v11 To-Fight-About List

[polytope]

Would you consider reverting Beta Core Secret Word fix?

 

...

 

The first sentence in the spell's description is false, or at best a generalization, since no spell protection exists at 8th level (I cannot dispel something that does not exist in the first place).

 

No spell protection available to the player, rather. There is an unused 8th level wizard spell protection that some mod might restore, not to mention the unique stoneskin used by Melissan and Demogorgon which funnily enough is coded as a spell protection (though it isn't), and an 8th level spell.

[N00ber]

It's hard to believe that the developers accidentally wrote in three extra repeats of the spell turning effect for levels 5-7 under the spell's feature block. This isn't like leaving a usability flag unchecked or a casting time or projectile incorrect due to copying the item or spell from another resource, someone deliberately coded MST to reflect 5th-7th level spells.

 

This lends much credibility to your argument. Even more so if we can assume that the designers were able to communicate more effectively with the programmers than with whomever was responsible for the ingame and manual descriptions. However, if the opposite is true, then the vanilla spell behavior is a bug and, though not game breaking, falls under the scope of the Fixpack.

 

Anyway, the seventh level "spell turning" provides better protection than the sixth level "spell deflection", so logically the fifth level "minor spell turning" should likewise not be weaker than the third level "minor spell deflection". Not to mention a similar progression is evident for "minor globe/globe of invulnerability" - besides, who would cast a spell reflecting up to 4th level spells once when globes provide the same protection for 1 round/level?

 

If your only concern is defense, then yes Minor Spell Turning (Lv 5 spell) is weaker than Globe of Invulnerability (Lv 6 spell) and Minor Spell Deflection (Lv 3 spell). But reflection is a more powerful mechanic than mere deflection or absorption; I reckon that it's twice as strong assuming a contest between two casters of equal strength. Spell Turning does outclass Spell Deflection in every way save casting time so I guess I can see how this could frustrate your desire for order.

 

Concerning your last question, access to Minor Spell Turning does not imply access to Globe, but even if we disregard that small set, there exist instances where a caster might prefer the Turning. Equipped with the Robe of Vecna, a near death caster might throw up a Minor Spell Turning in reaction to those nasty Flame Arrows coming his way from another near death caster for example; I'm sure you can think up a few other scenarios where Minor Spell Turning might be preferable to Globe. Admittantly, that kind of manuever doesn't suit my playstyle, but it might be of use to a flashy speedrunner.

 

But a debate on the relative merits of spells and the game's rules in general are more appropriate in a forum for the "Revision" type mods, and I don't want to speak more about them here. I've always seen the Fixpack as a mod that strives to enforce the rules, no matter how illogical, which I believe it does with regards to the Elf immunities (if I'm correct in assuming that you're referencing the sleep and charm resistances) and Iron Skins. Elf resistance to sleep and charm magics are documented in the Baldur's Gate 2 manual and in the vanilla game. Iron Skins' casting time of 1 round is also similarly documented.

[N00ber]

No spell protection available to the player, rather. There is an unused 8th level wizard spell protection that some mod might restore, not to mention the unique stoneskin used by Melissan and Demogorgon which funnily enough is coded as a spell protection (though it isn't), and an 8th level spell.

 

Very interesting!

[polytope]

This lends much credibility to your argument. Even more so if we can assume that the designers were able to communicate more effectively with the programmers than with whomever was responsible for the ingame and manual descriptions. However, if the opposite is true, then the vanilla spell behavior is a bug and, though not game breaking, falls under the scope of the Fixpack.

 

Take a look at the effect application order of MST if you have an editor, it's quite different from regular spell turning:

 

 

My guess is that they initially designed the spell to reflect spell levels 1-4 (per the description), then realized in playtesting that it wasn't worth a 5th level slot so tacked on reflection for spell levels 5-7 but forgot to update the description. Thus MST's vanilla game behavior rather than description is true to developer intent.

 

Ahh, speculating on the motives of video game designers of yore, what a productive way to pass the time.

 

But a debate on the relative merits of spells and the game's rules in general are more appropriate in a forum for the "Revision" type mods, and I don't want to speak more about them here. I've always seen the Fixpack as a mod that strives to enforce the rules, no matter how illogical, which I believe it does with regards to the Elf immunities (if I'm correct in assuming that you're referencing the sleep and charm resistances) and Iron Skins. Elf resistance to sleep and charm magics are documented in the Baldur's Gate 2 manual and in the vanilla game. Iron Skins' casting time of 1 round is also similarly documented.

 

I won't argue with that long as the rules are actually interpreted correctly, for instance elves in previous fixpack versions got immunity to most psionic powers (which aren't sleep or charm "magic") as well as things like stinking cloud (not a "sleep" magic) and mental domination (not a "charm" magic). Most spell behavior is probably more correct than spell descriptions when you consider that the spells were almost certainly tweaked during playtesting (a good example of this is the changes Bioware made to the wizard slayer and jester kits in patched ToB - which was not accompanied by an update to either kit's description)

 

On the other hand, the fixpack currently makes many changes that do not fix broken functions, but are basically tweaks or cheats that indeed belong in some sort of a revision mod i.e. the Soul Reaver bypassing MR and armor usability.

 

P.S. allowing archers to wear things like ankheg plate and red dragon scale makes no sense at all; yes the letter of the law is no metal armor, but clearly the intent was to restrict them from bulky plate and suchlike which would realistically hinder an archer's performance.

[WVN777]

Azuredge fix in v10 doesn't seem to be working as I understand it. See attached screen shot for a Skeleton Warrior taking 2 damage (1D6 - that's okay), plus 3 damage (which doesn't seem to be the "phenomenal" 1D6 +4 extra damage vs Undead), and a saving throw of 5 but no Undead Destroyed.

- Is the Skeleton Warrior's missile resistance protecting it from some of the damage?

- If so, should the extra missile damage be something else, or at least bypass the resistance?

- As the Skeleton Warrior has a Save vs Death of 5, shouldn't it have been Destroyed right there with the -4 penalty?

- I don't know what the actual save value that works is, because upon Undead Destroyed, the saving throw message does not appear (or is being overwritten by the Undead Destroyed message, I can't tell which). Should it be appearing?

- I'm looking at AX1H10A.EFF and AX1H10B.EFF, and wondering if the Fixed Damage of 4 and the 1D6 can both be applied by the same Effect? I'm tempted to try splitting them into separate Effects and see if they get applied successfully.

 

Please let me know your thoughts on the extra damage and the saving throw?

 

P.S Since this is "to fight about", while it's hard to refute Hurricane's logic http://forums.gibber...l=azuredge&st=0 , I honestly believe the missing THAC0 +3 (as befits the Enchantment level) was an error, even while the absent Damage +3 was intentional. My logic is that Azuredge and Rifthome are equivalent, except Rifthome (which you don't get unless you work for Bodhi) is Damage +3 vs everything, while Azuredge is a more finely tuned Damage 1D6+4 vs Undead. With no THAC0 bonus, Azuredge tends to glance off anything with a decent AC until you have five stars, and instead of a "powerful throwing axe" it's more like a returning silver dagger. Gulen Rockfire would be so disappointed.

[Hurricane]

- Is the Skeleton Warrior's missile resistance protecting it from some of the damage?

Basically yes, although the exact reduction depends on the usage: If you use Azuredge as a throwing axe, the additional 1d6+4 is dealt as missile damage by AX1H10B.eff, and the Skeleton Warrior you are fighting has 60% resistance against missile damage, so the additional damage is reduced accordingly. If you use Azuredge as a melee weapon, the additional damage is dealt as slashing damage via AX1H10A.eff, but Skeleton Warriors also have 40% slashing resistance. So as you can see, the damage is working as intended.

 

 

- If so, should the extra missile damage be something else, or at least bypass the resistance?

As a general rule: no, because the way it is set up in vanilla BG2, most weapons with additional damage against certain creatures have their extra damage reduced by damage resistance, so we kept it this way with Azuredge as well.

 

 

- As the Skeleton Warrior has a Save vs Death of 5, shouldn't it have been Destroyed right there with the -4 penalty?

- I don't know what the actual save value that works is, because upon Undead Destroyed, the saving throw message does not appear (or is being overwritten by the Undead Destroyed message, I can't tell which). Should it be appearing?

Both of these observations together give you the answer: Every time you actually see the result of a creature's saving throw, it means that the saving throw was successful, but the number doesn't actually help you in any way. Every time a creature fails it's saving throw, the throw is not displayed. The feedback is confusing that way, unfortunately. For what it's worth, that Skeleton Warrior's required saving throw against death is 5, so in the screenshot, it presumably rolled a 9 and ended up exactly at the threshold with the -4 penalty. If it rolls 8 or lower, it fails the saving throw due to the penalty and gets destroyed.

 

 

P.S Since this is "to fight about", while it's hard to refute Hurricane's logic http://forums.gibber...l=azuredge&st=0 , I honestly believe the missing THAC0 +3 (as befits the Enchantment level) was an error, even while the absent Damage +3 was intentional.

As you can tell from the thread you linked to, we have had that discussion. There are all kinds of reasonable interpretations regarding the weapon's base thac0 and damage, including your own. However, none of them matter because only the Fixpack's current implementation is unambiguously supported by the weapon's values and description at the same time. This trumps any deviating considerations because those will always be subject to the personal judgment of what might be the "most reasonable" alteration of the weapon. That's why we decided once and for all to stick with the unambiguous values.

[WVN777]

So the resistance applies to the extra damage, not just the hit, and the saving throw as displayed is the net result, not the original roll. That explains it perfectly! I don't suppose the feedback could be enhanced to show the calculation (9 - 4 = 5) the way it does the attack roll?

 

Two more items come to mind:

 

Is there a reason the Periapt of Proof Against Poison (AMUL22) doesn't have Reduced Damage from Poison? I know the difference between insinuative and ingested poisons, but the description flatly states "Immune to Poison", no disclaimer "No effect on poisonous vapors."

 

Is there a reason the Flame Tongue Long Sword +1 (SW1H24) which "burns a victim with magical fire," deals no Fire damage, so is incapable of finishing a Troll? I think the +1 damage ought to be Fire, as all other weapons of Fire, Flame, Burning, or Searing.

 

Also, has anyone ever considered if FT1DAM, FT2DAM, and FT3DAM should be Fire instead of Slashing? The damage line doesn't state that the bonuses are Fire, but isn't the description clear enough that it's burning its selected enemies, not taking an extra slice?

[polytope]

the saving throw as displayed is the net result, not the original roll. That explains it perfectly! I don't suppose the feedback could be enhanced to show the calculation (9 - 4 = 5) the way it does the attack roll?

 

Yeah if you use ToBEx, the feedback log is otherwise hardcoded.

 

One thing I will say about resistances though; Bolt of Glory should be reverted to doing magic damage vs undead (rather than missile) because undead are almost always missile resistant, it was probably intentionally coded this way in vanilla to get around their resistances.

 

Is there a reason the Periapt of Proof Against Poison (AMUL22) doesn't have Reduced Damage from Poison? I know the difference between insinuative and ingested poisons, but the description flatly states "Immune to Poison", no disclaimer "No effect on poisonous vapors."

 

That would make it protect from disease damage (to hp, not ability scores) which like poison applies the poison damage type over time.

 

Might be worth making it give 206 protection vs cloudkill though.

 

Is there a reason the Flame Tongue Long Sword +1 (SW1H24) which "burns a victim with magical fire," deals no Fire damage, so is incapable of finishing a Troll? I think the +1 damage ought to be Fire, as all other weapons of Fire, Flame, Burning, or Searing.

 

Flametongue is an old sword from BG1 ToTSC, in which neither stoneskins (...relevant for spell disruption) nor trolls existed.

 

Also, has anyone ever considered if FT1DAM, FT2DAM, and FT3DAM should be Fire instead of Slashing? The damage line doesn't state that the bonuses are Fire, but isn't the description clear enough that it's burning its selected enemies, not taking an extra slice?

 

Those effs were originally "damage vs type" which only enhance base weapon damage. This is not a bug though, it's just a quirk like Azuredge not actually being Azure...

[WVN777]

If Disease damage can't be separated from Poison damage, I'd accept that extra benefit, if AMUL22 would just grant "Immunity to Poison" as advertised (including Cloud Kill, Mimics, Mephits, etc), not just arrows and darts. So I still think the Reduced Damage effect is appropriate.

 

If SW1H24 is copied from BG, where there were no Trolls, I wouldn't see that as a reason not to fix it for BG2, and make the +1 into Fire damage as with all the other burning weapons. It simply doesn't match its description today.

[polytope]

If SW1H24 is copied from BG, where there were no Trolls, I wouldn't see that as a reason not to fix it for BG2, and make the +1 into Fire damage as with all the other burning weapons. It simply doesn't match its description today.

 

Firstly it'd make the Sword of Flame +1 (from Bernard) redundant, given that flametongue hits as a +4 weapon and has bonuses to hit/damage vs various critters. Secondly flametongue doing fire damage would make it ideal for interrupting enemy mages who protect themselves with Improved Mantle (since it's +4)... too powerful considering it's easy to get early in the game.

 

Immunity to poison probably should grant immunity to stinking cloud though.

[polytope]

Concerning OBC component, "Cromwell's forging actually takes a day", most people would consider a day's work to be 8 hours, not 24 hours! (well, Dwarves are workaholics I guess...)

[AL|EN]

When our main character is "Thief" and we use any of A.I. Script that constantly trying to "Hide in Shadow", the amount of repetly playing "HiS" sound is huge. So how about a tweak for "Disable 'Hide in Shadow' sound" after "Disable 'you must gather your party before venturing forth'" tweak?

[Jarno Mikkola]

When our main character is "Thief" and we use any of A.I. Script that constantly trying to "Hide in Shadow", the amount of repetly playing "HiS" sound is huge. So how about a tweak for "Disable 'Hide in Shadow' sound" after "Disable 'you must gather your party before venturing forth'" tweak?

Well or you could use a AI mod that's not trying to cheat as you should be able to try to hide in shadows just once per round. Yes, the button is disables for this very reason.

PS, the amount of .cre editing and the fact that there's more than 1 mod character being a thief... it's not likely to be included to the Fixpack, tweak pack perhaps... but the AI solution is way better.

[AL|EN]

Well or you could use a AI mod that's not trying to cheat as you should be able to try to hide in shadows just once per round. Yes, the button is disables for this very reason.

I'm using BPSeries. Once per round is still to often. This sound is played more often than "You must gather..."

PS, the amount of .cre editing and the fact that there's more than 1 mod character being a thief... it's not likely to be included to the Fixpack, tweak pack perhaps... but the AI solution is way better.

Maybe replacing specific sound files by a empty sound can solve this? I posted in the wrong topic, Tweak Pack was on my mind.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Maybe replacing specific sound files by a empty sound can solve this?

I have provided priors for this a few times to Imoen, but you should notice that as the sound is character based, it needs to be added to each character and there's where the generalization of the fix might get tangibly.

I just noted the wrong mod, so others that can add it to a mod, they get pointed to the right direction. It wasn't meant to need a notice. :cheers: