Dispel/Remove Magic

[DrAzTiK]

I for one don't mind that Dispel has no level cap on it--the Level 20 cap has always seemed arbitrary to me, and I actually like having at least 1 decent spell where being of epic levels actually matters sometimes. And it's hardly overpowered--at least not in the sense that a supercharged Fireball from Weimer's Spell-50 mod is overpowered. Sure, a Level 30 Lich can Dispel any prebuffs you can dish out . . . but you didn't let him hit the whole party with it, did you? You made him cast it only at your Thief, because you were scouting ahead like an intelligent player, right?

 

As you say, this sort of spell cheer on powergaming instead of looking strategy. Many players are tented to play a game with a solo epic (cheated) character. ( where is the challenge with this sort of spell?)

Should we let this spell as in vanilla for the pleasure of powergamers ?

 

A thief can't always scout effectively. A large number of fights are supposed to be a surprise in BG.

 

 

Personally, I vote to capp at 20th level (with 30 AoE).

 

Remember you can use dispell or remove magic in sequencer and trigger (SCS II mages do it a lot) and we all know that it's usually treble or quadruple power of spells.

[Salk]

I agree fully with the analysis made by SixOfSpades.

 

No cap to Dispel Magic, thanks.

[Shaitan]

I agree fully with the analysis made by SixOfSpades.

 

No cap to Dispel Magic, thanks.

 

Yes I do too.

[Demivrgvs]

I don't want to vote on this matter, but to counter Six's statement that this spell is not overpowered I may remind that in the hands of archmages, liches and similar powerful beings these 3rd level spells actually are 1000 times more powerful than any another abjuration spell! Remove Magic can remove each and every spell protection, combat protection, specific protection, and buff (even those from potions), and does it to every opponent within 30 feet!! The only thing it can't do is removing Spell Deflection/Turning, but other than that it's a 'Mass Breach + Mass Spellstrike'.

 

This imo would be less noticeable if opponents and party characters had more or less similar levels, but if I'm not wrong it never happens within BG, and enemy spellcasters tend to be so high in level that dispel is almost (ab)usable only by them. I take it that single class player's clerics and bards may be able to use this spell with good results, but this also means that AI controlled clerics and bards (well I don't remember a single bard in SoA + ToB) would literally rock against players.

 

Anyway, we currently have...

 

Pro Cap: Raj, Ardanis, Culmore, Draztik

 

Against the Cap: Six, Salk, Shaitan

 

As of now there's not such a large consensus on this tweak, and thus I'm "against" it even if I'd ideally vote for it.

 

 

P.S Taimon's fix may actually change this debate considerably...as it might be that years of "that damn mage always dispels my buffs" was caused more by dispel opcode not properly working rather than SCS mages having 10+ more levels than party members.

 

P.P.S I'm "studying" an alternative tweak...if it works it's much better than capping the spell...but it would involve a huge amount of work or a really good code. Let's say I thought it was impossible to tweak the % chance based on caster-target levels, but it may instead be doable with a lot of effort.

[amanasleep]

I agree fully with the analysis made by SixOfSpades.

 

No cap to Dispel Magic, thanks.

 

Yes I do too.

 

I don't agree that Dispel Magic is OP in it's unbugged form. The reason is that right now DM is a spell that either always works (because the AI is vastly higher level than the party or because it's Inquisitor dispel) or always fails for the same reason. Fixing the bug that causes auto failure for a lower level caster at most levels will help correct this somewhat. Under the proposed solution L25 and higher mages cannot be dispelled effectively regardless of caster level, which is a buff for the party in most situations, since if the party is lower level and the AI is L21+ it's now easier to dispel them, and if the party is L25+ it's impossible for the AI to dispel them. There are very few situations in SCS2 where the party is higher level than the AI and over level 20, so this has to be a nerf for the AI in almost every situation. This will intensify the reverse difficulty curve of SoA->ToB, since once the party reaches epic levels it becomes easy for them as not even the Five and Demi-Liches can dispel them.

 

Since the AI is "dumber" than the player, it needs a spell like D/RM to compensate since it cannot deploy effective tactics to beat the player's protections.

 

The argument seems to be that once mages become super powerful then a "mere Level 3 spell" shouldn't be able to get rid of all their effects. I don't really agree. The spell only has a good chance to affect them if cast by another high level wizard. Low level wizards (if the fix is applied) will have some, though not much, chance to dispel a high level effect. If both casters are super high level then it still only has about a 50% chance. I think one of the problems might be that Remove Magic is very common for SCS2 mages but hard to acquire for the party, so it "feels" less fair. Once again, the AI needs RM because it can't aim DM like the player can.

 

Finally, player combat protections are nowhere near as critical to the player's survival as the AI's protections are to the AI. If the player gets their protections removed they will often ultimately prevail, but if the AI gets them removed they are dead.

[amanasleep]

P.S Taimon's fix may actually change this debate considerably...as it might be that years of "that damn mage always dispels my buffs" was caused more by dispel opcode not properly working rather than SCS mages having 10+ more levels than party members.

 

It is my understanding that it is bugged in two ways:

 

1. The chance of a lower level caster affecting a higher level effect with DM is zero for caster levels higher than 3 or 4.

 

2. The chance of a higher level Caster affecting a lower level effect has correct percentages at most levels but tops out at 100% instead of 99%.

 

So the frustration that the player encounters is from never having a chance to dispel a higher level AI, not with the AI always dispelling him. If the AI is higher level, dispel magic is working correctly for the most part (except that there is not the 1% chance of failure).

 

P.P.S I'm "studying" an alternative tweak...if it works it's much better than capping the spell...but it would involve a huge amount of work or a really good code. Let's say I thought it was impossible to tweak the % chance based on caster-target levels, but it may instead be doable with a lot of effort.

 

That might be a satisfactory tweak IMO. I am not opposed to broadening the spread of levels that can functionally affect each other with DM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Anyway, we currently have...

 

Pro Cap: Raj, Ardanis, Culmore, Draztik

 

Against the Cap: Six, Salk, Shaitan

Well, I am not against the cap itself, but that the spell can remove any spell on the wizard. I would like it if the spell could remove only certain spells... like for example up to 5th level. And the (M)GoI needs to protect from the spell and it's affects.

[DarkWon]

...or make Dispel Magic intelligence based instead of level

 

Probably impossible I know...but would make Int less of a dump stat, even for mages

[DavidW]

I don't want to vote on this matter, but to counter Six's statement that this spell is not overpowered I may remind that in the hands of archmages, liches and similar powerful beings these 3rd level spells actually are 1000 times more powerful than any another abjuration spell! Remove Magic can remove each and every spell protection, combat protection, specific protection, and buff (even those from potions), and does it to every opponent within 30 feet!! The only thing it can't do is removing Spell Deflection/Turning, but other than that it's a 'Mass Breach + Mass Spellstrike'.

 

This imo would be less noticeable if opponents and party characters had more or less similar levels, but if I'm not wrong it never happens within BG, and enemy spellcasters tend to be so high in level that dispel is almost (ab)usable only by them.

 

Not quite. The majority of solo mages you run into in the game are higher level than you (they more or less have to be or they'd be slaughtered, since you outnumber them six to one) but many mages you meet in groups (e.g. the bandit mages; hobgoblin shamans; mages in drow war-parties; many rakshasas; flunkies for various bosses) are around your level. The same is true in BG1, and there the gaps tend to be pretty small in absolute terms too.

 

I take it that single class player's clerics and bards may be able to use this spell with good results, but this also means that AI controlled clerics and bards (well I don't remember a single bard in SoA + ToB) would literally rock against players.

Clerics can't be scripted to use dispelling, because their version isn't party-friendly. There are virtually no bards: the only ones I can think of are the Harpers in Jaheira's quest (BG2) and Silke and Nimbul (BG1). In both cases SCS(II) gives them a bastardised mage script, because it's not time-effective to write loads of lovely bard AI for so few users.

 

 

Pro Cap: Raj, Ardanis, Culmore, Draztik

 

Against the Cap: Six, Salk, Shaitan

 

I'm against, for what it's worth.

[Demivrgvs]

P.S Taimon's fix may actually change this debate considerably...as it might be that years of "that damn mage always dispels my buffs" was caused more by dispel opcode not properly working rather than SCS mages having 10+ more levels than party members.

 

It is my understanding that it is bugged in two ways:

 

1. The chance of a lower level caster affecting a higher level effect with DM is zero for caster levels higher than 3 or 4.

 

2. The chance of a higher level Caster affecting a lower level effect has correct percentages at most levels but tops out at 100% instead of 99%.

 

So the frustration that the player encounters is from never having a chance to dispel a higher level AI, not with the AI always dispelling him. If the AI is higher level, dispel magic is working correctly for the most part (except that there is not the 1% chance of failure).

1. exactly

2. Actually I thought the problem was on both sides, and a higher level caster always successfully dispel.

 

Anyway, even if it is like you say it mean vanilla's dispel was a lot worse than we thought, and as I said the fix I've added to V3 may actually remove most issues, especially if like DavidW says the difference in level between players and AI is not so huge.

 

 

P.P.S I'm "studying" an alternative tweak...if it works it's much better than capping the spell...but it would involve a huge amount of work or a really good code. Let's say I thought it was impossible to tweak the % chance based on caster-target levels, but it may instead be doable with a lot of effort.

That might be a satisfactory tweak IMO. I am not opposed to broadening the spread of levels that can functionally affect each other with DM.

Yeah, I think I can do it this way:

* one header for each caster level

* each header contains 40 dispel opcodes (once for each possible target level)

* each of these opcodes is set to affect only targets with x HD/levels

* dispel opcodes are set to ignore HD/levels, thus working 100% of the times (in theory)

* the chance to apply the dispel opcode instead is based upon target-caster level (thus dispel would work 100% of the times, but takes place only y% of the times)

 

I hope I've been clear enough. Am I missing something? Would it work?

 

If it works this would allow us to spread the % chance a lot more (e.g. 50% base chance, +/-2% chance for each level more/less of the caster compared to target).

 

There's a drawback, and it may be "intolerable": dispel chance would be based on target's level instead of the level of the creator of the effect (e.g if a 8th level cleric buffs a 10th level thief, dispel's % will be based on a 10HD target instead of 8HD). Though I don't know if the original dispel really worked the other way around as it claimed or fooled us!

 

 

Pro Cap: Raj, Ardanis, Culmore, Draztik

 

Against the Cap: Six, Salk, Shaitan

 

I'm against, for what it's worth.

Your vote counts just like the others! Anyway, one more reason to not implement it, because I'm quite against implementing tweaks without consensus.

[Icendoan]

I'm also against the cap.

 

Icen

[Kalindor]

Demi, if you feel that Dispel Magic and Remove Magic make higher-level spell removals unnecessary, then please alter it or the other spells in some manner to rectify this. I generally agree with your balance analysis and would like the most interesting spell combat system possible.

[Ardanis]

* one header for each caster level

* each header contains 40 dispel opcodes (once for each possible target level)

* each of these opcodes is set to affect only targets with x HD/levels

* dispel opcodes are set to ignore HD/levels, thus working 100% of the times (in theory)

* the chance to apply the dispel opcode instead is based upon target-caster level (thus dispel would work 100% of the times, but takes place only y% of the times)

That would probably work, yes. Quite codable, too.

But how's it much different from Taimon's fix? New table instead of vanilla's 5% bonus & 10% penalty?

[Demivrgvs]

I'm also against the cap.

Cool! No cap team lead now!

 

 

* one header for each caster level

* each header contains 40 dispel opcodes (once for each possible target level)

* each of these opcodes is set to affect only targets with x HD/levels

* dispel opcodes are set to ignore HD/levels, thus working 100% of the times (in theory)

* the chance to apply the dispel opcode instead is based upon target-caster level (thus dispel would work 100% of the times, but takes place only y% of the times)

That would probably work, yes. Quite codable, too.

But how's it much different from Taimon's fix? New table instead of vanilla's 5% bonus & 10% penalty?

Yeah, for example with 2% instead of 5% a 25th lvl lich would have a 70% chance to dispel a 15HD creature instead of 99%. If it wasn't for the drawback I mentioned I think it would improve the balance of this spell considerably, wouldn't it?

[SixOfSpades]

. . . my Kitpack blah blah changing the Inquisitor kit blah blah . . . the effective Spell Level increments as well, acting as a spell of 1/2 the Inquisitor's EXP level: A Level 8 Inq throws a Dispel that strikes as a Level 4 spell, but after you hit Level 12, your Dispel starts acting like a Level 6 spell, and you can start using it on Liches.

Are you sure about this? In my install Inquisitor's Dispel does work on liches and not because of SR. It's power level is set to 0.

Well, hush my mouth, you're right. Guess I should have checked that file a little more closely, huh?

 

I'll fix this within KR (where I'll probably use SCS 1.5x progression).

I am now somewhat undecided about whether or not 1.5x is too strong. True, I hadn't previously considered a Bard Dispel, and an Inquisitor would need a 1.5x Dispel strength to be, on average, a little bit ahead of a Bard with equivalent EXP. But as DavidW pointed out, enemy Bards are effectively nonexistent--and since they're relatively rare within the party as well, you're really only competing with trueclassed party Clerics and enemy Mages/Liches, and 1.25x seems about right for being able to handle those while still giving them (the enemies, at least) a fighting chance.

 

About the mechanics of Dispel Magic: I need to be absolutely clear on this.

1) I remember hearing that if Dispel successfully brings down any of the active enchantments on a character, it will bring them all down--so what will happen if a Level 35 Archmage sets up a huge nest of spell & combat protections, and also drinks a Potion of Agility? Could a single Level 5 Dispel bring all that crashing down?

2) Capping Dispel at Level 20, just like almost all other spells, would mean that once the party hits ToB levels (and assumedly all your enemies are above Level 20 as well), all castings of Dispel/Remove would have a precisely 50% chance to work on each target, yes? To be clear: Does Dispel/Remove look at the Casting Level of the spell (capped at 20 in almost all cases), or at the Caster Level of the person who cast it?

 

I actually like having at least 1 decent spell where being of epic levels actually matters sometimes. Sure, a Level 30 Lich can Dispel any prebuffs you can dish out . . . but you made him cast it only at your Thief, because you were scouting ahead like an intelligent player, right?

As you say, this sort of spell cheer on powergaming instead of looking strategy. Many players are tented to play a game with a solo epic (cheated) character. ( where is the challenge with this sort of spell?)

Should we let this spell as in vanilla for the pleasure of powergamers ?

A thief can't always scout effectively. A large number of fights are supposed to be a surprise in BG.

Yes, many players solo. Many, however, do not (I for one never have), and those who do also run party games. I'm firmly of the opinion that characters of epic levels deserve to have at least ONE spell at which they can be better than, say, Multiclasses. As for a spell that's "powergamey" for solo players, the very essence of a solo run is powergaming anyway, so I fail to see the issue. You're right that there are a good number of fights that cannot be scouted--entering the Planar Prison, for example--but they are vastly outnumbered by those that can be scouted (such as all the rest of the Planar Prison). I can only think of one fight where you're required to bring your entire party to be within immediate striking range of a high-level Wizard, and that's Deirex--and I hate him primarily because of his (Tactics) Chain Contingency that frequently contains 2x ADHWs, not because he can Dispel me.

 

. . . in the hands of archmages, liches and similar powerful beings these 3rd level spells actually are 1000 times more powerful than any another abjuration spell! Remove Magic can remove each and every spell protection, combat protection, specific protection, and buff (even those from potions), and does it to every opponent within 30 feet!! The only thing it can't do is removing Spell Deflection/Turning, but other than that it's a 'Mass Breach + Mass Spellstrike'.

Very true, but again there are counterpoints: It's stopped cold by SI:Abj, and characters incapable of casting SI probably didn't have much worth Dispelling anyway. Anyone who casts Dispel/Remove is likely quite vulnerable to have the same thing done to him, and of course when it's cast by both sides it usually has the joint effect of shifting the balance of power definitely away from the spellcasters.

 

Pro Cap:

Against the Cap:

Not that I'm against the democratic process, but I'm more interested in the relative merits of the arguments than how many people support them. Since my "side" is "winning," I get to say that without sounding whiny.

 

Well, I am not against the cap itself, but that the spell can remove any spell on the wizard. I would like it if the spell could remove only certain spells... like for example up to 5th level. And the (M)GoI needs to protect from the spell and it's affects.

This is hardcoded and flat-out can't be done. Unless Taimon is both willing & able to (once again) touch the "Cure: Dispellable Effects" opcode with his noodly appendage, that is.

 

* one header for each caster level

. . .

* the chance to apply the dispel opcode instead is based upon target-caster level (thus dispel would work 100% of the times, but takes place only y% of the times)

That would probably work, yes. Quite codable, too.

But how's it much different from Taimon's fix? New table instead of vanilla's 5% bonus & 10% penalty?

Yeah, for example with 2% instead of 5% a 25th lvl lich would have a 70% chance to dispel a 15HD creature instead of 99%. If it wasn't for the drawback I mentioned I think it would improve the balance of this spell considerably, wouldn't it?

I agree. It maintains the deserved advantage of higher-level casters while expanding the room for lower-level casters to have a fighting chance.

 

As for the "disadvantage," I am going to suggest that this quirk of the code be documented as little as possible, just to avoid the temptation of abuse . . . we don't need to advertise that in some cases, it's better for Aerie to buff Anomen than vice versa.