Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Spellstrike only shows Abjuration school in description. I thought it was also Alteration?

I swear Spellstrike used to show in the description as belonging to both the Abjuration and Alteration schools, but now my description only shows Abjuration. I have SCS, BG2 Tweaks, and Scales of Balance mods installed and no change like this is mentioned in the ReadMe files for these mods. I think this may be a description bug or something when they moved from 2.0 to 3.0, anyone experience this or is it just me?


Comments

  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    I don't recall about this particular case, but it's quite possible that the devs have adjusted the school(s) of some spells. They often make various minor changes in a new patch, in search of better game balance.

  • cloudkillbeatsallcloudkillbeatsall Member Posts: 98
    http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Spell_Strike
    Says there that it's alteration too. It must have been like that at one point.

    It says that it takes down Spell Shield but if you go to that page it says it protects against Spellstrike. Odd, a bit like True Sight and Non-Detection. Which one takes precedence?

  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356

    It says that it takes down Spell Shield but if you go to that page it says it protects against Spellstrike.

    Both are true: Spellstrike takes down Spell Shield, but the Spell Shield first blocks Spellstrike from also taking down whatever other protections the target has, so that the attacker needs to cast again to take down the remaining protections.

    Odd, a bit like True Sight and Non-Detection.

    I can't quite get a handle on that one. Whether Non-Detection protects against True Sight seems to depend upon the specific type of invisibility which is active.

    JuliusBorisovDJKajuru
  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 2,770
    edited December 2016
    Technically, each spell belongs to a single school. Any mention of a second school is for flavor.

    [Deleted User]JuliusBorisov
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356

    My understanding is that it's pretty simple:
    [any kind of invisibility + non-detection] = true sight reveals you. But,
    [thief hiding in shadows + non-detection] = true sight does not reveal you.

    I thought there were also different rules for Non-Detection + invisibility caused by items (rings, SotM, etc.), no? But maybe I'm misunderstanding and over-complicating this.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • jigglefloydjigglefloyd Member Posts: 21
    edited December 2016
    Thanks for the feedback guys. I thought that it was a big bonus to have abjuration and alteration because then it would be easier to get around an immunity spell. But apparently that never actually worked.

    I am really confused about immunity spells. The description says if you have an immunity to a spell school you cannot be affected at all by them, whether it is positive or negative, so why on earth do I see all of these mages cast abjuration spell protections followed up by I: Abjuration? That makes no sense to me, shouldn't the I: Abjuration cancel the mages own spell protections?!

    If this somehow works then it seems to me that immunity: abjuration is borderline broken as the only thing that can counter your spell protections is the 8th level spell Ruby Ray of Reversal. Or did they nerf what I: abjuration really protects from?

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,727
    The main aim of Protection from Abjuration is basically to become immune to Remove/Dispel magic. This spell - Protection from Abjuration - does NOT protect from spells removing spell protections, like Spellstrike or any other similar spell.

    Remove/Dispel magic is so powerful alone (especially when casted by a high-level spellcaster, like lich) that it needs a special blocking spell.

    In order not to get your Protection from Abjuration removed by Spellstrike or any other similar spell, you have to cast Spell Shield, and to recast Spell Shield as soon as an enemy takes down your Spell Shield.

    Kuronasemiticgoddess
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • jigglefloydjigglefloyd Member Posts: 21
    edited December 2016
    @subtledoctor @JuliusBorisov I am getting a contradiction here:

    The main aim of Protection from Abjuration is basically to become immune to Remove/Dispel magic. This spell - Protection from Abjuration - does NOT protect from spells removing spell protections, like Spellstrike or any other similar spell.

    Bioware made them block ALL spells from that school, and made them selectively only block effects from the enemy. Yes - totally, utterly broken. And, it makes the "spell battle" thing go from tolerable, to completely stupid.

    So which one is it? I have heard both explanations honestly. Maybe you are both situationally correct because they have changed the mechanics of the game? How do the current mechanics work?

    Based on my testing I THINK that I took down the defenses of Kangaxx (not the demi-lich, the normal one) with a chain contingency of 3 spell pierces AFTER he did his chain contingency of a few spell protections including I: Abjuration. I proceeded to Breach him a few times and easily disposed of him (yes I have a mod that allows for this specific exception to lich immunities to spells 5th level and lower because I just think it's stupid that only breach and dispel magic can remove the physical immunity spells...moving on). So I will continue to try to look for this and test this, but if this is accurate it would match Julius' explanation.

    Maybe the vanilla game worked like subtledoctor is explaining it then the enhanced edition edited things a bit.

    Thoughts?

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,198
    I'm very happy with how Spell Revision handles things. Leaves enough wriggle room for both friends and enemies to apply their spells creatively, and I find it a good balance between actual protection and not being OP.

    Not impossible it could be tuned even further, of course.

    Demivrgvs
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 21,727
    edited December 2016
    Ruby Ray as the only spell needed to remove SI:Abj is from the Improved Anvil mod.

    Not in the base game (or the game with SCS), as I can say.

    Bookmark this - What dispels what in BG? and also this - EE Spell Combat

    Kurona
  • KuronaKurona Member Posts: 881

    Ruby Ray as the only spell needed to remove SI:Abj is from the Improved Anvil mod.

    Not in the base game (or the game with SCS), as I can say.

    Bookmark this - What dispels what in BG? and also this - EE Spell Combat

    Thank you, they are very interesting links.

    JuliusBorisov
  • AdaJAdaJ Member Posts: 154
    Technically, Spellstrike should never have been in the Alteration school. Alteration manipulates matter, which Spellstrike does not do. Spellstrike gets rid of magical protections which is right in Abjuration's area of expertise (Dispel Magic is an Abjuration).

    Gallowglass
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,301
    Shouldn't kelbens warding whip be evocation or conjuration?

  • AdaJAdaJ Member Posts: 154
    Wards and that kind of thing tends to be Abjuration also.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,301
    edited December 2016
    But it is a whip that destroys wards.

    It's like Bigby I think... So evocation?

  • AdaJAdaJ Member Posts: 154
    No. It is the intent of the spell and what it creates that governs where they fall.

    If the intent is to directly attack someone in combat, then the Force effect is likely to be a Evocation.
    If the Force effect is tangible and interacts with physical items (e.g., Mage Armour interacts with a normal sword, and an Orb of Force is a real thing) then it is likely to be a Conjuration.
    If the Force effect dispels, creates a ward of some sort (symbol, rune, etc.) or has an effect that alerts people to something (e.g., Alarm), then it is likely to be an Abjuration.

    None of this is fixed in concrete as things change between editions and sometimes the spell itself changes to the point it actually starts looking like something else (e.g., Shield spell is extremely different between 1st and subsequent editions but remains Abjuration).

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,301
    But you could evolve the spell to call a non-targetable summon (conjuration then) of which the attack effect is of the school of abjuration (and the attack cannot be blocked by any means and always hits).
    Then, would the spell still be abjuration or really conjuration?

  • AdaJAdaJ Member Posts: 154
    edited December 2016
    A Conjuration Force is not a summon. Take Evard's Black Tentacles. It is a non-targetable Conjuration Force effect that is a direct attack in combat.

    If the whip is something you can hold and use to hit someone with and remove stuff at the same time, then it could be a Conjuration.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,301
    Not sure I get the difference. Is your first example not exactly what I am suggesting? Evards is still a conjuration spell.

  • AdaJAdaJ Member Posts: 154
    Precisely. There is no hard line where things must fall into one school or another. It is really up to the author to state which is the most important part of the spell, whether it is the whip that is tangible or the dispelling effect.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,219
    edited December 2016
    Also in the case of warding whip it helps that it's described by source material (Forgotten Realms Adventures) that places it as an abjuration spell. So it's not one of the spells that was entirely made up by Bioware.

    Edit: It also lists Spellstrike as alteration. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    It looks like the reason for that is because the spell ceases to exist. So since it is changing energy/matter I can see that.

  • GalactygonGalactygon Member, Developer Posts: 410
    Here is the description of Spellstrike as taken from the Wizard's Spell Compendium. It's clearly an alteration spell and the effects (retroactively canceling another spell) are very potent.

    Spellstrike (Alteration)
    Level: 9
    Area Of Effect: Special
    Casting Time: 1
    Comp: V
    Duration: Instantaneous
    Range: 10 yds/level
    Save: None
    Description:
    This extremely powerful spell represents the height of the transmuters' craft; it permits the caster to negate the effect of a spell cast in either the previous round or the round that the spellstrike is cast.
    The caster of the spellstrike does not need to know the type of spell or magic cast the previous round, only some part of its effect. The spellstrike can be used against only one particular spell per casting.
    Spellstrike does not cause a spell to be reflected, turned, trapped, or sent elsewhere. The spell merely ceases to exist, retroactively, though it is still lost to the original caster. Even spell-like abilities are affected by this spell, though magical items and artifacts are not. Permanency is affected by spellstrike, though contingency, limited wish, and wish are not.
    Notes: Very rare spell from the Forgotten Realms setting. Known to be in the tome, Unique Mageries.

    elminster
Sign In or Register to comment.