Ok, if I recall correctly, and honestly, I could be wrong but don't think I am... StoneSkin, back in the day, counted misses as hits. It was changed at some point, and acknowledged as a bug. I am noticing now, that whether a mob hits or not has no impact on the number of hits Stone counts towards. However, shieldblocks, parries, ripostes, dodges are all ignored by the spell.
for instance.
I cast stone on myself.. I dodge 6 attacks and stone still there. It hits barely 3-4 times and it fades.
2nd for instance.
I cast stone on myself.. Mob misses 3-4 times, and stone wears off. Or mob misses twice, then I dodge twice, then mob misses another time or two and stone wears.
My point is that misses should NOT count against the stoneskin. It makes the spell pretty pointless in a lot of situations. It's supposed to block damage... Not whiffs. In the board game D&D, not that this is an exact copy of that(it IS based loosely on it tohugh), a miss doesn't count as a chip towards the stoneskin at all.
I can provide -multiple- logs as examples if an admin wants, but I honestly think this needs to be looked at.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Is StoneSkin supposed to count misses as hits?
-
Valeos/Dorac
- Sojourner
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Canada Eh!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Valeos/Dorac:
Yeah I've noticed this too and also told shev about too...dunno if its been looked into tho...kinda sucks to have stone fall off with weenie mobs missing every swing hehe</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually this might be related to something I've mentioned to Shev before: When a mob hits you, smartprompt knows it should give you a line... if you defend against an attack, it doesn't trigger this line... but if the mob "misses" you still get the line.
The code seems to think as miss is similar to a hit?
Yeah I've noticed this too and also told shev about too...dunno if its been looked into tho...kinda sucks to have stone fall off with weenie mobs missing every swing hehe</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually this might be related to something I've mentioned to Shev before: When a mob hits you, smartprompt knows it should give you a line... if you defend against an attack, it doesn't trigger this line... but if the mob "misses" you still get the line.
The code seems to think as miss is similar to a hit?
-
Uthgar
- Staff Member - Coder
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Chatsworth, CA, USA
I just fixed this bug on testmud. This was the root of all problems with stone skin perceived as too weak by players. It was due to a subtle misunderstanding of some older sojourn code on our part. I know I said before you enchanters were hallucinating, but I was wrong. With the bug fixed, misses will no long make stoneskin wear off. (And condensed messages shoudl report hits correctly now). The fix isn't on main yet, but should arrive there soon.
Uthgar
Uthgar
Hitwise, it is lasting the same. It's just not counting the misses. I will test this in it's entirity tonight and let you know. Last night it seemed to be working just fine. Crits went through, almost lost tank two or three times, and it wore off in a few rounds of constant hits.
I'll give some hard numbers tho!
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
I'll give some hard numbers tho!
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Ok, it's lasting exact same hits, as far as I can tell.
It -seems- longer, only because it doesn't wear in 3 rounds due to misses.
It blocks almost no hits tho. Mobs are critting way too many times in a fight, and stone can't handle the overload. Crits -gotta- be toned down a bit. With tank skills configured to go off as often as they do in a fight, stone will last a while, but if mob starts hitting, it only lasts a couple rounds again.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
It -seems- longer, only because it doesn't wear in 3 rounds due to misses.
It blocks almost no hits tho. Mobs are critting way too many times in a fight, and stone can't handle the overload. Crits -gotta- be toned down a bit. With tank skills configured to go off as often as they do in a fight, stone will last a while, but if mob starts hitting, it only lasts a couple rounds again.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Uthgar, please don't talk down to me like I am a child. I know how to play the class. I use the spells at my fingertips repeatedly.
It doesn't do a hell of a lot of good. Especially when it takes 7 casts to have it take on a mob, and by then it's already pretty hurt.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
It doesn't do a hell of a lot of good. Especially when it takes 7 casts to have it take on a mob, and by then it's already pretty hurt.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
I dunno.. was doing dockies yesterday for a while with a couple ppl and a lvl 25 enchanter. Stones seemed to be doing their job pretty well from my perspective.. tank wouldn't really take damage with stone on, except for a 70hp hit every now and then, or one of those nasty 200hp crits. When stone went, it was obvious as our tank was taking 40hp hits or so, and I had to use heals then. Hell, we managed to go to MS and do Prince Tristan with those stones.. took a couple runs, and yes, it hurt, but no way could we have done that w/o stone.
And besides, thats what clerics are for.. keep the tank healthy when mobs hit through the stones.. lets me get some healing xp at least. :P
And besides, thats what clerics are for.. keep the tank healthy when mobs hit through the stones.. lets me get some healing xp at least. :P
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Malacar:
<B>
My point is that misses should NOT count against the stoneskin. It makes the spell pretty pointless in a lot of situations. It's supposed to block damage... Not whiffs. In the board game D&D, not that this is an exact copy of that(it IS based loosely on it tohugh), a miss doesn't count as a chip towards the stoneskin at all.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In this respect you are totally wrong.
Stoneskin in Dnd doesnt just factor in Hits, its misses, and any attack on the person, be it by spell or whatever.
someone hits you with a magic missile, Thats 5 chips off your stoneskin and it does nothing to block magic damage.
If something attacks you 10 times in a round, and misses them all, that was 10 chips off your stoneskin.
Been an avid dnd player for the last 15 years, Never seen it just block the hits, never has, and hopefully never will.
If you are gonna quote something, at least get the quote partially right
Instead of completely reversing it.
My quarter's worth,
Garosh
<B>
My point is that misses should NOT count against the stoneskin. It makes the spell pretty pointless in a lot of situations. It's supposed to block damage... Not whiffs. In the board game D&D, not that this is an exact copy of that(it IS based loosely on it tohugh), a miss doesn't count as a chip towards the stoneskin at all.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In this respect you are totally wrong.
Stoneskin in Dnd doesnt just factor in Hits, its misses, and any attack on the person, be it by spell or whatever.
someone hits you with a magic missile, Thats 5 chips off your stoneskin and it does nothing to block magic damage.
If something attacks you 10 times in a round, and misses them all, that was 10 chips off your stoneskin.
Been an avid dnd player for the last 15 years, Never seen it just block the hits, never has, and hopefully never will.
If you are gonna quote something, at least get the quote partially right
Instead of completely reversing it.My quarter's worth,
Garosh
For the last time 
This is not D&D! This is a fantasy world based loosely on a fantasy setting that uses many of the general ideas. Almost every spell, race, class would have to change drastically to be close to d&d.
Lets not compare apples to oranges here, spells here can do whatever the admin feels like the should. And in this case, its a very reasonable assumption that If I don't hit you, your protective covering is not going to be effected adversely.
Belle
This is not D&D! This is a fantasy world based loosely on a fantasy setting that uses many of the general ideas. Almost every spell, race, class would have to change drastically to be close to d&d.
Lets not compare apples to oranges here, spells here can do whatever the admin feels like the should. And in this case, its a very reasonable assumption that If I don't hit you, your protective covering is not going to be effected adversely.
Belle
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B>For the last time
This is not D&D! This is a fantasy world based loosely on a fantasy setting that uses many of the general ideas. Almost every spell, race, class would have to change drastically to be close to d&d.
Lets not compare apples to oranges here, spells here can do whatever the admin feels like the should. And in this case, its a very reasonable assumption that If I don't hit you, your protective covering is not going to be effected adversely.
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This isnt dnd? really? no kidding.
But if someone is going to quote dnd rules, then at least be correct about them. Thats all my post was about. Using dnd as a reference for a role-playing game isnt a bad idea, but at least get your references correct.
Garosh
<B>For the last time
This is not D&D! This is a fantasy world based loosely on a fantasy setting that uses many of the general ideas. Almost every spell, race, class would have to change drastically to be close to d&d.
Lets not compare apples to oranges here, spells here can do whatever the admin feels like the should. And in this case, its a very reasonable assumption that If I don't hit you, your protective covering is not going to be effected adversely.
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This isnt dnd? really? no kidding.
But if someone is going to quote dnd rules, then at least be correct about them. Thats all my post was about. Using dnd as a reference for a role-playing game isnt a bad idea, but at least get your references correct.
Garosh
Why is it that I never seem to run into the problems Mal is describing? Since stone skin was upgraded, my 2-person teams have done quite the nice experience without having any real close encounters.
When I cast this on a 30th paladin, for instance, the stone would last the *entire* fight quite frequently, tanking a 35th warrior mob. That's because he defends against nearly every attack.
Fighting 30th level thieves with a cleric, 2 stones get through the entire fight (mind you, she blinds). And of course we can kill 3/mem.
Keep in mind the increased crit chance applies to races that are stronger than human. So if yer gonna fight giants, trolls, dwarves, barbs, etc... you're going to feel some pain if you don't get them rayed.
When I cast this on a 30th paladin, for instance, the stone would last the *entire* fight quite frequently, tanking a 35th warrior mob. That's because he defends against nearly every attack.
Fighting 30th level thieves with a cleric, 2 stones get through the entire fight (mind you, she blinds). And of course we can kill 3/mem.
Keep in mind the increased crit chance applies to races that are stronger than human. So if yer gonna fight giants, trolls, dwarves, barbs, etc... you're going to feel some pain if you don't get them rayed.
Direct quote from the book:
Stoneskin
(Alteration)
Range: Touch Components: V,S,M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 creature Saving Throw: None
When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by CUT, BLOW, PROJECTILE, or the like. Thus even a sword of sharpness would not affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor would a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magic attacks from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth would have a normal effect. Any attack or attack sequence from a single opponent dispels the dweomer, although it makes the creature immune to that single attack or attack sequence. Attacks with relatively soft weapons, such as a monk's hands, an ogrillon's fist, etc, will inflict 1-2 points of damage on the attacker for each such attack while the attacked creature is protected by the stoneskin spell, but will not dispel the dweomer. The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin.
I fail to see anywhere in there that it mentions misses counting. I further wonder why you'd even have a rule like this in your game. I've played d&d myself for 15 years, closing in on 16. Never played it that misses count. Doesn't make sense that they would. Spells do chip away stone, and have always played that way. It wouldn't make sense that a miss(something that doesn't touch the stoneskinned target) would chip away a spell designed to get rid of physical attacks. I've used, quite often, traps that drop small pebbles on my parties in games I run, thus dispelling their stoneskins before a major fight.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I've never played that way, and don't think I am. I just went through all my books, and none of them mention a thing about misses.
Btw - Try not to be so arrogant when pointing a flaw out. People are entitled to be incorrect, nobody is perfect. Not to mention there are so many variants of 2nd edition rules it's not even funny. Personally, I like the 3rd edition stoneskin much better, and that's the kind of stoneskin(in a way) sojourn uses(blocks x damage from each hit, just that sojourn's scales with skill and level).
And feel free to read above. I stated it was based loosely off of D&D, I never said it was exact, or even close. The theme is, spell generalities are. If you deny that, well... Let's just say we have two wholly different perceptions of the game, then.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Stoneskin
(Alteration)
Range: Touch Components: V,S,M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 creature Saving Throw: None
When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by CUT, BLOW, PROJECTILE, or the like. Thus even a sword of sharpness would not affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor would a rock hurled by a giant, a snake's strike, etc. However, magic attacks from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth would have a normal effect. Any attack or attack sequence from a single opponent dispels the dweomer, although it makes the creature immune to that single attack or attack sequence. Attacks with relatively soft weapons, such as a monk's hands, an ogrillon's fist, etc, will inflict 1-2 points of damage on the attacker for each such attack while the attacked creature is protected by the stoneskin spell, but will not dispel the dweomer. The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin.
I fail to see anywhere in there that it mentions misses counting. I further wonder why you'd even have a rule like this in your game. I've played d&d myself for 15 years, closing in on 16. Never played it that misses count. Doesn't make sense that they would. Spells do chip away stone, and have always played that way. It wouldn't make sense that a miss(something that doesn't touch the stoneskinned target) would chip away a spell designed to get rid of physical attacks. I've used, quite often, traps that drop small pebbles on my parties in games I run, thus dispelling their stoneskins before a major fight.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I've never played that way, and don't think I am. I just went through all my books, and none of them mention a thing about misses.
Btw - Try not to be so arrogant when pointing a flaw out. People are entitled to be incorrect, nobody is perfect. Not to mention there are so many variants of 2nd edition rules it's not even funny. Personally, I like the 3rd edition stoneskin much better, and that's the kind of stoneskin(in a way) sojourn uses(blocks x damage from each hit, just that sojourn's scales with skill and level).
And feel free to read above. I stated it was based loosely off of D&D, I never said it was exact, or even close. The theme is, spell generalities are. If you deny that, well... Let's just say we have two wholly different perceptions of the game, then.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
"Any attack or attack sequence from a single opponent dispels the dweomer, although it makes the creature immune to that single attack or attack sequence."
I can see how that could be interpreted as "any attack" not any attack that hits... I don't agree, but it's certainly a valid interpretation the way it's written. *shrug*
I can see how that could be interpreted as "any attack" not any attack that hits... I don't agree, but it's certainly a valid interpretation the way it's written. *shrug*
Hay Mal, that from normal D&D rule book? I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure my 2nd edition AD&D book said something about stone lasting x attacks depending on caster level, with all attacks (hits, misses, spells) 'chipping' away at the spell. I'll check when I get home.
But anyway, the mud is just loosely based on D&D
Personally I think the way stone acts now is pretty reasonable. Misses (dodges, blocks etc) don't chip away from stone, while hits and spells do. It makes perfect sense to me that a magic missile would chip away 5 times from a stone (good way to blast stone off of casters.. hehehhe). Lets see how it goes in tougher zones. But for now I think its a good mix.. misses/dodges/blocks don't chip away, hits and spells do.
But anyway, the mud is just loosely based on D&D
Personally I think the way stone acts now is pretty reasonable. Misses (dodges, blocks etc) don't chip away from stone, while hits and spells do. It makes perfect sense to me that a magic missile would chip away 5 times from a stone (good way to blast stone off of casters.. hehehhe). Lets see how it goes in tougher zones. But for now I think its a good mix.. misses/dodges/blocks don't chip away, hits and spells do.
I'm looking at the revised black cover 2nd edition PHB, and it's text is very similar to the one I quoted, which was from Unearthed Arcana. Either one can be interpreted either way, but the way we understood it, it was hits only.
I agree with Rylan, the way it is working is nice. It doesn't last long for casters and such, sinc we get hit so much, but it does last a good deal of rounds on tanks, freeing me to cast ray, fumble, etc.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
I agree with Rylan, the way it is working is nice. It doesn't last long for casters and such, sinc we get hit so much, but it does last a good deal of rounds on tanks, freeing me to cast ray, fumble, etc.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
I dont have a book in front of me at work to get direct quotes from.
But, I am pretty durn sure that it even gives the example of a Griffon or some such attacking you, saying it gets 3 attacks a round and that it will knock off 3 stone's(chips whatever) regardless if its hits or misses. I was also under the impression that it says you get 1d4 stones +1 for every 2 levels of the caster. And that it says this will protect you from Attacks, not hits.
Havent read up on 3rd edition, beyond Beta testing the forgotten realms 3rd edition Stuff from Wizards of the coast.
Thought it was all a bunch of crap, Sticking to ad&d 2nd edition!
Garosh
**Disclaimer**
The above response is in regards to adnd only, and in no way represents the ideas of the mud Sojourn3 in anyway, it is purely a response based upon references given about dnd rules
But, I am pretty durn sure that it even gives the example of a Griffon or some such attacking you, saying it gets 3 attacks a round and that it will knock off 3 stone's(chips whatever) regardless if its hits or misses. I was also under the impression that it says you get 1d4 stones +1 for every 2 levels of the caster. And that it says this will protect you from Attacks, not hits.
Havent read up on 3rd edition, beyond Beta testing the forgotten realms 3rd edition Stuff from Wizards of the coast.
Thought it was all a bunch of crap, Sticking to ad&d 2nd edition!
Garosh
**Disclaimer**
The above response is in regards to adnd only, and in no way represents the ideas of the mud Sojourn3 in anyway, it is purely a response based upon references given about dnd rules
Hrm, I don't see that.. But they had sooooo many books, it could be in one I have on my shelf but don't wanna find.
Plus Sage advice. Coulda been said in there, and I just missed it.
There's so many interpretations of 2nd and 1st editions, that's why it ultimately dwindled in interest. 3rd edition is very concise.. I like it very much.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Plus Sage advice. Coulda been said in there, and I just missed it.
There's so many interpretations of 2nd and 1st editions, that's why it ultimately dwindled in interest. 3rd edition is very concise.. I like it very much.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Malacar:
<B>Hrm, I don't see that.. But they had sooooo many books, it could be in one I have on my shelf but don't wanna find.
Plus Sage advice. Coulda been said in there, and I just missed it.
There's so many interpretations of 2nd and 1st editions, that's why it ultimately dwindled in interest. 3rd edition is very concise.. I like it very much.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The rules for 3rd edition were pretty interesting, allowed for greater character specialization and variety, but I think it would be Hell on a DM, the burden they put on their shoulders as far as battles and such.
Like I said above, I was only in the beta testing of it, so maybe they changed a lot of it and maybe they took our many pages of recommendations to heart. But I never bought the books, I have plenty of 2nd edition ones
Garosh
<B>Hrm, I don't see that.. But they had sooooo many books, it could be in one I have on my shelf but don't wanna find.
Plus Sage advice. Coulda been said in there, and I just missed it.
There's so many interpretations of 2nd and 1st editions, that's why it ultimately dwindled in interest. 3rd edition is very concise.. I like it very much.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The rules for 3rd edition were pretty interesting, allowed for greater character specialization and variety, but I think it would be Hell on a DM, the burden they put on their shoulders as far as battles and such.
Like I said above, I was only in the beta testing of it, so maybe they changed a lot of it and maybe they took our many pages of recommendations to heart. But I never bought the books, I have plenty of 2nd edition ones
Garosh
*nogs*
It's veyr well balanced. My group loves it.
Check it out sometime. The rules are so much less convoluted, and make a lot more sense.
Not to mention the fact since it is open sourced, a lot of companies are jumping on the d20 bandwagon, so it's getting a lot more popular.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
It's veyr well balanced. My group loves it.
Check it out sometime. The rules are so much less convoluted, and make a lot more sense.
Not to mention the fact since it is open sourced, a lot of companies are jumping on the d20 bandwagon, so it's getting a lot more popular.
------------------
Malacar - French kissin midgets, and damn proud of it. Oh yeah... My comments can offend you now, I don't care anymore. Have a day.
Return to “S3 Gameplay Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests