Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

[MOD][BETA] Tome and Blood: More Options for Wizards and Sorcerers

1356753

Comments

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,556
    edited August 2014
    You can still make the entries 'say' what you want them to by SET_STRINGing the relevant streffs. As for editing the classes themselves, you can change their clabs. This behavior is 'normal' for mage kits so there is no real dissonance created by greyed out kits (except possibly the gnome if his kit allows him these options via script.)

    Eg: Lets say that you want to create a 'shadow weaver'. Because you are condensing all specialists into one kit, you can alter one of the existing kits. Lets just do it with the Diviner. You will have to flag any spells that the shadow weaver can't use as 'exclude diviners'--I believe it works like item exclusions in that any class with the usability is unable to cast/select the spell(?) Then, to give the class abilities, you make spl's as normal and put them in the diviner's clab, and change any necessary 2da's by SET_2DA_ENTRY or similar. So your tp2 looks something like:

    STRING_SET ~25321~ @#### //Lower
    STRING_SET ~25352~ @#### //Mixed
    STRING_SET ~25383~ @####//Help

    //shadow weavers can't be good
    COPY_EXISTING ~alignmnt.2da~ ~override~
    SET_2DA_ENTRY 3 49 1 2 //blah--not the correct line--just an example
    ...
    BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES
    //abilities
    COPY ~folders/Shadow.spl~ ~override~
    SAY @#### // shadow blah
    ...
    //Revised Clab
    COPY ~folders/CLABMA05.2DA~ ~override~

    END

    This is how I would do it anyway. Do you feel it's too hacky? You obviously have to be careful about usabilities because you would have to make your new specialists from these classes, but I think it's doable.

    Edit: The internal name for this kit would be Diviner, but nobody would be the wiser. Your specialists will have to be 'recreated' anyway and so would have different internal names.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    edited August 2014
    Ugh this is going to be so much trouble. The messing about with the original specialists was something I considered as a possible solution, but I have serious qualms about using this as my solution. It just feels way too hacky for what I'm doing and I'm sure that such modifications would cause extensive issues within the game.

    The alternative that I prefer for this right now is to just have the new kits be Sorcerer kits and use the repurposed "no arcane spells at creation or levelup (DIviner)" tag to make them work properly for now. Not ideal and not really what I wanted to happen but I guess it can't be helped until they actually externalize the mage kit tables (if they ever do).

    Thinking further about this I also realize that it would ruin the specialist mage usability tags. It would be one or the other now. I don't think that I want a mod that removes specialist mages from the game when the purpose of the mod is to expand the arcane spellcaster experience. So sorcerer kits appear to be the only viable option now.

    Thinking even further about this I've realized that if I wanted to I could make a sorcerer (or anything really) kit that changes the character to mage upon creation. Another possible solution although I'm still not sure how effective it would be.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    Some new tests using Sorcerers with the "block all spells from selection" tag and the conclusion is: wow I loathe the spell selection levelup screen. I can't make mage kits because availability is hardcoded and I can't make sorcerer kits because spells known are a universal feature. Maybe the sorcerer -> mage thing will have to work.

    Grammarsalad
  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    So here's a potential solution that I'm contemplating (although I haven't seriously considered potential drawbacks yet.)
    1) Set every usual spell to be blocked by Diviner (and change Diviner spells to Generalist) .
    2) Create 3 filler spells that are only available to Diviners. These spells have no effect but exist so they can be picked at character creation.
    3) Give Diviners a) an innate "Assume Kit" which lets them become one of the new mage kits b) an innate which removes the bonus spell per day and the 3 filler spells.
    4) Use this as a way to get access to extra mage kits.

    This solves several of the problems that were raised with previous possible workarounds (namely no spell selection level up issues, no breaking of other specialist tags).

    Are there any issues that I could have overlooked with this method?

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,556
    These spells will be available to wild mages. I don't think there is a way to a) make them selectable by diviners and b) make them unselectable by wild mages. The only way to percent wild mage from being able to select them afaik is to add them to hidespl.2da, but that prevents everybody.

    One tweak would be to convert three functional first level spells into "universal" spells available to everybody.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,556
    edited August 2014
    Another idea is to create this "assume kit" ability as a first level spell available to everybody. I suppose this way you wouldn't even need to get rid of diviners.

    Would be selectable by sorcerers too though. But you might make use of opcode 177 to differentiate effects by class(?)

    Edit: It looks like sorcerers identify as mages (though not the reverse) so scratch that

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    I've chosen Identify, Magic Missile and Armor (and Infravision...) as the new generalist spells (although honestly any three spells will do so if people feel strongly against these choices they can always be changed).

    Of course there are other problems with this method, namely that OpCode #72 (Change IDS value) doesn't interact with the KITS.IDS, meaning that any kit changes would have to be scripted.

    I've added the following script to BALDUR.BCS, but it doesn't seem to have any effect...

    //define: QDMKITV = the arbitrary assigned number of the mage kit (this global is changed with the innate spell)
    //define: QDMKITB = the boolean that is turned true after a kit change

    IF
    Global("QDMKITV","GLOBAL",1)
    Global("QDMKITB ","GLOBAL",0)
    THEN
    RESPONSE #100
    SetGlobal("QDMKITB","GLOBAL",1)
    AddKit(WILDMAGE)
    END

    Any suggestions as to why this wouldn't work? (I haven't done too much script editing so I don't know what could be wrong with it.)

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    edited August 2014
    Ah ok I guess its time to break out the invisible creature trick. Here goes.

    Maybe I'm being thick, but how do you make the AddKit targeted?

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,556
    my script-fu is weak...they might be able to help you on gibberlings (though @subtledoctor‌ I'm personally really interested in your solution.

    Also re 1st level spells available to all: I like it and it conceptually works, but a) would 1st level mages be balanced with 1st level specialists? And b) what about characters created in soa or tob?

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    GrammarsaladAquadrizzt
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Drackolus
  • SparhawkSparhawk Member Posts: 5
    so 1.3 just dropped.....does that change the compatibility of the mods?

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    All right so I now have a kit transformation system working. Now all that's left is to have more kits to add.

    Some potentially worthwhile ideas:
    - Warlock: The newly inducted "12th class" of 5e. Eldritch Blasts and "Invocations" as well as the blessings of a secret patron.
    - Occultist: (called Binder in 3e, Occultist in PF) a dark mystic who chooses several "Patrons" each day, with each patron granting a set of abilities.
    - Shadowmancer: Limited spellcasting but much more durability, as well as some special darkness themed abilities.
    - Truenamer: a non-Vancian caster with reusable, albeit probabilistic powers.
    - Runecrafter: makes "runes" which can not be cast in combat, but can be precast and then activated.
    - Magus: heavily armored caster (the pf version of this class actually has an archetype called Kensai that is almost identical to a Kensai/Mage [Kensage?])
    - Alchemist: a caster where the spells are replaced with bombs, concotions and potions
    - Summoner: gets a powerful (and semi-customizable) Eidolon that grows in power with the summoner but loses a significant amount of conventional spell power.

    Any opinions on what you would like to see in the next release?

    KamigoroshiKristijonas
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,556
    Mmmm, warlock, rune caster and alchemist. I like unique classes! Ooh, and occultist!

  • Drow_ArrowDrow_Arrow Member Posts: 73
    pretty much what @Grammarsalad‌ said.. though i'd probs swap out warlock for shadowmancer personally.

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    @Grammarsalad‌ , as the Runecaster was your idea, do you have any links for inspiration I could use? I have some very basic ideas for abilities it could have, but having some basis always helps. The Runecaster (from Faerun Guide) and Runesmith (Races of Stone) both seem like good starting points, but I would value any other suggestions you would offer. (I don't really see any similarity between that and the PF Diabolist).

    For the other ones that you guys suggested, Alchemist and Shadowmancer can easily be adapted to use the wizard spellbook interface (the alchemist prepares their gadgets, the Shadowmancer casts mysteries). Warlock will probably also make sense as a Mage, though Sorcerer might also work for it. The way I'm considering doing Occultist is to have one spell slot of each level that lets them prepare and cast a single aspect of that level.

    Let's say you know "The Mage", "The Serpent" and "The Void" as 1st level abilities. You would memorize one using your single spell slot and then cast it upon resting. I'm sure there are other possibilities but I guess I'll cross the Occultist bridge when I get to it.

  • Drow_ArrowDrow_Arrow Member Posts: 73
    @Aquadrizzt‌ personally i feel the warlock would be best placed under sorc rather than mage.

    Grammarsalad
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    For the Mage, I'd personally love to see the Witch kit. It's from the Complete Wizard's Handbook and feels somewhat similar to the Alchemist mixed in with a little Warlock flavour. :)

    GrammarsaladDrow_ArrowAquadrizzt
  • Drow_ArrowDrow_Arrow Member Posts: 73

    For the Mage, I'd personally love to see the Witch kit. It's from the Complete Wizard's Handbook and feels somewhat similar to the Alchemist mixed in with a little Warlock flavour. :)

    this sounds like it could be interesting

    Grammarsalad
  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    @Kamigoroshi‌ , I was actually considering doing a Witch kit based on the PF Witch, although the CWH could also work. Some form of reworking the Witch is required as more than half of the 2e PnP rules don't work in BGEE (Read/Detect Magic; a free(!) familiar; Fly 1/day; curse; major penalty being a reaction check).

    Of course, Pathfinder takes Witch in a different direction, most notably restricting the spell list significantly but granting access to spells such as Cure spells, etc. A lot of the Hexes (PF version of Curses) strike me as more flavorful than useful (i.e. the ability to detect the presence of children and young animals).

    The only thing I have determined with the Witch design is that the drawback will be along the lines of "-1 to [stuff] at night" (based on drawback option 3 from CWH). I'm not sure what kind of perks I could give to balance that. Innates feel kind of lame for wizards/sorcerers and granting bonus spells might make them feel like a misplaced sorcerer.

    Kamigoroshi
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    @Aquadrizzt‌ I can see why you're struggling with the Witch kit here. It's generally much easier to come up with penalties for them rather than advantages.

    One possibly interesting method could be to implement her curses/hexes as "songs", not unlike the Jester's. This may differ greatly from both AD&D and Pathfinder, but I think this should be doable in the EE Infinity Engine. At the same time it allows the Witch to be useful to the party even when her magic runs dry. After all: the AD&D Witch kit cannot use any weapons, nor does she receive any proficiency points when advancing in level.

    I got this idea while listening to one of Eluveitie's songs, which basically is an ancient Gaulish Curse:

    Drow_Arrow
  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    I would have never thought of that for the Witch, although it is so appropriate. Of course there are potential issues: bards get aggressively reduced spell casting (boooo) but for the Witch kit to be good without micromanagement it would need to be a bard... (ugh why can't we have soft-coded hot bars and class-based spell progression...).

    GrammarsaladDrow_Arrow
  • Drow_ArrowDrow_Arrow Member Posts: 73

    I would have never thought of that for the Witch, although it is so appropriate. Of course there are potential issues: bards get aggressively reduced spell casting (boooo) but for the Witch kit to be good without micromanagement it would need to be a bard... (ugh why can't we have soft-coded hot bars and class-based spell progression...).

    woul make things a lot easier and the game so much more flexible eh?

  • AquadrizztAquadrizzt Member Posts: 1,004
    Something I had considered but ultimately discarded, how attached are people to specialist mages really?

    In my opinion, specialist wizards really don't add too much to the game other than a small amount of metagaming/powergaming. This is coupled with the fact that a vast majority of the specialists have drawbacks so annoying that no one would pick them.

    If I were to manually recode the specialists to be unique kits, I would be able to give up to 8 kits unique spell lists and abilities, as well as other class features. The only sacrifice would be the 8 specialist mage kits.

    Opinions on this? (Of course, the alternative is to just wait until K_M_X is softcoded and then manipulate stuff, but I have no idea if or when that will happen).

    There are other alternatives (such as giving trueclass mages or a select specialist [Diviner] a "Specialize" innate that lets them pick a new class), but I'm not sure which one sounds the most appealing.

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    From an AD&D PnP perspective, Specialist Wizards shouldn't even be kits in the first place. This is something that annoyed me quite a bit in BG. From my point of view, it sounds more interesting to start as an generic Mage and be afterwards able to choose a specific school of magic to specialize in.

    Of course, best of all would be if Specialist Wizards could be selected within the character creation process, not unlike to the Ranger's Favoured Enemy "menu". But I fear that's hardcoded as hell. :/

    Grammarsalad
  • DarkersunDarkersun Member Posts: 398
    Losing specialist mages is not a bad thing for me. Never used them except the NPCs that come with one.
    Having 8 different spellcasters with there own spell-lists and ability's + unique stuff sounds much better.

    Kamigoroshi
Sign In or Register to comment.