Skip to content

Viconia armor problem

2»

Comments

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    No doubt giving yourself such a handicap can make for an interesting run. Personally I’ve never gone below 7 in strength, but lower on other scores. For most characters I’d say anything below 10 starts making things interesting in one dimension or another.
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,570
    edited September 10
    atcDave wrote: »
    @lroumen 18/01 is a one bracket increase over 18. 18/51 would be the next bracket. And that is exactly how I play it, each +1 to 18 is a one bracket increase not a whole point. It’s fine with me if the player ends up with a cleric or thief with an exceptional strength.
    ah sorry, you are right. I thought it was 26/51/76/00 but it is 51/76/91/00.

    Do you play brackets for all classes? Because in BG a straight 18 does not exist for warriors and they default to at least 18/01 at character creation, while non-warriors skip all the brackets and only use the straight 18 and 19 values.

    Actually no idea what happens when you boost a warrior from 17 upwards. Provably it does go to a straight 18 or does it go to a hidden /xx roll?

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    @lroumen actually both do exist. I recently ran a single class fighter in IWD with an 18, non-exceptional strength. I believe in the rule is, an 18 gained *after* the initial roll does not get the exceptional roll. So if your warrior has a 17 strength and uses the Tome, they get a straight 18. I use a similar rule in PnP, and was recreating such a character for IWD, so I had to use EEKeeper.
    Similarly there is no reason a non-warrior character can’t have an exceptional strength, there is just no way of naturally getting there in an IE game (except certain temporary buffing spells). The game will always treat an 18 getting a +1 as a 19. Not unreasonable I suppose! But what a huge step! As gamers we all know there’s actually several steps in between. I imagine this was a matter of conserving resources in the original coding of the game?
    It’s just one of those things much easier to manage in a PnP game.
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,570
    I guess you are correct. DnD is what you make of it : )
  • LammasLammas Member Posts: 236
    I didn't read all of this since there's a LOT here but generally if I pick Viconia, she's getting the mace that boosts STR to 18 immediately. That allows her to carry stuff and equip armor without too much micromanagement. Swapping to a sling will get her stuck in place until I swap back to the mace but the armor that is already equipped stays on so it's not so bad. She is often also the recipient of the 19 STR belt just to take even that away.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    > Hexxat gets my vote for most obnoxious of the new characters, <
    Heresy! Best true thief in the game. Imoen and Nalia are mages who slummed a bit in their youth, and grabbed some thief skills; they will never, ever be able to do stuff like set traps. Your only real alternatives are to recruit Jan Jannsen, or play a thief variant yourself. Also, Hexxat's Vampire abilities far outweigh Jan's cyber-punk techno gear, while her coffin doubles as a Bag of Holding.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    Well, I’m not much interested in thieves, or vampires, or anything evil. So Hexxat does nothing for me.

    But more to the point here, she takes over the game for several seconds and you have to click through a number of interactions all to say “go away”. Neera and Rasaad do the same thing, very annoying. I have them all set to leave me alone now, through a mod. But they are a bit intrusive and obnoxious.
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    The big issue I have with Hexxat is that recruiting her means playing a protagonist who stands by while a vampire murders one of their own party members—and then immediately invites that vampire to join.

    Even with evil parties, I usually imagine there’s at least some level of trust. If the leader shows they’ll casually abandon someone, what does that do to party cohesion?

    You may argue that Hexxat (Clara) is just a temporary companion who doesn’t yet have the group’s full support. Fair enough—but even then, why leave her to her fate without so much as testing the attacker’s strength? And if you are too afraid to fight, why not retreat while the vampire is occupied?
    If the real concern is dodging her fee, there are cleaner ways to handle it: kill her when she’s served her purpose, on your own terms.
    Letting her get eaten on the spot feels sloppy.
    ---
    That said, my last protagonist actually was the sort of person who’d go along with it. A chaotic neutral nutcase, she had the awkward habit of obeying the requests of any pretty girl—carefully steering clear of paladin lasses, since binding herself to one would sooner or later drive her mad.

    Caelar Argent was a wake-up call; she grew more wary, a little disillusioned with “pretty girls.”
    When she met Clara in the Copper Coronet and heard her request, she knew the girl was running headlong toward her own death. But this time she felt callous about it. Why not grant the request literally—help Clara find the misfortune she was so determined to meet?
  • TrouveurTrouveur Member Posts: 993
    The big issue I have with Hexxat is that recruiting her means playing a protagonist who stands by while a vampire murders one of their own party members—and then immediately invites that vampire to join.
    Meanwhile BG1 Edwin asks to murder someone without giving reasons or offering a tangible reason to do so, and the only way to recruit him is to agree to do it without knowing reward or motivation.
    Hexxat at least express regret AND tell why she needs to do it.
    So sorry to say that, but anyone having no problem recruiting Edwin in BG1 but being picky about Hexxat is an hypocrite. Edwin BG2 also asks to kill two guy before joining.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    No doubt, they are both plainly and utterly evil.
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    edited September 11
    @Trouveur I am not sure you followed my reasoning at all. I never implied that evil protagonists should not murder people, or not take murder lightly. (in fact, I suggested murdering Clara)
    I was talking about being able to trust the people whom you have to trust.

    If it were only possible to recruit Edwin if you already had Dynaheir in your party, and only by instantly agreeing to his request to murder her, then you would have a point. But that is not the case. You pick up Edwin in Nashkel, and then you go and murder a stranger.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    edited September 11
    >The big issue I have with Hexxat is that recruiting her means playing a protagonist who stands by while a vampire murders one of their own party members—and then immediately invites that vampire to join.<
    I'm sorry ... are we playing a different game, or what? This is hardly my interpretation of events. Clara is not a member of the party by any leans; she is an innocent civilian, a sacrificial lamb, whose death is needed for Hexxat herself to progress. Any evil comrades would appreciate the necessity. If anything, they would applaud Hexxat for her ruthless pragmatism.
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    FredN wrote: »
    she is an innocent civilian, a sacrificial lamb, whose death is needed for Hexxat herself to progress.
    When did your party decide that? When did they learn that Clara is just the key to unlock Hexxat? This sounds like retroactive reasoning to me.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    edited September 11
    It's been a while since I have done this quest, but when Hexxat sheds the dead husk that was Clara, she goes by herself through some sort of barrier, if I recall. Plenty of time for me to reassure the rest of the crew that all is well.
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    Clara drops the barrier so the party can follow her. And if the rest of the dungeon has taught anything, it’s that a trap-scouting thief shouldn’t be wandering alone—an anti-undead escort makes sense, so there’s no reason Clara would be left unaccompanied.

    In practice, the cutscene only triggers if the protagonist is in view of the coffin. When it plays, the script pulls the whole party in front of Hexxat’s coffin so everyone can “witness” Clara’s death. If companions are too far away, they may not make it in time, but the scripting still assumes their presence—turning their sprites to face the scene as if they were watching.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    edited September 11
    Umm, and your point is? Are people like Korgan, Viconia, Dorn and Edwin ... my usual all evil crew ... going to be particularly upset about Clara's death? Or maybe yours truly, spawn of the God of Murder, might have some qualms?
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    edited September 11
    My point is that if party members can’t trust each other to cover their backs, they’ll start acting as if they’re on their own.

    Korgan, instead of charging the enemy wizard and trusting Edwin to strip defenses, might hang back where it’s safer.
    Edwin, instead of casting Breach and relying on Viconia’s True Seeing (or the protagonist’s Detect Illusions), might waste a round on Stoneskin just in case.

    And so on, until the whole party falls apart. Korgan might shrug at everyone fending for themselves, but Edwin’s smart enough to see that reliable allies make him far more effective.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    I have the feeling that at this point, you are being picky just for the sake of contentiousness. However, I shall attempt to deal with it. Logically, Hexxat, Clara's puppet master, would have let me ... the leader of the party who recruited her ... know what was going on. I can then reassure everyone else that we are gaining a strong ally, at the super cheap cost of an innocent life.
  • Humanoid_TaifunHumanoid_Taifun Member Posts: 1,111
    edited September 11
    You are just making that up. Not only is there no hint that she informed you of what was going on before she kills Clara, the dialogue strongly implies that you did not in fact have any idea what would happen.
    This discussion is meaningless. You keep inventing facts (like the barrier before, or this supposed communication with Hexxat), and you ask me to restate points.
    If this is what this discussion is going to be from here on, I guess I'll bow out now.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    I just want to put it out there, @FredN your defense/explanation of all this is *exactly* what many of us find so utterly repulsive about all things evil (“the super cheap cost of an innocent life*). Even *if* you are completely joking, this also what so much of mainstream culture finds creepy and a little terrifying about D&D and RPGs in general.
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 4,161
    A bit of headcanon that makes Hexxat a bit easier to tolerate in parties that aren't full evil:

    First, the fake "Hexxat" is clearly under some sort of mental influence. Extremely strong compulsions, to the point that she effectively doesn't have free will. But the party doesn't know where that's leading, so they go along with her and try to get to the destination where those compulsions might end, and restore the person under all that.
    But of course, she doesn't go free.

    Now, what if that mind control was truly irreversible? That, without her quest, "Hexxat" would effectively shut down? Then killing her becomes something of a mercy; instead of wasting away in that abandoned tomb, Clara gets a quick end. She was doomed before you ever met her, and that's all that can be done.

    The other point: who put that compulsion on Clara? Obviously, it's a classic vampire ability ... but if Clara was compelled to retrieve Hexxat, then Hexxat wasn't in a position to do the compelling because she was locked away in that tomb. More likely, it's someone else in service of "L". An act of obvious and terrible evil, but we only see the victim, never the perpetrator.
    (Mechanically speaking, Hexxat also doesn't have her "Domination" ability yet. But I don't see that as a relevant argument anyway, because that's a quick effect that can be used in combat but only lasts a few rounds. Completely unlike the sort of comprehensive and lasting control you see with "Hexxat" - it's not the same ability in any meaningful sense.)

    It all fits with the tragic feel of the character. Hexxat is evil, yes. She's also a monster, and not by her own choice. It's the ramifications of that monstrous nature that dominate her quest, not the banal evil of a normal thief that defines her alignment.
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    edited September 12
    >If this is what this discussion is going to be from here on, I guess I'll bow out now.<
    .....Thank the gods! Your bullcrap argument is just ridiculous; if you don't like Hexxat as an NPC just say so. According to you, no party can ever recruit Hexxat, since they wouldn't trust her. You do realize that this principle can be applied to ANY evil character? Can Dorn be trusted? What if his Patron decided he wanted Dorn to prove his loyalty by killing his companions? Can Edwin or Korgan be trusted not to betray their comrades, if a chance arises for them to make a profit? According to your logic, no evil party should ever be workable.
    .....In actuality, evil parties can function becuase of the profit motive, like an organized crime family. They can make a bigger profit cooperating with each other than they can operating alone. The motivation to grab a one-time bonus via backstabbing the others would be rejected, by any reasonably intelligent member at least, in favor of greater long-term benefits.
  • YigorYigor Member Posts: 938
    edited September 12
    Theoretically speaking, lawful evil characters can be trusted to a great extent. 😎
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,066
    Yigor wrote: »
    Theoretically speaking, lawful evil characters can be trusted to a great extent. 😎

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    WHEREAS, the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the "Assuror") seeks to establish and affirm a covenant of trust with the recipient of this correspondence (hereinafter referred to as the "Recipient"); and

    WHEREAS, the Assuror acknowledges the paramount importance of fostering an unassailable bond of confidence and reliability in all interactions, transactions, or engagements that may transpire between the Assuror and the Recipient; and

    WHEREAS, it is the express intent of the Assuror to convey, in a manner both unequivocal and resolute, the Assuror’s steadfast commitment to upholding the principles of integrity, veracity, and dependability in all matters pertaining to the relationship with the Recipient;

    NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that the Assuror does hereby solemnly declare, aver, and warrant as follows:


    The Assuror is duly committed to the faithful execution of all duties, obligations, or responsibilities that may be reasonably expected or required in the course of any mutual dealings with the Recipient.


    The Assuror shall, to the fullest extent practicable, act in good faith and with utmost diligence to preserve and protect the confidence reposed in the Assuror by the Recipient.


    The Assuror further represents and covenants that all actions, representations, or undertakings made by the Assuror shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the highest standards of trustworthiness and ethical conduct.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assuror hereby affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing declarations are true and correct to the best of the Assuror’s knowledge and belief, and the Assuror does hereby extend this assurance of trustworthiness to the Recipient, to be relied upon in all present and future interactions, absent any express revocation of this covenant in writing.

    Yours faithfully,

    Lawful Evil Party Member
  • FredNFredN Member Posts: 716
    edited September 12
    The Assurer also hereby affrms that, as a Lawful Evil being, they would never, ever tell a lie.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,066
    I do solemnly swear never to tell a lie to your face...

    ...which is why I turn away from you when I am speaking with you.
  • YigorYigor Member Posts: 938
    edited September 12
    Yigor wrote: »
    Theoretically speaking, lawful evil characters can be trusted to a great extent. 😎

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    WHEREAS, the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the "Assuror") seeks to establish and affirm a covenant of trust with the recipient of this correspondence (hereinafter referred to as the "Recipient"); and

    ...

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assuror hereby affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing declarations are true and correct to the best of the Assuror’s knowledge and belief, and the Assuror does hereby extend this assurance of trustworthiness to the Recipient, to be relied upon in all present and future interactions, absent any express revocation of this covenant in writing.

    Yours faithfully,

    Lawful Evil Party Member

    Hmm... it's kinda "British humour". I guess that I should laugh! 😹
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,570
    Lawful just means that the character has a very strong moral code. But whether that is related to world law, integrity or whatever, that you do not know.

    I prefer Awful Evil.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,662
    I always interpreted alignment as a tendency anyways, not necessarily a totally fixed philosophy where every action is predetermined. I mean, you can convince Keldorn to do some not-necessarily "lawful good" stuff to solve his sub-quest. The game almost encourages you do it in a " good" playthrough. So, I've never felt that the alignments had to be considered so strictly.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,749
    @DinoDin yeah I’ll mostly agree. I think especially for a character who is neither a cleric nor a holy warrior, alignment may functionally just reflect personality/character/tendencies. I think though a cleric or holy warrior (paladin) is more wholly devoted to their faith and ethos. Presumably their ability to wield divine magic and powers is a reflection of them being in good standing with their deity. Certainly in a PnP game, straying from one’s deity would result in some sort of loss of divine magic (it may come in stages based on how serious the transgression?). In IE we just have the single stage of “fallen”, and ironically it doesn’t apply to clerics. That’s purely an engine limitation, clearly a total fail from a role playing perspective (but hey, when this game came out it was pretty amazing to have any role playing impact of behavior!)
    Specifically with Keldorn I’d call it a complete non-event. Partly because we don’t actually know Torm’s position on such things. But any kind of holy warrior or clergy would pretty much not give a toot what the “laws of man” say on any such thing. It’s about the dictates of their faith. And as such, I would always interpret a lawful-GOOD faith as including mechanisms for reconciliation/atonement/repentance or something along those lines.
    If a local government has laws at odds with any particular faith it may result in faith being unable to function *publicly* in that location. Like when the Romans outlawed Druidism because it involved human sacrifice, it simply drove that faith underground. I’ve played a lot of excellently designed PnP games involving such underground faiths, and it can make a great story whether they are the good guys or bad guys of the story.
Sign In or Register to comment.