Quick query regarding implementation of edited .2das!

Roarthing

Hello!

I've just recently got back into NWN1 and am building a small PW for a few real life friends.

I'm quite inexperienced with scripts and custom content, but trusty lilac soul has helped me develop my NWScript writing.

I'm now attempting to make a few small adjusts to the game rules but seem to be having a problem.

Example; I want Rangers to not be able to cast any spells.

I've used a .2da editor (Excimer's) to edit the classes.2da and have changed the Ranger's SpellGain Table to **** as an example, and turned SpellCaster to 0. I've then saved this as classes.2da and placed that .2da file into my Overide folder.

When I load up the game - Rangers still have spells?

Am I missing a crucial step.

SECONDLY;
Once (if??) I get this sorted, is there is a way to build these .2da changes into a module/PW without having to make the players use a Hak / place the same files in their overide?

Many thanks,
Roarthing

Roarthing

I actually figured out the first problem.

Stupid mistake. There seems to be two NWN Directories, and I was using the wrong Override Folder. Idiot :slight_smile:

Second point however;

Is there a method of attaching .2da changes to a PW server without players needing to have the file in their own overides / a hak pak?

Thanks!

meaglyn

No. That's what haks are for.

dTd

Roarthing said:

Hello!

Example; I want Rangers to not be able to cast any spells.

Roarthing

What you got against Rangers m8?

TarotRedhand

@Roarthing Example; I want Rangers to not be able to cast any spells.

Why? It is part of the core rules of D&D that rangers have a limited spell ability.

SECONDLY;
Once (if??) I get this sorted, is there is a way to build these .2da changes into a module/PW without having to make the players use a Hak / place the same files in their overide?

Alas, there is no psychic version of NwN. You have to get the information into it somehow and hak files are the way to do it. What have you got against a simple hak file anyway?

TR

Grymlorde

Not everyone wants their rangers (or paladins) to have inherent spellcasting ability.

One of the most brilliant design features of Dungeons & Dragons since the very beginning (1974) is that every Dungeon Master is free to alter the rules to fit their particular gameworld.

For example, a Swords & Sorcery world (e.g. Conan, Kull, etc.) has a need for a ranger-type character who works on the edge of civilization, hunting down their enemies. This character could be called a borderer, a forester, a commando, or ... someone who ranges, i.e. a ranger. The ranger class with it's mix of stealth and combat combined with favored enemies is a great fit were it not for the spells. So in that kind of world, spellcasting fighters are not appropriate whereas stealthy monster-hunters most certainly are.

However, the key point here is that a creator doesn't have to have anything against rangers per se to want to implement a ranger class without spells.

And most importantly, he or she doesn't need to justify their desire to anyone at all. Do we ask anyone why they wish to add new races? After all, aren't the existing set of races enough? Do we ask anyone why they wish to add new classes? Don't we have enough classes as is? Of course not. Hardly anyone, if anyone at all bothers to ask why.

Then why in the world ask why someone wants to disable spellcasting from rangers? Why imply that there's something wrong to do so? So what if it's part of the core rules?

The Dungeon Master (DM) or in this case, NWN Modder has the complete freedom as well as the encouragement from E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson -- the very creators of this game -- to change the rules as they see fit. If you don't like a particular set of house rules or custom content, then don't play that module or persistent world. Just don't go raining on someone else' parade.

dTd

@Grymlorde if that was directed at me, you just don't understand humor or emotes, oh and you're too long winded

DerpCity

@Grymlorde I agree with your opening sentiment; Blackguard and Paladins don't exactly fit into my setting in the way they're implemented by default, and if I cared enough I would spend the time to change them, and there's no reason Roarthing shouldn't be allowed to change Ranger how he wants.

However, to say questions like this cannot be asked is rather silly, especially in the context. Roarthing had already said that he figured out his issue with getting rangers to not cast spells in that it was a minor error on his part. dTd was making a small joke, and Tarot just wanted to know the reason why he wanted to change them from core rules. While they may have been implying it was wrong, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to ask him why he wants to make the change.

TarotRedhand

The reason I was asking was because it changes game balance, an all too common result of house rules. Anyone playing as a ranger modified so they can no longer cast spells will have a harder time playing than when using an unmodified one. This is especially true with NwN because of the way that encounters work. Here is a little experiment for you to try. Make a simple area in the toolset and paint a mephit encounter (from the very easy section) in it. Now send a 5th level fighter through that encounter making a note of the creatures. Now repeat this with a 5th level cleric. You will see that the monsters that are sent against the cleric are tougher than the ones sent against the cleric. This is because the spell using cleric is considered more able than the fighter by the engine. I only discovered this when a play tester for "Hrothgar's Resting Place" pointed out that their cleric was having a hard time of it in a certain area.

So what happens in an encounter where the engine expects the PC to have spell use but that spell use has been withdrawn?

TR

pscythe

TarotRedhand said:

Here is a little experiment for you to try. Make a simple area in the toolset and paint a mephit encounter (from the very easy section) in it. Now send a 5th level fighter through that encounter making a note of the creatures. Now repeat this with a 5th level cleric. You will see that the monsters that are sent against the cleric are tougher than the ones sent against the cleric.

Hi @TarotRedhand just tried that and all I can say the encounter was random. Tried the experiment 4 times, twice with cleric, twice with fighter. All level 5. On the first try the cleric might have gotten "tougher" monsters but then I reloaded with the cleric and it got the exact same creatures as the fighter had. On the fighter's 2nd try it got a mix similar but not exact the same as the cleric's first try.

All creatures on the creature list had a CR of 3. So as far as that is concern no one creature tougher than any other.

DerpCity

@Tarot I think there's a way to change that in one of the 2das so that the game considers them equal. I know there's a table listed on the NWNWiki somewhere that shows how much the character's effective level is lowered based on class for encounters. They'd have to find that and modify it accordingly, but I can't think of the name if it isn't in classes.2da, if it's editable of course.

Also, if I'm honest, I doubt the engine considers Rangers too much stronger than fighters due to their spellcasting; Ao knows that ranger's spells are rather garbage anyway, with the best I've seen being Greater Magic Fang and Blade Thirst. No barkskin... No bulls strength...

pscythe

@DerpCity Are you refferring to the EffCRLvl columns in classes.2da? Think only the OC uses that.

TarotRedhand

@pscythe Perhaps BD fixed it. All I know is that when I built "Hrothgar's Resting Place" I consistently got the results that I mentioned. It's even possible that Bioware fixed it as I think (can't guarantee it mind, it's 10+ years since I built it) I made it in 1.68 or maybe even 1.67.

TR

FreshLemonBun

I can't be bothered to check but I remember with NWN2 that some columns were hardcoded, and for both 1 and 2 the rows for spellcasting are hard coded.

Recently I had changed bard spells for something to follow a more ad&d style progression and it worked fine with override, gaining higher level slots at epic levels. So I think if you just changed the values in the ranger's spell gain (or is it spell known?) progression 2da then you should be able to make it so they never get spells.

Grymlorde

DerpCity said:

However, to say questions like this cannot be asked is rather silly, especially in the context. Roarthing had already said that he figured out his issue with getting rangers to not cast spells in that it was a minor error on his part. dTd was making a small joke, and Tarot just wanted to know the reason why he wanted to change them from core rules. While they may have been implying it was wrong, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to ask him why he wants to make the change.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with asking innocent questions. For example "Just out of curiosity, why would you prefer that your rangers not have spells?" The issue that I take is when someone asks a question that comes loaded with judgment, e.g. "what have you got against them" or "it's in the core rules".

Far too often in the D&D and related communities (NWN, Baldur's Gate, IWD, etc.) I see folks rushing to harshly judge house rules and DM's preferences. Judgment and bigotry is what shuts down discussions and discourages newcomers to communities. Not only that, but such imposing of views flies directly in the face of what the rules actually say. (For an example of how a community collapsed into a cesspool of bigotry and hypocrisy, take a look at dragonsfoot.org post-Gygagax.)

So yes, it was inaccurate of me to say "don't ask such questions" when I meant to say "don't ask loaded questions".

Grymlorde

@TarotRedhand - the game calculates CR based on the CR entry in classes.2da, feats, and equipment that is equipped. I don't think it checks for which spells are memorized as spell.2da doesn't have a CR column. So perhaps that is why your test results were what they were. Therefore if eliminating ranger spells significantly weakens the class then the modder should reduce the CR. However, I strongly suspect that anyone who removes spells from the ranger class would grant additional feats or bonus feat slots in exchange, thus restoring the balance as checked by the game engine. Perhaps your question sould have been asking what will rangers get in return for losing their spells?

Grymlorde

@dTd - For what it's worth, my post was not directed at you. Had it been, I would've called you out as I have in this post. My post was directed at everyone which is why nobody was named.

dTd

@Grymlorde cool man, just wanting to clarify, I know sometimes humor is lost without context. No worries

LaputianBird

FreshLemonBun said:

I can't be bothered to check but I remember with NWN2 that some columns were hardcoded, and for both 1 and 2 the rows for spellcasting are hard coded.

Recently I had changed bard spells for something to follow a more ad&d style progression and it worked fine with override, gaining higher level slots at epic levels. So I think if you just changed the values in the ranger's spell gain (or is it spell known?) progression 2da then you should be able to make it so they never get spells.

It is possible to remove the actual spell gain by setting the relevant row/column to **** - however that doesn't prevent the game from triggering all spellcasting-related GUI elements at the (hardcoded) level they are supposed to be needed. For rangers it might not be a big deal as they don't need to select any spells, so the spell selection screen never pops up - for other spellcasters though (arcanists in particular) things work different and make such changes far from elegant.

LaputianBird

pscythe said:

@DerpCity Are you refferring to the EffCRLvl columns in classes.2da? Think only the OC uses that.

Those parameters, along with the multiclass penalties, are used every time the XP is given by the built-in XP system (which can be tweaked globally by setting the XP scale in the module settings, beside said 2da-based parameters).
It isn't used by custom XP systems that don't rely on the engine calculations