324 réponses à ce sujet

[MagicalMaster]

Other stuff (keep in mind I don't necessarily even DISAGREE with some of the changes but it's not the kind of stuff that should be done in a general patch):

"Battletide - damage decrease type changed to slashing so it affects any physical damage"

-- This is a major change to the spell.  Massive change in many environments.

"Hellball epic spell
- spell won't damage/knockdown caster if cast on self (a balance change in order to improve epic spells in general)"

"Regenerate
- was stacking with itself"

"Spell mantle
- empower metamagic empowered total damage not just dice part
> empower fix resulted in spell levels 9-20 instead of 13-24"

This is an example where part of the whole "metagame" of spell selection is disrupted -- sorcerers could choose Spell Mantle at 7 and Empower it to avoid needing to take Greater Spell Mantle.  And yet players looking up sorcerer builds will see advice to take Spell Mantle but now that's no longer true!  And they'll be misled.

That's stuff I went and found in like 3 minutes of looking and I'm sure I could dig up more if I looked more closely (noticed a section on how apparently dragon breath was changed too!).

If you want to try to fix bugs, fine, more power to you.  But don't throw in balance changes and call it a "community patch" like it's doing stuff everyone agrees on -- it's shifted to your PERSONAL patch.  And if I don't like a specific tileset or model in the CEP I don't need to use it as a builder.  But, unless I missed something, the community patch is mostly all or nothing for users (or it would be a massive pain to try to install it "halfway").  And, again, this is just some further issues I've found in less than five minutes of skimming a few documents.

I mean, I liked the idea of the EMS (Enhanced Magic System) in Aielund -- I definitely disagreed with a few specific things but ultimately it was PRESENTED as an alternative magic system rather than some community standard.  Your patch makes less radical changes in ways but some things like the Empower Spell thing is still pretty big, at least in terms of magic system changes.

And yes, I'm feeling very frustrated right now and I am sorry that I'm venting but this is seriously bothering me.  You're fundamentally changing what is arguably the second most important feat (after Maximize Spell) for spellcasters.  It would be like making Dev Crit have a lower DC by only counting half of the strength modifier or something.

Even if it's possibly a good thing overall it's not the place of a "bug fix" patch to do.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 31 janvier 2014 - 04:44 .

[Bogdanov89]

About the Uncanny Dodge:
"The character retains his dexterity bonus to AC, even if caught flat-footed or attacked by a hidden or invisible creature."
Does this feat also allow dexterity to improve your AC even if you are wearing heavy armor?

Does wearing heavy armor reduce your reflex saving throws?
Does wearing heavy armor lower how much dexterity improves your reflex saving throws?

Can i make a barbarian (with greatsword) who wears heavy armor and overall has very low dexterity?
Are there any bad sides (aside from reflex saves?) if my barbarian uses heavy armor and has only 8 dexterity?

Are mobility and dodge feats negated when wearing heavy armor (like full plate)?

Modifié par Bogdanov89, 31 janvier 2014 - 05:34 .

[Squatting Monk]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Since i am using the Community Patch 1.71 RC3, can you please explain what it has changed about Empower (or Maximize, or the spell system) - but in simple english

MagicalMaster wrote...

Empower has been changed from boosting spells by 50% to sometimes only boosting spells by 10-25% depending on the spell.

This may be the effect, but it's not the change. Saying it like this gives the impression ShadoOow went around changing things willy nilly in order to balance the spells in the manner he thought best. That's not accurate, and it may contribute to people not using the patch for specious reasons.

To answer your quesiton, Bog, Empower Spell is, according to ShadoOow's interpretation of BioWare's intent given the most recent HotU spells, supposed to provide a 50% bonus to the die roll portion of spell effects. So a spell that does 1d6 + caster level damage, when empowered, does (1d6 * 1.5) + caster level damage.

However, as implemented in (most of) NWN's spells, Empower gives a 50% bonus to the final damage amount, not just the die roll portion. So that same spell would, in NWN, do (1d6 + caster level) * 1.5 damage.

This has important implications for the math. In the example above, the damage amounts for would be:

Cast by a fifth-level wizard:
 - unempowered: 1d6 + 5 = 8.5 average damage
 - empowered (NWN): (1d6 + 5) * 1.5 = 12.75 average damage (a 50% increase)
 - empowered (CP):  (1d6 * 1.5) + 5 = 10.25 average damage (a 20% increase)

Cast by a twentieth-level wizard:
 - unempowered: 1d6 + 20 = 23.5 average damage
 - empowered (NWN): (1d6 + 20) * 1.5 = 35.25 average damage (a 50% increase)
 - empowered (CP):  (1d6 * 1.5) + 20 = 25.25 average damage (a 7% increase)

The change greatly nerfs Empower Spell when dealing with spells that have large static bonuses. Spells like Fireball, which have only dice added with level, are no different.

 - unempowered: 5d6 = 17.5 average damage
 - empowered (NWN): 5d6 * 1.5 = 26.25 average damage (a 50% increase)
 - empowered (CP):  5d6 * 1.5 = 26.25 average damage (a 50% increase)

So why the change? Well, Maximize Spell ensures that all dice have the maximum possible roll. Whether this is better than Empower Spell depends on the spell. Using the example spells above:

Cast by a fifth-level wizard:
 - unmaximized: 1d6 + 5 = 8.5 average damage
 - maximized: 6 + 5 = 11 damage (14% less than NWN Empowered, 7% better than CP Empowered)

Cast by a twentieth-level wizard:
 - unmaximized: 1d6 + 20 = 23.5 average damage
 - maximized: 6 + 20 = 26 damage (26% less than NWN Empowered, 3% better than CP Empowered)

Fireball, cast by a fifth-level wizard:
 - unmaximized: 5d6 = 17.5 average damage
 - maximized: 30 = 30 damage (12% better than either type of Empowered)

TL;DR:
In other words, in some cases in the vanilla game Empower Spell can be more powerful than Maximize Spell even though Maximized spells are more expensive to cast. ShadoOow's fix makes it so they aren't, but MM thinks it does so at the expense of making Empower inconsistent and, sometimes, useless. MM would prefer that Maximize Spell be changed to make it actually superior Empower in all cases. Ironically, this sort of balance change is just the sort of thing he complains about being in the CP in the first place.

EDIT: My position is that the rules as written, both in NWN's description of the feat and in the D&D Player's Handbook, explicitly state that the extra modifiers to the die roll should be included in what's multiplied. BioWare's spells that don't conform to this model should be treated as bugs, not a change in direction that should be applied retroactively to all other spells.

Modifié par Squatting Monk, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:32 .

[MagicalMaster]

Squatting Monk wrote...

MM would prefer that Maximize Spell be changed to make it actually superior Empower in all cases. Ironically, this sort of balance change is just the sort of thing he complains about being in the CP in the first place.

Let's be absolutely clear here: I am not advocating changing EITHER of Empower Spell or Maximize Spell in the "CP."  I don't think changes to fundamental game mechanics is something that should be in such a thing.  So please don't present me as arguing that.

However, IF we were going to change something so that Maximize is ALWAYS better than Empower, then it is MAXIMIZE spell that should be changed.  A 50% increase in damage for 2 spell levels is completely reasonable when we look at the way other spells are made to work (10d6 for level 3 spells, 15d6 for level 5 spells, 20d6 for level 7 spells).  Strictly speaking, using that math of 50% for two spell levels, Maximize should increase damage by 84% minimum -- but I'm hedging my bets and only suggesting 70% (since 6/3.5 = 71%).

To repeat myelf: I am not claiming either feat should be changed in the CP.  But if it had to be done for some reason, then making Empower worse instead of fixing Maximize winds up with wildly inconsistent results across various spells and is a terrible "solution."  Maximize should be "fixed" instead in such a case.  Bring Maximize up in the constant damage situations, don't bring Empower down.

Nerfing Empower is basicallythe world of all possible worlds.  It doesn't fix the problems with Maximize and introduces new issues.

Squatting Monk wrote...

EDIT: My position is that the rules as written, both in NWN's description of the feat and in the D&D Player's Handbook, explicitly state that the extra modifiers to the die roll should be included in what's multiplied. BioWare's spells that don't conform to this model should be treated as bugs, not a change in direction that should be applied retroactively to all other spells.

This too.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:10 .

[Squatting Monk]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

About the Uncanny Dodge:
"The character retains his dexterity bonus to AC, even if caught flat-footed or attacked by a hidden or invisible creature."
Does this feat also allow dexterity to improve your AC even if you are wearing heavy armor?

Whether you have that feat or not, your Dex bonus to AC is capped by your armor's maximum dexterity bonus. This feat simply allows you to keep whatever that bonus is, even while flat-footed.

Does wearing heavy armor reduce your reflex saving throws?
Does wearing heavy armor lower how much dexterity improves your reflex saving throws?

No, the armor check penalty applies only to dexterity-based skill checks.

Can i make a barbarian (with greatsword) who wears heavy armor and overall has very low dexterity?

Yes, but you will either need to multiclass or take the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat in order to use heavy armor.

Are there any bad sides (aside from reflex saves?) if my barbarian uses heavy armor and has only 8 dexterity?

Yes. A negative dexterity modifier gives a penalty to AC. Given full plate armor, a barbarian who has 12 Dex will have +2 AC versus one who has only 8. Still, your AC is likely going to be higher than if you went with lighter armor, because barbarians usually don't pump Dex.

Are mobility and dodge feats negated when wearing heavy armor (like full plate)?

No.

Modifié par Squatting Monk, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:19 .

[Bogdanov89]

Thank you for very detailed responses, Squatting Monk!

While i am a complete noob at this game i do think that MagicalMaster has a point - creating even more problems by nerfing Empower while Maximize is left unfixed does not sound like a good idea.

But then again i got zero knowledge about DnD rules outside of NWN, so don't mind me

Modifié par Bogdanov89, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:20 .

[Squatting Monk]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Let's be absolutely clear here: I am not advocating changing EITHER of Empower Spell or Maximize Spell in the "CP."  I don't think changes to fundamental game mechanics is something that should be in such a thing.  So please don't present me as arguing that.

However, IF we were going to change something so that Maximize is ALWAYS better than Empower, then it is MAXIMIZE spell that should be changed.

Heh. Looks like I went and did the same thing I just called you down for. I stand corrected. Sorry for mis-characterizing your position.

[MagicalMaster]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Does this feat also allow dexterity to improve your AC even if you are wearing heavy armor?
Does wearing heavy armor reduce your reflex saving throws?
Does wearing heavy armor lower how much dexterity improves your reflex saving throws?
Can i make a barbarian (with greatsword) who wears heavy armor and overall has very low dexterity?
Are there any bad sides (aside from reflex saves?) if my barbarian uses heavy armor and has only 8 dexterity?
Are mobility and dodge feats negated when wearing heavy armor (like full plate)?

To echo Squatting Monk...

Yes (to the maximum of 1 modifier in Heavy Armor).

No.

No.

Yes

2 less AC unless you get 4 AC from items.

No.

Squatting Monk wrote...

Heh. Looks like I went and did the same thing I just called you down for. I stand corrected. Sorry for mis-characterizing your position.

Forgiven, and thank you for editing your post.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

But then again i got zero knowledge about DnD rules outside of NWN, so don't mind me

I'd suggest that's not a bad thing, actually, given NWN is very different from DnD in many ways.  Sometimes running back to the DnD rules can be useful but not always -- I mean, they gave us Harm does full HP minus 1d4 in 3.0 and then Harm does 10 HP per level in 3.5.

That's quite a change so clearly the rules for that spell were incredibly stupid in one version, I'll let you guess which caused major issues

[Shadooow]

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Okay, huge is not a right word, but it would have increased the casters damage output globally a bit.[/quote]
It would have no effect on Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Acid Breath, Ice Storm, ILMS, Hammer of the Gods, Wall of Fire, Flame Strike, Firebrand, Cold of Cold, Acid Fog, IGMS, Chain Lightning, or a bunch of other spells.

What spells exactly are you concerned about suddenly getting a reason to maximize?
[/quote]
That doesnt even matter, you dont understand, what I mean is that your change would have reversed impact on gameplay, few spells would did more damage and in global scale it would increased the damage output. Which, if I did, you maybe wouldnt be blaming there now but someone else did instead of you because it doesnt suit him in his view of nwn.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Point taken. Your suggestion is actually quite good and its something to consider on a high magic world, but I had good reasons to change Empower Spell which I already explained. Did you actually read the DnD sources on this issue?[/quote]
I said a good reason, not what the DnD rules say (yes, I went and looked).  Why should Negative Energy Burst do 9% more damage Empowered while a Fireball does 50% more damage Empowered?  Or why should Cure Critical Wounds do 23% more Empowered while Ice Storm does 50% more Empowered?
[/quote]
Why some spells are 1d6+1-20 and some 1d6-10d6? Again, I dont know I havent designed the spells, but the metamagic rules are designed well. Its not a case for all spells but those you are pointing to be less powerfull, making no sense are very often non existand in DnD or having different effects in DnD. But metamagic has additional role, doesnt it? It allows to cast a lesser spell on higher spell slot which is a must for any pure caster.
[/quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

I have some ideas but Im not sure of it and it doesnt actually bother me, I didnt even fixed the calculation, I just fixed the inconsistency "where half the nwn used meters and second foots" to use the newest unit available.[/quote]
Well, it bothers me very much *precisely* because it is a balance change that also acts directly counter to the advice most people will get.  That also happens to be a very STUPID change.  Exactly the sort of thing a "Community Patch" should NOT do.
[/quote]
[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...

Look, I appreciate your efforts
Shadow but this kind of stuff is why I can't support or use your patch.
And why I won't recommend it to anyone.  It seriously bothers me.
[/quote]
Responses like this are funny. You guys havent understood what is CPP about. Its about the idea of an unofficial patch, not changes behind. Do I condemn your Siege in Heavens because I dont like some of your balance changes in there? No. There is maybe around 100 experienced builders who thinks that they all know how this game should look like, but everyone has a different point of view. Thats why we have a several game categories there, roleplay, action, social and why every one of these builders has his own persistant world he is doing usually alone. Even if I did everything per your sugestions the ninety remaiming NWN builders would still be dissatisfied because they would have seen your changes bad again. So, you dont like ten of the thousand changes/fixes in patch? Thats definitely a reason why don't use it, LOL. I love that. But you know better and instead of change those things in your module you rather wont use it at all. I believe its actually not about the changes but about who is proposing them. When the worst patch ever, 1.69 came plenty of peoples didnt like the several nerfs that it has brought. But they updated because it was official. Now the CPP is created by some troll with a stupid name who is not a employee of the Bioware so why the hell he thinks I should have conform to it, right? But you all just know better, don't you?
[quote]
In other words, in some cases in the vanilla game Empower Spell can be
more powerful than Maximize Spell even though Maximized spells are more
expensive to cast. ShadoOow's fix makes it so they aren't, but MM thinks
it does so at the expense of making Empower inconsistent and,
sometimes, useless. MM would prefer that Maximize Spell be changed to
make it actually superior Empower in all cases. Ironically, this sort of balance change is just the sort of thing he complains about being in the CP in the first place.[/quote]
This exactly. But I havent understand why you crossed it later perhaps not to make MM angry?

So again lets sum it:
The fact that empower in vanilla often overcome maximized spell is a bug.
The fact that some spells particulary spell mantle, when empowered overcome the higher version of the spell is a bug.
Any change to the empower or perhaps maximized metamagic calculation is not a fix but a fundamental balance change.

Thats dependant on the point of view. Almost every modification, whether it is a fix or not has an impact on a game balance. Is this a reason why keep things broken? I dont think so. And exactly in order not to come up with "my personal balance change" I havent changed the empower calculation, only united the calculation in all spells to use Bioware's latest.

So I ask again in metaphor which is easier to understand.

If one half of the nwn is using feets for a distance and the other half which was added in HotU expansion is using the meters, is unification of all instances where this is used to meters wrong?

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...

[quote]Squatting Monk wrote...

EDIT: My position is that the rules as written, both in NWN's description of the feat
and in the D&D Player's Handbook, explicitly state that the extra
modifiers to the die roll should be included in what's multiplied.
BioWare's spells that don't conform to this model should be treated as
bugs, not a change in direction that should be applied retroactively to
all other spells.[/quote]
This too.
[/quote]
I already explained this. The +X for Y caster levels is never part of the formula per DnD rules (try read not just feat description but FAQs and discussions). The descriptions are vague and the fact that empower outshines maximize clearly suggest something is wrong there. Now, the +1 in for example magic missile however should be added into calculation and this is what the Bioware's function from HotU doesn't do. But changing *that* would be the real balance change, so thats why I haven't. Which is only a one reason, because there are spells like Spell mantle which are completely made up by bioware and which will be problematic again because they dont follow usual DnD values. No spell in DnD would have 1d8+8 bonus which breaks the balance between empower/maximize. So if I actually fixed the empower calculation the main problem would be back again and it would have to be needed to solve this on an individual spell basic which would be treated badly again and caused disgust of even more peoples.

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

While i am a complete noob at this game i do think that MagicalMaster has a point - creating even more problems by nerfing Empower while Maximize is left unfixed does not sound like a good idea.

It doesn't make more problems. Its almost (99%) close to what it should be. Only MM is seeing the problem there.

- It is normal that some spells are less usefull than other spells.
- It is normal that some spells are 1d8+1-10 (that is 18max on the 10. lvl) and some spells are 1d6-10d6 (that is 60max).
- It is normal that the difference between empower and maximize result isn't always the same. It is not in vanilla NWN and its not in CP neither in PnP rules.

On the contrary:
- It is not normal that spell altered by empower metamagic does more than the same spell altered by maximized. - which is what CP fixed.
- It is not normal that spell altered by empower metamagic does more than the higher version of that same spell. (Spell mantle/Greater spell mantle - check the nwn wiki) - which is what CP also fixed.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 février 2014 - 02:32 .

[Bogdanov89]

Seems DnD rules are almost like philosophy - so many different views and points, and honestly all of them have valid points as well as counter-points!

Personally i would like if Maximize was the one to be buffed - but that is only because i like doing LOTS OF DAMAGE with my wizard and sorcerer xD

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Seems DnD rules are almost like philosophy - so many different views and points, and honestly all of them have valid points as well as counter-points!

Truth is out there, but its the only one.

Actually its not like that. DnD rules are usually clear, there are perhaps like three badly described issues (empower is one of them) that are then cleared up in special FAQ part of the rules. Problem is in the fact that Bioware followed as of now outdated rules (3.0) and added some of their own decisions and implementations that aren't in the rules. Many folks in this community are abusing this fact to their own arguments that since Bioware didnt implemented something like it was said in manual it is clear they intented it to be on their own way. In fact some time after release of the NWN, creators of DnD (WotC company) released a new version of the DnD rules that acts and it is treated by a pen&paper players as of patch on 3.0. Nobody ever plays 3.0 anymore its almost broken. But 3.5 is soo nerfed down and balanced to low magic that there is almost nobody in NWN community who would even thought of it. Not just builders but also players there are extremely susceptible to the any changes of what they know so well, and they usually laughing at how these things works in NWN2 which is based on the 3.5 rules (and NWN2 player laughing that NWN1-ers playing with so unbalanced spells). The NWN1and2 community is just not mature in this regard.

Personally i would like if Maximize was the one to be buffed - but that is only because i like doing LOTS OF DAMAGE with my wizard and sorcerer xD

Yes it sounds great especially for a high-magic world which I play the most. However, is it really so needed? Is this empower *nerf* so big? I incorporated CPP into a high magic epic persistant world (already mentioned Arkhalia) and while one smartass like MM flamed about how this turns empower to crap etc. etc. nothing has actually changed except the overall spell damage output which usually doesnt matter since the spells that has been "nerfed" down arent those that are used frequently. Everything works great, nobody even noticed any change except the regeneration which was flame topic on self but I personally treat everyone who believes that a stackable regeneration isnt bug to be mentally ill.

So even when this sound good I wouldnt have done it in my module. Also it does not fix the fact that some spells when empowered outshine that spell's higher version.

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Responses like this are funny. You guys havent understood what is CPP about. Its about the idea of an unofficial patch, not changes behind. Do I condemn your Siege in Heavens because I dont like some of your balance changes in there?

The fact you don't understand the difference here is the entire problem

If you play Siege and hate the fact that Mestil's Acid Sheath doesn't reflect 85 damage, THAT CHANGE DOESN'T FOLLOW YOU.  If you go into another module it'll be something else.

But if you download your patch then that change applies to EVERY module.

In other words, YOUR patch is screwing up the balance of MY module.  But MY module doesn't affect YOUR patch.  For example, I assumed that clerics and druids WOULD have a 40d6 Firestorm and balanced accordingly -- and your patch changed that.  And that's just an example of an actual bug fix rather than a balance change so it doesn't really bother me as much since I completely understand why you did it.  But messing up Empower Spell or changing Battletide or other things?  That's problematic.

Get the difference?  Siege doesn't affect the patch, but the patch affects Siege.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
This exactly. But I havent understand why you crossed it later perhaps not to make MM angry?

If you read my post directly after his post you'd understand why.  Maybe you should do that rather than make provocative statements like this one?

I have to run so I'll answer the rest later.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 31 janvier 2014 - 06:01 .

[Shadooow]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
This exactly. But I havent understand why you crossed it later perhaps not to make MM angry?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

If
you read my post directly after his post you'd understand why.  Maybe
you should do that rather than make provocative statements like this
one?

I have to run so I'll answer the rest later.

Ive read it and doesnt see how this changes anything. Youve said "IF it should be done, then it should be this way", Im saying that "if it was that way it would be clear and big balance change while what I did in CP isn't in my opinion".

MagicalMaster wrote...

In other words, YOUR patch is screwing up the balance of MY module.  But MY module doesn't affect YOUR patch.  For example, I assumed that clerics and druids WOULD have a 40d6 Firestorm and balanced accordingly -- and your patch changed that.  And that's just an example of an actual bug fix rather than a balance change so it doesn't really bother me as much since I completely understand why you did it.  But messing up Empower Spell or changing Battletide or other things?  That's problematic.

Get the difference?  Siege doesn't affect the patch, but the patch affects Siege.

Yes that is correct but my point was that you are condemn a whole project because of few changes you dont like. Your argument about CP changing a balance in your module is weird. That is also true for Tony K AI or perhaps PRC which player can install into your mod. Its a player choice if anything, for you as a builder it is unresponsible that you are intentionally ignoring this patch and doesnt upgrade&fix what you dislike if it bothers you SO MUCH.

But really, you are soo angry because of changes that you wouldn't even notice if they weren't described. You said huge game mechanic change while the actual difference is spottable merely only in three spells FoD, Healing sting and Spell Mantle. Difference in other spells is so small that it is is insignificant (except ability buffs where the new minimum of 2 points might matter but thats also wanted effect by majority of the builders imo). Messing battletide and hellball? How that can screw your mod? I doesnt understand that.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 31 janvier 2014 - 06:49 .

[WhiZard]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Problem is in the fact that Bioware followed as of now outdated rules
(3.0) and added some of their own decisions and implementations that
aren't in the rules.

Going by that even 3.5 rules are now outdated.  BioWare developed the game using the newest rules at the time and can't be expected to redesign the game to fit newer rules.  Many of BioWare's own decisions (e.g. favored enemy damage can affect those immune to critical hits) were adopted in the 3.5.  Games like NWN were used by DnD to test out rule variations and thus were given some leeway in their own experimentation.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Its a player choice if anything, for you as a builder it is unresponsible that you are intentionally ignoring this patch and doesnt upgrade&fix what you dislike if it bothers you SO MUCH.

So a module should be balanced in the case that players teleport to any area (PRC)? No, the burden lies on the other side.  Modules are not responsible for listing each and every way an override (much less a core resource change) can affect them.  The best way to play a module with the balance it was designed for is to play it vanilla 1.69 with the addition of any haks the module offers.

[Squatting Monk]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

This exactly. But I havent understand why you crossed it later perhaps not to make MM angry?

No, it's because I realized I was wrong. I followed it up with an apology but wanted to ensure that anyone reading my original post would know I changed my mind. That way, even if they don't read the apology post, they will stil come away with an accurate understanding of my stance.

I already explained this. The +X for Y caster levels is never part of the formula per DnD rules (try read not just feat description but FAQs and discussions).

Can you link me to some of the FAQs and discussions you're talking about? I read a fair number of threads and people's opinions went in every direction. Where I found consensus, it settled on the vanilla NWN implementation. That said, the Internet is a big place and I certainly won't pretend to have exhausted the available information. If there's an official clarification from WotC, that's what I'd most prefer to read, but I wasn't able to find anything relevant in their archives and Google hasn't been helpful.

[Shadooow]

WhiZard wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Problem is in the fact that Bioware followed as of now outdated rules
(3.0) and added some of their own decisions and implementations that
aren't in the rules.

Going by that even 3.5 rules are now outdated.  BioWare developed the game using the newest rules at the time and can't be expected to redesign the game to fit newer rules.  Many of BioWare's own decisions (e.g. favored enemy damage can affect those immune to critical hits) were adopted in the 3.5.  Games like NWN were used by DnD to test out rule variations and thus were given some leeway in their own experimentation.

Well. Its not exactly that. The 3E was newest in that time but completely different than 2E. While 4E is something completely different than 3E. I said that the 3.5 edition is a official patch for the version of 3.0. Of course Bioware cant be expected to redesign game to fit newer rules I only wanted to point out that the 3.0 rules had several broken concepts in them which were later revisited in a updated version, which is something that NWN folks in general dont know as the rules in game are hidden there and everything is done automatically.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Its a player choice if anything, for you as a builder it is unresponsible that you are intentionally ignoring this patch and doesnt upgrade&fix what you dislike if it bothers you SO MUCH.

So a module should be balanced in the case that players teleport to any area (PRC)? No, the burden lies on the other side.  Modules are not responsible for listing each and every way an override (much less a core resource change) can affect them.  The best way to play a module with the balance it was designed for is to play it vanilla 1.69 with the addition of any haks the module offers.

You missed my point. PRC is a mod and a player is teched what might happen if he uses in a module. CP is however a patch and peoples are using it that way. It was intented to become a standard and given how many downloads it has its safe to assume that its broadly used by players. If you as a builder intentionally ignore this patch because you dont like its author or you dont like few changes in it, why do you blame this project yet for a fact it changes game mechanics in your single player module?

[Shadooow]

Squatting Monk wrote...

Can you link me to some of the FAQs and discussions you're talking about? If there's an official clarification from WotC, that's what I'd most prefer to read, but I wasn't able to find anything relevant in their archives and Google hasn't been helpful.

I went back in manuals and found out that it is not written anywhere directly. So I was driveling.

But in Main DnD FAQ manual (http://www.wizards.c...AQv06272003.zip) you can read this:

Since an empowered spell affects half again as many
targets as its normal version, why doesn’t a 5th-level
wizard’s empowered magic missile fire off more than three
missiles?
Because the Empower Spell feat increases a spell’s variable,
numeric effects. In the case of magic missile, that’s the spell’s
damage, not the number of missiles. A spell such as sleep, on
the other hand, truly affects a variable number of targets: 2d4
HD worth of creatures. An empowered sleep spell affects 2d4
times 1.5 HD worth of creatures.

Im quite sure this wont be an answer for those who want to believe that empower affect also a "per level" bonus to damage, but after reading tons of discussions on this subject Im absolutely sure it shouldnt affect it. Its just not logical, if it worked this way then a sixth level wizard would deal 60damage by maximized fireball. The "1d4+1" itself is a variable, numeric value, the 1 missile per 3 levels, +1damage per level IS NOT.

It doesnt matter anyway, I decided not to change this so I only united two different calculations to one, the latest one whether its correct or not.

[MagicalMaster]

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

That doesnt even matter, you dont understand, what I mean is that your change would have reversed impact on gameplay, few spells would did more damage and in global scale it would increased the damage output. Which, if I did, you maybe wouldnt be blaming there now but someone else did instead of you because it doesnt suit him in his view of nwn.[/quote]
Or you could have, I don't know, NOT CHANGED ANYTHING?

Which is what I've REPEATEDLY stated?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

So, you dont like ten of the thousand changes/fixes in patch? Thats definitely a reason why don't use it, LOL. I love that.[/quote]
Let's view this another way.  Imagine your patch fixed 10,000 issues and also removed the cleric class from the game.  That ONE change would be FAR FAR FAR more than enough reason to not use the patch.  And changing Empower Spell is changing one of the two more IMPORTANT feats for a caster.  It's a big deal.

In other words, it's not the number changes I don't like, it's WHAT was changed.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Why some spells are 1d6+1-20 and some 1d6-10d6? Again, I dont know I havent designed the spells, but the metamagic rules are designed well. Its not a case for all spells but those you are pointing to be less powerfull, making no sense are very often non existand in DnD or having different effects in DnD. But metamagic has additional role, doesnt it? It allows to cast a lesser spell on higher spell slot which is a must for any pure caster. [/quote]
No, they AREN'T designed well.  For example, a level 10 wizard will do 15d6 damage with an Empowered Fireball but he'll do 10d6 with Firebrand.  That's not good design.

An Empowered Magic Missile will deal (2.5 + 1)*1.5 = 5.25 damage while a Maximized Magic Missile will only deal 5 damage.  That's not good design.

An Empowered Firebrand will do 22.5d6 damage while a Delayed Blast Fireball will only do 20d6.  That's not good design (and if the caster is level 15 the Firebrand will STILL do 22.5d6 while the DBF does 15d6 -- that's not good design either).

The whole system is riddled with flaws and stupidity and making the problem WORSE is not the answer.  Leave it alone and let individual people fix it and if you can't handle that then, again, don't make things WORSE.  Don't add additional stupidity.  Remove stupidity by fixing Maximize Spell.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

But you know better and instead of change those things in your module you rather wont use it at all. I believe its actually not about the changes but about who is proposing them.[/quote]
Bioware can dictate changes by fiat.  You can't.  Not only that, but what nerf did Bioware do in 1.69 that didn't make sense?  Perhaps I'm not thinking of something but you've have to give an example of how Bioware made things WORSE with their nerf (and I'm talking about the general situation because by definition a nerf is making SOMETHING worse).

If you were the admin of a specific PW that I played on and changed Empower I'd argue against it but ultimately I'd either accept it or leave because it's something specific to that PW.  You're trying to push a change like this on EVERYONE and, worse, PROMOTING it as some sort of community approved standard.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

The fact that some spells particulary spell mantle, when empowered overcome the higher version of the spell is a bug.[/quote]
No, it is NOT.  Empowered Fireball > Firebrand for up to 5 levels.  Empowered Firebrand > DBF for ALL levels.  Maximized Lightning Bolt/Scintillating Sphere > Chain Lightning as long as you hit two targets.

The fact that an Empowered Spell Mantle > Greater Spell Mantle is a FEATURE -- a bonus for HAVING Empower Spell.

If you want to say this feature is a bad idea, that's a valid opinion and you can argue for that -- but it's a fundamental balance change to alter that and NOT something that should go in a "patch."  And it's CERTAINLY not something you "fix" for only SOME spells -- even after your change a level 10 wizard will do 50% more damage with an Empowered Fireball as opposed to a standard Firebrand.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

If one half of the nwn is using feets for a distance and the other half which was added in HotU expansion is using the meters, is unification of all instances where this is used to meters wrong?[/quote]
Except this is, y'know, FACTUALLY WRONG.

Combust, for example, does 2d6 + caster level and THEN multiplies everything by 1.5.  It was added in HotU.

Perhaps you could point to all of these HotU added spells which act in this new fashion?  I'm looking through the spells added in HotU specifically (which weren't included in SoU) and offhand Combust is the only one that MIGHT be affected -- and it uses the "OLD" formula like the original did.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

No spell in DnD would have 1d8+8 bonus which breaks the balance between empower/maximize. So if I actually fixed the empower calculation the main problem would be back again and it would have to be needed to solve this on an individual spell basic which would be treated badly again and caused disgust of even more peoples[/quote]
Oh really?  Cure Light Wounds is 1d8 + 5.  Moderate 2d8 + 10.  Serious 3d8 + 15.  Critical 4d8 + 20.

Or how about the Cure Light Wounds, Mass?  That's 1d8 + 25!  TWENTY-FIVE!

You're wrong about how the HotU added spells like Combust work.  You're wrong about how DnD wouldn't have spells that are similar.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

- It is not normal that spell altered by empower metamagic does more than the higher version of that spell. (Spell mantle/Greater spell mantle - check the nwn wiki) - which is what CP also fixed.[/quote]
It is absolutely normal as I demonstrated above.  And what makes this REALLY hilarious is that you just pointed out how BIOWARE is the one who made Spell Mantle.  It is actually MORE common for an empowered spell to be better than a higher level version than not because MOST spells do something like level * d6.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Nobody ever plays 3.0 anymore its almost broken. But 3.5 is soo nerfed down and balanced to low magic that there is almost nobody in NWN community who would even thought of it.[/quote]
I'll give you a hint: 3.0 is broken because of stuff like Harm dealing ALL of your HP except 1d4 or Heal doing ALL of your HP.  It's not because Empower Spell always gives +50% bonus for two spell levels higher.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Ive
read it and doesnt see how this changes anything. Youve said "IF it should be done, then it should be this way", Im saying that "if it was that way it would be clear and big balance change while what I did in CP isn't in my opinion".[/quote]
No, I said "NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE."  I even repeated that TWICE.  In two different paragraphs.

And what kind of insane "logic" is this?  Nerfing the damage of an Empowered Finger of Death by 27% making Empower Spell only give it a 10% bonus instead of 50% ISN'T a balance change but making Maximized Finger of Death do 56% more damage IS a balance change?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Your argument about CP changing a balance in your module is weird. That is also true for Tony K AI or perhaps PRC which player can install into your mod. Its a player choice if anything, for you as a builder it is unresponsible that you are intentionally ignoring this patch and doesnt upgrade&fix what you dislike if it bothers you SO MUCH.[/quote]
People install Tony K AI KNOWING it will change their game balance.  People install PRC KNOWING it will change their game balance.  That is the whole REASON to install these things.

But people install something called a "Community Patch" because they think it will fix bugs, not change game balance.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

But really, you are soo angry because of changes that you wouldn't even notice if they weren't described. You said huge game mechanic change while the actual difference is spottable merely only in three spells FoD, Healing sting and Spell Mantle. Difference in other spells is so small that it is is insignificant (except ability buffs where the new minimum of 2 points might matter but thats also wanted effect by majority of the builders imo). Messing battletide and hellball? How that can screw your mod? I doesnt understand that.[/quote]

Ignoring cantrips...

Sorcerer/Wizard
Combust
Negative Energy Burst
Evard's
Lesser Spell Mantle
Finger of Death
Spell Mantle

Cleric
HEALING DOMAIN POWER
Cure Light Wounds
Inflict Light Wounds
Cure Moderate Wounds
Inflict Moderate Wounds
Cure Serious Wounds
Inflict Serious Sounds
Cure Critical Wounds
Inflict Critical Wounds
Healing Circle
Circle of Doom

Druid
All Cure/Inflict Wound Spells as mentioned (8 total)
Healing Sting
Healing Circle

And I am specifically thinking of situations where you need to damage something with Negative Energy as a Sorcerer/Wizard and thus you use (Empowered) Negative Energy Burst and Finger of Death.  Along with lower level clerics/druids, especially clerics with Healing domain.

"Difference in other spells is so small that it is is insignificant (except ability buffs where the new minimum of 2 points might matter but thats also wanted effect by majority of the builders imo)"

If it is insignificant and making Empowered Finger of Death do 50% more damage along with Empowered Delayed Blast Fireball ALSO doing 50% is consistent, WHY CHANGE IT?

And what in the world are you basing your "minimum of 2 points is wanted by majority of builders" on?  If anything I usually see the ability buffs changed to ALWAYS give 4 points.

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.

[quote]WhiZard wrote...

So a module should be balanced in the case that players teleport to any area (PRC)? No, the burden lies on the other side.  Modules are not responsible for listing each and every way an override (much less a core resource change) can affect them.  The best way to play a module with the balance it was designed for is to play it vanilla 1.69 with the addition of any haks the module offers.[/quote]
This.  Absolutely this.  This so, so, so much.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

You missed my point. PRC is a mod and a player is teched what might happen if he uses in a module. CP is however a patch and peoples are using it that way. It was intented to become a standard and given how many downloads it has its safe to assume that its broadly used by players. If you as a builder intentionally ignore this patch because you dont like its author or you dont like few changes in it, why do you blame this project yet for a fact it changes game mechanics in your single player module?{smilie}[/quote]
For the same reason I intentionally ignore Tony K's AI.  UNLESS I specifically design the module to use it -- in which case I'd say "You're expected to use Tony K's AI in this module."

And I don't think ANYONE dislikes you, ShaDoOoW.  None of us despise you personally or something.  We don't like how you've changed what APPEARS to be a standard bug-fix patch into something also affects balance and we REALLY don't like how you're then PROMOTING that as a "community" ideal -- but we just think you're very misguided and making poor choices, not that you're a malicious bastard or something.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Im quite sure this wont be an answer for those who want to believe that empower affect also a "per level" bonus to damage, but after reading tons of discussions on this subject Im absolutely sure it shouldnt affect it. Its just not logical, if it worked this way then a sixth level wizard would deal 60damage by maximized fireball[/quote]
The reason it doesn't affect the number of missiles is because then it would double dip.  50% more damage per missile AND 50% more missiles = 125% more damage for Empowering, which is clearly wrong.

Or to rephrase it: Fireball written as 3.5 damage per level with a 50% bonus for Empowered and 71% bonus for Maximized would have the EXACT same average damage as using d6 per level -- it would simply eliminate the randomness.  In such a case, though, it SHOULD still get the 50% bonus from Empowered.

On the flip side, if Sleep affected 5 HD rather than 2d4 HD then allowing it to be Empowered to affect 7.5 HD would be perfectly fine.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 01 février 2014 - 01:25 .

[Shadooow]

I stopped reading after a third paragraph. You are writing nonsenses, I tried to explain but you just don't understand. Its over and over again and you are still counterargumenting with something you misunderstood. I write everything three times, but won't bother for fourth. You see something that isn't there and you starting to be really mad from it. Its clearly seen in your latest responses. If you really believe all this you wrote then I start to think you are out of your mind.

[MagicalMaster]

What part is nonsense?

And what am I misunderstanding?

[Shadooow]

Before I close this discussion/flame, I have a one rhetorical question that should further prove my point about what should be empowered.

Lets say there is a spell that deals only a 1damage per level maximum of 40 (not a fiction, there are spells like that in DnD rules). Would it be allowed to empower such spell? And Maximized?

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 février 2014 - 03:13 .

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Before I close this discussion/flame

Why the attitude?  Maybe it's a language barrier thing but to native English speakers that is INCREDIBLY arrogant.  That makes it sound like YOU are in charge of discussion in this thread, like we're at your beck and call or something.

You might also note that at least two others are involved in this discussion (Squatting Monk and Whizard).  Is your intention to be dismissive to them too?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Lets say there is a spell that deals only a 1damage per level maximum of 40 (not a fiction, there are spells like that in DnD rules). Would it be allowed to empower such spell? And Maximized?

First and foremost, if it is allowed to be Empowered/Maximized, a community patch should not change that.  Likewise, if it is NOT allowed to be Empowered/Maximized, a community patch should not change that either.

That said...

Under default rules it would not be allowed to be Empowered or Maximized.

However, if we shift to what makes sense design wise, then yes, it SHOULD be allowed if it is intended to be a damaging spell.  It's functionally equivalent to a spell that deals 1d3 per 2 caster levels.

The point of Empower Spell is to be able to cast a spell at two spell levels higher with greater effect.  The point of Maximize Spell is to be able to cast a spell at three spell levels higher with greater effect.  Whether or not there's actually dice involved in a PARTICULAR spell is irrelevant and secondary to the intended functionality of the feats.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 01 février 2014 - 03:43 .

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Before I close this discussion/flame

Why the attitude?  Maybe it's a language barrier thing but to native English speakers that is INCREDIBLY arrogant.  That makes it sound like YOU are in charge of discussion in this thread, like we're at your beck and call or something.

Then it is a language barrier, im not trying to be a moderator here.

But, though it was fun from the start, its not now anymore. Its obvious that none of us will change our position and opinions. You and I have different vision of what CPP should or shouldn't do and also different view of the logic. Nothing I would say wouldn't persuaded you and I have actually nothing to add anymore. At the same time your  arguments haven't persuaded me, I found them irrelevant, incorrect and unlogical. Im not going to change anything in this regard in CPP since there is nothing broken now, despite what you are saying.

So yes I can see your point, but I believe you are completely wrong in this regard. You do think the same and none of us will step away so why to continue in arguing? If Whizard or Squatting monk wants to discuss this further I will of course.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 février 2014 - 11:33 .

[Bogdanov89]

Is there any way to quickly buy a lot of potions or first aid kits?

Buying one by one is quite annoying and takes forever

If currently there is no such option, can it be added to the CPP?