235 replies to this topic

[T.G.Maestro]

"Devas no longer get Globe of Blades in Refinemets."

why? i hope you write all changes in the readme

Because there is no reason why they should get it. All Devas, Planetars and even Solars get powers and spells in Refinements that should be given to them according to the sourcebooks. Just as we were doing it with Elemental Princes, we try to bring these celestials as close to their PnP counterparts as possible.

I guess when I think of balrogs and pit fiends I think of Fellowship of the Ring. I think that is where the classic demon image came from for AD&D to some extent

Take a look at NWN or ToEE Balors - they are the exact copy of the Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring. They have fire aura, burning wings, and great fiery scimitars... it IS a shame that I cannot get those animations into BG2 .

[Littiz]

Three words: slow down, and caution...

[Rathwellin the Bard]

You do realize that you used four words......


B)

[Caedwyr]

I've been thinking the TD system over, and I have two alternatives to offer.

1. Mage class characters can select a HLA ability called True Dweomers, which gives the player an innate ability "True Dweomer". When this ability is activated, they are offered a further list of abilities to cast. There would be several basic TDs in this pool. Once players had learned TD, they would be able to choose from a new group of HLAs on level up, and learn several other spells which would be added to the TD innate ability. TD would be able to be learned up to 4 times.

Additionally, the specialist mages would be offered several TDs they could learn (maybe give them an additional base choice as well) that cannot be learned by other specialists and normal wizards.

While this system could be very nice, it may be extremely nasty to code.

2. Have an ability called True Dweomer as above, but all of the spells under this tab are available after the first choice. As above, specialist mages would have some different spells in thier version of True Dweomer. This ability would be learnable 4 times (so can use it 4 times per day).

I'd be happy to see the first option, but if that one is too difficult and everyone wants some form of a true dweomer system, then I'd be ok with the second choice.


Do the planetars and devas still get Blade Barrier?

"In PnP, a pit fiend used to be able to gate in more pit fiends."

this is not true. he can gate demons who are less powerful then himself.

Actually a pit fiend can gate in two lesser baatezu or one greater baatezu (a pit fiend is a greater baatezu) per round with 100% chance of success.

[T.G.Maestro]

While the first version is indeed nice Caedwyr, it is overly difficult to code. Given the amount of work needed on all of these new spells and abilities (not to mention icons and 2DA ordering!), I'm not usre it is worth it to get into such difficult solutions - if it is implementable at all.
The second version is much more believeable. I'd like to make that "4 times" harder to get however - for example: 17 INT - learnable 1 times, 18 INT - 2 times, 19 INT - 3 times, 20+ INT - 4 times.

Do the planetars and devas still get Blade Barrier?

Fallen Devas, both Planetars and Solars still get Blade Barrier, but not Globe of Blades.

[Jinnai]

Remember, the most hated opponent of these creatures are their actual summoner.

Well there are always exceptions...but even so they'd still be second on the list.

Still i think another idea would be to simply have a 5-10% chance of the pentagram you mentioned not forming...

[Baltrek]

Actually a pit fiend can gate in two lesser baatezu or one greater baatezu (a pit fiend is a greater baatezu) per round with 100% chance of success.

This statement is almost word for word out of the Monstrous Compendium, if I remember correctly. My point was that fighting a pit fiend is an exercise in futility, and a guarantee of certain death due solely to this ability. Allowing one to get loose from hell is a very, very bad thing, and opens a flood gate sized conduit for him to gate in his buddies to wreak havoc and mayhem. In fact, the way Demigorgon (what a tough battle) was imprisoned should represent the way all demons must be imprisoned. Summoning one should be a hair raising experience indeed. And one undertaken taken with the utmost protection, care, and caution. But once it is summoned, stand by for carnage will ensue.

Do I think a greater demon should be able to take on the toughest of enemies in the game? Absolutely. But should it be a hair raising experience? Absolutely. I think there are very few SoA or ToB enemies that should be able to stand up to one of these guys. Maybe Firkraag, , the silver dragon, Jon (of course), Kangaxx, all of the Baalspawn (except the first one in the grove of ancients), any demi-lich, etc...

[Baltrek]

Ahh yes, I think TGM's int requirements are most beleivable, in fact, I would even push for 18 Int for just one TD. What is the max int you can get with the good path? I know you can have 19 from BG (the tome), 20 after Lum's, but I can't think of anything else off hand. Oh, maybe 21 if you are a gnome, but I have never even generated a gnome character, so I don't remember if they get the +1 bonus. Who plays a gnome anyway? Not I...

I just don't picture Imoen having enough discipline or control of magic for a TD. Much less Nalia or Aerie. Now Edwin? I could definitely picture him casting TD's.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

While the first version is indeed nice Caedwyr, it is overly difficult to code. Given the amount of work needed on all of these new spells and abilities (not to mention icons and 2DA ordering!), I'm not usre it is worth it to get into such difficult solutions - if it is implementable at all.
The second version is much more believeable. I'd like to make that "4 times" harder to get however - for example: 17 INT - learnable 1 times, 18 INT - 2 times, 19 INT - 3 times, 20+ INT - 4 times.

What about palayers who have parties with Aerie or Jan as their primary mages? Even Imoen & Nallia will be hampered by this. Only Edwin seems to be ready for this sort of Int screening.

Besides how do you legally get 20+ Int for your PC in a ToB only game?

[Scar]

The second version is much more believeable. I'd like to make that "4 times" harder to get however - for example: 17 INT - learnable 1 times, 18 INT - 2 times, 19 INT - 3 times, 20+ INT - 4 times.

I like it, it's simple enough to actually get implemented... Yet, to get a little closer to Caedwyr's suggestion #1: would it be possible widen the spell selection when advancing in levels? Example: Edwin can cast one TD/day, chosen from a list of two spells. He advances a level and selects the HLA "True Dweomer lvl. 2". TD lvl. 1 is completely erased from his memory and replaced with two TD lvl. 2, pointing to a list of three spells. Feasible?

Will we see school specific TD tables? Since you went through all the trouble of making school specific HLAs, it would be a shame to lose all that!

Finally, even tho I'm repeating myself, a Priest's quest level spells are True Dweomers, too, and should be handled by the same mechanism.

[Baltrek]

I think the intent of TD's would be to access any of them you desired, once you are able to cast them. How often you would be able to is the issue.

[T.G.Maestro]

Summoning one should be a hair raising experience indeed. And one undertaken taken with the utmost protection, care, and caution. But once it is summoned, stand by for carnage will ensue.

Do I think a greater demon should be able to take on the toughest of enemies in the game? Absolutely. But should it be a hair raising experience? Absolutely.

My words. Exactly.

What about palayers who have parties with Aerie or Jan as their primary mages? Even Imoen & Nallia will be hampered by this. Only Edwin seems to be ready for this sort of Int screening

Something to think on, though those NPCs with lower INT scores won't get as many TDs as Edwin for example. This is a pure fact.

would it be possible widen the spell selection when advancing in levels? Example: Edwin can cast one TD/day, chosen from a list of two spells. He advances a level and selects the HLA "True Dweomer lvl. 2". TD lvl. 1 is completely erased from his memory and replaced with two TD lvl. 2, pointing to a list of three spells. Feasible?

No. At least I don't know how, and WITHOU some crazy amount of scripting. But if it can be done somehow, count me in.

Will we see school specific TD tables?

There will be school specific TD tables, but no specific TDs. The difference between the various tables will be in the forbidden spells. Less work.

Priest's quest level spells are True Dweomers, too, and should be handled by the same mechanism.

Yes, something like that. But I'm not sure we will use exactly the same method.

[Caedwyr]

Requiring 20 int to be able to cast 4 TDs, would definately be something of a nerf to the mage class. If you look carefully in the BGII manual, according to the int table, Aerie shouldn't even be able to cast level 9 spells because of her int. I'd say ignore all of the int issues, and let any mage learn the TD ability up to 4 times. It may not be completely true to the source books, but I think for playability it's the better option.

[T.G.Maestro]

I don't agree here Caedwyr. These spells will be powerful. Some of them MUCH more powerful than the original 9th level spells and 10th level HLAs. Running around with 4 of them is a massive bonus - if we allow all mages to have all 4 picks of this HLA, than it must have heavy prerequisites to keep up balance.
Here are a few ideas:
- We will give mages a few new innate HLAs or passives, and TD would only be selectable if one would pick all of them first. Something like the Smite ability for fighters or our new Aura Cleansing for sorcerers is an even better example.
- There would be a restriction on the use of these TDs. For example one couldn't cast the same TD in 8-12 hours. This would keep people from sending out 4 Telling Blow's in a row, or summoning several Demon Lords.
- We could apply a moderate Fatigue effect after each TD. This type of effect would be cumulative after any additional TDs - 4 castings/day would result in a heavily exhausted mage.

[Schatten]

Actually a pit fiend can gate in two lesser baatezu or one greater baatezu (a pit fiend is a greater baatezu) per round with 100% chance of success.

This statement is almost word for word out of the Monstrous Compendium, if I remember correctly. My point was that fighting a pit fiend is an exercise in futility, and a guarantee of certain death due solely to this ability. Allowing one to get loose from hell is a very, very bad thing, and opens a flood gate sized conduit for him to gate in his buddies to wreak havoc and mayhem. In fact, the way Demigorgon (what a tough battle) was imprisoned should represent the way all demons must be imprisoned. Summoning one should be a hair raising experience indeed. And one undertaken taken with the utmost protection, care, and caution. But once it is summoned, stand by for carnage will ensue.

Do I think a greater demon should be able to take on the toughest of enemies in the game? Absolutely. But should it be a hair raising experience? Absolutely. I think there are very few SoA or ToB enemies that should be able to stand up to one of these guys. Maybe Firkraag, , the silver dragon, Jon (of course), Kangaxx, all of the Baalspawn (except the first one in the grove of ancients), any demi-lich, etc...

okay, okay, i have read it in the book as well. a pit fiend can gate others. but you cannot implement that. you know a demilich is able to summon hundreds of liches and/or has other insanely powerfull abilities. he can kill any npc (pc would be lame ) with one thought. and every lich has a dozen of powerfull guards. but to put it in would be lame and boring.
and your second paragraph can as well describe a lich and demilich. (okay, a lich perhaps, demilich definetly)

@tgm: if you improve demons dont forget us necrophil players. any demilich can beat a demon (dont scream now not true yadda yadda, pals, you knwo what i mean).

[Andyr]

Wasn't there some HLA giving Mages a +1 INT bonus anyway? That'd fix up Imoen, Nalia and maybe Jan and Aerie (I can't remember).

[Baltrek]

I don't think you would lose much playability with having characters like Imoen, Nalia, and Aerie having only one (or none) TD's. First of all, it does not even fit their charcters, they are all airheads. There would be other HLA's they may use, and to great effect I may add. TD's directly result both from a characters experience with magic, and more importantly, their intelligence. Yes, I would rather have a character cast a single insanely powerful TD once a day, then have them with 4 TD's that may be cast by a middling mage (like Aerie). Besides, Aerie will have HLA's before she even gets 9th level spells. Would you say that a character would be able to use TD's before they can even cast 8th or 9th level spells?????

I would not even give a single TD to a character with lower than 18 Int. If you want an NPC besides Edwin to cast them, use the Lum's quest and give them 18 Intelligence. That is completely feasable, and could be done about the time they should be elegible for TD's. Great timing if you ask me. And Aerie should NEVER get TD's. Nor do I beleive any multiclass should. They do not have the focus or devotion to magic like a pure mage or specialist. I could never beleive a character like Aerie (who would max in level just after getting 9th level spells) summoning demon lords, sorry. That is why they can memorize extra 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells. And a character like a fighter/mage, who would have spent a good chunk of her time in martial pursuits, would she be able to do it either?

I would incorporate both a fatigue and a spell delay for TD's, TGM, and still make 18 Int the requirement for just a single TD every day. TD's are powers solely for the most gifted and competent devoted mages, and the results should be accordingly impressive.

[T.G.Maestro]

Hmm, what to say Baltrek, you make it damn easy for me to answer after your posts - again, I agree entirely. We seem to think the same way about TDs.

[Caedwyr]

My problem with setting extremely high stat requirements for HLA, is that it forces the player to powergame, and base their NPC choices on who has the best arrangement of stats.

Also, just because a certain character can have a frivolous, or goofy side to their personality, it doesn't mean they are an airhead incapable of using powerful magics.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

My problem with setting extremely high stat requirements for HLA, is that it forces the player to powergame, and base their NPC choices on who has the best arrangement of stats.

Also, just because a certain character can have a frivolous, or goofy side to their personality, it doesn't mean they are an airhead incapable of using powerful magics.

Amen!

Also one could make an argument that Aerie should have a *better* understanding of magic than Edwin, Imoen, or Nallia since Aerie understands the principles behind *two* forms of magic.

Aerie *is* a powerful mage by the end of ToB.