Magic Attacks

[DavidW]

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!

 

My very strong advice is that you now stop consulting everyone (even me!) and release your current preferred choices. I think after a certain point it's far easier to see what does and doesn't work in practice than in theory, and I reckon you've now explored the territory thoroughly enough to know what's actually going to be disastrous or break the game. You can always refine it in V4 when you've actually got some concrete feedback.

 

On that subject, two questions for V3:

 

- did you look at Detectable Spells issues? (cf our previous discussion). If it's just Insect Plague and Creeping Doom that you've shell-spelled I'll do it for you, but not if it's more complicated.

- is there a way to detect if V3 is installed (rather than an earlier version) and if not, could you add one? ("dvsrv3.mrk" or suchlike)

[Demivrgvs]

My very strong advice is that you now stop consulting everyone (even me!) and release your current preferred choices. I think after a certain point it's far easier to see what does and doesn't work in practice than in theory, and I reckon you've now explored the territory thoroughly enough to know what's actually going to be disastrous or break the game. You can always refine it in V4 when you've actually got some concrete feedback.

You may be right, I'm too much democratic.

 

On that subject, two questions for V3:

 

1) did you look at Detectable Spells issues? (cf our previous discussion). If it's just Insect Plague and Creeping Doom that you've shell-spelled I'll do it for you, but not if it's more complicated.

2) is there a way to detect if V3 is installed (rather than an earlier version) and if not, could you add one? ("dvsrv3.mrk" or suchlike)

1) As of V3 the shell system isn't used so extensively to require particular attention imo, at least because it's used on spells which shouldn't require DS checks imo (e.g. Flame Arrow, and Chain Lightning). Insect spells are the only ones I recall that need DS checks. Due to how they work now (damage once per round and no spell failure on a successful save) it may not even be necessary to detect them as long as 100% spell failure is detected, but for V4 I'll add features such as making them "dispellable" by Gust of Wind, and then having them detecable would surely be mandatory for the AI.

2) As of now there's only the old "dvimhere.mrk" but I can easily add dvsrv3.mrk yes, will do.

[Ardanis]

David, I think you forgot to add the actual reply

 

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

My suggestion to make them block AoE spells still stands.

[Demivrgvs]

David, I think you forgot to add the actual reply

I thought the same...

 

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

My suggestion to make them block AoE spells still stands.

You know how I feel about it, both conceptually and technically. For Spell Deflection and Spell Trap this would be awesome imo. Instead, your solution (which is based on making all AoE spells via shell system) would be quite bad for Spell Turning: casting a Fireball against two mages protected by Spell Turning, and having your mage suffer a 2x fireball's damage (without even seeing the fireball animation reflected) doesn't make sense at all imo.

 

If you find a solution which makes Spell Deflection/Trap work against AoE spells, but doesn't cause Spell Turning to act so strangely I think I'd like this suggestion a lot. Then we should face the possible AI issues though.

[Ardanis]

My initial suggestion was to swap current Spell Trap/Turning effetcs so that only the 9th level will provide n*10d6 FB backfire. Possible issues that will arise

 

1) mass Spell Turning's backfire

a) I think we all agree that lvl 9 spells should be all outstanding more or less, even if it involves 200hp wizard getting killed by his own lowly FB. The description may be rewritten too, to reflect it does not fire back spells, but instead applies their effects to initial caster while saving the one under ST.

b) It's too rare to have multiple lvl9 spell protections active in a single fight, and when there are then imo it just adds the extra flavour

 

2) Spell Trap's exploit

c) Just don't exploit it?

d) I find it nice for a change to get 1-3 of your spells back during a fiery fight when everyone bombards everyone, friend or foe alike. Especially if like me the one hates to rest in a dungeon

 

Or do you find it unappealing nonetheless?

 

PS Yes, and possibly the new bam for Spell Trap opcode, different from SD/SI.

[Demivrgvs]

My initial suggestion was to swap current Spell Trap/Turning effetcs so that only the 9th level will provide n*10d6 FB backfire.

It's quite a huge change imo. How many players would end end up saying "hey, why the hell I have Minor Spell Trap at 5th level instead of Minor Spell Deflection?". And while Minor Spell Turning doesn't exist in PnP (at least I never found it) Spell Turning is a well established 7th level spell in all PnP editions, which kinda refrains me (a lot) from moving it to 9th level slot. Anyway, I would probably vote for it if the solution wouldn't have any drawback while increasing the overall experience.

 

Possible issues that will arise

 

1) mass Spell Turning's backfire

a) I think we all agree that lvl 9 spells should be all outstanding more or less, even if it involves 200hp wizard getting killed by his own lowly FB. The description may be rewritten too, to reflect it does not fire back spells, but instead applies their effects to initial caster while saving the one under ST.

b) It's too rare to have multiple lvl9 spell protections active in a single fight, and when there are then imo it just adds the extra flavour

 

2) Spell Trap's exploit

c) Just don't exploit it?

d) I find it nice for a change to get 1-3 of your spells back during a fiery fight when everyone bombards everyone, friend or foe alike. Especially if like me the one hates to rest in a dungeon

Well...reflecting back multiple Horrid Wilting seems quite ridiculous to me. Even if we manage to make it balanced power-wise, conceptually I wouldn't like it, because I'm too convinced that having this spell reflect back things like Horrid Wilting, Comet, Storm of Vengeance and so on doesn't make sense at all.

 

Or do you find it unappealing nonetheless?

I don't find this change much appealing yes. As I said, I'd vote for it any day if it worked on Spell Deflection/Trap without screwing Spell Turning.

 

 

PS Yes, and possibly the new bam for Spell Trap opcode, different from SD/SI.

That may be cool in any case, it's not my priority right now.

 

 

NWN-style Spell Deflection

I just come up with an idea which involves a quite drastical change: completely remove Spell Turning from the game.

 

I just noticed that NWN1&2 don't have Spell Turning, but instead have tons of versions of Spell Deflection (called Spell Mantle). NWN's Spell Deflection/Mantle works against AoE spells just like our suggested SD tweak, and not having Spell Turning would remove the above mentioned conceptual/balance issues.

 

It may sound horrible/strange to remove Spell Turning, but if we think about it, due to how the game works (both for players and AI) Spell Turning never makes any difference compared to Spell Deflection, because you'll never see a SCS mage stupid enough to cast a Finger of Death at a caster affected by ST, and not even a mere Magic Missile.

 

What do you think? Am I going slightly mad?

[Ardanis]

Well...reflecting back multiple Horrid Wilting seems quite ridiculous to me.

*Sigh* Well, it'd be unfair if all of our opinions would be the same.

[edit]Same reason why I disagree that creature's immunity shouldn't stop antimagic.[/edit]

 

What do you think? Am I going slightly mad?

No, only posting what I was about to say myself

[Demivrgvs]

NWN-style Spell Deflection

What do you think? Am I going slightly mad?

No, only posting what I was about to say myself

 

I've thought a little more about it, and I just love this solution.

 

Minor Spell Deflection: the least changed one, would remain at 3rd level but would offer protection from AoE spells too.

 

Minor Spell Turning: would be replaced by Spell Deflection as 5th level version of this spell.

 

Spell Deflection: disabled at 6th level (though I'd provide a workaround in case the AI looks for it). It would be really redundant to have 4 versions of the same spell, and at this level Globe of Invulnerability already fills the role of spell protection quite well.

 

Spell Turning: replaced by Greater Spell Deflection as 7th level version of this spell.

 

Spell Trap: would also absorb AoE spells, finally becoming a quite terrific spell protection.

 

We would end up with a the following list of spell protections:

3rd lvl - Minor Spell Deflection

4th lvl - Minor Globe of Invulnerability

5th lvl - Spell Deflection, and Spell Immunity

6th lvl - Globe of Invulnerability

7th lvl - Greater Spell Deflection

8th lvl - (eventually Greater Globe of Invulnerability, or Spell Shield)

9th lvl - Spell Trap

[amanasleep]

Not to muddy the waters too much, but regarding Spell Turning, I have 2 thoughts:

 

1. If two Wizards are both protected by Spell Turning, wouldn't casting a single 4th (or 6th) level spell have the effect of cancelling both Spell Turnings and affecting the target wizard as it bounces back and forth?

 

2. Suppose (Minor) Spell Turning had the following characteristics:

 

--Casting Time of 1

--Duration of 1 Round

--Reflects unlimited Spells (up to level 4 only for MST)

--Does not reflect AoE

--Reflects Anti-Magic

 

This would allow you to cast in response to enemy spell attacks, so it might actually reflect spells in this situation.

 

I guess the two biggest questions are whether it is technically feasible and whether this implementation would be unworkable for the AI.

[Demivrgvs]

Not to muddy the waters too much, but regarding Spell Turning, I have 2 thoughts:

 

1. If two Wizards are both protected by Spell Turning, wouldn't casting a single 4th (or 6th) level spell have the effect of cancelling both Spell Turnings and affecting the target wizard as it bounces back and forth?

 

2. Suppose (Minor) Spell Turning had the following characteristics:

 

a-Casting Time of 1

b-Duration of 1 Round

c-Reflects unlimited Spells (up to level 4 only for MST)

d-Does not reflect AoE

e-Reflects Anti-Magic

 

This would allow you to cast in response to enemy spell attacks, so it might actually reflect spells in this situation.

 

I guess the two biggest questions are whether it is technically feasible and whether this implementation would be unworkable for the AI.

1. I never tried it, probably yes.

2. d- not possible if we want to implement the above mentioned NWN-style SD tweak (and I do want right now)

2. e- this would seriously affect the AI

 

Your suggested solution would be a pain to handle for the AI (to say the least) while players could take huge advantage from it. I'm quite against it, but it may instead be a fine addition within IR as a custom spell for some particular item.

[DavidW]

2. Suppose (Minor) Spell Turning had the following characteristics:

 

--Casting Time of 1

--Duration of 1 Round

--Reflects unlimited Spells (up to level 4 only for MST)

--Does not reflect AoE

--Reflects Anti-Magic

 

This would allow you to cast in response to enemy spell attacks, so it might actually reflect spells in this situation.

 

I guess the two biggest questions are whether it is technically feasible and whether this implementation would be unworkable for the AI.

 

It's unworkable for the AI, for two reasons.

(i) you'd cast this spell in very different circumstances from standard Spell Turning, so scripts will cast the new version in silly places unless they're customised for SR (and as I've said before, I'm not going to be altering the defensive spell system in SCS to do this)

 

(ii) the computer is not capable of detecting when a spell is in the process of being cast, so it can't use this spell. That's not disastrous (the computer can't use party-unfriendly AoE either) but certainly it gives the player a big advantage.

 

@Demi: I basically like your Spell Turning shift, but for the record, there are a few cases in SCS where spells will be deflected: beholders and vampires take a while to notice that Spell Turning et al are in place. (In principle I'd do something similar for mages too but slowdown gets a bit out of hand.)

[amanasleep]

OK, understood.

 

Another radical suggestion (not really serious, but just theoretically):

 

What if Spell Detection was itself a spell? In other words, casting this area spell would give you the read-out on all current effects on all creatures in the AoE.

 

That way you wouldn't know what an enemy was protected with until and unless you cast SD. I assume that the AI could be made to cast this as a matter of course (although it hurts them by wasting their slots), but their behavior if they don't cast it for some reason might be sub-optimal.

 

Ha! I guess that would make SI:D even more unbalanced, since I assume Spell Detection would have to be a Div spell.

 

In any event, figuring out what the enemy had on would take trial and error. Invis is obvious, a failed True Sight or Spell Detection implies SI:D, etc.

 

Question: do SPR's only give the "Spell Protections Removed" message if something was actually removed? If you cast Secret Word at a target with no spell protections, will you get a message?

[DavidW]

That way you wouldn't know what an enemy was protected with until and unless you cast SD. I assume that the AI could be made to cast this as a matter of course (although it hurts them by wasting their slots), but their behavior if they don't cast it for some reason might be sub-optimal.

 

Will break SCS compatibility, because I'm not supporting multiple options for mage defences et al. (More accurately: SCS will cheat, and won't need to cast the spell.)

[SixOfSpades]

David, I think you forgot to add the actual reply

 

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

My suggestion to make them block AoE spells still stands.

I've been staying away from this thread, but I do have to echo this, as it's always seemed silly (to me) that Big Bad Bossmage can layer himself with Spell Turning and GoI and Spell Immunity and whatnot, and then I just Web his ass. Why not simply have all spell protections (that we judge worthy/needing of it, at least) simply embed a list of Protection from Spell opcodes, for every AoE spell that's at least 3 spell levels lower than the Protection itself? e.g., Spell Trap provides immunity to Acid Fog, but not ADHW. That would at least minimize the "Fireball vs. Spell Turning backfire" problem, as only AoE spells high-level enough to appear on ST's "radar" would be reflected at all. (True, many players might consider that a drawback, but ST would still be a great spell.)

[amanasleep]

David, I think you forgot to add the actual reply

 

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see many other ways to make high level spell protections more appealing.

My suggestion to make them block AoE spells still stands.

I've been staying away from this thread, but I do have to echo this, as it's always seemed silly (to me) that Big Bad Bossmage can layer himself with Spell Turning and GoI and Spell Immunity and whatnot, and then I just Web his ass. Why not simply have all spell protections (that we judge worthy/needing of it, at least) simply embed a list of Protection from Spell opcodes, for every AoE spell that's at least 3 spell levels lower than the Protection itself? e.g., Spell Trap provides immunity to Acid Fog, but not ADHW. That would at least minimize the "Fireball vs. Spell Turning backfire" problem, as only AoE spells high-level enough to appear on ST's "radar" would be reflected at all. (True, many players might consider that a drawback, but ST would still be a great spell.)

 

GoI already protects against Web since it's a 2nd level spell.

 

I am still a bit leery of Spell Protections protecting against AoE spells.

 

1. This makes all other specific protections unnecessary. If you are running spell Deflection, you don't need Protection from Elements or Magic Energy, you don't need Chaotic Commands or Death Ward, or Free Action, etc. All of these buffs are unnecessary. Just cast a single spell and you essentially have a limited duration Demi Lich immunity.

 

2. This makes Spell Trap exploits not only easy, but somewhat unavoidable, as it encourages players to cast party unfriendly AoE spells with Spell Trap running to both hurt enemies and rememorize spells. Please Demi, do not respond with "So what? It's a damn 9th Level Spell!!!!" Spell Trap is already one of the most abusable spells in Vanilla (Infinite Spells via PI).