Powerful mage and game rules, [Topic spllit by Baronius] Options

[Baronius]

I understand what he's saying. I was surprised by it too, the first time I fought him. You're expecting a powerful mage, not a physical powerhouse, and yet none of your fighters can deal any serious damage.

I have never understood this type of approach. Why can't a powerful mage have very powerful "physical" resistances via her powerful magic and knowledge? Should every wizard be protected by 9 golems so no one can reach her? Because without resistances, wizards could be killed very easily, considering their low natural hit points and physical defense.

[Valiant]

Yep, Baronius got a point here...

[Daulmakan]

Well, maybe the discussion is needed, but the way I see it Ustrain can´t have a decent loot with himself. Remmember, he´s been sent to exile and currently lives in "emptyness". I can´t hardly imagine where he would get the loot you guys want him to drop after his death. He lost everything, and most of his treasures are in the tower. Even during his proper mortal life he wasn´t that rich.
This fight is about getting his loot back, not to drop (or loose) something again...

Now you're making me feel sorry for the guy.

I have never understood this type of approach. Why can't a powerful mage have very powerful "physical" resistances via her powerful magic and knowledge? Should every wizard be protected by 9 golems so no one can reach her? Because without resistances, wizards could be killed very easily, considering their low natural hit points and physical defense.

Because it doesn't make sense with the given ruleset of both 2E and the game itself.

High level wizards are among the most powerful creatures in the Realms. Being physically weaker than the other classes is supposed to be what balances their offensive prowess. I don't see any reason why the should have innate or out-of-the-box resistances. If they did, I don't see a reason why fighters shouldn't cast spells either, and so on.

[Ardanis]

Why can't a powerful mage have very powerful "physical" resistances via her powerful magic and knowledge? Should every wizard be protected by 9 golems so no one can reach her? Because without resistances, wizards could be killed very easily, considering their low natural hit points and physical defense.

Can't; should; could. That comes from very old concepts that describe a wizard as an elderly man with a long white beard wearing robe.


Not really a bug, but I'd mention it. VA#007 has a cavern with a bridge across it as an 'impassable inpenetrable' zone (searchmap). Impassable but visible through would be more consistent imo.

This post has been edited by Ardanis: Feb 17 2009, 11:32 PM

[Sikret]

Ustrain is a Githyanki Fighter/mage (and a nonstandard one in this case). No long white beards nor an old man here, I'm afraid.

And yes, Baronius is right that even the elderly type of the human mage with those white long beards can still develop or research powerful magic to gain resistances. All one needs is to let his imagination and creative thinking free of prejudices.

[Baronius]

Exactly. I never understand it when modders (not just Daulmakan) come with this "rules" thing. It reminds me to the G3 "fixpack" creators who believe that the BG2 TorGal is buggy because it has no immunity to normal death (i.e. only killable by fire or acid) -- very narrow-minded. (For example, TorGal might have sacrificed it in the past for another ability or more strength etc.) Imagination, modders, imagination!

Because it doesn't make sense with the given ruleset of both 2E and the game itself.

High level wizards are among the most powerful creatures in the Realms. Being physically weaker than the other classes is supposed to be what balances their offensive prowess. I don't see any reason why the should have innate or out-of-the-box resistances. If they did, I don't see a reason why fighters shouldn't cast spells either, and so on.

You list artificial reasons, based on certain assumptions about world constraints and rules. I have emphasized it earlier that first of all, an IE mod should be consistent with itself, with the world it is integrated to (the weaker version of this principle has a different second part: with the world it presents to the game). My Grey Clan mod is a good example (I absolutely don't care what D&D or anything else would dictate, I think creativity and consistence are the keys for a good mod).

I agree that in "classic" medieval/mythic worlds, with simpler rules, the picture of a wizard presented by Ardanis is more desirable. However, BG2 introduced so many things (and the D&D rules are also complex already) that it can't be called a "classic" world game in my own dictionary. For example, Mind Flayers (which are from D&D too I suppose) remind me to some aliens in a sci-fi rather than creatures in a classic mythic world I imagine. (This is one of the points where I liked BG1 better: easier spell system, more "classic" creatures, etc. Of course, it meant less possibilities, combinations as well for tactics and such things). One could say now that then D&D is not for me; in the aforementioned respect, indeed it isn't (but there are other aspects where I like it, even though I don't know it in details).

[Daulmakan]

You list artificial reasons, based on certain assumptions about world constraints and rules. I have emphasized it earlier that first of all, an IE mod should be consistent with itself, with the world it is integrated to (the weaker version of this principle has a different second part: with the world it presents to the game). My Grey Clan mod is a good example (I absolutely don't care what D&D or anything else would dictate, I think creativity and consistence are the keys for a good mod).

Well, we are indeed playing a game based on a world with constraints and rules. Personal changes and in-house rules are allowed and sometimes even encouraged within the P&P game, but the point is, there are always rules. I know about Grey Clan, it threw me off the first time I played it, but I liked the overall experience anyway, so I keep installing it in my Tutu games (and finish the second part already! ).

I'm not implying Ustrain himself to be necessarily 'wrong' or anything of the like, I'm just saying why it is uncommon and why someone might be surprised at him.

On a more particular note, both 2E and BG2 do provide mages with the means to attain physical resistance, both in the way of items and spells (stoneskin, protection from X weapons, mantle, etc.). It's just that it does it in a more 'balanced' way, so to speak, in the sense that is analogue to the rest of the gaming world as it's presented.

[Ardanis]

consistent with itself, with the world it is integrated to

That's where the problem often lies - it doesn't always seem consistent to others. So, while the imagination running wild is somewhat admirable, it's only like that as long as it's explained enough to the end user. Incorporating innovations needs to be done carefully and with skill, else it may appear as somebody's night raving.

I'm certainly not talking about anything in particular, not even about modding, just pointing out that while your argument is right and solid it still misses the most important part - without good founding rulebending is generally worse than feeding players with the same dish over and over agian. Well, it's the same as chaotic characters' motto "rules are for weakilings".

[Baronius]

it still misses the most important part - without good founding rulebending is generally worse than feeding players with the same dish over and over agian

Indeed, it has its risk, but that is one of the few ways to introduce novelties to players. Feeding players with the same dish over and over has no (or very little, other type of) risk, on the other hand. Only the practice can show whether the novelties are okay or not for most players (or if there is anything that compensates the possible imbalanced aspects, see Grey Clan Ep1). Of course, if the modders likes/enjoys her own mod (or its development) and possibly a few other players enjoy the mod as well, then it's already a great thing I believe.

I think Improved Anvil is practically seamless in terms of rules/rulebending, especially because it creates a new world in the game, so basically it doesn't have to be consistent with "original game", because it replaces the original game. Grey Clan Ep1 is another matter -- it's the result, product of a shorter development process, developed by a few people (mostly myself). It affects only a few aspects of the game (such as balance) and only for its own plot, which means it is somewhat inconsistent with the balance of the game. This doesn't disturb the fans of the mod (of course, they wouldn't be fans otherwise). This won't change too much even with Ep2 and Ep3, because they won't alter the whole game, they will only finish the story (if they ever get released, though I definitely want to release Ep2 some day).

It is an art (and in engineering, it's science) how to find the balance between rules and freedom. Rules (restrictions) are required, because otherwise things would be "chaotic" and could not be handled (in engineering, problems couldn't be handled and solved, or even examined), but at the same time, they must provide enough freedom so that we can make the game interesting and complex enough (= many combinations, tactics).

[DavidW]

Actually, don't underestimate how useful keeping strictly to the rules can be in helping creativity - by giving you a strict set of constraints to work in, it forces you to be a lot more creative and thoughtful within those constraints. (This is something you hear a lot from professional writers). Most of the reason I was fairly strict about the rules in SCS wasn't because I thought it mattered that much not to break the rules - it was because I thought that was a better-defined creative problem to solve. (And I didn't mind breaking the rules at points where that didn't seem to be true).

(That's obviously not an argument why other people should or shouldn't keep to the rules, just an observation about its creative advantages - for me at least.)

[Sikret]

Any D&D rule-set gives plenty of freedom to the DM to add his own local rules and exceptions to the rules; it's itself a (meta) rule.

Mistaking "creativity" with "Chaos" is a confusion some people are sometimes committed to.

The last few years of experience have convinced me that at least 95% of people who whine about the rules aren't actually concerned with the rules (nor do they really know much about the rules); they are mostly players with inadequate tactical skills who want to find some other pretext or explanation for their tactical failures during the game (I'm not referring to any one in particular).

[Baronius]

Actually, don't underestimate how useful keeping strictly to the rules can be in helping creativity - by giving you a strict set of constraints to work in, it forces you to be a lot more creative and thoughtful within those constraints.

There is no such thing as forcing to be creative. Creativity is an ability, talent. You either have it or not have it (in particular fields). (What you describe can help to find witty solutions in a restricted environment -- just like engineers in a resource-critical environment, but it is not about "creativity".)

[DavidW]

Actually, don't underestimate how useful keeping strictly to the rules can be in helping creativity - by giving you a strict set of constraints to work in, it forces you to be a lot more creative and thoughtful within those constraints.

There is no such thing as forcing to be creative. Creativity is an ability, talent. You either have it or not have it (in particular fields). (What you describe can help to find witty solutions in a restricted environment -- just like engineers in a resource-critical environment, but not it is not about "creativity".)

I think this might be a terminology issue - what I describe would count as creativity as I understand the term, but I don't think this is a substantive disagreement.

[Jarno Mikkola]

The last few years of experience have convinced me that at least 95% of people who whine about the rules aren't actually concerned with the rules (nor do they really know much about the rules); they are mostly players with inadequate tactical skills who want to find some other pretext or explanation for their tactical failures during the game (I'm not referring to any one in particular).

Or it could be that, because you think that it's hard to implement things with the original rules, you have to come up with new artificial once and not tell it to the player, and then blaim them off not having tactical ability, when they don't know all the rules...

Artificial rules like, making a creature 99% immune to attack damage, just because it's weak otherwise.
Immunity auras... etc.

Actually, don't underestimate how useful keeping strictly to the rules can be in helping creativity - by giving you a strict set of constraints to work in, it forces you to be a lot more creative and thoughtful within those constraints.

There is no such thing as forcing to be creative. Creativity is an ability, talent. You either have it or not have it (in particular fields). (What you describe can help to find witty solutions in a restricted environment -- just like engineers in a resource-critical environment, but not it is not about "creativity".)

I think this might be a terminology issue - what I describe would count as creativity as I understand the term, but I don't think this is a substantive disagreement.

Well, no inventions were ever made without the need for it... and yes, that's the spirit of "creativity".

[matti]

Heh, Ustrain's resistances doesn't bother me much, it's he's summons who really bothers me (completely inadeqate, who he is? SPOILER!

prince of undead?

this kind of summons and the quantity of them should be restricted imo for the most powerful foes. Overall fight with him is pretty mediocre (his summons aside, they are and always will be a really bad mofos, but they're should not be there imho) he's somewhat like a SPOILER!

Kruin 2

for me.



Did the fact that I've beaten him with all his summons and resistances prove that my tactical skills are good? No. It's only prove that I played the mod with IA installed.


And I must say, beaing a simple player, that it's really funny when people who hit and running, casting off screen, false-talking and such, when all that is blocked, they suddenly starts whining about the "rules".

[Sikret]

Heh, Ustrain's resistances doesn't bother me much, it's he's summons who really bothers me (completely inadeqate, who he is? SPOILER!

prince of undead?

this kind of summons and the quantity of them should be restricted imo for the most powerful foes. Overall fight with him is pretty mediocre (his summons aside, they are and always will be a really bad mofos, but they're should not be there imho) he's somewhat like a SPOILER!

Kruin 2

for me.

When I was creating this encounter for ToD back in December 2007, we had very little time to think on the nature of allies Ustrain should have, because Valiant wanted to release the mod as a christmas gift and I had to complete its design rather quickly. Initially, I had three ideas for his summons and wanted to decide between them:

1- Undead creatures
2- A couple of dragons
3- Golems

Valiant informed me that he didn't want to add new dragons to the game; so, we were left with golems and the undead. I finally decided to go for undead creatures under the time pressure we had to finish the component. Perhaps, using golems was a better choice, perhaps not, I'm not sure (both can be justified from a role playing point of view).

All in all, if Valiant wants to change the nature of Ustrain's allies, we can work on it for the next version of ToD. I don't have any strict opinion on this matter.

[Valiant]

Well guys, to sumarize this, no changes will be done to Ustrain, sorry. I like him as he is now, I don´t want him to be changed. During his creation, Sikret did a great job. I wanted Ustrain to be a challenge, and that´s what he is. With IA installed, he´s even bigger.

After all, if someone don´t like him, just don´t play him. So easy.

[Bress]

Hi, I just played through Tower of Deception (version 3), and thought I'd give you some feedback.

First of all, congrats to Valiant and all others involved for producing a brilliant mod, it is a worthy addition to the whole BGII experience. The storyline and concepts are good (which is not true of so many other mods), and the whole tower is implemented in an effective, interesting and balanced way.

My only criticism is with aspects of the Ustrain encounter, which I went through last night.
The idea of him chasing down the party for revenge is a good one in principle, but I did find that part of the story very unrewarding, both literally (in terms of loot), and in terms of game enjoyment. I managed to beat him, after a couple of attempts, only by getting my 20+ level party of 6 to throw everything they had at him. I don't mind a challenge, but when I got to the end of it, after blowing about 2 dozen potions of superior healing, all that was left in the huge pile of summoned monster bodies was a +1 cloak, some gold and a Lareal Tear Necklace. And the fact that it happened in Suldanessar, right before the Irenicus battle, was frustrating since it meant that I had to take 8 hours rest in the middle of a warzone crisis, which somewhat undermines my original intention to keep moving from the moment I got into the Elven city.

Having read through this forum, I can understand your reasoning for making the battle so extremely difficult, for giving him little in the way of loot, and even for placing the encounter in Suldanessar (to make sure the party cannot miss the encounter). However, my feeling after the battle was basically, "why did I bother? I think I'll uninstall this part...". And only 35000 XP for going through all that? I would have hoped for at least 250,000, which would not be an imbalance to the game at that stage.
On a technical level, the whole battle looked good and worked perfectly, and the dialogue was appropriate as always. But as it stands, I wouldn't want to go through that component of the mod again. Just wanted to share my thoughts with you.

As this may be a spoiler, feel free to move this post to another thread, or to withold it and just PM me, I understand.
Again, great work, this is the best add-on for BGII I have come across, and it far exceeded my expectations in general.

[Bress]

Sorry, just wanted to add, I was hoping that at the end of the Ustrain encounter that there might be some plot development regarding his spellbook - maybe it could become useful for something, like the golem manual in Watcher's keep, or provide a stat increase, or a high-level spell slot. Maybe it could be used to cast one high level spell per day chosen from a list.
I guess that idea is open to debate in terms of balance, and I'm honestly not sure how hard it would be to implement. Just thought I'd run it up the flagpole anyhow...

[Valiant]

Hi Bress

Thank you for your feedback. I´m glad you liked TOD, the whole modding team has worked pretty hard during its creation.

Maybe you´re right. Bigger reward would fit better, higher experience at least. Maybe I´ll change it in next version.

About Ustrain´s book - a similiar idea you wrote have crossed my mind a few months ago. I too feel the stoy should continue after his death, at least with the book. For example, Ustrain minions would pursuit you or his own race would be trying to find you and take the book from you, etc, etc... But the original adventure does not continue, so everything that happen after killing Ustrain would be a fiction. Even Ustrain encounter is not contained in the original adventure, but I thought it would fit well into the story

I´ll think about it, but I have other stuff to do atm... Thanks again.