Spell Revisions & SCS spell modifications

[Salk]

Hello Demivrgvs!

 

I was reviewing my installation order for BGT and I could not help noticing that SCS II offers components that do change spells (Spell Twaks has its own section in the Read Me).

 

Such changes might or not be included (and expanded) in Spell Revisions so please help me understand if the following statements are correct:

 

Cap damage done by Skull Trap at 12d6

 

This component and SR's change to Skull Trap seem to take different paths. Am I right assuming "either one or the other"?

 

Iron Skins behaves like Stoneskin (can be brought down by Breach)

 

Except from SR's fair renaming from Iron Skins to Stoneskin (there is already the arcane spell named just like that though), am I correct in my assumption that SR's spell supercede the SCS II's component here?

 

Make Minute Meteors into +2 weapons

 

I am understanding that SR's revision caps the bonus to +2 just this SCS II component does. Am I right saying then the SCS II component is redundant in this case as well?

 

Revert Greater Restoration back to only affecting one creature

 

SCS II's take and SR's take on this spell seem to be different. The first makes it work on single target only while SR maintains its original area effect, though nerfing its power by removing the curing abilities. Do we have here a case of "either one or the other"? I would suppose that the two components might stack although this would mean a major declassing for this spell (which I would not accept).

 

Make Power Word: Blind a single-target spell

 

This component is superceded by SR. Am I right assuming that, installing SR, this component is redundant then?

 

More consistent Breach spell (always affects liches and rakshasas; doesn't penetrate Spell Turning)

 

What are the differences between SCS's revison and SR's revision on the spell? Is it again a matter of either one or the other?

 

Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

 

Here, despite me keeping this component in my installation list, I think DavidW has gone down a rather slippery ground. It is indeed a needed tweak to many spells but there is a high price to pay: you can miss the target (and it shouldn't be like that). How does SR relate to this component?

 

Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades only affect hostile creatures

 

Personally I install this component for fairness' sake. DavidW's idea was to make the player use the same spell source files that the AI uses against the player, customizing it to certain extents (not documented). Is SR's modification taking the same, fair approach?

 

Thanks for your attention and keep it up!

[DavidW]

I'll leave Demivrgvs to reply to this, since I'm not familiar with how SR is coded.

 

I'm curious about this, though:

 

Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

 

Here, despite me keeping this component in my installation list, I think DavidW has gone down a rather slippery ground. It is indeed a needed tweak to many spells but there is a high price to pay: you can miss the target (and it shouldn't be like that).

 

Basically you've got a choice: you can leave antimagic attacks as single-target (in which case, like all single-target spells, they don't penetrate II), or you can change them to area effect (in which case, like all area effects, they can miss if the target moves). It's fine for someone to prefer it the way it is, but it sounds as if you think it's a bad idea but still have it installed?... I'm confused.

[Demivrgvs]

Cap damage done by Skull Trap at 12d6

This component and SR's change to Skull Trap seem to take different paths. Am I right assuming "either one or the other"?

Either one or the other. SCS's Skull trap deals 12-72 points of damage while SR's one deals 20-80, but SR's Skull trap takes longer to become powerful (1d4/level instead of 1d6/level). If you have problems with SCS Yuan-Ti's 3xSkull Traps triggers you may prefer mine version because they won't fire it at maximum power.

Iron Skins behaves like Stoneskin (can be brought down by Breach)

Except from SR's fair renaming from Iron Skins to Stoneskin (there is already the arcane spell named just like that though), am I correct in my assumption that SR's spell supercede the SCS II's component here?

SCS's component is redundant if you install SR. I've made it work just like the wizard version, and thus it can be brought down by Breach.

Make Minute Meteors into +2 weapons

I am understanding that SR's revision caps the bonus to +2 just this SCS II component does. Am I right saying then the SCS II component is redundant in this case as well?

Indeed, SR and SCS do the same thing.

 

Revert Greater Restoration back to only affecting one creature

SCS II's take and SR's take on this spell seem to be different. The first makes it work on single target only while SR maintains its original area effect, though nerfing its power by removing the curing abilities. Do we have here a case of "either one or the other"? I would suppose that the two components might stack although this would mean a major declassing for this spell (which I would not accept).

SR nerfs it by making the caster fatigued for 1 turn (but healing properties are still there). Thus I would say you either install SR's Greater Restoration or SCS's Tweak.

 

Make Power Word: Blind a single-target spell

This component is superceded by SR. Am I right assuming that, installing SR, this component is redundant then?

Yes, once again SR and SCS do the same thing.

 

More consistent Breach spell (always affects liches and rakshasas; doesn't penetrate Spell Turning)

What are the differences between SCS's revison and SR's revision on the spell? Is it again a matter of either one or the other?

I haven't touch Breach, thus you should safely install this component if you like it. I don't like it because "it goes against the rules" somewhat. SR v2 will make Pierce Shield a sort of Breach+Pierce Magic, and being it a lvl 8 spell it will affect both Liches and Rakshasas.

Regarding the "doesn't penetrate" Spell Turning I haven't thought about it yet.

 

Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

Here, despite me keeping this component in my installation list, I think DavidW has gone down a rather slippery ground. It is indeed a needed tweak to many spells but there is a high price to pay: you can miss the target (and it shouldn't be like that). How does SR relate to this component?

I don't completely like it either for different reasons. What this component does is changing antimagic projectiles to give them a small friendly area of effect (about 5 feet radius), you can still safely install it after SR if you wish. At the moment SR gives this feature only to SpellStrike, and I'm planning to extend the radius to 10 feet in the next version which should drastically reduce the chance of missing the target while making it a true fearsome spell (it's a level 9 spell after all!).

 

Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades only affect hostile creatures

Personally I install this component for fairness' sake. DavidW's idea was to make the player use the same spell source files that the AI uses against the player, customizing it to certain extents (not documented). Is SR's modification taking the same, fair approach?

I've not done it because I felt it may make the spell too effective, but I'm probably adding this feature in the next release. I don't know how DavidW implements the change, it may be incompatibile with SR's Blade Barrier because I've slightly changed how it works...it's probably safer to not-install SR's Blade Barrier if you want to use that component.

[Salk]

I'll leave Demivrgvs to reply to this, since I'm not familiar with how SR is coded.

 

I'm curious about this, though:

 

Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

 

Here, despite me keeping this component in my installation list, I think DavidW has gone down a rather slippery ground. It is indeed a needed tweak to many spells but there is a high price to pay: you can miss the target (and it shouldn't be like that).

 

Basically you've got a choice: you can leave antimagic attacks as single-target (in which case, like all single-target spells, they don't penetrate II), or you can change them to area effect (in which case, like all area effects, they can miss if the target moves). It's fine for someone to prefer it the way it is, but it sounds as if you think it's a bad idea but still have it installed?... I'm confused.

 

DavidW,

 

what I meant to say is that I did appreciate the effort to try and not make enemy's Improved Invisibility a real pain for the party's magic users (and the little experience I have had with SCS confirms that this component is indeed needed). I just wanted to point out that this solution doesn't seem optimal because it makes spells that should never miss their target, unreliable even when used against not invisible enemies (if I understood well).

 

Unfortunately due to my lack of knowledge I cannot come with a better alternative to it.

[Demivrgvs]

what I meant to say is that I did appreciate the effort to try and not make enemy's Improved Invisibility a real pain for the party's magic users (and the little experience I have had with SCS confirms that this component is indeed needed).

Regarding the pain Improved Invisibility may cause I actually think it's mainly caused by one thing: SI: Abjuration + SI: Divination. I had tried to convince DavidW to not allow enemy mages to stack multiple Spell Immunity spells with no succes. Anyway if you're concerned about it I may remind you that SR's Glittering Dust now correctly bypasses SI: Divination thus making it a very effective spell in this cases.

 

P.S If you install SR at least your party won't be able to stack multiple Spell Immunity spells, but you'll get a much more useful SI: Abjuration because it now "correctly" protects from all abjuration spells.

[DavidW]

Regarding the pain Improved Invisibility may cause I actually think it's mainly caused by one thing: SI: Abjuration + SI: Divination.

 

I'm not really convinced by this. Against a foe with SI:Div+II, your only option is Dispel Magic, but for much of the game, the chance of that spell working on most high-level wizards is very small.

 

P.S If you install SR at least your party won't be able to stack multiple Spell Immunity spells, but you'll get a much more useful SI: Abjuration because it now "correctly" protects from all abjuration spells.

That's going to cause interesting issues with SCS2's mages, I guess. I think they'll still be able to stack SI (because the "Protection from Spell" effect won't come in until after all the SIs are in place), but (depending how you've coded it) their version of SI:Abj will make them immune to (e.g.) Spell Strike. I don't have a problem with that, but it will make later-game mage battles quite a bit harder. (I take it Ruby Ray still penetrates SI:Abj?)

[Demivrgvs]

I'm not really convinced by this. Against a foe with SI:Div+II, your only option is Dispel Magic, but for much of the game, the chance of that spell working on most high-level wizards is very small.

Actually with IR you have two easy options: 1) arcane casters can use Glitterdust (though vanilla's version couldn't do it, but being it a Conjuration spell I don't think it's questionable that it should); 2) divine casters can use Invisibility Purge, which I've made an Abjuration Spell (both to make it as per PnP and to differentiate it from Detect Invisibility). Though the latter change may be considered a deliberate change of mine (which isn't), the first is actually a fix.

That's going to cause interesting issues with SCS2's mages, I guess. I think they'll still be able to stack SI (because the "Protection from Spell" effect won't come in until after all the SIs are in place), but (depending how you've coded it) their version of SI:Abj will make them immune to (e.g.) Spell Strike. I don't have a problem with that, but it will make later-game mage battles quite a bit harder. (I take it Ruby Ray still penetrates SI:Abj?)

- SCS mages can still safely stack multiple SIs, I've tested it.

- Spellstrike is able to penetrate SI: Abjuration because it belongs to both Abjuration and Alteration schools (vanilla's spell was flagged as Abjuration only, I've made it work as BG2 vanilla's description says which is excatly how the PnP's version is).

- Ruby Ray obviously penetrate SI:Abjuration being an Alteration spell (thus making SI: Abjuration protect from all others magick attacks also make this spell much more interesting/valuable)..

That being said I think later-game mage battles with SCS can be handled pretty well (I've played with both stopping after defeating Gromnir because of modding activity).

[Icendoan]

But... that means with SR, SCS CHEATS!

 

Icen

[DavidW]

But... that means with SR, SCS CHEATS!

 

Icen

 

There's not much I can do about when SCS cheats in conjunction with other mods!

[Icendoan]

ACTION_IF REQUIRE_PREDICATE NOT ELSE? (If legal)

 

Icen

[Guest Guest]

If Glitterdust is a Conjuration spell, what happens if your mage is an Invoker? Does that mean you are boned?

[Salk]

But... that means with SR, SCS CHEATS!

 

Icen

 

This is bad.

 

Granted that DavidW's totally innocent here, can you Demivrgvs do something about the cheating?

 

It's really something that I don't like ...

[DavidW]

But... that means with SR, SCS CHEATS!

 

Icen

 

This is bad.

 

Granted that DavidW's totally innocent here, can you Demivrgvs do something about the cheating?

 

It's really something that I don't like ...

 

I think you'll have to live with it.

 

Bottom line: SCS uses certain spell combinations that are vanilla-game legal but illegal in SR's spell system. So the possible solutions are:

 

(i) SCS stops using those spell combinations.

(ii) SR stops banning those spell combinations.

(iii) SCS builds in SR-dependence, so that depending on whether or not SR is installed, it uses different spell combinations.

(iv) SR modifies SCS's scripts on install, so as to use different combinations of spells.

 

None of these are going to happen, because:

 

- I'm not going to do (i), because those spell combinations are sensible in vanilla play.

- Demivrgvs isn't going to do (ii), because he has good reasons (within the ethos of SR) to want to introduce those bans.

- I'm not going to do (iii), because it's too much work (and, ultimately, an open-ended task: SR isn't the only spell-revision mod, after all)

- I have no objection to (iv) but I suspect it will be prohibitively difficult on technical grounds.

 

 

As an aside, I don't think SR actually succeeds in blocking SI:Div + SI:Abj when used in a contingency or a spell sequencer (which is the only case where SCS uses them) - I guess the difference is that with SR, that's clearly exploiting a rules loophole.

[Salk]

Thanks for your insight about this problem, DavidW.

 

I see all four alternatives have major obstacles.

 

Of course the ideal is solution III but I realize it'd be a new load of work on your shoulders so it's a no go.

 

Demivrgvs himself created SR to play it together with SCS so I am sure he is also very interested in finding a solution to this cheating problem and also I am sure he will test the blocking of SI: Div/SI: Abj combo to see if it works or not.

[Demivrgvs]

If Glitterdust is a Conjuration spell, what happens if your mage is an Invoker? Does that mean you are boned?

I've given the player more opportunities (making both Glitterdust and Invisibility Purge more useful), I'm not responsible for the Invoker's school restrictions (at least not in SR ).

Granted that DavidW's totally innocent here, can you Demivrgvs do something about the cheating?

Indeed DavidW has nothing to do with it, he can't take account of every other mod that can be installed with SCS! The only solution is to make SIs stackable again. In that case the only low/mid-level counter spell to SI: Abj + SI: Div would be Glitterdust (at least you still have one option as opposed to vanilla's none). DavidW "resolved" it implementing the 'magic attack penetrate improved invisibility' component, I can just leave it to SCS or do myself something similar. At least Pierce Magic and Pierce Shield doesn't sound at all as they should have an area of effect, we may opt for giving the small area of effect to a more limited array of spells: Spell Thrust, Secret Word, and Ruby Ray.

 

- Demivrgvs isn't going to do (ii), because he has good reasons (within the ethos of SR) to want to introduce those bans.

Indeed I had good reasons to block it, but it seems the only feasible solution. I can't really think of playing without SCS, thus 'full compatibility' with it take precedence.

 

P.S This discussion reminds me how powerful can be a thief's Detect Illusions ability!