DavidW

The general point is that minimalism is defined - for me - relative to BG2 itself. I'm not particularly bothered by fidelity or lack of fidelity to PnP. And in BG2 you can see II characters. I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea. I think that's a good idea, sufficiently good that I might consider stealing it. (It does affect my AI scripts a little bit, but I can work around that.) I don't agree, actually. Of course it's seriously bad news for a wizard to be Breached, but contingencies and sequencers let the wizard get his defences back up quickly and keep attacking. No, you're right. Absolutely.

That's not the original state of BG2. "Indeed, my friends, none of you have any weapon that could hurt me" - Gandalf. Maybe we could make a rule that enemy priests always come prebuffed with some of the longest lasting protections, particularly Shield of the Archons, Death Ward, Remove Fear, and Chaotic Commands (maybe even Skeleton Warriors, since they last for hours--I know I'd cast one every morning if I thought there was even the slightest chance I'd meet danger that day!). If their first move was Sanctuary followed by Blade Barrier and Physical Mirror, they could end up pretty well protected when they cast Gate or whatever. I also believe that UnHoly Word doesn't break Sanctuary. In any event, I might suggest that normally prebuffed clerics start with Regeneration active, which could dramatically increase survivability and reduce the necessity for potions (and more importantly, spell actions) during combat. I use most of these, but ultimately it's still the case that one antimagic attack plus breach takes nearly all of it all down. ... I'm not theorising here: it's an experimental observation that enemy clerics (especially solo ones) go down very quickly in SCS, quicker than I'd like. (Though this isn't disastrous.) I don't think their spells casting time is the real issue, as they aren't much different from arcane's spells, My observations are that it matters (again, this is behaviour noted in playthroughs and testing - I'm not theorising). In two ways, in fact: (i) at lower levels, the difference is pretty key: 2 seconds for a wizard's 2nd level attack spell, vs. most of the round for a cleric's; (ii) wizards have certain instant-cast moves (stoneskin, sequencers, contingency) unavailable to clerics. Not for me: it's much too radical a change to the BG2 rule system. (And my comments about clerics are meant to illuminate certain aspects of the system, and also to invite suggestions as to how to use them better; they're not a crie de coeur and I don't feel something game-mechanical needs to change to work around this. In practice I'm resigned to not being able to use clerics solo without special arrangements; I can use them effectively as parts of groups.) Guilty as charged, at least where the antimagic system is concerned. (I'm very unkeen on saves for a spell like Breach, because you end up having to carry silly numbers of them; this is less of an issue with non-detection.) I could try to offer a defences of the scissor-paper-rock debuff system, but ultimately I just see it as quite core to the way BG2 antimagic works, so I don't really want to mess with that within SCS.Yep, but we're not speaking of antimagic attacks here but divination attacks, and Non-detection isn't a spell protection. If you want something that temporary shields II but goes down in a single hit you could make Non-detection go down against the first divination attack without a save. That would make it a sort of anti-divination version of Spell Shield. Perhaps it's worth getting the parameters clearer here. Remember that SCS, unlike SR (legitimately) put's a high value on minimalism: I don't want to change the spell system more than I absolutely have to. (I'm in general amenable to incorporating other people's spell systems, but - as discussed before - mage buffing and debuffing is a special case.) The change I've felt forced to make is the AoE for antimagic, which in turn is a workaround for antimagic spells actually allowing targetting of invisible creatures, which was my ideal. At the time I couldn't see how to do it (actually I think now I might, which changes things, but I haven't had a chance to run tests). Other changes have to be measured against that baseline. (As always I'm perfectly happy to try to play nice, e.g. with SR's proposed silent overwrite of SI, where it doesn't mess with my scripts.) Reasonably sure, yes. The balance between debuffing and attacking got tweaked many, many times in SCS testing; where it is now is largely a function of what seems to work in practice rather than of theory. It's doubtless not perfect (especially as the right level of debuffing is very situation-dependent), is probably a bit skewed towards high-level fights where most PCs will be heavily buffed, and could no doubt be refined. But I'm pretty sure I need access to a single-target buff-remover. (In late-game anti-mage fights, in earlier versions I wasn't using Breach enough, with the result that nearly all the party were immune to nearly all the enemy's attacks.) Pierce magic in particular is underused, but 6th level spell slots aren't (Death, PMW, Truesight, etc). 5th level is quite a convenient place for the relevant breaching spell to be: I think it makes really quite a big difference to have it at 6th level. I'm also reluctant to have to load up with two different lots of spells where previously I only needed one. (& yes, I could get around this by using scrolls. But to do that for this one situation seems - to borrow a term from earlier - inelegant, and also to load the PC up with useful antimagic scrolls.) On exploration of the issue, I'm starting to feel less confident that we really need to weaken Breach. Having said that, if you're really sold on breaking specific protections into Pierce Magic and leaving Breach for combat protections only, I can probably semi-incorporate that into SCS ("semi" because I'd cheat, and hot-swap Breach for Pierce Magic at casting time.) It would cost me two or three blocks, but that's tolerable. Well, the original opcode 221 cannot be used to take down only a limited amount of spells, but in theory we might be able to find a workaround if we really think such solution would be better than any other one. I'm persuaded by Ardanis's objection. Also, elegance can be subjective...

Sanctuary isn't terrible (and I probably underuse it). But the thing is, priests only have about one (at most) really good defensive buff they can put up anyway. They don't have the layered defences available to mages.

I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot.Well, GWW and CS are ToB things, but you're right, those abilities make AC much less relevant. Anyway even epic fighters should have a bunch of those HLAs not tons, and those few should/can be stopped by Stoneskin, or partially absorbed by Mirror Image. Put an outstanding AC on top of them and even GWW may hit very few times. No? ...maybe. Outstanding really would need to be in the -25 region, and not breachable. Even then, Critical Strike makes it irrelevant. Stoneskin isn't all that critical at high levels because of the easy availability of elemental damage (which fairly reliably disrupts spells even if it doesn't kill quickly). I'm fine with their offensive power. I have trouble keeping them alive long enough to use it - more precisely, I have trouble keeping them alive and their spells undisrupted long enough to use it. The long casting times for cleric spells just make things worse. (The short casting time is one major reason I use Unholy Blight so much.)With wizards, I can usually guarantee several rounds worth of offensive magic (or at least, make it a major hassle to prevent those several rounds). With clerics, it's difficult to prevent one PC fighter effectively nullifying the cleric after his first attack spell, and thereafter taking him down quite quickly. It's not so much of a problem with groups (the drow clerics do quite well) but there are plenty of BG2 fights involving a cleric as primary enemy (Nyalee's the clearest example) and they're very hard to script interestingly. Guilty as charged, at least where the antimagic system is concerned. (I'm very unkeen on saves for a spell like Breach, because you end up having to carry silly numbers of them; this is less of an issue with non-detection.) I could try to offer a defences of the scissor-paper-rock debuff system, but ultimately I just see it as quite core to the way BG2 antimagic works, so I don't really want to mess with that within SCS. Cool, I thought I was asking too much. As you say, I'd limit it to combat protections, perhaps removing a bunch of the current ones too. Specifically Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades may not be affected if they are crucial for your clerics. Actually I would even dare to say that making it work only against PfMissiles, PfNW, PfMW, and Mantles (what Galactygon is suggesting if I'm not wrong*) could be fine with me. Such solution would seriously improve the appeal of things such as "armor spells". Hmm. Let me come at this from a game-balance perspective and from SCS mages' viewpoints. I use breach to drop PMW (etc) and Stoneskin, but I also use it to get rid of Chaotic Commands, Protection from Magic Energy, elemental protections, and Death Ward. It would be quite inconvenient to do without these effects. I don't really need it to be able to take down fire shields, blade barriers, or Armour spells. (Indeed, from the perspective of defending spellcasters against the PCs, it would be helpful if it didn't take those down.) That cuts across sectypes, of course, so one would need to think about in-game justification. Can you remind me why Breach can't take down (say) 4 defences? Isn't there an opcode that strips one defence of a given type, and if so, can't one just do a shell spell trick and apply 4 copies of the spell? Like? Afaik Breach is mainly used to counter ProWeapon-like spells, is it heavily used against specific protections too? Yes, I use it quite a bit that way. Pro/ME, in particular, is heavily prioritised for Breaching, because it protects from Horrid Wilting. Perhaps I'm blind but how can Breach so heavily affect clerics? Example: it takes down Iron Skins and Blade Barrier, which collectively radically changes the difficulty of taking down a druid. The point is - "absurd" or not - that lone wizards are a major feature of BG2, and (contra your comment) they weren't "meant to be weak" in BG2. (Exhibit A: Irenicus. Exhibit B: Vongoethe. Exhibit C: Kangaxx. Etc.). So insofar as it isn't possible to protect them adequately in a given set of modifications, that's a problem. (The combat and movement system in BG2 makes meatshields all but useless as a way of protecting casters, and the chance of hitting a wizard with your axe isn't "very very low": as I've demonstrated, it's actually pretty high in mid SoA and later.)

With mods like aTweaks' scribe scrolls ability, only money will determine how many scrolls the party has. If we assume NPC casters have had years to accumulate wealth and resources, it's not a stretch for them to have 5-10 high-level scrolls. If enemy spellcasters fire off their scrolls in the first few rounds of combat, their chance of dropping those scrolls gets really low. I'd imagine spells that do not scale after level 12 are worth storing in a scroll, or a spell that the spellcaster does not know (this could be an excuse for lower-level wizards with connections of casting higher level magic). -Galactygon My experience with potions is that even when resources are expected to be used up quickly, PCs still rapidly acquire a very large number of them.

That's why any change to Breach that I'm happy with would have to be incorporated into SCS itself and allowed for in my AI (as with the changes to Mantle). Spell Shield. OK, but in that case the replacement spell does something very different from the original. (Unless Spell Shield actually grants immunity to Remove Magic in SR?) I'm not convinced it would help. By about 12th level, stoneskin (esp. when not supported by Mirror Image et al) goes down pretty quickly in combat, and that's without allowing for an extra Breach (unlike mages, clerics don't have any way to put multiple defences up at once, and scrolls don't change that). It might help around the edges, though, so I'll bear it in mind. It's been suggested before, but I don't find either spell failure or number of slots to be a serious constraint on my mage scripting, and I'm concerned about giving PCs too many resources (I dislike undroppable objects on principle).

I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot. Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs.? I was speaking of buffs not affected by Breach such as Divine Might (Champion's Strength is better later on) or Divine Power, but I forgot they weren't so great in vanilla. Are they so helpful as defences? If I'm understanding correctly, you're effectively telling me that N-D effectively (for my purposes) grants a saving throw vs. Truesight. Which is neat (technically as well as conceptually) but it doesn't to me obviate the need for players to be able to do something to remove the invisibility that doesn't rely on them waiting till the enemy fails a save (which at high levels is a seriously long time). (Again, I can believe that in a systematic SR install, with save penalties et al, that's less of an issue, but I need to consider the vanilla game.) I don't have strong views, but I could easily be persuaded that Breach should remove Stoneskin and pro/weapons spells but not as much else as it currently does. I'm less keen on it offering a saving throw for the same reason as above. It's something I'd want to implement as an SCS component if it's deemed a good idea. On balance I think it could be: it would make keeping clerics alive a helluva lot easier. Come to think of it, I could even see a case for restricting Breach to arcane spells. ... make me an offer. Oh, one leftover bit of business from earlier discussions of SI. I now see why to you it's relatively important whether SI is one spell or eight. I guess I've always seen the eight-spell thing as no more than a workaround for the difficulty in putting SI into contingencies (notwithstanding the fact that enemies have been doing it ever since the vanilla game). In-game, I'm happy to justify it as just reflecting the fact that SI is a delicate spell and a wizard wanting to contingency-ise it needs to do some extra, specific, research. (And I'm relaxed about the fact that those crude sorcerer types just lack the finesse to cope with SI in contingencies). I was coming around to your dislike of SI:Abj, but I've been reminded by other bits of this thread just how useful and relevant immunity to Remove Magic is, especially in these post-Taimon days. So for me, I remain happy with SI, with the sole exception being the annoying issue of targetting antimagic on II characters. I tentatively think I can improve on my extant area-effect solution to that last problem, but I need to do some tests. Little of this, I think, interferes with your proposal to modify SCS's use of SI via SR, except for one residual question: what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?

you're right, of course. The AI isnt as much a concern to me as the spell being used is capable of almost unlimited cheese when used by the PC. thats why im partial to advocating the removal of SI in favor of already established spells in D&D sourcebooks. like nondetection. What cheesy things are you thinking of? (Not that I'm ever really sure what "cheesy" means in these discussions either.) I'm fairly relaxed in SCS about being able to counter PC uses of SI, but possibly there are things I'm missing.

its abusive in the fact that it makes it a do-or-die situation to have a mage WITH the right spell selection at hand to deal with in a timely fashion. a cleric, no matter how epic would be wasting his true sight. its abusive because it requires a few key spells to be memorized at all times. im sure there are various ways to deal with without dispelling and/or targetting, but im seeing it from a solo-play point of view. I'm not much moved by that. The spells you need are the same spells you need to deal with any mage: a mixture of anti-magic spells like Secret Word, Ruby Ray etc. I agree, if you don't have a mage in the party, or if your mage hasn't bothered to learn any antimagic, you have a problem. That doesn't bother me. I've no problem with solo play, but I don't feel any obligation to go out of my way to make up for you not choosing to take a balanced party.

Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value? Well, primarily I'm reporting experimentally confirmed behaviour rather than theorising, but for what it's worth: a 12th level fighter with strength 18/00, specialisation and a +3 weapon (i.e., what you have about 1/3 of the way through SoA) with modest buffing hits 3-4 times per round at THAC0 2, and so lands a couple of hits per round even on a wizard with AC -8. An 18th level fighter with strength 21 and a +5 weapon (i.e., what you have by the end of SoA) and modest buffing hits at least 3-4 times per round at THAC0 -8, at which point even AC -10 is hit every time except for critical misses. Does SR allow an archmage to get to AC -25 or better? If not, I doubt it helps. My recollection of IWD2 (which admittedly I haven't played in many years) is that it does affect it: mages go down very quickly. In part, yes. Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs. I do find your tweak almost a fix (which I gladly copied for SR), because I really don't see why Breach should bypass Spell Deflection/Turning. I still think Fixpack's "developer intent" definition of "fix" is best; by that basis, this can't be called a fix as Breach's penetrating spell deflection is fairly clearly deliberate. Yes, agreed (putting aside SI:Abj, but I could always have disallowed that if it were the only factor). But I'd rather not have to require parties to have one of those classes present. At least from the current SR description of Non-detection (and truesight) I don't see how this is: N-D claims to protect against Truesight, which makes it functionally equivalent to SI:Div. Elsewhere on the SR forums you seem to imply that it doesn't protect against Truesight, but now we're back to II going down in the first couple of seconds due to a pre-cast Truesight. What I want is a happy medium where taking down II takes time and effort but isn't impossible. Can you clarify? Yes, and I need to think about how the availability of that fix affects things. This isn't exactly what I'm after in SCS. I want a situation in which the vanilla game's intended pattern of buff and debuff actually works effectively. So sure, there are ways to take an end run around a wizard's defences, but that's not what I want here. (You're welcome to say that I should want something entirely different, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm taking my basic design goal as read.) This is the number 1 reason why I think SI:Abj is important, even if it doesn't block single-target abjuration antimagic attacks.

well, an example serves better in the context of defining cheats/abusing in the game than quoting the dictionary... Not really. The dictionary definition doesn't especially help, since this is a technical context. I already know that you think II+SI:Div is abusive, so requoting that example doesn't help either. What I want to know is what you actually mean by that term. (My experience is that 90% of the time it doesn't mean anything very coherent beyond "I dislike this", but feel free to prove that you're in the 10%.)

@Demi: Let's have a go at rethinking this from scratch (within SCS's parameters). I've been running through the problem this evening, and I can't myself improve on my original set of solutions, but this may be my own lack of imagination. Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells. In vanilla rules, Breach takes down anti-weapon spells, so one survives only until Breach is successfully cast. The version of Breach that's cast directly penetrates Spell Turning, so only invisibility is a shield against it. The version of Breach that's loaded into wands of spell striking can't penetrate Spell Deflection et al, so Spell Deflection and invisibility are both shields against it. SCS allows Spell Deflection to block Breach, even when cast directly. I'm very reluctant to lose that; anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume it. (If you want to argue me out of it, go for it; I suspect you're in favour, though.) With that change made, taking down a wizard is a four stage process: (1) remove his Improved Invisibility, which stops you using Ruby Ray et al to lower his anti-spell defences (2) remove his anti-spell defences with single-target antimagic (3) remove his anti-weapon defences with Breach (4) cut him to pieces. This process can in principle be shortcutted by Dispel Magic. Pre-Taimon, this was basically ineffectual. These days, it's better, but still hit-and-miss at best. Now, here's the dilemma. A) If SI:Div is allowed, then in the vanilla rules there is no way at all to take down Improved Invisibility (short of the hit-and-miss strategy of using Dispel Magic). So the whole process can't get started and you're stuck at step 1. (That's the Tactics/IA situation). B) if SI:Div is not allowed, then any sane party has Truesight running as part of their pre-combat buffs (and even if they didn't buff, the cleric can throw it up fairly quickly). So step 1 happens almost automatically. Only steps 2-4 remain. In (A), things are annoying and boring. I don't like the Tactics/IA situation one bit. In (B), mages go down too quickly. (You can see this in SCS by looking at how quickly clerics go down: I'm just unable to protect them.) My ideal, unimplementable solution is for single-target antimagic spells to work even against invisible targets. In that case, you just hit mages with antimagic, in the presence of Truesight, till they're targettable, and then kill them. It takes long enough to cut through a wizard's defences that things are fairly even (I predict). In this situation, SI:Abj and SI:Div don't seem to me unbalanced: they're just one more step in the defence process. (I'm leaving out the legitimate irritation that SI:Abj doesn't seem to do what it says on the tin.) As I say, this is unimplementable. The nearest I can get to an implementation is the small area of effect used in SCS. That's imperfect, and you've noted above you don't like it; it's also the best I can think of to resolve the dilemma. At the moment, SR doesn't seem to help. Non-detection is penetrated by Truesight (as I understand it) so we're back in situation (B). If SI:Div is allowed, but area-effect antimagic isn't, we're instead in situation (A). Thoughts welcomed. I'm genuinely amenable to restructuring SCS's antimagic framework if there's a genuinely better (and not-much-more-disruptive-to-vanilla) solution out there. Area effects for antimagic is my least-worst solution, not my ideal one.

low cost, high effect. like SI:I On that basis, a high-level caster casting Remove Magic is cheap. the trick where you can make the project image immune to divinations is very abusive. That's an example, not a definition.

SR4 can introduce neat implementation of Spell Shield and PnP Non-Detection If you read up one line from that quote, you'll see that I was specifically discussing the situation relative to vanilla. That's a slightly odd comment. The point of the spell is to protect you from energy drain, so yes: the spell would be pretty useless if nothing attacked you with energy drain. Similarly, Truesight would be pretty pointless if no-one ever used illusions against you. Can you define "cheap"? In either SR or SCS, you can counter it with an anti-magic attack. Can you define "abusing"? Is learning SI close to automatic for you when you play? It's pretty low down my priority list for 5th level spells, personally speaking (and it rarely seems to get onto people's lists of recommended sorcerer spells).

I think the real difference (although it overlaps your "concept vs implementation" distinction) is that in SR, your thinking is basically "what would the best spell system look like if designed from scratch?", whereis in SCS I'm considering "what aspects of the existing spell system are sufficiently problematic that they need to be changed?". In addition, you're asking: what does SI look like when we allow for all the other changes made to the spell system in SR? I'm asking: what does SI look like relative to the vanilla spell system? If I were to ask your questions, rather than mine, then probably I wouldn't include Spell Immunity in my designed-from-scratch spell system. It's a cute idea, but on balance I think the costs outweigh the advantages. But redesigning the spell system from scratch isn't what SCS is about. (And, in this particular case, supporting multiple options isn't really viable as the buff/antibuff aspect of SCS's smarter mages is too core for me to be willing to support multiple versions.) So for me (and therefore, unfortunately, for anyone else who wants to change the mage defence system while maintaining SCS compatibility) the question has to be mine: is SI sufficiently problematic (either at all, or as a 5th level spell) that it really needs to be changed? The bar is relatively high here: comparable changes in SCS are allowing Breach to be blocked by Spell Turning, giving areas of effect to antimagic, and increasing the strength of Mantle - though the latter was a borderline choice for me. So, looking at your case-by-case analysis (and restricting attention to the vanilla situation, which has to be the point of comparison for SCS): - I agree that SI:Trans, SI:Conj, SI:Ill are unattractive. That doesn't especially bother me from an SCS perspective: they can stay as part of the overall flavour of the SI spell. - We're both happy with SI: Nec. - You think SI: Div is underpowered, which surprises me. It's a very powerful protective spell for a mage: II + SI:Div is the key to staying unBreached. I suppose I wouldn't go to the wall to stop it being 4th level, but +/- 1 level doesn't hugely bother me from an SCS perspective. (And of course if it's part of SI, then the overall spell might justifiably be 5th level even though this component would be 4th level as a standalone.) - You think SI: Ench is worth a 6th level slot. I'm not sure why (at least within vanilla; I concede that if you throw in protection from power words, things might change, but that's not salient for SCS). Chaotic Commands does everything SI: Ench does, has a far longer duration, keeps off psionic attacks that aren't in the enchantment school, and can be cast on others. But in any case, even if I were convinced it ideally should be 6th level, from an SCS point of view that's not a big enough change to justify shifting the status quo. - You say that "any 5th level Protection from Fire/Cold/Lightning/Acid spell simply pales compared to SI:Evo". As I recall, Protection from Fire/Cold is 3rd level in vanilla, but in any case, which would you rather have available when facing Firkraag? (And don't forget that protection from Fire can be cast on other party members.) Again, I think you're underestimating the benefits of long duration, castability on others, and protection from non-spell attack forms. And again, even if I were convinced that ideally SI:Evo should be 6th level rather than 5th, that's not enough of a problem to justify changing it in SCS. (I put my money where my mouth is here, incidentally: SI:Evo turns up pretty rarely in my prebuff routines.) - Conceptually speaking I've some sympathy with your annoyance at SI:Abj... but not much - I don't see a problem with the idea that some spells can bypass Spell Immunity, and if those happen to be mostly abjurations, so be it. Implementation-wise, immunity to dispel magic seems to be roughly worth a 5th level slot. Regarding your more general comments: (1) I agree that the technical constraints are annoying. Ultimately they don't bother me hugely, though: by all means let's suppose that sorcerors don't get access to these particuar spells. (There are no sorcerors in SCS, so it's not like I'm breaking that rule elsewhere.) (2) I think it's only true that all SI spells have equivalent spells if SR is installed. Relative to vanilla: - nothing can replace SI: Abj or SI: Div, so far as I can see - SI: Ench and SI: Nec are roughly but not entirely equivalent to certain priest spells, but don't have a mage equivalent - SI: Alt, SI: Ill and SI: Conj are fairly ineffectual, so unsurprisingly don't have equivalents - the nearest equivalent to SI:Evo is the (imo much more powerful, and so much higher level) Pro/Elem. (3) As a side point, do I take it that stacking SI: per se, doesn't bother you? (I'm assuming that because if you're replacing SI's various components with similar spells at different levels, presumably they will be stackable.) This is an interesting discussion, by the way. I'm deeply bored of people (not you) saying "SI is overpowered" or "it's cheesy to stack SI" or the like without bothering to give arguments. I'm mostly not persuaded by your arguments, but it's nice to actually get some!

I don't think this is a problem. Instead of spell protection (SI) there'll be specific protections (MB, ProEnergy, etc.) - AI won't detect vanilla SI, but it will notice the Chaotic Commands like effect.Of course, it requires DS to check for SR and execute an additional set of patches for it's changes, but I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing technical. But I'm not really keen on having the SCS version of DS keep track of every spell modification made by third-party mods, so I think if SR is making these changes to protection spells, it would make sense for it to ship with its own chunk of DS. The DS code is robust against being installed multiple times. EDIT: come to think of it, a cleaner solution is just for SR to supply its own version of the control table for DS, and dump it in (e.g.) the override. I'm happy to get SCS to look for it, and then use the SR version of the control table if it exists.

Leaving aside my points about Mind Blank's greater power, which you accept, I'm not much moved by pure PnP concerns. The BG2 spellcasting context is quite different (and in any case, 2nd edition spell level assignments are hardly immune from criticism). I'm also not sure what the significance is of your comment about "the vast majority of players" (even if it's correct, which I'm sceptical about - people who are happy with things aren't likely to comment). The salient issue, presumably, is the quality of the arguments, not the number of supporters. You do have a point here. The problem is that you have two caps to how many spells you can learn per level, an in-game roleplaying one (depending on INT, but having 4-5 SI in the spellbook isn't great even if you have INT 18) and a technical one (sorcerers can only learn spells from that 24 spells per level limited list, you can't have 8 SI in such list). Granted; in that case, I retract my support for getting rid of the single-use version. I won't quote the discussion of how SI is more useful to enemy wizards than player ones, because I don't particularly disagree. But if we're discussing whether it's overpowered for enemy wizards, then the fact that it's useable in eight different ways becomes basically irrelevant, because no enemy AI I know takes advantage of that flexibility. In this situation, it comes down to a direct comparison, and that comparison seems to work out okay to me. In more detail: grant, for the sake of argument, that Mind Blank should indeed be 8th level. It provides immunity to all mental attack forms, including but not limited to enchantments, and it has a long duration, and iirc, it's castable on other creatures, not just on the caster. In comparison, SI:Ench is caster-only, has a short duration, and protects only from enchantment-school mental attack forms. A three-level difference doesn't seem crazy in that circumstance. Certainly one level difference seems too little. (I wouldn't go overboard for 5th level versus 6th, but overall there's a game-interest case for spreading out spells a bit, and 6th is usually pretty oversubscribed... and in any case, in SCS I nearly always use SI via sequencers and contingencies, so 5th vs 6th is irrelevant) Similar arguments apply for Pro/Elements vs SI:Evoc. Now, granted: enemy wizards are usually less affected by these restrictions than PCs: they don't tend to get attacked by mind flayers, and they tend not to be too disadvantaged by duration (though I don't use SI as a long-term buff precisely because it's got a short duration, so the duration is only irrelevant for players who choose prebuff option 1). But that's not a reason to ignore the restrictions when assigning a level to the spell, any more than the fact that enemy wizards find Fireball very hard to use compared to the player is a reason to lower its level.

Hang on, something's wrong there. Mind Blank isn't in vanilla BG2, so the fact that you give it a level higher than SI isn't independent of your antecedent belief that SI is overpowered. Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration. Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions. Put it another way. Is SI really the first spell every PC wizard memorises as soon as they get 5th level spell slots? Or even the 3rd? It's not when I play. SI:Abj and SI:Div are occasionally useful for PC wizards as part of an overall buffing pattern, but SI:Ench and SI:Evoc are rarely worth the slot and the time taken to cast them, given that any given wizard's attacks can probably be drawn from a variety of schools and given that you're only protecting one character.

Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think? Oh, that rings a bell. I use SI: Evocation occasionally too, though. I don't think I use any of the others, though I'm at work and can't readily check. On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)

Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.

SCSII uses it occasionally (1/4 of enchanters' 8th level combat slots). Variety is the spice of life.

Just to clarify: this is a list of what mods I expect to be compatible with the mod. It's not a list of mods that I'm happy being tested with the mod. For testing, I'd rather you don't have any mod installed at all (unless you're Kulyok and testing IWDNPC, or something similar). Probably minor ease-of-use mods are okay, but nothing more dramatic, please. The relevant parts of 1PP are now included in the core mod, so you don't need to (and indeed shouldn't) install 1PP. EDIT: I can live with Widescreen too, since it seems to be working okay.

The quest XP comment was facetious, to be honest - I don't actually think it does make sense to use quest XP to allow for spell selection. This is largely academic as far as SCS is concerned, for broadly the reason amanasleep gives: SCS isn't really in the business of changing XP levels, period. But someone suggested it was my call, so I thought I might as well answer. I continue to be unpersuaded that it is more effective for enemy NPCs to use summons than to use equivalent attack spells.

I'd be interested to hear the evidence that enemy spell selection is modelled through quest XP. Are you seriously proposing I should model this in SCS? (If so, it's pretty easy, in principle: a wizard whose spell selection includes a spell that summons a creature worth N experience points also yields a minus N experience point quest xp reward!) More generally, I think people are treating XP as if it's some kind of mystic energy, rather than an abstraction that represents a reward for the difficulty of the combat. Any such abstraction, applied along simple rules, is going to have occasional pathological cases that don't work properly - the monster-summoning wizard who teleports away is a case in point. But in general, not giving separate XP for summoned monsters seems to produce far fewer problematic cases than giving it.

Is it up to me? I didn't think I changed XP levels for summoned creatures? If it is up to me, expect no XP. I haven't seen a remotely convincing argument to the contrary on this thread. In particular, the double-counting argument (XP for killing summoned monsters is included implicitly in the XP for killing the summoner) doesn't seem to have been addressed. The only exception I can see is Aranthys's observation that summoning spells are substantially more powerful than other spells of the same level. I'm not convinced that's the case (whether I'd rather give an SCS enemy wizard Horrid Wilting or Summon Fiend is pretty situation-dependent) but if I were to be convinced, it's a case for altering the spell system, not the XP system.