Spell Shield

[Demivrgvs]

I'm not sure about it, but I think that, with a lot of work we may fix the problem which makes Spell Shield too "unreliable" to say the least. If what I'm about to suggest has any chance of working it still requires to change each and every "spell protection removal" spell in BG.

 

My idea consists of:

 

1) Changes to Spell Protection Removal spells:

- split them into multiple spells:

* the first spell is a simple "magic attack" spell, with its classic projectile animation. It would do nothing except casting other two spells

* the first of the secondary spells would do what the original spell (e.g Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield, ...) currently does

* the second of the secondary spells would be a "removal secondary type" needed to dispel Spell Shield and nothing else

 

2) Changes to Spell Shield:

- assign to Spells Shield a dedicated "secondary type"

- replace the current "spell shield" opcode with protection from x spell, where x is the first of the two secondary spells

 

Would it work? I really don't have the time for it, but if anyone thinks it may work and want to try it out he's welcome!

[Salk]

Demi,

 

I was about to ask you: is it only my impression or Mike is not partecipating to the coding of the next version?

 

I am asking because I wonder if it could be him giving this a go...

 

Nice to see version 3 getting close to completion though!

[DavidW]

Demi,

 

I was about to ask you: is it only my impression or Mike is not partecipating to the coding of the next version?

 

I am asking because I wonder if it could be him giving this a go...

 

Nice to see version 3 getting close to completion though!

 

I'm fairly sure that would work, yes; I'd had a similar thought, in fact. But obviously it would involve a moderately complex macro (or a lot of manual labour).

[aVENGER_(RR)]

IMO, changing they way in which Spell Shield functions (i.e. giving it a different role) would certainly be preferable to altering every single anti-magic spell in the game and would likely cause far less issues.

 

FWIW, I've removed Spell Shield from all RR mages as of v4.03 due to its inherently buggy behavior.

[Raj]

Just the n-th idea about this spell.

 

To keep it simple and have a alternative for v3 while you think about the perfect solution Spell Shield might just mimic the effects of a already existing antimagic potion, I think this suits well ( there's the 'shield' thing in the name too ):

Potion of Magic Shielding

Damage: +50% resistance to all forms of magical damage

Special: All saving throws are made automatically

Duration: 3 turns

As a alternative there's this BG1 potion unused in BG2 that is very interesting ( only problem I can see is SCS2 elder orbs casting Spell Shield and lose some buffs, but those cheating balls deserve it )

Potion of Magic Blocking

This powerful elixir imbues the drinker with immunity to all spells up to and including the 5th level. At the same time, all spell effects of 5th level and lower are removed from the imbiber. The effect will only last for 5 rounds, however, so careful timing is necessary.

 

 

Note: I like the idea of items/spells duplicating each other effects because that gives hints about how those items get created in first place, while simplify a bit your work; but if you want more variety and are not scared of more work...

[Demivrgvs]

Demi,

I was about to ask you: is it only my impression or Mike is not partecipating to the coding of the next version?

 

I am asking because I wonder if it could be him giving this a go...

I think he's pretty busy, he does help whenever he can, but he never got too involved with SR.

 

I'm fairly sure that would work, yes; I'd had a similar thought, in fact. But obviously it would involve a moderately complex macro (or a lot of manual labour).

You think so? Great. I may work on it manually if necessary...but later rather than sooner as I really want this to be the last week of work for V3.

 

IMO, changing they way in which Spell Shield functions (i.e. giving it a different role) would certainly be preferable to altering every single anti-magic spell in the game and would likely cause far less issues.

Why's that? Which issues may it cause? Well...except driving me crazy coding and testing it!

 

FWIW, I've removed Spell Shield from all RR mages as of v4.03 due to its inherently buggy behavior.

As DavidW did for SCSII (except a minor case), and it was really necessary imo.

 

To keep it simple and have a alternative for v3 while you think about the perfect solution Spell Shield might just mimic the effects of a already existing antimagic potion, I think this suits well ( there's the 'shield' thing in the name too ):

Potion of Magic Shielding

Damage: +50% resistance to all forms of magical damage

Special: All saving throws are made automatically

Duration: 3 turns

And that is indeed what I already decided to do for V3.

[Raj]

blah blah blah

And that is indeed what I already decided to do for V3.

Stop read my mind, let me increase my post counter, and go work on v3!

 

P.S. Judging from the project page notes Mike is co-author of IR but not SR where Demi is alone, that's why we should keep bother him and him only.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

IMO, changing they way in which Spell Shield functions (i.e. giving it a different role) would certainly be preferable to altering every single anti-magic spell in the game and would likely cause far less issues.

Why's that? Which issues may it cause? Well...except driving me crazy coding and testing it!

 

David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the current version of Detectable Spells would be able to properly handle the shell spells. It would likely require a recode along with a specific SR compatibility check.

 

It might also create problems for mods which use older versions of DS (Ascension, Quest Pack, Big Picture...etc).

[Ardanis]

I believe SS can keep it's 'shield' opcode and thus be finely detectable (unless I horribly miss something and it's the Scripting State that's used for that). Only it would have to 'protect' against unexistant secondary type, so it won't be used as initially designed.

[DavidW]

IMO, changing they way in which Spell Shield functions (i.e. giving it a different role) would certainly be preferable to altering every single anti-magic spell in the game and would likely cause far less issues.

Why's that? Which issues may it cause? Well...except driving me crazy coding and testing it!

 

David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the current version of Detectable Spells would be able to properly handle the shell spells. It would likely require a recode along with a specific SR compatibility check.

 

Well, tbh I don't entirely recall how DS handles antimagic... and I'm not sure it's optimal even as it is. I'll have a look sometime.

[Ardanis]

DS's antimagic sets detectable stuff to zero.

It would likely require a recode along with a specific SR compatibility check.

Make a separate component to be installed after DS?

 

 

EDIT

OK, I made a small test and it seems there's no need to worry about

I don't think the current version of Detectable Spells would be able to properly handle the shell spells.

Accordingto my results DS doesn't need to update antimagic as it's not only obsolete but may even bug AI (say you have two spell protections active and then bring one down with an antimagic; AM sets the detectable stats to zero and voila, you still get to have the other SP active but AI will think you have none).

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Well, tbh I don't entirely recall how DS handles antimagic... and I'm not sure it's optimal even as it is. I'll have a look sometime.

 

IIRC, it patches all anti-magic spells to set certain scripting states to 0.

 

I don't know how this would work out with spell shells.

[Demivrgvs]

Well, we're discussing a lot about the whole Combat/Spell Protection vs. Spell Removals and I feel this may be something we want to add to such discussion (which I found quite interesting considering DavidW managed somehow to convince me that PfMW is not overpowered ).

 

Two questions:

 

1)

Well, tbh I don't entirely recall how DS handles antimagic... and I'm not sure it's optimal even as it is. I'll have a look sometime.

 

IIRC, it patches all anti-magic spells to set certain scripting states to 0.

 

I don't know how this would work out with spell shells.

DavidW and/or aVENGER, have you looked into this? I'd like to know for sure, but I believe DS would simply patch the primary spell in the same way, not affecting at all the end result.

 

 

2) DavidW, are you interested on having Spell Shield fixed, or you don't care? Because if you don't need it, or you don't want it for SCS AI I see no reason to work on it and letting only players be advantaged by it.

[DavidW]

Well, we're discussing a lot about the whole Combat/Spell Protection vs. Spell Removals and I feel this may be something we want to add to such discussion (which I found quite interesting considering DavidW managed somehow to convince me that PfMW is not overpowered ).

 

Two questions:

 

1)

Well, tbh I don't entirely recall how DS handles antimagic... and I'm not sure it's optimal even as it is. I'll have a look sometime.

 

IIRC, it patches all anti-magic spells to set certain scripting states to 0.

 

I don't know how this would work out with spell shells.

DavidW and/or aVENGER, have you looked into this? I'd like to know for sure, but I believe DS would simply patch the primary spell in the same way, not affecting at all the end result.

Well, I now believe it's largely unnecessary for DS to do this in any case. But I haven't had a chance to confirm and test this. I'll do so before the next release of SCSII (in a few weeks probably, if RL stays under control.)

2) DavidW, are you interested on having Spell Shield fixed, or you don't care? Because if you don't need it, or you don't want it for SCS AI I see no reason to work on it and letting only players be advantaged by it.

 

If it existed, I'd use it (indeed, if it were smoothly-enough coded I'd offer to take it over wholesale into SCS). But I don't myself have the patience to fix it. So don't on my account.

[Kalindor]

If you wanted, you could make Mantle dispellable only by Pierce Shield or Absolute Immunity dispellable only by Spellstrike using this method, right? I am thinking about tinkering with that for my own edification.