Jump to content

Feedback


Recommended Posts

Regarding your suggestion to slap an invisibility effect on it I'd go for it only if you need it, because in terms of concept Sanctuary really shouldn't make the cleric invisible. :thumbsup: Actually for the huge revision I had in mind to make it work as per PnP I planned to not use 'sanctuary' opcode at all (because it gets dispelled even if the cleric cast a Cure Wound spell on himself), but rather a 'protection from creature' opcode working on any creature type. Would that help you (ake the AI) in any way? I seem to remember that liches were able to cast Dispel or similar spells to creatures using ProUndead scrolls, as well as I'm almost sure RR PnP fiends cast a bunch of spells to tear down ProEvil spells.

From the AI's point of view, undispellable Invisibility and Protection from Creature Type are functionally equivalent. And either way, there's a significant difference between how the player can react and how the AI can react. I can kind of work around it, but it's tricky, and I'm not sure I can afford the script space to do it properly.

 

Up to you about PnP flavour, but I'm not entirely convinced. On my interpretation of PnP sanctuary, it's not okay to dump a fireball on a sanctuaried target, whereas that's straightforward (and the obvious counter to Sanctuary) in BG2 without the invisibility.

Link to post

Sanctuary

Regarding your suggestion to slap an invisibility effect on it I'd go for it only if you need it, because in terms of concept Sanctuary really shouldn't make the cleric invisible. :thumbsup: Actually for the huge revision I had in mind to make it work as per PnP I planned to not use 'sanctuary' opcode at all (because it gets dispelled even if the cleric cast a Cure Wound spell on himself (1)), but rather a 'protection from creature' opcode working on any creature type (2). Would that help you (ake the AI) in any way? I seem to remember that liches were able to cast Dispel or similar spells to creatures using ProUndead scrolls, as well as I'm almost sure RR PnP fiends cast a bunch of spells to tear down ProEvil spells.
I have looked into it a little more, and for some reason I really understimated this spell in its vanilla's version (I don't know why I thought it wasn't working at all).

 

(1) I was wrong, vanilla's sanctuary opcode allows the cleric to cast "non-self targeted" spells on himself without breaking the spell.

 

(2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts.

 

Thus it's all a matter of deciding if:

a) do we want Sanctuary to let clerics cast non-hostile spells on allies as per PnP?

b) does replacing 'sanctuary' with 'ProEnemy' allow AI scripts to handle player's Sanctuary better?

 

a) If we don't want it for balance reasons then the spell is already almost fine (unless b) is true) without the huge revision I had in mind. Lowering casting time and getting rid of 'remove sanctuary' opcodes from divinations spells should be enough.

b) if it can help you then I'll go with the overhaul, else the spell can remain almost unchanged.

Link to post

Sanctuary

Ops, we posted in the very same minute. :thumbsup:

 

From the AI's point of view, undispellable Invisibility and Protection from Creature Type are functionally equivalent. And either way, there's a significant difference between how the player can react and how the AI can react. I can kind of work around it, but it's tricky, and I'm not sure I can afford the script space to do it properly.

 

Up to you about PnP flavour, but I'm not entirely convinced. On my interpretation of PnP sanctuary, it's not okay to dump a fireball on a sanctuaried target, whereas that's straightforward (and the obvious counter to Sanctuary) in BG2 without the invisibility.

Well, in PnP nothing prevents you from casting a Fireball right next to the protected creature. You can even cast it directly at the sanctuaried target if you win a check.

 

That being said, if you're going to rely on this spell more, and adding an invisibility effect is crucial for you I can obviously accept to go for it, though adding an invisibility effect (which must be an II effect to work as intended) requires me to go for the huge revison (custom secondary type, and a patch for all weapons, attacks and spells to remove it) regardless of the above mentioned points a) and b).

Link to post
Sanctuary

Ops, we posted in the very same minute. :thumbsup:

 

From the AI's point of view, undispellable Invisibility and Protection from Creature Type are functionally equivalent. And either way, there's a significant difference between how the player can react and how the AI can react. I can kind of work around it, but it's tricky, and I'm not sure I can afford the script space to do it properly.

 

Up to you about PnP flavour, but I'm not entirely convinced. On my interpretation of PnP sanctuary, it's not okay to dump a fireball on a sanctuaried target, whereas that's straightforward (and the obvious counter to Sanctuary) in BG2 without the invisibility.

Well, in PnP nothing prevents you from casting a Fireball right next to the protected creature. You can even cast it directly at the sanctuaried target if you win a check.

 

I'm going from memory, but my recollection (of the 2nd edition spell) was that, if you fail a check, you can't attack the sanctuaried creature in any way. That includes casting a fireball with the intention of hitting the creature, though it doesn't preclude casting a fireball at someone else, with the foreseen but unintended consequence of hitting the creature (the Catholic Church would love Sanctuary). Of course, that kind of rule is totally unadjudicable in a CRPG; it's also the kind of delicate thing that tended to get phased out of 3rd edition D&D, so I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd edition Sanctuary is different.

 

That being said, if you're going to rely on this spell more, and adding an invisibility effect is crucial for you I can obviously accept to go for it, though adding an invisibility effect (which must be an II effect to work as intended) requires me to go for the huge revison (custom secondary type, and a patch for all weapons, attacks and spells to remove it) regardless of the above mentioned points a) and b).

 

Not on my account! I can't at all guarantee I'm going to use it enough to justify that.

Link to post

I would like to suggest altering Mass Cure to function more like an Elixir of Health. My party got his with a few disease effects that weren't cured with resting (thanks SCSII) and thought this spell would to the trick instead of just healing the party. Unless this is a pnp spell. I don't know why I associated it with curing diseases or the elixir.

Link to post
My party got his with a few disease effects that weren't cured with resting (thanks SCSII)

 

Is this a bug, or something legit but annoying?

It's SR's Symbol of Weakness, I've made all others disease effects not permanent at player's request but this one seems to still be permanent. In theory I don't like disease effects to go away on their own but I suppose I'll have to make this too go away with a rest.
Link to post
Uhm what really? I find the idea of diseases festering until you Cure Disease or visit a temple much more appealing than rest -> "Tada! Healthy!"... :thumbsup:
Me too, but so many players complained about SR's permanent disease effects that I ended up accepting that not all players like these roleplaying features, and in many cases they really cannot bear them at all. :thumbsup:

 

I forgot to reply to the original post! Sorry onerous. Mass Healing really cannot have an embedded Mass Cure Disease effect, but if you can cast it than memorizing a bunch of Cure Disease spells shouldn't be a huge problem. As you already know you can also can buy Elixirs of Health, or better, as Dakk suggests, go to the nearest temple (they are pretty much everywhere within BG) and have even a whole party cured with ease.

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post

In thread you mentioned there was very nice idea of nerfing True Seeing to allow caster to see trough any illusions. Well, now I understand what does that mean. He can target invisible creatures but cannot for example allow his allies to do so. It sounds very good and it will surely make Dispel Illusion (3rd level spell) and Oracle (5th level spell) needed. Also, True Seeing grants immunity to any Illusion spells (Spook etc.), right?

Link to post

Sanctuary

(2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts.
Unless I'm horribly and utterly mistaken, IDSs are static, unlike dynamic NearestEnemyOf(). You'd have to go with 2nd param of 0, protected from everyone.

 

True Seeing

Yep, I thought ignoring II should not be coupled with removing illusions.

Link to post

Sanctuary

(2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts.
Unless I'm horribly and utterly mistaken, IDSs are static, unlike dynamic NearestEnemyOf(). You'd have to go with 2nd param of 0, protected from everyone.
If you're right about IDS being static then we have to find a completely different solution because I tested the "protected from everyone" solution and it's not a viable solution, as then even the caster can't target himself.

 

@David, I've looked again at AD&D Sanctuary description and it says "If the saving throw is failed, the opponent loses track of and totally ignores the warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to attack the subject remain unaffected. Note that this spell does not prevent the operation of area attacks fireball, ice storm, and so on)." Thus, on one side I was right about it not granting protection from fireball-like spells, on the other your idea about adding an "invisibility" state isn't so far from that "losing track of".

 

Still, I don't particularly like the whole "invisibility" thing as a concept, and on balance I think it's slightly too much considering Invisibility is a 2nd lvl arcane spells and Sanctuary would become pratically the same thing but better. Sanctuary would have faster casting time (which is a big plus), immunity to divinations (which is a huge plus) but shorter duration (not that I ever used Invisibiliy to remain invisible for long). On a side note with 'invisibility' opcode 'sanctuary' one becomes redundant, because 'invisibility' itself allows the caster to heal and buff himself without breaking the invisibility.

 

 

Divination spells

In thread you mentioned there was very nice idea of nerfing True Seeing to allow caster to see trough any illusions. Well, now I understand what does that mean. He can target invisible creatures but cannot for example allow his allies to do so. It sounds very good and it will surely make Dispel Illusion (3rd level spell) and Oracle (5th level spell) needed. Also, True Seeing grants immunity to any Illusion spells (Spook etc.), right?
Yep, I thought ignoring II should not be coupled with removing illusions.
In theory it's a good concept, in practice it's not doable imo. What would you do? You can't removing 'detect illusion' because then TS would be useless against invisible targets until the partially reveal themselves, and you can't have the caster ignore illusionionary protections without dispelling them.

 

Regarding Dispel Illusion and Oracle not being appealing, I planned to male the former the only Divination spell which can dispel illusionary creatures (e.g. Mislead clone, PI, Shades, etc. - not sure about Simulacrum, but it should be doable via scripts), and the latter will also have a Mass Know Opponent effect.

Link to post
Sanctuary
(2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts.
Unless I'm horribly and utterly mistaken, IDSs are static, unlike dynamic NearestEnemyOf(). You'd have to go with 2nd param of 0, protected from everyone.
If you're right about IDS being static then we have to find a completely different solution because I tested the "protected from everyone" solution and it's not a viable solution, as then even the caster can't target himself.

 

@David, I've looked again at AD&D Sanctuary description and it says "If the saving throw is failed, the opponent loses track of and totally ignores the warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to attack the subject remain unaffected. Note that this spell does not prevent the operation of area attacks fireball, ice storm, and so on)." Thus, on one side I was right about it not granting protection from fireball-like spells, on the other your idea about adding an "invisibility" state isn't so far from that "losing track of".

 

Still, I don't particularly like the whole "invisibility" thing as a concept, and on balance I think it's slightly too much considering Invisibility is a 2nd lvl arcane spells and Sanctuary would become pratically the same thing but better. Sanctuary would have faster casting time (which is a big plus), immunity to divinations (which is a huge plus) but shorter duration (not that I ever used Invisibiliy to remain invisible for long).

 

I don't feel strongly. For the sake of debate, though:

(i) I at least use invisibility for longish durations

(ii) Sanctuary is self-only, which is a fairly crucial disadvantage (in particular, it's not well suited to scouting, unless the party has a cleric/thief I guess)

(iii) Most importantly, Sanctuary already functions as an invisibility spell when cast by the player; this is just a matter of evening the score

Link to post

Sanctuary

Still, I don't particularly like the whole "invisibility" thing as a concept, and on balance I think it's slightly too much considering Invisibility is a 2nd lvl arcane spells and Sanctuary would become pratically the same thing but better. Sanctuary would have faster casting time (which is a big plus), immunity to divinations (which is a huge plus) but shorter duration (not that I ever used Invisibiliy to remain invisible for long).
I don't feel strongly. For the sake of debate, though:

(i) I at least use invisibility for longish durations

(ii) Sanctuary is self-only, which is a fairly crucial disadvantage (in particular, it's not well suited to scouting, unless the party has a cleric/thief I guess)

(iii) Most importantly, Sanctuary already functions as an invisibility spell when cast by the player; this is just a matter of evening the score

Point taken for (i) and (ii), especially for (ii) though I never used it on a party member in my entire life (in fact I actually forgot it could be cast on others :thumbsup: ).

 

For (iii) I may add that for such tweak I should also have to remove 'sanctuary' opcode and its hardcoded animation (only the latter if possible), else players would still see it, and the whole invisibility thing would be pointless. :thumbsup: If I'm not wrong, turning Sanctuary into a self cast Invisibility is exactly what we are discussing.

 

This reminds me that in my to do list I have something like 'II-spells make the caster immune to spell overlays', though I'm not sure it's fully doable. I do hate those supposedly invisible caster walking around with visible, sparkly animations (e.g. Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap).

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post

Sanctuary

even the caster can't target himself.
For real? Man, that's just gross. Quoting yourself, "can we ever discover something cool, rather than something that doesn't work as expected?"

 

Okay, what if Sanctuary behaves as in vanilla, but instead is refreshed every round, so that you can perform an action and become exposed for 6 sec, and after that get shielded back?

 

Divination spells

You can't removing 'detect illusion' because then TS would be useless against invisible targets until the partially reveal themselves, and you can't have the caster ignore illusionionary protections without dispelling them.
Good point. Still, if TS removes invis, then what's (conceptually) the point of seeing through it?
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...