Improved Fiends

[Salk]

From the Read Me:

 

"I assume that enemy spellcasters (who, after all, have been learning high-level magic far longer than the party) summon demons with whom they have a pre-existing pact. These demons won't attack their summoner - and, crucially, will attack the party even if they are protected by Protection from Evil. The practical upshot is that the only demons in the game now kept at bay by a Pro/Evil are the ones that your party summons. "

 

I wanted to ask you: why will summoned demons attack the party even if Protection from Evil is active?

 

This decision seems rather unfair to me, precisely as the other widely used "trick" of changing the class for many Undead to Monsters just to avoid the effect of Turn Undead.

 

Turn Undead is almost never used just because it can't turn undead whose class has arbitrarily changed to avoid its effect.

 

I would like to have David's take on this and perhaps even start a small debate, if possible.

 

Thanks!

[Ilyich]

I can't comment on the demons much, having never played a mage or cleric, and therefore never had protection from evil with SCS II, however the changing the class of undeads to monster is a terrible bit of cheese. The whole point of undead is to be vulnerable to clerics, with the exception of one of the Demiliches (the one in Watcher's Keep is immune to turning I think, but Kangaxx is not) and, much more debatable, Bodhi.

[DavidW]

From the Read Me:

 

"I assume that enemy spellcasters (who, after all, have been learning high-level magic far longer than the party) summon demons with whom they have a pre-existing pact. These demons won't attack their summoner - and, crucially, will attack the party even if they are protected by Protection from Evil. The practical upshot is that the only demons in the game now kept at bay by a Pro/Evil are the ones that your party summons. "

 

I wanted to ask you: why will summoned demons attack the party even if Protection from Evil is active?

 

There's quite a lot of discussion elsewhere on the forum about this, but basically it's just to make demons effective, without the fairly high-level fiddliness of writing lots of code to bring down enemy Protection from Evil, keep one's own Protection from Evil up, etc. As a secondary balance point, having a first level spell keep off a pit fiend is arguably a bit overdone (notice that it's pretty different from how the PnP version works).

 

"Unfair"? The unfairness, in effect, is that the party's demon-summoning doesn't have the same effects as the enemy's. The SCSII readme is pretty up-front about this, but if you do want to summon demons, bear in mind that SCSII mages don't generally use Protection from Evil themselves, so they're not protected.

 

 

precisely as the other widely used "trick" of changing the class for many Undead to Monsters just to avoid the effect of Turn Undead.

 

Which creatures are you thinking of? I can only think of Bodhi (in Tactics and SCSII) and the Shade Lord (in SCSII). In both cases, they're so high level that turn isn't going to work anyway; the change is actually a response to Pro/Undead scrolls.

 

Turn Undead is almost never used.

If that's true (it's the first I've heard of it) then people are missing a trick: it's pretty effective right through BG2, even with a full install of SCS2. It wipes out lich simulacra and ancient vampires, for instance.

[Demivrgvs]

I wanted to ask you: why will summoned demons attack the party even if Protection from Evil is active?

I suppose to make them worth to be cast, else a simple lvl 3 spell makes them completely useless. There may be a more "fair" solution, which is leaving them unable to attack a protected creature, but allowing them to cast Dispel at will (as per PnP). Anyway this would pratically lead to the same results in more complicated way, thus (even if I'd prefer what I've just suggested) I think what DavidW did is just fine (and probably much smoother).

 

This decision seems rather unfair to me, precisely as the other widely used "trick" of changing the class for many Undead to Monsters just to avoid the effect of Turn Undead.

Wait, SCS does this?! It seems strange to me DavidW can implement something like that...I don't like it at all.

[Demivrgvs]

DavidW preceeded me of few minutes!

 

precisely as the other widely used "trick" of changing the class for many Undead to Monsters just to avoid the effect of Turn Undead.

Which creatures are you thinking of? I can only think of Bodhi (in Tactics and SCSII) and the Shade Lord (in SCSII). In both cases, they're so high level that turn isn't going to work anyway; the change is actually a response to Pro/Undead scrolls.

If it's only for those pretty overpowered scroll I may suggest you what I've done to them in IR.

 

Scroll of Protection from Undead

Effects:

Immunity to level drain

Protection from Undead: +2 bonus to AC and saving throws vs. undead creatures

Duration: 10 turns

 

It also follows the trend you started with 'Fiends ignore Protection from Evil'.

[DavidW]

precisely as the other widely used "trick" of changing the class for many Undead to Monsters just to avoid the effect of Turn Undead.

Which creatures are you thinking of? I can only think of Bodhi (in Tactics and SCSII) and the Shade Lord (in SCSII). In both cases, they're so high level that turn isn't going to work anyway; the change is actually a response to Pro/Undead scrolls.

If it's only for those pretty overpowered scroll I may suggest you what I've done to them in IR.

 

Scroll of Protection from Undead

Effects:

Immunity to level drain

Protection from Undead: +2 bonus to AC and saving throws vs. undead creatures

Duration: 10 turns

 

It also follows the trend you started with 'Fiends ignore Protection from Evil'.

 

What you do is perfectly sensible, but it contradicts SCS II's minimalism: I don't really want to change existing-game resources unless I feel forced to. And since it's only two creatures that get changed, it seems overkill (for SCSII, not for IR).

 

In fact, the main reason I change Bodhi is just that Tactics does and I was aiming for a fairly faithful conversion. The reason I change the Shade Lord is laziness: I spent quite a while working out how liches could handle Pro/Undead, but the Shade Lord got written in more of a hurry.

[Salk]

Problem is: we are to accept the fact that enemy spellcasters have a "former pact" with the Demons they summon so that they are not attacked despite not being protected from Evil.

 

On top of that, the party's Protection from Evil is ineffective.

 

That's what I meant when I spoke about "unfairness".

 

A better solution would be to have the enemy spellcasters summon demons only when they are also protected from evil themselves. I don't think this would be difficult to do, wouldn't it?

 

At the same time, I would restore the power of Protection from Evil. Yes, it's a first level spell that keeps at bay pit fiends but it has its own limitation, doesn't it?

I cannot take any offensive stance else its power dissipates and it should also be dispelled if the player actively moves towards the demon (Player's Handbook: "The protection ends if the protected character makes a melee attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature."). It has a limited duration also so it's not that it lasts forever.

 

Demivrgvs' suggestion seem reasonable to me (if P&P does hint to this ability): let demons have Dispel Magic.

 

With these perhaps not so complicated changes, the "unfairness" is rectified.

 

About the practice of changing Undead's class to Monster, I believe there should be no exception to the rule. Bodhi is an undead? Then it should be undead. Same thing for the Shade Lord.

 

I remember other Mods (I think Tactics) changing class for Skeleton Warriors to Monsters (also, aigleborgne - to my disappointment - followed the same line for his never completed Enhanced Creatures).

 

Thanks!

[DavidW]

Problem is: we are to accept the fact that enemy spellcasters have a "former pact" with the Demons they summon so that they are not attacked despite not being protected from Evil.

Why not accept that? There's lots of precedent for that sort of thing in fantasy.

On top of that, the party's Protection from Evil is ineffective.

 

That's what I meant when I spoke about "unfairness".

 

A better solution would be to have the enemy spellcasters summon demons only when they are also protected from evil themselves. I don't think this would be difficult to do, wouldn't it?

Extremely difficult, mostly because it requires the summoner to keep track not only of his own defences, but of his entire party's defences. That's a nightmare. Also, to use the spell effectively he'd have to prioritise destroying the party's defences. In practice, in that environment I just wouldn't use the spell - it wouldn't be competitive against Horrid Wilting.

 

At the same time, I would restore the power of Protection from Evil. Yes, it's a first level spell that keeps at bay pit fiends but it has its own limitation, doesn't it?

I cannot take any offensive stance else its power dissipates and it should also be dispelled if the player actively moves towards the demon (Player's Handbook: "The protection ends if the protected character makes a melee attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature."). It has a limited duration also so it's not that it lasts forever.

That's not how it works in BG2. It's how the PnP version works but it would be extremely fiddly at best to do a BG2 version. Someone else may well be interested in doing it, but it doesn't really appeal to me.

 

Demivrgvs' suggestion seem reasonable to me (if P&P does hint to this ability): let demons have Dispel Magic.

Whether PnP hints at the ability only matters if you regard PnP-accuracy as essential, which I don't particularly - but yes, it does include that ability. I don't think PnP demons are allowed to dispel Pro/Evil, but I could be wrong. Demivrgvs' comment stands, though: in practice it wouldn't make a great deal of difference, at least not at low levels.

 

 

About the practice of changing Undead's class to Monster, I believe there should be no exception to the rule. Bodhi is an undead? Then it should be undead. Same thing for the Shade Lord.

Why should there be no exception? There's plenty of PnP precedent for undead which are immune to Turning. No-one is denying that Bodhi is an undead - just not one affected by the usual range of anti-undead powers.

 

I remember other Mods (I think Tactics) changing class for Skeleton Warriors to Monsters

 

They're flagged as "humanoid" in vanilla BG1, actually - I assume precisely so that they can't be turned, in accordance with PnP skeleton warriors.

[Salk]

Thanks for the answers, David!

 

I didn't realize that changing the script in the way I suggested could be a nightmare else I would have not even thought to burden you with it.

 

About not allowing exceptions, Bodhi is a vampire and vampires are turnable, aren't they?

 

I might be at fault here but I don't think it's fair to make an enemy have abilities that don't belong to them. I don't think the Shade Lord should be immune to Turn Undead either and I don't agree with the vanilla decision about giving a humanoid class to Skeleton Warriors.

 

However, I do appreciate your answers and your dedication.

 

Thanks!

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Why should there be no exception? There's plenty of PnP precedent for undead which are immune to Turning. No-one is denying that Bodhi is an undead - just not one affected by the usual range of anti-undead powers.

 

Another point against changing the GENERAL designation of undead creatures to something else is that it invalidates spells or items which are designed to specifically target undead. For example, Sunray and Daystar won't deal extra damage to SCSII's Bodhi.

 

Anyway, you can use Effect #297 to prevent an undead creature from being turned. Also, the Detect() trigger ignores Effect #100 (Protection From Creature Type) when used in conjunction with base object identifiers (i.e. Player1-Player6).

[DavidW]

About not allowing exceptions, Bodhi is a vampire and vampires are turnable, aren't they?

Well, as I say, turning isn't really the issue: realistically she'll be too high level to be turnable. It's Pro/Undead scrolls. (And possibly undead-disrupting weapons, come to think of it.)

 

In any case, I don't think the argument is conclusive. You might equally say "Illasera is a person and persons are vulnerable to Charm Person". Obviously if exceptions are at all common, it gets silly, but I don't feel particularly bad about very occasional ones for unique creatures (and Bodhi is especially unique in this regard: she's a vampire infused with the soul of a demigod; God alone knows what kind of powers that implies!)

 

I might be at fault here

"Fault" doesn't come into it! Reasonable people can differ here.

but I don't think it's fair to make an enemy have abilities that don't belong to them. I don't think the Shade Lord should be immune to Turn Undead either

Again, "turn" isn't really the issue (else I'd have used AvengerRR's solution).

and I don't agree with the vanilla decision about giving a humanoid class to Skeleton Warriors.

For the record, it's a 2nd edition AD&D decision, not a vanilla decision.

 

@AvengerRR: I know Detect(PlayerN) works through pro/undead, but I don't think Attack(PlayerN) or Spell(SPELL,PlayerN) do.

 

I agree it's a nuisance that extra-damage-vs-undead type things are also stopped by changed creature type. Laziness prevents me fixing it.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

@AvengerRR: I know Detect(PlayerN) works through pro/undead, but I don't think Attack(PlayerN) or Spell(SPELL,PlayerN) do.

 

Attack() and co. work but Spell() and co. don't (not even ReallyForceSpell).

 

I agree it's a nuisance that extra-damage-vs-undead type things are also stopped by changed creature type. Laziness prevents me fixing it.

 

For my part, I'd rather have a nerfed Protection from Undead scroll than encounter an undead creature which is unaffected by undead-specific spells and items.

[DavidW]

@AvengerRR: I know Detect(PlayerN) works through pro/undead, but I don't think Attack(PlayerN) or Spell(SPELL,PlayerN) do.

 

Attack() and co. work but Spell() and co. don't (not even ReallyForceSpell).

 

I agree it's a nuisance that extra-damage-vs-undead type things are also stopped by changed creature type. Laziness prevents me fixing it.

 

For my part, I'd rather have a nerfed Protection from Undead scroll than encounter an undead creature which is unaffected by undead-specific spells and items.

Fair enough; but I'd rather not have to nerf a generic item for the sake of 1-2 encounters, so I think this is one of those agree-to-differ points (especially as other things being equal, with Bodhi I don't want to modify the Tactics baseline).

[Shaitan]

Amen

[Demivrgvs]

Working to improve SR's improved fiends I've discovered some issues:

 

1) by giving fiends the fighter class you are also granting them an increased attack per round rate (e.g. Glabrezu being > 13th level gains +1 apr). I previously forgot about it and I'll fix this in SR v2, I don't know if you did it too.

 

2) the script which makes them consider the party as enemy doesn't work very well imo. It triggers just because the creature cast a spell, or see the summoner which means fiend's spells/abilities won't affect the enemy at all (unless they are supposed to hit everyone like Death Knight's Fireball) but only the party.

 

To make it work as intended I've changed the following code...

 

IF
!Global("inafight","LOCALS",1)
OR(8)
	AttackedBy([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.0.0.SUMMONED],DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy([PC],DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy([FAMILIAR],DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy([ALLY],DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy([CONTROLLED],DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy([CHARMED],DEFAULT)
	SpellCastOnMe([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.0.0.SUMMONED],0)
	See(LastSummonerOf(Myself))
THEN
RESPONSE #100
	Enemy()
	SetGlobal("inafight","LOCALS",1)
	SetGlobalTimer("stayontarget","LOCALS",TWO_ROUNDS)
	SetGlobalTimer("seedefences","LOCALS",ONE_ROUND)
	Continue()

 

...to something like this...

 

IF
OR(6)
	AttackedBy(Player1,DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy(Player2,DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy(Player3,DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy(Player4,DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy(Player5,DEFAULT)
	AttackedBy(Player6,DEFAULT)
THEN
RESPONSE #100
	Enemy()
END

 

Surely you can do this much better than me, if you have any suggestion let me know.