On Beholders

[Demivrgvs]

Hmm. Well, it must be some other mod, then. I'd guess Item Revisions, but I thought the only thing it does for the shield is remove it!

I haven't removed it, actually I've changed its animation, color, and background to make it a Mirror Shield.

 

Just my 2 cents on beholders. My only real "complain" is their Anti-magic Ray because it's clearly overpowered the way it has been implemented within this engine. Other than that I don't like too much the rate at which they can fire their rays because sometimes it feels overwhelming (not to mention that it makes them look like vulcan machine guns).

 

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way? If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

[Proteus_za]

Let me see... Basilisk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. Humber Hulk's gaze attacks come from the eyes. The beholder's rays come from the eyes, which seem a bit different from gun's barrells to me. Respect for your point and all others' point of view but I still believe beholder's magic attacks should be considered gaze attacks.

 

Superman's eye lasers come from his eyes - does that mean closing your eyes will prevent them from burning a whole through you?

 

IMHO, the origin of an attack doesnt determine its type. I mean, as I see it, Beholders are innately magical creatures, and thus, their "attacks" are really magical energy projected at you. They do so using their magic eyes, but just because the energy comes from their eyes, doesnt make them gaze attacks.

 

I mean, if a sorcerer uses a wand to cast a spell, does the spell now do bludgeoning ranged damage?

 

I find Beholders in SCS2 a little too powerful, especially with the improved beholders lair. Even using such "cheese" tactics such as the shield of balduran and cloak of reflection, when you attack one, the entire hive descends on you, and you die. Even sending only a single good fighter wearing the gear in doesnt help (I forget why, I think there is still some magical attack not blocked by the cheese), and any spell/potion protections he has are instantly dispelled.

[DavidW]

Hmm. Well, it must be some other mod, then. I'd guess Item Revisions, but I thought the only thing it does for the shield is remove it!

I haven't removed it, actually I've changed its animation, color, and background to make it a Mirror Shield.

 

Just my 2 cents on beholders. My only real "complain" is their Anti-magic Ray because it's clearly overpowered the way it has been implemented within this engine.

As always, within SCS I avoid modifying core-game resources without very good reason.

 

Other than that I don't like too much the rate at which they can fire their rays because sometimes it feels overwhelming (not to mention that it makes them look like vulcan machine guns).

Fair enough. Though being overwhelming basically fits my picture of beholders - they do, after all, get eleven magic attacks per round. (I accept that in vanilla D&D, facing restricts this to some degree, but that isn't really implementable.)

 

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way?

Yes, in the last macro in scsii/beholder/beholder.tph. The code is reasonably friendly to previous changes, though.

 

If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

 

Look at scsii/beholder/beholder_antimagic.ssl to see what my current use for the ray is - that should tell you what does and doesn't cause problems.

 

You might want to make it a separate component, though - it's not obviously a "spell revision" in the usual sense.

[DavidW]

I find Beholders in SCS2 a little too powerful, especially with the improved beholders lair.

That's why the lair is optional. (I don't use it myself, generally.)

[Demivrgvs]

My only real "complain" is their Anti-magic Ray because it's clearly overpowered the way it has been implemented within this engine.

As always, within SCS I avoid modifying core-game resources without very good reason.

Yeah, but vanilla beholders used the anti-magic ray extremely less often, making its overpowerness less noticeable and less annoying. Am I wrong?

 

Other than that I don't like too much the rate at which they can fire their rays because sometimes it feels overwhelming (not to mention that it makes them look like vulcan machine guns).

Fair enough. Though being overwhelming basically fits my picture of beholders - they do, after all, get eleven magic attacks per round. (I accept that in vanilla D&D, facing restricts this to some degree, but that isn't really implementable.)

It usually fits my picture too but if rays are distribuited among targets...6-9 rays in a round at a single target are really too much imo. Speaking of the number of rays, do you know how many of them are used per round (a gauth should have less rays per round)?

 

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way?

Yes, in the last macro in scsii/beholder/beholder.tph. The code is reasonably friendly to previous changes, though.

It seems that avoiding multiple headers and global effects should be enough.

 

If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

Look at scsii/beholder/beholder_antimagic.ssl to see what my current use for the ray is - that should tell you what does and doesn't cause problems.

I can see only one possible issue: removing/reducing the spellfailure effect of the antimagic rays. It may cause beholders to shoot consecutive antimagic rays to spellcasters (even when there's nothing to dispel) because the script searches for targets with less than 100% spellfailure. Correct?

 

You might want to make it a separate component, though - it's not obviously a "spell revision" in the usual sense.

Yeah, it wasn't my intention to implement such changes with the main component of SR.

[DavidW]

My only real "complain" is their Anti-magic Ray because it's clearly overpowered the way it has been implemented within this engine.

As always, within SCS I avoid modifying core-game resources without very good reason.

Yeah, but vanilla beholders used the anti-magic ray extremely less often, making its overpowerness less noticeable and less annoying. Am I wrong?

 

I don't honestly know - the vanilla script is a bit odd and not well structured. In principle it actually allows for the rays to be used more than once per round each - in practice, perhaps not. It would fairly sensitively depend on the situation.

 

Other than that I don't like too much the rate at which they can fire their rays because sometimes it feels overwhelming (not to mention that it makes them look like vulcan machine guns).

Fair enough. Though being overwhelming basically fits my picture of beholders - they do, after all, get eleven magic attacks per round. (I accept that in vanilla D&D, facing restricts this to some degree, but that isn't really implementable.)

It usually fits my picture too but if rays are distribuited among targets...6-9 rays in a round at a single target are really too much imo.

As I say, game engine limitation: it's not really possible to specify how many rays are used per target in a round. (More accurately, it's not possible without major code bloat, and at c.15,000 lines, beholder code is on the edge of too long as it is.) Having said this, in practice I'm surprised if an SCS beholder uses its rays all against one target when multiple targets are available.

 

Speaking of the number of rays, do you know how many of them are used per round (a gauth should have less rays per round)?

Each ray gets used once per round. Beholders have ten rays, gauth has five. (This is pretty directly from 2nd edition AD&D.)

 

 

I can see only one possible issue: removing/reducing the spellfailure effect of the antimagic rays. It may cause beholders to shoot consecutive antimagic rays to spellcasters (even when there's nothing to dispel) because the script searches for targets with less than 100% spellfailure. Correct?

 

Sounds right to me: modifying that effect is going to lead to fairly serious targetting non-optimality.

[Salk]

Superman's eye lasers come from his eyes - does that mean closing your eyes will prevent them from burning a whole through you?

 

This is a no argument. I am taking a model used in the right context (Umber Hulks and Basilisks are part of the game Baldur's Gate and follow the same rules, Superman or Goldrake have nothing to do with the subject).

 

IMHO, the origin of an attack doesnt determine its type. I mean, as I see it, Beholders are innately magical creatures, and thus, their "attacks" are really magical energy projected at you. They do so using their magic eyes, but just because the energy comes from their eyes, doesnt make them gaze attacks.

 

If the origin of an attack doesn't determine its type why are Humber Hulk's and Basilisk's attacks defined as "gaze attacks"?

 

I mean, if a sorcerer uses a wand to cast a spell, does the spell now do bludgeoning ranged damage?

 

Illogical. The wand is just the container for magical power. There is a specific save (vs Wand) just to define a specific type of spell. The "gaze attack" is another specific type of magical attack. The effects are so similar to some spell effects that we, as convention, call them in the same way (Sleep, Confusion, Disintegrate, ecc.) but they are - in my opinion - really unique.

 

What I contested is that I didn't take for granted that a gaze attack needs eye contact, but I changed my mind when I realized I was using the "gaze attack" term improperly.

[Salk]

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way? If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

 

I'd welcome that, together with a revision that would reduce the ray attacks rate to something a little less effective than a burst of a rifle.

[DavidW]

IMHO, the origin of an attack doesnt determine its type. I mean, as I see it, Beholders are innately magical creatures, and thus, their "attacks" are really magical energy projected at you. They do so using their magic eyes, but just because the energy comes from their eyes, doesnt make them gaze attacks.

 

If the origin of an attack doesn't determine its type why are Humber Hulk's and Basilisk's attacks defined as "gaze attacks"?

 

Precisely because they require eye contact.

 

(If you want to say that "gaze attacks" are definitionally eye-launched attacks then you're welcome to use language that way, but then I'm not sure what the actual importance is of calling them gaze attacks.)

[DavidW]

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way? If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

 

I'd welcome that, together with a revision that would reduce the ray attacks rate to something a little less effective than a burs of a rifle.

 

Anyone is welcome to do this, of course - but if you're doing so, I think you're modding SCSII, not vanilla BG2. That means putting the modifications in a mod designed to be installed relatively early in the install order is probably a bad idea.

 

If you want to release the "fixes to idiot decisions in SCSII" mod, to be installed (one assumes) directly after SCSII, please be my guest!

[Salk]

P.S DavidW, does SCS modifies rays .spl file in any way? If not I may provide in some way a slight revision of them, for example the Anti-magic ray could allow a save, or have a much less effective "spell failure" effect, ... Obviously I'd try to make it as friendly as I can to SCS's scripts.

 

I'd welcome that, together with a revision that would reduce the ray attacks rate to something a little less effective than a burs of a rifle.

 

Anyone is welcome to do this, of course - but if you're doing so, I think you're modding SCSII, not vanilla BG2. That means putting the modifications in a mod designed to be installed relatively early in the install order is probably a bad idea.

 

If you want to release the "fixes to idiot decisions in SCSII" mod, to be installed (one assumes) directly after SCSII, please be my guest!

 

It was not my idea. It's Demivrgvs'. I just happen to agree with it.

 

And honestly I don't believe there is a single idiotic decision in SCS. On the contrary... It's just that for my own taste few decisions could be different. As usual, just a matter of taste...

[razlyubleno]

If you want to release the "fixes to idiot decisions in SCSII" mod, to be installed (one assumes) directly after SCSII, please be my guest!

Haha. You've got your own insurgency now.

 

That is, alas, the price of success.

 

razly

[DavidW]

If you want to release the "fixes to idiot decisions in SCSII" mod, to be installed (one assumes) directly after SCSII, please be my guest!

Haha. You've got your own insurgency now.

 

That is, alas, the price of success.

 

razly

 

I'm not even being sarcastic - I'm perfectly happy with people modding SCSII if they want to, and I also think they'd be perfectly entitled to even if I didn't want them to.

[razlyubleno]

I'm not even being sarcastic - I'm perfectly happy with people modding SCSII if they want to, and I also think they'd be perfectly entitled to even if I didn't want them to.

But don't you think it's so much easier to complain? The alternative is, uhm, to learn SSL.

 

razly

[Demivrgvs]

Obviously I wasn't claiming to"fix idiotic decisions", I was simply trying to see if I could be able to please players, as some complains about beholders seem quite common.

 

It appears that nerfing the antimagic ray effects themselves is far from being free from bounderies, thus the main other thing left is 'how many rays are used per round'.

 

Is spellcasting time assigned to the .spl files taken into account? In that case tweaking these values probably is the only way to reduce the rate at which they are fired without having to modify scripts.