check (WIS, CON, save vs. x, whatever) to avoid spell disruption when hit

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

CrevsDaak

subtledoctor said:

This is the only thing left in EE that is inferior to GOG's version + TobEx

Actually, it wasn't a vanilla thing—it's a TobEx thing, but, yes, completely agreed, and the .2DA idea really got my interest... I think @DavidW‌ would be interested in this too.

Dee

There's no precedent for it in PnP AD&D, so it would be hard to make a case for something like this being implemented.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ZanathKariashi

Simply no. Spells are powerful enough, and being disrupted on any damage is one of it's balancing factors. If the mage is too stupid to cast the appropriate spells to block it or they're dispelled or they aren't high enough to have a spell to do it, that's their fault and they deserve their incoming death. A lot of them already have access to Magical tattoo contingency spells that allow them to auto-buff, which is ample benefit in that area.

Add concentration to 3rd edition was a partial counter to EVERYONE gaining extra attacks as well as promoting the move to more of a damage sponge system, as opposed to 2nd editions more quick, violent, and visceral combat.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Grammarsalad

I think it should be possible to do anything in BGEE that was possible with Tobex, so I agree completely!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DreadKhan

In 2nd, taking damage is pretty serious, you generally have way less hp at high levels, as was noted, and a high level warrior in 3rd pretty much misses on a 1 for his first two swings, AND the really great defense spells tend to be very costly to cast; thus, you had to have concentration.

While I think a check could be allowed for 1 or 2 damage per spell (ie that 1 damage MIGHT not kill the spell), it would kill darts. darts have few enough boni as it is, and casting desperately needs any disadvantages we can heap on.

Imo, why not add a round to all casting times? And make contingencies take a round too, to activate or cast. Mmm... fairness! Heck, mages will STILL be overpowered.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

elminster

subtledoctor said:

even the oldest, most powerful dragon has a 5% chance of missing his save against a debilitating spell.

I agree with the request but i just wanted to point out that technically this statement isn't true. If I cast horror on you and you have save vs spell of 0 it won't work.

elminster

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/232366/#Comment_232366

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

karnor00

subtledoctor said:

Interesting. But, if I understand that thread and the 2e rules properly, it seems that BGEE's implementation is actually contrary to the rules. So maybe that should be another feature request/bug report.

Depends which 2ED rules you are looking at. The core rules (PHB & DMG) allow saving throws to succeed even on a roll of 1 (provided your saves are low enough).

However, in the supplementary High Level Ability guide, low rolls are automatic failures. In fact a roll of 3 or lower is an automatic failure for anyone below demigod status. And only greater gods never fail their saving throws.


As for the original question of having a check to avoid spell disruption, I don't think this should be included in the default BGEE games, but there should be a method of modding it in for those that want it.