13 réponses à ce sujet

[SoreTDC]

I was a hardcore dnd geek back in the day during 2nd edition but try as I might to rack my brain I can't remember something.

How do you know what enchantment level a mobs melee attacks are at?  I really want to use this spell (prot from n weapons) yet I can't find any info on the rule to determine whether a monsters claws/etc are enchanted.  I even dug out my old 2E Monstrous Manual and it doesn't talk about this at all.

I suppose I could dig into the game files but I'd rather know the rule so I can just figure it out on the fly.

[Sparky The Barbarian]

Some monsters will do damage regardless, such as the Fire Giants in TOB. Personally I've always found PNW to be useless in SOA. Most the the tougher opponents have magical weapons anyway, and by the time you can cast the spell, most grunts can't hit your AC anyway. Spell Immunity is a much better fifth level spell IMHO.

[SoreTDC]

Sparky The Barbarian wrote...

Some monsters will do damage regardless, such as the Fire Giants in TOB. Personally I've always found PNW to be useless in SOA. Most the the tougher opponents have magical weapons anyway, and by the time you can cast the spell, most grunts can't hit your AC anyway. Spell Immunity is a much better fifth level spell IMHO.

It's definitely not useless.  There are a few pretty powerful mobs out there that don't hit magically.   The problem is knowing which ones are which.    As for other level five spells I have two mages with a lot of +spell items.  I have something like 9 level 5 spots even in chapter 2.

Either way I just want to know how you figure out which is which.  There's some rule I just don't remember what it was.  I want to think it's something like "mobs that require +1 weapons hit as if they have +1 weapons" but I don't remember at all.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Protection from Normal Weapons is not worth memorizing - especially because it blocks Protection from Magical Weapons.

Since your (smart) mage is running Stoneskin and Mirror Images anyway, normal weapons are not dangerous. Magical weapons are. Level drain, stun, attribute drain... there are a lot of effects that you really don't want.

Spell Immunity (and Spell Shield) are the important level 5 protection spells.

[SoreTDC]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Protection from Normal Weapons is not worth memorizing

I don't really see what this has to do with anything. I really just want to know the rule regarding this. I've no delusions that the spell is actually worth keeping memorized permanently.

[igneous.sponge]

There is no 'rule' whether any given enemy will strike non-magically: it's never made explicit, in-game.

The best you can do, really, is make a reasonable extrapolation based on the nature of whom or what you're fighting. For example, PfNW would work well against backstabbing Shadow Thieves (although some strike with +1 shortswords, IIRC), but you'd want PfMW for Vampires, Dragons, or pretty much anything even remotely non-mundane.

The only way to be positive, though, would be to test. Or go digging through creature files, as you said.

[SoreTDC]

igneous.sponge wrote...

There is no 'rule' whether any given enemy will strike non-magically: it's never made explicit, in-game.

No there is a rule (although it has exceptions as all rules do).  I remember specifically from when I played 2E.  There are actually some really tough monsters that don't hit magically.  The question of monster vs monster comes up quite often in PnP after all. 

Problem is nobody discusses this stuff much anymore.  People only really talk about 3rd edition+ these days and the rules for magical weapons changed completely.

[polytope]

SoreTDC wrote...

It's definitely not useless.  There are a few pretty powerful mobs out there that don't hit magically.   The problem is knowing which ones are which.

Greater mummies hit as if their attacks are normal weapons, and considering they CAN disease you through stoneskin, is worthwhile using against them.

Most mist creatures hit as normal weapons (weird, considering mists are magical creatures) - some mists like vampiric wraiths also inflict their damage through stoneskin.

However scrolls of ProNW are relatively plentiful, whereas these creatures are rare, better to keep a scroll handy rather than actually memorize it.

...

Edit, also there is no rule in game tying enchantment level of a critter's attack to the weapons it's vulnerable to... maybe in AD&D but not in bgii. The mist creatures and mummies will need +3/+2 weapons to hit inspite of their nonmagical attack.

Modifié par polytope, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:05 .

[SoreTDC]

Yea I didn't really think that was the rule. I'm not even sure as it's rule of thumb per-se but I do remember there being something that you could at least look it up via. I can look at the creature files but that's somewhat annoying and I'm actually a bit curious if they are correct in the first place.

[silenceall]

While BG/BG2 may be based on 2nd edition AD&D, the examples of divergence from 2e are too numerous to count.  Therefore, even if there was a rule in 2e, there isn't one in BG/BG2.  As others have said, in the BG/BG2 world looking up the files and/or playtesting and memorization are the only ways to know what particular creatures' attacks count as.  Ditto with what enchantment level is required to hit particular creatures.

SoreTDC wrote...
I can look at the creature files but that's somewhat annoying and I'm actually a bit curious if they are correct in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "correct in the first place", but if you mean correct as it relates to BG/BG2, then yes the files should be correct for your installation.  If you mean correct in comparison to 2e, then I'm sure some are and some are not.

[Flamedance]

Bioware was wildly inconsistent with applying AD&D rules to the Baldur's Gate series. Hence you have neutral aligned paladins running around in SoA. They even gave illegal classes/stats to their npc's (Kagain, Coran, Minsc, Aerie). Don't expect any consistent applying of rules anywhere in the BG series.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Since oftentimes there are multiple versions of a singular creature (such as Bodhi) or creatures of the same name and appearance, looking things up may lead to misleading results though.

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 03 novembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[amanasleep]

PfNW is generally good while soloing a few early battles, and then for Sarevok's Wraith and a couple of other random late game fights, and almost nothing in the mid game. Its duration is often long enough for one casting to explore an entire area, and can save you from wasting stoneskins on Orc crits or against decent early fighters with normal weapons. It casts fast, so memorizing it can be decent when traveling, since a 10 Orog spawn can be annoying. The main problem is that it often does not protect from early archers, when every kobold in the game has fire arrows.



It's nice to scroll it out for Slavers, Pirates, and other Athkatla scripted and random encounters, and especially when entering Firkraag's dungeon (but watch out for vampires and werewolves!). It's decent when in the Druid grove or D'arnise keep.



Once you get into Chapter 3 it's time to let it gather dust in the 'ol scroll case.

[SoreTDC]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "correct in the first place", but if you mean correct as it relates to BG/BG2, then yes the files should be correct for your installation.  If you mean correct in comparison to 2e, then I'm sure some are and some are not.

I meant in regards to 2E or 3E rules.  It seems they didn't use either to decide based on what I was looking at in the creature files.  Whatever the rule was I'm pretty sure Troll's are not supposed to hit magically for instance.  Neither are Beholder/kin supposed to have +3 bites.

That explains why the spell is so useless.  I'm guessing they were worried about certain summons becoming overpowered.