Insect Plague in SCS2

[Demivrgvs]

So my solution is basically to borrow Demi's changes, with one extra twist of my own (though one that's been discussed at various points): fire shields block insects, and remove existing insects. I'll add this as an optional component in the next release, and see how it works. If it's overkill, we can prune it back in the release after that.

Hey you, actually that was my idea!! Anyway, I was leaving this sort of things (such as fireballs destroying insects) to V4, thus I'm curious to see them tested.

[Ardanis]

There's a difference between casting ADHW (which has no target) in the same vicinity as your party, and using your party members/summons as an actual spell target so that the effect spreads outwards from them.

Well, I do target my tanks with Chain Lightning to get an Imp Invis lich hanging around.

 

Ditto (given the "undroppable" bit)

Nope. It's very same as undroppable 'smashed' potions.

 

PS On the matter of undroppable things. Letting the party to loot every last bit of enemies' resources leads to another problem - party may end up with a lot more scrolls/potions/wands than it normally should. And without introducing the 'smashed' flag there's no smooth way to balance the issue out.

[amanasleep]

- SI: Conj would work, but I don't really like the lack of variety if every wizard uses it, and also it's quite weakening to use up an extra slot in every Chain Contingency.

 

I think it could be in a Spell Trigger, but either way you're right. Of course, IMO you could cast it instead of SI:D in most cases as long as other spell protections are up.

 

So my solution is basically to borrow Demi's changes, with one extra twist of my own (though one that's been discussed at various points): fire shields block insects, and remove existing insects. I'll add this as an optional component in the next release, and see how it works. If it's overkill, we can prune it back in the release after that.

-

 

Despite the fact that this is a pretty radical change, I quite like it for two reasons:

 

1. It makes sense (although we then get into asking why all fire spells don't get rid of insects). As an aside, should the Blue one protect? I guess cold damage kills bugs as well as fire.

 

2. It makes Fire Shield use more frequent which is something I'd like to see. IMO stacked Fire Shields are very underrated in BG2 because they cause automatic damage that requires no action from the caster to take advantage of. They really make you pay for hitting those stoneskins.

 

IMO if you change the Fire Shields to behave this way it is unnecessary to nerf the insect spells at all. Casters have their choice of Fire Shield or SI:Conj. and insects aren't really OP against any other targets, except maybe Clerics, who I suggest cast MR more often. Unless you want to change Zone of Sweet Air to dispel Insects.

[Demivrgvs]

IMO if you change the Fire Shields to behave this way it is unnecessary to nerf the insect spells at all. Casters have their choice of Fire Shield or SI:Conj. and insects aren't really OP against any other targets, except maybe Clerics, who I suggest cast MR more often.Unless you want to change Zone of Sweet Air to dispel Insects.

Well, having Fire Shields protect from insects doesn't mean that insect spells are fine imo because against clerics they still are quite a pain, and breached mages would still be dead. Note that even if you have clerics use Magic Resistance, which would be cool if they still don't, lowering their resistance is uber easy because their only spell protection is a 7th level version of Spell Deflection (weak choice, especially for such a high slot imo). Last but not least, I don't think that balancing a spell simply means making sure every possible target is immune to it (via SI, Fire Shield, 100% magic res, ...), that would be a pretty bad design imo. Having Zone of Sweet Air dispel insects is silly imo unless a major revision of the spell a la SR, but this will almost surely be part of SR V4.

 

P.S Is it just me or having insects stopped by magic resistance doesn't make sense at all?

[Guest Guest_Loz_*]

Don't forget that those epic clerics also have a fire shield, and that could also render them immune to insects. As for the other clerics, as noted they have magic resistance to give them a chance to defend against it. I agree with amanasleep and think that only the fire shield change is needed. I generally like to see as little changed as possible as there are other mods such as spell revisions that go through and systematically revise all the spells in the game.

 

As for zone of sweet air - it wouldn't be much use anyway since a cleric couldn't cast it while he was under the effect of insect plague. Mages can get a fireshield off through contingencies and triggers - or just prebuff with it.

 

You could always add an insect immunity to some cleric buff(maybe blade barrier) but don't forget that clerics are far more prone to interuption anyway.

[amanasleep]

IMO if you change the Fire Shields to behave this way it is unnecessary to nerf the insect spells at all. Casters have their choice of Fire Shield or SI:Conj. and insects aren't really OP against any other targets, except maybe Clerics, who I suggest cast MR more often.Unless you want to change Zone of Sweet Air to dispel Insects.

Well, having Fire Shields protect from insects doesn't mean that insect spells are fine imo because against clerics they still are quite a pain, and breached mages would still be dead.

 

Breached mages are dead anyway. The problem with Insects vs. mage currently is that they die automatically without a chance to defend themselves every time unless they run SI:Conj. If you manage to Breach a mage in SCS2 you deserve to kill him. Casting Insects rather than beating him senseless with a sword is actually counterproductive in that circumstance.

 

Note that even if you have clerics use Magic Resistance, which would be cool if they still don't, lowering their resistance is uber easy because their only spell protection is a 7th level version of Spell Deflection (weak choice, especially for such a high slot imo).

 

Still requires you to waste time casting a Lower Resistance, especially since the Insects have a 60% chance of working anyway. Highly unnecessary for them to run Shield of the Archons since it doesn't block Lower Resistance any way. In any event Clerics are a minor threat overall in SoA, and in ToB could conceivably avoid Insects through Aura of Flaming Death as Loz has pointed out.

 

Last but not least, I don't think that balancing a spell simply means making sure every possible target is immune to it (via SI, Fire Shield, 100% magic res, ...), that would be a pretty bad design imo.

 

IMO, the purpose of SCS is not to rebalance spells but to make combat more challenging and immersive within the original BG framework. SI does not "balance" Insect spells, but it does allow mages a counter. Changing Fire Shield is a bit more invasive, but at least it makes sense and is tactically interesting.

 

Having Zone of Sweet Air dispel insects is silly imo unless a major revision of the spell a la SR, but this will almost surely be part of SR V4.

 

Wasn't really serious about that one. The biggest defense Clerics have against Insect Spells is being good in melee. They can still fight a bit even if they can't cast, and will certainly survive the damage. If they still live when the Insect spell runs its course they can cast again, while a mage will surely die once his protections run out and is severely damaged by the insects themselves.

 

P.S Is it just me or having insects stopped by magic resistance doesn't make sense at all?

 

Sure it does. They are after all not natural insects, but rather magically conjured ones. I think it entirely proper that magic resistance and spell immunity provide protection against the effect.

[Salk]

P.S Is it just me or having insects stopped by magic resistance doesn't make sense at all?

 

Sure it does. They are after all not natural insects, but rather magically conjured ones. I think it entirely proper that magic resistance and spell immunity provide protection against the effect.

 

They are magically conjured but they are still insects so I agree with Demi. The spell shouldn't be blocked by MR.

[Ilyich]

If they are "real," would it make sense for cloud spells (except stinking cloud, since it lacks damage) to remove them?

[DavidW]

So my solution is basically to borrow Demi's changes, with one extra twist of my own (though one that's been discussed at various points): fire shields block insects, and remove existing insects. I'll add this as an optional component in the next release, and see how it works. If it's overkill, we can prune it back in the release after that.

Hey you, actually that was my idea!!

 

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to take credit. Actually, I've heard it proposed lots of times, I've no idea who came up with it first. (I think someone suggested it almost as soon as SCS came out, but that was long before I discovered secondary types.)

 

It makes sense (although we then get into asking why all fire spells don't get rid of insects).

If you want a justification, there's a big difference between a split second of flame and a sustained burst. From a tactical/scripting point of view, I'd rather not have all fire spells get rid of insects because then I've got to try to assess whether or not mages / clerics should use fire magic on the basis of which PCs are insectified.

 

As an aside, should the Blue one protect? I guess cold damage kills bugs as well as fire.

That was my logic. I also didn't want to break the symmetry between the two effects, otherwise I'd end up using the Red one all the time and the Blue one never.

 

IMO if you change the Fire Shields to behave this way it is unnecessary to nerf the insect spells at all. Casters have their choice of Fire Shield or SI:Conj. and insects aren't really OP against any other targets, except maybe Clerics, who I suggest cast MR more often.

 

I'd rather take an empirical line here (and, if I'm actually going to change a spell, compatibility with SR changes has something to be said for it). If it turns out to be underpowered now, it can always be revised later.

[Cookiemole]

IMHO, I think if stoneskin protects against the physical damage component of insect plague/creeping doom, then PFMW should too.

 

The way I see it, insect mouths are just miniature weapons. A lich that casts PFMW and is thus rendered invulnerable to all piercing, slashing, and blunt damage shouldn't be hurt by the tiny insect bites from creeping doom. I could see the smothering effect of the bugs still causing miscast magic, though.

 

Having PFMW as another counter to these spells could add a little variety too.

 

Anyways, I installed SCS2 not too long ago and have had lots of fun since. To those who have put time into this project, let me say that your work is appreciated!

[Raiken]

Not sure if this has been suggested but why not make insect plague an AoE version of summon insects? That way enemies get a save at -4, plus spell failure is only 50% so it doesn't shut down mages and spellcasters too easily.

 

I do like the ideas of fireshields, PFMW/NW and stoneskin protecting from insect plague, but which is the simpler solution that still makes the spell good but not too powerful like it is now?