Dispel/Remove topic (continued from SCS forum)

[kreso]

One last daring idea I had was to make it counter only 1 combat and 1 specific protection per cast, but while it could be balanced on paper, I fear it would screw the AI and just force it to spam Breach multiple times.

 

This. AI needs this spell working as it does.

 

 

Remove Magic

Again, the concept is crucial. I don't think we can take an arbitrary list of spells we wish to not be dispellable imo. Except very rare cases (e.g. a curse effect - Malison?) magic is dispellable per definition within D&D lore.

Do note that if target is Malisoned/under Insect spell/disabled SCS won't actually use dispels on it ("emberassing to remove your own debuffs").

 

 

The problem isn't RM potential to affect any spell, but rather that RM affects all spells at once, on a large friendly AoE. Unfortunately I cannot make it work as the AoE variant of PnP Dispel Magic (aka affect only one spell for each target), but we can limit its AoE.

 

It would be great if the %-based check is made vs each buff, yes. A daring approach would be to change Dispels/Remove magic mechanics completely. (example - it always removes one specific/combat/whatever buff). Mayhap this would actually make it more balanced overall - neither PCs nor AI would have the edge due to level difference....

I don't know.

 

@Kreso, does SCS need its AoE, or does it check for a single target with ongoing buffs? I suppose the latter.

Single target. AoE is just icing on the cake I guess. But this is a huge, huge nerf to the spell. Who would ever pick it?

 

Last but not least, I'll think about tweaking Dispelling Screen like you guys are talking about or offering something similar, but I'm not convinced yet.

Tell you what. I'll upload my tweak as a "mini-mod" tonight. People will (I guess) try it; presumably write a thing or two about it.

I'm not convinced about it either, tbh.

[kreso]

Actually, RM must be kept AoE - sometimes (say in case of vanilla Pro Undead scroll, approaching enemies under invisibility etc.) AI will cast this spell on themselves to remove the buffs from the party.

[Ardanis]

It would be great if the %-based check is made vs each buff, yes.

 

Can be simulated with EE's opcode 321, although it would take target's level into account, rather than spell's original caster. But hey, still better than it currently is, if you ask me.

[toxin]

Actually, RM must be kept AoE - sometimes (say in case of vanilla Pro Undead scroll, approaching enemies under invisibility etc.) AI will cast this spell on themselves to remove the buffs from the party.

Perhaps DM could be kept AoE and in these situations the AI will pick it over RM, paying the price of possibly dispelling some of its own buffs for the benefit of a more powerful spell (OP relative to PnP at least).

 

It would be great if the %-based check is made vs each buff

 

Why is this so important? Like I mentioned in the other thread, the chances of dispelling each given bluff are exactly the same.

[Ardanis]

Why is this so important? Like I mentioned in the other thread, the chances of dispelling each given bluff are exactly the same.

 

Because it's all of nothing, rather than mean distribution. The same problem would occur if e.g. there were only thaco/ac progression, but not HP/damage - the outcome of combat would be determined by one (un)lucky roll.

[kreso]

 

Actually, RM must be kept AoE - sometimes (say in case of vanilla Pro Undead scroll, approaching enemies under invisibility etc.) AI will cast this spell on themselves to remove the buffs from the party.

Perhaps DM could be kept AoE and in these situations the AI will pick it over RM, paying the price of possibly dispelling some of its own buffs for the benefit of a more powerful spell (OP relative to PnP at least).

Not really doable or reccomended. AI doesn't use Dispels since targeting such stuff correctly is impossible.

 

 

 

It would be great if the %-based check is made vs each buff

 

Why is this so important? Like I mentioned in the other thread, the chances of dispelling each given bluff are exactly the same.

 

Bluff?

Example:

PC buffs his cleric with Bless, Aid, CC, DW. Gets hit by Remove. Current situation is if dispel check is succesfull, all buffs (cast from specific caster) are gone.

What would probably be better is that dispel check is made against each buff sperately. So he could loose Bless & CC, but would keep DW & Aid.

[cipher]

Perhaps DM could be kept AoE and in these situations the AI will pick it over RM, paying the price of possibly dispelling some of its own buffs for the benefit of a more powerful spell (OP relative to PnP at least).

That would mean changing the SCS scripts. Not a trivial task in the first place and something outside SR's scope.

 

Why is this so important? Like I mentioned in the other thread, the chances of dispelling each given bluff are exactly the same.

Assume a mage casts Haste and Shield on him. Another mage of the same level casts RM. Now there's 50% chance to remove both buffs and 50% to remove none.

If the check was done on each buff separately the probabilities would be 50% to remove each one, which means 50% * 50% = 25% to remove both. See how it goes?

 

 

buffs removed       all | either | none
check/caster        50% |    0%  |  50%
check/buff          25% |   50%  |  25%

The more buffs added in the mix the higher the probability for something to remain behind.

 

 

Also I think the discussion is heading towards a solution that could be worse than the current implementation. I'm trying to approach this from both perspectives, player and AI, of how the game would be affected and so far, in theory at lest, it doesn't seems like an improvement to the gameplay.

 

If Breach removed 1+1 protections only, that'd mean all the 5th level slots of any mage would be filled with that spell only. Unless you rest spam before every encounter, which is something I deeply dislike and simply don't do.*

Similarly if the whole deal becomes a too tight game of rock, paper, scissors of protections/removals, it will become annoying far too quickly. There must be some overlap between removals to allow for variation.

 

I still haven't changed my mind, RM is stupid. But that doesn't mean I would change it for something worse. As much a no-brainer that might be, I think it needs to be said.

[subtledoctor]

Breach

I did asked DavidW to let me "nerf" Breach, but I couldn't do much about it. I made few things like Fire Shield and Blade Barrier not affected by it, with his consensus, but I simply cannot remove Stoneskin, CC, DW, ProEnergy from it.

Wha?? Flame Sheld and Blade Barrier are precisely the sort of stuff I think Breach *should* remove - combat-specific buffs that you need to get out of the way so your fighter buddy can start thwacking the target with a sword.

 

Whereas, Death Ward and Chaotic Commands... I don't see the purpose of them being breachable. In fact I don't see the purpose of them being *detectable.* How does someone know you have a Mind Shield up - is there a glowing sphere around your head? (How could you see through that?)

 

Detectable Spells is wonderful, a great innovation for AI in this engine... but, that doesn't mean it HAS to work with everything in the game. Just because peanut butter is wonderful doesn't mean you need to put peanut butter on everything (sirloin with peanut butter, oysters with peanut butter, pizza with peanut butter... yecch.)

[AstroBryGuy]

 

Unfortunately I cannot make it work as the AoE variant of PnP Dispel Magic (aka affect only one spell for each target), but we can limit its AoE

 

If we can't make the AoE version work properly, why not just convert it to the single-target variant?

Limiting the AoE of RM/DM is great, but still more powerful than PnP (we are basically taking the single-target version and applying it to multiple targets).

 

 

I've been following this thread, and there are some really interesting ideas! But this statement has me confused. To what "single-target variant" of Dispel Magic in PnP are you referring? The dispel magic from the PHB is just AoE (30 ft cube), and the AoE is full effect (although you can cast it on an item to temporarily disable it).

[toxin]

I've been following this thread, and there are some really interesting ideas! But this statement has me confused. To what "single-target variant" of Dispel Magic in PnP are you referring? The dispel magic from the PHB is just AoE (30 ft cube), and the AoE is full effect (although you can cast it on an item to temporarily disable it).

 

I'm talking about this: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm

My apologies if this is not what is generally meant by "PnP", I am not very knowledgeable in this area.

 

The more buffs added in the mix the higher the probability for something to remain behind.

 

The complement, of course, is also true - the more buffs added to the mix, the lower the probability they all stay behind.

I'll say it again - for any given buff, the probability for it to remain after DM/RM is exactly the same.

It's just a matter of distribution, but I can see how the per-buff check can lead to more varied/interesting outcomes.

[kreso]

Detectable Spells is wonderful, a great innovation for AI in this engine... but, that doesn't mean it HAS to work with everything in the game. Just because peanut butter is wonderful doesn't mean you need to put peanut butter on everything (sirloin with peanut butter, oysters with peanut butter, pizza with peanut butter... yecch.)

There was a (lenghty) discussion about this last time DavidW was around. I could live with such things; but Chaotic Command (and DW as well) protect from so many things that either AI will behave really stupid or they must remain as they are.

An alternate solution (and one I'd actually like & code myself if neccecary) is this:

- both Chaotic Commands & Death Ward are "non-detectable" by AI (example of why I think this is good: a character with Death Ward will *never* get hit by Finger of Death; which pretty much ruins the "job" of this spell in the first place). I'm well aware of AI limitations with this, but see further:

- each attack vs them (Charm Person, Confusion etc. vs ChaoticCommands; Finger of Death/Disintegrate etc. vs Death Ward) has about 50% (or 100%?) chance to "remove it".

 

I think this would lead to a much more immersive & exciting gameplay than what SCS currently offers.

[toxin]

each attack vs them (Charm Person, Confusion etc. vs ChaoticCommands; Finger of Death/Disintegrate etc. vs Death Ward) has about 50% (or 100%?) chance to "remove it".

 

SCS does something similar with beholders:

Beholder eyestalk rays ought to be able to work their way through Spell Turning spells and the like: a few beholder rays ought to be enough to overwhelm a Spell Turning spell (and for that reason, beholders are scripted to use their rays even on protected characters). However, for whatever reason this doesn't seem to work very well in-game. So instead, beholder rays now have a random chance (thirty percent) of dispelling a spell protection on contact; this should work out, on average, to the same thing. This is optional: you can choose whether or not to let beholder rays "burn through" defences in this way.

 

So definitely an interesting option.

[kreso]

So definitely an interesting option.

 

 

I think so as well. We could even make low level spells like Charm Person have a low chance (30% or so) while high-end stuff like PW:Stun demolishing Chaotic Commands with a 100% probability.

 

SCS does something similar with beholders:

 

Beholder eyestalk rays

 

I wouldn't really compare Beholders with mages (they shoot like a freakin machine gun!) but the concept isn't new, agreed.

[toxin]

We could even make low level spells like Charm Person have a low chance (30% or so) while high-end stuff like PW:Stun demolishing Chaotic Commands with a 100% probability.

 

Definitely. Though if this behavior is in place, IMO DM/RM should not remove such protections. Otherwise the AI might detect a completely different buff, fire RM to remove it, and end up dispelling something like CC "for free".

[kreso]

Oh no, I definitely wouldn't touch Dispels, sorry. I wouldn't allow Breach to take them down (it's broken enough as it is), but dispel is... a dispel.

Meanwhile, I've made the mod (AoE Dispel Screen). Uploading as soon as I make sure it works properly...