Feedback

[amanasleep]

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.

 

Maybe we could make a rule that enemy priests always come prebuffed with some of the longest lasting protections, particularly Shield of the Archons, Death Ward, Remove Fear, and Chaotic Commands (maybe even Skeleton Warriors, since they last for hours--I know I'd cast one every morning if I thought there was even the slightest chance I'd meet danger that day!). If their first move was Sanctuary followed by Blade Barrier and Physical Mirror, they could end up pretty well protected when they cast Gate or whatever. I also believe that UnHoly Word doesn't break Sanctuary. In any event, I might suggest that normally prebuffed clerics start with Regeneration active, which could dramatically increase survivability and reduce the necessity for potions (and more importantly, spell actions) during combat.

I use most of these, but ultimately it's still the case that one antimagic attack plus breach takes nearly all of it all down.

... I'm not theorising here: it's an experimental observation that enemy clerics (especially solo ones) go down very quickly in SCS, quicker than I'd like. (Though this isn't disastrous.)

 

OK, let's try a different angle. Suppose Priests had Vanilla Contingency in their Spell list. Does this help?

 

First, do we think this would actually increase Divine caster survivability? I'm inclined to think it would, although the big problem here is the fact that vanilla contingency couldn't have Shield of the Archons. But it could contain important protections like Physical Mirror, which prevents missile spell disruption of all types, and Righteous Magic or Holy power for healing/buffing, and Blade Barrier for combat protection.

 

Demi, would this work from your angle despite having no justification from PnP?

 

DavidW, is this totally outside the scope of SCS?

 

Additionally, can/do Priests use Harm and Slay Living in SCS? I don't believe I've seen this much. However, if it's possible then It might make solo high level priest opponents more deadly vs. a party. Harm is more effective than Slay Living, but Slay Living is cheap and can be pretty effective against a low level party fighter (but so can Unholy Word and Greater Command). If Priests can get their combat buffs up (which incidentally I believe are Breach proof), then they can make their 1 APR count better.

[Kalindor]

Breach

What about making Breach remove only Abjuration spells?

I am in favor of this solution if the ProWeapon-only functionality gets vetoed by DavidW. Fireshield spells have always been cool but never as appealing as Stoneskin because of the interrupt-on-hit issue, but not being dispelled by a 5th-level universal countermeasure would make them a bit more attractive. (Speaking as a Sorcerer.) Pierce Shield can still be used to remove all protections in the same manner as Breach has in the past, and its higher level makes stripping every single combat protection more reasonable.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Breach not removing specific protections even if the SCS solution is a "hot-swap." At least there would still have to be a choice between dispelling combat or specific protections since both could not be done simultaneously without utilizing a higher-level spell slot.

 

I sympathize with the desire to improve the threat posed to the party by priests, although they are really meant to shine as a support class, and the observation that clerics work better in a group is actually quite appropriate. I really think the casting times for priest and druid spells need some help, though. Heal takes a full round, for instance, making it an very unreliable combat-cast.

Typically wizard spells have a casting time proportional to the spell level, while lower-level cleric and druid spells often have casting times of 5 or more. Are the priest spells that much more effective that they warrant being so prone to interruption? Another option is to reduce the casting time of Sanctuary and allow priests to use that to heal and buff themselves before resuming battle.

Contingency, though, conceptually represents some mastery over meta-magic, which I don't see priests possessing. (Only a personal opinion.) I would be reluctant to grant it to priests, let alone the AI-revising effort that would be required.

[DavidW]

even leaving aside PnP I don't see how altering many anti-magic spells is more minimalist than altering one spell

If you mean Non-Detection, then altering it doesn't (alone) help, as SI:Div is still out there. So the right comparison is with altering Non-Detection and removing SI.

 

(not to mention the latter is almost a fix).

I don't really know what "almost a fix" means. (And I don't think there's any evidence that changing N-D is a fix according to the developer-intent definition of fix.)

 

True, you can see II creatures within BG, but you have text messages everywhere proving that not being able to directly target spells at them is still the intended behaviour as per PnP. How can removing such feature be a minimalist change?

At some level this just becomes a matter of personal opinion: what seems more low-key (in terms of the feel of playing the game, as well as in terms of the in-game lore). I don't have an active justification. (I do have a relatively straightforward in-game justification: just assume that the relevant spells have a small area of effect. Of course this is what I tried to actually do, but we both know it works imperfectly for various reasons.)

 

 

CC and Death Ward wouldn't be affected anymore though, do you need Breach to work against them too?

 

'Fraid so.

[DavidW]

@Amanasleep: Contingency does feel a bit of a bridge too far for priests. I do use Harm and Slay Living, but it's fiddly to use effectively because it's very short range and requires a hit roll.

 

 

 

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Breach not removing specific protections even if the SCS solution is a "hot-swap." At least there would still have to be a choice between dispelling combat or specific protections since both could not be done simultaneously without utilizing a higher-level spell slot.

 

I don't take advantage of that anyway, really - SCS isn't intelligent enough to pick on someone because they have both combat and specific protections running.

[amanasleep]

@Amanasleep: Contingency does feel a bit of a bridge too far for priests. I do use Harm and Slay Living, but it's fiddly to use effectively because it's very short range and requires a hit roll.

 

Understood about Contingency--that's my view as well. Reducing the casting time of Sanctuary to 1 could have a similar effect (while being less outside the SCS mission statement). Dispelling the party frequently would help with removing pesky TS's that might interfere with Sanctuary. If the high level enemy priest can sanctuary at the drop of a hat, he becomes harder to deal with and better protected, as he has more time to refresh his protections. In addition, sanctuary is a natural combo with Harm/Slay Living, since these can be cast without breaking Sanctuary, the priest gets to "backstab" (Thac0 bonus), and can get in range unmolested to make the attack. A fully buffed Cleric under Sanctuary will almost always hit with Harm.

 

Of course, this helps the PC Priests as well. But in my view, it would make party and enemy priests vastly more interesting and enjoyable with just a very small change.

 

Raising the level of solo priests may also be desirable if it's too low. Gives them many advantages, like good dispel characteristics (offense and defense) and access to many extra spell slots, plus many good priest spells scale with level.

[D1Nonly]

quick suggestion. make sequencers and triggers able to target the ground.

[Guest suttree]

Thanks all - I certainly appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion

 

Anti-Spell Immunity attack

@Guest_suttree_*, we don't need to add a new spell to work like that, vanilla's Spell Thrust with SCS added AoE already works like the perfect anti-SI spell

 

Yes, in theory, spell thrust is an excellent anti-SI spell. As you've noted elsewhere, however, anti-magic with AOE doesn't always target correctly. The bugfix (increasing the AOE) only pushes anti-magic that much farther from vanilla.

 

As a player, AOE anti-magic is not ideal because:

 

1) It is difficult to target against mages on the move, albeit less so with increased AOE. It remains that I have to wait until a mage begins casting or blanket an area in anti-magic if I want to reliably target an enemy mage on the move. The challenge of targeting a speedy mage can be fun, but ideally it would be unecessary.

2) It has a very different feel from vanilla (absent II) - to keep things brief, it is "bad" that anti-magic behaves as an anti-magic "field" rather than targeted at a specific mage. when fighting multi-mage battles (ex. cowled mages), it is not ideal that I can target all mages in a certain radius with a single spell. If anyone is interested, I can certainly expand on what I mean by "bad."

 

DavidW noted previously AOE anti-magic was his "least-worst" solution - this seems about right.

While the discussion seems to have moved on to Priest AI and breach, as a player I'd like to see SR and SCS work out the kinks in SI. That is, find some common ground better than AOE anti-magic.

 

I'm mostly concerned with SI: Abj and SI: Div. It seems SR will replace these with Non-Detection and Spell Shield. SCS will stay the same. This seems to be a significant break between the spell systems of the two mods - I like that they work so closely together.

 

I suggested that SCS replace SI: Div (immunity to Div) by SI: Div (immunity to X Div spells). No need for AOE anti-magic, since *already existing* large AOE divination spells would bring down SI: Div (X balanced for SCS AI). This slight nerf would allow anti-magic to remain as in vanilla. SR would be free to mod SI to Non-Detection (X depends on a saving throw) or Spell Shield (X=1) without breaking the sense that the two mods are working in the same spell system.

 

Unforunately, this would mean an add to SCS AI (mages would bring down SI:Div with Div spells, not anti-magic spells)

 

Of course if some super-tweak just made II enemies targetable by anti-magic or detectable by script (whatever that means), that would work too. Anyway, just sharing - no expectations.

 

DavidW

Also, elegance can be subjective...

 

It is certainly a matter of taste - a quibble: this is not quite the same thing as being subjective

[DavidW]

I suggested that SCS replace SI: Div (immunity to Div) by SI: Div (immunity to X Div spells). No need for AOE anti-magic, since *already existing* large AOE divination spells would bring down SI: Div (X balanced for SCS AI). This slight nerf would allow anti-magic to remain as in vanilla. SR would be free to mod SI to Non-Detection (X depends on a saving throw) or Spell Shield (X=1) without breaking the sense that the two mods are working in the same spell system.

 

I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, as it's not clear why SI:Div in particular should work this way.

 

DavidW

Also, elegance can be subjective...

 

It is certainly a matter of taste - a quibble: this is not quite the same thing as being subjective

 

We're talking about elegance in the sense used in maths or physics, yes?

 

If so, take it from me: it's subjective. (I speak as someone who works in theoretical physics, and the philosophy of science, professionally.) That's not to say that there aren't often strong consensus views on given issues, though.

 

... or perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Is this intended as a point in philosophy of aesthetics? I'm fairly unsympathetic to realism as a philosophy of aesthetics (whatever its virtues in ethics), but I can see that an aesthetic realist would want to argue that matters of taste are objective.

 

(Apologies for wild offtopicness.)

[Kalindor]

I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, as it's not clear why SI:Div in particular should work this way.

I agree, all SI spells should function identically apart from spell school. Also, Spell Immunity: Divination that is brought down by Divination spells isn't really "immunity" at all, heh.

 

DavidW

I speak as someone who works in theoretical physics, and the philosophy of science, professionally.

In the time it took you to code SCS and SCS2, you could have patched together the theory of everything by now!

[Guest suttree]

ok, I've been heard, so I'll let this drop

 

I agree, all SI spells should function identically apart from spell school.

Incidentally, that's exactly what I suggested in my initial post

Solution: 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

SI:Div is the reason vanilla doesn't work, so it was the only example that made it into my second post.

If so, take it from me: it's subjective.

I'm just a student - sorry to hear that

but I can see that an aesthetic realist would want to argue that matters of taste are objective.

Probably I'm misusing the subjective/objective distinction (though I thought you were misusing it). Must I be a realist in aesthetics (or in ethics) in order to argue that there are correct/incorrect - or at least better/worse - judgments about taste (or the good)?

 

ok, I'm done now thanks again y'all for making some rather aestheticaly pleasing mods.

[Ardanis]

True Sight

Perhaps I missed it, but what do you think about adding "invisible detection by script" to an existing divination spell (Ardanis suggested TS)? I personally am not so convinced about it, but it could work for you.

 

I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea.

But what ill consequences it could create?

 

What I have initially suggested was to make a divination spell (either by altering TS or by introducing another one and swapping names with TS) capable of only detecting-invis-by-script, without any kind of dispelling enemy's illusionary protections. Only caster can target the invisible opponent with spells, not their party.

 

to keep things brief, it is "bad" that anti-magic behaves as an anti-magic "field" rather than targeted at a specific mage. when fighting multi-mage battles (ex. cowled mages), it is not ideal that I can target all mages in a certain radius with a single spell

Agreed. When we've been discussing whether or not liches should be vulnerable to <6 antimagic, I always thought it was wrong thing to do. Although in case of II it's more like a technical necessity than a concept change.

 

 

Breach

One thing I'd personally do anyway (whatever you decide) is to make Fireshields and Blade Barriers not affected by it (it seems right, and it doesn't affect your AI scripts judging by what you said). It would be great to remove "armor spells" from this list too (you seemed to agree), but I really cannot see how we could justify it if we keep the current "concept", thus they'd have to stay.

As I've said above in here, neither FS/BB nor armor spells grant immunity to anything, they simply increase AC/res by set value. Whereas PFMW and ProEnergy families do, in fact, provide immunity to certain types of attack, the former to weapons, the latter to magical. And seeing how one of Breach's defining features in PnP is removing natural immunities, I think such explanation would work fine.

 

Pierce Shield can still be used to remove all protections in the same manner as Breach has in the past, and its higher level makes stripping every single combat protection more reasonable.

I had the same thought. If we need to lower MR, there's a specially designed spell for that, while for antimagic attacks removing elemental immunities makes much better sense than lowering MR a bit for no apparent benefit.

 

Priests

As a (role-)player I have no problem if they can use Contingency.

 

And since Harm/Slay Living have been mentioned... Several months ago Demi has shared with me a thought about improving the Cause Wounds family - instead of requiring a to-hit roll, they would be treated as a generic spell attack, much like beholders' Cause Serious Wound ray. I also recall that in NWN2 Harm wasn't a touch spell either.

 

 

PS My, it's five pages of heavy arguing already!

Edited January 8, 2011 by Ardanis

[DavidW]

True Sight

Perhaps I missed it, but what do you think about adding "invisible detection by script" to an existing divination spell (Ardanis suggested TS)? I personally am not so convinced about it, but it could work for you.

 

I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea.

But what ill consequences it could create?

 

What I have initially suggested was to make a divination spell (either by altering TS or by introducing another one and swapping names with TS) capable of only detecting-invis-by-script, without any kind of dispelling enemy's illusionary protections. Only caster can target the invisible opponent with spells, not their party.

 

I'm reconsidering this. (Not least because my latest attempt to make antimagic spells penetrate II doesn't work.) I don't think it would work for any spell only to grant the detect invisibility opcode, because that opcode doesn't actually reveal creatures that are invisible to the player, it just allows them to target II creatures (and, I think, their AI to target invisible creatures). But I think adding it to one or two anti-invisibility spells might be a nice feature, and a neater way around my mage-targetting problem than the never-ideal antimagic AoE. I'd probably add it to Truesight without otherwise altering the spell; I'd also consider adding it (with, say, a 5-round duration - not as something that could be used in prebuffs) to Detect Invisibility. I'd leave it off Oracle and Invisibility Purge, since they're clearly described as instant magic attacks on an enemy's illusions, not as boosts on the caster.

 

This slightly disadvantages mages relative to the status quo, largely because Truesight can be pre-cast. But I can live with that (especially as I'm going to be able to throw Spell Shield around now).

 

Two problems:

 

1) (Vanilla) non-detection won't provide protection. I don't think this bothers me, ultimately: Truesight et al wouldn't actually reveal a genuinely invisible creature; it would just make an already-revealed creature targetable.

 

2) More seriously, the player can't give attack orders on totally-invisible creatures but the player's AI can. (This is a symptom of the fact that the invisibility detection opcode isn't really designed for PCs.) I think the only way to solve this is to replace See(XYZ) with See(XYZ)!StateCheck(XYZ,STATE_INVISIBLE) in PC scripts. That could be automated, though there'd be a problem if someone installed a new script after the relevant mod. But I think we can live with this.

[Demivrgvs]

True Sight

Perhaps I missed it, but what do you think about adding "invisible detection by script" to an existing divination spell (Ardanis suggested TS)? I personally am not so convinced about it, but it could work for you.

I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea.

But what ill consequences it could create?

My "doubts" regarding this solution are:

1) we'd create a case where even if SI:Div makes you invulnerable to Divination spells a Divination spell works against it

2) conceptually it looks strange imo that TS has both "see invisibility" and "dispel invisibility" at once

3) on balance we'd be seriously nerfing mages protections

4) "see invivibility by script" opcode makes AI opponents see completely invisible targets

 

1) perhaps this is not a big deal considering we already have the case of most Abjuration spells bypassing SI:Abj. In this case SI:Div would still protect illusionary buffs (II, MI, Blur, etc.) from TS, but for me it would be one further reason to consider the whole concept behind Spell IMMUNITY a failure

2) this is only a conceptual issue, and probably a minor one

3) without this tweak you'd have to dispel SI:Div, then II, and finally be able to target the opponent, with this tweak you can ignore the first two steps (though in both cases you can pre-cast TS, thus you miss only one step). Restoring Spell Shield should make up for this.

4) @David, I'm not sure "Truesight et al wouldn't actually reveal a genuinely invisible creature; it would just make an already-revealed creature targetable"? At least this isn't true for the AI imo, because if I'm not wrong "see invivibility by script" opcode is used by many vanilla demons, and they do see an II character even before he/she is partially revealed. Your concern about player's AI being able to target totally-invisible creatures is part of this problem if I get it right.

 

I'd also consider adding it (with, say, a 5-round duration - not as something that could be used in prebuffs) to Detect Invisibility. I'd leave it off Oracle and Invisibility Purge, since they're clearly described as instant magic attacks on an enemy's illusions, not as boosts on the caster.

Just so you know, both Detect Invisibility and Invisibility Purge lasts 5 rounds within SR. In PnP they even lasted much much more, but players voted to drastically reduce it (I used a full turn in V2) as they felt it was making them too much appealing compared to higher lvl Divinations.

 

Furthermore, within SR InvPurge is an Abjuration spell as per PnP, not a Divination as in vanilla BG, thus it already bypass SI:Div.

 

This whole "anti-SI:Div" discussion exists almost only because of liches and rakshasas sad immunities imo. If it wasn't for them within SR you already have plenty of options to counter SI:Div+II combo:

a) thief's Detect Illusion

b) wizard's Glitterdust (this one bypasses even SI:Div+SI:Abj)

c) cleric's Invisibility Purge (it's stopped in case of SI:Div+SI:Abj)

d) druid's Faerie Fire (it's more or less a lesser Glitterdust)

You have 4 different classes there! If you add Inquisitor's Dispel Magic (to a lesser extent single class bards and priests) almost any party can handle SI:Div+II.

 

Perhaps instead of drastically altering the current system you could consider b) and c). Both don't work in vanilla, but I doubt anyone would complain if you implement those tweaks, as they are very minimalist: b) is actually a fix (I don't remember right now why it didn't worked in vanilla, but there's no reason a Conjuration should be stopped by SI:Div) and c) is just a matter of changing a spell's school to match PnP (I know you don't care much about PnP, but I'm mentioning it just to say that it's unlikely a player would complain about a change which restores PnP rules). Adding Faerie Fire isn't within SCS scope instead, but it's a lesser problem because druids shouldn't be your classic anti-mage character (though their insect spells say the contrary ).

 

What do you think? Aren't those counters enough against "normal" spellcasters?

 

Agains liches and rakshasas instead it's a whole different story, not to mention the formers are also immune to cleric/druid's TS, and the latters to wizard's 6th lvl version too (making SI:Div "redundant" for them ).

 

Still, having Spell Thrust affect them as per SR (edit: vanilla's ST already seems to works like that in my fresh install ) may be enough for me. You make Breach bypasses their immunities (unlike SR), and ST makes even more sense because anti-magic attacks already bypass pretty much everything. Such spell is a natural anti-SI spell removal, and for some reason (e.g. its icon) it's the only anti-magic attack I can see with an AoE except perhaps Spellstrike (I can't bear RRoR with an AoE, it's a RAY for god's sake - not to mention within V4 I'd like to add it many PnP features that don't go well with an AoE). ST is a "cheap" spell, and any decent SCS player probaly already consider ST a must-have spell, as it's the cheapest spell removal, and the best one to counter SI (it will even be the best one to be wasted on Spell Shield too because of its "low cost").

 

P.S all of this assuming that a) there's no way I can convince you replacing SI as we previously discussed and/or b) there's no way I can convince you replacing those damn liches/rakshasas immunities with 50% and 75% magic resistance respectively (which is kinda my dream )

 

 

Breach & Pierce Magic

I'm obviously with Kalindor and Ardanis, but it seems like David absolutely needs Breach to work against specific protections thus they have to stay. That being said, Ardanis "justification" to it not affecting "armor spells" may persuade me. In that case Breach will remain more or less unchanged, but it won't affect Fireshields, Blade Barriers, and "armor spells".

 

 

Priests

I really cannot see them with metamagic things like contingencies and triggers. Reducing Sanctuary casting time to 1 would surely make up for it once we fix this spell to work as per PnP. Actually it could even make it OP imo, because with instant casting time every injured priest could quickly become "invulnerable", heal, and re-buff, before attacking again. Speaking of fixing this spell, in theory I should also make it not affectd by TS-like spells, as it's neither an invisibility spell nor an illusionary protection.

 

 

Cause Wound spells

And since Harm/Slay Living have been mentioned... Several months ago Demi has shared with me a thought about improving the Cause Wounds family - instead of requiring a to-hit roll, they would be treated as a generic spell attack, much like beholders' Cause Serious Wound ray. I also recall that in NWN2 Harm wasn't a touch spell either.

Yep, but it's probably better to not add this matter to the ongoing discussion. Actually this one deserves its own topic as it's a kinda huge thing, which involves Cure Wound spells too.

 

 

PS My, it's five pages of heavy arguing already!

Just wow! Edited January 9, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[DavidW]

True Sight

1) perhaps this is not a big deal considering we already have the case of most Abjuration spells bypassing SI:Abj. In this case SI:Div would still protect illusionary buffs (II, MI, Blur, etc.) from TS, but for me it would be one further reason to consider the whole concept behind Spell IMMUNITY a failure

It doesn't bother me, because it's not an effect that works on the protected creature, it's an effect that works on the caster. That is: one is not stripping Invisibility from the protected creature, one is granting the ability to see through invisibility to the caster. (In the same way, Detect Invisibility in PnP would not be blocked by (e.g.) Minor Globe, because it's doing something to the caster, not to the protected creature.)

2) this is only a conceptual issue, and probably a minor one

It doesn't bother me

3) without this tweak you'd have to dispel SI:Div, then II, and finally be able to target the opponent, with this tweak you can ignore the first two steps (though in both cases you can pre-cast TS, thus you miss only one step). Restoring Spell Shield should make up for this.

That's basically my maths. Old framework: you need TS running and then you need to drop SI:Div. New framework: you need TS running and then you need to drop Spell Shield. Overall it's a wash.

4) @David, I'm not sure "Truesight et al wouldn't actually reveal a genuinely invisible creature; it would just make an already-revealed creature targetable"?

Try it and see.

At least this isn't true for the AI imo, because if I'm not wrong "see invivibility by script" opcode is used by many vanilla demons, and they do see an II character even before he/she is partially revealed.

That's exactly my point: the AI (player's or enemy's) can see the enemy, but the player can't.

 

 

Just so you know, both Detect Invisibility and Invisibility Purge lasts 5 rounds within SR.

I was thinking about the vanilla versions, which (iirc) have zero duration.

 

Furthermore, within SR InvPurge is an Abjuration spell as per PnP, not a Divination as in vanilla BG, thus it already bypass SI:Div.

But not Minor Globe.

 

This whole "anti-SI:Div" discussion exists almost only because of liches and rakshasas sad immunities imo. If it wasn't for them within SR you already have plenty of options to counter SI:Div+II combo:

a) thief's Detect Illusion

b) wizard's Glitterdust (this one bypasses even SI:Div+SI:Abj)

c) cleric's Invisibility Purge (it's stopped in case of SI:Div+SI:Abj)

d) druid's Faerie Fire (it's more or less a lesser Glitterdust)

You have 4 different classes there! If you add Inquisitor's Dispel Magic (to a lesser extent single class bards and priests) almost any party can handle SI:Div+II.

Most of these solutions are (or, I suppose, should be: I don't know how you've coded them) blocked by Minor Globe (which in turn can't be dropped by single-target antimagic when II is active).

 

Agains liches and rakshasas instead it's a whole different story, not to mention the formers are also immune to cleric/druid's TS, and the latters to wizard's 6th lvl version too (making SI:Div "redundant" for them ).

That's a good point; I ought to bear it in mind in scripting. (Though again, Ardanis's modification of TS still works.)

 

P.S all of this assuming that a) there's no way I can convince you replacing SI as we previously discussed and/or b) there's no way I can convince you replacing those damn liches/rakshasas immunities with 50% and 75% magic resistance respectively (which is kinda my dream )

I'm really not keen on changing the vanilla spell system, or (even more so!) the vanilla powers of creatures, within SCS except minimally and as an a last resort. To do otherwise obviates the basic design principles behind SCS. (And no, I don't have any detailed logic beyond my own personal intuitions as to why I regard any given change as more minimal than any other - the nearest I can do is "what makes things you already see in the vanilla game have to be changed", though that's highly imperfect.) SR, of course, can do as it wishes with the spells, so this is only relevant insofar as compatibility is concerned.

 

 

I'm obviously with Kalindor and Ardanis [re Breach] but it seems like David absolutely needs Breach to work against specific protections thus they have to stay. That being said, Ardanis "justification" to it not affecting "armor spells" may persuade me. In that case Breach will remain more or less unchanged, but it won't affect Fireshields, Blade Barriers, and "armor spells".

That's fine with me, even to the stage of being something I'm amenable to including. (Case in point as far as "what counts as minimal" is concerned.)

[Ardanis]

1) we'd create a case where even if SI:Div makes you invulnerable to Divination spells a Divination spell works against it

I think it's from the same category of things as SI:Alt and Timestop.

 

Agains liches and rakshasas instead it's a whole different story, not to mention the formers are also immune to cleric/druid's TS, and the latters to wizard's 6th lvl version too (making SI:Div "redundant" for them ).

Imo that's one more reason to change TS - same spell behaving differently when used by different classes.

 

b) there's no way I can convince you replacing those damn liches/rakshasas immunities with 50% and 75% magic resistance respectively (which is kinda my dream )

NEVAA-AAR!!!

That's the only trait making them unique and dangerous opponents, otherwise they're no different from drow wizards. Not to mention it a PnP feature