Demon summonings, Wish and double standards

[DavidW]

(And, although I don't actually think your originally-suggested solution is sensible, I did still code it for you - above - so you've got the option of playing that way if you want.)

 

That's nice, thanks. I'll use it in my next playthrough. If you're actually interested in feedback on how well it works, just let me know.

 

Sure. If it actually works fine, I'll add it as an optional component.

 

On reflection, I'm not 100% sure how well that code works. If it totally fails (if your summoned demons still attack you, or stand around), let me know and I'll see if something more robust is possible.

 

What I had in mind was giving mages the same choices the player would get with maxed Wisdom, and having them choose the best. All the possible options would be ranked from best to worst, with a few caveats depending on the circumstances: "HW on all creatures in the area" may be a decent choice if enemies are magic-resistant (so it would be ranked higher), "Improved Haste on all party members" wouldn't be very useful if the mage is alone (so it would be ranked lower), etc.

If this sounds any good, I can list the rankings and the relative shifts.

 

Sure, though I'd also need to fake the randomly-generated list that wizards get, since I don't think I can just use the direct spell. So I'd also need information on what determines the actual list of options - I don't myself know.

 

On a sidenote:

1. Pit Fiends are significantly weaker than Cornugons, Bone Fiends and Glabrezus, not to mention Baalors. What about giving them a little more juice?

Will consider.

 

2. In NI/SK I've seen several creatures which I've never actually met in the game: Matron Mother Ellaviir, Matron Mother Finadryl and Drow Archmage. Are these part of the Ust Natha defenders?

Yep.

[Demivrgvs]

I do second your decision regarding ProEvil and AI summoned fiends, and more or less all you said, but I don't like "double standards" too, and I'm trying to "fix" that within SR

... which is cool, because SR is a better place for that kind of shift. (It's probably worth noting that SCS inevitably skews towards my play style, and since I don't really play evil parties and so don't summon fiends, the theoretical double standard is not something I notice in game. I'm happy to concede that it's more visible for players who tend to summon fiends themselves.)

I don't summon fiends myself too for roleplaying, but there are quite a lot of players out there summoning fiends with good characters.

 

 

but it's probably not within SCS scope to provide it to players. As you know I thought to make (Un)Holy Word banish summoned demons/celestials, but I never understood if you would be against it or not (obviously with a save to avoid the efect).

I don't think it makes a major difference to me. My hunch would be it's broadly balanced, probably erring towards overpowered rather than underpowered, but in any case it won't break anything in SCS.

Well, that really depends on the save, because without a penalty SR fiends would be affected only 15-20% of times.

 

 

P.S For SR V4 I also planned to turn Death Spell into a more appropriate Banishment spell, but I'm not sure about it affecting demons. It does in other settings like PnP and NWN, but it's obviously a huge boost within BG, especially with SCS fiends.

That probably would be overpowered in an SCS environment. (Note that I removed genies from the scope of Death Spell precisely because that was already working out as a bit overpowered.)

You have a point, but Death Spell vs genies was really OP because it didn't granted any save, whereas with a save its effectiveness is at least halved.

 

 

perhaps restricting it to selected mages rather than any and all mages of a high-enough level?

To some extent it is: it's restricted by speciality type. (IIRC only conjurers and liches summon fiends.) In my judgement, restricting it further would just detract from the variety of battles.

Cool. I assume then they are not used by more than 33% of mid-high lvl mages if you have at least 3 different templates for them (Necromancer, Evoker, Conjurer).

 

Speaking of which, do you have Abjurers and/or Enchanters? To a lesser extent even Transmuters may be doable, whereas I suppose Diviners and Illusionists are impossible within vanilla BG.

[Wisp]

So I'd also need information on what determines the actual list of options - I don't myself know.

According to the IESDP the list is generated by picking from the appropriate column in wish.2da until the list is full, starting at the top of the column, going down, and with a 50 % chance of picking a given column entry.

 

In case anyone's interested, I am working on trying to even out the rough edge between aTweaks' fiends and those of e.g. SCSII. Thus perhaps maybe giving players one more option (though if you don't like needing ProEvil for keeping your fiend at bay, aTweaks probably isn't for you).

[Ardanis]

(Un)Holy Word & Banishment - as long as the effect comes without save penalty, the 15%-25% should be ok. Or deal damage to gated creatures.

 

Speaking of which, do you have Abjurers and/or Enchanters? To a lesser extent even Transmuters may be doable, whereas I suppose Diviners and Illusionists are impossible within vanilla BG.

Enchanters.

Abjurer could be good as a heavy tank, but without a party they're not so useful by themselves, and no matter how hard you buff, all of that could easily be swept away within 2-3 rounds.

For Diviner, the ability to cast through improved invis, as we discussed... yeah

[DavidW]

perhaps restricting it to selected mages rather than any and all mages of a high-enough level?

To some extent it is: it's restricted by speciality type. (IIRC only conjurers and liches summon fiends.) In my judgement, restricting it further would just detract from the variety of battles.

Cool. I assume then they are not used by more than 33% of mid-high lvl mages if you have at least 3 different templates for them (Necromancer, Evoker, Conjurer).

 

Speaking of which, do you have Abjurers and/or Enchanters? To a lesser extent even Transmuters may be doable, whereas I suppose Diviners and Illusionists are impossible within vanilla BG.

 

I use Necromancers, Evokers, Conjurers, and Enchanters, with roughly equal frequencies of each. Having checked the files more carefully, I'm slightly inaccurate: Necromancers do (sometimes) use Gate, but not lower-level demon-summoning spells (unless they're liches).

[Igneous]

Just out of interest: why are there no SCSII illusionists? Sure, they lose out on Skull Trap, Death Spell, Finger of Death and Horrid Wilting, but that's really about it. I would've thought Necromancers and Enchanters would be far worse off: the former losing access to the wealth of powerful illusion spells and, importantly, Improved Invisibility; and the latter barred from such elementary spells as Magic Missile, Minute Meteors, sequencers, contingencies, and a host of others.

 

I've also found in playing that Diviners actually make very good secondary casters. Though they seem to miss out on a seeming plethora of spells, most of them aren't terribly missed (e.g., Monster Summoning, Conjure Lesser Elemental, Carrion Summons, etc.), and they can still conjure Skeleton Warriors and Mordy's Swords. They do get hit, though, with the loss of Acid Arrow, Glitterdust, Limited Wish, and the Power Words; and the loss of the Fiend-summoning would also be a not-inconsiderable disadvantage for SCSII mages. Still, they're certainly not hopeless, especially in comparison with Enchanters.

 

I honestly don't see how Abjurers or Transmuters could be terribly viable, though. Abjurers, maybe, but they still lose out on Stoneskin, which is a tremendous blow. Transmuters, on the other hand, are completely unworkable: they lose out on all spell protections, the majority of combat protections, almost all debuffing spells (except for Ruby Ray), and additionally lose access to Dispel/Remove Magic. Quite simply, they are doomed.

 

(All this is in reference to vanilla, though; I'm not sure how Demi and company have shuffled the spell schools around with SR.)

[Guest!]

What kit are Qilue's mages supposed to be? Iirc, they're necromancers, but they do cast Cacofiend.

[Ardanis]

Just out of interest: why are there no SCSII illusionists? Sure, they lose out on Skull Trap, Death Spell, Finger of Death and Horrid Wilting, but that's really about it. I would've thought Necromancers and Enchanters would be far worse off: the former losing access to the wealth of powerful illusion spells and, importantly, Improved Invisibility; and the latter barred from such elementary spells as Magic Missile, Minute Meteors, sequencers, contingencies, and a host of others.

It's rather a matter of picking a school, whose spells the wizard will be using, not which will be banned. I actually very appreciate this, since in BG class' advantages/disadvantages are often reversed in comparison with PnP.

 

There're no really useful illusion spells in BG2. Project Image is dangerous to use, leaving only Simulacrum.

And Enchanters are not to be understimated, because Chaos and Domination are not so harmless as they may seem.

[Igneous]

There're no really useful illusion spells in BG2. Project Image is dangerous to use, leaving only Simulacrum.

There are a quite a few highly useful illusion spells, even for enemy mages. Blur, Mirror Image, Simulacrum, to name a few. Improved Invisibility and its sister spells (Shadow Door, Mislead) are rudimentary. Even Blindness, a lowly 1st-level spell, is nothing to scoff at.

 

Based on your logic—that of picking a school based on spell usage—and on the fact that SCSII-enhanced mages, in particular, deploy these spells quite a lot, why shouldn't there be any enemy illusionists? I can only assume it's because of the loss of Horrid Wilting (et al.), but I don't believe that's a large enough loss to justify their exclusion. (Especially in comparison to the losses suffered by enchanters.)

 

And Enchanters are not to be understimated, because Chaos and Domination are not so harmless as they may seem.

Remember, though, that in BG2 immunity to charm and confusion is easy to come by; and, also, that enchanters are resoundingly hampered by their inability to use basic things like sequencers and contingencies (not to mention all the other highly useful evocation spells). Or do SCSII mages ignore this restriction?

[DavidW]

What school choice comes down to, basically, is two questions:

 

(1) Is the school barred from any totally essential spells? If it can't access abjuration, in particular, it's out; if it can't cast stoneskin, it's out. So there are no abjurers, and no transmuters. Necromancers squeak in: not having access to illusions is a fairly serious blow, but I can work around it.

 

(As I recall, actually in vanilla BG2 all schools can access sequencers and the like, notwithstanding the classification of that spell; if that's wrong, I'm breaking the rules and should tweak something.)

 

(2) Can I think of a distinctive strategy for mages of that type?

 

So, in SCS2:

 

- necromancers use lots of distinctively necromantic attack spells

- evokers basically blow things up and have lots of area-effect, direct-damage spells

- enchanters don't use a lot of direct-damage magic, but mostly chuck disabling magic like Chaos

- conjurers use some conjuration-specific attack spells like Power Word, but mostly summon things

 

Looking at the spell choices, I didn't see an illusionist as having much interesting potential here. They have access to lots of defensive magic, but I use that magic (for non-necromancers) anyway, and the balance between offensive and defensive magic is set by considering overall tactical effectiveness and doesn't vary by school. They have virtually no distinctive attack magic: Blindness, to be sure, but precious little else. So in practice, I think an illusionist would just look like a generic mage. The same is true to an even greater extent for diviners.

[Demivrgvs]

What school choice comes down to, basically, is two questions:

 

(1) Is the school barred from any totally essential spells? If it can't access abjuration, in particular, it's out; if it can't cast stoneskin, it's out. So there are no abjurers, and no transmuters. Necromancers squeak in: not having access to illusions is a fairly serious blow, but I can work around it.

 

(2) Can I think of a distinctive strategy for mages of that type?

What I and Ardanis really appreciate is (2). I don't want to identify Necromancers as "guys with no illusion spells", but as "mages surrounded by undead minions and casting necromantic spells".

 

Regarding Abjurers I unfortunately understand why you don't want to have a mage without Stoneskin.

 

For Transmuters I'm less sure, is it because they miss out spell removals or because without Spell Immunity and GoI you can't effectively build their defences? Anyway, vanilla's distinctive transmutations were almost all very unappealing. Too bad because it would be cool to have around some opponent turning your party into squirrels or using some combo like Improved Haste + Tenser + Strength and perhaps turn into various forms (e.g. IR's Polymorph Other and Shapechange have outstanding potential).

 

(As I recall, actually in vanilla BG2 all schools can access sequencers and the like, notwithstanding the classification of that spell; if that's wrong, I'm breaking the rules and should tweak something.)

I don't remember vanilla's behaviour, but within SR I've made sequencers and contingencies belong to the Universal School. PnP uses that school for Permanency and Wish spells too, and I do think all of them should be available to any mage.

 

So, in SCS2:

 

- necromancers use lots of distinctively necromantic attack spells

- evokers basically blow things up and have lots of area-effect, direct-damage spells

- enchanters don't use a lot of direct-damage magic, but mostly chuck disabling magic like Chaos

- conjurers use some conjuration-specific attack spells like Power Word, but mostly summon things

Cool. For Enchanters even Hold Person is not that bad against the party imo, immunity to Feeblemind is quite rare, and charming party's most powerful warrior is a serious threat. In case you'll ever want to take into account SR for SCSII like you did for SCSI, I might add that I've made the entire Power Word serie of spells belong to the Enchantment school as per 3rd edition PnP (makes much more sense imo, and enchanters had not a single spell of 6th lvl or higher), Secret Word now belongs to the PW serie too, Sleep is quite effective even later on (assuming SCS mages generally have a higher lvl than party members) and 7th lvl Sphere of Chaos is the "ultimate mind-affecting combo" (large AoE, party friendly stationary spell causing all sorts of mind affecting effects like sleep, hold, confusion, etc.).

 

I'm glad Conjures mostly focus on summoning, because the PW serie really don't fit them imo.

 

Looking at the spell choices, I didn't see an illusionist as having much interesting potential here. They have access to lots of defensive magic, but I use that magic (for non-necromancers) anyway, and the balance between offensive and defensive magic is set by considering overall tactical effectiveness and doesn't vary by school. They have virtually no distinctive attack magic: ... So in practice, I think an illusionist would just look like a generic mage.

That's what I meant saying "I suppose Diviners and Illusionists are impossible within vanilla BG", they lack any distinctive way to portrait them.

 

Illusionist's only distinctive attack magic is Spook right now, but within V4 I'll probably add Phantasmal Killer, Weird and at least one spell from the Shadow Conjuration serie (summoning illusionary creatures is too fun and distinctive imo). As a side note, Ghost Armor and Phantom Sword belong to the Illusion school within SR.

 

The same is true to an even greater extent for diviners.

Yep there's very little to do with Diviners in vanilla. As Ardanis says a cool thing I suggested to make them look different is granting them the ability to ignore the semi-invisibility state (via "see invisibility via script" opcode), making them the best candidates to tear down defenses which include any Improved Invisibility layer. Being able to cast spells to creatures under II surely fits them, doesn't it?

 

Within SR 2nd lvl Know Opponent (reduces target's AC and physical resistance) and Clairvoyance (immunity to backstab plus bonuses to AC and saves) have become interesting options, but I'll try to do a little more for them in V4.

[DavidW]

For Transmuters I'm less sure, is it because they miss out spell removals or because without Spell Immunity and GoI you can't effectively build their defences?

 

Both. On spell removals: it's not exactly that I couldn't write scripts that made mages half-way functional without the ability to remove spells, it's more that SCSII's whole mage strategy is based around mixing debuffing with direct-attack magic and I don't want to rebuild the entire script structure from scratch. On defences: unless I'm misremembering, Mantle, Pro/MW etc are all Abjuration spells, and so are most of the antimagic options. Without Mantle-type spells I can't keep casters alive for more than a few seconds at high level (note that it's very difficult for this reason to write interesting encounters with high-level clerics). Even at lowish levels, the best I could do would be Stoneskin+ II, and that really isn't going to stay up long.

[Shaitan]

For Transmuters I'm less sure, is it because they miss out spell removals or because without Spell Immunity and GoI you can't effectively build their defences?

 

Both. On spell removals: it's not exactly that I couldn't write scripts that made mages half-way functional without the ability to remove spells, it's more that SCSII's whole mage strategy is based around mixing debuffing with direct-attack magic and I don't want to rebuild the entire script structure from scratch. On defences: unless I'm misremembering, Mantle, Pro/MW etc are all Abjuration spells, and so are most of the antimagic options. Without Mantle-type spells I can't keep casters alive for more than a few seconds at high level (note that it's very difficult for this reason to write interesting encounters with high-level clerics). Even at lowish levels, the best I could do would be Stoneskin+ II, and that really isn't going to stay up long.

Silly idea: What about an component which lets you (once in a while) encounter mage x and mage y? Where Mage x are the well working Conjurers, Enchanters, Evokers and Necros and y (the extra mage/second caster) is the leftover mages (diviners etc). There'll probably be a few places where an extra mage would fit somehow?

 

Cheers

[DavidW]

What kit are Qilue's mages supposed to be? Iirc, they're necromancers, but they do cast Cacofiend.

 

Sorry, forgot to answer this earlier. Most mages have their school assigned at random; I think that's true here too.

 

However, having checked my code, there's a bug here. It's intended that necromancer liches get Cacofiends (sometimes) but other necromancers do not; however, I've managed to get it the wrong way round. Apologies for this.

 

For Transmuters I'm less sure, is it because they miss out spell removals or because without Spell Immunity and GoI you can't effectively build their defences?

 

Both. On spell removals: it's not exactly that I couldn't write scripts that made mages half-way functional without the ability to remove spells, it's more that SCSII's whole mage strategy is based around mixing debuffing with direct-attack magic and I don't want to rebuild the entire script structure from scratch. On defences: unless I'm misremembering, Mantle, Pro/MW etc are all Abjuration spells, and so are most of the antimagic options. Without Mantle-type spells I can't keep casters alive for more than a few seconds at high level (note that it's very difficult for this reason to write interesting encounters with high-level clerics). Even at lowish levels, the best I could do would be Stoneskin+ II, and that really isn't going to stay up long.

Silly idea: What about an component which lets you (once in a while) encounter mage x and mage y? Where Mage x are the well working Conjurers, Enchanters, Evokers and Necros and y (the extra mage/second caster) is the leftover mages (diviners etc). There'll probably be a few places where an extra mage would fit somehow?

 

I don't think its viable. I can't add abjurers or transmuters without a wholesale restructuring of the code, and in any case I don't think there's anything particularly distinctive about the spell-use strategies I'd be assigning to the unused kits, so I'm not sure what would actually be gained.

[Igneous]

Looking at the spell choices, I didn't see an illusionist as having much interesting potential here.

Alright, now I understand. The distinctiveness factor. That's a goal I can most definitely appreciate.

 

Still, I can see some potential for an SCSII-enhanced illusionist. Need all mages be purely offensively oriented? Perhaps such an illusionist could focus heavily on invisiblity-based spells (in conjunction with SI: Divination), refreshing them with obscene regularity, running around like a maniac, thwarting attempts to target and debuff, and conjuring a boatload of clones in the process. When not threatened directly, the illusionist could resort to various disabling magics: Malison, Slow, Chaos, Maze, and the like. In essence, to be as annoying and hard to kill as possible.

 

I think that'd be a fairly good shtick. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

(By the way, DavidW, in discussing this I am not saying 'it must be this way' or 'you must implement this feature.' I know such a thing would take a considerable deal of time and effort on your part. I mention this because in the past I've sometimes seen other modders get their hackles up when new ideas are suggested, while the work and hardship involved isn't recognised or diminished. So, please know that although I'm not hugely savvy in the modding department, I appreciate the work involved, and that I'm merely positing ideas for discussion, not making demands. If any ideas capture your interest, though, then I certainly won't complain. )

 

(As I recall, actually in vanilla BG2 all schools can access sequencers and the like, notwithstanding the classification of that spell; if that's wrong, I'm breaking the rules and should tweak something.)

Unfortunately, this is not the case: enchanters do, in fact, lose access to all sequencer- and contingency-type spells. I had to double-check this, since I, too, thought it too awful to be true, but that's the actual behaviour in vanilla, fixpacked or not.