Jump to content

Feedback


Recommended Posts

If you think improving "armor spells" could seriously benefit mage duels I'd be glad to work on it.

I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot.

 

Clerics
It's even more strange for me when you say that you cannot make clerics last. They surely don't miss hit points and AC like mages, and they do have tremendous buffs (especially within SR). Do they really need things like PfMW to pose a serious threat? :D
Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs.
? I was speaking of buffs not affected by Breach such as Divine Might (Champion's Strength is better later on) or Divine Power, but I forgot they weren't so great in vanilla. :)

Are they so helpful as defences?

 

PnP Non-detection

If I'm understanding correctly, you're effectively telling me that N-D effectively (for my purposes) grants a saving throw vs. Truesight. Which is neat (technically as well as conceptually) but it doesn't to me obviate the need for players to be able to do something to remove the invisibility that doesn't rely on them waiting till the enemy fails a save (which at high levels is a seriously long time).

 

(Again, I can believe that in a systematic SR install, with save penalties et al, that's less of an issue, but I need to consider the vanilla game.)

 

Breach

Speaking of how easily Breach destroys clerics buffs reminded me an old doubt I never dared to speak about...isn't Breach really too powerful? :) I mean, a single mid-lvl spell with no save nor magic resistance check that can dispel even dozens of combat/specific protections at once is kinda insane if you ask me.

 

I don't have strong views, but I could easily be persuaded that Breach should remove Stoneskin and pro/weapons spells but not as much else as it currently does. I'm less keen on it offering a saving throw for the same reason as above. It's something I'd want to implement as an SCS component if it's deemed a good idea. On balance I think it could be: it would make keeping clerics alive a helluva lot easier.

 

Come to think of it, I could even see a case for restricting Breach to arcane spells.

 

... make me an offer.

 

Oh, one leftover bit of business from earlier discussions of SI. I now see why to you it's relatively important whether SI is one spell or eight. I guess I've always seen the eight-spell thing as no more than a workaround for the difficulty in putting SI into contingencies (notwithstanding the fact that enemies have been doing it ever since the vanilla game). In-game, I'm happy to justify it as just reflecting the fact that SI is a delicate spell and a wizard wanting to contingency-ise it needs to do some extra, specific, research. (And I'm relaxed about the fact that those crude sorcerer types just lack the finesse to cope with SI in contingencies). I was coming around to your dislike of SI:Abj, but I've been reminded by other bits of this thread just how useful and relevant immunity to Remove Magic is, especially in these post-Taimon days. So for me, I remain happy with SI, with the sole exception being the annoying issue of targetting antimagic on II characters. I tentatively think I can improve on my extant area-effect solution to that last problem, but I need to do some tests. Little of this, I think, interferes with your proposal to modify SCS's use of SI via SR, except for one residual question: what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?

Link to post

AC spells

Not long ago Ardanis suggested me to make Ghost Armor and Spirit Armor improve with caster level (as per SR's Mage Armor), and that could be a solution.
I'd make Mage Armor to improve in duration, but not AC bonus. Spirit Armor - up to -4 AC (+5 fullplate) at 20th level. Ghost - mmm, why not to go a-la Barkskin and simply add AC instead of setting it?

For what it's worth, I've aslo suggested to double AC bonus from Mantles - to 6 and 8 respectively.

 

Breach

I've voiced my opinion sometime ago, that I find it incredibly powerful even without piercing spell protections.

 

If it is restricted to combat protections, there'd be nothing to remove specific ones with... Not that I mind much. Say what, specific protections are mainly anti-magical, right? So, since we have Pierce Shield removing combats, then why not to allow Pierce Magic to remove specifics?

 

Still, I have some worries about compatibility with AI mods, should Breach become anti-combat only...

 

what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?
Spell Shield.
Link to post
I don't have strong views, but I could easily be persuaded that Breach should remove Stoneskin and pro/weapons spells but not as much else as it currently does. I'm less keen on it offering a saving throw for the same reason as above. It's something I'd want to implement as an SCS component if it's deemed a good idea. On balance I think it could be: it would make keeping clerics alive a helluva lot easier.

 

Come to think of it, I could even see a case for restricting Breach to arcane spells.

 

... make me an offer.

 

Sounds pretty good. In AD&D, Breach was meant to

1.) Dispel any spells that granted immunity to some weapon type

2.) Suppress any spells or natural abilities that granted some sort of immunity to weapon types for some duration

 

On clerics staying alive: I think your best bet would be to introduce priest scrolls and have enemy priests heavily use them. They have the enormous benefit of non-interruptable spell-casting without the players saying "it's not fair". Come to think of it, heavy use of mage scrolls allow enemy spellcasters to be of lower level without decreasing the difficulty and the amount of spells they can fire.

 

I think the use of scrolls by enemy spellcasters is underrated by vanilla and mods like ScS.

 

-Galactygon

Link to post
Still, I have some worries about compatibility with AI mods, should Breach become anti-combat only...

 

That's why any change to Breach that I'm happy with would have to be incorporated into SCS itself and allowed for in my AI (as with the changes to Mantle).

 

what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?
Spell Shield.

 

OK, but in that case the replacement spell does something very different from the original. (Unless Spell Shield actually grants immunity to Remove Magic in SR?)

 

On clerics staying alive: I think your best bet would be to introduce priest scrolls and have enemy priests heavily use them. They have the enormous benefit of non-interruptable spell-casting without the players saying "it's not fair".

 

I'm not convinced it would help. By about 12th level, stoneskin (esp. when not supported by Mirror Image et al) goes down pretty quickly in combat, and that's without allowing for an extra Breach (unlike mages, clerics don't have any way to put multiple defences up at once, and scrolls don't change that). It might help around the edges, though, so I'll bear it in mind.

 

I think the use of scrolls by enemy spellcasters is underrated by vanilla and mods like ScS.

 

It's been suggested before, but I don't find either spell failure or number of slots to be a serious constraint on my mage scripting, and I'm concerned about giving PCs too many resources (I dislike undroppable objects on principle).

Link to post
It's been suggested before, but I don't find either spell failure or number of slots to be a serious constraint on my mage scripting, and I'm concerned about giving PCs too many resources (I dislike undroppable objects on principle).

 

With mods like aTweaks' scribe scrolls ability, only money will determine how many scrolls the party has. If we assume NPC casters have had years to accumulate wealth and resources, it's not a stretch for them to have 5-10 high-level scrolls. If enemy spellcasters fire off their scrolls in the first few rounds of combat, their chance of dropping those scrolls gets really low. I'd imagine spells that do not scale after level 12 are worth storing in a scroll, or a spell that the spellcaster does not know (this could be an excuse for lower-level wizards with connections of casting higher level magic).

 

-Galactygon

Link to post
It's been suggested before, but I don't find either spell failure or number of slots to be a serious constraint on my mage scripting, and I'm concerned about giving PCs too many resources (I dislike undroppable objects on principle).

 

With mods like aTweaks' scribe scrolls ability, only money will determine how many scrolls the party has. If we assume NPC casters have had years to accumulate wealth and resources, it's not a stretch for them to have 5-10 high-level scrolls. If enemy spellcasters fire off their scrolls in the first few rounds of combat, their chance of dropping those scrolls gets really low. I'd imagine spells that do not scale after level 12 are worth storing in a scroll, or a spell that the spellcaster does not know (this could be an excuse for lower-level wizards with connections of casting higher level magic).

 

-Galactygon

 

My experience with potions is that even when resources are expected to be used up quickly, PCs still rapidly acquire a very large number of them.

Link to post
My experience with potions is that even when resources are expected to be used up quickly, PCs still rapidly acquire a very large number of them.

 

Does this include potions used by spellcasters within the first few rounds of firing off their buffs and triggers? I'd imagine there'd be large difference between this and potions that are expected to be used by other classes in the first few rounds.

 

What's your estimate, how long do spellcasters usually last against a better-than-average player?

 

-Galactygon

Link to post
OK, but in that case the replacement spell does something very different from the original. (Unless Spell Shield actually grants immunity to Remove Magic in SR?)
The idea is to block one antimagic attack - a protection removal or RM/DM. Although I see a possibility of granting it an actual immunity to RM as it currently is with SI:Abj. Imo it's reasonable for antimagic defense to be stronger than a generic dispel.

 

What's your estimate, how long do spellcasters usually last against a better-than-average player?
Not long for me. If party comes in prepared to fight a wizard, the latter goes down on 6-8 round for sure. First 1-3 rounds (depending on how many antimagic can party toss in a round) are dedicated to stripping him off his spell protections, then TS and Breach, then wizards uses his Trigger, another round is spent to deal with renewed defences, then it's over.

I usually have three arcane users (FM, Edwin/Imoen, Haerdalis), so they can tear anything apart in a matter of seconds. For a single mage in a party, things will be tougher.

 

 

Well, I personally have no problem if enemy wizards receive few more memorized spells than their level permits. This way their 'scroll' spells can also be interrupted as they should be, and the lack of extra loot is easily explained by items' fragility, like in the case with potions.

Edited by Ardanis
Link to post

Armor-like spells

If you think improving "armor spells" could seriously benefit mage duels I'd be glad to work on it.
I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot.
Well, GWW and CS are ToB things, but you're right, those abilities make AC much less relevant. Anyway even epic fighters should have a bunch of those HLAs not tons, and those few should/can be stopped by Stoneskin, or partially absorbed by Mirror Image. Put an outstanding AC on top of them and even GWW may hit very few times. No?

 

I'd make Mage Armor to improve in duration, but not AC bonus. Spirit Armor - up to -4 AC (+5 fullplate) at 20th level. Ghost - mmm, why not to go a-la Barkskin and simply add AC instead of setting it?
I suggested myself to make Ghost Armor increase AC instead of setting it, but I'm not convinced because it would then stack with the other armors.

 

 

Clerics

I was speaking of buffs not affected by Breach such as Divine Might (Champion's Strength is better later on) or Divine Power, but I forgot they weren't so great in vanilla. ???
Are they so helpful as defences?
Well, Divine Power for example almost works as a Tenser's Transformation spell without drawbacks and cannot be breached. And when I say TT I mean SR/PnP TT, which also grants additional attacks per round (as a fighter of the same level of the caster). Thus a single 4th lvl spell spell grants him/her STR 18/00, the same thac0 and apr of a fighter, and up to +20 hit points. Long story short, DP transforms a cleric into a fighter for a short time (up to 20 rounds).

 

Champion's Strength within SR is an Improved DUHM, which grants up to +6 bonus to STR, DEX and CON, with no drawbacks, and a decent duration (up to 20 rounds).

 

What's your main problem with clerics? Lack of offensive magic power? Because they shouldn't have most of mages problems like AC and hit points even unbuffed. :)

 

 

PnP Non-detection

If I'm understanding correctly, you're effectively telling me that N-D effectively (for my purposes) grants a saving throw vs. Truesight. Which is neat (technically as well as conceptually) but it doesn't to me obviate the need for players to be able to do something to remove the invisibility that doesn't rely on them waiting till the enemy fails a save (which at high levels is a seriously long time).
Well, you wanted a mid-solution between the unbeatable SI:Div and no protection, this is it. Something tells me you don't like "saves" and you prefer things to work as a "scissor, paper, rock game", am I wrong? :)

 

Again, I can believe that in a systematic SR install, with save penalties et al, that's less of an issue, but I need to consider the vanilla game.
To make it work you have to alter TS anyway (and any other divination spell you think that should have a chance to dispel Non-detection), as you have to make it (or them) remove the custom secondary type on a failed save, thus you can tweak the save yourself. That being said, even without penalties everything should be fine because multiple mages casting Divination spells can easily and quickly dispel Non-detection. I tend to play low magic parties, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players always include more than an arcane caster in their parties.

 

 

Breach

I don't have strong views, but I could easily be persuaded that Breach should remove Stoneskin and pro/weapons spells but not as much else as it currently does.
Cool, I thought I was asking too much. :D

 

... make me an offer.
As you say, I'd limit it to combat protections, perhaps removing a bunch of the current ones too. Specifically Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades may not be affected if they are crucial for your clerics. Actually I would even dare to say that making it work only against PfMissiles, PfNW, PfMW, and Mantles (what Galactygon is suggesting if I'm not wrong*) could be fine with me. Such solution would seriously improve the appeal of things such as "armor spells".

 

*@Galactygon, where did you find AD&D Breach? The only similar spell I manage to track down is Breach Defenses, which is a Transmutation spell used to make any creature vulnerable to non-magical weapons (e.g. golems, werewolves, etc.).

 

I've voiced my opinion sometime ago, that I find it incredibly powerful even without piercing spell protections.

 

If it is restricted to combat protections, there'd be nothing to remove specific ones with... Not that I mind much. Say what, specific protections are mainly anti-magical, right? So, since we have Pierce Shield removing combats, then why not to allow Pierce Magic to remove specifics?

Unsurprisingly I was going to suggest the same. :D I'd still keep Fireshields immune to it though, they don't sound as specific protections to me.

 

Still, I have some worries about compatibility with AI mods, should Breach become anti-combat only...
Like? Afaik Breach is mainly used to counter ProWeapon-like spells, is it heavily used against specific protections too?

 

On balance I think it could be: it would make keeping clerics alive a helluva lot easier.

 

Come to think of it, I could even see a case for restricting Breach to arcane spells.

:p Perhaps I'm blind but how can Breach so heavily affect clerics? Anyway, I prefer to keep a concept intact, whatever the concept is. If it dispels only combat protections or only PfMW-like spells it should still do it regardless of spell's origin, be it an arcane spell or a divine one. If the concept ends up not including divine spells you're lucky! :O

 

 

Spell Immunity

Oh, one leftover bit of business from earlier discussions of SI. I now see why to you it's relatively important whether SI is one spell or eight. I guess I've always seen the eight-spell thing as no more than a workaround for the difficulty in putting SI into contingencies...
I'm glad you are at least slightly sympathetic! :laugh:

 

... Little of this, I think, interferes with your proposal to modify SCS's use of SI via SR, except for one residual question: what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?
I suggested to make Spell Shield protect from Dispel/Remove Magic. Even the original concept of Spell Shield worked more as SI:Abj than SI:Abj itself! :O Adding to it immunity to dispel (or at least one dispel attempt) is functional and doesn't stretch the concept a bit imo. Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post
Well, GWW and CS are ToB things, but you're right, those abilities make AC much less relevant. Anyway even epic fighters should have a bunch of those HLAs not tons, and those few should can be stopped by Stoneskin, or seriosly lessened by Mirror Image. Put an outstanding AC on top of them and even GWW may hit very few times. No?

Also, sorry for the fact that wizards are even touchable. That's weird to me that there is a discussion of "Oh noe, my wizard has the slightest chance of dying from sword! It's a bug, we have to fix it." Wizards were meant to be weak, deal with it. BG2 is stupid in this case, because many times you're going to fight lone wizard (which is absurd) - that's why we have got Chain Contingencies and PfMW here. Giving them some meatshield (or making them summon it) would be a far better idea than reducing this very very low chance of hitting goddamned wizard with your axe to zero.

 

Changes to Breach/Spell Shield

Both of those sounds good. But well, stupid question. Is there a possibility of making Breach work like in PnP? So it strips creature's Weapon Immunity? With saving throw of course. That'd be neat.

Edited by yarpen
Link to post
Guest suttree

Hi all,

 

Just a lurker - but I've found this discussion very interesting, and so thought I'd contribute :)

There seem to be two lines of argument in this thread:

(General) Problems with the antimagic framework

(Specific) Rebuilding Spell Immunity

with the latter proposed as a solution to the former.

 

SUMMARY

 

To repeat in my own words (from post #304):

Mages are fun/challenging because debuffing is a four stage process with various choices for the player at each stage.

(1) Remove II

(2) Remove spell defences

(3) Breach

(4) Attack

The focus of the discussion is Stage (1) - this stage is problematic because anti-magic can't be targeted through invisibility.

Note that there are two ways to solve this problem:

(A) modify the spells that attack II

(B) modify the spells that protect II

 

THE OLD

 

The current solution is to give certain anti-magic spells an AOE - an (A) type solution. It seems to me that a more elegant (A) solution would be to introduce an AOE counterspell (large radius) specific to Spell Immunity and leave anti-magic alone. That is, introduce a new rock (RPS) instead of modify the old. I'll pick up this suggestion later.

 

The current solution is flexible because it allows me to get started on (2) even before I've finished (1). It is problematic because of targeting problems and the vague sense that anti-magic spells ought not to be anti-magic "fields."

 

THE NEW

 

The SR folks seem to be proposing a (B) type solution. Get rid of SI (the spell that proects II) and replace it with stuff.

 

There has been some discussion about SI being "over powered" or "cheesy." I'd suggest that SI is simply "inelegant" in the way that a solution to a math or engineering problem can be inelegant. This might explain the difficulty in defining exactly why SI is "bad" - it is, in part, a matter of taste. That said, SI is inelegant because it presents a blunt solution to problems (Dispel Magic, Divination Spells) that might be addressed by a more subtle approach.

 

Example: Replacing SI: Abjuration by Spell Shield. SI: Abjuration makes the player immune to Dispel for the duration of the spell. Spell Shield (presumably) would defend from only one dispel, presenting the player with a tactical choice - to spend a round and raise another spell shield or continue attacking and potentially lose buffs. Spell Shield is a "better" - read "more elegant" - option for a spell system because it achieves it's goal (introducing a counterspell to Dispel) while introducing additional choice for the player.

 

A SOLUTION

 

SCS wants to deal with II without overhauling the spell system.

 

Solution: make SI function more like SR's proposed Spell Shield. Spell Immunity: <Y> defends against X spells from spell school Y, where X is fixed or depends on spell caster level or is somehow related to a saving throw - something like an anti-magic stoneskins.

 

Example.

I bring down SI:Div (even with II running) by casting Dispel Illusions,TS X times.

I can bring down SI:Abj (even with II running) by hitting it with RM/DM X times.

Presumably, it would take more spells to bring down SI:Div than SI:Abj because each casting of True Sight lasts 10 round. Anti-magic remains single target.

 

As a player, not a modder, I suggest this only because SR's proposed Spell Shield/Non-Detection makes me think such an implementation is possible.

This leaves SR free to replace SI with Non-Detection, Spell Shield etc. and return anti-magic spells to single target only.

 

REVIEW

 

The current implemation uses AOE anti-magic to counter Spell Immmunity. This introduces targeting problems and makes anti-magic feel wierd. A general solution is to introduce a large AOE spell that specifically targets SI, leaving anti-magic spells single target. A specific solution is to use existing AOE spells (school Y) to attack Spell Immunity: Y.

 

That's it.

 

P.S. Very much looking forward to IRv4

Link to post
Armor-like spells
If you think improving "armor spells" could seriously benefit mage duels I'd be glad to work on it.
I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot.
Well, GWW and CS are ToB things, but you're right, those abilities make AC much less relevant. Anyway even epic fighters should have a bunch of those HLAs not tons, and those few should/can be stopped by Stoneskin, or partially absorbed by Mirror Image. Put an outstanding AC on top of them and even GWW may hit very few times. No?

...maybe. Outstanding really would need to be in the -25 region, and not breachable. Even then, Critical Strike makes it irrelevant. Stoneskin isn't all that critical at high levels because of the easy availability of elemental damage (which fairly reliably disrupts spells even if it doesn't kill quickly).

 

Clerics

What's your main problem with clerics? Lack of offensive magic power? Because they shouldn't have most of mages problems like AC and hit points even unbuffed. :D

I'm fine with their offensive power. I have trouble keeping them alive long enough to use it - more precisely, I have trouble keeping them alive and their spells undisrupted long enough to use it. The long casting times for cleric spells just make things worse. (The short casting time is one major reason I use Unholy Blight so much.)With wizards, I can usually guarantee several rounds worth of offensive magic (or at least, make it a major hassle to prevent those several rounds). With clerics, it's difficult to prevent one PC fighter effectively nullifying the cleric after his first attack spell, and thereafter taking him down quite quickly. It's not so much of a problem with groups (the drow clerics do quite well) but there are plenty of BG2 fights involving a cleric as primary enemy (Nyalee's the clearest example) and they're very hard to script interestingly.

 

 

PnP Non-detection

Something tells me you don't like "saves" and you prefer things to work as a "scissor, paper, rock game", am I wrong? :)

Guilty as charged, at least where the antimagic system is concerned. (I'm very unkeen on saves for a spell like Breach, because you end up having to carry silly numbers of them; this is less of an issue with non-detection.) I could try to offer a defences of the scissor-paper-rock debuff system, but ultimately I just see it as quite core to the way BG2 antimagic works, so I don't really want to mess with that within SCS.

 

Breach
I don't have strong views, but I could easily be persuaded that Breach should remove Stoneskin and pro/weapons spells but not as much else as it currently does.
Cool, I thought I was asking too much. :p

 

... make me an offer.
As you say, I'd limit it to combat protections, perhaps removing a bunch of the current ones too. Specifically Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades may not be affected if they are crucial for your clerics. Actually I would even dare to say that making it work only against PfMissiles, PfNW, PfMW, and Mantles (what Galactygon is suggesting if I'm not wrong*) could be fine with me. Such solution would seriously improve the appeal of things such as "armor spells".

Hmm. Let me come at this from a game-balance perspective and from SCS mages' viewpoints. I use breach to drop PMW (etc) and Stoneskin, but I also use it to get rid of Chaotic Commands, Protection from Magic Energy, elemental protections, and Death Ward. It would be quite inconvenient to do without these effects. I don't really need it to be able to take down fire shields, blade barriers, or Armour spells. (Indeed, from the perspective of defending spellcasters against the PCs, it would be helpful if it didn't take those down.) That cuts across sectypes, of course, so one would need to think about in-game justification.

 

Can you remind me why Breach can't take down (say) 4 defences? Isn't there an opcode that strips one defence of a given type, and if so, can't one just do a shell spell trick and apply 4 copies of the spell?

 

 

 

 

Still, I have some worries about compatibility with AI mods, should Breach become anti-combat only...
Like? Afaik Breach is mainly used to counter ProWeapon-like spells, is it heavily used against specific protections too?

Yes, I use it quite a bit that way. Pro/ME, in particular, is heavily prioritised for Breaching, because it protects from Horrid Wilting.

 

On balance I think it could be: it would make keeping clerics alive a helluva lot easier.

 

Come to think of it, I could even see a case for restricting Breach to arcane spells.

:) Perhaps I'm blind but how can Breach so heavily affect clerics?

Example: it takes down Iron Skins and Blade Barrier, which collectively radically changes the difficulty of taking down a druid.

 

Wizards were meant to be weak, deal with it. BG2 is stupid in this case, because many times you're going to fight lone wizard (which is absurd) - that's why we have got Chain Contingencies and PfMW here. Giving them some meatshield (or making them summon it) would be a far better idea than reducing this very very low chance of hitting goddamned wizard with your axe to zero.

The point is - "absurd" or not - that lone wizards are a major feature of BG2, and (contra your comment) they weren't "meant to be weak" in BG2. (Exhibit A: Irenicus. Exhibit B: Vongoethe. Exhibit C: Kangaxx. Etc.). So insofar as it isn't possible to protect them adequately in a given set of modifications, that's a problem. (The combat and movement system in BG2 makes meatshields all but useless as a way of protecting casters, and the chance of hitting a wizard with your axe isn't "very very low": as I've demonstrated, it's actually pretty high in mid SoA and later.)

Link to post
I'm not convinced it would help. By about 12th level, stoneskin (esp. when not supported by Mirror Image et al) goes down pretty quickly in combat, and that's without allowing for an extra Breach (unlike mages, clerics don't have any way to put multiple defences up at once, and scrolls don't change that). It might help around the edges, though, so I'll bear it in mind.

 

Priests do have a way to put up multiple protections without interruption, called Sanctuary. The ideal combat profile for Divine spellcasters is:

 

1. Prebuff self/party

2. Turn Undead (if necessary)

3. Cast disabling/damage spells

4. Heal/Raise/dispel party debuffs

5. Melee

6. Sanctuary, rebuff, exit melee area

7. Next target

 

The only hole in this is Sanctuary's casting time of 4, but invisibility potions can be held for emergencies.

 

PS I understand that the above works for party clerics but not for lone clerics like Nyalee. In general I feel that clerics far more than mages are not really suitable for single combat against a party unless they are casting L7 and Quest. Even then they are vulnerable. However, effective prebuffing can mitigate this somewhat. Unfortunately some Priest encounters do not allow for the Priest to have prepared for the party.

Edited by amanasleep
Link to post

Sanctuary isn't terrible (and I probably underuse it). But the thing is, priests only have about one (at most) really good defensive buff they can put up anyway. They don't have the layered defences available to mages.

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...