From memory, the only thing I'd really like to see fixed before my next Aielund Saga play-through is:
I realize you have lots on your plate, though:
Aielund Saga improvements
Hordes of the Underdark overhaul
OC complete redesign
A Peremptory Summons sequel
Being the best in the US at WoW
Just kidding. But yeah, real life can really get in the way. I hate that.
From memory, the only thing I'd really like to see fixed before my next Aielund Saga play-through is:
Yeah, I might just dash that and a few other "quick" things out just to have them fixed. Then work on fine tuning some of the less "urgent" things later.
Being the best in the US at WoW
To be clear, there's a reason I said "two night guild specifically." You can sort of think of it as a group RPG campaign that's insanely difficult (note that there are easier difficulties for more casual players) and everyone in the world is racing to finish it first. Except you need exactly 20 people (can't take more than 20 and less than 20 means you won't be able to beat the bosses) to progress through it which means you need a consistent group to work through it over time. And by "over time" I mean "The hardest bosses can take 200+, sometimes 300+ attempts (so 6000+ individual deaths in the latter case) and even the easier ones usually take 20-100 tries."
Which means you then need to schedule blocks of time each week where everyone shows up. And, of course, the more times you meet per week the faster you can work your way through it. The top guilds in the world literally will be playing 12+ hours a day for a few weeks to finish first and they schedule their vacation days and such around it. Once they do finish they go back to a more sane schedule for the next 5-6 months until the next "campaign" comes out at which point they go nuts again. But, as you might imagine, the vast majority of players have no interest in doing that and instead just play a few hours a night a few times a week. Thus within the category of "two nights a week" our guild is the top ranked...but overall we're ranked lower than some "four nights a week" guilds -- even with equal or better skill than some of them we simply can't compete with them having twice as much time per week. That said, we're also ranked ahead of a hell of a lot of three and four night a week guilds -- just not the best of the best in those categories.
Yeah, I might just dash that and a few other "quick" things out just to have them fixed. Then work on fine tuning some of the less "urgent" things later.
Sounds good! And as Empyre65 said, thanks for the update!
Hi,
Signed on to the forums just for this.
I've been playing the Aielund Saga and I'm coming up to the end of Chapter 3. This is a really great mod and I now prefer it over the main NWN campaign.
My main criticism of the experience so far has been the lack of documentation regarding the changes made by EMS. In many cases I have absolutely no idea what spells do precisely as the in-game descriptions have not been updated. The readme does not indicate changes for a lot of the spells involved e.g. there's no mention whatsoever that Everard's Black tentacles no longer does damage.
People have also mentioned auto-empower and auto-maximise - are these feats I have to take or are they granted automatically?
I think overall I prefer the EMS Magic to Vanilla though it's a bit of a downer never being sure what exactly is changed and what isn't.
The readme does not indicate changes for a lot of the spells involved e.g. there's no mention whatsoever that Everard's Black tentacles no longer does damage.
That sounds odd as I don't recall that -- to be clear, you're using EBT on enemy *creatures*, right? Been ages since I used EBT in EMS so I could easily be misremembering, I'll look into it.
People have also mentioned auto-empower and auto-maximise - are these feats I have to take or are they granted automatically?
Automatically. Believe all spells are auto-Empowered at caster level 25, auto-Maximized at level 27, and both auto-Empowered and auto-Maximixed at level 33 I want to say?
I think overall I prefer the EMS Magic to Vanilla though it's a bit of a downer never being sure what exactly is changed and what isn't.
Agreed. A few EMS changes were also not done well (like Stoneskin giving temporary Critical Immunity turns into permanent Critical Immunity if everyone has +5 or better weapons).
That sounds odd as I don't recall that -- to be clear, you're using EBT on enemy *creatures*, right? Been ages since I used EBT in EMS so I could easily be misremembering, I'll look into it.
Automatically. Believe all spells are auto-Empowered at caster level 25, auto-Maximized at level 27, and both auto-Empowered and auto-Maximixed at level 33 I want to say?
Agreed. A few EMS changes were also not done well (like Stoneskin giving temporary Critical Immunity turns into permanent Critical Immunity if everyone has +5 or better weapons).
Yeah - enemy creatures. For whatever reason the hold/paralyse effect seems to work well and there's a "grapple" check so it's definitely EMS - just no damage, ever.
Also, even though I've moved the difficulty slider to hardcore/insane friendly fire is always off. Other stuff like crits on PC work perfectly fine.
Thanks for the info on auto empower and maximise - that's really helpful.
The stoneskin thing I'm not mad about 
I pretty much dumped EMS after an hour or so of my first play through of Aielund. I renamed EMS_FAKE.HAK to EMS.HAK and never looked back.
That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time. And, I say that with a ton of sympathy for EMS' author. I know personally that it's a huge effort to make significant changes to something like a spell system, but finding the energy and enthusiasm to do that challenging-but-fun job is a totally separate hurdle from finding the energy and enthusiasm to do the tedious job of documenting all the changes in a way that is clear to someone besides the author.
BTW, I believe it's also the case that EMS (which had several revisions) came out before Bioware's final set of fixes for NWN, so some of the issues EMS addresses may be addressed in NWN without EMS.
I don't recall there being an issue with the EMS Evard's, but I might not have used EMS long enough to try Evard's. I know that that EMS documentation mentions several changes to Evard's, but I most of them look like they would increase the damage done compared to 1.69 Evard's. This is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...
(Of course, there are references to the PHB Evard's. There are many references to EMS changes which purport to make something work "per PHB". That can be a little annoying since most NWN players probably don't have any version of the PHB handy and I don't recall that EMS ever makes it clear which edition PHB it is using, even if one were arsed to track one down.)
Also, even though I've moved the difficulty slider to hardcore/insane friendly fire is always off. Other stuff like crits on PC work perfectly fine.
Yes, that's intentional for many reasons, which range from balance to practical ease-of-use to not breaking modules. Only Lighting Bolt has friendly fire because it's a plot mechanic in parts of Aielund.
The stoneskin thing I'm not mad about
Wait until you play a weapon master or rogue, get +5 or better weapons, and are never able to crit/sneak attack an enemy because because he cast Stoneskin and your weapon just pierces through it anyway.
That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time.
Why do you say "very poorly documented?" I mean, aren't 95%+ of EMS's changes perfectly clearly documented? And frankly you can generally ignore the documentation and simply use spells in the manner they appear to be intended and be perfectly fine (as in, better off than default in power/balance/ease of use). A person who simply read the name of each spell and got the general idea of what the purpose of the spell was would be much better off with EMS.
I also think you're missing out considerably as a result of skipping EMS (and also breaking the balance of Aielund in several ways).
This is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...
Are you not able to open the hak file in the hak utility? Traveling at the moment and don't have access to a computer with NWN installed or I'd check it myself.
Yeah, I don't like playing with EMS either, it's too nerfed for the most part.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, you were serious?
EMS was specifically designed to actually increase the power of spellcasters overall (especially in epic levels where they started to stall) while reining in some broken spells. Unless you think the idea of doing nothing but spamming Maximized/Empowered/Silenced/Regular IGMS is awesome then you're much better off with EMS. The only other major "nerf" I'm thinking of off-hand was not allowing a mage to turn an unenchanted weapon into a +5, 11-14 fire damage, and keen weapon. Pick one bonus property, basically. Oh, and I think Mestil's was made less insane? I mean, a level 40 mage doing 81-86 Acid damage plus 41-48 fire damage every time you meleed him/her was obviously balanced.
Outside of that?
Mage Armor was buffed (early on, at least, and it becomes obsolete later on like it should IMHO).
Shield was buffed (actually gives Shield AC now and is always useful).
Ability buffs were buffed (always +4 now).
Odd-scaling spells like Ice Storm were buffed.
Stoneskin was crazy buffed.
Ball Lighting was buffed.
IGMS was buffed in a practical sense (meaning in modules that feature heavy immunities/resistances it now becomes very useful due to ignoring them and the module designer doesn't have to make every important mob immune to the spell or have heavy magic resistance).
Horrid Wilting was buffed.
Premonition was crazy buffed (remove the Sneak Attack immunity and tone down the physical immunity and I think it's a fairly solid idea).
PW:S and PW:K were buffed.
Meteor Swarm was buffed and NOW YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A LEVEL 9 AOE THAT DOESN'T SUCK WOOHOO!
And much, much more (like dispels actually showing better information). Not to mention the auto Empower/Maximize or both as you continue into epic levels and improved Greater Ruin/Hellball (can you say "yes please" to a Hellball that hits every enemy for 375ish damage IIRC)?
Don't get me wrong, I think EMS has some significant flaws (like the problems mentioned with Stoneskin/Premonition for starters). But I still think it's massively better in pretty much every way compared to the default system if I had to pick one of the two.
That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time.
Why do you say "very poorly documented?" I mean, aren't 95%+ of EMS's changes perfectly clearly documented?
The only EMS doc that one is likely to see is EMS_Changes.txt, which I consider to be pretty incomplete documentation. (And, EMS_Guide.txt describes some switches and broader changes, but not individual spell changes.) For instance, here is the entry for Evard's Black Tentacles, with numbers added in square brackets for review
[1] Duration now correctly (per PHB and even BW) R/L.
[2a] Per PHB, creatures inside the tentacles move at half speed.
[2a] Per PHB, there is no Fort save: you either resist the grapple or you
don't. You are also NOT paralyzed, merely immobilized.
[3] The "grapple check" math is now correct and scales with the caster,
and is also a true grapple. BW just had it as 5+d20 vs AC, which is
why this spell has generally been considered a joke: the tentacles
couldn't "hit" most creatures on anything except a 20.
[4] Per BW, the tentacles are +2 "weapons", so GV etc will NOT reduce
the damage inflicted by them.
[5] Unlike BW, attacks are NOT combined, so DR is applied correctly.
[1] Right away, we have some potential confusion because it isn't clear that Bioware intended the spell to be rounds/level (as the first line implies) instead of rounds per 2 levels, as in the spell description.
[2] Several references to "per PHB" which most NWN players don't have and couldn't tell from the docs which version to get, if they were inclined to track it down. (Nevermind that NWN - while clearly inspired by D&D - isn't an exact representation of D&D game mechanics.)
[3] Apparently, there is some older version of Bioware's EBT that computed the grapple check differently. Since the docs don't mention what NWN patch he is fixing and the current Bioware version doesn't work the way he describes it, it's tough to know what he was trying to fix. And, worse, since he doesn't detail how the "correct" grapple check is done, there is no way to be sure how it differs from the current Bioware version.
[4] Sort of a mystery how this is done, but I at least know what this means.
[5] Although one might take this to imply that the Bioware version combined attack rolls against multiple targets or from overlapping castings of the spell or something else, I assume he is referring to an older version of the spell that combined all the tentacle damage per target. I guess this at least means that EMS (or at least this part of the docs) was written after 1.67 came out and before 1.69 came out.
Anyway, I am sure some of the documentation is more than adequate, but there is plenty that is vague or refers to other sources of behavior whose versions aren't clear and which the player isn't likely to have anyway.
And frankly you can generally ignore the documentation and simply use spells in the manner they appear to be intended and be perfectly fine (as in, better off than default in power/balance/ease of use). A person who simply read the name of each spell and got the general idea of what the purpose of the spell was would be much better off with EMS.
For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.
(BTW, my criticism of EMS documentation isn't to let Bioware off the hook. Many Bioware spell descriptions are either vague or outright erroneous. But, at this point, I think the NWN Wiki has clarified most of the major issues and that resource is easily available to players. Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to expect something similar for EMS, but that's an advantage the Bioware versions have just by dint of having gotten so much attention.)
But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.
I also think you're missing out considerably as a result of skipping EMS (and also breaking the balance of Aielund in several ways).
I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.
And, I am aware that EMS does a much better job of scaling spell damage with caster level, one of my big complaints about NWN spells, most of which were clearly designed before epic levels were part of the game and never modified to deal with epic-level casters. But, ultimately, there are lots of EMS changes and I prefer knowing what's going on over assuming my casting toons would be more powerful if I used a system whose details are more opaque.
Are you not able to open the hak file in the hak utility? Traveling at the moment and don't have access to a computer with NWN installed or I'd check it myself.This [Evard's DR penetration change] is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...
The source scripts for the spells are not in the EMS HAK. There may be (or have been) a developer's version of EMS released at some point with the sources, but I have never seen it. If EMS addresses what is widely understood to be an engine limitation, I don't know how it is done.
I've switched between using EMS and not so many times, I'm not sure which I have now, nor am I sure how to even tell. I've got a file called "EMS.hak" in my hak folder, and it has a lot of text in it, so maybe it's installed?
If I switch the file, does it immediately impact all saved games, or is it only used when loading a new module?
Also, I just read through the notes of the file to learn the spell changes. I definitely don't understand all of the acronyms used, but I got enough of the context to get the gist.
A couple questions:
1. What do you all mean by auto-maximized and auto-empowered? What change is this?
2. The EMS notes say that UMD sucks. How so? It seemed like an ultimate cheesy munchkin move to me.
If your EMS.HAK is about 9.5 MB, then it's likely the real one and if it's about 1 KB, then it's likely the "fake" that leaves things as the Bioware default spell system.
If you swap them, the effect should be immediate. I am not sure if there is any problem with lingering AoE spells calling different versions of the scripts. But, probably, if you swap EMS HAKs and load a saved game and it doesn't crash within a minute or two, then you are fine.
I am not sure what the auto-metamagic is doing or is supposed to do. MM probably knows.
I think EMS changes how UMD allows toons to cast spells from scrolls. Many consider the default Bioware system to be bugged and/or poorly designed. (I agree that it is at least bugged.) I think EMS makes it so that a toon has to have the minimum ability stat to cast a scroll spell. For example, a UMD rogue would not be able to cast a level 3 spell from scroll unless he had at least in the casting stat (I am not sure how EMS decides whether that should be INT, WIS, or CHA). The EMS notes also say that mage scrolls cannot be cast while wearing armor without the risk of arcane spell failure. Once again, I am not sure how one decides whether a scroll like protection from elements is an arcane or divine spell for such situations.
(Things like that latter ambiguity make me think that I have missed some of the EMS documentation, since it isn't really clear how this is implemented without digging into the source code, which I don't see for spells or the UMD check.)
The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.
For instance, here is the entry for Evard's Black Tentacles, with numbers added in square brackets for review
Okay, but I'm not sure what your overall point is? That's one spell that's been problematic/stupid/confusing in every implementation I've ever seen, be it Bioware or EMS or PW specific. My point was that 95%+ of stuff seemed to be perfectly clear and generally better (balance wise) than Bioware. What stuff beyond EBT seems poorly documented to you (not saying there isn't any, just saying focusing on that one spell seems silly)?
For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.
I didn't say "sort of works," I said "perfectly fine." I mean, look at Ball Lightning. There is absolutely no reason for it to completely suck compared to Cone of Cold/Firebrand. And unless you're obsessed with abusing a few broken spells (like default IGMS) then EMS offers a lot better balance and a lot more casting variety...and if you read the EMS_Changes then you'll know in pretty decent detail what the spells will do anyway in 95%+ of the cases.
Don't get me wrong -- I play WoW and I love the detailed tooltips and being able to easily theorycraft and knowing exactly what is going on. But I'd rather deal with a few spells that are poorly documented in an overall substantially better system (EMS) than a much worse system where people have figured out the poor documentation if you go to a Wiki (default Bioware).
Besides EBT, what other spells would you not know how they worked in pretty decent detail?
But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.
It works to the target's detriment less than 25% of the time (it's only a detriment if the player has an odd stat AND would have gotten the 5). So more like 87.5% of the time the EMS version is equal or better (and it's far more consistent). Empower/Maximize seems simple -- the buffs simply always just give 4, period. Guaranteed +2 modifier to the stat of your choice, period.
Ultimately the player is using Bull's Strength because they want to increase their Strength. And until now I've never seen anyone complain about getting 4 every time compared to 2-5. People like consistency in buffs.
I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.
Then you were either not playing a caster or not abusing the default spell system. I can think of quite a few cases off-hand where the default system would make fights a complete joke for one or more reasons.
I've switched between using EMS and not so many times, I'm not sure which I have now, nor am I sure how to even tell. I've got a file called "EMS.hak" in my hak folder, and it has a lot of text in it, so maybe it's installed?
What MrZork said. The 1 KB file is fake, the larger one is real.
1. What do you all mean by auto-maximized and auto-empowered? What change is this?
2. The EMS notes say that UMD sucks. How so? It seemed like an ultimate cheesy munchkin move to me.
1. As you go into epic levels your spells will become auto Empowered and/or auto Maximized if you have the feats (possibly auto Extended as well). This means you keep gaining in power versus stopping at 20, more or less, and higher level spells become very relevant (say you have a case where an Empowered level 6 spell > normal level 8 spell for the same spell slot. If both are auto Empowered then suddenly the level 8 spell is going to be better for the same spell slot). I don't entirely agree with the implementation or even the general idea, but I still think it's a hell of a lot better than the default (and it's less problematic than trying to rescale every spell up to 40 or something).
2. Guessing that the author means UMD is implemented horribly by default ("Hi, I'm a level 1 rogue with 8 int/8 int/8 cha, lemme just summon a Balor with Gate real fast").
The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.
Why is that? Worst case scenario it's the 3.5 version of Heal -- hopefully you don't honestly think a completely instant full heal (or all but 1d4 HP against undead) for a level 6 spell with no save and disregarding cleric level entirely was remotely balanced? I mean, it still heals up to 150 HP (110 HP in potions), 200 HP with Greater Restoration, and 250 HP with Mass Heal. And in the epic levels you get potions that heal 250 HP anyway.
I mean, I think overall Heal could have afforded to go higher in epic levels as an Epic Cleric, but that also means making more radical changes to the magic system and given the context I'm not sure it was really necessary.
My point is that poorly documented changes to spells are a downside IMO and which one reduces the likelihood I will use the system if it is optional and reduces the likelihood I will play the mod if the system is not optional. Evard's is just an example I used of an EMS spell that I recalled reading the doc entry for and having several questions about what it meant. Sure, Bioware's implementation has problems, but I feel like I know how Bioware's works. As I already stated, that would not be the case without the wiki, but that isn't relevant because the wiki is there. (And, since, as far as I can easily see, EMS is a black box. The change documentation isn't always adequate, IMO, and I cannot easily read the source code to know what's actually going on.)Okay, but I'm not sure what your overall point is? That's one spell that's been problematic/stupid/confusing in every implementation I've ever seen, be it Bioware or EMS or PW specific.
And, I disagree with the "95% perfectly clear" number. I am certainly not going to go through the described changes for each and every spell that EMS tweaks, but here are things I consider to be less than "perfectly clear" in the first 20.My point was that 95%+ of stuff seemed to be perfectly clear and generally better (balance wise) than Bioware.
I wasn't trying to focus on one spell. I used one spell as an example because I recalled reading the doc entry for it and having several questions about what it meant and a non-trivial curiosity about whether the described improvement was even scriptable.What stuff beyond EBT seems poorly documented to you (not saying there isn't any, just saying focusing on that one spell seems silly)?
In the context of documentation, I was referring to how well the player will understand how the spell works, not the spell's adequacy or which version better or worse by someone's subjective judgment. I was trying to say that I often want to know in some detail what the spell does and having to simply assume that it works in some way that isn't easy to look up is a problem for me.I didn't say "sort of works," I said "perfectly fine."For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.
LOL. I agree with your reasoning, but you have to apply it both ways. By the same reasoning, the EMS version is only better than the Bioware version 37.5% of the time because a buff of 4 is no better than a buff of 3 when the player otherwise has an odd ability score.It works to the target's detriment less than 25% of the time (it's only a detriment if the player has an odd stat AND would have gotten the 5). So more like 87.5% of the time the EMS version is equal or better (and it's far more consistent). Empower/Maximize seems simple -- the buffs simply always just give 4, period. Guaranteed +2 modifier to the stat of your choice, period.But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.
I never said people wouldn't prefer a straight ability buff of 4 or even that I wouldn't prefer it. I was commenting that a person who read the in-game description wouldn't know what the EMS version was doing. (BTW, since my casters typically use empowered ability buffs for important stats, once they can spare the level 4 slots, then it becomes more important how EMS deals with empowered buffs.)Ultimately the player is using Bull's Strength because they want to increase their Strength. And until now I've never seen anyone complain about getting 4 every time compared to 2-5. People like consistency in buffs.
I was playing a caster. Whether or not I was or wasn't "abusing" the default system in some undefined way I can't say. Obviously, in a particular situation, it would be possible to use some spells in a way that nerfed an opponent or a fight. I doubt that EMS eliminates that possibility. But, it wouldn't matter, since I never said it was impossible that certain fights might end up a "a complete joke" in the default system; I only said that Aielund was playable without EMS.Then you were either not playing a caster or not abusing the default spell system. I can think of quite a few cases off-hand where the default system would make fights a complete joke for one or more reasons.I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.
Just finished my playthrough of the whole Aielund saga as a Wizard.
What a great module. The writing is reasonably good throughout - it definitely starts out a little bit weak imo but gets much, much better as the saga goes on. The module's main strengths however are its combat and characters. I really liked Big T, RB and the female rogue/wizard character - names avoided for spoilers - but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus. RB struck the right chord between being a functional character and not being too OP.
Thank god there is no "adult" content because that stuff is so awkward.
The really big battles that forced you to use all your precious resources were the main highlights of the module - particularly in Act III.
I strongly approve of EMS's inclusion in future iterations of the Saga - it was great and I never really felt overpowered/underpowered while still making it rewarding to take base caster classes above lvl 20. The auto maximise/auto empower abilities were really welcome as they mixed things up quite a lot when it came to later levels of Wizard - I really felt the higher level spells were more viable rather than empowered/maximised versions of older ones. Weird/Wail of the Banshee were powerful but didn't tend to dominate like they would have in the OC as many enemies in act 3/4 are either fear immune, death immune or mind immune. I'm happy with the number of immunities that various enemies had e.g. fire resistance, ice resistance, acid resistance, magic resistance etc ... as it really forced you to mix things up. Like I said, combat is the strongest aspect of this series.
I think the key problem and hurdle to enjoying the saga, as has been discussed frequently in this thread, is documentation with regards to the changes that EMS makes which will ultimately affect how good or effective whatever build your trying is.
Items and the strengths of various items were pretty good, I don't think there really need to be any balance changes there.
Even though I had difficulty set to hardcore/insane friendly fire was turned off throughout - I'm not sure whether this is what happens with most people but I'm sure it definitely improved the experience of being a wizard. With FF turned on I would have much rather played a melee character I think because what a chore that would have been.
Overall fantastic module!
I used EMS in my recounting and just played the Saga as normal and had fun.
The only thing that bugs me about Aielund's magic is the nerfed Heal.
Even with that nerf, I still found healing spells and potions to be a lil' too liberal, overall...
but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus
I loved her in my party, casting spells. As my recounting shows, she's very powerful doing that...
Actually, I forgot to ask, does anyone have any recommendations for modules that would be similiar to the Aielund Saga? Not necessarily 1-40, maybe 10-40 or something like that with lots of combat and a decent story and nice characters.
I've read that Sands of Fate is good to do after HOTU but can be a bit a slog ...
The Aribeth's Redemption series follows the OC and takes you to level 28. It is a love story between the PC and Aribeth, but there is a lot of action, too. I've played it twice and plan to again. I have enjoyed the Sands of Fate several times. If you played HotU as evil, The Gods Themselves is a good evil follow-up, but it is short.
I used EMS in my recounting and just played the Saga as normal and had fun.
Even with that nerf, I still found healing spells and potions to be a lil' too liberal, overall...
I loved her in my party, casting spells. As my recounting shows, she's very powerful doing that...
What Lilura said.
but I was never keen on Cleric/Paladin lady (can't even remember her name now) mostly because she was consistently bad in combat throughout because of her Crossbow focus.
I strongly approve of EMS's inclusion in future iterations of the Saga - it was great and I never really felt overpowered/underpowered while still making it rewarding to take base caster classes above lvl 20. The auto maximise/auto empower abilities were really welcome as they mixed things up quite a lot when it came to later levels of Wizard - I really felt the higher level spells were more viable rather than empowered/maximised versions of older ones. Weird/Wail of the Banshee were powerful but didn't tend to dominate like they would have in the OC as many enemies in act 3/4 are either fear immune, death immune or mind immune. I'm happy with the number of immunities that various enemies had e.g. fire resistance, ice resistance, acid resistance, magic resistance etc ... as it really forced you to mix things up. Like I said, combat is the strongest aspect of this series.
Even though I had difficulty set to hardcore/insane friendly fire was turned off throughout - I'm not sure whether this is what happens with most people but I'm sure it definitely improved the experience of being a wizard. With FF turned on I would have much rather played a melee character I think because what a chore that would have been.
You can give her a 1H + Shield and she'll do decently. Sadly nowhere as good as a Cleric should be due to AI limitations but I'm not sure it's really worth giving her an XBow at all.
Agreed on EMS working well.
Agreed on FF -- FF realistically just means you can only use a much smaller variety of spells and renders the experience far more dull as a caster.
Sure, Bioware's implementation has problems, but I feel like I know how Bioware's works.
I realize I'm probably going to sound like a jerk here, but your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance.
People who understand NWN less aren't going to care about EMS because they'll just play as normal and be fine. People who understand NWN more will understand or easily figure out the EMS changes. You're in an awkward middle place where you're trying to care about the EMS changes but don't know enough to understand some of them.
And, I disagree with the "95% perfectly clear" number. I am certainly not going to go through the described changes for each and every spell that EMS tweaks, but here are things I consider to be less than "perfectly clear" in the first 20.
Charm Person
Is not the same as Charm Animal
Correctly is considered a hostile action
Duration raised to R/L
How is Bioware's Charm Person the same as Charm Animal? And, since there is no Charm Animal spell in NWN, the comment is unclear even if Charm Person is the same as some other unnamed spell.
Color Spray
Correctly does not affect Blind creatures
Combines effects correctly
Unclear what "Combines effects correctly" is supposed to mean, either in terms of some error in the Bioware version or in terms of a correction in the EMS version.
Scare
Fear for 1d4 R (W) or Shaken for 1R
Players aren't told what shaken means. I am guessing the whole line is supposed to mean the target is either feared for 1d4 rounds or shaken for 1 round, depending on a will save. Does that mean there is no chance of not being affected if the target makes the save?
Ability Buffs
Per PHB +4 rather than 1+d4, and T/L rather than H/L
There's actually real value to casting these rather than drinking them now
Not clear why the Bioware version has no real value between cast versions and potions. I would guess this is some complaint that the Bioware versions last too long. But, if that is the point, then it would have been clearer to say that standard CL 3 potions will only last three minutes. Since the big change is the non-random strength of the buff, many readers might assume that was the issue and that maybe EMS potions don't give a constant +4 buff.
Combust
Stupidly overpowered: 10x the damage of Acid Arrow
Now correctly requires a successful melee touch attack
Lasts R/L max, primary and secondary damage both just L fire, max 10
Frankly, it's still stupidly overpowered
Correctly can be cast at a target more than once
Not clear why Bioware's Combust is 10x the damage of Melf's. (Not saying there can't be some set of assumptions about caster level and saves that make it 10x damage; just that the description doesn't make it clear why.)
Continual Light
Actually works now
Assuming we are talking about Continual Flame, no indication is given of how Bioware's version doesn't work or how EMS fixes it.
Darkness
This ridiculously overpowered spell is now PHB's 20% concealment
20% concealment for whom? Even if the attacker has ultravision/TS?
Flame Weapon
Completely rewritten to work at least somewhat decently
Note that per BW the duration is actually 2T/L, not T/L like Darkfire
From other discussion, it seems likely the first line means the spell stacks in a more limited way than Bioware's version, but this description doesn't say that at all. Bioware's version is already 2 turns per level (though the description was wrong), so there is no change to that aspect of the spell.
Charm Animal. Not sure about what was changed, though, possibly an old Bioware bug that allowed both to be applied to animals or both couldn't be applied to animals.
Color Spray combining effects correctly means that a 1-2 HD creature, for example, will be slept plus blinded plus stunned rather than *just* slept. The idea is that stronger creatures are able to resist some of the effects as HD increases but weaker ones are subject to all status ailments.
Shaken is a default D&D term, see for example the Terrifying Rage entry. Also other sources like this. And yes, it means the target is always affected by Fear (if they fail) or Shaken (if they succeed).
The Bioware potions have at least two major potential problems. One, as you noted, they last a good length of time (especially on servers with altered time for hour length)...which means those precious spell slots at lower levels are much more valuable for other spells. Two, their random nature means that you could hard cast it and only get a result of 2. Whereas the potions are so cheap and plentiful that simply buying tons and spamming several of them per rest until you get a 4 or 5 (depending on what you need) is a much better strategy. Changing the duration to T/L means that higher caster level can actually be more valuable and the constant +4 means you don't have to worry about your cast being "wasted" if you get a bad roll.
At level 3 (earliest you can get it), Combust does 10 damage on impact plus another 10 damage per round until the save is failed. Melf's does 10.5 damage on impact plus 3.5 more one round later. So a single failed Reflex save means Combust is about 50% better and Combust can keep on ticking. At level 10 (point at which Combust mostly stops scaling), Combust does 17 damage on impact plus another 17 damage per round until the save is failed. Melf's does 10.5 damage on impact plus another 10.5 over three rounds. So the initial impact already basically does as much damage as Melf's impact plus two rounds of Melf's...and after two rounds of Melf's it's up to 17.5 damage while Combust is up to 51 damage. And that gap keeps widening every round. This obviously relies on the enemy's reflex being low enough to consistently fail the Reflex save but that is pretty common at lower levels. Oh, and while the DoT effect of Combust won't stack, you can keep casting it for initial damage...while Melf's won't even work on a target already affected by the DoT from Melf's (at all, not even the initial damage). So versus a tough enemy who makes reflex saves (or doesn't, who cares) you can at least still spam Combust...but you can't *ever* spam Melf's. 10x damage is usually going to be an exaggeration but the point was more how much Melf's is terrible compared to Combust (and how good Combust is for its level).
Continual flame I don't know. I already avoid the spell because it's usually used for merchant exploits.
20% concealment for everyone under Darkness presumably, don't see why you'd think otherwise. Not sure about TS/Ultravision under EMS, presumably it negates it. Again, spell I avoid because it's so broken by default.
He didn't change Flame Weapon's duration, he's saying that if you're wondering WHY it's 2 turns per level when it says otherwise it's because he's leaving it at what Bioware set it at.
In the context of documentation, I was referring to how well the player will understand how the spell works, not the spell's adequacy or which version better or worse by someone's subjective judgment. I was trying to say that I often want to know in some detail what the spell does and having to simply assume that it works in some way that isn't easy to look up is a problem for me.
I guess this just seems inconsistent to me -- you already don't know how much of Bioware's stuff works by default so you're not looking that up anyway. Like I said, a person who cares more (like me) either knows what the EMS changes are or is willing to figure it out if they're confused. A person who cares less (like most people) will just play the game and have a much better caster experience without knowing the details. It's like you can't "commit" to either camp or something.
LOL. I agree with your reasoning, but you have to apply it both ways. By the same reasoning, the EMS version is only better than the Bioware version 37.5% of the time because a buff of 4 is no better than a buff of 3 when the player otherwise has an odd ability score.
No, you don't have to apply it both ways because people are naturally risk averse. For most people avoiding the worst case scenario (only getting +1 modifier from the spell) is the primary worry.
I doubt that EMS eliminates that possibility.
It does due in large part to making IGMS less powerful (among several other things). It's not that I think Aielund is particularly difficult as is, but you could completely faceroll it with the default spell system in general. Again, this goes back to how you're stuck in the middle -- someone with less understanding doesn't care about any of this and someone more "hardcore" knows just how much EMS improves the default balance (at least for Aielund, you could design a module around the default spell system...but Aielund is not).
We are largely talking past one another here. Possibly, I did not made it clear (though I did try) that I am not telling people that EMS is functionally inferior or even that people wouldn't find it worth trying. Neither of those has been my claim nor my opinion. I said that EMS' documentation wasn't very clear and that's largely why I decided to play without it, despite the (unargued) problems with the default spell system.
Unfortunately, in this case, you're the one who's talking past me. I understand your position -- you feel that EMS's documentation isn't clear enough for *you* to play with it. What I am telling you is that your position is an extremely uncommon position. In general there are three groups of people.
A. people who just play Aielund with EMS without really understanding or caring about the details of *either* Bioware's or EMS's spell system (this is most people)
B. people who care enough about the two spell systems to want to know some details but who *don't* care enough to fully understand either system (this is you)
C. people who care enough about the two spell systems to understand how both work and who can easily figure out anything they potentially find confusing *because* of their mastery of the systems (this is me and other "hardcore" players)
Group A is the largest group by far. Group C is also a reasonably large group though much smaller than A. And group B (which includes you)...is very, very small. Because people either don't care much in general (A) or care a lot ©.
You went through and explained what some of the unclearly explained bits in the documentation meant. Nice work; you often did a better job of documenting what EMS changes were than the author's docs. And, if I had been saying that the author's changes were unexplainable, you would have shown my error. However, every time you clarified what the author should have, you sort of made my point that the original docs were lacking.
Except, for the most part, they're *not* lacking. Group A doesn't care in the first place. And they're more than clear enough for Group C. It's only the few people in that weird middle ground (Group B ) who find it unclear.
Oddly, you seem to misinterpret pointing out such problems with the documentation as not understanding Bioware's version. At least it's a misinterpretation if things like that were the basis for the "your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance" silliness.
You weren't aware of what the term "shaken" means when used in EMS...when the term "shaken" was taken from Bioware in the first place (and Bioware took it from actual D&D before that). So that's not a documentation problem, that's a not understanding Bioware's system problem.
Maybe at some point you may feel that the EMS documentation is lacking.
I certainly feel that the EMS documentation could have been improved in quite a few ways. But, due to the reality of how people actually behave...I don't think it's a big deal in practice. Very, very few people are going to be seriously bothered by it.
Like MrZork, i think the EMS documentation is poor, which is made worse by the fact that it contains some changes nobody would expect from a "magic system" like changes to hp and skillpoints per lvl or changes to perks. I play without the ems therefor most of the time, too
Really? In other words, the documentation is fine for people 1) who aren't that concerned about understanding or 2) who can use the poor documentation to piece together what it's supposed to mean on their own. If you don't think that makes the documentation lacking, then I suspect it is you who are in the minority of opinion.Except, for the most part, they're *not* lacking. Group A doesn't care in the first place. And they're more than clear enough for Group C. It's only the few people in that weird middle ground (Group B ) who find it unclear.You went through and explained what some of the unclearly explained bits in the documentation meant. Nice work; you often did a better job of documenting what EMS changes were than the author's docs. And, if I had been saying that the author's changes were unexplainable, you would have shown my error. However, every time you clarified what the author should have, you sort of made my point that the original docs were lacking.
Incorrect on two counts. You misread my original comment about the scare spell. My comment regarding shaken was that "Players aren't told what shaken means." I never said that I did not understand what shaken means. I mentioned it because its a non-NWN term with a specific meaning and should be explained in docs for NWN players. Further, shaken is not a term taken from Bioware. Bioware does not use the term in its description of the rage feats. Search the talk file and see.You weren't aware of what the term "shaken" means when used in EMS...when the term "shaken" was taken from Bioware in the first place (and Bioware took it from actual D&D before that). So that's not a documentation problem, that's a not understanding Bioware's system problem.Oddly, you seem to misinterpret pointing out such problems with the documentation as not understanding Bioware's version. At least it's a misinterpretation if things like that were the basis for the "your subsequent comments revealed your ignorance of your ignorance" silliness.
So, we mostly agree on that. Fine.I certainly feel that the EMS documentation could have been improved in quite a few ways. But, due to the reality of how people actually behave...I don't think it's a big deal in practice. Very, very few people are going to be seriously bothered by it.
Retour en haut