Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Spell Revisions beta15

124»

Comments

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    For the TS caster only, I think full creature immunity a la Pro Undead scroll is appropriate. But even for allies, I think illusionary creatures should be seriously weakened. As I'm thinking about it, here's what I would (will) do:
    - Glow, to be identifiable as illusions. (I haven't changed Demi's code, I don't remember what it looks like... but I would ideally make this a ghostly green.)
    - Big Luck penalty, so they do minimum physical damage and take maximum spell damage (simulates being weakened)
    - Deafness, for a (practically speaking) incurable 50% chance of casting failure...
    and/or
    - Big caster level penalty, ideally dropping them to caster level 1, so they always cast the weakest versions of spells. (Planar Prison Warden's PI can only shoot one Magic Missile, etc.)

    Grammarsalad
  • XlatocXlatoc Member Posts: 48
    Aasim wrote: »
    Xlatoc wrote: »
    Where can you find the latest Spell Revision for EE ?
    On Gibberling, the only one I found is a BG2.
    I found somewhere a mod called SR_Revised....would it be that one ?

    Thanks....sorry for the inconvenience.

    You can find it on my desktop. :)
    It's generally the best idea to get it from Github. Link.

    Thanks !
    Not always easy to find the latest...spelling must be super precise :)

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,509
    edited June 2019
    Okay, here are the two proposals so far:
    Aasim wrote: »
    I want to implement some stat bonuses for save vs x spells/breath/death. How much bonus should be allowed?
    example; for save vs spells (usually Enchantments)

    WIS stat BONUS
    1-3 autofail?
    4-5 -3
    6-7 -2
    8-9 -1
    10-11 0
    11-12 1
    13-14 2
    14-15 3
    16-17 4
    18-19 5
    20-21 6

    etc.
    Reasonable?
    I can make regular saving throw tables "worse" so this ends up being quite balanced but what I'm worried about is that this will promote powergaming and all PCs would end up with 95+ stats.
    Note that AI will use same rules, i.e. a high WIS fighter would be much harder to Charm than a low WIS one.
    Grond0 wrote: »
    @Aasim the bonuses for wisdom from 2nd edition rules are in the BG2 manual (though were not implemented in the final game) and you could consider using those as a base.
    3 -3
    4 -2
    5-7 -1
    8-14 0
    15 +1
    16 +2
    17 +3
    18-25 +4

    I agree that might result in powergamers seeking ever higher stat totals. However, it would also greatly reduce the tendency to regard wisdom as a dump stat - which would be a good thing.

    @Grond0 s proposal, perhaps slightly modified, is a bit more workable, though both are doable. This is what I have come up with (just need to tidy up a bit).

    Each affected spell will cast as normal against creatures with no modifier. Against creatures with exceptional (i.e. high or low) attributes, the spell will cast a more or less powerful version of itself*, and the creature will be unaffected by other affects. That is, first effects will be 326s that cast spells based on the attribute score of the target iff the target has an exceptional relevant attribute. Next will be 318s that make those exceptional creatures immune to the base spell (i.e. the next, original spell effects). Finally, the spell will work as normal (i.e. only affecting creatures with the average +0 range attribute).

    Now, even with grond0s version, this involves creating 7 secondary spells for each affected spell. But, will the more 3e version, this number jumps up to...looks like 12 secondary spells. What about something like this:


    <6: -2 or auto fail
    6-8: -1
    9-14: 0
    15: +1
    16: +2
    17: +3
    18-19: +4
    20+: +5

    This keeps the number of secondary spells at 7, discourage dumping the relevant stats below 6 (maybe only auto fail for wis as that's the primary concern) and gives some reason for even non priests to think about getting a higher than average wis.

    *Happily, this will mean that the save modifiers will just be modified. That is, a spell that already imposes a -6 to save will still do that. The modifier would just also be adjusted by the relevant attribute of the target

    Post edited by Grammarsalad on
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    edited June 2019
    Aasim wrote: »
    As per Haste - I've browsed a lot of creatures in this game and the effects they have on. While this may be a really daring idea, I think it's probably the best solution (and the most fair towards player, since enemies with this effect don't use +movement/+apr opcodes; what now SR uses).
    Haste is back to what it was in the original game; with 2 changes

    1) fatigue opcode is gone completely (just forces resting, making the spell useless)
    2) it's duration is shortened to 1 turn

    Big Brother Imp.Haste - for 5 rounds, attack rate doubled. I'm still kind of split on duration (3,4 or 5 rounds)

    Boots of Speed/Grandmaster armor - they now apply haste effect to user. This is what was used in the original BG1 game.
    Advantages - nothing stacks anymore. (IR Oil of Spees would be tweaked in the same manner, i.e. single-target haste effect). No warp speed for player anymore (I'm intolerant to 4x movement speed being available).
    While having permanent haste may seem OP- you don't get Boots of Speed that quickly, there isn't an unlimited number of them, and when you can get more than 2 (ToB) this is hardly an issue anymore.
    In BG1 you get 2 pairs - Cloakwood mine and (if you kill him) the thief with Marek
    BG2 - Slot machine in Spellhold, Planar Prison, Renal Bloodscalp (if you kill him) - but I think you can only do this in CH.6

    ToB - Illasera, Saradush store, Amkethran store

    Using Haste opcode may make some spells more effetive (Blade Barrier and the like) but I can live with that, these spells aren't that powerful with SR.
    Slow effect will "supress" the Haste from boots, even with permanent/while equipped timing.
    This is the best solution I can think of. I'm not sure how Demi would feel about this, but I'm really worn out trying to balance Oils, spells and boots. Currenty the player under Haste is at a big disadvantage vs enemies with permanent haste effect (gains +4 MS, while enemy speed is doubled so has cca +9). Now, if you use both Oil and spell this is kinda even. If you add boots, you're faster. If you add Whirlwind, you're even quicker. :(
    It's just - complicated to balance out.
    This solution fixes *every little issue*. And makes it fair.

    Is this for the official IR/SR? Are you still trying to code for both EE and non-EE? Because in the EE balancing the actual Haste effect with +movement effects and +APR effects sould be as simple as
    - add a spellstate for the +move/+APR items and spells
    - add couple 318 effects on each item and spell, filtering by STATE_HASTED and SPELLSTATE_IR_SR_HASTE
    - Bob's your uncle

    OTOH I see your reasoning here, especially if you are bound to make it work on the savage old engine where such filtering is impossible.

    BUT - 5 pairs of boots of speed with Haste is crazy. I would mod some of them to be something different. Also, Imp. Haste doubling attacks carries the old problem of, it's amazing for fighters but terrible for nonwarriors.

    If Haste is going to be party-wide, and grant a full +1 APR, then I would make balance it.
    - Very short duration. 1 turn is longer than most combats! I'd say maybe 4-5 rounds.* (4 rounds works fine for Haer'Dalis!) I guess people who like to spend 12 rounds pre-buffing wouldn't like this, but a) that is silly and unnecessary; and b) they can just use Oils of Speed in that case.
    - 2-point to-hit penalty and 1-point AC penalty, for being a surge of speed that's difficult to control.
    - And the penalties should last a couple rounds after the benefits expire, as you adjust to being normal speed again.
    - Maybe even add a base movement penalty (-2) so the resulting total movement speed is not so extreme.

    Improved Haste, for being limited to 1 person, could be without those penalties.
    - Normal Haste + 1 extra APR
    - No combat penalties
    - Lasts longer - a full 10 rounds

    Sigh. The more I talk about this the more I see that I'm probably going to make my own Haste-centric mod, just like I did for invisibility spells and for simulacrum spells...

    * Frankly most spell durations in the game are way, way too long. I've been experimenting with drastically reducing them, to between 3-4 rounds (Haste, Confusion, Hold, Slow) and 6-7 rounds (Bless, Malison, fog spells). The game actually plays really well this way. If disabling spells hit they still meaningfully turn the tide of battle, but they are not as likely to mean instant death - which means they don't step on the toes of actual instant death spells as much. The main problem I've had is that it's really hard to adjust spell durations in a programmatic way - some subspells and internal game spells get affected that you don't want to be affected. And doing it spell-by-spell would be a minor nightmare.

  • ArthasArthas Member Posts: 1,091
    Woah. Reading that spell duration is too long is a first. I actually wanted to ask around a spell mod to make buff and debuff spells to last 3x, 4x the amount they last now. It's really obnoxious when you cast chant, then 3-4 spells more and you are then without chant and so on. Or was it bless? Well you got it.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    edited June 2019
    Arthas wrote: »
    Woah. Reading that spell duration is too long is a first. I actually wanted to ask around a spell mod to make buff and debuff spells to last 3x, 4x the amount they last now. It's really obnoxious when you cast chant, then 3-4 spells more and you are then without chant and so on. Or was it bless? Well you got it.

    SR already makes a lot of buff spells last 2 turns or 5 turns, and IR makes most potions do the same. But again it boils down to how you view this sort of thing:

    - I have 27 buffing spells in my spellbook, and my metagame knowledge tells me that an enemy is behind this door, so I am going to make sure my whole party is covered by all 27 buffs before I open the door.

    - Some of my buffing spells are designed to last a long time (say, something like Bless, maybe Globe of Invulnerability, etc.), but others work by providing a surge in combat effectiveness, to shift the momentum of the encounter (stuff like Haste, DUHM, etc.) I'll only spend a few rounds buffing - a couple spells and a couple potions - and then I'll deploy the "surge"-style bonuses as needed, depending on how things are going. IOt's an overall nerf to casters, since they will need to do more in combat but still only be able to cast once every 6 seconds. But let's be honest, casters need a bit of a nerf in this regard.

    I much prefer the latter method, so reduced durations of some spells works better for me. Plus, I like the idea of buffs expiring - of your effectiveness dwindling and resources being exhausted if you take too long to prevail. It adds an edge of desperation to fights that is really fun.

    More than buffs, though, it is disablers that need reduced durations. Like I said, instant death should primarily be for instant death spells. Spells that hinder enemies should give an advantage - not a win. You should still need to exploit that advantage. And it works both ways. Spells that generally mean reloading could instead mean taking 24 seconds of increasing damage and disadvantage, but then allow you to rally and still prevail. The result is less reloading, plus the occasional dramatic come-from-behind win. Which again, make the game more fun.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591

    Is this for the official IR/SR? Are you still trying to code for both EE and non-EE? Because in the EE balancing the actual Haste effect with +movement effects and +APR effects sould be as simple as
    - add a spellstate for the +move/+APR items and spells
    - add couple 318 effects on each item and spell, filtering by STATE_HASTED and SPELLSTATE_IR_SR_HASTE
    - Bob's your uncle

    "Actual" Haste effect doesn't exist in Revisions currently. I'm restoring it for fair play and my mental health sake. Everything is handled via extra apr/movement bonus currently.
    Thing is, Haste opcode is still in the game and is used by enemies. This puts things to be fair and on even ground.

    BUT - 5 pairs of boots of speed with Haste is crazy. I would mod some of them to be something different. Also, Imp. Haste doubling attacks carries the old problem of, it's amazing for fighters but terrible for nonwarriors.

    Lol. The difference is usually 0.5 apr. Only case you'll get a full extra apr is if your number of attacks is 1, 2, 3 or 4.
    It doesn't double your apr; in most cases it will add 1/2 to your apr, rounding it up.
    Modding these I suggested almost 10 years ago (to Boots of Reflex +1 dex, +2 breath save) - Demi was very much against it - so....back to BG1 variant, probably the most balanced ever tbh.
    As per "5 pairs is crazy"....eh. You get 5, indeed - 2 in late SoA, 3 in ToB. I doubt this will have a major; if any; effect on gameplay - other than preventing players from running at 4x speed.
    Which no enemy can do! (bar certain Rogue Rebalancing characters who use Oils and Boots with ms bonus)

    If Haste is going to be party-wide, and grant a full +1 APR, then I would make balance it.
    - Very short duration. 1 turn is longer than most combats!

    Haste already is party wide in SR; and it will remain as such. It will work just as vanilla version does, w/o fatigue opcode and will last 1 turn. As per "battles are shorter than that" - I assure you, they're not. Don't judge things by BG1 standards.
    Oil of Speed is 1 turn as well.
    Nerfing it to much hurts the AI probably more, so no can do.
    Imp.Haste is like vanilla, with duration toned down to 5 rounds flat.
    - 2-point to-hit penalty and 1-point AC penalty, for being a surge of speed that's difficult to control.
    - And the penalties should last a couple rounds after the benefits expire, as you adjust to being normal speed again.
    - Maybe even add a base movement penalty (-2) so the resulting total movement speed is not so extreme.

    This is somewhat SRv3 Haste, bar the penalties to THAC0 and AC while you're hasted. Didn't like it, tbh.
    Oil of speed should give these penalties, no? Would you add them to the boots?
    And you've got hasted enemies (via opcode); so why not apply these to them? Take Mellisan as example. She's premanently hasted. If you give this malus to her - she will desperately try to remove it with "Divine Cleansing" ability since her THAC0 will be worse than it should be, and she ckecks for that.
    I hope you see what I mean by "fair play"...
    Sigh. The more I talk about this the more I see that I'm probably going to make my own Haste-centric mod, just like I did for invisibility spells and for simulacrum spells...

    GL. :) Mind you; I'm always curious about people's opinion on Boots of Speed + Haste stacks. I do remember a post from Alesia at Bioware forums - "....they allow a non-mage/scroll user character to solo Ascension".
    I have nothing more to add to this. They r THAT broken. Not even Staff of Magi does that for you.

    My tweak to it does the following:

    1) players can move at non-hasted or hasted rate. You cannot go above hasted anymore, unlike now (be it vanilla or IR/SR install)
    2) equal resources for AI and player. No more double standards where AI gets haste opcode and you get a pale mimickry of it.
    3) you cannot outrun a spell anymore or kite as efficently
    4) while being under permanent haste effect has it's flaws (some spells work better); enemies benefit from this same as you. And it's not that drastic of a buff - most of the fights you'll be under Haste anyway. In ToB, haste is a joke. It will give you 0.5 apr total. So your barbarian will be attacking with 3 apr rather than 5/2....woo-hoo.
    * Frankly most spell durations in the game are way, way too long. I've been experimenting with drastically reducing them, to between 3-4 rounds (Haste, Confusion, Hold, Slow) and 6-7 rounds (Bless, Malison, fog spells). The game actually plays really well this way. If disabling spells hit they still meaningfully turn the tide of battle, but they are not as likely to mean instant death - which means they don't step on the toes of actual instant death spells as much. The main problem I've had is that it's really hard to adjust spell durations in a programmatic way - some subspells and internal game spells get affected that you don't want to be affected. And doing it spell-by-spell would be a minor nightmare.

    I'm more in "buffs should last until dispelled" camp tbh - buffing prior to battle gets tedious work.
    Most of SR debuffs have direct counters, so I'm kinda fine with them. Toning buff duration means less effective AI, and the whole "counter x with y" SR has going would be made redundant. Why waste a round casting Break Enchantment when Confusion will expire in 2 rounds? :)
    Also, it promotes cheesy gameplay where you wait for enemy buffs to expire rather than using your resources to actually play the game in a more sensible manner.
    (fwiw, I don't really care about how someone plays the game - it's just that I have no interest in promoting and catering this kind of gameplay, let alone modding around it to make it more convinient for the player. If I'm annoyed by AI behavior, I'd prefer to CTRL-T/R/Y rather than juking around until buffs expire, or not use AI mods at all.)

    Arthas
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,419
    Aasim wrote: »
    I'm always curious about people's opinion on Boots of Speed + Haste stacks. I do remember a post from Alesia at Bioware forums - "....they allow a non-mage/scroll user character to solo Ascension".
    I have nothing more to add to this. They r THAT broken. Not even Staff of Magi does that for you.

    Personally, I don't see what's wrong with moving at 4x speed. Even at normal speed, it's possible to kite enemies by having enemies chase one character who runs around while the rest of the party shoots at the enemies. The most mundane way to diminish kiting is to give more enemies ways of threatening characters at long range, like ranged weapons.

    Since some people don't like Haste and Boots of Speed stacking and other people are fine with it, it should be an optional component.

    Arthas
  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    OlvynChuru wrote: »
    Personally, I don't see what's wrong with moving at 4x speed.

    I could go on ages about why I think current EE implementation of speed boots is beyond broken; but let's put it this way - BG2 is usually described as a strategy RPG based on 2nd editon ruleset.
    Boot01.itm turns it into a game that I can only describe as a point'n'click arcade adventure.
    While I don't like PoE2 or Neverwinter; there is one thing they did right - turning your back on an oponnent in combat is the last thing you want to do.

    Arthas
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    edited June 2019
    Aasim wrote: »
    "Actual" Haste effect doesn't exist in Revisions currently. I'm restoring it for fair play and my mental health sake. Everything is handled via extra apr/movement bonus currently.

    I know. I like that. :wink:
    Aasim wrote: »
    Thing is, Haste opcode is still in the game and is used by enemies. This puts things to be fair and on even ground.

    I mean, that is easy enough to address if it comes to it.
    Aasim wrote: »
    I'm always curious about people's opinion on Boots of Speed + Haste stacks. I do remember a post from Alesia at Bioware forums - "....they allow a non-mage/scroll user character to solo Ascension".
    I have nothing more to add to this. They r THAT broken. Not even Staff of Magi does that for you.

    I don't think anyone's in favor of having them stack. I'm saying we can do a more thorough job of making sure they don't stack. Though, again, I guess that could be significantly harder on the original engine.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    Though, again, I guess that could be significantly harder on the original engine.

    I can't make things work drastically different for EE users. I can and am willing to make them work better on EE (I've added 2,500 code lines that get parsed only on EEs, and will likely add 2k more) but they're mostly "quality of life" improvements, not fundamental changes to how game plays.

  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,419
    I don't think anyone's in favor of having them stack.

    I am.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    edited June 2019
    Aasim wrote: »
    Though, again, I guess that could be significantly harder on the original engine.

    I can't make things work drastically different for EE users. I can and am willing to make them work better on EE (I've added 2,500 code lines that get parsed only on EEs, and will likely add 2k more) but they're mostly "quality of life" improvements, not fundamental changes to how game plays.

    ...Which is why it makes sense for me to roll my own alternative, since I have no problem making little add-on mods specifically targeting the EE games.

    Conveniently, if you just make everything use the Haste opcode, that makes it a lot easier for me to alter things later. The only thing that makes me really sad is that I had been syncing up the movement bonuses from abilities in my mod, like rangers/barbarians/monks movement, to match SI/IR Haste effects. So you could have a ranger and a monk and 4 others with Boots of Speed, and everyone would move at the same speed. Nice and convenient. Moving SR/IR back to the Haste opcode raises the prospect of different party member moving at all different speeds again, which I hate. But I'm not going to give monks and rangers double movement speed - that's insane.

    That's why I suggest applying a small movement penalty before the Haste effect. A -2 penalty plus Haste equals a +5 bonus overall (I think - something close to that anyway). Which is reasonable. And it would be quite easy to CLONE_EFFECT it to every creature and item that already has Haste effects, so everything is nice and uniform.

  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    That's why I suggest applying a small movement penalty before the Haste effect. A -2 penalty plus Haste equals a +5 bonus overall (I think - something close to that anyway). Which is reasonable.

    Say hello to Free Action, which makes one immune to movement penalty.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    Aasim wrote: »
    That's why I suggest applying a small movement penalty before the Haste effect. A -2 penalty plus Haste equals a +5 bonus overall (I think - something close to that anyway). Which is reasonable.

    Say hello to Free Action, which makes one immune to movement penalty.

    There are two movement modifier opcodes in the game for precisely that reason...

  • polymorphedsquirrelpolymorphedsquirrel Member Posts: 114
    Is there a reason why Monster summoning X (spwi906) is commented out in beta16? Because it breaks IWD spells component of SCS for me (SCS sees spell revisions and wants to use 906, which it can't find).

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    Is there a reason why Monster summoning X (spwi906) is commented out in beta16? Because it breaks IWD spells component of SCS for me (SCS sees spell revisions and wants to use 906, which it can't find).

    They tried out an MS9 spell in 4b15, but pretty much everybody said it was bad. Discussion did not turn up a suitable replacement (yet?). So the spell was removed in 4b16, pending a final decision. I personally maintain that there does not need to be a MS9 spell, and that an extraplanar summoning spell can take its place. But again, there is no final decision yet. From what I here kreso is working on 4b17, so we'll see what happens there.

    @DavidW might be interested in this if he is working on a possible SCS v32.5. In the meantime, you can install the attached hotfix as a very quick-and-dirty compatibility solution. (It just copies MS8 over as spwi906.spl, so anyone scripted to cast the nonexistent MS9 will summon umber hulks.)

    Depending on what SCS does with the spell, it might be necessary to install this before SCS...

  • polymorphedsquirrelpolymorphedsquirrel Member Posts: 114
    And what will blow up if I simply uncommented that portion of main_component.tpa?
    I am in no rush, as I have a whole BG1 and SoD to play before encountering the spell (I have no idea why SCS needed a Lvl9 spell in BG1, but I am too afraid to ask).

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,460
    edited August 2019
    And what will blow up if I simply uncommented that portion of main_component.tpa?

    I don't know what is commented out, so I don't know. Best-case scenario, you get a summon spell that was hated by everyone who played with it. (Basilisks, I think?)

    For me, I would just substitute umber hulks there, with this hotfix.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,509
    edited August 2019
    And what will blow up if I simply uncommented that portion of main_component.tpa?
    I am in no rush, as I have a whole BG1 and SoD to play before encountering the spell (I have no idea why SCS needed a Lvl9 spell in BG1, but I am too afraid to ask).

    Maybe nothing(?) It depends if there are any missing resources.you would find out really quick as the install would choke. In that case, you could just get them from an earlier version. You would just need to put them in the right folder. The error message should tell you which folder that is

    @Aasim

    Just about finished with that code. Everything is automated except any spell that summons a magic weapon. That requires at least one more level of reading and patching. Got a bit burned out with it but I'll finish it soon.

    Edit: I think the last response here is the most recent version:

    https://github.com/Grammarsalad/Casting_Attributes/issues/5

  • DavidWDavidW Member Posts: 729
    I don’t need it really - it’s just less bug-prone if I install the whole system even on BGEE.

  • PandemicLegionPandemicLegion Member Posts: 37
    I got a conflict on my EE Mod Setup Tool.
    SCS Smarter Mages Conflict with Spell Revision v4 pre release. ->Smarter Mages: stratagems (component 6030) is conflicting with spell_rev (component 0) or d0questpack (component 0). <-

  • Cure critical wounds requires clicking on the target's avatar - clicking the target's portrait for some reason doesn't work. I am not 100% sure it's SR - but if memory serves me right SCS won't make its modifications if it sees SR and FnP is unlikely to touch that bit.

  • Luke93Luke93 Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 1,299
    edited December 2019
    Cure critical wounds requires clicking on the target's avatar - clicking the target's portrait for some reason doesn't work.

    This does sound like a touchscreen issue... Are you perhaps playing on an iPad? For some reason, the game doesn't always register a tap on a side portrait....

  • Yes, iPad, sorry. I did think it's a touch issue (a tap and longer press have different effects by design), so it took me a long time to actually discover this. I am positive the behaviour is different than for lower level healing spells, which always work if I take care with precise presses, while I never were able to do this with Critical Wounds.

    I do understand that iPad touch interface complicates things making debugging very difficult, but maybe there is something dofferent about this spell comparing to those from lower levels?

Sign In or Register to comment.