Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

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

Spell Revisions beta15

124»

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Grammarsalad
  • XlatocXlatoc Member Posts: 59
    Aasim wrote: »
    Xlatoc wrote: »
    Where can you find the latest Spell Revision for EE ?
    On Gibberling, the only one I found is a BG2.
    I found somewhere a mod called SR_Revised....would it be that one ?

    Thanks....sorry for the inconvenience.

    You can find it on my desktop. :)
    It's generally the best idea to get it from Github. Link.

    Thanks !
    Not always easy to find the latest...spelling must be super precise :)

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,557
    edited June 2019
    Okay, here are the two proposals so far:
    Aasim wrote: »
    I want to implement some stat bonuses for save vs x spells/breath/death. How much bonus should be allowed?
    example; for save vs spells (usually Enchantments)

    WIS stat BONUS
    1-3 autofail?
    4-5 -3
    6-7 -2
    8-9 -1
    10-11 0
    11-12 1
    13-14 2
    14-15 3
    16-17 4
    18-19 5
    20-21 6

    etc.
    Reasonable?
    I can make regular saving throw tables "worse" so this ends up being quite balanced but what I'm worried about is that this will promote powergaming and all PCs would end up with 95+ stats.
    Note that AI will use same rules, i.e. a high WIS fighter would be much harder to Charm than a low WIS one.
    Grond0 wrote: »
    @Aasim the bonuses for wisdom from 2nd edition rules are in the BG2 manual (though were not implemented in the final game) and you could consider using those as a base.
    3 -3
    4 -2
    5-7 -1
    8-14 0
    15 +1
    16 +2
    17 +3
    18-25 +4

    I agree that might result in powergamers seeking ever higher stat totals. However, it would also greatly reduce the tendency to regard wisdom as a dump stat - which would be a good thing.

    @Grond0 s proposal, perhaps slightly modified, is a bit more workable, though both are doable. This is what I have come up with (just need to tidy up a bit).

    Each affected spell will cast as normal against creatures with no modifier. Against creatures with exceptional (i.e. high or low) attributes, the spell will cast a more or less powerful version of itself*, and the creature will be unaffected by other affects. That is, first effects will be 326s that cast spells based on the attribute score of the target iff the target has an exceptional relevant attribute. Next will be 318s that make those exceptional creatures immune to the base spell (i.e. the next, original spell effects). Finally, the spell will work as normal (i.e. only affecting creatures with the average +0 range attribute).

    Now, even with grond0s version, this involves creating 7 secondary spells for each affected spell. But, will the more 3e version, this number jumps up to...looks like 12 secondary spells. What about something like this:


    <6: -2 or auto fail
    6-8: -1
    9-14: 0
    15: +1
    16: +2
    17: +3
    18-19: +4
    20+: +5

    This keeps the number of secondary spells at 7, discourage dumping the relevant stats below 6 (maybe only auto fail for wis as that's the primary concern) and gives some reason for even non priests to think about getting a higher than average wis.

    *Happily, this will mean that the save modifiers will just be modified. That is, a spell that already imposes a -6 to save will still do that. The modifier would just also be adjusted by the relevant attribute of the target

    Post edited by Grammarsalad on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • ArthasArthas Member Posts: 1,091
    Woah. Reading that spell duration is too long is a first. I actually wanted to ask around a spell mod to make buff and debuff spells to last 3x, 4x the amount they last now. It's really obnoxious when you cast chant, then 3-4 spells more and you are then without chant and so on. Or was it bless? Well you got it.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591

    Is this for the official IR/SR? Are you still trying to code for both EE and non-EE? Because in the EE balancing the actual Haste effect with +movement effects and +APR effects sould be as simple as
    - add a spellstate for the +move/+APR items and spells
    - add couple 318 effects on each item and spell, filtering by STATE_HASTED and SPELLSTATE_IR_SR_HASTE
    - Bob's your uncle

    "Actual" Haste effect doesn't exist in Revisions currently. I'm restoring it for fair play and my mental health sake. Everything is handled via extra apr/movement bonus currently.
    Thing is, Haste opcode is still in the game and is used by enemies. This puts things to be fair and on even ground.

    BUT - 5 pairs of boots of speed with Haste is crazy. I would mod some of them to be something different. Also, Imp. Haste doubling attacks carries the old problem of, it's amazing for fighters but terrible for nonwarriors.

    Lol. The difference is usually 0.5 apr. Only case you'll get a full extra apr is if your number of attacks is 1, 2, 3 or 4.
    It doesn't double your apr; in most cases it will add 1/2 to your apr, rounding it up.
    Modding these I suggested almost 10 years ago (to Boots of Reflex +1 dex, +2 breath save) - Demi was very much against it - so....back to BG1 variant, probably the most balanced ever tbh.
    As per "5 pairs is crazy"....eh. You get 5, indeed - 2 in late SoA, 3 in ToB. I doubt this will have a major; if any; effect on gameplay - other than preventing players from running at 4x speed.
    Which no enemy can do! (bar certain Rogue Rebalancing characters who use Oils and Boots with ms bonus)

    If Haste is going to be party-wide, and grant a full +1 APR, then I would make balance it.
    - Very short duration. 1 turn is longer than most combats!

    Haste already is party wide in SR; and it will remain as such. It will work just as vanilla version does, w/o fatigue opcode and will last 1 turn. As per "battles are shorter than that" - I assure you, they're not. Don't judge things by BG1 standards.
    Oil of Speed is 1 turn as well.
    Nerfing it to much hurts the AI probably more, so no can do.
    Imp.Haste is like vanilla, with duration toned down to 5 rounds flat.
    - 2-point to-hit penalty and 1-point AC penalty, for being a surge of speed that's difficult to control.
    - And the penalties should last a couple rounds after the benefits expire, as you adjust to being normal speed again.
    - Maybe even add a base movement penalty (-2) so the resulting total movement speed is not so extreme.

    This is somewhat SRv3 Haste, bar the penalties to THAC0 and AC while you're hasted. Didn't like it, tbh.
    Oil of speed should give these penalties, no? Would you add them to the boots?
    And you've got hasted enemies (via opcode); so why not apply these to them? Take Mellisan as example. She's premanently hasted. If you give this malus to her - she will desperately try to remove it with "Divine Cleansing" ability since her THAC0 will be worse than it should be, and she ckecks for that.
    I hope you see what I mean by "fair play"...
    Sigh. The more I talk about this the more I see that I'm probably going to make my own Haste-centric mod, just like I did for invisibility spells and for simulacrum spells...

    GL. :) Mind you; I'm always curious about people's opinion on Boots of Speed + Haste stacks. I do remember a post from Alesia at Bioware forums - "....they allow a non-mage/scroll user character to solo Ascension".
    I have nothing more to add to this. They r THAT broken. Not even Staff of Magi does that for you.

    My tweak to it does the following:

    1) players can move at non-hasted or hasted rate. You cannot go above hasted anymore, unlike now (be it vanilla or IR/SR install)
    2) equal resources for AI and player. No more double standards where AI gets haste opcode and you get a pale mimickry of it.
    3) you cannot outrun a spell anymore or kite as efficently
    4) while being under permanent haste effect has it's flaws (some spells work better); enemies benefit from this same as you. And it's not that drastic of a buff - most of the fights you'll be under Haste anyway. In ToB, haste is a joke. It will give you 0.5 apr total. So your barbarian will be attacking with 3 apr rather than 5/2....woo-hoo.
    * Frankly most spell durations in the game are way, way too long. I've been experimenting with drastically reducing them, to between 3-4 rounds (Haste, Confusion, Hold, Slow) and 6-7 rounds (Bless, Malison, fog spells). The game actually plays really well this way. If disabling spells hit they still meaningfully turn the tide of battle, but they are not as likely to mean instant death - which means they don't step on the toes of actual instant death spells as much. The main problem I've had is that it's really hard to adjust spell durations in a programmatic way - some subspells and internal game spells get affected that you don't want to be affected. And doing it spell-by-spell would be a minor nightmare.

    I'm more in "buffs should last until dispelled" camp tbh - buffing prior to battle gets tedious work.
    Most of SR debuffs have direct counters, so I'm kinda fine with them. Toning buff duration means less effective AI, and the whole "counter x with y" SR has going would be made redundant. Why waste a round casting Break Enchantment when Confusion will expire in 2 rounds? :)
    Also, it promotes cheesy gameplay where you wait for enemy buffs to expire rather than using your resources to actually play the game in a more sensible manner.
    (fwiw, I don't really care about how someone plays the game - it's just that I have no interest in promoting and catering this kind of gameplay, let alone modding around it to make it more convinient for the player. If I'm annoyed by AI behavior, I'd prefer to CTRL-T/R/Y rather than juking around until buffs expire, or not use AI mods at all.)

    Arthas
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,754
    Aasim wrote: »
    I'm always curious about people's opinion on Boots of Speed + Haste stacks. I do remember a post from Alesia at Bioware forums - "....they allow a non-mage/scroll user character to solo Ascension".
    I have nothing more to add to this. They r THAT broken. Not even Staff of Magi does that for you.

    Personally, I don't see what's wrong with moving at 4x speed. Even at normal speed, it's possible to kite enemies by having enemies chase one character who runs around while the rest of the party shoots at the enemies. The most mundane way to diminish kiting is to give more enemies ways of threatening characters at long range, like ranged weapons.

    Since some people don't like Haste and Boots of Speed stacking and other people are fine with it, it should be an optional component.

    Arthas
  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    OlvynChuru wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see what's wrong with moving at 4x speed.

    I could go on ages about why I think current EE implementation of speed boots is beyond broken; but let's put it this way - BG2 is usually described as a strategy RPG based on 2nd editon ruleset.
    Boot01.itm turns it into a game that I can only describe as a point'n'click arcade adventure.
    While I don't like PoE2 or Neverwinter; there is one thing they did right - turning your back on an oponnent in combat is the last thing you want to do.

    Arthas
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    Though, again, I guess that could be significantly harder on the original engine.

    I can't make things work drastically different for EE users. I can and am willing to make them work better on EE (I've added 2,500 code lines that get parsed only on EEs, and will likely add 2k more) but they're mostly "quality of life" improvements, not fundamental changes to how game plays.

  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,754
    I don't think anyone's in favor of having them stack.

    I am.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    That's why I suggest applying a small movement penalty before the Haste effect. A -2 penalty plus Haste equals a +5 bonus overall (I think - something close to that anyway). Which is reasonable.

    Say hello to Free Action, which makes one immune to movement penalty.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • polymorphedsquirrelpolymorphedsquirrel Member Posts: 114
    Is there a reason why Monster summoning X (spwi906) is commented out in beta16? Because it breaks IWD spells component of SCS for me (SCS sees spell revisions and wants to use 906, which it can't find).

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • polymorphedsquirrelpolymorphedsquirrel Member Posts: 114
    And what will blow up if I simply uncommented that portion of main_component.tpa?
    I am in no rush, as I have a whole BG1 and SoD to play before encountering the spell (I have no idea why SCS needed a Lvl9 spell in BG1, but I am too afraid to ask).

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,557
    edited August 2019
    And what will blow up if I simply uncommented that portion of main_component.tpa?
    I am in no rush, as I have a whole BG1 and SoD to play before encountering the spell (I have no idea why SCS needed a Lvl9 spell in BG1, but I am too afraid to ask).

    Maybe nothing(?) It depends if there are any missing resources.you would find out really quick as the install would choke. In that case, you could just get them from an earlier version. You would just need to put them in the right folder. The error message should tell you which folder that is

    @Aasim

    Just about finished with that code. Everything is automated except any spell that summons a magic weapon. That requires at least one more level of reading and patching. Got a bit burned out with it but I'll finish it soon.

    Edit: I think the last response here is the most recent version:

    https://github.com/Grammarsalad/Casting_Attributes/issues/5

  • DavidWDavidW Member Posts: 817
    I don’t need it really - it’s just less bug-prone if I install the whole system even on BGEE.

  • PandemicLegionPandemicLegion Member Posts: 37
    I got a conflict on my EE Mod Setup Tool.
    SCS Smarter Mages Conflict with Spell Revision v4 pre release. ->Smarter Mages: stratagems (component 6030) is conflicting with spell_rev (component 0) or d0questpack (component 0). <-

  • Cure critical wounds requires clicking on the target's avatar - clicking the target's portrait for some reason doesn't work. I am not 100% sure it's SR - but if memory serves me right SCS won't make its modifications if it sees SR and FnP is unlikely to touch that bit.

  • _Luke__Luke_ Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 1,453
    edited December 2019
    Cure critical wounds requires clicking on the target's avatar - clicking the target's portrait for some reason doesn't work.

    This does sound like a touchscreen issue... Are you perhaps playing on an iPad? For some reason, the game doesn't always register a tap on a side portrait....

  • Yes, iPad, sorry. I did think it's a touch issue (a tap and longer press have different effects by design), so it took me a long time to actually discover this. I am positive the behaviour is different than for lower level healing spells, which always work if I take care with precise presses, while I never were able to do this with Critical Wounds.

    I do understand that iPad touch interface complicates things making debugging very difficult, but maybe there is something dofferent about this spell comparing to those from lower levels?

Sign In or Register to comment.