|
|
Post by soulfien on Sept 21, 2006 15:41:41 GMT -5
yeah water can be a pain  Just... try not to be near it when it unleashes its drown attack |
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Sept 21, 2006 15:50:09 GMT -5
Actually that is not the reason. It is not about the "drown" attack just the elemental type. I have summoned water elementals with other characters and never had any backlash from that attack. Umm.. that can happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on Sept 21, 2006 15:57:31 GMT -5
one of these days you'll fail your fort save and then BOOM! you're toast!
|
|
|
|
Post by vercingettorix on Sept 21, 2006 16:22:11 GMT -5
Ugh! Water elementals...whenever a party member summons one I stay waaaaaaaaaay away from it until it unleashes its evil mojo. I have terrible luck with insta death saves  |
|
|
|
Post by DM Grizwald on Sept 22, 2006 19:56:47 GMT -5
I LOVE ELEMENTALS! I LOVE HIGH LEVEL DRUIDS!  |
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 22, 2006 23:29:23 GMT -5
Can the visual effect also be removed from Ultravision and See Invisibility? It's the same visual effect as True Seeing had.
I also wouldn't mind seeing the visual removed from Protection from Alignment. (I would prefer the visuals left in for Magic Circle against alignment and Aura vs. Alignment, since their name suggests a visual element.)
I think I will be pleased with the effects being gone for the skin spells and True Seeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Booze Hound on Sept 22, 2006 23:31:57 GMT -5
the skin spells removal rocks. the true seeing I am sure rocks as well. Ultra vision would be nice, but not that many of use it, so I dont mind, but the skins kick ass
|
|
|
|
Post by Dachshund on Sept 23, 2006 0:09:13 GMT -5
I think we should keep those spell effect removals at a minimum.
I agree that the skin effects worsen roleplay, so they should be gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on Sept 23, 2006 0:53:31 GMT -5
I agree.
There's no reason for true seeing to have its effect removed. It's there, it's big, it's bold, and it scares away thieves, yet there is still no real rp reason why it should now be invisible.
See invisibility, ultra-vision, and protection from alignment as well. Why except that some may find those effects annoying from time to time. Well, *shrugs* if we remove those we may as well remove ALL spell effects. Picking and choosing doesn't make much sense.
Except for skin effects, but only because the spells affected your clothing/armour as well which it shouldn't have.
|
|
|
|
Post by DM Grizwald on Sept 23, 2006 3:32:01 GMT -5
i agree
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 23, 2006 4:21:31 GMT -5
Why the removal of the effect on Ultravision/See Invisibility/True Seeing?
Because they should never have had effects to begin with. The same for the Protection from Alignment. People should not see little golden (or red) floating moats over your head. If they can be removed, I'd like to see it. Then villains can cast Protection from Good without fear of being called on it. "Ah, he has Protection from Good cast, he must be Evil!" Protection from Good is a lot easier to recognize than Protection from Evil, since several other spells use the same effect as PfE.
I generally don't like spell effects on buffs unless it specifically would have a visual effect, such as Invisibility or Shadow Shield.
|
|
|
|
Post by sangrow on Sept 23, 2006 6:28:13 GMT -5
Visual effects removed from Barkskin and stoneskin are AWESOME! the party actually looks like a group of adventurers rather than a rolling ball of rocks and sticks. the characters get to retain their identity, and none of that awkward looking all dumb when you come back to town. Kudos to Ainur for getting that done! you rock! This makes NO sense at all to me. It's even called Barkskin because you actually get a layer on bark on you. The same goes for Stoneskin. To use RP as an argument to remove visual effect then you should consider that there is an aqual RP argenment to keep it since it the characters choice to use it or not. The spell effect is a fact it is an RP issue how to deal with it. You dont like to talk with barkskin effect then remove it when you do. This is DnD and magic effect is as unusual in this game as cars in our world. Why make an issue out of Trueseeing? If a wizard dont want to be followed why not use a invisibility spell? And is trueseeing still a problem why not just lessen the duration? |
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 23, 2006 7:45:23 GMT -5
Visual effects removed from Barkskin and stoneskin are AWESOME! the party actually looks like a group of adventurers rather than a rolling ball of rocks and sticks. the characters get to retain their identity, and none of that awkward looking all dumb when you come back to town. Kudos to Ainur for getting that done! you rock! This makes NO sense at all to me. It's even called Barkskin because you actually get a layer on bark on you. The same goes for Stoneskin. To use RP as an argument to remove visual effect then you should consider that there is an aqual RP argenment to keep it since it the characters choice to use it or not. The spell effect is a fact it is an RP issue how to deal with it. You dont like to talk with barkskin effect then remove it when you do. This is DnD and magic effect is as unusual in this game as cars in our world. Why make an issue out of Trueseeing? If a wizard dont want to be followed why not use a invisibility spell? And is trueseeing still a problem why not just lessen the duration? In the 3.5e PHB, neither Barkskin nor Stoneskin mentions in their spell descriptions that the character's skin is actually covered with bark or stone, only that the properties are changed. The bark/stone appearance is a Bioware interpretation so far as I can see. Edit: Just wanted to add that I like the new planar allies. Very nice. It always bothered me that CG characters got archons. |
|
|
|
Post by sangrow on Sept 23, 2006 12:52:32 GMT -5
I stand corrected...in 3.0 it even says "tough as bark"...not that actually is bark...
|
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on Sept 23, 2006 22:46:47 GMT -5
Why the removal of the effect on Ultravision/See Invisibility/True Seeing? Because they should never have had effects to begin with. The same for the Protection from Alignment. People should not see little golden (or red) floating moats over your head. If they can be removed, I'd like to see it. Then villains can cast Protection from Good without fear of being called on it. "Ah, he has Protection from Good cast, he must be Evil!" Protection from Good is a lot easier to recognize than Protection from Evil, since several other spells use the same effect as PfE. I generally don't like spell effects on buffs unless it specifically would have a visual effect, such as Invisibility or Shadow Shield. well, if they remove any spell effects due to good and evil "metagaming" then they should remove all spell effects. at least that's my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by soulfien on Sept 24, 2006 1:27:19 GMT -5
a note on protection from good. I've never seen an evil PC simply cast protection from good before going farming. Typically, one farms evil creatures, right?
There are 2 reasons why someone uses PfG:
1. Right before attacking someone good
2. To protect yourself from your own spells. And by the way, good and evil PC's do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 24, 2006 4:16:53 GMT -5
a note on protection from good. I've never seen an evil PC simply cast protection from good before going farming. Typically, one farms evil creatures, right? There are 2 reasons why someone uses PfG: 1. Right before attacking someone good 2. To protect yourself from your own spells. And by the way, good and evil PC's do this. What are you trying to say? You seem to be missing your mark. Good characters, at least good divine spellcasters, should not be using Protection from Good at all, it is an Evil spell. |
|
|
|
Post by DM Justicar - Creator of FRC on Sept 24, 2006 4:44:39 GMT -5
a note on protection from good. I've never seen an evil PC simply cast protection from good before going farming. Typically, one farms evil creatures, right? There are 2 reasons why someone uses PfG: 1. Right before attacking someone good 2. To protect yourself from your own spells. And by the way, good and evil PC's do this. Please stop talking (typing) for the sake of it.   |
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 25, 2006 17:53:02 GMT -5
Regarding Gate, do you still have to have Protection from Evil cast on yourself to prevent a balor from attacking you?
|
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Sept 25, 2006 22:04:42 GMT -5
Actually for the other summoning called forth using a Gate spell would you have to have protection versus Good for the good-alignment creatures and what happens for the neutral summonings? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 25, 2006 22:27:06 GMT -5
Good creatures don't have a tendency to rampage so I would hope you don't need Protection when summoning them. Actually, using Protection from Good around a good-aligned outsider would probably be the reason it might attack you since Protection from Good is an Evil spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dachshund on Sept 25, 2006 23:12:12 GMT -5
No protection spell is needed for the Solar. It just kills my enemies... and it's very good at it. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by olwentheold on Sept 26, 2006 3:06:07 GMT -5
Regarding Gate, do you still have to have Protection from Evil cast on yourself to prevent a balor from attacking you? Yes, you will need it for the evil summons. |
|
|
|
Post by Booze Hound on Oct 6, 2006 12:59:37 GMT -5
I know this has been brought up, but boy o boy does Timestop need to be looked at. Today Vind, Guldar, and Helgrin were in a place, managed to make it to the bad guy, and at the beginning of the fight he cast the dreaded spell and it lasted 50 something seconds! thankfully I had done something to him the split second before that made him stand around for a while not casting anymore, but he managed to kill Guldar, and had Helgrin and I to next to nothing when the spell finally faded. he cast something like 10 or 12 spells during that time. we survived and managed to win the day, but holy cow was it lucky. I dont mind the spell when it lasts normal time (ok it still sucks, but it is doable) but that insane amount of time makes a battle go an entire different direction than it should. a minute is like 8 times longer than it is supposed to last! anyways, just thought I'd let someone know that it's really banged up. and I know it probably has to do with the FRC time clock and all, but it still is a mean thing to be succomed to. |
|
|
|
Post by olwentheold on Oct 8, 2006 4:07:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Oct 8, 2006 8:58:41 GMT -5
Can you please remove Vampire Warrior from the Create Undead spell?
Create Undead spells cannot create vampires or vampire spawn. They are only made one way.
Necropolitans are also made a specific way, but I'm not as particular about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quadhund/Greenhouse on Oct 8, 2006 12:35:00 GMT -5
I was looking at the script as well and this is what my default reads: ApplyEffectToObject(DURATION_TYPE_TEMPORARY, eTime, OBJECT_SELF, 9.0) Even though the script clearly defines the int nRoll equal to 1d4+1, it still uses a duration of 9. My theory before was that since the spell was 9 sec duration (as per spell scrolls and the spell description if a wizard looks at it in his spellbook), and FRC's time is sped up by 6 times, that the duration was 54 sec. In the month of august, I consistently measured time stop to last near 54 sec (only counted in my head). I have not encountered Time Stop recently. I was wondering if FRC's script looked like the one above as I expected it to read ApplyEffectToObject(DURATION_TYPE_TEMPORARY, eTime, OBJECT_SELF, nRoll) |
|
|
|
Post by Hackmaster on Oct 8, 2006 19:36:15 GMT -5
Regardless of of time increase in a module, a round is a round is a round. They always last 6 seconds each weather the mod is set to pass time 1 minute per hour or an hour per hour the 6 second round is completely unaffected. I believe the 9 second duration is the default for single player....maybe. I too have no idea why bioware listed 9 seconds but made the spell last 1d4+1 rounds. the 1d4+1 rounds is correct though and the 9 seconds makes more sense in single player because the player can pause to set up his attack. After having cast this spell many times on FRC now I can say honestly it 95ish percent works exactly as it is supposed to. the max time is 30 seconds but has lasted as few as 12. which is accurate. I did note one time though where the spell lasted about 50 secs the battle was over in about 24 secs and the poor partly members had to stand....and stand...and stand...this must be a rare glitch and little can be done about it. On the same token I have noticed occasionally a glitch happens where a PC might not be effected by the spell this is also rare but has happened to me once. Luckily for you all an NPC is pretty dumb and sometimes does not utilize it's time well or a DM was merciful enough to burn off some of that time by possessing the creature. In the end point being....if there is a rare glitch we all have to chalk it up as one of those unfortunate and rare crap deals, at least your party survived ;D The glitch if there is one happens way to rare to really worry about. If the time stop rolls it's max of 30 seconds I know this can seem like an eternity to players, after all we are talking 5 rounds of combat time and a lot can happen while you watch your party members fall around you and watch your own life dwindle away. The closer to death a person's character comes the more slowly in the mind of the player does that frozen time click by. I know cause I have been in your shoes more then once on the receiving end of a time stop.  Even for the slowest character that is 5 spells he can get off on a maxed out roll but oh well...thats magic for ya. ;D Wouldn't be magic if it didn't defy logic hehe |
|
|
|
Post by Booze Hound on Oct 8, 2006 21:06:43 GMT -5
I hear ya dirk, the thing is, that I have seen timestop a lot lately from NPCs and like Quad said, it always lasts 54 seconds. it doesnt "seem" like forever, it actually is forever. so it doesnt seem like a rare glitch, but rather the norm. Anyways, it seems this is a moot point, because it cant be fixed, or isnt broken or whatever, I just brought it up cause it sure seemed broken to me, and thoght I'd pass the word. Guess I will just stop trying to fight bad guys with timestop. |
|
|
|
Post by Hackmaster on Oct 8, 2006 21:33:26 GMT -5
Time stop sucks unless your the one using it haha  I hate it anytime it's cast on me I know that much hehe I am so full of Phelzaronocracy! That's a mage-like Hypocrisy ;D |
|
Just... try not to be near it when it unleashes its drown attack 
Even for the slowest character that is 5 spells he can get off on a maxed out roll but oh well...thats magic for ya. ;D Wouldn't be magic if it didn't defy logic hehe