GameBanshee Forums

It seems that certain monsters like liches (even low level ones like the nether scroll lich) and rakshasas are immune to the 5th level mage spell lower resistance. If I try to use it I just get a message saying "spell ineffective". It doesn't mention these exceptions in the spell description unfortunately. The description claims that it bypasses both saves and magic resistance checks. So maybe spell immunities are considered different from magic resistance? Can anyone confirm this? Seems like a pretty subtle distinction between resistance to the spells themselves and resistance to magic. The cleric spell magic resistance also doesn't work against these foes BTW. I get the same "spell ineffective" message.

I also have the improved item description mod/patch installed. The description still doesn't mention that some monsters are immune to the spell. They didn't have to list which monsters are immune even. Just mention that some are. Someone mentioned that liches are immune to all spells 6th level and below and rakshasas to all spells 8th level and below. And if iirc demi-liches are immune to all spells below 9th level. I realize that there are other innate immunities also not mentioned in the spell descriptions but few are as strategically important as lower resistance.

[Makes me wonder how tough a high level rakshasa could be. So far I have only encountered low level ones (ihtafeer, ruhk) who are relatively easy to defeat even for an 8th level party if you have fighters like kensais or berserkers who haven't dualed yet. I wonder what a 30th level rakshasa would be like. Probably lots of fun.]

So are there any other monsters in the game (SoA and/or ToB) that are innately immune to this 5th level mage spell?

This kind of info is very useful to me since I play strategically (never liked the story much anyway). So it is frustrating for strategic 'power gaming' to have inaccurate or misleading spell descriptions. Sometimes certain spell effects are the entire reason I have chosen a particular character or party. I hate getting to level 18 or so only to realize that my insect plagues for instance no longer work even when combined with lower resistance which so often doesn't seem to work either. Or playing a berserker/cleric just for harm and then realizing that the spell just stops being effective at some point in the game (maybe the monsters' AC was just getting too low for my cleric's thaco).

Welcome to Gamebanshee.

gojirasan wrote:Someone mentioned that liches are immune to all spells 6th level and below and rakshasas to all spells 8th level and below. And if iirc demi-liches are immune to all spells below 9th level.

That's your answer. If a creature is immune to all spells below 9th level, that means every spell, including Lower Resistance. I don't think it's necessary for every spell description to include the disclaimer, "This spell will not affect creatures that are immune to all spells below 9th level."

Besides, there are exceptions. For example, demi-liches are not immune to fire. So any spell that actually creates fire (as opposed to a spell that specifically targets the opponent with fire damage) will hurt a demi-lich. This applies to spells such as Melf's Minute Meteors, which creates little fiery objects that you can throw at the demi-lich, just as you can hurt a demi-lich with a Sunstone Bullet +1 (at least if it's launched with a +4 or better sling). You can't expect a spell description or an item description to tell you everything.

Also, spells such as True Seeing and True Sight will dispel any illusion spells cast by a lich, such as Mislead. An Inquisitor's Dispel Magic ability will also remove their protection spells.

gojirasan wrote:I realize that there are other innate immunities also not mentioned in the spell descriptions but few are as strategically important as lower resistance.

Breach is also a strategically important spell, but rakshasas and liches are also immune to that one.

Many monsters are immune to other effects such as Timestop, Deathbringer Assault, Slay Living, Finger of Death, Harm, hold and charm spells, fear, petrification, disintegration, etc. There was one particularly frustrating monster in BG1 (a Greater Wolfwere) that was immune to weapons that were not made of silver. Only three weapons in the game were made of silver, and none of them could be wielded by a single-class or multi-class Cleric since they were all edged weapons. Unfortunately, monsters don't come with descriptions of what they are immune to. You have to keep trying until you figure something out.

As Imoen says when one of her attacks is ineffective, "Try something else." Rakshasas are not immune to +3 swords or Greater Deathblow, and demi-liches are not immune to Turn Undead (when cast by a 27th level Cleric), the Improved Mace of Disruption +2, Sunray, or Dragon's Breath.

gojirasan wrote:[Makes me wonder how tough a high level rakshasa could be. So far I have only encountered low level ones (ihtafeer, ruhk) who are relatively easy to defeat even for an 8th level party if you have fighters like kensais or berserkers who haven't dualed yet. I wonder what a 30th level rakshasa would be like. Probably lots of fun.]

To the best of my knowledge, all rakshasas are either 9th level or 11th creatures. (They are not considered Mages in the same way your own characters are.) In other words, you might call them "11 hit dice creatures". That's why you can kill them instantly with Greater Deathblow. Throw a Fireseed at a group of them while under the effect of Greater Deathblow and watch all of them fall to the ground. Kind of takes the fun out of those "high level encounters", doesn't it?

gojirasan wrote:So are there any other monsters in the game (SoA and/or ToB) that are innately immune to this 5th level mage spell?

I realize that this is your main question, but I can't think of any other monsters that are innately immune to all spells below a certain level.

Personally, I don't think it matters much. As I indicated above, many monsters have immunity to many different effects, which makes all of them challenging in their own right. Those immunities would be even more difficult to catalogue.

It should be noted that some opponents have the ability to cast Spell Immunity: Abjuration, which will prevent spells from the school of Abjuration (such as Lower Resistance) from taking effect. (However, I think an Inquisitor's Dispel Magic ability will dispel the spell immunity.) Similarly, spells such as Spell Deflection will absorb a few spells, including Lower Resistance, thus protecting your opponent from them.

There are some things you just have to learn as you play.

VonDondu wrote:To the best of my knowledge, all rakshasas are either 9th level or 11th creatures. (They are not considered Mages in the same way your own characters are.) In other words, you might call them "11 hit dice creatures". That's why you can kill them instantly with Greater Deathblow. Throw a Fireseed at a group of them while under the effect of Greater Deathblow and watch all of them fall to the ground. Kind of takes the fun out of those "high level encounters", doesn't it?

Well, Rakshasas are only in SoA, and Greater Deathblow is introduced first in ToB. You're not supposed to run around with that ability that early.

VonDondu wrote:It seems that certain monsters like liches (even low level ones like the nether scroll lich) and rakshasas are immune to the 5th level mage spell lower resistance. If I try to use it I just get a message saying "spell ineffective". It doesn't mention these exceptions in the spell description unfortunately. The description claims that it bypasses both saves and magic resistance checks. So maybe spell immunities are considered different from magic resistance? Can anyone confirm this? Seems like a pretty subtle distinction between resistance to the spells themselves and resistance to magic. The cleric spell magic resistance also doesn't work against these foes BTW. I get the same "spell ineffective" message.

If you fight against a monster that has magic resistance you'll get the "Magical Resistance" note instead of "Spell Ineffective." "Magical Resistance" can be lowered, "Spell Ineffective" is some soft of immunity - some can be dispelled, some can't.

It's a huge part of the game to know what creatures are immune to what kind of weapons/spells/spell schools/elements and such. The first times around it can be really frustrated to figure out, but don't be afraid to ask. As long as you keep a versatile party around, ie not 5 kensais and a thief, it shouldn't be that tricky.

I see you already know a bunch though, I didn't even know that Rakshasas were immune to spells below a certain level, they don't really prove a challenge anymore and you meet so few of them. ^_^

Whoa, slow a bit there, because while most of the info is correct, there are several misdirections here

VonDondu wrote:Welcome to Gamebanshee.

Besides, there are exceptions. For example, demi-liches are not immune to fire. So any spell that actually creates fire (as opposed to a spell that specifically targets the opponent with fire damage) will hurt a demi-lich. This applies to spells such as Melf's Minute Meteors, which creates little fiery objects that you can throw at the demi-lich, just as you can hurt a demi-lich with a Sunstone Bullet +1 (at least if it's launched with a +4 or better sling). You can't expect a spell description or an item description to tell you everything.

Demi Liches are not immune to Fire. Right. But Melf's Minute Meteors, when thrown, actually don't deal Fire damage, but rather release a 3rd level spell which deals Fire damage. So, Demi-Liches are not immune to MMM's(+6 weapon), but are immune to its fire effect.

A Sunstone Bullet will do nothing to a Demi-Lich. Because it is considered to be of +1 enchantment. When calculating the degree of enchantment, it is always the missile projectile that does matter, and never the launcher. There are launchers which does not require ammo to work, in that case the projectile is considered of the same enchantment as the launcher's.

Demi-Lich can be killed, however, by fire-damaging HLA wizard spells such as Dragon Breath or Comet. Because Demi-Liches are not immune to 10lvl spells.

Thrifalas wrote:

If you fight against a monster that has magic resistance you'll get the "Magical Resistance" note instead of "Spell Ineffective." "Magical Resistance" can be lowered, "Spell Ineffective" is some soft of immunity - some can be dispelled, some can't.

This is quite mixed up. Now there are three types of immunities that I can think of:

Magic Resistance - when your spell does nothing and the dialogue box says "Magic Resistance" - meaning your spell was foiled due to an enemy's Magic Resistance. Use Lower Resistance and similar spells to punch through that.

Magical Damage Resistance - much like Fire or Cold damage resistance, this is when you hit an enemy with spells that deal Magical damage such as Magic Missile, Skull Trap, Vampiric Touch, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, Holy Smite and so on. In this case, you'll receive the note "..... was immune to my damage", meaning that your enemy is immune to this type of damage and you should try a different type of damage spells. Maybe Fire or Acid, or Poison, or Cold.

Immunity to certain spell levels - this was explained above and involves immunity to several spell levels. The mentioned above monsters, plus Demogogron in Watcher's Keep(immune to 5lvl and below) and The Ravager(same here), are the only ones that will give the Spell Ineffective message. The other exception is if an enemy mage is under some sort of protective spell, in which case you'll get the same message. For instance, if an enemy is protected via Chaotic Commands and you try to Maze him, you'll get that message. Same happens when you release an Incendiary Cloud or Fireball on an enemy mage, protected with Spell Immunity: Evocation. In this case, try a different spell school. For instance, most mages protect themselves from Evocation spells, but there is a third-level damaging AoE spell from the Necromancy school called Skull Trap, so I kill them with that.

VonDondu wrote:Welcome to Gamebanshee.


It should be noted that some opponents have the ability to cast Spell Immunity: Abjuration, which will prevent spells from the school of Abjuration (such as Lower Resistance) from taking effect. (However, I think an Inquisitor's Dispel Magic ability will dispel the spell immunity.) Similarly, spells such as Spell Deflection will absorb a few spells, including Lower Resistance, thus protecting your opponent from them.

There are some things you just have to learn as you play.

Indeed, SI: Abjuration, should work this way. Actually, it doesn't. SI: Abjuration does not protect versus Abjuration spells like Breach, Lower Resistance, Pierce Magic, Khelben's Warding Whip, Spell Thrust, Secret Word, Pierce Shield and SpellStrike. In fact it should, and should only be removed by Ruby Ray of Reversal, which is the only one Alteration spell removal. I think that the Improved Anvil mod corrects that, but it also has a lot of other changes, so I'd not recommend it to a new player.

SI: Abjuration is essential however, since it stops an enemy Remove Magic or Dispel Magic.

Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap will not help versus the spells I listed above. The only spell which provides with protection in this case is Spell Shield, and the protection lasts until removed by the first spell from the listed above. Spell Shield will not be removed by a successful Remove/Dispel magic however.

Spell Turning helps versus Breach if released by a wand. There was a tweak somewhere which allowed Spell Turning to deflect any Breach spells, as was a tweak of Breach being able to affect Liches and Rakshasa by the way.

Remove/Dispel Magic(even Inquisitors) will not dispel Spell Immunity/Turning/Deflection/Trap/Shield.

Thrifalas wrote:Well, Rakshasas are only in SoA, and Greater Deathblow is introduced first in ToB. You're not supposed to run around with that ability that early.

Incorrect, HLAs are available in SoA, in fact I usually start getting them shortly after entering the Underdark.

@ Saros

A Sunstone Bullet will do nothing to a Demi-Lich. Because it is considered to be of +1 enchantment.

Also incorrect, whilst their THACO is only +1, they are +4 for purposes of what they can hit.

So it is frustrating for strategic 'power gaming' to have inaccurate or misleading spell descriptions.

Indeed. The [url="http://members.chello.nl/~j.vanthull/BG2SR/Main.htm"]BG2 Spells Reference[/url] can help you. (Nearly) All you could possibly want to know about BG2 spells, including a complete [url="http://members.chello.nl/~j.vanthull/BG2SR/Immunities.htm"]list of immunities[/url]. See also here for [url="http://members.chello.nl/~j.vanthull/BG2SR/Stuff/IEImmunities.txt"]overcompleteness[/url].

Liches, Rakshasas and Demiliches are protected by (undroppable) items that grant them (undispellable) protection to spell levels 5, 7 resp. 9 and lower. Their protections work exactly like Globes of Invulnerability that protect them from spells of the respective level, so all that is true for the Globe of Invulnerability applies to their protections as well.

Lark

I seem to remember breach working against liches no problem. Keldorn's high level dispel also works no problem these are 5th and 3rd level spells respectively. Is there anything I'm missing here?? These spells, especially breach seem to take away at least some of the liches protections making it hitable with magic weapons.

galraen wrote:Incorrect, HLAs are available in SoA, in fact I usually start getting them shortly after entering the Underdark.

That doesn't change the fact that you're not SUPPOSED to run around with it. Please read and understand my posts before saying that they're incorrect.

@ Thrifalas

I read it as 'not getting Greater Deathblow until you get to ToB'. not 'unless you have ToB installed', which I can see now is what you meant.

I just did some actual tests, and here's what I found.

Liches cast a Spell Trigger which activates Protection from Magical Weapons, Spell Trap, and Stoneskin. They also cast Shadow Door, and they have other Spell Triggers which release offensive spells such as Remove Magic, Symbol: Stun, etc. The 5th level Wizard spell Breach does not dispel a lich's Stoneskin (I used Ctrl-T to remove all other protection spells that the lich's Spell Trigger had put into effect, and I got the message "Spell ineffective").

Saros wrote:Remove/Dispel Magic(even Inquisitors) will not dispel Spell Immunity/Turning/Deflection/Trap/Shield.

An Inquisitor's Dispel Magic ability does not remove the lich's Spell Trap, but it does appear to dispel a lich's Stoneskin (and Protection from Magical Weapons), even when a lich's Spell Trap is in effect. (The Inquisitor was able to attack the lich for full damage during the next round.) So a lich's Spell Trap is not going to prevent an Inquisitor from kicking his ass.


As Saros said, Spell Immunity: Abjuration does not protect against spells like Breach (even though the spell description makes it sound like it should). Most enemy Mages cast Remove Magic and Dispel Magic (which are rendered ineffective by Spell Immunity: Abjuration) rather than Breach, which is probably why I continued to make the wrong assumption. I need to update my old notebooks. Spell Thrust and Secret Word are specifically intended to remove the effects of Spell Immunity (including Spell Immunity: Abjuration) among other things, and they do work as they should.

As Saros said, Melf's Minute Meteors do not inflict fire damage (the message "Spell ineffective" appears). But a hasted Mage (protected against Imprisonment) can kill a demi-lich with about three or four Melf's Minute Meteor spells (the meteors are treated as +6 projectiles and they have a +5 THAC0 bonus as well as any missile attack bonus due to Dexterity), which is why I remember them being so effective. Energy Blades and Sunstone Bullets +1 (which are treated as a +4 weapon and can be launched from a plain old non-magical sling) are also very effective against demi-liches. The Sunstone Bullets do inflict fire damage which is not mitigated by any sort of defense, so they can inflict double-digit damage every round against a demi-lich, which is fantastic compared to most weapons (due to the demi-lich's 90% resistance to most physical attacks). That must be what I was thinking of.

Well, if SI: Abjuration stopped all of the enemy Abjuration spell removal spells, then the game would be quite different. Spell Thrust and Secret Word were not designed to take down SI: A but rather Spell Shield. If they were meant to take down SI: A, then they would be of different school, maybe Alteration(like Ruby Ray of Reversal). Of course, the other cheesy thing about SI: Abjuration is that after casting it, it is possible to cast any other Abjuration protective spell on yourself(which should be rendered Ineffective).

Melf's Minute Meteors are great as they are, because this way, they can very quickly disable an enemy's Spell Deflection, Turning and Trap. 10 accurate MMM's are enough to disable a Spell trap, 4 are enough for a Spell Turning. But of course, they can as easily be stopped, which is good, else every mage can hurl those at an enemy mage thus disrupting all spellcasting. MMM's fire effect can be stopped by SI: Evocation and Globes of Invulnerability. Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap (as noted above) also provide short-term protection.

The combination of SI: Abjuration+ Si: Divination + Improved Invisibility + other protective buffs like ProMW, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, various elemental and other resistances/immunities is impenetrable to an Inquisitor. Fortunately, the only one who uses thing like this is Solaufein if you have the mod installed. In this case, the ONLY thing that can help target the enemy mage is a Wand of Spell Striking, nothing else will work. And you have to activate it several times in order to remove all of SI spells...and if the enemy refreshes those...you get the picture. Good thing that the computer is dumb.

Of course, SI: Abjuration also stops the most dangerous of all spells, Imrpisonment, that's why it's considered most useful, together with SI: Divination.

Actually, cloud AoE spells have a minor chance to do something, but if the enemy is Magic Resistant and refreshes his Mirror Images, then this strategy is pointless. Better if in the party are several mages/bards/thieves with Wands of SS, who can simultaneously release some Pierce Magic and a Breach, after that the SoTM or Carsomyr will dispel the enemy's Mirror Image and Invisibility.

By the way, Breach from wand affects Liches, but bounces off Spell Turning.

Other enemies which have immunities to spell levels 1-10 are the Magic Golems in ToB, they are also Immune to Magical Weapons. But there's a book describing that.

Sunstone Bullets seem like quite the weapon. But in this case, they have to be treasured and not wasted on a DemiLich, because there are quite a few of those in the game. At the end of ToB I had 150 of those, might've missed some, though I doubt it.

I can only think of two demi-liches in the game (Kangaxx and the nameless one in Watcher's Keep). I usually kill Kangaxx with the Improved Mace of Disruption and the one in Watcher's Keep with Dragon's Breath, so I'm pretty rusty when it comes to any other combat tactics against them.

Saros wrote:The combination of SI: Abjuration+ Si: Divination + Improved Invisibility + other protective buffs like ProMW, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, various elemental and other resistances/immunities is impenetrable to an Inquisitor. Fortunately, the only one who uses thing like this is Solaufein if you have the mod installed. In this case, the ONLY thing that can help target the enemy mage is a Wand of Spell Striking, nothing else will work. And you have to activate it several times in order to remove all of SI spells...and if the enemy refreshes those...you get the picture. Good thing that the computer is dumb.

The true power of such a combination is actually this: invisible opponents cannot be targeted with most spells (which is why you have to use a device like the Wand of Spell Striking). Opponents under the protection of Spell Immunity: Divination cannot be rendered visible by True Seeing, True Sight, or the Thief skill Detect Illusion, so that eliminates most options. The Inquisitor has few options since Dispel Magic will not remove an opponent's Stoneskin and Protection from Magical Weapons when they are protected by Spell Immunity: Abjuration. (Several Greater Whirlwinds with a non-magical sword?)

Saros wrote:Of course, SI: Abjuration also stops the most dangerous of all spells, Imrpisonment, that's why it's considered most useful, together with SI: Divination.

Just to clarify, I assume you mean when SI: Divination is used in combination with invisibility to prevent being targeted by the enemy. The only complication is that liches use area effect spells such as Sunfire and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting (demi-liches cast Wail of the Banshee or maybe it's the demi-lich howl I'm thinking of), so an invisible party member can still take damage; and spells such as Symbol: Stun will affect everyone in the vicinity if they are used against a visible party member.

Actually, the true power of such combination is invisibility, SI: Divination and the fact that Chain Cont. doesn't break invisibility... ;]

I seem to remember breach working against liches no problem. Keldorn's high level dispel also works no problem these are 5th and 3rd level spells respectively. Is there anything I'm missing here?

Globe of Invulnerability does not protect against Dispel/Remove Magic, this is a hole in its defense (and it does not protect against divine True Seeing either). Being a spell protection itself it can only be removed by spell protection removers of higher level than it protects against. However, the liches (rakshasas', demiliches') protections are granted by items and undispellable by any means.

Breach should not work against liches' protections. There is however a Lich, that is missing his LICH.itm, Lagole Gon - Cernd's lich, so he is vulnerable to Breach. Could it be that you did cast Breach against this particular Lich?

Edit:

Well, if SI: Abjuration stopped all of the enemy Abjuration spell removal spells, then the game would be quite different. Spell Thrust and Secret Word were not designed to take down SI: A but rather Spell Shield. If they were meant to take down SI: A, then they would be of different school, maybe Alteration (like Ruby Ray of Reversal).

The [url="http://members.chello.nl/~j.vanthull/BG2SR/SpellProtections.htm"]Spells Reference[/url] explains exactly what spells protect against what.

The combination of SI: Abjuration+ Si: Divination + Improved Invisibility + other protective buffs like ProMW, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, various elemental and other resistances/immunities is impenetrable to an Inquisitor. Fortunately, the only one who uses thing like this is Solaufein if you have the mod installed. In this case, the ONLY thing that can help target the enemy mage is a Wand of Spell Striking, nothing else will work. And you have to activate it several times in order to remove all of SI spells

You have always the option of using Chain Contingency, it will ignore Improved Invisibility too. Chain Contingency: Breach; next enemy; enemy sighted will get rid of all Combat protections in the above example, provided the opponent has no Lich immunity. If this should be the case, Chain Contingency: Pierce Magic x3; next enemy; enemy sighted, followed by a Spell Sequencer: Remove Magic x3 will remove all protections. The first Pierce Magic will get absorbed by a possible Spell Shield, the next two Pierce Magics will remove the Spell Immunities, while ignoring a possible Spell Trap. Three Remove Magics make sure the rest gets dispelled (except a possible Spell Trap), even if the opponent is of high level. A scroll of Spell Striking (preferably used by a clone) should help you too (provided the opponent is not protected by Spell Shield), as should a sroll of PfM (again, preferably used by a clone), but it should be used with care.

Edit2: Of course Contingency can only be targeted at self, what was I thinking! Post corrected.


Best regards,
Lark

Yes, I forgot about Chain Contingency. Yet, if used in that matter, it is highly unreliable. Because:

1. CC triggers at the beginning of a round. Meaning that if you cast one CC in the middle of the round, your enemy might run away during the gap between casting and triggering.

2. Contingency is always targeted at Myself. So it CANNOT be used to dispel enemy's spell protections.

3. If enemy uses Mislead, then your CC strategy is wasted. You have to eliminate the Misleading clone first.

About the fact that enemy Liches and other casters use AoE spells, there are various protections against those. I didn't mention those because I thought that every mage should use them by default:

ProMagicEnergy versus Horrid Wilting
ProFire(mage buff, not clerical, because it's longer lasting) versus Sunfire and Meteor Swarm, also vs Comet and Dragon Breath
Against enemy Symbol spells, the best thing to use are clerical buffs, namely Chaotic Commands and Death Ward. The second best thing is SI: Conjuration, but it's shorter lasting. Death Ward protects vs Demilich Howl too, as will SI: Necromancy.

There are certain enemies who can target you with spells even if you're Improved Invisible and protected by SI: D. Liches are one of them. Also some powerful demons can do it too. Dragons are no exception either.

As I said, there is a tweak that allows Liches and Rakshasas to be successfully targeted by Breach. Maybe some players have this installed without even knowing it. I've tested the tweak, seems nice, yet this way a standard lich is as easy to kill as a mid-powerful wizard. So I removed the tweak.

VonDondu wrote:I can only think of two demi-liches in the game (Kangaxx and the nameless one in Watcher's Keep). I usually kill Kangaxx with the Improved Mace of Disruption and the one in Watcher's Keep with Dragon's Breath, so I'm pretty rusty when it comes to any other combat tactics against them.



The true power of such a combination is actually this: invisible opponents cannot be targeted with most spells (which is why you have to use a device like the Wand of Spell Striking). Opponents under the protection of Spell Immunity: Divination cannot be rendered visible by True Seeing, True Sight, or the Thief skill Detect Illusion, so that eliminates most options. The Inquisitor has few options since Dispel Magic will not remove an opponent's Stoneskin and Protection from Magical Weapons when they are protected by Spell Immunity: Abjuration. (Several Greater Whirlwinds with a non-magical sword?)

Well, I always kill Kangaxx while Protected from Undead, so I don't bother with Demi-Liches either.

Enemy under the protection of SI: Divination CAN and WILL be detected by a thief's Detect Illusion skill, UNLESS the enemy is running Non-Detection too.

GW with a non-magical weapon is the only option for a solo fighter character in cases like these, yet this means that your Inquisitor will be not very Magic Resistant when he puts away Carsomyr in order to equip a non-magical weapon. Moreover, if a Lich was running that combo, your normal weapons wouldn't help.

Well, I was just offering further options. Contingency does of course not work. See my edit above too.

Chain Contingency, as I pointed out, offers the possibility to get rid of the opponent's protections in one go. A scroll of Spell Striking (best used by a clone) will be quicker too (and avoiding targeting complications too). Even a scroll of PfM (best used by a clone) will help (but is some sort of double edged sword). All those suggestions remove the opponent's protections more quickly than the Wand of Spell Striking.

While there always might be complications, those aren't limited to Chain Contingency:
Mislead does stop the Wand of Spell Striking too.
It is possible to fire a Chain Contingency in the same round you load it.
The Wand of Spell Striking is stopped by Spell Turning/Deflection (probably a bug, but still worth mentioning).

Anyway, I'm just making suggestions.

Originally Posted by VonDondu
The true power of such a combination is actually this: invisible opponents cannot be targeted with most spells (which is why you have to use a device like the Wand of Spell Striking). Opponents under the protection of Spell Immunity: Divination cannot be rendered visible by True Seeing, True Sight, or the Thief skill Detect Illusion, so that eliminates most options. The Inquisitor has few options since Dispel Magic will not remove an opponent's Stoneskin and Protection from Magical Weapons when they are protected by Spell Immunity: Abjuration. (Several Greater Whirlwinds with a non-magical sword?)

[...]GW with a non-magical weapon is the only option for a solo fighter character in cases like these, yet this means that your Inquisitor will be not very Magic Resistant when he puts away Carsomyr in order to equip a non-magical weapon. Moreover, if a Lich was running that combo, your normal weapons wouldn't help.

Some ideas:

1)The Rod of Reversal should help. I haven't found it myself yet, but it should be sold by Carras in Amkethran after you defeat the Monks (could someone confirm this?). Use it like the Staff of Spell Striking. It will even be unaffected by Spell Turning/Deflection (like it should be). Remove the spell protections. After Spell Immunity:Abjuration is out of the way remove the opponent's combat protections with Inquisitor's Dispel, then carve away.

2)If it's a lich, Daystar is worth a try.

3)This is one of the situations where the Scroll of PfM (preferably used by a simulacrum from Vhailor's Helm, if you find that acceptable) will come in handy.
1)Spell-like effects from items ignore Improved Invisibility.
2)It works as an automatic Dispel Magic, but is not affected by Spell Immunity:Abjuration.

All of the combat protections will be removed, so you can then carve the opponent up. You have to be aware that the enemy might refresh his combat protections via Contingencies, but that's what you have your second Scroll of PfM for (again preferably used by your simulacrum). After that, well... you can always fall back on whirlwinding with normal weapons, if it's not a lich (especially Firetooth/Crossbow of Searing/Bow of Gesen + normal ammo : The normal ammo pierces PfmW, the fire/lightning damage pierces Stoneskin, PfM removed all combat protections that defended against Fire/Lightning and the Contingencies will hopefully not have refreshed them). So use the PfM with care.


Lark

Saros wrote:Enemy under the protection of SI: Divination CAN and WILL be detected by a thief's Detect Illusion skill, UNLESS the enemy is running Non-Detection too.

That's good to know. I wasn't able to test it with my own party members (you can't detect them when they're invisible because you as the player already know where they are), and I didn't know where I could find a cooperative monster. It looks like a party with a Thief and an Inquisitor could chop up an enemy who pulled that trick.

Come to think of it, I just figured out a way to test it: have a party member go invisible and cast SI: Divination, then dismiss them from the party, leave the area briefly, then come back and try to detect them (before SI: Divination expires). You could also test it with Non-Detection in effect.

@Lark.

In my installs any kind of Pierce Magic and similar spells cast from scrolls on Improved Invisible character still don't work. Maybe because I'm under G3 fixpack.

Equipping a Simmy with scrolls of ProMagic and activating them is something I do only in a solo-Wizard Slayer game when I'm faced with a certain dangerous trap and my MR is of not high enough level. Otherwise, this is total cheese and I'd never do it. Same goes for equipping the Short Bow of Gesen with other ammo. Not to mention the fact that most mages run ProNormal Missiles in conjunction with ProMW.

@VonDondu - It is best to try this in combat. Because Detect Illusion is party-friendly ability, meaning that neutral invisible or hidden characters will not be revealed, only enemies.

In my installs any kind of Pierce Magic and similar spells cast from scrolls on Improved Invisible character still don't work.

Well, that is strange. Spells cast from items, including scrolls should ignore Improved Invisibility (the shimmering state), so it seems as if you have a bug or one of your mods changed that.

GW with a non-magical weapon is the only option for a solo fighter character in cases like these[...]

Equipping a Simmy with scrolls of ProMagic and activating them[...]is total cheese and I'd never do it

You can of course use them up, too.

Some find it more acceptable, some less. Still, its a possible solution for the tactical challenge that was posed. I wanted to point out that there are ideed possibilities for a solo fighter when facing such a defense. Instead of conserving rare scrolls by letting a Simulacrum use them you can of course always use them up, and the technique becomes total non-cheese. Unless you consider the Scroll of PfM cheese in and of itself. But even in this case I have offered some more tactical possibilities.

Different strokes for different folks.

Cheers,
Lark