324 réponses à ce sujet

[MrZork]

Where does Aribeth have a symbol on her sword? I don't mean where on her sword is the symbol, I mean in what situation or scene or area does the PC get a chance to see her sword and can tell there is something inscribed on it? Or is this in a dialog or description of Aribeth somewhere?

LOL, I hadn't really noticed the eye symbol so much, but it would be a little ironic if Aribeth had it when she was a cleric of Tyr, since he's the Blind God. What is mysterious about Aribeth is that she is so upset about what happens to Fenthic at the end of Chapter One that she changes from an elf to a half-elf by Chapter Two! ;-)

I think that the fighter in the intro movie battling the minotaur is supposed to be Lord Nasher. Not certain, but I think that's what I read at some point.

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Peoples we are talking about have never used the patch and never will, they just read the changelist and laughed how stupid it is, they are convinced they doesnt need CPP for anything, that their worlds are too advanced to use it and that they are better to fix everything on their own in their modules. I realized I cannot please them so I am no longer trying.

I disagree with this.

People use NWN Client Extender.

People use NWNX.

But I think people are worried about unintended changes (or even some intended changes, especially balance wise) and the fact that apparently a lot of bugs would be UNfixed if a few scripts were mofidied for completely unrelated reasons (like the AI code thing you mentioned).

If the CPP restricted itself to stuff like Firestorm or AI bug fixes (and preferably didn't have the colored icons as those really bug me) and it apparently wasn't easy to "break" many of the fixes I think a lot of people would be open to using it, myself included.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

EDIT: However, to be honest, I didn't noticed till you brough this up, that there is Magic Missile mentioned in the Empower spel lfeat description and that description is empowering the +1 direct bonus together. Quite a good reason to perform the correction based on the DnD then, still to do it, I need more votes/opinions on this regard.

Yeah, that's kind of a big one.

If you want more opinions look at the link I provided earlier (here) and I gave a bunch of quotes from both it and other discussions.

But let's also make this really simple.

It's clear from BOTH the NWN description AND the PHB (apparently page 93) that Magic Missile is SUPPOSED to be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 for Empower Spell.

Therefore, Bigby's Clenched Fist, which is 1d8 + 11, should CLEARLY be (1d8 + 11) * 1.5 for Empower Spell by the exact same logic.  Likewise, Bigby's Crushing Hand, which is 2d6 + 12, should CLEARLY be (2d6 + 12) * 1.5 for Empower Spell.

I bring these up specifically because they are the ONLY spells in ALL of NWN that actually act differently than +50% overall when Empowered according to you (every other spell which shares that function does not have any constants or even level based constants).

So the ONLY spells that Bioware apparently thought should act differently are CLEARLY incorrect based on the very example given for how Empower Spell works.  Note that neither of these spells even CAN be Empowered or Maximize -- so I suspect Bioware introduced the flawed formula, fixed it for all of the other spells (by making it +50% period), and didn't bother changing those two Bigbies since no one would ever notice the Empower Spell was wrong (since no one could Empower them in the first place).

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Bring me some proof that the balance change I've done in Monstrous regeneration, Bombardment, the new features I added into Implosion (immunity), Sunbeam/Sunburst (plant/oozes), Hellball (possibility to exclude caster if cast right) and something else I forget now or dont consider as a balance change at all breaks something.

That's something I'd have to look more into (to see exactly what was changed and how it was changed).

Also, Suburst just says:

"Sun burst
- was missing delay in VFXs (delay was there, but wasn't ever initialized)
- was missing saving throw VFX
- killing method could fail in special case (magic damage immune/resistant vampire)"

looking at the 1.70 documentation, at least.  Nothing about plants or oozes.  Was that changed in a later version or something?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I am not fixed on a single gaming environment I do enjoy and play (very very high magic) - afterall if I were why would I "nerfed" so many spells? On the contrary you seems to be, for example the regeneration stacking is extremely overpowered in a low-magic harsh type of world (where usually Heal is nerfed) - way more than in a high magic environment where a lvl 30+cleric has around 40 slots for healing and 10 for extended regeneration.

You can like high magic and still think IGMS does too much, for example.

I'm definitely not convinced that regeneration stacking on low level worlds is extremely overpowered.  If Heal was changed to be 10 HP per level with a cap of 150 while Regeneration healed 6 HP per round for rounds per level, no cap, then it could possibly become a problem if it was an epic world and the Cleric was extending it but I doubt even that.  Precisely because on a such a low level world the incoming damage is likely to be light and the Cleric will spend large amounts of time at full health and thus waste the regen.

And the fact you think that clerics having 25+ spell slots per level is in any way shape or form somewhat typical of even high magic environment is very telling.  I have seen ONE server or campaign where you'd expect more than 10-12 spells per level and that was Higher Ground.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Re: Empowered Finger of Death. I believe you that thats what youve did. But I actually already covered this in my previous posts: How many hitpoints this boss had then? Because if he had a damage resistance 20/negative and immunity to everything, all you could possibly do to him, if lucky was around 100damage with empowered FoDs. Unless you had unlimited number of them in which case it takes you only a longer with CPP. And the statistics of this boss suggest its some really harsh uberboss on epic levels, which suggests that he wasnt even meant to be killed by FoDs probably not by a arcane caster at all.

Each empowered FoD would do about 56 damage and I could cast about 10.  So that's 560 damage.  I still had another 10 Horrid Wiltings for 36 damage (360 + 520 = 880).  And then another 10 Fingers of Death for about 30 damage each (880 + 300 = 1180).

So probably about 1200 HP or so I think.  It's been a long time and I'm making rough guesses at a lot of these numbers.  And yes, it was supposed to a "tough" boss meant for a group -- I nuked him while others distracted him and chipped away at him a little bit.  Personally I think it was stupid design but that's how I managed to damage him -- and the fact I could put out "all" of that damage guaranteed in 90 seconds meant I was the best person for damaging.  Super high AC, crit immunity, and physical damage resistance/reduction meant meleers didn't do much.

Your version of Empower would change 1180 number I calculated to 980 -- or a 17% reduction in my ability to damage that boss and that's with Empower only affecting one of the three spell levels being used (which happens to make up 44% of the total damage).

[Bogdanov89]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

i actually have a story related question (possible spoilers):


i know the eye symbol represents the reptilian creator race who's leader is the final enemy in the original campaign of nwn.

but why does Aribeth have that eye symbol engraved on her swords from the very first chapter?

is it the same eye that represents the reptilian race?

also, at the beginning of nwn, there is an intro movie where a guy fights a minotaur - and that same eye appears.
who is that guy and who is that minotaur, and why are they important - and how are they related to the displayed eye symbol?!

what is the deal with that eye symbol? what does it really represent?
are there multiple different eye symbols with different meanings?

i am just quoting my own post in hopes of getting a few more replies

some questions about paladins and champion of torm:

Does putting levels into the champion of torm also provide me witih more spell slots for my paladin spellbook - or do only actual paladin levels count for the additional spell slots for the paladin spellbook?

I am having trouble deciding how much charisma does my melee-focused paladin/ChampTorm actually need?

There is a feat called greater smiting: http://nwn.wikia.com...i/Great_smiting
it greatly increases smite evil damage, but it requires 25 charisma - which seems WAY too much to me, perhaps much better damage output would be gained just by putting points into Strength?

What is actually the purpose of Great Smiting... with that high charisma requirement, i don't know why a paladin would ever take it?

Paladins seem to lose a lot of usefullness after only 4 levels... am i missing something, or is it really optimal (for melee character) to take just 4 levels of paladin for those feats - and then invest into some other class?

How good is paladin spellcasting anyway?
Is it worth getting all that wisdom just to be able to cast those paladin 4th level/rank spells?

I noticed champion of torm actually does not give the heavy armor proficiency - is there a penalty to champion of torm if they use heavy armor?

Is it a good idea (for melee char) to mix Paladin+ChampTorm with a class like Weapon Master or Dwarven Defender or a Fighter (epic weap specialization) or even Barbarian?

Modifié par Bogdanov89, 09 février 2014 - 09:15 .

[WebShaman]

The eye symbol is the symbol for the City of Neverwinter - see http://forgottenreal...iki/Neverwinter

That man in the beginning fighting the Minotaur I believe is Lord Nasher himself, at a younger age. The Minotaur dies, of course.

So why is it so important?

Well, we see that perhaps that symbol that was used to represent Neverwinter has an older, different meaning...one lost in the mists of time. Or something like that.

So, why does Aribeth have the symbol? Because before the town lynches her beloved (and she then turns), she is in the service of Neverwinter.

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Peoples we are talking about have never used the patch and never will, they just read the changelist and laughed how stupid it is, they are convinced they doesnt need CPP for anything, that their worlds are too advanced to use it and that they are better to fix everything on their own in their modules. I realized I cannot please them so I am no longer trying.

I disagree with this.

People use NWN Client Extender.

People use NWNX.

But I think people are worried about unintended changes (or even some intended changes, especially balance wise) and the fact that apparently a lot of bugs would be UNfixed if a few scripts were mofidied for completely unrelated reasons (like the AI code thing you mentioned).

If the CPP restricted itself to stuff like Firestorm or AI bug fixes (and preferably didn't have the colored icons as those really bug me) and it apparently wasn't easy to "break" many of the fixes I think a lot of people would be open to using it, myself included.

So do you all say, but you didnt event looked whats there, did you?

Who wants to use this project, does. Who doesn't, always find the excuse why not. Peoples that never even tried it supports my opinion that they wouldnt use it.

You all always speak about a possible balance issues and screwing out some modules while you never tried it to see if its actually true. And thats because you never wanted to. You took the first excuse you found to condemn the project in general.

If you really wanted to use the patch you would have and you would started this debate about empower spell long time ago and something might been done already in this regard. But you did not. So dont tell me stories.

Yeah, that's kind of a big one.

If you want more opinions look at the link I provided earlier (here) and I gave a bunch of quotes from both it and other discussions.

But let's also make this really simple.

It's clear from BOTH the NWN description AND the PHB (apparently page 93) that Magic Missile is SUPPOSED to be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 for Empower Spell.

Therefore, Bigby's Clenched Fist, which is 1d8 + 11, should CLEARLY be (1d8 + 11) * 1.5 for Empower Spell by the exact same logic.  Likewise, Bigby's Crushing Hand, which is 2d6 + 12, should CLEARLY be (2d6 + 12) * 1.5 for Empower Spell.

I bring these up specifically because they are the ONLY spells in ALL of NWN that actually act differently than +50% overall when Empowered according to you (every other spell which shares that function does not have any constants or even level based constants).

So the ONLY spells that Bioware apparently thought should act differently are CLEARLY incorrect based on the very example given for how Empower Spell works.  Note that neither of these spells even CAN be Empowered or Maximize -- so I suspect Bioware introduced the flawed formula, fixed it for all of the other spells (by making it +50% period), and didn't bother changing those two Bigbies since no one would ever notice the Empower Spell was wrong (since no one could Empower them in the first place).

First. I never said that adding the direct bonus to dice into calculation is wrong. It was me who brought this up actually. And I doesnt care about those discussion on various DnD forums. Ive read them all 2 years ago. The truth isn't on the side that has more supporters. Some peoples simply want to see it more powerful despite all the logic in the universe. On DnD forums, nobody cares what these peoples believe, its their game, in NWN this is completely different matter and it matters.


Now to your opinion of what Bioware intented:
First, I must say that is really plenty of guesses. I mean, I guessed that this this because that, you do guess they did that, because of that, then this, because of another matter and that then they found this and decided this. Thats a cool story really:wizard:. Possibility the intented what I say? 50:50, Possibility they did what you say? 1:1000


BTW. I checked the spels again. I missed one more spell that uses MaximizeOrEmpower function and thats Spike growth. Doesnt have any direct nor indirect bonus though. But then there is a Quillfire, this spell doesnt use the MaximizeOrEmpower function but the caster level bonus is still excluded from the empower calculation. Inflict spell line? Neither - which brings serious diverse with Cure spells dont you think?

And those, with the bigbies are the only spells in SoU that has direct/indirect bonus to the dice. So, from the SoU spells, there is no spell that would calculated empower spell in the old fashion.

The situation in HotU is different. Three spells from HotU actually adds caster level into damage calculation (healing sting, cure spell - other, combust). And three+two(two OC spell updated) spells used directly the MaximizeOrEmpower function, others not. So I ask again as its something I already asked to - does this means that Bioware decided to pull the SoU metamagic calculation off?

Another question: Does Bioware intented to have to have half spells with (in)direct bonus to the damage behave differently than another half?


To the part about regeneration, low magic, high magic. As I said already, its a clear bug. Your arguments and the link suggest you don't understand whats written there. The first link you've brought clearly confirms my statement that spells shouldn't stack. Second is discussing two different sources of the regeneration which wasn't in a discussion at all. And the answer is that in DnD neither two different sources of regeneration stacks which if anything, supports my change and my reasoning.
Your argument about the NWN implementations are also completely off. There are lots of effects those stacks with itself in NWN, spellmantle, damage reduction, dodge ac as a example. They did actually stacked in past but Bioware fixed this all and excluded this possibility via spellscript. The regeneration is the only one spell they missed. Or was it perhaps intent?

So. The actual debate whether was this overpowered or not doesnt even matter and Im not willing to continue in it - I got gaming experienced with stacked regeneration and regeneration in general both in low magic and high magic, you doesn't seem to have anyway.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Re: Empowered Finger of Death. I believe you that thats what youve did. But I actually already covered this in my previous posts: How many hitpoints this boss had then? Because if he had a damage resistance 20/negative and immunity to everything, all you could possibly do to him, if lucky was around 100damage with empowered FoDs. Unless you had unlimited number of them in which case it takes you only a longer with CPP. And the statistics of this boss suggest its some really harsh uberboss on epic levels, which suggests that he wasnt even meant to be killed by FoDs probably not by a arcane caster at all.

Each empowered FoD would do about 56 damage and I could cast about 10.  So that's 560 damage.  I still had another 10 Horrid Wiltings for 36 damage (360 + 520 = 880).  And then another 10 Fingers of Death for about 30 damage each (880 + 300 = 1180).

So probably about 1200 HP or so I think.  It's been a long time and I'm making rough guesses at a lot of these numbers.  And yes, it was supposed to a "tough" boss meant for a group -- I nuked him while others distracted him and chipped away at him a little bit.  Personally I think it was stupid design but that's how I managed to damage him -- and the fact I could put out "all" of that damage guaranteed in 90 seconds meant I was the best person for damaging.  Super high AC, crit immunity, and physical damage resistance/reduction meant meleers didn't do much.

Your version of Empower would change 1180 number I calculated to 980 -- or a 17% reduction in my ability to damage that boss and that's with Empower only affecting one of the three spell levels being used (which happens to make up 44% of the total damage).

Did this boss had 20/negative and 90/magical? Because the average of 25d8 is imo 112 not 36. But even if he had and thus empowered FoDs would be really best way how to harm him. Still applies what Ive said - this boss wasnt meant to be killable by an arcane caster in a first place. Also, a builder must have count with the fact that not every arcane spellcaster has empower magic. So those who didnt even have it were, screwed right? And this was clearly multiplayer on a PW which 1) never apply CPP 2) will modify anything that they doesnt like if they ever applied CPP in a first place.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 09 février 2014 - 09:52 .

[WhiZard]

Looks like 20/- negative vs. a pure level 40 caster, with the fortitude save assumed to be always succeeded due to the boss' high saving throws.

Modifié par WhiZard, 09 février 2014 - 05:29 .

[MagicalMaster]

Forgot about this post earlier, Web, sorry, while trying to reply to a dozen or so posts at once.

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

MM, no, I wasn't "bragging" - case in point : The Bowman is a BASE Class, not a PrC (Prestige Class).

I think you can do the math from there, right? [/quote]
I'm trying to do the math here and it definitely is looking unfavorable.  Here's what you said earlier (slightly paraphrased for readability):

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...

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

Oh, that is not true.  With the PRC, we can instead go (Bowman stuff).  Which, of course, is a much better Archer.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.[/quote]
So you're saying that not only is the Bowman a better archer than Arcane Archer, it's also a base class which is superior to a prestige class dedicated to archery?

And this ISN'T bragging about how powerful it is?  What in the world were you trying to say, then?

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

C'mon, give me and us all a break here! The Shadowdancer is not broken? Utterly? Either you give your Bosses and M0bs Truesight, or get HiPS to death! No cooldown, nothing, just hit that magic button, queue up your stuff, rinse, repeat![/quote]
Yes, can give enemies True Seeing or give them high Spot/Listen.  Either will prevent HiPS spam.  Is the feat stupidly powerful versus enemies without True Seeing or high detection?  Sure.  But there are easy solutions (can even do something like give the enemy a spot/listen buff once it sees the stealther for the first time so you can sneak up on them but once you engage you can't use HiPS).

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

There is nothing more broken than this! And I distinctly remember debates where you mention things like this in the game (and, of course, Dev Crit comes up as well, because it is also broken).[/quote]
Dev Crit has workarounds too, from crit immunity to immortality to simply disabling the feat.

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

The PRC, however, DOES allow one to at least wrinkle out the Dev Crit problem (because there are ways to deal with the high DC in the PRC NOT available in vanilla, plus the switches, of course). Also, one can put HiPS on a timer (again, switches) if one so chooses.[/quote]
Fantastic.  That doesn't change my original point that the PRC brings in a bunch of brokenly overpowered stuff and thus someone should keep that in mind.

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

As for Mods, unbalance, yadda yadda yadda. The ONLY place where this matters in in Multiplayer (Online). In SP, all I have to do is activate the Console, or various other means (trainer for overpowered Character, items, whatever) and that basically is all she wrote! I can even open the Mod, and edit it to my tastes (which I normally do anyway).[/quote]
The thing is, WebShaman, that simply isn't true (that balance only matters in multiplayer).

Take Mass Effect 2 as an easy example.  On "normal" difficulty all six classes were very viable and powerful.  But due to how they designed the harder modes, "insanity" left two of the classes (and one in particular) significantly behind the other four.  This meant that very few people would play those classes at the top end -- and those who did were typically trying to prove a point about how it was technically doable even if it was twice as hard or whatever.  Said people could sleepwalk through "insanity" on the other four classes, though.

So in Mass Effect 3 Bioware learned from their mistake and deliberately avoided the design that left 1/3 of the classes weak on high difficulties in ME2.  And the result was much better -- and that's all single player.

And yes, you CAN cheat.  But, shockingly enough, most people try to play the game as intended and THEN maybe fiddle around with it for fun.  Maybe you don't.  That's your choice.  But claiming designers shouldn't worry about balance in single player because players can cheat is a terrible argument.

[quote]WebShaman wrote...

Normally when you write something, you do it for a reason. So...I think it is easy to see why I come to the conclusion you are "dissing" on the PRC due to your word choice, and "color", not to mention hyperbole.[/quote]
You entered the conversation by eagerly telling us how the PRC had a BASE class that was better at archery than the PRESTIGE class of Arcane Archer (which is already insanely powerful).

I responded by saying

"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)."

So yes, it was some hyperbole, but the point seems quite valid given your statement right before it.  Note that I didn't even say "DON'T USE IT!" but rather said that it wasn't remotely balanced.  And I even said that some people might find it interesting.

[quote]WhiZard wrote...

Looks like 20/- negative vs. a pure level 40 caster, with the fortitude save assumed to be always succeeded due to the boss' high saving throws.[/quote]
Bingo.  I mentioned the 20 resistance to all earlier and, as WhiZard deduced, the boss had very high saving throws as well.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

So do you all say, but you didnt event looked whats there, did you?[/quote]
No, I never really paid any attention to it prior to this thread.  I haven't paid attention to a lot of custom content out there, it's not because I'm actively trying to avoid it.  I simply hadn't run into any major bugs or exploits which I felt needed to be patched due to what I was working on so I didn't really look at it.  Note that this also means I was NOT condemning it prior to this thread either.

But when you mentioned how you broke Empower Spell?  Yes, I started paying more intention.  And I skimmed through the spell changes and became very disturbed when it became clear you were going beyond simple, obvious bug fixes.  And I started saying not to use it.

I mean, maybe I'm forgetting something, but did I ever say anything at all about your patch prior to this thread?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And I doesnt care about those discussion on various DnD forums.[/quote]
Er...
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Quite a good reason to perform the correction based on the DnD then, still to do it, I need more votes/opinions on this regard.[/quote]
???

So you want opinions but you don't want opinions?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Some peoples simply want to see it more powerful despite all the logic in the universe. On DnD forums, nobody cares what these peoples believe, its their game, in NWN this is completely different matter and it matters.[/quote]
I'm going to say this in caps for emphasis:

SO WHY HAVE YOU BEEN INSISTING THAT THE DEFAULT NWN INTERPRETATION IS INCORRECT 
ACCORDING TO ACTUAL DND?

I mean, remember this post?  Especially point #2?

Laying aside point #1 for the moment...

You were WRONG about point #2.  DnD disagrees with you.

You were WRONG about point #3.  The spells in question were added in SoU and spells added LATER did NOT use that function.

Serious question: what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?

Here's my answer for myself: if the feat description specified otherwise I could accept it.  But the description itself (as well as the PHB) clearly state precisely how Magic Missile has the WHOLE thing multiplied.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Another question: Does Bioware intented to have to have half spells with (in)direct bonus to the damage behave differently than another half?[/quote]
Presumably not.  But given the most recent spells used the +50% flat out formula what does that suggest?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

So. The actual debate whether was this overpowered or not doesnt even matter and Im not willing to continue in it - I got gaming experienced with stacked regeneration and regeneration in general both in low magic and high magic, you doesn't seem to have anyway.[/quote]
Let's be precise: I have experience in both low magic and high magic exvironments where stacking Regeneration was inferior to simply casting Heal and thus I never stacked Regeneration.  But I acknowledged it as an option for those less skilled and not able to heal effectively mid-combat.

And, if people didn't take max HP per level, Regeneration would be more powerful (which may have been the intent).  A level 20 cleric with 140 (4.5 + 2 per level plus three levels of max HP) HP will find Regeneration more useful than one with 200 HP (8 + 2 per level) since Heal can't heal that much at once.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Did this boss had 20/negative and 90/magical? Because the average of 25d8 is imo 112 not 36.[/quote]
See what WhiZard said.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still applies what Ive said - this boss wasnt meant to be killable by an arcane caster in a first place.[/quote]
So...basically everyone is terrible against him except an arcane caster and thus you assume he wasn't meant to be damaged by an arcane caster?  What kind of logic is that?

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Also, a builder must have count with the fact that not every arcane spellcaster has empower magic.[/quote]
Why?  What arcane caster DOESN'T have Empower Magic?  Having Maximize and Empower are the two most important feats for arcane casters.

[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And this was clearly multiplayer on a PW which 1) never apply CPP 2) will modify anything that they doesnt like if they ever applied CPP in a first place.[/quote]
Whoa now, I thought you WANTED PWs to use CPP?  Wasn't your whole complaint earlier how you wanted PWs to use it?

And thus I imagine most PWs feel like "If we have to go through and fix a bunch of stuff in the CPP, why bother installing it in the first place instead of just fixing the problematic stuff ourselves?"

NWNCX doesn't require you to fix anything.

NWNTX doesn't require you to fix anything.

NWNX doesn't require you to fix anything.

CCP DOES require you to fix things, apparently.

Can you guess why many people might not bother using it or even be against using it?

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 09 février 2014 - 08:09 .

[Bogdanov89]

can you folk please take a look at my previous post?

also shadoOow, on the website: http://neverwinterva...y-patch-project
i can see two files named Patch 1.71 Release Candidate 3, one is 33.95mb heavy while the other one is 61.13mb heavy.

However since both files have an identical name, i don't know what the actual difference is?

[MagicalMaster]

I'll look at it in a moment, replying in another thread first.

[MrZork]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

can you folk please take a look at my previous post?

http://social.biowar...7678/8#17869977
I didn't know the answer to all the questions you posted, but I did answer the post and asked for more detail about the questions which might help someone understand more clearly what you are referring to.

[Bogdanov89]

aribeth has those "eye swords" during the entire nwn campagin, both in game and on various game art.

google "nwn aribeth sword", the eye is really noticeable.

i thought you were joking when you asked about the eye on aribeth's swords... i mean she was the most popular character during the old original nwn campaign, and her weapons (eye swords) were really well known.

Modifié par Bogdanov89, 09 février 2014 - 08:49 .

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

can you folk please take a look at my previous post?

also shadoOow, on the website: http://neverwinterva...y-patch-project
i can see two files named Patch 1.71 Release Candidate 3, one is 33.95mb heavy while the other one is 61.13mb heavy.

However since both files have an identical name, i don't know what the actual difference is?

one is in 7zip format and one with zip... new vault has really bad download list

[MrZork]

Interesting. I had never seen anything actually during game play where I could distinguish the engraving on her sword. Most of the images google comes up with look like they are from box art or maybe the movies that play between chapters. It has never been clear to me why the eye symbol is so prominent in NWN, even aside from Aribeth and Morag, though obviously, I think it's a pretty cool symbol. ;-)

Before she joins the dark side, Aribeth is supposed to be one of Tyr's clerics or paladins (it changes in the OC). Tyr is the god of justice and I think his main symbol are scales and a hammer. But, it's possible that his people also use the eye to represent justice or law. It seems a pretty common law-and-order theme that some powerful authority is keeping watch over everyone else.

It's also possible that the eye means reflects a similar authoritarian theme for the old ones: They are the rulers over all the slave races and the old ones were presented as all-seeing (and all knowing) to keep them in line.

Anyway, that's just speculation on my part. I really think the eye symbolism in the game material is a bit out of proportion to any explanation given in the story. Maybe a bit of googling could reveal more.

[MrZork]

LOL. That didn't take long.
http://social.biowar...7451551#7462349

[MagicalMaster]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Does putting levels into the champion of torm also provide me witih more spell slots for my paladin spellbook - or do only actual paladin levels count for the additional spell slots for the paladin spellbook?

Only paladin levels count.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

I am having trouble deciding how much charisma does my melee-focused paladin/ChampTorm actually need?

There is a feat called greater smiting: http://nwn.wikia.com...i/Great_smiting
it greatly increases smite evil damage, but it requires 25 charisma - which seems WAY too much to me, perhaps much better damage output would be gained just by putting points into Strength?

What is actually the purpose of Great Smiting... with that high charisma requirement, i don't know why a paladin would ever take it?

Great Smiting allows you to be a one-shot wonder (or technically three shot).  A level 40 paladin with, say, Great Smiting IV will do 200 bonus damage on each Great Smite -- meaning if you landed all three you could do 600+ in three hits without even counting your melee damage per hit.

There are basically two types of paladin.

Charisma Paladins look to make use of Divine Shield and Divine Might.  They also can get Great Smiting and higher AB bonuses when Smiting.  Plus amazing saving throws.  They have higher AC (typically much higher unless it's a very high magic world and/or there's a bard in the group) and can get a massive chunk of completely unresistable Divine Damage...but both of these are limited in duration.  A paladin with 28 base charisma and +12 from gear/abilities would get 15 AC or 15 damage for 90 seconds per use with either 18 or 24 uses per day (depending on if they have extra turning).  Now, given that Haste is +4 AC and you could often get +5 Dodge AC from boots you'd typically only get about an 11 AC bonus out of that 15 (due to the +20 Dodge cap) but that's still a very large increase.  They also get a +15 bonus to all saving throws.

Strength Paladins use a smidgen of Charisma for extra saving throws but they primarily focus on strength for high and consistent AB/damage.  Your AB in particular is higher since Charisma paladins can't increase their AB but your AC is lower and, depending on the enemy, your damage may be lower (something with 50% immunity to all damage will still take full damage from Divine Might).

So it's a question of what you want.  High AB with consistent damage?  Or more AC/saving throws/possibly more damage but with limited durations?

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Paladins seem to lose a lot of usefullness after only 4 levels... am i missing something, or is it really optimal (for melee character) to take just 4 levels of paladin for those feats - and then invest into some other class?

How good is paladin spellcasting anyway?
Is it worth getting all that wisdom just to be able to cast those paladin 4th level/rank spells?

You are missing something -- their spells.  They're really good.

Divine Favor is +5 AB/damage with unresistable damage.  Bless/Aid is 2 extra AB.  Prayer is +1 AB/damage and -1 AB/damage to enemies nearby.  Bull's Strength/Eagle's Splendor/Aura of Glory can buff Strength and Charisma.  GMW turns a weapon into +5.  Death Ward/Freedom of Movement can shield against instant death or slowing/paralyzing effects.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

I noticed champion of torm actually does not give the heavy armor proficiency - is there a penalty to champion of torm if they use heavy armor?

No.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

Is it a good idea (for melee char) to mix Paladin+ChampTorm with a class like Weapon Master or Dwarven Defender or a Fighter (epic weap specialization) or even Barbarian?

Depends on how much spellcasting you're wanting to give up.  You could certainly do something like Paladin 26/Fighter 6/Champ 8 if you wanted.  Weapon Master probably isn't worth it in most cases due to the high feat investment needed.  Not really on Dwarven Defender, but if you're willing to take the Charisma hit I suppose you might be able to make something playable.  DD is something better in large doses, though.

Barbarian...no.  Why would you think Barbarian would be a good combination with Paladin?

[Bogdanov89]

thank you for replying.

about barbarian and paladin/torm, i thought like this:

- both classes can use large weapons and heavy armor, hence i can completely skip dexterity (not needing two weapon fighting and full plate negates nearly all dexterity bonus to ac).

- both classes have strong self buffs, barbarian rage is very strong even at just 1 level of barbarian.
Put together, palad/barb/torm can really really buff itself to some really nasty levels of power

- torm provides a lot of bonus feats (just like fighters), and it also nicely works with paladins.

- torm gives a lot of saving throws and useful abilities, while barbarian gives nice passive damage reduction and even passive run speed

- all classes receive a very high amount of hit points per level, as well as highest attack bonus

- the alignment restriction can easily be skipped with very minor character editing, and i can leave intellect/dexterity very low so i can properly cover wisdom and charisma for paladin/torm.

- overall, i can't see a reason why something like 15 paladin/ 15 barbarian/ 10 torm would not work.
Might not be perfect, but i think the interaction between those 3 classes can be very fun

[MagicalMaster]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

- both classes can use large weapons and heavy armor, hence i can completely skip dexterity (not needing two weapon fighting and full plate negates nearly all dexterity bonus to ac).

Barbarians can't use Heavy Armor by default as an FYI.  You'll also still want 12 Dexterity to avoid losing AC.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

- both classes have strong self buffs, barbarian rage is very strong even at just 1 level of barbarian.

Barbarian Rage is pretty awful due to the +12 stat limit.  At best it's 2 AB, 2 damage, and twice your level in HP at the cost of 2 AC.  But usually you'll be able to get +12 strength from gear and buffs which means you can no offensive benefit.  You'll also get no defensive benefit if you can get +12 con, which leaves...just -2 AC.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

- torm provides a lot of bonus feats (just like fighters), and it also nicely works with paladins.

Unless you're Smiting or Laying on Hands Champion of Torm has no special synergy with Paladins.  Lay on Hands is typically irrelevant too.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

- torm gives a lot of saving throws and useful abilities, while barbarian gives nice passive damage reduction and even passive run speed

Torm gives saving thows but these throws count against the +20 saving throw cap while the Paladin's bonus from charisma does not.

The passive run speed on Barbarian is irrelevant since it doesn't stack with Haste.  Their damage reduction is also pitiful without a lot of levels -- your level 15 Barbarian would only reduce 2 damage per hit.

Bogdanov89 wrote...

- overall, i can't see a reason why something like 15 paladin/ 15 barbarian/ 10 torm would not work.
Might not be perfect, but i think the interaction between those 3 classes can be very fun

Barbarian is doing nothing but detracting from that build in most environments.  You're better off with more Paladin levels for more feats, more spells, longer spell durations, and protection against dispelling, more Champion of Torm levels for more feats, Divine Wrath (if you're going Charisma based), and more saving throws, or Fighter levels for Epic Weapon Specialization and more feats.

Alternatively, levels in Rogue or Monk would give Evasion and access to Tumble (and UMD for Rogue) if you don't care about alignment/RP issues.

[Shadooow]

Seriously, this starting to be really exhausting. Im repeating the same thing over and over for almost six pages and you still dont understand.
[quote]
[quote]WhiZard wrote...

Looks like 20/- negative vs. a pure level 40 caster, with the fortitude save assumed to be always succeeded due to the boss' high saving throws.[/quote]
Bingo.  I mentioned the 20 resistance to all earlier and, as WhiZard deduced, the boss had very high saving throws as well.[/quote]
ok fine, I havent realized this fact, the empowered FoD would in this case be in vanilla really the most effective spell.
It doesnt change anything though. I already covered this case in my response on page 5 last post, the paragraph starting with words "Yes I havent experienced that". All this continuing debate did not prove I was wrong in that answer nor that CPP would have serious impact on the builders design and intend. It definitely has an impact on the player behavior and tactic and I never argued about that. What doesn't? Even the AI fixes itself has a big impact on a gameplay and I would say that even way bigger.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

So do you all say, but you didnt event looked whats there, did you?[/quote]
No, I never really paid any attention to it prior to this thread.  I haven't paid attention to a lot of custom content out there, it's not because I'm actively trying to avoid it.  I simply hadn't run into any major bugs or exploits which I felt needed to be patched due to what I was working on so I didn't really look at it.  Note that this also means I was NOT condemning it prior to this thread either.

But when you mentioned how you broke Empower Spell?  Yes, I started paying more intention.  And I skimmed through the spell changes and became very disturbed when it became clear you were going beyond simple, obvious bug fixes.  And I started saying not to use it.

I mean, maybe I'm forgetting something, but did I ever say anything at all about your patch prior to this thread?
[/quote]
Yea thats it. So even when you heard about it and that its supposed to be a general patch just like the official were, you were never thought you might need it, or it can have any value to you or that it could be something of a good value. It wasnt created by bioware so why bother right? What youve said only proves my point. You are the one of those hypocrites that never wanted to use CPP and never will and always find an excuse why to condemn this project in general.

And I realized this soon after 1.70 release when hell lot of critique erupted. So, after that I no longer gives a shat about peoples like you and what you want. You will never be satisfied and you will never use it despite all your claims.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And I doesnt care about those discussion on various DnD forums.[/quote]
Er...
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Quite a good reason to perform the correction based on the DnD then, still to do it, I need more votes/opinions on this regard.[/quote]
???

So you want opinions but you don't want opinions?
[/quote]
You misunderstood me in a first place. I want opinions of peoples who uses this project. Current behavior is imo based on whats Bioware intented. And it works pretty well. To me on high magic we experienced that these spells changed (only listing those who are calculated wrong per DnD rules now):
- ability buffs: empower caused the minimum increase to be +2 not +3, while players argued about this a lot this proved to be a great change that reduced the advantages of casters against noncasters
- spell mantle: fact that empowered spell mantle no longer trumps the Greater spell mantle is imo another plus.

Difference in the few remaining spells with direct bonus made no spotable difference in gameplay.

So Iam asking those who have CPP installed and uses it whether they do think a correction of these spells is needed. They are incorrect, but to me actual behavior seems to be more balanced anyway.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Some peoples simply want to see it more powerful despite all the logic in the universe. On DnD forums, nobody cares what these peoples believe, its their game, in NWN this is completely different matter and it matters.[/quote]
I'm going to say this in caps for emphasis:

SO WHY HAVE YOU BEEN INSISTING THAT THE DEFAULT NWN INTERPRETATION IS INCORRECT 
ACCORDING TO ACTUAL DND?

I mean, remember this post?  Especially point #2?

Laying aside point #1 for the moment...

You were WRONG about point #2.  DnD disagrees with you.

You were WRONG about point #3.  The spells in question were added in SoU and spells added LATER did NOT use that function.

Serious question: what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?

Here's my answer for myself: if the feat description specified otherwise I could accept it.  But the description itself (as well as the PHB) clearly state precisely how Magic Missile has the WHOLE thing multiplied.
[/quote]
You are totally off and dont understand this issue at all. You are tallking about things that has no meaning to this since a page of 1. When do you realize that?

Apparently you never understood what I meant with this exact post. I should have been perhaps more detailed maybe it would avoided the next six pages of misunderstoodment.

So lets be detailed about #2. I NEVER CLAIMED the direct bonus to the damage (maggic missile example) is not meant to be added to the calculation. I actually pointed out about this fact in the same post below!!!! What I meant is that the indirect bonus, the +1 per X levels isnt meant to be added into calculation. Do you see anywhere in the DnD rules otherwise ? (On the other hand there is no direct proof (there hell lot of indirect ones) of the opposite thats why Ive suggested also discussions about this matter.)

Re: #3. Right I was wrong. It really wasnt introduced in HotU but SoU. Not too big difference but if all you are up to is catch me lying (as it looks like) then congratulations youve did! Second part of your claim is not correct. Three spells from HotU uses the MaximizeOrEmpower function directly, one spell from OC was updated in HotU release to use this function (melfs acid arrow) and one another spell was updated in patches (vampire touch) to use this function too.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Another question: Does Bioware intented to have to have half spells with (in)direct bonus to the damage behave differently than another half?[/quote]
Presumably not.  But given the most recent spells used the +50% flat out formula what does that suggest?
[/quote]
Wrong. Most recent spells uses both the MaximizeOrEmpower and flat out formula. Fact that none of those spells that uses MaximizeOrEmpower has an (in)direct bonus to the damage doesnt prove anything - lucky coincidence imo, same suggesting the SoU spells which partly uses flat out formula as well but the (in)direct damage is excluded anyway.

I can also add a guess why its that. HotU was released soon after SoU. This means that both expansions were developed simultaneously, by a different developers.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still applies what Ive said - this boss wasnt meant to be killable by an arcane caster in a first place.[/quote]
So...basically everyone is terrible against him except an arcane caster and thus you assume he wasn't meant to be damaged by an arcane caster?  What kind of logic is that?
[/quote]
I thought you mean that you only holded him before you party members clean the surroundings. So you really killed him yourself? and you was able to only because of empowered FoD? Noone else could harm him?

If thats the case and the boss was desinged to be killed specifically with a sorcerer (not wizard clearly, too less spells) with maximized charisma, with empower/maximized/still spell and one exact tactics, then you can add my claim to your list of where I was wrong.

Still, I dont accept this as a proof that the change in empower could break someone's module. Hardly.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And this was clearly multiplayer on a PW which 1) never apply CPP 2) will modify anything that they doesnt like if they ever applied CPP in a first place.[/quote]
Whoa now, I thought you WANTED PWs to use CPP?  Wasn't your whole complaint earlier how you wanted PWs to use it?

And thus I imagine most PWs feel like "If we have to go through and fix a bunch of stuff in the CPP, why bother installing it in the first place instead of just fixing the problematic stuff ourselves?"

NWNCX doesn't require you to fix anything.

NWNTX doesn't require you to fix anything.

NWNX doesn't require you to fix anything.

CCP DOES require you to fix things, apparently.

Can you guess why many people might not bother using it or even be against using it?
[/quote]
First. You are wrong about NWNX, NWNTX and NWNCX. Its clear that you dont use them so stop talking about these packages.

Second. I would like that PWs would have used CPP, but I soon realized this never happen because of peoples behind them. I asked several PW admins why they wont use CPP and watched few forums where players brought CPP up and PW Admin told them why its bad idea and why they shouldnt use it.

All these peoples behind PWs are those who you do represent MM. They all thinks they eat the wisdom of the whole world and they think, that they doesnt need it, that theyve fixed everything on their own long time ago, that their PW is too advanced to accept something like this, that they know better, that its not official neither "community" product, that it shouldnt add this and that, that they are better fix everything themselves one by one from vault and so on.

EXCUSES.

Those who like and support the idea will always find a way to use it. Those who not will always find an excuse why not. Every patch even the previous contained (balance) changes that lot of peoples disliked. Their either overriden them or accepted them. Now they do neither - I say the fault is on their side.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 09 février 2014 - 11:24 .

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

First. You are wrong about NWNX, NWNTX and NWNCX. Its clear that you dont use them so stop talking about these packages.

Reeeeeeaaaaaally?



Would you like to guess again?

Now, I technically haven't used NWNX yet, but I *will* for a PW where it would help.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Seriously, this starting to be really exhausting.

*Starting* be to be exhausting?  Been exhausting for a while now.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

All this continuing debate did not prove I was wrong in that answer nor that CPP would have serious impact on the builders design and intend.

How did making Empower Finger of Death do 26% less damage overall (and only 11% more than the normal version) improve the game at all?

Saying "it didn't have a serious impact" doesn't matter.  There needs to be a BENEFIT to change something.  I mean, you could technically change Heal to only heal 90% of your max HP and it wouldn't have a serious impact.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

So even when you heard about it and that its supposed to be a general patch just like the official were, you were never thought you might need it, or it can have any value to you or that it could be something of a good value.

When I heard about it I was busy building stuff of my own and didn't want to risk getting behavior in my work that would be different from the behavior of people playing my work unless the CPP offered massive improvements somehow.

And since I hadn't noticed anything in NWN that made me think "Yeah, I really wish Bioware had patched that" (that I couldn't easily fix myself or figured wasn't fixable) I didn't think it was worth the risk.  Simple as that.

Maybe I'm wrong about the benefits.  I'm willing to admit that if the evidence shows it.  But that's why I wasn't particularly interested when I first heard about it and never really paid it any heed until this thread.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

They are incorrect, but to me actual behavior seems to be more balanced anyway.

Empowered Finger of Death doing 11% more damage seems more balanced to you?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

So lets be detailed about #2. I NEVER CLAIMED the direct bonus to the damage (maggic missile example) is not meant to be added to the calculation. I actually pointed out about this fact in the same post below!!!! What I meant is that the indirect bonus, the +1 per X levels isnt meant to be added into calculation. Do you see anywhere in the DnD rules otherwise ? (On the other hand there is no direct proof (there hell lot of indirect ones) of the opposite thats why Ive suggested also discussions about this matter.)

...

So if you think Magic Missile is SUPPOSED to be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 then why in the world did you change the ability buffs which have the exact same formula?

And just so your stance is clear, you believe the following for a level 40 caster?

1. Magic Missile: (1d4 + 1) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 * 1.5) + 1
3. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20
3. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 + 11) * 1.5
4. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40
5. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 + 12) * 1.5

Do you not see how inconsistent that is?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I thought you mean that you only holded him before you party members clean the surroundings. So you really killed him yourself? and you was able to only because of empowered FoD? Noone else could harm him?

If thats the case and the boss was desinged to be killed specifically with a sorcerer (not wizard clearly, too less spells) with maximized charisma, with empower/maximized/still spell and one exact tactics, then you can add my claim to your list of where I was wrong.

Like I said, some other people (like AAs and high strength meleers) could scratch him but barely and you were expected to bring a wizard/sorcerer who would be the main nuker.  Turned a 10-15 minute fight into a 2 minute fight.  Wizard only has 1 less spell per level so both could function in that role.

I didn't bring up this example because I think it's an example of a good fight.  I brought it up as an example of precisely when the damage from Empower matters -- because you were claiming that the only purpose of Empower for Finger of Death was simply more casts and the damage wasn't ever important.

And I kept claiming that it in some cases it WAS really important, even if it was rare.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 10 février 2014 - 12:12 .

[Shadooow]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Reeeeeeaaaaaally?
Would you like to guess again?

Now, I technically haven't used NWNX yet, but I *will* for a PW where it would help.

Then you perhaps noticed that compiling scripts with NWNTX sometimes changes their behavior, throws errors etc. Builder must fix this. NWNX often totally changes game, our linux geek on Arkhalia installed nwnx_defense and this changed lot of things that wasnt even documentet anywhere - we had to modify the plugin itself to get rid of them (pickpocket DC change in particulary).

So to your argument.

Empowered Finger of Death doing 11% more damage seems more balanced to you?

So if you think Magic Missile is SUPPOSED to be (1d4 + 1) * 1.5 then why in the world did you change the ability buffs which have the exact same formula?

This is waste of time. It doesnt look like you will understand it ever. Please read all my posts again. Ive explained everything already ten times.

And just so your stance is clear, you believe the following for a level 40 caster?

1. Magic Missile: (1d4 + 1D) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 * 1.5) + 1 (1d4 +1D) * 1.5
3. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
3. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 + 11D) * 1.5
4. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40I
5. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 + 12D) * 1.5

Do you not see how inconsistent that is?

No I see a strong consistency. And even if it wouldn't been consistent, and even if the adding everything into empower calculation was more consistent solution it wouldnt changed anything. I already explained why I did what I did and how is this supposed to work in DnD rules.

EDIT: fixed the error you had there and I didnt noticed the first time. Also marked with letters D-direct and I-indirect to help you see it.

EDIT2: to make it clearly seen for all even those who skipped the whole 8pages:

Vanilla behavior (lvl 40caster in calculation):

1. Magic Missile (1d4 + 1D) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 +1D) * 1.5
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 + 20I) * 1.5
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 * 1.5) +11D
6. Finger of Death (3d6 + 40I) * 1.5
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 * 1.5) + 12D
8. Spell mantle (1d8 + 8D) * 1.5
9. Circle of doom (1d8 + 40I)  * 1.5 + 40I

CPP behavior based on Bioware possible intent

1. Magic Missile (1d4 * 1.5) + 1D
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 * 1.5) + 1D
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 * 1.5) +11D
6. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40I
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 * 1.5) + 12D
8. Spell mantle (1d8 * 1.5) + 8D
9. Circle of doom (1d8 * 1.5) + 40I

DnD rules correct behavior:

1. Magic Missile (1d4 + 1D) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 +1D) * 1.5
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 + 11D) * 1.5
6. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40I
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 + 12D) * 1.5
8. Spell mantle (1d8 + 8D) * 1.5
9. Circle of doom (1d8 * 1.5) + 40I

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 10 février 2014 - 02:41 .

[WebShaman]

First of all, the Bowman is a Base Class that specializes in using a Bow.

It doesn't have any Arcane elements to it, which of course separates it from the Arcane Archer.

It is not, however "utterly broken", or any such nonsense. It is just a Base Class that is centered around using a Bow. I find it to be a better Archer, because one doesn't have to be an Elf, and one doesn't have to have any Arcane elements (re: Sorc, Wiz, Bard, etc).

Yes, can give enemies True Seeing or give them high Spot/Listen. Either will prevent HiPS spam. Is the feat stupidly powerful versus enemies without True Seeing or high detection? Sure. But there are easy solutions (can even do something like give the enemy a spot/listen buff once it sees the stealther for the first time so you can sneak up on them but once you engage you can't use HiPS).

Now you are just trolling us. You know as well as I do about the HiPS Queue tactic. So Spot/Listen won't really help here. It still ends up in the queue being emptied, so that the opponent just stands there, ready to be HiPSed again. It really comes down to either giving everything perma True Sight or getting waxed. It is something that has been discussed ad infinitum! That, and Dev Crit, of course.

As I never said anything about balance related to anything in regards to what you mention, I'll just let your Straw Man burn.

You used to be better at these kind of debates, MM.

[Pstemarie]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Vanilla behavior (lvl 40caster in calculation):

1. Magic Missile (1d4 + 1D) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 +1D) * 1.5
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 + 20I) * 1.5
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 * 1.5) +11D
6. Finger of Death (3d6 + 40I) * 1.5
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 * 1.5) + 12D
8. Spell mantle (1d8 + 8D) * 1.5
9. Circle of doom (1d8 + 40I)  * 1.5 + 40I

CPP behavior based on Bioware possible intent

1. Magic Missile (1d4 * 1.5) + 1D
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 * 1.5) + 1D
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 * 1.5) +11D
6. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40I
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 * 1.5) + 12D
8. Spell mantle (1d8 * 1.5) + 8D
9. Circle of doom (1d8 * 1.5) + 40I

DnD rules correct behavior:

1. Magic Missile (1d4 + 1D) * 1.5
2. Bull's Strength (1d4 +1D) * 1.5
3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
4. Inflicted Critical Wounds (4d8 * 1.5) + 20I
5. Bigby's Clenched Fist (1d8 + 11D) * 1.5
6. Finger of Death (3d6 * 1.5) + 40I
7. Bigby's Crushing Hand (2d6 + 12D) * 1.5
8. Spell mantle (1d8 + 8D) * 1.5
9. Circle of doom (1d8 * 1.5) + 40I

You've got the calculations for DnD rules correct behavior wrong on some of those examples. The calculations, assuming a 40th level caster (per your example) should be...

3. Cure Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
4. Inflict Critical Wounds (4d8 +20) * 1.5
6. Finger of Death (3d6 +25) * 1.5
9. Circle of Doom (1d8 +40) * 1.5

Read the FAQ. The value of the variable is what is multiplied by Empower Spell. You don't just multiply the die roll in these cases, as the value of the variable is the die roll + X amount per caster level. This is how Empower Spell works in DnD and how it should work in NWN.

This is the main reason I STOPPED using CPP - too many changes that no longer reflect the PnP rules upon which the game is based. Instead they reflect ONE person's view of how NWN should work. Granted, I could easily overwirte those changes via my module scripts, but why would I want to. Such an endeavor is a colossal waste of time for me - time that can be better spent doing other things.

You also spend a lot of time spinning hyperbole about what BioWare's intent was behind things such as the inconsistency in how Empower Spell is applied. You don't seem to consider that BioWare - or Floodgate, which also did coding for SoU, might just have gotten it wrong in some cases. To me its pretty simple - when you find a perceived error, check the original source and use that as the basis for your fix. Why try to second quess a 3rd party interpretation?

Modifié par Pstemarie, 10 février 2014 - 02:27 .

[Sandrax]

Maybe I missed it in 8 pages of a monk thread but I'm really surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the 10 attacks per round monk yet?

Its a kama monk that uses ranger. The third class is often given a cleric to piggyback the wisdom stat and provide buffs. A caveat is the ease it can be dispelled, which drastically drops its AB below other melees.

It has been quite popular on many arena-type servers historically. Unfortunately, it is a "One Trick Pony" type of build, relying on the buffs and the attack swarm. It lacks the versatility that some other builds get, often relegating it to a 2nd rate build. Most of your 1st rates tend to take specific advantage of a particular server's balance decisions, often resulting in rage quitting when the module builder decides to make adjustments.

[WhiZard]

Sandrax wrote...


Maybe I missed it in 8 pages of a monk thread but I'm really surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the 10 attacks per round monk yet?

Unless you are doing sneak or death attack, the flurry of blows extra is more often detrimental to your attack than helpful.  Haste is already consuming a bonus attack which means the FOB extra rakes in at 5 less AB than it would otherwise.

[Empyre65]

How about Monk 7 / Fighter 6 / Cleric 27? That would be enough Cleric to be undispellable, and you would benefit from Epic Weapon Spec.

Wouldn't the second bonus attack be at -3 instead of -5 because Monk?