Hide in shadows is an concept, it can be a blend on shadows, move fast to stay out of an enemy's sight, use the environment to distract... etc... as BG isn't a P&P we need a fix mechanism to simulate the "hide in shadows" concept, that's why infravision doesn't should nulify the "hide in shadows" skill. What thiefs need is an overhaul in "move silently skill, cos that shit does nothing, i made a thief a time ago and let it with 15 move silently (if i'm not mistaken) and 60 in hide in shadows, i succeded most of the times i used the skill.
Hide in shadows is an concept, it can be a blend on shadows, move fast to stay out of an enemy's sight, use the environment to distract... etc... as BG isn't a P&P we need a fix mechanism to simulate the "hide in shadows" concept, that's why infravision doesn't should nulify the "hide in shadows" skill. What thiefs need is an overhaul in "move silently skill, cos that shit does nothing, i made a thief a time ago and let it with 15 move silently (if i'm not mistaken) and 60 in hide in shadows, i succeded most of the times i used the skill.
Still, I think hide in shadows should get a negative bonus against characters with infravision. Like if you try to hide from an elf, you should make your throws as if your skill of hiding in shadows was actually 2/3 of what it really is. Hide in shadows at 50 while hiding from an infravisioning person: make your throws as if it's 34.
It only makes sense if it's harder to hide from an infraseeing elf or mage than a normal human who can be easily fooled by shadows or similar colors of the background and the clothing. This way a hide in shadows skill over 100% would make more sense, this way you'd be able to overcome the negative bonus completely.
@cyberhawk i would only agree with you if the user of the skill doesn't know that his target has infravision. If you try to apporoach someone with infravision with "hide in shadows" and don't know that, there's a chance that you make a wrong move, therefore you should receive some kind of penality to the % that simbolise a chance of a wrong choice of approach.
If you know the target has Infravision (edited), there's no sense on the penality cos the cover for the skill in roleplay terms surely will not be the use of dark places to approach. A good example of a different kind of "hide in shadows" is assassin's creed, when Altair or Elzio blend with the crowd to vanish, infravision would have no effect that way, or when you approach a target from an unprobable point as an higher spot.
Going back to the idea of enforcing blindness on characters in dark areas I think this is possible - if laborious. You would have to create a version of the blindness spell that couldn't be removed ordinarily. You would then give Infravision the ability to remove this special blindness. And make the character immune to it for the duration. Then you'd need to code every cave/dungeon that was dark with a script that automatically 'curses' human characters with this blindness. As for outdoor areas you'd have to script them all to enforce this blindness a night time. And automatically remove it in daytime. But it would have to be random at night time if you wanted to have the idea of some nights having moonlight.
And if all this was possible it would good to actually have 2 versions of this blindness - one that has a larger radius of vision. In the dark the character would be blighted by both. This way you could remove the total blindness if the character had an item equipped - this, of course, would be a torch. The second version - with the larger radius would remain simulating the range of torch light.
Then you'd have to rethink infravision - because, if I remember, infravision is ruined by secondary light sources - like a torch.
Weimer made something much more hard than this, he made a sun check for every area of the game for his Valen mod, as in sun places Valen stats were decreased to 1 of strenght and 8 of dexterity.
So if a modder, that doesn't have the source code at hand (i believe) made alone or with a very small team something that large, if Team BG says that this is too hard to do i will start to doubt Team BG capacity.
If not a main issue, add later by a patch/DLC, but it's something that should be done.
Limit the view distance in the dark so that mages would end up catching themselves on the edge of their fireballs? that'd give them a reason to use infravision spell. Though the THAC0 penalty makes sense as a quick fix across the board.
Wait, is infravision really supposed to be infrared vision?
Yep. In fact, if you read books pertaining to the drow of the Underdark, you'll see that one of their architectural concepts is that of heat-painting (I'm blanking on the term), where you craft a structure or "paint" a picture using nothing but differently-heated materials. The different heat signatures create color for any observer with infravision, which is supposed to be pretty spectacular.
Just tossing in my two cents: The battle against the Shadow Dragon in BG2 would be THIS MUCH more exciting if it also used the mechanics of darkness and infravision. If your party truly couldn't see the dragon unless you had infravision, it would make that spell infinitely more valuable.
The problem with tarrasque is that you can't just kill him as you normally would... if i remember correctly, in order to kill him in AD&D, first you had to leave him with less than -10 hit points, then you had to use a wish to prevent him from ressurecting, since tarrasque has an absurd health regeneration... there could be another things involved, but i don't remember them
but in my opinion, it would be awesome! i just don't know how they could fit him in the game...
-30 and then Wish it permanently dead.
"Slaying of the tarrasque is said to be possible only if the monster is reduced to -30 or fewer hit points and a wish is then used. Otherwise, even the slightest piece of the tarrasque can regenerate and restore the monster completely. Legend says that a great treasure can be extracted from the tarrasque's carapace. The upper portion, treated with acid and then heated in a furnace, is thought to yield gems (10d10 diamonds of 1,000 gp base value each). The underbelly material, mixed with the creature's blood and adamantite, is said to produce a metal that can be forged by master dwarven blacksmiths into 1d4 shields of +5 enchantment. It takes two years to manufacture each shield, and the dwarves aren't likely to do it for free. It is hoped that the tarrasque is a solitary creation, some hideous abomination unleashed by the dark arts or by elder, forgotten gods to punish all of nature. The elemental nature of the tarrasque leads the few living tarrasque experts to speculate that the elemental princes of evil have something to do with its existence. In any case, the location of the tarrasque remains a mystery, as it rarely leaves witnesses in its wake, and nature quickly grows over all remnants of its presence. It is rumored that the tarrasque is responsible for the extinction of one ancient civilization, for the records of their last days spoke of a "great reptilian punisher sent by the gods to end the world." "
Speaking of the Dark, then you'd also have to add torches, lanterns and the Light and Continual Light spells into the game to allow non-Infravisioned characters to see in places like the Nashkel Mines and underground. You'd also be allowed to see hot spots, and possibly even monsters from a greater distance than mere sight alone, although if you have infravision, you could be fooled by the aforementioned hotspots. I think infravision is supposed to work like an Infrared/Thermographic camera- the hotter something is, the more it "pops out" from the cool background.
@cyberhawk i would only agree with you if the user of the skill doesn't know that his target has infravision. If you try to apporoach someone with infravision with "hide in shadows" and don't know that, there's a chance that you make a wrong move, therefore you should receive some kind of penality to the % that simbolise a chance of a wrong choice of approach.
If you know the target has Infravision (edited), there's no sense on the penality cos the cover for the skill in roleplay terms surely will not be the use of dark places to approach. A good example of a different kind of "hide in shadows" is assassin's creed, when Altair or Elzio blend with the crowd to vanish, infravision would have no effect that way, or when you approach a target from an unprobable point as an higher spot.
We can discuss all the possibilities of how the "hiding in shadows" skill would be used in real life situations, but my point is someone who has infravision is more likely to spot anyone who is trying to hide from him. Not in some single fabricated situation, but overall. Like if we consider 100 attemtps at hiding in shadows by the same thief and one time a person with infravision tries to find him and another time a person without infravision gives it a try, the "infravisioning" person will spot the thief more often than the person who just relies on humanly visible light.
Well, so now i just think you're just wrong, sorry for this. Infravision isn't a radar that perceive anything inside a radius. Besides it's not a real life analogy that i used, what i told is perfect aplicable in P&P games, but as BG is a plataform game and use set mechanics to simulate the RPG skills, the best choice was done in the possibilities of infinite engine.
Infravision doesn't work in normal light anyhow. So it would mostly be useful underground, if your party all had infravision/rings of such, but not inside or in a lighted area (as inside areas are usually well-lit anyhow). Torches and lanterns spoil infravision in Pen and Paper games.
The only race that could have a substancial bonus in fact are drows, as they have a true heat vision, or something like this, well as i can't point a trustworth source for this fact... @LadyRhian, can you confirm this info?
@Kamuizin Out of "Drow of the Underdark", the sourcebook FOR2, we get +1 to dexterity, plus +1-2 intelligence (as decided by the DM), +2 to initiative (as they are always suspecting an attack, given the nature of Drow society). But no powers, as time on the surface tends to make them fade away. I have to look further...
@Kamuizin They also know a special variety of Common, "Undercommon", spoken by the races of the Underdark, and they have a special language of hand-signals that they must learn from other Drow. I suspect a surface-raised Drow would enjoy neither adventage. Drow enjoy 90' of Infravision compare to the 60' of most elves. The Complete Book of Elves adds the following: +2 to Dexterity, +1 to Intelligence, -2 to Charisma,-1 to Constitution. The other advantages and disadvantages wouldn't apply on the surface. Though they do share the 90% resistance to sleep and charm spells like other elves.
Guys, infravision as an effect is very useful in BG1. People at night are hard to see. Im not talking about enemies. But NPCs, questsgivers and alike. Its easy to miss a quest without Infravision. The problem is the menu setting giving permanent infravision to the whole party if there is even one elf in it, or someone with infravision helmet..
Less of a problem in bg2 because there is less outdoor night content, its more of a corridors game, where BG is very open.
What if you just reduced the line of sight at night for any character without infravision? That would make it a lot easier to see the change between characters.
@RomulanPaladin the enhanced edition uses a modified version of the ToB engine, which had the Tab capability. So I think you're safe there.
Actually, now that I think of it, I do believe that only living creatures glow red with infravision; undead creatures and constructs remain "unilluminated", which in theory would make them harder to see.
@Aosaw, someone suggested in a comment somewhere that tab highlight wasn't going to be included! Of course, the grammar used in that comment could have easily caused me to read it wrong...
I take back what I said about the grammar. Must have been another post. Either that or I delirious and unwilling to believe what I was reading on some level.
I take back what I said about the grammar. Must have been another post. Either that or I delirious and unwilling to believe what I was reading on some level.
not sure what you read there, but I DO want the tab search to be included. seems my posts get misinterpreted a lot on this forum for some reason
TAB highlight will be included, Trent has mentioned this several times.
As far as Infravsion goes, unless there is an alternative means to provide non-infravision races with a means to see in the dark (light spell, equipable torches etc) then it should be left alone.
Comments
(Too much?)
Oh no, fat villagers approaching. Go for my eyes Boo, go for the eyes!
It only makes sense if it's harder to hide from an infraseeing elf or mage than a normal human who can be easily fooled by shadows or similar colors of the background and the clothing. This way a hide in shadows skill over 100% would make more sense, this way you'd be able to overcome the negative bonus completely.
If you know the target has Infravision (edited), there's no sense on the penality cos the cover for the skill in roleplay terms surely will not be the use of dark places to approach. A good example of a different kind of "hide in shadows" is assassin's creed, when Altair or Elzio blend with the crowd to vanish, infravision would have no effect that way, or when you approach a target from an unprobable point as an higher spot.
You would have to create a version of the blindness spell that couldn't be removed ordinarily.
You would then give Infravision the ability to remove this special blindness. And make the character immune to it for the duration.
Then you'd need to code every cave/dungeon that was dark with a script that automatically 'curses' human characters with this blindness.
As for outdoor areas you'd have to script them all to enforce this blindness a night time. And automatically remove it in daytime. But it would have to be random at night time if you wanted to have the idea of some nights having moonlight.
And if all this was possible it would good to actually have 2 versions of this blindness - one that has a larger radius of vision. In the dark the character would be blighted by both. This way you could remove the total blindness if the character had an item equipped - this, of course, would be a torch. The second version - with the larger radius would remain simulating the range of torch light.
Then you'd have to rethink infravision - because, if I remember, infravision is ruined by secondary light sources - like a torch.
So if a modder, that doesn't have the source code at hand (i believe) made alone or with a very small team something that large, if Team BG says that this is too hard to do i will start to doubt Team BG capacity.
If not a main issue, add later by a patch/DLC, but it's something that should be done.
Just tossing in my two cents: The battle against the Shadow Dragon in BG2 would be THIS MUCH more exciting if it also used the mechanics of darkness and infravision. If your party truly couldn't see the dragon unless you had infravision, it would make that spell infinitely more valuable.
"Slaying of the tarrasque is said to be possible only if the monster is reduced to -30 or fewer hit points and a wish is then used. Otherwise, even the slightest piece of the tarrasque can regenerate and restore the monster completely. Legend says that a great treasure can be extracted from the tarrasque's carapace. The upper portion, treated with acid and then heated in a furnace, is thought to yield gems (10d10 diamonds of 1,000 gp base value each). The underbelly material, mixed with the creature's blood and adamantite, is said to produce a metal that can be forged by master dwarven blacksmiths into 1d4 shields of +5 enchantment. It takes two years to manufacture each shield, and the dwarves aren't likely to do it for free.
It is hoped that the tarrasque is a solitary creation, some hideous abomination unleashed by the dark arts or by elder, forgotten gods to punish all of nature. The elemental nature of the tarrasque leads the few living tarrasque experts to speculate that the elemental princes of evil have something to do with its existence. In any case, the location of the tarrasque remains a mystery, as it rarely leaves witnesses in its wake, and nature quickly grows over all remnants of its presence. It is rumored that the tarrasque is responsible for the extinction of one ancient civilization, for the records of their last days spoke of a "great reptilian punisher sent by the gods to end the world." "
Less of a problem in bg2 because there is less outdoor night content, its more of a corridors game, where BG is very open.
What if you just reduced the line of sight at night for any character without infravision? That would make it a lot easier to see the change between characters.
...so we should be able to see different materials...
...so character's with infravision should be able to TAB HIGHLIGHT! I want my BG2 tab highlight ability!
Actually, now that I think of it, I do believe that only living creatures glow red with infravision; undead creatures and constructs remain "unilluminated", which in theory would make them harder to see.
Interesting.
@LMTR14 is the culprit!
I take back what I said about the grammar. Must have been another post. Either that or I delirious and unwilling to believe what I was reading on some level.
As far as Infravsion goes, unless there is an alternative means to provide non-infravision races with a means to see in the dark (light spell, equipable torches etc) then it should be left alone.