324 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...
If currently there is no such option, can it be added to the CPP?

NO! HOLY CRAP what were you thinking? That would be a balance change!

There is no feature to specify a number to buy but you can use a key shortcut of ")" character (left from enter). But first you must click on the item with a right mouse button to show the item radial. Also a number 6 on numpad should work.

[Bogdanov89]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Bogdanov89 wrote...
If currently there is no such option, can it be added to the CPP?

NO! HOLY CRAP what were you thinking? That would be a balance change!
There is no feature to specify a number to buy but you can use a key shortcut of ")" character (left from enter). But first you must click on the item with a right mouse button to show the item radial. Also a number 6 on numpad should work.

Hehe

Is it possible to make a potion be sold only in stacks of 5 right from the NPC's inventory?

I mean, arrows are sold in stacks of 99 - can potions and first aid kits be made to be sold in stacks of 5 (or 10)?

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Hehe

Is it possible to make a potion be sold only in stacks of 5 right from the NPC's inventory?

I mean, arrows are sold in stacks of 99 - can potions and first aid kits be made to be sold in stacks of 5 (or 10)?

yes as a module builder you can do this of course

[MagicalMaster]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

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?

As ShaDoOoW said, it requires the module builder to do so.  It's not something that can be done in a patch.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.

The problem is I'm not sure you DO have a coherent vision of what the CPP should be.

Divine Favor tooltip: The caster gains a +1 bonus to attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels (at least +1, to a maximum of +5).

Official DnD Description: Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3). The bonus doesn’t apply to spell damage.

Battletide tooltip: You create an aura that steals energy from your enemies. Your enemies suffer a -2 circumstance penalty on saving throws, attack rolls, and damage rolls, once entering the aura. On casting, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your saves, attack rolls, and damage rolls.

Official DnD Description: Can't seem to find one.

Perhaps you could explain why Battletide should be changed from unresistable "magic" damage but Divine Favor should not?

In other words: it's like you're doing a balance patch that isn't really a balance patch.  Everyone would be happy with a bug fix patch.  Some people might be interested in a balance patch.  But what's the point of a partial balance patch that only randomly does some balance changes and ignores massive other issues?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

At the same time your  arguments haven't persuaded me, I found them irrelevant, incorrect and unlogical.

Perhaps you could actually point to an example of this?

And even if you don't wish to respond, I'd still ask that you at least READ the post here which could be done in five minutes.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 01 février 2014 - 05:19 .

[Elhanan]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

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?

I highly recommend the Pretty Good Character Creator & Customizer  (ie; PGC3)  mod for stops between mod play, or to simply help build characters:

 Pretty Good Character Creator / Customizer

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Bogdanov89 wrote...

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?

As ShaDoOoW said, it requires the module builder to do so.  It's not something that can be done in a patch.

Actually it would be a great feature if it would be technically possible .

Official DnD Description: Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus
on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you
have (at least +1, maximum +3). The bonus doesn’t apply to spell damage.

Battletide tooltip: You create an aura that steals energy from your enemies. Your enemies suffer a -2 circumstance penalty on saving throws, attack rolls,
and damage rolls, once entering the aura. On casting, you gain a +2
circumstance bonus to your saves, attack rolls, and damage rolls.

Official DnD Description: Can't seem to find one.

Perhaps you could explain why Battletide should be changed from unresistable "magic" damage but Divine Favor should not?

Im not sure what are you talking about, what I changed was the -2damage from the reason that it didnt affected those without any magical damage. In this exact spell this is questionable indeed because it grants both bonus and penalty and the bonus is magical. But this was actually a global change that affected also Hell inferno, Ghoul touch and few others while those spells didnt have a magical bonus, so it made no sense there that the penalty is magical and I believe it was an oversight there because the original scripter didnt specified the damage type - if he did it would be absolutely clear that the magical damage type there is intented, but it isn't.

Im not going to explain my decision further since Im not sure you were aware of the fact that I changed only the penalty damage type. Waiting for your response.

The problem is I'm not sure you DO have a coherent vision of what the CPP should be.

Of course I have, maybe I just doesn't know how to describe it in my, hopefully at least medium, english level?

CPP is about fixing, improving and sometimes balancing the original NWN content both for players and builders. The goal is to make a more stable, more clear, more balanced, and more modern (in the terms of graphic) version of the NWN.

It is not meant to be a 3.0 or 3.5 rules modification where whats not exactly following the rules must be changed. I really like the 3.5 edition personally and I consider it as a patch on 3.0 but its something completely different and it changes the overall balance extremely. And Im still trying to keep a number of balance changes on absolute minimum and adding them only when I'm sure they won't cause any serious balance issues in modules, only the global unpopularity. This is a reason I haven't added the evasion limitation on the light armor althought it does work like this even in the 3.0 rules. Its not broken, so no reason to repair it. Also when doing changes it is important to take into consideration already existing player characters. For example changing the school of the spell would have impact on a specialized wizard. So some issues weren't changed from this reason.

In a patch readme you can often see in parenthesis (3.0/3.5 rules), (3.5 rules) though. This is there to inform that since the change was done from some reason there, that change was done following the DnD rules this game is based of and not my own decision. (3.0/3.5) means that this actually works that way even in the original 3.0 rules the NWN is based on and havent changed in 3.5 patch, (3.5) means that I either haven't checked 3.0 or that the 3.0 versions is different.


Its also not meant to be a facelift project. In terms of graphic I added some modification that keeps the original textures/models and only improving them. A little exception are the Amethyst Dragons' colored spell icons as some of them are completely replacing the original image with brand new one. Since this is true for only around a ten spells and AD refused (or just forget?) my request to make a special version for this project that would used the original images I decided its worth it nevertheless and added it regardless. Now quite a lot peoples are actually blaming CPP for adding this. But I won't change this, believe it or not colored icons are a standard for a long time ago. What Im saying to those who hate AD's excellent mod is to make an vanilla override version - noone did, half the blamers get used to, second half immediatelly uninstalled and trashed CPP - thats the price for doing this and Im willing to pay it.

In other words: it's like you're doing a balance patch that isn't really a balance patch.  Everyone would be happy with a bug fix patch.  Some people might be interested in a balance patch.  But what's the point of a partial balance patch that only randomly does some balance changes and ignores massive other issues?

Now to this balance changes vs fixes issue.

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.)

I think we both agree with the fact that not everything what changes balance is a balance change. Because in fact every non-graphical bugfix actually changes a game balance. I think you realized this when you spoke about firestorm. I also determine a "new feature" category which also changes balance since player is able to do things he couldn't before (Sunbeam for example). But the main indicator for me is intent of the change and logic behind that change. In alimited scope also the Bioware's intent (which can be sometimes guessed from source scripts or comments in them), which is however disscussable (aka Bioware specificaly wrote the DC is X+3 - so its very possibly intented). But Im taking this into consideration too in the decision whether to change something or not. There are also an "unification changes". Im not able to reason it, but this is not a balance imo either.

Some examples because Im missing words to explain this deeper:

Firestorm - spell has been capped properly in CPP to 20d6 max
Clear bug since there is missing one "=". Thought there will always be disbelievers.

Greater restoration - spell school has been changed to match lesser versions of this spell.
Now this is not clear, someone could say this is clearly Bioware's intent. Such opinion is completely based on a personal feel and Im not satisfied with that. Logic suggest to me that the spell school should be consistent, so either its GR wrong or LR and R. I've checked the DnD manuals and come into conclusion that its the GR wrong. Fortunately this has no effect on a gameplay, but if it was a wizard spell this would be a different matter and I wouldn't changed that.

Regeneration - stacking has been disabled
Very unpopular change, even in the eyes of a builders who didnt even knew that clerics are abusing this to solo their dungeons and bosses. For me its absolutely clear this is a bug. For you and plenty of other it isn't of course. The logic behind my change is that no spell (should) stacks with itself. Effects of the same spell does overlap, not stacks this is a basic magic concept in DnD and its correctly applied in most NWN spells. Now many peoples counterargument with the fact that the Monstrous regeneration doesn't stacks (by the intented code in the spellscript which is missing in the Regeneration). So its "clear" that Bioware intented the Regeneration to stacks. Well this is again based on personal feel, I would say that this further supports my claim. It doesn't even matter to me since this was changed because of the first fact that I've wrote.

Monstrous regeneration - balance change to make it useful (duration united with the usual round/level that a Regenerate uses as well)
There I agree that what I've done is a balance change. Reason for this is that it makes no sense that it is lasts 1round per 2levels. Some even argument about the name that it makes no sense as it suggests its better. Anyway, reason I changed it is that since Regenerate now doesn't stack with itself it is needed to supply this gap with this change, but the vanilla duration is just absolutely unusable in real gameplay (I play druids a lot so I have a gameplay experience with this). Changing this took me few seconds, reason and justify several hours. I've reasoned it in the CPP own thread since this spellchange came with one of the 1.71 betas. So, Monstrous regeneration has nothing to do with a spell Regenerate, its completely different concept - it should work like troll's PnP regeneration. Bioware decided to house rule this from whatever reason. One time it was 10hp/round, later a balance change came as it oushined Regeneration spell. Therefore I applied my own house rule and doubled the duration to unite it with Regeneration spell. Seemed to me as a better choice than to apply the PnP effects of a troll regeneration . What I thought of, was to rename this spell to "Lesser" but haven't seen this as much important so I didn't. It is balance change but I believe it was needed and it doesn't break anyone's module and its generally acceptable (change itself, not that Ive dared to do it - thats unforgivable I know ).

Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.
Description specifically mention that there is a saving throw. When compared to inflict spells and short consultation with the DnD rules its clear the problem is not in description but in a spell. Description differs from implementation so I corrected this. This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf. I've taken this into consideration, I don't like it either, healing an unded has almost no sense now, but rules are clear.

Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation
Finally getting to the change you hate the most. The intent there was to unite the calculation (which is one of the CPPs goal - more stable, clear, balanced and modern version of the NWN). I dont think there was ever different choice of how to do it, if to do it regardless of what are the problems with the empower/maximize. And, I believe it should have been done and would have done it even if there weren't secondary issues related to this. This of course results sometimes (3 spells imo) into serious nerf, but it was wrong anyway and since the intent was to unite spells I don't think it is a balance change. Same as with Fire Storm. By the way I also united a saving throws roll behavior (into "if immune don't roll"), targetting routine (to the one from HotU that excludes NPC's from the same faction) and few other things. These changes also results in a balance change, are they (rhetorical one)? :innocent:


I could have write to the death of hunger as each spell change is usually unique. Believe it or not but when I changed something Ive taken into consideration everything I can think of. You just not see these behind the scene decisions so you assume they are missing there. Also, although Im the only one with the final decision (since nobody ever wanted to participate on this project, at least officially on a long term) I am also abusing the advice and law services of several NWN community members. Also every critique even when you think I dont (For example I remove the scare and Aura vs alignment changes).

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 01 février 2014 - 09:16 .

[Bogdanov89]

I did not know the spell Regeneration used to stack.

Sounds really silly, casting a few Regeneration spells for practically near immortality against monsters

Shadooow, have all the changes you made to spells/feats in CCP also been made to show in their tooltips and description texts?
Or are the tooltips and text descriptions still of the old 1.69 NWN?

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

I did not know the spell Regeneration used to stack.

Sounds really silly, casting a few Regeneration spells for practically near immortality against monsters

Shadooow, have all the changes you made to spells/feats in CCP also been made to show in their tooltips and description texts?
Or are the tooltips and text descriptions still of the old 1.69 NWN?

Descriptions have been changed to reflect new changes, but that doesnt cover cases like regeneration because there wasnt written that it stacks so therefore there isnt written it doesnt stack anymore.

But, descriptors (basically a immunity marker), spell levels, innate levels, spell schools have been changed to reflect new implementation (and sometimes reversedly the implementation has been changed to reflect spell description).

If there is new feature, it is written into spell's description such as implosion (incorporeal have immunity) or sunbeam/sunburst (plants and oozes are harmed as if they were undead).

One tooltip was actually changed to inform about a new community driven site about nwn, but nothing else. If you know about some tooltip that is outdated or useless and you have an idea what could be written there instead dont hesitate. Now, when I think about it, new tooltips would be also possible. They might have been lost on a servers that has their own tooltips in hak, but it would have worked in single player which should be enough. I have no idea what could be written there however.

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

[Bogdanov89]

I am a bit confused as far as the large weapons go, since some of them seem completely bad compared to others:

Halberd (1d10 x3)
Greataxe (1d12 x3)
Spear (1d8 x3)
Trident (1d8 x2) - wikia mentions a bugged weapon focus (or specialization) for Trident?!
Heavy Flail (1d10 19-20/x2)
Scythe (2d4 x4)
Greatsword (2d6 19-20/x2)

To me, it seems that Greatsword and (maybe) Greataxe and Scythe are the best?
What is the purpose of the other large weapons?
Do they have any advantage when compared to the Greatsword (or Greataxe/Scythe)?

[Empyre65]

The scythe does the most damage. The greatsword and greataxe are not mathematically identical, but so close that what matters more is which has better enchantments or which one looks better to you. The heavy flail does blunt damage, which is almost never resisted. The spear has the advantage of being a simple weapon with better than 20/x2 crits. The halberd is not optimal, but it is good enough that if you have some reason to choose it, you won't be at too much of a disadvantage. The trident and quarterstaff are to be avoided.

Modifié par Empyre65, 02 février 2014 - 06:42 .

[WhiZard]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Battletide tooltip: You create an aura that steals energy from your enemies. Your enemies suffer a -2 circumstance penalty on saving throws, attack rolls,
and damage rolls, once entering the aura. On casting, you gain a +2
circumstance bonus to your saves, attack rolls, and damage rolls.

Official DnD Description: Can't seem to find one.

This is a combination of hallow and unhallow (which does not affect damage, but does influence AC and saving throws as well as other more potent affects).  NWN combined a large number of good and evil spells into neutral ones (like hammer of the gods) so as to avoid having large differences in clerical spell books.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Im not sure what are you talking about, what I changed was the -2damage from the reason that it didnt affected those without any magical damage. In this exact spell this is questionable indeed because it grants both bonus and penalty and the bonus is magical. But this was actually a global change that affected also Hell inferno, Ghoul touch and few others while those spells didnt have a magical bonus, so it made no sense there that the penalty is magical and I believe it was an oversight there because the original scripter didnt specified the damage type - if he did it would be absolutely clear that the magical damage type there is intented, but it isn't.

Correct.  Magical damage cannot be below 0 and does not feed into the physical damage if there is no source of magical damage to reduce.  Whether or not this spell is to be considered a candidate for damage decrease at all was a decision made by BioWare to simplify a good/evil spell that would be very difficult to implement.  As is, very few sources of damage decrease actually reduce physical damage (e.g. curse song) and these tend to be after the introduction of HotU.

Modifié par WhiZard, 03 février 2014 - 03:58 .

[MagicalMaster]

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow but wanted to say this now: I owe you an apology, ShaDoOoW, for the Battletide part at least. I thought you had changed the magical damage INCREASE to physical rather than the damage DECREASE.

That was my mistake and misreading from skimming it quickly. So, sorry about that.

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow but wanted to say this now: I owe you an apology, ShaDoOoW, for the Battletide part at least. I thought you had changed the magical damage INCREASE to physical rather than the damage DECREASE.

That was my mistake and misreading from skimming it quickly. So, sorry about that.

You don't own me personally anything, you owe the project itself a chance.

Maybe I am wrong but given your mistake about Battletide it actually looks like you are one of those who never really tried this patch, only read a couple of changes, laughing with a words "lol thats a stupidity, I know better!". I've been alreadz accused of messing with ranged weapons projectile sounds, devastating critical and more. All these claims wouldn't be made if their posters actually tried the patch.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 03 février 2014 - 09:16 .

[Bogdanov89]

Bogdanov89 wrote...
I am a bit confused as far as the large weapons go, since some of them seem completely bad compared to others:

Halberd (1d10 x3)
Greataxe (1d12 x3)
Spear (1d8 x3)
Trident (1d8 x2) - wikia mentions a bugged weapon focus (or specialization) for Trident?!
Heavy Flail (1d10 19-20/x2)
Scythe (2d4 x4)
Greatsword (2d6 19-20/x2)

To me, it seems that Greatsword and (maybe) Greataxe and Scythe are the best?
What is the purpose of the other large weapons?
Do they have any advantage when compared to the Greatsword (or Greataxe/Scythe)?

Any more fellas willing to give their opinions about large weapons?

[Elhanan]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Bogdanov89 wrote...
I am a bit confused as far as the large weapons go, since some of them seem completely bad compared to others:

Halberd (1d10 x3)
Greataxe (1d12 x3)
Spear (1d8 x3)
Trident (1d8 x2) - wikia mentions a bugged weapon focus (or specialization) for Trident?!
Heavy Flail (1d10 19-20/x2)
Scythe (2d4 x4)
Greatsword (2d6 19-20/x2)

To me, it seems that Greatsword and (maybe) Greataxe and Scythe are the best?
What is the purpose of the other large weapons?
Do they have any advantage when compared to the Greatsword (or Greataxe/Scythe)?

Any more fellas willing to give their opinions about large weapons?

Personally, I like the Greatsword and Halberd due to appearance; also the Halberd has two effects (ie; Slashing & Piercing) which seemingly has been fixed to be advantageous.

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Maybe I am wrong but given your mistake about Battletide it actually looks like you are one of those who never really tried this patch, only read a couple of changes, laughing with a words "lol thats a stupidity, I know better!".

No, I thought "This guy is going beyond bug fixes and is making some random balance changes which is not what I'd want to install for my game as a whole."  Even if you changed everything that I thought needed to be changed and your spell/feat changes were absolutely perfect in my opinion...I still wouldn't install it since it would be globally applied and mess up the balancing of modules designed without the patch in mind (aka, all of them as far as I know).

In other words: individual mods can mess with spell/feat changes as they want.  But a general patch shouldn't.

More later.

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Any more fellas willing to give their opinions about large weapons?

Its also dependant on the other things, aka do you have a devastating critical? then greatsword is a choice, are you a paladin undead hunter? Then you probably want to use heavy flail. Are you an arcane caster with a possibility to cast keen? -> Greatsword/Halberd/Scythe. Are you a weapon master? Then scythe seems to be a best choice.
However best two handed weapon is scimitar, when wielded by gnome/halfling

[WhiZard]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
However best two handed weapon is scimitar, when wielded by gnome/halfling

True, they can even deflect arrows when two-handing a medium sized weapon, while medium sized races can't two hand a large weapon and deflect arrows.

[Shadooow]

WhiZard wrote...

True, they can even deflect arrows when two-handing a medium sized weapon, while medium sized races can't two hand a large weapon and deflect arrows.

Hehe thats new for me! Something to patch probably:devil:.

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...
No, I thought "This guy is going beyond bug fixes and is making some random balance changes which is not what I'd want to install for my game as a whole."  Even if you changed everything that I thought needed to be changed and your spell/feat changes were absolutely perfect in my opinion...I still wouldn't install it since it would be globally applied and mess up the balancing of modules designed without the patch in mind (aka, all of them as far as I know).

This is odd objection but I also met a guy who condemned the whole project only because it added a nymph hair retexture which he though the patch shouldn't have.

And you are right, this project goes beyond bug fixes. Though imo there are maybe three or five actual balance changes actually. Opinions differs, sometimes extremely.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 03 février 2014 - 09:04 .

[WebShaman]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Longbow because Arcane Archers have to use bows -- and they're the best archers by far. ~snip~

Oh, that is not true, unfortunately,

With vanilla NWN, yes, it pretty much is.

But with the PRC, we can instead go :

:: Bowman ::

(BASE CLASS)

The Archer is a variant of the Fighter class, relying upon their skill with a bow.



- Hit Die: d10.

- Proficiencies: Bowman are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and light and medium armour.

- Skill Points: 6 + Int Modifier.



ABILITIES:



Level BAB Ref Fort Will Abilities

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

1 +1 +2 +2 +0 Sneak Attack +1d6, Fast Movement

2 +2 +3 +3 +1 Bonus Feats, Archer's Focus 1/day

3 +3 +3 +3 +1

4 +4 +4 +4 +2 Sneak Attack +2d6

5 +5 +4 +4 +2 Sniper's Skill, Archer's Focus 2/day

6 +6 +5 +5 +3 Bonus Feats

7 +7 +5 +5 +3

8 +8 +6 +6 +2 Sneak Attack +3d6, Archer's Focus 3/day

9 +9 +6 +6 +3 Agile Focus

10 +10 +7 +7 +3 Bonus Feats

11 +11 +7 +7 +3 Archer's Focus 4/day

12 +12 +8 +8 +4 Sneak Attack +4d6

13 +13 +8 +8 +4 Adept Focus

14 +14 +9 +9 +4 Bonus Feats, Archer's Focus 5/day

15 +15 +9 +9 +5

16 +16 +10 +10 +5 Sneak Attack +5d6

17 +17 +10 +10 +5 Archer's Focus 6/day

18 +18 +11 +11 +6 Bonus Feats

19 +19 +11 +11 +6 Supreme Focus

20 +20 +12 +12 +6 Sneak Attack +6d6, Archer's Focus 7/day

Which, of course, is a much better Archer.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Modifié par WebShaman, 04 février 2014 - 08:39 .

[MagicalMaster]

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

With vanilla NWN, yes, it pretty much is.

But with the PRC, we can instead go :[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the PRC has a class that will make the Light Hammer the most powerful weapon in the game.  Some people might find it interesting but it's not even remotely balanced (standard NWN certainly isn't close to perfect but PRC makes it far worse).

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

This is odd objection but I also met a guy who condemned the whole project only because it added a nymph hair retexture which he though the patch shouldn't have.[/quote]
Why do you find it to be an odd objection?  Let's say in this patch that you decided Clerics were too powerful by default and decided to nerf some spells like Divine Favor/Power, Heal/Harm, and some other things.  And you successfully made Clerics far more reasonable power wise.

Unfortunately, Bob the module author planned his module on standard NWN and knew Clerics were brokenly overpowered.  Therefore he gave special gear and bonus XP to non-Clerics so things would be more equal.

But then Dave the player installs your patch and plays Bob's module -- and Clerics are now extremely UNDERPOWERED because they got doubly nerfed.  Once by your patch and once by Bob.  It messes up the balance of the module and clerics become effectively unplayable as a result.

This kind of problem is what you can find when you start messing with balance in a general non-Bioware patch.

[quote]Bogdanov89 wrote...
[quote]Bogdanov89 wrote...
I am a bit confused as far as the large weapons go, since some of them seem completely bad compared to others:

Halberd (1d10 x3)
Greataxe (1d12 x3)
Spear (1d8 x3)
Trident (1d8 x2) - wikia mentions a bugged weapon focus (or specialization) for Trident?!
Heavy Flail (1d10 19-20/x2)
Scythe (2d4 x4)
Greatsword (2d6 19-20/x2)

To me, it seems that Greatsword and (maybe) Greataxe and Scythe are the best?
What is the purpose of the other large weapons?
Do they have any advantage when compared to the Greatsword (or Greataxe/Scythe)?[/quote]
Any more fellas willing to give their opinions about large weapons?[/quote]
Scythe is the best versus crit vulnerable foes but requires Exotic.  Greatsword/Greataxe are basically the same unless you have Devastating Critical in which case Greatsword is better.

Halberd/Heavy Flail are what you might pick if you're worried about damage immunities/resistances (Halberd does both Piercing AND Slashing while Heavy Flail does Bludgeoning which TENDS to be better versus something like a skeleton -- but that's entirely up to the module author and an author could make slashing BETTER versus a skeleton if they wanted).

Spear is good for people who can't take Martial Proficiency but does 2 damage less per hit compared to Greatsword/Greataxe.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...
Actually it would be a great feature if it would be technically possible {smilie}.[/quote]
Oh, I agree -- would be a great time and frustration saver that doesn't affect balance at all.  Most games these days (and even many back when NWN was released) would let you specify how many of something you wanted to buy.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

CPP is about fixing, improving and sometimes balancing the original NWN content both for players and builders. The goal is to make a more stable, more clear, more balanced, and more modern (in the terms of graphic) version of the NWN.[/quote]
The *SOMETIMES* part is my problem because I'm not seeing a consistent reasoning behind it.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Now quite a lot peoples are actually blaming CPP for adding this. But I won't change this, believe it or not colored icons are a standard for a long time ago.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with my objections to your patch, but I don't like the colored icons.  I like colored icons in GENERAL but I prefer the default NWN ones to TAD's icons.  His are...too colorful, really.  Too vibrant.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.)[/quote]
This simply isn't true in many cases.

Take Firestorm, for example -- you can clearly see how the coder MEANT to cap it at 20.  There's literally no reason to have an if check like that at that position if it wasn't meant to be.  AND the description claims 20 cap as well.  It's obvious that they simply forgot an equals sign going by both the text description and the code itself.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

I think we both agree with the fact that not everything what changes balance is a balance change. Because in fact every non-graphical bugfix actually changes a game balance. I think you realized this when you spoke about firestorm.[/quote]
Sure.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Firestorm - spell has been capped properly in CPP to 20d6 max
Clear bug since there is missing one "=". Thought there will always be disbelievers.[/quote]
I'd be very interested to find anyone who actually thought this wasn't a bug given the description and the code.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately this has no effect on a gameplay, but if it was a wizard spell this would be a different matter and I wouldn't changed that.[/quote]
Technically changing it means Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation Wizards would be unable to use the scroll, no?  I'm guessing that might be why Bioware did that, to make sure all Wizards could use the scroll.  However, I don't really see Wizards picking those three schools unless they're clueless and it's the official campaigns -- but in such a situation they can easily get by without the scrolls anyway.

Definitely makes more sense to have everything in the (Lesser/Greater) Restoration line be in the same spell school, though.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Regeneration - stacking has been disabled
Very unpopular change, even in the eyes of a builders who didnt even knew that clerics are abusing this to solo their dungeons and bosses. For me its absolutely clear this is a bug. For you and plenty of other it isn't of course.[/quote]
Explain how this is the case.  A level 40 cleric would have something like 600 HP (more with max constitution from items).  This means if you cast Heal while at 100 HP you instantly heal 500 HP.  And you don't even need full Cleric for that.  But even a level 40 Cleric EXTENDING Regeneration will only heal 480 HP over a time period of EIGHT minutes.  That's STILL less even in the best case scenario.  And a lot of that regen might be wasted at full HP too.

I mean, maybe if the boss auto-silenced you or counterspelled you or something I could see a point to stacking Regeneration versus just using Heal...but from my perspective the ability to stack Regeneration was the only thing that made the spell have a possible use compared to Heal.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.

This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf.[/quote]
I don't even know what you're talking about here, I don't recall mentioning it.  Refresh my memory?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation[/quote]
Which implementation?  Combust, which was added in HotU, doesn't use it -- like I said in my LAST post.  Combust just does the standard +50%.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

This of course results sometimes (3 spells imo) into serious nerf, but it was wrong anyway and since the intent was to unite spells I don't think it is a balance change.[/quote]
First of all, it wasn't 3 spells, it was 17 spells!  Including the whole line of Cure/Inflict and the Cleric Healing domain.  Look at my previous post for a list.

Second, here's the problem, ShaDoOoW, and I think this is what you don't understand.

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."

Your change turns Empowering the spell from being useFUL to useLESS.  If Empower gives a 50% bonus in 100% of spells and Maximize gives a 70-80% bonus in 95% of spells...which is the inconsistency that should be changed (if a change is somehow absolutely needed)?

Hint: it's not Empower.

You've changed it from a situation where a few odd spells only benefit from ONE of Empower/Maximize to a situation where a few odd spells benefit from ZERO of Empower/Maximize.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 04 février 2014 - 06:31 .

[Shadooow]

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

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.)[/quote]
This simply isn't true in many cases.

Take Firestorm, for example -- you can clearly see how the coder MEANT to cap it at 20.  There's literally no reason to have an if check like that at that position if it wasn't meant to be.  AND the description claims 20 cap as well.  It's obvious that they simply forgot an equals sign going by both the text description and the code itself.[/quote]
It is true. What matter is a subject, but when two or more peoples doesn't agree, and given how diverse is the NWN community there always gonna be someone who doesn't. There is nobody who could say how it was meant to work and if its really a bug or not. That is my point. Some issues are clearer and some are less, where you see something, I do not and backwards.
[quote]

I'd be very interested to find anyone who actually thought this wasn't a bug given the description and the code.[/quote]In this case I overexaggerated, but there are many other cases where implementation doesnt match description and you and the peoples you do represents see this suddenty different. Changes done into Cure spells, Ball of lightning, Sunbeam and plenty of others fall into this category. And suddenly it doesnt matter what description says, my change is incorrect and a balance one. I dont understand this.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately this has no effect on a gameplay, but if it was a wizard spell this would be a different matter and I wouldn't changed that.[/quote]
Technically changing it means Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation Wizards would be unable to use the scroll, no?  [/quote]Oh, I didnt knew that a wizard cannot use clerical scrolls of the opposite school. This smells with a bug because I have wiz/cleric and he is able to cast self prepared bless spell normally (illusions spec.). Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all. I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Regeneration - stacking has been disabled
Very unpopular change, even in the eyes of a builders who didnt even knew that clerics are abusing this to solo their dungeons and bosses. For me its absolutely clear this is a bug. For you and plenty of other it isn't of course.[/quote]
Explain how this is the case.  A level 40 cleric would have something like 600 HP (more with max constitution from items).  This means if you cast Heal while at 100 HP you instantly heal 500 HP.  And you don't even need full Cleric for that.  But even a level 40 Cleric EXTENDING Regeneration will only heal 480 HP over a time period of EIGHT minutes.  That's STILL less even in the best case scenario.  And a lot of that regen might be wasted at full HP too.

I mean, maybe if the boss auto-silenced you or counterspelled you or something I could see a point to stacking Regeneration versus just using Heal...but from my perspective the ability to stack Regeneration was the only thing that made the spell have a possible use compared to Heal.
[/quote]
Okay, ignoring the basic fact Ive brought before that spells shouldnt stack by a definition of the magic in DnD.
Its weird that you dont know this (given you are a powergamer - in a good meaning) but the regeneration is the most powerfull effect in NWN. Extended regeneration cast by the 28cleric (28/2/10 you follow), lasts almost 6minutes, healing 336hit points itself. Cast it twice and its 660hit points, still not enough? Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal? Hmm I cant see how, but ok lets say its less usefull than heal, what do you dont account into is the fact that you can still use Heal spell while you have ten ongoing extended regenerations on you! Another thing which you are missing is a fact that you dont have to be damaged to the critical ammount that would required healing at all. This is particulary usefull in a case you cant heal yourself - and I see a plenty of reason for this, being a druid in a dragon shape, fighting a boss that deals huge damage which might get your concentration broken or the other cases you mentioned. And there are much more possibilities how it can be abused, if you actually played some persistant action world such as Higher Ground, you wouldnt have ask. You seems to me highly focused on a one particular environment you know which isnt diversed. Your opinions on other character building issues lead me to this too. Try imagine a world where you can find all kinds of possible combinations of creatures's statistics. One time you fighting a boss with 60ac and 65ab, second time its a bosse without any ac, third time you are beating a huge ammount of the devastating critical food.
[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Light cure wounds - a missing saving throw has been added.

This was a reason while to you this is a huge balance change resulting in serious nerf.[/quote]
I don't even know what you're talking about here, I don't recall mentioning it.  Refresh my memory?[/quote]
You didnt, I draw this for better explaining my goal - in this situation the description mentions the saving throw but implementation doesnt have it. And I changed that to match description.
[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Empower spell calculation - has been unified across all spells to use the latest Bioware's implementation[/quote]
Which implementation?  Combust, which was added in HotU, doesn't use it -- like I said in my LAST post.  Combust just does the standard +50%.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

This of course results sometimes (3 spells imo) into serious nerf, but it was wrong anyway and since the intent was to unite spells I don't think it is a balance change.[/quote]
First of all, it wasn't 3 spells, it was 17 spells!  Including the whole line of Cure/Inflict and the Cleric Healing domain.  Look at my previous post for a list.

Second, here's the problem, ShaDoOoW, and I think this is what you don't understand.

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."

Your change turns Empowering the spell from being useFUL to useLESS.  If Empower gives a 50% bonus in 100% of spells and Maximize gives a 70-80% bonus in 95% of spells...which is the inconsistency that should be changed (if a change is somehow absolutely needed)?

Hint: it's not Empower.

You've changed it from a situation where a few odd spells only benefit from ONE of Empower/Maximize to a situation where a few odd spells benefit from ZERO of Empower/Maximize.
[/quote]
ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.

So to me, what actually changes doesnt matter at all. Thats a secondary effect of something Im absolutely sure it was neccesary to do. Now - given that I later found this is not correct and it should be slightly different, there is a possibility to change this according to rules. But for now I dont see this needed, it wont fix the problem you see there - it wont affect the spells you believe the patch made useless.

Third, gameplay results didnt registered any change. The spells in question werent used before for damaging anyway and their greatest benefit of emp/max was ability to cast them more times. I know this because I was playtesting this patch on a Arkhalia, PW I already mention. I was playing myself and I still have FoD in the spellbook of my sorcerer and yes I still cast this spell empowered. Something you cannot counterargument because you do intentionally refuse to try it. You are only sitting behind the scene where you cannot se what things actually are for the real.

Note I do not deny your calculations. You are correct in that, but you are incorrect of the vision what should maximize and empower do. Its written in a description. Maximize is absolutely clear so changing a result of maximized spell would be huge balance change without valid reasoning because its against rules. Empower is unclear to many, but to me it is not. Ive already explained how I think its meant to be and why I think it. You do not agree, fine, that doesn't mean Im wrong about this and mainly it doesnt matter because Ive havent changed spells with my vision of the empower calculation but Bioware's.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 04 février 2014 - 09:08 .

[MagicalMaster]

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

It is true. What matter is a subject, but when two or more peoples doesn't agree, and given how diverse is the NWN community there always gonna be someone who doesn't. There is nobody who could say how it was meant to work and if its really a bug or not.[/quote]
In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no (like the Firestorm example).  I didn't say ALL potential bugs were that clear-cut, just that some were.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all.[/quote]
Er...Conjuration is an opposite school for THREE schools.  I even listed all three!

Evocation, Abjuration, Transmutation.  If you make a wizard and pick the Evocation school, you cannot use a normal Restoration scroll (which has no class restriction).

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware. {smilie}[/quote]
I'm sure it was intended by Bioware for the reason above -- to make sure everyone could use it.  However, the line itself is based on Conjuration AND I don't think anyone actually picks Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation due to the default meta-game so I don't see it as an issue.

If Evocation was the main choice for wizards for some reason then I WOULD have an issue with it since you're changing the balance of the meta-game.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal?[/quote]
Yes, because you could cast 10 Heals to heal 5000 HP instead.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Another thing which you are missing is a fact that you dont have to be damaged to the critical ammount that would required healing at all.[/quote]
Sure, that's true, but how typically is that even a benefit?  And in the cases where that's a benefit then you're probably taking damage slowly enough where taking 3 seconds to heal is not a big deal.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

This is particulary usefull in a case you cant heal yourself - and I see a plenty of reason for this, being a druid in a dragon shape[/quote]
Sure, that's a non-typical example.  But why is that a problem?  Isn't being able to use Regeneration to be able to get healing in Dragon Form usually a GOOD thing -- since Heal is useless unless it's in potion form?

Unless Dragon Form is meant to be insanely overpowered while you're in it and you're not supposed to stay in it for long or something.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

fighting a boss that deals huge damage which might get your concentration broken or the other cases you mentioned.[/quote]
Sure.  But if the boss is doing THAT much damage then you will need to be casting Heal ANYWAY -- it's just a matter of having to cast Heal 25% more often or something.  And if you're drinking Heal potions then your Concentration won't get broken, obviously.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And there are much more possibilities how it can be abused, if you actually played some persistant action world such as Higher Ground, you wouldnt have ask. You seems to me highly focused on a one particular environment you know which isnt diversed. Your opinions on other character building issues lead me to this too. Try imagine a world where you can find all kinds of possible combinations of creatures's statistics. One time you fighting a boss with 60ac and 65ab, second time its a bosse without any ac, third time you are beating a huge ammount of the devastating critical food.[/quote]
I'm guessing you never saw this thread.

I've played on over a dozen PWs and a bunch of non-official campaigns as well.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.[/quote]
I'm not ignoring ANYTHING, ShaDoOoW.  Name the spells introduced in HotU that use a different Empower calculation than +50%.  I can't find any at all and you said a bunch of them existed.  What I DID find was stuff like Combust which WAS introduced in HotU and uses +50%.

Your claim was that HotU spells use a different Empower formula.  Please provide examples -- as I've given an example where this is NOT true.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.[/quote]
CLW and ILW have a massive nerf post level 2-3.  CMW/IMW post level 4-5.  CSW/ISW post level 6-7.  CCW/ICW post level 9-10.  Nothing at all to do with max level caster.

Combust is a big nerf past level like 4-5.

Negative Energy Burst past level 4-5.

Finger of Death is a big nerf as soon as you even GET the spell (29 damage versus 35) and that gap only increases.

All of these causes a large nerf practically as soon as you get the spell (presumably you'd agree that a 20% change is a large nerf).

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Third, gameplay results didnt registered any change. The spells in question werent used before for damaging anyway and their greatest benefit of emp/max was ability to cast them more times. I know this because I was playtesting this patch on a Arkhalia, PW I already mention. I was playing myself and I still have FoD in the spellbook of my sorcerer and yes I still cast this spell empowered. Something you cannot counterargument because you do intentionally refuse to try it. You are only sitting behind the scene where you cannot se what things actually are for the real.[/quote]
As mentioned above you're completely incorrect about me refusing to try PWs, I've played on many.

And I'm actually talking about something YOU apparently haven't experienced --  a sitation where you ARE using FoD to do DAMAGE and ignoring the instant death part (because the mobs are immune to Death Magic but to get past their damage resistance you need a large amount of negative energy damage).  Ditto on Negative Energy Burst.  Those spells are the only way FOR a mage to do Negative Energy Damage (technically Negative Energy Ray too as a level 1 spell).

On top of that you've cut the benefit of Empowering Cure Serious Wounds in HALF.  28 normal versus 35 for your Empowered versus 42 for standard Empowered.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Maximize is absolutely clear so changing a result of maximized spell would be huge balance change without valid reasoning because its against rules. Empower is unclear to many, but to me it is not.[/quote]
So don't change EITHER.  You've said that it is BIOWARE'S fault for making a spell like Spell Mantle which is 1d8 + 8 instead of 3d8 (which is basically the same result).  If it was 3d8 then Empower clearly SHOULD give +50% and its behavior would be the same, on average, as 1d8 + 8 with a bonus of 50%.

Why are you trying to make Empower useless for some spells when the intention is clearly to give a 50% bonus to effect?  Whether it be Sleep, Fireball, Hammer of the Gods, Chain Lightning, Blade Barrier, Magic Missile, Cat's Grace, Ice Storm, and beyond...ALL 50%.

If Fireball does 10d6 damage with an average of 35 and Pyroblast does 5d6 + 18 with an average of 35.5 then why should Fireball do 52 damage Empowered while Pyroblast does 44?

Both are clearly meant to have the same behavior except Pyroblast has less randomness.  This is WHY Spell Mantle is 1d8 + 8 -- so you didn't wind up with only absorbing 3 spell levels or possibly 24.  It establishes an upper and lower bound on the spell to keep the randomness under control.  It's NOT a reason to make Empower give a bonus of less than 50%.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 05 février 2014 - 05:35 .

[Shadooow]

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...
In some cases, yes.  In other cases, no (like the Firestorm example).  I didn't say ALL potential bugs were that clear-cut, just that some were.[/quote]?? 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.

And even a Firestorm can be disputed. Look at it this way, lets say that there is someone who doesnt understand what going on in a script, never going to understand and never going to accept the opinion/truth of the others. A blind man. What you get is exactly the same story as this here, only with one diference, a number of peoples who sees this differently. For some of us, given issue is clearer than for others. What if you are simply the blind man? Or what if I am? Either way there is nobody who could arbitrate this argument.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Fortunately, Necromancy neither Conjuration isn't an opposite school for any other by default, so this is not an issue at all.[/quote]
Er...Conjuration is an opposite school for THREE schools.  I even listed all three!

Evocation, Abjuration, Transmutation.  If you make a wizard and pick the Evocation school, you cannot use a normal Restoration scroll (which has no class restriction).

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

I am suprised however that you agree with an unification there because the spell school is clearly written in a description so it might be actually intented by Bioware. {smilie}[/quote]
I'm sure it was intended by Bioware for the reason above -- to make sure everyone could use it.  However, the line itself is based on Conjuration AND I don't think anyone actually picks Evocation/Abjuration/Transmutation due to the default meta-game so I don't see it as an issue.

If Evocation was the main choice for wizards for some reason then I WOULD have an issue with it since you're changing the balance of the meta-game.[/quote]
Sorry I am sick and having headaches, ive completely confused this you are absolutely right. I didn't knew about this issue and I agree that it might have been set to necromancy intentionally from this reason. Something to reconsider than.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Cast it ten times and you heal a 60hit points per single round for a duration of five and half minute where they gonna end gradually one by one. Total possible ammount of healed damage = 3360. Less then heal?[/quote]
Yes, because you could cast 10 Heals to heal 5000 HP instead.

and blabla[/quote]
Again. You can still cast 10 heals with an ongoing 10regenerations on you. 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.

But really, im tired of argumenting about something that is clearly a bug. All of this doesn't even matter, the fact that it have stacked wasn't intent. And a fact that they haven't fixed it till 1.69 doesn't prove anything (saying in advance predicting your next move). Its so clear to me as its the uncapped firestorm to you. 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.

So, if you want to continue in this discussion forget about how it changed the gameplay and balance and bring some proofs and opinions why this was an intent of the Bioware, or perhaps maybe proof that spells should stack with itself?

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Second and thats something you intentionally ignore, what Ive done was to unite the calculation to the newest one. I dont accept your argument about the Combust, how does single spell from thirty means anything? I dont see the intend there, really.[/quote]
I'm not ignoring ANYTHING, ShaDoOoW.  Name the spells introduced in HotU that use a different Empower calculation than +50%.  I can't find any at all and you said a bunch of them existed.  What I DID find was stuff like Combust which WAS introduced in HotU and uses +50%.

Your claim was that HotU spells use a different Empower formula.  Please provide examples -- as I've given an example where this is NOT true.[/quote]
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

Does the fact that its not used in the majority of HotU spells means the Bioware abadoned this concept? I don't think so. For example, neither the acid arrow, or the vampire touch spells weren't changed in a SoU but in the HotU actually.
To be honest I haven't studied all the spells checking if there is possibly some intent for this. I've take a quick look and it didn't appeared to be that case to me. But I accept the possibility that there actually really was, since I've stumbled upon the same discovery when I was unifying the targetting routine (SpellsIsTarget). It appeared that the target routine wasn't built for a spells with a single target area of effect and it caused those spells to be inefficient against neutral NPCs. But that could have been a coinsidence actually. Anyway, if you gonna prove there is intent in the fact that various spells uses different empower calculation Im willing to pull this change off. Hopefully, you want to help and will make this research.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

ok first, you ve brought a list of almost all spells affected, I know the damage output for a max lvl caster has been nerfed greatly in a three of them. Imo this change didnt caused a huge difference in the rest of them. Subject to different view, we wont agree on this.[/quote]
CLW and ILW have a massive nerf post level 2-3.  CMW/IMW post level 4-5.  CSW/ISW post level 6-7.  CCW/ICW post level 9-10.  Nothing at all to do with max level caster.

Combust is a big nerf past level like 4-5.

Negative Energy Burst past level 4-5.

Finger of Death is a big nerf as soon as you even GET the spell (29 damage versus 35) and that gap only increases.

All of these causes a large nerf practically as soon as you get the spell (presumably you'd agree that a 20% change is a large nerf).
[/quote]Yes I do agree, that this is what happened with my change into empower calculation. I do not agree the 20% change is a large nerf. The percentage itself yes, but it matters what the base. The average difference of the empowered neg bursts before and with patch is a 5points of damage. I dont think thats a large nerf. I havent really calculated the percentual difference before/after, but I have calculated the min/max before and after and I see only a three spells in particular to be really huge nerf. And I don't think its a big problem.

[quote]
[And I'm actually talking about something YOU apparently haven't experienced --  a sitation where you ARE using FoD to do DAMAGE and ignoring the instant death part (because the mobs are immune to Death Magic but to get past their damage resistance you need a large amount of negative energy damage).  Ditto on Negative Energy Burst.  Those spells are the only way FOR a mage to do Negative Energy Damage (technically Negative Energy Ray too as a level 1 spell).[/quote]
Yes I havent experienced that, I imagined that really I did because im not just player but also a builder and im designing monsters. 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. Unless such monster have a low ammount of hitpoint in which case the patch change to the empower shouldnt cause difference (hell you gonna account the fact that no everyone even have an empower) or its some serious boss with huge ammount of hitpoints which can never be killed only via negative energy spells itself. Now I did experienced a whole dungeon of monsters only vulnerable to negative, but at the same time also to the magic and ice. Therefore Ive used horrid on 8 and silent horrid on 9, burst only for a lowering ab and killing near deaths in order not to waste horrid.
[quote]
On top of that you've cut the benefit of Empowering Cure Serious Wounds in HALF.  28 normal versus 35 for your Empowered versus 42 for standard Empowered.[/quote]Yes, exactly. And I dare to believe it should actually be this way and its entirely correct now.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Why are you trying to make Empower useless for some spells when the intention is clearly to give a 50% bonus to effect?  [/quote]No the description doesnt say the the output damage is 50% more. there is "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by 50%." with the example of maggic missile which is 1d4+1.

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've already explained why do I believe that. This is the intent of the Wizards of the Coast, the creators of the Dungeon and Dragons. Bioware latest intent is somewhat different. As Ive said somewhere on the previous page, Im am willing to correct this despite the fact that Bioware wanted it this way (because it doesnt match with the description now since the +1 for magic missile isn't added into calculation). But not in a way to completely ignore whats written in the description of Maximize and apply some made up house rule.
BTW: The explanation of what is numeric, variable effect is written in the wiki by The Krit. Though Im sure this won't persuade you as its not official - apply my first paragraph.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 05 février 2014 - 02:42 .