Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Faiths and Powers: Gods of the Realms (Kitpack and divine caster/spell tweaks)

12357111

Comments

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Well, there will be no base class anymore, so we don't have to worry about that. :wink:

    And we probably don't need much in the way of disadvantages - using the sphere system will cut your known spells of levels 4-7 in half. That's a pretty big disadvantage, from a technical perspective (but I think it's better overal since it leads you to use spelks that are more appropriate for your kit - a priest of Lathander will be using more Light-related spells, while a priest of Talos will be using more Storm-related magic.

    As for advantages/disadvantages generally: I'm taking a backseat here. But my feeling is, they should be governed by the kit/archetype structure. Basically each archetype should be defined by HD, thac0, APR, profs, etc. And they should be broadly similar - i.e. Clerics should be similar to other Clerics, Mystics similar to other Mystics, etc. Within each archetype, the deity your serve will define your sphere access. And then, at the intersection of those two choices, archetype and deity, I would add one, maybe two special characteristics that define the particular flavor of that combination.

    So for example, I would give Clerics of Helm exactly the same APR as all other Clerics - because a Cleric is a Cleric is a Cleric, and if you want to be more combat-oriented and have higher APR, you could just play a Champion or a Zealot instead. Of course there's trade-offs with that choice, but in an RPG trade-offs are a Very Good Thing.

    So for Clerics of Helm, I might give them Glyph of Warding and True Sight as innate ability (they're "Watchers," more about the watchfulness aspect of Helm than the chaos-bashing aspect). For a Mystic following Helm, maybe Heightened Awareness, Seeking Sword and Wizard (Helm's) Eye. For a Champion, Seeking Sword and True Sight.

    When making kits, it's easy to worry that people will find it boring if you don't include enough shiny/special stuff. Or maybe you get on a roll making cool spells and stuff, and you don't want anything to go to waste. But I think we're better off resisting that temptation and trying to keep things simple, at first anyway. After all we can always adjust and add more stuff later, after actual play-testing determines that this if that kit needs a little more "oomph."

    EDIT - god, why do I end up writing a huge philosophical treatise every time I post???

    GrammarsaladJuliusBorisov
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,241

    Well, there will be no base class anymore, so we don't have to worry about that. :wink:

    ah darn, i forgot about that...

    anyway, i totally agree - no special feature overload. one or two - maybe deciding to give to all one *or* two would look prettier then some having one and others two, that was what i was trying to say :smile:
    not a big point by any means.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Well, like I say I'm taking a back seat for this part. That's how I'd do it, but mine isn't the only voice. One way or another it's going to be great.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited September 2015
    Okay, a lot here. I'll try to address it all.

    Turning to substantive issues, and looking at the Watcher of Helm kit as the first example:

    I'm generally in favor of fewer, rather than more, special kit abilities. And that At her kit has a *lot* of special abilities.

    1. My general rationale is that this game only involves a certain limited number of tactics, and with 5 or 6 special bonuse tmrs 30 or 50 kits, we could easy run out of bonuses that are creative and interesting. I'd rather give each kit 1-3 abilities that are truly unique and really hrlp define the kit's theme.

    2. I really don't love giving cleric kits (or rogue or wizard kits) the "extra APR at levels 7 and 13 just like warriors" bonus. 1st, it is hugely hugely powerful. 2nd, I (personally) don't like making one class the equal of another class. The cleric XP table is faster than the warrior table, so this would actually let them reach higher APR *faster* than warriors. I would prefer Something like a single 0.5 bump, at level 9 or 10. That gives them more attacks than other clerics, but still not as many as warriors.

    Even better imho, would be no base APR bonus at all, instead let them specialize in weapons and allow them to get the specialization APR bonus.

    I was a bit concerned about this as well. I found myself 'beefing up' the Lathander kit to try to compete with the Helm kit (and I will be quite happy to tone it down again).

    1. Well, much of the work is done for us in source books. However, not everything is implementable. Also, as you suggest below, some abilities just aren't appropriate. Point taken.

    2. Very Good point. This is the reason why I was thinking about limiting base clerics to chain armor. As for the extra attacks, I think that I was just copying the specialty kit in F&A. I'm actually perfectly fine not giving them any extra attacks. As you say below clerics are clerics are cleric are clerics. Want a [email protected]$$ warrior of Helm? Make a champion or zealot.
    bob_veng said:

    maybe you should strive to give each kit about the same number of advantages and disadvantages
    for example - 3 advantages (which include more complex, progressing abilities) and 2-3 disadvantages. that'd look nice.

    also, to have more disadvantages than just one as in vanilla (which is the case for most kits) would maybe make the base class more appealing

    Subtledoctor answered this nicely. I just want to add that I don't want the kits to be too formulaic. This is one thing that I really like about 2e (and to a lesser degree 3.x) over 4e. Two fighters or two clerics might be quite a bit different from each other (and a fighter is certainly very different from a cleric.) This introduces a greater possibility of imbalance, but, I think making interesting and unique kits is worth the extra headache required to balance them.

    Still, ~3 advantages (that are more complex, with progressing abilities) can be a good rule of thumb. But I will need feedback! Very specific feedback!

    As for deity-kit specific disadvantages, it is certainly feasible to make kits that have slightly better abilities have slightly worse sphere access. I have a very specific number of spheres by class/kit in the write-up on the first page, but thinking again about that, it is pretty formulaic. Heh, it's an easy trap to fall into.

    Okay, perhaps kits with slightly stronger abilities can have as much as one less major sphere available and/or two less minor spheres available compared to the current baseline. Conversely, especially weak kits might have access to one additional major sphere and/or two additional minor spheres compared to the current baseline.

    One thing that I did like about 4e--one of the few things--above 2e and 3.xe was that they took 'archetypes' seriously (though, I think that they were a bit heavy handed here as well). Actually, this was one of the problems with being too 'unformulaic' is that you have situations where, for example, in the earlier editions, a cleric or even occasionally a wizard might make a better fighter than a figher(!) I need to think more concretely about what sorts of limits to place on possible kit abilities for the cleric. I think the bonus attacks should be one. Drawing on SD's comments below, I'll put this general list forward as an incomplete first draft.

    - Attacks per round
    - THAC0
    - Proficiency: no more than specialization possible, and then only with a favored weapon
    - HD

    Well, there will be no base class anymore, so we don't have to worry about that. :wink:

    And we probably don't need much in the way of disadvantages - using the sphere system will cut your known spells of levels 4-7 in half. That's a pretty big disadvantage, from a technical perspective (but I think it's better overal since it leads you to use spelks that are more appropriate for your kit - a priest of Lathander will be using more Light-related spells, while a priest of Talos will be using more Storm-related magic.

    As for advantages/disadvantages generally: I'm taking a backseat here. But my feeling is, they should be governed by the kit/archetype structure. Basically each archetype should be defined by HD, thac0, APR, profs, etc. And they should be broadly similar - i.e. Clerics should be similar to other Clerics, Mystics similar to other Mystics, etc. Within each archetype, the deity your serve will define your sphere access. And then, at the intersection of those two choices, archetype and deity, I would add one, maybe two special characteristics that define the particular flavor of that combination.

    So for example, I would give Clerics of Helm exactly the same APR as all other Clerics - because a Cleric is a Cleric is a Cleric, and if you want to be more combat-oriented and have higher APR, you could just play a Champion or a Zealot instead. Of course there's trade-offs with that choice, but in an RPG trade-offs are a Very Good Thing.

    So for Clerics of Helm, I might give them Glyph of Warding and True Sight as innate ability (they're "Watchers," more about the watchfulness aspect of Helm than the chaos-bashing aspect). For a Mystic following Helm, maybe Heightened Awareness, Seeking Sword and Wizard (Helm's) Eye. For a Champion, Seeking Sword and True Sight.

    When making kits, it's easy to worry that people will find it boring if you don't include enough shiny/special stuff. Or maybe you get on a roll making cool spells and stuff, and you don't want anything to go to waste. But I think we're better off resisting that temptation and trying to keep things simple, at first anyway. After all we can always adjust and add more stuff later, after actual play-testing determines that this if that kit needs a little more "oomph."

    EDIT - god, why do I end up writing a huge philosophical treatise every time I post???

    I'm glad you wrote this! I found it very convincing! It is also very close to my own thinking on the matter. I have noticed a tendency in myself to go on 'automatic pilot'. (design is *hard*) I think some 'guiding principles' will help me stay on track.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited September 2015
    "Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the world."
    - Archimedes

    Let's revisit the Watcher.

    Watcher of Helm

    – Watchers automatically gain a proficiency point in longsword. In addition, watchers of helm can specialize in the longsword.
    - Gains an additional attack every two rounds at 7th level. This bonus increases to a full attack per round at 13th level
    - Heightened Awareness: +1 bonus to AC and +2 bonus to save vs breath
    - Can cast Glyph of Warding, as the spell, as a special ability once per day at first level. The watcher gains an additional use every five additional levels of experience.
    - Can cast Seeking Sword as a special ability once per day at fourth twelfth level. The watcher gains an additional use at levels 16 and 20.
    SEEKING SWORD: This spell creates a sword in the Cleric's hand that cannot be dropped or unequipped. The sword is enchanted as a +4 weapon and provides a +4 THAC0 bonus, but no damage bonus. It deals 2d4 damage to any target it hits. The weapon sets the Cleric's number of attacks per round to 3 and lasts for 1 round per level. While it is equipped, the wielder cannot cast further spells.
    - Can cast Helm's eye as a special ability once per day at 9th level. The watcher gains an additional use at levels 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. Helm's eye is equivalent to the wizard spell, wizard eye.

    Spheres:
    Major:
    - Divine Aid
    - Life
    - Protection
    - War
    - Knowledge
    - Vigor
    Minor:
    - Magic
    - Destruction
    - Affliction
    - Fire
    - Light
    - Death
    Not much of a change. I took away the bonus attacks, but left the other specials, but took away two minor spheres--ones that I think are least 'Helm-like'--as this still seems a bit strong. Better?

    Edit: I made seeking sword a twelfth level ability, allowing this cleric to step into the role of a fighter for a brief period.

    JuliusBorisov
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    All good to know. I definitely agree that hewing to a formula too strictly would be a mistake. But, when we're starting out with just thoughts on paper, I think it's best, *in the first pass,* to simply apply the formula to everything. Then, once the skeleton is in place, we can go back over things and put meat on the bones by adding more differences and creative flourishes.

    EDIT - Forgot to add, if you start conservative and then add abilities later to a kit, players love you. But if you take something away later, you get accused of "nerfing" and they swear vengeance against your whole family line...

    Gotta pay attention to the PR angle! :sweat_smile:

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
    SereverusGrammarsaladBrer_RabbitAbel
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    Next up: Lathander.

    The specialty priest in faiths and avatars is relevant weak, though they are monsters against undead.

    In a related note, I have been thinking about the spell false dawn. Right now, the spell is useless against non undead. While that may seem fine, personally I really do not like spells that are extremely useful in one situation, but useless in many others. This encourages metagaming which, while not bad in itself--it's going to happen regardless--it can detract from the fun in various ways.

    That said, it should be an undead killer, and it should be less useful against others. I was thinking of adding a short duration--a round or two-- blinding effect for enemies of the caster, as lathander shines his light in their eyes giving the caster and his allies a short reprieve.

    KamigoroshiSereverus
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,710

    That said, it should be an undead killer, and it should be less useful against others. I was thinking of adding a short duration--a round or two-- blinding effect for enemies of the caster, as lathander shines his light in their eyes giving the caster and his allies a short reprieve.

    Could be a nice touch indeed. However, it wouldn't make much sense for eyeless enemies to be blinded. Same goes pretty much for ones with the Fire subtype. I mean, it would be one thing to blind them with Darkness spells... but blinding say, a Fire Giant, with a Fire/Sun spell seems somewhat inappropiate.

    Grammarsalad
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    False Dawn is in the Light sphere, which is totally distinct from the Fire sphere. I don't see why fire giants couldn't be blinded by very intense light.

    My feeling: False Dawn should be a very bright and magical light. Area-effect blindness against most enemies, which bypasses MR against drow, and also does damage to undead.

    Sunray should be more than just bright light. It should basically be an area-effect Sunscorch. Blindness, damage, maybe reveal invisible creatures like Glitterdust, bypass MR against drow, and everything magnified against undead. It's 7th level, it should be very good and versatile.

    EDIT - here's and idea for drow. When they are in daylight their MR is supposed to go away. Since these spells basically create sunlight, add a Lower Resistance effect targeting drow, 30% for False Dawn and 60% for Sunray.

    Grammarsalad
  • MozziahMozziah Member Posts: 10

    False Dawn is in the Light sphere, which is totally distinct from the Fire sphere. I don't see why fire giants couldn't be blinded by very intense light.

    My feeling: False Dawn should be a very bright and magical light. Area-effect blindness against most enemies, which bypasses MR against drow, and also does damage to undead.

    Sunray should be more than just bright light. It should basically be an area-effect Sunscorch. Blindness, damage, maybe reveal invisible creatures like Glitterdust, bypass MR against drow, and everything magnified against undead. It's 7th level, it should be very good and versatile.

    EDIT - here's and idea for drow. When they are in daylight their MR is supposed to go away. Since these spells basically create sunlight, add a Lower Resistance effect targeting drow, 30% for False Dawn and 60% for Sunray.

    Not sure if lowering MR or blindness is a great idea without some sort of save, it just makes the spell more specialized; maybe a speed factor modification (if that's possible) bypassing MR for a round or 2 to make it somewhat of a stun like ability so that victims of the spells always attack last those rounds with no save. Blindness really kills enemy AI even with scs or BP installed scripts

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    I was thinking of a save for non nonundead at least. Eyeless creatures should be unaffected. Maybe elementals and golems shouldn't be affected. But yeah, fire creatures per se shouldn't be protected.

    I have to look at sunray, specifically. (Not at computer now).

    @Mozziah a question: I wanted a short duration partially because of the ai issue. Creature ai isn't completely messed up after being blinded, is it? I mean, once they have recovered? Iirc, they just sit there when they are blinded, but that is because they don't 'see' an enemy, or something like that, right?

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    And yeah, anybody, please feel free to bring up any priest spell that you think needs improvement (and wizard spells in Tome and Blood).

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Blindness effects should definitely have a save, and be short-duration. It's simulated sunlight, right, so it's really more being dazzled than properly blinded.

    As for lowering drow MR: this is surely a controversial idea, I know. I think it's okay balance-wise, because Sunray is not exactly a spammable spell (especially in Chapter 5). But if something like that is implemented, I would probably make it automatic, because it's not a particular effect from this spell but just something that happens to all drow, all the time, when exposed to sunlight.

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited September 2015
    Looking at sunray, I absolutely agree with subtledoctor. I suppose that if sunray blinds for 2 rounds, then false dawn should blind for 1. Also, I can change the fluff to suggest that it is intense sun exposure--enough to cause burns. Maybe, (bold is added text)

    "This spell allows the caster to evoke a dazzling, searing beam of light from the sky which is more intense than the sun itself, and that lasts 4 rounds. Creatures in the area of effect are burned as if having spent much of the day under the sun, receiving 2d4 points of damage, and must make a Save vs. Spell or be blinded for 2 rounds. Undead or fungoid creatures in the area of effect also takeare especially vulnerable to the effects of this spell, suffering 8d6 points of damage (save vs. Spell for half) and are blinded for 1 turn."

    The idea is that this spell subjects the casters enemies to an especially intense dose of solar radiation (ie UV) as if they stayed in the sun for a full day.

    EDIT: Have to add the thing about drow

    Sereverus
  • MozziahMozziah Member Posts: 10

    I was thinking of a save for non nonundead at least. Eyeless creatures should be unaffected. Maybe elementals and golems shouldn't be affected. But yeah, fire creatures per se shouldn't be protected.

    I have to look at sunray, specifically. (Not at computer now).

    @Mozziah a question: I wanted a short duration partially because of the ai issue. Creature ai isn't completely messed up after being blinded, is it? I mean, once they have recovered? Iirc, they just sit there when they are blinded, but that is because they don't 'see' an enemy, or something like that, right?

    Well depends on the scripts, on my scs install they tend to wander all around and with better calls for help that may make using this spell in certain areas interesting

    Grammarsalad
  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,342
    Also, just a suggestion, would it be possible to do a 3.5/Pathfinder styled Blighter/Blight Druid? That is a Necro-themed Druid? In 3.5 it's located in Complete Divine under "Blighter" and Pathfinder has a variant called the Blight Druid in the Advanced Player's Guide.
    I'll link the Blight Druid as it's on the Paizo site but I'll not link the Blighter as not sure how legal that would be.
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/blight-druid

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    Vallmyr said:

    Also, just a suggestion, would it be possible to do a 3.5/Pathfinder styled Blighter/Blight Druid? That is a Necro-themed Druid? In 3.5 it's located in Complete Divine under "Blighter" and Pathfinder has a variant called the Blight Druid in the Advanced Player's Guide.
    I'll link the Blight Druid as it's on the Paizo site but I'll not link the Blighter as not sure how legal that would be.
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/blight-druid

    That's an awesome idea! As for legality, i think I'm fine. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to give credit for inspiration, though

    Vallmyr
  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,342
    At the end of all this I want to do an IWD:EE run with
    A Death Cleric (Er, Death Priest? Whatever class gets to worship Mrykul)
    A Blackguard (Or whatever unholy champion we have by the end of all this lol)
    A Blight Druid
    A Dirgesinger Bard (QQ Song & Silence still doesn't work with IWD:EE but maybe when we port these mods to BG:EE I can use this party in a Black Pits run)
    A Dark Necromancer from T&B
    and a Shadowdancer for all my thieving needs with a hint of shadow magic.

    Unfortunately the Dark Moon Monk will have to sit out until later. Maybe he can jump in if the Dirgesinger never gets updated to IWD:EE.

    Grammarsalad
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 4,710
    Vallmyr said:

    Also, just a suggestion, would it be possible to do a 3.5/Pathfinder styled Blighter/Blight Druid? That is a Necro-themed Druid? In 3.5 it's located in Complete Divine under "Blighter" and Pathfinder has a variant called the Blight Druid in the Advanced Player's Guide.
    I'll link the Blight Druid as it's on the Paizo site but I'll not link the Blighter as not sure how legal that would be.
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/blight-druid

    Honestly, that class reminds me more of the Talontar Blightlord. Given that it's main focus is on diseases, not necromancy. As far as I know, AD&D second edition's Lost Druid kit is the only tree hugger who truly employs the Forbidden Art for corpse raising and such.

    Come to think of it, maybe it's better to rename the Oozemaster into something else. Like Slime Lord for example. This would help to differentiate this mod more from Divine Remix and its own Oozemaster kit. Just a thought.

    Grammarsalad
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433

    Vallmyr said:

    Also, just a suggestion, would it be possible to do a 3.5/Pathfinder styled Blighter/Blight Druid? That is a Necro-themed Druid? In 3.5 it's located in Complete Divine under "Blighter" and Pathfinder has a variant called the Blight Druid in the Advanced Player's Guide.
    I'll link the Blight Druid as it's on the Paizo site but I'll not link the Blighter as not sure how legal that would be.
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/blight-druid

    Honestly, that class reminds me more of the Talontar Blightlord. Given that it's main focus is on diseases, not necromancy. As far as I know, AD&D second edition's Lost Druid kit is the only tree hugger who truly employs the Forbidden Art for corpse raising and such.

    Come to think of it, maybe it's better to rename the Oozemaster into something else. Like Slime Lord for example. This would help to differentiate this mod more from Divine Remix and its own Oozemaster kit. Just a thought.
    That website looks like a great resource! I might use the concept and name--ie blighter and necro focused druid--but not the exact implementation.

    I think that there may be room for a slime lord and an oozemaster, at least eventually. A slime lord is a follower of Ghaunadar that wants to become a slime, while an oozemaster wants to study and be friends with them! :smiley: idk. We'll see if there is room

    Kamigoroshi
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited September 2015
    Lathander:
    Okay, on the one hand, there are more Lathanderian priests than Helmite priests. On the other hand, there aren't so many order names to choose from. There is a knightly order called, the Order of the Aster. This can go into the description of Champions of Lathander, but I can't find any reference to actual members of this order. Strange, for such a rich church, that they don't seem to have any others. Anyway, we do have Morninglords and Dawnbringers, the former being specialty priests, and the latter, general priests. It's a bit of a toss up, but I'll call regular clerics, "Dawnbringer of Lathander" and priests "Morninglord of Lathander". Lathander will also support mystics, incarnates, Champions--i.e. members of the Order of the Aster--and Zealots.

    One issue: I think that absolutely all priests of lathander should be able to turn undead. Indeed, I think that both Lathanderian and Kelemvorian champions should be undead slayers, in their own way. However, even with the turn undead opcode, and the ability to grant turn undead levels in the clab, apparently, this only works for cleric and paladin characters (though maaaybe, it'll work for the druid/mystic. It is a priest class, after all...)

    Now, I will try to give druid/mystics turn undead, absolutely. But, assuming that I can't, I suppose there are a couple of options available:

    1) Have no mystics or incarnates of Lathander

    2) Move Incarnate to a cleric kit, so there can be Incarnates of Lathander that can turn undead. No mystics of lathander.

    3) Make Mystics and Incarnates of Lathander, but give them other anti-undead abilities.

    4) Something else?

    In any case, I'm going to just present clerics, priests, champions, and Zealots for now (hmm, there are already plenty of options for the prospective Lathanderite...)

    Dawnbringer of Lathander: (i.e. Clerics of Lathander)

    – May wear helmets.
    - Medium Armor: may not wear armor heavier than chain.
    – May use any shield except Tower Shields.
    - Simple Weapon Proficiency: The cleric can gain one point in spears, short swords, daggers, short bows, and any blunt weapon.
    – Dawnbringers may specialize in the Mace, Lathander's favored weapon.
    - May gain maximum ranks in any fighting style.
    - May Turn, or Rebuke Undead. Dawnbringers turn undead as a cleric two levels higher than their current level. (the specialty priest grants +4 levels normally!)
    - May cast priest spells up to 7th level.
    - Full Casting Progression
    - Lore 4/level
    - Hit Die: d8
    - Medium THAC0 Progression
    - Can cast Shield of Lathander as a special ability once per day. The Dawnbringer gains an additional use at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. This ability acts as the fifth level priest spell of the same name.
    - Can cast Greater Shield of Lathander at 15th level. The dawnbringer gains an additional use at 20th level. This spell acts as the seventh level spell of the same name.
    - Can cast Hold Undead as a special ability once per day at first level. The Dawnbringer gains an additional use every five additional levels of experience. This ability functions as the wizard spell of the same name.
    - Can cast False Dawn as a special ability once per day at 9th level. The Dawnbringer gains an additional use at levels 15 and 20. The ability functions as the cleric spell of the same name.

    Spheres:
    Major:
    - Divine Aid
    - Life
    - Protection
    - Light
    - Fire
    - Vigor
    Minor:
    - War
    - Death
    - Knowledge
    - Charm
    - Air
    - Magic

    Restrictions:
    - Alignment: LG, NG, CG
    - Race: None (ie no restrictions)
    - Other: None
    Note, is able to cast the Shield of Lathander spells in lieu of the Boon spell, which is more offensively oriented (and reserved for the champions).

    Also notable is that they turn undead as a cleric two levels higher than their own level. The specialty priest actually grants four levels, but that seems a bit steep (though, it would be fun to splat skeletons at first level!)

    Morninglord of Lathander: (i.e. Priests of Lathander)

    - Simple Weapon Proficiency: The cleric can gain one point in spears, short swords, daggers, short bows, and any blunt weapon.
    - May gain maximum ranks in any fighting style.
    - Full Casting Progression
    - May cast priest spells up to 7th level.
    - May Turn, or Rebuke Undead. Morninglords turn undead as a cleric two levels higher than their current level. (the specialty priest grants +4 levels normally!)
    - Can cast Shield of Lathander as a special ability once per day. The Dawnbringer gains an additional use at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. This ability acts as the fifth level priest spell of the same name.
    - Can cast Greater Shield of Lathander at 15th level. The dawnbringer gains an additional use at 20th level. This spell acts as the seventh level spell of the same name.
    - Can cast Hold Undead as a special ability once per day at first level. The Morninglord gains an additional use every five additional levels of experience. This ability functions as the wizard spell of the same name.
    - Can cast False Dawn as a special ability once per day at 9th level. The Morninglord gains an additional use at levels 15 and 20. The ability functions as the cleric spell of the same name.

    Advantages: (ie what this kit has that base cleric does not)
    - Lore: 8/lev
    - Devoted Servant: Priests always get more bonus spells than other clerics of the same deity as the have spent years cultivating a connection with that deity through rigorous ritual and meditation. As such, they gain +1 spell per spell level.

    Disadvantages: (ie what base clerics have that this kit does not)
    - Light Armor: may not wear armor heavier than studded leather.
    – May not equip shields larger than bucklers.
    – May not wear helmets.
    - Cannot specialize in any weapon
    - Slow (Wizard) THAC0 progression
    - D6 HD

    Spheres:
    Major:
    - Divine Aid
    - Life
    - Protection
    - Light
    - Fire
    - Vigor
    - Knowledge
    Minor:
    - War
    - Death
    - Charm
    - Air
    - Magic
    - Affliction
    - Plant

    Restrictions:
    - Alignment: LG, NG, CG
    - Race: None (ie no restrictions)
    - Other: None
    Has worse THAC0 progression, armor, hp than the cleric. But, gains increased Lore, +1 spell/spell level, major access to the knowledge sphere, and minor access to the plant sphere.

    Champion of Lathander (alternate name: Guardian of the Dawn?)

    – May wear helmets.
    – May wear any armor and use any weapon.
    – May not exceed Specialization (two slots) in any weapon class, unless that weapon is favored by deity, in which case can gain mastery.
    – May achieve Specialization (two slots) in any fighting style and allocate three slots in Two-Weapon Style.
    – Champions of Lathander can achieve mastery in the mace, Lathender's favored weapon.
    – Hospitalar: May use Lay On Hands ability once per day to heal a target for 2 Hit Points per level of the Champion.
    – May cast priest spells starting at level 3.
    – Receives a +2 bonus to all Saving Throws.
    – Hit Die: d10
    - Full THAC0 progression
    - D10 HD
    - Lore 1/lev
    - Smite Infidel (Details to come)
    – May Turn Undead as a cleric, beginning at level 1. (Champions of lathander get an effective +2 to turn level which allows them to turn undead as a cleric of the same level.)

    - Can cast Boon of Lathander as a special ability once per day at fourth level. The Champion gains an additional use at levels 8, 12, 16 and 20.

    BOON OF LATHANDER: This spell lasts 1 round per level of the caster. It gives the caster a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, a +1 bonus to all Saving Throws, and 1 extra attack per round. It also protects the caster from level drain.


    Spheres:
    Major: None

    Minor:
    - Divine Aid
    - Life
    - Protection
    - Light
    - Fire
    - Vigor

    Restrictions:
    - Alignment: LG, NG, CG
    - Race: None (ie no restrictions)
    - Other: None
    Does not get the Shield spells, false dawn, Hold undead and (of course) major access to any sphere. However, this class is a better melee fighter, and gains Boon of Lathander, a nice buff spell, and is a competent undead turner--though, not as good as the regular lathanderite.


    Zealot of Lathander (alternate name: ?)

    – May achieve Specialization (two slots) in any fighting style and allocate three slots in Two-Weapon Style.
    - Lore 1/lev
    - Smite Infidel (Details to come)
    – Receives a +2 bonus to all Saving Throws.
    - Heightened Awareness: +1 bonus to AC and +2 bonus to save vs breath
    - Full THAC0 progression
    – May cast priest spells starting at level 3.
    – Hospitalar: May use Lay On Hands ability once per day to heal a target for 2 Hit Points per level of the
    - Can cast Boon of Lathander as a special ability once per day at fourth level. The Champion gains an additional use at levels 8, 12, 16 and 20.

    BOON OF LATHANDER: This spell lasts 1 round per level of the caster. It gives the caster a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, a +1 bonus to all Saving Throws, and 1 extra attack per round. It also protects the caster from level drain.
    - May turn undead beginning at level 3 as a cleric two levels lower than their zealot level

    Advantages:
    - Hit Die: d12
    - Frenzy
    Disadvantages:
    - Light Armor: may not wear armor heavier than studded leather.
    – May only gain Specialization (two slots) in any weapon class. Cannot not gain mastery in any weapon.

    Spheres:
    Major: None

    Minor:
    - Divine Aid
    - Life
    - Protection
    - Light
    - Fire
    - Vigor

    Restrictions:
    - Alignment: LG, NG, CG (this kit tends to have more stringent alignment restrictions--but not here)
    - Race: None (ie no restrictions)
    - Other: None
    Here gains the same bonuses as standard champion of Lathander, but exchanges d12HD and frenzy for light armor, no mastery, and worse turn undead ability. Lathander's power over undead is so strong that even zealots--normally unable to turn undead at all--can turn undead. Still, Zealots have the weakest anti-undead abilities.

    KamigoroshiJuliusBorisov
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Good points about Turn Undead. I was on the cusp of suggesting we actually move druids into the base cleric class, so that we can have multiclass druid/mages and druid/thieves. Basically, the first main difference between classes, and what we might consider to determine which kits should go in which class, is the multi classing rules.

    *BUT* you now remind me of the *other* main difference: the UI, which for clerics includes the Turn Undead button.

    So, we should decide which kit archetypes go in which classes based on those two things. That leads me back to the original idea:
    - Clerics, Priests, and Incarnates in the cleric class. All kits tied directly to deities.
    - Mystics, Druids, Ur-priests, and Alienists in the mystic class. These kits derive power from other sources.

    The multiclass thing got me thinking about the special abilities question again. Here's a thought: the base cleric is the multiclass kit. So it should really be our bog-standard choice, nothing special about it. Why give away our awesome special innate abilities for free?? You should have to be more devoted, a member of a particular order... in 2E parlance, a "specialty priest." So then, the kits would look something like this:

    Cleric: Your average normal adventuring cleric. Characteristics:
    - Broad weapon/armor usability
    - Weapon specialization (??)
    - May multiclass/dual-class
    - Normal spellcasting table
    - Spell sphere access according to deity
    - 0 to 1 special abilities
    - May turn undead unless specifically inappropriate (Sylvanus)

    Specialty Priest: Special orders established by certain deities. Characteristics:
    - Constrained weapon/armor usability (spends more time at devotions than adventuring)
    - Limited to basic weapon proficiency, but automatically specialized with favored weapon
    - May not multiclass (utterly devoted to his/her faith), but may dual-class out of the order
    - Normal spellcasting table
    - Spell sphere access according to deity
    - 2 to 4 special abilities (rewards for their devotion to the deity)
    - May turn undead unless specifically inappropriate

    Incarnate: Specially chosen conduit of a deity's will - whether consensually or not! Characteristics:
    - Contrained weapon/armor usability (didn't choose the adventuring life, had this thrust upon them)
    - Limited to basic weapon proficiency (ditto)
    - May not multi- or dual-class
    - +1 spell per level
    - Limited sphere access but focus access to one sphere
    - 2 to 4 special abilities (inborn talents given by the deity)
    - May *not* turn undead unless specifically appropriate (Lathander, Kelemvor)

    GrammarsaladJuliusBorisov
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Making a new post because that was getting long.

    Mystics: Mystics, Druids, Ur-priests and Alienists can remain pretty much as we described them in earlier posts.

    I think there might be a Mystic devoted to light, and the sun, and Lathander - only because Lathander is the patron deity of light and the sun. As a mystic he would not have Turn Undead but we can fashion something else, maybe short-duration Slow Undead or Repulse Undead as at-will ability or something.

    Multiclass Mystics: NB this setup means Mystics could be multi Fighter/Mystics. I think I'm okay with that, especially if we limit their armor. (But note that any armor limits on Mystics *must* necessarily apply to Druids & Ur-priests & Alienists... so, none of these kits can be heavily armored.

    This also means there will be NO Druid multiclassing. Which people may not like because now we're actually taking something away that the vanilla game has.

    But, I think it's okay, because we can set up a "Cleric of Sylvanus" cleric kit that will look a lot like the vanilla game's druid. This will be able to multiclass so this is hiw players can make fighter/druids, druid/mages, and druid/thieves. Little or no shapeshifting (because as outlined in the post above, basic clerics get few to no special abilities)... but that's okay because the vanilla game's druid has very little and very crappy shapeshifting.

    The SoB Forest Druid with its enhanced shapeshifting - as well as the other specialized druid variants like Lycanthropic, Avenger, Lost Druid, Mountain Druid, etc. - would be down in the Mystic class and unable to multiclass.

    Multiclassing generally: With a scheme like this one, I think we should open up multiclassing to humans.

    GrammarsaladJuliusBorisov
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    I like these tweaks. I'll respond to specifics when I have more time (Saturday)

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433

    ...
    So, we should decide which kit archetypes go in which classes based on those two things. That leads me back to the original idea:
    - Clerics, Priests, and Incarnates in the cleric class. All kits tied directly to deities.
    - Mystics, Druids, Ur-priests, and Alienists in the mystic class. These kits derive power from other sources.

    Agreed.

    The multiclass thing got me thinking about the special abilities question again. Here's a thought: the base cleric is the multiclass kit. So it should really be our bog-standard choice, nothing special about it. Why give away our awesome special innate abilities for free?? You should have to be more devoted, a member of a particular order... in 2E parlance, a "specialty priest." So then, the kits would look something like this:
    Believe it or not, this was my initial idea, a long, long time ago. I sorta, forgot...heh.

    ...So then, the kits would look something like this:


    Cleric: Your average normal adventuring cleric. Characteristics:
    - Broad weapon/armor usability
    - Weapon specialization (??)
    - May multiclass/dual-class
    - Normal spellcasting table
    - Spell sphere access according to deity
    - 0 to 1 special abilities
    - May turn undead unless specifically inappropriate (Sylvanus)
    When you talk about weapon specialization, are you thinking about favored weapons, or all available weapons?

    One thing that I have been struggling with is how much these classes should conform to SoB standards, or 'vanilla' standards. Initially I wanted to give all clerics specialization, as I took that to be standard in SoB. But, when I looked again, it isn't/wasn't. Rather, it is an optional component in SoB.

    My thinking is that we should just stick to 'vanilla' standards for now (i.e. 1 pip), though allowing specialization with deities favored weapon, and have SoB give the option for specialization/mastery with favored weapon(?)

    This makes the most sense to me, not the least because SoB should be installed after FnP, and SoB is more of a 'tweak' mod (or a more generalized 'tweak' mod, whereas the scope here is limited to divine classes).

    Also, what is your thinking about armor usability. I personally really like limiting standard clerics to chain armor rather than allowing full plate. These guys, while competent in combat, shouldn't be front line guys--or if they want to be, then they should dual or multi with fighter, or become a champion.

    Also, what about weapon proficiency? I think that it is settled that clerics should be able to wield almost any weapon, if only due to engine constraints. But what should the cleric be able to wield competently (ie gain proficiency with)? Is the current list of 'simple' weapons reasonable, or should they just be able to get a pip in whatever they want, gaining the possibility of specialization as per deity selection? This would resolve one issue with the Helm kit. Because Helm's favored weapon is the longsword, and the standard kit doesn't allow proficiency in the long sword, I gave the Helmite cleric proficiency for free (the class could be created in HoW, SoA or ToB, but not be able to even be proficient with the longsword.)

    As for specials, I think that clerics should get one unique special from deity selection. While sphere access is definitely one way to make each feel unique, an additional special, with weapon specialization, will help even very similar kits--e.g. torm, tyr and helm--feel different from each other. Specialty priests should, I think, generally gain this special and a whole lot more.

    Specialty Priest: Special orders established by certain deities. Characteristics:
    - Constrained weapon/armor usability (spends more time at devotions than adventuring)
    - Limited to basic weapon proficiency, but automatically specialized with favored weapon
    - May not multiclass (utterly devoted to his/her faith), but may dual-class out of the order
    - Normal spellcasting table
    - Spell sphere access according to deity
    - 2 to 4 special abilities (rewards for their devotion to the deity)
    - May turn undead unless specifically inappropriate
    I like this much better than my suggestion, though I think I like the idea of them having higher lore. More special abilities rather than just bonus spells--which would overlap a lot with Incarnates--will help to make them unique and interesting.

    As for dual classing, many specialties do restrict this. Others only allow dual classing to specific classes. I'd probably want to keep this in some cases. However, the standard rule could be like turn undead--can dual class unless specifically inappropriate.

    Incarnate: Specially chosen conduit of a deity's will - whether consensually or not! Characteristics:
    - Constrained weapon/armor usability (didn't choose the adventuring life, had this thrust upon them)
    - Limited to basic weapon proficiency (ditto)
    - May not multi- or dual-class
    - +1 spell per level
    - Limited sphere access but focus access to one sphere
    - 2 to 4 special abilities (inborn talents given by the deity)
    - May *not* turn undead unless specifically appropriate (Lathander, Kelemvor)
    One thing about using sphere focus for the Incarnate is that this was originally going to be a Mystic thing. I liked that because, not only was it cool and unique, but it really fit well for the kits under that class. To make this a think for the Incarnate seems a bit odd, especially when they will also have increase spells, etc. Also, thinking about it, I'm not so much in favor of giving them special abilities. The priest gets these extra specials due to their increased devotion. The Incarnate is on the other side of the spectrum; they may not actually venerate their patron at all! They are just individuals with a special talent for the divine that the gods use for their own ends*. Their power should be, IMO, in their spells. I suppose I'm in favor of making their spells more powerful, in terms of caster level, compared to other clerics, rather than give them early access to spells as the mystic. To compensate, they would get none of the other bonuses...

    Well, the only thing I don't like about this is that it doesn't distinguish one Incarnate from another very well. Perhaps they could have one special ability that is particularly appropriate to their deity. On the one hand, perhaps it could be more powerful than even than a comparable priest ability, but it would just be a single ability, and so the priest would have more options.

    So, the cleric and kits would look like this:

    Cleric: medium/heavy combat, weapon specialization, turn undead, one special, normal casting.

    Priest: wimpy combat, turn undead, normal casting, a lot of specials

    Incarnate: wimpy combat, no (usually) no turn, strong casting, one special
    *well, the individual should have something else--personality traits, common goals, inclinations and/or talents--that the god in question finds appealing. Talos is not going to sponsor a peace loving hippy, for example!

    Making a new post because that was getting long.

    Mystics: Mystics, Druids, Ur-priests and Alienists can remain pretty much as we described them in earlier posts.

    I think there might be a Mystic devoted to light, and the sun, and Lathander - only because Lathander is the patron deity of light and the sun. As a mystic he would not have Turn Undead but we can fashion something else, maybe short-duration Slow Undead or Repulse Undead as at-will ability or something.

    I like they way that you put that: light, the sun and Lathander. They don't so much worship Lathander himself, but specific aspects of his philosophy and portfolio. Lathander, the individual, with his individual idiosyncrasies, is secondary. This could help to explain why they have more focused, but less broad sphere access. For example, Lathander's portfolio contains the dawn, but also physical fitness and atheletics. These two things aren't necessarily connected (which might, for example, explain why mystics devoted to the sun don't have access to the vigor sphere, for example. Sure, they respect Lathander, and even perhaps have some rituals or holy days giving him thanks, but maybe they also have others, even some that recognize other gods like Amaunator, and others unrelated to either.
    Multiclass Mystics: NB this setup means Mystics could be multi Fighter/Mystics. I think I'm okay with that, especially if we limit their armor. (But note that any armor limits on Mystics *must* necessarily apply to Druids & Ur-priests & Alienists... so, none of these kits can be heavily armored.
    I have no problem with that. I think that Mystic/fighters should be allowed heavy armor, however.

    This also means there will be NO Druid multiclassing. Which people may not like because now we're actually taking something away that the vanilla game has.

    But, I think it's okay, because we can set up a "Cleric of Sylvanus" cleric kit that will look a lot like the vanilla game's druid. This will be able to multiclass so this is hiw players can make fighter/druids, druid/mages, and druid/thieves. Little or no shapeshifting (because as outlined in the post above, basic clerics get few to no special abilities)... but that's okay because the vanilla game's druid has very little and very crappy shapeshifting.

    The SoB Forest Druid with its enhanced shapeshifting - as well as the other specialized druid variants like Lycanthropic, Avenger, Lost Druid, Mountain Druid, etc. - would be down in the Mystic class and unable to multiclass.

    Multiclassing generally: With a scheme like this one, I think we should open up multiclassing to humans.
    I definitely think that multiclass should be open to humans. While I hate dual class, however, I think that if it is available to humans, it should be available to non-humans as well. It is related to this in that it seems to be something of a special feature of the priest, the only way that they can do something like multiclass...

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015

    When you talk about weapon specialization, are you thinking about favored weapons, or all available weapons?

    My thought was, allow clerics to specialize in anything - or, in a range of weapons suited to their deity. Specialty priests ca only be proficient, but can specialize in a single weapon that is the favored weapon of their particular sect. Incarnates can only ever be proficient in anything. This makes priests' favored weapons a *restriction* compared to clerics - a price they pay for getting those extra special abilities.

    But yeah, that is a slightly radical departure from vanilla. I don't think it is so bad, because it won't affect APR. But if you think it's too radical then we could drop clerics to basic proficiency, and maybe give them the same favored weapon as priests.

    Maybe give Mystics access to weapon specialization instead of Clerics...? Relative to clerics, I see Mystics as being in a bit of a "glass cannon" role.

    I think that it is settled that clerics should be able to wield almost any weapon, if only due to engine constraints. But what should the cleric be able to wield competently (ie gain proficiency with)? Is the current list of 'simple' weapons reasonable, or should they just be able to get a pip in whatever they want, gaining the possibility of specialization as per deity selection?

    Honestly I'd like to get away from the "clerics can only use blunt weapons" rule. It's silly - as if a morning star doesn't draw blood! Instead, I would suggest a range of ~6-10 weapons that differ by deity. Or else, set a new list of "simple" weapons that is defined by *simplicity* instead of "not sharp." Dagger, short sword, club, mace, quarterstaff, spear, sling, crossbow. Sort of, "point and stab" or "point and shoot" weapons. And if a kits favored weapon is outside that list, then let that kit use the simple list + the favored weapon, as another kit benefit.

    Something like that.

    As for specials, I think that clerics should get one unique special from deity selection. ... Specialty priests should, I think, generally gain this special and a whole lot more.

    Sure, that sounds good.

    I think I like the idea of them having higher lore.

    Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean the Lore bonuses shouldn't be there. I just failed to mention them. I agree with you.

    As for dual classing, many specialties do restrict this. Others only allow dual classing to specific classes. I'd probably want to keep this in some cases. However, the standard rule could be like turn undead--can dual class unless specifically inappropriate.

    Sure - I don't feel strongly that specialty priests should be able to dual-class. The main point was that they should NOT be able to be multiclass. Whereas basic clerics CAN be multiclass... the consequence being, if someone rolls a multiclass cleric, they will get the dialogue choice to choose a diety just like single-class clerics. The choice might be contrained - cleric/thieves should not be able to follow Tempus - but we could also add some extra options here to - cleric-thieves *could* chose to follow Mask.

    Specialty priests, on the other hand, should be single-class ONLY. I hate the dual-classing mechanic, so I don't mind restricting them... and letting them get lots of special abilities and then dual is kind of cheesy, so I don't mind limiting this to clerics too. (Some player may complain, though.)

    One thing about using sphere focus for the Incarnate is that this was originally going to be a Mystic thing. I liked that because, not only was it cool and unique, but it really fit well for the kits under that class. To make this a think for the Incarnate seems a bit odd, especially when they will also have increase spells, etc. Also, thinking about it, I'm not so much in favor of giving them special abilities. The priest gets these extra specials due to their increased devotion. The Incarnate is on the other side of the spectrum; they may not actually venerate their patron at all! They are just individuals with a special talent for the divine that the gods use for their own ends*. Their power should be, IMO, in their spells. I suppose I'm in favor of making their spells more powerful, in terms of caster level, compared to other clerics, rather than give them early access to spells as the mystic. To compensate, they would get none of the other bonuses...

    Well, the only thing I don't like about this is that it doesn't distinguish one Incarnate from another very well. Perhaps they could have one special ability that is particularly appropriate to their deity. On the one hand, perhaps it could be more powerful than even than a comparable priest ability, but it would just be a single ability, and so the priest would have more options.

    Sure.

    Also - I think in all the string-quoting I missed a part where you talked about limiting clerics to chain armor. That sounds fine to me as well. Though be aware, that means limiting multiclass clerics (fighter/clerics) to chain also. I think that's okay though.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,433
    edited September 2015

    ...
    My thought was, allow clerics to specialize in anything - or, in a range of weapons suited to their deity. Specialty priests ca only be proficient, but can specialize in a single weapon that is the favored weapon of their particular sect. Incarnates can only ever be proficient in anything. This makes priests' favored weapons a *restriction* compared to clerics - a price they pay for getting those extra special abilities.

    But yeah, that is a slightly radical departure from vanilla. I don't think it is so bad, because it won't affect APR. But if you think it's too radical then we could drop clerics to basic proficiency, and maybe give them the same favored weapon as priests.

    Maybe give Mystics access to weapon specialization instead of Clerics...? Relative to clerics, I see Mystics as being in a bit of a "glass cannon" role.

    I am very resistant to alter the vanilla game to give non-warriors specialization. In 2e, this was very much a warrior thing and was really supposed to separate them from from other classes. Now, two things:

    1) I'm for allowing specialization for clerics (but not priests) based on deity favored weapon. Clerics are 'semi-martial' and I think it's appropriate for them to get the extra training for their deity's favored weapon. Priests, on the other hand, are really not martial in any way. There doesn't seem to be any reason that they should get the extra training.

    2) That said, I think that it is perfectly appropriate for a 'tweak' mod like SoB to handle additional proficiency training. This sort of change has a more 'global' scope than a mod that just focuses on divine classes. For example, I think that if clerics have additional training options, rogues should as well. And, probably, non-fighter warriors should have even better than specialization available. All of these sorts of changes are beyond the scope of this mod, but perfect for one like SoB.

    (and, I think, these sorts of changes are already present in SoB, so it seems perfect)

    ...Honestly I'd like to get away from the "clerics can only use blunt weapons" rule. It's silly - as if a morning star doesn't draw blood! Instead, I would suggest a range of ~6-10 weapons that differ by deity. Or else, set a new list of "simple" weapons that is defined by *simplicity* instead of "not sharp." Dagger, short sword, club, mace, quarterstaff, spear, sling, crossbow. Sort of, "point and stab" or "point and shoot" weapons. And if a kits favored weapon is outside that list, then let that kit use the simple list + the favored weapon, as another kit benefit.

    Something like that.
    I completely agree. In fact, this is almost exactly the selection that they currently have. The only difference is that they have their current selection--including maces and such--but with the addition of Dagger, Short Sword, Spear, I think Short Bow, and Cross bow.

    Sure - I don't feel strongly that specialty priests should be able to dual-class. The main point was that they should NOT be able to be multiclass. Whereas basic clerics CAN be multiclass... the consequence being, if someone rolls a multiclass cleric, they will get the dialogue choice to choose a diety just like single-class clerics. The choice might be contrained - cleric/thieves should not be able to follow Tempus - but we could also add some extra options here to - cleric-thieves *could* chose to follow Mask.

    Specialty priests, on the other hand, should be single-class ONLY. I hate the dual-classing mechanic, so I don't mind restricting them... and letting them get lots of special abilities and then dual is kind of cheesy, so I don't mind limiting this to clerics too. (Some player may complain, though.)
    Agree about multiclass.

    I also hate dual classing. But I don't want to restrict it unless it makes sense for the kit. I think that fighter, in particular, will be inappropriate for the kit as I don't see any war deities supporting priests with their light armor (and, dual class priests will not be able to wear heavier armor.)

    ...
    Also - I think in all the string-quoting I missed a part where you talked about limiting clerics to chain armor. That sounds fine to me as well. Though be aware, that means limiting multiclass clerics (fighter/clerics) to chain also. I think that's okay though.
    Actually, MC fighter/clerics will be able to use heavy armor. That is controlled by the fighter/cleric usability flag, which can be whatever. Personally, I think that they should have it.

    Kits further restrict usability--it's a negative system. That is, for any item, it can be used if and only if, a) it is not restricted by its base class, and b) it is not restricted by its kit. Base class is equal to FIGHTER_CLERIC for a multi or dual class fighter/cleric (rather than, say, both FIGHTER and CLERIC--I believe that any character can only have a single value in Class.ids).

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 10,689
    edited September 2015
    Agreed, on all counts. Good point about fighter/clerics having a distinct usability flag, I forgot about that.

    As to clerics getting favored weapon specialization and priests not getting it - that's fine too. I would suggest, though, that we apply it via .eff targeting single-class clerics only. Cleric/thieves and cleric/mages don't deserve it (they're not combat-oriented anyway), and fighter/clerics don't need it (they can already specialize).

    I've converted my internal builds of the sphere system to use spell IDS names instead of file names. The resulting array is very clearly marked and easy to edit, and this will make it very simple to support any mod that adds spells via the ADD_SPELL command. We may be able to support BG1 and BG2 from the get-go as long as IWDification is installed, instead of being limited to IWDEE. And then if Beamdog adds the IWDEE spells in the next patch, we will need to do almost nothing to adapt to it. :smiley:

    Just one or two more small issues to iron out, and it will be ready to go. Then we can focus entirely on the kits.

    EDIT - I just realized a (potentially) big problem. At the suggestion of Ardanis I currently have the sphere system creating clones of each spell, and assigning the clones to PC priests. This is a consequence of changing some spell levels to balance the spheres, but wanting to preserve IDS information for AI scripts. On its face this works perfectly: each PC priest gets spells as we have laid them out in our spheres, and AI scripts still find and use the original spells.

    BUT: this becomes a problem if any other spell in the game references the original spell.

    E.g., I forget if Death Ward works this way, but let's say there is a spell that protects against Finger of Death. It might use opcode 206 "Protection from Spell" with "SPPR709" in the effect's RESOURCE field. Now our PC priest casts Finger of Death, and he is actiually casting "d5_1709," which is the clone spell. Because the protection spell does not protect from "d5_1709," the system breaks a little bit. The EEs have been adding big piles of opcode 321 effects to spells, they will be affected as well.

    SO... back to the drawing board. :(

    I'm pretty sure this is solvable. Because the sphere array now uses IDS names, it should be possible to run ADD_SPELL on every single spell, thereby using the exact same spells for both the AI and the spheres. [EDIT2 - this won't work. It will still change the file and and create a mismatch. What's probably necessary is to use cloned spells as before, and find *every single* reference to them in all other spell and item effects, and run CLONE_EFFECT on them to make sure the effects also work with our spell copies. That means running COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP_GLOB multiple times within every iteration of the PHP_EACH as we go through our array. (I think the array currently has 280 spells in it.) Assuming it works (which I think it would), that could make installation go much slower.

    Alternatively, we could simply have each clone use a single opcode 146 effect to cast the original. I don't love this idea because I don't fully understand what it would mean for targeting, and other stuff (e.g. does a 5th level spell that casts another 5th level spell burn through 10 levels of a Deflection?)

    Post edited by subtledoctor on
    Grammarsalad
Sign In or Register to comment.