Inquisitor True sight completely removes Improved Invisibility, Spell/Item True Sight doesn't

[toxin]

So I was fighting Vongoethe the other day and noticed a strange inconsistency:

• Inquisitor True Sight completely dispels II, in that the lich doesn't appear blurred and he is targetable by spells
• True Sight Spell / Item (Thieves' Hood) only removes the "total" invisibility but the lich stays blurred and can't be targeted by spells

I don't know which of these was the desired effect, but I sure as heck know what's the effect I desire

Please, please, please get rid of that "semi invisibility" state:

1. It is horribly OP. Coupled with a few protections and resistances and you're practically untouchable. I wasn't able to target him with most spell removals (including spell strike) and the few that did fire did not seem to have any effect. SCS does this practically every time, but I'm sure it could be just as devastating, if not more so, when a player does this to the AI.
2. It is hugely annoying even on your party, when you're trying to buff / heal someone and you just can't without waiting for all the rest of the buffs to run out (or dispelling them, which of course I never do since I hate DM ).
3. It doesn't make any sense at all that a specific 6th level counter spell (TS) can't dispel a 4th level spell, but a super-general 3rd lvl spell (DM) can. Going by the "counter with lower level specific spell" rule even Detect Illusion should counter it (but maybe not Detect invisibility which is 2 levels below).
4. If Non-Detection is used that would bump the necessary counter to at least Oracle. I could even live with TS being the only specific counter, though personally I think lvl5 (which is one level above II and two above ND) is high enough (I don't have a dog in this hunt though as I've practically never used Oracle).

I can live with the attack roll penalties and saving throw bonuses, but being Untargetable is too much and too annoying IMO.

[kreso]

So I was fighting Vongoethe the other day and noticed a strange inconsistency:

• Inquisitor True Sight completely dispels II, in that the lich doesn't appear blurred and he is targetable by spells
• True Sight Spell / Item (Thieves' Hood) only removes the "total" invisibility but the lich stays blurred and can't be targeted by spell

This is an inconsistecy indeed, since apperantly SR doesn't tweak Inquisitor's True Seeing spell.

Thieves' Hood casts a "real" spell (spwi609) that is modified by SR hence it behaves as such.

 

 

 

1. It is horribly OP. Coupled with a few protections and resistances and you're practically untouchable. I wasn't able to target him with most spell removals (including spell strike) and the few that did fire did not seem to have any effect. SCS does this practically every time, but I'm sure it could be just as devastating, if not more so, when a player does this to the AI.

I'm not sure I understand this. Imp.Invis. is OP? I also don't understand "few that did fire did not seem to have any effect". SR makes all Spell Removal spells work on Liches' defences.

 

 

1. It is hugely annoying even on your party, when you're trying to buff / heal someone and you just can't without waiting for all the rest of the buffs to run out (or dispelling them, which of course I never do since I hate DM ).

If you want to buff/heal party members under imp.invisibility, actually the vanilla game has no way of doing that. With SR, if your caster has True Seeing active, he'll be able to target creatures under imp.invisibility effect.

 

 

 

1. It doesn't make any sense at all that a specific 6th level counter spell (TS) can't dispel a 4th level spell, but a super-general 3rd lvl spell (DM) can. Going by the "counter with lower level specific spell" rule even Detect Illusion should counter it (but maybe not Detect invisibility which is 2 levels below).

Well, Dispel can counter even 9th level spells....

True Seeing does actually fully "counter" Imp.invisibility, but only True Seeing caster has benefits of this. He doesn't suffer attack roll penalty and he can freely target the creature with spells.

You need Oracle or similar to fully reveal imp.invis. creature. If he's under Non-Detection, my guess is your best bet is thief with his OP skill of Detect Illusions.

 

 

1. If Non-Detection is used that would bump the necessary counter to at least Oracle. I could even live with TS being the only specific counter, though personally I think lvl5 (which is one level above II and two above ND) is high enough (I don't have a dog in this hunt though as I've practically never used Oracle).

I can live with the attack roll penalties and saving throw bonuses, but being Untargetable is too much and too annoying IMO.

Non-Detection actually counters Oracle. And (partially) True Seeing.

About spell levels - my idea (which Demi didn't really like iirc) was to remove Oracle from the game since in between Detect Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, Glitterdust, True Seeing, war dogs with scent etc. options to remove and counter invisibility are plentiful.

In it's place, I'd simply put True Seeing, and replace level 6 True Seeing with something better.

The fact that mages use this spell at level 6 while priest at level 5 is nonsense.

As per penalties - if you're using EE you'll get saving throw bonus under imp.invis.; but this isn't intended by SR. Unfortunately, EE hardcoded save bonuses into the opcode it seems. If you're using original BG2, Imp.invis. doesn't give you save bonuses.

 

Please, please, please get rid of that "semi invisibility" state:

That "semi-invisible state" is a core part of the game, AI mods depend on it - in short; not gonna happen.

[Demivrgvs]

I think Kreso answered for me quite well. Short story: "True Seeing does actually fully "counter" Imp.invisibility, but only True Seeing caster has benefits of this. He doesn't suffer attack roll penalty and he can freely target the creature with spells."

 

Unfortunately, EE hardcoded save bonuses into the opcode it seems.

Really?!? Nooooooooooo!!!! Why the fuck did they do this now that they have a fucking opcode to get rid of the stacking issue? This really pisses me off, especially if it's hardcoded.

 

Not to mention that II giving +4 to all saves makes absolutely no sense RP wise and it's fucking OP balance wise.

 

Between them not fully implementing ToBEx and this I'm seriously thinking to stop caring about EE...

[janoha]

Please don't stop caring about EE

 

A very noob suggestion and hamfisted to boot, but can't you just add another effect with -4 to all saves to cancel the first one out? Not very elegant but would hardly be your fault and would work.

[Cahir]

Yes Demi, please don't stop caring about EE. There are bunch of players that won't play vanilla anymore who admire Revision mods and will be playing them to death. Besides, we really don't know what engine changes Beamdog planned for upcoming patches. Maybe there will be more ToBex features implemented after all. I for once will be devastated if you abandon EE's:(

[toxin]

I'm not sure I understand this. Imp.Invis. is OP?

 

IMO the un-targetable component is OP, but I accept that it's not going away.

 

I also don't understand "few that did fire did not seem to have any effect". SR makes all Spell Removal spells work on Liches' defences.

 

I'm afraid my experience here was inconsistent. Sometimes Pierce Shield would work, sometimes it won't (simply do nothing, with no SS protection in play). As another example, I just fired Spell Strike and it didn't dispel SS, but then I fired ST and it did. Another time I fired ST and it said "spell ineffective" even though he had SS on. I also got "spell ineffective" using Breach but if memory serves that's by design (a design with which I disagree ), so I installed subtledoctor's breachier breach component.

 

With SR, if your caster has True Seeing active, he'll be able to target creatures under imp.invisibility effect.

 

Cool, I didn't realize that. You guys should clarify this in the spell description so we know about the great work you've been doing

BTW, I just noticed I was able to target the lich with Spell Thrust while semi-invisible, but not with Spell Strike.

 

You need Oracle or similar to fully reveal imp.invis. creature. If he's under Non-Detection, my guess is your best bet is thief with his OP skill of Detect Illusions [...] Non-Detection actually counters Oracle. And (partially) True Seeing.

 

In that case IMO ND is OP. I realize ND is "compounding" on other spells so for the "counter by 1-2 lvl lower specific spell" math perhaps II+ND should be considered as 7th lvl (4+3, though really the scale is not linear so lvl 5-6 would probably be more accurate). But even using that math, 5-6th spells should easily counter it. BTW what do you mean by "partially" counter?

 

my idea (which Demi didn't really like iirc) was to remove Oracle from the game [...] In it's place, I'd simply put True Seeing, and replace level 6 True Seeing with something better.

 

How about simply switching their levels -

• TS is lvl 5, only counters semi-invisibility for caster
• Oracle is lvl 6, counters semi-invisibility for the entire party

Both should counter ND IMO (as argued above). Inquisitors should probably get the improved Oracle since they can't do much with the ability to target the semi-invisible enemy with spells they don't have...

[subtledoctor]

About spell levels - my idea (which Demi didn't really like iirc) was to remove Oracle from the game since in between Detect Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, Glitterdust, True Seeing, war dogs with scent etc. options to remove and counter invisibility are plentiful.

In it's place, I'd simply put True Seeing, and replace level 6 True Seeing with something better.

My suggestion: put True Sight at level 5 (in Oracle's place) to match priests. And put Oracle at level 6 (in True Sight's place) as a combination [True Sight + Dispel Illusion + decrease enemies' crit chance]. "Oracle" just sounds cool... it ought to be a good spell.

 

OR make Oracle something that lets you Dominate illusionary creatures - steal someone's Projected Image! Or something like that. It would be great if Illusion spells had some more danger and depth than just "variations on invisibility." High-level illusionists should be able to have cool chess-style duels...

 

E.g. I would make the Bigby's Hand spells into illusions (a giant cartoon hand grabbing you from out of the sky?? definitely an illusion) but make TS confer immunity to them. Also TS should confer immunity to other illusionary creatures like Shadow Monsters & Shades (if that's possible to code). Maybe Summon Shadow as well (see right through the Shadow, or something).

[Demivrgvs]

@Janoha, Cahir I will not give up, but I'm really frustrated.

 

Improved Invisibility

IMO the un-targetable component is OP

Without it II would just be Blur + Invisibility. It was much more OP in vanilla where Spell Immunity combos could make impossible to target an II creature without first expending multiple spells removals and rounds, but within SR you just need True Seeing to deal with it.

 

True Seeing

Cool, I didn't realize that. You guys should clarify this in the spell description so we know about the great work you've been doing

SR's description: "allow the caster to see and target invisible creatures normally". If it's not clear enough I'll let native english speakers handle it because that's the best I can do.

 

Non-detection

In that case IMO ND is OP.

No offense man but it seems like everything is OP for you. Anyway, ND "replaces" SI:Div within SR, and if giving protection from mid-low lvl divination spells is the least it could do imo. If Oracle can breach ND than why would you ever use ND in the first place?

 

Btw, once again you just need to cast True Seeing. It will not dispel the illusionary protections, but the caster of TS can ignore most of them (I couldn't code to ignore Blur's AC penalty though).

 

Oracle

@kreso removing Oracle was not an option for me because I want Divination school to have at least 1 spell per lvl, and if I remove Oracle I will never find a PnP spell to replace it.

 

Switching Oracle and TS might be an option yes, but is it worth it? Mmm...

 

Regardless of that, I already said the next build will make Oracle a sort of "Dispel Illusion + Mass Know Opponent".

 

OR make Oracle something that lets you Dominate illusionary creatures - steal someone's Projected Image!

I have no idea what would happen to the caster in that case...would it remain stuck? o.O

I would make the Bigby's Hand spells into illusions (a giant cartoon hand grabbing you from out of the sky?? definitely an illusion) but make TS confer immunity to them.

Also TS should confer immunity to other illusionary creatures like Shadow Monsters & Shades (if that's possible to code). Maybe Summon Shadow as well (see right through the Shadow, or something).

A giant hand grabbing me from the sky better be real because I would never believe it if it wasn't. TS will do something against illusionary creatures, rest assured, the current "highlight" effect was a preparation for it.

 

Spell removals issues

Sometimes Pierce Shield would work, sometimes it won't (simply do nothing, with no SS protection in play). As another example, I just fired Spell Strike and it didn't dispel SS, but then I fired ST and it did. Another time I fired ST and it said "spell ineffective" even though he had SS on.

Which build are you using? KWW, RRoR, Pierce Shield and Spellstrike were not working as they should against Spell Shield until 1-2 builds ago, but now they should.

 

BTW, I just noticed I was able to target the lich with Spell Thrust while semi-invisible, but not with Spell Strike.

ST still has a small AoE, thus you don't need True Seeing to target an II creature with it.

[kreso]

Oracle

@kreso removing Oracle was not an option for me because I want Divination school to have at least 1 spell per lvl, and if I remove Oracle I will never find a PnP spell to replace it.

 

Switching Oracle and TS might be an option yes, but is it worth it? Mmm...

 

Regardless of that, I already said the next build will make Oracle a sort of "Dispel Illusion + Mass Know Opponent".

I'd definitely switch them then.

AI mages prefer Oracle (at level 5) since level 6 slots are very precious for the AI. Given AI will cast anti-magic regardless of you casters semi-invisible state switching Oracle/TS would definitely lower the "cheesines" of it.

Oracle is very easy to counter (drink an invis potion/Non-Detection) and I'd definitely vote that AI mages gain same protection/buff your caster do from True Seeing.

Then put Oracle at level 6 (afaik there could be some AI mage using this, but I'm not overly sure) and buff it - a lot, so it's not a simple anti-invis spell but something worth a slot.

Just name spwi5xx (Oracle) True Seeing and add TS effects to it, name spwi6xx Oracle and make whatever you want out of it.

 

Please don't stop caring about EE

 

A very noob suggestion and hamfisted to boot, but can't you just add another effect with -4 to all saves to cancel the first one out? Not very elegant but would hardly be your fault and would work.

I doubt it's so simple to implement. Iirc, Demi & myself discussed this some time ago, I can't remeber what was the issue with this solution you are mentioning here. Probably the same stackability vanilla game has with the way bonuses were implemented....sigh.

 

 

Yes Demi, please don't stop caring about EE. There are bunch of players that won't play vanilla anymore who admire Revision mods and will be playing them to death. Besides, we really don't know what engine changes Beamdog planned for upcoming patches. Maybe there will be more ToBex features implemented after all. I for once will be devastated if you abandon EE's:(

I don't think Demi will "abandon" EEs; that's pretty much the future of BG; regardless of his (or mine ) sentiments towards it.

It's just that some stuff implemented in EE makes modders' life miserable - you need to add specific checks for installs, new opcodes are added which even if great (example - "Remove effects from resource" makes custom secondary types completely redundant) don't work on original, yet some other stuff like Imp.invis. gets hardcoded; requiring wonky workarounds to deal with it.

[Demivrgvs]

Oracle & True Seeing

I'd definitely switch them then.

I don't know man...it would make sense but it feels wrong for some reason. I was against ridiculous stuff like Gate and Confusion at 7th lvl, but it's kinda established that some spells are a +- 1 lvl depending on caster type. Resist Fear, Break Enchantment, Contagion, True Seeing and Symbols are all 1 lvl cheaper for the cleric; Stoneskin and Polymorph Other are 5th lvl for druids, etc.

 

Btw, if we switch them Non-detection would grant immunity to the 6th lvl spell, but not the 5th.

 

Given AI will cast anti-magic regardless of you casters semi-invisible state switching Oracle/TS would definitely lower the "cheesines" of it.

This is a good point though...

 

EE making my life miserable

It's just that some stuff implemented in EE makes modders' life miserable - you need to add specific checks for installs, new opcodes are added which even if great (example - "Remove effects from resource" makes custom secondary types completely redundant) don't work on original, yet some other stuff like Imp.invis. gets hardcoded; requiring wonky workarounds to deal with it.

Two more examples on top of my mind:

- EE screwed ToBEx/SR sleep fix. Within EE an unconscious character "wakes up" when hit even if it wasn't really sleeping (e.g. knocked down).

- EE messed up the proficiency opcode which was allowing me to do several cool things within both SR and KR. They could have added the incremental option, and I would have been really happy, instead they overwrote the 'set value' option with the 'inc value' one, making me

 

I can't remeber what was the issue with this solution you are mentioning here. Probably the same stackability vanilla game has with the way bonuses were implemented....sigh.

Yeah it's that issue, just reversed.

 

Also, I would have to make SR install a different spell depending if it's original or EE...as if different string references wasn't annoying enough.

[subtledoctor]

Oracle & True Seeing

I'd definitely switch them then.

Btw, if we switch them Non-detection would grant immunity to the 6th lvl spell, but not the 5th.

Given AI will cast anti-magic regardless of you casters semi-invisible state switching Oracle/TS would definitely lower the "cheesines" of it.

This is a good point though...

Why I say, just put TS at 5th level, and "TS plus" at 6th level. (TS plus Dispel Illusions, or TS plus Mass Know Opponent, or TS plus both, or whatever.) That way, 3rd-level ND only fully protects from 4th-level spells and below, and gives partial protection against 5th-level spells and higher.

 

(Right now SR's TS is a pretty big nerf vs. vanilla's, this would bring it back up to being nicely powerful - under a different name, but whatever.)

 

- EE screwed ToBEx/SR sleep fix. Within EE an unconscious character "wakes up" when hit even if it wasn't really sleeping (e.g. knocked down).

IMO this is a change for the better. Did TobEx allow doing either/or here?

 

I should say, from chatter on the Beamdog forums, the devs are aware of people's dissatisfaction with this, and I think there's a decent chance this will be changed in the upcoming patch. I.e. the Sleep effect will be able to work either way (wake-on-hit or stay down for duration).

 

Of course, the implementation will be different from the TonEx implementation, so SR will have to install variant spells depending on the game. But at least the functionality will be there!

 

- EE messed up the proficiency opcode which was allowing me to do several cool things within both SR and KR. They could have added the incremental option, and I would have been really happy, instead they overwrote the 'set value' option with the 'inc value' one, making me

What??? I'm pretty sure opcode 233 in the EEs can still only *set* proficiency level, and not increase/increment it. Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

[Mike1072]

The opcode for setting proficiencies had a bug/feature that made it so it would never override a larger proficiency value with a smaller one. Demi used this to give proficiency in all weapons to fighters or proficiency to wielders of a magically-created weapon (which would let non-proficient characters use it without penalty while still allowing specialized+ characters to retain their benefits).

 

This was apparently fixed in the EEs, so all those "set proficiency to 1" effects actually have the ability to reduce a warrior's effectiveness, and there's no other way to replicate the vanilla functionality.

[Jarno Mikkola]

and there's no other way to replicate the vanilla functionality.

Sorry but I don't see a problem making a .cre that checks if the summoner has proficiency x set to zero, and casts a spell on it if it does. And dies after the checks are over.

[subtledoctor]

@jarno I see major problems with doing that.

 

I do think the original feature was a bug, and that the EE version is (in the long term) preferable.

 

As for spells, I know this is painting with a very wide brush, but I think magic spells are giving you a magic weapon and it should generally perform better than a normal weapon. So as long as spells set the proficiency between 2 and 5 stars, they should perform fine. The only characters who might end up having their proficiencies reduced are fighter->X dual-classes. And those are cheesy powerful enough already that I really wouldn't worry too much about them.

[Demivrgvs]

Oracle, True Seeing & Non-detection

Why I say, just put TS at 5th level, and "TS plus" at 6th level.

I was trying to differentiate them more rather than making them the same.

 

That way, 3rd-level ND only fully protects from 4th-level spells and below, and gives partial protection against 5th-level spells and higher.

I don't understand, why do you guys want to nerf ND?

 

Right now SR's TS is a pretty big nerf vs. vanilla's

I don't completely agree.

 

TS is "nerfed" if you take into account caster's allies who still have to deal with the illusions, but for the caster himself TS is more powerful than before. SR's TS lets you target II enemies without even having to remove II in the first place, and ND (the old SI:Div) cannot do anything to stop it! On top of that, TS will now make the caster immune to several nasty illusion spells.

 

That being said, vanilla's TS was like 100 times more powerful than any PnP version, and I hope we all agree it was in dire need of a nerf.

 

Set weapon proficiency

I do think the original feature was a bug, and that the EE version is (in the long term) preferable.

Tell me one thing the opcode can now do better than before.

 

The "fix" screwed multiple cool features that cannot be implemented in any other way. Setting a higher value was already doable, they didn't added a new feature/option, they only blocked an available one.

 

So as long as spells set the proficiency between 2 and 5 stars

Only 5 would be safe, but that means Grand Mastery! Could be ok for some mid-high spells, but not most.