Feedback

[Grozzle]

False Dawn & Sunray

Sorry, documenting everything for such a huge mod is quite difficult but I should have made more clear that Sunray too is now a druid-only spell.

... I've made them druid-only as per PnP. I've tried to make both classes spellbooks a little more unique (and against undead clerics have turn undead in theory) and this change is part of it, but if most of you feel Sunray absolutely need to be within cleric's spellbook I'm always open to player's feedback.

 

I was looking through the Readme trying to find out what happened to Sunray. When I found this I said "Damned mod - it's anti-undead. I can just add it back into Viconia's spellbook"... and then I remembered Shar isn't very sunny... :-/

 

Well played, sir!

Edited August 10, 2014 by Grozzle

[janoha]

Negative Plane Protection

Though I very much like the buff this spell has had, I think it might be too OP and practically removes any problems one might have with vampires.

I think a 2 turn capped duration, might be better for balance.

 

Death Ward

Same as above.

Edited August 10, 2014 by janoha

[Sergio]

Isn't this more a "being-annoyed" issue, more than a balance one? Having to launch three times the same spell because it goes off is not much about "balance", more about, "damn, I have to constantly check, etc"

[Grammarsalad]

Isn't this more a "being-annoyed" issue, more than a balance one? Having to launch three times the same spell because it goes off is not much about "balance", more about, "damn, I have to constantly check, etc"

I have to agree.

[Dakk]

 

 

Clairvoyance

Mmm..."reveal area map" doesn't really fit its current concept imo, don't you agree?

 

What if I add that effect to Farsight? That way by casting it you first reveal the general outline of the whole map and then more easily pick the correct spot you want to fully "spy".

 

This makes a lot of sense to me. It is of course a bit more problematic for BG 1, but I still think it would be a good compromise.

 

I pretty much dislike to not be able to remove 100% of the fog of war and being able to do this only using Farsight makes it more than problematic for BG1 but like everybody else said, it does make full sense so thumbs up, Demi.

 

I'm of the same opinion as Salk here; having FOW-removal on Farsight makes sense - but is negative for BG1. But it's a clever idea, and I'm good with it!

 

With that said - does Farsight really deserve to be a level 4 spell? It's really more a convenience-spell than anything other, and lvl 4 have some extremely powerful and necessary spells (thereby relegating convenience-spells way down the memorizing queue). The convenience-factor is also compounded by the fact that for many (most?) people the maps hold few secrets. Browsing through lvl 3 and lvl 4 arcane spells Farsight IMHO looks much more at home @ lvl 3.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Dakk

[Ardanis]

Swap Farsight and Clairvoyance, move area reveal to Farsight.

[janoha]

Swap Farsight and Clairvoyance, move area reveal to Farsight.

This is a great idea. I support this.

[Demivrgvs]

Farsight & Clairvoyance

Swap Farsight and Clairvoyance, move area reveal to Farsight.

Mmm...I tend to agree with you guys.

[Dakk]

Swap Farsight and Clairvoyance, move area reveal to Farsight.

If both can't be level 3, this is indeed the perfect move.

[AL|EN]

I have quick question about "Comet" spell. I see this tweak/fix in Oversight mod:

 

 

Comet is now unaffected by magic resistance and the damage it inflicts is crushing, making it no longer a weaker choice than Dragon's Breath for every situation.

What is the status of this spell in SR?

[Demivrgvs]

Comet

I have quick question about "Comet" spell. I see this tweak/fix in Oversight mod:

Comet is now unaffected by magic resistance and the damage it inflicts is crushing, making it no longer a weaker choice than Dragon's Breath for every situation.

What is the status of this spell in SR?

Crushing dmg, bypass magic resistance, and party-friendly (the latter makes no sense, but I got used to accept stuff like this for AI sake). It's still too similar to Dragon's Breath imo.

[Klatu]

Sorry for barging in like this.

Hold vs. Stun

Regarding hold & stun effects I do remember me and Arda discussing about it and trying to understand how to handle them. Right now stun generally have a shorter duration but they are pretty much the same thing. Is it possible to clearly differentiate them? And if it is, would it be beneficial or detrimental?

I tried to write down a standardized concept behind them (e.g. one of them is a physical effect and the other is a mind affecting one?) but both of them are widely used in too many instances with different concepts. Hold is used for all kinds of things, from physical paralysis caused by different sources (ghoul's touch, envenomed blade, web etc.) to enchantment spells.

Also note that both effects are hardcoded, and changing how they behave is out of question imo.

Short story: if anyone has a clear idea in mind to "standardize" the two concepts and/or thinks he can suggest a cool way to handle both effects better than how we currently do, I'm always open to suggestions, but personally I gave up.

I'm not sure how you are handling immobilizing effects, right now, but this is how I would do it:

There are three types of immobilization: Paralyze, Hold and Stun.
Paralyze: The victim's body or mind is impaired in such a way that they are unable to move on their own.
Hold: The victim, fully conscious, is held in place by an outside force.
Stun: The victim suffers a blow from which they must first recover. Always short duration.

Paralyze effects can be countered either by dedicated spells, such as "Remove paralysis" or by dispelling the magical influence responsible for impairing their body or mind.
Hold effects can be countered either by dedicated spells that allow the victim to escape the holding force, such as "Freedom", or by dispelling that force to begin with.
Stun effects cannot be countered and must be endured.

But first, the technical stuff:

Opcodes 45, 109, 175 and 185 all immobilize. The imortant difference is in how they can be cancelled.
Opcode 58 (dispel magic) can potentially remove any of them. Opcode 46 can only cancel opcode 45. And opcode 162 can cancel both 109 and 175. Only opcode 58 can cancel 185.

Because opcodes 109 and 175 behave identically, the number of different cases is only six:

<table>
	<tr><th>type</th><th>opcode</th><th>46</th><th>58</th><th>162</th><th>summary</th></tr>
	<tr><th>A</th><td>45</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Hold non-magical</td></tr>
	<tr><th>B</th><td>45</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>Hold magical</td></tr>
	<tr><th>C</th><td>109</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>Paralyze non-magical</td></tr>
	<tr><th>D</th><td>109</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>Paralyze non-magical</td></tr>
	<tr><th>E</th><td>185</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Stun</td></tr>
	<tr><th>E</th><td>185</td><td>-</td><td>X</td><td>-</td><td>Other</td></tr>
</table>

It's a bit difficult to apply this system consistenly to all the existing spells and attacks, but it shouldn't be impossible.
A few examples:

Spider webs --> Type A. The webs are natural, meaning they cannot be dispelled, but the victim can still be freed magically.

Web (Spell) --> Type B. The webs are magical, meaning they can be dispelled, at least to a degree. The victim can also be freed with a dedicated spell.

Carrion Crawler attack: Type C. The victim is paralyzed by a venomous attack, which must be countered specifically.

Ghoul touch (spell or attack): Type C or D. The victim is affected with negative energy, making them unable to move on their own.

Hold (Spell) --> Type B: The victim is held in place by a magical force. Either the force is dispelled or the victim is freed with a dedicated spell.
OR (depending on interpretation)
Hold (Spell) --> Type D: The victim is magically made to believe that they are held in place. That influence can be dispelled or removed with a dedicated spell.

Bigby's Crushing Hand (Spell) --> Type E: The victim is knocked around violently, from which they must recover. No magic will help.

I can't really think of any cases for type F, right now.

...

Of course, all of this would have to be implemented some-how. There's also the problem that this requires using Hold (185) instead of Stun(45) for stun effects, so the strings displayed in-game would be somewhat confusing.

Just my two cents on all this.

 

Edit: Table is borked. How do I fix this?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Klatu

[kreso]

............

Lovely ideas, but it quite probably won't happen in SR. You'd have to modify creature weapons to use "cast spell" with a dedicated sec.type, and messing around with hardcoded effects (i.e. Stun) is quite possibly not really an option due to detectable stats. Even tough, looking at PnP Stunned condition, it looks much better than BG version (one isn't automatically hit as in BG).

There's also AI mods to take into account (example - SCS makes Spider's Web Tangle spell from the existing Web spell resource as a single-target innate) - therefore - too much work for too little gain. One can reduce the duration of Stun effect, and I do like the idea that it's stopped only by Mind Shield effect (Chaotic Commands and a few items), and not by Free Action.

[n-ghost]

Uh, I think there might be a small inaccuracy in wording of Know Opponent. It says: "When this spell is cast, the priest's eyes glow with magical energy etc".

 

Are druids supposed to get it too? Because in my current build Jaheira has it. Druids can be viewed as some kind of forest priest ofc, but still, more vague word instead of "priest" would fit here better imo.

[n-ghost]

Same with regenerate-type druid heals.

 

Now I actually think there was a discussion about this somewhere D: