Magic Attacks

[Demivrgvs]

NWN-style Spell Deflection

Before continuing this debate, I'd like to point out that the spell deflection tweak we and Ardanis suggested is not a devious mind's idea, it's exactly how spell protections work in NWN1 and NWN2. NWN players never found such a system broken judging by what I can find in the forums. That is not enough to say it will work on BG, but just that the idea has a solid base.

 

 

You spend a lot of time arguing how weak SP's are, then you want to nerf the ability to effectively layer them? That makes no sense to me.

Actually I was arguing that neither SD nor ST ever did what they were supposed to do. SD and ST within the current system are good almost only because they protect from Breach (something which they actually don't do in vanilla). If it wasn't for that I'd never use them in my life, in fact I never did before SCS's Tweak.

 

- Warding Whip removed 4 spell protections since V1, simply because vanilla's description says it last 3 rounds thus I assumed 1 on hit + 1 after 6 sec + 1 after 12 sec + 1 after 18 sec = 4

Beyond being entirely arbitrary, this change to the behavior of vanilla KWW is undocumented. Furthermore it makes KWW behave differently from other spells that fire once per X rounds. Ice Storm lasts for 4 rounds, during which it only hits four times. If it behaved like KWW it would hit 5 times. If you want KWW to hit 4 times give it a duration of 4 rounds and be done with it. To do as you have done is just confusing (not to mention unnecessary--does anybody think that KWW needed to hit an extra time?).

Actually vanilla's descriptions are the confusing ones imo, but you're right I should try to make them more consistent. Vanilla's Ice Storm doesn't last 4 rounds, else it would hit 5 times.

 

That being said, as I can still fix few things like these, which of the following solutions seem better?

 

1) when description says 4 rounds the spell actually lasts 3 rounds and hits 4 times (as per vanilla)

2) when description says 4 rounds the spell really lasts 4 rounds and hits 5 times

 

2) is more correct, but I think players may find 1) more "easy". In fact very few imo ever noticed this issue.

 

P.S I think the small "inconsistency" is due to the fact that the round in which the spell is cast counts as a round, even if the spell takes place only at the end of it. For example, Ice Storm inflicts damage instantly when cast, but the round spent to cast it counts as the first round of duration for the storm.

 

 

- 8th and 9th lvl spells bypassing (Minor) Spell Deflection is actually already there since they would replace the 3rd lvl and 5th lvl spell protections which never protected from spells higher than 7th lvl

Ah, I see what you did there. You have removed Spell Turning and Spell Deflection from the game, and replaced it with a "Spell Deflection" which is weaker than Minor Spell Turning but protects from AoE. Got it.

You saw what I've not done yet actually. And you're quite wrong too:

- if you check your game you'll notice that 3rd and 5th level versions of SD and ST never protected from 8th and 9th lvl spells (in PnP Minor Spell Turning cannot even reflect a 4th lvl spell!)

- Minor Spell Deflection remains MSD

- Minor Spell Turning becomes Spell Deflection

I think my post about it was quite clear.

 

 

So your mod is useful only for RP types?

I'm saying that if you judge irrilevant a duration higher than 15 rounds because you assume you're going to rest after every fight I cannot agree with you, because for me long duration is indeed important.

 

 

It is also ridiculous that they (specific protections - Demi) are useful for everybody except the caster.

Well, don't take for granted your own statement though, you're the one saying they are useless for the caster, and not everyone thinks it.

 

 

But I'm telling you, this is a major, major gameplay change, and likely will take over the entire mod.

 

If that's what you want, who am I to judge? But you can probably count me out as a SR v4 user.

SR is quite customizable, thus you should be able to not install the Spell Deflection serie changes. It's a major chamge yes, and that's why I haven't blindly implement it yet. Last but not least, no offense intended but I'll never be able to please everyone, thus if you don't like SR I can live with that. I'm not particularly fond of threats like "if you do that I'm out", especially since I gave up tons of times to something I liked to please as many of you as possible.

[DavidW]

NWN-style Spell Deflection

 

 

Demi, does this mean you'll be able to burn through Spell Deflection by chucking area-effect spells?

 

I don't think that'll cause significant problems, but it's useful to know.

[Demivrgvs]

NWN-style Spell Deflection

Demi, does this mean you'll be able to burn through Spell Deflection by chucking area-effect spells?

 

I don't think that'll cause significant problems, but it's useful to know.

If with "burn through it" you mean "consume it", yes. I haven't thought about the values much because this tweak is not a priority for me right now, but for example 2-3 fireballs may "dispel" a Spell Deflection (5th lvl version).

 

David, may I ask your opinion on this tweak?

[DavidW]

NWN-style Spell Deflection

Demi, does this mean you'll be able to burn through Spell Deflection by chucking area-effect spells?

 

I don't think that'll cause significant problems, but it's useful to know.

If with "burn through it" you mean "consume it", yes. I haven't thought about the values much because this tweak is not a priority for me right now, but for example 2-3 fireballs may "dispel" a Spell Deflection (5th lvl version).

 

David, may I ask your opinion on this tweak?

 

From an AI point of view, I'm not very worried about players using area effect to use up a Spell Deflection: that sounds like a legitimate strategy. I'm more worried about this messing with wizards' use of party-unfriendly area effect to which they're anyway immune (whether because of being a lich/rakshasa/whatever, or because of running MGI). At a technical level, I don't know if that would actually happen, though.

 

Assuming that can be got round, I'm really not sure how it would work. I don't see any obvious problems, and it's quite interesting. My advice would be to try it (and see what the feedback is like) but to consider making it an optional component of v4.

[Ardanis]

I'm more worried about this messing with wizards' use of party-unfriendly area effect to which they're anyway immune (whether because of being a lich/rakshasa/whatever, or because of running MGI). At a technical level, I don't know if that would actually happen, though.

Looks to be fine. I've tried casting MGoI and MST in both orders and always had 'Edwin - Spell ineffective' message.

[SixOfSpades]

Warding Whip removed 4 spell protections since V1, simply because vanilla's description says it last 3 rounds thus I assumed 1 on hit + 1 after 6 sec + 1 after 12 sec + 1 after 18 sec = 4

. . . . .

which of the following solutions seem better?

 

1) when description says 4 rounds the spell actually lasts 3 rounds and hits 4 times (as per vanilla)

2) when description says 4 rounds the spell really lasts 4 rounds and hits 5 times

Ice Storm hits 4 times and lasts for 4 rounds--as you can see by the chunks of ice falling through the air for the full 24 seconds. The fact that the only thing that lasts for the full 4 rounds is the animation is largely irrelevant. What if we moved the damage to take place at the end of each round instead of the beginning? The time from first damage to last damage is still 18 seconds, but the last effect now takes place 24 seconds after the spell is cast! Is the duration 4 rounds, or only 3?!? Quandary! OH NOES!

 

Just forget about it. If the effect happens 4 times, and fires once per round, the duration is 4 rounds. Those intelligent enough to nitpick things like this are also intelligent enough to realize it would be an all-around pain to have two "Duration" conventions, one for those with continual effects (like Blindness) and another for those with once-per-round effects (like KWW).

[yarpen]

NWN-style Spell Deflections

I think that Demi's solution sounds very interesting. Of course, spell turning effect was cool but this changes the game a lot and is granting better versality. To wizards. The only one sad thing is to making all of these BAMs.

[Duckfeet]

Demi's suggestion (one type of spell protection only) is great. Sure as hell I cannot keep track of all these spell deflection/turning stuff. I think Spell Trap needs to be renamed Greater Spell Mantle or something, cos you're not trapping anything now.

 

However I think the AoE protection is more of a drawback than a bonus, unless I'm not understanding it properly:

 

1. You can cast a million combat protections and GoI, and you're immune to AoE, yay... then you cast spell trap and suddenly you have to watch where you're throwing that fireball because it will take 3 levels off your spell trap... Booooo.

 

2. PC Mage enters combat with his party, opponent mage notices spell protections, shrugs, throws 4xHW in the area to kill off the PC's friends first, oh look, that also stripped the PC's spell trap for free, muahahaha!

 

3. It would make spell removal spells somewhat less useful due to the multiplier effects of AoE; e.g. in a multi-mage fight, say if there are 3 mages, I can toss 3xMeteor swarm and strip 27 spell levels off each of their spell traps together, instead of targetting each one one by one with a spell strike.

 

Just my thoughts. AoE protection has its place but that's already in the Protection from Foo and GoI (minor, normal and greater GoI) spells. It's actually what I find really attractive and distinctive about the GoIs (AoE, no limit).

[Demivrgvs]

Demi's suggestion (one type of spell protection only) is great. Sure as hell I cannot keep track of all these spell deflection/turning stuff. I think Spell Trap needs to be renamed Greater Spell Mantle or something, cos you're not trapping anything now.

Actually you'd have:

- Minor Spell Deflection at 3rd lvl, SD at 5th, and Greater SD at 7th

- Minor Globe of Invulnerability at 4th lvl, GoI at 6th, and Greater GoI at 8th

- Spell Trap was in a sort of "limbo", and we still have to discuss what to do about it

 

However I think the AoE protection is more of a drawback than a bonus, unless I'm not understanding it properly:

 

1. You can cast a million combat protections and GoI, and you're immune to AoE, yay... then you cast spell trap and suddenly you have to watch where you're throwing that fireball because it will take 3 levels off your spell trap... Booooo.

 

2. PC Mage enters combat with his party, opponent mage notices spell protections, shrugs, throws 4xHW in the area to kill off the PC's friends first, oh look, that also stripped the PC's spell trap for free, muahahaha!

 

3. It would make spell removal spells somewhat less useful due to the multiplier effects of AoE; e.g. in a multi-mage fight, say if there are 3 mages, I can toss 3xMeteor swarm and strip 27 spell levels off each of their spell traps together, instead of targetting each one one by one with a spell strike.

1. Globes of Invulnerability "take precedence", thus if you're protected by GoI and SD fireballs won't tear down Spell Deflection, but Delayed Blast Fireballs do.

 

2. Using 4x Horrid Wilting to tear down Spell Deflection doesn't seem so "free". Not to mention that without SD (or with vanilla's SD) the mage would be dead instead, and that a mage under Protection from Magic Energy would instead keep SD intact.

 

3. Yeah, you're partially right, but Spell Protection Removals would still be very useful because of muli-layered protections (as per above mentioned examples).

 

For example:

- A mage under SD + Globe of Invulnerability ---> you can't remove SD with AoE spells of 4th level or lower

- A mage under SD + Protection from Energy ---> you can't remove SD with AoE damaging-spells of any level

- ...

 

In those cases a Spell Protection Removal like Secret Word is a much better solution, and I think 99% of SCS mages do have multi-layered defences. Furthermore, Spell Removals require one round, while using 3x AoE spells require either 3 mages or 3 rounds (or a Spell Sequencer, which isn't "free")...that's quite a big difference imo.

[Duckfeet]

Oh I didn't know that GoI, Pro-Energy, Pro-Fire etc all take precedence before spell protections.

 

In that case it totally makes sense. It bounces off your immunities before it can drain your charges. Nice.

[Demivrgvs]

Oh I didn't know that GoI, Pro-Energy, Pro-Fire etc all take precedence before spell protections.

 

In that case it totally makes sense. It bounces off your immunities before it can drain your charges. Nice.

Yeah I didn't know it too, but fortunately Ardanis did!

 

And that is possible only because all SR's Protection from X spells grant 100% resistance (not all of them did in vanilla), and because I've added to them tons of Protection from Spell opcodes (which grants complete immunity to the relative spells, instead of damage resistance).

[Ardanis]

Warding Whip

Wasn't able to try it out, but I think Amanasleep had a point here

KWW is totally useless since it destroys more protections than can be active at a single time, plus it can't penetrate II (unless you're going to change that too!).

Lengthening it's tick time from one round to 2 might be an improvement without overpowering.

[Duckfeet]

Why not just make KWW instantly strip everything below level 9? So it's a Greater Spell Thrust, but additionally takes out:

 

GoI/Greater GoI

Greater Spell Deflection

 

plus all the stuff that Spell Thrust strips, including the new "Protection from Dispel Magic" thing that is going in for SI:Abj.

 

However it bounces off the 9th level spell protection.

[Duckfeet]

If SI:Abj is taken out, maybe make Freedom into a AoE duration spell with Free Action + immunity to Maze, Imprisonment and Trap the Soul; but no Mind Blank effect.

[Demivrgvs]

Khelben's Warding Whip

Why not just make KWW instantly strip everything below level 9? So it's a Greater Spell Thrust, but additionally takes out:

 

GoI/Greater GoI

Greater Spell Deflection

 

plus all the stuff that Spell Thrust strips, including the new "Protection from Dispel Magic" thing that is going in for SI:Abj.

Actually I don't like how Spell Thrust work...but mainly because of the following:

 

However KWW bounces off the 9th level spell protection.

This is how I think the system should work, and David agreed on this principle (I can't find the post in this huge topic), but currently I/we haven't implemented it, and Spell Thrust ends up being somewhat "too effective" imo, because it ignores/bypasses all spell protections of 6th levl or higher and dispels all Spell Immunities which ironically are much more powerful than the higher level spell protections.

 

Anyway, considering Spellstrike does almost the same I think Ardanis suggestion is slightly better to keep the spell slightly more "unique".

 

P.S The sad thing is that BG KWW has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with its PnP version.

 

 

Freedom

If SI:Abj is taken out, maybe make Freedom into a AoE duration spell with Free Action + immunity to Maze, Imprisonment and Trap the Soul; but no Mind Blank effect.

The only thing SI:Abj has in common with Freedom is Imprisonment, and I don't think an anti-Imprisonment spell is really necesarry, especially a single spell to make your entire party immune to it (demi-lich fights would be really too easy). I did something like that and then reverted the change at players request (and DavidW was against it too).

 

I think this spell is already quite good, am I wrong?