Jump to content


Photo

SR v4 Open Beta (last update 25 December 2016)


1149 replies to this topic

#1141 Wyrd

Wyrd
  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 April 2017 - 12:25 AM

I don't remember exactly what vanilla SI: Abjuration does, but I am referring to a spell that grants the caster immunity to all dispelling attempts (but not immunity to breach) for its duration, not just against the first attempt like the new dispelling screen. There has always been one spell that did have this effect in Spell Revision, up until beta v12 or so when the new dispelling screen was implemented.

 

Now the new dispelling screen is really too cool to be changed, so I propose to add, as an optional component of course, 'dispel immunity' to spell shield. 


Edited by Wyrd, 14 April 2017 - 12:28 AM.


#1142 kreso

kreso
  • Modders
  • 2561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Istra, Croatia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 01:08 AM

I don't remember exactly what vanilla SI: Abjuration does, but I am referring to a spell that grants the caster immunity to all dispelling attempts (but not immunity to breach) for its duration, not just against the first attempt like the new dispelling screen. There has always been one spell that did have this effect in Spell Revision, up until beta v12 or so when the new dispelling screen was implemented.

 

Now the new dispelling screen is really too cool to be changed, so I propose to add, as an optional component of course, 'dispel immunity' to spell shield. 

Ok. Spell Shield to block any kind of dispelling effect. Personally I don't like it, it overlaps with DS too much, and I don't know how AI would respond to this (I'll mark it as both SI:Abj and Spell Shield). Otoh, I do fear that  new DScreen does indeed make mages suffer :D , coding this won't take longer than one minute, so you'll have it. 

Next Friday I'll upload all I manage to do.

 

On a sidenote, having seen some latest Weidu installs from BWS; it seems that BWS users will have their install busted, since SR goes so very early in the install order. Also, it can still be installed with Spellpack. While Spellpack can indeed be installed with SR, an average user will run into numerous troubles doing so. There are many things which simply overlap, some that are outright incompatible, and quite a few Spellpack spells are simply bugged and don't do what they should (at least they were the last time I checked). 

Regarding install order, it's either right before (not reccomended) or after (reccomended) Refinements. 



#1143 Wyrd

Wyrd
  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 April 2017 - 01:49 AM

Thanks a lot Kreso!  :D



#1144 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Modders
  • 1954 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:15 AM

Why not just add immunity to dispelling to Spell Trap? Spell Trap needs a buff IMHO.

Faiths & Powers: Spell spheres and kit pack for priests and paladins
Might & Guile: Tweaks and kits for warriors and rogues
Scales of Balance: Game tweaks and rule overhauls
NPC_EE: More options for NPCs in BGEE, SoD, & BG2EE


#1145 kreso

kreso
  • Modders
  • 2561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Istra, Croatia

Posted 15 April 2017 - 07:35 AM

Why not just add immunity to dispelling to Spell Trap? Spell Trap needs a buff IMHO.

Auf...Spell Trap in latest SR is litteraly a Pro Magic scroll with an added benefit - you can still cast spells through it. To bring it down you need either Spellstrike, Ruby Ray or Pierce Shield. In the absence of those three, mage is virtually untouchable by magic for it's duration. With 2+ Spell Shields memorized to protect the Trap, I don't think there's much one can do to bring this down. I don't feel this needs to be any stronger.

Spell Shield protecting vs dispels might turn out quite ok, for a number of reasons; the main being that when it comes to spell protections, Spell Shield is always destroyed first, and can be removed by any spell protection removal regardless of your other protections (like Spell Trap), even a Spell Thrust will always work.

I reckon this would make Demons slightly less game-ending for mages, since afaik only one SCS breed uses spell removals, but I may be wrong.

This doesn't bug me for gameplay reasons, it bugs me due to conceptual reasons.

I still have to check this out and how it would work with Dispelling Screen.



#1146 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Modders
  • 1954 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2017 - 08:57 AM

All good points. As I think about it more, I think it was actually Spellstrike I wanted to see buffed, not Spell Trap.

Faiths & Powers: Spell spheres and kit pack for priests and paladins
Might & Guile: Tweaks and kits for warriors and rogues
Scales of Balance: Game tweaks and rule overhauls
NPC_EE: More options for NPCs in BGEE, SoD, & BG2EE


#1147 kreso

kreso
  • Modders
  • 2561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Istra, Croatia

Posted 15 April 2017 - 09:10 AM

All good points. As I think about it more, I think it was actually Spellstrike I wanted to see buffed, not Spell Trap.

I agree, since it always seemed to me that I really want to hit the mage with Pierce Shield (which removes combat protections as well and is lower level) rather than Spellstrike. Ideas? 

100% spell failure for x rounds? (1-2-3)

Deafness? (would apply 50% failure chance; which in turn causes SCS casters to stop casting completely)

Drain spells? (this would be kinda neat I think; altough it would only work with SCS - in vanilla game casters don't really use memorized spells)

All of above, or mix&match? (i.e. 100% spell failure in first round, followed by 2 rounds of Deafness, and drain one spell from memory?)



#1148 Wyrd

Wyrd
  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 April 2017 - 12:47 AM

Adding a 100% spell failure for X rounds ihmo may lead to cycle-casting of spellstrike (you'll probably need 2-3 wizard/sorc in the party) to shut down a single powerful enemy caster since there is almost no way to protect against spellstrike. With 49% spell failure or so SCS mage would try to continue casting spells?

 

Additional Ideas:

 

a) Make it a (party friedly?) AoE (20' or 30'), add a remove magic effect (blocked by dispelling screen) coupled with the current effect of spell protection removal (blocked by spell shield as usual). Possibly rename the spell Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

 

b) As above but instead of adding a remove magic effect add a "reduce magic resistence to 0 for X (2?) rounds - a spellpierce AoE sort of. 

 

c) both magic resistence reduction and remove magic effect on top of AoE (possibly too much?)



#1149 kreso

kreso
  • Modders
  • 2561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Istra, Croatia

Posted 16 April 2017 - 01:22 AM

Adding a 100% spell failure for X rounds ihmo may lead to cycle-casting of spellstrike (you'll probably need 2-3 wizard/sorc in the party) to shut down a single powerful enemy caster since there is almost no way to protect against spellstrike. With 49% spell failure or so SCS mage would try to continue casting spells?

You'd need 2-3 casters and quite a few slots devoted to Spellstrike. It's still blocked by Spell Shield. 49% allows spellcasting, but I'd rather not put such values here. If spell failure is 100% and lasts very short (1 round?) I doubt it would be OP. I could make it's casting time shorter also, so you could use it to disrupt spellcasting. We can also add a save vs any effect we put there, if balancing is needed.

Keep in mind this is a level 9 spell. It's supposed to be very powerful.

 

 

a) Make it a (party friedly?) AoE (20' or 30'), add a remove magic effect (blocked by dispelling screen) coupled with the current effect of spell protection removal (blocked by spell shield as usual). Possibly rename the spell Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

 

b) As above but instead of adding a remove magic effect add a "reduce magic resistence to 0 for X (2?) rounds - a spellpierce AoE sort of. 

 

c) both magic resistence reduction and remove magic effect on top of AoE (possibly too much?)

a) not so straightforward and imo too complicated (i.e. remove is blocked by DS, spell removal by SS). I had an idea about MD; actually have it coded when I was tweaking mage kits).

 

b) overalaps with Pierce Magic too much

 

c) ditto above. Coding this is possible, but not imo worth it.



#1150 Wyrd

Wyrd
  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 April 2017 - 02:24 AM

 

You'd need 2-3 casters and quite a few slots devoted to Spellstrike. It's still blocked by Spell Shield. 49% allows spellcasting, but I'd rather not put such values here. If spell failure is 100% and lasts very short (1 round?) I doubt it would be OP. I could make it's casting time shorter also, so you could use it to disrupt spellcasting. We can also add a save vs any effect we put there, if balancing is needed.

Keep in mind this is a level 9 spell. It's supposed to be very powerful

 

A save to negate combined with a longer duration (3+ rounds) it's a good idea imo. Admittedly if the secondary last only 1 round, no save would probably be fine too. Personally I would prefer the former.

 

For secondary effect I'd go with 100% Spell Failure.   


Edited by Wyrd, 16 April 2017 - 02:28 AM.




Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users