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!

Get rid of spell writing failure.

24

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,867
    It's in the 2da but it's not enforced.

  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,867
    @Wanderon They already did that, it's called normal and easy difficulty. No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding you play on core or hard, or insane. If you don't like the added challenge, play on a lower difficultly...it's kind of the point.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285
    edited January 2013
    True, but it doesn't seem to function. I've just created mage character with INT 15 and she was able to cast level 9 spells no problem.

    Though unless your DM is a huge dick

    You just made my day! LOL!

    T2av
  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418

    @Wanderon They already did that, it's called normal and easy difficulty. No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding you play on core or hard, or insane. If you don't like the added challenge, play on a lower difficultly...it's kind of the point.

    They already did what? I have not asked for anything to be done about anything in this thread - I have made two posts-

    1) I commented on what happened when my 19 int mage failed the very first level 1 spell he tried to scribe and what I decided to do about it.

    2) I commented on what my opinion was about comparing BG:EE and PnP head to head both generally and in this particular thread.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited January 2013
    TJ_Hooker said:

    Originally in PnP Int affected the max spell level you could learn, I bet people would care about Int then, LOL!

    It works this way in the game as well, but as above, you can get around it with potion of Genius.
    I'm almost positive that this wasn't implemented in any of the Infinity Engine game, except IWD2.
    I can say with absolute fact that your INT controls the number of spells in your spell book. And that Quaffing a potion of Genius Does in fact remove that cap. Almost every play through of the BG series, my Charname is a Wizard. And just the other day, I tried to copy a 1st level spell (I want to say it was Grease) and was told that the max number of spells were in my spell book. I quaffed the potion and the tried again. The spell copied into my spell book.

    Now, this is in BG1 - Classic using Tutu. I can't say for BG:EE if it got fixed or not.


    Max spell level you can learn is *not* currently limited by Intelligence in BGEE (nor was it ever in BF1/BG2), Intelligence currently only affects chance to successfully scribe a spell from a scroll to your spell book, the max number of spells per level that you can have in your spellbook, and provides a bonus/malus to Lore. Also a character needs a minimum Int of 9 to be able to cast from a scroll (including non-mages using protection scrolls).

    I guess there was some confusion. I was always talking about max number of spells you can memorize within a given level is limited by intelligence. Not Max spell level you can memorize based on INT. So one of us got confused.

  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418

    I guess there was some confusion. I was always talking about max number of spells you can memorize within a given level is limited by intelligence. Not Max spell level you can memorize based on INT. So one of us got confused.

    Forgot to use potion of genius before posting or reading maybe? ;-)

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438

    TJ_Hooker said:

    Originally in PnP Int affected the max spell level you could learn, I bet people would care about Int then, LOL!

    It works this way in the game as well, but as above, you can get around it with potion of Genius.
    I'm almost positive that this wasn't implemented in any of the Infinity Engine game, except IWD2.
    I can say with absolute fact that your INT controls the number of spells in your spell book. And that Quaffing a potion of Genius Does in fact remove that cap. Almost every play through of the BG series, my Charname is a Wizard. And just the other day, I tried to copy a 1st level spell (I want to say it was Grease) and was told that the max number of spells were in my spell book. I quaffed the potion and the tried again. The spell copied into my spell book.

    Now, this is in BG1 - Classic using Tutu. I can't say for BG:EE if it got fixed or not.


    Max spell level you can learn is *not* currently limited by Intelligence in BGEE (nor was it ever in BF1/BG2), Intelligence currently only affects chance to successfully scribe a spell from a scroll to your spell book, the max number of spells per level that you can have in your spellbook, and provides a bonus/malus to Lore. Also a character needs a minimum Int of 9 to be able to cast from a scroll (including non-mages using protection scrolls).

    I guess there was some confusion. I was always talking about max number of spells you can memorize within a given level is limited by intelligence. Not Max spell level you can memorize based on INT. So one of us got confused.
    Ok yeah just a misunderstanding. Intelligence definately determines how many spells you can have in your spellbook at for each spell level. I thought you meant that intelligence determined the highest spell level you can cast (like needing 19 INT to cast level 9 spells).

  • DebaserDebaser Member Posts: 669
    To be honest you can just lower the difficulty when you want to scribe spells...or buy a potion of genius.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    TJ_Hooker said:

    I thought you meant that intelligence determined the highest spell level you can cast (like needing 19 INT to cast level 9 spells).

    Which I would be ALL in favor of being implemented. I guess I always thought it was implemented, but you are saying it isn't. I guess I never encounter this for the simple reason that I make sure that I start out with a High INT (and usually low STR and CON) stats and then I get the Tome that increases intelligence in BG1. Then I make sure that I hit up Lum The Mad's machine in BG2 for the INT increase bringing it up to the 19/20 range before I reach 18th level.

    But then in the original 2nd edition, there were actually level caps for certain races in some classes. And druids were capped at 17 (I think), and you had to actually defeat the one and only other Druid of the appropriate level before you could advance to that level, starting at (I think) 14??? These mechanics were removed, so it makes sense that the INT max controlling advancement was also seen as not user friendly.

  • ZarakinthishZarakinthish Member Posts: 214
    Yes, there were racial level limits. The only race that could gain unlimited levels in any class was humans, and half-elf characters could only gain unlimited levels in bard. There were two optional elements that could be applied. One is having the level limit able to be modified by prime requisite (with the lowest one applied to multiclass characters). The second was to make level advancement cost lots more once you passed the level limit (i.e. up to four times more experience). For example, it says that an elf can only reach level 12 in fighter. With the prime requisite rule, an elf fighter with 17 strength could reach level 14. With the slowed advancement rule, instead of reaching level 15 at 1,750,000 XP, you might have to wait until you reach 2,500,000 XP (one million XP to advance instead of 250,000).

    SCARY_WIZARD
  • Oxford_GuyOxford_Guy Member Posts: 3,729


    But then in the original 2nd edition, there were actually level caps for certain races in some classes. And druids were capped at 17 (I think), and you had to actually defeat the one and only other Druid of the appropriate level before you could advance to that level, starting at (I think) 14??? These mechanics were removed, so it makes sense that the INT max controlling advancement was also seen as not user friendly.

    Well, there is still a huge jump in XP required for Druids to advance from Level 14 (1,500,000 XP) to Level 15 (3,000, 000 XP)!, whereas a Cleric requires 1,350,000 XP for Level 14, but only 1,575,000 for Level 15. In fact at 3 million XP a Cleric would be Level 21! So there is still a sort of cap for Druids at Level 14.

  • JTMJTM Member Posts: 70
    Please, this should be left alone.

    The reasons have already been given by others here. Just simply alter your game difficulty or quaff the appropriate potion on higher difficulties to work around the issue if you deem it necessary...

    The separate issue brought up about max spell casting level based upon intelligence would be very nice to implement. I usually play BG with the exp cap removed (through mods) and would appreciate this rule put back in ( I think vanilla BG2 implemented it?).

    RhymeatcDaveOxford_Guy
  • RhymeRhyme Member Posts: 190
    Yeah, there's absolutely 0 reason why scribing failure should be removed from the game when the desired result of the OP is easily achievable already. Scribing a scroll? Just shift the difficulty bar temporarily (or use quick-save/quick-load... It's not like it takes any significant time to do so). Don't screw with other people's games just to save yourself the tiniest amount of inconvenience.

    That said, I'd be okay with a togglable (which is an awesomely fun word to say out loud) option for spells, the way I hear there is for HP (I actually haven't looked. I just assumed I was on a difficulty setting that granted full HP/level). I think that might be a better way to handle the difficulty settings in general. Call it "House Rules", have a list of the variable options in the game (the stuff that changes when you move the difficulty slider), and let people pick and choose their preferences. You could still include the existing difficulty buttons, which would just automatically toggle the options accordingly.

    DebaseratcDavethe_spyder
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    Yes, there were racial level limits. The only race that could gain unlimited levels in any class was humans, and half-elf characters could only gain unlimited levels in bard. There were two optional elements that could be applied. One is having the level limit able to be modified by prime requisite (with the lowest one applied to multiclass characters). The second was to make level advancement cost lots more once you passed the level limit (i.e. up to four times more experience). For example, it says that an elf can only reach level 12 in fighter. With the prime requisite rule, an elf fighter with 17 strength could reach level 14. With the slowed advancement rule, instead of reaching level 15 at 1,750,000 XP, you might have to wait until you reach 2,500,000 XP (one million XP to advance instead of 250,000).

    You could advance unlimited as a thief in any race as well. Some of the limits were a bit strange. And I am glad that they were removed from the original BG. It just seemed counter-intuitive. Effectively it killed various combinations because you were blocked from ever being able to advance beyond a certain level.

    As far as the Druid thing, to me, it makes really no difference. let em advance all the way. I was merely saying that there were restraints on certain classes that were removed to allow full advancement all the way to ToB. I am happy with that. And I am betting that the INT requirement for higher level spells was removed for exactly the same reasons.

  • Oxford_GuyOxford_Guy Member Posts: 3,729
    JTM said:

    Please, this should be left alone.

    The reasons have already been given by others here. Just simply alter your game difficulty or quaff the appropriate potion on higher difficulties to work around the issue if you deem it necessary...

    The separate issue brought up about max spell casting level based upon intelligence would be very nice to implement. I usually play BG with the exp cap removed (through mods) and would appreciate this rule put back in ( I think vanilla BG2 implemented it?).

    I don't think this was in vanilla BG2, though I'd be quite happy to see it in BGEE/BG2EE, though perhaps as a seperate option, to prevent whinging! ;-)

    mlneveseJTM
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,159
    edited January 2013
    The non-human progression limits were put in place in PnP to explain why the world wasn't ruled by level 200+ 1000 years old elves :) It was a bad attempt at game balance actually. :)

    Regarding the topic, there are lots of changes that would be necessary, such as getting rid of the sorcerer class for BG to make BG true to PnP D&D. The creation of a PNP mode would be quite interesting though.

    The problem is that I really feel the amount of changes necessary would be better left to a mod than to the game itself. We're talking about changing most monsters, spells, magic itens, kits and classes here. It would be almost a different game. For instance how many here would like their Inquisitors to dispel magic at their own level and not twice, and limit it to spells cast by evil casters, as in PNP their power didn't work agains spells cast by good casters at all?

    Even in a mod it would have to be very configurable, like BG2 tweaks, for instance. I would certainly install a mod like this, but there are many PnP rules that just do not work well in a computer game.

    SCARY_WIZARD
  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98
    edited January 2013
    szb said:

    What I don't understand that why do clerics/druids gain extra spells from high wisdom, but mages/bards don't get anything from intelligence besides chance to learn spells.

    In D&D, clerics have more spells but are under more restrictions about how and when they can use them. In Baldur's Gate and most CRPGs (and most current PnP games, especially ones based on newer editions of D&D) those restrictions have been dropped. They can't really exist in a CRPG because they are situational: a cleric is supposed to advance the agenda of their god or faith; the computer can't really make that determination, so you get a free pass. Likewise for the paladin and ranger: the strictures those classes had to live up to in PnP AD&D more than offset the benefits they got.

    Also, there has been a general trend towards removing anything from the rules that is seen as a penalty or a disadvantage and a focus only on bonuses. This includes ability scores low enough to impose any kind of penalty, strictures which limit how a class can be played, and other kinds of limitations. The result is that the relative balances and challenges of playing different classes have been upset.

    For a magic-user, the 10% experience bonus from a 16+ intelligence was the biggest benefit: they need a lot of XP to advance, and a 10% bonus means more to them than most classes. But gaining spells was also a big deal: the chance to learn any spell mattered because those opportunities were relatively few and often required sacrifice. (The original mechanic simply gave you a flat chance of being able to learn any particular spell: if you failed the roll, you can't learn that particular spell -- ever. In addition, spell scrolls, and magic items in general, are far rarer in PnP than in CRPGs. The BG version of having a chance to fail scribing a scroll is much milder.) Part of the challenge of being a magic-user (later mage) was learning how to make the best use of whatever spells you did happen to be fortunate enough to learn. One of the reasons mages are now so powerful relative to other classes is that they are now able to, more or less, learn whatever spells they want, so they aren't forced to make do with something other than the best possible combination.

    In BG, failing to learn a spell just means having to buy another scroll. Some scrolls are rare or even singular, but for those, a potion of genius or two will guarantee success in adding the spell to the mage's spellbook. I guess I'd agree that, given how low the chance of failure and how trivial the consequence, the game might as well forego spell scribing failure altogether. But I can't help but think that mages would be more challenging, and interesting, if they diced for spells as in 1st edition, so you couldn't guarantee having all your favourites and might have to learn how to use alternative combinations of spells to get the job done.

    JTMmister_ennui
  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98
    Ligg said:

    What archaic rule is this?
    Maybe under the beady glare of a die-hard dungeon master this could be enforced. But with quick save/quick load in a computer game I find this feature annoying.

    The same can be said of dying in combat or permanently losing a party member. You can always reload if you don't get a result you like, but it isn't much of a game if you never accept failure.

    JTMLindeblomGodKaiserHell
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    But gaining spells was also a big deal: the chance to learn any spell mattered because those opportunities were relatively few and often required sacrifice. (The original mechanic simply gave you a flat chance of being able to learn any particular spell: if you failed the roll, you can't learn that particular spell -- ever. In addition, spell scrolls, and magic items in general, are far rarer in PnP than in CRPGs. The BG version of having a chance to fail scribing a scroll is much milder.) Part of the challenge of being a magic-user (later mage) was learning how to make the best use of whatever spells you did happen to be fortunate enough to learn. One of the reasons mages are now so powerful relative to other classes is that they are now able to, more or less, learn whatever spells they want, so they aren't forced to make do with something other than the best possible combination.

    To make matters worse, Magic-Users couldn't just select what spell they wanted to learn on level up. They were at the mercy of what their "Masters" chose to teach them. A lot of times this meant that they had junk spells and had to actually go out and find the really good ones. Starting out with Magic Missile or Sleep was often not an option. And then there were "name" spells like Bigby's or "Tensers" spells. These were special spells that had been created by a specific Magic User in the realm (usually long dead). If you wanted them, you had to seek them out from someone who actually had them. Or more often had to plumb the depths of some dungeon or tomb in order to find it.

    Today's Dungeon's and Dragons isn't like that. You merely pick from the entire list upon level up (not in BG, but elsewhere) which meant that Magic Users can Min/Max and pick the creme of the crop.

  • LiggLigg Member Posts: 187

    Ligg said:

    What archaic rule is this?
    Maybe under the beady glare of a die-hard dungeon master this could be enforced. But with quick save/quick load in a computer game I find this feature annoying.

    The same can be said of dying in combat or permanently losing a party member. You can always reload if you don't get a result you like, but it isn't much of a game if you never accept failure.
    The analogy isn't exactly the same. Dying is down to battles being challenging (which we all like) or tactics needing re-thinking: this is what gameplay is. If you fail they are your failures.

    I'm not against failure: I do think that low intelligent mages should be punished in some form.
    Spell writing failure is a miserly tactic compared with other gameplay. There are surely better ways (and people have listed them) of crippling low intelligence mages or rewarding high intelligence ones.


    Simply getting rid of potions of genius & mind focussing would be a better thing.

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285
    I don't know... Lots of AD&D rules regarding mages and spells are already ignored in BG.... I mean, I am playing core rule and Neera never experienced failure in writing spells to spell book, whereas I experienced much more frequent failure of my Mage character with INT 18 in BG2... And the max level of spell allowable is not dependent on intelligence already since the rule is not reinforced.... I agree with some people that BG players are having way too easy time regarding spells...

    And I remember some poll asking players whether they wanted hard core AD&D rule or not... And majority of players said yes... And it's kinda funny to me since people seem like they want to stick to core AD&D rule as long as it does cause inconvenience... LOL...

    I recon too many people are focused on stats and power gaming and builds and so on that they forget the real joy pre role playing game -that you become your character and enjoy the world as if you're living there and experience it...

  • LiggLigg Member Posts: 187
    leeho730 said:



    I recon too many people are focused on stats and power gaming and builds and so on that they forget the real joy pre role playing game -that you become your character and enjoy the world as if you're living there and experience it...

    I agree. While these gripes can be overcome by switching game difficulty levels, that kind of breaks the fourth wall experience.

  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418
    Maybe if the mechanics worked a bit better people wouldn't have such an issue with them - my 19 int gnome failed to write 3 of 4 scrolls in a row yesterday and since BG:EE came out only 2 of the dozen times I had a party try to help Melicamp were successful - I reloaded the spell failure incident (which was a small test just to see how often he would fail) and went back to normal for scribing.

    I almost always play on either personal no reload rules or minimal reload rules (only for PC death) so I have always accepted the Melicamp failures (costing 2000 exp each) but that doesn't mean they don't annoy me.

  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    @Wanderon the issue is that your anecdotal evidence is just a statistical sampling. I don't know if the RnG is truly random, but in a game with 'randomness', things like what you're describing happen.

    TJ_Hooker
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I've experienced an unusually high number of failed spell-writings as well, but I've been chalking it up to just bad luck. The RNG might need to be looked at, but I'm pretty sure it's the same as the one used for every other game mechanic (attack rolls included).

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Wanderon said:

    Maybe if the mechanics worked a bit better people wouldn't have such an issue with them - my 19 int gnome failed to write 3 of 4 scrolls in a row yesterday and since BG:EE came out only 2 of the dozen times I had a party try to help Melicamp were successful - I reloaded the spell failure incident (which was a small test just to see how often he would fail) and went back to normal for scribing.

    I almost always play on either personal no reload rules or minimal reload rules (only for PC death) so I have always accepted the Melicamp failures (costing 2000 exp each) but that doesn't mean they don't annoy me.

    I guess I don't understand this comment. You personally choose to play with no/minimal reloads, yet are unhappy about the consequences of same. It's the luck of the dice. Sometimes you get Double Sixes. Sometimes you get snake eyes. If you are playing the game such that you are living with the consequences, don't complain about them when they don't turn out against you.

    BTW, with this outlook, I would recommend against playing the new Xcom game. You think the rolls are borked here.. They are REALLY borked with that game. but don't try and tell folks that. they will say that you are instance blind. LOL.

    Anyway, it's all good.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    One thing I can think of that might be affecting it, though I don't know how, is that the game's difficulty setting applies a percentage multiplier to certain mechanics, like damage for instance. If that same multiplier is being applied to the chance to write spells, that could have an effect.

    I don't know if that's happening here, though, or even how to test whether it is or not. I'll make some inquiries, although this subject has come up as inconclusive several times before.

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    There was actually a debate on whether the chance of spell failure was bugged or not here:
    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/12514/chance-to-learn-spell-is-bs/p1

    Also, apparently you get an extra 10% chance of failure for every level the spell you're trying to copy is above the highest level you can currently cast. I also think I remember reading somewhere that specialist mages get a bonus to copying from their favoured school, and a penalty when copying from any other. Not sure if these are implemented though.

    agris
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    TJ_Hooker said:

    Also, apparently you get an extra 10% chance of failure for every level the spell you're trying to copy is above the highest level you can currently cast. I also think I remember reading somewhere that specialist mages get a bonus to copying from their favoured school, and a penalty when copying from any other. Not sure if these are implemented though.

    This actually makes sense to me. If you can't cast the spell, it makes sense that it should be complex enough such that it would be harder even to simply scribe it. And specialists did Specialize in the school of magic, so they should have a superior knowledge of the base concepts.

    I wonder if this actually factors in to people's perceptions of failure rates?

    Oxford_Guy
Sign In or Register to comment.