I think we need a further poll option to reflect what a quite a few people seem to think:
The implementation of level drain itself is fine BUT increasing the duration of NPP or having it scale with caster level and an ease-of-use option that remembers your spell selection would be useful.
Fighting Vampires is not hard unless you're new to the game or intentionally gimping yourself. They are also not scary, just annoying due to the need for constant rebuffs and an alternate "heal" mechanic.
That said I normally wander round with a couple of NPP and lesser restoration in my priests spellbooks for the random nighttime encounters, and you do get "oh s***" moments when first encountering a group. As people have said though, it's not an "oh s**** I might die", but "oh s***, keep them away from the casters or this will get irritating".
make mirror image protect against it the same way it protects against physical attacks (because level drain IS a physical attack, isn't it?), maybe also stoneskin. or maybe not, I have no idea how much it would be within the "spirit of the game".
otherwise, it's fine... or at least it's fine if you're playing a party with a single tank - for a big, loving, close-combatant family, it probably still is a nightmare.
otherwise, it's fine... or at least it's fine if you're playing a party with a single tank, for a big, loving, close-combatant family, it's probably still a nightmare.
This is how I used to set up my parties all the time, and had a big influence on my "always always ALWAYS have a backup ranged weapon" policy.
Dude, no one has said anything about making any part of the game easier. You're not in any position to "strongly suspect" anything about what anyone wants, except insofar as people have written about it in the thread. The level drain critics have only talked about RETAINING the challenge and danger for the little pixelated characters on the screen, but reducing the annoyance and immersion-breaking for the living, breathing person sitting in front of the computer. EVERY player is going to get back to full strength after vampire encounters; so why not reduce the number of mouse clicks it takes to get there?? As far as difficulty, with level drain as it is now, I fully agree with you that various protections against it should be *removed* from the game - not that more should be added.
As for Fardragon and the PnP purists: 1) EVERY PnP game has a live DM who can improvise and implement house rules. Not for nothing, BG has a big and thriving modding community... 2) There ARE vampires who use CON drain in 2e... that's why I use it as my house rule. Fact is, there are tons and tons of 2e sourcebooks, supplements, etc., many of them contradictory. There is no 'canon.' 3) BG itself uses some totally strange variations on 2e rules, like only having events, creatures and effects that are easy to implement in a static 2D computer game with no DM - *not to mention* the crazy stuff invented just for BG, like having 3e monks & sorcerers, and the wacky HLA system.
All that said, @Rhyme makes a very good point, that maybe these arguments are better for modders than for the devs. Frankly, I suspect that the effects are hard-coded, and neither the devs nor modders can 'fix' level drain.
Actually it is more then just an annoyance. Because of the fatigue factor or having to go to get it cured from a priest this means you are stuck with the penalty for a while. Being stuck with the penalty of level drain and possible having even more levels drained means it does in fact increase the challenge and is more then just an annoyance. If you rest in an area there is a chance monsters will spawn and kill you so it's a risk.
On the flip side if it is gone after combat that is making things easy. You don't have to worry about resting or going all the way to a town. Even if the penalty was worse (which constitution loss isn't) it still wouldn't be as much of a hindrance to your group if the effect wore off after combat was over. That's like being magically cured to full health after a battle ends. Healing is a hindrance. Why not just remove the cure spell and heal to full health after each fight. Then we can concentrate on fighting and looting....
Ok, peace. NO offense was intended, but clearly you took some. I apologize if I offended you.
But likewise, I am entitled to my own suspicions. And from what you have written, in my mind the facts fit the circumstances. If you say that isn't your driving force, then so be it. But it is still where I suspect some of it is coming from.
As for the Meta-gaming, that is all coming directly from your posts. See my quote of your post.
You comment about CON drains, would you care to site some resource material? I'd appreciate it as I am always interested in learning new stuff about 2nd edition. I have the DMG and the PHB and both Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio. All reference "Level Drain" and the Vampire attacks as dealing with level rather than CON. So I'd appreciate some help identifying where the other source material you indicated is for 2nd edition. I know that 3rd edition uses CON in some instances, but I am equally sure you know that the CON and STAT structure is significantly different in that game. So the two systems are not compatible.
Finally, you commented about "EVERY Player is going to get back to full strength after an encounter with a vampire". I recently read Bram Stoker's Dracula. Seems to me that it is a common theme in the book that anyone attacked by Dracula was physically drained for days and weeks afterwards. I also have read the Ravenloft books and most encounters with Strahd left the effected physically drained for long periods of time. I'd appreciate understanding how you translate that into your statement.
Also, you indicate that you don't want to make the game "Less tough", yet I have not seen any suggestions made that make the game equivalent to the way it is. In my opinion (and I am equally entitled to my opinion as you are to yours), a Combat only solution is no where near as challenging or difficult as the one implemented.
Now, several people have suggested that the spells get stored somewhere such that once a restoration is cast, that they are still listed as choices for memorization. I think that would be acceptable, BUT... They would need to be re-memorized as if they had been cast. Otherwise, level drain gets reduced to an "In combat only" problem. All my personal opinion.
Keep it and dont change it please. Enemies with this feared attack adds to the game ambience and i always enjoy it being scared before going into a fight!
And uhm... i dont think twilight has anything to do with vampires... in 3 years no one remembers that abomination out of a bored amateur writer´s mind...
It's easy to prepare for (NPP, as others have stated), and easy to cure. Being fatigued is part of the game, and in most of my games, at least one member of my party is fatigued. If you cure yourself at a temple, you would probably immediately head to an inn and rest from a role-playing perspective anyway. It's part of the game.
Relearning the spells is somewhat annoying; I wouldn't be opposed to a system where you didn't have to go back in and relearning spells from your spell book after your levels were restored, but you should have to rest to memorize the spells again either way.
Balancing role-playing technique with usability is difficult, but I think BG and BG2 got it pretty damn close to perfect, and I think that contributes significantly to the longevity of the games. If I had to make one change, it would allow the resurrection of the PC without a re-load, unless there's a story-driven reason why that's impossible that I'm unaware of.
everything you said is correct, that's why i hate LD and why i fear it. one of the few things i fear in the game, that's why it's one of the best part of the game.
And therein lies our differences in a nut shell. "For Me", I would want, should there be any kind of a change made, an impact that is as broad ranging and invasive as the existing scenario in order for me to enjoy the changes. You, it sounds like, would be just as happy to have a combat exclusive solution.
It is OK for us to disagree. And so I think we do.
And their opinion equally doesn't matter. The game is as the game is. Play something else or shup up and take it how it is. The BG vampires are 100% accurate to the monster manual entry, and there's not a damn thing you're going to do to get that changed, unless you mod it yourself.
I have to sit here and suffer through all the legitimately broken mechanics such as R/C spellcasting exploits, erroneous dualed fighter specialization errors, nerf'd dual-classing, gimp specialist mages, EXTREMELY nerf'd rogues in general with no compensation, rest any time you damn well please cheese, brokenly powerful kits that are ridiculously overpowered compared to their PnP versions (most of which would've actually been EASIER to implement then the current versions) for NO REASON and actually have little to no downsides to compensate, broken multi-class mechanics, nerf'd dual-classing, druids not being penalized for using illegal gear, several others I'm too tired to list atm.
Admittedly, most of those are only issues if someone abuses them, so wouldn't really effect my game hardly at all aside from the rogue nerfs or specialist mage gimps, which is precisely why I'm opposed to the above change. You're trying to change a long standing mechanic that is, unusually for BG, working 100% like it's supposed to, and would effect all the players who are perfectly fine with the mechanic as is, with no legitimate reason for a change. Nerfing Algernon's was due to the item being bugged, and the original developers too lazy to bother correcting it. Trying to nerf level drain is just trying to change the game to suit your own tastes, when there's no grounds at all for doing so, since the mechanic has been the same from day 1 to current AND is accurate to the ruleset.
I don't care what house rules you do in your own game, as long as it doesn't %^$&ing touch anything in mine. I don't go around putting a gun to people's head and threaten to kill them if they rest in a dungeon or without being fatigued, and while I do feel that rest limits would make the game more challenging, they're easily do-able simply by refraining from rest-abuse. If you want to screw over your own game's challenge, that's your call entirely.
I think we need a further poll option to reflect what a quite a few people seem to think:
The implementation of level drain itself is fine BUT increasing the duration of NPP or having it scale with caster level and an ease-of-use option that remembers your spell selection would be useful.
Fighting Vampires is not hard unless you're new to the game or intentionally gimping yourself. They are also not scary, just annoying due to the need for constant rebuffs and an alternate "heal" mechanic.
That said I normally wander round with a couple of NPP and lesser restoration in my priests spellbooks for the random nighttime encounters, and you do get "oh s***" moments when first encountering a group. As people have said though, it's not an "oh s**** I might die", but "oh s***, keep them away from the casters or this will get irritating".
Yes, this is the point I was trying to make earlier.
And their opinion equally doesn't matter. The game is as the game is. Play something else or shup up and take it how it is. The BG vampires are 100% accurate to the monster manual entry, and there's not a damn thing you're going to do to get that changed, unless you mod it yourself.
This.
If they didn't drain energy levels they wouldn't be D&D vampires. They would be stirges with the wrong model.
These aren't Twilight vampires, Bram Stoker vampires, or any other mythos vampires. They are 2nd edition D&D vampires, and 2nd edition D&D vampires drain energy levels by touch.
As much as I love D&D, level drain always struck me as a completely out-of-place effect. If it's something permanent that you have to remove by employing a long sequence of rest and cast of restoration (either yourself or by the means of temples), then for god's sake just streamline the process and let people at least return to exactly the same state as before the drain (I mean the memorized spells, of course). This is not a pen&paper game where such effects would be fun to deal with in a company of friends, this is a computer game where a certain level of convenience is obligatory. I won't cry if this effect is gone from the game for good. IMO, it was a bad choice to implement it into the game in the first place.
Bare in mind....I've got nothing against not having to re-memorize...but that has nothing to do with enemies that drain levels, it's a short coming of the spell book system. If that is your primary gripe, then ask to have THAT issue addressed, not messing with level drain.
It works for me. The issue with it being annoying is actually the point. (It's far more annoying to me that when magic-user is raised from the dead, you always have to remember to re-add any spells for any spell bonuses that come from rings or whatever -- I always forget.)
It is annoying. It is supposed to be annoying. It gives Vampires a power that most other monsters in the game don't have. And it isn't anywhere near as difficult to remove/prevent as the OP indicates. Keep it as it is.
PnP level drain wasn't meant to be annoying; it was meant to be scary -- literally a fate worse than death, since it was easier to get resurrected than it was to regain lost levels. Also, anyone killed by a level draining undead was generally doomed to rise as one of said undead, making those encounters doubly scary and reinforcing the need for clerical protection.
In BG2, level drain is annoying rather than scary, which to me is a failure of translation from PnP to CRPG: the kind of threats that work in a PnP environment where there is no such thing as reloading and where players may be immortal but their characters aren't don't always translate into a computer game where you have to finish the game with the same character you start with, and you can reload and do over any part of the game that you don't like the outcome of. But even without reloading, level drain is easy enough to cure; it's just annoying. Annoying is not the same as challenging, unless you are looking to have your patience tested.
Again you're assuming things. Here's a question: what if, instead of ameliorating the effects of level drain, you increased them? What if you eliminated Restoration from the game, and instead of level drain being an applied effect, it was a permanent, irreversible condition? I would actually really enjoy that, I think it would be very interesting. But the current implementation, which is trying to be a long-term effect but is actually short-term on practice, just irks me. And, apparently, a number of other people.
I'd prefer it this way. If you get level drained, you go to the mid-point of the previous level (or previous 2 levels if it's a vampire or other 2-level drainer) and you have to regain levels normally until you have a cleric who can cast greater restoration. Also, no inexpensive restorations at temples or cheap scrolls that make otherwise serious consequences into something that can be undone by paying a small fine.
While we're at it, I would like to see more realistic (i.e. much higher) prices for temple resurrections and the implementation of the BTB resurrection rules: if your companion fails their resurrection survival roll, they are permanently dead. Otherwise, they are raised, but lose 1 point of constitution permanently.
The aging rule for haste spells, the system shock roll for effects like polymorph, and item saving throws (just got fireballed? Don't expect most of your scrolls to still be intact...) could also be used. These are all things that could be done easily, since the computer can take them all into account. These are the kinds of things that could be used to make the higher difficulty levels more challenging instead of just spamming more damage.
I know it's late, @the_spyder, but I actually have a quote in which CON is mentioned (since you asked for a cite). AD&D 2nd Edition - Dungeon Master's Guide.
Energy Drain
This a feature of powerful undead (and other particularly nasty monsters). The energy drain is a particularly horrible power, since it causes the less of one or more experience levels!
When a character is hit by an energy draining creature, he suffers normal damage from the attack. In addition, the character loses one or more levels (and thus Hit Dice and hit points. For each level lost, roll the Hit Dice appropriate to the character's class and subtract that number of hit points from the character's total (subtract the Constitution bonus also, if applicable). If the level(s) lost was one in which the character received a set number of hit points rather than a die roll, subtract the appropriate number of hit points. The adjusted hit point total is now the character's maximum (i.e., hit points lost by energy drain are not taken as damage but are lost permanently.
As far as I know (I don't know exactly unless I get into a fight with a vampire without having Negative Plane Protection, which is not going to happen), the game only subtracts levels (and anything associated with those levels; hit points, spells, etc.).
I think it should stay as-is. It's not difficult to defend against anyway.
@Troodon80. I think you are miss-reading that. Either that, or I am not understanding your point. While the passage you list DOES mention CON, it is only mentioning it in the context if (paraphrasing) the level drained character loses a level, they lose all hit points associated with that level, including those provided by a CON bonus. It is not referencing a "Loss of CON" in any way.
So you are right in that getting hit by a Vampire in BG2 "only subtracts levels (and anything associated with those levels; hit points, spells, etc.)" But the Hit point bonus awarded by a high CON is part of those Hit points that are lost.
@PlasticGolem, I guess I am not understanding your stance. I too played PnP where getting attacked by Vampires could lead to the party member being killed and returned as a Vampire, I fail to see how it is any different from the implementation in the game. The effect is the same (i.e. level loss, Hit point loss, spell loss, etc...) The way to reverse it remains the same (i.e. Restoration). And, while in PnP, a party member dying would lead to that character rising again, in BG, they merely are dead. Even the "rising" can be avoided if the party hauls the body out and performs the proper rituals and magic.
I will admit that the having to reselect spells previously memorized "Could" have been done better. But "To me" that is a very minor annoyance. I wouldn't "Mind" if that were changed, but I don't feel it is in any way a necessity. Is that the annoying part for you?
But what others have suggested is removing any and all effects once the combat ends. And that would remove even the fear factor of the encounter. Just to be clear, the use of Vampires in the game is such that you avoid encountering them until you are ready to handle them. In that, the implementation I think does exactly what it is supposed to. If their attacks merely were a debuff that lasted until combat ended, Vampires would only be deadly in so far as that encounter was concerned. As they are now, even if you survive an attack, unless you have Neg Plane Prot, you HAVE to retreat and regroup. There just isn't any other way around it.
@the_spyder, I'm saying that might be where the crossover is. Meaning that subtledoctor is correct in that there is mention of it, but not in its application.
Well, if so, I think they miss-understood what I was saying. But I suspect that one of the supplementary rules guides provided an alternate method for the vampire attack. And that it in some way involved removing CON. I could be wrong on that, and I for the life of me can not figure out how it would work to any effect, but...... I would be curious if anyone finds what subtledoctor was referencing.
But thanks for pointing that out. You could be right.
Comments
The implementation of level drain itself is fine BUT increasing the duration of NPP or having it scale with caster level and an ease-of-use option that remembers your spell selection would be useful.
Fighting Vampires is not hard unless you're new to the game or intentionally gimping yourself. They are also not scary, just annoying due to the need for constant rebuffs and an alternate "heal" mechanic.
That said I normally wander round with a couple of NPP and lesser restoration in my priests spellbooks for the random nighttime encounters, and you do get "oh s***" moments when first encountering a group. As people have said though, it's not an "oh s**** I might die", but "oh s***, keep them away from the casters or this will get irritating".
otherwise, it's fine... or at least it's fine if you're playing a party with a single tank - for a big, loving, close-combatant family, it probably still is a nightmare.
edit: broken grammar
On the flip side if it is gone after combat that is making things easy. You don't have to worry about resting or going all the way to a town. Even if the penalty was worse (which constitution loss isn't) it still wouldn't be as much of a hindrance to your group if the effect wore off after combat was over. That's like being magically cured to full health after a battle ends. Healing is a hindrance. Why not just remove the cure spell and heal to full health after each fight. Then we can concentrate on fighting and looting....
Ok, peace. NO offense was intended, but clearly you took some. I apologize if I offended you.
But likewise, I am entitled to my own suspicions. And from what you have written, in my mind the facts fit the circumstances. If you say that isn't your driving force, then so be it. But it is still where I suspect some of it is coming from.
As for the Meta-gaming, that is all coming directly from your posts. See my quote of your post.
You comment about CON drains, would you care to site some resource material? I'd appreciate it as I am always interested in learning new stuff about 2nd edition. I have the DMG and the PHB and both Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio. All reference "Level Drain" and the Vampire attacks as dealing with level rather than CON. So I'd appreciate some help identifying where the other source material you indicated is for 2nd edition. I know that 3rd edition uses CON in some instances, but I am equally sure you know that the CON and STAT structure is significantly different in that game. So the two systems are not compatible.
Finally, you commented about "EVERY Player is going to get back to full strength after an encounter with a vampire". I recently read Bram Stoker's Dracula. Seems to me that it is a common theme in the book that anyone attacked by Dracula was physically drained for days and weeks afterwards. I also have read the Ravenloft books and most encounters with Strahd left the effected physically drained for long periods of time. I'd appreciate understanding how you translate that into your statement.
Also, you indicate that you don't want to make the game "Less tough", yet I have not seen any suggestions made that make the game equivalent to the way it is. In my opinion (and I am equally entitled to my opinion as you are to yours), a Combat only solution is no where near as challenging or difficult as the one implemented.
Now, several people have suggested that the spells get stored somewhere such that once a restoration is cast, that they are still listed as choices for memorization. I think that would be acceptable, BUT... They would need to be re-memorized as if they had been cast. Otherwise, level drain gets reduced to an "In combat only" problem. All my personal opinion.
And uhm... i dont think twilight has anything to do with vampires... in 3 years no one remembers that abomination out of a bored amateur writer´s mind...
Relearning the spells is somewhat annoying; I wouldn't be opposed to a system where you didn't have to go back in and relearning spells from your spell book after your levels were restored, but you should have to rest to memorize the spells again either way.
Balancing role-playing technique with usability is difficult, but I think BG and BG2 got it pretty damn close to perfect, and I think that contributes significantly to the longevity of the games. If I had to make one change, it would allow the resurrection of the PC without a re-load, unless there's a story-driven reason why that's impossible that I'm unaware of.
There is an oversight though - Imoen should be unresurectable too.
It is OK for us to disagree. And so I think we do.
I have to sit here and suffer through all the legitimately broken mechanics such as R/C spellcasting exploits, erroneous dualed fighter specialization errors, nerf'd dual-classing, gimp specialist mages, EXTREMELY nerf'd rogues in general with no compensation, rest any time you damn well please cheese, brokenly powerful kits that are ridiculously overpowered compared to their PnP versions (most of which would've actually been EASIER to implement then the current versions) for NO REASON and actually have little to no downsides to compensate, broken multi-class mechanics, nerf'd dual-classing, druids not being penalized for using illegal gear, several others I'm too tired to list atm.
Admittedly, most of those are only issues if someone abuses them, so wouldn't really effect my game hardly at all aside from the rogue nerfs or specialist mage gimps, which is precisely why I'm opposed to the above change. You're trying to change a long standing mechanic that is, unusually for BG, working 100% like it's supposed to, and would effect all the players who are perfectly fine with the mechanic as is, with no legitimate reason for a change. Nerfing Algernon's was due to the item being bugged, and the original developers too lazy to bother correcting it. Trying to nerf level drain is just trying to change the game to suit your own tastes, when there's no grounds at all for doing so, since the mechanic has been the same from day 1 to current AND is accurate to the ruleset.
I don't care what house rules you do in your own game, as long as it doesn't %^$&ing touch anything in mine. I don't go around putting a gun to people's head and threaten to kill them if they rest in a dungeon or without being fatigued, and while I do feel that rest limits would make the game more challenging, they're easily do-able simply by refraining from rest-abuse. If you want to screw over your own game's challenge, that's your call entirely.
If they didn't drain energy levels they wouldn't be D&D vampires. They would be stirges with the wrong model.
These aren't Twilight vampires, Bram Stoker vampires, or any other mythos vampires. They are 2nd edition D&D vampires, and 2nd edition D&D vampires drain energy levels by touch.
In BG2, level drain is annoying rather than scary, which to me is a failure of translation from PnP to CRPG: the kind of threats that work in a PnP environment where there is no such thing as reloading and where players may be immortal but their characters aren't don't always translate into a computer game where you have to finish the game with the same character you start with, and you can reload and do over any part of the game that you don't like the outcome of. But even without reloading, level drain is easy enough to cure; it's just annoying. Annoying is not the same as challenging, unless you are looking to have your patience tested.
While we're at it, I would like to see more realistic (i.e. much higher) prices for temple resurrections and the implementation of the BTB resurrection rules: if your companion fails their resurrection survival roll, they are permanently dead. Otherwise, they are raised, but lose 1 point of constitution permanently.
The aging rule for haste spells, the system shock roll for effects like polymorph, and item saving throws (just got fireballed? Don't expect most of your scrolls to still be intact...) could also be used. These are all things that could be done easily, since the computer can take them all into account. These are the kinds of things that could be used to make the higher difficulty levels more challenging instead of just spamming more damage.
I think it should stay as-is. It's not difficult to defend against anyway.
So you are right in that getting hit by a Vampire in BG2 "only subtracts levels (and anything associated with those levels; hit points, spells, etc.)" But the Hit point bonus awarded by a high CON is part of those Hit points that are lost.
@PlasticGolem, I guess I am not understanding your stance. I too played PnP where getting attacked by Vampires could lead to the party member being killed and returned as a Vampire, I fail to see how it is any different from the implementation in the game. The effect is the same (i.e. level loss, Hit point loss, spell loss, etc...) The way to reverse it remains the same (i.e. Restoration). And, while in PnP, a party member dying would lead to that character rising again, in BG, they merely are dead. Even the "rising" can be avoided if the party hauls the body out and performs the proper rituals and magic.
I will admit that the having to reselect spells previously memorized "Could" have been done better. But "To me" that is a very minor annoyance. I wouldn't "Mind" if that were changed, but I don't feel it is in any way a necessity. Is that the annoying part for you?
But what others have suggested is removing any and all effects once the combat ends. And that would remove even the fear factor of the encounter. Just to be clear, the use of Vampires in the game is such that you avoid encountering them until you are ready to handle them. In that, the implementation I think does exactly what it is supposed to. If their attacks merely were a debuff that lasted until combat ended, Vampires would only be deadly in so far as that encounter was concerned. As they are now, even if you survive an attack, unless you have Neg Plane Prot, you HAVE to retreat and regroup. There just isn't any other way around it.
But thanks for pointing that out. You could be right.