Magic Attacks

[Jarno Mikkola]

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: lower resitance, and True Seeing (divine version only).

But why? Is the cleric worse divinator than a mage? Or is their god worse mage than a regular mage?

And Lower Resistance... I do not wish it to be there either... just my opinion.

[Ardanis]

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).

Imo it's simplier to do via like this

OUTER_SET opcode=206
OUTER_SET target=1
OUTER_SET timing=2
SILENT
COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~.*\.spl~ ~override~
READ_LONG 0x34 level
 PATCH_IF level=5 BEGIN
 SPRINT res ~%SOURCE_RES%~
INNER_ACTION BEGIN
  COPY_EXISTING ~lich.itm~ ~override~
	LAUNCH_PATCH_FUNCTION ADD_ITEM_EQEFFECT STR_VAR resource = EVALUATE_BUFFER ~%res%~ END
END
 END
BUT_ONLY
VERBOSE

 

PS Will this damn forum ever stop lagging?

[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: lower resitance, and True Seeing (divine version only).

But why? Is the cleric worse divinator than a mage? Or is their god worse mage than a regular mage?

And Lower Resistance... I do not wish it to be there either... just my opinion.

Well, I doubt DavidW want to change how these two spells work, thus I had to list them.

 

 

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).

Imo it's simplier to do via like this...

I was simply suggesting an implementation, not the exact way to do it. Anyway, with your code you'd be making the lich immune to its own 5th level spells if I'm not wrong, and that would be quite wrong. And if the code makes it immune to 5th level spells at least make sure Breach isn't included!

[DavidW]

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).

I like. (This had vaguely occurred to me but I didn't want to do the homework - thanks!) The same should presumably work for rakshasas.

 

 

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.

 

Well, it makes the spell fairly impressive, but I don't see any problems with it from an AI point of view.

[amanasleep]

Pierce Shield

 

Demi, under the proposed change, would the Breach always affect the target or would it get bounced if there was still a valid protection?

[Demivrgvs]

Pierce Shield

Demi, under the proposed change, would the Breach always affect the target or would it get bounced if there was still a valid protection?

It wouldn't get bounced. It's fairly complicate to code the breach-like effect to take place only if no spell protections are up, but doable. I should probably have the breach-like effect as a secondary spell without the 'magic attack' flag. But wouldn't it make the whole thing unnecessary? This breach-like effect we're talking about is a lesser version of Breach, and if it works only when all spell protections are down using Breach would be much better.

 

 

Secret Word

I just had a silly idea...what about making this a sort of Power Word? Feel free to insult me, I really don't know if it makes sense. I just thought of it because of what DavidW told about Transmuters being unusable because they lack all PfMW-like spells and all anti magic attacks (except RRR at 14th level).

[Ardanis]

Secret Word

I just ahd a silly idea...what about making this a sort of Power Word?

Have nothing against it, but can you be more specific?

[Demivrgvs]

Secret Word

I just had a silly idea...what about making this a sort of Power Word?

Have nothing against it, but can you be more specific?

I haven't thought much about it myself. I simply thought that:

* these kind of spells aren't blocked by SI:Abj so changing SW school to Enchantment wouldn't change much on this matter

* Transmuters are currently quite underpowered because they lack PfMW serie spells and spell removals too

* making it a PW-like spell doesn't sound too much out of place given the current name, but it may actually make it a little more unique amongst tons of spell removals

* granting it casting time 1 (if we need it for consistency with PW serie) shouldn't make this spell overpowered

 

I don't know though, and the rest of this huge discussion is surely much more important anyway.

[Demivrgvs]

Let's see if we can agree on a solution for closing V3.

 

Spell Thrust (3rd lvl, Abjuration)

It seems keeping the AoE is almost essential, thus I propose to keep it and make this spell remove a single spell protection of 5th level or lower instead of all. Within SR ST will tear down MGoI as per vanilla's description. For both technical and conceptual reasons all spell protection removals will ignore spell level immunities (e.g. liches and rakshasas immunities).

 

 

Secret Word (4th lvl, Abjuration)

It will have a 5' radius AoE as ST. Look at my previos post for a suggested tweak, but it's not urgent.

 

Breach (5th lvl, Abjuration)

This spell is not considered a spell protection removal, and thus doesn't bypass neither spell level immunities, nor spell protections (such as Spell Deflection/Turning, (M)GoI, and Spell Trap).

 

Lower Resistance (5th lvl, Alteration)

This spell won't have an AoE, and won't bypass spell protections anymore (why should it?). It will bypass SI:Abj though (because between the two schools I've chosen to keep Alteration), and obviously magic resistance.

 

Some players asked me to make it non stackable. Challenging speaking I like it, technically not so much (how would it work with Pierce Magic mr lowering effect?). What should I do?

 

 

Pierce Magic (6th lvl, Abjuration)

This spell won't have an AoE. Players seem to like its lower magic resistance effect thus I'm not going to change it. I suggested to make it remove specific protections (such as Protection from Elements/Magic Energy), but I can't make it remove only one of them...thus it's either all or nothing.

 

 

Warding Whip (7th lvl, Abjuration)

I think this spell is really powerful even without AoE, and within SR it removes 4 spr instead of 3. It's PnP version is rather difficult to implement to say the least.

 

 

Ruby Ray of Reversal (7th lvl, Alteration)

It will keep the AoE, and sooner or later I want to improve this spell a la PnP.

 

 

Pierce Shield (8th lvl, Abjuration)

Similarly to Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield either removes all combat protections or not a single one. Personally I'd gladly trade even the mr lowering effect for a breach-like effect that works on liches/rakshasas and bypasses spell protections (as vanilla's Breach).

 

 

Spellstrike (9th lvl, Abjuration)

The AoE here seems to be the only way to keep this spell appealing considering its level. Should I revert my previous change that let it remove specific protections? Alternatively there's always the idea to add a remove magic effect.

[DavidW]

Lower Resistance (5th lvl, Alteration)

This spell won't have an AoE, and won't bypass spell protections anymore (why should it?). It will bypass SI:Abj though (because between the two schools I've chosen to keep Alteration), and obviously magic resistance.

 

Some players asked me to make it non stackable. Challenging speaking I like it, technically not so much (how would it work with Pierce Magic mr lowering effect?). What should I do?

 

I'd rather you didn't, partly because I use Lower Resistance x3 spell triggers from time to time (it's one of the few ways to annoy Viconia!) and partly because the AI can't detect if a LR has already been cast on someone. I can allow for the former pretty easily, though, and basically I don't use LR except in that sequencer, so don't let that my objection be a game-breaker if you're otherwise keen.

[Kalindor]

Let's see if we can agree on a solution for closing V3.

 

Spell Thrust (3rd lvl, Abjuration)

It seems keeping the AoE is almost essential, thus I propose to keep it and make this spell remove a single spell protection of 5th level or lower instead of all. Within SR ST will tear down MGoI as per vanilla's description. For both technical and conceptual reasons all spell protection removals will ignore spell level immunities (e.g. liches and rakshasas immunities).

 

Pierce Shield (8th lvl, Abjuration)

Similarly to Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield either removes all combat protections or not a single one. Personally I'd gladly trade even the mr lowering effect for a breach-like effect that works on liches/rakshasas and bypasses spell protections (as vanilla's Breach).

 

So Breach will not bypass Lich/Rakshasa resistances because it's technically not a spell protection removal. If that's the case, then Pierce Shield having a Breach effect would be really nice. Does Spellstrike remove combat protections? If so, then Pierce Shield could just retain its MR lowering effect and we can use Spellstrike to remove these protections on Liches and Rakshasas. For the other side of the argumant, Pierce Magic already is a protection removal that lowers MR and it would be nice to have some variation.

 

Secret Word (4th lvl, Abjuration)

It will have a 5' radius AoE as ST. Look at my previos post for a suggested tweak, but it's not urgent.

 

I like the power word idea. You'd think a "Secret Word" would have a casting time of 1. Not urgent though, like you said.

 

 

Breach[/b] (5th lvl, Abjuration)

This spell is not considered a spell protection removal, and thus doesn't bypass neither spell level immunities, nor spell protections (such as Spell Deflection/Turning, (M)GoI, and Spell Trap).

 

I really like this.

 

Lower Resistance (5th lvl, Alteration)

This spell won't have an AoE, and won't bypass spell protections anymore (why should it?). It will bypass SI:Abj though (because between the two schools I've chosen to keep Alteration), and obviously magic resistance.

 

Some players asked me to make it non stackable. Challenging speaking I like it, technically not so much (how would it work with Pierce Magic mr lowering effect?). What should I do?

 

Pierce Magic (6th lvl, Abjuration)

This spell won't have an AoE. Players seem to like its lower magic resistance effect thus I'm not going to change it. I suggested to make it remove specific protections (such as Protection from Elements/Magic Energy), but I can't make it remove only one of them...thus it's either all or nothing.

 

I think the non-stacking Lower Resistance for challenge purposes is an imperative. Having Pierce Magic stack with Lower Resistance is a plus, I think. It gives you a reason to use Pierce Magic, a non-AoE spell protection removal one level lower than Warding Whip. This resistance-lowering strategy also requires a 5th and 6th level slot, two spell selections for a sorcerer, and still caps the amount magic resistance can be lowered above what multiple Lower Resistances would allow. I suggest allowing them to stack, making Lower Resistance non-cumulative, and not adding a "Remove Specific Protections" to Pierce Magic.

What DavidW said about the LR spell sequencer is a little troubling, but it would still result in 40% less resistance for Viconia, which is more than enough to get some spells through. (MR is really one of her only benefits, roleplaying aside. Her stats are questionable.)

 

Warding Whip (7th lvl, Abjuration)

I think this spell is really powerful even without AoE, and within SR it removes 4 spr instead of 3. It's PnP version is rather difficult to implement to say the least.

 

Ruby Ray of Reversal (7th lvl, Alteration)

It will keep the AoE, and sooner or later I want to improve this spell a la PnP.

 

Just make sure Ruby Ray is still a viable alternative in V3.

 

Spellstrike (9th lvl, Abjuration)

The AoE here seems to be the only way to keep this spell appealing considering its level. Should I revert my previous change that let it remove specific protections? Alternatively there's always the idea to add a remove magic effect.

 

You could always make it remove everything on a single target. Combat, specific, AND spell protections. Maybe that would be too powerful? It is 9th level after all. (Sorry, I realize your post is to provide closure and I'm suggesting alternate functionality.)

[Icendoan]

Spellstrike (9th lvl, Abjuration)

The AoE here seems to be the only way to keep this spell appealing considering its level. Should I revert my previous change that let it remove specific protections? Alternatively there's always the idea to add a remove magic effect.

 

You could always make it remove everything on a single target. Combat, specific, AND spell protections. Maybe that would be too powerful? It is 9th level after all. (Sorry, I realize your post is to provide closure and I'm suggesting alternate functionality.)

 

I support this: imho, SpellStrike shares a slot with Time Stop, and should be able to burn through everything.

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

Spell Thrust

So now it's basically just the lowerest version of SW and RRR family.

I still object against it not being stopped by MGoI (and SW not being stopped by GoI).

 

Lower Resistance

Dunno. Non-stackable would be a plus imo, but I can't say for sure.

 

Pierce Magic

Well, as I've said, I'm okay with it removing all Specifics.

But is that going to bypass rakshasa/demilich immunity? Same goes for Pierce Shield vs demilich.

 

Spellstrike

I say, have it remove Spell protections only. No Specifics or Combat or whatever else.

[DavidW]

Spellstrike (9th lvl, Abjuration)

The AoE here seems to be the only way to keep this spell appealing considering its level. Should I revert my previous change that let it remove specific protections? Alternatively there's always the idea to add a remove magic effect.

 

You could always make it remove everything on a single target. Combat, specific, AND spell protections. Maybe that would be too powerful? It is 9th level after all. (Sorry, I realize your post is to provide closure and I'm suggesting alternate functionality.)

 

I support this: imho, SpellStrike shares a slot with Time Stop, and should be able to burn through everything.

 

Icen

 

This will make late-stage mages very easy to kill. Unless they're invisible (which Necromancers, in particular, can't do) then SpellStrike followed by a few attacks with a HLA-buffed fighter with a cool weapon, and game over. (Notice that you can't do this with Time Stop because the effects are resolved simultaneously.)

 

My experience with SCS is that even as it is (i.e., with AoE but otherwise unchanged), SpellStrike makes a dramatic difference to the way mage battles go. i.e. it's not underpowered. My feeling is that people are underestimating its usefulness even without AoE, but I could be wrong.

[Demivrgvs]

Spell Thrust

So now it's basically just the lowerest version of SW and RRR family.

Yeah, that's another reason I've started to think about slightly tweak SW, and it also reminded me I wanted to add few PnP features to RRR. These damn spells (not just these two but all spell removals) were almost identical in vanilla and it's quite difficult to make each of them unique while keeping the balance.

 

I still object against it not being stopped by MGoI (and SW not being stopped by GoI).

Well, I don't like making ST not bypass MGoI because:

* ST would remove only Minor Spell Deflection/Turning and SI. Considering the first two spells are almost never used, why not just call this spell SI-removal?

* then ST would also not work on liches/rakshasas

* for conceptual design we've agreed that spell removals don't affect the target but rather the magical aura of spell protections. This is "necessary" to justify for example SI:Abj not stopping all these abjuration spells imo.

 

Same goes for SW.

 

 

Secret Word

I like the power word idea. You'd think a "Secret Word" would have a casting time of 1. Not urgent though, like you said.

 

 

Lower Resistance

Dunno. Non-stackable would be a plus imo, but I can't say for sure.

As I said, I'm not sure either. I'd say though to leave it stack for V3, we'l have plenty of time to change it for V4 if "necessary".

 

 

Pierce Magic

Well, as I've said, I'm okay with it removing all Specifics.

But is that going to bypass rakshasa/demilich immunity? Same goes for Pierce Shield vs demilich.

Yes, is it a problem?

 

 

Ruby Ray of Reversal

Just make sure Ruby Ray is still a viable alternative in V3.

Well, it's already quite good imo, because it's the lowest level spell able to remove Spell Trap, and it has an AoE whereas within SR Pierce Magic, Warding Whip, and Pierce Shield haven't.

 

 

Spellstrike

The AoE here seems to be the only way to keep this spell appealing considering its level. Should I revert my previous change that let it remove specific protections? Alternatively there's always the idea to add a remove magic effect.

You could always make it remove everything on a single target. Combat, specific, AND spell protections. Maybe that would be too powerful? It is 9th level after all. (Sorry, I realize your post is to provide closure and I'm suggesting alternate functionality.)

I support this: imho, SpellStrike shares a slot with Time Stop, and should be able to burn through everything.

That's how it worked in a previous version of SR but some players complained that a similar spell would end any mage fight in a matter of seconds, and I think they were right. That would be less noticeable if we make Spellstrike single target again, but I consider having AoE much more important for this spell, because having the top-notch spell removal unable to deal with a simple Improved Invisibility would be strange imo.

 

Instead Pierce Shield can be that kind of spell imo, because as an 8th level spell it has the rights to be uber powerful but not infallible.

 

I say, have it remove Spell protections only. No Specifics or Combat or whatever else.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying more or less.

 

 

Various

So Breach will not bypass Lich/Rakshasa resistances because it's technically not a spell protection removal. If that's the case, then Pierce Shield having a Breach effect would be really nice. Does Spellstrike remove combat protections? If so, then Pierce Shield could just retain its MR lowering effect and we can use Spellstrike to remove these protections on Liches and Rakshasas. For the other side of the argumant, Pierce Magic already is a protection removal that lowers MR and it would be nice to have some variation.

More or less it may be:

* Pierce Magic: 1 spell protection up to 8th level, removes specific protections -1% magic resistance per level

* Pierce Shield: 1 spell protection up to 9th level, removes combat protections -10% magic resistance plus additional -1% per level

* Spellstrike: all spell protections, with AoE

 

If we want each spell to be slightly more unique, and we think Pierce Magic would be too powerful we may not add to it "specific protections removal", and instead adding it to Pierce Shield, while removing "lower magic res" from Pierce Shield itself.