Jump to content

DavidW

Gibberlings
  • Posts

    6,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DavidW

  1. Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)Wouldn't a working concentration check help in this regard? I Probably, but that's much too radical a change for me to assume it in core SCS scripting.
  2. Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)? Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)
  3. Chant's casting time was 1 round even in vanilla, thus I assume SCS knows what it does when it uses it. Or is tactically unwise: most of my testing was with prebuff on, at least for clerics. But in any case, this isn't SR's problem as it's true in vanilla too. That wasn't quite what I meant. The annoyance isn't the need to sleep to regain contingencies, it's the need to mess with your spell choices, sleep, then mess with them again. I'm forever forgetting to change them back, and it's terribly faffy. (Of course, you'd want to sleep twice in general anyway, so as not to lose slots.) I don't ultimately think it's too important, but on balance I'd keep it at once/day. That also ameliorates the combat-casting issue.
  4. It does use it if SR is installed (as of the latest version of SCS).Ohh, cool. Do you prefer it to remain untouched then? For preference, yes. (Otherwise high-level priests will cast it at themselves.) Ok, you're right, I'll re-formulate my statement: making them innates usable at will is a huge boost for roleplayers. For all other players such tweak simply removes the annoying routine of resting twice, and implementing it actually makes both roleplayers and power players on the same ground. I guess this tweak would make no difference for SCS because you already doesn't count contingencies and triggers for AI controlled mages' spell per day limit right? Thus implementing it would actually be a plus for roleplayers in this case, because they wouldn't feel "cheated" by SCS relying so much and so easily on them. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's correct (with the proviso that I'm not sure the roleplayers should feel cheated: for most wizards in BG2 there's little reason to think that they use their sequencers every day, so chances are they last refreshed them several rests ago.) If you really want to, get the spell to summon an invisible creature that kills or otherwise inconveniences the player if it sees enemies. (But since it's fairly obviously an exploit, you could just put "cannot be cast in combat" in the description and rely on the honour system.) The only time is beholders, yes (since they float above webs and so are immune to them). I'm not horrified by losing the ability to do it, though.
  5. What if I want to install some of the optional components from ToBEx? Then you'll need to install ToBEx itself. (Technically you could just edit the relevant .ini file, but that's probably a recipe for trouble unless you know what you're doing. 19. (But if you have a newer version, SCS2 won't overwrite it.)
  6. Actually its vanilla version doesn't bypass PfMW (the orb is considered a +6 weapon), but it bypasses Absolute Immunity (this spell really sucks in vanilla). That being said, I obviously agree it should bypass them but implementing it is kinda complicated (though doable). Long story short, as long as we can do it without hurting the AI (afaik it never uses it) I'd actually remove the whole "create a weapon like item" part, and make it work much like a normal spell with a single target. It does use it if SR is installed (as of the latest version of SCS). Well, the animation is a leftover of vanilla's spell, but if we prefer to remove it I'm not strictly attached to it. It's nice to know where it is, though. Does it actually boost mages? It only makes a difference in situations which are time-critical, i.e. where resting twice isn't an option. There are few or none of those in the game.
  7. SCS and SCSII, as of v17, take advantage of Ascension64's "Throne of Bhaal Extender" (ToBEx), which is a sophisticated program for fixing some problems with the Infinity Engine and adding a bit of improved capability. ToBEx installation is handled automatically by SCS(II). You don't need to install ToBEx separately. (If you already have an up-to-date version of ToBEx installed, SCS(II) will just skip installing it.) In other words, if you don't even know what ToBEx is, don't worry about it. You don't need to do anything, it all gets dealt with behind the scenes. If for some reason you don't want to have SCSII make use of ToBEx, edit scs/scs.ini or scsii/scsii.ini (as appropriate) and add this line: Disable_ToBEx 1 SCS(II) will then attempt to do some backup hacking of the BGMAIN.EXE file to make up for the lack of ToBEx. If you don't want that either, add this line: Disable_Hacks_If_ToBEx_Skipped 1 Nothing catastrophic will happen if you don't use ToBEx (or the hacks), but some features of the mod will work less smoothly. (Dispel Magic will be too effective; Mirror Image will provide protection from area-effect magic; antimagic spells will only imperfectly target invisible creatures; mages' concentration will be slightly too easy to disrupt.)
  8. Funny you should say that.
  9. I agree with the general sentiment, but as a matter of pedantry, vanilla game resources don't care if you register a prefix or not
  10. I don't think so. (As an aside, this is an interesting example of how what people think of as "realism" is so varied. I have mild realism angst about creatures being immune to an inhaled toxin just because they use an injected one, and exterminators across the world can testify that poison gas works on poisonous invertebrates. But I can't say it's something I'm going to lose sleep over.)
  11. Great, I think that's very appropriate. I don't think there's any need to (though: feel free to do so if you've got other reasons to). There's more than one kind of poison.
  12. It doesn't break any rule, actually, it just gives others the option to break it.Isn't it the same? If you use it, you do it to break a rule, it has no other purpose. Well, my point wasn't very deep - I just mean that an added flag that allows a spell to bypass invisibility no more breaks a rule than the existing flag that allows spells to bypass MR does. It just increases the range of tools available to modders. Of course, you're right that it would be fairly pointless to deliberately install that flag unless you intended to use it. (But I can envisage a time when there's a core chunk of ToBEx that just does fixes and engine expansions, and there'd be no reason not to include this flag in that core.) I already have code to let spell removals bypass invisibility without using AoE (invisible-creature hackery, basically). If I can manage it, I'll get that component to detect the ToBEx component, take advantage of it if it's installed, and fall back on the invisible-creature method if it isn't. And I'll carry on supporting AoE on legacy grounds. My advice for SR is that you should entirely ignore my bypass-invisibility needs. Unless you do something very wild to the spell, my code can still add invisibility-penetration to an SR-modified spell just as readily as a vanilla one. There's no reason to mirror SCS spell changes in SR unless you actually like them yourself.
  13. It doesn't break any rule, actually, it just gives others the option to break it. (i.e., this increases engine functionality but doesn't of itself change any in-game behaviour.)
  14. No: that's the opposite of my point, in fact. I didn't see any game-balance reason for the change, so I wanted to check if there was one I was missing or it was purely driven by concerns of realism. I don't think I'll dignify that with an answer.
  15. Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW Since ADHW doesn't exist, and neither do sword-shaped planes of force, obviously it isn't real. I assume you mean "realistic". In which case, I don't recall claiming that it was. This doesn't obviously have relevance to my question. To recall the context: I asked if the proposed change to ADHW is based on realism rather than gameplay. You suggested that it was based on "PnP rules and common sense". I asked how your "common sense" differs from my "realism". I'm happy to believe you did intend some serious point by the term, and weren't just resorting to hyperbole, but the question stands.
  16. Yes it is. Volume 2 of the Priest Spell Compendium. And I don't think it's that big of a deal. IIRC there aren't that many deities with access to the Time sphere, and most that do have access to it are restricted from other useful spells from different spheres. Of course, introducing it into BG2 would clash with the ingame implementation of Wish, given the nature of the game. But complaining against something that hasn't been done seems moot. My fault, I was thinking we were talking about arcane spells. Found it. It would have some limits compared to Wish, because it wouldn't be usable during a fight (the targets really sleeps for 1 hour) and cannot be used more than once per day...still, a 2nd lvl spell which grants full rest and refreshed spells/abilities to the entire party is outstandingly broken imo (especially in BG because its limits would count nothing in such environment). (Sorry for iterated posting; only just saw this.) Actually, I think in BG it would be pretty harmless: hardly any BG2 encounters are time-critical.
  17. Don't stress it on my account. I'm not particularly in favour of this personally, but the only major consequence for SCS scripting is that wizards will erroneously avoid using their Flame Arrow and Acid Arrow spells on high-MR targets. On ADHW, ultimately it's your call. There's nothing mysterious as to what this will do in an SCS context: wizards will tend to use ADHW on suboptimal targets, which will have varying levels of consequence depending on party strategy and how large the combat zone is. I'm reasonably confident that will have a visible effect in some situations, occasionally causing a caster to do something foolish. I'm also reasonably confident that it won't be massively widespread, and won't be dramatic in its effect on wizard efficacy. Within those parameters, do as you will. There are SR changes that will have no negative impact on an SCS install; this isn't one of them. There are SR changes that will break SCS, this isn't one either. (It's also likely that the next SCS release will be significantly more sensitive to whether SR is installed, so that's also a reason to err on the side of being gung-ho in changes. I don't support changes to the core antimagic/magic defence system, and I wouldn't support any change that I thought was completely daft, but this isn't either of those.)
  18. While I don't have any problem with writing a PnP mod, it's a non sequitur to go from "players generally prefer to remain more true to the system they are familiar with" to "PnP is the baseline". BG2's system is not a verbatim port of 2nd edition AD&D. It's pretty closely based on it, but it imports both modifications from 3rd edition (e.g. Holy Smite) and many changes based on the needs of a CRPG (such as ADHW being party-friendly). There are plenty of players who are familiar with BG2 but not at all with 2nd edition AD&D, and there are plenty more (like me) who are familiar with both but are relaxed about the fact that they're different, though related, systems. The problem with this is that none of the AI (not SCS, not Tactics, not vanilla) knows this, and so it all treats ADHW as what it game-mechanically is (and how it's used in vanilla BG2): a straightforward, magic-damage-inflicting attack. This isn't critical, but it's likely to be visible, and it's certainly exploitable, accidentally or deliberately. (Swords remain my most pressing concern.)
  19. I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.) I take it this is a change based on PnP rules AND common sense. Perhaps you could clarify how your "common sense" is intended to differ from my "realism".
  20. Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield. I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.)
  21. Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors. Jokes aside, my point was that having the AI summon a Pit Fiend with 100% chance of it not turning hostile to his summoner is fine, but three would make really hard to believe imo. I hear what you're saying but I don't agree.
  22. Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors. Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile. This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.
  23. I'm not so worried about players becoming more effective. But I think this will be seriously useful to enemy wizards. 9th level spell slots are a fairly significant constraint on my scripting. (That's only an issue as and when I take SR properly into account, but doing so has got most of the way to the top of my to-do list.)
  24. In NWN epic spells weren't consuming any slots. Same here - you pick an epic spell, it appears in your innate bar, while all 9th slots are used for memorizing 9th only spells. Careful with this change. Wizards could end up with a lot more high-level spells, and they're arguably powerful enough as it is.
  25. Re Sunfire: the fact that the caster is immune is a significant advantage over Fireball when used by enemy wizards. Even non-Globed wizards can use it. (Of course, that's somewhat less crucial when it's used by a PC: as usual, party-unfriendly or caster-unfriendly spells are significantly more useful in the hands of the PC than of the computer.)
×
×
  • Create New...