Feedback

[Raj]

SCS AI casts prayer istantly during the prebuff routine, or tries to cast it during the battle effectively wasting a round so there is no middle ground.

With concentration check, they have far greater chance to succeed.

 

[ToBEx]What's the check? More specifically, what's the ''luck'' bonus?[/ToBEx]

 

I skipped that component worried that melf acid arrow and similar spells that I ( and the AI ) use for weak dmg but spellcasting interruption become useless.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Raj

[Demivrgvs]

roleplayers.

Join the club

I did ages ago.

 

Chant

I changed chant casting time to 2 - mostly for standardization, spell level = casting time for almost all spells, with the notable exceptions everybody knows - and never regret it: with longer time priests always get interrupted or I felt that they were wasting their limited combat prowess.

Do as you wish, but Chant with casting time 2 and no drawbacks is utterly overpowered. It's a Mass Doom spell with no save and almost instant casting time, worth at least a 4th lvl spell slot.

 

Chant is a prayer spell (which requires long concentration in PnP) for true clerics (e.g. Viconia) and spellcasting oriented clerics in general (e.g. Aerie) who have all the time they want to cast it keeping some distance from opponents, not for fighter oriented clerics (e.g. Anomen) who'd better spend their time in the front line buffed up with fast and short lasting spells such as AoF or Divine Might. If you call yourself a roleplayer, you should easily accept that Chant cannot be an insta-casting spell.

 

SCS AI casts prayer istantly during the prebuff routine, or tries to cast it during the battle effectively wasting a round so there is no middle ground.

Chant's casting time was 1 round even in vanilla, thus I assume SCS knows what it does when it uses it.

 

Cool thing about SR is that it's heavily customizable w/o crippling the AI, that's why I have my 'own' SR and stopped posting feedback here, nonetheless I appreciate all your work.

Well, having your own heavily customized SR should't stop you from giving me some feedback to work on (I feed on it!).

 

@Ardanis, I'm curious just like Raj regarding ToBEx's concentation check...what's this luck parameter?

 

Contingencies and Triggers

@Ardanis, I'm not at home to check it right now, were you saying that making them innates prevents us from flagging contingencies and triggers as "not usable during combat"? I'd be pretty annoyed by this, though having them their long 1 round casting time partially makes up for it anyway.

Nope, more like 1/day use.

Mmm, perhaps I'm blind, but wouldn't such limit restore the "annoying factor" the tweak was supposed to remove in the first place? Those who complained about having to rest twice to use contingencies/triggers without losing spell slots would now complain that they have to rest anyway to use them more than once per day. Though you could easily say those players would be asking too much. On a side note, sorcerers are the ones losing the most here, because my sorcerers always loved to have multiple contingencies/triggers per day.

 

Long story short, if we are persuaded by David's arguments I'd say that having no limit to how many contingencies/triggers a mage can prepare per day is fine. After all, you are still limited by one contingency/trigger per type for each encounter anyway, and those who want to re-fill them could just sleep and re-fill them. I guess the whole point of the tweak is to simply remove the silly "sleep, prepare, sleep again routine", isn't it?

 

Web

For a nerf, I'd reduce duration to 6 rounds.

Instead of removing the malus to the saving throw, I would keep things the way they are but allow for melee-only attacks with severe THAC0 penalty (-4 or -5).

I'm unsure only how the resistance to missiles is justified. There're not huge bulging roots obstructing the shot line.

Imo 2-3 AC per Web should suffice.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'm trying to find a solution that doesn't require Web to be installed as a separate component, and doesn't require it to be installed very late in the install order (so many mods require that). If I ignore such restriction I'd simply make it work as an Improved Entangle (not so different from you suggestions). With such restriction I need something that a non-patched Free Action can handle, and thus removing the severe save penalty is the only way to nerf it (with or without the non-stackability), and adding a slow-like effect with no save a la SR's Entangle seemed a good way to keep it still very appealing but less OP (not to mention such effect is actually there in PnP).

[Ardanis]

Chant

I said that with concentration enabled, being interrupted during that round of casting doesn't automatically mean the loss of spell and waste of round.

 

Contingencies and Triggers

Yes, indeed...

 

Web

Well... imo lowering save penalty brings it closer to Entangle, while lowering duration instead distinguishes even more. Theoretically, I wouldn't mind having 4 round long Web with -4 penalty.

[DavidW]

SCS AI casts prayer istantly during the prebuff routine, or tries to cast it during the battle effectively wasting a round so there is no middle ground.

Chant's casting time was 1 round even in vanilla, thus I assume SCS knows what it does when it uses it.

Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too.

 

 

Long story short, if we are persuaded by David's arguments I'd say that having no limit to how many contingencies/triggers a mage can prepare per day is fine. After all, you are still limited by one contingency/trigger per type for each encounter anyway, and those who want to re-fill them could just sleep and re-fill them. I guess the whole point of the tweak is to simply remove the silly "sleep, prepare, sleep again routine", isn't it?

That wasn't quite what I meant. The annoyance isn't the need to sleep to regain contingencies, it's the need to mess with your spell choices, sleep, then mess with them again. I'm forever forgetting to change them back, and it's terribly faffy. (Of course, you'd want to sleep twice in general anyway, so as not to lose slots.) I don't ultimately think it's too important, but on balance I'd keep it at once/day. That also ameliorates the combat-casting issue.

[Raj]

Chant needs you to close the gap between you and enemies, that's why I see it fitting a more combat oriented cleric; I lowered SR save penalities to spells and made some effects not stackable so enemies don't end hugely doomed. I woudn't mind it being moved to level 3 btw.

 

Ardanis, we got that but what about the luck parameter?

Apply Concentration Check On Damage [WIP]

Instead of always being interrupted when hit, spellcasters have a chance of their spells being interrupted.

This is governed by a concentration check.

A spellcaster passes the concentration check if (1D20 + luck) > (spell level + damage taken).

The details of this component are subject to change.

I did some testing throwing fireballs at some poor ogre magi and noticed that they could pass concentration checks even after taking 20+ damage so that luck parameter did actually matter ( and made me turn off that component, it looked more like a ''make casting uninterruptable'' ).

[Dakk]

Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too.

Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?

[DavidW]

Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too.

Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?

 

Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)

[Dakk]

Hmm, I like that. I'd tell myself the RP reason is the clerics have received divine premonition/foreboding/omen/portents/[all of the above]....

[Demivrgvs]

Web

Well... imo lowering save penalty brings it closer to Entangle, while lowering duration instead distinguishes even more. Theoretically, I wouldn't mind having 4 round long Web with -4 penalty.

I would instead, a lot, because that would be way more unbalanced than it already is. With 2x Web trigger anyone unable to successfully make two consecutive saves at -4 penalty every round is pretty much dead (especially the AI). And why lowering the save would make it closer to Entangle while increasing it would not? Anyway, Web already is a very close parent of Entangle, its inevitable imo because their concept is almost the same, in fact they their PnP versions are more similar than their BG ones.

 

Chant

Chant needs you to close the gap between you and enemies, that's why I see it fitting a more combat oriented cleric; I lowered SR save penalities to spells and made some effects not stackable so enemies don't end hugely doomed. I woudn't mind it being moved to level 3 btw.

Chants doesn't need you to get closer considering it has a large AoE, and I'd prefer an even larger AoE (though it already has the largest amongst all SR's spells) to a ridiculously fast casting time. I'm not saying your changes break your game (we're not taking about a 6 round Time Stop), I'm only saying your changes make this spell insanely powerful for its lvl. In fact moving this spell to 3rd lvl (and renaming it Prayer) would only make it as per PnP (keeping its long casting time), and lowering casting time would make it deserve an even higher spell slot.

 

Concentration Check

Ardanis, we got that but what about the luck parameter?

Apply Concentration Check On Damage [WIP]

Instead of always being interrupted when hit, spellcasters have a chance of their spells being interrupted.

This is governed by a concentration check.

A spellcaster passes the concentration check if (1D20 + luck) > (spell level + damage taken).

The details of this component are subject to change.

I did some testing throwing fireballs at some poor ogre magi and noticed that they could pass concentration checks even after taking 20+ damage so that luck parameter did actually matter (and made me turn off that component, it looked more like a ''make casting uninterruptable'' ).

Yeah that's what I was asking... What's that "luck" parameter? Is it something we can also affect with an opcode? Having some items or spells able to improve such check would be really cool (though the component itself already is uber cool on paper, even without this feature).

 

Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too.

Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?

Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)

Wouldn't a working concentration check help in this regard? I seem to remember in a recent discussion your main issue was that clerics couldn't shield themselves enough to be able to cast spells in combat (because of the lack of spells such as Mirror Image, Stoneskin and PfMW). If the hack allows them to cast relatively more free (clerics should be able to pass that check more easily than mages imo) they should have quite a lot of staying power considering heavy armors, shields, and 2x hit points compared to mages.

 

Hmm, I like that. I'd tell myself the RP reason is the clerics have received divine premonition/foreboding/omen/portents/[all of the above]....

I'd love to be able to convince myself of this, but I can't.

[Ardanis]

Web

When I'm allowed to choose, I generally prefer two different abilities, than a lesser-greater couple. Diversity, you know.

 

In vanilla, I used to throw in 3-4 Webs for guaranteed result, then began bombarding them. With shortened duration, that scenario is obviously not as appealing. Using sequencers and support casters can change that back, but it does require the use of said extra options, which is not for free.

 

But it creates two entirely different possibilities - either I can entangle them for slight penalty, or assuredly immobilize for a short time.

 

Concentration Check

The luck there is 32th stat. The concentration stat hasn't made it through yet, apparently.

[DrAzTiK]

Chant

 

In fact, I remenber this spell to be very appealing in BG1 but not at all in BG2 and TOB. But I think we can't make all low level spell appealing for a long time.

 

The fact SCS priests use it as a prebuff is maybe a bit unfair.

 

I am glad to see that my proposition for Contingencies and Triggers made some adherents I really think it could make spell management a lot less boring and frustrating.

[DavidW]

Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too.

Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?

Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)

Wouldn't a working concentration check help in this regard? I

 

Probably, but that's much too radical a change for me to assume it in core SCS scripting.

[Demivrgvs]

Web

When I'm allowed to choose, I generally prefer two different abilities, than a lesser-greater couple. Diversity, you know.

Me too, I just don't see how making Web's severe save even more harsh can add "variety" to the gameplay, while making it less severe and adding a secondary effect reduces the variety.

 

On a side note, Entangle is druid-only, while Web is mage only, thus no character in the game can have both of them.

 

In vanilla, I used to throw in 3-4 Webs for guaranteed result, then began bombarding them. With shortened duration, that scenario is obviously not as appealing. Using sequencers and support casters can change that back, but it does require the use of said extra options, which is not for free.

 

But it creates two entirely different possibilities - either I can entangle them for slight penalty, or assuredly immobilize for a short time.

This is one of those incredibly rare cases where we don't agree, actually I cannot agree less. I don't know what other players (or David) think, but even with a short 4-5 rounds duration making Web's save at -4 penalty is insanely OP. We're speaking of a 2nd lvl spell, and you'd pratically have an "unfriendly Mass Hold Monster automatically re-cast each round"!

 

Concentration Check

The luck there is 32th stat. The concentration stat hasn't made it through yet, apparently.

Understood.

 

Wouldn't a working concentration check help in this regard?

Probably, but that's much too radical a change for me to assume it in core SCS scripting.

Point taken, too bad though.

 

Chant

In fact, I remenber this spell to be very appealing in BG1 but not at all in BG2 and TOB. But I think we can't make all low level spell appealing for a long time.

Actually it's one of my more commonly memorized spells even late in BG2. It's really cheap, the bonus/penalty to saves alone are unvaluable imo, and the other effects are quite effective both for offense and defense, especially when large parties are involved.

 

Contingencies and Triggers

I am glad to see that my proposition for Contingencies and Triggers made some adherents I really think it could make spell management a lot less boring and frustrating.

Yep, I'm kinda persuaded it can be a good tweak. At least it's surely worth to be an optional component to try it out imo. Edited March 10, 2011 by Demivrgvs

[amanasleep]

Web

When I'm allowed to choose, I generally prefer two different abilities, than a lesser-greater couple. Diversity, you know.

Me too, I just don't see how making Web's severe save even more harsh can add "variety" to the gameplay, while making it less severe and adding a secondary effect reduces the variety.

 

On a side note, Entangle is druid-only, while Web is mage only, thus no character in the game can have both of them.

 

Avengers still get Web in SR, no?

 

In vanilla, I used to throw in 3-4 Webs for guaranteed result, then began bombarding them. With shortened duration, that scenario is obviously not as appealing. Using sequencers and support casters can change that back, but it does require the use of said extra options, which is not for free.

 

But it creates two entirely different possibilities - either I can entangle them for slight penalty, or assuredly immobilize for a short time.

This is one of those incredibly rare cases where we don't agree, actually I cannot agree less. I don't know what other players (or David) think, but even with a short 4-5 rounds duration making Web's save at -4 penalty is insanely OP. We're speaking of a 2nd lvl spell, and you'd pratically have an "unfriendly Mass Hold Monster automatically re-cast each round"!

 

One of the main thing differentiating Hold X spells from Web is that Hold allows direct melee of the held creature, while Web requires ranged attack or immunity to web.

 

Still, I agree that Web's power need not be enhanced, and could IMO be nerfed within SR without making it unusable. I would be in favor of allowing stackability but removing save penalty--you can make them denser and force more save checks, but powerful creatures will still pass them all.

 

Chant

In fact, I remenber this spell to be very appealing in BG1 but not at all in BG2 and TOB. But I think we can't make all low level spell appealing for a long time.

Actually it's one of my more commonly memorized spells even late in BG2. It's really cheap, the bonus/penalty to saves alone are unvaluable imo, and the other effects are quite effective both for offense and defense, especially when large parties are involved.

 

Chant remains one of the best ways to buff innate damage in backstab multipliers.

 

Contingencies and Triggers

I am glad to see that my proposition for Contingencies and Triggers made some adherents I really think it could make spell management a lot less boring and frustrating.

Yep, I'm kinda persuaded it can be a good tweak. At least it's surely worth to be an optional component to try it out imo.

 

This is very interesting. I see several consequences, some of which have been mentioned here:

 

1. Sorcerers basically already had this ability, and it was a strong reason to pick them over mages for ease of use alone.

2. I agree that this would drastically reduce spell memorization micro, and am very much in favor.

3. One "negative" is that this is basically a free spell slot for every Contingency/Trigger an arcane caster knows. Consider that currently, to fill a contingency and a trigger, a mage would:

 

A) Memorize Contingency, Trigger, 4 Spells

B) Rest

C) Cast Contingency, Trigger, place 4 spells in them

D) Remove Contingency & Trigger from Memorized

E) Rest

 

Result: Full memorized spells, plus active Contingency and Trigger, no contingency or trigger memorized.

 

Under the innate rule, the mage would:

 

A) Memorize 4 spells

B) Rest

C) Innately cast Contingency & Trigger, place 4 Spells

D) Rest

 

Result: Full memorized spells, plus active Contingency and Trigger, plus contingency and trigger memorized. As mentioned earlier, gets an extra combat casting available.

 

IMO this is still not OP, and the ease of use argument is so compelling as to make me disregard any advantage this may give the player and "making the game too easy". If it's optional, and people know the pros and cons, and it doesn't break AI then it's really worth having.

[Ardanis]

Web and Entangle

Okay, my 'final' conclusion:

- Entangle should be stackable, with -1 cumulative penalty

- Web should keep it's -2 save, but last for 5 rounds