The items are magic too. Well made... Durable... Made to withstand adventuring hazards...
It is magical cold, so presumably it is capable of making even magical items brittle and subject to breakage.
Right, but magical items survive the fall of empires and the passage of thousands of years. They don't require maintenance, they never rust, some of them can't even get dirty or tarnished despite being made of materials that do so without regular care. They also survive clashing with +3 greatswords or dragon breath.
Cone of Cold simply doesn't have the power to shatter a +2 longsword, in this gamer's less-than-humble opinion.
I'd like to see a bit more consistency in how things work. I don't think that having gore set to on or off should make a difference to item destruction.
Also I think only a few spells should have a chance of destroying items. I'd probably limit item destruction to flesh-to-stone, imprisonment and disintegrate. And technically the first two don't really destroy items - you could restore the items (and the attached person) with stone-to-flesh and freedom respectively.
Philosophical differences aside, the best option seems to be just externalizing this separately for the different kinds of item-breaking deaths, and letting each player choose for themselves.
Damaging Magic Items A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deal.
If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
It is magical cold, so presumably it is capable of making even magical items brittle and subject to breakage.
Right, but magical items survive the fall of empires and the passage of thousands of years. They don't require maintenance, they never rust, some of them can't even get dirty or tarnished despite being made of materials that do so without regular care. They also survive clashing with +3 greatswords or dragon breath.
Cone of Cold simply doesn't have the power to shatter a +2 longsword, in this gamer's less-than-humble opinion.
Time and wear and tear are not the same as magical destruction. Almost every magic item I have ever read about in the fantasy novels has some method of being destroyed even if they can withstand normal usage and dust and rust. Even the great ring of power could be destroyed and the lesser rings could be destroyed by dragon breath etc... As far as i know, most +1 long swords are not as durable as major artifacts.
I'd grant you that cone of cold shouldn't effect the artifacts in the game, but anything short of that should be subject to the same rules, i.e. magical cold, fire and acid (???) should damage them. As the other poster commented, it is the cost of using certain spells. If you don't want the consequences, don't use those spells.
In a video game, realism should always be discarded if the game becomes better for it.
Except that the point in question here is whether it does become better for it. Moreover, when sacrificing realism one should at the very least be consistent about it.
In a video game, realism should always be discarded if the game becomes better for it.
Except that the point in question here is whether it does become better for it. Moreover, when sacrificing realism one should at the very least be consistent about it.
If people generally suffer a worse experience then the game becomes worse for it.
If sacrificing realism inconsistently is incredibly jarring to immersion while not significantly improving the game mechanically, you may have just made the game worse. If, however, the inconsistency is unnoticed and the mechanical quality of the game is improved significantly, the game could very well be better for it.
In this specific case, item destruction is bad because you are punishing the player for using the tools you give to them. Whatever sacrifice in realism you have in this case is typically unnoticeable and either doesn't ruin immersion at all, or damages the immersion less than the frustration caused to the player by having enemies not drop items they otherwise might have.
@Durlag_Thunderaxe But if the point is realism, then why does it happen with Cone of Cold and not Fireball? If the former destroys items, or even has a chance to destroy items, then the latter certainly should as well, realistically.
Hmm... that's a good point.
At the end of the day, it's really hard to balanced realism and playability in a game like this. For example, don't you think it's kinda convenient that every piece of armour you pick up happens to fit your characters, whether they are a 7ft Half-Orc or a 4ft Halfling?
I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. But I accept your point, it is entirely arbitrary where that line lies.
In this specific case, item destruction is bad because you are punishing the player for using the tools you give to them. Whatever sacrifice in realism you have in this case is typically unnoticeable and either doesn't ruin immersion at all, or damages the immersion less than the frustration caused to the player by having enemies not drop items they otherwise might have.
This designation of "BAD" is in your opinion and subjective. For me, the inclusion of a negative for using a certain spell above and beyond what you would get for a different spell isn't 'Necessarily' bad. In this specific instance, where cold based magics can damage and destroy items is not what I consider bad. I think it is consistent with the dangers of using Disintegrate.
Since the point of the thread is to ask everyone's subjective opinion, yours is that it is immersion break. Mine is it is not.
I chose the "neutral" option. Perhaps a 50% chance for each item to be unrecoverable, but with a twist: The components (I.e. magical dust) could be 'recycled' to create newer (but possibly weaker) items. This is still penalizing you for cheesy kills, but not as hard as now.
At the end of the day, it's really hard to balanced realism and playability in a game like this. For example, don't you think it's kinda convenient that every piece of armour you pick up happens to fit your characters, whether they are a 7ft Half-Orc or a 4ft Halfling?
I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. But I accept your point, it is entirely arbitrary where that line lies.
Sure, there's a great deal of realism being sacrificed for playability, and rightly so. Having to get the right size armor would get old very quickly, and doesn't particulary add anything to the gameplay. Moreover, though not realistic there is a clear principle behind it (reduce needlessly tedious gameplay), which at least 'locally' is for the most part consistently applied.
The problem with the 'cold damage destroys items' issue, in my view, is that there the consistency is lacking. Why only cold damage, which is arguably the least likely of the four elemental damage types to damage anything non-organic? It can hardly be for balance reasons. And why only when the target dies, but not when the same amount of damage is applied to a healthier target? It would at least add an interesting gameplay element if you could actually freeze the armor off of an enemy, or shatter their sword. It's a bit like going with the "one size fits all armor"... except for splint mail, for splint mail you do need to get the correct size for your race. Note that I am not opposed to the possibility of item damage, if done properly it could add an interesting dimension to the gameplay. I'd just like it to be more consistent, either way.
@Morte50 I'm a bit of a 'realism nut' when it comes to games, but on behalf of noobs... Baldur's Gate is already not the most beginner friendly game for those with no D&D experience. I was bored last night and had a little look at the first few threads I wrote on this forum, and I lol'd at how 'basic' (and in some cases funny) my questions were. But then starting from 0, I think my questions were not unreasonable.
I can just imagine the rage that would result if even magical items randomly broke as a result of damage. Like my Charname is now almost built around Celestial Fury. I'd be gutted if I randomly lost it cos Charname got hit by a fireball (which happens quite often...)
This would only work if the itemisation system was totally rebalanced. Perhaps magical items would need to be separated into new categories, like 'Standard Magical' like 'Katana+2', which can be destroyed by generic physical/magical damage, or 'Legendary Magical' like Flail of Ages and Celestial Fury, which can only be destroyed by very specific situations.
@Heindrich1988 Oh indeed, I wasn't necessarily suggesting it specifically as a change in BG, though by tying it to difficulty (like max HP and spell scribing failure, etc.) it would be straightforward to spare the newer players. Indeed it would require revisiting the item system and balance generally, which might be more effort than it is worth. Much easier then to make (cone of) cold not destroy anything either, and look into the possibility of item damage/destruction again if and when BG3 rolls around.
@Durlag_Thunderaxe But if the point is realism, then why does it happen with Cone of Cold and not Fireball? If the former destroys items, or even has a chance to destroy items, then the latter certainly should as well, realistically.
Hmm... that's a good point.
At the end of the day, it's really hard to balanced realism and playability in a game like this. For example, don't you think it's kinda convenient that every piece of armour you pick up happens to fit your characters, whether they are a 7ft Half-Orc or a 4ft Halfling?
I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. But I accept your point, it is entirely arbitrary where that line lies.
For mundane armor, you have a point. But Magical armor is supposed to adjust to fit whomsoever puts it on. And how many people wear mundane armor other than what you buy? OK, that is a bit of a cop-out, but that is the way we always played PnP (cheeky smile).
In this specific case, item destruction is bad because you are punishing the player for using the tools you give to them. Whatever sacrifice in realism you have in this case is typically unnoticeable and either doesn't ruin immersion at all, or damages the immersion less than the frustration caused to the player by having enemies not drop items they otherwise might have.
This designation of "BAD" is in your opinion and subjective. For me, the inclusion of a negative for using a certain spell above and beyond what you would get for a different spell isn't 'Necessarily' bad. In this specific instance, where cold based magics can damage and destroy items is not what I consider bad. I think it is consistent with the dangers of using Disintegrate.
Since the point of the thread is to ask everyone's subjective opinion, yours is that it is immersion break. Mine is it is not.
There are a few reasons why I dislike Disintegrate (and to a lesser extent, Flesh to Stone) as a spell:
1. It places too high risk/reward on randomness. I don't think I have to explain this one. It's not really relevant here though. 2. It punishes the player for using an option you give them. I said this before. I personally believe that the drawbacks from using this spell are too great without having some kind of gameplay attached to it. 3. It's unclear how to optimally use the spell, due to the item loss. The single-target instagib of a spell has a giant sign saying "USE ON PRIORITY TARGETS". However, the item destruction aspect is yelling at you to "USE ON LESSER TARGETS". The optimal usage of this spell is really unclear.
To be completely honest, I didn't actually know gibbing from cold damage destroyed items, since it is something I rarely come across (Level 5 slots being reserved for Breach/Cloudkill/Lower Resistance).
However, having this mechanic on spells like cone of cold introduces one thing I really don't like. Gibbing occurs when you do enough damage on your last instance of damage to the target, so Cone of Cold is punishing you when you inflict too much damage to enemies. I personally hope that this was an oversight and not something explicitly intended by the original makes.
...
On the mechanic more specifically, I think it is bad because you are introducing negatives to the player without giving them any gameplay around them. Item destruction is a permanent effect that the player can't react to in any way. The only option you have to prevent this from occurring is to avoid all spells/abilities that use it... which defeats the purpose of having these spells and this mechanic at all.
Comments
Disintegrate and Imprisonment are cheap anyway.
Right, but magical items survive the fall of empires and the passage of thousands of years. They don't require maintenance, they never rust, some of them can't even get dirty or tarnished despite being made of materials that do so without regular care. They also survive clashing with +3 greatswords or dragon breath.
Cone of Cold simply doesn't have the power to shatter a +2 longsword, in this gamer's less-than-humble opinion.
Also I think only a few spells should have a chance of destroying items. I'd probably limit item destruction to flesh-to-stone, imprisonment and disintegrate. And technically the first two don't really destroy items - you could restore the items (and the attached person) with stone-to-flesh and freedom respectively.
Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#damagingMagicItems
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw
Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deal.
If an item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingThrow
I'd grant you that cone of cold shouldn't effect the artifacts in the game, but anything short of that should be subject to the same rules, i.e. magical cold, fire and acid (???) should damage them. As the other poster commented, it is the cost of using certain spells. If you don't want the consequences, don't use those spells.
Look, a flying pig!!!
If sacrificing realism inconsistently is incredibly jarring to immersion while not significantly improving the game mechanically, you may have just made the game worse.
If, however, the inconsistency is unnoticed and the mechanical quality of the game is improved significantly, the game could very well be better for it.
In this specific case, item destruction is bad because you are punishing the player for using the tools you give to them. Whatever sacrifice in realism you have in this case is typically unnoticeable and either doesn't ruin immersion at all, or damages the immersion less than the frustration caused to the player by having enemies not drop items they otherwise might have.
At the end of the day, it's really hard to balanced realism and playability in a game like this. For example, don't you think it's kinda convenient that every piece of armour you pick up happens to fit your characters, whether they are a 7ft Half-Orc or a 4ft Halfling?
I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. But I accept your point, it is entirely arbitrary where that line lies.
Since the point of the thread is to ask everyone's subjective opinion, yours is that it is immersion break. Mine is it is not.
Perhaps a 50% chance for each item to be unrecoverable, but with a twist: The components (I.e. magical dust) could be 'recycled' to create newer (but possibly weaker) items. This is still penalizing you for cheesy kills, but not as hard as now.
The problem with the 'cold damage destroys items' issue, in my view, is that there the consistency is lacking. Why only cold damage, which is arguably the least likely of the four elemental damage types to damage anything non-organic? It can hardly be for balance reasons. And why only when the target dies, but not when the same amount of damage is applied to a healthier target? It would at least add an interesting gameplay element if you could actually freeze the armor off of an enemy, or shatter their sword. It's a bit like going with the "one size fits all armor"... except for splint mail, for splint mail you do need to get the correct size for your race. Note that I am not opposed to the possibility of item damage, if done properly it could add an interesting dimension to the gameplay. I'd just like it to be more consistent, either way.
I'm a bit of a 'realism nut' when it comes to games, but on behalf of noobs... Baldur's Gate is already not the most beginner friendly game for those with no D&D experience. I was bored last night and had a little look at the first few threads I wrote on this forum, and I lol'd at how 'basic' (and in some cases funny) my questions were. But then starting from 0, I think my questions were not unreasonable.
I can just imagine the rage that would result if even magical items randomly broke as a result of damage. Like my Charname is now almost built around Celestial Fury. I'd be gutted if I randomly lost it cos Charname got hit by a fireball (which happens quite often...)
This would only work if the itemisation system was totally rebalanced. Perhaps magical items would need to be separated into new categories, like 'Standard Magical' like 'Katana+2', which can be destroyed by generic physical/magical damage, or 'Legendary Magical' like Flail of Ages and Celestial Fury, which can only be destroyed by very specific situations.
Oh indeed, I wasn't necessarily suggesting it specifically as a change in BG, though by tying it to difficulty (like max HP and spell scribing failure, etc.) it would be straightforward to spare the newer players. Indeed it would require revisiting the item system and balance generally, which might be more effort than it is worth. Much easier then to make (cone of) cold not destroy anything either, and look into the possibility of item damage/destruction again if and when BG3 rolls around.
1. It places too high risk/reward on randomness.
I don't think I have to explain this one. It's not really relevant here though.
2. It punishes the player for using an option you give them.
I said this before. I personally believe that the drawbacks from using this spell are too great without having some kind of gameplay attached to it.
3. It's unclear how to optimally use the spell, due to the item loss.
The single-target instagib of a spell has a giant sign saying "USE ON PRIORITY TARGETS". However, the item destruction aspect is yelling at you to "USE ON LESSER TARGETS". The optimal usage of this spell is really unclear.
To be completely honest, I didn't actually know gibbing from cold damage destroyed items, since it is something I rarely come across (Level 5 slots being reserved for Breach/Cloudkill/Lower Resistance).
However, having this mechanic on spells like cone of cold introduces one thing I really don't like. Gibbing occurs when you do enough damage on your last instance of damage to the target, so Cone of Cold is punishing you when you inflict too much damage to enemies. I personally hope that this was an oversight and not something explicitly intended by the original makes.
...
On the mechanic more specifically, I think it is bad because you are introducing negatives to the player without giving them any gameplay around them. Item destruction is a permanent effect that the player can't react to in any way. The only option you have to prevent this from occurring is to avoid all spells/abilities that use it... which defeats the purpose of having these spells and this mechanic at all.