Unholy Blight and SCS

[Guest Dirty Uncle Bertie]

Demivrgvs, I posted in a recent discussion regarding the inherent difficulty of SCS - http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s...mp;#entry144792 - but I don't think you saw it.

 

You seemed to suggest in that thread that you'd consider tweaking this spell so it's not quite the killer in BG1, and I was wondering if you'd had any further thoughts on this, and what other people would like to see done.

[Demivrgvs]

Looking at some reports here at G3 and at BioWare forums it seems Unholy Blight is widely considered too powerful in BG1, and my current version only affects it in BG2 instead (capping the damage at 10th level).

 

One thing I would have to do anyway was to fix its vanilla damage output which erroneusly used 2xlevel 1d2 dices instead of 1xlevel 1d4 dices, making the spell even more powerful than it was intended.

 

A simple way to nerf the spell in BG1 would be to change its damage output, for example from 1d4 per caster level to 1d4 every 2 caster levels (up to 10d4 at 20th level). Would it make the spell too weak? In 3rd edition it deals 1d8 every 2 levels up to 5d8 (though making this kind of damage output "halvable" via save is quite tricky with this engine), which means 5-40 points of damage at 10th level instead of vanilla's 20-40. Any suggestion?

 

DavidW, any opinion on this matter?

[Ardanis]

A simple way to nerf the spell in BG1 would be to change its damage output, for example from 1d4 per caster level to 1d4 every 2 caster levels (up to 10d4 at 20th level). Would it make the spell too weak? In 3rd edition it deals 1d8 every 2 levels up to 5d8 (though making this kind of damage output "halvable" via save is quite tricky with this engine), which means 5-40 points of damage at 10th level instead of vanilla's 20-40.

Not the David, but both sounds good. The first is probably even better, as it keeps growing stronger past 10th level. I think.

[Salk]

I wouldn't like the extra nerf.

 

 

I think it's enough to fix the vanilla damage output.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Any suggestion?

Could you make it 1d6 every 2 levels up to 10d6 or 15d6.

 

Or if you really wish to tweak the spell out of orbit, you make it to cast three separate projectiles that effect the same area(so you'll actually just have 3 saves, and give them different saves) that do 5d6 damage, at level 30.

[DavidW]

I'm torn on this.

 

I don't think the spell (especially fixed) is too powerful for BG2, and I'd be reluctant to nerf it there: it's one of the few ways I know to make high-level clerics - especially the drow - actually any good. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the suggestion that it's a bit over-powerful for the early stages of BG1.

 

On balance, my suggestion would be to make it 1d8 per two levels (round down, and don't worry that you can't exactly do half damage - fireball doesn't) but keep going all the way to L20. But I think there's also a case for just fixing the vanilla damage (something SCS and/or Fixpack should probably also look at doing) and otherwise not changing anything.

[Demivrgvs]

I wouldn't like the extra nerf.

I don't want to, I'm just trying to see if we can make this spell more balanced in BG1, as I'd like SR to allow BGT players to benifit from a more balanced "BG2-into-BG1" spell system.

 

I don't think the spell (especially fixed) is too powerful for BG2, and I'd be reluctant to nerf it there: it's one of the few ways I know to make high-level clerics - especially the drow - actually any good.

Do you mean you'd prefer to keep its vanilla damage output without cap and simply fix it from 40d2 to 20d4? It's really too much imo, especially if you compare it to any other damage dealing spell (Fireball deals only 10d6 fire damage, and its 7th level version Delayed Blast Fireball deals 15d6 in vanilla), not to mention the other advantages of this spell (secondary effect, quick casting time, and "semi party friendly" AoE), and the fact it deals magic damage (surely the best type of damage output).

 

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the suggestion that it's a bit over-powerful for the early stages of BG1.

 

On balance, my suggestion would be to make it 1d8 per two levels (round down, and don't worry that you can't exactly do half damage - fireball doesn't) but keep going all the way to L20. But I think there's also a case for just fixing the vanilla damage (something SCS and/or Fixpack should probably also look at doing) and otherwise not changing anything.

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that fixing it to use 1d4 dices and then cap it at 10d4 is the most balanced solution when you compare it to other spells. I'm not saying that having it keep going on to either 10d8 or 20d4 damage would be "overpowered" for BG2 (I agree with you on this), but it would make it THE damage dealing spell imo (same goes for Holy Smite), and have many other spells simply pale in comparison. Am I wrong?

[DavidW]

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that fixing it to use 1d4 dices and then cap it at 10d4 is the most balanced solution when you compare it to other spells. I'm not saying that having it keep going on to either 10d8 or 20d4 damage would be "overpowered" for BG2 (I agree with you on this), but it would make it THE damage dealing spell imo (same goes for Holy Smite), and have many other spells simply pale in comparison. Am I wrong?

 

I think so, yes.

 

If it's not overpowered for BG2, I don't see a reason for powering it down. It's a big hit for clerics (particularly enemy clerics) - holy smite is one of the very few ways a high-level cleric can inflict damage on enemies without being disrupted. This is very clear in AI scripting: the combination of shortish casting time - though no shorter than mage equivalents - and party-friendliness (which is borderline compulsory for AI spell use) is a life-saver.

 

... it kind of depends how you see the philosophy behind SR. I took it to be "some spells are so overpowered as to be broken; many more are too weak to be worth learning; let's rearrange so as to encourage spellcasters to use a more interesting mixture of spells." That philosophy doesn't, to me, suggest a need to replace HS. (As you note, it's not brokenly overpowered, and also at that level are Dispel Magic, Remove Paralysis, Rigid Thinking, Zone of Sweet Air, and Animate Dead, all of which are desirable alternatives at various stages of the game).

 

If the goal of SR is instead to enforce some systematic consistency to the spell system, then (as I think I've noted elsewhere) I think it's a mistaken goal. But I'm fairly sure that's not what it and you are about.

[Demivrgvs]

... it kind of depends how you see the philosophy behind SR. I took it to be "some spells are so overpowered as to be broken; many more are too weak to be worth learning; let's rearrange so as to encourage spellcasters to use a more interesting mixture of spells."

You've described my goal quite well. The "issue" here is that even if it's not so overpowered to be considered "broken", Unholy Blight (and Holy Smite by the way) is so good it makes a lot of other spells (even perfectly balanced ones imo) almost useless (thus failing the goal to encourage more variety in spell choices). In my previous post I even forgot to mention one of its most powerful aspects, it bypasses magic resistance!

 

Thus you have:

- 20d4 damage

- large semi-friendly AoE

- ignore magic resistance

- short casting time (3)

- deals magic damage

- secondary effect (blindness or penalties)

 

How am I supposed to encourage a cleric to use other damage dealing spells if we keep vanilla Holy Smite/Unholy Blight?

 

Let's take for example Gliph of Warding. Even with SR improvements (which makes it party friendly) it still deals a worst type of damage (though electricity is not that bad either), has a much longer casting time (9 instead of 3), doesn't ignore magic resistance (which later on is an incredible asset imo), doesn't have a secondary effect...

 

Even Flame Strike, which is a 5th level spell looks completely trash in comparison:

- in vanilla it deals up to 20d8 fire damage (twice as much) but to a single target (instead of within 20 feet radius), without bypassing magic resistance, with a quite longer casting time (8 instead of 3) and dealing the worst type of damage ('fire' clearly is the most common type of resistance amongst buffed characters and innate creature resistances).

- with SR I've added a small 5 feet radius party friendly AoE, and casting time is decreaded to 5, but the damage output is reduced to 15d6.

 

As you note, it's not brokenly overpowered, and also at that level are Dispel Magic, Remove Paralysis, Rigid Thinking, Zone of Sweet Air, and Animate Dead, all of which are desirable alternatives at various stages of the game.

I agree with Dispel Magic, Remove Paralysis and Animate Dead, while Zone of Sweet Air was almost useless except in very rare cases in vanilla (SR's Gust of Wind is much better though), and I can't see how Rigid Thinking could be useful compared to other spells of similar levels.

 

Anyway SR goal is harder than it might seem, because having more than a few spells almost equally interesting (which doesn't necessarily mean equally powerful, I know) at the same level is one thing, having all of them is another matter, and doing so respecting each "spell level" is even more difficult (e.g. a 3rd level spell can't be more appealing/powerful than a 7th level one!).

 

P.S I do like these kinds of conversation.

[Salk]

Well, I guess such choices are really difficult.

 

Both DavidW and Demi have good arguments.

 

What seems to be the consensus however is to introduce the damage fix for the vanilla spell.

 

We could start with that and see later on if more tweaks are needed (tip: increase casting time is an efficient and almost transparent way of nerfing a spell)

[Ardanis]

Gliph of Warding

It's a trap spell, so you can in advance lay lots of them then lure enemies out of their position (how do you think I deal with beholder lair in UD? Exactly via traps, magical of rogue's)

 

If it's not overpowered for BG2, I don't see a reason for powering it down. It's a big hit for clerics (particularly enemy clerics) - holy smite is one of the very few ways a high-level cleric can inflict damage on enemies without being disrupted. This is very clear in AI scripting: the combination of shortish casting time - though no shorter than mage equivalents - and party-friendliness (which is borderline compulsory for AI spell use) is a life-saver.

Can't say I fully agree here. Imo it's for wizards to spray fireballs around, not priests.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Thus you have:

[...]

- ignore magic resistance

 

Nope. In the unmodded game, neither Holy Smite nor Unholy Blight ignore magic resistance.

[DavidW]

OK, quick thoughts:

 

1) I don't think it does bypass MR, actually (admittedly I'm getting this from NI, not from in-game testing).

2) I don't entirely agree that magic damage is the best sort - or at least I don't think there's that much in it. Sensible later-game parties are likely to be using pro/magic energy like there's no tomorrow.

3) Glyph of Warding has two basic advantages over Holy Smite: (i) it damages non-evil opponents, (ii) it can be used as a trap. That seems ball-park right as a counter to HS's secondary effect and arguably-more-useful damage type. (I agree, when it wasn't party-friendly it was basically useless). I'd rather you lowered its casting time than raised HS's, if that's the concern.

4) I don't think I've got the point of the Flame Strike comparison. It is unambiguously much better at doing damage to a single opponent; it is also better at targetting opponents who aren't helpfully-aligned. So you use HS in some circumstances and FS in others. Since they're not the same level, there's no direct question of which is "best", all that matters is that both are useful.

5) I don't agree that ZoSA is useless: I generally carry at least one at high levels, to clear enemy cloudkills.

6) I don't think you've addressed my concern that this is a significant nerf for the cleric class, especially where enemy clerics are concerned.

7) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, from an enemy-AI perspective I do think it's much more problematic to nerf spells than to improve them. SCS clerics prioritise HS quite a lot (though it's not the only spell they use) for reasons which will cease to be true if this change goes through.

8) I wouldn't worry too much about making sure spells of different levels scale appropriately. Sure, there's a need to avoid being ridiculous, but ultimately it's more important to make sure that spells of the same level are comparable.

[Demivrgvs]

Thus you have:

[...]- ignore magic resistance

Nope. In the unmodded game, neither Holy Smite nor Unholy Blight ignore magic resistance.

1) I don't think it does bypass MR, actually (admittedly I'm getting this from NI, not from in-game testing).

Oh my...why did I ever considered it so? Does it mean I made it bypass magic resistence myself so long ago that I don't even remember it wasn't so from the beginning?

 

2) I don't entirely agree that magic damage is the best sort - or at least I don't think there's that much in it. Sensible later-game parties are likely to be using pro/magic energy like there's no tomorrow.

Still you probably agree that it's the less common innate resistance (while cold and especially fire resistances are very common).

 

3) Glyph of Warding has two basic advantages over Holy Smite: (i) it damages non-evil opponents, (ii) it can be used as a trap. That seems ball-park right as a counter to HS's secondary effect and arguably-more-useful damage type. (I agree, when it wasn't party-friendly it was basically useless). I'd rather you lowered its casting time than raised HS's, if that's the concern.

Yeah, the "trap" feature is quite cool, and the main reason I felt this spell is fine now (you do agree though that without SR this spell was useless). Regarding the casting time I didn't touch either of them.

 

4) I don't think I've got the point of the Flame Strike comparison. It is unambiguously much better at doing damage to a single opponent; it is also better at targetting opponents who aren't helpfully-aligned. So you use HS in some circumstances and FS in others. Since they're not the same level, there's no direct question of which is "best", all that matters is that both are useful.

I can partially agree...

 

5) I don't agree that ZoSA is useless: I generally carry at least one at high levels, to clear enemy cloudkills.

It was useful only against clouds...and in vanilla very few enemies used those spells, and most of the times those clouds were more dreadful for them rather than the party (though I do know SCS handles clouds much better, and even "exploits" them quite well using liches and rakshasas immunities).

 

6) I don't think you've addressed my concern that this is a significant nerf for the cleric class, especially where enemy clerics are concerned.

I'll take it into account.

 

7) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, from an enemy-AI perspective I do think it's much more problematic to nerf spells than to improve them. SCS clerics prioritise HS quite a lot (though it's not the only spell they use) for reasons which will cease to be true if this change goes through.

You're right, and fortunately most of the times SR nerf a spell it's more noticeable for players rather than the AI (e.g. mislead, simulacrum, ...).

 

8) I wouldn't worry too much about making sure spells of different levels scale appropriately. Sure, there's a need to avoid being ridiculous, but ultimately it's more important to make sure that spells of the same level are comparable.

I can partially agree...but as long as it's possible I'd prefer the "spell level" to be taken into account and be at least slightly noticeable.

[DavidW]

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement... quick response: yes, I agree that before SR, Glyph was at best questionably useful for PCs, and totally useless for enemies. (I actually think that a lot of commentators - I don't include you - don't realize the extent to which party-unfriendliness makes enemy spells all but useless.)