AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Last edited by Liz on Fri, Jul 23 2010, 6:42 AM, edited 1 time in total.

BrainSplitter wrote:

Why are you arguing a facet of WWA that no one is contesting?

It is being contested. Because this:

The Rules wrote:

They can still be seen, smelt and heard, but direct hostile action is impossible.

is not compatible with this:

Brainsplitter wrote:

WWA is indeed an intentional attack against all hostile individuals within a 5ft area.

To be clear, I'm not arguing a facet of WWA. I think the way GS and WWA work with each other is fine. All I'm saying is that the lore of the spell can reasonably lead people to believe that GS should do something that is is very specifically intended not to do. This causes strife and confusion, which are Bad Things.

BrainSplitter wrote:

It's intentionally susceptible to WWA and Hail of Arrows.

But that's contradictory to the spell's initial description in regards to intent to harm directly.

What the Moon Brings wrote:

GreatPigeon wrote:

Use Timestop..... F%$^% Their life up.

I've never used Time Stop, I was under the impression it didn't do anything because it messed up the server.

Your frustration with GS and the situation you were involved in is understandable, but a lot of this can be clarified by checking out the Spell Changes page. A good number of things are changed from the way they are in vanilla NWN, and if you want to be a successful mage, I strongly suggest reading it over a few times.

I could go on and on arguing why the things that qualify as "intent to harm" are blocked against GS and why the things that do harm are not, but it seems that this is a topic most people are always going to interpret to fit their own view. Through time or luck, mine just happens to sync up with what scripters' was. It works how it works, and in time, hopefully, you'll see what people are talking about when we talk about not using it as a crutch.

As a side note though, GS does sometimes bug with Imp Invis. And I'm not going to get into the legality of your situation with the hunting grounds, but another thing make be that you were not Hostiled until the fighter was right next to you. In which case, they could see you plain as day until they did. Remember, it just keeps them from harming you while you are not considered an enemy. They can still see you and get as close to you as they bloody well feel. Only when they hostile do you go "poof" under which case even casting True Seeing(that spell with the eyes) wouldn't even reveal you to them, but that again doesn't matter if they are already right next to you and you are in range of WW.

Also since I know a good deal of the mechanics of the game, it is impossible to change or counter this from happening. I can directly kill you with my cursed song as well. As well as AoE Spells.

Plain and simple:
If its an AoE by game standards, it beats GS.

baleeted

Dark Immolation wrote:

Only when they hostile do you go "poof" under which case even casting True Seeing(that spell with the eyes) wouldn't even reveal you to them, but that again doesn't matter if they are already right next to you and you are in range of WW.

So they exploit the fact that they aren't hostile, get up close, then "poof" I'm dead even if they can't see me?

I guess I'm just griping now. For a Wizard that supposedly doesn't need any help, I sure do feel useless.

Maybe they should move the spell down to 2nd or 3rd level instead of wasting a 9th level spot.

BrainSplitter wrote:

I usually just consider it the same as blind-firing with a firearm, really. You can't see your opponent, but you know they're there, so you're not so much shooting -at- them, but you are indeed saying "OK, I'm putting bullets downrange and hoping for the best"

This is the best description for it I have ever seen.

What the Moon Brings wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

It's intentionally susceptible to WWA and Hail of Arrows.

But that's contradictory to the spell's initial description in regards to intent to harm directly.

Bah, I said I wouldn't but I'll give it one last shot, as it can't hurt. Firstly, try to forget your own idea of "intent to harm" a moment.

Intent to harm(in regards to GS): Considering a target and carrying through a physical action with willed and directed intent to harm it. I.E. Picking up a bow, lining you up in its sights and releasing the arrow directly at your person. This is blocked by GS.

Intent to harm(in regards to GS) does not include things such as the following.

-Drawing back multiple arrows, aiming at the sky(not looking at you) and releasing them in the hope that one or more of the arrows will land near or on you. (Hail of Arrows)

-Releasing a magical arrow that seeks out an enemy magically through it's own volition. As in I draw this magic arrow, I aim off towards your side, I release and the arrow flies unerringly into you through arcane means. (Seeker Arrow)

-Standing next to you (whether I can see you or not is irrelevant), not focusing on you and flailing completely in a circle without you or your exact whereabouts in mind.(as best as this can be replicated through Whirlwind)

-Casting an area spell and targeting the sliver of grass 2 inches away from your foot. Again, I am in my mind, not aiming for you. I'm aiming for the spot immediately adjacent to you. You just happen to be in the way of that.(Any AoE spell)

I'm sorry if it's still not jiving at this point. Either way, you'll eventually see it as it is intended to be seen, or just accept it for what it is. That's just how it goes with these things.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

I usually just consider it the same as blind-firing with a firearm, really. You can't see your opponent, but you know they're there, so you're not so much shooting -at- them, but you are indeed saying "OK, I'm putting bullets downrange and hoping for the best"

This is the best description for it I have ever seen.

I am king of weird metaphors.

Honestly I think a simple rewording would work. Change it from 'Direct Intent' to 'Direct Aim'. Explains why you can't target them with spells, but swinging at their location (via WWA), or targetting them as an individual presence (Hail of Arrows), or designating their location as a central point for an AoE, or RPly holding and maintaining a hold of someone who hopped into GS after being grabbed still works.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

I usually just consider it the same as blind-firing with a firearm, really. You can't see your opponent, but you know they're there, so you're not so much shooting -at- them, but you are indeed saying "OK, I'm putting bullets downrange and hoping for the best"

This is the best description for it I have ever seen.

It doesn't do a single thing for the hostile intent issue. Swinging blindly in the hopes of hitting someone is still an action with hostile intent towards them.

Wyjyn wrote:

DerkDerkistan wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

I usually just consider it the same as blind-firing with a firearm, really. You can't see your opponent, but you know they're there, so you're not so much shooting -at- them, but you are indeed saying "OK, I'm putting bullets downrange and hoping for the best"

This is the best description for it I have ever seen.

It doesn't do a single thing for the hostile intent issue. Swinging blindly in the hopes of hitting someone is still an action with hostile intent towards them.

Yes, but you're not swinging directly -at- them. You're swinging at their vicinity.

What the Moon Brings wrote:

So they exploit the fact that they aren't hostile, get up close, then "poof" I'm dead even if they can't see me?

Exactly. Again, you don't have to see something to hit it. That's kinda the whole principle of certain things in GS still harming you.

And GS is a 8th level, unless you Still it or Extend. Believe me, it's a lot more useful and worth the spot once you get the hang of what people are talking about when we say "use it as a tool". As a protip, if you're using it as a "shield", you're using it as a crutch. And as such, bound to be disappointed when your perceived "shield" is broken within an instant.

Now as a diversion, smokescreen, or time-buyer...who knows. :wink:

Last edited by Liz on Fri, Jul 23 2010, 7:04 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Bah, I said I wouldn't but I'll give it one last shot, as it can't hurt. Firstly, try to forget your own idea of "intent to harm" a moment.

<snip>

Intent to harm(in regards to GS) does not include things such as the following.

-Drawing back multiple arrows, aiming at the sky(not looking at you) and releasing them in the hope that one or more of the arrows will land near or on you. (Hail of Arrows)

<snip>

-Standing next to you (whether I can see you or not is irrelevant), not focusing on you and flailing completely in a circle without you or your exact whereabouts in mind.(as best as this can be replicated through Whirlwind)

Okay, then I'll give my point one last shot too.

If Hail of Arrows / WWA worked like you describe here, then you would not get your full attack bonus for every swing/shot. You're much, much less likely to hit if you're firing your bow randomly, or flailing around blindly, then if you're targeting an enemy directly, with intent.

And again, for clarity: I am not saying the mechanics as they stand are bad. I'm saying the lore is unclear, and reasonable people can honestly misinterpret it, causing confusion and resentment.

The current lore (which is weird crazy) defines the difference as Immolation put it above. Direct Intent is considered to be in this context "Attacking YOU with direct, straightforward targetted intent" such as aiming down the sight picture of a drawn bow or swinging towards an opponent's clavicle to try kill them or trying to directly touch someone to deliver a spell.

hence the Blindfire example. It's indirect.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Intent to harm(in regards to GS): Considering a target and carrying through a physical action with willed and directed intent to harm it. I.E. Picking up a bow, lining you up in its sights and releasing the arrow directly at your person. This is blocked by GS.

Yes, I understand that.

Dark Immolation wrote:

-Standing next to you (whether I can see you or not is irrelevant), not focusing on you and flailing completely in a circle without you or your exact whereabouts in mind.(as best as this can be replicated through Whirlwind)

But that's not Whirlwind, and Whirlwind is exactly what you described above except involving multiple targets.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Either way, you'll eventually see it as it is intended to be seen, or just accept it for what it is. That's just how it goes with these things.

I accept it for what it is because I can't do anything about it. However, I strongly believe you're incorrect in your interpretation of Whirlwind. Suppose you could do it with a bow. You would pick up your bow, aim your sights, then you release the arrow directly at a person, then you aim your sights at the next person and release the arrow directly at them, then repeat for each target in your circle of fire. You are not blindly firing arrows around in a circle; you choose your targets, aim, and fire. Whether it's with a sword or a bow, the targets are individually calculated, it just happens in rapid succession.

Not true. WWA isn't individually calculated attacks, because otherwise you'd end up breaking the logic of flurries and attacks per round (A WM that can only do 4 attacks per round can suddenly do 8 attacks against 8 completely different targets? Logic break). WWA may not be blind, but it isn't direct - it's as the name does in some way imply. It's one attack, that hits everything with 5 ft. Probably in the pattern of a circular sweep.

BrainSplitter wrote:

Direct Intent is considered to be in this context "Attacking YOU with direct, straightforward targetted intent" such as aiming down the sight picture of a drawn bow or swinging towards an opponent's clavicle to try kill them or trying to directly touch someone to deliver a spell.

That is exactly what happens during a Whirlwind Attack and Flurry of Arrows, it just involves more than one target. Just as Lizzie states, you get your full attack bonus. It's just simply multiple, targeted, straight forwarded, intentional attacks at multiple targets as your 1 and only attack. Think of it as X attacks rolled into one, it doesn't change the nature of the attack, just the fact that you have more than one target.

BrainSplitter wrote:

hence the Blindfire example. It's indirect.

That doesn't apply to Whirlwind or Flurry of Arrows.

Read opening post and second page. Sorry. Didn't seem necessary once I got the gist of the topic.

Ron is right and anyone arguing against him is wrong. Whirlwind Attack is exaclty that. You swing aorund you like a damned madman and pray you hit as much as possible. If you're standing so close to your enemy as a wizard that he can whirlwind attack you, you are doing it wrong so badly that you deserved to get kjilled by the intelligent (presumably) weaponmaster using all tools at their dispoal t beat your tools.

With that you have two separate (maybe more: Remember, I didn't read 65 posts of circular logic) DMS giving their ruling.

d20SRD / DND wrote:

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach

Last edited by Glyph on Fri, Jul 23 2010, 7:23 AM, edited 1 time in total.

"never used time stop, I was under the impression it stopped the entire server..."

I asked disco/someone, on the sidebar thread to update the descript <-- there for that exact reason

no it does not. anymore.

my problem isn't the method of attack, its the fact that you ICly don't WANT to attack according to the lore, so why would you be windmilling TO attack?

example:

cordor guard: hey you, stop right there!
mage: ...... GS foo' *casts*
guard: O_o .... *hand on hilt ready to strike* .....the gate, lock the gate!!
mage: mu a a a
guard: *feels no physical threat and cannot physically make himself attack the mage O_o*
drow: foo' *windmill*
mage: O_O NOOB, *screenshots and DM channel* some noob windmilled me in GS, impossible I say!
drow: // I saw you cast and "assumed" you we're round here.
mage: // but but but...you can't want to attack me ICly with GS
drow: // I'm a freaking drow mage
mage: // but but...but...but!. .....-_-
GS_wiz has left as a player.

I rest my case. and I guess if you want an opinion of a fix I got an idea, prevent any and all damage except energy based attacks? or until time runs out on the spell, grants improved invis, and any attack you make renders you vunurable once more, putting the sanctuary back in GS.

anyone remember magic candle from adnd? its purely defensive (against wrights i think in that case) and if you should leave the sanctuary...of the light (after being cursed and trapped in the house over 24 hours in that case...) your gunna die.

I think this would be nice because it lends back to the original version of the spell, being etereal and all your blades gunna miss, so you'd have to come back to the physical plane to attack, and you'd actually be invis mechanics wise, etc. if anyone has a better idea go for it please do, i'm no scripter IDK if this would even work, however it shouldn't unbalance the game because it just rebalances a slightly busted (imho) spell.

also why would you be windmilling other than attempt to harm, unless you count self defence in which case you shouldn't be moving toward the mage in question. just zelda spinning on the spot lol.

its soo link's special move ^_^

I mean no disrespect with all this I just think what I heard at the start of this thread sucks badly and should be repaired in some way. how exactly do you use it as a tool if they just windmill you with dev crit?

ed: tomak I am assuming what you said about the windmilling is not directly windmilling toward them ? I can half understand the random windmilling but, you can still see them. OOCly.

Glyph; The Lore is Wonky, even DMs here are agreeing with you. We're also saying 'Work out something better'.

Yurell's posted a possible remedy, as have I, both of which have been largely ignored in favour of grumbling more about the existing lore that is able to be changed if an alternative is presented.

The "original verison" i.e. Etherealness, would be so overpowered in the NWN setting that I would have lobbied Disco to remove it years ago myself. Incorporeality is a tremendously powerful weapon.

Last edited by Glyph on Fri, Jul 23 2010, 7:25 AM, edited 1 time in total.

thats why I put the come out of etereal on attack part

I know its way way too much in its original form

*gunna end it here for now, sorry if I have offended I can get a bit hyper with these things...anyway, plays amia...*

Lizzie wrote:

If Hail of Arrows / WWA worked like you describe here, then you would not get your full attack bonus for every swing/shot. You're much, much less likely to hit if you're firing your bow randomly, or flailing around blindly, then if you're targeting an enemy directly, with intent.

Whether the attack bonuses and mechanics are correctly implemented as per the PnP rulings of the attempts they represent are, and have always been, up for discussion.

But they do it all the same because that's all that exists to represent those attempts in NWN and Amia. And short of re-rigging some hardcoded stuff or extensive scripting, that's the best we can do.

Still overpowered. Incorporeality should be the equivalent of noclip in NWN.

Etherealness then breaks being able to be attacked -by- WWA because the WM obviously isn't ethereal. When making alternate lore, the following needs to be considered;

You can directly interact with things physically (therefore non-ethereal)
You can be hit by AoE's both mundane and magical
You are impeded by physical barriers from walls and doors to phalanx formationed soldiers.
You can be seen by non-hostiles.
You can't be seen by hostiles.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

If Hail of Arrows / WWA worked like you describe here, then you would not get your full attack bonus for every swing/shot. You're much, much less likely to hit if you're firing your bow randomly, or flailing around blindly, then if you're targeting an enemy directly, with intent.

Whether the attack bonuses and mechanics are correctly implemented as per the PnP rulings of the attempts they represent are, and have always been, up for discussion.

But they do it all the same because that's all that exists to represent those attempts in NWN and Amia. And short of re-rigging some hardcoded stuff or extensive scripting, that's the best we can do.

DnD states they function normally. You take no penalty because you are using all your skil lto fire your bow at that exact 5x5 position on the grid that an invisible character may or may not be in. This miss chance is represented by concealment percentages.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

TormakSaber wrote:

Read opening post and second page. Sorry. Didn't seem necessary once I got the gist of the topic.

Ron is right and anyone arguing against him is wrong. Whirlwind Attack is exaclty that. You swing aorund you like a damned madman and pray you hit as much as possible. If you're standing so close to your enemy as a wizard that he can whirlwind attack you, you are doing it wrong so badly that you deserved to get kjilled by the intelligent (presumably) weaponmaster using all tools at their dispoal t beat your tools.

With that you have two separate (maybe more: Remember, I didn't read 65 posts of circular logic) DMS giving their ruling.

What difference does it make roleplay wise? So randomly throwing grenades around in the hope of hitting someone isnt hostile intent but throwing a grenade directly at them is? Stupid, stop trying to justify stupid lore. The lore is band-aid lore.

BrainSplitter wrote:

d20SRD / DND wrote:

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach

You roll an attack for each opponent. If you roll a 20, then follow it up with another 20, do you automatically critically hit every single monster within reach?

No.

You roll an attack for each opponent within reach.

They're the ones arguing it, not me. Say what you like, but if you get smoked by a whirlwinding WM, you died. No retcon.

What the Moon Brings wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

d20SRD / DND wrote:

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach

You roll an attack for each opponent. If you roll a 20, then follow it up with another 20, do you automatically critically hit every single monster within reach?

No.

You roll an attack for each opponent within reach.

Doesn't matter.

Possible Change, btw.

Sanctuary becomes Minor Invisibility. (Think about it's use, and you'll find it is a Will Save Invisibility Spell)

Greater Sanctuary becomes Supreme Invisibility. Operates identically to Invisibility, but isn't pierced by the spell True Seeing due to being of a higher spell tier. This explains why overly-keen sensed creatures can percieve you (Bioware True Seeing), AoE's hit you (You're still there, just invisible), WWA hits you (again, still there), Hail of Arrows hits you (AA's use arcane powers with their Hail of Arrows. Mass Seeker), Seeker Arrow hits you (It always hits), and why you can be still physically held / restrained while in Sanctuary (you're still there).

Btw, it's suggested you actually read the Quote. Mechanically it may be calculated as multiple attacks using seperate rolls, but even the shorthanded SRD Version clearly states it's "one attack". Mechanics does not always equal the raw IC of the matter.

TormakSaber wrote:

Doesn't matter.

It does for my ego.

I like that idea brainspitter. somewhere between ethereal and protective, without going nuts on it. and the bioware true sight would match the original descript BUT that means it is better than SD's skills does it not?

Didi wrote:

Given Disco's opinion on it, I would imagine it stays as it is, or gets removed altogether.

Please please please.... Let me remove it?

An ego so big you use Sockpuppets.

Moving on; Glyph. There's a couple minor problems with the suggestion that would need working out. One of those is finding a reason to decline the ability to sit in GS and Hostile the entire server for complete unbeatable (bar BioTS) stealth. This is one of the reasons for the wonky hostility issue in the current lore.

The other is, indeed, the SD Skill vs Supreme Invisibility.

That said, some mechanical details of a few spells are being reviewed, so you never know.

No reason to resort to personal attacks.

O_o I...did not expect that...

what about the people who already took the spell disco...*hides from lynch mob*

brain splitter, that is why I thought disable on attack at the least. I have to admit I didn't want to get too involved in this topic...I know how long this has been going on. still, I cannot find any way to agree that windmilling is anything but an attempt to dodge the RP, unless you spin on the spot or something, like the arrows I get that aswell but why fire arrows randomly upward for no reason, unles again self defence, which could seam like a RP dodge again, thus the OP's post and the reason this topic exists.

........thats all I got on this one, I don't think remove it.

I think he's trying to get a laugh from you bro chill.

How about BoT page that transmogrifies Circle of Protection from good/evil/ to Whirlwind. I'd be happy with that.

Disable on Attack is already there. There still needs to be a counter to merely hostiling the server, casting GS, and wandering on one's merry way however. Mages have enough tools at their disposal without also having the best ability of Rogues and Shadowdancers but an even harder to foil version.

As for the counters of Hail and WWA, they'll never be 'perfect', the most we can do is make them 'Partially Dismissable'. Hail of Arrows is an Arcane Archer ability only, so that can be attested to magic instead of mundane weirdness or luck, meanwhile WWA is a straightforward area sweep.

Also remember, GS + Improved Invis = You get smacked.

AxlLeigh wrote:

Also remember, GS + Improved Invis = You get smacked.

GS on top of Imp Invis = smackage...but I'm pretty sure you're safe with casting Imp Invis after GS.

Mobile Disco wrote:

Didi wrote:

Given Disco's opinion on it, I would imagine it stays as it is, or gets removed altogether.

Please please please.... Let me remove it?

Let the Mighty Chicken do it
Do it
Do iiiiit!!

You know you want to.

BrainSplitter wrote:

Mages have enough tools at their disposal without also having the best ability of Rogues and Shadowdancers but an even harder to foil version.

Except the readily available SR items make mage spells pretty much nullified in PvP. Ironically, I do see Shadowdancers getting through GS (assuming not ethereal) simply by virtue of teleporting to the Caster's shadow inside the Sanctuary spell.

Wyjyn: Loving all of you (and above all Disco) since 11 Jan 2007.

Solution: Unban Wyjyn.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

AxlLeigh wrote:

Also remember, GS + Improved Invis = You get smacked.

GS on top of Imp Invis = smackage...but I'm pretty sure you're safe with casting Imp Invis after GS.

Nopes. Concealment + Etherealness (mechanically speaking. This is GS) = Bug. Invisibility + Etherealness = Bug. It's to do with perception checks.

Also, Readily Available SR Items - highest SR available in game is 32. 39 if you're a drow. Against SR your roll is 1d20 + caster level + spell penetration feats. If you can't beat those you're probably crossclassing or otherwise being effectively foiled. There are also plenty of Non SR Spells in PvP that are viable.

That all said, it's a null argument that largely comes down to LRN2PLAY. Ask the people in the Build thread (such as Chris) and those who know what they're doing. Best powerbuild is still Sorcerer 30, followed immediately by Wizard 30.

The GS and Improved invis Glitch is caused by the 50% concealment IIRC. You can make the same results with a displacement, I think. I forget its been years since I actually messed with it. I just remember it being linked to the Concealment as regular invis worked fine.

Damn you Ron!

[/Ninja]

*face* *a hard object*

this is so confusing.

GS Lore Discussion

Who is online