Progress report for IA v6 Options

[Shadan]

I would like to suggest several things in Spellhold-Brynnlaw-sahuagins for 5.1 or 6.0:

1. Those murderers after Irenicus fled in Spellhold should be a bit more hard. Like rune assasins for example.
2. Fight with pirate lord when you leave Spellhold is a joke. He and his goons die from 1 hit. Maybe they could be more hard, since pirates in the dock is a good and decent fight, and I cannot imagine how can be pirate lord so weak.
3. Challenge in sahuagin city should be improved. First only protagonist should be allowed to fight, since he is the chosen one from the prophecies. (Similar to Faldorn's duel.) He should fight unbuffed agaisnt harder enemy than an ettin. Maybe enemy could depend on protaginst's class. Warriors should get warrior type enemy, mages mage type, divine casters divine type, rogue-bard-monk rogue type.
4. In king-prince conflict as a good character I always sided with prince earlier. He is more sympathetic to me. So I would be happy if the King would be improved in similar way than the Prince. And maybe both would be improved if you want to kill both.

[Sikret]

3. Challenge in sahuagin city should be improved. First only protagonist should be allowed to fight, since he is the chosen one from the prophecies. (Similar to Faldorn's duel.) He should fight unbuffed agaisnt harder enemy than an ettin. Maybe enemy could depend on protaginst's class. Warriors should get warrior type enemy, mages mage type, divine casters divine type, rogue-bard-monk rogue type.

This is an excellent idea. I will give some priority to implementing it (out of the regular queue of players' suggestions).

4. In king-prince conflict as a good character I always sided with prince earlier. He is more sympathetic to me. So I would be happy if the King would be improved in similar way than the Prince. And maybe both would be improved if you want to kill both.

The only time I sided with the Prince and returned to kill the king, he said that he didn't expect me to betray him. The way he said that sentence impressed me and I never repeated that again.

Siding with the king is also more rewarding than siding with the prince (even if you are not as sensitive to the king's way of talking after being betrayed as I was ).

[Sikret]

I would definately like to see Firkraag, the Red Dragon encounter improved. I thought of something like adding to the fight some challenge. As Firkraag, is old dragon he can have sons . I think adding two sons to the batlle will do great.
One of them is a sorceror and second is Fighter/Mage lvls may vary according to party lvls .
about the fight itself: his two sons will appear then you attack Firkraag and they will fight till near death and run away till they will be ready for revenge and next time they will appear in real forms of a dragon . or something like that

This is a good suggestion too.

Especially since, Vik was the first player who reported to me his success to find the 48-sided Garnet, he has the right to have my gift to implement his suggestion with priority.

Conster already has Skeleton Lords at his side; so why shouldn't Firkraag have Skeleton Warlords?

The idea of two sons who will return for revenge later on (probably in TOB) is also a nice idea.

But... won't Firkraag (with these new minions) become almost as challenging as the Ancient Dragon (or something close to that)?!

This post has been edited by Sikret: Jan 30 2008, 01:26 PM

[Shadan]

The only time I sided with the Prince and returned to kill the king, he said that he didn't expect me to betray him. The way he said that sentence impressed me and I never repeated that again.

Hmm, I haven't noticed this. But that high priest says you are the chosen one from the prophecies. King is insane, sahuagins are dying and the sane Prince is their only hope. As a good character I don't want to risk when a whole race can dissipate cause of my mistake. Even if they are not "good" race. So I usually want to fulfill prophecies. I think I will skip this now, since I want to see improved Prince.

[Ryel ril Ers]

Suggested fix:
Change the amnish legoinary-s armor to plate mail instead the full plate! If somebody use the low reputation discount part of ease of use and you travel throug athakala's districts you encounter some legionary + enforcer group and after every too group you earn 18k gold from the full plates. The centurion wear full plate but the legionary don't, so if somebody play with evil only earn this money after every 10. encounter.

[Raven]

How is the Answerer being nerfed?

[Sikret]

How is the Answerer being nerfed?

The Answerer is tweaked: It's MR decreasing effect is omitted, its AC lowering effect will be applied but with 10% chance per hit; however, it's also changed to bypass the target's magic resistance.

[Arkain]

[...]

But... won't Firkraag (with these new minions) become almost as challenging as the Ancient Dragon (or something close to that)?!

Hum... I'm not sure about that but isn't Firkraag a great wyrm or wyrm? If so I don't see the problem - dragons that old are supposed to be very powerful.

[Sikret]

In your dialogue with the Ancient Dragon (who is a great wyrm) you can ask about Firkraag as well. Firkraag is presumably much younger than Ancient Dragon. The latter calls himself "The great wyrm", but refers to firkraag as a weak dragon. Ancient Dragon's scales are different and are marked as the Great Wyrm's (Cromwell and Cespenar will only accept the Ancient Dragon's scales in order to forge the Great wyrm's armor).

However, as an afterthought, I believe that adding a few minions to Firkraag can hadly make him as diffuclt as the Ancient Dragon. The main point is that regardless of their minions, the Ancient one is personally much tougher than Firkraag (even his breath is different).

So, Vik's suggestion is a good one.

[Vardaman]

- Rangers have a slightly better spell progression table (though still capped at 3rd level spells). Bards, on the other hand, have a slightly nerfed table (capped at 5th level spells).

Now bards don't even get a few castings of PFMW or Imp. Haste?

[Sikret]

- Rangers have a slightly better spell progression table (though still capped at 3rd level spells). Bards, on the other hand, have a slightly nerfed table (capped at 5th level spells).

Now bards don't even get a few castings of PFMW or Imp. Haste?

Yes, casting 6th level spells is a big jump, IMO. Even single class mages gain 6th level spells with much delay compared to 5th level spells. They already cast four spells in each spell level (1st through 5th) when they gain their first 6th level spell.

A bard is supposed to know only a little bit of anything, not more. The un-nerfed (pnp) Bard spell progression table is laughable. It even allows bards to cast 8th level spells!

[Gorwath]

I read in one topic that you (Sikret) intended to introduce some sort of Monster Manual to the game that would give hints how to defeat the new monsters and their tactics. Yet I don't see anything of that mentioned in your report.
Did you abandon that idea because it is too spoilerish or did you just foret to write it down?

Gorwath

[Arkain]

Mhm... you might want to rethink the nerfed bard spell progression, maybe?
I think with spells "only" up to level 5 bards will be much less useful than they are now. While it's debatable whether a "jack of all trades" should be able to cast spells of all but the highest spell levels it's not that unlikely, on the other hand. As the bard grows more experienced he does just that - he gets more experience in everything. This includes magic. So he might very well, after some time, reach the point where he makes that huge "jump" and understands the higher grades. A slowed spell progression might be wiser. It would keep the bard more useful and would allow more variety in terms of party composition - or let's say that at least I would prefer a F/M over the "new" bard anyday.
But then again it might be interesting to use a bard not as a F/M substitute and "quick" arcane tank, but as something more specialised, as he couldn't "tank" away with lots of PfMW memorised etc.. This could make the role of the bard more interesting, as other spells are to be used then, making him into some sort of debuff specialist with annoying features like, say, throwing emotion spells and the like around and staying at the back, using his "I can do almost anything to some degree" to fit into the role just needed - maybe using scrolls. Have to think about that again.

As for Firkraag and the Ancient Wyrm: well, the Ancient Wyrm is your creation. You might as well change the dialog. But then you're right, since minions won't make Firkraag himself tougher, only the battle.

This post has been edited by Arkain: Jan 31 2008, 11:53 PM

[Sikret]

I read in one topic that you (Sikret) intended to introduce some sort of Monster Manual to the game that would give hints how to defeat the new monsters and their tactics. Yet I don't see anything of that mentioned in your report.
Did you abandon that idea because it is too spoilerish or did you just foret to write it down?

Yes, that idea was abandoned long ago. The tactical expert should find each enemy type's characteristics during the battles (not by reading them somewhere).

The suggested idea was to add pages of the manual in different locations in the game so that the player could find them gradually and make the whole completed manual only after having all of the pages. It was not even discussed whether each single page should have been readable or not. However, the entire manual would have been an item (like a book) whose content could have been read in Shadow Keeper. Consequently, it would just turn to be an unintended help to cheaters.

Even if we assume that noone would cheat to read the book in Shadow Keeper, I still believe that the idea was not a good one (for the reason I explained at the beginning of this post).

[Sikret]

As the bard grows more experienced he does just that - he gets more experience in everything. This includes magic.

Well, this is what the mage does as well. He doesn't cast high level spells when he is inexperienced or low level. He gradually gains experience and gains higher level spells.

There must be a "meaningful" difference between a mage and a Bard in this respect. The bard's spell progression should be capped at a reasonable point.

[Clown]

The bard changes upset me, having played a bard through IA several times Irealise that they are a very powerful class, however no more so than several others, vagrant, F/M, R/C, Sorc for example. However it might be justifiable to nerf them a little, whilst certainly not neccesary, this change is too great. The removal of all higher level spells from bards will make them a very unattractive prospect for an IA party especiallly in late game when higher level spells are required for any spell casting class to be effective. Perhaps capping at lvl 7 and removing the plus two spells per level from the bards armour would result in a more reasonable number of spells but leave the bard a playable class.

[Shadan]

- Rangers have a slightly better spell progression table (though still capped at 3rd level spells). Bards, on the other hand, have a slightly nerfed table (capped at 5th level spells).

Well, I have to agree with others regarding bards. If you do this change, bards will be useless class in IA. To tell the truth low level spells means nothing in high level encounters... Mislead's removing is big strike for bards, cause of Mislead+impr. bard song. if you do this change, I am sure none of the players won't play bard in IA. Yes, lvl 8 spells are a bit too high for bards, I agree with this. But at least lvl 7 should stay for them. I would leave the bard armor as it is, just I would make a spell progression for them a little slower.
Otherwise, I can great better spell progression for the rangers, but in this case you should do same for paladins. The 2 casts are similar in this aspect. Also if their spells won't be better, it is pointless to add more spells for them. As for rangers, Armor of Faith and CLW is good as level 1 spells, but at level 2 there is no good choice. Only Resist Fire/Cold can come into consideration, but due to ranger's low caster level, it is a very short buff, so I usually chose wizard version of these spells, or druid/cleric cast them. As level 3 spells, currently I use only the Zone of Sweet Air...
So may vote:
bards max. lvl 7 spells, slower spell progression
rangers/paladins a bit faster spell progression, a bit better spells.

- The fifth level clerical spell, Magic Resistance, is tweaked. It adds (rather than set) +5% per three levels MR to the cleric upto 30% at 18th level. But it cannot be cast on any other character or creature than the caster. Multiple uses of the spell won't cumulatively work together either.

I see you want to do clerics better, especially caster ones. I agree with this. It is a shame however, if I cast Shield of Archon (highest level spell from a cleric) but enemies can still dispel me with Breach or Dispel Magic without Shield is removed. So I would vote to make Shield of Archon better. It could stop Breach and Dispel, and it could be removed only with lvl 7+ wizard removing spells (Ruby, Piece Shield, Khelben's Whip, Spellstrike).

- Chaos Shield and Improved Chaos Shield spells are both nerfed: Shorter durations and less Wild surge Bonuses. The improved one had actually a wrong (too long) duration even compared with its vanilla description.

What is the reason for this? You said wild mage is not recommended for IA cause of his wild surges in important battles and cause of money loss. If you nerf these spells, wild mage will be absolutly unplayable cast in IA.

[Sikret]

Perhaps capping at lvl 7 and removing the plus two spells per level from the bards armour would result in a more reasonable number of spells but leave the bard a playable class.

The bard spell progression is capped at 6th level spells in the vanilla game. Having it capped at 7th level spells can't be called "nerfing", it would actually be "improving"!

It's the un-nerfed Bard spell progression table from Ease-of-Use which improves the table to let them cast 8th level spells. Unfortunately, it's part of the general un-nerfing component of Eas-of_use. Its other features are fine and even recommended.

I believe the best spell level for the bards being capped at is 5th level spells for the reason I explained before: The 6th level spells have the biggest distance/gap xpwise even for single class mages. If bards are supposed to stop somewhere, the most reasonable level is to be capped at 5th level.

As for the armor, I will keep its bonus daily spells but will remove its aura cleansing and casting speed bonus.

@shadan

What is the reason for this? You said wild mage is not recommended for IA cause of his wild surges in important battles and cause of money loss.

Yes, and I want to help those nasty wild surges to happen more frequently.

Let's not to allow cheesy players to win a hard battle with the wild mage's overpoweredness or by pure chaotic chance (rather than thinking and calculating).

Fortunately, in IA, the wild mage is not as overpowered as it was in the vanilla game (even without these recent changes to the Chaos Shield spells), but it's still unreasonably more powerful than other mages. Hence, I thought of applying those new changes to those spells.

[Shadan]

Personally I don't care with wild mage nerf, since it is a kit only. Wild mages can sleep with other unused kit.
But you should cast a vote about bards and lvl 5 spell cap. How many ppl would play a bard or even consider it if they are capped at lvl 5? Maybe I am wrong, but with this you put a whole class, not only a single kit, to the graveyard. I surely will use anykind of fighter-mage dual or multi in the future instead of bard.

[Clown]

Oops, been playing with the un-nerfed component so long forgot it was a mod. However as for the bard changes as a whole, though they could certainly be justified in a vanilla game in IA they are far too draconian and as shadan has said will consign another class to the graveyard. This is not a positive or helpful change and simply reduces the variety of ways the mod can be played which are already to some extent limited. As it is now there is no class with the possible exception of the Vagrant which is over powered in IA and as a result none need to be nerfed from a balance perspective, the only thing that nerfing a class especially to this extent will do is dissuade players from using it leading more and more to the same cookie cutter IA party being the only one which is valid, something that will only harm the mod as a whole.