Suggestion: Triggers and Contingencies

[Duckfeet]

Current issues:

 

1. Triggers and contingencies have almost the same functionality. Contingencies are just slightly more annoying to trigger.

 

2. From their description it "seems" that contingencies are supposed to be defensive wards that spring up when the mage is threatened. However currently the most effective way to use them in combat is to cast them offensively.

 

3. The PreBuff problem: current buff setups encourage metagaming in which you use foreknowledge of the upcoming encounter to pre-cast a lot of buffs on your party before walking into the encounter. SCS balances this by having enemy mages instantly prebuff on contact... why not give PCs the same option?

 

Proposal:

 

1. Change contingencies to only take DEFENSIVE spells:

http://iesdp.gibberlings3.net/files/2da/2da_tob/contingx.htm

 

2. Change the current (Chain) Contingency spell into a Spell-Trigger type spell, correctly reflecting its offensive use (make them all variations of the Simbul's Spell Matrix series, increasing in power).

 

3. Give all mages an innate custom Contingency at first level, 1/day only, called their Defensive Matrix. It cannot be cast in combat, takes up to 10 spells of any level, but they must all be defensive, target self, and the firing condition must be Enemy Sighted. The contingency expires after <8 hours.

 

I think it will take away the prebuff tedium and make triggers more fun and consistent.

[Jarno Mikkola]

3. The PreBuff problem:

3. Give all mages an innate custom Contingency at first level, 1/day only, called their Defensive Matrix. It cannot be cast in combat, takes up to 10 spells of any level, but they must all be defensive, target self, and the firing condition must be Enemy Sighted. The contingency expires after <8 hours.

Well, I would limit the spell a bit at first... like make it so that the maximum spells the matrix can be used with is the max cast-able spell level for the user, and that also works with clerics. Yes, the level 1 and 2 mages get only 1, while level 3 and 4 mages get 2, level 5 and 6 get 3 spells stored... while level 17 and proceeding level magi get 9 spells stored in the the spell, and yes; defensive spells, target:self, fired at Enemy Sighted and no castable in combat, only one active Matrix on the target.

Now, you could also make it a level 1 spell, and I would actually prefer that, because then I could actually use it in more situations... and not be limited to 1 encounter per rest.

[Demivrgvs]

Current issues:

 

1. Triggers and contingencies have almost the same functionality. Contingencies are just slightly more annoying to trigger.

 

2. From their description it "seems" that contingencies are supposed to be defensive wards that spring up when the mage is threatened. However currently the most effective way to use them in combat is to cast them offensively.

 

3. The PreBuff problem: current buff setups encourage metagaming in which you use foreknowledge of the upcoming encounter to pre-cast a lot of buffs on your party before walking into the encounter. SCS balances this by having enemy mages instantly prebuff on contact... why not give PCs the same option?

1. Contingencies doesn't count for the "spell per round" limit while trigger does. Contingencies can do things impossible via trigges like casting Dispel on self when "disabled" (e.g. held, stunned, ...).

 

2. I do agree, and I suggested it for SCS too, but I'm not sure about implementing it via SR if DavidW doesn't agree. If I do, players will be restricted to defensive spells, but the AI won't.

 

3. And how would it prevent metagaming? It would actually work on top of it in the hands of players.

[Jarno Mikkola]

3. And how would it prevent metagaming? It would actually work on top of it in the hands of players.

It doesn't, but it does make all things equal, at least with my additions to the restrictions.

[Demivrgvs]

3. And how would it prevent metagaming? It would actually work on top of it in the hands of players.

It doesn't, but it does make all things equal, at least with my additions to the restrictions.

By "restrictions" you mean having a 1st level spell which can cast 9 spells of any level?

 

Things are already equal if you (role)play normally (long duration buffs only, and contingencies/triggers for some encounters) and install SCS buffs with 2nd or 3rd option. The 1st option is for those who plays the game by buffing themselves with half their spellbooks and spend the other half for each encounter.

 

Allowing players to uberbuff themselves via OP-contingency on top of their long duration buffs is simply unbalancing/convenient.

 

Such option would also destroy the difference between long and mid-short duration protections, because you would have as many medium-short duration spells as you like cast on yourself at the start of the encounter.

[Duckfeet]

1. Contingencies doesn't count for the "spell per round" limit while trigger does. Contingencies can do things impossible via trigges like casting Dispel on self when "disabled" (e.g. held, stunned, ...).

 

1. Not counting to the spell per round limit: exactly right, that's why I think it's an bug abuse to cast it offensively in combat so that it goes off instantly with 0 casting time. If you read the description of the Contingencies it actually says "Casting time: 1 turn" (same as PnP) which means exactly that it should not be castable in combat, in fact to obey the letter of the law the spl should have an effect that applies a no-save 1-turn hold effect on the caster, although gameplay-wise that is infeasible.

 

2. The advantages over triggers are all defensive: trigger on stunned, hit, 50% HP, etc. Right now I think most players don't really use these due to the above exploit being much more useful. Restricting contingencies to defensive spells makes these options more interesting. You don't have to convert them all to spell triggers, leave a few with this defensive functionality intact. The Defensive Matrix won't make them obsolete because the trigger conditions are different.

 

Re: SCS Contingencies

I'm pretty certain that SCS mages don't cast contingencies in the middle of combat, and I think, not sure, that their contingencies generally don't contain offensive spells.

 

3. And how would it prevent metagaming? It would actually work on top of it in the hands of players.

It doesn't, but it does make all things equal, at least with my additions to the restrictions.

 

It's not supposed to totally prevent metagaming (nothing can) but it makes it less necessary to walk around town with a massive matrix of defensive spells swirling around you just in case some rogues ambush you around the next corner. In the SCS readme DavidW said something like for RP purposes you have to assume that you can suspend/turn on defensive spells at will on a thought, that's why SCS mages can snap up their pre-cast defenses instantly. That's what the Defensive Matrix is supposed to simulate. It shouldn't change game balance at all since all it does is simulate prebuffing.

[Jarno Mikkola]

It doesn't, but it does make all things equal, at least with my additions to the restrictions.

By "restrictions" you mean having a 1st level spell which can cast 9 spells of any level?

Or innate spell, yeah that's the cheerful answer that assumes that you actually read what I wrote.

 

Things are already equal if you (role)play normally (long duration buffs only, and contingencies/triggers for some encounters) and install SCS buffs with 2nd or 3rd option. The 1st option is for those who plays the game by buffing themselves with half their spellbooks and spend the other half for each encounter.

Allowing players to uberbuff themselves via OP-contingency on top of their long duration buffs is simply unbalancing/convenient.

OK then... as I have previously suggested before we stun the player mage that cast any kind of Triggers and Contingencies inside a battle for a 6+ seconds(real time), then we'll make the defensive matrix spell dispel all previous Triggers and Contingencies(because we are paranoid)... and limit the max level to 8th for mages, and protect the mage from the spells.

[Duckfeet]

3. And how would it prevent metagaming? It would actually work on top of it in the hands of players.

It doesn't, but it does make all things equal, at least with my additions to the restrictions.

By "restrictions" you mean having a 1st level spell which can cast 9 spells of any level?

 

Things are already equal if you (role)play normally (long duration buffs only, and contingencies/triggers for some encounters) and install SCS buffs with 2nd or 3rd option. The 1st option is for those who plays the game by buffing themselves with half their spellbooks and spend the other half for each encounter.

 

Allowing players to uberbuff themselves via OP-contingency on top of their long duration buffs is simply unbalancing/convenient.

 

Such option would also destroy the difference between long and mid-short duration protections, because you would have as many medium-short duration spells as you like cast on yourself at the start of the encounter.

 

Hmmm good point. I always thought prebuffing with short duration spells is "normal" play precisely because SCS supports it at the "hardest" difficulty level. Now I think about it, maybe it's that particular SCS option that is "broken".

 

Still, it might be worth thinking about the modifications to triggers and contingencies even without the powergaming Defensive Matrix uberbuff. Like Jarno said, stun the player for a few rounds (heck, maybe temporarily raise their resistances to -100% on everything just to make it hurt more). And make contingencies lower level / contain more spells, but with the defensive-only restriction.

[Demivrgvs]

1. Not counting to the spell per round limit: exactly right, that's why I think it's an bug abuse to cast it offensively in combat so that it goes off instantly with 0 casting time. If you read the description of the Contingencies it actually says "Casting time: 1 turn" (same as PnP) which means exactly that it should not be castable in combat, in fact to obey the letter of the law the spl should have an effect that applies a no-save 1-turn hold effect on the caster, although gameplay-wise that is infeasible.

By "spell per round limit" I meant that its triggering doesn't count, not its casting. Casting it do require 1 round and I prevented the "pause game" exploit. If we want to make sure players cannot prepare another contingency during combat I think there's a flag to do it. I do agree with you on this matter.

 

I'm pretty certain that SCS mages don't cast contingencies in the middle of combat, and I think, not sure, that their contingencies generally don't contain offensive spells.

Well, "generally" is not "always". As I said, I'm all for it if David agrees.

 

2. The advantages over triggers are all defensive: trigger on stunned, hit, 50% HP, etc. Right now I think most players don't really use these due to the above exploit being much more useful. Restricting contingencies to defensive spells makes these options more interesting. You don't have to convert them all to spell triggers, leave a few with this defensive functionality intact. The Defensive Matrix won't make them obsolete because the trigger conditions are different.

We don't need to convert anything imo, the 3 triggrs can remain triggeres and the 2 contingencies can remain contingencies. Why would we need to change that?

 

 

3. It's not supposed to totally prevent metagaming (nothing can) but it makes it less necessary to walk around town with a massive matrix of defensive spells swirling around you just in case some rogues ambush you around the next corner. In the SCS readme DavidW said something like for RP purposes you have to assume that you can suspend/turn on defensive spells at will on a thought, that's why SCS mages can snap up their pre-cast defenses instantly. That's what the Defensive Matrix is supposed to simulate. It shouldn't change game balance at all since all it does is simulate prebuffing.

It does change game balance A LOT, because you can have tons of short lasting buffs at the start of the encounter on top of long duration ones. We're talking about adding more buffs without any limitation, and we're eradicating the very reason of having a short duration spell: the disadvantage of casting it in the middle of the battle.

 

Pre-buffing with anything which hasn't a long duration means "exploiting metagaming", why should I make it "legal" via new spells?

 

A "normal" buffing with Stoneskin (which shouldn't had the ugly animation in the first place) is more than enough to handle any "rogues ambush", and buffing with a couple of long duration spells (e.g. Protection from X, Free Action, ...) is fine and doesn't require a new contingency. Do they?

 

Buffing more than that is really silly (especially for a roleplayer), and I don't want to encourage games where each encounter depletes an archmage spellbook.

[yarpen]

Idea of restricting contingencies only to defensive spells is great. But one big 'no' for allowing wizards to store hundreds of spells at low levels. Hey, you're wizard not a fighter, and if you want to be protected, you have to prepare yourself. And for people who don't think it's cheesy, in SCS there's custom wizard's script which allows you to skip trough spells preparing sequence (spells are automatically forced on caster and his friends via Hotkey, of course they are spent from spellcasting repertoire and it cannot be done when fighting.

[Daulmakan]

Is there a delay to contingencies? Most of the times they seem to trigger a bit later than they should.

[Duckfeet]

So, in an ideal world

 

No bullshit uberbuff spell

 

Triggers: offensive/defensive, generally less powerful than contingencies (contain fewer spells of lower levels)

Contingencies: defensive only, generally more powerful (contain more spells of higher levels)

 

Looks like the same old 3 triggers and 2 contingencies are fine.

 

Only one of each kind at a time.

Neither one can be setup in combat.

 

Generally it's a big nerf on chain contingency and not much effect on the triggers. I'd like to see a minor contingency spell for low level mages (maybe a 3rd level spell that takes only one 2nd level or lower spell: would typically be mirror image).

[Salk]

So, in an ideal world

 

No bullshit uberbuff spell

 

Triggers: offensive/defensive, generally less powerful than contingencies (contain fewer spells of lower levels)

Contingencies: defensive only, generally more powerful (contain more spells of higher levels)

 

Amen to that.

[Jarno Mikkola]

If we want to make sure players cannot prepare another contingency during combat I think there's a flag to do it.

Do anyone have the specifics of the flag? Cause I would like to know them...

 

Is there a delay to contingencies? Most of the times they seem to trigger a bit later than they should.

It's probably 4 seconds later. And I think it comes from the second effect that's self targeted...

[Demivrgvs]

If we want to make sure players cannot prepare another contingency during combat I think there's a flag to do it.

Do anyone have the specifics of the flag? Cause I would like to know them...

Here.

 

Is there a delay to contingencies? Most of the times they seem to trigger a bit later than they should.

It's probably 4 seconds later. And I think it comes from the second effect that's self targeted...

I think it's hardcoded. I just noticed that the respective spwi###D.spl files used to store the spells have a casting time 1, but it shouldn't matter because theoretically the spells are instantaneously fired. I'll set it to 0 and see if it makes any difference, but don't count on it.