Ardanis

Did I miss something crucial, or AreaType() works? Every romance checks for !AreaType(DUNGEON), etc.

I think you only need to increase level by 1, thaco by -1, HP by 6, death/breath saves by -1.

Hadn't we agreed to grant extra XP for summoned fiends? Also, by the time the party starts encountering casters capable of three Gates in a row, I think they ought to be at least mid-level with modest selection of +3 weapons.

The only exception was Edwin's lich with Nether scroll, whom I've already reported to David as effectively preventing Edwin's quest from completion (given the amount of time it takes).

 

And, lastly, I imagine the situation can change with v4's new regular summons. If there's something else to conjure on 8th/9th levels besides fiends, that would mean one main demon aided by elementals/monsters.

can we use triggers like Range and Num to get close? we could spawn very short-lived invisible observers at X,Y offsets around each enemy with range checks for enemies and allies and increment/decrement a "good target" variable with a minimum score to fire.

Yep, it's doable in theory - check Big Picture, it uses invisible target for similar purpose. I've also been considering using a number of ground scripts to calculate the position. But in both cases it's never close to tolerable imo.

So far as my last playthrough shows, most of my high-level slots are filled with anti-wizard spells, leaving very little room for dealing with a crowd of grunts.

Spells with an outright AoE animation should be non-friendly imo. I've been playing Hellgate London last couple of days, and although a diablo game it is, still took me some time to realize I'm in no danger when walking over burning napalm I've been firing around.

 

What would making 10th level spells innate abilities entail, Demi? Would they still consume 9th level slots? What would the practical difference be? Uninterruptable?

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.

Ironskin

IR already provides enough ways for Yarpen to buff his solo fighter as if he was a first grade wizard. I'd keep all Stoneskin spell self-only. To compensate for higher slot of druid version, maybe increase the amount of skins.

 

Stone to Flesh

You probably meant to remove Stoneskin, not grant it? Except it can't work out easily.

I'd dare to suggest making Breach not affect Stoneskin too

As a player, no objections from me. Assuming we do not really care about AI other than from SCS/RR.

Agreed (this is on my to-do list too). But actually, the awkwardness in both cases is that ideally the animation should be visible when the player casts it but not when enemies do. But implementing that in SR is probably impossible. (I can do it in SCS because enemies can use modified versions of the spell.)

You can use enemy-only 177.

PS Galc was faster

Sanctuary

even the caster can't target himself.

For real? Man, that's just gross. Quoting yourself, "can we ever discover something cool, rather than something that doesn't work as expected?"

 

Okay, what if Sanctuary behaves as in vanilla, but instead is refreshed every round, so that you can perform an action and become exposed for 6 sec, and after that get shielded back?

 

Divination spells

You can't removing 'detect illusion' because then TS would be useless against invisible targets until the partially reveal themselves, and you can't have the caster ignore illusionionary protections without dispelling them.

Good point. Still, if TS removes invis, then what's (conceptually) the point of seeing through it?

Sanctuary

(2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts.

Unless I'm horribly and utterly mistaken, IDSs are static, unlike dynamic NearestEnemyOf(). You'd have to go with 2nd param of 0, protected from everyone.

 

True Seeing

Yep, I thought ignoring II should not be coupled with removing illusions.

Sanctuary

I don't mind it having both 1 casting speed and immunity to divination. If it doesn't allow any offensive move, I see little room for exploiting the spell.

 

Identify

Would it actually help to know there're dispellable effects? It probably would, were it telling exact spells active, but how'd you do that? I only can think of using a repeating EFF, guarded by another repeating shell, the latter being blockable by Identify so that the first one can speak for a brief moment. But it may have a hole or two with timing delays.

On a good side, detection can be tied to caster's level, so that they can only recognize spells they may cast.

 

PS Hm, I suppose I may try it out when I get to another round of modding/testing.

I think David was concerned like me that mid-low lvl parties can do almost nothing against rakshasas except waiting for their buffs to end (isn't it the reason behind SCS tweak to Breach?).

Until Ch.7 there're but four places with rakshasas - Sewers (easy to beat at low levels, iirc he doesn't even know PFMW), Ruhk the Transmuter in Windspear (he's almost alone), Ihtafeer's group (optional, as you can kill genies instead to complete the quest), Spellhold (he's almost alone).

So I'm largely unpersuaded there's any need to think of letting low-level party to take down a rakshasa. And against Suldanessellar's guys we already have Pierce Shield and Spellstrike. As well as Shapechange into Iron Golem

It doesn't. Presumably because you can't target a sanctuaried cre, unlike an invised one.

BEGIN_ACTION_DEFINITION
Name(SpellArea)
TRIGGER
	HaveSpell(scsargument1)
	scsspellsubstitute2
	!CheckStatGT(scstarget,0,SANCTUARY)
	CheckStatLT(Myself,50,SPELLFAILUREMAGE)
	!CheckStat(scstarget,2,WIZARD_SPELL_TRAP) // PM scroll
ACTION
	RESPONSE #scsprob1
	ApplySpellRES("dw#mgsee",Myself)
	SetGlobalTimer("castspell","LOCALS",6)
	Spell(scstarget,scsargument1)
END

1) we'd create a case where even if SI:Div makes you invulnerable to Divination spells a Divination spell works against it

I think it's from the same category of things as SI:Alt and Timestop.

 

Agains liches and rakshasas instead it's a whole different story, not to mention the formers are also immune to cleric/druid's TS, and the latters to wizard's 6th lvl version too (making SI:Div "redundant" for them ).

Imo that's one more reason to change TS - same spell behaving differently when used by different classes.

 

b) there's no way I can convince you replacing those damn liches/rakshasas immunities with 50% and 75% magic resistance respectively (which is kinda my dream )

NEVAA-AAR!!!

That's the only trait making them unique and dangerous opponents, otherwise they're no different from drow wizards. Not to mention it a PnP feature

True Sight

Perhaps I missed it, but what do you think about adding "invisible detection by script" to an existing divination spell (Ardanis suggested TS)? I personally am not so convinced about it, but it could work for you.

 

I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea.

But what ill consequences it could create?

 

What I have initially suggested was to make a divination spell (either by altering TS or by introducing another one and swapping names with TS) capable of only detecting-invis-by-script, without any kind of dispelling enemy's illusionary protections. Only caster can target the invisible opponent with spells, not their party.

 

to keep things brief, it is "bad" that anti-magic behaves as an anti-magic "field" rather than targeted at a specific mage. when fighting multi-mage battles (ex. cowled mages), it is not ideal that I can target all mages in a certain radius with a single spell

Agreed. When we've been discussing whether or not liches should be vulnerable to <6 antimagic, I always thought it was wrong thing to do. Although in case of II it's more like a technical necessity than a concept change.

 

 

Breach

One thing I'd personally do anyway (whatever you decide) is to make Fireshields and Blade Barriers not affected by it (it seems right, and it doesn't affect your AI scripts judging by what you said). It would be great to remove "armor spells" from this list too (you seemed to agree), but I really cannot see how we could justify it if we keep the current "concept", thus they'd have to stay.

As I've said above in here, neither FS/BB nor armor spells grant immunity to anything, they simply increase AC/res by set value. Whereas PFMW and ProEnergy families do, in fact, provide immunity to certain types of attack, the former to weapons, the latter to magical. And seeing how one of Breach's defining features in PnP is removing natural immunities, I think such explanation would work fine.

 

Pierce Shield can still be used to remove all protections in the same manner as Breach has in the past, and its higher level makes stripping every single combat protection more reasonable.

I had the same thought. If we need to lower MR, there's a specially designed spell for that, while for antimagic attacks removing elemental immunities makes much better sense than lowering MR a bit for no apparent benefit.

 

Priests

As a (role-)player I have no problem if they can use Contingency.

 

And since Harm/Slay Living have been mentioned... Several months ago Demi has shared with me a thought about improving the Cause Wounds family - instead of requiring a to-hit roll, they would be treated as a generic spell attack, much like beholders' Cause Serious Wound ray. I also recall that in NWN2 Harm wasn't a touch spell either.

 

 

PS My, it's five pages of heavy arguing already!

shame on you, Ardanis. cheating is a bad thing:)

Show you face, cowardly guest, so that I can slap it!

Cheating there is purely technical, since what I've offered for explanamation of the phenomena strikes me as fair and reasonable.

 

We were talking about theoretical situation of fight between wizard and warrior. In IWD that'd be fair duel (wizard can make himself invisible, teleport and stuff to evade fighter's blow) - but in BG2 it's very one-sided.

Personally, I prefer BG version. Going invisible and buffing up imo is cheap and at the very least less fair than PFMW.

I've played NWN2 and my FM had two duels with fighters. Quite disappointing it was, as it looked beyond silly, because I'm supposed to fight a duel, yet I have to run away like a coward instead of doing what FM is supposed to do - laugh at their feeble attacks while wasting their lives.

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.

FS/BB's main purpose is to inflict damage, their protective abilities come as a free bonus. Like Tenser, which increases AC/hp, but isn't counted as defense.

 

Armor spells - they don't grant immunity like anti-weapon or anti-elemental magic. Same can also be said about FS/BB.

 

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?

I have brought it up too in the past. But it is possible to build up lots of protections, so that it would take several Breaches to bring down the most annoying one. Only ProElements/Energy are higher level than PFMW, but Stoneskin (and PFM) can be hidden beneath layers of other defenses.

 

Yes, I use it quite a bit that way. Pro/ME, in particular, is heavily prioritised for Breaching, because it protects from Horrid Wilting.

You do, though from my playing experience I have an impression left that it doesn't help as much as it probably was intended. Plus iirc it prioritizes Breach over Abi-Dalzim, which imo is doubtful as there may be other targets susceptible to the latter.

 

 

You forgot about a) most of protection spells will make wizard invincible for few rounds b) during which he can cast sh*tstorm of disabling/damaging/slaying spells.

Not quite. It's been awhile since I've played the time before the last one, but eventually I've re-developed my tactical skill and started bringing enemy wizards down in a very short time.

First thing first, having 2-3 arcane users really helps at speeding up the process of eliminating spell protections. And if you have only one, then really it's a fair duel, where you may lose only because an enemy is higher in level than your mage - even then, staying on the edge of visible range and using fighters as a meatshield helps to keep that lone wizard safe and dangerous.

And later on, you don't even need 2. I had Imoen to cast Timestop, Spellstrike the target during it, cast TS if it's not there yet, possibly toss some AoE the enemy (or it's simulacra) is vulnerable to, hit them with Staff of Magi, ready a Breach - voila. I had easy time defeating Yaga-Shura's mage leutenant and Gromnir's duo, despite the rather unsafe and chaotic situation on the battlefield.

 

 

PS

Well, after release of IR3 I will try to make solo fighter game with IR + SR + some of Kit Revision changes and maybe custom item.

That custom item is gonna have 'fighters rule' effect while equipped, isn't it?

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?)

The idea is to block one antimagic attack - a protection removal or RM/DM. Although I see a possibility of granting it an actual immunity to RM as it currently is with SI:Abj. Imo it's reasonable for antimagic defense to be stronger than a generic dispel.

 

What's your estimate, how long do spellcasters usually last against a better-than-average player?

Not long for me. If party comes in prepared to fight a wizard, the latter goes down on 6-8 round for sure. First 1-3 rounds (depending on how many antimagic can party toss in a round) are dedicated to stripping him off his spell protections, then TS and Breach, then wizards uses his Trigger, another round is spent to deal with renewed defences, then it's over.

I usually have three arcane users (FM, Edwin/Imoen, Haerdalis), so they can tear anything apart in a matter of seconds. For a single mage in a party, things will be tougher.

 

 

Well, I personally have no problem if enemy wizards receive few more memorized spells than their level permits. This way their 'scroll' spells can also be interrupted as they should be, and the lack of extra loot is easily explained by items' fragility, like in the case with potions.

AC spells

Not long ago Ardanis suggested me to make Ghost Armor and Spirit Armor improve with caster level (as per SR's Mage Armor), and that could be a solution.

I'd make Mage Armor to improve in duration, but not AC bonus. Spirit Armor - up to -4 AC (+5 fullplate) at 20th level. Ghost - mmm, why not to go a-la Barkskin and simply add AC instead of setting it?

For what it's worth, I've aslo suggested to double AC bonus from Mantles - to 6 and 8 respectively.

 

Breach

I've voiced my opinion sometime ago, that I find it incredibly powerful even without piercing spell protections.

 

If it is restricted to combat protections, there'd be nothing to remove specific ones with... Not that I mind much. Say what, specific protections are mainly anti-magical, right? So, since we have Pierce Shield removing combats, then why not to allow Pierce Magic to remove specifics?

 

Still, I have some worries about compatibility with AI mods, should Breach become anti-combat only...

 

what do you do to simulate immunity to Remove Magic?

Spell Shield.

On that basis, a high-level caster casting Remove Magic is cheap.

I fully agree. A lich stripping every last buff from everyone not protected by SI:Abj is near the top in my 'most annoying things in BG' list.

 

I would in fact appreciate the following tweak to both dispels - one is a single target spell and uses the caster level check, while another is party-friendly AoE and uses a save.

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?)

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.

I too have grown to see arcane magic as less supportive than it's divine counterpart, so I's try to avoid duplicating CC in wizard's spellbook, unless it is worse in some regard. MB is ok, since it uses much much more expensive slot than CC.

And then, does anybody remember Spell Immunity and the idea to remove it from the game? In this light, MB makes a perfect substitute for SI:Ench.

Animate Dead, Banishment, (Limited) Wish, Meteor Swarm are all in v4's todo list.

 

Disintegrate

In vanilla game it was killing outright, not dealing high damage that could still be survived. However, this spell is now much more effective against bosses, because they're generally immune to instant death, but not to magic damage. Slight nerf may be needed.

 

Greater Globe of Invulnerability

It's not so useless, as it provides immunity to Chaos (an excellent way to deal with wizards) and Breach.

This spell may also slightly confuse AI, because it can't distinguish Minor/Normal/Greater Globes from each other. GGoI has a little counter to it, because atm it counts as Spell Deflection by Detectable Spells, but still that's confusing a bit for AI. Otoh, why not, since it's not too radical.

 

Mind Blank

Dunno if that's in the list, and I personally am indifferent about it, so decide without me.

 

Ice Storm

Good point.

Seeing as how one half finds it reasonable and another - absurb, I'm pretty sure an optional component would satisfy everybody.