PnP Greater Malison

[Demivrgvs]

PnP, IWD and BG1 version of Greater Malison cause -2 penalty to saves instead of -4, and I want to make sure any player can understand why such a change is needed for balance purposes.

 

Here's a clarifying example:

 

We'll analyse a Spell Trigger: (x3 Confusion) vs. (Greater Malison + 2x Confusion)

- Targets have outstanding saves vs. spell: 2;

- Confusion has a save vs. spell at -2 penalty (-3 with SR but let's discard this change for now);

 

x3 Confusion: targets have a 61% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-4 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 42% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-2 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 56% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Even with a -2 penalty Greater Malison is already very effective on the first round, as it's better than using another spell of the same level. Then you should consider that all subsequent spells casted in the following rounds (up to 40 rounds!) will have a +10% chance to affect all targets, and that Greater Malison can make even higher level spells more effective than they normally are. On the other hand, vanilla's -4 penalty was simply too much effective, especially because of the +20% chance of success applied on each spell casted by any party member in the following rounds.

 

Last but not least, lowering target's saves doesn't affect only spells, as targets will also more easily fail saves against innate abilities (fighter's Smite, Assasin's poisons, ...), and on hit effects (and within BG many weapons have tremendous on hit effects, such as Celestial Fury's stunning blow!).

 

 

Script wise, it's not really relevant to RR either way, though I'd personally preffer the PnP/IWD version.

[DavidW]

Replying over here since I missed this thread and don't want to clutter up the other one.

 

I'd like to point out that both aVENGER and DavidW agreed on the following demonstration, which is quite important considering they are the authors of the best AI enhancing mods available to our community.

I think this is a little misleading. I agree on the demonstration, but I'm less convinced of the conclusion you draw from it; and the reason I agree has nothing to do with being an author of "the best AI enhancing mods available" (flattering though the comment is!) and everything to do with knowing basic probability theory.

 

Here's the clarifying example I've used in a discussion I had with them:

 

We'll analyse a Spell Trigger: (x3 Confusion) vs. (Greater Malison + 2x Confusion)

- Targets have outstanding saves vs. spell: 2;

- Confusion has a save vs. spell at -2 penalty (-3 with SR but let's discard this change for now);

 

x3 Confusion: targets have a 61% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-4 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 42% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-2 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 56% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

So the danger of drawing conclusions from one example this way is that it's potentially quite dependent on the example's details.

 

For instance, suppose the target's saving throw is 9. Then he has a 12.5% chance of saving against all three confusions. If malison is at -2, then his chance of saving against both confusions post Malison is 16%. So in that case the malison isn't really worthwhile.

 

Or if the enemy doesn't have a sequencer handy (or has filled it with defensive spells), or wants to cast Chaos rather than confusion. Then it might be interesting to look at Malison + Chaos vs Chaos x2. That same target with a saving throw of 9 has a 16% chance of saving against both Chaos spells, and a 30% chance of saving against one having been Malisoned at +2. On the other hand, if he has a saving throw of 2, he'd have a 9/16 chance (about 62%) of resisting both Chaos spells and a 65% chance of resisting one Malison plus Chaos.

 

I'm not really trying to make the positive case that Malison should not be -2 rather than -4, just the negative case that it's not as simple as "just do the math".

 

Now, from playtest experience using Malison in SCSII, my impression is:

- having some spell that softens up player saving throws generally adds interest, since it makes it more worthwhile to risk saving-throw-related spells

- The 4 point penalty does not, as a practical matter, seem to make PC saving throws unbalancingly bad

- Malison is fairly fragile in a high-magic environment - it tends to fall to a stray dispel within a few rounds even when I make some effort to script around that

- 4th level feels like about the right place to sacrifice one spell slot for something like this; higher up would get in the way too much.

- It's not worth carrying more than one of them.

 

So on balance, I prefer the BG2 version.

 

Having said this, in the WEIDU era, there's not much need to worry here. You can make it optional if you like; equally, I can build a selective revert option into SCS. Either way, people can choose what they prefer.

[Aranthys]

Just gonna add my grain of salt here :

If you do give the option the get the vanilla Malysion with Spell Revisions stayons as it is, then you will have all level 7+ spells save at -10.... and even, i still think -8 is way, way, way too much at the moment (I already explained that in my previous message)

[Guest amanasleep]

Replying over here since I missed this thread and don't want to clutter up the other one.

 

I'd like to point out that both aVENGER and DavidW agreed on the following demonstration, which is quite important considering they are the authors of the best AI enhancing mods available to our community.

I think this is a little misleading. I agree on the demonstration, but I'm less convinced of the conclusion you draw from it; and the reason I agree has nothing to do with being an author of "the best AI enhancing mods available" (flattering though the comment is!) and everything to do with knowing basic probability theory.

 

Here's the clarifying example I've used in a discussion I had with them:

 

We'll analyse a Spell Trigger: (x3 Confusion) vs. (Greater Malison + 2x Confusion)

- Targets have outstanding saves vs. spell: 2;

- Confusion has a save vs. spell at -2 penalty (-3 with SR but let's discard this change for now);

 

x3 Confusion: targets have a 61% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-4 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 42% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

Greater Malison (-2 penalty) + 2x Confusion: targets have a 56% chance to successfully save against the whole Spell Trigger.

 

So the danger of drawing conclusions from one example this way is that it's potentially quite dependent on the example's details.

 

For instance, suppose the target's saving throw is 9. Then he has a 12.5% chance of saving against all three confusions. If malison is at -2, then his chance of saving against both confusions post Malison is 16%. So in that case the malison isn't really worthwhile.

 

Or if the enemy doesn't have a sequencer handy (or has filled it with defensive spells), or wants to cast Chaos rather than confusion. Then it might be interesting to look at Malison + Chaos vs Chaos x2. That same target with a saving throw of 9 has a 16% chance of saving against both Chaos spells, and a 30% chance of saving against one having been Malisoned at +2. On the other hand, if he has a saving throw of 2, he'd have a 9/16 chance (about 62%) of resisting both Chaos spells and a 65% chance of resisting one Malison plus Chaos.

 

I'm not really trying to make the positive case that Malison should not be -2 rather than -4, just the negative case that it's not as simple as "just do the math".

 

Now, from playtest experience using Malison in SCSII, my impression is:

- having some spell that softens up player saving throws generally adds interest, since it makes it more worthwhile to risk saving-throw-related spells

- The 4 point penalty does not, as a practical matter, seem to make PC saving throws unbalancingly bad

- Malison is fairly fragile in a high-magic environment - it tends to fall to a stray dispel within a few rounds even when I make some effort to script around that

- 4th level feels like about the right place to sacrifice one spell slot for something like this; higher up would get in the way too much.

- It's not worth carrying more than one of them.

 

So on balance, I prefer the BG2 version.

 

Having said this, in the WEIDU era, there's not much need to worry here. You can make it optional if you like; equally, I can build a selective revert option into SCS. Either way, people can choose what they prefer.

 

 

 

I just spent ten minutes writing up almost this exact same probability analysis.

 

:sigh:

 

All I can say is that I agree here. My impression is that the BG2 designers buffed GM between BG1 and BG2 to try to make people use more save or else spells. The only spells that this may have unbalanced were spells that were overpowered anyway (Web, etc.).

 

The biggest issue in determining whether a spell should have a save penalty is what the actual effect of the spell is, not it's level.

 

Level 1 Charm Person has a +3 bonus. It's pretty good if both caster and target are level 1, but becomes far less powerful as both caster and target increase in levels. Buffing the spell means that it starts to compete with its higer level versions.

[Demivrgvs]

For instance, suppose the target's saving throw is 9. Then he has a 12.5% chance of saving against all three confusions. If malison is at -2, then his chance of saving against both confusions post Malison is 16%. So in that case the malison isn't really worthwhile.

 

Or if the enemy doesn't have a sequencer handy (or has filled it with defensive spells), or wants to cast Chaos rather than confusion. Then it might be interesting to look at Malison + Chaos vs Chaos x2. That same target with a saving throw of 9 has a 16% chance of saving against both Chaos spells, and a 30% chance of saving against one having been Malisoned at +2. On the other hand, if he has a saving throw of 2, he'd have a 9/16 chance (about 62%) of resisting both Chaos spells and a 65% chance of resisting one Malison plus Chaos.

Ok, if you take opponents with very bad saves you're right, but against those type of opponents Malison isn't really needed! Malison is clearly designed to be used against targets with good saves.

 

Anyway, your comparison is not fair imo, as you're "forgetting" many important things imo:

1) it's not "Malison +1 spell" and then nothing, it's "Malison +X spells"! And even if you think that a Dispel would take place once every 2-3 rounds (which is highly unlikely imo because AI seems to use Remove Magic and players have a really hard time dispelling effects because SCS mages have much higher levels), within 2 rounds a party (even with only 2 spellcasters) is more than able to unleash 4 spells.

2) Malison can be used to make high level spells even more hard to resist, and this is really unvaluable imo, because one thing is facing a Wail of the Banshee with no penalty, but facing it with an additional -4 penalty is an entirely different story!

3) you say "it's not worth carrying more than one of them", I say "it's great because you just need one of it per day". Most spells can't be used in any occasion, Malison is effective against each and every opponent (immunity to Malison doesn't exist), in conjuction with each and every spell!

4) lowering target's saves doesn't affect only spells, targets will also more easily fail saves against innate abilities (fighter's Smite, Assasin's poisons, ...), and on hit effects (and within BG many weapons have tremendous on hit effects, such as Celestial Fury's stunning blow).

 

 

Just gonna add my grain of salt here :

If you do give the option the get the vanilla Malysion with Spell Revisions stayons as it is, then you will have all level 7+ spells save at -10.... and even, i still think -8 is way, way, way too much at the moment (I already explained that in my previous message)

As Aranthys suggest, within SR you really can't use vanilla Malison, thus I'd suggest you to not revert it for SCS or you'll end up with serious balance issues for high level spells.

 

If you still think vanilla Malison is fine I don't think I can add much to what I just said, but keep it at -4 penalty only for non SR players please.

[Guest amanasleep]

As Aranthys suggest, within SR you really can't use vanilla Malison, thus I'd suggest you to not revert it for SCS or you'll end up with serious balance issues for high level spells.

 

Demi, I still don't understand why, if you feel that the -4 save from Malison is overpowered, you have built that save penalty into practically every spell above 4th level for SR.

 

In vanilla: Malison makes every spell save at -4, some at -6 or -8.

In SR: Every spell above 4th level saves at -4, Malison makes some save at -6.

 

So in SR you get the effects of Malison without having to even cast it. This makes no sense.

 

If you really believed that Vanilla Malison was overpowered you would nerf it to -2 and add no save penalties to any of the existing spells.

[Ardanis]

4) lowering target's saves doesn't affect only spells, targets will also more easily fail saves against innate abilities (fighter's Smite, Assasin's poisons, ...), and on hit effects (and within BG many weapons have tremendous on hit effects, such as Celestial Fury's stunning blow).

[Demivrgvs]

Demi, I still don't understand why, if you feel that the -4 save from Malison is overpowered, you have built that save penalty into practically every spell above 4th level for SR.

 

In vanilla: Malison makes every spell save at -4, some at -6 or -8.

In SR: Every spell above 4th level saves at -4, Malison makes some save at -6.

 

So in SR you get the effects of Malison without having to even cast it. This makes no sense.

 

If you really believed that Vanilla Malison was overpowered you would nerf it to -2 and add no save penalties to any of the existing spells.

This is something I apparently don't explain so well, but I'll try. I don't think the end result of having -6 penalty was overpowered, but allowing a 4th level spell to add a -4 on each save against every opponent was too much. The end result within SR is more or less the same, but Malison is more balanced compared to other spells of its level, and it allows me to grant more options, as within SR players can use more save or else spells without always having to rely on Malison to make them appealing. SR Malison should still be very effective though, and like Aranthys says, used in conjuction with high level spells it simply rocks.

 

 

Ardanis, why did you quoted me without any comment?

 

P.S What Ardanis quoted is also another good example to explain why granting spells a penalty within themselves instead of via Malison is not the same thing.

[Guest guest]

players have a really hard time dispelling effects because SCS mages have much higher levels

 

Sorry to sidetrack a little, but, apparently player's have an impossible time dispelling effects due to the higher levels! Just wondering, is this fix going to be part of SR, fixpack, or completely separate? It seems it'll have to be a .exe file, but the thread never seemed to conclude as to how/when the fix will be distributed.

[amanasleep]

Demi, I still don't understand why, if you feel that the -4 save from Malison is overpowered, you have built that save penalty into practically every spell above 4th level for SR.

 

In vanilla: Malison makes every spell save at -4, some at -6 or -8.

In SR: Every spell above 4th level saves at -4, Malison makes some save at -6.

 

So in SR you get the effects of Malison without having to even cast it. This makes no sense.

 

If you really believed that Vanilla Malison was overpowered you would nerf it to -2 and add no save penalties to any of the existing spells.

This is something I apparently don't explain so well, but I'll try. I don't think the end result of having -6 penalty was overpowered, but allowing a 4th level spell to add a -4 on each save against every opponent was too much. The end result within SR is more or less the same, but Malison is more balanced compared to other spells of its level, and it allows me to grant more options, as within SR players can use more save or else spells without always having to rely on Malison to make them appealing. SR Malison should still be very effective though, and like Aranthys says, used in conjuction with high level spells it simply rocks.

 

P.S What Ardanis quoted is also another good example to explain why granting spells a penalty within themselves instead of via Malison is not the same thing.

 

Ardanis actually brings up the first good argument I've seen for reducing Malison power. On Hit, Kit, item, and HLA effects are also affected by Malison.

 

The problem with building the save penalties into the spells themselves is that by removing the need for Malison you end up removing Malison's main drawback: the loss of 1 spell action casting it. Under the proposed SR system, Malison is unnecessary, as the difference between 0 and -4 is much greater than between -4 and -6 (not to mention -6 and -8).

 

A better fix is to reduce the duration to 3 rounds.

[Demivrgvs]

Ardanis actually brings up the first good argument I've seen for reducing Malison power. On Hit, Kit, item, and HLA effects are also affected by Malison.

Hey, giving him the praise is not fair, he's just quoting me! Anyway, I'd be surprised to have Ardnais think something a lot different than me.

 

The problem with building the save penalties into the spells themselves is that by removing the need for Malison you end up removing Malison's main drawback: the loss of 1 spell action casting it. Under the proposed SR system, Malison is unnecessary, as the difference between 0 and -4 is much greater than between -4 and -6 (not to mention -6 and -8).

Not completely true though the statement per se is correct. Using Malison to reach unbelievable high penalties (e.g. from -4 to -6) is actually keeping it very appealing even if it's less noticeable in terms of "numbers" (-2 instead of -4), and having mid-high level spells with already good penalties makes the end result of using Malison even more effective than before imo.

 

A better fix is to reduce the duration to 3 rounds.

I don't like it at all, but feel free to suggest it, as always if most players agree on something it's really rare that I don't try to give them what they want.

[Aranthys]

Demi, I still don't understand why, if you feel that the -4 save from Malison is overpowered, you have built that save penalty into practically every spell above 4th level for SR.

 

In vanilla: Malison makes every spell save at -4, some at -6 or -8.

In SR: Every spell above 4th level saves at -4, Malison makes some save at -6.

 

So in SR you get the effects of Malison without having to even cast it. This makes no sense.

 

If you really believed that Vanilla Malison was overpowered you would nerf it to -2 and add no save penalties to any of the existing spells.

This is something I apparently don't explain so well, but I'll try. I don't think the end result of having -6 penalty was overpowered, but allowing a 4th level spell to add a -4 on each save against every opponent was too much. The end result within SR is more or less the same, but Malison is more balanced compared to other spells of its level, and it allows me to grant more options, as within SR players can use more save or else spells without always having to rely on Malison to make them appealing. SR Malison should still be very effective though, and like Aranthys says, used in conjuction with high level spells it simply rocks.

 

P.S What Ardanis quoted is also another good example to explain why granting spells a penalty within themselves instead of via Malison is not the same thing.

 

Ardanis actually brings up the first good argument I've seen for reducing Malison power. On Hit, Kit, item, and HLA effects are also affected by Malison.

 

The problem with building the save penalties into the spells themselves is that by removing the need for Malison you end up removing Malison's main drawback: the loss of 1 spell action casting it. Under the proposed SR system, Malison is unnecessary, as the difference between 0 and -4 is much greater than between -4 and -6 (not to mention -6 and -8).

 

A better fix is to reduce the duration to 3 rounds.

Erm, no. Even with a duration of 3 rounds, -4 to saves with the current -6 to saves would be absolutly imbalanced.

Desintegrate with -9 to saves ? Hell yeah, let's have fun.... even the current -7 is totally imbalanced

[Shaitan]

@ Aranthys: you are very dedicated?

 

I don't like to reduce the duration, the more I think about Malison, the more I feel that we need to see it action and thus a change for it in an earlier v4 could be a way to come closer to an solution??

 

Cheers

[Aranthys]

@ Aranthys: you are very dedicated?

 

I don't like to reduce the duration, the more I think about Malison, the more I feel that we need to see it action and thus a change for it in an earlier v4 could be a way to come closer to an solution??

 

Cheers

Ask Demi, I'm sure he has a Punching Ball with my name written all over it

[SixOfSpades]

Sorry to sidetrack a little, but, apparently player's have an impossible time dispelling effects due to the higher levels! Just wondering, is this fix going to be part of SR, fixpack, or completely separate? It seems it'll have to be a .exe file, but the thread never seemed to conclude as to how/when the fix will be distributed.

That wouldn't require an EXE hack, just an adjustment to some Extension Headers, so that you'd only need to be (for example) Level 8 in order to cast Dispel/Remove Magic at Level 12--while keeping your regular casting level for all other spells. That's how the Inquisitor can Dispel at twice his actual level.

 

Whether or not we actually do this is an open question. I'd prefer to keep the spells as-is, as the problem lies with BioWare's seemingly building all enemy Mages on the same 3 or 4 templates . . . all of whom are Level 18, and almost all of whom know Time Stop, and PfMW, and ADHW, whereas the party has to scrape and kick and scream to get those spells.

 

(Greater) Malison

Okay, let's summarize:

1. Every offensive spell needs to have a Save difficult enough (against creatures appropriate to the spell's level) for the spell to be at least moderately appealing--worthy of being cast on its own without Malison support.

2. Malison needs to impose enough of a penalty, over a great enough span of time, to be worth casting. Yet it cannot impose a penalty so great that casting other spells would seem relatively worthless without Malison backing them up.

 

Possibilities:

A. I for one think -2 to all Saves for multiple enemies is about right for a Level 4 spell, even if it's only for 4 rounds or so. But I don't like the thought of having to face dangerous enemies whose Saves I can only lower by 3 (2 from Malison, 1 from Doom, unless that's been changed), regardless of how experienced my own Mages are. That's why I suggested moving "Greater" Malison, with the full -4 to Saves, to a higher-level spellslot. That way, players who miss the -4 can still get it, but they'll have to pay more for it.

B. For those concerned about on-hit effects and things like the Monk's Stunning Blow, we might consider moving all of those to use Save vs. Wands, while Malison lowers the other 4 Saves and leaves Wands untouched. Hardly anything in the game uses the Wands save (gee, where have I heard that before?), and it's quite appropriate for on-hit effects. That said, I myself don't care for this idea much, it's just worth a thought.

C. It's possible to create a new reverse Malison spell, granting Saves bonuses to those in the area, and scripting the AI to use this as a buff or counterspell. With the new secondary types, we could even have the two spells cancel each other out. But again, we shouldn't be adding many new spells except to fill holes, and I think Enchantment is almost taken care of now.

D. We could do away with the whole thing and remove Malison from the game altogether.