Magic Attacks

[Demivrgvs]

I'd like to keep track of how spell removals work within SR and SCS, to make sure everything works fine together even in case of small differences.

 

DavidW, if you can I'd like you to let me know how you've decided to revise them for the next version of SCS, and discuss together the whole system.

 

Here's how they currently work within SR V3.

 

Spell Thrust (3rd lvl, Abjuration): 5' radius AoE, removes all 5th lvl or lower spell protections. Works against MGoI, bypasses Liches and Rakshasas immunities. (I find this spell too powerful as AoE + multiple removal is too much for such a low level imo)

 

Secret Word (4th lvl, Abjuration): 5' radius AoE, removes one 8th lvl or lower spell protection. Works against GoI, bypasses Liches and Rakshasas immunities.

Breach (5th lvl, Abjuration): 1 target, removes all combat protection. Doesn't bypasses Liches and Rakshasas immunities. Doesn't bypasses Spell Deflection/Turning.

 

Pierce Magic (6th lvl, Abjuration): 1 target, removes one 8th lvl or lower spell protection, plus -x% magic resistance. Bypasses Rakshasas immunities.

 

Warding Whip (7th lvl, Abjuration): 1 target, removes three 8th lvl or lower spell protection. Bypasses Rakshasas immunities.

 

Ruby Ray of Reversal (7th lvl, Alteration): 5' radius AoE, removes one 9th lvl or lower spell protection.

 

Pierce Shield (8th lvl, Abjuration): 1 target, removes one 9th lvl or lower spell protection, plus -x% magic resistance, plus Breach.

 

Spellstrike (9th lvl, Abjuration): 10' radius AoE, removes all spell protections.

[DavidW]

DavidW, if you can I'd like you to let me know how you've decided to revise them for the next version of SCS, and discuss together the whole system.

 

Well, the current version is the same as vanilla BG2 except that

 

(i) Breach doesn't penetrate spell deflection/spell turning; it does affect liches and rakshasas.

(ii) All anti-spell-protection spells have a small AoE.

 

In v10 I expect, but haven't 100% decided, that I'll make the following changes

 

(i) Allow the option of restricting the spell-protection AoE to single-effect spells, i.e. Secret Word, Ruby Ray of Reversal

 

(ii) possibly add immunity to Breach to minor spell deflection (this is a technical fix; you were kind enough to point out a weakness in my modification of Breach, and on balance I think I'd rather that Breach didn't use up slots on Minor Spell Deflection than that it cut straight through it.

[Demivrgvs]

In v10 I expect, but haven't 100% decided, that I'll make the following changes

 

(i) Allow the option of restricting the spell-protection AoE to single-effect spells, i.e. Secret Word, Ruby Ray of Reversal

 

(ii) possibly add immunity to Breach to minor spell deflection (this is a technical fix; you were kind enough to point out a weakness in my modification of Breach, and on balance I think I'd rather that Breach didn't use up slots on Minor Spell Deflection than that it cut straight through it.

(i) that is exactly one of the most important things I need to know. Amanasleep recently discussed this matter a lot with us, and was afraid without a Spell Thrust able to bypass invisibility we would have troubles against multiple SI, what do you think of it? I'd do prefer to nerf this spell though, because with your AoE it's really too much effective imo.

 

(ii) I take it you prefer few small glitches (counts as a 9th level spell instead of 5th, it isn't correctly absorbed/reflected by minor spell deflection/turning) rather than having it work as SR/vanilla because you're afraid most players wouldn't like to face liches without Breach? Are SCS liches so invulnerable without Breach?

 

Jarno reminded me to talk about Dispel vs. GoI. Within SR Globes of Invulnerability can be taken down by dispel as per aVENGER's tweak. Is it fine for you? Technically speaking I've set Dispel Magic/Remove Magic power level to 0.

 

What is crucial for me is to understand if there's anything within SR spells behaviour that might affect SCS AI in a negative way.

[DrAzTiK]

Considering SI are too much powerfull, Imo Spell Thrust should deserve AoE. (but surely it's imbalanced)

[DrAzTiK]

I have meditate upon SI a bit . I think this spell have the same problem that web and some others. Individually balanced and a bit too much overpowed with sequencer. (and even web is too much powerfull individually coz of a casting time =2)

 

SI seems individually balanced (duration 1round/level and 5 casting time) but coz of sequencer/contingencies and possibility to cast them instantanely, this spell become sudenly a bit overpowed at hight levels... ( and also coz with SCS II, mages uses contingencies more efficiently than players can)

 

Personnaly, I find Spell thrust (with AoE) balanced in BG2 but maybe not in BG1. (but I have not played BG1 since a few times)

 

Just some silly sugestion :

- improve spell thrust with caster level ?

- or let spell thrust remove only 2 spell from level 1 to 5 ?

 

But I think AoE is important coz this spell is the only way to remove SI D+ II at low level. (does SCS mages use SI ?)

[DavidW]

In v10 I expect, but haven't 100% decided, that I'll make the following changes

 

(i) Allow the option of restricting the spell-protection AoE to single-effect spells, i.e. Secret Word, Ruby Ray of Reversal

 

(ii) possibly add immunity to Breach to minor spell deflection (this is a technical fix; you were kind enough to point out a weakness in my modification of Breach, and on balance I think I'd rather that Breach didn't use up slots on Minor Spell Deflection than that it cut straight through it.

(i) that is exactly one of the most important things I need to know. Amanasleep recently discussed this matter a lot with us, and was afraid without a Spell Thrust able to bypass invisibility we would have troubles against multiple SI, what do you think of it? I'd do prefer to nerf this spell though, because with your AoE it's really too much effective imo.

 

It's not something I've given a great deal of thought to. On balance perhaps it should be left as AoE at least for now.

 

(ii) I take it you prefer few small glitches (counts as a 9th level spell instead of 5th, it isn't correctly absorbed/reflected by minor spell deflection/turning) rather than having it work as SR/vanilla because you're afraid most players wouldn't like to face liches without Breach?

"Most players" doesn't really come into it: I, personally, feel combat with liches et al will be both too difficult and too tedious without the ability to penetrate their defences. I agree that I could have created another spell, at a higher level, which works like Breach, but (a) I'm not convinced that totally solves the problem of how powerful they are, given how long it takes to get slots at those levels, and (b) SCS's minimalism is better served by the Breach strategy.

 

 

Are SCS liches so invulnerable without Breach?

 

They're almost literally invulnerable. (I guess dispel magic is an option, but it's very unlikely to work in SoA)

 

 

Jarno reminded me to talk about Dispel vs. GoI. Within SR Globes of Invulnerability can be taken down by dispel as per aVENGER's tweak. Is it fine for you? Technically speaking I've set Dispel Magic/Remove Magic power level to 0.

 

I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but in any case it won't hurt SCS's AI if you do it that way.

[Demivrgvs]

I have meditate upon SI a bit . I think this spell have the same problem that web and some others. Individually balanced and a bit too much overpowed with sequencer. (and even web is too much powerfull individually coz of a casting time =2)

Web has a casting time of 5 within SR V3.

 

SI seems individually balanced (duration 1round/level and 5 casting time) but coz of sequencer/contingencies and possibility to cast them instantanely, this spell become sudenly a bit overpowed at hight levels... ( and also coz with SCS II, mages uses contingencies more efficiently than players can)

Yeah, actually players can't use SI within sequencers/contingencies without the respective SCS component. Having them usable a la SCS probably makes sense, because it's because of the 2da system that you can't normally use them, but makes them a lot more powerful than in vanilla yes.

 

Anyway, I think it's easy to notice how unbalanced SI is if you compare it to higher level spell protections. Even Spell Trap is much less appealing to me than SI. The only reason a higher level spell protection is still useful is because without it Spell Thrust would be able to disintegrate even an uber combo like Minor Spell Deflection + Minor Spell Reflection + SI:Abj + SI:Div + II in a single instant.

 

Personnaly, I find Spell thrust (with AoE) balanced in BG2 but maybe not in BG1. (but I have not played BG1 since a few times)

 

But I think AoE is important coz this spell is the only way to remove SI D+ II at low level. (does SCS mages use SI ?)

Well, the underused Secret Word is available at 7th level, and before SI (which requires a 9th level caster), but because of how powerful Spell Thrust is with AoE it's almost never more useful than its lower level cousin.

 

I do think that Spell Thrust has to either remove a single spell protection or not have an AoE, but that's just my opinion.

 

(ii) I take it you prefer few small glitches (counts as a 9th level spell instead of 5th, it isn't correctly absorbed/reflected by minor spell deflection/turning) rather than having it work as SR/vanilla because you're afraid most players wouldn't like to face liches without Breach?

"Most players" doesn't really come into it: I, personally, feel combat with liches et al will be both too difficult and too tedious without the ability to penetrate their defences. I agree that I could have created another spell, at a higher level, which works like Breach, but (a) I'm not convinced that totally solves the problem of how powerful they are, given how long it takes to get slots at those levels, and (b) SCS's minimalism is better served by the Breach strategy.

Well sometimes we have a different concept of "minimalism" then. You're making even more changes than SR imo, as you're adding many non-vanilla features to Breach:

a. it didn't affected liches and rakshasas

b. Minor Spell Deflection/Reflection wasn't supposed to grant immunity from it

c. it wasn't absorbed/reflected by Spell Deflection/Turning (and your solution compared to SR's one also cause it to count as a 9th level spell in this case)

 

While I do like c. and it's probably needed for balance purposes, SR's solution to simply adds a breach effect to Pierce Shield seems more "minimalist" than a. + b. to me and less glitched (I don't cause the 9th level issue on c.)

[amanasleep]

First, I would like some clarification: SW dispels the highest level protection first. Will it bypass GoI to do so? Does SW bring down GoI as an exception or does it simply ignore GoI?

 

Even if ST is AoE, it still gets stopped by GoI, so in order to successfully ST somebody with SI:D, II, GoI, and higher level protections, you must use (under the proposed SCS2 changes): SW/RRR to bring down the higher level protections until GoI is removed, ST to remove SI:D (and everything else), then dispel II so you can Breach.

 

Currently the only current difference is that you can use KWW to get the higher level protections down more cheaply.

 

If ST is not AoE then it cannot be used to break the SI:D + II combo at all and will mostly be irrelevent to mage combat.

 

Now if Dispel Magic can bring down GoI without affecting other spell protections, then you get an interesting situation where if you successfully dispel a mage running the standard protections above (removing GoI), then you can ST all the SI's out from under the higher level protections and remove his Invis. Of course you still can't Breach him, but you can attack him with low level AoE and your KWW can get to him.

 

Of course if you can successfully dispel him then he loses all his combat protections, so you no longer need to Breach him or even remove his Invis. OTOH he can run SI: Abj to shut down this strategy entirely.

 

If we combine DM being able to bring down GoI with the new hack that restores lower level dispellers having some chance to affect higher level caster effects, then I think the balance in Spell Protections vs. Removal is more or less restored.

[Demivrgvs]

First, I would like some clarification:

1)SW dispels the highest level protection first.

2) Will it bypass GoI to do so? Does SW bring down GoI as an exception or does it simply ignore GoI?

1) yes as all spell removals, which actually is another advantage of Spell Thrust as the latter would ignore Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap and destroy all SIs whereas even Pierce Shield would first need to remove all the other protections!

2) Well, these spells seems to ignore everything. They ignore magic resistance, they ignore spell protections (e.g. if Spell Turning + Spell Trap is active the latter won't stop SW from removing Spell Turning!!), and they even ignore SI:Abj despite being abjuration spells. Why on earth should they be stopped by GoI, especially considering the original descriptions explicitly mention that they can remove GoI?!

 

Not to mention that having SW blocked by GoI brings ups inconsistencies, such as liches being affected by Breach but not from a lower level Magic Attack which is actually supposed to bypass spell protections much better than a combat oriented spell like Breach.

 

Speaking of which, you're complaining that without AoE you'd be forced to use SW and Ruby Ray of Reversal, but you are currently forced to use only 8th+ level spell removals against Rakshasas, isn't that much more annoying?

 

 

If ST is not AoE then it cannot be used to break the SI:D + II combo at all and will mostly be irrelevent to mage combat.

Does a superior force forbid you to use Secret Word and keep ST for Minor Spell Deflection/Turning? Not to mention that under my proposed solution ST would also be able to tear down MGoI. We're talking about a damn cheap 3rd level spell, shouldn't it be less appealing than Secret Word just like Pierce Magic is less appealing than Pierce Shield?

 

If the target uses tons of spell slots to protect himself I feel really too cheap to have Spell Thrust disintegrate them so easily, and in general I feel spell protections in general are not worth their slots within SCS because of the AoE system. Tha AI can easily abuse many spell protections, but players simply can't fill half of their spellbook with them if they can be removed so easily (e.g a 3rd level spell can remove 4 spell protections of higher level at once bypassing II and SI:Abj). This whole system works only with GoI up, and it's really sad to always need GoI up only because of a cheap 3rd level spell! As soon as the player runs out of GoIs no matter how many spell protections he has, he's dead in a matter of few rounds, and what's even more silly is that it doesn't matter if the target has an uber powerful spell protection up (not even Spell Trap) while Improved Invisible, because Spell Thrust will ignore the 9th level spell and disintegrate all the SI anyway! I know you'd still have to remove Spell Trap to Breach him, but ST would have performed much better than a 3x Secret Word.

 

What I'm trying to say is that Spell Thrust currently makes most higher level spell removals look like rubbish to my eyes. I'd consider ST much more fair if it couldn't tear down anything if there's a spell protection up of 6th level or higher.

 

If we combine DM being able to bring down GoI with the new hack that restores lower level dispellers having some chance to affect higher level caster effects, then I think the balance in Spell Protections vs. Removal is more or less restored.

Actually having Dispel Magic remove GoI won't change much imo for two reasons:

- if the dispel attempt works, you've already wiped out target's combat protections (no breach needed)

- it's highly unlikely within SCS to successfully dispel because opponents are usually much higher in level

[Jarno Mikkola]

(ii) I take it you prefer few small glitches (counts as a 9th level spell instead of 5th, it isn't correctly absorbed/reflected by minor spell deflection/turning) rather than having it work as SR/vanilla because you're afraid most players wouldn't like to face liches without Breach?

"Most players" doesn't really come into it: I, personally, feel combat with liches et al will be both too difficult and too tedious without the ability to penetrate their defences. I agree that I could have created another spell, at a higher level, which works like Breach, but (a) I'm not convinced that totally solves the problem of how powerful they are, given how long it takes to get slots at those levels, and (b) SCS's minimalism is better served by the Breach strategy.

Well sometimes we have a different concept of "minimalism" then. You're making even more changes than SR imo, as you're adding many non-vanilla features to Breach:

a. it didn't affected liches and rakshasas...

A) This is the base BG2 game behavior, and the old argument: I do not appreciate the fact that the Liches could protect themselvesmake themselves invulnerable with a 6th level spell(PfMW), that would require a 6th level spell to counter and barely at that... as I do not have a lich on my side or I would just use it to wipe the realms clean...

 

Now, I do support the notion that there should be better protection spells against spell defense removers, or well they need to protect the other protections while they themselves can be removed, which is doable with the secondary types and spell immunities etc.

 

From which comes the Dispel/Remove Magic vs. GoI thing. Those spells are 3rd level spells, and the 6th level GoI should specifically protects from ALL 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th level spells, so why in the frell can a 3rd level spell remove it?

[amanasleep]

First, I would like some clarification:

1)SW dispels the highest level protection first.

2) Will it bypass GoI to do so? Does SW bring down GoI as an exception or does it simply ignore GoI?

1) yes as all spell removals, which actually is another advantage of Spell Thrust as the latter would ignore Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap and destroy all SIs whereas even Pierce Shield would first need to remove all the other protections!

 

OK, that's what I thought.

 

2) Well, these spells seems to ignore everything. They ignore magic resistance, they ignore spell protections (e.g. if Spell Turning + Spell Trap is active the latter won't stop SW from removing Spell Turning!!), and they even ignore SI:Abj despite being abjuration spells. Why on earth should they be stopped by GoI, especially considering the original descriptions explicitly mention that they can remove GoI?!

 

(M)GoI's are supposed to make you invulnerable to spells of a certain level or lower, while it would be pretty ridiculous if Spell Protections protected against the spells that are designed to remove them!

 

The only case where a Spell Protection protects against a Spell Protection Removal is GoI protecting against ST, and this IMO is justified given the power of ST otherwise.

 

Not to mention that having SW blocked by GoI brings ups inconsistencies, such as liches being affected by Breach but not from a lower level Magic Attack which is actually supposed to bypass spell protections much better than a combat oriented spell like Breach.

 

I never argued that SW should not take down GoI. I agree that it should.

 

The problem is really that while there are many Spell Protection Removals there is only one Combat Protection Removal spell, namely Breach. Perhaps there should have been a lower level Breach that removed 1 combat protection of any level and a higher level Breach that removed all combat protections plus something else.

 

Speaking of which, you're complaining that without AoE you'd be forced to use SW and Ruby Ray of Reversal, but you are currently forced to use only 8th+ level spell removals against Rakshasas, isn't that much more annoying?

 

I'm not complaining. I like the idea of restricting AoE to only single removal spells (and perhaps ST). However, what has that to do with Rakshasas? The two are seperate issues.

 

If ST is not AoE then it cannot be used to break the SI:D + II combo at all and will mostly be irrelevent to mage combat.

Does a superior force forbid you to use Secret Word and keep ST for Minor Spell Deflection/Turning? Not to mention that under my proposed solution ST would also be able to tear down MGoI. We're talking about a damn cheap 3rd level spell, shouldn't it be less appealing than Secret Word just like Pierce Magic is less appealing than Pierce Shield?

 

The question previously was whether ST would be useful in getting rid of SI's. I was merely presenting a way to do so. If you want to argue that ST should not be useful for getting rid of SI that's fine. Unfortunately in BG2 (and particularly in SCS2) none of those other lower level protections are ever used, so ST is a waste of a slot. Besides, you argue to get rid of SI's altogether, so it's pointless to say that ST is OP when the only thing it's good for (getting rid of SI) is just as OP.

 

I would probably be amenable to keeping AoE on ST and making it remove 1 Spell Protection of Level 5 and lower, but only if it's not blocked by GoI.

 

If the target uses tons of spell slots to protect himself I feel really too cheap to have Spell Thrust disintegrate them so easily, and in general I feel spell protections in general are not worth their slots within SCS because of the AoE system.

 

Untrue. SCS2 makes Spell protections vastly more effective than in vanilla because they now protect against Breach. The AoE is to reduce the power of SI:D plus II, which still protects against other targeted spells. Spell protections were useless in vanilla because they couldn't protect you from the really dangerous spells. AoE is a nerf on II, not spell protections!

 

Tha AI can easily abuse many spell protections, but players simply can't fill half of their spellbook with them if they can be removed so easily (e.g a 3rd level spell can remove 4 spell protections of higher level at once bypassing II and SI:Abj).

 

That is plainly what it is designed to do! In any event as I said before the only spell protections of Level 5 or lower that were ever worth using were SI's anyway (and maybe MGoI). ST description should read "Dispel all SI's".

 

This whole system works only with GoI up, and it's really sad to always need GoI up only because of a cheap 3rd level spell!

 

GoI would be worth casting even if ST was not blocked. It protects the caster better than anything. It protects from area damage, area disabling, Malison, your own Skull Traps, Lightning Bolts, Ice Storms, Webs, Stinking Clouds, and Fireballs, against Holy Smites, Silences, Dominations, and Holds. ST is probably the least important spell it protects against!

 

As soon as the player runs out of GoIs no matter how many spell protections he has, he's dead in a matter of few rounds, and what's even more silly is that it doesn't matter if the target has an uber powerful spell protection up (not even Spell Trap) while Improved Invisible, because Spell Thrust will ignore the 9th level spell and disintegrate all the SI anyway! I know you'd still have to remove Spell Trap to Breach him, but ST would have performed much better than a 3x Secret Word.

 

A mage is always dead in a matter of a few rounds, unless he kills you first! That's how mages work. Currently in SCS2 you must usually cast at least 4 different spells before you can Breach. That is a minimum of 5 rounds during which the wizard cannot be touched (unless you just ignore trying to remove protections and cast an Insect Plague or Chaos or Cloudkill)

 

"As soon as the player runs out of GoIs..."

 

One is all you need. GoI will be the last spell protection removed before SI. Minor SD/ST cannot protect SI's from getting removed by the next protection removal cast anyway, and obviously nobody would run MGoI and GoI simultaneously. Enemy mages in SCS2 tend to run Spell Turning, GoI, SI:D, II. If they are high level they have Spell Trap as well. So ST gets rid of SI:D and nothing else (maybe SI:A or SI:Conj every once in a while).

 

What I'm trying to say is that Spell Thrust currently makes most higher level spell removals look like rubbish to my eyes. I'd consider ST much more fair if it couldn't tear down anything if there's a spell protection up of 6th level or higher.

 

ST is pretty good if you meet up with a Level 10 mage running MST, SI:D, II, MSD, MGoI. In that sense you are correct that it's OP. However, since every mage even in SoA is higher level than that it's not OP.

 

If we combine DM being able to bring down GoI with the new hack that restores lower level dispellers having some chance to affect higher level caster effects, then I think the balance in Spell Protections vs. Removal is more or less restored.

Actually having Dispel Magic remove GoI won't change much imo for two reasons:

- if the dispel attempt works, you've already wiped out target's combat protections (no breach needed)

- it's highly unlikely within SCS to successfully dispel because opponents are usually much higher in level

 

I already noted these objections in my previous post. Patching Dispel to work as per the description will make a bigger difference than you think. Bards, non-multiclass Clerics, and Inquisitors will still have a significant chance to dispel.

[DavidW]

(ii) I take it you prefer few small glitches (counts as a 9th level spell instead of 5th, it isn't correctly absorbed/reflected by minor spell deflection/turning) rather than having it work as SR/vanilla because you're afraid most players wouldn't like to face liches without Breach?

"Most players" doesn't really come into it: I, personally, feel combat with liches et al will be both too difficult and too tedious without the ability to penetrate their defences. I agree that I could have created another spell, at a higher level, which works like Breach, but (a) I'm not convinced that totally solves the problem of how powerful they are, given how long it takes to get slots at those levels, and (b) SCS's minimalism is better served by the Breach strategy.

Well sometimes we have a different concept of "minimalism" then. You're making even more changes than SR imo, as you're adding many non-vanilla features to Breach:

a. it didn't affected liches and rakshasas

b. Minor Spell Deflection/Reflection wasn't supposed to grant immunity from it

c. it wasn't absorbed/reflected by Spell Deflection/Turning (and your solution compared to SR's one also cause it to count as a 9th level spell in this case)

 

I'll grant that making it blocked by antimagic is genuinely significant (but I thought you did that anyway).

 

Regarding the lich/rakshasa thing, I think of this as minimalism because I don't need to basically change what a spell does/is used for, and I don't affect situations beyond liches and rakshasas themselves. I also think that it's not intended behaviour for Breach not to affect liches (that's mostly hunch, based on the way the game is documented; since SCS isn't fixpack, I don't have to document it). And of course, the component is optional for players who don't like it.

[DrAzTiK]

1) yes as all spell removals, which actually is another advantage of Spell Thrust as the latter would ignore Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap and destroy all SIs whereas even Pierce Shield would first need to remove all the other protections!

 

Cheesy yes but maybe not a serious problem considering that SI are also cheesy . ( especially at hight level thanks to sequencer and contengencies)

 

I do think that Spell Thrust has to either remove a single spell protection or not have an AoE, but that's just my opinion.

I am for the first option.

 

I feel spell protections in general are not worth their slots within SCS because of the AoE system

I am agree. I don't use a single defensive slot in my games. Especially coz my mage usually don't risk too much ( usually, there are behind fighters) but also and mainly coz attack is much more rewarded that defense condering how powerfull are offensive arcane spells.

 

Somewhere, it is a bit inconsistent that SCS II mages use defensive spells in sequencer and contengencies. Imagine what could do only 2 mages using offensive spells in contengencies and trigger (like those you fight with Gromnir) :

mage 1 :

- chain contengency : x3 ADHW

- trigger : lower resistance + GM+ web

 

mage 2 :

- chain contengency : x3chaos

- trigger : x3 web .

 

===> lol

 

PS: just another silly sugestion about contengencies. It seems that David always use only defensive spell in contengencies ( and fortunately but can you confirm). Why not do same for SR and forbid offensives spells in contengencies ?If we do that, maybe it could be cool to allow and find a way for activate contengencies at anytime like SCS II mages already do. This could be an interessing way to use more defensives spells. ( honestly, who use them a lot ?)

 

ps2 : it appears our master DavidW sometimes use an ADHW in chain contengency but if you allow my humble opinion, it's 95% of time a waste

[amanasleep]

1) yes as all spell removals, which actually is another advantage of Spell Thrust as the latter would ignore Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap and destroy all SIs whereas even Pierce Shield would first need to remove all the other protections!

 

Cheesy yes but maybe not a serious problem considering that SI are also cheesy . ( especially at hight level thanks to sequencer and contengencies)

 

Exactly.

 

I feel spell protections in general are not worth their slots within SCS because of the AoE system

I am agree. I don't use a single defensive slot in my games. Especially coz my mage usually don't risk too much but also and mainly coz attack is much more rewarded that defense condéring how powerfull are offensive arcane spells (even with SR).

 

Spell protections are rewarding for the AI and not the player because the AI is less intelligent and cannot react to attacks intelligently. The player can chug a potion or react to one NPC getting disabled by compensating with another.

 

Spell protections are a lot more useful while soloing, however. Soloing is how you should probably imagine most AI mages anyway, the most powerful of which are usually encountered alone.

 

Somewhere, it is a bit inconsistent that SCS II mages use defensive spells in sequencer and contengencies. Imagine what could do only 2 mages using offensive spells in contengencies and trigger (like those you fight with Gromnir) :

mage 1 :

- chain contengency : x3 ADHW

- trigger : lower resistance + GM+ web

 

mage 2 :

- chain contengency : x3chaos

- trigger : x3 web .

 

===> lol

 

Hear hear!

 

I am a big advocate of mage AI and spell lists being programmed for far more aggression. Even mages casting Minor Sequencer: 2x Web would just be devastating (since they would have GoI running). I would shit a brick if a mage contingencied Tenser's at 50% HP instead of another PfMW (I'm not really advocating that because they would probably die. But it would be awesome).

 

There are all sorts of other disabling spells that they should be using. In particular they should not go for damage first (unless they have access to 3x ADHW). It's still much more devastating to disable the party first so they can't heal, then go for damage.

[DavidW]

Somewhere, it is a bit inconsistent that SCS II mages use defensive spells in sequencer and contengencies. Imagine what could do only 2 mages using offensive spells in contengencies and trigger (like those you fight with Gromnir) :

mage 1 :

- chain contengency : x3 ADHW

- trigger : lower resistance + GM+ web

 

mage 2 :

- chain contengency : x3chaos

- trigger : x3 web .

 

===> lol

Well, if they'd done this versus the party I had last time I played, the Wilting and Chaos would have been completely wasted, because the party all had Chaotic Commands and Protection from Magic Energy running. The web would have done some good, but Gromnir et al would have been as likely to fail their saves as the party. Meanwhile the wizards would have been killed almost immediately, as there aren't any defences in that mix. (If they prebuffed it would have helped a bit, but they'd still be pretty vulnerable.)

 

PS: just another silly sugestion about contengencies. It seems that David always use only defensive spell in contengencies ( and fortunately but can you confirm).

 

I use defensive spells, simulacra, high-level summonings, and the occasional ADHW. (I don't use multiple ADHWs because either the party is protected from them, in which case it's useless, or they're not, in which case it probably forces a reload. The single ADHW is just to keep people on their toes!)