Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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!

Would you be happy if item destruction were removed from the game?

2

Comments

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    elminster said:

    Morte50 said:

    Permidion_Stark
    I just tested it out, the Gore option does indeed seem to work that way. That is, I Cone of Cold-ed the drunk above the Temple in Beregost, he drops a dagger with Gore=off, but nothing with Gore=on. Not sure whether it would also apply to Disintegrate and their ilk, but it seems likely.

    Just tested it in BGEE (I've removed the experience cap) and yes if you turn the gore off then disintegrate won't get rid of items.
    That sounds like a bug that should be fixed.

    elminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,303
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    Tresset said:

    elminster said:

    Morte50 said:

    Permidion_Stark
    I just tested it out, the Gore option does indeed seem to work that way. That is, I Cone of Cold-ed the drunk above the Temple in Beregost, he drops a dagger with Gore=off, but nothing with Gore=on. Not sure whether it would also apply to Disintegrate and their ilk, but it seems likely.

    Just tested it in BGEE (I've removed the experience cap) and yes if you turn the gore off then disintegrate won't get rid of items.
    That sounds like a bug that should be fixed.
    Did you add it to the tracker? I haven't but I did put a thread about it here http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20432/disintegrate-s-item-destruction-can-be-bypassed-by-turning-off-gore?new=1.

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    I did.

    elminster
  • MilesBeyondMilesBeyond Member Posts: 324
    Isn't there a halfway option? I'm okay with it for disintegration and turning to stone, but not for crit-hitting with cold (too annoying and unpredictable) and level drain (doesn't make sense, again very annoying)

    taltamir
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    spells should clearly and explicitly state if they destroy loot.
    That way you would use your own judgement on which creature should be hit with which spell

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.

    Isn't there a halfway option? I'm okay with it for disintegration and turning to stone, but not for crit-hitting with cold (too annoying and unpredictable) and level drain (doesn't make sense, again very annoying)

    Ehh, I kinda made this poll on the spur of the moment to see if I was right about something I said.

    I was wrong.

  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.

    Isn't there a halfway option? I'm okay with it for disintegration and turning to stone, but not for crit-hitting with cold (too annoying and unpredictable) and level drain (doesn't make sense, again very annoying)

    I can get behind this suggestion

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,303
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.

    Isn't there a halfway option? I'm okay with it for disintegration and turning to stone, but not for crit-hitting with cold (too annoying and unpredictable) and level drain (doesn't make sense, again very annoying)

    The fact that death by level drain does it is pretty bizarre.

    Tresset
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    I think I read somewhere that death by drain disintegrates people. I can't remember where though. It was probably something completely separate from BG.

  • Morte50Morte50 Member Posts: 161
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    Tresset said:

    I think I read somewhere that death by drain disintegrates people. I can't remember where though. It was probably something completely separate from BG.

    Seems a bit weird, anyway. I mean, I envision Disintegrate as a kind of magical death ray. And since death rays are typically not particularly subtle, the target's equipment getting zapped right along with him makes sense.

    But level drain is more of a 'life-force' draining kind of thing. It is specifically aimed at living things, you can't level drain a rock (I'm assuming; whereas Disintegrating a rock seems perfectly plausible, and is probably also possible in PnP). I can buy that death by level drain would akin to disintegration in that when the 'life-force', the glue, that holds you together is removed you kind-of collapse into your constituent molecules or whatever. But it would be strange for that to in any way affect your equipment (same as with 'disintegration' by cold, really).

    elminstertypo_tilly
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    I think I remember where I saw that now. I was reading about the demilich the ad&d2e monster manual and how it disintegrated people when it imprisoned their soul in its gems. Or it was some other attack of some other undead thing.

  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,702
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    There should be consequences for using highly desctructive spells?

    Also, if I can destroy someone so utterly... why would I need their equipment? XD

  • Durlag_ThunderaxeDurlag_Thunderaxe Member Posts: 71
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    I know it's annoying when it happens, but it's more realistic that way. I guess they should make those effects non-destructive for Easy and Normal difficulties, to make it more beginner-friendly, but you should be aware and concerned with it from Core Rules onwards. I suppose you could make it an optional setting too, and not just through gore setting, which is clearly an unintended outcome.

  • Morte50Morte50 Member Posts: 161
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    @Durlag_Thunderaxe
    But if the point is realism, then why does it happen with Cone of Cold and not Fireball? If the former destroys items, or even has a chance to destroy items, then the latter certainly should as well, realistically.

    Shin
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    I don't really see realism playing into it either, like @Morte50 points out. You can hit people with so much force their bodies explode or call down a meteor on their heads, and then still salvage intact glass bottle health potions from their bodies.

  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,210
    It really depends on the spell being used. I never thought Flesh to Stone should destroy itens. It turns your flesh into stone, not your rings, potions, etc...

    Now if you use disintegrate you can't really expect any items to survive...

    Tresset
  • DurenasDurenas Member Posts: 505
    I don't like memorizing spells where I'm not sure if I will use it, ever. Loot destruction ensures I will never use disintegrate.

  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,206
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    The flying pig option was so very tempting.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Look! A flying pig!
    I prefer the system as it stands today wherein the items do get destroyed. But Look. a flying PIG.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.
    Frozen kills can destroy magical items? Yeah, no, that's ridiculous.

  • ogrebogreb Member Posts: 98
    I like it the way it is.
    Anything that would alter the body that much, would effect items on said person.
    Frozen items are easily breakable...even steel.
    Just think of the spell as a blast of liquid oxygen...and we all watched T2 enough to know what happens to items exposed to LOX.
    Boom baby !

    Be kinda cool if you could thaw them out though..

  • Morte50Morte50 Member Posts: 161
    edited August 2013
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    @ogreb
    To my knowledge stuff like liquid nitrogen is typically held in steel containers, they hold up fine (and they aren't even magical). Besides, even if it cold damage could plausibly damage swords and suits of armor and such, then why would it only happen if the current occupant expires at the same time. That damage should be inflicted at any time sufficient cold damage is applied to it.

    And as noted before, why just with cold damage? A bit of a chill destroys enchanted plate armor, but feeble scrolls and boots and potion flasks survive the blast of a fireball? If there's going to be item damage, it should at least make some semblance of sense. As is, it's just arbitrary.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,303
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    mlnevese said:

    It really depends on the spell being used. I never thought Flesh to Stone should destroy itens. It turns your flesh into stone, not your rings, potions, etc...

    Now if you use disintegrate you can't really expect any items to survive...

    Actually the description for flesh to stone specifically states that all items that the person had in their possession turn to stone.

    "This spell turns flesh of any sort to stone. All possessions on the person of the creature likewise turn to stone..." (probably should say "person or the creature" but thats clearly a spelling mistake).

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.

    "This spell turns flesh of any sort to stone. All possessions on the person of the creature likewise turn to stone..." (probably should say "person or the creature" but thats clearly a spelling mistake).

    I don't think that is a mistake.

  • Morte50Morte50 Member Posts: 161
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    Though it is strictly speaking correct, and likely intentional, I'd say it is an odd choice of words nonetheless. A creature isn't necessarily of a species capable of being a person after all, in which case it seems inappropriate. It's not a phrase that in the real world is typically applied to non-human animals, after all.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,303
    edited August 2013
    I would prefer the loot be destroyed.
    Morte50 said:

    Though it is strictly speaking correct, and likely intentional, I'd say it is an odd choice of words nonetheless. A creature isn't necessarily of a species capable of being a person after all, in which case it seems inappropriate. It's not a phrase that in the real world is typically applied to non-human animals, after all.

    Fair enough. It may or may not be a mistake (the manual and in-game spell descriptions were originally full of these kinds of little issues) but in any case the description does state that items on the target of the spell (if the spell is successful) are turned to stone.

  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,210
    I know about the spell description. It's just that I never agreed that a spell named Flesh to Stone should petrify items as well :)

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2013
    Look! A flying pig!
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    mlneveseElectricMonklolien
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Look! A flying pig!

    Frozen kills can destroy magical items? Yeah, no, that's ridiculous.

    Why so? If you are literally encased in ice such that your body can shatter, why not your items as well? It is magic after all.

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 8,226
    I would prefer the loot not be destroyed.

    Frozen kills can destroy magical items? Yeah, no, that's ridiculous.

    Why so? If you are literally encased in ice such that your body can shatter, why not your items as well? It is magic after all.
    The items are magic too. Well made... Durable... Made to withstand adventuring hazards...

Sign In or Register to comment.