Six's suggestions

[SixOfSpades]

I see many references to Tactics but no one to SCS(II), wonder if you did play the latter along with SR Six, because that's the recommended path.

Actually, I've never even downloaded SCS or SR--I'm too busy writing & playtesting my own mods to figure out other peoples', sorry. The only things I currently have right now are the patch & Fixpack, as I'm installing & uninstalling Kitpack components all the time and I don't want anything else on top of them.

 

are mordenkainen swords immune [to ADHW] as well?

Quick suggestion if they are not, make them It makes sense because they have no fluids, but if that leaves too few ways to deal with magic swords I'd remove the acid immunity making them corrode-able.

Agreed; 60-75% Acid resistance sounds about right.

 

One word about the cleric spell Champion Strength, even more useless: it's a draw upon holy might that can ( and should, being duhm cheaper ) be casted on others but disables spellcasting I can't think of a situation I'd give up the casting power of a party member for a single target buff, so being it 5th level what about removing the drawback? ( making it +1str,dex,con every 4 levels or +1/5 instead of +1/3 )

I think the original appeal of Champion's Strength was that it would put you at 18/00 STR regardless of where you started; DUHM might put you at only, say, 12 STR. And you can cast Champion's Strength on your Warriors, who would likely have no spells worth using during the fight. But Warriors already have STR potions coming out of their ears, so I agree, between DUHM, Holy Power, and Righteous Magic, Champion's Strength is almost completely useless, except as a basis for the joke spell Chess Champion's Strength.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Tenser's Transformation

That being said I doubt the trick you're suggesting would work, but I'll try it. If it works it would be great, and I would apply it to many spells.

Actually, don't bother. I remembered last night that you can't apply ApR penalties--only bonuses. STOOPID game engine!

But you can set it with the same opcode as you can modify it, so it's best to set it to something a fighter has...

 

Unholy Blight

...I agree, the main fault here is the extreme lack of Good-aligned enemies (I'm not even sure the Fallen Paladins are still Good), but we can't really change that.

Well, then they are lawful(well should be) and thus why not make Chaos Blight and Law Blight, same thing but against Chaotic and Lawful Alignments... this would of course add two spells to the spell book, but you can't have it all.

[Ardanis]

Protection from Missiles

 

What about it having long time protection against low enchantments, meduim against +2/+3 and very short against +4? That requires no difficult coding.

[Raj]

Actually, I've never even downloaded SCS or SR--I'm too busy writing & playtesting my own mods to figure out other peoples', sorry.

 

 

 

I think the original appeal of Champion's Strength was that it would put you at 18/00 STR regardless of where you started; DUHM might put you at only, say, 12 STR. And you can cast Champion's Strength on your Warriors, who would likely have no spells worth using during the fight.

 

You are confusing Divine Power 18/00 with Champion's Strenght ( and DUHM )+1/3 lvls, and the priest get his spellcasting disabled even if he targets another npc; this even in a unmodded game.

 

 

Sorry but all this talking about balance and constructive criticism should come after a minimal experience in game.

[SixOfSpades]

I think the original appeal of Champion's Strength was that it would put you at 18/00 STR regardless of where you started; DUHM might put you at only, say, 12 STR. And you can cast Champion's Strength on your Warriors, who would likely have no spells worth using during the fight.

You are confusing Divine Power 18/00 with Champion's Strenght ( and DUHM )+1/3 lvls, and the priest get his spellcasting disabled even if he targets another npc; this even in a unmodded game.

Actually, both Holy Power and Champion's Strength set STR to 18(00). The differences are:

HP (Level 4) only affects the caster, grants the Priest the THAC0 of a Warrior, adds 1 extra hitpoint per caster level, and lasts 1 round/level.

CS (Level 5) can be cast on any creature, grants -1 THAC0 bonus per 3 levels, lasts 3 rounds/level, and locks out further spellcasting.

 

Sorry but all this talking about balance and constructive criticism should come after a minimal experience in game.

If you doubt my familiarity with the game, I suggest you give

this site a brief perusal. As for my ability to give constructive criticism, Weimer apparently liked it--check out the Tactics README, under Release 17. Out of the 27 changes that he implented in that version, 26 of them were suggested by me.

[Demivrgvs]

Tenser's Transformation

But you can set it with the same opcode as you can modify it, so it's best to set it to something a fighter has...

Not so simple, as fighters would add their attack per round bonuses on top of whatever you set. The only possible solution is to assign different bonuses via EFF based on the character's class, to make sure fighters don't end up with too many apr. What I still have to test is if that is doable for dual classes. I'll let you know.

 

Protection from Missiles

Given it's still a Level 3 spell, I would make it protect against Normal from Level 1, +1 at Level 10, and +2 at Level 20. If it's going to protect against things like +3 and +4 ammo, it shouldn't have a duration any longer than PfMW.

That wouldn't cover BG1 as SCS's component does, not even in a small percentage. The spell has to be useful on its own, and in BG1 you don't have PfMW. Anyway, I agree we could leave higher enchanted ammos able to bypass this protection, and probably Arrow of Dispel too regardless of its enchantment.

What about it having long time protection against low enchantments, meduim against +2/+3 and very short against +4? That requires no difficult coding.

It would be rather unusual, but doable. The problem is the aforementioned issue of ammos using the same projectile for any enchantment level.

 

Miscast Magic

Actually, since I think the original Miscast Magic imposes a 75% chance of spell failure, the new version should cause only a 75% chance of a Wild Surge each round, but for the same duration as the original.

I don't see why the two effects should share the same chance. Failure chance completely ruins the casted spell 75% of times, wild surge doesn't guarantee a failed cast, there's a chance the spell will correctly work even with 100% wild surge chance, and there's even the possibility of a good wild surge!

 

Unholy Blight

What about good/neutral parties with evil characters? I don't think that "you may have a neutral character in the party" is a good reason to tweak Unholy Blight to affect only enemies no matter the alignment. But I do see your point on evil characters not having an equivalent useful spell. Still the spell may not be the best 3rd level spell for the party but SCS's AI uses it quite effectively.

 

Mordenkainen's Sword

You're right, it should be immune to Horrid Wilting, will do. Regarding the acid resistance I have to think about it, as I'm not sure I like the idea of tearing down MS with Melf's Acid Arrows. I may code Dispel and Remove Magic to destroy the sword, and Disintegrate already destroy it in SR.

Champion Strength and Holy Power

You're probably right about these spells needing some revision. The former may use a fatigue effect instead of disabling spellcasting.

 

Sorry but all this talking about balance and constructive criticism should come after a minimal experience in game.

If you doubt my familiarity with the game, I suggest you give this site a brief perusal.

There's no need to quarrel about it, this topic is very useful.

I think Raj has been misleaded by your incorrect statement: "you can cast Champion's Strength on your Warriors, who would likely have no spells worth using during the fight".

Alternatively he may be just referring to your lack of experience with SCS and SR, which is a quite different setting from Tactics.

 

Cheers

Demi

[Raj]

Actually, I've never even downloaded SCS or SR--I'm too busy writing & playtesting my own mods to figure out other peoples', sorry.

 

We're giving criticism to the SR mod, and this is what the spell does in SR:

 

When this spell is cast, the priest draws on the power of his god and lends it to the target creature, in effect creating a champion. The target gains a bonus to strength, dexterity, and constitution scores at a rate of 1 for every 3 levels of the caster. So, a 9th level priest would confer an ability bonus of 3 to the target, and so on.

 

The drawback to this is that the priest must concentrate on the connection between the target and his god for the duration of the spell, hence losing the ability to cast any spells during this time. The effect lasts for 1 round for every level of the caster or until dispelled.

 

I knew your site, I read your Tactic's review long ago ( and agreed for the most part, liked the charname ) but this doesn't mean you know what you're talking about now.

Alternatively he may be just referring to your lack of experience with SCS and SR, which is a quite different setting from Tactics.

*nods*

[SixOfSpades]

Miscast Magic

I don't see why the two effects should share the same chance. Failure chance completely ruins the casted spell 75% of times, wild surge doesn't guarantee a failed cast, there's a chance the spell will correctly work even with 100% wild surge chance, and there's even the possibility of a good wild surge!

Hm. You may be right, I just think that a 100% chance of probably screwing up is too much for a Level 1 spell, of course with Wild Magic, the exact numerical value of that "probably" is rather difficult to calculate. What do you think: Would an 85% chance of Wild Magic be roughly equivalent to 75% chance of total failure?

 

By the way, I totally stole this idea for my Goliard kit, thanks! His Bard Song used to impose Spell Failure, but Wild Magic is funnier, and the Goliard is most definitely a prankster.

 

Unholy Blight

What about good/neutral parties with evil characters? I don't think that "you may have a neutral character in the party" is a good reason to tweak Unholy Blight to affect only enemies no matter the alignment. But I do see your point on evil characters not having an equivalent useful spell. Still the spell may not be the best 3rd level spell for the party but SCS's AI uses it quite effectively.

Good/Neutral parties with Evil characters are just what Holy Smite needs: A possible drawback. A party-friendly spell for Evil Clerics is just what Unholy Blight needs: A reason to use it. How's this:

Holy Smite: Open to Good & Neutral Clerics (& Paladins) only. Harms all Evil-aligned creatures in the area of effect, blocked by Magic Resistance. You should probably leave the Blindness effect in to keep it canon, but make it easy to Save against, as the spell hardly needs it.

Unholy Blight: Open to Evil & Neutral Clerics only. Harms all Good- or Neutral-aligned creatures in the area of effect, blocked by Magic Resistance. Etc.

Accursed Wrath: Open to Evil Clerics only. Harms all Hostile or Good-aligned creatures in the area of effect, blocked by MR, does about 2/3rds the damage of the other two.

 

Champion Strength and Holy Power

You're probably right about these spells needing some revision. The former may use a fatigue effect instead of disabling spellcasting.

I was thinking last night that maybe we should leave the spellcasting block in, to keep Clerics from becoming too much of a powerhouse with Righteous Magic, Champion's Strength, Holy Power and DUHM all stacking, but then I figured, "Heck, they've only got 1 ApR to start with anyway, if they're going to cast all those spells they deserve it." So yeah, I'd agree with the Fatigue, but make it start when the Champion's Strength (I think that's the longest-duration one of those I mentioned) expires, somewhat akin to Berserker Rage.

 

 

Alternatively he [Raj] may be just referring to your lack of experience with SCS and SR

All right, I'm just saying that the fact I haven't played with those particular AI and spell rules is no reason to imply that a) I know nothing about the game whatsoever, and b) I am unworthy to offer my suggestions for improvement based on the lists of changes that you've posted in the forums. I wasn't trying to quarrel.

 

 

And now for something completely different. Wizards have Minor Sequencer, Spell Sequencer, Spell Trigger, Contingency, and Chain Contingency. Priests got zip. What would you all think of 2 new spells, Magic Tattoo and Tattoo of Power, added to the scrolls of both Clerics and Druids?

[Demivrgvs]

Miscast Magic

Would an 85% chance of Wild Magic be roughly equivalent to 75% chance of total failure?

What I was trying to say is that even 100% wild surge may be "equivalent" to 75% toyal failure. I haven't played with it long enough to determine its true effectiveness without a single doubt.

By the way, I totally stole this idea for my Goliard kit, thanks! His Bard Song used to impose Spell Failure, but Wild Magic is funnier, and the Goliard is most definitely a prankster.

I agree.

 

Holy Smite/Unholy Blight

I think these spells should keep the ability to bypass magic resistance because:

- the AI will use them thinking they do bypass MR, and surely I don't want to screw SCS's AI

- they always had this feature, even in PnP

- it's one of the reasons that currently limits their damage output

- ...

 

Champion Strength

I'd agree with the Fatigue, but make it start when the Champion's Strength (I think that's the longest-duration one of those I mentioned) expires, somewhat akin to Berserker Rage.

How else would you think I would do it?

 

 

And now for something completely different.

I love the Monty Python!

 

Wizards have Minor Sequencer, Spell Sequencer, Spell Trigger, Contingency, and Chain Contingency. Priests got zip. What would you all think of 2 new spells, Magic Tattoo and Tattoo of Power, added to the scrolls of both Clerics and Druids?

I'm against it, unless most of you proves me wrong.

Clerics are a quite balanced class in 2nd edition (in 3E they get 8th and 9th level spells making them utterly too powerful), they trade the most powerful spells (and thus some of the unbalancing in this game) with the ability to wear heavy armor, and wield better weapons with better THAC0. I don't think priests have ever had sequencers and triggers in PnP, and they don't seem divine spells to me, but I may be wrong.

Anyway, adding new spells is out of IR's scope, I've made few exceptions but only when the situation required it much more imo (e.g. Druids had very few effective spells in vanilla at low levels, and much less spells in general compared to clerics).

 

Speaking of Minor Sequencer, Spell Sequencer, Spell Trigger, Contingency, and Chain Contingency...I've a global change in mind for them that I do hope it's doable: they shouldn't be castable during combat. In PnP this spell requires a very long casting time, and it does make sense imo (it may be another solution if the first one doesn't work). That would also prevent one of the most common exploit of power players, casting Spell Trigger to cast 3 Chain Lightning at once, or worse, casting Chain Contingency in order to cast 3 ADHW at once, effectively taking only one round to cast 3 spells. I call that cheese (or at least "very unbalancing"), don't you?

The spells would retain their original scope, storing spells prepared long before the fight.

[Raj]

I remember chain contingency with a casting time of 1 and that was exploitable but in my latest installations it takes a full round to cast, so I though SR already changed it, or fixpack maybe; sequencers have a long casting time as well so I think it's pointless to waste a round in the middle of a fight and a high level slot only to cast 3 spells in the round later, time stop would work better than chain contingency.

[Ardanis]

I personally am against Fatique effect. Not for it's actual bad effects, but mostly because it's annoying to hear characters wanting to rest when they're only two hour awaken. Same as it is with Haste and Restoration.

 

they shouldn't be castable during combat

I recall Sikret has changed CC to be castable once per day for IA6, which led me to wonder if it's possible to make it castable once per battle only. Surely I quickly has found it to be next to impossible and still easily cheatable. However, not to cast it while in combat seems to be slightly more elegant to make, but scripting would be a need anyway.

[Demivrgvs]

I think it's pointless to waste a round in the middle of a fight and a high level slot only to cast 3 spells in the round later, time stop would work better than chain contingency.

No it's far from being pointless for powerplayers. Casting CC would take one round, discharging it doesn't take any action. Thus 3 spells in one round, with even one further enormous advantage, you can target invisible creatures via contingencies!

Even sequencers would allow you to take only 2 rounds to cast 3 spells instead of 2, though in that case you are at least restricted to 6th level spells, and there's even the slightly disadvantage of being forced to select an actual target to discharge the trigger (even if the stored spells are all AoE spells).

 

I personally am against Fatique effect. Not for it's actual bad effects, but mostly because it's annoying to hear characters wanting to rest when they're only two hour awaken. Same as it is with Haste and Restoration.

Have you actually used those spells with SR? Haste and Restoration's fatigue effects last only 5 rounds and don't require to rest (vanilla's Restoration requires to rest). I would do the same for Champion's Strength.

 

I recall Sikret has changed CC to be castable once per day for IA6, which led me to wonder if it's possible to make it castable once per battle only. Surely I quickly has found it to be next to impossible and still easily cheatable. However, not to cast it while in combat seems to be slightly more elegant to make, but scripting would be a need anyway.

I may agree on what Sikret did for balance purposes (actually I don't at full extend, but let's pretend I do ), though in that case Time Stop would have been an even better candidate for such a nerf imo. Anyway if it's possible to nerf CC without doing something like that I would prefer it by far, as preventing it to be cast more than once per day is "immersion breaking/4th wall breaking" imo. Probably just a matter of tastes.

[Raj]

I think it's pointless to waste a round in the middle of a fight and a high level slot only to cast 3 spells in the round later, time stop would work better than chain contingency.

No it's far from being pointless for powerplayers. Casting CC would take one round, discharging it doesn't take any action. Thus 3 spells in one round, with even one further enormous advantage, you can target invisible creatures via contingencies!

But if you use that round for casting time stop instead of chain contingency you are effectively releasing three spells ( and some attacks and movements in between ) for free the round after; you can target invisible creatures with a chain contingency but under a time stop is easy to aim a antimagic attack that bypasses invisibility too, and it's safer to use it against multiple opponents instead of relying on the 'closest enemy' setting.

If you're a wizard and not a sorceror, I could argue that it's more versatile to memorize a time stop rather than a chain contingency too; only against demogorgon or melissan CC would prove itself better, yet that's a 2 out of 1000 encounters

 

The game is beatable without resorting to this cheese ( hey scs2 is beatable without mages in party ^^ ), and CC is the typical spell that works better in the hands of enemy mages than for a pc, if you don't plan to rest for every encounter; players cheat themselves if they use dirty tricks ( how fun is using CC 3x ADHW for every fight? even the biggest jerk out of there is going to be bored soon ), still sometime a lame strategy could be fun for a change or necessary if you're testing some munchkin module and happened to trigger a 'impossible' battle.

 

When I read something like

I recall Sikret has changed CC to be castable once per day for IA6, which led me to wonder if it's possible to make it castable once per battle only

the first thing I'd reply is ''Then don't cast it more then once per battle'', et voilà, you spared a developer some work.

 

 

 

That being said, can you make a mod that disables the ctrl-Y command plz?

[Jarno Mikkola]

That being said, can you add a component to the mod that disables the ctrl-Y command plz?

You need the italics there.

 

I would put all the spells that have the 'waiting thing' to be casted with at least a turn/round of casting time or even more so, 2 turns would be perfect. And if you can't do that normally, then why not make a special hold effect take the first turn away from the mage(no save), as the spell is casted.

[Ardanis]

Haste and Restoration's fatigue effects last only 5 rounds and don't require to rest (vanilla's Restoration requires to rest)

I never use them exactly because of infamous vanilla fatique malady. An oversight on my part then, 5 rounds is surely fine.

 

the first thing I'd reply is ''Then don't cast it more then once per battle''

That's what I told him myself

 

As for not-in-combat CC and sequencers - add to baldur(25).bcs the block

 

IF

!CombatCounter(0)

!GlobalTimerNotExpired("nerf_timer","global")

THEN

RESPONSE #100

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player1) // which would prevent from casting any of those for a timer's duration

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player2)

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player3)

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player4)

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player5)

ApplySpellRES("nerf",Player6)

SetGlobalTimer("nerf_timer","global",12) // or perhaps not 12

END