With the way NWN works, a level 1 wizard/bard/sorcerer or a rogue with 5 in UMD can use ANY level of scrolls at 100% success rate. Well, the days of chaos are over, my friends. With this script, spell casters and rogues will now have to roll against a DC based off 3rd Ed PHB and DMG to cast spells from scrolls. One of 20 random effects will be selected when penalty occurs. This script is thoroughly documented and very user-friendly. Varibles can all be easily changed, DC, penalty effects, spell type, and more. An Excel spreadsheet of common spell success rates is included in the zip. Please post any questions, comments, suggestions, bugs or errors here. Special thanks to Elbast, Jazael and the fine folks at the IRC channel #NWScript on irc.neverwinterconnections.com.
This is a compilation of the old system into a single score. There were 5 that made this score of 9.60 then rounded to 10.
Posted by Demetrious ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-06-27 07:10:00
I love this system and use it. Unfortunately, it needs to be updated to support the new spells. I emailed NeoXro and a response is still pending.
I think I have it updated - using the Get2DAString code. The updated version would address Syrsuro's concern over the approximation of spell levels - with the Get2DAString code, it is pretty easy to pull the correct value for Bards vs. rangers vs. wizards. Had to reorder a bit of the code but it compiles, now just have to go test and make sure I didn't mess anything up. It would just overwrite the include file and add the new spells so if you use this system, you might just add a return TRUE; to the first line of the include file and wait.
Just trying to give builders a heads up - clearly the system and design credit goes out to the author, this would just be an update. Unfortunately the update brings up the need to fix a lot of great systems.
Posted by NeoXro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-22 21:36:00
For the spell levels, I used "innate level" for all of them. I think your idea about specific effect for every spell is a good one. And you are right, I shouldn't have posted on your thread the way I did. How may I make it up to you?
Posted by Syrsuro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-22 14:39:00
No problem. I just thought your comments in my thread (and a vote I suspect was also yours) were out of place - although as I conceded, you did find a small bug in one portion of the code - but not enough to warrant your comment. :)
As I mentioned in a thread on the BioForums - your script is more 'elegant' in many ways. Mine was a quick fix written essentially overnight to solve a problem that I thought needed fixing right away. If you had approached me differently I would probably be the first one to push your script over mine as it has the added 'effects' I decided not to bother with in that release. I eventually planned to put in effects that were more specific to the spell being cast rather then purely random.
Incidentally I notice you used the exact same Arcane/Divine/Both simplification that I did, as well as the same approximation of assigning spell levels for those spells which have different spell levels for different classes. This was more necessary in my script then it is in yours and I think that the way you handled the variables might actually allow that 'compromise' to be fixed so that these spells are actually handled properly. Have you looked into that much - that is, imho, the greatest flaw of both systems.
Carl
Posted by NeoXro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-21 19:10:00
1. What do you mean by easy way to implement?
2. To add an item to the check, simply add the constant value of the item type to the check statement in the main calling function.
Posted by Jasperre ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-21 14:52:00
Both bits of code are good :)
I think I will find a simple and easy way to impliment it. I'm already adding in item componants (gems, for now) in some simple checks (in a nice include, so people can change them).
I really wish you did not have to override your dialog.tlk file though, to add/change descriptions...Gahh, it is annoying. Maybe XP1 will help....but probably not.
Posted by NeoXro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-21 12:20:00
I'm sorry, Syrsuro. I didn't not mean to "thrash" your code. I was merely looking for fixes and explanations of errors I think I've found in it. And you are right, even though I wrote my code from scratch, I did review your script before starting my own. I will mention you in the readme file on the next update. Now I don't want to turn this comment section into a heated discussion, so please email me if you have farther comments on this matter.
Posted by Syrsuro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-21 10:56:00
My apologies. It appears you also attempt to check for casters casting too high level spells.
I will be interested to see whether you found a new way past some obvious problems I had to work around to make that work right or used the same approach I did.
But at least I am not telling people (as you did) not to download the script claiming (incorrectly) that it didn't work despite over a hundred people using it successfully for months. :)
Very classy.
Carl
Posted by Wibbles ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-20 22:42:00
Woot woot. Kill 2 birds with one stone, eliminate a bug and add flavor to the mod.
Posted by Jasperre ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-20 04:45:00
I'll have to look at this. Making some spells of my own actually, so maybe this will do better than something I could come up with. I'll check it out :)
Anyway, I dislike scroll casting - for higher level people it is fine, but level 1's casting anything can unbalance it.
Posted by NeoXro ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-19 20:40:00
For spellcasters, PHB/DMG's calculation was not NWN friendly. It has 2 steps on using scrolls, while in NWN has only one, so we had to come up with a new formula that's more suitable for NWN's scroll system.
For UMD, PHB/DMG's calculation was not very low-level friendly. It was aimed at balance on higher levels. However, during most modules in NWN, players do not reach that high of a level. So we decided it was better with the new formula where the low level can have some fun while still balanced at high levels. As for taking rogue level into account. That's an attempt at countering skill points hoarding system of NWN, and make the roll more PHB/DMG like.
Posted by Webscav ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-19 20:25:00
No offense, but why did you diverge from PnP in how you are calculating sucess and such?
Posted by RedR ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-19 15:49:00
Great stuff NeoXro!
Gonna jump right on in and include this in my current project!
RedR
Posted by Elbast ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-19 15:12:00
Cheers Neo!
This oughta be good - 'specially with it being so easily modifiable.
Prelim tests on my end looked good :D
Posted by Lost Dragon ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-03-19 14:32:00
This seems pretty comprehensive. Can't wait to check it out.
You must be Logged In to post comments in this section.
Site
at 2004-02-20 10:29:20
