Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility

[amanasleep]

Just a note on SW vs. Pierce Magic: SW is stopped by GoI, which everybody runs in SCS. This makes PM objectively superior, even at +2 levels. I like the ST nerf to 1 protection per casting though.

[Demivrgvs]

Just a note on SW vs. Pierce Magic: SW is stopped by GoI, which everybody runs in SCS. This makes PM objectively superior, even at +2 levels.

Ehm...actually SW isn't stopped by GoI within SR.

 

Vanilla's Secret Word didn't bypassed GoI, but Spell Thrust bypassed MGoI (not by case, as it also mentioned it in the description), thus I had to decide between two solutions equally acceptable imo:

1) make spell removals ignore all spell protections

2) make spell removals ignore all spell protections except (Minor) Globe of Invulnerability

 

This is indeed debatable, but vanilla's behavior didn't really helped deciding, and I thought 1) was slightly more consistent, especially considering high lvl spell protections doesn't stop low lvl spell removals (not even Spell Trap can protect you from Spell Thrust).

 

Note that this is also a secondary effect of another SR "small" tweak. Spell Removals has power lvl set to 0, and thus ignore liches and rakshasas immunities. That seemed consistent with both their concept (they seem to directly affect spell protections themselves, not the target) and their in-game implementation (breach spell protections and ingore magic resistance). Not to mention that without this feature you'd be forced to use RRoR on invisible liches and Spell Strike on rakshasas, making those fights unberable for mid-lvl parties.

 

That being said, I'm open to discuss both the GoI behaviour and the above mentioned tweak, especially if David has a personal preference with good arguments (it's slightly un-democratic, but I tend to consider David's opinion quite critical).

 

I like the ST nerf to 1 protection per casting though.

[Ardanis]

I really do think that Globes should protect against everything within their protective range.

But we're going to have Spell Shield fixed, so that should partially compensate.

[Ardanis]

How about we tweak True Sight to allow targeting invisible creatures?

[Demivrgvs]

Spell Removals vs Globes of Invulnerability

I really do think that Globes should protect against everything within their protective range.

But we're going to have Spell Shield fixed, so that should partially compensate.

As I said, I'm really undecided on this matter, thus if there's a consensus amongst players or David has a strong opinion on either solution, I'd go for it. For the ST vs MGoI my main "concern" is that the former would then work against an extremely limited number of spells (only Minor Deflection/Turning and Spell Immunity), though you could probably say that even now it's mostly an anti-SI spell.

 

 

Detect invisibility via script

How about we tweak True Sight to allow targeting invisible creatures?

Oh, I missed your mind reading abilities. I do thought about something like that for a divination spell, but then I had a serious doubt about it: if True Seeing is cast you shouldn't need such feature unless the target is under SI:Div/Non-Detection, and in such case you probably shouldn't be able to use that feature either. Am I wrong?

 

I also considered it as an option for some IR item, but then I'd give players an unfair advantage over the AI imo.

 

P.S Ironically, that's how True Seeing should work in the first place. In PnP these spells don't dispel illusions, they let the caster see through them!

[Jarno Mikkola]

Detect invisibility via script

How about we tweak True Sight to allow targeting invisible creatures?

Oh, I missed your mind reading abilities. I do thought about something like that for a divination spell, but then I had a serious doubt about it: if True Seeing is cast you shouldn't need such feature unless the target is under SI:Div/Non-Detection, and in such case you probably shouldn't be able to use that feature either. Am I wrong?

Well, how about "Absolute Vision"/insert name a 7(or 8)th level spell, one that has True Seeing and cannot be protected against via SI:Div/Non-Detection, and allows targeting Invisible targets, yes even the Mislead(etc.)'ed creatures even if the clone creature is not present... uh, and it makes the creatures drop all items that has the permanent/while equipped invisibility -effect.

[Ardanis]

Detect invisibility via script

P.S Ironically, that's how True Seeing should work in the first place. In PnP these spells don't dispel illusions, they let the caster see through them!

Aye, that's why.

Rather than just add new effect to TS, lets remove it's dispelling capabilities completely. For the anti-invis purpose we already have Detect Invisibility. And Detect Illusion/Oracle can dispel all illusionary protections. These two perhaps can probably be differentiated further.

 

Antimagic removals are generally cheaper than what they can remove, but in terms of efficiency none comes anywhere close to TS, which not only is AoE and removes all protections (ala Spellstrike), but also lasts one full turn. And that on 6th level, and even lower for the priest version!

 

One drawback is that PnP TS wouldn't be stopped by SI:Div/Non-Detection, but imo that's a small price to pay.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Aye, that's why.

Rather than just add new effect to TS, lets remove it's dispelling capabilities completely. For the anti-invis purpose we already have Detect Invisibility. And Detect Illusion/Oracle can dispel all illusionary protections. These two perhaps can probably be differentiated further.

 

Antimagic removals are generally cheaper than what they can remove, but in terms of efficiency none comes anywhere close to TS, which not only is AoE and removes all protections (ala Spellstrike), but also lasts one full turn. And that on 6th level, and even lower for the priest version!

 

One drawback is that PnP TS wouldn't be stopped by SI:Div/Non-Detection, but imo that's a small price to pay.

If I understand that completely (no dispel invisibility/mirror images etc, just making it not effect the TS'es-caster anymore) then I would approve it... while the TS caster can actually cast invisibility and not get it removed by his own spell.

But does that make the caster still backstab -able ? And the draw back is actually a good thing...