Glitterdust and Breach questions against rhakhasa

[Guest Guest_Darkmoon_*]

Alright, so there is a good possiblity that I'm an idiot or missing something very obvious but I seem to be having some issues with the above spells. I have SR and SCSII installed (and a number of other mods) and I head into Iltafheers hut and start fighting it out with her. I see no messages that she's cast any kinda of spell turning/GOI/deflection etc..all I see is either the improved invis and stoneskine/pfmw go up. So I have my mages cast glitterdust followed up by breach. Glitterdust doesn't seem to be revealing the improved invis at all ( I ran into this problem against other mages as well). I try other methods of getting her out of invis state and when she does I hit her with a breach spell..nothing happens. No message saying combat protections removed all I get is a message stating "spell ineffective". I did manage to eventually beat them (owing to a well placed backstab by amber) but i ran into these problems against all three Rhakasha's. Any idea whats going on?

[Ilyich]

Rakshasha are immune to spell levels 1 to 7, so Glitterdust will not work regardless of protections. The same is true for Breach, unless you have SCS II's Breach component installed, in which case Spell Turning will stop it. Spell Turning has a shiny "blue disc" graphic, which can be seen when even when the recipient is invisible.

[Guest Guest_Darkmoon_*]

Rakshasha are immune to spell levels 1 to 7, so Glitterdust will not work regardless of protections. The same is true for Breach, unless you have SCS II's Breach component installed, in which case Spell Turning will stop it. Spell Turning has a shiny "blue disc" graphic, which can be seen when even when the recipient is invisible.

 

 

Yup..that was it...now I've run into a new problem..I reran SCSII to put in the more consistent breach spell and got an error regarding wand18 (i'm assuming wand of spell striking) and that prevented the SCS consistent breach from installing..any thoughts?

 

Darkmoon

[Demivrgvs]

Yup..that was it...now I've run into a new problem..I reran SCSII to put in the more consistent breach spell and got an error regarding wand18 (i'm assuming wand of spell striking) and that prevented the SCS consistent breach from installing..any thoughts?

That component of SCS erroneously try to patch IR's Wand of Spellstrike and fail. Remove IR's wand18.itm from you override folder before installing SCS's "Consistent Breach" component.

 

P.S I don't like that component as it doesn't seem "consistent" to me to purposely make a spell able to break a rule (bypassing Liches and Rakshasas immunity). I'm just thinking about a possible optional component for SR...replacing Lich's immunity to spell up to 5th level with 50% magic resistance, and Rakshasa's immunity to spells up to 7th level with 75% magic resistance. I have to think about it...

[Guest Guest_Darkmoon_*]

Yup..that was it...now I've run into a new problem..I reran SCSII to put in the more consistent breach spell and got an error regarding wand18 (i'm assuming wand of spell striking) and that prevented the SCS consistent breach from installing..any thoughts?

That component of SCS erroneously try to patch IR's Wand of Spellstrike and fail. Remove IR's wand18.itm from you override folder before installing SCS's "Consistent Breach" component.

 

P.S I don't like that component as it doesn't seem "consistent" to me to purposely make a spell able to break a rule (bypassing Liches and Rakshasas immunity). I'm just thinking about a possible optional component for SR...replacing Lich's immunity to spell up to 5th level with 50% magic resistance, and Rakshasa's immunity to spells up to 7th level with 75% magic resistance. I have to think about it...

 

 

So if I just cut out wand18.itm from the override, then rerun SCS's consistent breach component I should be good to go? If my memory serves, IR made wand18.itm behave a little differently then vanilla(or made it work as intended), so if I paste back in IR's modified wand18.itm will it work? Or will I need to re run the weidu installation process? Or will I just have to use the vanilla version? I'm still early in the game so I have not come across it yet.

 

As far as changing the Lich's and Rakshasa's immunity to spells...I rather like the fact that I can take down thier defense spells with the more consistent breach spells...they are problematic enough for me without being able to take down stoneskins or PFMW. Besides, breach and other antimagic spells are targeted against spell defenses, not the creature itself (least thats how I view it, immunity against direct damage, or deblitating spells makes sense to me though). Having to wait till Kelsey or Xan can cast Pierce Shield would be awful. But thats just me, and I'm a subpar player.

[Demivrgvs]

So if I just cut out wand18.itm from the override, then rerun SCS's consistent breach component I should be good to go? If my memory serves, IR made wand18.itm behave a little differently then vanilla(or made it work as intended), so if I paste back in IR's modified wand18.itm will it work? Or will I need to re run the weidu installation process? Or will I just have to use the vanilla version? I'm still early in the game so I have not come across it yet.

I've made wands use actual spells instead of simulating them...it's a little technical and many players may not notice the differcence. Doing so allow me to flag wand's abilities with their respective properties like school (abjuration, invocation,...), secondary type (magic attacks, illusionary protections,...) and so on. For example vanilla's wand18' pierce magic wasn't flaggable neither as an abjuration spell, nor as a magic attack, and thus it bypassed SI:Abj, and may had some issues with spell protections not properly working against it. That being said, you should be able to just put IR's wand18 back into override after installing SCS's "consistent breach" component, but in that case its breach ability wouldn't work against against liches and rakshasas as per original spell.

 

Besides, breach and other antimagic spells are targeted against spell defenses, not the creature itself.

I've never thought about it in this way before, you have a point.

[Guest Guest_Darkmoon_*]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, I can get the spell to work against Liches and Rakshasa's, but the wand would never work against them cause its never covered by SCS consistency component. Actually, I think I can live with that, as I would be using the wand more against enemy mages and demons/devils in TOB...there are only a few liches I can think of in TOB, two at the bottom of watchers keep, the demilich, and the annoying one in Amethraken. Where can I find out more information on any other creatures immunities to spell levels (so there are no more unpleasent surprises)

 

Glad I could offer something new..this is why the spell SI:Abj is so vexing. The creature may be immune to Abj spells, but that doesn't mean his protections are. I do realize though SI:Abj was intended to protect against all the anti magic spells (which is really a pain in the rear against a duo SI:Div/abj, all that leaves is glitterdust to reveal invis I think), its just..annoying.

 

By the by, did SR get rid of SI's animation?

[Salk]

Glad I could offer something new..this is why the spell SI:Abj is so vexing. The creature may be immune to Abj spells, but that doesn't mean his protections are. I do realize though SI:Abj was intended to protect against all the anti magic spells (which is really a pain in the rear against a duo SI:Div/abj, all that leaves is glitterdust to reveal invis I think), its just..annoying.

 

How can I not fully agree here?

[Guest Guest_Darkmoon_*]

Glad I could offer something new..this is why the spell SI:Abj is so vexing. The creature may be immune to Abj spells, but that doesn't mean his protections are. I do realize though SI:Abj was intended to protect against all the anti magic spells (which is really a pain in the rear against a duo SI:Div/abj, all that leaves is glitterdust to reveal invis I think), its just..annoying.

 

How can I not fully agree here?

Its kinda of like classical fencing(sword play)..If my opponent has a very good defense against my direct attacks, then I'm going to do something about his defense first...by attacking it with a beat attack, bind, or pressure attack..his defense may be good, but if his blade is up and out protecting him, that means its vulnerable. (everything to me thoughis like fencing, so forgive my ramblings.)

 

I followed the thread about glitterdust earlier yesterday. I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what it does . Does it automatically reveal invis creatures? Or do they get a save throw..or does the save throw only apply to the blindness effect and the prevention of returning to invisiblity for four rounds. And what exactly am I supposed to do now against a Lich who is immune to glitterdust, and has the two dreaded SI: up..run and wait him out? Ugh.

[DrAzTiK]

Maybe i 'am wrong but i think that glitterdust allow a save for both : blindness and returning invisibility.

[Guest AzureDrag0n1]

I never did understand why Liches and Rakshasha could cast low level defense spells on themselves when they are immune to them yet you could not cast spells that would destroy those defenses on them. All it does is create artificial difficulty by letting them cheat. At least that is how I see it.

[Demivrgvs]

Spell Immunity

Glad I could offer something new..this is why the spell SI:Abj is so vexing. The creature may be immune to Abj spells, but that doesn't mean his protections are. I do realize though SI:Abj was intended to protect against all the anti magic spells (which is really a pain in the rear against a duo SI:Div/abj, all that leaves is glitterdust to reveal invis I think), its just..annoying.

The real problem here imo is that I would never allow multiple SI spells to stack...but for some reason DavidW didn't agree.

 

Against (SI:Div+Abj) + (Improved Invisibility) your only options with IR are Glitterdust, Ruby Ray, and Spellstrike. Detect Illusions too if you have a thief.

 

Glitterdust

I followed the thread about glitterdust earlier yesterday. I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what it does . Does it automatically reveal invis creatures? Or do they get a save throw..or does the save throw only apply to the blindness effect and the prevention of returning to invisiblity for four rounds. And what exactly am I supposed to do now against a Lich who is immune to glitterdust, and has the two dreaded SI: up..run and wait him out? Ugh.

Maybe i 'am wrong but i think that glitterdust allow a save for both : blindness and returning invisibility.

The spell automatically reveals invisible creatures, but targets can save vs. breath to avoid being blinded, and to avoid being covered by too much dust which would prevent them from turning invisible in the next 4 rounds.

 

Liches and Rakshashas Immunities

I never did understand why Liches and Rakshasha could cast low level defense spells on themselves when they are immune to them yet you could not cast spells that would destroy those defenses on them. All it does is create artificial difficulty by letting them cheat. At least that is how I see it.

I do agree with you, that is why I proposed to replace those immunities with a high magic resistance, which would keep them very powerful (maybe even more with 50%-75% magic resistance) but much more entertainable to fight imo (all spells would be effective).

[Raj]

Liches and Rakshashas Immunities

I never did understand why Liches and Rakshasha could cast low level defense spells on themselves when they are immune to them yet you could not cast spells that would destroy those defenses on them. All it does is create artificial difficulty by letting them cheat. At least that is how I see it.

I do agree with you, that is why I proposed to replace those immunities with a high magic resistance, which would keep them very powerful (maybe even more with 50%-75% magic resistance) but much more entertainable to fight imo (all spells would be effective).

This would mess with SCS2 not giving them globes of invulnerability and the party bombarding them with holy blight, costant cheap spellfailure.