IR V3 - List of changes from V2 to V3

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Actually vanilla's Potion of Magic Shielding stack, but I'm glad RR doesn't exploit it as obtaining complete immunity to elemental/magic damage with two potions is too cheap imo. It also means I can "fix" it to make it not stack, right?

 

Yes, RR's AI never tries to stack potions, scrolls and spells of the same type with each other. However, it does occasionally stack effects which come from two different sources (i.e. green Protection from Fire scroll + Potion of Fire Resistance = 100% Resist Fire).

 

I was going to ask the same. Does RR's AI exploit how the potion was implemented? Because it's quite clear the potion should prevent those spells and work as a sort of limited Anti-magic shell

 

Basically, RR's AI treats that potion as the only means of removing Insect Plague (in the unmodded game) so it's only used in that specific instance. The AI doesn't really care about the spell immunity part and it will continue to use spells while under the effects of the potion (as player characters can do).

 

At least this aspect has to be restored imo, if the dispel effect works as intended, because I don't know if it really doesn't dispels spells of 6th or higher level. Can you confirm this

 

Yes, consuming the potion will remove all dispellable effects from the user regardless of their level.

 

P.S Dispelling insect is amongst the silliest things ever imo. It's like dispelling a wolf with a successful dispel! Am I the only one who thinks that?

 

From a conceptual standpoint I fully agree. Unfortunately, as noted above, that potion is the only (self-targeted) way to negate Insect Plague in the unmodded game.

[Ardanis]

Potion of Magic Protection

* Viconia + this potion = undispellable immunity to magic!

* Carsomyr + Lum's Machine bonus + Hell Trials bonus + this potion = crazy undispellable resistance

Aren't you afraid of these things?

Should I be? I find doing so to be pretty cheap.

 

Potion of Absorbtion

That being said, from a conceptual point of view I don't understand why Hardiness should be less effective for barbarians, actually it should be the opposite.

Only because of possible 100%. Besides, in any scenario barbarians have an edge over fighters anyway.

 

One possible change I was thinking about for KR was to completely replace Hardiness for Barbarians and keep it as fighter-only ability, with the followinf pattern:

* Fighter: Thoughness (prerequisite HLA) ---> Hardiness (+40% physical resistance for 1 turn)

* Barbarian: Thoughness (prerequisite HLA) ---> Hardened Skin (permanent +5% physical resistance, can be selected up to 4 times)

Hm, well...

 

Antidote

Why don't you like the cheap Antidote so much?

Same reason you try to avoid lesser-greater versions? Alright, it's not as applicable to potions as it is to items, but still I never ever bought an antidote. For it is utterly useless in my mind with nothing but cure poison. Which - note it - is far from vital for a party. For those rare cases when it does matter to have an antidote ready at hand, I already have one found in a random chest or whereever.

 

Potions of Giants Strength

Instead I was going to suggest to make Potion of Strength use a +x thac0/damage.

Aha, good. But see below.

Why? I think their current behaviour is fine for potions.

I believe it's the best place of them all to execute your 'everything is unique, no lesser-greater versions' concept. After all, it's not 2 or 3 similar items, but 6, no less. And what's worse, these are far from uncommon, meaning one can easily afford to drink them in every battle.

 

Maybe have them all grant the unstakable combat bonus (2-3) plus various misc effects. Say, +1d3 elemental damage, +10%-15% resistance, +1 AC, chance to stun (duh, I know it's stupid), 2-3 speed increase, etc.

[Demivrgvs]

I was going to ask the same. Does RR's AI exploit how the potion was implemented? Because it's quite clear the potion should prevent those spells and work as a sort of limited Anti-magic shell

Basically, RR's AI treats that potion as the only means of removing Insect Plague (in the unmodded game) so it's only used in that specific instance. The AI doesn't really care about the spell immunity part and it will continue to use spells while under the effects of the potion (as player characters can do).

Too bad. It's hugely inconsistent.

 

At least this aspect has to be restored imo, if the dispel effect works as intended, because I don't know if it really doesn't dispels spells of 6th or higher level. Can you confirm this

Yes, consuming the potion will remove all dispellable effects from the user regardless of their level.

Then what the hell is that strange value used in the 'ignore level' parameter?

 

P.S Dispelling insect is amongst the silliest things ever imo. It's like dispelling a wolf with a successful dispel! Am I the only one who thinks that?

From a conceptual standpoint I fully agree. Unfortunately, as noted above, that potion is the only (self-targeted) way to negate Insect Plague in the unmodded game.

I do hope you'll do something like DavidW is going to do (Fire Shield "dispel" insect) or take into account SR V4 (e.g. Gust of Wind will "remove" them), because dispelling them is incredibly sad (and even more sad imo is to do it by drinking a potion!!).

 

 

Use Scrolls vs Use Any Item

aVENGER do your RR's thieves use scrolls? I think you said something like that to me ages ago.

 

Because I was thinking about the possibility to have thieves use scrolls similarly to PnP (I already let them use wands within IR if they have an "appropriate" INT score).

 

I'm not sure my solution is doable (I have to test it *) but the idea is to let thieves use scrolls but with a % of failure based on their level. Then I'd personally add an INT requirement too.

 

* Technically speaking I'd use EFF files to make thieves classes (except those who also have mage levels) immune to the spell they are about to cast via scroll. Spells cast from scrolls are self targeted, which should allow me to block them with a % based Protection from Spell effect. Am I wrong?

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Too bad. It's hugely inconsistent

 

The problem here is making the caster immune to his own spells, it's a change that will simply break AI behavior. It's not tied to this specific potion, any item or spell with such an effect is going to cause the same issue when used by the AI.

 

Then what the hell is that strange value used in the 'ignore level' parameter

 

When parameter 2 for opcode #58 is set to 0 it will always dispell all magic, regardless of power.

 

I do hope you'll do something like DavidW is going to do (Fire Shield "dispel" insect) or take into account SR V4 (e.g. Gust of Wind will "remove" them), because dispelling them is incredibly sad (and even more sad imo is to do it by drinking a potion!!)

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that's feasible for RR. Since my scripts are hand-crafted (I don't use SSL or anything similarly sophisticated for compiling them) it's much harder for me to take into account spell and item changes introduced by other mods.

 

aVENGER do your RR's thieves use scrolls? I think you said something like that to me ages ago.

 

Yes, they use them as per PnP rules - with a 25% chance of spell failure on each casting. Also, spells cast from scrolls are disruptable by damage and cannot be read while silenced. This is accomplished via scripting though.

 

Technically speaking I'd use EFF files to make thieves classes (except those who also have mage levels) immune to the spell they are about to cast via scroll. Spells cast from scrolls are self targeted, which should allow me to block them with a % based Protection from Spell effect. Am I wrong?

 

Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure how that would work with RR's AI since it already incorporates the spell failure chance.

[Demivrgvs]

Then what the hell is that strange value used in the 'ignore level' parameter

When parameter 2 for opcode #58 is set to 0 it will always dispell all magic, regardless of power.

Yes, but my unmodded potion has such parameter set to Unknown (65536).

 

I do hope you'll do something like DavidW is going to do (Fire Shield "dispel" insect) or take into account SR V4 (e.g. Gust of Wind will "remove" them), because dispelling them is incredibly sad (and even more sad imo is to do it by drinking a potion!!)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's feasible for RR. Since my scripts are hand-crafted (I don't use SSL or anything similarly sophisticated for compiling them) it's much harder for me to take into account spell and item changes introduced by other mods.

Sigh.

 

 

Use Scrolls

aVENGER do your RR's thieves use scrolls? I think you said something like that to me ages ago.

Yes, they use them as per PnP rules - with a 25% chance of spell failure on each casting. Also, spells cast from scrolls are disruptable by damage and cannot be read while silenced. This is accomplished via scripting though.

Cool.

 

Technically speaking I'd use EFF files to make thieves classes (except those who also have mage levels) immune to the spell they are about to cast via scroll. Spells cast from scrolls are self targeted, which should allow me to block them with a % based Protection from Spell effect. Am I wrong?

Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure how that would work with RR's AI since it already incorporates the spell failure chance.

Well, but for consistency you could implement my solution too if it works. You do handle thief's classes within RR and this would be quite appropriate imo. Isn't it?

 

 

Potion of Magic Protection

* Viconia + this potion = undispellable immunity to magic!

* Carsomyr + Lum's Machine bonus + Hell Trials bonus + this potion = crazy undispellable resistance

Aren't you afraid of these things?

Should I be? I find doing so to be pretty cheap.

Exactly, cheap and overpowered...I find strange we don't agree on this.

 

 

Potion of Absorbtion

One possible change I was thinking about for KR was to completely replace Hardiness for Barbarians and keep it as fighter-only ability, with the followinf pattern:

* Fighter: Thoughness (prerequisite HLA) ---> Hardiness (+40% physical resistance for 1 turn)

* Barbarian: Thoughness (prerequisite HLA) ---> Hardened Skin (permanent +5% physical resistance, can be selected up to 4 times)

Hm, well...

"Hm, well - interesting" or "Hm, well - don't like much"? Anyway, I suppose IR should work indipendently, with or without KR.

 

 

Potions of Giants Strength

Instead I was going to suggest to make Potion of Strength use a +x thac0/damage.

Aha, good. But see below.

Why? I think their current behaviour is fine for potions.

I believe it's the best place of them all to execute your 'everything is unique, no lesser-greater versions' concept. After all, it's not 2 or 3 similar items, but 6, no less.

As you said yourself I'd like to point out that the my 'avoid lesser-greater versions' rule is really "not as applicable to potions as it is to items". Potion are not unique items, and it's actually "normal" to have lesser versions such as Antidote/Elixir and Healing/Extra Healing.

 

Maybe have them all grant the unstakable combat bonus (2-3) plus various misc effects. Say, +1d3 elemental damage, +10%-15% resistance, +1 AC, chance to stun (duh, I know it's stupid), 2-3 speed increase, etc.

Mmm, it's a quite radical change...

[Ardanis]

Yes, but my unmodded potion has such parameter set to Unknown (65536).

Do you by any chance have SR's dispellable stuff installed? If yes then it's how it should be, as the code looks through every itm/spl/eff for 58 and when finds then changes them as per Taimon's instruction.

 

Potions of Giants Strength

Potion are not unique items, and it's actually "normal" to have lesser versions

I know, yes. Ny concern is that fighters can happily drink +6 damage for every fight. A bit annoying with SCS as well, when everyone hits for 15-20 damage.

[Demivrgvs]

Potion of Magic Blocking

Yes, but my unmodded potion has such parameter set to Unknown (65536).

Do you by any chance have SR's dispellable stuff installed? If yes then it's how it should be, as the code looks through every itm/spl/eff for 58 and when finds then changes them as per Taimon's instruction.

You're right. Good catch thanks.

 

 

Potions of Giants Strength

Potion are not unique items, and it's actually "normal" to have lesser versions

I know, yes. Ny concern is that fighters can happily drink +6 damage for every fight. A bit annoying with SCS as well, when everyone hits for 15-20 damage.

But your solution may actually make it worse, as 'incremental' effects may go on top of everything else (e.g. +1D3 elemental damage on a character which already has 25 STR). Furthermore if the potions don't grant the same effects I have no apparent reason to prevent them from stacking, but I would have to do it anyway for balance purposes.

 

 

Potion of Absorption

If I'm not wrong the only two interesting and viable solutions are:

a) something like 20% physical resistance (not cumulative with Hardiness)

b) stoneskin effect (5 skins)

 

Conceptually I do prefer a) but only if we manage to handle the 100%+ issue.

[Shaitan]

How about implementing futher 1PP goddes graphics into IR3?

[Ardanis]

Potion of Absorbtion

Let's see what we've got here.

 

1) Armor of Faith - 25% in vanilla, 20% in SR

2) Hardiness - 40%

If it's effectiveness in slightly nerfed to 30% for F/Cs, then stacking AoF and H will yield 50% only

 

3) Ring of Earth Control - 5%

4) that yellow helm - 10%

5) Fortress Shield - 10%

6) Defender of Easthaven - 10%

As I've said before, I'd reduce all 10%s to 5%, it'll make 20%

 

7) Potion of Absorbtion - 20%, but I'd still lowered it to 15%

8) barbarian's innate res - 20%

 

Fully equipped F/C will have 85%

Barbarian would have 95%

Fighter would have 75%

 

I recall something being said about forbidding barbs to use the shield. Then two items of 4 can be happy with 10%.

Replacing Hardiness for barbs with perma 40% solves it even better. And we're left with 30% from items, 40% from H, 20% from AoF, 15%/20% from potion. Without spell it's 85%/90%. Now, if we go as per my suggestion regarding multiclass fighters, then negating extra 10% from H and forbidding one item to F/Cs will result in them having 85%/90%/95%.

[Mike1072]

How about implementing futher 1PP goddes graphics into IR3?

We'll be updating the existing components (probably just 1PPv3 Paperdolls) just to stay current, but I wouldn't expect anything new. The new avatar+paperdoll components (1PPv3 Avatars, Female Dwarves, Thieves Galore) are great and I'd highly recommend using them with IR, but they're about 65mb in size and growing, so it really doesn't make sense to duplicate them here.

 

The new palette stuff would find its way in if we ended up using it.

[Jarno Mikkola]

How about implementing futher 1PP goddes graphics into IR3?

We'll be updating the existing components (probably just 1PPv3 Paperdolls) just to stay current, but I wouldn't expect anything new. The new avatar+paperdoll components (1PPv3 Avatars, Female Dwarves, Thieves Galore) are great and I'd highly recommend using them with IR, but they're about 65mb in size and growing, so it really doesn't make sense to duplicate them here.

As long as the two mods are compatible in a set install order, everything will be fine... but you might wish to make more notes for it in the readme, and perhaps in here, cause nobody actually reads the readmes.

[Demivrgvs]

I'm recently playing Medieval II (with Stainless Steel mod) and I ended up making a lot of research about medieval warfare and weapons...which then had me reflect on BG combat system. The result is that I'd like to further refine what we already started to do.

 

What is still not well reproduced is that crushing weapons should deal less damage than slashing ones, but they are almost as much effective against heavily armored opponents as they are against unarmored ones. Slashing weapons should be faster/lighter, and deal more severe/deep wounds, but damage is considerably reduced against medium/heavy armors because in that case impact is a lot more important than the ability to inflict cuts.

 

My suggested changes are...

 

Club: damage reduced to 1d4 (I haven't noticed it before, but the manual already says 1d4 instead of 1d6).

 

Staff: what about changing it from 1d6 to 2d3?

 

Hammer: 1d4+1 instead of IR's 1d8 (as per vanilla, I never thought they could be right about this!)

 

Mace: 1d6 instead of 1d6 + 1

 

Morning Star: 1d6, +1 piercing damage (instead of 2d4)

 

Flail: 2d4 (instead of vanilla's 1d6+1 and IR's 1d10)

 

 

What do you think? Am I wrong?

[mercurier]

The idea is sensible imo, however players loyal to DnD rules may find it unacceptable. Therefore I'd welcome it as an optional component of IR

[Jarno Mikkola]

The idea is sensible imo, however players loyal to DnD rules may find it unacceptable. Therefore I'd welcome it as an optional component of IR

Yeah, I think it(Armor Physical Resistances) was supposed to be optional installation component, one that will remove the extra AC from the armors infavour of the small damage resistances... I just would like to have the option to install this witout the Dex Penalties component, not actually because I won't install it but just because it would be independent optional component.

[Demivrgvs]

The idea is sensible imo, however players loyal to DnD rules may find it unacceptable. Therefore I'd welcome it as an optional component of IR

Yeah, I think it (Armor Physical Resistances) was supposed to be optional installation component, one that will remove the extra AC from the armors infavour of the small damage resistances... I just would like to have the option to install this witout the Dex Penalties component, not actually because I won't install it but just because it would be independent optional component.

Armor Physical Resistances will indeed be an optional component, the weapon system changes may not (it currently isn't in V2).

 

Note that most of the above mentioned changes would actually be more similar to vanilla's values than they currently are:

- staffs would deal only +1 minimum damage, on average is only +0.5 points of damage (but I'm fine leaving this unchanged and improve staffs only with the parrying system)

- hammers have been changed by IR, I'm suggesting to restore them as they were

- morning star would simply deal 2-7 instead of 2-8, and the point of piercing damage is extremely appropriate imo

- flails would actually be much more similar to vanilla's ones (+0.5 damage, instead of V2' +1), but we'd keep IR's concept (heaviest, most damaging crushing weapon)

 

The only two weapons effectively "nerfed" are maces and clubs (-1 to damage). The latter is considered a light weapon within IR, thus can backstab with no penalty and doesn't cause -1 penalty to off-hand thac0. Thus the only weapon effectively nerfed imo would be the mace (but I may introduce some Heavy Mace here and there ).

 

NOTE: even without Armor Physical Resistances my suggested system still makes a lot of sense because of vanilla's "hidden" AC bonuses applied by armors.

 

 

Jarno, I'm quite against Armor Physical Resistances without Dexterity Penalties because else IR's Heavy Armors would be utterly overpowered. I'd like to keep the latter available separately, but Dexterity Penalties will be required to install Armor Physical Resistances.