Spell Immunity

[DavidW]

Slightly off-topic: I'm curious, does the staying power for dragons component affect abazigal in his ascension form? I remember him already having something like 500hp, which would bring him to a beefy 1500hp if it does. Not sure if thats good or bad, but i'd like to know before i try that component.

 

It doesn't. "Dragon" is defined phenotypically, not genotypically. (i.e., I look at the creature animation, not the heritage!)

 

 

Prebuffs are so important to SCS2. The PC gets to prebuff even assuming they aren't metagaming. Why would a group of mages ambushing the party not have done the same? Do you really assume that Cowled Wizards show up to an ambush (think of Tolgeiras in the Planar Sphere--he is literally waiting to attack the PC!) without their Stoneskins on?

Note that SCS wizards precast Stoneskin even if you don't have prebuff components installed. The logic is that this is a spell that you don't need short-notice advance warning of the party's arrival to cast: you just cast it every morning over breakfast.

Without brebuffs (which is how I prefer to play), the only way to effectively build the above mentioned uber "protection shell" is via Spell Trigger (3x 6th level spells or lower) and Chain Contingency (3x 8th level spells or lower), which means two another "wasted" high level slots.

 

Why would they be wasted? Are you assuming that after the enemy mage set his Triggers and Contingencies he did not then rest to rememorize other spells in those slots?

Certainly SCSII assumes this: I don't take Chain Contingency et al out of spell slots. (Though of course, there's still a price to pay: forfeiting an offensive Spell Trigger.

 

Even with prebuffing we aren't assuming they are getting more slots than they would ordinarily be allowed, just that they are making use of them as the player would. Pre-buffing saves the AI mage time and allows him to get buffs up before the player shoots him with an arrow and the entire . It does not give him additional spells!

Though to be fair, the current release of SCSII follows the vanilla-game line and just guesstimates how many prebuff spells mages have; it doesn't try to get the numbers exactly right. The next release will be more careful, though, and will rewrite spellbooks from scratch. (The original SCS has been doing this since last September.)

 

 

Possibly one of the reasons DavidW has raised AI mage levels in some cases. There aren't many Level 14 mages in the game, even in low level adventuring. Even M16 with no other advantages has a lot of power. But if you assume no prebuffing almost any mage is pretty weak. Magic Missile = game over.

Actually I raise mage levels more mechanically than that: I have code which works out the lowest level compatible with the spells he actually has learned, and raise him to that.

 

Even without prebuffing, L14 and L16 mages can do a passable job of protecting themselves via sequencers, triggers and contingencies, of course.

[Salk]

Prebuffs are so important to SCS2. The PC gets to prebuff even assuming they aren't metagaming. Why would a group of mages ambushing the party not have done the same? Do you really assume that Cowled Wizards show up to an ambush (think of Tolgeiras in the Planar Sphere--he is literally waiting to attack the PC!) without their Stoneskins on?

 

Prebuff makes sense only for certain specific encounters but for my taste, it should generally be avoided.

 

It's dangerous to build a system under the assumption of the player being metagaming.

[DavidW]

Prebuffs are so important to SCS2. The PC gets to prebuff even assuming they aren't metagaming. Why would a group of mages ambushing the party not have done the same? Do you really assume that Cowled Wizards show up to an ambush (think of Tolgeiras in the Planar Sphere--he is literally waiting to attack the PC!) without their Stoneskins on?

 

Prebuff makes sense only for certain specific encounters but for my taste, it should generally be avoided.

Tastes clearly vary. If only someone could write an AI mod where prebuffing is optional.

 

It's dangerous to build a system under the assumption of the player being metagaming.

Wasn't amanasleep's point precisely that PCs prebuff even when not metagaming? (Certainly, I prebuffed pretty extensively the first time I played through.)

 

I'm also unclear how it can be "dangerous".

[Guest Guest_Loz_*]

I'm actually not too keen on the whole "raise mage levels to what they should be to use their spells" component and wish it was an optional part of the mage install. I can understand doing this if for example a mage is using level 9 spells when hes only level 16 - then i'd bring him up to 18, but i dislike raising their levels for their spellbook for several reasons. First sometimes the enemy mages have more spells memorised than you can ever get, even some normal non-boss mages. Secondly i would put this down to them having some "edwin-like" items or innate abilities that grant them additional spells. Not everyone comes from the same path as the player, most of these mages have been studying magic far far longer and be in circles such as the red wizards and may have found alternative ways of expanding their spell books beyond their raw levels(i think red wizards in particular have tatoos for example to do this). Liches are another example, these guys have been around for a very long time and i think there might be alot of ways they have found to escape the normal memorisation limits. I can understand buffing some of the named liches levels, also to help them against turn undead but not the others. Currently i find that most of the level 18 mages are boosted to around 30, which i feel is too much, and sort of ruins the feeling of becoming god-like figures by the end of the game. What is level 30 worth when everyone has it? Same goes for irenicus and other mage bosses advantage over the more common named or unnamed mage.

 

I'd like to see mages stick to the memorisation limits that they had in the original game - but i'd rather not see their levels raised just to make them "legal"(which many of them still aren't). If we follow this path to its conclusion irenicus will end up with the same spell limits as the player, or at level 50, both undesirable options in my mind. Also i believe the memoisation table for the player's mage was heavily nerfed from pnp, giving them many less spells. Would you consider making this an optional component or is it too linked in with your vision of scsii at baseline?

 

P.S. there are one or two situations in the game where i feel the ai even could do with a few more spells, shangalar is one such example, at level 27 he seems to have far fewer spells than many of his level 22 brethren, and notably less than his level 18 companion layenne. Incidentally i noticed layenne is a pretty good example or how many levels mages can jump - she seems to go from around 18 to around 30, about 12 levels, almost double her original level. Thats quite alot in my mind for a component thats built on the end of the mage component as seeminly a type of "fix".

[Guest amanasleep]

Prebuffs are so important to SCS2. The PC gets to prebuff even assuming they aren't metagaming. Why would a group of mages ambushing the party not have done the same? Do you really assume that Cowled Wizards show up to an ambush (think of Tolgeiras in the Planar Sphere--he is literally waiting to attack the PC!) without their Stoneskins on?

 

Prebuff makes sense only for certain specific encounters but for my taste, it should generally be avoided.

 

It's dangerous to build a system under the assumption of the player being metagaming.

 

All of the prebuffing in SCS2 is optional, except for Stoneskin and MMM, so it's entirely up to the user whether you want to use it.

 

For myself, I tend to use the medium option:

 

Option 2: Mages are allowed to cast spells instantly at the start of combat only when they are created near the PC (e.g. enemy mages teleporting in to ambush you).

 

This means that if you just attack a neutral mage (like Mekrath or Rayic Gethras) or happen upon them randomly (most Liches), they get no extra pre-buffs because you have surprised them.

 

But if a mage is ambushing you (like Tolgeiras or any of the Cowled Wizards that Dimension Door in to attack unlicensed magic users), there is no reason to suppose that he hasn't prebuffed for the fight.

[DavidW]

Liches are another example, these guys have been around for a very long time and i think there might be alot of ways they have found to escape the normal memorisation limits.

You seriously think that liches are supposed to be level 11? That's their vanilla-game level.

 

I'd like to see mages stick to the memorisation limits that they had in the original game - but i'd rather not see their levels raised just to make them "legal"(which many of them still aren't).

I'm not doing it for the sake of legality, I'm doing it because so many of the levels are clearly nonsense and I need an algorithmic way to fix them. I accept the theoretical possibility that some mages have extra spells for some random reason, but in general it's just because the designers were in a hurry, were re-using creature files, etc.

 

Also i believe the memoisation table for the player's mage was heavily nerfed from pnp, giving them many less spells.

True, but if you'd rather use the PnP version, do so. Install the relevant component from BG2 Tweaks, before SCSII; it'll pick up on the changes and use the new version to adjust mage levels. (In the current version of SCSII, this will just reduce the power of wizards; in the new version, it'll be a mixed blessing, because it will fill up the new l slots.)

 

 

Would you consider making this an optional component or is it too linked in with your vision of scsii at baseline?

It's too linked in for me not to do some systematic fixing. The next version will override rather more of the automated levels with manual versions, though (notably, it'll lower the level of the generic liches).

 

P.S. there are one or two situations in the game where i feel the ai even could do with a few more spells, shangalar is one such example, at level 27 he seems to have far fewer spells than many of his level 22 brethren

The new version will pregenerate all mage spellbooks from scratch, and will make sure they have the right number of spells.

[Salk]

Prebuffs are so important to SCS2. The PC gets to prebuff even assuming they aren't metagaming. Why would a group of mages ambushing the party not have done the same? Do you really assume that Cowled Wizards show up to an ambush (think of Tolgeiras in the Planar Sphere--he is literally waiting to attack the PC!) without their Stoneskins on?

 

Prebuff makes sense only for certain specific encounters but for my taste, it should generally be avoided.

Tastes clearly vary. If only someone could write an AI mod where prebuffing is optional.

 

It's dangerous to build a system under the assumption of the player being metagaming.

Wasn't amanasleep's point precisely that PCs prebuff even when not metagaming? (Certainly, I prebuffed pretty extensively the first time I played through.)

 

I'm also unclear how it can be "dangerous".

 

DavidW,

 

it's great to see SCS come with extended modularity even when it deals with prebuffing.

 

I just wanted to say that I find that none of the options given is ideal because the player doesn't have the option of choosing an alternative where selected few encounters (those where it's reasonable to believe that the enemy is waiting for the party to come or directly ambushing) . Lacking that alternative, I choose "no prebuff" as second best.

 

With dangerous I simply mean to answer to amanasleep's assumption that SCS players do prebuff even when not metagaming. I am an SCS user but I don't systematically prebuff my party.

 

Perhaps because I still believe Baldur's Gate is a role playing game?

[DavidW]

I just wanted to say that I find that none of the options given is ideal because the player doesn't have the option of choosing an alternative where selected few encounters (those where it's reasonable to believe that the enemy is waiting for the party to come or directly ambushing) .

My logic here, to be honest, is basically the same as amanasleep's: to a pretty good approximation, "it's reasonable to believe that the enemy is waiting for the party to come or directly ambushing" just when enemies are created already in sight range of the party. So Option 2 more or less fits the bill. It's not perfect, but I didn't and don't have time to go through the several hundred possible combat encounters in BG2 and hand-designate them.

 

 

With dangerous I simply mean to answer to amanasleep's assumption that SCS players do prebuff even when not metagaming. I am an SCS user but I don't systematically prebuff my party.

 

Perhaps because I still believe Baldur's Gate is a role playing game?

 

What's the incompatibility between role-playing and prebuffing? I'd certainly prebuff (and scout) all the time if I were in <CHARNAME>'s shoes!

[Guest Guest_Loz_*]

Also i believe the memoisation table for the player's mage was heavily nerfed from pnp, giving them many less spells.

True, but if you'd rather use the PnP version, do so. Install the relevant component from BG2 Tweaks, before SCSII; it'll pick up on the changes and use the new version to adjust mage levels. (In the current version of SCSII, this will just reduce the power of wizards; in the new version, it'll be a mixed blessing, because it will fill up the new l slots.)

 

Wow I didn't know about this, thats extremely cool, i held off on installing that as i didn't want an advantage over the enemy, even though i felt the progression between level 20 and 30 was extremely poor in vanilla. Do you also make similar allowances for components in BG2 tweaks such as the other caster's spell tables and true grand-mastery.

 

Also do some levels still get raised(e.g. irenicus, kangaxx), these boss monsters i had no problem being buffed so that they had the advantage over pcs with dispels and what not.

 

 

P.S. there are one or two situations in the game where i feel the ai even could do with a few more spells, shangalar is one such example, at level 27 he seems to have far fewer spells than many of his level 22 brethren

The new version will pregenerate all mage spellbooks from scratch, and will make sure they have the right number of spells.

 

Will some mages still have more spells(eg. irenicus, sendai), or will even these guys be brought down to the same level as the players?

 

I can understand your perspective on level adjustments, but some situatuations, such as shangalar(who i believe is overtaken in levels by the theoretically weaker layenne, as well as many other liches due to his not having as many spells memorised) seem off to me. Actually i'm not 100% on what levels you currently assign, but i do remember a while back browsing various mages and liches in the game via NI and being a little surprised at the way almost everything seemed to be around level 30. To be fair though, in some situations these level adjustments are much needed, low levels that can't dispel anything and have weak spells that depend on level despite being able to use high level mage spells, just i'd like to see more staggering of levels particuarly 18 and 30.

[Salk]

What's the incompatibility between role-playing and prebuffing? I'd certainly prebuff (and scout) all the time if I were in <CHARNAME>'s shoes!

 

Yes.

 

The problem is that with prebuff on, everyone else in the game does it too always and systematically, practically forcing the player to never skip his own prebuffing to stand a chance when fighting a group of enemies. The strategic side swallows the role playing side.

 

If the prebuff was conceded to only selected few, the advantages would be:

 

* immediate improvement of the player's immersion in the game

* breaking of an automated pattern of behaviour -> more realism

* making those specific fights stand out compared to the "normal" ones, thus making them more memorable

 

These are my personal motivations. And to me, that above just contribute to nourish a role playing game.

 

Of course if the basic philosophy is that it's reasonable to believe that each enemy in the game is actively waiting for the party's come or directly ambushing then I find myself on the other side of the moon.

[DavidW]

Also i believe the memoisation table for the player's mage was heavily nerfed from pnp, giving them many less spells.

True, but if you'd rather use the PnP version, do so. Install the relevant component from BG2 Tweaks, before SCSII; it'll pick up on the changes and use the new version to adjust mage levels. (In the current version of SCSII, this will just reduce the power of wizards; in the new version, it'll be a mixed blessing, because it will fill up the new l slots.)

 

Wow I didn't know about this, thats extremely cool, i held off on installing that as i didn't want an advantage over the enemy, even though i felt the progression between level 20 and 30 was extremely poor in vanilla. Do you also make similar allowances for components in BG2 tweaks such as the other caster's spell tables and true grand-mastery.

I allow for spell tables. If you install true grand mastery it'll affect any enemies who are grand masters anyway.

 

Also do some levels still get raised(e.g. irenicus, kangaxx), these boss monsters i had no problem being buffed so that they had the advantage over pcs with dispels and what not.

Well, the whole thing is algorithmic, so (having not tried that install order) I don't actually know. What SCS does is load in the spell lists (in MXSPLWIZ.2da), and use them to make estimates of wizards' correct levels. With over two hundred wizards in the game, I do this automatically rather than on a case-by-case basis: wizards just get the lowest level consistent with their actual memorised spells, according to whatever spell choices you have installed.

 

Having said that, Irenicus (in Hell) and Kangaxx (as demilich) are exceptions: their levels and spellbooks are hardcoded, so they'll be the same whatever you install.

 

P.S. there are one or two situations in the game where i feel the ai even could do with a few more spells, shangalar is one such example, at level 27 he seems to have far fewer spells than many of his level 22 brethren

The new version will pregenerate all mage spellbooks from scratch, and will make sure they have the right number of spells.

 

Will some mages still have more spells(eg. irenicus, sendai), or will even these guys be brought down to the same level as the players?

 

I'm not doing any "bringing down to the same level". When I say "the right number of spells", I mean "the right number of spells for their level".

 

In the new version of SCS, the process goes like this:

 

(1) Load in the current list of memorization limits

(2) For each mage, check to see if I've manually specified his level (I do this for about thirty wizards in the new version)

(3) If I haven't, work out what the minimum level is that they could be in order to have the spells they have, and change them to that level

(4) Check to see if I've manually specified the wizard's spells (I do this in whole or part for about a dozen wizards)

(5) If not, wipe the entire spellbook, and generate a new spellbook with the right number of spells, of each level, for a wizard at the wizard's new level

 

I can understand your perspective on level adjustments, but some situatuations, such as shangalar(who i believe is overtaken in levels by the theoretically weaker layenne, as well as many other liches due to his not having as many spells memorised) seem off to me.

 

To some extent, blame the vanilla game: the current version of SCSII just works with the resources it's given. Having said that, I do manually tweak this a lot more in the new version (though even then, it usually represents me just having looked more carefully at a creature's spell lists and script and making a more sophisticated estimate than my algorithm can - I still see this as part of an AI component, not a tougher-creatures component).

 

Examples:

 

Tolgerias: 21st level

Standard liches: 25th level

Layene: 25th level

Shangalar: 29th level

The Kangaxx guardians: 30th level

[DavidW]

What's the incompatibility between role-playing and prebuffing? I'd certainly prebuff (and scout) all the time if I were in <CHARNAME>'s shoes!

 

Yes.

 

The problem is that with prebuff on, everyone else in the game does it too always and systematically, practically forcing the player to never skip his own prebuffing to stand a chance when fighting a group of enemies. The strategic side swallows the role playing side.

 

If the prebuff was conceded to only selected few, the advantages would be:

 

* immediate improvement of the player's immersion in the game

* breaking of an automated pattern of behaviour -> more realism

* making those specific fights stand out compared to the "normal" ones, thus making them more memorable

 

But I continue not to understand why these things don't detract from "realism" and "immersion". It's unrealistic to suppose that a real adventuring party wouldn't make extensive use of buffing magic. Their lives are on the line, after all. In real life, you don't get to reload.

 

These are my personal motivations. And to me, that above just contribute to nourish a role playing game.

 

Of course if the basic philosophy is that it's reasonable to believe that each enemy in the game is actively waiting for the party's come or directly ambushing then I find myself on the other side of the moon.

You don't seem to be engaging with my, and amanasleep's, comments on this point regarding option 2.

[Shaitan]

What's the incompatibility between role-playing and prebuffing? I'd certainly prebuff (and scout) all the time if I were in <CHARNAME>'s shoes!

 

Yes.

 

The problem is that with prebuff on, everyone else in the game does it too always and systematically, practically forcing the player to never skip his own prebuffing to stand a chance when fighting a group of enemies. The strategic side swallows the role playing side.

 

If the prebuff was conceded to only selected few, the advantages would be:

 

* immediate improvement of the player's immersion in the game

* breaking of an automated pattern of behaviour -> more realism

* making those specific fights stand out compared to the "normal" ones, thus making them more memorable

 

But I continue not to understand why these things don't detract from "realism" and "immersion". It's unrealistic to suppose that a real adventuring party wouldn't make extensive use of buffing magic. Their lives are on the line, after all. In real life, you don't get to reload.

I must say I agree fully. Soldiers in a combat zone also awaits enemies around the corner why shouldn't adventures? Well I know the magic system isn't available in Afghanistan but the analogy is IMO good enough.

[Salk]

I have hard times assimilating this concept.

 

Adventuring doesn't translate into fight or, if not fighting, being preparing for the next fight.

 

If I was reading a fantasy book where most of the pages were used to describe the fighting (which would more often than not be derivative) or how the heroes are reviewing their gears in preparation of the next battle, I doubt I would read after the first chapter.

 

Instead of being an accessory to the adventure, the fighting becomes the raison d'etre.

 

Back to SCS, to my eyes Option 2 is not any different than Option 1 as the philosophy behind it is identical (just limited in size).

 

I can't buy the "It's a tough world full of belligerant people, so, like yesterday, we cast on ourselves and our allies all those spells we need in case (!) we are to fight today" line.

 

I would on the other hand welcome the plot-driven reason for the above situation to be acceptable.

 

I realise that it's a daunting job to go through all the encounters and decide which ones should allow for prebuff but in lack of this, I take any day the no prebuff option.

[DavidW]

I have hard times assimilating this concept.

 

Adventuring doesn't translate into fight or, if not fighting, being preparing for the next fight.

 

If I was reading a fantasy book where most of the pages were used to describe the fighting (which would more often than not be derivative) or how the heroes are reviewing their gears in preparation of the next battle, I doubt I would read after the first chapter.

 

Similarly, if I was reading a legal thriller where most of the pages were used to describe how the heroes were doing their paperwork, I'd probably drop it within a chapter or two. Distinguish between what happens in the world, and what the author describes. (In fact, I can think of plenty of fantasy novels where it's noted that the heroes spend extensive time preparing, but of course the author isn't going to bore you by describing it in any detail).

 

Now, if your argument is "prebuffing is too boring, I can't be bothered to keep doing it", then I have plenty of sympathy, and I'd suggest installing option 3 for the sake of a level playing field. But that's not a realism argument - it's a decision to sacrifice realism for fun.

 

Instead of being an accessory to the adventure, the fighting becomes the raison d'etre.

 

This is independent of SCS, which doesn't affect the number of fights. It's just standard that CRPGs (and most traditional pen-and-paper RPGs, come to that) have far more combat than a typical fantasy novel. There are lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to the fact that reading about combat gets dull much quicker than participating in it. If you want to avoid spending the bulk of your time fighting, don't bother tweaking SCS, go and play Torment instead.

 

Back to SCS, to my eyes Option 2 is not any different than Option 1 as the philosophy behind it is identical (just limited in size).

No it's not. The philosophies behind the three options (as basically noted above) are

 

Option 1: buff all enemy mages, for maximum challenge

Option 2: take an intelligent guess as to who would and wouldn't have a chance to buff, based on who is created right in front of the player. (I reckon in about 80%-90% of cases, this gets it right: generally creatures are created in front of you because they teleport or storm in or because they're tied to an in-dialog ambush)

Option 3: skip prebuffing, for players who don't like it

 

I can't buy the "It's a tough world full of belligerant people, so, like yesterday, we cast on ourselves and our allies all those spells we need in case (!) we are to fight today" line.

 

This isn't really about short-term prebuffs (which are about spells cast by enemies who know they're about to attack or be attacked); it's about long-term prebuffs like chain contingency or stoneskin. And if you can't by that, all I can say is that there's totally abundant evidence that it is a tough world, and it is full of belligerant people. To give a real-world analogy, combat troops on patrol in Iraq went through the tedium of putting on heavy, hot body armor every single morning even though they're not usually going to be attacked, because it's worth it on those occasions where they are attacked.

 

I realise that it's a daunting job to go through all the encounters and decide which ones should allow for prebuff but in lack of this, I take any day the no prebuff option.

Well, as I say, I think option two does quite a good job of making that decision. I've said before that I'm happy to take advice from players as to which specific encounters it gets wrong (i.e., which ones should have prebuffing or vice versa). But since you've not used that option, I'm not clear quite how you're so confident that it doesn't do what you want.