Request for content feedback

[Wisp]

I don't know if this've been purposely left this way, but Spell Shield protects against an unlimited amount of beholder anti-magic rays.

Looking at the spell description, it'd appear as if it should indeed protect from them, but get used up in the process, like with other "magical attacks".

Alternatively, Spell Shield should not protect against anti-magic rays, since the description explicitly states which spells you are protected from.

 

However, a Spell Shield that does not protect from anti-magic rays rather leaves mages without many options when they are up against beholders (which may be why it hasn't been fixed).

[DavidW]

I don't know if this've been purposely left this way, but Spell Shield protects against an unlimited amount of beholder anti-magic rays.

Looking at the spell description, it'd appear as if it should indeed protect from them, but get used up in the process, like with other "magical attacks".

Alternatively, Spell Shield should not protect against anti-magic rays, since the description explicitly states which spells you are protected from.

 

However, a Spell Shield that does not protect from anti-magic rays rather leaves mages without many options when they are up against beholders (which may be why it hasn't been fixed).

 

Interesting; I'll think about it.

[Guest The Potty 1]

OK I'm on v4, so this may be obsolete.

 

I noticed in the v5 changelog that you nerfed the Rhuk in firkraag's lair. Being on v4 I got the 'overpowered' one. This didn't really matter, because it never went hostile. Nalia fireballed the kamikaze things from off screen, then Fade snuck up and backstabbed the Rhuk, immediately hid in shadows, and repeated around five times until it died. Possibly this was because Fade was using celestial fury, and it got stunned?

 

You may think this was a bit unfair, but Fade did scout the area first, so I didn't actually metagame. Much.

[SirLancelot]

I noticed in the v5 changelog that you nerfed the Rhuk in firkraag's lair. Being on v4 I got the 'overpowered' one. This didn't really matter, because it never went hostile. Nalia fireballed the kamikaze things from off screen, then Fade snuck up and backstabbed the Rhuk, immediately hid in shadows, and repeated around five times until it died. Possibly this was because Fade was using celestial fury, and it got stunned?

 

You may think this was a bit unfair, but Fade did scout the area first, so I didn't actually metagame. Much.

 

 

That's one of the most annoying things i've come across when playing the BG series. It's not an SCSII fault, really. It's an generalized issue from the vanilla game.

 

I fail to see any cheese on the player tactic approach... if the enemy/neutral CPU see his companions blinded, webbed, damaged, etc, why the heck doesn't react appropriately or just move straightly to the threat source? He prefers to stand there doing nothing, sunbathing, looking at his feet or something else. (or drinking potions, at best) So you have to neglect an smart tactic just to avoid CPU obtuseness. It's a shame

 

But then of course, you should try v5 before form an opinion, specially cause' SCS uses Moveto often, IIRC.

[Guest AlanC9]

Option 2 pre-buffing causes overland random encounter mages to come in with their short term buffs up (not surprising, since both sides are being spawned into the RE map). This has caused a couple of these to be way too difficult for some party compositions. A lot of this is really due to the way REs spawn right on top of you, but it still resulted in silly gameplay, since bandit groups on the way to Nalia's keep are tougher encounters than the keep itself (if you're doing this quest first, they've got better equipment than you do, counting potions). I just gave up and turned it off.

 

So far I'm a little on the fence about the mod. With a PC mage, I find myself reverting to NWN style -- that is, refusing to move without a full spell load, since mages are quite vulerable without their buffs. I don't know if I'll get used to this or not.

[Guest AlanC9]

Actually, I should say that I'm on the fence about the D&D rules themselves. AD&D was always sort of a contest to see who got hosed first.

[DavidW]

Option 2 pre-buffing causes overland random encounter mages to come in with their short term buffs up (not surprising, since both sides are being spawned into the RE map).

 

That's intentional (not that that necessarily helps...) - as the description says, "you have been waylaid", so the bad guys are assumed to have got the drop on you (whereas in situations where you ambush them, it's the other way around).

 

In my own game, I've learned that the priority in this situation is to get some defences of your own up, fast - resist the temptation to do some fast offensive casting before your own mages are vaguely protected.

[viperdan]

Hi DavidW,your mod is fantastic and seriously enhances the tactical nature of baldur's gate 2.Tell me,other than the mild fix to thieves to make them attack when invisible,does v6 offer any major fixes/enhancements?I ask because i had to reinstall my bg2 installation yesterday and i don't want to reinstall SCS II v5 and start playing again if there's a new greatly improved version in the very near future.Also,i like your changes to inquisitors however regarding their dispel magic i think a third option is possible.Allow them to dispel at their level plus 4(or some other reasonable number).Even at 1.5 times their level the inquisitor dispel magic is probally a bit to overpowered(level 16 inquisitor dispelling at level 24)while dispelling at current character level is much to weak.

 

By the way,did you prevent mages from launching area effect spells at mirror imaged characters because the spell would be absorbed by one of the images?If not,consider putting that feature back in.I like my enemies to be merciless in they desire to destroy me.

[DavidW]

Hi DavidW,your mod is fantastic and seriously enhances the tactical nature of baldur's gate 2.

 

Thank you!

 

Tell me,other than the mild fix to thieves to make them attack when invisible,does v6 offer any major fixes/enhancements?I ask because i had to reinstall my bg2 installation yesterday and i don't want to reinstall SCS II v5 and start playing again if there's a new greatly improved version in the very near future.

 

Fixes: It messes with vampires too - in hindsight they're a bit too annoyingly single-minded in their desire to find leveldrainable opponents. Probably one or two others but I can't now recall.

 

Content: new components improving the drow and the sahuagin, a big revamp of the "Improved Abazigal's Lair" component, a few minor tweaks.

 

ETA next week I hope (but I said that last week).

 

Also,i like your changes to inquisitors however regarding their dispel magic i think a third option is possible.Allow them to dispel at their level plus 4(or some other reasonable number).Even at 1.5 times their level the inquisitor dispel magic is probally a bit to overpowered(level 16 inquisitor dispelling at level 24)while dispelling at current character level is much to weak.

Interesting idea. I'll add that if I get a chance.

 

By the way,did you prevent mages from launching area effect spells at mirror imaged characters because the spell would be absorbed by one of the images?If not,consider putting that feature back in.I like my enemies to be merciless in they desire to destroy me.

 

Yes, I did prevent it (actually I didn't realise mirror image protected you this way till quite recently; when I realised, I added preventative blocks.)

[viperdan]

Ok.Well i can't wait anymore(even though it's just been half a day)SCS II is great right now so i'm gonna install it and get going.It's a shame about the mirror image bug though.

[DavidW]

Ok.Well i can't wait anymore(even though it's just been half a day)SCS II is great right now so i'm gonna install it and get going.It's a shame about the mirror image bug though.

 

Hang on, I'm confused... do you mean that you think wizards should target you if you're mirror-imaged?

[Guest Guest]

Would it be possible to have two Option 2 buffings, say A and B, where A is as is now, but B doesn't have pre-buffing for overland random encounter mages?

 

Bandit groups on the way to Nalia's keep being tougher encounters than the keep itself can't be right.

[DavidW]

Would it be possible to have two Option 2 buffings, say A and B, where A is as is now, but B doesn't have pre-buffing for overland random encounter mages?

 

Bandit groups on the way to Nalia's keep being tougher encounters than the keep itself can't be right.

It's certainly technically possible but it does start to get out of hand... there's only so much I can do to fine-tune it, and I'd rather draw the line somewhere that doesn't make buffing individually optional for every mage in the game. Ultimately SCSII is always going to skew the relative difficulty of groups with a high percentage of spellcasters.

[Guest Guest]

I agree that making buffing individually optional for every mage in the game would be silly, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

DavidW, I appreciate all your hard work and aren't trying to be an ass, but are you saying that these random encounter mages being tougher than the keep is what you actually want, and makes sense to you?

[DavidW]

DavidW, I appreciate all your hard work and aren't trying to be an ass

You're not being. I appreciate comments even if I don't always agree.

 

but are you saying that these random encounter mages being tougher than the keep is what you actually want, and makes sense to you?

 

It wouldn't be what I want, but I don't personally find it to be true. (I think there's usually a pretty steep learning curve when meeting the first couple of SCSII mages, but I'm discounting that, it's going to happen anyway.) Personally I find Torgal and the yuan-ti mages way harder than the random encounter.

 

Obviously everyone has different playing styles, and you obviously find it different, but since it doesn't seem to be a particularly widespread view I'm still not inclined to change it. (If twenty people reply to this saying "me too", of course, I'll rethink!)