Jump to content


Photo

IR v3 Feedback


310 replies to this topic

#16 Dakk

Dakk
  • Modders
  • 941 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2011 - 10:41 AM

Many good ideas from Lawlight, I especially like the part of Paldin/UH usability. Regarding a bonus to save against disruption I'm mildly opposed/neutral.

#17 DrAzTiK

DrAzTiK
  • Members
  • 544 posts

Posted 03 September 2011 - 05:12 PM

I am enjoying item revisions V3. Really amazing but sometimes values looks really pitiable.

Shadow armor + 3 : I would vote to raise hide in shadows percentage. Somethink like 40%.

Balduran Armor : 10% magic resistance would make more sence. (considering balduran helmet provides +5%).

Bonus to charima are also really low. Armor of balduran and blades of roses shoud deserve at leat +2

Dwarven thrower + 2 have a wrong ranged bam assigned .

Dwarven large shield +2 : provide only + 4 AC. (instead of +5)

Petiapt of life protection : it would be nice to display death ward and negative plane protection icons on portraits.

Dragon helm : provide only +10% fire resistance

I really like the come back of vampiric effect for sword of chaos. The sword remain appealing for a long time now.

Edited by DrAzTiK, 03 September 2011 - 05:24 PM.


#18 DrAzTiK

DrAzTiK
  • Members
  • 544 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 02:20 AM

After thinking a litle more about hit, I would prefer to see HP bonus of helm and armor of balduran being removed and fix MR at 10% for both. Just my opinion.

Consider that magic resistance can be lowered by ennemy mages, so it's not a problem to increase values a litle bit.

Problem is also that item hp bonus don't stack with potions and spells. (Aid spell)

Edited by DrAzTiK, 05 September 2011 - 02:23 AM.


#19 Demivrgvs

Demivrgvs

    The Laughing Man

  • Modders
  • 5549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 05 September 2011 - 02:52 AM

Shadow armor + 3 : I would vote to raise hide in shadows percentage. Somethink like 40%.

In theory the bonus is low because part of it is used to overcome studded armor's intrinsic penalty (which is 20% to both hide and move!).

Bonus to charima are also really low. Armor of balduran and blades of roses shoud deserve at leat +2

I didn't wanted these items to be the mastercards of BG. The effect is there to fit the concept/lore and as a small bonus, but I don't like it to be a huge discount on stores.

Petiapt of life protection: it would be nice to display death ward and negative plane protection icons on portraits.

Death Ward also protects from petrification and disintegration, this amulet does not, and I don't want to use the icon unless the equipped effect perfectly matches what the icon's spell does. I could indeed add NPP icon, but I'd like to wait for SR V4 first, as I wanted to suggest making it protect from all negative energy spells (e.g. Cause Wound spells, Vampiric Touch, etc.).

After thinking a litle more about hit, I would prefer to see HP bonus of helm and armor of balduran being removed and fix MR at 10% for both. Just my opinion.

Consider that magic resistance can be lowered by ennemy mages, so it's not a problem to increase values a litle bit.

This is something I do thought myself, and the armor in particualr probably deserves to have a more consistent bonus. I used the "small hp + small mr" formula because it was closer to vanilla, and because it seemed slightly more unique than a plain mr bonus. I'll think about it a little more.

Problem is also that item hp bonus don't stack with potions and spells. (Aid spell)

Eh? Afaik they inc bonuses do stack (e.g. Aid). The only non-stacking bonus should be the % based ones (e.g. you can use only one potion at a time).


P.S

Dwarven thrower + 2 have a wrong ranged bam assigned.
Dwarven large shield +2 : provide only + 4 AC. (instead of +5)
Dragon helm : provide only +10% fire resistance

Fixed.

Edited by Demivrgvs, 05 September 2011 - 02:58 AM.


#20 DrAzTiK

DrAzTiK
  • Members
  • 544 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 03:13 AM

In theory the bonus is low because part of it is used to overcome studded armor's intrinsic penalty (which is 20% to both hide and move!).

Oh yes, I forgot studded armor's penality.

Eh? Afaik they inc bonuses do stack (e.g. Aid). The only non-stacking bonus should be the % based ones (e.g. you can use only one potion at a time).

Yes, it only don't stack with potions. Not a big deal but just want to notice it.

I also would like to notice that SCS beholder can dispell my potion of magic shielding. :)

Frozen hand : I am not sure but I think a succefull save should remove slow effect.

Edited by DrAzTiK, 05 September 2011 - 03:36 AM.


#21 Demivrgvs

Demivrgvs

    The Laughing Man

  • Modders
  • 5549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 05 September 2011 - 04:32 AM

I also would like to notice that SCS beholder can dispell my potion of magic shielding. :)

That's because beholder's anti-magic ray directly has a direct "remove spell protection" effect on top of its dispelling one. Should I make the potion effect not count as a spell protection? :p

Frozen hand : I am not sure but I think a succefull save should remove slow effect.

What's Frozen Hand? ;)

#22 DrAzTiK

DrAzTiK
  • Members
  • 544 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 05:27 AM

I mean wand of frost

#23 Salk

Salk
  • Modders
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:15 AM

I also would like to notice that SCS beholder can dispell my potion of magic shielding. :)

That's because beholder's anti-magic ray directly has a direct "remove spell protection" effect on top of its dispelling one. Should I make the potion effect not count as a spell protection? :p


I think it should be that else the potion becomes a mere duplication of spell effects.

#24 deducter

deducter
  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:51 AM

Regarding the MoD once again, I still feel it should be cleric only (even in the hands of an undead hunter, it'd just have the same problems with giving it to Minsc, the autoslaughter of nearly all undead without effort). Clerics can increase their combat powerful significantly with the appropriate spells, but those spells can be dispelled, and clerics are limited to 1 attack per round, 2 with haste. Sure fighter clerics could conceivably use the mace to great effect, or a cleric/mage with tenser's transformation so perhaps limiting the item to a Pure Cleric and its the "Priests of xxx" subclasses is the best way to go. I have tested out the mace with a pure class cleric, and it is hardly overpowered even as is. If you don't want the mace to be too restricted, then disruption does need to be nerfed, and I feel adding a save is not as good as say lowering the % chance of disruption on hit to say 50% or 25%. This should only be done if some sort of warrior class can still use the mace.

I'm not sure what to do about Azuredge, but I can tell you there's no point in adding more undead immunities, especially not immunity to "drink blood" from SCSII vampires. That ability was added specifically to make fighting them a challenge even if you have negative plane of protection on. So what I like to do is protect my casters from level drain and let the warriors get level drained, but restore them after each encounter. Which I imagine was the intention.

You should probably make Doomplate's work like the Belt of Inertial Barrier. Aura of Despair should have a save against it, and it should be rechecked every round, otherwise, this effect is ridiculously powerful.

I also think Lilarcor should be more restricted. The simple solution of course is to make it Minsc-only, which is entirely fitting. If that is do though, I propose the sword gain another ability to compensate and make it more entertaining. 20% chance on hit for the sword to trigger "Rage of Lilarcor" which gives a 5-round damage buff to its wielder per the potion of rage (non-stackable), so +1 attack, +2 damage, +2 saves bonus. I still don't think it would be overpowered as long as ONLY Minsc can use it. If this is too restrictive, you can perhaps limit the sword to Chaotic only alignments. Minsc and Saerevok are the only two NPCs I believe who can use it, and I can kinda see Saerevok using the sword, although by ToB there are better weapons.

Personally I enjoy the % on hit effects greatly, and maybe it is just me, but I am delighted whenever something special triggers. So I am a huge proponent of giving/changing weapon effects to include more of these.

Edited by deducter, 06 September 2011 - 11:04 AM.


#25 Demivrgvs

Demivrgvs

    The Laughing Man

  • Modders
  • 5549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:59 PM

Mace of Disruption

Regarding the MoD once again, I still feel it should be cleric only (even in the hands of an undead hunter, it'd just have the same problems with giving it to Minsc, the autoslaughter of nearly all undead without effort).

There was an unexpected consensus to restrict it to clerics, and I was fine with it in the first place. Still not sure about further nerfing it as long as it's not usable by true warriors.

Doomplate

Aura of Despair should have a save against it, and it should be rechecked every round, otherwise, this effect is ridiculously powerful.

Is the -2 to opponent's save (not stackable with Doom spell) so OP? :) Anyway, the aura is so powerful because the armor's drawback is quite huge: -1 penalty to hit/dmg, -1 penalty to ALL saves, and wearer suffer +1 dmg x dice from opponent's spells. If more players agree with you and the consensus is that Aura of Despair is OP then I'll do something about it.

Lilarcor

I also think Lilarcor should be more restricted. The simple solution of course is to make it Minsc-only, which is entirely fitting.

I already planned somthing like this. :p

#26 Salk

Salk
  • Modders
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:31 PM

Doomplate

Aura of Despair should have a save against it, and it should be rechecked every round, otherwise, this effect is ridiculously powerful.

Is the -2 to opponent's save (not stackable with Doom spell) so OP? :) Anyway, the aura is so powerful because the armor's drawback is quite huge: -1 penalty to hit/dmg, -1 penalty to ALL saves, and wearer suffer +1 dmg x dice from opponent's spells. If more players agree with you and the consensus is that Aura of Despair is OP then I'll do something about it.


I, for one, do not agree.

#27 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Bad bad nurse.

  • Members
  • 1733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:42 PM

Doomplate

Aura of Despair should have a save against it, and it should be rechecked every round, otherwise, this effect is ridiculously powerful.

Is the -2 to opponent's save (not stackable with Doom spell) so OP? :) Anyway, the aura is so powerful because the armor's drawback is quite huge: -1 penalty to hit/dmg, -1 penalty to ALL saves, and wearer suffer +1 dmg x dice from opponent's spells. If more players agree with you and the consensus is that Aura of Despair is OP then I'll do something about it.


I, for one, do not agree.

In my game I didn't find it overpowered.
"You're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly. If a strange man offers you a ride I say take It"
-Grandpa Simpson

#28 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Bad bad nurse.

  • Members
  • 1733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 15 September 2011 - 10:55 PM

Why does a ring of protection +1 costs three times than a amulet of protection +1?

Could the potion case at Ribald be moved to Joluv (I'm unsure where that potion case comes from Tweak pack, Unique containers others?)?

Edited by Shaitan, 15 September 2011 - 10:59 PM.

"You're dumb as a mule and twice as ugly. If a strange man offers you a ride I say take It"
-Grandpa Simpson

#29 Demivrgvs

Demivrgvs

    The Laughing Man

  • Modders
  • 5549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 September 2011 - 09:17 AM

Why does a ring of protection +1 costs three times than a amulet of protection +1?

Amulet, Cloak and Ring of Protection +1 all cost the same, with a base value of 1k gp. Are you comparing two items from different stores? :cool:

#30 Ardanis

Ardanis

    A very GAR character

  • Modders
  • 2585 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Posted 16 September 2011 - 09:33 AM

Nope, ring does cost 3k instead of 1k.

Cloak +2 is also 5k, while ring +2 is 7,500.

PS Say, don't you think that listing kit unusabilities is excessive? Their descriptions already explain restrictions on armor, so imo there's no need to duplicate this.

Edited by Ardanis, 16 September 2011 - 09:38 AM.

Retired from modding.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users