria should ?ambidexterity? be something all rangers should have? Maybe not but given the history of AD&D & the current version it is a very fitting HLA IMO.

In BG I *want* my Blades, Swashbucklers, and Rangers dual wielding better than the vanilla fighters.

My words exactly.

[Baltrek]

Exactly what I said earlier, Rangers have always been associated with dual-wielding.

Shoudl fighters get to the same level? Sure. Remember, though, that it will take the fighter 6 levels (2 proficiencies) of devotion to catch up with the ranger. The fighter class is "vanilla" enough to allow players to create a warrior in their image. It just takes them longer than a ranger to reach the same level of proficiency.

My biggest comlaint is the weapon size permitted for dual wielding. If I remember correctly, rangers were the only ones that could wield 2 weapons of the same size while wearing light armor. In BG, however, anyone that can use bastard swords could dual wield them, which is absolutely ludicrous.

[Jinnai]

Excatly what i mean Domi...let rangers start out with ambidexity. I'm willing to concede that in light of their history (although it no longer applies the same way in 3.5E, but BG2 isn't in 3.5E)

Yes, i agree they should start out less than rangers, because its more of ranger training to dual wield, but a fighter should eventually, if he choses to focus on it, equal and eventually surpass a ranger in dual wielding, but at a high cost to other skills, after all fighters only train to fight and if a fighter trains only to fight with 2 weapons, he will eventually surpass a ranger in dual wielding, but it will take time, effort and sacrafice elsewhere.

As to dual wielding same size weapons, you'r wrong. Rogues aren't allowed, but any warrior can (and i'd classify barbarians and monks as such as i have been), just that without ambidexterity the penalties do apply.

And finally dueal wielding with any armor and any size weapon combination was always an option in 2nd edtion. Rangers just didn't get as big a penalty if both were large. I cannot comment on 1st edition, but we aren't using anything here from 1st edtion.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Yes, i agree they should start out less than rangers, because its more of ranger training to dual wield, but a fighter should eventually, if he choses to focus on it, equal and eventually surpass a ranger in dual wielding, but at a high cost to other skills, after all fighters only train to fight and if a fighter trains only to fight with 2 weapons, he will eventually surpass a ranger in dual wielding, but it will take time, effort and sacrafice elsewhere.

I don't like this idea. Fighters already have their advantages. They don't need more dual wielding. I *like* the idea of Rangers, Swashbucklers, & Blades having *one* area of combat where they outshine fighters. Rangers should start ahead and stay ahead should they choose to do so.

A fighter with *** in dual wielding is plenty effective.

[T.G.Maestro]

All right folks, I think we can close the debate on Improved Ambidexterity, that HLA won't be changed for v1 for sure. What we need to finish and discuss is Inner Focus for Sorcerers. Since the immunity to "drain Wizard Spells" effect seems to be impossible for this class (it would make Energy Storm less interesting, and I wasn't able to temporarily remove an Opcode protection until now(see my thread in the Help forums). We have to find something else then. Here is the current state of the ability:

- can be picked once;
- required for Energy Storm and at least 2-3 other innate HLAs;
- +1 to CHA;

What I suggest:
- either add +1 to all saves (a bit lame if you ask me)
- add +3 to save vs. spell (somewhat better, but still not perfect)
- immunity to certain spells
- immunity to low level (1-2) spells. This is my current favorite actually.

Comments?

[Caveman]

What I suggest:
- either add +1 to all saves (a bit lame if you ask me)
- add +3 to save vs. spell (somewhat better, but still not perfect)
- immunity to certain spells
- immunity to low level (1-2) spells. This is my current favorite actually.

I like #4 myself. No more damage from Magic Missle, Melf's A.A., etc. #3 has potential too.
I never played as a Sorcerer before. Once they choose a spell isn't it permanent?
How about the option to 'erase' them? Or would that be going overboard?

[Baltrek]

Not feasable that they should be able to erase spells. Does not jive with how their magic is supposed to work.

My initial thought was immunity to 1-2d level spells was too much. Then I thought about the last time my back line character got dinged by magic missile or acid arrow, could not remember the last time, just does not happen much. Not in my games at least.

Is this just wizard spells? I would hope it does not include preist spells. That would not make sense. The biggest benefit I see from this is the fear type spells, which can be more devastating than any magic missile. I think the lowest one is level 2, but I could be wrong, I'm at work now...

You could always give them say, immune to 1st level mage spells, and like +2 save vs. magic. Sort of a compromise, and IMO, represents a more well rounded understanding and control of magic.