| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
Here's the latest from the last couple of days:
The Aes Dana kit has been changed
I have edited the kit description; instead of a +10 lore bonus at 1st level, they gain +6 lore per level (bards normally receive +10 and wizards receive +3).
Answering some questions on the effectiveness of sorcerers/mages
Q: First off, stoneskin has been "downgraded" considerably.
A: It's still very useful for a mage, assuming that you're using it from a defensive position.
Q: A high level mage will have about 40 something hit points max.
A: A 10th level mage with an 18 Con can have 80 hit points, max. A 20th level mage with an 18 Con can have 160 hit points, max. We're using 3E rules for applying Con bonuses and HD above "name".
Q: Imagine a mage with that HP, getting struck by a +2 weapon or greater by a boss, or HoF mode. 1 critical or 2 hits is enough to kill him.
A: Why is your mage in melee with a boss character?
Q: Another thing that worries me is that some area effect spells that didn't effect party members in BG2 DID affect them in HoW. In HoW, abi-dalzim's horrid wilting affected party members, had a big radius, AND no damage cap. That's a scary combination.
A: It has to be like that. It's easily the most powerful offensive spell in IWD:HoW. Making it "foes only" makes it sickening. You start out doing 16d8 damage with it. That's 16-132 points of damage. Yikes.
Q: What if you miscalculated and the wilting happened to strike 2 party members? What if one was a cleric who was slightly injured and/or a thief, there's a good chance that one or both of them could die.
A: Much like a misplaced fireball at low levels.
Q: All I request is this, if you are still going to make 999999999% of all offensive spells(especially the high power ones) affect party members, is it possible to "see" an outline of the area effect when you are targeting?
A: I would like to do this, but I don't know if it's possible.
Q: Well, according to the PHB Stoneskin is 10/+5 damage reduction, and the caster has 10 hp per level (max 150) in protection. So if a 15th level mage casts this spell and is hit for 22 points of damage with a +3 weapon the mage takes no dmage and his protection goes down to 128 points. The spell lasts 10 minutes per level.
A: You do not understand how damage reduction works. 10/+5 means that the first 10 points of physical damage is ignored unless the target has a +5 weapon or equivalent (super monk fists). In your example, the target hit for 22 points of damage would take 12 (the amount over 10) and his protection would go down to 140 points. If he were then hit by an arrow for 3 points, he would take no damage and his protection would go down to 137 points.
If you insist that we get rules "right" (assuming that means "by the book"), please make sure you understand how they function.
The problem with fascist regard for rulebooks is that it often ignores the merit of individual items inside. Take Shout and Great Shout. Those are two of the most flaccid, worthless spells as they are written. In HoW, we improved Shout and Great Shout because, frankly, 4th and 8th level spells shouldn't suck. I don't know anyone who would have used Shout and Great Shout as written. With changes, they're pretty decent spells.
Stoneskin, as written in 2nd Ed., is incredibly easy to abuse. People still use it in IWD2, even with "only" 10/+2 damage reduction. I asked for 10/+5, but was told that, for some strange reason, this was extremely difficult to do. If it winds up being less useful than other 4th level spells, maybe it will be changed. Right now, people still use it. A lot.
On the subject of this being the last IE game
We do not plan to make any more IE games.
We still have the legally-settled option of making more AD&D or D&D games using the "Baldur's Gate" and "Icewind Dale" franchise names.
Some Q&A About the correctness of kits
Q: The Ravager, therefore, is a weak Kit, IMO, because it does not really emphasize anything. A good fighter who lays about him with his weapons and inflicts horrendous damage is cosmetically the same as the Ravager. With the Ravager Kit, we have to look "behind the screen" at the mechanics to see a significant difference.
A: I think that the ravager emphasizes cruelty and maiming in combat. His/her powers don't just "cause more damage", they cause persistent, annoying wounds, blind, and hamstring targets.
Q: Too much foreknowledge, for example in statements like "there won't be that much undead, so losing Turn Undead is a comparatively small penalty" detract, IMO, from the play experience. Further, it is not a valid reason for how to balance a Kit.
A: Kits were created, then areas were designed. Kits are now being revised in light of close-to-final area design and QA feedback. The three specialty priest kits may very well possess turn undead but lack some other powers by the time the game reaches consumers.
Q: Whether a Kit's abilities are particularly relevant in the storyline/events of IWD2 or not is irrelevant: the consumer is not supposed to know enough about the game that (s)he can plan a party before he has played it through.
A: However, it does allow designers to give custom dialogue options when appropriate. The more "appropriate" a character is for the campaign, the more opportunity we have to let them pipe up in their own individual way.
N.B.: For those among you who are complaining that the ravager seems excessively powerful, you have seen the addition of the halved curing effects, yes? Imagine your "awesome" ravager with 150 hit points getting a heal spell that gives back 70. Better yet, imagine your ravager at 1st level drinking a potion of healing that only gives back 4 hit points. |
|
|
Icewind Dale II Forum Update
