Official Release v1.5

[Demivrgvs]

Having worked on SR while waiting for a proper release the official V1 will benefit from some fixes, and improvements over the pre-release version. I haven't still implemented many things I was working on for SR v2, mostly because some of them require much work, and others needs to be discussed.

 

The hotfix recently posted is included (undispellable permanent blind effect, and Stoneskin's incorrect duration), and a small issue regarding Glitterdust (it erroneously affected neutral-blue-circled characters) has been resolved.

 

Improved Summoned Creatures behaviour/AI

Yes, it took me much less than expected. I must thanks Cirerreck for his very explicative .baf file (pratically he described every line of his scripts! ). The only feature I've not implemented is the option to turn off summons' AI, but you are still able to manually have them do what you wish. I've only tested it for half an hour but it seems to work flawlessly, thus you should safely assume that in terms of creatures summoned by spells GMinion is "included" in SR. I'll do the same for IR don't worry.

 

Currently the main features are:

- creatures are now summoned as allies, thus giving the party xp for defeating enemies

- no turning hostile (Efreeti and Djinni are an exception, and will still turn hostile if you damage them)

- creature will return to the caster and follow him in a non-combat situation (as per GMinion)

- better targeting

- better use of spell arsenal (nymph and genies make good use of their spellbook)

- cast-n-attack (genies are considered fighter/mage in SR and make good use of this feature)

 

Still to-do list:

- Gated Fiends (SR greatly improves summoned demons, and they probably deserve a better AI too)

- Celestial and Elemental Princes (same as above, though creatures too has still to be implemented)

 

Blindness/Deafness

Duration of both spells has been reduced from permanent to 8 hours.

 

Shocking Grasp

Shocking Grasp has been slightly tweaked again to allow better scalability of its effects.

Lvl 1° 1D6 points of electrical damage, stuns for 1 round (no save penalty)

Lvl 3° 2D6 points of electrical damage, stuns for 1 round (save at -1 penalty)

Lvl 5° 3D6 points of electrical damage, stuns for 1 round (save at -2 penalty)

Lvl 7° 4D6 points of electrical damage, stuns for 1 round (save at -3 penalty)

Lvl 9° 5D6 points of electrical damage, stuns for 1 round (save at -4 penalty)

 

Chromatic Orb

Restored a sort of scalability of its effects. As the caster gains levels he have a chance of creating more effects, though they still remain random (and there's still a chance of multicolored orbs! ).

All colors inflict 1D8 points of magic damage (no save), special effects last 5 rounds (save negates).

Lvl 1° White - Light (Saving Throws: -4)

Lvl 2° Aquamarine - Magnetism (AC: -4)

Lvl 4° Red - Pain (-1 to Strength, and Dexterity)

Lvl 6° Green - Poison (2hp/round)

Lvl 8° Yellow - Blindness

Lvl 10° Violet - Slow

Lvl 12° Blue - Paralysis

 

Spook

I've partially restored its scalability, though it's still not as powerful as vanilla's one.

Vanilla's Save penalty: -2 every two levels (2nd, 4th, 6th, ...) up to a maximum of -6 at 12th level

SR's Save penalty: -2 every two extra levels (3rd, 5th, ...) up to a maximum of -4 at 9th level

 

Haste

I've added a +1 bonus to THAC0 and AC in order for this spell to correctly counter Slow spell.

 

Spell Immunity

Multiple SI spells are stackable again (as per vanilla's). This change has been made to allow the AI to act more effectively, and to better integrate SR with SCS.

 

Flame Strike

It's small area of effect added by SR doesn't affect allies anymore. This change has been made to allow the AI to act more effectively, and to better integrate SR with SCS.

 

Blade Barrier

Doesn't affect allies. This change has been made to allow the AI to act more effectively, and to better integrate SR with SCS.

 

Spellstrike

Area of effect increased from 6 feet radius to 10 feet.

[Salk]

The new changes sound great!

 

Could you please briefly also tell us what are the changes that you had in mind for version 2?

 

I am curious...

[Bursk]

So now that multiple SI spells are stackable, I no longer need to be concerned about my Invoker/Divine Remix Cleric without Invisibility Purge issue?

[Demivrgvs]

So now that multiple SI spells are stackable, I no longer need to be concerned about my Invoker/Divine Remix Cleric without Invisibility Purge issue?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. You should be more worried than before, because it no longer matters neither having Invisibility Purge nor that SR makes it an Abjuration spell...if you encounter a SCS mage that make use of SI: Abj + SI: Div the only options you have are Glitterdust (which won't work against liches!), thieves' Detect Illusions, Spellstrike (which is a 9th lvl spell) or running for your life. If you don't have SR installed Glitterdust won't even work against SI: Div alone.

That is exactly why SCS adds the component which gives an area of effect to antimagick attack spells. Stackable SIs and how to counter them is probably the only aspect of SCS I don't like, but it seems DavidW is quite convinced about it.

 

Edit: sorry I was editing your post instead of answering in a new post. I probably should get some sleep.

[Bursk]

Balls, I thought things had got better, not worse.

 

Oh well. It looks like there's no other option than to have an area of effect for antimagick attack spells. One of these days I'll need to go through the SCS/SCSII readmes and work out what components to install (and not install) based on running them alongside SR.

 

Do you know off-hand if any mages in BG1 + TotSC are going to cause problems like this, or is it just BG2 + ToB mages that are high-level enough?

 

The problem I see with these area of effect antimagick attack spells, spells that you are basically relying on in a fight, is what if they miss? I suppose you're just going to have to reload the fight and try again, hoping that your spell doesn't miss a second time? I mean, what can you do against such an enemy if your spell misses? Use harsh language?

[Demivrgvs]

Balls, I thought things had got better, not worse.

 

Oh well. It looks like there's no other option than to have an area of effect for antimagick attack spells.

Making them non-stackable would make things easier imo (especially with SR's changes to Glitterdust and Invisibility Purge), but without DavidW's consensus making SIs non-stackable only for players would be pointless.

One of these days I'll need to go through the SCS/SCSII readmes and work out what components to install (and not install) based on running them alongside SR.

You don't have to, just take a look at my answer to Salk in the Spell Revisions & SCS spell modifications thread.

Do you know off-hand if any mages in BG1 + TotSC are going to cause problems like this, or is it just BG2 + ToB mages that are high-level enough?

You'd better ask to DavidW, but being SI a 5th level spell and SCS uses it only via contingencies I bet you won't encounter this problem during BG1.

The problem I see with these area of effect antimagick attack spells, spells that you are basically relying on in a fight, is what if they miss? I suppose you're just going to have to reload the fight and try again, hoping that your spell doesn't miss a second time? I mean, what can you do against such an enemy if your spell misses? Use harsh language?

That is why Spellstrike (the only antimagic attack to which SR gives an area of effect) has a quite "large" one, 10 feet instead of SCS's 5. The problem is such a large area is affordable on a lvl 9 spell but would make the other antimagic spells too powerful for their level, that's probably why DavidW opted for a very small area (and I think he does the right thing in this respect).

[DavidW]

Do you know off-hand if any mages in BG1 + TotSC are going to cause problems like this, or is it just BG2 + ToB mages that are high-level enough?

You'd better ask to DavidW, but being SI a 5th level spell and SCS uses it only via contingencies I bet you won't encounter this problem during BG1.

Correct.

The problem I see with these area of effect antimagick attack spells, spells that you are basically relying on in a fight, is what if they miss?

Don't start casting until the enemy starts a spell? It's only a problem if your enemy is moving a lot, so if they're casting, or in melee, or chucking meteors, you're ok.

I mean, what can you do against such an enemy if your spell misses? Use harsh language?

Use a second spell?

 

@Demi: blame the vanilla game for stackable SI: it's not my idea. But one of the reasons I keep it is that, as I said on the other thread, I don't actually think it matters. Against II+SI:Div but no SI:Abj, your only option is Dispel Magic, and that's a long shot at best against (say) liches.

[Demivrgvs]

@Demi: blame the vanilla game for stackable SI: it's not my idea. But one of the reasons I keep it is that, as I said on the other thread, I don't actually think it matters. Against II+SI:Div but no SI:Abj, your only option is Dispel Magic, and that's a long shot at best against (say) liches.

I know you don't like to change vanilla's spells, but seeing that you have changed all antimagic attack spells I think changing only SI instead would be better and less "intrusive". Not to mention that the only reason most SCS's antimagic attacks can penetrate II + SI:Div + SI:Abj is another oversight which makes SI:Abj effectively dispelled by Abjuration spells!

 

II+SI:Div but no SI:Abj would at least be countered by Dispel (and Inquisitors may have a chance even against liches) and by Invisibility Purge if you install SR (I think Divine Remix too changes it to from Divination to Abjuration as per PnP). Furthmore, even if you want to keep the "antimagic attack penetrate II" at least it will be fully "legal" against a SI:Div. But I suppose you/we should ask to players which solution is the best for them, because I think we're both biased in our respective positions.

[DavidW]

@Demi: blame the vanilla game for stackable SI: it's not my idea. But one of the reasons I keep it is that, as I said on the other thread, I don't actually think it matters. Against II+SI:Div but no SI:Abj, your only option is Dispel Magic, and that's a long shot at best against (say) liches.

I know you don't like to change vanilla's spells, but seeing that you have changed all antimagic attack spells I think changing only SI instead would be better and less "intrusive". Not to mention that the only reason most SCS's antimagic attacks can penetrate II + SI:Div + SI:Abj is another oversight which makes SI:Abj effectively dispelled by Abjuration spells!

I don't think it's an oversight (you could make the case for it being a bad idea). All those spells are specifically flagged as ignoring magic defences.

 

II+SI:Div but no SI:Abj would at least be countered by Dispel (and Inquisitors may have a chance even against liches) and by Invisibility Purge if you install SR (I think Divine Remix too changes it to from Divination to Abjuration as per PnP).

Sure, but in the vanilla game (at the risk of being repetitive), unless you've got an inquisitor, you have basically no chance of successfully dispelling a lich's defences.

 

(Incidentally, does SR's Invisibility Purge penetrate Minor Globe of Invulnerability? The vanilla game's doesn't.)

 

But I suppose you/we should ask to players which solution is the best for them, because I think we're both biased in our respective positions.

I'm not biased, and I doubt you are either; intelligent disagreement isn't a sign of bias.

 

I'm pursuing the discussion mostly out of intellectual curiosity, partly because the stacked SI thing isn't something I can straightforwardly make optional in SCS2. The basic theory behind my tweaks to the magic system was that II+SI:Div is basically almost unbreakable in the vanilla game, and that SI:Abj made very little difference in practice (except, sure, against Inquisitors, but I don't want to force every party to carry Keldorn). Your theory is that actually there are respectable counters to II+SI:Div but not to II+SI:Div+SI:Abj; I'm not seeing that, but if I were persuaded of it, I might rethink.

 

... although, as I mentioned briefly before, there's another problem, which is that it's virtually impossible to block stacked SI in the situation it's most often used in: spell sequencers and contingencies. Unless you've found a way?

[Salk]

... although, as I mentioned briefly before, there's another problem, which is that it's virtually impossible to block stacked SI in the situation it's most often used in: spell sequencers and contingencies. Unless you've found a way?

 

This is the real point of it.

 

I have also been thinking that any change in the SI system not including the case where it's most used is even counterproductive.

[Demivrgvs]

Not to mention that the only reason most SCS's antimagic attacks can penetrate II + SI:Div + SI:Abj is another oversight which makes SI:Abj effectively dispelled by Abjuration spells!

I don't think it's an oversight (you could make the case for it being a bad idea). All those spells are specifically flagged as ignoring magic defences.

Yeah, but one thing is being flagged to ignore magical defenses (e.g. Spell Deflection, Spell Turning, ...), another one is effectively do something that is specifically negated by the spell description (which states SI:Abj should protect from all Abjuration spell).

(Incidentally, does SR's Invisibility Purge penetrate Minor Globe of Invulnerability? The vanilla game's doesn't.)

Haven't tested it, but it shouldn't being it considered a 3rd level spell. Why do you ask? Are you thinking of II + SI:Div + Minor Globe of Invulnerability?

The basic theory behind my tweaks to the magic system was that II+SI:Div is basically almost unbreakable in the vanilla game, and that SI:Abj made very little difference in practice

It made little difference because of the aforementioned issue of it not doing what the description says. Wouldn't be better to corrected it before making many more changes based on that inconsistency?

Your theory is that actually there are respectable counters to II+SI:Div but not to II+SI:Div+SI:Abj; I'm not seeing that, but if I were persuaded of it, I might rethink.

Well, it's undeniable that you would have more options to counter it imo. It's true that liches make an exception because they are immune to low level spells and are hard to counter-dispel, but they are a very minor part of the mages you're going to fight in BG (and still they would leave one option at least, albeit a difficult one).

 

P.S Note that with SR installed II+SI:Div+SI:Abj can be easily countered by Glitterdust (unless you're going to stack SI:Conj too! ). Obviously liches are once again an exception.

 

... although, as I mentioned briefly before, there's another problem, which is that it's virtually impossible to block stacked SI in the situation it's most often used in: spell sequencers and contingencies. Unless you've found a way?

Actually SIs shouldn't even be usable via contingencies, and you've added an optional component to change vanilla's Spell Immunity exactly to make the use of them via contingencies "legal/consistent", you can block it by just not making the contingency cast both of them simultaneously. Anyway, I'm not against one SI at a time being used via contingencies by the AI because I can consider it a pre-buff (it's a legitimate exploit imo).

[DavidW]

Not to mention that the only reason most SCS's antimagic attacks can penetrate II + SI:Div + SI:Abj is another oversight which makes SI:Abj effectively dispelled by Abjuration spells!

I don't think it's an oversight (you could make the case for it being a bad idea). All those spells are specifically flagged as ignoring magic defences.

Yeah, but one thing is being flagged to ignore magical defenses (e.g. Spell Deflection, Spell Turning, ...), another one is effectively do something that is specifically negated by the spell description (which states SI:Abj should protect from all Abjuration spell).

...possibly. But if, by "oversight", you mean, "oversight by the game developers", it seems unlikely. Presumably the code explicitly has to say "ignore SI if you're a spell that's flagged as antimagic", so I don't see that it can be an accident.

 

(Incidentally, does SR's Invisibility Purge penetrate Minor Globe of Invulnerability? The vanilla game's doesn't.)

Haven't tested it, but it shouldn't being it considered a 3rd level spell. Why do you ask? Are you thinking of II + SI:Div + Minor Globe of Invulnerability?

I use MGI quite a lot, yes.

 

The basic theory behind my tweaks to the magic system was that II+SI:Div is basically almost unbreakable in the vanilla game, and that SI:Abj made very little difference in practice

It made little difference because of the aforementioned issue of it not doing what the description says. Wouldn't be better to corrected it before making many more changes based on that inconsistency?

Only if you think it ought to be "corrected"; I don't, particularly. I agree that II+SI:Div+SI:Abj is pretty hard to counter if SI:Abj also blocks spellstrike etc, but in SCS2 (or vanilla BG2) it doesn't.

 

Your theory is that actually there are respectable counters to II+SI:Div but not to II+SI:Div+SI:Abj; I'm not seeing that, but if I were persuaded of it, I might rethink.

Well, it's undeniable that you would have more options to counter it imo. It's true that liches make an exception because they are immune to low level spells and are hard to counter-dispel, but they are a very minor part of the mages you're going to fight in BG (and still they would leave one option at least, albeit a difficult one).

I think you're underestimating the problem. If you've got a wizard three levels higher than your caster, your Remove Magic will only work one time in 5. Lots of wizards (not just liches) are typically going to be three levels higher than your caster, especially in the middle game.

 

P.S Note that with SR installed II+SI:Div+SI:Abj can be easily countered by Glitterdust (unless you're going to stack SI:Conj too! ). Obviously liches are once again an exception.

Glitter dust doesn't go through MGI.

 

... although, as I mentioned briefly before, there's another problem, which is that it's virtually impossible to block stacked SI in the situation it's most often used in: spell sequencers and contingencies. Unless you've found a way?

Actually SIs shouldn't even be usable via contingencies, and you've added an optional component to change vanilla's Spell Immunity exactly to make the use of them via contingencies "legal/consistent", you can block it by just not making the contingency cast both of them simultaneously. Anyway, I'm not against one SI at a time being used via contingencies by the AI because I can consider it a pre-buff (it's a legitimate exploit imo).

 

Hang on... I'm starting to lose my grip on the framework here. The original worry was that SCS2 cheats by doing something the player isn't allowed to do. Here are the ways that could be avoided:

 

(i) Both player and enemy are allowed to put multiple SI into triggers.

(ii) Neither player nor enemy are allowed to put any SI into triggers.

(iii) Player and enemy are allowed to put one SI only into a trigger.

 

(i) is SCS2. (ii) isn't far off the vanilla game (a few wizards cheat). I thought (iii) was your proposal; my worry is that if you allow (iii) you can't prevent (i).

[Demivrgvs]

...possibly. But if, by "oversight", you mean, "oversight by the game developers", it seems unlikely. Presumably the code explicitly has to say "ignore SI if you're a spell that's flagged as antimagic", so I don't see that it can be an accident.

Well, considering how many mistakes/oversights/leftovers they made to speed up the release of one year, I wouldn't see it as too much "unlikely". And if SI:Abj doesn't protect from 90% of abjuration spells I see it as quite inconsistent.

I think you're underestimating the problem. If you've got a wizard three levels higher than your caster, your Remove Magic will only work one time in 5. Lots of wizards (not just liches) are typically going to be three levels higher than your caster, especially in the middle game.

Against "normal" wizards you can just use Glitterdust or Invisibility Purge, though in that case II+SI:Abj+MGI would probably work fine.

 

Probably mine solution (fixing SI:Abj to work as per description and non stackable SIs) and yours (changing antimagic attacks and stackable SIs) lead to a similar level of protection for mages and similar difficulties for a player to counter. Still I would consider the former solution to be more "consistent/legitimate".

The original worry was that SCS2 cheats by doing something the player isn't allowed to do. Here are the ways that could be avoided:

 

(i) Both player and enemy are allowed to put multiple SI into triggers.

(ii) Neither player nor enemy are allowed to put any SI into triggers.

(iii) Player and enemy are allowed to put one SI only into a trigger.

 

(i) is SCS2. (ii) isn't far off the vanilla game (a few wizards cheat). I thought (iii) was your proposal; my worry is that if you allow (iii) you can't prevent (i).

The original worry was not only that, but also some players don't like to have all antimagick attack with an area of effect.

 

My proposal was actually (iv) Neither player nor enemy are allowed to put any SI into triggers, but the AI is allowed to use it as pre-buff.

 

Anyway, though making SR fully integrable with SCS is always a priority for me, SI:Abj has to be fixed absolutely, which makes SI:Div + SI:ABJ a real killer without a "antimagic attack penetrate II" component. Fortunately players with SCS+SR are going to benefit at least from a "fixed" Glitterdust, and I'll add an area of effect to Ruby Ray of Reversal too (this way you won't have to wait a 9th level spell to fight liches but "just" a 7th level one).

 

Let's say that my "solution" in case you're not going to make SIs non-stackable would be to reduce the number of spells affected by the "antimagic attack penetrate II". I do think Pierce Magic and Pierce Shield should be single target only (as Breach). That would leave players with a at least a few powerful antimagic attack spells that never miss the target, and the only drawback would be moving the first truly effective anti-lich spell from a 6th level slot (Pierce Magic) to a 7th level one (Ruby Ray). And in this case, fixing SI:Abj won't change that, because Ruby Ray would still be effective against SI:Div + SI:Abj!

 

P.S Discussing this sort of things if you it's quite stimulating.

[DavidW]

...possibly. But if, by "oversight", you mean, "oversight by the game developers", it seems unlikely. Presumably the code explicitly has to say "ignore SI if you're a spell that's flagged as antimagic", so I don't see that it can be an accident.

Well, considering how many mistakes/oversights/leftovers they made to speed up the release of one year, I wouldn't see it as too much "unlikely". And if SI:Abj doesn't protect from 90% of abjuration spells I see it as quite inconsistent.

But my point stands: it more-or-less had to be deliberate. I doubt that it could have happened by accident.

 

I think you're underestimating the problem. If you've got a wizard three levels higher than your caster, your Remove Magic will only work one time in 5. Lots of wizards (not just liches) are typically going to be three levels higher than your caster, especially in the middle game.

Against "normal" wizards you can just use Glitterdust or Invisibility Purge, though in that case II+SI:Abj+MGI would probably work fine.

Also, in the vanilla game neither is an abjuration, so it doesn't much matter whether there's an SI:Abj around.

 

Probably mine solution (fixing SI:Abj to work as per description and non stackable SIs) and yours (changing antimagic attacks and stackable SIs) lead to a similar level of protection for mages and similar difficulties for a player to counter. Still I would consider the former solution to be more "consistent/legitimate".

At this point I think it's probably a matter of taste.

 

The original worry was not only that, but also some players don't like to have all antimagick attack with an area of effect.

Point taken: that hadn't really occurred to me as a problem.

 

My proposal was actually (iv) Neither player nor enemy are allowed to put any SI into triggers, but the AI is allowed to use it as pre-buff.

That makes sense, but I don't actually use it as a pre-buff at all (and since lots of people play with options that partially block pre-buffing, it's relevant what can be done in a sequencer or Chain Contingency).

 

Anyway, though making SR fully integrable with SCS is always a priority for me, SI:Abj has to be fixed absolutely, which makes SI:Div + SI:ABJ a real killer without a "antimagic attack penetrate II" component. Fortunately players with SCS+SR are going to benefit at least from a "fixed" Glitterdust, and I'll add an area of effect to Ruby Ray of Reversal too (this way you won't have to wait a 9th level spell to fight liches but "just" a 7th level one).

You could also make the "SI:Abj blocks antimagic" a separate component. That's often the best way to handle this kind of issue, and presumably would be pretty simple. (I'm not volunteering to do that with stackable SI because it's too much work.)

 

Let's say that my "solution" in case you're not going to make SIs non-stackable would be to reduce the number of spells affected by the "antimagic attack penetrate II". I do think Pierce Magic and Pierce Shield should be single target only (as Breach). That would leave players with a at least a few powerful antimagic attack spells that never miss the target, and the only drawback would be moving the first truly effective anti-lich spell from a 6th level slot (Pierce Magic) to a 7th level one (Ruby Ray).

I'll consider that as an option for future versions.

 

P.S Discussing this sort of things if you it's quite stimulating.

Likewise.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Sure, but in the vanilla game (at the risk of being repetitive), unless you've got an inquisitor, you have basically no chance of successfully dispelling a lich's defences.

 

Actually, this isn't entirely true. All of the regular Liches (i.e. the unnamed ones) are level 11 in unmodded BG2. So, if you have a level 12+ Mage or a Bard (more likely) you can easily dispel their protections.

 

OTOH, regular Liches are level 35 in SCSII which was one of the (minor) nitpicks which I had with your mod during my last run.