Rakshasas and Breach

[toxin]

I'm kinda rusty, does the AI (SCS in particular) favor DM over RM or vice-versa?

 

In my limited experience the SCS AI definitely favors RM (it usually uses it for debuffing).

 

It's a nerf, but while stripping Remove Magic of its AoE would be a plain nerf

 

You're saying that stripping RM from its AoE would nerf it as if it were a bad thing Seriously, this entire discussion is about how it needs to be nerfed. RM is even worse than Dispel as the AI can freely use it without worrying about its own buffs being dispelled (which in many cases you have little chance of doing with DM since you're too low a level). If you're going to keep the AoE, IMO make it like the Dispel AoE PnP version that removes only one buff per creature.

 

OR, just make Dispel Magic Power=3 so it can be blocked by GoI, and you have to hit the target with a Pierce before dispelling, just like with SCS-modded Breach.

Not nearly as fair IMHO, since GOL can only protect casters.

[subtledoctor]

 

OR, just make Dispel Magic Power=3 so it can be blocked by GoI, and you have to hit the target with a Pierce before dispelling, just like with SCS-modded Breach.

Not nearly as fair IMHO, since GOL can only protect casters.

Seems fine to me - wizards are powerful, they have magical abilities beyond what a normal mortal can do. So one wizard can raise a shield to block the dispelling power of another one, but non-spellcasters can't. What's not fair about that?

[toxin]

Seems fine to me - wizards are powerful, they have magical abilities beyond what a normal mortal can do. So one wizard can raise a shield to block the dispelling power of another one, but non-spellcasters can't. What's not fair about that?

 

Fair enough, so let my wizard (or cleric, for that matter) protect his fighter friend somehow! As long as that's impossible, something is wrong with the system in my book.

 

At any rate it's all about balance. If we had a level 1 spell that bypasses death ward and kills you instantly with no saving throw that would be a problem, even though wizards could easily defend against it, would it not? I've outlined in detail above why I think DM (and worse, RM) are far from balanced in their current implementation.

 

Besides, we need to keep in mind that I'm merely asking to align with the PnP definition (assuming RM should be the same as DM except affecting only enemies, which is consistent with the spell's description in the game and thus with what the devs originally had in mind). I think it is generally established that any change over PnP needs justification, not the other way around ! Through those glasses, you would be saying that the PnP version is too weak, which in IMHO is ludicrous.

[kreso]

 

Keep in mind that Dispel is checked against each caster buff (i.e. Barkskin may stay while Haste and other mage buffs get removed)

 

Actually I believe that for any given character affected, either all buffs from the same caster are dispelled or none are. At least that's the behavior I and several others have witnessed.

That's what I said as well (hence the Barkskin(Druid) and Haste(mage) buffs as example).

 

 

Two suggestions that came up were to make it single-target or keep it AoE but have it dispel only one buff per affected character. This is what the d20 dispel looks like (you can choose whether to go single-target or AoE with single buff per target). I wouldn't see either as being nerfed to oblivion. In fact I would still consider it somewhat OP for a 3rd level spell, but something like mass dispelling screen (or some form of a dispelling screen that can be cast on a character other than the caster) would go a long way to balance it out.

Yea...lets make DS even more absurd than it is. T-down, big time.

 

 

Well, if no IR, then why not assume no aTweaks either? No dispel at will, no flaming aura, no vorpal hit.

To be honest though you did make me wonder how aVENGER imagined the fight would go down in a vanilla game... Damn, I don't think I'd like that very much. Keep in mind that the aT demons have teleport and smart targeting. Dispel is an AoE with 95% success at that point and you can't have THAT many Death Wards handy. How the hell did you manage that?

Here. Vanilla game items/spells; aTweaks + SCS. Keep in mind these aren't glass cannons aTweaks uses. These are aTweaks demons with SCS hitpoints.

 

 

. You would still be dead against many combinations dragons (RM + dragon fear), Ulitharid (RM + psionic blasts), Vampires (RM + domination), liches (RM + any mass high level spell really) etc. The ability to mass dispel your protections and then mass exploit your vulnerability with little to no chance of you putting your defenses back up in time is just too much.

This is really overdoing it. All of these abilities are easilly countered (Remove Fear is 1st level for example); you got save allowed, potions go a long way, items can be useful etc.

People play this way from the beginning of BG, yet have succesfully finished the game even w/o ever reloading. Just because you find something hard doesn't make it imbalanced or unfair.

 

 

 

Since dispel behaviour is hardcoded, it's either undispellable buffs or easier access to protection from dispel. I'm not too enthusiastic for either.

I was thinking at some point that maybe dispel should be the blanket remover of any buff that can't be removed by another way. So Stoneskin, Death Ward, Prot. from [element] etc. would be untouched by Dispel. I'm not sure how good that'd be in practice however.

It would be bad. Leave the AI a chance to fight.

Suggestions here go in line of "I want to buff, and I want to stay buffed so I'm invurnerable to any element, magic damage, mind affects etc. and a mage should only dispel one buff at a time."

Vanilla game plays this way, so that's always an option. Making AI mod easier isn't something I'd endorse.

 

I think it's fair to say that many (most?) of the more dangerous casters you deal with are higher level than you. That means 60%-99% of success. Besides, in my book it's worth balancing even a handful of encounters - especially when they ought to be some of the most difficult ones!

It depends what you mean by "dangerous caster". Yuan-ti mage can be more deadly than a Lich; relatively speaking (you'll probably have access to better equipment, spells, items and better saves vs Lich).

Saying that enemies dispel succesfully from 60-99% time is plain false, sorry. They don't.

Vs some hard encounters you might want to use different tactics/potions etc. Even one of the in-game hints says that.

[toxin]

This is really overdoing it. All of these abilities are easilly countered (Remove Fear is 1st level for example); you got save allowed, potions go a long way, items can be useful etc.

 

I'm not aware of a single item or potion that protects against mind blast (I know I didn't have one when I faced the mind flayers) and even if you manage to get one the SCS AI will target the vulnerable members anyway. Even if you had the spell slots for it, by the time you've cast a single CC it would probably be too late. Potion effects can be dispelled too and they are not useful against all effects anyway. In some cases saves are allowed, in some cases they are not (or they come with a severe penalty). Sometimes the consequences can be fatal - like the demons cipher mentioned, or shadow dragon breath which perma-kills you (or renders you ineffective) very quickly, say when the dragon decides to use it three times in quick succession.

 

People play this way from the beginning of BG, yet have succesfully finished the game even w/o ever reloading.

The beginning of BG is not the same as SCS+aTweaks etc. I'm sure there are people who beat it without reloading in those settings as well (such as yourself) but that may sometimes entail tactics that some people would prefer not to use. I'm not saying DM/RM are imbalanced because they make encounters hard - I think they'll be plenty hard even when DM/RM are reverted to their PnP spec - I'm saying they are unfair. When you do a decent research job and come well prepared for a specific encounter you should have an advantage that doesn't disappear completely from your entire party after a single cast of a 3rd level spell.

 

Just because you find something hard doesn't make it imbalanced or unfair.

Humbly, we're not the ones who should be defending our point of view - we're just presenting the PnP spec. You are the one suggesting to vastly improve it (the fact that it's implemented that way in BG2 is almost irrelevant). Besides, you yourself mentioned a tactic of sending a single fighter to absorb the spell, effectively making it single-target in your playstyle, so I don't understand your adamant objection.

 

Suggestions here go in line of "I want to buff, and I want to stay buffed so I'm invurnerable to any element, magic damage, mind affects etc. and a mage should only dispel one buff at a time."

 

But this is exactly what SCS does to you! Here's how a typical "boss" fight looks like:

1. You spend half of your spell slots buffing your party in every possible way before an anticipated difficult fight
2. When you encounter the enemy, their casters insta-buff and buff contingencies are triggered
3. The enemy casts RM and dispels all the buffs from your party (they are higher level than you so you have little chance of doing the same)
4. They are now completely buffed (not to mention having abilities that without your buffs have you severely disadvantaged) and you have zero buffs.
5. Let the fight begin...

That being said, I do see your point. Perhaps the ability to buff yourself to oblivion is a bit too much. How about a compromise - the amount of concurrent buff spells on any single character is limited to, say, 2-3 (not counting spell protections so mages can still shield themselves). That way you can come reasonably prepared for an encounter (say Barkskin + CC against mind flayers) but not overly prepared as to make the encounter heavily tilted in your favor (+Aid, Bless, Chant, Champion's Strength, Haste, Resist Fear, PfE, etc).

 

BTW I had another thought - how about keeping DM AoE and multiple-effect but making it a friendly spell that only affects party members? To me, that would make perfect sense:

1. DM is now a valid option for (at least partially) countering mass spells cast on your party. Seeing as your mage can be protected by stuff like GOL and Dispelling Shield he will probably remain able to cast it even if other party members were affected. You could even have it skip over your buffs (though I'm not 100% sure that's consistent with PnP).
2. RM is an excellent single-target spell that shuts down the target's defenses and prepares him for follow-up spells (like Greater Malison, but much more potent to a single target).

Saying that enemies dispel succesfully from 60-99% time is plain false, sorry. They don't.

 

I guess that all depends on when you tackle them. If you were able to find a path where you are usually at least the same level as the enemy's top caster (even 1 level above you is 60%), more power to you. But there are many (most?) paths players take where that is not the case. And of course there's still the issue of your casters using it, making it unfair for the AI. I appreciate difference in levels as a significant factor in a fight, but the way DM/RM lean on it to completely change the complexion of a fight is IMO a bit too much.

[cipher]

That's what I said as well (hence the Barkskin(Druid) and Haste(mage) buffs as example).

 

Emm I thought that the check was for each individual buff, f.e. there's a chance haste will be gone but mage armor will stay. Is even with Tobex the check per caster still?

 

Yea...lets make DS even more absurd than it is. T-down, big time.

 

For the record my suggestion was for Remove Magic to be tweaked in some way. Dispel Magic should remain as it is.

And I agree that making DM the opposite of RM (remove ailments only) is indeed absurd.

 

Here. Vanilla game items/spells; aTweaks + SCS. Keep in mind these aren't glass cannons aTweaks uses. These are aTweaks demons with SCS hitpoints.

 

A couple of posts above: "I'm terrified of meeting a Balor prior to Whirlwind attacks"

You are tackling a Balor in a 3-man party after gaining few HLAs. I'm talking full party of level 10-14 each. (I had the same problem with Alu-fiends as you btw. What in the blazes is that??)

 

I'd like to note here that doing a quest from start to finish is one of my house rules. It breaks immersion something fierce to selectively clear a couple of levels in WK and then leave for a few weeks/months, when the dude outside is supposedly biting his nails in anxious waiting on the imminent doom-any-moment-now.

I can suspend disbelief enough to not start the quest at all though, since I like to do everything.

 

It would be bad. Leave the AI a chance to fight.

Suggestions here go in line of "I want to buff, and I want to stay buffed so I'm invurnerable to any element, magic damage, mind affects etc. and a mage should only dispel one buff at a time."

 

On this I agree wholeheartedly. Its a big, nay... BIG turn off for me to become invulnerable to the challenge, really. I'm trying to find a good compromise to fairness and enjoyment though, because RM does foul the mood too often to not notice.

BTW the easier access to dispel protection (potion or something) does seems rather poor idea, true. But what about selectively making buffs immune to RM/DM? This idea might have merit.

 

Tangentially I'd also like something done to the preeminence of Breach.

 

Saying that enemies dispel succesfully from 60-99% time is plain false, sorry. They don't.

 

I have the same experience as toxin. Whenever RM is launched every buff on the party disappears pretty consistently. The relative level difference is always against the player, as it should.

I'll give you this though. When RM stops being an issue the challenge is drastically lower. I'll have to test if that's due stronger party or RM being OP.

 

 

TL;DR: I don't want RM nerfed to oblivion. I just want something that feels less unfair.

 

PS: In your Bioware post, do you have SR? I tried to follow Mike's instructions to install both 1PP and SR, but I didn't get soft spell effects etc. And that cone of cold... damn that's sweet.

[subtledoctor]

 

Seems fine to me - wizards are powerful, they have magical abilities beyond what a normal mortal can do. So one wizard can raise a shield to block the dispelling power of another one, but non-spellcasters can't. What's not fair about that?

 

Fair enough, so let my wizard (or cleric, for that matter) protect his fighter friend somehow! As long as that's impossible, something is wrong with the system in my book.

Well, I respectfully disagree. A fighter can receive all of the special magical aids he wants, but a canny and powerful mage will strip him bare and then have him at a severe disadvantage. I don't think that's unfair, I think it's what happens when someone without magical talent tries to oppose a canny and powerful mage. And let's remember that in the absence of such magical benefits, the fighter has the mage at a *severe* disadvantage. Each has chosen the tools they want to use, and those tools are useful to different degrees in different contexts.

 

But then again, if you want to make GoI a targetable spell, that would be super easy and probably not harm game balance. I could probably give you the code to mod that right now off the top of my head.

 

You know another option to tone down Dispel Magic/Remove Magic is a radical one: allow targets in the AoE to save against it.

 

Now, the percentage chance of success is hard-coded so a save would be in addition, not a replacement. Which means the save should have a crazy penalty (-6 or -8 or something) so that it only very rarely works. But, this would allow some variations in the ability to retain buffs (paladins would have a slightly better chance) and give you options to prepare your PC to better withstand it (there's a potion that gives you big save bonuses, and Luck would help which makes sense, etc.)

[toxin]

You look at "fighter" VS "mage" but they way I see it we should be looking at "party" VS "party". In that view, each class supports, protects, and complements the other classes in its party. In my opinion that means wizards or clerics should be able to help protect fighters in some form or the other (right now there is zero protection against RM).

 

Targetable Dispelling Screen just adds a single barrier (lvl 3 Spell Thrust) to RM. Coupled with the buff restriction I suggested (say max 2-3 buffs per character) I think it's pretty balanced. If you still disagree, perhaps Dispelling Screen could be made "charge" based (like Spell Shield).

 

A save is an interesting option too (though a -6/8 penalty might be too high to mean much).

 

I still believe single-target or single-buff per character is the best solution (I lean towards single-target, since CC will usually be the highest level and many times the most critical anyway). Of course most of the suggestions here (including single-target/buff) aren't mutually exclusive so there are a lot of interesting options

[subtledoctor]

Targetable Dispelling Screen just adds a single barrier (lvl 3 Spell Thrust) to RM.

 

...the buff restriction I suggested (say max 2-3 buffs per character) ...

... perhaps Dispelling Screen could be made "charge" based (like Spell Shield, maybe adding charges on higher levels)...

... single-buff per character ...)

Making Dispelling Screen targetable is an easy easy mod, like I said just as easy to do as making DM/RM have a power level of 3 and making GoI targetable. But those might as well be its own little mod, rather than the default behavior of SCS or SR.

 

A save is an interesting option too (though a -6/8 penalty might be too high to mean much).

Well the idea of adding a save is not that you should have a reasonable chance to save against the effect (you shouldn't); it's just so that non-wizards will have a viable path to buffing themselves to the point that you could, temporarily, have a reasonable chance to save against it. Like, with a -8 penalty it would rarely come into play... but a paladin with a +2 bonus could drink that potion that gives you a +5 bonus, and then have Luck cast on him for another +1 bonus - this canceling out the penalty. Now, for a short time, he has a decent chance to save against DM/RM removing his buffs.

[toxin]

And let's remember that in the absence of such magical benefits, the fighter has the mage at a *severe* disadvantage

 

I would have to disagree - all the mage has to do against an immune fighter is cast PfMW / AI and begin summoning/gating the army of his choice...

And that's not even mentioning Blur, Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Ghost Armor, Mislead, ORS, Teleport Field, Time Stop. Heck, he could even whip up Tenser's Transformation (or polymorph self)! The fighter really has no chance, so I wouldn't say the current situation is balanced (class-wise).

Well the idea of adding a save is not that you should have a reasonable chance to save against the effect (you shouldn't); it's just so that non-wizards will have a viable path to buffing themselves to the point that you could, temporarily, have a reasonable chance to save against it. Like, with a -8 penalty it would rarely come into play... but a paladin with a +2 bonus could drink that potion that gives you a +5 bonus, and then have Luck cast on him for another +1 bonus - this canceling out the penalty. Now, for a short time, he has a decent chance to save against DM/RM removing his buffs.

 

 

You make a good and interesting case. I'd still make it -6 though

[subtledoctor]

 

And let's remember that in the absence of such magical benefits, the fighter has the mage at a *severe* disadvantage

 

I would have to disagree - all the mage has to do against an immune fighter is cast PfMW / AI and begin summoning/gating the army of his choice...

And that's not even mentioning Blur, Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Ghost Armor, Mislead, ORS, Teleport Field, Time Stop. Heck, he could even whip up Tenser's Transformation (or polymorph self)! The fighter really has no chance, so I wouldn't say the current situation is balanced (class-wise).

You misunderstand. I was making the obvious point that when it comes to melee, if the wizard's protections are exhausted or removed, the fighter will of course wipe the floor with the wizard. So it makes sense that a wizard, when given the right circumstances like being able to use his magic, could in turn wipe the floor with the fighter.

 

Each set of strengths and weaknesses has its trade-offs. (Try running a mage through Firkraag's dungeon, you'll run out of spells before you even reach the vampires. Or try the dead magic zone in WK.) Warriors' vulnerability to RM is just one such trade-off.

[kreso]

 

I'm not aware of a single item or potion that protects against mind blast...................................

 

Toxin, all the power to you, but I see things in a much different way than what you're writing here.

 

 

 

Emm I thought that the check was for each individual buff, f.e. there's a chance haste will be gone but mage armor will stay. Is even with Tobex the check per caster still?

No, I'm afraid. It's checked vs caster. If 2 mages buffed a character (one with Armor, other with Haste) Armor could stay while Haste could be removed. If both buffs come from same caster, both are either removed or both stay. That's what does make RM "imbalanced" but without Tobex delving into this; it can't be changed.

 

 

 

A couple of posts above: "I'm terrified of meeting a Balor prior to Whirlwind attacks"

You are tackling a Balor in a 3-man party after gaining few HLAs. I'm talking full party of level 10-14 each. (I had the same problem with Alu-fiends as you btw. What in the blazes is that??)

Yea, no mage on team. With a 12th+ level mage who can use Imp.Haste I wouldn't need WWs; I'd drop him twice as fast actually. The problem is in this particular Balor, since he had a dozen Drow around him (see the Planetar summoned?).

 

Tangentially I'd also like something done to the preeminence of Breach.

Fully agree, since it's almost a game-ender when used vs (your) fighters. The damn thing is imo far worse than RM/DM can ever be. No save, no caster level check, nothing. All defensive stuff gone. The only defense vs it being Imp.Invis (which I hate to use anyway). Yup, fully T-up. But I don't really know how to make the damn thing "balanced". What should it remove, what should it not, and the logic behind it. It removes waay to much. SR fixes this to an extent, but (imo) not enough.

 

 

PS: In your Bioware post, do you have SR? I tried to follow Mike's instructions to install both 1PP and SR, but I didn't get soft spell effects etc. And that cone of cold... damn that's sweet.

 

I don't have any Revisions mod in this run, no. I don't like to mix aTweaks & Revisions for a number of reasons (mostly it messes up balance and some aTweaks scripts need to be slightly tweaked, for which I'm lazy. I did it once but didn't save the changes...).

Cone of Cold is (iirc) from Spellpack, one of the few components I really like from there. Note that I usually use some custom animations regardless of my mods, so I can't vouch for my setup there.

 

 

Targetable Dispelling Screen just adds a single barrier (lvl 3 Spell Thrust) to RM. Coupled with the buff restriction I suggested (say max 2-3 buffs per character) I think it's pretty balanced. If you still disagree, perhaps Dispelling Screen could be made "charge" based (like Spell Shield).

There are few problems with this.

One, AI will *never* use it in this way (I also hate the fact that Imp.Invis. is castable on others, but that's another pair of shoes.). This means that only player benefits with this.

2-3 buffs per character is not really possible (may be with some script hackery, but no).

The last suggestion (charge-based) is fairly interesting however....it stops dispel, but is removed by it. Interesting...

I like it. T-up (at least it can be tried and is technically doable). This would probably require some tweak to DScreen (AoE, aura or similar + shorter duration).

The only problem I see is that for as long as DS is active SCS AI won't ever use Remove vs it. This can be somewhat worked around but I'm not overly sure about how it would work.

If I find the time to work on it I'll tell you the results. (btw, this thread should be moved to SR forum).

[kreso]

This can be somewhat worked around but I'm not overly sure about how it would work.

It's fully doable.

Can't vouch for the end result, but here's what I plan to do (just for testing):

 

- mage who casts DS casts two spells, one on himself (the "real" DS); the other in AoE around him (call this "fake" DS)

- "real" DS remains detectable as SI:Abj, meaning he'll be targeted by spell removals like Ruby Ray etc.

- "fake" DS is undetectable by AI, meaning Dispel/Remove are used against it hence removing it (no check required)

 

I don't know how this would turn out gameplay-wise however.

 

Techicalities:

- add custom sec type to DS

- patch Dispel/Remove to remove the sec type

- patch all spell removals to remove sec type as well, so AI doesn't waste spell removals in vain and can properly dispel DS from the original caster.

 

Toughts?

Feasible gameplay-wise, or a bunch of bollocks?

[toxin]

You misunderstand. I was making the obvious point that when it comes to melee, if the wizard's protections are exhausted or removed, the fighter will of course wipe the floor with the wizard

 

Fair enough, but keep in mind that in order to remove a mage's protections you'll have to deal with his Spell Shield, Non-Detection, Mislead, Spell Turning (and possibly spell deflection) before you can finally cast Breach to remove his combat protections. For fighters, they are all hit at the same time by a single spell and all of their protections are gone just like that. Uncool!

 

Toxin, all the power to you, but I see things in a much different way than what you're writing here.

 

Totally cool man. I think this is a great discussion regardless.

 

If both buffs come from same caster, both are either removed or both stay. That's what does make RM "imbalanced"

 

Actually, mathematically each buff still has the exact same chance of being dispelled, so empirically speaking this particular behavior has no effect on the balance.

 

Fully agree, since it's almost a game-ender when used vs (your) fighters.

 

I'm not sure I follow - unless you mean fighter-mages there aren't any great combat protections a Wizard can confer on a fighter are there not?

 

[RE Charge-based Dispelling Screen] Toughts?

 

Sounds cool! I guess one thing to make sure is that enemy casters have at least two slots with RM. I suppose it could then become a battle of RM vs renewing DS, but I'll happily take it over no defense at all! (Of course if subtledoctor were to add saving throws too I wouldn't mind, nor would I if the PnP version were adopted... what can I say, I like fighters )

[cipher]

I'm not sure I follow - unless you mean fighter-mages there aren't any great combat protections a Wizard can confer on a fighter are there not?

Breach also removes Death Ward, Free Action, Protection from Fear, Chaotic Commands, all energy protections (fire/magic...) etc. Every spell that has sec type SPECIFICPROTECTIONS or COMBATPROTECTIONS. That is, a lot!

 

@kreso: About Breach power, I was thinking the obvious solution of removing buffs of up to a certain level. Then let Pierce Shield do the rest.

(Btw Pierce Shield does not remove specific protections, only combat. It took me a while to realise what was going on with that damn lich. )

 

If that's an acceptable way to handle it's power, there a bit of leeway to cheat with power levels in order to balance it out.

 

Example (just for illustration):

Breach removes up to 5th level protections, but we don't want it to remove Protection from Fear. Just set Pff power level to 6, so it's taken down only with Pierce.

I can't think of any side effect right now. Buffs are not messing with deflections to eat up an unexpected amount of levels, DM/RM takes in to account only caster level and Breach/Pierce work regardless of number of buffs. I could be missing something obvious though.

 

Then it's just a matter of finding out a satisfying selection that does not screw the AI. Or take the plunge and customise SCS!

 

Also there's the SR Fireshield treatment. Maybe certain buffs could be taken out of the list and they wouldn't affect balance much.

 

 

As for AoE Dispel Screen, it does sounds interesting. If I got your description right it works like an AoE centered on the caster where on him it works on full power (SRv4) and to all the rest as a one time protection. It sounds a bit OP on theory, but it might not be. On most situations where RM is a danger it wouldn't make much difference. Dispel bombs is not a rare sight in SCS. Many demons have it at will (aTweaks only?).

 

A couple of things:

- I suppose having the real DS would make you immune to the fake to avoid unexpected behaviour.

- Why would you need to patch spell removals to take in to account the fake DS? It only protects against RM and nothing else. Breach, RRoR etc would work normally, right?

- Is one of the DS you mention Detectable Spells or Dispel Screen exclusively?

 

PS If at some point you feel like posting the problems you had with aTweaks & Revisions (& SCS?) I would love to know. I thought they were working quite decently together.