Loren Tyr

In terms of debuffing Fortitude, a good alternative is to use a Poisoned Dart Trap. This also inflicts Weakened, but unlike most effects that do so it attacks Deflection rather than Fortitude itself. It also has (at present anyway, I doubt it's intentional) a vastly higher accuracy than it is supposed to. The trap's description says -15, which means it should be -30 (don't ask), but it actually has +11, so a +41 point swing.

Can't imagine console duplicating makes any difference. It doesn't for me, anyway. I consoled a second Forgemaster's Gloves and did get three more Firebrands. To be sure I also consoled a Helwax Mold and copied my original (legitimately obtained) Gloves, same result. And two consoled Searing Flames rings also gave me six Combusting Wounds.

Combusting Wounds doesn't work at the moment; should be fixed in 3.03. Not sure how it relates to Forgemaster's Gloves though.

How would you build an Arquebus priest? (I'm genuinely interested.) Priest of Magran talent + WF: Soldier, for a start. Gives +16 accuracy (and a mini Summer Flame).

In that case I'd say a priest plus one of wizard/druid/cipher. With those first four you are rather light on spellcasting after all. I like Hiravias for his banter, so I'd go with him and priest as main.

Agreed. I do dip a bit below ten sometimes, but min-maxing just doesn't really seem worth it. Though I did build an intensely stupid Goldpact Knight once, to make maximum use of Deep Flames; I'll probably retry that with an arquebus-wielding version though, needs more base damage.

Actually, Might only affects the healing that you perform, not the amount you are healed (unless you are healing yourself, of course). Agree with the Resolve issue, having low concentration can be really annoying. And though it can be boosted with items, that still takes up an item slot you might have wanted to use for something else. I also do like Constitution more than many people seem to. Not necessarily on every character (though I rarely drop it below 10), but having a lot of endurance lets you get away with wearing lighter armour. And since I usually couple it with high Might you end up with a very large Fortitude bonus, all the better to avoid many of those annoying incapacitating status effects with.

True, but I'd say those aren't really procs, they just modify the weapon (like enchantments) and what it does when it hits. Whereas (what I would refer to as) procs are additional attacks, with their own attack against a particular defense (regardless of whether there is a condition of them occurring (crit only, % chance) or not; it applies to for example Envenomed Strike as well). The two tend to be implemented in distinct ways (eg. Disorienting is literally an Item Modification).

As far as I can tell everything procs on blast (and carnage), so that was always the most likely outcome. Now if only Blunderbuss was as well-behaved in that regard... not even Envenomed Blunderbuss works as (I think) it should *sigh*

I would assume it is entirely intentional, but that they felt that it would not be sufficiently intuitive for players (which I am inclined to agree with). The bonus area is clearly visible from the AoE indicator, and given the quadratic relation between radius and area the additional increase in area from further increasing INT would look progressively smaller. It could perhaps have been noted more clearly in the Cyclopedia, but other than that it seems fine to me.

I can confirm what I concluded from the code: you get the 75% twice. I had a hireling do an adventure (15% XP bonus), over the course of which my party members (6 member party, so standard 100% rate) gained 824 XP. My control idle stronghold NPC gained 613 XP, so the expected 75% of the total (with a bit of rounding error). As shown in the adventure report my questing adventurer earned himself 741 XP (90% of 824) and a magic urn for his troubles, but the total XP gained was actually 1354, so 165% of 824. Not sure whether this is actually intended by the developers, but at any rate it's how it works. Note that this would actually only apply to quests that *have* an XP bonus, though I'm not sure there even are any that don't. In any case, whether it is worth juggling NPCs and such I'm not sure, but sending a non-active NPC on a quest certainly can help keep them on par with the main party in terms of XP / catch up to the lost 25% when idle.

Indeed. Number of non-active NPCs in the stronghold doesn't matter. Events generate a particular base amount of *per character* XP. NPCs in the stronghold get 75% of this for doing nothing, this does not affect the XP for active party members in any way. The only relevant variable is the number of characters in the party. In a party of 6 each member gets 100% XP, and 10% more per party member less (ie. 110% XP in a five-man party, 120% if four, etc. up to 150% of XP when you're soloing).

Oh certainly, proper implementation would require some figuring out. There presumably would have to be some kind of balancing between spells with net gain and net loss in [resource], obviously tied to how powerful an effect they have. But it certainly would be doable. I mean, in the most simplistic implementation you could have a regular selection of spells like a Cipher that only cost [resource], and a secondary array of special [resource]-generating spells. You'd get the same dichotomy of a [resource]-generating mechanism and a [resource]-using mechanism that Ciphers, Chanters and Monks have. But obviously it would be (at least to my mind) much more interesting to merge them into one, in some way, make it more distinctive and interconnected. That'd also be more difficult to balance and get right of course, but it might yield an interesting new kind of class. And of course you can do something like make the power level of spells modifiable: eg. a level 3 fireball spell would require you to *have* three [R], and as a default casting would gain you +1 [R] and yield a small fireball; but you can opt to expend additional [R] to increase the power of the fireball. Or maybe you'd forego the [resource]-based approach, and instead go for a LEGO-type approach: you can cast each spell as often as you like, which have only a small-ish effect on their own but add a modifier to your pool. And when casting a spell, you have the option of releasing all those modifiers to boost various aspects of that spell. So you can either do a quick sequence of [spell], [boosted spell], or alternatively go for a more time-consuming [spell], [spell], [spell], [spell], but then finish with a [bOOSTED SPELL] with much larger effect. Anyway, just thinking aloud here. I just like the notion of a type of character that just does everything with magic, that's a kind of conduit channeling raw magical energy into some form. Which is also why I like the addition of some chaotic/wild-mage element to it, to contrast it more with the more intellectual, precise nature of the traditional wizard (akin to the wizard vs sorceror distinction in D&D, essentially). More intuitive and spontaneous, and with the potential to get ever so slightly out of control; like holding a firehose spewing forth magical energy instead of water, hoping you can keep a hold of it. Edit: and indeed, some kind of balancing of two resources might be thought as well. Can be two magical resources, but possibly also magical energy vs. endurance, with the built-up energy quickly starting to (literally) burn off if not used quickly or something.

If my reading of the code is correct, that would indeed be possible, yes. And having poured over it a bit more, that really does seem to be the case. It's not exactly like reading a book though, it's a bit of a puzzle, so to be certain I'll check in-game. In my current playthrough I'm just about to obtain the stronghold, so when I get my first Stronghold adventure I'll check out the XP numbers I get. That should settle it definitively.

Deep Faith works. Untroubled Faith isn't available for NPCs (not for Pallegina anyway, but I assume not for hirelings either). Which makes sense since their Faith & Conviction isn't affected by reputation to begin with, so it would be completely useless.

Ciphers gain Focus from inflicting weapon damage, his spells are powered by combat; they're inherently a type of fighter-mage. The hypothetical sorceror would gain [resource] from casting spells, his spells are thus powered by casting spells. This makes them much more a pure spellslinger; as described you'd realistically never want them to use a weapon at all, since that's time spent not casting spells and thus not generating any [resource].

I've been poking around a bit, looking at the code, and your intuition is correct. All XP the party earns while the adventure is ongoing is tallied up, and when the adventure concludes the adventurer gets (75 + adventure bonus)% of that 'deferred' XP. What I'm still a bit unclear on is whether this is in addition to receiving 75% of party XP anyway (ie. receiving 150% + bonus%). That is, I shouldn't think that it would be the case, but from the code I get the distinct impression that that's what happening anyway. I'll try to dig a bit deeper into it to be sure. But regardless, the x% is indeed definitely a bonus percentage of the party XP generated as the adventure ran.

Had the fighter already started attacking you when the Fetid Caress hit? It might be that his attack was already initiated, and was completed once the Fetid Caress wore off. I've had something similar with Shadowing Beyond, where my rogue got killed by an ogre whilst already invisible and a couple of steps away, presumably because the attack had already started when still visible. So my impression is that once started, attacks don't abort because of these status effect changes (on self or target). I agree that it definitely shouldn't happen though, but this seems like a plausible explanation for what you described.

Also, maybe a sorceror-type class? Maybe it's been suggested before already, but it might be nice to have more of an at-will wizard type, rather than the regular per-rest type. Giving them a resource pool instead to cast from, which is filled by casting lower-level spells, down to a level of free cantrips. Maybe also vary the amount of resource each spell generates (doesn't have to be tied to spell level alone); and/or allow the sorceror to use additional resources for a spell to make it more powerful. Especially with the addition of a bit of a chaotic/wild-mage element to it, might make a nice and distinctive new class.

I must admit I never played NWN, so they well may have been much more interesting there. I'm going mostly off of the old IE games, where they were rather *meh*. Though IWD2 already considerably improved them (with the inclusion of Lingering Song by itself already helped a great deal).

1. Your complaint is that wizards are bad fighters, seriously? Apart from the fact that you can actually make quite an effective melee mage (or just go gun mage or blaster)... they're wizards! Doing melee damage isn't really their main point. Besides, it's not like Priests are such melee powerhouses. 2. So do Druids and Priests. Means you have to manage them a bit more carefully. It's not like they could have made them all per encounter without completely rebalancing all the spells. And it's not like Ciphers or Chanters can just be slinging an endless array of spells. The former need to get enough focus every time first, so they will always have to alternate spells with regular attacks. This also gives them a slower start, whereas Wizards (and Druid and Priests) can use their most powerful spells as a combat opener. Chanters are even more intermittent in their casting, and take far longer to get going. That's also why those tend to be quite powerful; I mean, a level 1 Chanter can theoretically summon a Phantom. 3. Applies to many Druid spells as well. Again, it's a matter of balance: such spells tend to be more powerful as well, it's greater risk vs. greater reward. Besides, the AoE indicator is perfectly clear on where your own guys will be safe in most cases. Less so for more dynamic spells like Crackling Bolt or Ray of Fire, but that's just a matter of timing it right (and occasionally taking a hit). 4. As noted by Barbedbeat Wizards can use these as well. And sure, it can be fun to build a scroll-casting tank or something (just like it's fun to build a melee mage); the tanky dude up front is an excellent place to store some Fans of Flames, for example. But 'most', really? Of the available scrolls, eleven are wizard spells. Wizards themselves already have fourteen at level 1. So yeah... you're wrong. If you don't know how to make effective use of a wizard or if they just don't fit your playstyle, either ask other players for some advice or just play something else. But to just write them off in this manner because you couldn't make them work on your own is myopic at best.

While mathematically correct, I'm not sure it's practical. In the game description you'd have to put in the actual numbers, and since the increase in area is quadratic you get some gnarly-looking percentages (eg. for Int 11 - 15, rounding off, it'd be 12%, 25%, 39%, 54% and 69%). Given that the bonus area is plainly visible in-game, I would say that the effect should be clear to the player. At best it might be something to put into the Cyclopedia description for Intellect.

What does it say in the Activated Effects tab on the character screen for Unwavering Resolve? Does it show up there, and is anything being suppressed?

Though I'm not a heavy chanter-user myself so far, I must say that I really like their design. The way I see it they are like what the D&D Bard class always should have been. I mean talk about passive, those dudes were generally just standing there playing the same damn song over and over and over and over... *yawn*. With a smattering of generic wizard spells thrown in, it's true, but still. Whereas chanters have their own unique 'spells', a customizable song selection, and the ability to multi-task. Would be nice if multiple chanters could harmonize and boost each other's chants though... (though admittedly, multi-chanter parties probably don't really need the help).

Cool, thanks! Hadn't seen that when I searched, I must've been looking at the thread creation date rather than last post date.