Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. I'm operating off the idea that no one leaves the Shaper school until they are already level 7, scale another 8-12 levels for the standard campaign length (at least with my table) and it's on the table. Table differences make this a world of difference. As to the Battle Betas damage, it's not the individual creations I am balancing for, but rather the available army of Creations. Because I've limited party-controlled creations to needing to use both their reaction and the Shapers bonus action to attack, resulting in the entire army attacks at once, I need that nova of damage to be similar to the highest level slot available. Meteor Swarm has a max of 240 damage, and my (rough build, I'm sure a player invested in it could do somewhat better) of the largest army a Shaper can make caps at 246 (assuming no criticals). Granted, Meteor Swarm is an AoE, but it is the max damage for single target as well (oddly, WotC didn't follow their own advice in building it). Meteor Swarm also has one save for half, where this would be between between 6 and 10 individual attacks (some Creations have multi-attack), with the possibility of crits but also likely that some will miss (that's actually my current largest concern: their to-hit rolls may be off). Any individual Creation is worth far less than the spell slot, but the ability to do that damage every round becomes the value. As for Shaper/Agent/Guardian differences, yeah, I broke the Geneforge system there. Agents would be those who didn't take the Lifecrafter feat, or else don't want to learn the spells for the Creations (classes with Spells Known, for instance). Shapers are almost exclusively Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, as they don't need to worry about spell selection. Guardians are the rest. It's not as true to the original lore as yours sounds, but only one member of my table has played the games and he is mature enough to accept that my take on the world isn't identical to Jeff's. Having the three sects at current is mostly my way of justifying having Fighters and Monks in the Shaper school at all. For plot I'm going with an kind of merger of GF2 and GF3 stories, ehh... kind of. Pre-game story will be almost identical to GF2, right up to the Agent taking them for their field work. Tomorrow is the final showdown of the current campaign, then we'll take a short break from DND and probably start this up in a months time, so I've got time to fix any issues.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Two other blessing boxes I can think of are in : - Concealed Tunnel. This one isn’t very easily accessible because of the lasers - Ovdipur
  5. I'm cool with them, the isometric style had the problem of not being able to see behind that "wall" all the time, and maybe secret doors will go back, instead of being more of a "Where's Waldo" sorta search.
  6. Yeap. One of the main reasons I did what I did, was to have a complex, dynamic system. Another reason is... Guardians are better in Shaping than Agents but they suck at magic. Agents are better spellcasters than Shapers but they suck at Shaping. Locking it down by spell level means that a "fighter Shaper" would have to be a good spellcaster. With your system, for the Guardian to be able to have access to battle Beta, the Fighter would have to be able to cast 9th lvl spells... and he could decide to not have a battle beta. Of course, you could limit his "spellcasting" to Shaping spells from a list etc. I am not saying there are no work arounds. In the end as we both agreed, what works best for the group to have fun, works best. Frankly, on my table bringing 12 more NPCs (which means a balanced battle would have a lot more enemies on the other side) requires special rules to deal with this stuff quickly. You may want to look at something like that too because from my experience once Shaping enters the party, the numbers of combatants start to raise very quickly.
  7. The situation with how turret power is calculated is a little murky... cf this topic, which was never really satisfactorily resolved IIRC.
  8. Battle Beta would be a 9th lvl spell? Isn't that insanely advanced? Your world, your rules, but IMO that's in the very end of the spectrum. I have seen very few campaigns that reached beyond 10-11th lvl. My usual campaigns go for 40-50 sessions and reach 10-12th lvl or something. Regardless, even with blocking slots, in my opinion Creations will still not be balanced. Even if you manage to find the razor's edge of making Battle Beta powerful enough to compete with Meteor Swarm (which is tougher than it sounds) for a party of 4 people, it will be an uphill battle for the rest of the creations. And you have to take into account the reduced versatility from losing the slots. However, all these calculations would grow out of sync when the party grows from 4 to 10 PCs and creations as a single extra won't be balanced for a party of that size. I am not saying you shouldn't do it; your table your rules. I just don't think there'll ever be a way to make this balanced.
  9. Turrets are definitely weaker in Avadon 3, but they are still useful even without investing heavily in them. Tinkermages with high dexterity are definitely the way to go around the middle of the game. Double Strike makes them incredibly powerful since they can do high damage and are harder to hit with evasion items. You can almost play the whole game without bringing along the other Hands.
  10. I've read that turrets in Avadon 3 are weaker than in Avadon 2. However, my Inferno Turret seems to be hitting for as much damage (approx 200) as it did in Avadon 2, and I haven't invested anything in intelligence. Were turrets actually nerfed, or is it just that the Tinkermage's other abilities have been given a huge boost (in combination with Double Strike)? Also, does anyone know how to view an enemy's hitpoints? In Avadon 2 you could just right-click on them, but for some reason right-clicking causes you to attack in A3. And stun doesn't appear to work on boss creatures. I remember seeing a tooltip flash by when I was loading a game mentioning something along those lines, but I didn't have time to read it.
  11. Last week
  12. I 100% agree. There have been a lot of one person efforts that have been successful, and while real life can and does get in the way, hopefully it will be after a point at which the effort can be considered an success even if it is not complete. I have no idea how many people are active right now, but it seems pretty low as the non-game related forum topics have pretty much disappeared. While there will be a bump up in activity when Queen's Wish comes out I am not sure how many people are watching the boards to sign up to help with something.
  13. From Jeff's Twitter account: "For people wondering why we're switching back to the square tiles view for this game: 1. People have been asking me for it for 20 years and we thought it'd make a fun change. 2. It makes an iPhone port way way easier and I always wanted to make an iPhone game."
  14. I recently watched the trailer for Queen's Wish (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkRdCWmBh2k) and can't help but wonder why Jeff chose this perspective and overall art style. I much preferred the isometric graphics of Avadon and Avernum, rather than the top down style of Queen's Wish. Some of the models and character portraits also look a bit off. Now obviously, story and game mechanics are more important in an indie RPG like this, but I feel like Jeff could really have stepped things up a notch, given that it's a new engine etc. What do you guys think about the graphics overall? If any of you are playing the beta, how does it compare to previous games in other series?
  15. I miss the good ol' days (which was I even around for?) of you arguing with Delicious Vlish about builds and stat minutiae. πŸ˜‚
  16. Strategy Central was first started for G3 as a central hub for technical discussion. I can state this for a fact because I was the one who did it, and I did it right in the middle of that massive defs file unpacking about broken vlish πŸ˜› Now shoo. Go build a wiki, and no supper until you do!
  17. Geneforge wikis have been attempted in the past, but after a while they get abandoned. There is mention if you search this site for "wiki" of others, but even then it has been years. Strategy Central was first started for Geneforge 3 as a convenient place to locate topics for a debate on character builds. The others have been added for more recent games to save time when hunting for major useful topics because the search function for this site is horrible. Just try locating a topic using the exact title and getting not found.
  18. You know, for what it's worth, I think this is an interesting idea. It's also something new, so far as I can tell, so it will naturally be something of an experiment. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think anyone has yet tried to set up a Wiki for a Spiderweb series right at the point at which it has been released. Because this is an experiment, I say go for it! It's always possible that it won't pan out, but you won't know if you don't try! This is, after all, an excellent time to try something like this – the beginning of a new series is bound to bring in a whole bunch of interest, and a whole bunch of new players. Indeed, I'd be willing to speculate that this will be particularly true of Queen's Wish; one the merits of putting the game through a Kickstarter is that it seems to have gained a lot more coverage than some of Jeff's other series. I feel that a new project like this needs one person to work through the very, very early stages – just to set things up for others to do further work in the future. I suggest that you go right ahead and set up a skeleton Wiki. All this needs to be at this point is just a domain – somewhere for the Wiki to live – and a name. You could even set up a few stub sections if you wanted to for some idea of the structure, but that's not really necessary right now as so little is known about the game. I say this because I'm not necessarily sure that you'll get many replies to this post, and I don't think that has anything to do with people not being interested. My feeling is that people will be happier to add something to a Wiki they can see and interact with, rather than committing to a good idea before the fact. As you said yourself, you're looking for lurkers, and lurkers won't necessarily jump to reply to this post – but they might be willing to cut out the middleman and directly interact with your new Wiki! So, go for it! If you build it, they will come! As Slarty pointed out, there are dangers in putting together Wikis, but I think these can be easily averted. If you allow free editing of the Wiki, and it doesn't take off for whatever reason, someone could simply post something on the front page to the effect that the Wiki is obsolete, and divert all traffic to the Strategy Central posts. That way, no-one gets confused, and people looking for information about the game who don't think to look at the forums will still be able to find the information they are looking for. In any case, it's nice to see someone who has been lurking for a long time make an account on the forums. In good Spiderweb tradition, do leave your sanity by the door. Otherwise, the fluffy turtles tend to get a little aggravated ...
  19. Hello La paix, There is something else that might be causing the problem you've been experiencing. There are a number of different versions of BoE available for the Mac these days. Many of these are experimental versions produced by programmers who are currently updating the game for modern systems. BoE is a complex program, and there's no handy manual for figuring out all of the code, so this is understandably taking some time! However, this means that there are versions of the game out there that are not complete, and in some cases are really buggy. At least one of the versions has real problems loading graphics, causing problems exactly like those you've described. Where did you download the version of BoE you're using? Ideally, could you tell us the exact link you used? It's possible that you're using one of buggy releases – particularly if you've downloaded one of the more recent versions. If you're using an iffy download, it might be worth trying out this one instead: http://redsaurus.net/boe/BoE10.7+301212.zip This is the version I use, and I can testify that it works like a charm.
  20. Yeah I totally get that. Honestly I wasn't really expecting the current big contributors to sign up for a bunch of extra work. I thought there might be a few other people like me lurking on these forums: want to contribute something to the community; don't feel like they have the expertise (or quite frankly the patience) to produce the kind of analysis that others on these forums already do; see the potential value in a well-constructed wiki; and willing to put some time into finding and organizing information. Fair enough. My experience makes me quite wary of projects owned by a single person; there is just so much in life that can interfere and destroy the value of one person's effort. I will hold out hope that there are a few who "see it before they see it". But if it ultimately takes me getting it started on my own, I can do that.
  21. Locking it down to a single class won't work with my table. The players would see that as me forcing them to take this class, and then all but one of them would take it while complaining about it. It might work for a different table though. As to "most abilities are locked down that way", they really aren't. Sure, specific spells may be locked to one class, but what the spell DOES isn't. Bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and even some sorcerers and warlocks get spells to heal others HP. Every full caster gets some form of combat summons, and every half-caster has access to a long-term summon (animal companion, paladin steed). In 5e, any character can get a familiar for the cost of one feat (and there are two feats that will work for that). How many characters get a way of inflicting paralysis on a target? Of increasing the damage of another character? How many classes get an ability that is Wisdom Save or lose next action? How many classes get a bonus action that adds 1d8 or 1d6 damage? Sure, the names change (Hex, hunters mark, divine smite, sacred weapon, planar warrior, etc.) but the actual ability is still "one more die of damage per turn." Wizards and Druids both do the self-transformation play-style differently, but the actual ability of "I become a monster" is shared between them. The "hidden attacker" play style might work best with rogues or rangers, but warlocks also fit the bill, and a crafty fighter or bard can also play that way. The 'tank' play style is so spread out that I can't even decide on which two classes are the stereotypical two, but I want to say fighter and barbarian, as opposed to paladin and cleric, but druids, monks, and even a rare sorcerer can all use that play style because they all have abilities that say "+AC," "-damage incoming," and "heal yourself a bit." Sure, the specifics of how they do a given thing changes from class to class, and from subclass to subclass (the new version of PRCs are subclasses. Every gets one at a level determined by the main class, but each is tied to a specific class), but the actual abilities are fairly well spread out. No play-style has only one class that can do it. Even at the single ability scale, once you pull fluff out and look only at effects almost everything is shared by four or five classes.. Because Shaping opens up a new play-style, I didn't want it locked down into just one class. Sure, it is done best by a full caster, so bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard, but the half-casters and even the third-casters CAN use it. I don't expect any third caster to take the feat because it won't add much to them, but I also don't expect a third-caster to try for the healer role. Alhoons method with having drafted up a few different subclasses is a different answer to this problem than my system, and it comes from a different theory of gamecrafting than I do. At a glance it sounds functional. but also sounds like more effort to implement than mine, since he allows for adding modifications to individual Creations, while I only allow them to be advanced along two lines (spell level and shaper knowledge) which both typically amount to adding +1s to stats or +1dice to damage. (a few rare other things, but they are all listed on the creations stat blocks) This was why I want my system to reserve the spell slots used to make the Creations. "Do you want a Battle Beta, or do you want to be able to cast Meteor Storm?" There is no way that a single Battle Beta will outperform Meteor Swarm in terms of simple damage (at least in my system), but a dedicated Shaper can deal comparable damage every round through their army. That was my intent. This should be our Holy Mantra. Nothing else really matters at the end of the day.
  22. Errors like this are an indication that the scenario's custom graphics file is damaged or missing. There are a few things that could cause this, but the most common is that Windows doesn't correctly handle the file format used for custom graphics, so if your copy of the game ever passed through a Windows computer that would explain it. It could also be something to do with the program you used to extract the game from the archive file after downloading it.
  23. Hi friends. I had a sudden hankering / attack of nostalgia, so I downloaded BoE and started playing it again. I'm on a 2009 iMac running OS 10.11.6, and I'm just playing Valley of Dying Things for the moment. I noticed that the crystal pillar light thingies and glowing portculli and gross filth outdoors all appear as black squares. I gave up when I went into the southern part of the school because all the gremlins are invisible. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks for making this available and playable.
  24. Jeff has been asked and replied that Luck has no effect on drop chances.
  25. Projects in this community that require the collaboration of a large number of people do not have a great history of getting finished. Realistically, for a project like this, one person is going to have to do enough work to make the wiki already useful before anyone else is going to jump on board. It wouldn't even have to be a tremendous amount of work: once the game is released and people start posting information about it, you could ask their permission to copy-paste relevant chunks of text to the wiki. But by and large, I feel like the people who are collecting data on the game don't want the hassle of maintaining a wiki on top of that.
  26. I think in GF4 it is a requirement for an increased reward, but I am not sure. I have heard people say (but never confirmed it) that luck is supposed to affect drop chances and the money you get from killing baddies.
  27. That's true. The original did have an extremely different skill/experience system, which is fondly remembered by many.
  28. There are far fewer differences between Nethergate and Resurrection than between any other Spiderweb game and its remake (eg, it's the only remake that has almost entirely identical graphics to the original), and I imagine the thinking is that Resurrection just totally supercedes the original release for that reason, coupled with being more-compatible with newer systems.
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...