Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Ideas and suggestions for game mechanics and rules.
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Ronan »

Permission requested to bring the following spells in-line with 3.5 rules:

See Invisibility:
In 3.0 and NWN1/2 it lasts 1 minute per level. This makes it a sucky version of blindsight. No one ever casts it. In 3.5 it lasts 10 minutes per level. I believe this spell was simply not touched from NWN1 and we should change it to match 3.5.

Combust in 3.5:
COMBUST
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch Target: Touched creature or combustible object that weighs no more than 25 lb./level
Duration: Instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: Reflex partial
Spell Resistance: Yes

You rub the oil against the flint and murmur the ancient words, touching your target. It immediately smolders and then bursts into bright flames.

This spell makes a combustible object or a creature’s combustible equipment burst into flame, even if damp.

If the target is a creature, the initial eruption of flame causes 1d8 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d8) with no saving throw. Further, the creature must make a DC 15 Reflex save or catch fire (DMG 303).

If the target is a combustible, unattended object, the initial eruption of flame deals fire damage to the object as noted above. The object catches fire and takes 1d6 points of fire damage each round until consumed or someone puts out the fire.
Material Component: A drop of oil and a piece of flint.
Catching On Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
Combust in NWN2:
Combust causes flames to erupt around the touched creature, initially causing fire damage in the amount of 2d6 + 1 per caster level points, to a maximum of +10 points, with no saving throw. Each round after the casting the target must succeed at a reflex saving throw or take an additional 1d6 points of damage. This continues until the reflex saving throw is successful.
Combust vs. Scorching Ray, average damage by caster level:
03: 13.5, 14
04: 18.0, 14
05: 22.5, 14
06: 27.0, 14
07: 31.5, 28
08: 36.0, 28
09: 40.5, 28
10: 45.0, 28
11: 45.0, 42

3.5 combust offers a significant increase in damage over scorching ray. The drawbacks are of course that it is a melee-range spell, and in NWN2 this generally means an attack of opportunity is granted on the caster. It also cannot damage multiple targets as scorching rays can. Also note that without weapon finesse, melee touch attacks use the caster's STR modifier, so most mages will typically have an easier time hitting with a ranged touch attack (I can extrapolate out the average damage per level of a mage with a STR of 10 and a DEX of 14 if anyone cares).

Average damage with no misses:
03: 13.5, 14
04: 18.0, 14
05: 22.5, 14
06: 27.0, 14
07: 31.5, 28
08: 36.0, 28
09: 40.5, 28
10: 45.0, 28
11: 45.0, 42

Edit: went ahead and did it:
Average damage adjusted for misses:
Assuming straight wiz/sorc, STR 10, DEX 14 against a touch AC of 12.
03: 06.75, 08.40
04: 09.90, 09.10
05: 12.38, 09.10
06: 16.20, 09.80
07: 18.90, 19.60
08: 23.40, 21.00
09: 26.33, 21.00
10: 31.50, 22.40
11: 31.50, 33.60

Since we cannot simulate all the things a creature can do to put itself out if caught on fire, and the spell already seems pretty damn powerful, I'd like to leave out the "catches you on fire" portion of the spell.

Any build with Weapon Finesse and some ability to tank would see a rather large benefit from casting Combust over Scorching Ray. But then second-level spell slots are typically very precious for these builds (being mirror image's level). At high levels, without the ability to catch targets on fire or sneak attack via flanking, scorching ray is clearly superior.
Last edited by Ronan on Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ithildur
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3548
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Best pizza town in the universe
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Ithildur »

See Invis getting fixed to be a viable spell per RAW seems to be an absolute no brainer. What could OE have been smoking?
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something

It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Ronan »

Ithildur wrote:See Invis getting fixed to be a viable spell per RAW seems to be an absolute no brainer. What could OE have been smoking?
Many 2da entries, tlk entries and scripts were left unchanged from NWN1. That was just probably one of them.
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by t-ice »

Ronan wrote: (being mirror image's level).
Yes, do fix Mirror Image so that it doesn't add to existing AC, plz thx ;)

Combust doing 1d8/CL sounds ok. Is it really necessary to remove the lingering 1d6 per turn it does now? Probably a good idea to make the save fixed at DC15 or something, though. If a critter needs to roll a 20 for the save the damage could theoretically get out of hand since the critter can't actively help putting it out.

Btw, out of curiosity: If you have Weapon Finesse, should you be able to use DEX for melee touch attacks? And does nwn2 allow you to? I know that nwn2 doesn't consider natural weapons to be finessable, which does make tiny critters generally much weaker than they should. (Used to fix this in my Amnian critters by making finesse "natural" weapons to be invisible weapons of appropriate stats and giving critters weapon profs.)
User avatar
Blindhamsterman
Haste Bear
Posts: 2396
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:13 am
Location: GMT

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Blindhamsterman »

Yes, do fix Mirror Image so that it doesn't add to existing AC, plz thx
yeah, I'll happily take a flat % chance for enemies to miss me over some additional AC :P
1d4 images +1 for every 3 caster levels means a level 9 caster can have as few as 4 and as many as 7 images. 4 images = 75% chance to hit an image whos AC is 10 + size + dex (suprisingly not dodge bonus - id have thought dodge bonus too). if it hits an image then it is destroyed. so the 4 images would become 3 and the % chance to hit an image rather than the caster becomes 66.66% etc etc.

yup, i'd definitely take the above over some extra AC *nod nod*

p.s. yeah melee touch attacks are finesseable afaik, pretty sure i've used them a few times.
Standards Member


Current PC: Elenaril Avae'Kerym of the Lynx Lodge
<Heero>: yeah for every pc ronan has killed dming, paazin has killed 2 with his spawns
User avatar
hollyfant
Staff Head on a Pike - Standards
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: the Netherworl... lands! I meant the Netherlands.

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by hollyfant »

t-ice wrote:If you have Weapon Finesse, should you be able to use DEX for melee touch attacks?
You should.
And does nwn2 allow you to?
It does. Or I remember it doing so.
Zelknolf
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 6139
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Zelknolf »

In 3.5 it lasts 10 minutes per level.
For 1.83.5 (I'll get it if you don't beat me to it; release cut is Friday evening).
Combust.

- canonical spell details, as listed in Spell Compendium -
- canonical "on fire" rules (don't want to use)-
For 1.83.5 (timeline as see invis). We can look into adding a standard "on fire" handling at a later date, for use by the myriad of sources of a horrible lit-on-fire death; ideally, we would do so alongside a sound canonical implementation for Resist Energy, as NWN2 does a poor job of providing that spell's designed utility.
Mirror image stuff
Design required; do not attempt for 1.83.5. We can consider for 1.84 if the work, will, and enginuity is available. Bumped if there's no design by 1/30.

I don't think the two changes for the immediate future need a distinct design document. fDuration = TurnsToSeconds(nCasterLevel) becomes fDuration = TurnsToSeconds(nCasterLevel) * 10, and Combust suddenly becomes a four line script. Make sure to update the talk tables; people will be most confused if our text disagrees with our function.

If someone is going to take up the mantle of Mirror Image, start a thread in the tech forum. There are many kinks to work out.
User avatar
Brokenbone
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Brokenbone »

Half the appeal of PnP Combust is the damage or destruction of gear, isn't it? Where your trusty DM would have to figure out just how many hp your wooden shield or bow or paper spellbook or wooly magic robe or cloak might have when all these no-save d8s of fire hit it initially, then all the reflex-save d6s of catching on fire come up. I suppose that could be a RP use of the spell, adjusted or not, right? If you really wanted to zap a terrifying bowman's weapon of choice...
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack

DMA Staff
Zelknolf
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 6139
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Zelknolf »

Brokenbone wrote:Half the appeal of PnP Combust is the damage or destruction of gear, isn't it?
To be fair, this is half of the appeal of any damage-doing spell which allows more targets than "creatures." You can, in PnP, fling an orb of fire at a pesky shield, a bow, a rope, or a codpiece. Whatever floats your boat.

We just don't have the guts built into any of our systems to support that right now. Lighting people on fire is surely something we could see on a reasonable timeline; lighting their gear on fire will take a lot more doing, and I'm not sure it would be fair for me to honestly talk about doing it right now. There's just more interest and demand in other broad structural upgrades right now, and if the work to do so appears, I'd hope that people would be more interested in staples of the Era of Upheval (like improving our rather-young Wild Magic system, or implementing Dead Magic / Shadow Weave / {Dead | Wild} Shadow Weave)
User avatar
Brokenbone
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Brokenbone »

Could the "Blindness/Deafness" spell be made a longer duration (up to 3.5 Permanent), possibly weakening it at the same time so that you have to pick whether to use the Blindness OR Deafness effect (kind of like when you select Protection from Evil or Good when you actually blow off a Protection from Alignment)? If a selectable version can't work, guess could consider it still being BOTH hitting at once (possibly overpowered), or like a 50/50 chance of which of the two effects get applied with no caster choice (possibly underpowered, Blindness way better than Deafness usually), or whether this could be broken out into a Blindness and a Deafness spell?

It's kind of silly that there's a Remove Blindness/Deafness spell which goes hand in hand with this on say, the Cleric list, meant in PnP to be the "cure", but cures for permanent things vs. cures for round/lvl effects, kind of a weird mismatch there. I am sure there are other sources of Blindness / Deafness elsewhere, often temporary like a color spray, but I can't put my finger on many sources, maybe would need to think harder.

Anyhow, yeah. Blindness / Deafness 3.5 is meant to be seriously inconvenient until cured, not just a brief inconvenience. If I wanted brief sightless-like penalties, I'd do Darkness at a level lower. PS - no, my PC is not capable of casting thing, but "maybe someday."
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack

DMA Staff
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Ronan »

BB, I wanted to do this too, primarily because I think blinding PCs (much like turning them into cats) is funny. However, one issue is that the AI makes blinded mobs stand around and do nothing. In many cases this might be fine as blinded mobs are not long for this world anyway. It probably wouldn't be too hard to have them defend themselves if attacked but I haven't looked at the AI code.

Another issue is that (much like combust?) this is something my PC would use (blindness = free sneak attacks, yay), especially in CvC (which I've yet to be involved in, but I'm sure it'll happen eventually).
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by t-ice »

I would chime in that the reason Blindness was nerfed is likely that NWN2 enemies cannot find ways to cure or overcome it, like PnP enemies could. Sorta the same as with Disarm. While "bringing in line with PnP" is nice, you have to consider the de facto balance in nwn2, which largely hinges on the AI. That said, I'm not sure the spell would be overpowered, but do suspect so.

Though prema-blinding PCs... :twisted:

Oh, ninjaed. What Ronan said :wink:
User avatar
Brokenbone
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
Location: London, Ontario, Canada

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Brokenbone »

Hmm, Blindness messes with the AI, that sounds familiar. It'd be a nice thing to fix, I mean, AI fights in Darkness effects, why not Blindness? Could some kind of blindness-like condition apply to the AI hostiles, like whatever impacts in a Darkness zone, "and then some" (like a negative to attack, either the -2 of PnP or the -4 of NWN2?) Or the "run away run away" of often-borked morale systems?

Anyhow, does Deafness stop the AI in its tracks? It's available for 40gp via Thunderstones if you haven't got a caster or 150gp blind/deaf scroll around...
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack

DMA Staff
t-ice
Dungeon Master
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by t-ice »

Deafness probably only messes with casters, same as silence.
User avatar
Blindhamsterman
Haste Bear
Posts: 2396
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:13 am
Location: GMT

Re: Proposal: Bring Spells in line with PnP

Post by Blindhamsterman »

being deaf doesn't affect the ability to cast spells afaik?
Standards Member


Current PC: Elenaril Avae'Kerym of the Lynx Lodge
<Heero>: yeah for every pc ronan has killed dming, paazin has killed 2 with his spawns
Locked