Feedback

[bradinmemph]

 

so how do you tear down imp invis or make an imp invis creature targetable by someone other than the ts caster???

Theoretically you don't... you just install the SCS fix for the breach spell. And be happy with steroids.

 

so basiclkly only the caster of TS and breach can target and harmthe creature??? btw what about AOE im assuming AOE will damage anything in the Area of effct as long as spell def isnt up...but imp invis shouldnt protect against aoe dam

[subtledoctor]

True Seeing caster can target with spells

 

Anyone can hit with AoE effcts (but Spell Deflection will block them)

 

Anyone can target with physical attacks.

 

It would be nice if there was a powerful "dispel all illusions so anyone can target" spell. Does Oracle do this?

[Demivrgvs]

True Seeing caster can target with spells

 

Anyone can hit with AoE effcts (but Spell Deflection will block them)

 

Anyone can target with physical attacks.

Exactly. TS caster also doesn't suffer -4 thac0 penalty when attacking the II target with physical attacks.

 

It would be nice if there was a powerful "dispel all illusions so anyone can target" spell. Does Oracle do this?

Cleric's Invisibility Purge should fully dispels invisibility, both mage's Detect Illusion and Oracle should as well. This hopefully gives a role to that poor Detect Illusion.

 

As soon as I add Phantasmal Force and Shades I'm tempted to make DI the only spell with a chance to fully destroy illusionary creatures instead of simply highlight them like TS does now. Maybe we could also rename it as per PnP, Dispel Illusions, though the name would strangely make it sound ike an abjuration.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Demivrgvs

[Shaitan]

Detect Illusion is great with a F/M now

[subtledoctor]

By the way, I'm working on a mod to enhance the wizard kits. I want to give them enhanced abilities with spells on their school. For Illusionists I figured on adding Non-detection to all of their invisibility effects - they should be "better" at being invisible. But patching all invisibility spells across all variants of the game (and all mods) is too difficult, so I figure I'll just apply permanent, undispellable Non-detection at level one.

 

Question is, would that be a Bad Idea with SRv4? Would they be OP? Or would it be okay because they would be targetable if they do something like attacking or casting a spell?

 

I'm trying to parse those for the answer:

 

Just consider Non-detection like the old SI:Div and counter it like you did with that spell, with a spell removal (e.g. Spell Thrust, Secret Word, etc.).

 

The tricky thing is that ND makes you "immune" to True Seeing and similar stuff (e.g. if you are invisible there's simply no way they can detect you),

[Shaitan]

Wizards are overpowered allready, so why enhance them?

[subtledoctor]

1) The way opposition schools work makes them more annoying than flavor-enhancing. This would eliminate annoyance and add flavor.

 

2) I don't think it would increase Wizards' power that much. It wouldn't be much more powerful than playing a pure mage now. And probably still way less powerful than playing any other class dualled to mage. If specialists are made a bit closer to dual-class mages in power, and more interesting and unique, I'd consider that a win.

 

3) I don't want to bog down this SR thread with my crackpot ideas - except insofar as they relate to SR. So for the moment the main question is, how would a character with permanent Non-detection play with SRv4? Would it be game-breaking? Or okay?

Edited April 5, 2015 by subtledoctor

[kreso]

So for the moment the main question is, how would a character with permanent Non-detection play with SRv4? Would it be game-breaking? Or okay?

Okay. Fwiw, I don't think I've ever bothered removing Non-Detection (aka SI:Div) from AI mages. This spell mostly affects PCs who want to stay invisible throughout the battle - AI mages never do so, so this spell is kind of useless for them. It's also useless for PCs vs Liches/Demons and whatever sees invisible by script, but that's nothing new.

Maybe Demi will tweak (improve) Imp.invis. slightly to make this spell a bit better.

[geg_Ma3gau]

Guys what is a good way to avoid deafness from holy/unholy word?

[kreso]

Guys what is a good way to avoid deafness from holy/unholy word?

Staying out of range.

[Jarno Mikkola]

But shouldn't the spell that causes deafness be "Unholy Ramble" and not a "Unholy Word". Anomen:

[geg_Ma3gau]

Well yes 2 options: stay out of range or have the spell deflection/shield of the Achorns up and running. Or make the party neutral or evil .

 

Anyway i d vote nerfing deafness to ~20% spell failure any day of the week.

pretty much the same way magic resistance gives +20% MR and the items like Carsomyr also.

 

Btw, does the spell shield protect from AOE spells the same way deflections do?

Edited April 20, 2015 by geg_Ma3gau

[kreso]

Anyway i d vote nerfing deafness to ~20% spell failure any day of the week.

pretty much the same way magic resistance gives +20% MR and the items like Carsomyr also.

 

Btw, does the spell shield protect from AOE spells the same way deflections do?

I feel the same way about Deafness, but it's a hardcoded effect afaik. Spell Shield doesn't protect you vs spells, only vs spell removals.

[geg_Ma3gau]

 

Anyway i d vote nerfing deafness to ~20% spell failure any day of the week.

pretty much the same way magic resistance gives +20% MR and the items like Carsomyr also.

 

Btw, does the spell shield protect from AOE spells the same way deflections do?

I feel the same way about Deafness, but it's a hardcoded effect afaik. Spell Shield doesn't protect you vs spells, only vs spell removals.

 

I miswrote. I meant the lvl 9 spell protection Spell Trap. Does it protect from AoE?

[kreso]

I miswrote. I meant the lvl 9 spell protection Spell Trap. Does it protect from AoE?

Yes.