Jump to content

I am starting to dislike that prebuff component


AzureDrag0n1

Recommended Posts

Ok then can anyone tell what can you do to remove the SI: divination + abjuration combo? Only thing that seems to sometimes work is dispel. I can not target invisibly creatures with spell defense removal spells unless they have an AoE.
Thanks Raj, you explained it for me.

 

Just to summarize: with SR V2 Dispel Magic bypasses SI:Abj because it belongs to the Universal school. If the enemy is not immune to low level spells (e.g. liches and rakshasas) you can simply use Glitterdust to remove the invisibility as SR makes it correctly bypass SI being a Conjuration spell (with V3 Faerie Fire too will allow you to easily bypass that combo). I'm strongly against allowing multiple SI to stack but you have to ask DavidW for removing this (imo) unappropriate combo.

 

I never knew that barkskin was not a druid spell. When I use that scroll for corrected spell tables on druids it gets rid of barkskin. Sometimes missing spells comes back after a few levels. Seems pretty buggy.
It's not bugged at all, read the readme: "...spells with changed restrictions will be removed, and the correct ones will be added to the spellbook after the next level-up. " Barkskin is removed from priests (both clerics and druids) because SR considers it druid-only, and as soon as you level up only druids get it back.

 

Also is there a way to turn off summon AI? I really hate that aspect of it. I wish they did nothing or just had really passive AI scripts. That damn call woodland beings spell was 'justifiably' nerfed but now it can't obey any orders I give it and overrules my spell commands and does its own thing leaping into death without caring for its life. It teleports like mad all over the place.
You can disable and re-enable the custom AI in game simply pressing Ctrl+D and Ctrl+E respectively while the cursor (the 'arrow' you move with the mouse) is over the creature.

 

P.S Just so you know, the Nymph teleports only after depleting most of her spells, and it does it to "break" enemies initiative and effectively become more difficult to be hit.

Link to comment
I'm strongly against allowing multiple SI to stack but you have to ask DavidW for removing this (imo) unappropriate combo.

 

I feel the same about it.

 

The stacking of SI (which I believe is systematic from a certain level up) presents a borderline situation where the players' only countermeasure is to run an automated sequence of counters.

 

The biggest limit is probably this: to deplete the player's choices and alternatives before specific situations.

 

Perhaps the stackable SI could be turned into an optional component?

 

P.S. The prebuff component is something I never install for neither mages nor priests.

Link to comment
Only SR changes SI:Abj to protect vs antimagic but you can target invisible creatures with antimagic because both SCS2 and SR alter them to have a aoe.

SR only leaves pierce magic/shield single target w/o a aoe, but if you install ( as you should ) SCS2 after SR then you can make those spell have a aoe as well.

The main problem then is to get rid of SI:Abj first, and that can only be accomplished with a Spellstrike or a cheaper Ruby Ray of Reversal: that is going to destroy the more powerful spell protection so if the enemy mage has a spell turning or a spell trap too, then you might have to use more than one ruby ray before finally getting rid of SI:Abj ).

After you destroyed SI:Abj the enemy wizard is never going to recast it so you can use other spell removals to take down SI:Div and then True Sight/Seeing will kick in.

 

 

 

As a alternative, for when enemy mages have more defences than you have ruby rays and you have no thief with detect illusions, you could dispel their invisibility first casting glitterdust; after that you can target the enemy mage with single target spells and take him down without help from fighters: if he has a spell turning that you can't take down because of SI:Abj then protect yourself with a similar spell and deplete his defence ( let say you both have a spell turning, you throw a flame arrow at him, it bounces several times between you two, depleting both spell reflections, and finally hit him ).

If the enemy mage has a globe of invulnerability on, or is a lich, then forget glitterdust and use aoe direct damage ( fogs/clouds can be a lil cheese but the fight itself can be a nightmare without that ); cast a dispel magic anyway because even if it is not going to dispel any spell protection it will always remove mirror images that could soak aoe damage, and always dispel magical created weapons ( like melf meteors ).

Chain Lighting, Delayed Fireball, Horrid Wilting are all going to bypass globes/lich immunities/spell protections but enemies often cast protections from elements and magic energy, things you can't breach if they have a SI:Abj, so won't help much; check the log and look at what elemental protections they cast on themselves and if they are immune to most damage try Prismatic Spray.

 

This is a post I have been looking for! Some of this I knew but not all. Thanks Raj

 

PS Secret Word and warding whip are also single target, I think?

Link to comment
PS Secret Word and warding whip are also single target, I think?

 

no, if you installed this component from SCS2:

 

Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

 

This component changes those spells which target a creature's spell defences (e.g. Secret Word, Spellstrike, Ruby Ray of Reversal - but not Breach) so as to give them a small area of effect rather than requiring them to be targetted on a specific creature. The idea of this component is that these spells can now be cast on enemy mages who are protected by Improved Invisibility - this makes the Improved Invisibility / Spell Immunity: Divination combination less overpowering.

 

The down side, of course, is that it is now possible to miss your target entirely with these spells. (Ideally I'd just have changed them so as to bypass improved invisibility directly, but that appears not to be possible in the Infinity Engine.)

 

The antimagic attacks of enemy mages will bypass Improved Invisibility even if you don't install this component

 

Even if you didn't install this, if you have Spell Revision ( looks like you do because of the issues with SI:Abj ) then Spellthrust, Secret Word, Khelben Warding Whip, Ruby Ray of Reversal, Spellstrike and even Lower Resistance have a (very) small area of effect.

Link to comment
I'm strongly against allowing multiple SI to stack but you have to ask DavidW for removing this (imo) unappropriate combo.

 

I feel the same about it.

 

The stacking of SI (which I believe is systematic from a certain level up) presents a borderline situation where the players' only countermeasure is to run an automated sequence of counters.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but this really isn't going to happen, until and unless someone actually presents me with a good argument why this combination in particular is so bad. SI:Abj and SI:Div together fall to any two of Secret Word, Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray, and Warding Whip, same as basically any other pair of defensive spells. So I'm really not seeing what's so special about it. The way the BG spell system works, if you run into a mage with multiple defences up then you're going to need multiple antimagic spells to bring it down. That's totally general, and not specific to these particular spells.

 

Things would be different if SI:Abj blocked antimagic attacks (which it doesn't in vanilla BG2 or SCSII) or if SI:Div blocked antimagic attacks by making the caster untargetable (which it does in vanilla BG2 but not in SCSII). But in any case, those would be arguments against the spells individually, not against their combination in particular.

 

It might be worth stressing again that SCSII has a strong "status quo bias": it tries to be relatively minimal in its changes to the game's basic framework. So the question I ask is not "would this change lead to an incremental improvement" (which is in any case pretty subjective) but "is this change necessary". I don't see why this one is.

 

Perhaps the stackable SI could be turned into an optional component?

 

Sorry: the prebuff and defensive-spell bits of SCSII are sufficiently intricate that I don't really want to add another layer of complexity by making this part optional, at least not any time soon.

Link to comment
It might be worth stressing again that SCSII has a strong "status quo bias": it tries to be relatively minimal in its changes to the game's basic framework.
This is a case where you really haven't kept the "status quo" anyway, you had implement two noticeable changes to make your spell system work as it currently does.

 

1) you had to change every single antimagic attack spell adding an AoE

2) you allowed the AI to use SI in contingencies, which wasn't possible in vanilla

 

I'll think about it a little to see if I can find some more arguments to convince you, anyway the first thing that comes to mind is that allowing multiple SI to stack is as unappropriate as allowing PfMW to stack with PfNW imo. It's already extremely powerful for a 5th level spell to grant complete immunity to a whole school of magic, allowing a few 5th level spells to grant a character complete immunity to magic is just plain overboard imo.

Link to comment
Sorry to disappoint, but this really isn't going to happen, until and unless someone actually presents me with a good argument why this combination in particular is so bad. SI:Abj and SI:Div together fall to any two of Secret Word, Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray, and Warding Whip, same as basically any other pair of defensive spells. So I'm really not seeing what's so special about it. The way the BG spell system works, if you run into a mage with multiple defenses up then you're going to need multiple antimagic spells to bring it down. That's totally general, and not specific to these particular spells.
Well, the the thing there is that the mages gets arbitrary number of defense spells up, so if he casts 4, one needs to cast 4 different or same spells to get rid of all of them, and they need to be made in the right sequence for the melee attacker to get to the mage, and we don't even know if he is the real target anymore at that stage... and I don't think that we all have that 4th mage with us. The misleads magic(defensive spells) are almost as potent as the normal versions against melee opposition, so we end up killing him several times, just to get to the real target, especially with immunities.

And read the Spell Immunitys spell description, you aren't supposed to have Protection from Magic Weapons affecting the mage while it has Spell Immunity:Abjuration... after all if you do, it gain benefit from the spell which is against SI's policy, nor should you get any help from any other SI's, as they are all Abjuration spells.

- :D:p:( :( :(

Darn Demivrgvs got there first.

 

But I do understand your view point DavidW on this matter and I might even support it on some situations...

Link to comment

Ok no matter how many time I try to re-install the component for AoE on antimagic spells it does not work. Only antimagic that has AoE is dispel and remove magic. That is it. I make sure it is the last component. In addition I try to uninstall the part for improved minor encounters as I do not like the golems with immunity to lower resist but that does not work either. Golems still immune.

 

I make sure it is the absolute last thing that gets installed too to no avail. I got rid of the component for prebuffing mages instead so I no longer have an issue with it as now I can defeat them without just staring enemies down.

Link to comment
I'm strongly against allowing multiple SI to stack but you have to ask DavidW for removing this (imo) unappropriate combo.

 

I feel the same about it.

 

The stacking of SI (which I believe is systematic from a certain level up) presents a borderline situation where the players' only countermeasure is to run an automated sequence of counters.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but this really isn't going to happen, until and unless someone actually presents me with a good argument why this combination in particular is so bad. SI:Abj and SI:Div together fall to any two of Secret Word, Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray, and Warding Whip, same as basically any other pair of defensive spells. So I'm really not seeing what's so special about it. The way the BG spell system works, if you run into a mage with multiple defences up then you're going to need multiple antimagic spells to bring it down. That's totally general, and not specific to these particular spells.

 

Things would be different if SI:Abj blocked antimagic attacks (which it doesn't in vanilla BG2 or SCSII) or if SI:Div blocked antimagic attacks by making the caster untargetable (which it does in vanilla BG2 but not in SCSII). But in any case, those would be arguments against the spells individually, not against their combination in particular.

 

It might be worth stressing again that SCSII has a strong "status quo bias": it tries to be relatively minimal in its changes to the game's basic framework. So the question I ask is not "would this change lead to an incremental improvement" (which is in any case pretty subjective) but "is this change necessary". I don't see why this one is. [...]

 

The problem with this combination is that is has almost no weakness. If one doesn't install "Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility" then there's little chance to get through this combination of spells. Personally I tried it this way last time I played with SCSII and it was quite... annoying to say the least. Luckily I had a thief to detect illusions and thus make the enemy spell casters viable targets to single target spells.

I guess the main problem is not the combination per se but the sheer power of SI:Divination + II when used by a high level caster (the high level thing would be another issue to discuss, though). Even though there are only a few options to take this combination down (assuming the enemy isn't immune to lower spell levels [like liches are] or doesn't use GoI), they're actually there. The most obvious one would be to use Dispel/Remove Magic due to its AoE. Although the chances might be slim one can dispel the enemy with enough tries/luck. This is alright, after all it's the point of invisibility to make the caster untargetable with single target spells. A problem arises when the caster in question uses SI:Abjuration as well since he basically becomes immune to one of the few spells one can use against SI:Divination + II. I guess this is why some players dislike stacking SIs (or maybe just this combination in particular).

Personally I'm neither particularly fond of nor hating it since one can always try to do something against it, the most obvious thing would be to use the same combination. And then there's the solution you offered so one can hardly argue that this combination is [still] totally unfair when used against the player. The problem I (and others as well, methinks) have with it though is that, as mentioned above, when you don't use "Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility" it can get quite frustrating.

Overall it might be a matter of taste.

 

 

Ok no matter how many time I try to re-install the component for AoE on antimagic spells it does not work. Only antimagic that has AoE is dispel and remove magic. That is it. I make sure it is the last component. In addition I try to uninstall the part for improved minor encounters as I do not like the golems with immunity to lower resist but that does not work either. Golems still immune.

 

I make sure it is the absolute last thing that gets installed too to no avail. I got rid of the component for prebuffing mages instead so I no longer have an issue with it as now I can defeat them without just staring enemies down.

 

Did you actually try some spells out? The AoE is *really* small. One possibility you have would be to have a party member cast Improved Invisibility and try targeting him/her when partially visibile. If the component is installed you should find a few words in anti magic spells' descriptions telling you that they have a small AoE now, by the way.

Link to comment

Quick observations:

 

- most of what I'm reading isn't really about SI:Div+SI:Abj, it's about SI:Div+II. Which I agree is a pretty powerful combination, and is what led me to introduce the area of effect for antimagic (I think I note somewhere in the documentation for SCSII that my mage AI does assume that component's installed). I take the point that SI:Abj blocks RM, which otherwise works against SI:Div, but since the majority of seriously nasty enemy mages are 5+ levels higher than you, it's at best a really annoying, keep-trying-till-you-get-lucky counter in any case.

 

-

And read the Spell Immunitys spell description, you aren't supposed to have Protection from Magic Weapons affecting the mage while it has Spell Immunity:Abjuration... after all if you do, it gain benefit from the spell which is against SI's policy, nor should you get any help from any other SI's, as they are all Abjuration spells.

Blame the original game for this. I don't regard the text description as trumping the in-game effects unless there's strong evidence that the latter is in error.

 

-

1) you had to change every single antimagic attack spell adding an AoE

2) you allowed the AI to use SI in contingencies, which wasn't possible in vanilla

(1) is really to deal with SI:Div+II, not SI:Div+SI:Abj. (2) I have some sympathy with, but it's already in the vanilla game that enemies can use SI in contingencies.

 

 

allowing multiple SI to stack is as unappropriate as allowing PfMW to stack with PfNW

 

Interesting point, but (i) PFNW+PFMW grants complete immunity to weapons, whereas even all eight SI still leave you vulnerable to antimagic; (ii) 8>2.

Link to comment

Ok after looking over most of the antimagic spells only some of them have AoE. Can you make them all have AoE? Like Secret Word, Warding Whip, Peirce Shield, Pierce Magic all do NOT have any AoE on them at least in the description. Ruby Ray and Spell Strike do have small AoE.

 

Hold on I'll cheat those scroll in and see if the higher level ones have an aoe despite the description.

 

Edit: Ok after some more testing scrolls do ignore it but when you cast it from spell book they do not work. Secret Word bypasses in scroll form but not from spell book same with some of the high level ones I think.

Link to comment

Overall the balance issue is caused by SR more than by SCS2, as SI:Abj is not protecting from antimagic under vanilla/SCS ( I think it's already been addressed half a dozen times but people keep ignoring it :( ).

Looks like all people posting in this topic installed SR and after having played the game with SCS2 mages casting SR SI:Abj I noticed too that's a powerful and boring combination to fight against.

It's not a SCS2 issue anyway, wrong forum.

 

Why do SCS2 mages use SI:Abj anyway? It's been long time but I remember it useless in vanilla. A buff was needed but SR made it bit too strong ( a level 5 that can be dispelled only by a level 7-9 spell, not recognized by scs2 AI so that enemies might waste all antimagic on the protagonist party ). Again, wrong forum so if you ( players ) have any request, DavidW has nothing to do with it.

 

Azure, how are you testing the aoe? The spells are party friendly, won't work against your own mages. All antimagic attacks have a area of effect with scs2 component installed ( what is this, third time I gotta repeat myself ) so what you are asking for, already is there.

Link to comment
(1) is really to deal with SI:Div+II, not SI:Div+SI:Abj.
Actually the deal here is that the mage getting SI:Div, II(or better yet fake image... forgot the name), SI:Abj and PfMW. And the player is screwed without the 9th level antimagic, and the enemy is invisible. So he has to cast 2 times 9th level spell to invisible enemies, and then you have to hack the first one down too, just so you get your hands at the enemy, before they(it) kill everything the player has. And that's without casting a spell...
Link to comment

What you are not getting is that with David mod installed, mages like to cast SI:div + SI:abj + II + pfmw, but you only need a single spellthrust ( level 3 ) or a couple secret words or similar, followed by TS and breach and the enemy mage is annihilated. Or even a single antimagic, taking down SI:div alone ( 50% chance )till TS kicks in, then cast breach that bypasses SI:Abj.

 

That's why you proly aren't going to get any help from the SCS2 creator, his scripts aren't balanced if you modify that particular spell. And I might add they are very well balanced overall ( I just got pissed at his beholders, expecially elder orbs with spell shield but that's another rant :( ) so not his fault.

 

If you have problems with mages having too strong antimagic defences that's related to Spell Revision altering SI:Abj in a unbalancing way: enemy wizards are a pain at early levels because you can't strip their defences, and are a joke at later stages of the game when you do have spellstrike ready and your own wizard protected by SI:Abj wasting their antimagic.

 

I just checked and vanilla SI:Abj protects against dispel/remove magic so it's not totally useless, I'm proly going to avoid install its SR improvement for my next run ( out of mercy for my opponents because it would make things too easy for my solo mage :( )

Link to comment

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...