Jump to content


Spell Revisions & aTweaks


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 -Demivrgvs-

-Demivrgvs-
  • Guest

Posted 26 January 2016 - 07:38 AM

Is there anything on my side that needs to be done to be sure our mods are fully compatible?

 

I've just finished re-working on all summons for V4 and I while I was there I started wondering why we never really achieved 100%compatibility. I've heard many times about various issues arising when the two mods are combined but I couldn't even track them down properly.

 

Summons

What happen to them when aTweak is installed after SR? Are SR's creatures (e.g. elementals, skeleton warrior, aerial servant, shamblers, etc.) overwrote or left unchanged? What about the spell description? SR's in-game description is very detailed and would become unaccurate if the summon files gets modified or replaced.

 

A simple solution would be to let aTweak skip all summon related stuff when SR is detected.

 

Even when we have a different approach - you want 100% PnP accuracy, for me "90%" is enough if it helps the gameplay or balance - we end up with almost identical creatures anyway thus a standard player would not find summoned creatures "out of place".

 

Fiends

Here it's a bit more complicated, mostly because we both messed up with the spells themselves (you added more fiends depending on alignment, I added the Death Knight).

 

I'm open to restore vanilla's Cacofiend if it helps, but I'd really love to preserve 's Summon Death Knight (gating a Pit Fiend at lvl 13 with just a 7th lvl spell is really wrong imo). It should be easy enough to procede as suggested here, but there may be better solutions. I'm open to discuss it.

 

Regardless, we have two main options:

- aTweak skip both spell changes and summon files when SR is detected

- aTweak overwrite them all if installed after SR (but description needs to be updated please)

 

What do you think?



#2 Wisp

Wisp
  • Modder
  • 1347 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:23 PM

Is there anything on my side that needs to be done to be sure our mods are fully compatible?

I've just finished re-working on all summons for V4 and I while I was there I started wondering why we never really achieved 100%compatibility. I've heard many times about various issues arising when the two mods are combined but I couldn't even track them down properly.
I'm not aware of any outstanding compatibility problems, but maybe I'm just not informed of these things. In general, as the latter-installing mod, aTweaks tries to assume the responsibility of maintaining compatibility. My main difficulty with doing so is that I can't actively track changes in all mods (or any mod, really; I just don't have that kind of time) that aTweaks interacts with, and thus I am not aware of issues until they are reported. I have no desire for you to feel limited in your vision of what SR should be like, but if you like, a heads up when SR make major departures from the conventional game would be nice (things like removing protection from SUMMONED_DEMON from Protection from Evil or cannibalising existing spells).
Summons
In general, aTweaks overwrites SR. There are probably a few spell descriptions aTweaks needs to fix. I'll have a look. For the record, my goal is not 100 % PnP accuracy (but to the extent he still works on aTweaks, I can't speak for aVENGER).
Fiends
I forget what SR does with Cacofiend, but I'm pretty sure aTweaks is already modding it back to a fiend-summoning spell. I was originally of the opinion that Gate (Cleric) could not possibly summon different creatures than Gate (Wizard), but I suppose I've mellowed a bit. When I recode PnP Fiends to better allow it, I'll include an option of not altering Gate (Cleric) and thus preserving whatever changes SR makes.

#3 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 31 January 2016 - 02:13 AM

@Wisp thanks fr your time. The issues that from time to time arise are mostly script related, such as a summoned fiend becoming hostile toward the AI or a "friendly" Death Knight standing still without doing anything. I was never able to reproduce them myself though.

 

I have no desire for you to feel limited in your vision of what SR should be like...

Don't worry, the real restrictions come from SCS and the AI, certainly not aTweak. ;)

 

...but if you like, a heads up when SR make major departures from the conventional game would be nice (things like removing protection from SUMMONED_DEMON from Protection from Evil or cannibalising existing spells)

A level 1 spell keeping at bay demon lords is a silly game-mechanic I always despised and considering what SCS does (which I supported) I was happy to make it work the same for players. I admit this isa big deal for your PnP Fiends though. :/

 

I don't "cannibalize" spells that often, and when I do I make sure that the AI can use the new spell as if it was the previous one - standard and SCS AI never had nor will ever have an issue with this aspect of SR - but I'm here exactly because I'd like to extend that check to aTweak AI. :)

 

Summons

In general, aTweaks overwrites SR. There are probably a few spell descriptions aTweaks needs to fix. I'll have a look.

I fear this can disturb the overall consistency a bit more than just leaving summons to SR (especially if you alter both cres and spls), but if you think it's the best solution I'd like to see if we can find a way to make it not "stand out" too much.

 

For example, what do you do with Animal Summoning spells? As I said, our creatures are almost identical, but SR doesn't randomize them (e.g. ASIII always summon wolves) and SR now has an AS spell for each spell lvl from 1st to 7th. I also did the same for Monster Summoning spells.

 

Fiends

I forget what SR does with Cacofiend, but I'm pretty sure aTweaks is already modding it back to a fiend-summoning spell.

It's still a "gate" spell but I changed the school from Conjuration to Necromancy, and switched the Nabassu with a Death Knight (new cre file, I'm not overwriting the demnabsu one).

 

When I recode PnP Fiends to better allow it, I'll include an option of not altering Gate (Cleric) and thus preserving whatever changes SR makes.

That would be great. :)

 

Even More Revised Fiend Summoning

While I was documenting myself to eventually re-introduce the Nabassu I discovered I don't fully agree with what you did with these spells. I see you added an option to not tie the summoned fiend to caster's alignment which is good imo (why would a demon care about your alignment?) but finding the equivalent power lvl of a devil among demons or vice-versa is almost impossible.

 

The only easy pick is for the "top players" but even Balor and Pit Fiend aren't perfectly on the same power lvl imo (pit fiend has a bit more tools but less sheer power). On this level the difference is very small though, and thus Gate is more or less fine.

 

The Ice Devil in theory is the second in command among devils, thus the equivalent of the Marilith, while the Glabrezu is a few steps below among demons (the equivalent devil of a Bone Fiend). Things get even worse when it comes to power lvl imo, because the Gelugon (aka ce Devil) seem to be inferior to a Glabrezu within AD&D (later editions changed this), not to mention a Marilith.

 

Similarly, the Nabassu is quite superior to a Cornugon because the former special abilities (Aura of paralysis, Death Gaze, Animate Dead, Silence, Vampiric touch, energy drain on hit etc.) are waaay more threatening than the latter's ones (Aura of Fear, Lighting Bolts and chance to stun on hit).

 

What's your opinion on this matter? Add to it Yugoloths and it becomes even harder to balance each summon with each other.

 



#4 The Imp

The Imp

    Not good, see EVIL is better. You'll LIVE.

  • Member
  • 5042 posts

Posted 31 January 2016 - 04:41 AM


...but if you like, a heads up when SR make major departures from the conventional game would be nice (things like removing protection from SUMMONED_DEMON from Protection from Evil or cannibalising existing spells)

A level 1 spell keeping at bay demon lords is a silly game-mechanic I always despised and considering what SCS does (which I supported) I was happy to make it work the same for players.


So what ?
The spell cast by a devoted cleric of a GOD ! A god with hundreds of thousands followers not currently using the power generated together, but still generating their portions. Or wahteve...

The Fiend summons... to me it's best to decide an over all power of a said level gated being, and then balance them against each others, be their name a pipsqueak or Asmodeus. It's a summoned creature, which power should be relevant to the power of the summoner... unless the caster over estimated their own power, in which case there's certain slaughter to be had.

Edited by The Imp, 31 January 2016 - 04:51 AM.

Yep, Jarno Mikkola. my Mega Mod FAQ. Use of the BWS, and how to use it(scroll down that post a bit). 
OK, desert dweller, welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand. Ouh, actually it was still snow then.. but anyways.


#5 Wisp

Wisp
  • Modder
  • 1347 posts

Posted 31 January 2016 - 12:42 PM

I don't "cannibalize" spells that often, and when I do I make sure that the AI can use the new spell as if it was the previous one - standard and SCS AI never had nor will ever have an issue with this aspect of SR - but I'm here exactly because I'd like to extend that check to aTweak AI. :)
If it works for SCS, I expect it'd work for aTweaks. I probably need to do another pass for Scribe Scrolls, but that's another matter.
For example, what do you do with Animal Summoning spells? As I said, our creatures are almost identical, but SR doesn't randomize them (e.g. ASIII always summon wolves) and SR now has an AS spell for each spell lvl from 1st to 7th. I also did the same for Monster Summoning spells.
aTweaks has no reason to touch Animal/Monster Summoning at this time.
What's your opinion on this matter?
I agree the Baatezu could do with a boost.

On the subject of spell descriptions, if you don't expect the format to change from what you are using in V4, I'd be amendable to writing an alternate set of aTweaks descriptions that match the SR style. I agree it'd be quite jarring to have SR descriptions side-by-side with aTweaks' normal descriptions.