Slaying immunity

[Salk]

But I was speaking more generally of eventual immunities that are added by other Smarter Monster X components.

 

I don't understand, sorry.

 

Sorry if I am being unclear.

 

What I mean is: other than Smarter Dragons, we have also Fiends and Celestials that are made 1) Smarter and/or 2) Plain tougher. So I was asking: if also Fiends and Celestials are granted new immunities by SCS II, then I'd see them more fit to be part of the "Increase staying power for Celestials/Fiends/Dragons" (the plain tougher component).

[DavidW]

But I was speaking more generally of eventual immunities that are added by other Smarter Monster X components.

 

I don't understand, sorry.

 

Sorry if I am being unclear.

 

What I mean is: other than Smarter Dragons, we have also Fiends and Celestials that are made 1) Smarter and/or 2) Plain tougher. So I was asking: if also Fiends and Celestials are granted new immunities by SCS II, then I'd see them more fit to be part of the "Increase staying power for Celestials/Fiends/Dragons" (the plain tougher component).

 

Oh, I see.

 

No, for three reasons:

 

(i) in general, the vanilla game is pretty unsystematic - chaotic, even - about keeping track of the various protections creatures are supposed to have. They vary from case to case in ways that pretty clearly aren't intentional design. Systematising this a bit is necessary, if only so I can write scripts with a stable starting point.

(ii) there isn't a terribly sharp point to decide exactly what belongs in a "tougher" rather than a "smarter" component. I make judgement calls, mostly: what's low-key, what isn't?

(iii) in the specific case of fiends, there is no pure "smarter" component - basically because I mess with spell-like abilities fairly systematically.

[Demivrgvs]

But I was speaking more generally of eventual immunities that are added by other Smarter Monster X components.

I don't understand, sorry.

Sorry if I am being unclear.

 

What I mean is: other than Smarter Dragons, we have also Fiends and Celestials that are made 1) Smarter and/or 2) Plain tougher. So I was asking: if also Fiends and Celestials are granted new immunities by SCS II, then I'd see them more fit to be part of the "Increase staying power for Celestials/Fiends/Dragons" (the plain tougher component).

Smarter Dragons is not adding any immunity, ToB dragons always had such immunities.

[Salk]

Oh, I see.

 

No, for three reasons:

 

(i) in general, the vanilla game is pretty unsystematic - chaotic, even - about keeping track of the various protections creatures are supposed to have. They vary from case to case in ways that pretty clearly aren't intentional design. Systematising this a bit is necessary, if only so I can write scripts with a stable starting point.

 

I understand this. We are back to the matter of inconsistencies and I appreciate the fact that you like to provide an inner logic to protections and resistances that various monsters have..

 

(ii) there isn't a terribly sharp point to decide exactly what belongs in a "tougher" rather than a "smarter" component. I make judgement calls, mostly: what's low-key, what isn't?

 

I am not sure I understand this instead.

 

In my opinion, beefing up a creature (be it by granting new abilities, more HPs, better stats or even new immunities/resistances) belongs to "tougher" while instead make the best use of the monster's original resources belongs to "smarter".

 

If I was granted invulnerability I'd be harder to kill, but I could hardly consider myself smarter because of my new, increased odds of survival.

 

(iii) in the specific case of fiends, there is no pure "smarter" component - basically because I mess with spell-like abilities fairly systematically.

 

In this case, I think I am a little mislead by the fact that some "Improved X" components fall under the "AI Enhancements" while others belong to the "Tactical Challenges" section (prove is that the read me introduces the component "Improved Fiends", while few lines under it is possible to read: "As with the "Smarter Fiends", component, this component has an option to let genies cast their spells instantly and uninterruptably")

[DavidW]

(ii) there isn't a terribly sharp point to decide exactly what belongs in a "tougher" rather than a "smarter" component. I make judgement calls, mostly: what's low-key, what isn't?

 

I am not sure I understand this instead.

 

Well, put it this way: CRE file by CRE file, it would usually be possible to work out exactly what powers are implied by that creature's script, and do nothing except replace its script with a smarter one. But that's a much more narrowly defined notion than SCS - or any tactical mod, really - aims for. In fact, it would create some oddities: for instance, the beholder script strictly speaking implies that beholders can use their eyestalks more than once per round.

 

SCS "AI enhancement" components aim at something a bit looser: they attempt to get a reasonable impression of what the creature type is basically intended to be like, taking into account its own script and abilities, the scripts and abilities of other creatures of the same type, common sense, and occasionally a bit of input from (2nd and 3rd edition) (A)D&D. (In the case of human and demihuman opponents, of course, it's much easier, because the PC abilities more or less define what's allowed.)

 

In my view, the division between components that do that, and components which more straightforwardly aim to beef up opponents by adding abilities or hit points, is reasonably intuitive and natural. But it's not quite the division I think you're imagining.

[Salk]

In my view, the division between components that do that, and components which more straightforwardly aim to beef up opponents by adding abilities or hit points, is reasonably intuitive and natural. But it's not quite the division I think you're imagining.

 

Perhaps we don't share exactly the same view when it comes to some specific decisions but I want everyone to understand that I am mostly nitpicking in the context of an overall sense of deep satisfaction for how you handled the AI enhancements in general.

 

These small differences do not stop me from fully enjoying SCS and SCS II (perhaps the first more than the second) and for making me want to have them always as companions in my personal installation.

 

And also, it should be known that you DavidW more than once, even in terms of new components, kindly came and listened to my various pleas and general feedback.

 

I could hardly ask for more.

 

Cheers!