Jump to content

Non-detection + Improved Invisibility feels broken.


Recommended Posts

At this moment, this combination feels stronger than Mislead. Yuan-Ti Mage, Rakshasa will use these. I believe some mages cast these as well. According to my knowledge, until you have a mage who can cast Piece Shield, there is nothing you can do about it. Piece Magic, Ruby Ray might work but you still can't Breach. Also, Yuan-Ti Mage is not high level mage, yet you need level 8 spell to take it down effectively. Waiting for 4 rounds, just letting them cast Remove Magic, Breach, Slow, Cloudkill is devastating. And I do believe Rakshasa has more then one cast of Protection from Magical Weapons.

My strategy now is enter and leave, because luckily they don't rebuff with Non-detection. And it is very frustrating.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, potatoteers said:

At this moment, this combination feels stronger than Mislead. Yuan-Ti Mage, Rakshasa will use these. I believe some mages cast these as well. According to my knowledge, until you have a mage who can cast Piece Shield, there is nothing you can do about it. Piece Magic, Ruby Ray might work but you still can't Breach. Also, Yuan-Ti Mage is not high level mage, yet you need level 8 spell to take it down effectively. Waiting for 4 rounds, just letting them cast Remove Magic, Breach, Slow, Cloudkill is devastating. And I do believe Rakshasa has more then one cast of Protection from Magical Weapons.

My strategy now is enter and leave, because luckily they don't rebuff with Non-detection. And it is very frustrating.

Don't know if you're using regular SR (which doesn't try to explain these mechanics at all in the spell descriptions of Non-Detection, True Seeing, or Detect Invisibility) or SRR (which does), but...

1. The second level arcane spell "Detect Invisibility" (or True Seeing) allows the mage that casts it to cast all of the rest of their spells through improved invisibility. Which means you could also cast e.g. Secret Word to dispel the Non-Detection (or just Breach them).

2. ...Or, even simpler, Spell Thrust does not require invisibility targeting (AoE spell), and you can use it to dispel the Non-Detection which then allows you to cast e.g. True Seeing Detect Illusion or Oracle to dispel improved invisibility for everyone in your party (as would a cleric's Invisibility Purge...but Detect Invisibility would only strip the regular invisibility, NOT the improved invisibility).

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Don't know if you're using regular SR (which doesn't try to explain these mechanics at all in the spell descriptions of Non-Detection, True Seeing, or Detect Invisibility) or SRR (which does), but...

1. The second level arcane spell "Detect Invisibility" (or True Seeing) allows the mage that casts it to cast all of the rest of their spells through improved invisibility. Which means you could also cast e.g. Secret Word to dispel the Non-Detection (or just Breach them).

2. ...Or, even simpler, Spell Thrust does not require invisibility targeting (AoE spell), and you can use it to dispel the Non-Detection which then allows you to cast e.g. True Seeing Detect Illusion or Oracle to dispel improved invisibility for everyone in your party (as would a cleric's Invisibility Purge...but Detect Invisibility would only strip the regular invisibility, NOT the improved invisibility).

Thanks for the input. I think I let Nalia cast Detect Invisiblity, then told Edwin to cast Secret Word, which was a habit. It didn't occur to me that Detect Invisibility grants the caster the ability to see through Improved Invisibility without dispelling it. I actually like it. Before that, only one mage needs to cast True Seeing, and every one else will benefit from it. Nice!

I also didn't read the description of Spell Thrust carefully so I didn't know it was an AoE now. I apologize. Installing a spell overhaul mod without reading it in detail is very amateur. So I just need to cast two Spell Thrust, the first one takes down Spell Deflection, the second one takes down Non-detection, then let Viccy casts Invisibility Purge. Bang, that Rakshasa is naked now.

Relearning how to mage fencing is cool.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, potatoteers said:

Thanks for the input. I think I let Nalia cast Detect Invisiblity, then told Edwin to cast Secret Word, which was a habit. It didn't occur to me that Detect Invisibility grants the caster the ability to see through Improved Invisibility without dispelling it. I actually like it. Before that, only one mage needs to cast True Seeing, and every one else will benefit from it. Nice!

I also didn't read the description of Spell Thrust carefully so I didn't know it was an AoE now. I apologize. Installing a spell overhaul mod without reading it in detail is very amateur. So I just need to cast two Spell Thrust, the first one takes down Spell Deflection, the second one takes down Non-detection, then let Viccy casts Invisibility Purge. Bang, that Rakshasa is naked now.

Relearning how to mage fencing is cool.

I honestly don't blame you or anyone else that has trouble figuring out how some stuff works - I had been working on SRR for a couple of years before I was made to notice and thus finally understand the mechanics of Improved Invisibility + Non-Detection vs. Detect Invisibility/True Seeing. It doesn't help that the descriptions of these spells in normal SR simply don't explain how the mechanics work at all. As for Spell Thrust, the functionality is quite different compared to vanilla but you could be forgiven for thinking it's the same at a glance, especially if you haven't had the opportunity to study each and every spell and their differences yet, :).

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment

I mean...

When a wizard casts a Detect Invisibility spell, he becomes able to see clearly any objects or beings that are invisible within a 50 foot radius, as well as any that are astral, ethereal, or out of phase

This is not couched in terms that refer specifically to playing a computer game... but the spell pretty much does what it says on the tin. Demi’s whole aim with Detect Invisibility was more or less to make the spell mechanics match the spell description. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

This is not couched in terms that refer specifically to playing a computer game... but the spell pretty much does what it says on the tin. Demi’s whole aim with Detect Invisibility was more or less to make the spell mechanics match the spell description. 

Go "I mean" yourself, :p. That's literally the vanilla description of the spell: think I (and the dozens of other players over the years who similarly had no inkling of how it worked because there's nothing mentioned about it) would have appreciated something said that tells me "hey, this spell has a brand new functionality that serves as a key gameplay mechanic that it didn't have in the vanilla version of this spell".

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

That's literally the vanilla description of the spell

No, that's the SR description of the spell that Mike posted in a pinned thread here. If that is also the vanilla description, the the vanilla description is very inaccurate. 

I just don’t quite get the point of view where the vanilla game’s spell and its description are utterly divergent; SR’s spell actually does what the description says; and your response is “SR’s spell description is garbage, why didn’t they change it??” SR makes the description accurate. It would be pretty weird to change it. 

Granted Demi liked spell and item descriptions to be written like in-game lore, and to omit any 4th-wall-breaking overt references to CRPG mechanics. Stylistically, this is how the source material was written and how many people prefer things. (Why I wrote a whole mod to strip out every “+1” and “+4” etc. from the game.) You may feel otherwise, but that’s just a different preference about style. To say the description doesn’t “explain how the mechanics work at all” is just wrong. It says “the caster can see all invisible/ethereal/etc. things” and “every round enemies’ invisibility is dispelled.” And that very exactly describes what the SR spell does.

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

No, that's the SR description of the spell that Mike posted in a pinned thread here. If that is also the vanilla description, the the vanilla description is very inaccurate.

Yes, it is the vanilla description of the spell. My point is that anybody who's played these games has read that description before, likely many times skimmed over it and has a memory of how it goes. So you install a big spells overhaul mod and there are some spells, like Fireball, that are entirely unchanged, because don't fix what's not broken, right? You read Detect Invisibility's, and it's the same description. Not only is it pretty unreasonable to assume that players would somehow be able to gleam and infer from the description exactly how the new mechanic works to begin with, it's especially unreasonable given that the description hasn't even changed and the player has no reason to assume the spell has in any way meaningfully changed. And that's ignoring that the new mechanic, when you actually use the spell, is not transparent either - from the point of view of the player using the spell, there does not seemed to have been any change from how the spell used to work, so you'd have to actively experiment to figure out the new mechanic. There's a reason this particular topic has come up time and time again over the years from many different players (including long-time ones!), and I think you're looking dead square at it. I think it's wise to change the description from vanilla's when you have provided radical new functionality* and actually make a point of clearly explaining said new functionality.

*Yes, I do think it is "radical new functionality", because it is a huge part of the strategy in mage fights, which are a large part of Baldur's Gate II. If you do not understand it, you experience what the original poster of this thread (and many others) did: a seemingly impossible to defeat circumstance with no obvious solutions that require you to go on to these forums and ask for help. I made a point of explaining the mechanics again in Non-Detection's description for SRR as well.

46 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Granted Demi liked spell and item descriptions to be written like in-game lore, and to omit any 4th-wall-breaking overt references to CRPG mechanics. Stylistically, this is how the source material was written and how many people prefer things.

...Like Breach? ;)

Quote

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, 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.

Because that's what I think of most when we talk about Spell Revisions - *not* being transparent or correctly describing how stuff works, :p.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Like Breach?

Have you seen the vanilla Breach description? It is exactly like that. SR’s version doesn't radically change it, it only makes it a bit more organized and readable. So, not sure what your point is. 

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

it's especially unreasonable

I still don’t understand what is “unreasonable.” The spell does two things: it lets the caster see through invisibility, and it dispels invisibility. The description mentions those two things. 

Would I edit it? Sure. I would probably describe the dispelling part first and the vision part second, and link them with an “Additionally, ” ... But that seems like a minor improvement, not the difference between “unreasonable” and “reasonable.” Does your description say “this spell differs from the normal version in such-and-such way:?” I doubt it. I would consider what your description looks like, but oh, I don’t see you posting it anywhere, and I can’t even install your version on my OS (nor can any players who don’t play in English). What a nice big rock you hide behind as you sling mud.

The vanilla spell description are a ridiculous mess; you act like SR ruins it all when SR descriptions are mostly a major improvement. I’ll happily grant you that SR’s description of Nondetection is quite badly inaccurate and needs to change.* But the one for Detect Invisibility is not. 

* (And happy day, people have been working on improvements for a new version of SR, and a better description of Nondetection should hopefully be one of those improvements. And the minute that gets done you will no doubt immediately grab those improvements for your project without any credit or attribution, per usual, and still walk around claiming that SR is hot garbage.)

Link to comment

...Have I not been the one checking and actually testing the newest fixes to SR while suggesting some of my own? :huh: What in the actual **** are you talking about? Good lord, man. (e): And who went and reviewed all of grodigues original PRs and provided feedback on all of them...when he posted them over a year and a half ago, while they literally never got resolved? Oh yeah, that was me. That's right, that was me. Huh.

Quote

When a wizard casts a Detect Invisibility spell, they become able to see clearly any objects or beings that are invisible, as well as any creatures that are astral, ethereal, or out of phase. Instantly and at the end of each round for 5 rounds after the spell is cast, all concealed enemies within sight of the caster will become visible to the caster and their allies. Invisible objects carried into the warded area will also become visible. This spell does not reveal illusions or enable the caster to see through physical objects.

Creatures affected by improved invisibility will be revealed to the party, but can only be directly targeted with spellcasting by the caster of this spell. Magic resistance does not affect this spell.

 

Quote

By casting this spell, the wizard makes the recipient undetectable by spells such as Detect Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, and True Seeing, though they may still be audible when moving and certain types of creatures may still sense their presence through other means. Furthermore, anti-illusory spells and abilities such as Detect Illusion and Oracle will also have no effect upon the recipient. However, this spell does not protect the recipient from detection as a result of engaging in overtly hostile actions, though it will continue to protect illusionary protections they have active from being directly dispelled even after a creature has revealed themselves.

Specific creatures affected with Detect Invisibility or True Seeing will still be able to target the recipient with spellcasting through their improved invisibility for as long as those spells are active, assuming the recipient has already revealed themselves. This spell wards the recipient's equipment as well as the creature itself.

I mention these things because they've been problems for years. I "fixed" them, but there was never any clear way to fix them in the official version of SR. People responsible for maintaining the mod either weren't active or didn't want any of my changes. I think I'm well within my rights to mention it being a problem once again when it's literally being a problem right here and right now once again. It's not like this is the first discussion we've had about improved invisibility and Non-Detection over the years...or even the second. It's not like I'm mentioning it out of nowhere that it is an issue...and please, don't stuff words into my mouth: while I have mentioned specific improvements that I made specifically as a result of problems that have cropped up over the years, never have I said anything approaching that SR is "hot garbage". Frig off with that crap, man.

(e): And speaking of mudslinging...who's the one that's been badmouthing IRR and SRR at just about every turn over the last few years while I've been taking it on the chin and calmly explaining why things are the way they are every time you bring it up? Like, really? I've just about done had enough of this. Maybe DavidW was right...

And why did I ever even bother keeping lists of literally dozens of things for the official versions of these mods to fix if it's somehow going to be turned around on me as if I stole work from the base version instead? Good lord...count me out from working anymore on the base version if this is going to be the utterly asinine abuse I get. About the only thing I ever truly "stole" was Mike's ADD_SPELL-ing of everything, which at that point was an absolute necessity anyways (which I had to re-do all of once I saw the format on how it worked anyways, seeing as I am not the best weidu coder) - the base version of this has taken more from me than I have from it past the point of where I started working on it. Feel free to do a comparison of main_component.tpa if you want to see how impossible it'd be for me to just "steal" anything to begin with. So I intone once again - frig off with that crap, man.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I honestly don't blame you or anyone else that has trouble figuring out how some stuff works - I had been working on SRR for a couple of years before I was made to notice and thus finally understand the mechanics of Improved Invisibility + Non-Detection vs. Detect Invisibility/True Seeing. It doesn't help that the descriptions of these spells in normal SR simply don't explain how the mechanics work at all. As for Spell Thrust, the functionality is quite different compared to vanilla but you could be forgiven for thinking it's the same at a glance, especially if you haven't had the opportunity to study each and every spell and their differences yet, :).

You are really helpful. Thank you very much! I promise next time I post anything I will read the spell description at least twice.😆

Link to comment

DavidW makes a nice mod, but he ain't the Pope. Even he is wrong sometimes...

I don't recall saying anything bad about IRR/SRR themselves. Your explanation of why IRR is the way it is (all the 1PP stuff, in particular) made sense (less so for SRR but whatever). Quibbles about the method never extended into any derogatory comments about the products themselves. It's just, the sense of superiority you express is just so galling sometimes. Gets the blood up. Probably described things a bit more forcefully than necessary though, apologize for that.

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment
12 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I don't recall saying anything bad about IRR/SRR themselves. Your explanation of why IRR is the way it is (all the 1PP stuff, in particular) made sense (less so for SRR but whatever). Quibbles about the method never extended into any derogatory comments about the products themselves. It's just, the sense of superiority you express is just so galling sometimes. Gets the blood up. Probably described things a bit more forcefully than necessary though, apologize for that.

I do like to talk about the things that I perceive myself to have improved as a result of my own effort, particularly in the context of them presently being an issue for someone else(s), which is why I attempted to improve them in the first place. They're very often small things...but too many small things not working or being described quite as they should can prove to be an inconsistent or outright frustrating experience. You, as someone that has had experience digging into some of the intricacies of the mod, may understand just about all that there is to know about most of it...but that's not the case for everyone else. Heck, sometimes, I don't go far enough and further improvements need to be made to completely solve the issue for some users. Regardless, I haven't worked on both IRR and SRR for literal years for no reason.

I was also mistaken - I forgot that I had actually included a fixed version of your "set spell schools" function back whenever the latest beta came out (a couple of years ago?)...which, as you may or may not remember, arose out of me submitting a large list of scroll and spell school inconsistencies that I had found and fixed myself and made note of for the base mod to fix. Seeing your feelings on this sort of matter, I have removed said function from SRR. Apology accepted, let that be the end of this.

13 hours ago, potatoteers said:

You are really helpful. Thank you very much! I promise next time I post anything I will read the spell description at least twice.😆

More grumpy than helpful, but you're welcome, :).

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment

You are more than welcome to use any code I have written anywhere.  But your predilection for patting yourself on the back about your so superior product and for hoovering up improvements that other people contribute to IR and SR - even improvements that have not made it into the actual mod - can lead to awkward things like patting yourself on the back for stuff that is not even yours.  Those awkward little moments can be avoided by simply acknowledging that other people make good shit too, and noting it when they do.  It's not the end of the world, it's a small thing, but goddam after a while it starts to grate on the nerves.  Like, again, here you're bragging about how much better your spell description is but you didn't even post it and there's a whole class of people who can't even install SRR to see it. That's why the conversation seems less like a comparison and more like simple trash-talk.  It's rank criticism, where constructive criticism is more warranted.

But I was also a bit sensitive to things that grate on my nerves, for having a bad day(/week/month/year). Time to log off and direct my consume-the-world-in-righteous-fire rage toward more important targets.

Link to comment

Included in the linked post...

On 12/25/2020 at 12:28 PM, Bartimaeus said:

I don't even remember changing IRR to be able to account for this, but it's already fixed there.

Literally my next post as discussion on the subject continued...

On 12/25/2020 at 7:04 PM, Bartimaeus said:

Well, that seems very annoying. Oddly, I feel like I didn't write the fixed code myself, I think someone else did for the base version, but it must've never gotten included? Not entirely sure.

I do apologize for getting on your nerves: it's an unfortunate situation all around. There is a solution, however...because I'm not likely to stop mentioning specific areas that I believe to be issues that I have tried to improve as they come up as a result of others' posts, :).

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...