Skip to content

Nerf Fighter/Druid (And some suggestions for improving/tweaking druids in general)

2»

Comments

  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited September 2013
    @Jarrachul

    PnP costs 100gp to reveal a single property per spell (and it doesn't tell you exactly what the property does, just what it is...like a +2 sword would simply say it has an enhancement bonus, or Varsona would say it has an elemental damage bonus and enhancement bonus, but would require 2 successful identify spells. The Bardic lore version does the same thing, but can be reattempted once per day per item to reveal new effects, merely requiring them to visit a library or tavern to learn some new stories that might reveal new insight into the item), revealing ALL properties and what they do (as current identify) with a single spell requires the use of a luck stone as a reagent which is 500g. Then when you factor in the material cost, the debilitating side effect, spell level, and base NPC hiring rate based on level, identify really would come to around ~1200g for to hire an NPC to do it for you.


    I actually wouldn't mind see the level cap dropped to 30, as per PnP, if they properly implement everything else as accurately as possible to the high level guide (including proper bard spell casting, and 8th/10th level epic slots for prime casters). (Such as WWA just allowing you to instantly attempt hit all enemies within melee weapon range (5ft 1hd, 10ft 2hd) with 1 attack each, up to a maximum of 10, in place of your normal attacks that round. Becomes available to all warriors at level 10, can be used at-will, but is exhausting and has a 10 round wait period between WWAs. GWW is exclusive to fighters and replaces WWA at lvl 20, the only difference being winded only lasts 5 rounds instead of 10.)




    @Battlehamster

    Because as implemented, druids have no purpose. As mentioned before, everything they do, clerics do better, with fewer restrictions.

    Same for bards really. Forcing them to sing all time to actually contribute is not the slightest bit fun, especially when only the Skald brings a useful ability to party. And the jester requires a tactic that directly contridicts the description of the ability to use in a way that is anyway efficient. And letting blades sing at all (and the extistence of Epic bard song in general), grossly undermines ones choice to play a kit.


    Properly implemented, a F/M would still be close to a God, as would F/C (though they couldn't spam their big abilities as freely as they do now, if it required them to pay gold every time they cast a copy of a spell with a costly component (or the spell fizzles if their gold is less then the required amount at the time of casting). Since the game lacks an aging system, adding exp costs like 3rd did might be the best way to handle spells that are supposed to age the recipients, though given the differences between 2nd and 3rd with regard to systems, it's hard to judge what would be a reasonable penalty for xp cost, since the only other way is to permanently drain Con which even I feel is a bit too strong a penalty (except maybe for Wish)). Though I would hope that they'd add demi-human races caps..at least to the multiclasses...I'm fine for letting them have single class full advancement. Since human dual-classing is also heavily nerfed at the moment.
    Post edited by ZanathKariashi on
  • blackchimesblackchimes Member Posts: 323
    Mmm, I wonder how possible it would be to add a "identify cost" property to items? So that an item with 3 properties would cost 300 gold to identify, while an item with one would still cost 100 gold.

    The cost would have to be edited in manually, but it should take one afternoon really.
  • GaveGave Member Posts: 66
    I am not really in favor for nerfing, rather say buffing up content:encounters.

    What is more important, if they start nerfing things then Fighter/Druids are still very far in the queue. Before that they really have to look into dual/multi mages, and some extremely cheesy Rogue and Cleric combos... all this just after they have nerfed traps, done away with that serious exploit I mean.

    So yeah, if gonna nerf options, then do it right.
    kamuizin
  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    ZK are we talking about 2nd or 3rd edition? Cause the last post seems you want 3rd edition rules.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Pretty sure he's talking about 2E, because what he's describing is closer to what's in my 2E High Level Campaigns book (where a lot of 3E feats and class abilities actually originated) than what's in my 3E Player's Handbook. Not exactly the same, but much closer. I don't think he's getting it from the same book, though, as some of the specifics are different. ZK, what book are you working from, if you don't mind my asking?

    Also, fair point about identify being limited and imprecise. Even so, it'd be less "1200 gold to identify each item" and more "1200 gold to identify all unidentified items in your possession." Which could make for an interesting dynamic, and would not be consistently more expensive than identifying things is right now.
  • BattlehamsterBattlehamster Member Posts: 298


    @Battlehamster

    Because as implemented, druids have no purpose. As mentioned before, everything they do, clerics do better, with fewer restrictions.

    Same for bards really. Forcing them to sing all time to actually contribute is not the slightest bit fun, especially when only the Skald brings a useful ability to party. And the jester requires a tactic that directly contridicts the description of the ability to use in a way that is anyway efficient. And letting blades sing at all (and the extistence of Epic bard song in general), grossly undermines ones choice to play a kit.


    Properly implemented, a F/M would still be close to a God, as would F/C (though they couldn't spam their big abilities as freely as they do now, if it required them to pay gold every time they cast a copy of a spell with a costly component (or the spell fizzles if their gold is less then the required amount at the time of casting). Since the game lacks an aging system, adding exp costs like 3rd did might be the best way to handle spells that are supposed to age the recipients, though given the differences between 2nd and 3rd with regard to systems, it's hard to judge what would be a reasonable penalty for xp cost, since the only other way is to permanently drain Con which even I feel is a bit too strong a penalty (except maybe for Wish)). Though I would hope that they'd add demi-human races caps..at least to the multiclasses...I'm fine for letting them have single class full advancement. Since human dual-classing is also heavily nerfed at the moment.

    Er...how does this respond to my post about imbalance being fun at all? I think you missed the point I was making which is druid = weak = challenge = fun for some people. What I was trying to say is that fun is a completely subjective value. The best thing for game developers is to create a system which appeals to the most people.

    But to respond to the quote anyways, BG =/= PnP. Many PnP rules would NOT be fun for a lot of people if implemented into a single player gaming experience...name me one other PC or console game which requires you to spend gold every time you cast a spell. On PnP it makes sense, in virtual land, not so much. But, its not necessarily a bad idea for a mod. I'm not against these changes...but they really need to be in a PnP mod rather than the vanilla version a lot of us play. The magnificent thing about PC games though is that people can modify games to tweak them into something they fully enjoy. Rather than gripe about a game the way it is, maybe you should either look for a mod or try to find people who dislike the game for similar reasons and create a mod which enhances your gaming experience to your own personal sense of fun? Your suggestions would significantly alter the way the game plays as is, regardless of how well they may balance the game.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited September 2013
    @Battlehamster
    Temple of Elemental Evil. It doesn't even have an optional multiplayer (though it was supposed to get one with the release of the 2nd module, that never happened due to Trioka getting canned), so is single player only.


    And the ONLY complaints about that game is that it's core story is based on pretty much the first ever DnD module making it seeming boring and cliche 15 years later (more so then Greyhawk is in general), and the bugs (not counting fan-patches) due to Trioka closing shortly after it's release before it could receive proper developer support. It was supposed to be the first of a series of module packs they were going to release as they could get additional rights to build big expansive campaigns, as well as introducing multiplayer support, but....*sigh* what could've been.


    Not only does it include proper gold and/or xp costs for spells with costly components (components without a gold value are assumed so cheap you're going to have them on hand regardless, unless there's a specific situation like being imprisoned with your component pouch stolen), it includes all the little obscure rules like having to use read magic decipher a scroll before you can use it, allowing you to use higher level slots for lower level spells, proper specialist bonuses including enforcing the using your extra slot for a spell of your chosen school. Stuff that also was supposed to exist in 2nd edition. And lots more beyond that.

    As well as including the 24 hour loss of supernatural abilities druids suffer when using disallowed equipment (unlike BG and NWN, just like in PNP a character can use whatever they hell they want, but suffer penalties if it's not something they're trained or allowed to use), enforcing the rule that paladin cannot under any circumstance work with evil characters as well as falling immediately for any non-LG choice, removes a level whenever the target is raised (or loss of 1 Con for lvl 1 characters) as well as enforcing the raise time rule (1 day per caster level, and the body must be in relatively good condition, so it has to be protected from decay, and even allows using reincarnate as an option (can become any player race or natural creature, though some class abilities might not function in certain forms). Also includes pretty much all the in-combat maneuvers someone could possibly attempt, and was in true turned-based game play, as the game is MEANT to be played.

    Was it hard? Oh hell yes it was...if you tried playing it like it was BG, your were going to die in your first battle, guaranteed. Was it fun? Oh hell yes it was.....there were so many choices you could make that even a straight fighter could pull all sorts of cool tricks in battle that would never work in BG. Like charging up and grappling an Ogre to keep it from roflstomping the rest of the group while they lay into it from behind.

    I absolutely love that game, because of how closely it implements the system it's based on. But at the same time, as mentioned above....weep slightly...for what could've been. If they'd even managed to release a level creator to make it more accessible to creating new content, that game could still be going strong...but unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to make new content for it as is, and only a single player-created module has been made for it (and even it's not finished, they stopped working on it about 3 years ago).


    There's a difference between being weak and being completely useless. Druids are completely useless as implemented. They're a cleric with much worse spell-casting, no useful abilities, and even worse equipment restrictions. That's not fun.....that's the equivalent of taking a single class vanilla fighter with 8 str through the whole saga without using any str increasing items. You can do it...but you are a load that brings absolutely nothing to your party that someone else couldn't have done better...or you play alone and have to use sub-standard gear choices for your class with no bonuses what so ever applicable to the play-style.

    I'm not even saying to power druids up, I'm saying to give them at least a little of the utility and passives they're supposed to have. Druids are not implemented properly right now. Their forms are useless and lack any of their PnP utility, covered already above, they lack their passive bonuses they're supposed to have, most of their spells seem lackluster with their utility removed, just powering up their forms to allow them to contribute as more as a support character, beyond their lack-luster spell-casting, is a definitely needed buff.

    Bioware simply removed everything that made a druid a genuinely contributing member of the party and called it done, despite the fact their spell-casting is all they really bring, and druids are NOT built to be a prime spell-casting. They're meant to be jacks of all trades, like bards, who help round out a party by being able to support in areas that might be lacking from other classes.

    @Jarrakul

    It's the same one, I'm just including a few suggestions for fitting it into BG's system in with the description. The rules in the High level guide doesn't include kits, nor does it even recognize rangers or paladins, since it just as generic rules for each class pool (Thieves and Bards being the exception and do have specifically mentioned differences (such as Thief UAI buffing their level 10 scroll use ability up to a certain spell level (or non-vanilla thieves getting the vanilla thief's lvl 10 version of use scroll), based on thief level without failure, while the bard version allows them to use any item as if they were a mage), and completely ignores druids because their spell-casting stops completely at 15, and their maximum level is already 20. A lvl 20 hierophant druid is already pretty much a physical god in PnP.

    Greater versions of stuff doesn't exist in PnP...but since it does in BG, I see no problem making it exclusive to fighters, since they generally lack the expanded utility that paladin/rangers have (while they are supposed to be capped at a maximum of 9 caster level, even at level 9, druid/cleric spells can be very powerful and useful), and would actually give a purpose to taking a fighter to 20 and beyond, rather then just using them for dualing fodder (though adding all the extra combat techniques that they should have available, would also make playing a fighter more fun since they could do more then just hit things...they could also disarm (lowers damage output from armed enemies and potential to take their weapons without killing them), grapple (keep a dangerous target imbolized or preventing a caster from casting), trip (knockdown), charge (increased chance to hit, but more vulnerable to attacks, increased damage with some weapons), bullrush (knockdown and/or daze them) things.


    In the high level guide, most of the "HLA" comes between 10 and 20, with only the REALLY powerful stuff, like True Dweomners (10th/Quest level spells), UAI, and the like coming beyond 20.


    @Gave

    The problem is outcry. The more utterly broken and overpowered something is, the more support it has to resist nerfing it. Look at the Berserker, R/C spellcasting, Changes to proficiency rules in general (limiting mastery and above to kitless fighters, and specialization to single class only fighters (replacing it with expertise for rangers, paladins, Multi-fighters, X>fighter duals, and removing the ability to go beyond proficiency in Fighter>X duals since they're longer advancing as a fighter, but keep any they earned before dualing), changing the Conjurors opposed school to evocation (which is the main school they lose in PnP), fixing mislead and project image, making Simulacrums immune to restoration spells, removing the ability for images to sing (except Simulacrums, which is actually legit. The images can technically sing but like everything else they do, it's fake and should do nothing), nerfing OS to what it should be, etc etc etc.

    If they restricted Berserkers to specialization (**), and reduced it's (and the barbarian and Minsc's) immunity/save bonus list to only what it's supposed to have (immunity to Sleep, Charm, Command, morale failure, +4 save bonus vs paralysis/hold, blocks 1 failed fear save but ends the rage). And give the berserker the proper rage bonuses of +1 hit, +3 damage, +2 ac penalty, +5 temp HP for the duration of the rage), and gave it a 10% chance per round of going truly berserk (attacking whatever the closest target is, friend or foe alike) and 100% spell failure/disable thief skills while raging, I'd call it done and give it a seal of approval, because the other bonuses/penalties would be harder to implement, but on the other hand, they're balancing each other...so..the lack of both is fine.

    ToB in general and the HLA it brought with it are rife with horrible ideas that weren't very well thought out due to their time constraints.

    Post edited by ZanathKariashi on
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    For the record, I hated Temple of Elemental Evil. With a passion. I bought it when it first came out, was really excited, and then found it to be among the least fun things I have ever played, in no small part because of its insanely strict adherence to PnP rules. Which in no way invalidates your high opinion of it, but... your views are far from universal.

    See, here's the thing, ZK. I do agree with you on the druid stuff, and on some other things, but I disagree with the general statement that video games should be as close to PnP as possible. There are two major reasons for this. The first is that PnP is far, far from perfect. It works well enough, if you've got a good DM, but a sufficiently good DM can make anything work so that's not saying very much. No, every edition of D&D I've ever played (and the only one I haven't played is 4th, which I suspect would make a better video game than it does a PnP game anyway) has some serious and critical flaws that are only remotely acceptable because the DM can change them at will or work with players to get around them. That's not really an option in a video game. So you have to put some things in that aren't in the PnP rules, because otherwise it just becomes and huge and terrible mess.

    The second reason is that video games and PnP are fundamentally different media, and the rules that work well in one will not necessarily work well in the other. Fighters are a great example of this. They stand there and attack, over and over again, and don't do a whole lot else. That works in PnP, because rolling dice is pretty fun. Watching a computer roll dice is dramatically less so, so fighters are boring. Now, Baldur's Gate actually does a good job of alleviating this by giving you control of an entire party, so that one character's boringness is made irrelevant by the fact that the party as a whole is interesting, but right there that's a deviation from the way PnP works. PnP would have you doing something more like Kotor or Mass Effect, where you control your main character and have a much of npcs following you around doing whatever their invariably-stupid AI tells them to do. Personally, I think there's a reason Kotor isn't as beloved as the Infinity Engine games, and why Mass Effect gave you so much more direct control over how well one character performs in combat. Some things that work in PnP simply do not work in video game format due to fundamental differences in the media.

    But, again, I agree with you on the basic druid changes. There's a fundamental balance issue that I think your proposed changes would help. So even if I disagree with your general mentality, I don't disagree with you on this specific issue.
    kamuizin
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    Except that you're wrong.....and clearly have never actually played a fighter in PnP..or ToEE for that matter.

    BG does the most $%#^ job of handling fighters I've seen in any game, even NWN did it slightly better despite being otherwise just as horribly implemented as BG, and you don't know what you're talking about to claim otherwise. ALL they can do is hit things in BG...that's it. Unlike say PnP or ToEE, where they have other options available besides just meleeing the enemy. And not just fighters, those actions are open to anyone, but depending physical stats or combat potential some characters/classes are better at it then others.


    And no...if properly implemented it would be pretty much like in ToEE (which is universally hailed as the best implementation of a PnP system, EVER, MUCH better then even BG....the only things people complain about are the story for being generic and boring, and the bugs...as mentioned earlier). Where the $%#^ do you get the idea that it would function in anyway like NWN or Kotor...those games are as $%#^ implemented as BG, but more so due to stripping your control of your party.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Um, no, see, I've played a lot of fighters. You want a list? It's long. The TOEE list isn't as long as the PnP list, because I hated that game, but it's still non-0.

    Fighters in PnP... eventually got other things to do, yeah. I think it was when Combat and Tactics came out, but I could be wrong. But the problem is that those other things were almost universally terrible. Tripping? Disarming? Cool if they worked, but they usually didn't. Almost never worth not attacking for. 3E was marginally better, because at least you could specifically build a character to take advantage of those things, but even then it was more a choice of character build than of actions. Yeah, you could build a trip-fighter, but then your default just changed to "trip, then hit". Not precisely exciting or adaptable.

    Now, see, when you say things like "universally hailed as the best whatever" your argument become pretty weak. We're arguing the merits of such an implementation, and your argument is basically "no it was good, everyone thought so." Well, I didn't like it one bit. Sorry. Guess it's not universally hailed as the best. It is the most faithful implementation of the rules, yes, that's definitely true. Props to the game for that. But all it really did there was show that a perfect implementation of the rules-as-written didn't make a very good game. Or have you not noticed how other games that were just as buggy got much better reviews? Games like Baldur's Gate and Kotor? I suppose you could blame that on the story, but story alone rarely makes or breaks a game unless it's truly abysmally bad, and TOEE's story never made me want to bash my head against a wall (unlike its gameplay). Besides, Icewind Dale 2 managed better reviews, and it was buggy AND had a terrible story. And the thing is, I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I haven't done an exhaustive survey, but I've talked to a number of people, including James Portnow of the game-design webseries Extra Credits, who think that using D&D rules in video games at all is a waste of the potential of both mediums. So I'm afraid that your claims just don't seem to hold up.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited September 2013
    Actually.....the ONLY thing BG has going for it is story. It's the only thing that separates it from being a Diablo-clone with more class-options. Just another hack-and-slash action/rpg, that happens to have a really good main plot, at least still TOB takes a huge %$^# on it. Which sadly, Bioware has run into the ground and made it just as cliche' as ToEE using the original module is, by repeating the same damn formula in everything they've made since.



    ToEE was failed ENTIRELY on it's story and it's bugs. The number one complaint is actually due to the bugs, while the generic story was only complained at by people who didn't realize what they were getting into. The ones who knew what the game was actually about sangs it's praises for it's implementation of the original module.

    I've been flipping through critic and user reviews a like and the bugs are the main area where the game lost points. The combat system and rule implementation has received nothing but praise, with a few even directly comparing it to BG and saying it makes BG look utterly shallow and boring by comparison (a sentiment i fully agree on). A couple complained about the difficulty, but it was mostly limited to random encounters (that 4 troll encounter is rough, even at cap), and some of the optional fights, like the Hill Giant or Behemoth King Frog. The lowest Critic ranking with a read-able review outright said it could've easily dethrone BG as the best DnD based CRPG, if not for the massive amount of bugs.
Sign In or Register to comment.