AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Quote:

Sneak Archtype: Open Lock / Bash (locks), Disable Trap (traps), Use Magic Device (wards, brute)
Caster Archtype: Knock / Bash (locks, brute), Find Traps (traps, reveal only), Dispel + Spellcraft (wards)
All Other: Bash (locks, brute)

Locks - Open Lock (skill based, trained only)

No changes to existing. Grants XP based on Open Lock DC x2 to all party members, once per reset.

Locks - Bash (force based, anyone)

Bash DC is based off of a local integer on the object itself, set by the designer of the area
Bash check is as follows:
Unarmed Attack (regular): 1d20 (no bonus)
One-handed: Strength Modifier + 1d20
Two-handed: Strength Modifier x 1.5 + 1d20
Unarmed Attack (Monk lvl 8+): Strength Modifier x 1.5 + 1d20
One Handed Blunt: Strength Modifier x 1.5 + 1d20
Unarmed Attack (Monk lvl 16+): Strength Modifier x 2 + 1d20
Two Handed Blunt: Strength Modifier x 2 + 1d20
Additionally each failed bash check adds -1 to the bash DC on that door by anyone, for 15min (represents damage to the door). DC resets to original value after 15min of no bashing.
Additionally using a Shield during a bash attempt reduces the damage from triggered traps or wards by 30%/40%/50% for medium characters, 40%/50% for small characters, respective of shield size
No XP is granted for this method of forceful entry.

Locks - Knock (spell based, arcane only)

Usable on locks only (as per PnP)
Only affects one door, box or chest per individual casting (as per PnP)
Caster level check remains (as per Amia modification so as not to outshine Open Lock skill + gear investment)
Artificial hard cap of 65
Calculation = Open Lock DC vs. Base 10 + Caster Level + key ability Modifier + Transmutation Spell Focus feats: 2, 4 or 6 respectively
BoT Page still causes production of Thieves Tools based on Caster Level
CL 1-4 = +1
CL 5-9 = +3
CL 10-14 = +6
CL 15+ = +10
No XP is granted

Traps - Disable Trap (skill based, trained only)

Grants XP based on Open Trap DC x2 to all party members, once per reset.

Traps - Find Traps (spell based, arcane & divine)

Only affects a 30 meter radius as per standard NWN spell
Caster level check added so as not to outshine Search skill + gear investment)
Artificial hard cap of 65
Calculation = Search DC vs. Base 10 + Caster Level + key ability Modifier + Divination Spell Focus feats: 2, 4 or 6 respectively
Marks affected traps as Seen for all party members in the area
Checks against both mundane Traps and against Wards (see below)
Does not disarm any traps (as per existing Amia modifications), only highlights them
No XP is granted.

Wards - Suppress Ward (skill based, arcane & divine)

Casting Dispel on the warded object causes a Spellcraft check vs. Ward DC (local integer on object, treated just like Open Lock or Disarm Trap skill rolls)
Ward DC vs 1d20 (take 20 if not in combat) + Spellcraft skill (including focus feats and gear bonus, etc.)
Bonus to check based on Abjuration Spell Focus feats (standard 2, 4 or 6 respectively)
Bonus to check based on “grade” of Dispel used (0, 3, 6 or 9 respectively)
Grants Ward DC x2 in XP to the party upon successful Suppression

Wards - Bypass Ward (skill/force based, trained only)

Use Magic Device can also be used to fool a ward for a short time (15min), allowing PCs to bypass it but this method grants no XP to the party
Ward DC vs 1d20 + Use Magic Device skill (including focus feats and gear bonus, etc.)

OMG, this is the awesomest. Daisy and I love you all!

Now if only we had a dozen Glim's and other wonderful people of that sort to make all dreams come true!

Looks great!

What's Wards?

Dead wrote:

What's Wards?

Magical locks of various sort, I presume.

More akin to magical traps, traps that have no physical component to them that a Disarm Trap skill would be usable for. For example, a door might be warded so that any who open in without speaking a passphrase, are affected by an Incinerate spell. Or lich might put a rune on the door handle to his lair with a Finger of Death spell since it can't harm him but might stop anyone else dead in their tracks. That sort of stuff.

I also can't take all the credit for this; I had a fair bit of help working through the ins and outs of this from Mosh and the Tester team.

Looks nice, but I think the Find Traps nerf needs abit of readjustment imo after having done the math.

I've run into traps with ridiculous Search DCs no PC is ever going to detect without a normal Find Traps spell (Set Traps + 43). Those PCs could use said spell from potion or item and at least detect them. These changes just ensure thar no one, save lvl 30 casters hardcasting the spell with ranks in Search + Search gear will ever find say, a PC set epic trap.

As it sits with this, if I wanted to kill people, I'd just max Set Traps and lay epic traps everywhere, confident that 99.999% of the server wouldn't ever see them (even with max Int, Search ranks, and Search gear). At least as it was, any prudent character could have a chance by popping a FT pot.

Taking the ability to merely see the most lethal traps entirely out of the hands of everyone who isn't an int-based, level 30 caster w/ full ranks in Search while wearing Search gear who just happens to have some FTs memmed seems a bit much.

Last edited by Kamina on Tue, Jan 14 2014, 4:03 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Quote:

Traps - Disable Trap (skill based, trained only)

Grants XP based on Open Trap DC x2 to all party members, once per reset.

Where was this when I was levelling Rico up to 30...

Is this per trap instance, I'm assuming? The wording's a little wierd.

Ditch the seizure image and I'll answer.

Dropped, apologies!

All good. To answer your question, the idea would be to have each character only able to gain XP from the same trap once per reset, regardless of whether they were the ones to disable it or were in the party of the person who disabled it. The idea would also be that the traps would reset for the next person (standard 15min wait time).

So if the same person ran the dungeon twice in one reset, say an hour between each run, they'd still have to disable the trap each time, but would only be able to get XP for it once a reset.

Would it be in moderation? I know a certain two bridges may be used as a method of xp hoarding.

Kamina wrote:

Would it be in moderation? I know a certain two bridges may be used as a method of xp hoarding.

i think we all know - but then again it can only be used once per reset, right?

Muspelkvist wrote:

Kamina wrote:

Would it be in moderation? I know a certain two bridges may be used as a method of xp hoarding.

i think we all know - but then again it can only be used once per reset, right?

Let's say a full party of Rogues minus one, who is a player capable of soloing the Abyss can run it five times, in theory, and still get lots of xp from mobs on the way. Let's use pretend numbers because I've not done a shopping trip on Rico in a while. The average trap DC is 30-50, with a few hitting 65. Let's assume you disarm around 50 traps over the two bridges for an average of DC 40. You'd be gaining an additional 4k XP per trip with the benefit of shopping at a highly desired shop.

Unless, the XP awarded changes like Uhm's hidden base, where even if another player disables/unlocks something, if YOU have done so previously, you are not awarded.

As much as XP from doing so would make me happy should I ever roll a rogue again, I'd hate to see it abused.

sweet. then i know i should bring a rogue to fix the traps, right

If one person in the party disables the trap, everyone in the party who gets XP from that trap would not be able to get any XP from that trap again until after a server reset.

Sounds good!

XP without the need to form large-scale rogue parties for easy XP.

Again, I reiterate, you have a problem.

Your proposal is all well and good for PvE. (Save for keeping the spell instantaneous, rather than a duration buff. No one in their right mind is going to mem the amount of FTs needed to get through a dungeon as instant pulse 3rd lvl spells.)

Once you factor in PC traps it fails. A trap-setter rossing out traps can easily lay traps that can only be spotted with a search DC very undetectable to any character save an int-based, max search, CL 30 caster, character wearing search-based gear casting FT.

Anyone else is out of luck. At least with FT as it is, a character who is prepared and cautious can avoid blundering into 20 epic elec traps.

Anyone with points in Search can find traps the usual way.

To expand, if you don't have a rogue in your party, you may very well want to memorize that many Find Trap spells; that's the cost of not having a rogue and just means you may not have quite as many buffs to do the dungeon with, might have to use scrolls or potions instead. Or you bring along more healing supplies just in case.

The Search DC for Deadly traps is 18+skill for the usual kind, 22+skill for the unusual kind. At 18+33+ability mod of say 14 that gives a Search DC of... exactly 65.

So yes, for some of the more unusual Deadly Traps (which are the top of the line for those kind) and for Epic Traps (top of the line for elemental kind), you'd need a dedicated spotter to find them. Given that you need a Rogue to be able to spot traps with anything over a DC of 35 to begin with, Find Traps is still giving casters a big leg up in what can and can't be spotted.

You might want to actually check your math there.

Epic traps are 43 + everything else, which for those not playing at home is exactly 23 more than humanly possible with a perfect roll of 20, and that's assuming the searcher is int-based w/ full ranks in search (iE, power-built to hell just to find traps and unlikely to exist realistically). I have no idea why you're pretending those don't exist, not that it matters, since any trap w/ a mod of 21+ becomes unspottable if set by a decent trap-setter PC.

The vaunted trapspotting rogue won't even come close to seeing an epic PC-set trap, even if he's some wierdo who maxed his Int instead of DEX, nor would a 29 wiz/1rog, max search/int Find Traps caster.

Under this ruleset as you have written it, if my goal were PVP, traps become my unspottable super-weapon of choice. No build is capable of finding detection DC 145+ traps anywhere.

I did realize the math didn't add up after, which is one of the reasons I've been working on re-tooling traps themselves over the last couple weeks and why I've prioritized that over the Obstacle system for the time being.

It's well in hand, don't worry.

It should also be noted that usage of the Find Traps spell allows non-Rogues to be able to detect traps with a DC higher than 35, where normally only Rogues can do this. Because the Search check will be inside the spell script, rather than relying on hardcoded mechanics. So that's quite an advantage the spell will retain as well.

And it's a good thing it doesn't disarm them anymore!

Tangentially related suggestion:

The way vanilla NWN implemented lockpicks is stupid. Lockpicks don't vanish after you open a lock.

I submit for discussion the suggestion that Amia scrap the single-use "disposable" lockpicks from lootbins and shops, and replace them with permanent inventory items with infinite uses per day: instead of stacks of +1 / +3 / +6 / +10 one-shot lockpicks, anyone who puts a skill rank into Open Lock would get a "Basic Lockpicks" widget (+0 to the skill check), much like the Pick Pocket widget. The +3/6/10 disposable lockpicks would be replaced by "Masterwork Lockpicks," "Enchanted Lockpicks," and whatever. A lockpicker would have to use these widgets to Open Lock, much like a pickpocket needs to use their widget. If you lose your lockpicks or have them confiscated or stolen or whatever, then no lockpicking for you!

It would be more realistic than the current disposable lockpick system, it would create occasional RP opportunities (City Guard: "Whatcha doin' with these, ya thief! These are contraband!"), and create a black-market commerce in the higher-end tools.

And Drakos would be throwing away DCs.

I'll have to have a think on that one. I'm intrigued by the idea itself, however I have to wrap my head around exactly how it might be implemented, and if it were implemented, how it might interact with the other systems in place. Off hand my concern would be that if "everyone with Open Lock skill" got one of these... it would essentially just be a flat bonus to Open Lock that everyone with the skill would have, which effectively wouldn't be any kind of bonus at all, really. It would just mean we would up the DCs on every lock a bit.

Regardless, I think for sake of my sanity I'll look at implementing things as previously noted to start with, and then perhaps do tweaks like this later down the line if applicable.

While I appreciate the realism of the idea, I would encourage they remain consumables that people spend gold on.

We must also keep in mind that lockpicks are fragile and prone to breaking/bending/becoming useless piece of warped metal.

Glim: How do you figure that the proposal would amount to a bonus for lockpickers? I'm advocating that the basic lockpick set that everyone gets should not come with any bonus or penalty at all; it shouldn't do anything but give people access to the skill. They'd be eligible to find / loot / buy bonuses later, in the form of improved picks, but that's no different than now, with the disposable picks. I do agree though, I suppose, that the system does seem like a lot of work to solve a problem that's only a realism issue, rather than a balance issue.

Yoss: I kind of seriously doubt that people are buying enough of the current disposable lockpicks for it to form any kind of meaningful money sink.

Mirv: Lockpicks aren't as fragile as you think. They're sturdy strips and prods of metal. Some are flexible, but routine use doen't flex them even close to the point of snapping. And even if they were significantly fragile, why should breakability suddenly be a concern, when no other item in the game is forced to factor damage or breakage? Characters are wearing armor that gets smashed with hammers and eaten by acid, and wear-and-tear has always just been handwaved away.

Liz wrote:

Glim: How do you figure that the proposal would amount to a bonus for lockpickers? I'm advocating that the basic lockpick set that everyone gets should not come with any bonus or penalty at all; it shouldn't do anything but give people access to the skill. They'd be eligible to find / loot / buy bonuses later, in the form of improved picks, but that's no different than now, with the disposable picks. I do agree though, I suppose, that the system does seem like a lot of work to solve a problem that's only a realism issue, rather than a balance issue.

Yoss: I kind of seriously doubt that people are buying enough of the current disposable lockpicks for it to form any kind of meaningful money sink.

Mirv: Lockpicks aren't as fragile as you think. They're sturdy strips and prods of metal. Some are flexible, but routine use doen't flex them even close to the point of snapping. And even if they were significantly fragile, why should breakability suddenly be a concern, when no other item in the game is forced to factor damage or breakage? Characters are wearing armor that gets smashed with hammers and eaten by acid, and wear-and-tear has always just been handwaved away.

Yes lockpicks are nor fragile. Skyrim and such lies.

You may be right, Liz. Still, I don't see the value in the change when the only goals appear to be to make it more like it is in PnP, to get PCs in trouble with the law (which disposable lockpicks would serve the same function), and, well, I'm not sure exactly how you mean they would create a black market for high end merchandise when nobody would want to buy any after they already have one, and the cost (since we're making it more like PnP) would wind up being cheaper than the disposable lockpick sets. And with no need to spend any money to upkeep the set, either.

I may be missing something in your argument, though. But fortunately, my opinion doesn't matter!

By "black market" I meant to imply that the awesomer levels of magical lockpick sets wouldn't be available in stores; you'd have to get them in loot. So there would be commerce among PCs (as opposed to just one-sided interaction with NPC shops) in items of a nature which many settlements would not welcome or tolerate on their public posting boards. Not, like, a huge booming industry, or anything, but some. Definitely more inter-PC interaction than the zero which the present lockpicks provide.

Good news, the Obstacle System is almost done and ready for testing! (huzzah)

I'm thinking of making one small change though...

Only characters with the Rogue class (at least 1 level) can disable traps of DC 35 or higher (that's hardcoded to NWN).

I'm thinking that for the Obstacle System only characters with at least one level in one of the actual casting classes (Bard / Cleric / Druid / Sorc / Wiz) that have access to Dispel on their own, will be able to Dispel or utilize Use Magic Device to get past a Ward with DC 35 or higher.

This will:
A) Prevent the use of wands/scrolls of Dispel with no magical talent behind them from being able to disable the most potent wards.
B) Ensure that it keeps Wards towards the caster end of the spectrum as an obstacle they can overcome, just like Traps are an obstacle best left for Rogues.

Oooor maybe the whole "DC 35 or higher" thing is just contrived and while we have to live with Bioware's stoopid, we shouldn't compound it with this change in the new Obstacle System.

What do you think?

I love the system overall and look forward to having my face melted off.

The idea that some knowledge of the magic is needed to dispel warding seems fitting, be it a mage level or UMD. I just have never been able to quite get behind the idea that it is your 1 level or rogue that decides if you are a good trapper, not the fact you invested the skill points. Now that might not be as big an issue as maybe the DC 35 traps won't be all that common. There is no need to reward someone with a point or two into a class that is amazingly good for dipping, while sort of punishing everyone that actually invested 30+ points into the trade. That said with the default system you only need rogue if you want to DISABLE a DC 35+ trap, while everyone else can simply recover the trap. Will that work around still be in place?

Overall thanks for all the work, cant wait to play around with it.. might have to get more points into Set/Disable trap!

Glim wrote:

...

I'm thinking that for the Obstacle System only characters with at least one level in one of the actual casting classes (Bard / Cleric / Druid / Sorc / Wiz) that have access to Dispel on their own, will be able to Dispel or utilize Use Magic Device to get past a Ward with DC 35 or higher...

What do you think?

YUS!

Also I need this when it is done Glim. :twisted:

I would do away with the DC 35 restriction if possible. Class skill vs. Non-class skill is supposed to be the balancing act there. Even if only because of the disparagement between one method being dominated by one class and the other dominated by five.

If I am not a rogue, I can still remove any trap. It's just a little harder. (Read: use Recover Trap.)

Requiring people to have caster levels to deal with wards seems incongruous and utterly exclusionary. Tit for tat, where there is no actual tit. (Since anyone can deal with a trap.)

I'd really rather not see rogue skills marginalized. UMD on its own should be "magical learning" enough to bypass a ward, as originally planned. I love that the system moves rogues away from being the generic Tumbledump class, and towards making their huge number of skill points (which is supposed to be the single most defining feature of the class!) actually useful. Why take two steps forward but then one step back?

The other option that I'm contemplating that I think I like a little better, is to incorporate Caster Level as a cap to the Spellcraft check for suppressing a ward with a Dispel, and leave the Use Magic Device just a straight skill check but only have it work for the character that actually has UMD (not the whole party).

So for example something like... Ward DC vs 1d20 (take 20 out of combat) + Spellcraft + Dispel grade bonus + Abjur focus, as already noted above, but capped at ( Caster Level x 2 ) + 20.

So a level 30 char that is just casting Mords from a scroll (CL 17) to try to get rid of a ward for the party, would take their 20, could even have a 33 rank in Spellcraft, have a +14 bonus from INT, +9 for using Mords, but probably no Spell Focus feats for a check of 76, but because the CL of the scroll is 17 it's capped out at 54.

Now a level 30 caster tries and all of a sudden the cap is 80 and he's pretty much good to go for whatever wards he comes across.

And then UMD could be used to get that char that has the UMD, through the ward without tripping it, effectively bypassing it himself, but he's just avoiding setting it off so it does nothing for the rest of the party (which makes it a whole bag of interesting on its own).

I like that idea, Glim. It pretty much does away with characters crafting disable trap on a full set of gear, or taking one level in a class to get a huge benefit.

Oh I'm only talking about Wards atm, hadn't really touched on traps yet, that's going to be the last part of my work on the system (since it ties in with the trap changes in general).

Repetitive Liz is repetitive.

Make rogue skills more useful, both to the rogue herself and to her party. I wouldn't object to maybe the DC being higher for a rogue to bypass a ward for her whole party, rather than just personally, but being unable to help her party at all seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe set full bypass at +10 to the DC, like trap recovery?

Near everyone takes UMD though, which if you allow it to bypass wards fully kind of makes them redundant in the end I'd feel.

Nearly everyone takes a small amount of UMD, sure, just to be able to fire scrolls and equip off-class items. But the most powerful items in the server only require a total modified UMD of 25, I think? So set the DCs for ward bypassing up in like the 60s or 70s or something, and force people to have to make a susbstantial investment in UMD to be useful vs wards.

Liz wrote:

Nearly everyone takes a small amount of UMD, sure, just to be able to fire scrolls and equip off-class items. But the most powerful items in the server only require a total modified UMD of 25, I think? So set the DCs for ward bypassing up in like the 60s or 70s or something, and force people to have to make a susbstantial investment in UMD to be useful vs wards.

Nobody will do that. Well, most characters won't- there will be a few exceptions of course. Also, if it's required to have so many skilled characters to run a dungeon, it will end up being a dungeon few will travel. Getting enough characters to form a full party is hard enough these days as it is- especially for those other timezones when barely anyone is on.

Sure they will, if there's reason to do it. If there's someplace cool that can only be gotten to behind some badass wards, then people will start taking more UMD. People do whatever they're adequately incentivized to do.

I don't see huge issue here. Base UMD 25 + 50 from items = 75. It is entirely understandable for characters actually carrying several items with them for different tasks. Simply have a gear for UMD, the moment you need it, you wear it and then back to your own skin. And if your character does not have UMD, then find one who has, form a group with various talents. This kind of increasing usability of skills makes those rp-inclined builds more useful as well.

So gear-swapping isn't a bad thing?

I do feel the need to point out that, unlike locked doors/chests versus Open Lock skill... you don't -need- to disarm a trap or suppress/bypass a ward, in order to progress. Grinning and bearing it is a perfectly valid way to get through sometimes. Unlike the locked doors, which actively block your progress, a trap or ward doesn't stop you from progressing, it just makes it more difficult or potentially damaging if you don't deal with it first, but it's not a necessity.

Obstacles

Who is online