Counter to overpowered loot: Auto monster scaling/modify weapon reqs

[GeneralDiomedes]

I want to sneak around a corner and see casters renewing buffs of the baddie melle types.......a group of orcs with stoneskin already cast....and hearing the sound of the shaman renewing an occassional fire resist.
This is the way to make more challenging content.

Or have the enemy spellcaster switch spells according to context. They shouldn't even try to cast Hold Person on a WF or a summoned pet, for example.

[Roguewiz]

The only thing this really changes is what the caster is doing. Basically, instead of getting whacked on while trying to hold a player that is immune, they'd do something else. NPC casters have infinite SP, so there isn't a problem there. The only problem is who they are focus'ed on.

[GeneralDiomedes]

The only thing this really changes is what the caster is doing. Basically, instead of getting whacked on while trying to hold a player that is immune, they'd do something else. NPC casters have infinite SP, so there isn't a problem there. The only problem is who they are focus'ed on.

Party of WF?

Also you are talking about changing the aggro mechanic, which isn't going to happen. It would be better and more realistic to give the enemy some information of what spells work on which enemies, rather than the simple cycle they go through now.

[Roguewiz]

Party of WF?

Also you are talking about changing the aggro mechanic, which isn't going to happen. It would be better and more realistic to give the enemy some information of what spells work on which enemies, rather than the simple cycle they go through now.

True, however how is MOB X going to know that Player Y has a ring of protection from poison? In PnP, you could do a detect magic and a spellcraft check to see what it was. Seeing as neither exist in DDO, it wouldn't make sense.

What I can see is:

MOB trys to cast a poison on a player
MOB notices it didnt take affect.
MOB switches to a different spell.

In regards to Warforged, the MOB just shouldn't try casting the spells they are immune to. And other than having an overwhelming sense that the player is "Good", IE, Paladin, there wouldn't be a way to say "Hey, he's immune to fear! Lets not cast that spell on him"

[Talon_Moonshadow]

Party of WF?

Also you are talking about changing the aggro mechanic, which isn't going to happen. It would be better and more realistic to give the enemy some information of what spells work on which enemies, rather than the simple cycle they go through now.

I think the only way do this easily is to just varry the spells more.....or have the AI get some feedback.....like when I get an immune message I try something else.....let them try to hold a WF once.....then use a different spell.
(That's what I do everytime I run VON4 )

[QuantumFX]

You wont find a +1 Shocking/Flaming Burst Rapier of Pure Good.

Especailly since PG doesn't exist in P&P. (IMHO PG should have been a +1 enhancement over Holy that just does +2d6 damage to evil foes and +1d6 points of damage to those that are neutral on the good/evil axis of the alignment chart.) Still useful but a whole lot less overpowering.

[Roguewiz]

Especailly since PG doesn't exist in P&P. (IMHO PG should have been a +1 enhancement over Holy that just does +2d6 damage to evil foes and +1d6 points of damage to those that are neutral on the good/evil axis of the alignment chart.) Still useful but a whole lot less overpowering.

Even without the Pure Good, you still won't find a Shocking/Flaming Bursting Weapon. A weapon cannot have 2 different prefixes . I just added the Pure Good to my example to reach as close to +10 modifiers as I could.

[GeneralDiomedes]

True, however how is MOB X going to know that Player Y has a ring of protection from poison? In PnP, you could do a detect magic and a spellcraft check to see what it was. Seeing as neither exist in DDO, it wouldn't make sense.

I didn't say anything about that .. just some information on enemy type i.e. don't cast scorching rays at hellhounds or hold person on spiders.

However the further suggestion for the caster to try another spell if they get an immune message is really good and doesn't seem like it would be too hard to implement in an AI engine as it's not strategic, just simple logic.