Kit Revisions (Rangers)

[Demivrgvs]

Archer

I know that Called Shot is ready and finished, but I wanted to present my revision of it from my old mod known as PnP Baldur's Gate. So here it is:

 

- Every 4 levels he gains the ability to make an aimed shot once per day. When he activates this ability, any shot made within the next 10 seconds is augmented in the following manner (according to the choice of the archer).

- Eyes: saving throw vs. wands or blindness for 5 rounds (-4 to ThaC0 for archer)

- Arms: cumulative -2 to ThaC0 for 10 rounds (-2 to ThaC0 for archer)

- Legs: saving throw vs. wands or slow for 3 rounds (-2 to ThaC0 for archer)

- Heart: critical hit (-4 to ThaC0 for archer)

 

So maybe there is other way of revising it? Instead of level dependable effects (and that's strange, at 16th level he hits at once on hands, legs, head and etc. ;-) ) you can give to player a chance of selecting limb/part of body as in Fallouts.

Conceptually I like it, but regarding its implementation:

 

- unfortunately I cannot allow the player to select where to aim. Actually I could, but then the ability would be unusable by the AI. I may try to implement it as I did for Chromatic Orb: the effect is randomly selected, but the possible outcomes remain level dependent.

- blindness within BG is incredibly powerful, against the AI you pratically make the target unable to react. It can be used at higher levels though.

- I use movement rate penalty instead of slow only because the former slows down regeneration rate and poison effects too, which isn't appropriate in this case imo.

- a critical hit is a "common" effect, stun is more cool imo.

 

P.S Should I add in the description more details like "leg - movement penalty", "arm - thac0 penalty" and the like?

 

For the Archer, having a sort of Snipe ability, which would provide a critical hit (and possibly a backstab) for one hit.

The Archer will surely have something like that as HLA (no backstab though).

 

Stalker

He needs more mobility, bonuses to hide in shadows dependable on levels (+5% per 2 levels?) and removing these stupid spells. They were one of strangest things even did in kits - and at level when ranger gain 3rd level spells they were practiccaly unuseful. I think that trade'ing these spells and possibility of using non-thieves items for better bonuses to Hide in shadows, permanent non-detection at higher levels and better movements speed can be nice.

Thus you don't like to my suggestion about replacing those spells with more appropriate ones?

 

It seems movement rate bonus would be welcomed by most of you, and it may be used to give the kit something decent in the first levels.

 

Yes, 1) is more restrictive, but it was as a sort of 'lighter' version, so as to provide a noticeable disadvantage that wasn't extremely harsh on power players.

 

As a Stalker (and I have played quite a few), the majority of damage comes from Backstabs, so I tend to use weapons a thief can backstab with effectively.

I was just saying that I didn't understand too well your logic in the first place, as after saying 1) was not a great disadvantage you proposed a lesser version of it. Anyway you're right, if you roleplay a Stalker it's not a big disadvantage at all, whereas it's a noticeable disadvantage if you look at it from a powerplayer point of view...but these are two good reasons to like it for me!

 

Assassination as a HLA?

Except for its name, which doesn't sound too appropriate for a ranger, an HLA like this wouldn't be bad for Stalkers yes.

 

Beast Master

I'm waiting especially for this kit. Probably the weakest one in-game but such a roleplaying - can't wait to see your revisions of it.

Don't hold your breath because it's actually the longest kit to implement, but I'll post what I have in mind within today. Edited May 21, 2009 by Demivrgvs

[Demivrgvs]

Beast Master

The worst implemented kit ever imo. The revision I have in mind mainly consist of three aspects.

 

1) Animal Companion: this should actually be the most important feature of this class imo. Beast Master should have a familiar-like companion who level ups with him and fights alongside with him. My idea is to use a black panther, make the panter a decent fighter, with stealth ability (to scout together with his master), and perhaps even a x2 backstab multiplier at higher levels. In PnP the animal companion would have +4 to saves vs. charm-like effects, and for technical reason I'd simply make it immune to charm.

 

2) Animal Horde: instead of assigning him Animal Summoning I/II/III I'd create a custom innate which would summon different types of animals depending on Beast Master level.

 

3) Slightly restrictions: vanilla's weapon restrictions were too harsh imo, I'd propose to have the class use weapons usable by druids plus short bows and long bows. I'd slightly revise the armor restriction too, allowing a Beast Master to wear armors heavier than light as long as they are not made of metal (ankeg plate, dragon armors, ...).

 

Let me know your opinions and additional suggestions.

[Icendoan]

For the pet to level-up with the Beast Master, you would have to use a script, but it would be a dplayer* script, which could just ApplySpell() to the pet.

 

I think, allowing the PC to choose their pet would be good.

 

2) Is far, far too close to a Totemic Druid, imho.

 

Icen

[yarpen]

I beg for a selection between Panther (for neutral good), Wolf (chaotic good) and Bear (lawful good).

 

Animal Horde... that's good. Especially when we will take one of PnP Beast Master disadvantages... he cannot control summoned animals. Then, they're not treaten as summoned creatures. And they do not count on the limit of summoned creatures. Cool

[Icendoan]

Nah, you have their EA as something like Ally, and their Gender as Summoned

 

Icen

[Demivrgvs]

Animal Companion

For the pet to level-up with the Beast Master, you would have to use a script, but it would be a dplayer* script, which could just ApplySpell() to the pet.

 

I think, allowing the PC to choose their pet would be good.

I beg for a selection between Panther (for neutral good), Wolf (chaotic good) and Bear (lawful good).

Thanks for the additional work! Anyway I do have thought about allowing more than one creature, I just selected the panter because it's the best one to fit the role imo. The bear is fine with me for a second option, because it can be interesting in a different way (no stealth, frontal assalt tank), but what could possibly offer the wolf? Wolves have great tracking ability but the ranger already has it. A wolf is a good hunter and fighter within a pack, but on itself it's neither tough nor stealthy (at least not as much as the other two animals).

 

P.S I wouldn't tie the animals to an alignment.

 

P.P.S using the creature script is a much better solution because dplayer scripts can be disabled.

 

Animal Horde

Is far, far too close to a Totemic Druid, imho.

Well, that's because we haven't worked on the Totemic Druid...yet! Jokes aside, it's not my fault if developers implemented kits completely ignoring their PnP version and what they should look like. Totemic Druid in PnP D&D choses a totem animal, then he has it as animal companion, and he can shapeshift into it. Anyway this wouldn't be too great in BG, and developers solution was better imo, I'm just saying it's not my fault if a rightly implemented Beast Master looks too similar to a wrongly implemented Totemic Druid.

 

At least Spirit Animals are slightly different than normal animals.

 

Animal Horde... that's good. Especially when we will take one of PnP Beast Master disadvantages... he cannot control summoned animals. Then, they're not treaten as summoned creatures. And they do not count on the limit of summoned creatures. Cool

Ehm...you know I'm quite against it for balance reasons... I would have actually done it like Ice says, ally/summoned.

[yarpen]

Wolf can summon a rest of his pack, so another 4 wolves (weaker of course) ;-) Only in fantasy there are lone wolves.

 

About tieing animals to alignments - that's the non-described rule of shapeshifters. Werewolfs are usually chaotic, when Werebears lawful. I dunno about werepanthers (lol) but I think neutral alignment fits them.

[Demivrgvs]

Spellcasting Revision

As we discussed I'd like to do two things:

1) allow rangers to reach 4th level spells like paladins already do

2) revise the progression table to allow rangers to use a few spells at lower levels (4th or 5th instead of vanilla's 8th) while maintaining a similar spell per day capability at mid levels.

 

A possible table may be something like this:

 

	  1   2   3   4
04	1   0   0   0
05	1   0   0   0
06	2   0   0   0
07	2   0   0   0
08	2   1   0   0
09	3   1   0   0
10	3   2   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
12	3   2   1   0
13	3   3   1   0
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   2   0
16	3   3   2   1
17	3   3   3   1
18	3   3   3   2
19	3   3   3   2
20	3   3   3   3

 

What do you think?

 

 

New Descriptions

I've considerably updated the first post, and amongst other things I've added Stalker and Beast Master new descriptions. As always I'm open to suggestions, and I hope someone (who said Mike? ) will be so kind to proofread it.

 

 

True Ranger

I'm still trying to figure out a way to make True class ranger a little more appealing compared to its kits and other classes. What about a feature which improves his fighting skills and works slightly better while dualwielding? I'm talking about a sort of flurry of blows/cleave ability, a +x% chance on a successful melee hit to gain a +1/2 apr on the following round. Just an idea, feel free to discard it, or better propose another one!

Edited May 23, 2009 by Demivrgvs

[Icendoan]

Stalker:

 

most adventuring party - party needs to be plural (parties)

Only few realize - I would write it as Only a few, or Few realize. I can't pin anything down, it just sounds weird.

 

Beast Master:

 

beastmasters seldom stays in one place for long - stay for plural, or stays for a single Beastmaster.

This generally reflects the beastmaster attitude - beastmaster's attitude.

most beastmaster focus - beastmasters

 

Those are all the errors I could find.

 

Icen

[Leomar]

Spellcasting Revision

As we discussed I'd like to do two things:

1) allow rangers to reach 4th level spells like paladins already do

2) revise the progression table to allow rangers to use a few spells at lower levels (4th or 5th instead of vanilla's 8th) while maintaining a similar spell per day capability at mid levels.

 

A possible table may be something like this:

 

	  1   2   3   4
04	1   0   0   0
05	1   0   0   0
06	2   0   0   0
07	2   0   0   0
08	2   1   0   0
09	3   1   0   0
10	3   2   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
12	3   2   1   0
13	3   3   1   0
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   2   0
16	3   3   2   1
17	3   3   3   1
18	3   3   3   2
19	3   3   3   2
20	3   3   3   3

 

What do you think?

How do you handle the spell level for it. Normally a ranger at 8th level can cast the spell on a first spell level, at 9th he can cast the spell on a second spell level until level 16 the ranger cast the spells on the 9th spell level?

 

	  1   2   3   4   spell level
08	1   0   0   0   1
09	2   0   0   0   2
10	2   1   0   0   3
11	2   2   0   0   4
12	2   2   1   0   5
13	3   2   1   0   6
14	3   2   2   0   7
15	3   3   2   0   8
16	3   3   3   0   9
17	3   3   3   0   9*
18	3   3   3   0   9*
19	3   3   3   0   9*
20	3   3   3   0   9*

 

Greetings Leomar

Edited May 24, 2009 by Leomar

[Demivrgvs]

Spellcasting Revision

How do you handle the spell level for it. Normally a ranger at 8th level can cast the spell on a first spell level, at 9th he can cast the spell on a second spell level until level 16 the ranger cast the spells on the 9th spell level?

The caster level is simply based on the level at which the class gets the first spell if I'm not wrong, thus rangers would cast spells as druids of 4 levels lower. If I remember correctly the cap at 9th caster level doesn't really exist in BG, it says rangers stops at 9th level because without SoA they couldn't reach a higher level. I'll make sure both statements are true asap, unless someone can confirm this before I do. Edited May 24, 2009 by Demivrgvs

[Demivrgvs]

Spellcasting Revision

The caster level is simply based on the level at which the class gets the first spell if I'm not wrong, thus rangers would cast spells as druids of 4 levels lower. If I remember correctly the cap at 9th caster level doesn't really exist in BG, it says rangers stops at 9th level because without SoA they couldn't reach a higher level. I'll make sure both statements are true asap, unless someone can confirm this before I do.

After a few tests:

1) caster level of paladins and rangers isn't capped at 9th level despite what the manual says.

2) even if we allow them to cast spells before they normally could, their caster level is considered to be 1 till level 8-9 for rangers and paladins respectively.

 

If 2) can be verified by someone else too it means we're not going to change the level at which paladins and rangers start having spellcasting abilities.

[Leomar]

Spellcasting Revision

As we discussed I'd like to do two things:

1) allow rangers to reach 4th level spells like paladins already do

2) revise the progression table to allow rangers to use a few spells at lower levels (4th or 5th instead of vanilla's 8th) while maintaining a similar spell per day capability at mid levels.

 

A possible table may be something like this:

 

	  1   2   3   4
04	1   0   0   0
05	1   0   0   0
06	2   0   0   0
07	2   0   0   0
08	2   1   0   0
09	3   1   0   0
10	3   2   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
12	3   2   1   0
13	3   3   1   0
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   2   0
16	3   3   2   1
17	3   3   3   1
18	3   3   3   2
19	3   3   3   2
20	3   3   3   3

 

What do you think?

I don't like the lags, like here:

 

10	3   2   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
...
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   2   0

In my opinion each level the ranger should have one more spell as normal and it should result in a smoother progression, so it should looks like:

 

	  1   2   3   4
05	1   0   0   0
06	1   0   0   0
07	2   0   0   0
08	2   0   0   0
09	2   1   0   0
10	3   1   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
12	3   2   1   0
13	3   3   1   0
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   3   0
16	3   3   3   1
17	3   3   3   1
18	3   3   3   2
19	3   3   3   2
20	3   3   3   3

 

Greetings Leomar

[Guest Guest_J Beau_*]

I know this is kind of late for a suggestion and this might not be appropriate for this mod. But...

 

What about allowing halflings access to the archer kit with the use of slings only. I don't know if there are hard coded limitations but halflings have always seemed to be inately tuned into nature. The ranger kit seems to be a natural fit. Halflings also have a natural talent with slings.

 

It always puzzled me why Mazzy used a bow instead of a sling.

 

If there is already a mod out there that does this, my apologies...

 

Thoughts anyone?

[leania]

I think that Rangers should not be allowed both dual and multi class with other classes like paladin.

 

Actually, Rangers are only able to choice Cleric by dual/multi class, but it's quite unbalanced because Ranger/Cleric multi class can use all of Druid's spells.