Magic Attacks

[Kalindor]

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.

 

I see what you mean when talking about "your whole party vs. one big bad mage" scenarios. I was thinking about things like the twisted rune and slave lords where you are facing another party. In that scenario it would be reciprocal because enemy mages would also have the spell. Maybe if Spell Shield worked as intended then enemy "boss" mages could use it to counter the more powerful version of Spellstrike that removes everything (counter it once at least).

[Ardanis]

ST&SW vs (M)GoI

I suppose I'll just have to spit on BG2's spell system, stupid to the core, and live with that...

Speaking of liches, you can still have ST&SW bypass them, simply add 'protection from spell [206]' to (M)GoI.

 

Pierce Rakshasa

Well, not really a problem since I can pretty much ignore that feature if I wish, rather wondering.

[Demivrgvs]

Spellstrike

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.

I see what you mean when talking about "your whole party vs. one big bad mage" scenarios. I was thinking about things like the twisted rune and slave lords where you are facing another party. In that scenario it would be reciprocal because enemy mages would also have the spell. Maybe if Spell Shield worked as intended then enemy "boss" mages could use it to counter the more powerful version of Spellstrike that removes everything (counter it once at least).

Even when you face another party the AI coordination isn't as good as yours, and the AI won't have a fighter sitting near your mage waiting for Spellstrike to leave him vulnerable. In the hands of players instead a spell which removes everything bypassing II too would be the end of all mage fights imo, because as soon as Spellstrike hits the targets, your fighter will disintegrate them with few hits.

 

 

ST&SW vs (M)GoI

I suppose I'll just have to spit on BG2's spell system, stupid to the core, and live with that...

May I ask what's the problem here?

 

Speaking of liches, you can still have ST&SW bypass them, simply add 'protection from spell [206]' to (M)GoI.

Technical implementation is the least important thing for me on this matter. Imo both ways have almost identical rights:

1) GoI is designed to block spells based on spell level, thus it seems plausible that it blocks a 3rd/4th level spell

2) anti magic attacks are designed to tear down spell protections, and Spell Thrust description explicitly says that ST can remove a MGoI

 

I opted for 2) to stay true to the original descriptions, and also because:

a) (M)GoI are great spells even if they don't grant immunity from ST and SW, whereas for example ST loses quite much from not being able to affect MGoI

b) for conceptual design (see below) and consistency with all the other anti magic attacks it seems more appropriate

 

 

Pierce Liches/Rakshasa

Well, not really a problem since I can pretty much ignore that feature if I wish, rather wondering.

Give me one reason to conceptually justify why an anti magic attack should be blocked by a creature's natural spell immunity, but not from Spell Immunity (which actually is the same thing).

 

 

Now...I still haven't understood if we reached a consensus or not, probably not right? If I'm not wrong though, the only two spells that still leave us very uncertain are Pierce Magic and Pierce Shield.

[Demivrgvs]

DavidW, may I ask you to quickly summarize how the AI use these antimagic attacks? I mean:

- does they care about Secret Word or was it too unppealing?

- does they simply spam Spell Thrust whenever they detect SI giving for granted that it removes all SIs?

- considering the importance of 6th level slots (PfMW, Death Spell, ...), am I wrong or you rarely care about Pierce Magic?

- does the AI care about Pierce Shield penalty to magic resistance?

 

I think it would help me a lot to know these things, because if for example you use a subset of these spells I'd be more free to tweak the currently unused/unappealing ones; and if there are certain aspect that you absolutely need to keep (e.g. Breach must be blocked by spell protections) I have to take them into account.

 

 

On another note, am I the only one who thinks a spell removal shouldn't work when it can't affect the highest level protection? Example: target is under SI:Div + II + Spell Trap. With the current system casting Spell Thrust dispels SI ignoring Spell Trap, but is it ok?

[Shaitan]

 

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.

 

Agree

 

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.)

I like this too. If Viconia is the only incidence with LR in sequencers I have no troubles with making LR nonstackable. I'm undecided regarding the all or nothing part.

 

Cheers

[Shaitan]

On another note, am I the only one who thinks a spell removal shouldn't work when it can't affect the highest level protection? Example: target is under SI:Div + II + Spell Trap. With the current system casting Spell Thrust dispels SI ignoring Spell Trap, but is it ok?

If it can be circumvented it would be better IMO. I agree fully with you.

[DavidW]

DavidW, may I ask you to quickly summarize how the AI use these antimagic attacks? I mean:

- does they care about Secret Word or was it too unppealing?

This is a bit complicated. The AI will use any and all magic attacks it has. So the real issue is: which spells do mages carry?

 

In the current version of SCSII, I take the vanilla spells as a starting point and then swap lots of them.

I make some effort to get Secret Word, Warding Whip, Ruby Ray, I mostly ignore the others.

 

In the upcoming version, I'll rewrite the lists from scratch. My current draft algorithm likes Secret Word, Ruby Ray, Warding Whip, and Spellstrike, uses Spell Thrust a bit at lowish levels (more an SCSI than an SCSII issue) and basically ignores the rest.

 

- does they simply spam Spell Thrust whenever they detect SI giving for granted that it removes all SIs?

No, I don't take advantage of this. I didn't actually know it was possible. I assumed (wrongly) that higher-level spell protection would just block the low-level stuff. I'd be quite relaxed about having that added (so, e.g., Spell Strike gives immunity to Spell Thrust) and might offer it with the next version of SCSII.

 

Incidentally, this is part of why I often use Secret Word instead of Spell Thrust. Another reason is that I tend to find 3rd level spell slots in shorter supply than 4th level ones.

 

- considering the importance of 6th level slots (PfMW, Death Spell, ...), am I wrong or you rarely care about Pierce Magic?

Right.

 

- does the AI care about Pierce Shield penalty to magic resistance?

 

No. My basic assumption in SCSII is that it's not really worth the hassle of attacking enemy MR unless you can do really serious damage to it - so I use triple-LR spell triggers because they can basically take Viconia, or a paladin with Carsomyr, and wipe out their MR, but I don't otherwise bother.

 

You are basically not going to cause problems for SCSII from an offensive point of view if you mess with Pierce Magic or Pierce Shield. (That's separate from the possibility that you'll cause problems from the defensive point of view.)

 

Quite apart from SCS issues I'm not terribly excited by the idea of preventing LR from stacking. I actually don't think it's very often tactically worthwhile to use lower resistance at all unless you can do significant damage to MR. At one extreme, it's not really worth the time to LR on something with 20% or 30% magic resistance, you might as well just take the risk. At the other extreme, taking something with 90% MR down to 60% still means that direct-target magic is a fairly ineffective way to go. However, I'm not at all sure you can prevent people (or SCS) using 3xLR in a trigger as an exploit even if you do block it (just like with PI) so it may be moot.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Fine except.

 

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 ... (M)GoI...).

Ah, these protect only upto level 1, 2, 3, and the GoI upto 4th level.

 

So that's clerical error, -> such as Spell Deflection & Minor and normal Spell Turning, Spell Shield, and Spell Trap. Of course it works against the Spell Turnings like it normally should taking 5 levels away...

[Demivrgvs]

Thanks DavidW that helps a lot!!

 

In the current version of SCSII, I take the vanilla spells as a starting point and then swap lots of them.

I make some effort to get Secret Word, Warding Whip, Ruby Ray, I mostly ignore the others.

 

In the upcoming version, I'll rewrite the lists from scratch. My current draft algorithm likes Secret Word, Ruby Ray, Warding Whip, and Spellstrike, uses Spell Thrust a bit at lowish levels (more an SCSI than an SCSII issue) and basically ignores the rest.

Good to know, as I thought Pierce Magic and Pierce Shield were the least appealing ones in vanilla.

 

- does they simply spam Spell Thrust whenever they detect SI giving for granted that it removes all SIs?

No, I don't take advantage of this. I didn't actually know it was possible. I assumed (wrongly) that higher-level spell protection would just block the low-level stuff. I'd be quite relaxed about having that added (so, e.g., Spell Trap gives immunity to Spell Thrust) and might offer it with the next version of SCSII.

Great, I'm glad to hear that you didn't exploited this, and I'd gladly implement it right away if it's okay for players too.

 

In this case I may actually change my mind about Spell Thrust and allow it to remove multiple spell protections (as per vanilla).

 

You are basically not going to cause problems for SCSII from an offensive point of view if you mess with Pierce Magic or Pierce Shield. (That's separate from the possibility that you'll cause problems from the defensive point of view.)

Good, my main concern actually was that you assign an AoE to them whereas I don't.

 

Regarding the defensive side I don't worry too much. Pierce Shield is actually so high in level that players should be rightly rewarded for using it (at 8th lvl there are things like Horrid Wilting, Simulacrum and Spell Sequencer), and I consider its breach-like effect my version of SCS Breach Tweak (I don't change Breach to affect liches/rakshasas but I allow PS to perform such role).

 

Quite apart from SCS issues I'm not terribly excited by the idea of preventing LR from stacking. ...

I don't block multiple LR in V3, I have to think a lot more about it. Anyway, just so you know, within SR it lowers mr by 2%/lvl instead of 10% +1%/lvl.

[Ardanis]

ST&SW vs (M)GoI

May I ask what's the problem here?

The initial design that left half a dozen of antimagic spells for a legacy.

Still, I do have to agree that without taking globes down these spells are pretty useless. I just don't like the need to agree, as I prefer 'it blocks all lvl 1-3 spells, AM or not' concept.

 

Pierce

For a moment I've thought that since Breach is 5th level, then Pierce's breach-like effects are 5th level as well. Funny logic, huh?

Give me one reason to conceptually justify why an anti magic attack should be blocked by a creature's natural spell immunity, but not from Spell Immunity (which actually is the same thing).

Same reason why Invisibility affects creature's equipment. It's close to the subject, so takes advantage of it's immunity.

 

 

 

On another note, am I the only one who thinks a spell removal shouldn't work when it can't affect the highest level protection? Example: target is under SI:Div + II + Spell Trap. With the current system casting Spell Thrust dispels SI ignoring Spell Trap, but is it ok?

You know my answer

[amanasleep]

On another note, am I the only one who thinks a spell removal shouldn't work when it can't affect the highest level protection? Example: target is under SI:Div + II + Spell Trap. With the current system casting Spell Thrust dispels SI ignoring Spell Trap, but is it ok?

You know my answer

 

The basic theory here is that Spell Protection Removals ignore all spell protections, regardless of level (or else how could they remove any spell protections?). Spell Trap, not to mention all the other SP's, are designed to protect the protected mage from offensive spells cast against him, while SPR's are designed to ignore SP's to affect the target (usually with some sort of Spell Protection removal, but also with other effects like Lower Resistance, etc.).

 

The limitations on SPR's like SW and KWW already mean that they cannot take down Spell Trap, which means that if you use them to strip lower level protections the mage is still protected from Breach and other targeted spells. To futher nerf these SPR's by having them do nothing if a higher level SP is in place is unnecessary and makes them too weak. The fact that ST is blocked by GoI already severely hampers its use IMO (it's probably just balanced by its multiple protection removal ability and the buff of giving it AoE).

 

Think about the repercussions of making Spell Trap block all SPR's that can't remove it--Any spellcasting opponent without access to at least Ruby Ray shouldn't even bother.

[Kalindor]

The problem with Spell Trap is that you never really get any restorative benefit from it anyway as all the SCS mages simply won't cast anything at you unless it is a protection removal. I suppose this beats the alternative of being Flame Arrowed in the face, but functionally it is just the same as Spell Deflection only a little harder to remove.

[Demivrgvs]

The basic theory here is that Spell Protection Removals ignore all spell protections, regardless of level (or else how could they remove any spell protections?). Spell Trap, not to mention all the other SP's, are designed to protect the protected mage from offensive spells cast against him, while SPR's are designed to ignore SP's to affect the target (usually with some sort of Spell Protection removal, but also with other effects like Lower Resistance, etc.).

I strongly disagree. Spell removals don't ignore spell protections at all, it's actually the opposite, how could they dispel something that they ignore? Instead, spell protections do come into conflict with spell protections and destroy them when this happen.

 

 

The limitations on SPR's like SW and KWW already mean that they cannot take down Spell Trap, which means that if you use them to strip lower level protections the mage is still protected from Breach and other targeted spells. To futher nerf these SPR's by having them do nothing if a higher level SP is in place is unnecessary and makes them too weak. The fact that ST is blocked by GoI already severely hampers its use IMO (it's probably just balanced by its multiple protection removal ability and the buff of giving it AoE).

Too weak? I actually find too convenient that high level protections are bypassed by low level spell removals.

 

With such a behavior you can easily ignore Spell Trap and right away tear down GoI with a mid level spell removal, then ignoring Spell Trap again you can use horror, hold person, confuse and so on to effectively take out the target. Great work for a 9th level spell protection!

 

 

Think about the repercussions of making Spell Trap block all SPR's that can't remove it--Any spellcasting opponent without access to at least Ruby Ray shouldn't even bother.

Your suggested system where GoI blocks SW is actually much worse imo, because following this logic a 12th level mage protected by GoI would be immune to every single spell a mage of 8th level may have. Only a mage of at least 12th level would be able to handle GoI with Pierce Magic, and if we add II to GoI we end up needing RRR becasue Pierce Magic doesn't have an AoE. Thus, if you need a 14th level mage with RRR to tear down GoI, why on earth should I feel bad if a similar thing is needed to handle Spell Trap which is a damn lvl 9 spell?

 

 

The problem with Spell Trap is that you never really get any restorative benefit from it anyway as all the SCS mages simply won't cast anything at you unless it is a protection removal. I suppose this beats the alternative of being Flame Arrowed in the face, but functionally it is just the same as Spell Deflection only a little harder to remove.

Yeah, but at least the tweak I and DavidW suggested would make Spell Trap a lot more appealing, doesn't it? I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

 

In PnP spell protections such as Spell Trap are way more effective because they cannot be easily destroyed like in BG. Spell removals such as ST, and SW don't exist in PnP, and Pierce Magic and Pierce Any Shield are a lot less effective because they simply allow the following spell to bypass target's protections, not remove the protections.

 

Because of how powerful BG spell removals are most spell protections are very unappealing. If it wasn't for SCS tweak of having them stop Breach casting things like Spell Deflection and Spell Turning, not to mention Spell Trap, was completely worthless.

[amanasleep]

The basic theory here is that Spell Protection Removals ignore all spell protections, regardless of level (or else how could they remove any spell protections?). Spell Trap, not to mention all the other SP's, are designed to protect the protected mage from offensive spells cast against him, while SPR's are designed to ignore SP's to affect the target (usually with some sort of Spell Protection removal, but also with other effects like Lower Resistance, etc.).

I strongly disagree. Spell removals don't ignore spell protections at all, it's actually the opposite, how could they dispel something that they ignore? Instead, spell protections do come into conflict with spell protections and destroy them when this happen.

 

No SPR is actually stopped by a spell protection (with the exception of (M)GoI, but that's a slightly different discussion). My point is that making Spell Trap actually block SW for instance rather than letting it do its job would be weird unless you coded it somehow so you would gain spells back. Same thing with Spell Turning and Spell Thrust.

 

The limitations on SPR's like SW and KWW already mean that they cannot take down Spell Trap, which means that if you use them to strip lower level protections the mage is still protected from Breach and other targeted spells. To futher nerf these SPR's by having them do nothing if a higher level SP is in place is unnecessary and makes them too weak. The fact that ST is blocked by GoI already severely hampers its use IMO (it's probably just balanced by its multiple protection removal ability and the buff of giving it AoE).

Too weak? I actually find too convenient that high level protections are bypassed by low level spell removals.

 

With such a behavior you can easily ignore Spell Trap and right away tear down GoI with a mid level spell removal, then ignoring Spell Trap again you can use horror, hold person, confuse and so on to effectively take out the target. Great work for a 9th level spell protection!

 

This argument certainly does make more sense with Spell Trap vs. SW, although I still maintain that Spell Trap not being able to protect GoI from SW is not in itself an argument for buffing Spell Trap. It may be an argument for equipping AI mages with potions of Clarity and Free Action.

 

Think about the repercussions of making Spell Trap block all SPR's that can't remove it--Any spellcasting opponent without access to at least Ruby Ray shouldn't even bother.

Your suggested system where GoI blocks SW is actually much worse imo, because following this logic a 12th level mage protected by GoI would be immune to every single spell a mage of 8th level may have. Only a mage of at least 12th level would be able to handle GoI with Pierce Magic, and if we add II to GoI we end up needing RRR becasue Pierce Magic doesn't have an AoE. Thus, if you need a 14th level mage with RRR to tear down GoI, why on earth should I feel bad if a similar thing is needed to handle Spell Trap which is a damn lvl 9 spell?

 

First of all, I never asserted that GoI should block SW. I assert that GoI should block ST, and that GoI blocking SW in vanilla is not unbalanced. Second, GoI was this powerful in PnP. Third, if Dispel Magic actually worked properly then the 8th Level mage has a small but non-zero chance to Dispel the GoI.

 

The problem with Spell Trap is that you never really get any restorative benefit from it anyway as all the SCS mages simply won't cast anything at you unless it is a protection removal. I suppose this beats the alternative of being Flame Arrowed in the face, but functionally it is just the same as Spell Deflection only a little harder to remove.

Yeah, but at least the tweak I and DavidW suggested would make Spell Trap a lot more appealing, doesn't it? I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

 

In PnP spell protections such as Spell Trap are way more effective because they cannot be easily destroyed like in BG. Spell removals such as ST, and SW don't exist in PnP, and Pierce Magic and Pierce Any Shield are a lot less effective because they simply allow the following spell to bypass target's protections, not remove the protections.

 

This is interesting, but seems like an even bigger nerf of Spell Protections than the current system. Pierce Magic->Breach would be the only thing you need.

 

Because of how powerful BG spell removals are most spell protections are very unappealing. If it wasn't for SCS tweak of having them stop Breach casting things like Spell Deflection and Spell Turning, not to mention Spell Trap, was completely worthless.

 

But it is precisely this insight (Spell Protections block Breach) that makes the system work again and makes spell protections worth having.

 

As I consider the SPR vs. SP arguments I find myself reconsidering my position. Allowing higher level protections to block lower level SPR's may be ok, but requires more thought as I think there may still be some unintended consequences.

[Demivrgvs]

Spell removals don't ignore spell protections at all, it's actually the opposite, how could they dispel something that they ignore? Instead, spell protections do come into conflict with spell protections and destroy them when this happen.

No SPR is actually stopped by a spell protection (with the exception of (M)GoI, but that's a slightly different discussion). My point is that making Spell Trap actually block SW for instance rather than letting it do its job would be weird unless you coded it somehow so you would gain spells back. Same thing with Spell Turning and Spell Thrust.

I don't see anything weird, we're talking about antimagic attacks, and just like Dispel Magic cannot be deflected/reflected/absorbed the same would be true for these spells.

 

 

With such a behavior you can easily ignore Spell Trap and right away tear down GoI with a mid level spell removal, then ignoring Spell Trap again you can use horror, hold person, confuse and so on to effectively take out the target. Great work for a 9th level spell protection!

This argument certainly does make more sense with Spell Trap vs. SW, although I still maintain that Spell Trap not being able to protect GoI from SW is not in itself an argument for buffing Spell Trap. It may be an argument for equipping AI mages with potions of Clarity and Free Action.

This is SR and leaving Spell Trap as a not so great spell protection and claiming using potions of Clarity and Free Action is better doesn't seem a great argument. Under the current system I'd chose GoI over Spell Trap anytime, and it's quite intolerable within SR philosophy that a 6th level spell is much more valuable than a 9th level one.

 

 

Think about the repercussions of making Spell Trap block all SPR's that can't remove it--Any spellcasting opponent without access to at least Ruby Ray shouldn't even bother.

Your suggested system where GoI blocks SW is actually much worse imo, because following this logic a 12th level mage protected by GoI would be immune to every single spell a mage of 8th level may have. Only a mage of at least 12th level would be able to handle GoI with Pierce Magic, and if we add II to GoI we end up needing RRR becasue Pierce Magic doesn't have an AoE. Thus, if you need a 14th level mage with RRR to tear down GoI, why on earth should I feel bad if a similar thing is needed to handle Spell Trap which is a damn lvl 9 spell?

First of all, I never asserted that GoI should block SW. I assert that GoI should block ST, and that GoI blocking SW in vanilla is not unbalanced. Second, GoI was this powerful in PnP. Third, if Dispel Magic actually worked properly then the 8th Level mage has a small but non-zero chance to Dispel the GoI.

 

 

In PnP spell protections such as Spell Trap are way more effective because they cannot be easily destroyed like in BG. Spell removals such as ST, and SW don't exist in PnP, and Pierce Magic and Pierce Any Shield are a lot less effective because they simply allow the following spell to bypass target's protections, not remove the protections.

This is interesting, but seems like an even bigger nerf of Spell Protections than the current system. Pierce Magic->Breach would be the only thing you need.

No, because in PnP Pierce Magic penetrates only 5th level spells or lower, and Pierce Shield is a 9th level spell (thus I don't see it as a nerf at all).

 

Breach itself (called Breach Defenses) was quite different in PnP: "The bane of magical creatures, breach defenses temporarily negates the magical defenses of a creature otherwise immune to normal weapons. Once drained of its magical protection, the creature becomes vulnerable to normal weapons and its Armor Class is worsened by 2 (from AC 4 to AC 6, for example) to a maximum of AC 10. Under this insidious spell's power, wraiths become more tangible, iron golems soften, and lycanthropes must fear more than silver weapons. Breach defenses has no effect on a creature's magic resistance or saving throws, nor does it remove natural or magical immunities to certain forms of attack (for example, a salamander or baatezu's resistance to fire). It simply drains a creature's magical defenses, whether it normally would suffer damage only from +1 or better magical weapons or from +3 or better weapons."

 

 

Because of how powerful BG spell removals are most spell protections are very unappealing. If it wasn't for SCS tweak of having them stop Breach casting things like Spell Deflection and Spell Turning, not to mention Spell Trap, was completely worthless.

But it is precisely this insight (Spell Protections block Breach) that makes the system work again and makes spell protections worth having.

It's just what I said, SCS tweak is a must have, because at least they protect from Breach, which is a really overpowered spell imo. But I wouldn't claim "the system works again" because actually spell deflection/turning/trap still don't offer at all what they should for a simple reason: in PnP there's no way to detect these spells on sight and avoid their main effects.

 

In an ideal world I should remove the respective animations imo, and mages should only have a % chance to detect spell deflection/turning/trap, sometimes acting ignoring them and casting spells against them normally. I think DavidW did something like this for beholder's anti Shield of Balduran feature.

 

 

As I consider the SPR vs. SP arguments I find myself reconsidering my position. Allowing higher level protections to block lower level SPR's may be ok, but requires more thought as I think there may still be some unintended consequences.

Well, at least you're not against it, and as of now I've received only positive comments on this tweak, one from DavidW himself (his vote counts double on these matters ).

 

I'm fine about discussing it a little more, but I really really wish we can reach a good closure because I'd love to finally release this damn V3!