SR V4 Open Beta (last update 25 October 2018)

[kreso]

As for the Namarra. The standart spell isnt "just a bit less powerful then the namarra's ability", Its TONS less powerful, to be precise it is the Namarra's ability is overpowered: SCS mages autocast spell deflections 99% of time and Namarra's silence just walks around it smacking the poor dudes with a -5 save penalty removing their spellcasting completely. It is extremely overpowered really, i just cast it and disregarding everything those yuan-ti mages were instantly useless. Also 3xday cast lol. I need to see if it ignores globes as well i have a gut feeling it does.

Every spell which isn't to bypass Deflections must be added to the code. This is highly unlikely to ever happen - with all the community made-mods, it's probably impossible to do.

I don't understand about Namarra being OP. *Every* SCS mage over level 6 has a Vocalize spell - which both cures silence and makes one immune to it.

Unless something is badly misbehaving on your install, the sword, be it IR-version or vanilla version, can hardly be imbalanced for it's silencing ability. It's good vs priests, but not mages.

[geg_Ma3gau]

 

As for the Namarra. The standart spell isnt "just a bit less powerful then the namarra's ability", Its TONS less powerful, to be precise it is the Namarra's ability is overpowered: SCS mages autocast spell deflections 99% of time and Namarra's silence just walks around it smacking the poor dudes with a -5 save penalty removing their spellcasting completely. It is extremely overpowered really, i just cast it and disregarding everything those yuan-ti mages were instantly useless. Also 3xday cast lol. I need to see if it ignores globes as well i have a gut feeling it does.

Every spell which isn't to bypass Deflections must be added to the code. This is highly unlikely to ever happen - with all the community made-mods, it's probably impossible to do.

I don't understand about Namarra being OP. *Every* SCS mage over level 6 has a Vocalize spell - which both cures silence and makes one immune to it.

Unless something is badly misbehaving on your install, the sword, be it IR-version or vanilla version, can hardly be imbalanced for it's silencing ability. It's good vs priests, but not mages.

 

I need to test it but i think my vocalize works like SR's one i e gives immunity to silence for 10 rounds. And not like SCS' vocalize where you just pressed the button and voila you can cast again. I have a few strange things on my install like i have "breach more consistent etc" but it doesnt work on rakshasas. Need to reinstall it maybe because i patched my SR mid walkthrough.

 

About Nabassu. It was quite unique in SCS, it had that gaze attack every round autocast and a pretty nice and maybe slightly OP silence very similar to namarra's with -5 save penalty.

Edited March 18, 2015 by geg_Ma3gau

[kreso]

I think it would be lovely if Regeneration-type spells are to be made undispellable.

[Salk]

I think it would be lovely if Regeneration-type spells are to be made undispellable.

 

It's an interesting concept.

[geg_Ma3gau]

Demi you ve been saying that "Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility" SCS component is not needed. This means that YOu need true sight or detect invisibility up and running to cast antimagics at invisible mages?

Does the AI abide this rule? Because i know there are many creatures in the game that see and attack straight through invisibility and sanctuary. Liches, elder orbs all of them do that. They are super powerful and all that.

 

This may be a bit unfair.

 

Btw is it possible to add contingency conditions "when hit by dispel magic"?

 

What do you think about making an option "on hit dispel (carsomyr, staff of the magi etc) strikes through PfMW"?

Edited March 21, 2015 by geg_Ma3gau

[Demivrgvs]

I think it would be lovely if Regeneration-type spells are to be made undispellable.

Mmm...explanation? Unless we find a reason for it (e.g. alteration spells cannot be dispelled?) I'm not convinced of it.

 

Rant: I like what they did with Dispel Magic within D&D 5E (single target, cannot counter spells of higher lvl than the spell slot used to cast Dispel itself). I often feel a lot of our balancing issues would not be there if this spell was not as OP as it is right now.

 

Demi you ve been saying that "Antimagic attacks penetrate improved invisibility" SCS component is not needed. This means that You need true sight or detect invisibility up and running to cast antimagics at invisible mages?

Yes, you need Detect Invisibility (I still believe it should be renamed See Invisibility as per 3E) or True Seeing to target invisible creatures. Alternatively Spell Thrust still has an AoE, even bigger than the one SCS introduced back then (15 feet instead of 5).

 

Does the AI abide this rule? Because i know there are many creatures in the game that see and attack straight through invisibility and sanctuary. Liches, elder orbs all of them do that. They are super powerful and all that.

Afaik those creatures can cast as if they have a permanent SR's Detect Invisibility yes.

 

Btw is it possible to add contingency conditions "when hit by dispel magic"?

The god of ToBEx isn't around since ages start praying EE developers.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Demivrgvs

[kreso]

 

I think it would be lovely if Regeneration-type spells are to be made undispellable.

Mmm...explanation? Unless we find a reason for it (e.g. alteration spells cannot be dispelled?) I'm not convinced of it.

 

Rant: I like what they did with Dispel Magic within D&D 5E (single target, cannot counter spells of higher lvl than the spell slot used to cast Dispel itself). I often feel a lot of our balancing issues would not be there if this spell was not as OP as it is right now.

Re Regen;

a) Heal-type spells aren't dispellable

b) regen is a pre-buff, it's a shame to see it gone in the 1st round of combat (you're far better off speding a slot on something offensive or summon at level 6). Basically, if wizards are around, it's mostly a waste.

c) the spell(s) lost a lot of it's power with non-hastening Haste (100%, to be exact).

d) I think that this spell should work so that druid speeds up "natural regeneration" of an individual, not as an "outside buff".

e) it won't screw the AI none

 

Re Rant: It's very possible the make the Dispel less overwhelming (it doesn't need to affect 95% of spells used), and making Regen spells undispellable is one step towards it.

[geg_Ma3gau]

 

 

I think it would be lovely if Regeneration-type spells are to be made undispellable.

Mmm...explanation? Unless we find a reason for it (e.g. alteration spells cannot be dispelled?) I'm not convinced of it.

 

Rant: I like what they did with Dispel Magic within D&D 5E (single target, cannot counter spells of higher lvl than the spell slot used to cast Dispel itself). I often feel a lot of our balancing issues would not be there if this spell was not as OP as it is right now.

Re Regen;

a) Heal-type spells aren't dispellable

b) regen is a pre-buff, it's a shame to see it gone in the 1st round of combat (you're far better off speding a slot on something offensive or summon at level 6). Basically, if wizards are around, it's mostly a waste.

c) the spell(s) lost a lot of it's power with non-hastening Haste (100%, to be exact).

d) I think that this spell should work so that druid speeds up "natural regeneration" of an individual, not as an "outside buff".

e) it won't screw the AI none

 

Re Rant: It's very possible the make the Dispel less overwhelming (it doesn't need to affect 95% of spells used), and making Regen spells undispellable is one step towards it.

 

That would ve been a bad way to do this imo. Maybe just slap a limit of effects dispelled per 1 dispel cast. 2-3 should do it. Do the dispelling priority list accordingly to balance it out just like it is in NWN with breach.

[zenblack]

As long as we are talking the Regen spell line I will throw in my 2 cents. I have played with them since they have introduced through the entire span of the game with more than a few druids and I think they are really close to being exactly right. The main problem I have with them is that they slow down your game. I feel the max ability to heal is right on but the speed of the healing is off by 1 tier. Early in the game you spend alot of time sitting around waiting for the regen to finish because typically you're healing a frontliner from a previous fight but you don't have 3 minutes before your next fight that could kill them. Later in the game you abandon all except the 5+ Spell Level ones (which are in heavy competition with actual good druid spells) since they take so long you are only every using them to top off a squishy backliner. The top tier regens are great with the exception you can't keep them on which Kreso has addressed. Mass Regen isn't very competitive and when you weigh it vs Regenerate it never wins out in my book.

 

My suggestion would be to up the lower level Regen rate and cut down their duration to fit your max values. This would make the regen time for most 15 rounds unless you can vary the rate of regen or want to change the max heal values (which again, I feel are spot on).

 

I should include that I don't rest after every encounter like some players (which I doubt even use the Regen spells). This only affects those of us who try to run out of spells or not abuse the rest system.

Edited March 21, 2015 by zenblack

[Kalindor]

I am sympathetic to these arguments. IIRC, I argued for a faster rate of regeneration when this feature was first being discussed. I feel as though it would not be unbalancing to increase the rate of regen a bit. I think a good way of looking at the regen spells would be in terms of how many rounds it would take to achieve the same amount of healing you get from the cure wounds spell of the same level. As long as it takes at least 3-4 rounds to equal the output of a cure wounds spell of the same level, I am fine with it. In such a case, they would still be vastly inferior as an emergency measure for low-HP characters, preserving that distinction between the cleric and druid play styles.

 

As much as I understand the functional advantages of making these spells immune to Dispel Magic, I just cannot bring myself to agree. They just reek of being magical enhancements that should be subject to dispelling in my eyes. I also don't think that an arbitrary list of spells that are not affected by Dispel Magic is a good way to balance dispelling, either. I don't want to have to try to recall which spells are and are not affected whenever I cast Dispel Magic. If it was a simple guideline like "all alterations are immune to dispelling" like Demi alluded to, I would be more inclined to support it.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Kalindor

[geg_Ma3gau]

Dispel magic coukld just have a strict limit on the amount of spell dispelled at once. 1 cast dispels only 2-3 buffs per target. thats all. A nice nerf to dispel.

[subtledoctor]

That doesn't sound possible.

[Jarno Mikkola]

That doesn't sound possible.

You could spawn in an invisible creature that does the dispelling with 3 "simple script" actions. But it could be a bit OP. Nothing is impossible, just cheese or easy. :lol:

[NooberKiller]

I'm planning a BGEE + BG2EE runthrough. Can I join the beta? I would have PM'd you, but I don't have the necessary permissions...

[kreso]

Did anyone ever check this on vanilla BG? I don't have a clean install, but will definitely check with SR. It seems to have a weird mechanic (see this post), but I never noticed it.