SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)

[Demivrgvs]

Dismiss Summoned Creature

If you like it, feel free to borrow aTweaks' approach for allowing the player to dismiss summoned creatures. The technical details can be found here.

Believe it if you will, but I had almost the same in mind

This feature could be useful, especially if we decide to not remove the summonnig cap, but it's not a big deal imo for 90% of summons (they last so little anyway), and it would serve no purpose if we instead decide to remove the cap. Anyway, I do follow your works aVENGER (you do great things), and thanks for the suggestion!

 

@aVENGER: I noticed you recently posted at Penny Arcade too! That reminded me to ask you one favor: NERF VENDURI'S LUCKSTONE!!! Leaving aside that I consider Cyric encounter slightly over the top, with hugely too much loot, I always had a problem with that ioun stone which I'd consider the most absurdly OP head slot item ever. Unless you have not make it work as it should (that's possible judging by player's report) that thing grants +3 to all saves (that alone would probably make it the most powerful head slot item in the game imo), +3 to hit and dmg rolls (!!!), +15% to all skills (this obviously isn't the problem) and -3 dmg from each die of damaging spells (e.g. a spell dealing 20d6, such as Horrid Wilting, becomes 20d3). I generally consider your items almost the only ones on par with IR's ones in terms of concept and balance, but this one is simply insane imo.

 

Energy Drain

Alternative approach is to consider this spell not as destructive, but as a restorative one, like Greater Restoration. If it can heal me 100% and purge any disease, that is a good reason to keep it around.

Raising the drain effects (the healing part in particular) isn't a problem imo, but making it cure tings such as disease doesn't fit the concept imo. Btw, does it mean you think that even making it remove 8 lvls wouldn't be enough to make it appealing? Edited May 3, 2012 by Demivrgvs

[Ardanis]

Energy Drain

Alternative approach is to consider this spell not as destructive, but as a restorative one, like Greater Restoration. If it can heal me 100% and purge any disease, that is a good reason to keep it around.

Raising the drain effects (the healing part in particular) isn't a problem imo, but making it cure tings such as disease doesn't fit the concept imo. Btw, does it mean you think that even making it remove 8 lvls wouldn't be enough to make it appealing?

Disease is nercomantic, as far as spells are concerned. If I can drain health, why then I can't also cure disease - same health damage, just more sophisticated than a sword cut, - or restore lost levels?

 

That means I think this spell could be fine with 4 levels drained only, if it does more than adds temporary virtual levels. Although six would be better still.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Dismiss Summoned Creature

This feature could be useful, especially if we decide to not remove the summonnig cap, but it's not a big deal imo for 90% of summons (they last so little anyway), and it would serve no purpose if we instead decide to remove the cap. Anyway, I do follow your works aVENGER (you do great things), and thanks for the suggestion!

 

It's also useful in cases when a large summon (i.e. an Earth Elemental) gets stuck behind a doorway or when you want to replace one summon with a different one without waiting for the duration to expire. Removing the cap would probably make it largely redundant though.

 

Leaving aside that I consider Cyric encounter slightly over the top, with hugely too much loot

 

While it's true that the CoC party carries much more magical gear than regular opponents, I think the readme makes it pretty clear that this is intended as they are supposed to be a high level group of adventurers, similar to the player's own party. And, as we all know, the player's party is always fully decked out in magical bling from head to toe.

 

Unless you have not make it work as it should (that's possible judging by player's report) that thing grants +3 to all saves (that alone would probably make it the most powerful head slot item in the game imo)

 

Eh? The luck opcode doesn't provide a bonus to saving throws on its own, and I don't add this manually.

 

+15% to all skills

 

Again, luck doesn't provide a bonus to thieving skills on its own.

 

I generally consider your items almost the only ones on par with IR's ones in terms of concept and balance, but this one is simply insane imo.

 

Thanks, for the vote of confidence. In this particular case though, I disagree with you. Venduris' sword, cloak and Luckstone are meant to be at artifact-level. For that tier, I don't think they are so different from Carsomyr or the Staff of the Magi. Also, you get Venduris' Luckstone very late in Chapter 6 which isn't necessarily the case with the aforementioned two. However, I should probably update the description to make it clearer as to what bonuses the item actually provides.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

And while we are still off topic, when you find some time, please update the descriptions of all items and spells in IR/SR which grant +X to AC vs. creature Y (opcode #219) and remove the "saving throw bonus" references as that isn't implemented.

[Demivrgvs]

Energy Drain

Alternative approach is to consider this spell not as destructive, but as a restorative one, like Greater Restoration. If it can heal me 100% and purge any disease, that is a good reason to keep it around.

Raising the drain effects (the healing part in particular) isn't a problem imo, but making it cure things such as disease doesn't fit the concept imo. Btw, does it mean you think that even making it remove 8 lvls wouldn't be enough to make it appealing?

Disease is nercomantic, as far as spells are concerned. If I can drain health, why then I can't also cure disease - same health damage, just more sophisticated than a sword cut, - or restore lost levels?

I said it doesn't fit the spell's concept, I never said it doesn't fit the spell's school. Perhaps it is just me, but I don't expect a cure disease effect from a lvl draining spell.

 

That means I think this spell could be fine with 4 levels drained only, if it does more than adds temporary virtual levels. Although six would be better still.

If possible I'd strive to remain more close to both its PnP version or at least its concept. So, I'm fine increasing drained lvls, and I'm still fine increasing the restored hit points.

 

One daring idea, what about replacing fixed -4 lvls with something like reduce target's to 60% of its lvl (aka a 40% lvl/xp drain a la Simulacrum). That would mean something like:

Target's HD - drained lvls

10 - 4

15 - 6

20 - 8

25 - 10

30 - 12

Does it make sense? Mmm...

 

 

Chose of Cyric Encounter (OFF TOPIC)

Leaving aside that I consider Cyric encounter slightly over the top, with hugely too much loot

While it's true that the CoC party carries much more magical gear than regular opponents, I think the readme makes it pretty clear that this is intended as they are supposed to be a high level group of adventurers, similar to the player's own party. And, as we all know, the player's party is always fully decked out in magical bling from head to toe.

I know, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm saying it's too much. It's hard to explain, but if it was me I would have probably tried to assign them (except Venduris) slightly more "generic but good" equipment, and less "top items". Anyway, it's not a game breaking thing, it would be if you assigned them OP items.

 

Speaking of OP weapons, I agree with player's report (the one posting all that great feedback at Penny Arcade) regarding Stormcharged Axe and Hold Fast. I'd personally suggest to raise the % chance to stun/held but allow a save (even with huge penalty if you wish). With no save such effects are somewhat OP, especially if "exploited" with high apr (e.g. dual wielding, Improved Haste, Whirlwind Attack).

 

Unless you have not make it work as it should (that's possible judging by player's report) that thing grants +3 to all saves (that alone would probably make it the most powerful head slot item in the game imo)

Eh? The luck opcode doesn't provide a bonus to saving throws on its own, and I don't add this manually.

I know it normally doesn't, but it should. Same for skills.

 

I generally consider your items almost the only ones on par with IR's ones in terms of concept and balance, but this one is simply insane imo.

Thanks, for the vote of confidence. In this particular case though, I disagree with you. Venduris' sword, cloak and Luckstone are meant to be at artifact-level. For that tier, I don't think they are so different from Carsomyr or the Staff of the Magi. Also, you get Venduris' Luckstone very late in Chapter 6 which isn't necessarily the case with the aforementioned two.

I didn't mentioned neither Venduri's sword nor his cloak because they seems fine. The stone instead is a different matter, because it uses an equipment slot generally filled with items granting much less than all those bonuses. Anyway, if you don't intend the +3 bonus to work as a full PnP luck bonus than it may be fine, though the -3 dmg per die might require a more in depth study to determine if it's balanced or not.

 

However, I should probably update the description to make it clearer as to what bonuses the item actually provides.

I did the same for drowcrafted weapons, as they grant luck bonus in PnP, but only limited to attack and damage rolls. Speaking of which, I would actually suggest you to make venduri's stone work the same way (+3 to hit, dmg rolls and morale would still make it the best "offensive" oriented head slot item in the game).

 

ProCreature Opcode

And while we are still off topic, when you find some time, please update the descriptions of all items and spells in IR/SR which grant +X to AC vs. creature Y (opcode #219) and remove the "saving throw bonus" references as that isn't implemented.

Ohh, thanks for reminding me! I actually wanted to ask A64 if anyone ever asked him to fix this opcode! I hope he can.

[deducter]

I've always been a huge admirer of the Revision series of mods. With work of this quality, you guys should get paid.

 

I have some thoughts on these changes, but my main concern is whether DavidW has been consulted. It's been a long time since my last playthrough, but I always use IR + SR + SCSII. Currently, all the released mods complement each other perfectly. Because unless a future SCSII is designed to take full advantage of SR v4, I wouldn't be able to play with v4.

Edited May 5, 2012 by deducter

[Ardanis]

As a rule of thumb, we do nothing that will break SCS. Thus the only matter is to use SR's new features, which David does seem to implement eventually.

[deducter]

Just as an example, consider the change to Breach. In theory, I like the change. However, the SCSII AI will cast breach to dispel Stoneskin on a mage and then often pelt the mage with Melf's Minute Meteors. In fact, the AI casting Breach to remove combat protections is pretty high up on the list of priorities. I don't know how exactly the SCSII script works, but it'd be a problem if the AI repeatedly cast Breach without being aware of the changes.

 

Another example is Pierce Mage/Kelben's Warding Whip. The AI does use both to remove spell deflection/spell turning.

 

I like many of the proposed changes, but given the broad scope of SR v4, it can cause serious problem with SCSII.

[Demivrgvs]

SR + SCS

Just as an example, consider the change to Breach. In theory, I like the change. However, the SCSII AI will cast breach to dispel Stoneskin on a mage and then often pelt the mage with Melf's Minute Meteors. In fact, the AI casting Breach to remove combat protections is pretty high up on the list of priorities. I don't know how exactly the SCSII script works, but it'd be a problem if the AI repeatedly cast Breach without being aware of the changes.

Afaik the main reason SCS uses Breach isn't Stoneskin but specific protections such as ProEnergy spells (in fact DavidW specifically asked me to not remove them, but agreed about removing fire shields-like spells), and to a lesser extent ProWeapons. Removing immunities to mind affecting spells (Chaotic Commands), to death effects (Death Ward), or to damaging spells (ProEnergy) is way more important than tearing down combat protections, especially for a SCS mage who cannot care less if you are invulnerable to his/her melee attacks.

 

Btw, MMM vs. Stoneskin is an easy win for MMM, because the fire damage bypasses Stoneskin, and the physical one tears down the skins (up to 5 per round!).

 

Another example is Pierce Mage/Kelben's Warding Whip. The AI does use both to remove spell deflection/spell turning.

I'm not gonna change that.

 

I like many of the proposed changes, but given the broad scope of SR v4, it can cause serious problem with SCSII.

Know this, we always take SCS into account. If something doesn't work for SCS we don't do it.

 

Long story short, SCS currently takes into account V3 changes, and if SR is detected it makes use of SR improved/changed spells (e.g. it doesn't use Lightning Bolt unless SR is installed). Nothing of that is going to change with SRV4, and the two mods will always be 100% compatibile, as I design SR for SCS, not for vanilla's AI (which is "too stupid to care" about most of our tweaks). The only downside is that unless DavidW makes another update after SRV4 release you won't be seeing SCS mages use the new spells we're going to add, which is a shame.

[deducter]

Let me clarify my example with Breach. I know for a fact that the SCSII mages, in early/mid SoA, prioritizes casting Breach to dispel Stoneskin off party mages. It has happened to me many times. It's usually a pretty good move, as they then throw melf's minute meteors, which can add up to quite a bit of damage quickly. Also many encounters include various enemy fighters/archers, which can then devastate my now Stoneskin-less mages. This is especially true in a place like the Drow City, where the mages in House Jae'llet, for instance, love to Breach my Stoneskin. I'm guessing the way the AI works is that it is programmed is to detect that the player has Stoneskin, and then recognize that Breach dispels Stoneskin. I don't think the AI can know that Breach no longer dispels Stoneskin without rewriting the SCSIII code.

 

I like your change very much, I just want to make sure that SCSII takes full advantage of it. I understand it's not in your hands, after all, SCSII is a separate mod. I just hope my praise and fervent wishes convinces DavidW to synergize his mod with SR v4.

Edited May 6, 2012 by deducter

[Demivrgvs]

Breach

Let me clarify my example with Breach. I know for a fact that the SCSII mages, in early/mid SoA, prioritizes casting Breach to dispel Stoneskin off party mages. It has happened to me many times. It's usually a pretty good move, as they then throw melf's minute meteors, which can add up to quite a bit of damage quickly. Also many encounters include various enemy fighters/archers, which can then devastate my now Stoneskin-less mages. This is especially true in a place like the Drow City, where the mages in House Jae'llet, for instance, love to Breach my Stoneskin. I'm guessing the way the AI works is that it is programmed is to detect that the player has Stoneskin, and then recognize that Breach dispels Stoneskin. I don't think the AI can know that Breach no longer dispels Stoneskin without rewriting the SCSIII code.

 

I like your change very much, I just want to make sure that SCSII takes full advantage of it. I understand it's not in your hands, after all, SCSII is a separate mod. I just hope my praise and fervent wishes convinces DavidW to synergize his mod with SR v4.

Well then, I'll investigate a little more SCS scripts and let you know. If we want to wait for DavidW before making this change I may live with a less drastical tweak (e.g. just removing fire shields from the list), still I don't see how Stoneskin alone can protect the mage from MMM considering 66% of its damage ignores the skins, and the rest is used to quickly destroys the skins (which can take just 1-2 rounds with 5 attacks per round - without counting eventual allies of the opponent mage). Unless coupled with other protections such as Mirror Image or Fire Shields themselves I do think Stoneskin isn't going to be a huge problem for your opponent.

 

On a side note, I'm still pondering the suggestion to make Breach remove a limited amount of protections. On paper, doing that while keeping it working against Stoneskin could be a better solution... Having it dispel the higher lvl protection first (which is done automatically) makes it work very fine against combat protections imo, as even removing just 1 protection means that you either remove a PfMW-like spell (you can have only one of them at once) or Stoneskin. I'm more concerned about specific protections, as they often come in larger numbers, and in case of multiple specific protections of the same lvl (e.g. ProFire/Cold/Electricity/Acid) you may dispel the one you don't care about. Mmm...

[Ardanis]

I don't know how exactly the SCSII script works

I always check it's scripts before we bring proposed tweaks to public discussion.

 

Regarding Stoneskin vs Breach, I thought we weren't going to change the behavior? Because SCS exactly casts Breach against protected characters.

[Demivrgvs]

Breach

I don't know how exactly the SCSII script works

I always check it's scripts before we bring proposed tweaks to public discussion.

 

Regarding Stoneskin vs Breach, I thought we weren't going to change the behavior? Because SCS exactly casts Breach against protected characters.

I must have forgot that we already looked into it then. Well, then I guess Breach will remain pretty much unchanged unless we want to try to "only x combat/protection are removed" thing. If we cannot remove Stoneskin from the list then Barkskin has to remain too, and probably even armor spells (am I wrong?).

[Kalindor]

I would be all for having Breach only remove 2-4 protections but leaving the higher-level Pierce Shield (is that the one?) able to remove them all. I feel like Breach is a bit too necessary for all sorcerers to carry at the moment. (Since I usually play a sorcerer, I tend to think of balance in terms of deciding which spells to take as one. )

[Demivrgvs]

I'm bored with arcane talking...let's give those poor divine spellcasters some attention.

 

1st Level Divine Spell

 

Armor of Faith

I'd increase its duration to 5 turns (1 hour). With ToBEx concentration tweak it may actually become a real must have even with short duration because the concentration check is easier the less dmg the caster suffer, and thus we may look AoF as having a -20% spell failure effect. Regardless, raising the duration wouldn't hurt imo.

 

I'm not sure if druids should have it, but I can probably vote to let them keep it. Assuming within FR lore druids still worship some nature god, and not just nature itself, thus they do have some sort of "faith".

 

Bless

It should be fine, I already hugely boosted it by halving its vanilla casting time and increasing its duration from 6 rounds to 5 turns.

 

Druids probably shouldn't have it (they don't in PnP), but if they end up with too few spells I can live with them keeping it.

 

Command

Pratically cleric's version of mage's Spook. I think it's fine now, though not incredibly appealing.

 

Cure Light Wounds

I'll probably create a dedicated topic for Cure/Cause Wound spells. In short I think this spell should heal slightly more hit points. Not much, but enough to make it appealing mid game to decently cure heavily injured d4 mages, mildly wounded d6 characters, and lightly wound d8 ones.

 

Detect Evil --> Know Alignment

The title says all.

 

Doom

Probably my most used 1st lvl divine spell. It was actually OP in vanilla imo, but it still is incredibly useful as it affects any type of creature (even those immune to mind affecting spells) and it's a very quick way to severely lessen both offensive and defensive stats of powerful opponents (especially warriors).

 

Druids don't have this spell in PnP, and I kinda agree it doesn't suit druid's spellbook. I know non-PnP players will probably put me in their Death Note for suggesting it.

 

Entangle

Very useful spell within SR imo. The added 50% movement speed penalty (no save) make it more effective in any situation, and having made all elementals immune to it allows the druid to summon them within Entangle's AoE and dominate the battlefield.

 

Faerie Fire

Pratically druid's version of Glitterdust. Does it need any change?

 

Magical Stone

I've tried to turn this ridiculously pointless spell into priest's MMM. What do you think? Is it appealing enough now?

 

Protection from Evil

I do hope ToBEx will make this spell's opcode work as it should. That being said, should I add it "immunity to charm" effects as per PnP even if I cannot restrict it to charms cast by evil creatures?

 

Resist Fear

It obviously doesn't need any change. Not the best spell, but it's useful in many situations, and sometimes even game saving.

 

Sanctuary

I've read again dozens of pages in the Feedback topic as I forgot the huge discussion on this matter we had with DavidW. After much thinking it seems this spell may not require the huge revision I planned to replace its original opcode, though I'm not 100% sure because of (*).

 

It seemed we agreed on improving it by reducing its casting time from standard (4 in vanilla, 5 within SR) to instant (1). Furthermore we also agreed to (*) make it not affected by divination spells.

 

What do you think?

 

Shillelagh

Not the most useful spell (though it may be useful within SCS Spellhold), but I don't think I can improve it much.

 

Strength of Stone

I would probably reduce the movement speed penalty to make it more appealing.

 

Sunscorch

As per PnP, though I would have probably preferred a different spell progression (e.g. faster but capped sooner). Being the only 1st lvl damaging spell (limited to druids) I think this was a truly great addition, and one of my favourite low lvl druid spells.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Demivrgvs