SCS mage spell choices

[Salk]

I have long time ago decided to not allow for any kind of pre-buffing and that applies to both SCS and SCS II.

 

About suboptimal choices and wizard spells: you DavidW start from the assumption that all wizards decide to memorize only those spells that are most useful in combat so that practically each specialist share the same spellbook.

 

I disagree: I would rather see some more variations at the cost of not having the perfect fighting spell combos always at the ready for the enemy AI (and yes, my own spellbook dynamically changes even depending on my mood :-) ).

 

After all, while it is true that a poor spell selection disrupts immersion and realism, I also believe that different spells counter this effect in a welcome manner.

 

I like to think that not all the wizards I met in my game follow the same logic path: it's not a crime to find a less useful in combat spell more attractive than the competitors.

[Jarno Mikkola]

I like to think that not all the wizards I met in my game follow the same logic path: it's not a crime to find a less useful in combat spell more attractive than the competitors.

No, as long as the mage does more harm than good , so no hold&dispel&hold&dispel&... rutines.

 

Now, what comes to the specialists and their spell book selections, one has to make the selections somehow, and it's more easy to make somewhat good and shorter script for a book that is simular than the spell selections. So let's not include the 1th level spell in the AI cause there is 0.00001% chance of this particular caster ever get that run out of spells and he has a 1/10 chance of having that spell.

[DavidW]

About suboptimal choices and wizard spells: you DavidW start from the assumption that all wizards decide to memorize only those spells that are most useful in combat so that practically each specialist share the same spellbook.

No, that's not true. I start from the assumption that all wizards think carefully about their spell choices and don't make stupid picks. That's compatible with a lot of spellbook variety. The average SCSI mage usually has between 2 and 4 spells per level to choose from (with the particular 2-4 depending on speciality). So even within, say, necromancers, you should expect to say a reasonable degree of variety - and there are three other specialities I use. (This is all in SCSI: I don't dynamically rewrite spellbooks in SCSII, I just do a few on-the-fly substitutions of useless spells.)

 

I disagree: I would rather see some more variations at the cost of not having the perfect fighting spell combos always at the ready for the enemy AI (and yes, my own spellbook dynamically changes even depending on my mood :-) ).

I claim SCS already does this. What it doesn't do is make deliberately "bad" choices just for the sake of variety: I think that's unrealistic, and breaks immersion.

 

After all, while it is true that a poor spell selection disrupts immersion and realism, I also believe that different spells counter this effect in a welcome manner.

That doesn't make sense: poor choices are poor choices. No wizard in their right mind is going to memorize lots of stupid spells; how is this helped if there are multiple different poor choices available.

 

I like to think that not all the wizards I met in my game follow the same logic path: it's not a crime to find a less useful in combat spell more attractive than the competitors.

It's not a crime, but it is an act of stupidity, and wizards aren't stupid. There may be (indeed, there usually are) many spells of a given level that are comparably useful rather than one "best" spell. But if spell A is uncontroversially worse than same-level spell B, what in-game justification is there for a wizard selecting A over B if both are available to him?

[DavidW]

Following that up: for illustration, here's the actual attacking spell choice in SCSI for high-level necromancers.

L1: Magic Missile (60%), Chromatic Orb (40%)

L2: Horror (50%), Web (25%), Stinking Cloud (25%)

L3: Vampiric Touch (33%), Skull Trap (33%), Flame Arrow (33%)

L4: Monster Summoning II (16%), Spider Spawn (16%), Confusion (33%), Emotion (33%)

L5: Animate Dead (50%), Chaos (33%), Domination (16%)

 

(I could have used a wider range, but I feared that would spoil the idea of specialists being at least somewhat distinct from one another.)

[Salk]

Thanks for illustrating your choices, DavidW.

 

I actually was under the impression that the spellbooks were less varied than that. Can it be that perhaps you rearranged them after a certain version?

 

However, my bad.

 

Still I don't think spells can be "stupid". And therefore I don't think that memorizing any kind spell is a stupid choice. Again, I think you evaluate spells in function of their effectiviness in combat. But there's not only combat for a mage. Who knows? Couldn't a mage have Identify memorized when I meet him? I certainly do sometimes. Instead this can't happen because the spellbook must be an arsenal. Furthermore, the fact that mages are usually very intelligent does not make them wise (Wisdom in Baldur's Gate is something very different).

 

Else how would you describe the actions of Narcillicus (to mention one)?

 

The fact is that with SCS, mages become almost perfect killing machines. I know you think that the human players have still en enormous advantage over the AI but I can't help thinking that it would certainly feel to me more... human to sometimes not follow a perfected routine (and that's also why I am extremely happy about having the -unsupported- chance of disabling Detectable Items).

[DavidW]

Thanks for illustrating your choices, DavidW.

 

I actually was under the impression that the spellbooks were less varied than that. Can it be that perhaps you rearranged them after a certain version?

This is the only version where I've actually rewritten spellbooks. Previous versions have just used the existing spellbooks, and made some ad hoc swaps when spell choices were particularly stupid. I actually think people forget how very limited the spell choices are in the original BG1 - there are probably fewer than a dozen different sets of mage spells.

 

Still I don't think spells can be "stupid". And therefore I don't think that memorizing any kind spell is a stupid choice.

Really? How often do you memorise Infravision?

 

Again, I think you evaluate spells in function of their effectiviness in combat. But there's not only combat for a mage. Who knows? Couldn't a mage have Identify memorized when I meet him? I certainly do sometimes. Instead this can't happen because the spellbook must be an arsenal.

Well, sure, I could simulate this: I could maintain a list of wizards who aren't prepped for combat, and randomly put non-combat choices into some of their spell slots. But:

(i) it would affect fewer creatures than you might think. Unless you play a psychopathic character, most mages you fight (Davaeorn, Tarnesh, the adventurers at the top of the Cloakwood mine, Cythandria, etc...) are either actively out hunting for you or at least have enough reason to expect you to arrive that their spell choices will be combat-optimised.

(ii) it wouldn't actually help variety. It's not as if these mages are going to cast Identify in combat. It just means, in effecit, that they'll have fewer spells. So it would just be a way of making the game easier. (Note that vanilla-game mages don't do this either).

Furthermore, the fact that mages are usually very intelligent does not make them wise (Wisdom in Baldur's Gate is something very different).

Indeed; but (I contend) at least if one understands Intelligence and Wisdom in the way they're understood in PnP, Intelligence and not Wisdom is the relevant stat. (In any case, I maintain that a wizard with years of experience and training would have to be actively stupid, not merely not-a-genius, if he didn't take a sensible set of spells.)

 

The fact is that with SCS, mages become almost perfect killing machines.

No they don't, for the reason you give: the AI language is far too stupid for them to come anywhere close to perfect.

 

I know you think that the human players have still en enormous advantage over the AI but I can't help thinking that it would certainly feel to me more... human to sometimes not follow a perfected routine

They don't follow a perfected regime. They follow the best regime they can within the scripting language. Personally, I often still think they appear inhumanly stupid.

 

(and that's also why I am extremely happy about having the -unsupported- chance of disabling Detectable Items).

It's supported (albeit not recommended) in SCS. It will be supported in SCSII when I get around to doing a new version (not soon).

[the bigg]

Maybe you could spice it up by using more types of mages:

40% of mages are generalists (using the combination of your current tables)

40% are 'common' specialist mages (10% each of evokers, necromancers, conjurers and enchanters)

10% are 'rare' specialist mages (5% each of sorcerors and wild mages, using the same tables as generalists)

5% are mages using close range spells (buff with spells like Shield, Strength, Mirror Images, Vampire Touch, Haste; cast Ghoul Hands, move in, alternate casting Color Spray or Flame Touch and attacking)

5% are buffer mages (they like to cast Strenght, Spirit Armor, Haste on [summoned] allies rather than attacking directly)

[DavidW]

Maybe you could spice it up by using more types of mages:

40% of mages are generalists (using the combination of your current tables)

40% are 'common' specialist mages (10% each of evokers, necromancers, conjurers and enchanters)

10% are 'rare' specialist mages (5% each of sorcerors and wild mages, using the same tables as generalists)

5% are mages using close range spells (buff with spells like Shield, Strength, Mirror Images, Vampire Touch, Haste; cast Ghoul Hands, move in, alternate casting Color Spray or Flame Touch and attacking)

5% are buffer mages (they like to cast Strenght, Spirit Armor, Haste on [summoned] allies rather than attacking directly)

 

Cute. I like, in principle, but there are some implementation problems. Mainly (i) my allocation of defensive spells assumes specialist-level numbers of spell slots, so would need tweaking; (ii) close-range and buffer mages would probably need their own scripts, and probably should be selected nonrandomly from the list of mages). I'll keep it in mind for when I have time to do a more systematic rethink.

[the bigg]

yeah, I appreciate this would be nontrivial to do, especially Close Range mages (however, simply tossing Strength into the pool, and having the AI to cast it on the nearest Fighter or swapping it on the fly for a casting of Melf's Acid Arrow if no fighter is near me shouldn't be too hard).

Of course, close range and buffer mages are random examples of 'themed' mages, which allow for more variety than just sticking to a couple of different specialist mages (more variety could come at the cost of making ad-hoc script for the multiclasses, and more could be added in 'challenges' by actively turning a percentage of mages into multi/dualclasses).

[DavidW]

Just tidying up a bit, since we've got two distinct discussions going on here.

[Jarno Mikkola]

How often do you memorize Infravision?

Last time I did, I did so because of my 1st level fighters wese in real trouble fighting at night, as their thac0 was 22, as the night penalty was -3, and when they had the Infravision on, the thac0 raised up to 18, then the only bad thing was the enemy fireballs as they blinded my Infravisioned characters... and when the sun raised, I woke up.

 

(ii) it wouldn't actually help variety. It's not as if these mages are going to cast Identify in combat. It just means, in effecit, that they'll have fewer spells. So it would just be a way of making the game easier. (Note that vanilla-game mages don't do this either).

I do know that this is just an exception, but as you said, Borda should have far more spells memorized than he does.

I can even go so far as to definitely assume why he was 9th level mage(<-thief), it was because the makers wanted him to be able to cast the Magic Missile at level 9, aka 5 of them in one go. Let's leave him for now...

[DavidW]

(ii) it wouldn't actually help variety. It's not as if these mages are going to cast Identify in combat. It just means, in effecit, that they'll have fewer spells. So it would just be a way of making the game easier. (Note that vanilla-game mages don't do this either).

I do know that this is just an exception, but as you said, Borda should have far more spells memorized than he does.

Yeah, but he doesn't have useless alternative spells in those slots: he just doesn't have any spells.

[coaster]

Aren't there two kinds of "optimal" choices here? The first is the "tactical" choices of casting which spell upon whom (friend or foe). The second is the strategic choice of "what spell shall I memorise before I rest and meet PC & party".

 

I think everyone agrees that for the first choice we want the AI to fight as intelligently as possible with his or her given spells. What is more controversial is whether those given spells should be selected with the mindset of "I am going to meet PC & party so I will pick the more effective spell set available". I think the problem people have with this is that it implies some foresight on the part of the enemy NPC, the same sort of problem some people have with pre-buffing: the NPC is assumed to have spotted the PC coming across the brow of the hill, so buffs up before he/she meets PC & party. Here we assume the NPC knows they are going to meet the most dangerous enemy they will ever face so will pick the best spells they can lay their hands on.

 

Another dimension to this is "keeping the game interesting". I commented on the Bio boards (registered as Tragedian) that IA suffers from too much optimality in some respects - mages buffing up with a shedload of defensive spells then SI:Abjuration on top of that, so you need to spam Ruby Rays to peel away the layers of spell protections. I'm not particularly having a go at IA for doing this, but would just make the observation that variety is interesting and that fighting mages who do exactly the same thing as other mages can make the game a bit dull [obviously this point primarily applies to IA's defensive spells: fortunately there is more variety for offensive spells].

 

I'm not sure where I'm going with this and perhaps I don't have any firm conclusion. I like the bigg's idea of mixing things up even more. The tradeoff is whether this would add to the lags in the game generated by the scripts; does SCS have an "optimal use" of every single mage/priest spell, or are there some spells which are just "left out of the picture" completely?

 

The other thing I would appeal for, again in the spirit of variety, would be better use of kit abilities on the part of non-spellcasting enemies. It would be nice to meet fighters who are kensais, or wizard slayers. It would be nice to meet thieves who are assassins and poison their weapons. But I appreciate this is a huge extension of SCS into new territory.

 

cheers

 

coaster

[Jarno Mikkola]

does SCS have an "optimal use" of every single mage/priest spell, or are there some spells which are just "left out of the picture" completely?

From what I understand, the SCS(1) doesn't, but this is because the mages gain a random AI script during the installation of the mod(and this is better system), and their level variable then tells what spells they will gain. This is done to shorten the lags that might be made by the AI and give variety to the mages spells that optimizes their spell use.

 

What we(I am) are after here is that... we desire more distinct variety, so for example;

1) Summoners summon and buff their allies..

2) While lone blaster with few 5 levels lower subjects(goblins) to use effective area effect spells and teleport/invisible&move away, if not all the seen party members have haste active, and even if they do.

3) Thief/mage using invisibility and teleport as primary defense and 1 contingency like spell with a set trigger point.

4) Fighter/mage casting the spare spells first and then the primary melee spell and go for the lowest hitpoint/AC target.

5) Cleric/mage casting a legion of skeletons, few horror etc spells and healing himself/it's allies.

 

As without it, it makes the game very predictable and possibly really hard if you don't have the set party configuration... Although, I already know that the latest SCS already does a good job at it now.

[DavidW]

does SCS have an "optimal use" of every single mage/priest spell, or are there some spells which are just "left out of the picture" completely?

From what I understand, the SCS(1) doesn't, but this is because the mages gain a random AI script during the installation of the mod(and this is better system), and their level variable then tells what spells they will gain. This is done to shorten the lags that might be made by the AI and give variety to the mages spells that optimizes their spell use.

 

What we(I am) are after here is that... we desire more distinct variety,

Are you offering to write it? (Or pay for me to write it?)

 

... look, this is starting to become a rather different complaint. SCS (I claim) provides a lot more variety than the vanilla mage scripts do (I think you're forgetting how basic they are). If you want to say, "we want even more variety than that!" then to some extent I sympathise, but to some extent, I want to ask if you're offering to write this yourself. (After all, in principle every single encounter should be individually tailored to give a unique experience. But nobody is paying me, so there's no chance this will happen. The best you're going to get is a fairly sensitive algorithm and very occasional tailored encounters when I feel like writing one.)

 

so for example;

1) Summoners summon and buff their allies..

2) While lone blaster with few 5 levels lower subjects(goblins) to use effective area effect spells and teleport/invisible&move away, if not all the seen party members have haste active, and even if they do.

3) Thief/mage using invisibility and teleport as primary defense and 1 contingency like spell with a set trigger point.

4) Fighter/mage casting the spare spells first and then the primary melee spell and go for the lowest hitpoint/AC target.

5) Cleric/mage casting a legion of skeletons, few horror etc spells and healing himself/it's allies.

SCS does many of these things already (not all of them).

 

 

As without it, it makes the game very predictable

Again, I dispute that it makes the game more predictable than vanilla (or BP, or Tactics - IA is probably slightly better at getting variety, though).

and possibly really hard if you don't have the set party configuration...

I'm not sure what "the set party configuration" is. I also don't see why more variety = making it easier. It certainly shouldn't (again, this would break immersion.)