Feedback

[Constantine]

Perhaps you could clarify how your "common sense" is intended to differ from my "realism".

Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW Not to mention that the spell description clearly states it works only on living creatures.

[Dakk]

Both of these hacks probably deserve at least a topic of it's own, maybe both here in IR. But I'll just paste the reference here and see where it goes

 

No casting interruption if no damage (100% res) is taken (huge!)

Flags for spells/item abilities to allow targeting of invisible characters

[DavidW]

Perhaps you could clarify how your "common sense" is intended to differ from my "realism".

Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW

 

Since ADHW doesn't exist, and neither do sword-shaped planes of force, obviously it isn't real.

 

I assume you mean "realistic". In which case, I don't recall claiming that it was.

 

Not to mention that the spell description clearly states it works only on living creatures.

 

This doesn't obviously have relevance to my question. To recall the context: I asked if the proposed change to ADHW is based on realism rather than gameplay. You suggested that it was based on "PnP rules and common sense". I asked how your "common sense" differs from my "realism". I'm happy to believe you did intend some serious point by the term, and weren't just resorting to hyperbole, but the question stands.

[Constantine]

Perhaps you could clarify how your "common sense" is intended to differ from my "realism".

Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW

 

Since ADHW doesn't exist, and neither do sword-shaped planes of force, obviously it isn't real.

 

I assume you mean "realistic". In which case, I don't recall claiming that it was.

 

Not to mention that the spell description clearly states it works only on living creatures.

 

This doesn't obviously have relevance to my question. To recall the context: I asked if the proposed change to ADHW is based on realism rather than gameplay. You suggested that it was based on "PnP rules and common sense". I asked how your "common sense" differs from my "realism". I'm happy to believe you did intend some serious point by the term, and weren't just resorting to hyperbole, but the question stands.

I thought you've proposed to leave ADHW as it is because it's current behavior looks "realistic" for you for some reason.

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what? Or maybe I just misunderstood your point?

[Dakk]

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what?

Let's not turn (a so far rather humorous) discussion into an argument... For the record, SCS(II) mages isn't really DavidW's precious mages, they're precious mages for a whole slew of people.

[Constantine]

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what?

Let's not turn (a so far rather humorous) discussion into an argument... For the record, SCS(II) mages isn't really DavidW's precious mages, they're precious mages for a whole slew of people.

Fine with me.

AOT: in case someone's counting, I'm with the players who're thinking that Conjurations should bypass MR.

[DavidW]

I thought you've proposed to leave ADHW as it is because it's current behavior looks "realistic" for you for some reason.

No: that's the opposite of my point, in fact. I didn't see any game-balance reason for the change, so I wanted to check if there was one I was missing or it was purely driven by concerns of realism.

 

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what?

I don't think I'll dignify that with an answer.

[Constantine]

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what?

I don't think I'll dignify that with an answer.

I'm shure you don't. By the way, "dignify"? Man, are you some megalomaniac or something?

[Shaitan]

So the ADHW's nature of not being magic damaging spell is not enough for you, right? It's because your precious mages with advanced AI prefer to cast it on Mordies (thus exploiting a bug) or what?

I don't think I'll dignify that with an answer.

I'm shure you don't. By the way, "dignify"? Man, are you some megalomaniac or something?

I don't think "dignify" and megalomaniac can be connected such, so lacking words shouldn't cause assaults like that. Not very nice.

[Demivrgvs]

Both of these hacks probably deserve at least a topic of it's own, maybe both here in IR. But I'll just paste the reference here and see where it goes

 

No casting interruption if no damage (100% res) is taken (huge!)

Flags for spells/item abilities to allow targeting of invisible characters

Just wow. Stoneskin + ProEnergy = no more dmg animation and spell disruption even from elemental weapons! Cool.

 

On a side note, this great hack doesn't make my work on ProEenergy serie of spells completely redundant because of spells secondary effects (e.g. SR's ProCold grant immunity to Ice Storm's slow effect), thus the question is: should I keep this features or not? I'd keep them to enhance the appeal of these protecion spells, but it may be just me.

 

Not sure I like the second hack, as it breaks an established rule (you cannot target an II creature), but David will probably love it.

[Dakk]

No casting interruption if no damage (100% res) is taken

Just wow. Stoneskin + ProEnergy = no more dmg animation and spell disruption even from elemental weapons! Cool.

 

On a side note, this great hack doesn't make my work on ProEenergy serie of spells completely redundant because of spells secondary effects (e.g. SR's ProCold grant immunity to Ice Storm's slow effect), thus the question is: should I keep this features or not? I'd keep them to enhance the appeal of these protecion spells, but it may be just me.

I agree, keep those features

[phordicus]

I agree, keep those features

for sure. immune to cold = immune to effects resulting from cold

[DavidW]

Not sure I like the second hack, as it breaks an established rule (you cannot target an II creature), but David will probably love it.

 

It doesn't break any rule, actually, it just gives others the option to break it. (i.e., this increases engine functionality but doesn't of itself change any in-game behaviour.)

[urdjur]

On a side note, this great hack doesn't make my work on ProEenergy serie of spells completely redundant because of spells secondary effects (e.g. SR's ProCold grant immunity to Ice Storm's slow effect), thus the question is: should I keep this features or not? I'd keep them to enhance the appeal of these protecion spells, but it may be just me.

 

I'd say this depends on how we envision energy immunity to work. I mean, a cold weather survival suit doesn't automatically make the ground less slippery. OTOH, a creature that has adapted to cold weather, such as a white dragon, will probably have a solution to both slipperiness and coldness. Also, if we envision elemental protections more like narrow but deeper MGoI, it makes sense that they ignore the entire effect.

 

If this is the approach taken, will it be applied consistently or considered for each effect? For example:

*Will a Sword Spider have to save vs. death in a Cloudkill?

*Will you be immune to blowback from Dragon's Breath if 100% fire resistant? What about if an actual red dragon breathes on you?

*Would your sight still be obscured, slowing you though immune to acid, in an Acid Fog?

*If incendiary cloud works as per the v3 description, and a non-protected mage stands 12 feet away from an Efreeti (both are in the cloud), will the Efreeti be able to target him but not the other way around?

 

I really like the damage animation fix. But it will require TobEx, and thus a windows platform, correct? Or will it be incorporated into SR somehow, and thus be platform and TobEx independent?

 

EDIT: Btw, about ignoring invisibility. Is this an all-or-nothing deal or could it be incorporated into just certain monsters? Because then creatures that are supposed to "see invisibility" could do just that rather than dispelling illusions through True Sight (which can be thwarted by SI: Divination). For instance, if you have Mislead up, a Glabrezu would just PW:Blind you first thing, while neither dispelling nor caring about the clone. But perhaps this is accomplished already in SCS-2 by some other method?

Edited January 29, 2011 by urdjur

[Jarno Mikkola]

I'd say this depends on how we envision energy immunity to work. I mean, a cold weather survival suit doesn't automatically make the ground less slippery. OTOH, a creature that has adapted to cold weather, such as a white dragon, will probably have a solution to both slipperiness and coldness. Also, if we envision elemental protections more like narrow but deeper MGoI, it makes sense that they ignore the entire effect.

It's actually more likely that the dragon wouldn't need a solution for the problem, as it could use the effects for it's own benefit... of course the dragon would need to be careful when to use them and when not to... which leads to the conclusion that the flagging to make a spell useability against invisible opponents is better than fine, especially when you restrict the area of the effect a bit, and so take this into account when balancing the spells attributes.