| |
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 Icewind Dale II forums:
The Ravager kit is in the game
The wizard slayer kit is being removed from the game, and will be replaced with the ravager.
The Lansknecht kit is in the game
This kit will be the replacement for Fighter: Mercenary.
What is there left to discuss?
Almost all comments are useful, but please, please, please examine all of the rules changes we have posted and understand how they work together before you make suggestions. At first glance, it is easy to explode in a shower of fire because one rule looks oddly implemented. If you fear, please know that QA has been playing through the game for quite some time now, and balance seems to be better in this game than it has been in previous games.
What we really don't need at this point:
* Suggestions for new kits.
* Suggestions for new subraces.
* Suggestions for new rule subsystems to be implemented (other than, perhaps, ways to handle our tricky multi-classing situation, which is the biggest pain in the ass ever).
And in a response to that
It has to do with how classes are coded in the game. Classes are defined all over the place in code, and each class/multi-class combination is associated with an ID found in CLASS.IDS. When "things relating to class" (which is a very nebulous classification) are checked in code, they check the class ID. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be that big of a deal, but multi-classed characters have their own, unique class ID.
E.g., Edward Raith is a fighter, Alender Kaan is a mage, and Chiloptec Blackheart is a fighter/mage. Edward's class ID is 4, Alender's is 1, and Chiloptec's is 11. What?
This means that, although we have class IDs for all AD&D classes, that does not mean we can mix and match them to establish new multiclass combinations. To create a new multiclass combo, we would have to create a new class ID for that combo. We would also have to go through all of the randomly dispersed functions that check class ID and include cases for the new IDs. Sucky time.
There are other issues associated with this foolishness, but that's the biggest one re: creating new MC combos.
About spell disruption
The system as currently designed allows a caster with average Constitution to get a spell of their highest level off about 50% of the time.
E.g.: Shikha Lilah, a 10th level cleric, is casting flame strike, a 5th level spell. She has a 10 Constitution.
10 + 5 - 5 - 0 = 10. She must roll a 10 or better on a d20 to get the spell off if she is damaged. A character with an 18 Constitution would succeed on a roll of 6 or better.
Should this be more difficult?
BTW, the initial equation is a bit fuzzy; it's actually subtracting your Con bonus from the difficulty at the end.
As a response to "the horible hybrid system"
For the record, "this horrible hybrid system" using BAB results in the following benefits for players:
* Characters other than warriors gain multiple attacks when they hit +6 BAB.
* Because the combat mechanism for resolving attacks was torn out and re-implemented, we are able to more clearly show you the bonuses you receive on your character record screen (something that people complained about constantly through IWD and HoW).
* The "decreasing attack scale" makes secondary and tertiary attacks less grossly powerful.
The "bad thing" that's left over is the fact that BAB uses the highest value between classes -- which is exactly how it has worked in every other IE game. There isn't any net loss here, people. You get benefits from it, and nothing bad has been caused because of it. Visceris is right, it would be much better if our game used true 3E multiclassing and stacking rules. However, to complain because you perceive the benefits of a rules change as being "not useful enough" seems odd -- especially when it causes no new problems. 2nd Edition's method for multiclassing has always been poopy. It is no more poopy in IWD2 than it was in IWD or HoW.
And a response on the fact that BIS is using a modified version of 3E rules
I don't care about fascist adherence to any damned ruleset, Visceris. The fact that you care about it so much troubles me.
Have you ever seen the 3E ranger? It is a horribly balanced piece of junk. Many people have removed the 3E ranger and replaced it with Monte Cook's ranger or one of a dozen alt. rangers found all over the internet. Not only that, but some people have eliminated attacks of opporunity, created new spell disruption rules, and a whole lot of other things. Strangely enough, people were still able to play the game... and it was balanced.
If you hate the game we are making because of the specific way that the rules work, that's fine. What I think is odd is the fact that you object to the mixture of rulesets as if, by sheer virtue of difference, they are incompatible and cannot produce an enjoyable game.
About Barbarians and damage reduction
Barbarians just have damage reduction, all the time. It isn't linked to enchantment level.
About Damage Reduction and Spell disruption
Only a character with a +5 short sword would be able to ignore the damage reduction according to "the roolz". What I am suggesting now (divorcing enchantment level from the resistance threshold) means that all physical attacks would have to overcome that resistance. Instead of 10/+2, it would be 10/Infinity x5 + a billion.
Grumbasho the Orc swings at the mage with his non-magical shortsword. He hits and does 8 points of damage. Too bad, sucker. None gets through. Total reduction left: 142. Mysterio the Rogue sneak attacks the mage and hits with his longsword +5. He does 36 points of damage. The mage takes 26. Total reduction left: 132.
Is the limit of 6 summoned monsters still in?
We are still at 6, but like 3E, summoning spells will default to summoning a single tough monster rather than a bunch of little baby monsters. |
|
|
Icewind Dale II Forum Update
