SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[subtledoctor]

53 minutes ago, DavidW said:

it sounds as if FnP has a fiend-summoning spell that is supposed to summon a player-controlled fiend

It literally just casts SPWI807.SPL. FnP does not make any change to the summon at all, except to allow some clerics to cast the spell.

[DavidW]

22 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

It literally just casts SPWI807.SPL. FnP does not make any change to the summon at all, except to allow some clerics to cast the spell.

Casts, or clones? From Alkaid's description it sounds as if the new spell points to an effect file that points to a cre file (which sounds like a clone of SPWI807), not points direct to SPWI807.

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, DavidW said:

Casts, or clones? From Alkaid's description it sounds as if the new spell points to an effect file that points to a cre file (which sounds like a clone of SPWI807), not points direct to SPWI807.

Clones, to be precise. But my point is, it doesn't change anything about the spell; it isn't "supposed to summon a player-controlled fiend" - it is only supposed to do whatever SPWI807 does, in whatever form SPWI807 is at the time FnP is installed. It is entirely agnostic as to what SPWI807 actually does.

Now, if SCS or aTweaks or something comes along and changes SPWI807... then that means FnP's clone will not be updated to match it. But I can't cast the actual arcane  SPWI807 spell, because that would result in a priest spell calling down the Cowled Wizards on you for using wizard magic. So... I guess I'm kind of in a bind here. I can't control what other mods do after my mod is installed.

That said, if someone installs SR and then FnP, then they should see the basic SR behavior of that spell, even if aTweaks or SCS comes in later and changes the wizard version. But it sounds like the basic SR behavior is itself being modified by those later mods.

[DavidW]

If you're cloning spells, it will lead to other problems: spells that give explicit immunity to a spell won't give immunity to the cloned copy. I imagine you're patching that at the point at which the mod is installed, but that won't help for subsequent mods. I take the point about Cowled Wizards (and thanks: that hadn't occurred to me as an issue) but I suspect it's the lesser of two evils.

31 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

That said, if someone installs SR and then FnP, then they should see the basic SR behavior of that spell, even if aTweaks or SCS comes in later and changes the wizard version. But it sounds like the basic SR behavior is itself being modified by those later mods.

SR behavior isn't being modified by SCS, but only because SCS explicitly insulates SR. Specifically, SCS does (by design) rewrite fiend-summoning spells, to summon alignment-appropriate fiends, but it excludes the player-controlled version from that rewrite if SR is installed, and it does so by giving it renamed resources. (I can't just skip these changes entirely if SR is installed, because enemy AI relies on them, and coding around that exceeds the amount of effort I'm prepared to go to to support SR's spell system.) That works fine for SR itself, but it creates problems when some third mod uses summoned-fiend resources too. SCS doesn't know that, so there's a mismatch between what the cloned spell does (summon a friendly fiend) and what the resources do (create a fiend with an I'm-not-friendly script).

That isn't to say there's anything intrinsically wrong with FnP's clone strategy - it's a tradeoff between one set of problems and another. Ultimately the spell system is not by nature modular.

[Guest Alkaid]

Briefly back on the topic of dispel/remove magic, would it be possible to make it dispel things that aren't combat protections and the like? It's pretty absurd watching enemies use double remove magic through a spell sequencer and wipe out half of my group's protection with a single action, lol. Would that even be a better way to make things? I dunno. 

[DavidW]

Again, not in SCS's remit. (Use SI:Abjuration.)

[Bartimaeus]

8 hours ago, Guest Alkaid said:

Briefly back on the topic of dispel/remove magic, would it be possible to make it dispel things that aren't combat protections and the like? It's pretty absurd watching enemies use double remove magic through a spell sequencer and wipe out half of my group's protection with a single action, lol. Would that even be a better way to make things? I dunno. 

As in, you want combat and specific protections to not be affected by Dispel/Remove Magic? Yes, it is pretty easy, and without affecting the mechanics of Breach - those spells would simply have to be marked as non-dispellable. It would result in only SR's Breach and Pierce Shield being able to break combat protections, and it would most likely inadvertently weaken SCS AI by a bit, since it has no way of knowing Remove Magic has changed like that.

[FixTesteR]

Has anyone observed SCS mages use any OTHER dispelling spells besides DM/RM much? I actually can't remember, as it was always a constant income of DM/RM. If there were any other, they were too rare for me to remember. Maybe Breach. Maybe we should just stack up on Dispelling Screens and spam that. I'm using SR, and will try SRR on the next run.

[subtledoctor]

On 10/15/2021 at 7:05 PM, DavidW said:

I take the point about Cowled Wizards (and thanks: that hadn't occurred to me as an issue)

It drives me crazy - me more than most since I foolishly took it upon myself to design a divine sphere system, and filling it out with arcane spells is a fairly low-effort way to make it meaningful and useful.

I so wish there was a way to, say, temporarily disable this. Like, maybe Beamdog could outsource it to a .SPL or .EFF like any other summoning, then we could simply apply a 1-second 206 effect to escape certain spellcasting from it.  Sigh...

Edited February 3, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Guest Alkaid]

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

As in, you want combat and specific protections to not be affected by Dispel/Remove Magic? Yes, it is pretty easy, and without affecting the mechanics of Breach - those spells would simply have to be marked as non-dispellable. It would result in only SR's Breach and Pierce Shield being able to break combat protections, and it would most likely inadvertently weaken SCS AI by a bit, since it has no way of knowing Remove Magic has changed like that.

Yeah, that's the main problem. As things stand though, it really is kind of silly. Aside from making it be a more 'utility dispel' rather than 'completely fuck over every mage in a three klick radius' one (meaning, gets rid of miscellaneous stuff like stat buffs, barkskin, although I doubt the AI uses them much) I guess the best thing to do would probably be to at least make it get caught by spell deflections. 

[subtledoctor]

FYI my current game has been modified such that:

- Dispel Magic/Remove Magic eliminates 1 combat protection and 1 specific protection

- It works just like Breach, in bypassing GOI and spell-level immunities, but being blocked by Deflections

- No magic attacks, including Spellstrike, can remove Dispelling Screen; only Remove Magic and Breach do

Gameplay implications: 1) Remove Magic doesn’t necessarily fuck over every mage (unless they only have one combat protection); 2) mages can always have an extra layer of protection against Breach/RM after their spell protections are gone; and 3) RM can come in handy if you run out of Breach spells (as I just did against Ihtafeer/Jalaal/Sadaat). 

We’ve talked about these changes but now I can actually test them. Will report.

Edited October 17, 2021 by subtledoctor

[Guest Alkaid]

Is there a reason why Devas and Planetars were changed to use Elf animations, becoming all small and not-glowing? I can only guess there was incompatibility with some spell or other you wanted to give them. 

[Guest Alkaid]

@subtledoctor

That seems like a pretty interesting set of changes. Won't get to experience it myself since this playthrough is far too deep to change (unless it's the sort of stuff that can be done just with a few override files), but from what I've experienced I have some hopes for it. In turns of effect on AI I guess the main question is how much SCS mages prioritize destroying spell protection with ruby rays and such over attempting to just use remove magic to bypass it entirely.

[Bartimaeus]

4 hours ago, Guest Alkaid said:

Yeah, that's the main problem. As things stand though, it really is kind of silly. Aside from making it be a more 'utility dispel' rather than 'completely fuck over every mage in a three klick radius' one (meaning, gets rid of miscellaneous stuff like stat buffs, barkskin, although I doubt the AI uses them much) I guess the best thing to do would probably be to at least make it get caught by spell deflections. 

Under your proposed system, it would not get rid of Barkskin, as Barkskin is a combat protection. Breach lists these spells as being specific/combat protections:

The specific protection spells dispelled by Breach are: Resist Fear, Resist Elements, Death Ward, Free Action, Protection from Acid, Protection from Cold, Protection from Electricity, Protection from Fire, Chaotic Commands, Protection from Magic Energy, Protection from the Elements, Mind Blank, and Protection from Energy.

The combat protection spells dispelled by Breach are: Mage Armor, Shield, Armor of Faith, Barkskin, Protection from Missiles, Spirit Armor, Stoneskin, Protection from Normal Weapons, Protection from Magical Weapons, Physical Mirror, Prismatic Mantle, and Absolute Immunity.

Now that you mention it, the "lesser Breach" Dispel/Remove Magic option in SRR does not get caught by Spell Deflection et al., which means it would pierce through spell protections in  situations where Breach wouldn't, which doesn't seem right. There is a separate option to enable Dispel/Remove Magic being affected by spell protections in general, but it does now strike me as that you could have one but not the other if you wanted.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

- No magic attacks, including Spellstrike, can remove Dispelling Screen; only Remove Magic and Breach do

That particular oddity got yoinked out of SRR pretty early on - never made much sense to me to have just a couple of antimagic spells that would remove Dispelling Screen, especially when Dispelling Screen is such an incredibly specific protection with limited use as it is.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

- Dispel Magic/Remove Magic eliminates 1 combat protection and 1 specific protection

Good luck with your tests. I still have a feeling that this still prove itself to be a bit too strong against enemy spellcasters, since it will essentially act as a cheap Breach that removes their most critical combat protection (and heck, you don't even need to have Detect Invisibility/True Seeing on the mage casting Dispel/Remove Magic), but it's worth trying out.

[FixTesteR]

It's been said a couple of times that DM passes through MGoI. Vanilla description of MGoI:

This spell creates a faintly shimmering magical sphere around the caster that prevents any 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-level spell effects from penetrating (i.e., the area of effect of any such spells does not include the area of the Minor Globe of Invulnerability). This includes innate abilities and effects from devices. However, any type of spell can be cast out of the magical sphere, and these pass from the caster of the globe to their subject without affecting the globe. Spells of 4th level or higher are not affected by the globe.

It seems DM gets blocked and doesn't dispell a thing. SR adds one sentence in the end of description of MGoI:
.... Fourth and higher level spells are not affected by the globe. The globe can be brought down by a successful dispel magic.

So DM can bring down a MGoI. Pretty much the same with GoI. Does the SR version of DM bring down a MGoI and gets consumed in the process, or does it go further and have a chance to dispel something else underneath? SRR says that it doesn't dispell it but goes right through.

It seems, if I'm reading it correctly, that Vanilla MGoI is the strongest, SR is in the middle, and SRR is the weakest. I should test the behaviour, of course, but maybe of one you can answer off the cuff.