Jump to content

Feedback


Recommended Posts

Yay for that, really! Our current roster looks like this:

Non-detection as minor SI: Divination (allows save for detection).

Impregnable Mind and Mind Blank as SI: Enchantments.

Death Ward as minor SI: Necromancy (only against deadly effects).

Spell Shield as limited SI: Abjuration.

Other protection spells are good substitute for SI: Evocation.

 

And I think that it looks much better than terribly overpowered Spell Immunity.

 

And yes for MB being caster-only. Buffs are for clerics!

 

i second that motion :)

Link to post

Spell Immunity

Yay for that, really! Our current roster looks like this:

Non-detection as minor SI: Divination (allows save for detection).

Impregnable Mind and Mind Blank as SI: Enchantments.

Death Ward as minor SI: Necromancy (only against deadly effects).

Spell Shield as limited SI: Abjuration.

Other protection spells are good substitute for SI: Evocation.

 

And I think that it looks much better than terribly overpowered Spell Immunity.

i second that motion :D
You forgot that within SR True Seeing is also a full SI:Illusion as per PnP.

 

Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.
Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think? :)
Link to post
Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.
Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think? :)

 

Oh, that rings a bell. I use SI: Evocation occasionally too, though. I don't think I use any of the others, though I'm at work and can't readily check.

 

On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)

Link to post
Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.
Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think? :)
Oh, that rings a bell. I use SI: Evocation occasionally too, though. I don't think I use any of the others, though I'm at work and can't readily check.
Well, SR's Protection from Energy grants immunity to each and every Invocation spell (except Web, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill - which in fact are Conjurations in 3rd edition) thus I could replace spwi595 with it.

 

P.S speaking of which, it's quite easy to notice how ridiculously overpowered Spell Immunity is when you see that both Mind Blank (which is exactly SI:Enchantment) and ProEnergy (aka SI:Evocation) are 8th lvl spells but SI alone can do both things and much more with a 5th lvl spell slot. There's a good reason Spell Immunity never existed in PnP (at least not in this form, because there it's a 4th lvl divine spell with a much much lesser effect).

 

On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)
Good point. As of V3 this problem doesn't exist because I never change the secondary type of any spell (well I do because Non-detection was erroneously flagged as Illusionary Protection, but it's another story) but I admit that like replacing SI:Evo (Spell Protection) with Pro Energy (Specific Protection) may confuse DS depending on how DS is coded. :D

 

Does DS looks for opcode 204 before flagging spwi59# with opcode 282 as WIZARD_SPELL_IMMUNITY or does it flag those spells as such regardless their effects?

Link to post
P.S speaking of which, it's quite easy to notice how ridiculously overpowered Spell Immunity is when you see that both Mind Blank (which is exactly SI:Enchantment) and ProEnergy (aka SI:Evocation) are 8th lvl spells but SI alone can do both things and much more with a 5th lvl spell slot. There's a good reason Spell Immunity never existed in PnP (at least not in this form, because there it's a 4th lvl divine spell with a much much lesser effect).

 

Hang on, something's wrong there. Mind Blank isn't in vanilla BG2, so the fact that you give it a level higher than SI isn't independent of your antecedent belief that SI is overpowered. Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration. Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions.

 

Put it another way. Is SI really the first spell every PC wizard memorises as soon as they get 5th level spell slots? Or even the 3rd? It's not when I play. SI:Abj and SI:Div are occasionally useful for PC wizards as part of an overall buffing pattern, but SI:Ench and SI:Evoc are rarely worth the slot and the time taken to cast them, given that any given wizard's attacks can probably be drawn from a variety of schools and given that you're only protecting one character.

Link to post
P.S speaking of which, it's quite easy to notice how ridiculously overpowered Spell Immunity is when you see that both Mind Blank (which is exactly SI:Enchantment) and ProEnergy (aka SI:Evocation) are 8th lvl spells but SI alone can do both things and much more with a 5th lvl spell slot. There's a good reason Spell Immunity never existed in PnP (at least not in this form, because there it's a 4th lvl divine spell with a much much lesser effect).
Hang on, something's wrong there. Mind Blank isn't in vanilla BG2, so the fact that you give it a level higher than SI isn't independent of your antecedent belief that SI is overpowered.
The fact is that I'm not the one giving Mind Blank a higher level than SI, it's PnP. BG Spell Immunity is an invention of BG developers, and the vast majority of players agree they created an OP spell.

 

Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration.
You do have a point here.

 

Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions.
The problem is that you have two caps to how many spells you can learn per level, an in-game roleplaying one (depending on INT, but having 4-5 SI in the spellbook isn't great even if you have INT 18) and a technical one (sorcerers can only learn spells from that 24 spells per level limited list, you can't have 8 SI in such list).

 

Put it another way. Is SI really the first spell every PC wizard memorises as soon as they get 5th level spell slots? Or even the 3rd? It's not when I play. SI:Abj and SI:Div are occasionally useful for PC wizards as part of an overall buffing pattern, but SI:Ench and SI:Evoc are rarely worth the slot and the time taken to cast them, given that any given wizard's attacks can probably be drawn from a variety of schools and given that you're only protecting one character.
That's because SI works much much better for the AI rather than players. Unlike players the AI can use its full spellbook in a single encounter, thus using a couple of slots for SI is much cheaper for it compared, whereas as a player you cannot afford a SI-based buff for each encounter as you would seriously miss other spells such as Breach (a spell you need almost any time you face a mage, and you often need it more than once per encounter!). The AI doesn't even care about SI low duration because it lasts long enough to cover the entire single encounter it has to face, nor about its casting time because it can easily cast multiple SI via contingencies or triggers. Furthermore many roleplaying players probably don't even use the double rest trick to walk around with all contingencies/triggers active and a replenished spellbook (I don't), whereas AI mages are perfectly fine with it (even from a roleplaying point of view) because they aren't supposed to run into tons of fights every day of their lives (thus they probably have the same contingencies/triggers stored for days, if not weeks). Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post
The fact is that I'm not the one giving Mind Blank a higher level than SI, it's PnP. BG Spell Immunity is an invention of BG developers, and the vast majority of players agree they created an OP spell.

Leaving aside my points about Mind Blank's greater power, which you accept, I'm not much moved by pure PnP concerns. The BG2 spellcasting context is quite different (and in any case, 2nd edition spell level assignments are hardly immune from criticism).

 

I'm also not sure what the significance is of your comment about "the vast majority of players" (even if it's correct, which I'm sceptical about - people who are happy with things aren't likely to comment). The salient issue, presumably, is the quality of the arguments, not the number of supporters.

 

 

Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration.
You do have a point here.

 

Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions.
The problem is that you have two caps to how many spells you can learn per level, an in-game roleplaying one (depending on INT, but having 4-5 SI in the spellbook isn't great even if you have INT 18) and a technical one (sorcerers can only learn spells from that 24 spells per level limited list, you can't have 8 SI in such list).

Granted; in that case, I retract my support for getting rid of the single-use version.

 

I won't quote the discussion of how SI is more useful to enemy wizards than player ones, because I don't particularly disagree. But if we're discussing whether it's overpowered for enemy wizards, then the fact that it's useable in eight different ways becomes basically irrelevant, because no enemy AI I know takes advantage of that flexibility. In this situation, it comes down to a direct comparison, and that comparison seems to work out okay to me.

 

In more detail: grant, for the sake of argument, that Mind Blank should indeed be 8th level. It provides immunity to all mental attack forms, including but not limited to enchantments, and it has a long duration, and iirc, it's castable on other creatures, not just on the caster. In comparison, SI:Ench is caster-only, has a short duration, and protects only from enchantment-school mental attack forms. A three-level difference doesn't seem crazy in that circumstance. Certainly one level difference seems too little. (I wouldn't go overboard for 5th level versus 6th, but overall there's a game-interest case for spreading out spells a bit, and 6th is usually pretty oversubscribed... and in any case, in SCS I nearly always use SI via sequencers and contingencies, so 5th vs 6th is irrelevant) Similar arguments apply for Pro/Elements vs SI:Evoc.

 

Now, granted: enemy wizards are usually less affected by these restrictions than PCs: they don't tend to get attacked by mind flayers, and they tend not to be too disadvantaged by duration (though I don't use SI as a long-term buff precisely because it's got a short duration, so the duration is only irrelevant for players who choose prebuff option 1). But that's not a reason to ignore the restrictions when assigning a level to the spell, any more than the fact that enemy wizards find Fireball very hard to use compared to the player is a reason to lower its level.

Link to post
On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)
I don't think this is a problem. Instead of spell protection (SI) there'll be specific protections (MB, ProEnergy, etc.) - AI won't detect vanilla SI, but it will notice the Chaotic Commands like effect.

Of course, it requires DS to check for SR and execute an additional set of patches for it's changes, but I see nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)
I don't think this is a problem. Instead of spell protection (SI) there'll be specific protections (MB, ProEnergy, etc.) - AI won't detect vanilla SI, but it will notice the Chaotic Commands like effect.

Of course, it requires DS to check for SR and execute an additional set of patches for it's changes, but I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Nothing technical. But I'm not really keen on having the SCS version of DS keep track of every spell modification made by third-party mods, so I think if SR is making these changes to protection spells, it would make sense for it to ship with its own chunk of DS. The DS code is robust against being installed multiple times.

 

EDIT: come to think of it, a cleaner solution is just for SR to supply its own version of the control table for DS, and dump it in (e.g.) the override. I'm happy to get SCS to look for it, and then use the SR version of the control table if it exists.

Edited by DavidW
Link to post

I know I should work only on IR instead of spending time here, but I find these discussions too fun/interesting to resist. :)

 

The salient issue, presumably, is the quality of the arguments, not the number of supporters.
Point taken. :D

 

Regarding DS implementation/compatibility I take for granted that in a way or another it's doable, and when the time comes I'm sure we'll be able to handle it. Thus I'll focus on the ideas behind the suggested changes which is what really interest me.

 

The thing I probably haven't made enough clear is that for SR I want to take into account both the 'concept' and the in-game implementation, whereas SCS probably cares only for the latter (I'm not saying it's a bad thing).

 

Concept: for SCS the fact that SI can be used as 8 different spells is not an "issue" because it simply considers it as 8 different spells, whereas for me it's a single spell doing what 8 different spells should do.

 

Implementation: for SCS you've added a tweak to "justify" the use of SI within contincencies and triggers. AS I've described above (and you seemed to partially agree) I cannot have such tweak within SR because it would overfill the 24 spells per lvl cap. Using pre-existing and different spells partially eliminates the need of this tweak imo, because you can use Non-detection, Spell Shield and so on within contingencies and triggers.

 

Concept (again): even without the 24 spells cap I find it a very bad design concept having 8 SI spells in the 5th lvl slots for quite a lot of reasons, which can be summed up to:

* some SI spells are too powerful for a 5th lvl spell slot

* some SI spells are too weak for a 5th lvl spell slot

* almost any SI spell already has an equivalent spell which can fullfill its role

 

SI:Divination is not worth a 5th lvl slot, though it's still very appealing for the AI, and even for players because Non-detection doesn't work as it should. PnP Non-detection can fullfill SI:Div role as a much cheaper and more unique spell.

 

SI:Abjuration doesn't even work as per description/concept, because 90% of Abjuration spells work against it. That's sad from my point of view. A fixed and slightly tweaked Spell Shield can fullfill SI:Abj role without incongruences.

 

SI:Evocation is worth at least a 6th or 7th lvl slot. ProEnergy probably deserves to be one or two levels higher but not three. You're right that ProEnergy grants protection from a bunch of Conjuration spells, but it also doesn't protect from Web, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill like SI:Evo. Not to mention that any 5th lvl Protection from Fire/Cold/Lightning/Acid spell simply pales compared to SI:Evo imo.

 

SI:Enchantment is worth at least a 6th lvl slot imo. Mind Blank probably deserves to be two levels higher but not three. Also note that within SR SI:Enchantment also protects from the entire Power Word serie of spells.

 

SI:Necromancy is more powerful than Death Ward, but it cannot be cast on others, thus 5th lvl may be fine.

 

SI:Transmutation is too situational to determine its true power, but it's mostly unappealing. If it granted immunity to Time Stop it would be a different story (perhaps OP), but right now it's quite unappealing for a 5th lvl slot.

 

SI:Conjuration within vanilla BG is too situational to be appealing, within SR V3 it's even worse because PW spells are not conjurations anymore, and with V4 it might become completely useless because I planned to make Symbol spells belong to the Universal school.

 

SI:Illusion as a single spell would be simply pathetic. With SR V4 I'll probably add a couple of offensive Illusion spells (Phantasmal Killer and Weird) but it's not going to make SI:Ill appealing.

 

 

Having different spells with different names and concepts distributed between various levels accordingly with their efficiency is much better imo than having tons of 5th lvl spells in the same slot, with the same name/concept, varying effectiveness, and a bunch of incongruences (e.g. why on earth SI:Abj doesn't protect from most Abjurations?). Don't you agree?

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post

I think the real difference (although it overlaps your "concept vs implementation" distinction) is that in SR, your thinking is basically "what would the best spell system look like if designed from scratch?", whereis in SCS I'm considering "what aspects of the existing spell system are sufficiently problematic that they need to be changed?". In addition, you're asking: what does SI look like when we allow for all the other changes made to the spell system in SR? I'm asking: what does SI look like relative to the vanilla spell system?

 

If I were to ask your questions, rather than mine, then probably I wouldn't include Spell Immunity in my designed-from-scratch spell system. It's a cute idea, but on balance I think the costs outweigh the advantages.

 

But redesigning the spell system from scratch isn't what SCS is about. (And, in this particular case, supporting multiple options isn't really viable as the buff/antibuff aspect of SCS's smarter mages is too core for me to be willing to support multiple versions.) So for me (and therefore, unfortunately, for anyone else who wants to change the mage defence system while maintaining SCS compatibility) the question has to be mine: is SI sufficiently problematic (either at all, or as a 5th level spell) that it really needs to be changed? The bar is relatively high here: comparable changes in SCS are allowing Breach to be blocked by Spell Turning, giving areas of effect to antimagic, and increasing the strength of Mantle - though the latter was a borderline choice for me.

 

So, looking at your case-by-case analysis (and restricting attention to the vanilla situation, which has to be the point of comparison for SCS):

 

- I agree that SI:Trans, SI:Conj, SI:Ill are unattractive. That doesn't especially bother me from an SCS perspective: they can stay as part of the overall flavour of the SI spell.

 

- We're both happy with SI: Nec.

 

- You think SI: Div is underpowered, which surprises me. It's a very powerful protective spell for a mage: II + SI:Div is the key to staying unBreached. I suppose I wouldn't go to the wall to stop it being 4th level, but +/- 1 level doesn't hugely bother me from an SCS perspective. (And of course if it's part of SI, then the overall spell might justifiably be 5th level even though this component would be 4th level as a standalone.)

 

- You think SI: Ench is worth a 6th level slot. I'm not sure why (at least within vanilla; I concede that if you throw in protection from power words, things might change, but that's not salient for SCS). Chaotic Commands does everything SI: Ench does, has a far longer duration, keeps off psionic attacks that aren't in the enchantment school, and can be cast on others. But in any case, even if I were convinced it ideally should be 6th level, from an SCS point of view that's not a big enough change to justify shifting the status quo.

 

- You say that "any 5th level Protection from Fire/Cold/Lightning/Acid spell simply pales compared to SI:Evo". As I recall, Protection from Fire/Cold is 3rd level in vanilla, but in any case, which would you rather have available when facing Firkraag? (And don't forget that protection from Fire can be cast on other party members.) Again, I think you're underestimating the benefits of long duration, castability on others, and protection from non-spell attack forms. And again, even if I were convinced that ideally SI:Evo should be 6th level rather than 5th, that's not enough of a problem to justify changing it in SCS. (I put my money where my mouth is here, incidentally: SI:Evo turns up pretty rarely in my prebuff routines.)

 

- Conceptually speaking I've some sympathy with your annoyance at SI:Abj... but not much - I don't see a problem with the idea that some spells can bypass Spell Immunity, and if those happen to be mostly abjurations, so be it. Implementation-wise, immunity to dispel magic seems to be roughly worth a 5th level slot.

 

Regarding your more general comments:

 

(1) I agree that the technical constraints are annoying. Ultimately they don't bother me hugely, though: by all means let's suppose that sorcerors don't get access to these particuar spells. (There are no sorcerors in SCS, so it's not like I'm breaking that rule elsewhere.)

 

(2) I think it's only true that all SI spells have equivalent spells if SR is installed. Relative to vanilla:

 

- nothing can replace SI: Abj or SI: Div, so far as I can see

- SI: Ench and SI: Nec are roughly but not entirely equivalent to certain priest spells, but don't have a mage equivalent

- SI: Alt, SI: Ill and SI: Conj are fairly ineffectual, so unsurprisingly don't have equivalents

- the nearest equivalent to SI:Evo is the (imo much more powerful, and so much higher level) Pro/Elem.

 

(3) As a side point, do I take it that stacking SI: per se, doesn't bother you? (I'm assuming that because if you're replacing SI's various components with similar spells at different levels, presumably they will be stackable.)

 

This is an interesting discussion, by the way. I'm deeply bored of people (not you) saying "SI is overpowered" or "it's cheesy to stack SI" or the like without bothering to give arguments. I'm mostly not persuaded by your arguments, but it's nice to actually get some!

Link to post
nothing can replace SI: Abj or SI: Div, so far as I can see

SR4 can introduce neat implementation of Spell Shield and PnP Non-Detection (which instead of making you immune to Divinations, allows saving throw). Spell Shield is far more usefull and... just balanced than SI: Abjuration. Non-Detection is lower level spell, but it's effect isn't as cheesy as absolute immunity to divinations.

 

- We're both happy with SI: Nec.

Maybe Protection from Negative Plane should work like that? For example Chilling Touch is damaging character by channeling Negative Energy - why not to make it protect you against it? And from most of damaging necromantic spells? That'd make this spell a lot more usefull (to be honest: without vampires attacking you for long part of the game that'd be just pathetic spell).

 

And against deadly attacks we do have Death Ward.

 

Well, clerics gets most of buffs and protections which I think is nothing wrong.

 

SI: Ill

As Demi said, there is True Seeing.

 

Also: if I can throw my three cents to this discussion - why to bother with changing SI: Everything into few distinctive spells? My argument is: SI protects you against schools, SR protects you against more specific attacks. SI allows players to abuse mechanical stuff (like near-to-unbeatable SI:D with Improved Invisibility) which is a) cheap b) terrifyingly effective. It's current implementation lacks of finesse and well... possibility of stopping it, even if you're correctly prepared. Characters abusing SI are sometimes just like "Hah, I've got immunity to everything and you suck". Also SI is just too versatile. When learning Non-Detection, True Seeing or Spell Shield you're deciding what sort of danger is going to wait for you. Learning SI is close to automatic, it's just "Well, no matter what it's going to rule".

Link to post
nothing can replace SI: Abj or SI: Div, so far as I can see

SR4 can introduce neat implementation of Spell Shield and PnP Non-Detection

If you read up one line from that quote, you'll see that I was specifically discussing the situation relative to vanilla.

 

 

Maybe Protection from Negative Plane should work like that? For example Chilling Touch is damaging character by channeling Negative Energy - why not to make it protect you against it? And from most of damaging necromantic spells? That'd make this spell a lot more usefull (to be honest: without vampires attacking you for long part of the game that'd be just pathetic spell).

That's a slightly odd comment. The point of the spell is to protect you from energy drain, so yes: the spell would be pretty useless if nothing attacked you with energy drain. Similarly, Truesight would be pretty pointless if no-one ever used illusions against you.

 

 

SI allows players to abuse mechanical stuff (like near-to-unbeatable SI:D with Improved Invisibility) which is a) cheap b) terrifyingly effective.

 

Can you define "cheap"?

 

It's current implementation lacks of finesse and well... possibility of stopping it, even if you're correctly prepared.

 

In either SR or SCS, you can counter it with an anti-magic attack.

 

Characters abusing SI are sometimes just like "Hah, I've got immunity to everything and you suck".

 

Can you define "abusing"?

 

Also SI is just too versatile. When learning Non-Detection, True Seeing or Spell Shield you're deciding what sort of danger is going to wait for you. Learning SI is close to automatic, it's just "Well, no matter what it's going to rule".

 

Is learning SI close to automatic for you when you play? It's pretty low down my priority list for 5th level spells, personally speaking (and it rarely seems to get onto people's lists of recommended sorcerer spells).

Link to post
I think the real difference is that in SR, your thinking is basically "what would the best spell system look like if designed from scratch?", whereis in SCS I'm considering "what aspects of the existing spell system are sufficiently problematic that they need to be changed?". In addition, you're asking: what does SI look like when we allow for all the other changes made to the spell system in SR? I'm asking: what does SI look like relative to the vanilla spell system?
Point taken, though I'm mostly taking into account PnP spell system (have I mentioned SI doesn't exist there? :D ), I'm not designing it from scratch. That being said, I suppose you'd consider any change to vanilla BG the same from SCS point of view, be it from PnP or Demi's delusioned mind. :D

 

The thing is that without SCS tweak to SI you'd have AI mages "cheat" by using SI within contingencies and triggers, but with your tweak we're creating a mess imo. Sorcerers cannot learn the multiple version, and mages have both single and multiple version of SI, which is even worse imo. :) In this "environment" I'd probably prefer to remove the single version from both sorcerers and mages, though I don't know how to "justify" such thing. It would be easy to justify a rare spell being available only to mages who find an ancient scroll, but SI is used by pretty much any mage within SCS. :)

 

If I were to ask your questions, rather than mine, then probably I wouldn't include Spell Immunity in my designed-from-scratch spell system.
:p

 

But redesigning the spell system from scratch isn't what SCS is about. And, in this particular case, supporting multiple options isn't really viable as the buff/antibuff aspect of SCS's smarter mages is too core for me to be willing to support multiple versions.
That's why our plan didn't included any change on your side. We were trying to make sure SCS worked fine without forcing any multiple options.

 

- I agree that SI:Trans, SI:Conj, SI:Ill are unattractive. That doesn't especially bother me from an SCS perspective: they can stay as part of the overall flavour of the SI spell.
Well, it do bothers me when SI becomes 8 different spells as per SCS tweak. I obviously doesn't care if they are useless as long as SI remains a single spell.

 

- You think SI: Div is underpowered, which surprises me. ...
Well, I do said it's quite appealing for a 5th lvl slot, but that's because Non-detection doesn't work as it should. If the latter spell worked as per PnP than SI:Div would be quite unappealing (not to mention Non-detection can be cast on others and lasts an eternity).

 

- You think SI: Ench is worth a 6th level slot. I'm not sure why (at least within vanilla; I concede that if you throw in protection from power words, things might change, but that's not salient for SCS). Chaotic Commands does everything SI: Ench does, has a far longer duration, keeps off psionic attacks that aren't in the enchantment school, and can be cast on others.
Ok, on second though it may be fine as a 5th lvl spell, mainly because of the "caster only" thing. I also might have understimated the amount of supernatural abilities like psionic domination, vampire's dominating gaze, or hulk's confusing gaze. On a side note, vanilla's CC doesn't protect from most psionic attacks too.

 

- You say that "any 5th level Protection from Fire/Cold/Lightning/Acid spell simply pales compared to SI:Evo". As I recall, Protection from Fire/Cold is 3rd level in vanilla, but in any case, which would you rather have available when facing Firkraag? (And don't forget that protection from Fire can be cast on other party members.) Again, I think you're underestimating the benefits of long duration, castability on others, and protection from non-spell attack forms. And again, even if I were convinced that ideally SI:Evo should be 6th level rather than 5th, that's not enough of a problem to justify changing it in SCS. (I put my money where my mouth is here, incidentally: SI:Evo turns up pretty rarely in my prebuff routines.)
I do take into account duration, castability on others (this alone is almost worth a full +1 level imo), and protection from non-spell attack forms, but I think a 6th lvl slot would fit better than a 5th.

 

- Conceptually speaking I've some sympathy with your annoyance at SI:Abj... but not much - I don't see a problem with the idea that some spells can bypass Spell Immunity, and if those happen to be mostly abjurations, so be it. Implementation-wise, immunity to dispel magic seems to be roughly worth a 5th level slot.
I have serious problems instead when a spell doesn't do what its description says. In fact there are still tons of players around thinking SI:Abj protects from Spell Removals.

 

As a side point, do I take it that stacking SI: per se, doesn't bother you? (I'm assuming that because if you're replacing SI's various components with similar spells at different levels, presumably they will be stackable.)
Well, it did, in particular II + SI:Div + SI:Abj (the latter didn't added much in vanilla to this absurd combo, but made sure not even Keldorn could do something against it, making it the ultimate cheesiness), but since we now allow many spell removals to bypass II my main issue against it is gone. Speaking of which, such tweak is also the only reason I can bear the simple SI:Div + II combo, but then again, using PnP Non-detection would completely remove the need for such tweak (and I personally don't like much spell removals such as RRoR having an AoE), as II + Non-detection would be still very effective, but far from unbeatable.

 

This is an interesting discussion, by the way. I'm deeply bored of people (not you) saying "SI is overpowered" or "it's cheesy to stack SI" or the like without bothering to give arguments. I'm mostly not persuaded by your arguments, but it's nice to actually get some!
Thanks. I like these discussions because I can usually learn a thing ot two myself from them (for example in these last posts you've persuaded me quite a few times :laugh: ).

 

 

The question is: as long as we manage to make sure SCS AI works fine as before without changing its scripts, isn't it ok for us to remove SI?

 

Last but not least, if we fix and reintroduce Spell Shield I do need to remove one 5th lvl spell to avoid the cap, and SI is a good canditate indeed. Then I would have two ways of proceeding:

a) replacing the various SI spells with equivalent spells such as Non-detection, Spell Shield, ProEnergy, Mind Blank

b) keep 8 mage-only scrolls with the various SI spells, more or less like you do within SCS (but removing the single use version from both sorc and mages).

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...