A general change in monster spells, from all-target spells to single/enemy-target spells

[Harloff]

Since monsters can't hurt each other they can now use "cone of cold", "fire ball" etc. without damaging their fellows. If a player throws one of these spells they do however damage everyone, making them useless in many situations. This seems unlogical to me, all spellcasters spells should have the samme effect. Since the monsters can't start hurting each other due to the AI I suggest that the monster spells are changed to single or enemy target spells, e.i. "cone of cold" is replaced by "ball lightning", "fireball" is replaced by "flame arrow". This way all spells would have the same function for all spellcasters.

I know that this might alter the balance a little, but most parties are protected against magic anyway, so whether it is the one type of spells or the other won't have much impact, as I see it. The only thing that will be affected is the balance between parties with and without spellcasters (divine or magic) in favor of parties without spellcasters, but the parties with spellcaster are much more powerfull anyway so people will still try to find a spellcaster before going anywhere. I don't know how much programming this would take it is just something that has been on my mind for a long time, and I had to get it out.

[Rayenoir]

The problem with that though, is that you've suggested changing easily-dodgeable spells (if you see them coming soon enough, and you're not the one aimed at) to direct-target spells which you can't dodge.

[Harloff]

Well someone will always be the one targeted (I guess, not sure how the AI works on this point) hence this person will always take the blow no matter how soon he sees it and where he tries to run. However, the rest of the group will no longer have to do any thing to avoid damage. As far as I can figure our the total damage dealt with the changed spells will be lower than they would with the old spells, especially for large groups. However, some changes to tactics might be necessary.

The only reason I suggested this is that it would make the world more consistent, as I see it.

[orth]

Some other things that would make the world more consistent:

- The evil AI wizard would not run through a Blade Barrier
- The giant would stop hurling rocks at you if the first one bounced off
- Monsters could get you to chase them
- Enemy spellcasters would be as buffed as you and help his fighter buddies

Point I'm trying to make here is the monsters are crippled enough against a group of adventurers, we don't need to furthur make things challenging for a computer controlled character.  If we were to somehow manage to code this, we'd have to spend endless hours changing immunities for creatures.  Then there is the whole problem with the AI Drow Wizard with 32 INT casting a fireball into a pile of his warriors who are engaged with only one guy.

This is just one of those tradeoffs you get to balance the stupid things AI does.

[orth]

Er upon actually reading your post and not knee jerk reacting to it [I'm tired ] ... such an idea would require a ton of development time.  I just don't see it as a tradeoff and my earlier point still stands, I think this would cripple them with some of their high powered AoE spells being reduced to one target.

[Harloff]

orth - 12/8/2005  7:22 PM

Some other things that would make the world more consistent:

- The evil AI wizard would not run through a Blade Barrier
- The giant would stop hurling rocks at you if the first one bounced off
- Monsters could get you to chase them
- Enemy spellcasters would be as buffed as you and help his fighter buddies

Point I'm trying to make here is the monsters are crippled enough against a group of adventurers, we don't need to furthur make things challenging for a computer controlled character.  If we were to somehow manage to code this, we'd have to spend endless hours changing immunities for creatures.  Then there is the whole problem with the AI Drow Wizard with 32 INT casting a fireball into a pile of his warriors who are engaged with only one guy.

*nods* you are proberbly right. I hadn't been reading the spell descriptions properly, hadn't noticed that the replacement spells had reflex saves for half. I don't know why i had gotten it into my head that single target spells would do more damage to a single target than an all target spell could. Possible replacement spells could of course be both "isaccs missile storms" they would definately do more damage if you were up against single targets. No saves and no elemental resistance would help. Larger groups would of course take less damage. But perhaps are more logical spell for a wizard to have not knowing what he should defend himself against and not wanting to wound his comrades. And knowing that many would be able to ward themselves against elemental damage he would probebly pick these type of spells. These types of spells would of course make adventuring on your own even more risky than it already is.

"chain lightning" would proberbly a good choise for many spell casters aswell, not wanting to hurt comrades and all.

with respect to your examples:

- Yes running through a blade barrier is stupid and no one would do that, even the dumbest of heros/monsters would probebly stop or try to go around it unless he wanted to stop something on the otherside REAL BADLY.
- *nods*
- Not really, we should not be able to lure monsters, they would proberbly think like adventures "strength in numbers" or call the comrades.
- The difference in this case is that the adventurers know that they are going to battle, while monsters don't know that they are going to be attacked. And nobody will be able to be warded and ready for battle 24-7.