SubtleMods: Magic Battles Revised - streamlined rules for mage duels

[Relay]

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

That could happen under some circumstances if you install SCS after this mod. The more I think about it, the more I think this should really be installed after SCS.

Ah thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It looks like its a bug with SCS and maybe the NWN Deflection option in SR. my spwi318b was never patched by SCS to include dwsw318. 

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, Relay said:

Ah thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It looks like its a bug with SCS and maybe the NWN Deflection option in SR. my spwi318b was never patched by SCS to include dwsw318. 

No, it’s not an SCS problem - this mod is supposed to add that to SPWI318B. So either it’s a bug here, or the file was modified to undo it after this mod was installed. Either way it’s an easy fix with NI. Meantime I’ll check whether the bug is here. 

[subtledoctor]

Question, in case anybody cares: currently, if you use IWD spells and SCS general AI, it sets the IWD spell Entropy Shield to provide blanket immunity against Breach. If you also use Spell Revisions, it sets Dispelling Screen to provide one-time immunity against Breach. So:

• Target is a mage with Dispelling Screen: you cast Breach, and it removes the Dispelling Screen. Now you can cast Breach again and it works normally.
• Target is a cleric with Entropy Shield: you cast Breach, and nothing happens - the target is still immune.
• Target is a cleric with Entropy Shield: you cast Secret Word, and it removes the Entropy Shield. Now you can cast Breach and it works normally.

This is slightly weird because Entropy Shield's Breach immunity is an afterthought applied by SCS; the spell itself is in fact a moderately potent combat protection. But its secondary type marks it as a spell protection, not a combat protection. So this is a unique instance in which Secret Word/Pierce Magic etc. can actually remove a target's combat protection. Those spells don't work like that in any other circumstances - they only remove spell protections like MGOI and Spell Deflection.

I'm not interested in messing with this situation too much (theoretically we should add a subspell, but 'meh'), but when the player has both SR and SCS, there is a partial solution that is very simple to apply: give Entropy Shield the same secondary type as Dispelling Screen. This way the procedure would be the same:

• Target is a mage with Entropy Shield: you cast Breach, and it removes the Entropy Shield. Now you can cast Breach again and it works normally.

Now on its face that seems like a nerf: the spell advertises immunity to Breach, and it would only actually give immunity to one instance of Breach. But in reality, it is not much different - it still only takes a single spell to remove the immunity, it is just Breach instead of Secret Word. This is more consistent in general - like other combat protections, it needs Breach or Dispel Magic to remove; and like other things that block Breach and Dispel Magic (in this case, Dispelling Screen), it needs Breach or Dispel Magic to remove. Arguably this is also more valuable for the cleric - better to force your enemy to use up precious instances of Breach rather than Secret Word or one of its ilk. And also arguably, this will make mages operate more intelligently and effectively, if their scripting does not know that they should be using Secret Word against Entropy Shield (@DavidW would know whether that is the case*).

So... I can make this change to Entropy Shield. Would people like this? Do you care?

 

* (I glanced though some random "DW#MG__.BCS" files, and I have not seen any reference to Entropy Shield. Which means maybe mages are not scripted to know that they should use magic attacks against it...? Which would make this change favorable.)

Edited December 22, 2021 by subtledoctor

[Chosen]

I think you should make that change It would make the whole system more coherent. I am interested in such a playthrough and just making final adjustments to install(trying to fix install bug with the latest SCS and so on). So you count at least me.

[Gordian]

I care as well, created an account even, @subtledoctor. ; )

It would be more consistent, yes.

The system and the rationale behind it seem promising. Some spells lack descriptions/icons/names on an otherwise clean install btw, I specified on github (Breach, Spell Shield, GSD). Thanks for your great and well thought out mods, I've been enjoying many of them!

Only a few install trials away from my first EET run, it seems - a journey in itself, heh. Been a few years since I lurked here. Trying to incorporate many of your mods in fact.

 

On a different note: I did experience the 5e bug you assumed was with FnP (known spells not populating on circle 2+ on various kits). It happened on an FnP-install without the sphere system. Opting for said system fixed it for single class clerics and Monitor of Azuth at least.

[subtledoctor]

Okay I have updated the mod to v1.1. This fixes a couple bugs like Breach missing its description and Greater Spell Deflection missing its name and icon. It also changes Entropy Shield to the 'dispelling screen' secondary type, IF you have installed both Spell Revisions and some version of the IWD spells (or if you are playing IWDEE with Spell Revisions).

[Relay]

I just noticed DavidNYC's nice circle effect is missing from dispelling screen on an install over Spell Revisions, did you prefer that to be invisible?

[Relay]

On 12/16/2021 at 6:34 PM, subtledoctor said:

No, it’s not an SCS problem - this mod is supposed to add that to SPWI318B. So either it’s a bug here, or the file was modified to undo it after this mod was installed. Either way it’s an easy fix with NI. Meantime I’ll check whether the bug is here. 

Sorry for bombarding you lately, I'm just really into this spell system and have alot of time recently to play around with it. I see spwi318b/522b/701b  are patched manually but the copy is commented out so I just wasn't getting your updated spell into my override. 

 

[Gordian]

Thanks for the update!

Also "done" with my install order it seems, will test your mod(s) extensively. ; )

[Chosen]

Hi I have a problem in my game most likely related to this mod though I am not certain. SCS clones of certain spells that used for (cast previously) have other lines from the game in their name field instead. I noticed this with minor spell deflection but spell shield and some other has it too. Spl names point to wrong text somehow. How should I fix this?

[subtledoctor]

What game are you playing?

The mod uses the BG2EE string refs for the spell names, which I thought (in these cases) held for other games as well. If not, I can have the mod replace the strings, at the cost of everyone getting the English strings since the mod is only in English so far. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by subtledoctor

[subtledoctor]

I've updated this mod to version 1.2 which adds proper spell names to any that had incorrect strings in certain games.

This also has a na experimental bit with regard to beholders: previously, the Spell Shield spell would block one instance of their Anti-Magic Ray, just like it would in incoming spell attack. With this version, and if you have Spell Revisions installed, they interact in a similar fashion with Dispelling Screen. This means that you can have two layers of protection against beholders' Anti-Magic Ray: the first Ray will remove your Dispelling Screen, the second ray will remove your Spell Shield, and the third and subsequent Rays will strip you of all magic effects and prevent you from casting spells. This could give you a bit more breathing room (maybe just 6 more seconds) when facing beholders. I haven't playtested it yet so not entirely sure about the balance implications. I'm assuming 6 seconds won't be a monumental difference, but let me know if you do or do not like the change.

I've also changed the duration of the casting failure effects attached to beholders' Anti-Magic Rays from 20/30 seconds, to 12 seconds. I don't understand why they were so long to begin with. Again, let me know if you like or dislike this change.

[ahungry]

Nice - is there a way to upgrade MBR without starting a new game?  (I'm on 1.05 and was about to go 1.1 and see you just made 1.2).

I'm on GNU/Linux, and was thinking I could just remove the old dir, and "weinstall Magic_Battles_Revised" after unzipping, while selecting the [R]einstall option, however I have things like gaenemorandom (random enemy) and item_randomisation that come after in the install chain - I'm wondering if they would end up re-randomizing as they do after an uninstall+reinstall, or if doing a Reinstall in this way would even make the updates persist to my current saved game(s).

[subtledoctor]

9 minutes ago, ahungry said:

could just remove the old dir, and "weinstall Magic_Battles_Revised"

Don't do that.

If it is installed at the end of your install order, you can just:

1. run the old installer for it, choose uninstall
2. delete the older MBR folder
3. unzip the new MBR folder into your game directory
4. run the new installer and install it

This mod only affects .SPL files, so there is no worry about updating savegames. .SPL files are in the game files, not in savegames.

EDIT -

12 minutes ago, ahungry said:

however I have things like gaenemorandom (random enemy) and item_randomisation that come after in the install chain

That complicates things a bit. I would create a copy of your entire game directory, then do the sequence i mentioned above. Those mods will be uninstalled and then reinstalled during step 1. That will probably be fine.

If things break, then you can delete your game directory and restore the backup.

[subtledoctor]

On 1/6/2022 at 1:44 AM, Relay said:

I just noticed DavidNYC's nice circle effect is missing from dispelling screen on an install over Spell Revisions, did you prefer that to be invisible?

This mod doesn't alter Dispelling Screen at all (except, now, a small patch to interact with beholders). So whatever visual effects are set by SR should persist.

Unless, I suppose, SR was relying on the hard-coded visual? And DavidNYC's stuff here removed that? In which case I would have to add it back manually. Hmm, I'll have to test and see if that is really happening.