I am starting to dislike that prebuff component

[Demivrgvs]

DavidW,

Please always keep in mind that I try to be constructive, I really don't want to impose you my opinion, nor to accuse SCS of anything. I'm only driven by my convictions!

 

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.

SI:Abj also blocks Invisibility Purge. Regarding the difference in level I think SCS is partially responsible for it as many spellcasters get a boost in HD/levels due to how SCS handle this matter (increasing character's level if he has a certain amount of spells memorized). Even aVENGER pointed out that some creatures, and in particular liches get really too high levels.

 

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.

Actually considering how many bugs they put in this game when implementing things (not that I blame them too much considering the great work they did anyway) I do think it's really more probable an error when implementing than considering the whole spell description a typo. It's not just a bunch of words, the entire description makes really clear that you shouldn't be able to be affected by any spell you're protected from.

 

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.

Vanilla's SI:Abj doesn't protect from 99% of the spells belonging to that school only because they forgot how they implemented antimagic attacks. The antimagic flag makes these spells bypass pratically everything (e.g. spell deflection, spell turning, magic resistance, and so on) and thus they bypass SI only because its flagged as "spell protection". Don't you think it's quite lame that a spell which is supposed to make you invulnerable to a school only protects from 1-3 spells?

 

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.

Isn't silly that this system makes a 3rd level spell like Spellthrust 2-3 times more effective than an 8th level spell like Pierce Shield?

 

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 )

Fine with fine, if that is the only solution to make SCS and SR fully compatibile let's make SI:Abj back as it was, we could rename it "Immunity to Dispel Magic & Imprisonment" though, just to not confound players who reading the description actually think this spell is gonna protect them from a the abjurations school. Jokes aside I'm starting to realize I'll probably have to do it.

[AzureDrag0n1]

It should not matter if it is party friendly or not. I am blasting my invisible ally with scrolls and then using the same spells cast from memory. Scrolls allow you to target your ally/enemy. Spells cast from memory will not let you do it and you will get an error message saying can not target sanctioned or invisible enemies. Ok I think I am going to move to SR forum to discuss this as it seems that it is a SR problem. I am not talking about SI: Abj not being dispelled by anti-magic my problem is that I can't even target them in the first place due to immunity to divination combined with improved invisibility.

 

Ok to prove it I will make some images using the same spell one from memory and one from scroll on an improved invisible ally.

 

Here I cast SW on II Jaheria with Jan first from memory then from scroll and then from memory again.

 

[Demivrgvs]

It should not matter if it is party friendly or not. I am blasting my invisible ally with scrolls and then using the same spells cast from memory. Scrolls allow you to target your ally/enemy. Spells cast from memory will not let you do it and you will get an error message saying can not target sanctioned or invisible enemies. Ok I think I am going to move to SR forum to discuss this as it seems that it is a SR problem. I am not talking about SI: Abj not being dispelled by anti-magic my problem is that I can't even target them in the first place due to immunity to divination combined with improved invisibility.

I think you're trying to cast the spells directly on the character which is not possible even with SCS or SR changes. We added a small area of effect to the spell, and you have to target the spell near the character you want it to affect. Could this be the problem you're facing?

[Ardanis]

Scrolls allow you to target your ally/enemy. Spells cast from memory will not let you do it and you will get an error message saying can not target sanctioned or invisible enemies. Ok I think I am going to move to SR forum to discuss this as it seems that it is a SR problem.

That's a IE's problem, not mods' one.

[Shaitan]

S:I+II is a killer whereas I find S:I+S:A to be fair enough. But that's my opinion. Overall I tend to agree with David in this matter, thus not hoping for any seriously changes here...

 

Cheers

[Raj]

Isn't silly that this system makes a 3rd level spell like Spellthrust 2-3 times more effective than an 8th level spell like Pierce Shield?

Not really because all antimagic is already cheaper than spell protections ( luckly, because the alternative would lead to a stall ). Secret word -4- takes down spell turning -7-, ruby ray -7- takes down spell trap -9- and so on. There're not many level 5 and lower spell protections used by high level mages, just SI ( Abj and Div only by the AI ), so higher spell removals don't lose their appeal.

 

This under the vanilla/scs2 system, that are somehow balanced, because if you add the SR edit to SI:Abj things change in a bad way.

 

To deal with a level 5 spell protection people must rely on a level 7 or a level 9 antimagic, making enemy mages invulnerable in a spell duel for the first half of SoA; by the time you get ruby ray in chapter 5 that spell alone is proly not going to help too because it removes the higher spell protection so is going to dispel a globe of invulnerability or a spell turning/deflection/trap, not the SI:Abj, where in a more realistic system you shall be able to remove the latter first in order to use the other abjuration antimagic attacks: this leads to a boring system where you have to use cheese and workarounds until you get spellstrike, so that you move from hours-lasting mage battles to a single round mage annihilation.

 

THIS is a silly system if you ask me.

 

Players casting Spell Revision SI:Abj on themselves bug enemy AI too because they waste pierce magic/breach on you; it became a even cheesier Spell Shield.

 

I understand DavidW unwillingness to take this SR edit into account under SCS2 scripts because without it the system is balanced; I don't think anybody wants every enemy mage running around with multiple spellstrikes, or early game mage battles lasting till SI:Abj runs out.

 

Fine with fine, if that is the only solution to make SCS and SR fully compatibile let's make SI:Abj back as it was, we could rename it "Immunity to Dispel Magic & Imprisonment" though, just to not confound players who reading the description actually think this spell is gonna protect them from a the abjurations school. Jokes aside I'm starting to realize I'll probably have to do it.

 

Some spell descriptions were taken directly from pnp sources because of programer lazyness, and antimagic descriptions already list Spell Immunity as a example of what they can take down.

Spell Immunity

[...]

Casting this spell grants the wizard protection from one spell school of her choice. After the spell is cast, the wizard must choose the school she wishes to be protected from. All spells of this school will be unable to harm or aid the caster for the duration of this spell. This includes priest spells of the appropriate school that might benefit the caster.

Having SI:abj protecting 'only' against dispels and imprisonments and all antimagic being useful against spell protections was a fine compromise. Afterall, Spell Immunity:Alteration should protect against ruby ray, time stop and, casted alongside with SI:Abj, against spellstrike too, but that's not 'working'. Call it balance, or let imagine that antimagic attacks aren't actually harming the caster, they acts against the mage defences ( much like breach bypassing lich immunities ). All Spell Immunities aren't working as they promise in the description anyway because they don't protect from spells casted by the caster himself.

 

Choose balance over realism over nerd geekery ( let call them seghe mentali ).

[Salk]

Reading all through this I must say I wish Spell Immunities never existed in BG...

[DavidW]

Partial response only as I think much of this has already been said.

 

DavidW,

Please always keep in mind that I try to be constructive, I really don't want to impose you my opinion, nor to accuse SCS of anything. I'm only driven by my convictions!

 

If you're worried about being unconstructive there's absolutely no need to be. I have no problem with this discussion.

 

SI:Abj also blocks Invisibility Purge.

Granted, but so does MGI, which is lower level and quite likely to be in place (in SCS at least).

 

Regarding the difference in level I think SCS is partially responsible for it as many spellcasters get a boost in HD/levels due to how SCS handle this matter (increasing character's level if he has a certain amount of spells memorized). Even aVENGER pointed out that some creatures, and in particular liches get really too high levels.

 

I've some time for this. SCS's algorithm increases casters' levels to the minimum level consistent with the spells they cast. Since often the designers used a "cookie-cutter" approach to creature creation, that's not always a reliable indicator, especially when creatures don't have a script that casts their memorised spells (though in principle they could still turn up in-game if you charm the creature).

 

On the other hand, vanilla liches cast 3 9th level and 4 8th level spells. This requires them to be, at minimum, 25th level (assuming they're not specialists, which I think is ruled out by their other spells) and so comfortably 5+ levels higher than typical PCs by the end of SoA.

 

 

Actually considering how many bugs they put in this game when implementing things (not that I blame them too much considering the great work they did anyway) I do think it's really more probable an error when implementing than considering the whole spell description a typo. It's not just a bunch of words, the entire description makes really clear that you shouldn't be able to be affected by any spell you're protected from.

I don't want to get too hung up on designer intent (we're not the Fixpack), but notice that antimagic spells have to be specifically flagged to bypass spell immunity, and conversely the spell immunity opcode has to specifically allow for being bypassed. So I'm not really convinced by this.

 

 

Don't you think it's quite lame that a spell which is supposed to make you invulnerable to a school only protects from 1-3 spells?

Not when those three spells are Imprisonment and Dispel/Remove Magic

[EDIT: and Breach, at least in SCS (sometimes, but inconsistently, in vanilla)

 

Isn't silly that this system makes a 3rd level spell like Spellthrust 2-3 times more effective than an 8th level spell like Pierce Shield?

I think I'm missing something here; what can Spell Thrust do that Pierce Shield can't?

[Icendoan]

Spell Thrust destroys ALL protections of 5th level and lower, while Pierce Shield only works for combat protections iirc, but it lowers MR.

 

Icen

[Arkain]

[...]

 

Isn't silly that this system makes a 3rd level spell like Spellthrust 2-3 times more effective than an 8th level spell like Pierce Shield?

I think I'm missing something here; what can Spell Thrust do that Pierce Shield can't?

 

Remove all protections up to level 5 at once while ignoring high level ones. Let's say the enemy has Spell Turning, Spell Deflection and two Spell Immunities running. Cast one Spell Thrust and the Spell Immunities are gone. Of course the whole idea is thwarted by using Globe of Invulnerability. The advantage is that you don't have to peel Spell Turning and Spell deflection of first by using spells like Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Essentially this makes Spell Thrust a minor Spell Strike. I like Spell Thrust

 

[edit] Pierce Shield dispels combat protections only with SR installed, iirc. Some sort of improved Breach. [/edit]

[Demivrgvs]

Partial response only as I think much of this has already been said.

 

Regarding the difference in level I think SCS is partially responsible for it as many spellcasters get a boost in HD/levels due to how SCS handle this matter (increasing character's level if he has a certain amount of spells memorized). Even aVENGER pointed out that some creatures, and in particular liches get really too high levels.

I've some time for this. SCS's algorithm increases casters' levels to the minimum level consistent with the spells they cast. Since often the designers used a "cookie-cutter" approach to creature creation, that's not always a reliable indicator, especially when creatures don't have a script that casts their memorised spells (though in principle they could still turn up in-game if you charm the creature).

 

On the other hand, vanilla liches cast 3 9th level and 4 8th level spells. This requires them to be, at minimum, 25th level (assuming they're not specialists, which I think is ruled out by their other spells) and so comfortably 5+ levels higher than typical PCs by the end of SoA.

I haven't SCS installed right now, but I remember the discussion we had with aVENGER here. The problem reported was that most liches were well above 25th level, even up to 35th. I think I would be ok if liches were 20-25th level (the unique ones may use a few more levels than common ones), and it would be fine and appropriate to let Demiliches be 35th level, but I just don't like a 26-35th level common lich.

 

Don't you think it's quite lame that a spell which is supposed to make you invulnerable to a school only protects from 1-3 spells?

Not when those three spells are Imprisonment and Dispel/Remove Magic

[EDIT: and Breach, at least in SCS (sometimes, but inconsistently, in vanilla)

Ok then, to make V3 perfectly compatibile with SCS I should make SI:Abj block Breach but allow all other antimagic spells. I'll probably do it as it doesn't seem I have any other choice.

 

Isn't silly that this system makes a 3rd level spell like Spellthrust 2-3 times more effective than an 8th level spell like Pierce Shield?

I think I'm missing something here; what can Spell Thrust do that Pierce Shield can't

Remove all protections up to level 5 at once while ignoring high level ones. Let's say the enemy has Spell Turning, Spell Deflection and two Spell Immunities running. Cast one Spell Thrust and the Spell Immunities are gone. Of course the whole idea is thwarted by using Globe of Invulnerability. The advantage is that you don't have to peel Spell Turning and Spell deflection of first by using spells like Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Essentially this makes Spell Thrust a minor Spell Strike.

Exactly, Spellthrust can dispel multiple SI while an 8th level spell can only disable one.

 

[edit] Pierce Shield dispels combat protections only with SR installed, iirc. Some sort of improved Breach. [/edit]

It still dispel one spell protection, the breach effect was added on top of the original spell in order to have a Breach usable against Liches and Rakshasas. SCS achieve by it letting Breach itself bypass their immunity, but this really is a tweak I cannot accept in my game. If a creature is immune to 7th level spells how can we justify a 5th level spell affecting the creature anyway?

 

I would propose a quite "radical" chenge to this: replacing liche's immunity to 1-5th level spells with 50% magic resistance, and rakshasa's immunity to 1-7th level spells with 75% magic resistance. I'd like to add it as an optional component to try out for SR V3, but I think a slightly issue with SCS may be that those creatures doesn't use GoI.

[Salk]

I would propose a quite "radical" chenge to this: replacing liche's immunity to 1-5th level spells with 50% magic resistance, and rakshasa's immunity to 1-7th level spells with 75% magic resistance.

 

It makes more sense to have magic resistance than complete immunity up to a certain spell level (I can't see any logic in this). The 50% and 75% seem also sensible enough.

[Ardanis]

Except you'll be able to annihilate it with a couple of Lower Resistance. Or simply reload, because many think that dice play against them. I wouldn't install such component for sure.

[AzureDrag0n1]

It should not matter if it is party friendly or not. I am blasting my invisible ally with scrolls and then using the same spells cast from memory. Scrolls allow you to target your ally/enemy. Spells cast from memory will not let you do it and you will get an error message saying can not target sanctioned or invisible enemies. Ok I think I am going to move to SR forum to discuss this as it seems that it is a SR problem. I am not talking about SI: Abj not being dispelled by anti-magic my problem is that I can't even target them in the first place due to immunity to divination combined with improved invisibility.

I think you're trying to cast the spells directly on the character which is not possible even with SCS or SR changes. We added a small area of effect to the spell, and you have to target the spell near the character you want it to affect. Could this be the problem you're facing?

 

 

No, this is not possible to do. You know the spell casting icon you get when you pick a spell or a scroll? It is grayed out until it covers a character. You must target a character or it will not fire at all. Ruby Ray works fine and it really has a spell description saying it has an AoE. Actually I don't know why you even say you have to target near him as with ruby ray you can target directly on invisible creature and it will NOT give you that error message.

 

If possible, is there a way to make the edit myself? Maybe the mod maker just forgot to give all anti-magic AoE ability?

[Icendoan]

Sure, there is a way, use NI or DLTCEP an change the type to "Area" and you are set.

 

Icen