pochesun

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Your description sounds about the same as mine, only that I failed to communicate Slow's...er, slow effect being subject to a saving throw. If you want to make it more 'fair', I could modify Haste to require your characters fail a saving throw to apply, .

No thx  I guess things better leave as they are

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've taken a look at Potion of Speed, and it specifically gives immunity to the arcane spell Slow. Though the description of Potion of Speed mentions that it cannot be dispelled, when this is said throughout IR/SR, it should mean by way of a generic dispel (e.g. Dispel/Remove Magic, or Carsomyr's Dispelling property), not something like Breach (or in this case, Slow). I've always intended for Potion of Speed to be countered by Slow, so I will be removing that, thanks for reporting it!

Glad it will be fixed since Haste potion seemed too OP. Does it mean that effect from Potion of Speed will be also dispelled by things like Carsomyr etc from now on?

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Slow/Haste: They both override each other equally. That is to say, a character who is currently affected by Slow who has Haste cast upon them will have the Slow dispelled and the Haste will apply, while a character who is currently affected by Haste who has Slow cast upon them will have the Haste dispelled and the Slow will apply. Though with a caveat that I just noticed: a Hasted character will always have their Haste dispelled by Slow even if they resist the saving throw (or make their magic resistance check!). I'm not sure if that last bit is really intended or not, and I'm not sure what I'd like to do about it.

Potion of Speed: Is this IRR's Potion of Speed? It should be treated the same as Haste, I think.

Yes, its IRR Potion of Speed. Please, check it, i am pretty sure Haste wont be "dispelled" or in any way replaced by Slow. I think its somehow connected with the fact that potions in IRR are not dispellable.

Regarding how Haste and Slow interract: Its not working quite the way you described, they dont override each other equally.

If my party is prebuffed with Haste spell and opponent cast Slow on my characters then 2 things happen: first Haste spell will be dispelled (100% guaranteed) from all my characters, second - then every character is checked for save vs Polymorph throws and those who failed get slowed, those who dont fail - just remain the same (not slowed, not hasted). Slow is not applied guaranteed (!). And i do like that randomness, its kinda fun and i dont think its required to be mended or altered in anyway. 

Different thing happens when my party enters the fight without any prebuffs and my opponent cast Slow spell on my party and then i cast Haste - Haste will apply on all my party members guaranteed (!). Basically Haste countering Slow is way more effective then visa versa. Thats why i said Haste > Slow, kinda unfair

@Bartimaeus wanted to ask you about slow/haste iterraction. As far as i understand Slow spell can either negate effect of Haste spell (so they cancel each other) or if a target fails save vs Breath - in addition can counter it and make the target slowed. I really like that. But when target gets slowed first via Slow spell and then i cast Haste spell on it - target always becomes hasted. So basically Haste > Slow?  Kinda unfair  

Also absolutely broken thing in my opinion - if my character imbibes Potion of speed then this character basically becomes immune to Slow spell for 1 turn - when Slow is casted on this character - nothign happens, haste effect persists.

I found an interesting interraction. If a creature covered by Obscuring Mist spell is attacked  from a distance with missile weapon (bow for instance) then the attacker receives -4 penalty to attack rolls, but if the creature covered by Obscuring Mist is protected by any antiblind effect (in my case Helm of the Watcher) and is attacked by missile from a distance then the attack is performed with no penalty  Its kinda similar to situation with rogues that can set traps when they are blinded while enemy enemy is in the vicinity. Overall - pretty insteresting mechanic   

@Bartimaeus have you managed top check Wraithform? I think it grants +4 bonus to Thac0 for projectiles also. Is it supposed to be this way or its a bug?

28 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Yes, I didn’t mention that but I agree. Actually I’m not 100% sure it wouldn’t work… but if it doesn’t work this certainly makes sense. 

At any rate all this was discussed at length around ~2010 when the mod was shifting from v3 to v4, anyone can peruse this forum and read Demi’s thoughts on the matter. 

I actually browsed for that discussion and that time people mostly referred to AoE blocking issue. Probably it was indeed the main reason.

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

If by "permanent", you mean "for the duration of the spell", then yes. The THAC0 bonus applying to ranged weapons would be an error, though.

Could you please check it, if it gives bonus +4 Thac0 to projectiles as well   i am not sure but i think it does.

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

No changes with regards to the character status names have been changed in forever, so one of those is changing them. Not sure which.

As i said, i will definitely report about it with my new fresh installation. I am playing BG 1 now and unfortunately wont have time next week but i am planning to reinstall BG2 and continue with my current run in about 2 weeks or so.  

@Bartimaeus yeah, i feel kinda stupid for that but i did not scroll down the whole description of Wraithform Spell, oops

Still the bonus Thac0 +4 remains permanent and i assume also applies to projectile attacks (like darst, for instance), though description says "any melee attack..." Is it supposed to be this way?

Regarding status: Last time i fresh installed BG with mods was 2 months ago, maybe something changed since then or some additions were made to mastery version. I only use Tweaks Anthology (nothing relating to spells, just some charachters different locations and maxed HP), SRR, IRR and SCS, nothing else. On my installation its says "Spell Immunity". I dunno, i will check it again when i fresh instlal  the mods again and tell you if it gets fixed.

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I thought it used the icon of Spell Immunity but actually said "Dispelling Screen".

Forgot to add. The game uses the same icon: icons of Sepll Immunity (from original game) and Dispelling Screen are identical. Its just that in my current game i have a status (at charachter information page) that says "spell Immunity" instead of "Dispelling screen".

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't know the official reasoning for it on the part of Demigrvs, but I have a few theories:
1. There's no way to have the "Spell Deflection Blocks AoE Spells" component work with it, I think, leaving the AI with a major gap in their defenses if they choose to memorize this instead of Spell Deflection.
2. The AI doesn't typically have all the tools that the player does: if the AI doesn't have an antimagic spell that can dispel it, its only options are to either avoid the affected character (if it has other targets available!) or to continue to cast magic at them and possibly get themselves blown up. Neither of these are great options.
3. AI will presumably choose to blow themselves up if you aren't using SCS AI.
4. It can cause dumb stuff like instantly exhausting the Spell Turning if two casters both have it running.

Its actually one of those very rare cases when i feel SR did worse by removing this spell from the game but your explanation makes sense, especially in regard to points 1 and 2. I wish though some sort of spell that reflects something back to the original caster existed in the game since its a pretty fun interraction. Also Spell turning was actually one more level of defense that a player had to breach when fighting against mages (since both deflection and turning exist in the original game), so now it makes mage fights a bit easier maybe, dunno.

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

A number of spells give that "melee touch attack" +4 THAC0 bonus, and I have to be honest, I'm not really sure what the rationale behind it is exactly, but it's a convenient excuse for making summoned weapons and miscellaneous spells like Wraithform a little more powerful.

On a side-note, I actually didn't know the invisibility state gave a +4 THAC0 bonus. That should really be noted in the description of at least second level Invisibility, where it would seem to be the most relevant.

The odd thing to me that Wraithform spell description does not mention any bonuses to Thac0 so i guess it should be mentioned so it wont be misleading  

I guess i framed it poorly also, let me rephrase it: what i meant was that a hidden or invisible creature performs any melee attack that creature receives +4 Thac0 bonus to that attack (only to that attack). Obviously if a creature remains hidden or invisible all other attacks will be performed by that creature with + 4Thac0 bonus also. But, as far as i know, this bonus +4 Thac0 is not a permanent state by any means. SO i assumed since Wraithform kinda (sort of) turns a mage into a creature without any discernable form then this mage can get similar +4 bonus to attack while being in this form - that i can understand. The thing that i failed to understand was why that + 4 bonus to Thac0 is permanent (state like effect). Thats why i think this should be mentioned in description to avoid misunderstandings.

I just noticed that Dispelling Screen imparts "spell immunity" status in charachter information screen (where all stats are and all). I presume, it happens because Dispelling Screen spell was introduced instead of Spell Immunity spell. Not sure if its important at all  Maybe it should be this way.

Also wanted to ask why Wraithform spell grants +4 bonus to Thac0 while active. I presume because it turns caster into incorporeal form which is akin to invisible (maybe) and every attack from invisibility is performed with 4 bonus to Thac0 and since Wraithform is a state effect it also gives the same "attack from invisibility" state effect? Am i wrong about it ?  

Also, i wanted to ask why Spell Turning was removed from the game by SR? Seems like very fun spell to play with.

On 3/16/2023 at 7:32 PM, subtledoctor said:

That's a good point, it could perhaps give a much larger thac0 boost to basically guarantee a hit, without making it a crit. (Maybe even reducing crit chance to balance things.) Like, instead becoming like a 1st-level fighter with high STR, an ~8-point thac0 bonus would make the mage like a 5th-level fighter with high STR.

right and i also like it short duration because it conditions a mage to subject himself to a risk while standing right behind the enemy and  casting True Strike and then performing a hit. Of course Stoneskin spell can mitigate that risk but still. And at early levels there is no stoneskin available for mage anyway.

15 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I personally use the shorter duration version that gives a +10 THAC0 bonus instead, but I have not included it in SRR. A guaranteed critical hit seems it could be...strong for backstabbing.

I actually might like shorter duration but significantly more noticable boost to Thac0 even more. Worth considering to make it that way maybe.

@Bartimaeus what would you say about my suggestion regarding True Strike i posted above? In case you missed it i repost it again here :

increase the duration of True Strike at least for 1 round (from 3 to 4). Spell is very interesting and can be useful in many situations by different class combinations and do differnt cool tricks with it (ghoul touch combo for instance etc) but, from my experience, short duration really limits its usefulness: in game, especially on high difficulty with SCS often you have to maneuver on the battlefield and waste priceless seconds of that spell while in effect. I understand that for level 1 spell it cant be too overpowered for mid game (even in late game with long duration it could be super strong) but, in my opinion, it should last a bit longer than 3 rounds.

3 minutes ago, jmerry said:

Basically (in the EE), the attacker rolls 1dN where N is the number of images, and adds the defender's luck. If that modified roll is 1 or less, the real target is hit. If that roll is 2 or more, the attack hits an image.

Some spells (there's a specific flag for it) flat out ignore mirror images and always hit the original. This is generally used for area effects like Fireball.

The easiest way to get negative luck is fatigue. Did you, by any chance, travel shortly before the Drasus encounter and accumulate fatigue that way? Or maybe one of the two mages in that encounter cast a spell that inflicted negative luck on you.

thx, good to know that formula, i was not aware it calculated that way. 

I think i did traveled quite extensively before that fight and did not rest. I usually try to play with minimum rest and rest only in taverns   I think i might have accumulated fatigue and that explains it.

14 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

There’s not really any facility to see through copies. Only thing I know of that affects images is Luck. If you have negative Luck then images don’t protect well. Positive Luck and they protect as well as Stoneskin. So watch out for enemies casting Chant or Curse or Malison. 

thx, i dont think Malison affects it though, maybe i am wrong. 

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

In BG2EE at least, not even self-targeted spells will pierce through Mirror Image (e.g. casting Flame Arrow on yourself after casting Mirror Image will likely have the flame arrow hit one of your images).

I see. I was asking cuz i was fighting Drassus party and Drassus alwas could "find and hit" the original target ignoring copies. I have no idea why was that (maybe SCS gives him ability to discern copies or something). Also in the description of the spell its said that enemies can choose the real caster among all the images but remains vague for me what precondition for that are.

Also, i would like to make suggestion: increase the duration of True Strike at least for 1 round (from 3 to 4). Spell is very interesting and can be useful in many situations by different class combinations and do differnt cool tricks with it (ghoul touch combo for instance etc) but, from my experience, short duration really limits its usefulness: in game, especially on high difficulty with SCS often you have to maneuver on the battlefield and waste priceless seconds of that spell while in effect. I understand that for level 1 spell it cant be too overpowered for mid game (even in late game with long duration it could be super strong) but, in my opinion, it should last a bit longer than 3 rounds.

@Bartimaeus i got a question about Mirror Image spell. If a mage is protected by Mirror Image it affects only enemy attacks right? Friendly creatures always can hit the original and ignore copies?

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

 

Summoned Giant Spiders from MS4, or non-summoned found in the game world?

non summoned one

non summoned one

Gian Spiders (when lay infect effect on target or throw web) say: "Your death if you dont keep still and quiet...." False string again, i presume.

12 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Elven Court Bow, Gauntlets of Gauntlets of Swordplay, Cloak of Displacement, Martial Staff, Malakar, and Malakar's Companion all use the same format:

The intended statement with Elvencraft is "you get +4 to your general AC...except not against missile weapons". With Kazgaroth, it's "you get +2 to your general AC...except actually +4 vs. missile weapons". It's a shorthand way of conveying the different AC properties without needing to add a whole separate thing about it. Item statistics should be brief where possible.

i agree that item statistics should be brief and concise but not at the expense of clarity. It just seems to me that the description of "Claw" is not 100% transparent with the brackets. WIth Elvencraft or Parrying this type of description has way more sense since its using exlusion parameter, which is more difinitive in logic. "Claw" using inclusion parameter which is more ambivalent in logic. Also brackets are usually used to clarify meaning and , in our case, it does indeed clarify, but to an extent that a person can derive from it at least 2 conclusions - item gives additional +4 vs Missile or item operates as total + 4 vs Missiles with information mentioned before (that it already gives + 2 by default). Also, to be fair, i can list 100 times more items that using description with separate clauses (in addition to the main characteristic component), like +2 vs Missile or + 3 vs slashing etc. Thats why i was kinda perplexed by that description. But, in any case, if you confirm that item "Claw" provides additional only + 2 vs Missile i will just it and cast " protection from Missiles" spell next time, just to be sure  

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I believe it's intended to be +4 total, not +4 additional. So since you already get a +2 general AC bonus...

i am not sure about that, the description is a bit misleading to be honest. Why not just put " +2 vs Missile" as any other item got?

@Bartimaeus I am not sure but i think The Claw of Kazgaroth (cursed item) grants only + 2 bonus against missile instead of +4 (as its written in desciption). Could you check it please?

small bug: for some reason a target of Greater Maloson spell is denoted as "dominated" in combat log. False strings i presume.