Jump to content

Official Release v1.5


Demivrgvs

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Oh, yes, sorry: I'm using "vanilla game" a bit inconsistently.

 

I take it the L11 is silly, though! SCS2 estimates mage levels by setting them to the lowest level consistent with all the spells they have memorised, but the algorithm is a bit glitchy at high levels. Looking at liches directly, they have 5 L9 spells, which forces them to be at least L26. 26 vs 36 doesn't make much difference from the point of view of mid-game dispel magic (other than for Keldorn, I guess, and possibly Haer'Dalis).

Link to comment
...L26. 26 vs 36 doesn't make much difference from the point of view of mid-game dispel magic (other than for Keldorn, I guess, and possibly Haer'Dalis).

 

Well,

 

perhaps it won't make much difference in that respect but I'd rather face a L26 lich than a L36 one... :)

 

SCS' approach when deciding changes of level for NPCs is perhaps not my favourite bit. Correct me if I am wrong, DavidW, but this algorithm in most cases end up raising the NPCs levels if compared to the vanilla game, which in turn would not be so far from emulating other tactical mods where enemies have more spells, more HPs, better saving throws and so on...

 

I understand though that it's perfectly legal.

 

Another approach though, as legal as yours, would be to adjust the spell books in accordance with the vanilla level. All this provided that the vanilla level isn't completely wrong on objective basis (a lich can't be level 7, ex.).

Link to comment
26 vs 36 doesn't make much difference from the point of view of mid-game dispel magic (other than for Keldorn, I guess, and possibly Haer'Dalis).

 

I'll politely disagree with you here.

 

First off, a level 26 Lich can be turned (not destroyed) by a level 28 Cleric, while a Level 35 Lich can only be turned by a level 37 Cleric. Furthermore, it's entirely feasible to reach level 26 with your Bard (and possibly your Cleric as well) in Chapter 6 of SoA, especially if you do some Watcher's keep quests. OTOH, it's completely impossible to reach level 36 with a Mage under the regular XP cap and you need a lot of XP to do it with a Bard or a Cleric. Just my 0.02$. :)

Link to comment
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.
I said II+SI:Abj+MGI instead of II+SI:Div+MGI, sorry.

 

P.S I haven't changed Glitterdust school, I've just fixed it so that it won't be erroneously stopped by SI:Div (technicaly I've changed detect invisibility with cure invisibility).

 

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.

It's fine for me. I'm going to implement it in SR right away (the SI:Abj fix was already implemented even in the pre-release), thus players will already have both options anyway, SR users that prefer your component may just install it after SR (which always has to be installed before SCS).

 

I still don't completely like the solution...but this way all SCS's spell tweaks will be included somewhat in SR, and the differences won't create strange gameplay issues.

 

26 vs 36 doesn't make much difference from the point of view of mid-game dispel magic (other than for Keldorn, I guess, and possibly Haer'Dalis).
I'll politely disagree with you here.
I agree with aVENGER and Salk, "common" liches should be around 25th level, and unique liches may reach 30th. This pattern would be consistent with your 'Improved Demiliches' component which makes demiliches 35th lvl casters, and liches should be not nearly as powerful as demiliches.
Link to comment
Another approach though, as legal as yours, would be to adjust the spell books in accordance with the vanilla level. All this provided that the vanilla level isn't completely wrong on objective basis (a lich can't be level 7, ex.).

 

What counts as an "objective basis"? - why couldn't a lich be L7?

 

The logic of SCS2 is:

 

(a) liches in the vanilla game have X spells at 9th level

(b) You can't get X spells at 9th level unless you're at least level Y

© liches are listed as some level less than Y

 

Therefore

 

(d) there is an inconsistency in the vanilla game.

 

I normally solve that inconsistency by increasing level, rather than reducing memorised spells, on the grounds that

 

(i) the spells that a creature casts are more obvious in-game than the level it's at;

(ii) the levels are very often plain silly and seem to be semi-random, whereas the spells are usually built into the scripting;

(iii) SCS2 is a tactical mod, so erring on the side of making things harder seems fair enough.

 

But I take the points about turning undead, so I'll reconsider this one in the next version. (Especially since in that version I'm probably going to do a more systematic spellbook rewrite in any case.)

Link to comment

DavidW,

 

a lich can of course be level 7 if you decide to do so.

 

What I meant with "objective basis" is a acknowledged D&D background where (quoting the Monstrous Compendium) "The lich is, perhaps, the single most powerful form of undead known to exist. ... They were originally wizards or wizard/priests of at least 18th level."

 

Of course you are free to say that Baldur's Gate is not P&P and that level 7 or level 37 are equally fine for liches but I have to disagree.

 

Baldur's Gate, despite not following the P&P table (here we might even wonder if it was for technical reasons and balance issues more than anything else), is placed in the "Forgotten Realms" scenario so I expect it to more or less seamlessly integrate with it. A level 7 lich would just be a risible matter for any AD&D player.

Link to comment
Guest Guest

If the basis of the Lich level is the number of spells that they have, and you want to keep that number of spells but lower the Lich's level. Why not give the Lich a magical item that gives them more spell levels like the ring clerics get at level 25. Or would it not make a difference how they get the spells they cast? Another option would be to give them an item that casts a couple of 9th level spells but the spells are not actually in their spell slots.

Link to comment

Guest,

 

the problem is not really that.

 

The problem is in this:

 

"SCS2 estimates mage levels by setting them to the lowest level consistent with all the spells they have memorised, but the algorithm is a bit glitchy at high levels. Looking at liches directly, they have 5 L9 spells, which forces them to be at least L26."

 

If the algorithm was not "glitchy" at higher levels, the Lich would be level 26 instead of 35, even wanting to adjust him so that he has a minimum legal level for the memorized spells.

 

Raising the NPC's level to match their spellbook is already improving the creature (because iirc almost all creatures have a lower level than what they should have according to their spell book - please DavidW correct me if I am wrong here). But giving 9-10 level extra for free on top of that. Well, I don't think it's good for us players.

 

Also, a more generic comment on tactical encounters:

 

if I, as player, every time that I face a certain enemy, am forced to folllow a predetermined tactic in order to have the slightest chance to survive the encounter, well... I think this is a big step back.

 

Mind you, it's not a critic to SCS (I have barely had chance to see how it works and for what I saw is just marvellous for the most). Just a consideration. I just think it's good to have different alternatives rather than know that only Glitterdust or Dispel Magic are going to keep my little surviving flame lit.

Link to comment

Ok, because of my fault cmorgan received the wrong files and thus I've sent the V1 to him only now. The good news is that before doing so I've implemented a few things this afternoon.

 

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! :O ). 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)

 

Antimagic attack penetrate Improved Invisibility

Similar to SCS's component though SR's one leaves players some powerful single-target antimagic spells which will never fail to hit the target. I've done the changes in a hurry because I didn't wanted to delay even more the release, thus they may be sub-optimal, but they should be refined in the next version if I'll receive some feedback. The following is the current list of changes:

 

 

- Spell Thrust: 5 feet radius area of effect (same as SCS)

 

- Secret Word: unchanged

 

- Pierce Magic: unchanged

 

- Ruby Ray of Reversal: 5 feet radius area of effect (same as SCS)

 

- Pierce Shield: single target only, though now it also dispels combat protections (a lesser breach effect). I've done it to grant players an option to bring down Liches and Rakshasas defenses

 

- Spellstrike: 10 feet radius area of effect (twice as much as SCS's one), I've made it dispel combat and specific protections too (being it a 9th level spell it deserves to be the ultimate antimagic attack imo, while vanilla's one not much an improvement over Pierce Shield which also lowers target's magic resistance)

 

Suggestion as always are welcome. :fish:

Link to comment
Raising the NPC's level to match their spellbook is already improving the creature (because iirc almost all creatures have a lower level than what they should have according to their spell book - please DavidW correct me if I am wrong here).

Basically correct. Actually SCS only raises levels, it doesn't lower them (because, as I've just noted elsewhere, I'm not in the business of trying to make the game easier.)

But giving 9-10 level extra for free on top of that. Well, I don't think it's good for us players.

On cursory inspection I can't recall where that extra 9-10 comes from. I wrote that algorithm 18 months ago and haven't touched it since.

 

The "good for us players" thing is odd, though... no tactical mod is good for players in one sense!

 

Also, a more generic comment on tactical encounters:

 

if I, as player, every time that I face a certain enemy, am forced to folllow a predetermined tactic in order to have the slightest chance to survive the encounter, well... I think this is a big step back.

 

Mind you, it's not a critic to SCS (I have barely had chance to see how it works and for what I saw is just marvellous for the most). Just a consideration. I just think it's good to have different alternatives rather than know that only Glitterdust or Dispel Magic are going to keep my little surviving flame lit.

 

Actually I'm pretty sympathetic to this... which is where the "antimagic spells have area effect" thing comes from. I wanted to hold on to the idea that you ran into creatures with a variety of magic defences, and you could carry a range of fairly generic antimagic spells to bring those defences down.

Link to comment
- Spellstrike: 10 feet radius area of effect (twice as much as SCS's one), I've made it dispel combat and specific protections too (being it a 9th level spell it deserves to be the ultimate antimagic attack imo, while vanilla's one not much an improvement over Pierce Shield which also lowers target's magic resistance)

 

I tentatively suggest that this is overpowered - my experience on my (one) playthrough with SCS installed is that there's already a sea change in the effectiveness of antimagic once you get access to Spell Strike. It probably doesn't matter so much in the vanilla game, but SCS (or Tactics, come to that) uses 4-5 magic protections, so sweeping them all away in one blow is already hugely effective. If you can kill pro/magic weapons, stoneskin and pro/magic energy in the same casting, you've got a pretty much instant mage-killer.

 

That being said, if you're not keen on Breach affecting Rakshasas and Liches, I see you've got a problem. Personally I'd be more inclined to fix it with an 8th level "improved Breach" or something, though.

Link to comment

DavidW,

 

I do know that you are not in the business of making the game easier but we are back to the "tougher" vs "smarter" here.

 

It's pretty much undeniable that raising the level of the NPCs is making them tougher and not smarter. A level 25 lich is not less smart than a level 36 lich when using SCS. It's just harder to take down because it's been given an "unfair" (for me, at least) level up. Mind you, SCS is still to be commended greatly for "cheating" so little and believe me, I think your job has been nothing less than fantastic. But this "glitch" is not so minor.

 

The algorithm automatically works (I'd assume) when installing core components of SCS (smarter mages and smarter priests) which any "serious" SCS player can't be without, for it makes the enemy smarter and the challenge more interesting. So it's not that we can "skip" the beefing up.

 

And "no good for players" means actually "unwelcome change" more than "no good because the game now is more difficult". I don't mind (well...) being beaten because I was outsmarted by the enemy. I do mind being swept off because my enemy is simply made more powerful than me.

Link to comment

Demivrgvs,

 

nice to see you managed also to include some v2 stuff in the upcoming release!

 

About the Spellstrike changes, I am half way between you and DavidW in that I'd keep its area of effect the same as SCS' (5 feet radius) but, being the ultimate antimagic spell, it does deserve to massively disrupt magic protections (it'll be a long way untill such power will be available to players after all).

 

If I can give you an advice though (and really, it goes against my instinct): have no hurry about official releases. Take the time you need for testing and for polishing your great mods.

 

What are few more days compared to the years we have been waiting for some mod updates?

 

Keep it up! :fish:

Link to comment
- Spellstrike: 10 feet radius area of effect (twice as much as SCS's one), I've made it dispel combat and specific protections too (being it a 9th level spell it deserves to be the ultimate antimagic attack imo, while vanilla's one not much an improvement over Pierce Shield which also lowers target's magic resistance)

I tentatively suggest that this is overpowered - my experience on my (one) playthrough with SCS installed is that there's already a sea change in the effectiveness of antimagic once you get access to Spell Strike. It probably doesn't matter so much in the vanilla game, but SCS (or Tactics, come to that) uses 4-5 magic protections, so sweeping them all away in one blow is already hugely effective. If you can kill pro/magic weapons, stoneskin and pro/magic energy in the same casting, you've got a pretty much instant mage-killer.

Wel...it was intended to be a mage killer. :O If you think it's overpowered even with SCS I have to find a way to town it down, but surely it deserves to be more powerful than its vanilla version. I bet no one considered it nearly as useful as the good 9th level choices (Time Stop, Chain Contingency, Spell Trap, ...) and I'd like to allow players the widest selection of spells. Without some beefing most of them will just skip Spellstrike in favor of the usual Time Stop (which at the moment allows to tear down a mage's defences much better than Spellstrike imo).

 

Alternatively Spellstrike can be made so that it only affects defences used in a mage duel (thus no combat protections removal). Which of the following solution do you think should be pursued?

 

(i) all magical protections, all specific protections

(ii) all magical protections, X% magic resistance

(iii) ...?

 

That being said, if you're not keen on Breach affecting Rakshasas and Liches, I see you've got a problem. Personally I'd be more inclined to fix it with an 8th level "improved Breach" or something, though.
Yeah, it's what I've tried to do with Pierce Shiled, but I've not added "specific protection removal" too because that spell was becoming too powerful imo. Though against only a single target It pratically does everything: 1 spell protection of any level, all combat protection, and magic resistance.

 

DavidW, how would you suggest to make Pierce Shield an improved Breach (keeping in mind it's an 8th lvl spell)?

 

(i) 1 spell protection of any level, all combat protections, 10% +1/lvl magic resistance;

(ii) 1 spell protection of any level, all combat protections, all specific protections;

(iii) all combat protections, all specific protections, 10% +1/lvl magic resistance;

(iv) ...?

 

For playing fair with SCS's AI I suppose removing the magic resistance penalty is better than removing the spell protection removal, unless all SCS's mages don't use Pierce Shiel to bring down party's spell protections. :fish:

 

All these antimagic attacks are giving me a headache! I really don't see why they put so many of them in the game, is it really necessary to have one spell of this type for each spell level (at 7th there're even two of them!)? Anyway, I'm surely not proposing to remove them, but making all of them scaling and somewhat different from one another isn't going to be easy.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...