Icewind Dale II Forum Update

Remove all ads!

(Originally posted by Tiamat)

J.E. Sawyer, Lead Designer

Rulebooks: 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 and Damage Reduction: 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.

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.

Stoneskin is still very useful for a mage, assuming that you're using it from a defensive position.

More on Stoneskin: Stoneskin as written in 2nd Ed. is useful for a mage who tends to stay out of harm's way. The mage needs that protection in case a stray enemy comes his or her way. For the mage, it is a life-preserver. It gets abused quite easily when a hasted fighter/mage with 80 hit points runs into the midst of enemies. When that happens, it is being used defensively/offensively to ignore the first x attacks on the character while they brazenly deal out gobs of damage. The spell still works quite well for mages, but not so well for people who run a fighter/mage up to twelve barbarians.

The mage's protection spells in IWD2 are much harder to abuse than they were in IWD. This spell, in particular, is nowhere near as valuable. It's valuable if you're a mage in the back of the party, but it's less than awesome if you're a fighter/mage in the thick of battle.

Stoneskin and Spell Disruption: Spellcasters now make checks to overcome spell disruption. It works pretty well. You don't need to worry as much about your mage losing a spell for taking a bump on the head.

Mage HP Constitution Bonuses: 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".

A mage with HP like that could be killed by a boss! Why is your mage in melee with a boss character?

Abi-Dalzim's hurts party members: 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.

A misplaced Abi-Dalzim's could kill your characters!: Much like a misplaced fireball at low levels.

Is it possible to "see" an outline of the area effect when you are targeting? I would like to do this, but I don't know if it's possible.

Archer Kit Balancing: Disagreement doesn't irk me. Failure to do basic arithmetic irks me. Failure to make appropriate comparisons irks me.

People believed that the blade's offensive spin and defensive spin were poopy. I changed them because I eventually saw their point of view; they were losing powers and getting replacement abilities that weren't worth the loss.

I have yet to see any sort of compelling argument that leads me to believe that this kit suffers from a similar malady. I have seen many arguments that a) tell me yes, the ranger should have some of his ranger abilities and the capability to achieve missile grandmastery and b) tell me that a character called an archer should be the best possible archer in the game.

Since a number of people seem intent on comparing the ranger kit to a fighter instead of ranger -- or ignoring the ranger's benefits because they don't like them -- or ignoring the fact that they can play a grandmaster bow fighter -- or ignoring the fact that kits like the assassin don't meet their standard for naming -- it seems logical that an archer kit for rangers can't be made to player satisfaction without shafting anyone who would want to play a missile grandmaster fighter.

Tantrum? I'm just walking down the logical, but hardly sensible, road that several people are laying out before me.

The Votary: Because the votary is evil more holy than thou "other" paladins, he/she gains bonus spells.

Thoughts on Kits: I personally believe that it is better to implement 18 kits well than 24 or 36 kits "okay".

Will there be battle stances? Yes.

Can evil rangers pick their own race as racial enemy? Theoretically yes, but practically, no. I'm certain that there are far more monstrous opponents in the games than humans, elves, gnomes, dwarves, and halflings.

Magical Armor: There are very few suits of magical plate mail, and they do not start appearing until late in the game. I don't even think you find magical chain until about the halfway point. That said, many suits of armor do possess useful magical abilities other than +'s to AC.

Giant Killer: A practical cap of +15 or +20 may be placed on the giant-killer's bonuses. The base ranger stops getting additional racial enemies at 20th level or so... I think.

The Kensai's AC Bonuses: Not scrapped, but I forgot to put a practical cap on that: +6 at 15th level.

Can rangers be of any alignment? Yes. Malarite rangers on the way.

The Archer: What would you guys think of renaming this kit as "hunter"? Or should I just start naming all of the kits "alt. ranger 1", "alt. ranger 2", etc.?

Ranger Spell Progression: Do you understand how ranger spell progression works? You start getting spells at 6th level. That means that at 6th level, you can cast entangle on creatures, lock them in place, and rain down death on them with mastery in bows. At 15th level, the ranger has 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level druid spells. You can cast static charge, for crying out loud.

Is the kensai more powerful than other fighters? The kensai can be more powerful. And full of arrows.

More On The Archer: You argument contains an ill comparison and it fails to answer what I believed were two very straightforward questions.
1) Would you ever play a ranger?
2) If so, would you play an archer kit instead of a ranger?
When you complain about hated enemies, tracking, and druid spells being unimportant, you're complaining about the ranger.

Archer and Armor: The kit listed may wear any armor a ranger can wear, which includes full plate mail.

A fighter with Grand Mastery in bows should be more powerful than the Archer: OH, MESSIAH! ART THOU AN ANGEL DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN?! WHAT SORCERY HATH THOU WROUGHT THAT ALLOWS THEE TO UNDERSTAND WITH SUCH CLARITY?

The Archer should be the best archer in the game: Should I remove the assassin kit as well, since mages and fighters can kill more effectively?

Sick of the Archer: You guys are well on your way to convincing me that the archer kit should be removed from the game.

You are not going to have your cake and eat the fighter's, too. People asked forever and ever and ever and ever that rangers be able to have extra kick with missile weapons. The archer kit allows you to do that. You are not, not, not, not, not, not going to get an archer ranger that outclasses the fighter in weapon combat.

Here's a question: would you ever include a ranger in your party? If so, would you consider the archer to be a viable alternative to the base ranger? That is really the answer I am looking for. Does the archer seem balanced compared to the base ranger?

True Class is Better: Why, because they can't use two-handed swords and polearms that negate one of the ranger's ostensible benefits? Because they can't use armor that also negates one of the ranger's benefits?
I think I'm having one of those Karzak "huh?" moments.

Haste: Haste now grants an additional attack per round, instead of DOUBLING your attacks per round.

Is the kensai worthless? If you hate having +4 to hit and damage with all weapons by 12th level... then, yes.

Overpowered Spells: Stoneskin and haste, at 4th and 3rd levels, were the deals of the century in 2nd Ed. Those spells were so easily abused, particularly by fighter/mages.

Landsknecht Changes: I made some changes to the landsknecht on the first page of the thread. Notably:

* Removed 3rd level AC bonus.
* Added "Long Reach" at 3rd level, which increases the effective reach of melee weapons by 1. To be honest, I don't even know if this could be done, but man, it would be cool.
* Switched around critical attack and knockdown. Reduced knockdown's duration to one round and limited it to living creatures.
* Added a 1 point movement penalty.

Modified again, adding the following disadvantages:

* Cannot start play with weapon specialization.
* Cannot gain grandmastery in a weapon.

Removed disadvantage:

* Gains proficiencies at a decreased rate.

This keeps the landsknecht +1 to hit, +2 to damage behind a standard fighter starting out. At 3rd level, he's +2 to hit, +1 to damage behind a standard fighter. At 6th level, he's not getting the bonuses to critical that the fighter gains. When he gets Knockdown, it sort of evens out with grandmastery. I think this makes the kit pretty well balanced.

Landsknechts and Weapons: It is not inconsistent at all. Landsknechts used (and use) long offensive weapons that require two hands. I don't think I've even seen an illustration of one with a shield. They're always carrying pikes, zweihanders, crossbows, and primitive firearms.

Landsknecht Disadvantages: How about a penalty to Reflex saves and a lack of specialization at first level?

The easiest way to adjust fighter kits is to a) remove grandmastery capability b) slow their proficiency acquisition and c) disallow specialization at first level.

The movement penalty all the time would have been easy (and slight), but people think it's too severe. It's difficult to balance fighter kits because they don't have that much stuff to begin with. Often, removing access to weapons or armor doesn't accomplish a lot.

More on the Landsknecht: I just edited the kit description.

* 6th Level: Hold Ground: When activated, this ability slows the landsknecht to quarter movement. For the next five rounds, the landsknecht gains a +2 generic AC bonus and 2 points of damage reduction. This power is usable 3/day.

Removed: 1 point movement penalty.

This is more in the spirit of the slow-moving defensive fighter and it's not as powerful as a +2 to criticals.

The Avenger and Shapeshifting: That's the point. Many people don't think shapeshifting is cool. They never use the abilities, so they're like wasted powers. The avenger lacks shapeshifting, and gains two free uses of good druid spells at each of the levels where they would have received shapeshifting powers.

Priests of Tempus: Priests of Tempus may be of any alignment. Though 2nd Ed. Battleguards must be CE, CN, or CG, 3E FRCS opens the priesthood up to any alignment.

Playing Evil: Evil characters are selfish. If he's a greedy bastard, your character may have answered the mercenary call for phat loot. If your character is a bloodthirsty maniac, it's easy to get away with murder when he's knee-deep in goblins.

Archer Bonuses: It is not going to happen. If you want to play the most powerful offensive missile weapon character in the game, make a fighter and give the character grandmastery in bows or crossbows.

Wood elf fighter + bow grandmastery = excellent character.

Wood elf ranger (archer) + bow mastery = excellent character.

Here is what an archer has with mastery:

+3 to hit and damage

Here is what a fighter has with grandmastery:

+3 to hit and damage
Increased chance to critically hit
Chance to stun on a successful attack

The archer will hit exactly as often as the fighter. Please do some calculations on the effectiveness of these characters before you write them off. Not only does the archer have exactly the same chance to hit as the fighter, he or she has druid spells and stealth.

So the Archer is not the ultimate marksman? You got me; just as the assassin is, in fact, not hired to kill each individual goblin on the battlefield, does not smoke hashish, and is outclassed in killing efficiency by a fireball, the archer is not a better bowman than a fighter with grandmastery.

Rapid Shot: I'm not sure if it can be done, so I didn't post it here.
Also, let's not try to bring "realism" into the discussion as a heavyweight force of reason. If you want "realism", we'll give you friendly fire rules. Unless you're Draconis, you probably don't want that.

Goals of the Archer Kit: Before the trumpets sound and the crusading army mounts up, let me tell you exactly what the goals of this kit will be:

* Better with missile weapons than a standard ranger.

Let me tell you what it will not be:

* Better with missile weapons than a grandmaster fighter.

Fighters in IWD were awfully powerful compared to many of the classes. Until HoW, they were significantly more powerful than paladins and rangers as well. In IWD2, fighters have been pulled back considerably. Not only have the ranger and paladin been beefed up, but the base classes now can get similar bonuses from strength and con -- oh, and extra attacks as they increase in level.

To maintain the fighter's role in an IWD2 party, the fighter must be allowed to keep a hold on those things that are sacred to fighters: specialization at first level, mastery, high mastery, and grandmastery at 3rd, 6th, and 9th levels. That is how fighters keep their edge in a sea of characters with special abilities, spellcasting, and other assorted benefits.

Will the dialogue options be more varied based on kit choice? Yes.

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.

The Ravager: 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.

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.

Kit Creation: 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.

In case any of you are wondering how we have time to revise/replace kits, it's because two months ago, we allocated time for ripping out or restructuring subraces and kits that QA or fans might just not like. I know, I know, forethought is not something we are known for, but we might have actually scheduled something well for once.

Two-Weapon Style: I believe that thieves, bards, monks, fighters, paladins, rangers, and barbarians can all gain max ranks in two-weapon fighting. Rangers start with a free rank in it.

Will the cavalier kit receive it's natural resistance to fire and acid? No.

Can Drow be good or neutral alingment? Yes.

What are the new forms for the shapeshifter kit? The new forms for the shapeshifter kit are arctic boar, black panther, and (my favorite) shambling mound.

Resistances Have Been Redone: Brush up on your AD&D canon; resistances were never done AD&D 2nd Ed. "propa" in the IE anyway. Sometimes AD&D 2nd Ed. spells granted % resistances, sometimes they granted point resistances. These things don't mix too well. Stacking percentile resistances also resulted in really goofy situations:

Low-level mage casts a 10 point burning hands at your character with 90% Fire Resistance. You take 1 point of damage.

High-level mage casts a 200 point meteor swarm at your character with 90% Fire Resistance. You take 20 points of damage.

It makes most forms of elemental attack completely useless if a player stops to think about stacking resistance effects. Using a point threshhold, the baby attacks get ignored completely, but meteor swarms and other devastating attacks still do a lot of damage, as they should, IMO.

Stats have been rearranged to remove the dead zone: Why is removing the dead zone bad?

Racial Modifiers: The modifier affects the starting value and the cap.

Fighters vs Rangers: Fighters are fighters, rangers are rangers. Fighters get to be good at fighting, period. If rangers are better than fighters at fighting, AND get spells, AND get hated enemies, AND get stealth -- why play a fighter? Some things need to be left for the fighters. Mastery, high mastery, and grandmastery. Only the addition of special kit powers to a fighter should take those options away. In the long run, an archer's bonuses to hit and damage with missile weapons outshines the raw damage potential of mastery, but the fighter always has the option of taking mastery in any given weapon -- or not.

Weapon Speed: Weapon speed really is only important when you have one or two attacks. Once you start stacking on more, in the IE, it just forces the attacks to come as fast as necessary in order to get the proper number in one round. For example, a two-handed sword getting five attacks a round will start and finish its attacks at the same rate as a dagger with five attacks a round. Because the animation can only play so fast, it needs to cut out that "lag time" at the beginning of the round to accommodate all of the animations in 6-7 seconds.

Two-Handed Weapon Damage: The spear's damage has already been increased to 1d8. The halberd stays at 1d10, and the two-handed sword moves to 2d6. Spears can be used by most classes now; their bonus lies mostly in ease of use. Halberds, spears, and two-handed swords will all have 2 attack range and they will all gain an increase in bonus strength damage.

Character with an 18 Strength wielding a halberd:

1d10 + 6 = 7-16 = 11.5 average damage

Character with an 18 Strength wielding a longsword:

1d8 + 4 = 5-12 = 8.5 average damage

Of course, a dual-wielding character can offset this with a longsword in the off-hand:

1d8 + 2 = 3-10 = 6.5 average damage

...but that's a lot of proficiency slots in two weapon fighting to offset attack penalties. In the long run, the halberdier will win out.

3 * 11.5 = 35 average damage per round

3 * 8.5 = 26 + 6.5 = 32.5 average damage per round

Of course, there are other things to consider, like weapon bonuses, specialization, and so on, but the halberdier does pretty well.

An Archer is not a Fighter: It's a ranger kit. Ranger, not fighter. If you would like to play a character who will be the best archer, stats-wise, make a fighter. If you would like a ranger who is the best archer, stat-wise, use the archer kit.

Stop and think about this for a moment:

Fighter:
d10 hit points
Any Armor
Any Weapon
Ability to gain mastery, high mastery, grand mastery in weapons.

That is what a fighter has going for him.

Ranger:
d10 hit points
Any Armor
Any Weapon
Ability to specialize in weapons.
Stealth
Druid spells at high level
Hated enemy at 1st level, another every 4 levels, grants +4 to hit and damage against creatures of a given race.
Free bonus prof. in two-weapon fighting.
Tracking

If a ranger could get grandmastery in bows, there would be absolutely no point to playing a fighter if you had the intention to make the character a ranged combatant. No metal armor and prof. only in melee weapons? Who cares? With grandmastery, most opponents would be dead by the time they got around your front line to engage the character.

Two-Handed Weapons: We are going to do the following:

* Increase two-handed sword damage to 2d6.
* Increase two-handed strength bonus damage to 1.5.
* Decrease off-hand strength bonus damage to .5 (already done, actually).

WORD. TO. YOUR. MOMS.

The point of the archer: A ranger with increased ability in missile weapons.

The Future of BIS: 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.

Can Archers reach grandmastery in ranged weapons? No.

Can Archers then critically hit and stun opponents at range? No.

Will the 3E multiple attack rules apply to ranged weapons? Yes.

Does the Archer's hated enemy ranger bonus stack with his ranged attacks? Yes.

Will any of the weapon styles have any effect on ranged attacks? No.

Puzzles: There are many puzzles in IWD2. Often, if frustration becomes a concern, players have a "kill everyone, let the gods sort them out" option which is often more difficult, but valid.

"Welcome to the monastery. To pass through, you must overcome our trials."

"Nooooo problem-o!"

***
SIX DAYS LATER
***

"To hell with this shifting sand puzzle! DIE, BALD ONE!"

The Riddlemaster: Are you suggesting that the riddlemaster should keep the abilities listed and get all of the normal songs?

Tiefling Avatar: The avatar will be the Human one, with perhaps some skin and hair colour changes.

Multi-Class Characters and XP Penalties: Well, it certainly wouldn't be ten total levels, but perhaps we could make an allowance so multi-classed characters dropped the penalty one level earlier for each of their additional classes. That way, a deep gnome fighter/thief (for instance) would lose the XP penalty at 9/9. A dark elf f/m/t would lose the penalty at 8/8/8. That should keep them roughly even... I think.

Blade Barrier-like ability for Ravagers: I would go for Blades of Chaos, perhaps, since Bane is LE and ravagers cannot be lawful.

Random Traps: That's an excellent idea, but it would be hard to implement at this point in development.

This would actually involve placing multiple triggers and launch points for each trap. If a level had twelve traps, it would require thirty-six triggers and launch points, and a mechanism in code for linking a "set" of trap triggers, activating only one trigger per set, and then disabling the whole set once a trap had been deactivated.

EDIT: Overall point: it is a programming and design issue, not just a design issue. I actually thought about it about a year ago for another project. PERHAPS THAT MYSTERIOUS PROJECT WILL HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR.

Weapons: I didn't make all of the weapons in IWD, so that Two-Handed Sword of Hammering Sparking +4 shouldn't go on my record, for good or ill.

Storyline: I hate to point out what I believe should be public record, but a lot of people complained about BG2's storyline because it was so forceful in its presentation. Did you not complain? Very well -- you obviously enjoy and appreciate a storyline that is more tightly controlled and well-defined. Not all games need to be made in that manner.

In Icewind Dale 2, you create six characters who can be every color in nature, from shining paladins to cold-blooded assassins. If you were playing a party consisting of a dreadmaster of Bane, an assassin, a ravager, and a chaotic evil stalker, would you like to be told, "You are going to Targos to take care of your dear old mother and her pet cats" or "You are going to Targos to fight for truth, justice, and the Faerunian way"? Why? The characters you have made obviously don't fit into either of those approaches. The most practical way to handle the wide variety of characters that people can make is to start with the motivational premise pre-defined: you did come to Targos because of the conflict. Why? That's up for you to decide. Maybe you are a cold-blooded mercenary. Maybe you're a bloodthirsty ravager. Maybe you're a goblin-hunting ranger out for a little sport. If you don't like that approach to presenting the story, that's perfectly fine. This may not be the game for you.

"Landsknecht": It's a German word, meaning "servant of the land". English is Germanic language, so hey... free dummy.

BTW, there were actually laws passed that allowed landsknechts to dress like that in spite of imperial decrees that demanded that forces in service of the emperor wear uniforms.

Longer-Reaching Weapons: Have you ever been jammed behind a bunch of characters, or blocked from reaching some big bad guy behind a row of fodder yahoos? Having a longer reach allows you to attack from a greater distance. Characters with spears in IWD can already attack from behind another character. Increasing it by another rank would allow them to attack past two standard characters. Currently, there's a magical spear in the game with a reach of 3. It is quite useful.

Dragoons and Landsknechts: This is a dragoon. This is a Landsknecht.

Targos: The first town, Targos, is bigger than Easthaven (three maps with interiors on each map), but smaller than, say, Baldur's Gate or Athkatla.