Magic Attacks

[Demivrgvs]

Pierce Magic

I'd stay out of breach-like effects. It pierces magic, not protections. Add penalty to save, small spellcasting failure, whatever, but don't make it a cheap anti-lich Breach.

I don't get your point...actually I consider piercing throught magic shields granted by spells such as Protection from Evil/Elements/Magic Energy much more appropriate than what you suggest. Lowering target's saves or causing spell failure doesn't sound to me like "piercing magic".

 

==> effectively I think this spell need a litlle boost, after all it's a level 6 spell. (I don't use it at all when I have KWW)

I like your proposal. If you are planning to remove AoE of Pierce Magic, why not also increase % of lower resistance? (2%/level as lower resistance)

I don't like the idea, as it would outshine Lower Resistance really too much and it's only one level higher.

 

 

Pierce Shield

Pierce Shield with added Breach: Not certain what the point is. Once you Breach them the SPR and MR reduction is redundant. All you really care about is the high level Breach. Not certain how best to improve it though, as it's too weak in current form.

I don't particulary like MR reduction neither for Pierce Magic nor for Pierce Shield, but SPR is actually THE point, as it allow this spell to remove a high level protection, bypass any other spell protection and remove combat protections. Furthermore the point is that Pierce Shield is a 8th level spell, and thus can be used on liches and rakshasas.

 

Lower Resistance

I think that multiple castings of Lower Resistance should not be cumulative. That maxes the lowering by 40%, which does help a lot vs. heavily magic resistant creatures but still leaves them some magic resistance left. Against some monsters like Abazigal and some demons it is too easy to unleash a sequencer with 2-3 Lower Resistances, Time Stop, and then blast them into oblivion.

I am totally agree. RM is no more an real advantage fo ennemy with actual version of LR.

Well, I may agree. Though making it not stack with Pierce Magic/Shield would be "annoying".

 

 

Spell Removals vs spell immunities

ST and SW should not bypass Lich or Rakshasa immunities. In SCS2 Breach does bypass Lich and Rakshasa immunities but IMO shouldn't. Likewise Pierce Magic, Warding Whip, and RRR should not bypass Rakshasa immunities. This is perhaps a pretty hard line on Rakshasas, making them all but invulnerable to SPR. But IMO I prefer this to making them vulnerable to all SPR. Of course this means that a Rakshasa with II is immune to everything except Spellstrike (and Wish). If you happen to be under the SoA level cap then it's tough to affect a Rakshasa with the standard buffs (Pro: Fire, PfME, PfMW, etc.). PW: Blind used to be great but SCS2 removed the AoE. That leaves Symbol: Stun as the best way to deal with Rakshasas.

Conceptually I agreed with you, but Ive accepted the theory that spell removals don't affect the targets but rather the magical shields that protects them. That's why for example they ignore magic resistance.

 

Furthermore having Rakshasas immune to everything except Spellstrike doesn't seem a great tactical design but rather a very poor way to make them uber powerful and annoying. I do prefer 3rd edition liches and rakshasas without these cheesy immunities, but I have to deal with them, and I think most players don't like at all to need 8th and 9th level spells to fight creatures they may encounter with level 9-13 party (e.g. Temple District's Sewer, Druid's Grove, ...). DavidW made Breaches bypass their immunities because with SCS these creatures often use PfMW and are naturally immune to normal weapons, how you're going to deal with them without Breach, and without 8th level spells?

 

This whole debate is indeed complex.

[Ardanis]

I think most players don't like at all to need 8th and 9th level spells to fight creatures they may encounter with level 9-13 party (e.g. Temple District's Sewer, Druid's Grove, ...). DavidW made Breaches bypass their immunities because with SCS these creatures often use PfMW and are naturally immune to normal weapons, how you're going to deal with them without Breach, and without 8th level spells?

Wait for PFMW to expire, like I always do when confronting liches/rakshasas? Sewer's one is easy anycase, PFMW or not. Grove is more challenging, but again, they were harder in vanilla as well.

 

Pierce Magic

I meant it's bam being different from those of Breach and Pierce Shield, so it leads to believe the spell functions differently from those two.

 

Penalty to saves, well, it's just the extention of it's original MR lowering.

 

Still, if you gonna to have it remove combat/specific protections then let it be a single one at the time, not all. This way I'll even feel to actually use it against liches

[DrAzTiK]

Lower Resistance

 

In my game, this spell got a large AoE. Is it like you have configured this spell in SR ?

[Salk]

Furthermore having Rakshasas immune to everything except Spellstrike doesn't seem a great tactical design but rather a very poor way to make them uber powerful and annoying.

 

Absolutely true!

 

How annoying could it become fighting against Rakshasas?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with each word here, Demi.

[DarkWon]

I would say anti-magic attacks should ignore spell immunities the target has. i.e. the spell isn't even reaching the creature, it's hitting their protections.

 

Globes, Spell turning, even Stoneskin are not part of the creature, so why should they get its immunity? Does another creature that stands very close to the target get immunity? ><

[Shaitan]

I think most players don't like at all to need 8th and 9th level spells to fight creatures they may encounter with level 9-13 party (e.g. Temple District's Sewer, Druid's Grove, ...). DavidW made Breaches bypass their immunities because with SCS these creatures often use PfMW and are naturally immune to normal weapons, how you're going to deal with them without Breach, and without 8th level spells?

Wait for PFMW to expire, like I always do when confronting liches/rakshasas? Sewer's one is easy anycase, PFMW or not. Grove is more challenging, but again, they were harder in vanilla as well.

I second this.

[Demivrgvs]

Liches and Rakshasas immunities

I think most players don't like at all to need 8th and 9th level spells to fight creatures they may encounter with level 9-13 party (e.g. Temple District's Sewer, Druid's Grove, ...). DavidW made Breaches bypass their immunities because with SCS these creatures often use PfMW and are naturally immune to normal weapons, how you're going to deal with them without Breach, and without 8th level spells?

Wait for PFMW to expire, like I always do when confronting liches/rakshasas? Sewer's one is easy anycase, PFMW or not. Grove is more challenging, but again, they were harder in vanilla as well.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, especially because I'm one of those who didn't use SCS Breach and still managed to fight liches, but it's "annoying" and not "tactical" to say the least. What the hell of a strategy is "waiting for 2-3 PfMW to expire"? And I'm not making them vulnerable to Magic Missile, but only to Antimagic Attacks.

 

I would say anti-magic attacks should ignore spell immunities the target has. i.e. the spell isn't even reaching the creature, it's hitting their protections.

 

Globes, Spell turning, even Stoneskin are not part of the creature, so why should they get its immunity? Does another creature that stands very close to the target get immunity? ><

I second this, and that's the only reason which made me tolerate SI:Abj not protecting from anti-magic attacks.

 

 

Pierce Magic

I meant it's bam being different from those of Breach and Pierce Shield, so it leads to believe the spell functions differently from those two.

And I'm making it slithly different because it wouldn't affect combat protections. Surely it would be more different than before where Pierce Shield was exactly the same thing on steroids.

 

Penalty to saves, well, it's just the extention of it's original MR lowering.

Well, they are two different things imo, and I not even found so appropriate MR lowering for an abjuration spell. If you ask me I think they simply run out of ideas when creating all these anti-magic attacks (which don't exist in PnP) and put MR lowering here and there just to make these spells worth a higher level slot than Secret Word (mission failed imo as Pierce Magic/Shield was really poor choices).

 

Still, if you gonna to have it remove combat/specific protections then let it be a single one at the time, not all. This way I'll even feel to actually use it against liches

Well, conceptually I may agree that removing all specific protections is too much, but from a gameplay point of view there's a problem imo...

 

The specific protection spells are: Protection from Evil, Resist Fear, Resist Fire/Cold, Protection from Evil 10' Radius, Protection from Fire, Protection from Cold, Chaotic Commands, Death Ward, Fire Shields, Free Action, Protection from Acid, Protection from Electricity, Protection from Magic Energy, Protection from the Elements, and Protection from Energy.

 

If Pierce Magic removes only one of these I think you'll never be able to tell which one is gone, whereas this process is much more under control when it comes to spell protections vs spell removals. Am I wrong?

 

If I'm wrong this "nerf" may be applied to Pierce Shield too, and there it would be less problematic because the first protection removed would always be in this order: Absolute Immunity, Improved Mantle, Mantle, PfMW, ...

 

 

P.S I just noticed that Defensive Harmony is considered a breachable combat protection despite being only an enchantment. What about making it not affected by Breach? It's a small thing I know, but makes sense, and gives a small advantage to a spell which surely isn't overpowered!

 

 

Lower Resistance

In my game, this spell got a large AoE. Is it like you have configured this spell in SR ?

Ehm...surely not because within SR this spell never had an AoE.

[DrAzTiK]

Lower Resistance

QUOTE (DrAzTiK @ Jul 31 2009, 02:46 AM) *

In my game, this spell got a large AoE. Is it like you have configured this spell in SR ?

Ehm...surely not because within SR this spell never had an AoE.

 

Oh... it's surely from SCSII component "Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility".

I had the feeling that it was a bit too easy de remove RM (especially grouped ennemy ), I understand why now lol. (though with vanilla LR, it may be more balanced )

[Ardanis]

Pierce Magic

And I'm making it slithly different because it wouldn't affect combat protections. Surely it would be more different than before where Pierce Shield was exactly the same thing on steroids.

Okay. Consistency wise Breach still can't really be stripped of dispelling Specifics due to AI, but I suppose not penetrating spell protections can play as justification for it affecting both Combat and Specifics.

 

Defensive Harmony

Good

[Demivrgvs]

Pierce Magic

And I'm making it slithly different because it wouldn't affect combat protections. Surely it would be more different than before where Pierce Shield was exactly the same thing on steroids.

Okay. Consistency wise Breach still can't really be stripped of dispelling Specifics due to AI, but I suppose not penetrating spell protections can play as justification for it affecting both Combat and Specifics.

Yeah, it makes sense imo. Breach doesn't remove any spell protection, and thus cannot penetrate them either, whereas Pierce Magic/Shield can do both things and the higher spell protection removed often is the very one which would have stopped Breach imo (Spell Trap, Spell Turning, Spell Deflection, ...).

 

I'd like to know players opinion on your suggestion though. Would making Pierce Magic/Shield remove a single specific protection/combat protection be more balanced?

 

P.S I always considered Breach overpowered, but it's probably better if we don't go into this discussion right?

 

 

Defensive Harmony

Good

[DavidW]

What the hell of a strategy is "waiting for 2-3 PfMW to expire"?

 

I agree completely; this was much of the motivation for the Breach modification. One of the most fun moments in our last playthrough of BG2 (with SCSII) was managing, at mid-level, to rip a lich's defences down for just long enough to hit him with a thrown Azuredge.

 

It's more like 4-5 than 2-3 once you've allowed for contingencies and triggers.

[Salk]

Pierce Magic

I'd like to know players opinion on your suggestion though. Would making Pierce Magic/Shield remove a single specific protection/combat protection be more balanced?

 

P.S I always considered Breach overpowered, but it's probably better if we don't go into this discussion right?

 

While technically speaking I see favourable to this, from a gameplay point of view I am decisively against.

 

And the gameplay must be favored before anything else.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Is this still true?

Here's how they currently work within SR V3.

Breach ... Doesn't bypasses Liches and Rakshasas immunities.

Cause there is no way in anti-heaven I am going to play with that. It could be ok if the liches had to use 8th or 9th leves spells to make themselves Invunerable to melee weapons, but not with a level 6th spell. Old argument... Update.

 

PS, I do not mind the Rakshasas being immune to the 5th level Breach spell effect, as long as they can be breached with the Pierce Shield spell... while the Spellstrike works the sameway against the Demi-Lich, if it ever puts any defenses up.

[Ardanis]

Well, maybe it should become an optional component? So that purists may enjoy invincible liches and others have a great time breaching them to nothing. As I'm getting a strong feeling it won't resolve peacefully.

[Demivrgvs]

Breach

DavidW, may I suggest you another way to implement your Breach tweak without creating glitches?

 

I think it can be achieved by editing lich.itm:

* removing immunity to spell level 5

* adding additional protection from spells (it already has many of them because AoE spells bypasses the immunity opcode if self casted).

 

You should add the following protection from spell opcodes: chaos, cone of cold, domination, lower resitance, sunfire, flame strike, insect plague and True Seeing (divine version only).

 

 

Regarding the possibility of including this tweak within SR I'm very conflicted, but it seems better to leave it as an optional component granted by SCS because apparently there are quite a few players who prefer liches and rakshasas to retain their immunities.

 

 

Pierce Magic & Pierce Shield

I'd like to know players opinion on your suggestion though. Would making Pierce Magic/Shield remove a single specific protection/combat protection be more balanced?

 

P.S I always considered Breach overpowered, but it's probably better if we don't go into this discussion right?

 

While technically speaking I see favourable to this, from a gameplay point of view I am decisively against.

 

And the gameplay must be favored before anything else.

DavidW, does this create any issue with SCS? I suppose you considered Breach bypassing spell protections too effective, but these two spells would be less overkill imo, and Pierce Shield is really high in level.

 

Does any other player has an opinion on this? I'm really open to suggestions on these matters because handling the whole system myself while pleasing everyone isn't so easy!