Penality to saves according to spell level

[Demivrgvs]

At the risk of sounding dictatorial, I'm not changing SCS2's use of stacking SIs by majority vote. I'll happily change them when and if anyone gives me an argument for it which is valid within SCS2's design goals. But in more than a year of wrangling over this, no-one's managed it yet. Failing that, Demi's always welcome to block it in SR, but this will either break SCS2 compatibility or (more likely) result in enemy mages still being able to stack SI.

 

Even if DavidW doesn't change this functionality I really don't see a problem with altering SI to make it non-stackable. If the AI is not compatible with this change then... what? It loses out on a single spell protection it would have otherwise had? This doesn't sound like that big of a deal in terms of battle difficulty. (And if it does radically lower the difficulty of the encounter then it is just proof that multiple SI's are too effective for their level.)

I'd cause various issues:

- AI would be wasting a spell each time two SI are used at the same time

- only the first SI cast would work, and that may severely hurt the AI (e.g. SI:Abj+SI:Div+II, only SI:Abj works and a simple True Seeing is all you need to Breach the target)

[amanasleep]

At the risk of sounding dictatorial, I'm not changing SCS2's use of stacking SIs by majority vote. I'll happily change them when and if anyone gives me an argument for it which is valid within SCS2's design goals. But in more than a year of wrangling over this, no-one's managed it yet. Failing that, Demi's always welcome to block it in SR, but this will either break SCS2 compatibility or (more likely) result in enemy mages still being able to stack SI.

 

Even if DavidW doesn't change this functionality I really don't see a problem with altering SI to make it non-stackable. If the AI is not compatible with this change then... what? It loses out on a single spell protection it would have otherwise had? This doesn't sound like that big of a deal in terms of battle difficulty. (And if it does radically lower the difficulty of the encounter then it is just proof that multiple SI's are too effective for their level.)

I'd cause various issues:

- AI would be wasting a spell each time two SI are used at the same time

- only the first SI cast would work, and that may severely hurt the AI (e.g. SI:Abj+SI:Div+II, only SI:Abj works and a simple True Seeing is all you need to Breach the target)

 

Breach is still stopped by Spell Protections under SCS2.

[DavidW]

At the risk of sounding dictatorial, I'm not changing SCS2's use of stacking SIs by majority vote. I'll happily change them when and if anyone gives me an argument for it which is valid within SCS2's design goals. But in more than a year of wrangling over this, no-one's managed it yet. Failing that, Demi's always welcome to block it in SR, but this will either break SCS2 compatibility or (more likely) result in enemy mages still being able to stack SI.

 

Even if DavidW doesn't change this functionality I really don't see a problem with altering SI to make it non-stackable. If the AI is not compatible with this change then... what? It loses out on a single spell protection it would have otherwise had? This doesn't sound like that big of a deal in terms of battle difficulty. (And if it does radically lower the difficulty of the encounter then it is just proof that multiple SI's are too effective for their level.)

I'd cause various issues:

- AI would be wasting a spell each time two SI are used at the same time

- only the first SI cast would work, and that may severely hurt the AI (e.g. SI:Abj+SI:Div+II, only SI:Abj works and a simple True Seeing is all you need to Breach the target)

 

I suspect (not tested) that actually it won't affect SCS at all: multiple spells in contingencies tend to bypass the standard ways to protect against multiple versions of spells. (This is the basis of the famous 3xProject Image Chain Contingency trick). But presumably players want this so that the AI refrains from using it. That requires either (a) persuading me to recode SCS, or (b) writing your own mod, installable after SCS, that rewrites SCS's scripts for you. Good luck with either!

 

EDIT:

 

(i) on reflection, it might (but probably won't) mess with SCS's use of spell triggers with SI in

(ii) for the sake of a quiet life, let me note that if you absolutely cannot stand SCS's use of multiple Spell Immunities, shove the following code into the first component of scsii/setup-scsii.tp2 before you install SCS2:

 

COPY_EXISTING ~spell.ids~ ~override~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2590~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2591~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2593~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2594~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2595~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2596~ ~2605~
REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2597~ ~2605~
BUT_ONLY

 

This will replace all uses of Spell Immunities other than Divination with Death Spell, which will often be suboptimal and foolish, and will make SCS less interesting, but at least won't lead to immersion-breaking stupidity on the part of wizards.

[Demivrgvs]

COPY_EXISTING ~spell.ids~ ~override~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2590~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2591~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2593~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2594~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2595~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2596~ ~2605~
 REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~2597~ ~2605~
BUT_ONLY

 

This will replace all uses of Spell Immunities other than Divination with Death Spell, which will often be suboptimal and foolish, and will make SCS less interesting, but at least won't lead to immersion-breaking stupidity on the part of wizards.

Interesting...though replacing SI with Death Spell seems strange.

 

DavidW, I've few questions/suggestions...

 

1) SI shouldn't be used in contingencies/sequencers as per vanilla imo, but may be used in case of prebuff. I may even raise their duration imo, because it's unlikely imo that someone really waits 20 rounds for current SI to expire anyway.

2) SI:Abj as it is now is very limited as it protects only from dispel and within SCS players wouldn't use dispel anyway imo (unless with an Inquisitor). Do you consider it an invaluable asset anyway?

3) As soon as we fix Spell Shield, wouldn't be nice to use it instead of SI:Abj?

4) And what do you think of my recently proposed revision of Non-detection? Wouldn't it provide a cheap and effective version of SI:Div? Furthermore using it within contingencies/triggers wouldn't feel "forced" like SI (which couldn't be used in vanilla), and using it instead of SI:Div greatly reduce the need to have spell removals with AoE.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[DavidW]

Interesting...though replacing SI with Death Spell seems strange.

I don't even think it's particularly sensible, I'm just fed up with people asking me to incorporate this.

 

DavidW, I've few questions/suggestions...

 

As far as I can see, these are suggestions which require SCS to assume SR is installed. I've already said that I don't want to do that; am I missing something?

[Demivrgvs]

DavidW, I've few questions/suggestions...

As far as I can see, these are suggestions which require SCS to assume SR is installed. I've already said that I don't want to do that; am I missing something?

Actually except 4) the others really don't need SR+SCS. 2) is a simple question, 1) is a sort of suggestion, and 3) is something I thought may be cool for SCS in case we fix SS (and I thought you were going to fix it yourself sooner or later).

[DavidW]

DavidW, I've few questions/suggestions...

As far as I can see, these are suggestions which require SCS to assume SR is installed. I've already said that I don't want to do that; am I missing something?

Actually except 4) the others really don't need SR+SCS. 2) is a simple question, 1) is a sort of suggestion, and 3) is something I thought may be cool for SCS in case we fix SS (and I thought you were going to fix it yourself sooner or later).

 

Fair enough.

 

(1) That's a defensible view, but use of SI in sequencers does happen in vanilla (enemies only, of course) and it seems to me that the only reason you can't do it yourself in vanilla is a quirk in the engine - hence my choice to go the way I've gone. (Also, having made that decision two years ago I'm reluctant to unmake it as it means rethinking most of SCS's buff framework and obviating most of my playtesting.)

 

(2) SI:Abj also protects from Breach. And dispel is more useful than you might think, especially at higher levels and/or with a bard.

 

(3) It would be nice to use a fixed Spell Shield but I'm not sure why it would be "instead of SI:Abj" - they fulfil different roles.

[Dakk]

At the risk of sounding dictatorial, I'm not changing SCS2's use of stacking SIs by majority vote. I'll happily change them when and if anyone gives me an argument for it which is valid within SCS2's design goals.

You couldn't.. ehm.. possibly amend those goals just for this tiny tiny issue?

 

EDIT: posted before I read you were "fed up" with people asking, so this was my first and last attempt to feed you

[Kalindor]

You couldn't.. ehm.. possibly amend those goals just for this tiny tiny issue?

 

EDIT: posted before I read you were "fed up" with people asking, so this was my first and last attempt to feed you

 

I like Demi's idea (if I am interpreting it correctly) for V4 of making several other spells effectively mimic Spell Immunity towards different schools (like Non-Detection being SI:Div) and deprecating the Spell Immunity spell itself. Perhaps a revised Spell Immunity could just protect against Evocation or Necromancy or both. Of course, this would present more AI issues with SCS, but it would be a ways down the road at least (v4).

[DavidW]

At the risk of sounding dictatorial, I'm not changing SCS2's use of stacking SIs by majority vote. I'll happily change them when and if anyone gives me an argument for it which is valid within SCS2's design goals.

You couldn't.. ehm.. possibly amend those goals just for this tiny tiny issue?

 

I could, but I'm not going to. Or more accurately, I'm not going to unless someone gives me a good argument... which reduces to the same thing, really.

 

(It isn't really a minor issue, incidentally; it requires moderately careful rethinking of SCS's buffing framework.)

EDIT: posted before I read you were "fed up" with people asking, so this was my first and last attempt to feed you

 

I'm not seriously fed up; I was being a bit flippant.

[Aranthys]

Hey

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but...

 

Soo.... what's planned for V4 about saves ?

 

Oh, and if you're looking for a spell that would be nice, how about adding a "-4 to saves -[level+10] to MR to all ennemies caught in the area of the spell" at level 7-8 ?

 

I would even draw the BAM for you if you want

 

I'm sure DavidW spellcasters would be interested in such a spell, and it would make it much more interesting (and easier to maintain) than having to code "-X to saves" accross the board

 

I find it much better (and more fun, too) to have the spells themselves not have penalities, but, instead, to use other spells to alter the characteristics of your ennemies before trying to cast a spell with a "save-or-else" effect.

 

 

.. yeah, I know, I'm a thorn in your feet, I'm sorry

 

Something like a "Superior Malision"

[Demivrgvs]

Hey

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but...

 

Soo.... what's planned for V4 about saves ?

The plan more or less is the 3rd alternative discussed here, and Six gave good arguments on it here. The end result will probably be similar to the 1st alternative listed in the above link because I'll cap the maximum penalty to -4, but instead of restricting myself to a rigid table I'll assign a save penalty (or even bonus) to each spell "indipendently", just like AD&D.

 

 

Oh, and if you're looking for a spell that would be nice, how about adding a "-4 to saves -[level+10] to MR to all ennemies caught in the area of the spell" at level 7-8 ?

I think something similar (a Mass Lower Resistance) has already been suggested, though I don't know if such spell ever existed and I don't want to invent and add a spell without the slightest connection to PnP.

[Kalindor]

I think something similar (a Mass Lower Resistance) has already been suggested, though I don't know if such spell ever existed and I don't want to invent and add a spell without the slightest connection to PnP.

 

It sounds like a good idea for a spell at least. Perhaps it could be a HLA spell for one of the specialist mages in Kit Revisions.

[DarkWon]

2) 8th level spells and especially 9th level ones really don't need to have higher save penalty compared to 7th level ones, as their powerful effects generally are more than enough to justify their level (Horrid Wilting anyone?). Furthermore, I don't think it would help the balance, and an earlier cap would actually help mid level spells to remain appealing.

 

I'm glad this is still in the works for v4, but making the save penalties plateau at 7th level seems just plain weird :S

 

Why is a -5 saving penalty Horrid Wilting any more scary than a -5 save penalty Disintegrate (sooo powerful now). Sure, it affects more people, but it doesn't instakill like Disintegrate, and it is two levels higher after all.

 

If the jury is still out on this issue, then I vote for max of -4 or even -5 penalties.

 

Something like:

4th -1

5th -2

6th -3

7th -3

8th -4

9th -4

10th -5

 

Before you go "WTF, why don't 2nd or 3rd have a penalty?!"...well, I just played through Tutu and damn it felt like I never made a single save throughout the entire thing. Get hit by 3 or 4 Fireballs/Lightning bolts in Tutu and u will soon notice the -2 save penalty I assure you!

 

The "arbitrary" approach adopted by AD&D also has its merits. Some spells will always need a slight tweak up or down in power, and save penalty is an easy way to achieve this, without randomly adding in new secondary effects.

[Demivrgvs]

I'm glad this is still in the works for v4, but making the save penalties plateau at 7th level seems just plain weird :S

Well, the point is that there will not be any true cap at all. The spell's save penalty and eventually its scaling behaviour will be determined based on a bunch of criterias:

- high lvl spell in general deserve higher save penalties, but it's not always true, especially considering the following crucial point

- if a spell as very effective secondary effect(s) then it may not need a high save penalty for its main one, vice versa if the spell is a save or else spell with no secondary effect

- spell's AoE also play a role on this, because having tons of targets greatly increase the chance of the spells' effect working on at least some of them

- etc.

 

The "arbitrary" approach adopted by AD&D also has its merits. Some spells will always need a slight tweak up or down in power, and save penalty is an easy way to achieve this, without randomly adding in new secondary effects.

That's exactly what I'm saying above here.

 

Why is a -5 saving penalty Horrid Wilting any more scary than a -5 save penalty Disintegrate (sooo powerful now). Sure, it affects more people, but it doesn't instakill like Disintegrate, and it is two levels higher after all.

I'd still prefer HW because of its higher usabiliy, but this indeed is a good example of how saves will not be necessarily tied to spell's lvl alone. Disintegrate has been the subject of many debates "lately", and we seemed to agree its save penalty should be either reduced or even removed as its secondary effect (5d6 magic dmg with no save) should keep it interesting and I'm planning to increase it a little to be more true to its concept and PnP features (e.g. Mordy swords will be instantly destroyed by Disintegrate with no save).

 

Before you go "WTF, why don't 2nd or 3rd have a penalty?!"...well, I just played through Tutu and damn it felt like I never made a single save throughout the entire thing. Get hit by 3 or 4 Fireballs/Lightning bolts in Tutu and u will soon notice the -2 save penalty I assure you!

I indeed agree many low lvl spells don't necessarily need save penalties (e.g. Web) but others really do, at least in the form of a scaling save penalty (e.g. Command, Spook). Fireball for example becomes pretty much obsolete in BG2 imo if saving against it is so easy that even grunts almost always suffer only 5d6 dmg from it. There could be other ways to improve it like making the save start with no penalty and then increase with caster lvl, but I do felt vanilla's Fireball never made into my spellbook.

 

P.S I also thought about increasing Fireball's min dmg output at mid-high lvls (e.g. at Xth caster lvl each dice could count 1s as 2s thus working as 1d5+1 instead of 1d6) but I kinda feel bad about moving too much out of PnP territory.