SR V2.9

[Demivrgvs]

Implosion

I though about adding a save to the stun effect for coherency and to balance the added penality to the other save

 

I don't think fire+phisical(bludgeoning?) damage is the most appropriate for implosion btw, and priests have plenty of fire spells availabe; magic damage?

Both fire and crushing damage make sense for the animation currently used. I'll wait for a few more players' opinions to decide what to do with the hold effect.

 

Dolorous Decay

This damn spell is driving me crazy. What about:

- on hit -1 to STR, DEX, and CON, movement rate halved for 1 turn (no save)

- save vs. death/poison or take 2 points of damage every 2 sec, plus another -1 to physical attributes on 5th and 10th level

Any suggestion? Should we keep it entirely save-or-else or my suggested solution seems fair

The improvements at 5th and 10th make no sense because you have to already be 11th level cleric to cast level 6 spells.

What's wrong with the actual spell btw? I found it expecially useful for the casting time of 1, something rare among divine spells.

Sorry I meant round, at 5th and 10th round...the more damage you suffer the more your body is affected.

The "problem" with this spell is that as a 'save-or-else' is far from effective, Poison is a 4th level spell and deals much more damage, and even without SR's improvements it was a better save-or-else spell. Disintegrate kills the target on a failed save, this spell instead isn't able to kill anyone with more than 60 hit points, and even characters with few hit points may cure themselves before the spell can deal all its damage, not to mention a cure disease would prevent the spell almost entirely if casted as soon as a character is affected. Instead of making it just another uber-damage-dealing spell, or save-or-die spell the disease effect seemed an appropriate effect to make it more appealing.

Regarding the casting time I actually don't understand why it should be so fast...the type of spell would suggests otherwise imo. If it was an arcane spell I would have raised it without doubts (too exploitable with Improved Alacrity), in this case I'm not sure.

[Raj]

Implosion: the animation is even more silly but yes, no need to change how the spell works from a gameplay point of view.

 

DD: being level 6 allows it have a better save penality and bypass globes and minor spell turning, can't really compare with disintegrate because it's divine, and the low casting time is what gives it some appeal ^^ but if you want to totally change it then the previous idea sounds good.

 

 

 

Something new to rant about: Improved Invisibility vs Shadow Door, why should one memorize the latter? Same effect, lower duration ( not big difference but.. ), cannot be stored in a sequencer, cannot be casted on others.

I noticed the level 3 arcane detect illusions dispels II but not SD, anyway the AI only uses true seeing ( even in vanilla ), and SD has a slight slower casting time of 1 vs 4 but I don't think it justifies it being one level higher. Am I missing anything?

 

Edit, more food for thought: (Minor) Spell Deflection/Turning, Spell Trap, Shield of Archonts ( that is a spell deflection with just a different name ): these are only useful to players using the vanilla AI, because SCS2 AI never casts spells at protected characters and players themselves can see the enemy has this defences up so don't bother cast spells at him.

There's some minor usefulness in forcing the enemy/player in taking them down before attack the other defences, or trying to cast one of them while the enemy is casting a spell at you ( requires some metagaming and improved spell casting time ); however, it's pointless to waste high level slots when a level 3 minor spell deflection is all you need in 99% of situations, just to make opponents waste a round, and usually a spell immunity is better ( if you can see what school a spell belongs to, from the casting animation ).

I was thinking about adding a little bonus to saves vs spells to these spells, so that they somehow protect the caster even if the opponent works around these protections with some aoe ( mostly to balance the improved save penalities introduced by SR, because no-lich mages have poor saves and are easy to disable or damage with aoe without bother to take down their spell deflection/turning ); just a example btw, I'd proly agree with any other improvement to these spells.

[SixOfSpades]

Implosion

Both fire and crushing damage make sense for the animation currently used. I'll wait for a few more players' opinions to decide what to do with the hold effect.

Fire + Blunt, and Hold with no Save, seem fine. But I would set 75-80% of the damage as being Blunt, with only 20-25% from the Fire, as we're only doing it to cater to the animation. Maybe the Hold effect could be extended, with no Save in the first round, and then progressively easier Saves for the next 3 rounds.

 

The problem is which Save to use . . . logically, Warriors would be hardy enough to dig themselves out quickly, and Rogues would dodge out of the way, but there's no Save that would favor them without also favoring Wizards, the group least able to avoid being trapped. Arrrgh. I'd suggest a full conversion of all Saving Throws to 3rd Edition (or whatever it is that uses Will, Reflex, Fortitude, Magic, etc.), but a project of that magnitude would be a full mod unto itself.

[Demivrgvs]

Implosion

The animation is even more silly but yes, no need to change how the spell works from a gameplay point of view.

Yeah...I may try to change the animation, but it doesn't seem a priority right now.

 

The problem is which Save to use . . . logically, Warriors would be hardy enough to dig themselves out quickly, and Rogues would dodge out of the way, but there's no Save that would favor them without also favoring Wizards, the group least able to avoid being trapped. Arrrgh. I'd suggest a full conversion of all Saving Throws to 3rd Edition (or whatever it is that uses Will, Reflex, Fortitude, Magic, etc.), but a project of that magnitude would be a full mod unto itself.

Well, SR already uses a 3rd edition like saving system, and internally I actually have changed all saving throw tables to match it (e.g. thieves have really good saves vs. breath/reflexes). I don't know if a code to change all creatures saves is feasible though.

 

Dolorous Decay

Being level 6 allows it have a better save penality and bypass globes and minor spell turning, can't really compare with disintegrate because it's divine, and the low casting time is what gives it some appeal ^^ but if you want to totally change it then the previous idea sounds good.

Actually I'm not going to totally change the spell, I'll just add a "contagion" effect.

 

Improved Invisibility vs Shadow Door

Why should one memorize the latter? Same effect, lower duration ( not big difference but.. ), cannot be stored in a sequencer, cannot be casted on others.

I noticed the level 3 arcane detect illusions dispels II but not SD, anyway the AI only uses true seeing ( even in vanilla ), and SD has a slight slower casting time of 1 vs 4 but I don't think it justifies it being one level higher. Am I missing anything?

Casting time is pratically the only noticeable advantage yes, and though it may be effective in some situations it probably isn't worth a higher level slot alone. In PnP the door also has a change to trap in a dimensional room nearby creatures who follw the caster...a sort maze effect. I amy look into it and try to implement it, SP did it, though I don't how it's implemented, and how the AI handles it.

 

(Minor) Spell Deflection/Turning, Spell Trap, Shield of the Archons

These are only useful to players using the vanilla AI, because SCS2 AI never casts spells at protected characters and players themselves can see the enemy has this defences up so don't bother cast spells at him.

Conceptually I don't like both things, but the former probably is necessary to avoid a stupid behaviour (though it's a real shame making a nasty spell like Spell Trap a complete waste). Is there anyone else like me who'd actually prefer a hardest and more PnP-esque game without those ugly globes on a characters affected by these spells?

 

I was thinking about adding a little bonus to saves vs spells to these spells, so that they somehow protect the caster even if the opponent works around these protections with some aoe ( mostly to balance the improved save penalities introduced by SR, because no-lich mages have poor saves and are easy to disable or damage with aoe without bother to take down their spell deflection/turning ); just a example btw, I'd proly agree with any other improvement to these spells.

I'm not sure about it, as it doesn't work too well imo, because it's impossible to make it affect saves against spells without also affecting effects from special/supernatural abilities, items, and the like.

[Raj]

Keep the globes, there're already some tweaks around to remove them and I personally use the 1PP animation that is way less intrusive; they are there to remember the player the need to dispel some enemy defences, a thing that without the animation the player is going to forget or be forced to scroll up logs, while the enemy is never going to be fooled.

 

Implosion: save vs death? it's not something you can dodge.

[Demivrgvs]

Just so you know I've not stopped to work here's some more progress report and a new spell I've never mentioned before.

 

Summon Shambling Mound

Replaces Conjure Earth Elemental as a 7th level spell (the elemental has been moved to 6th level if anyone still doesn't know it). The shambler is very much like its PnP version, but as of now I've slightly nerfed its resistances: Fire Resistance is 50% instead of 100%, and no Cold Resistance while it should have 50%, and last but not least it has 90% resistance to blunt weapons instead of complete immunity. Let me know if I should reintroduce the correct values, and if the creature seem more or less balanced for a 7th level spell slot. IR's Staff of Woodland will use the same creature and aVENGER did a very similar work on shamblers for one of RR's items which summons them.

 

Shambling Mound (12 Hit Dice):

STR 19, DEX 10, CON 16, INT 7, WIS 10, CHA 9; AL Neutral

HP 114, AC 0, THAC0 5, Saving Throws 7/9/8/8/10

2 Attacks Per Round, 2d6+10 Crushing Damage (Fist +3)

 

Combat Abilities:

Entangle: 50% chance target must save vs. breath or be entangled

Constrict: an entangled creature can save vs. death each round to break free, else it will suffer 2d10 points of damage and remain entangled

 

Special Qualities:

Regeneration: 1hp/round

Immune to entangle, hold, poison, polymorph, sleep, & stun effects

Electrical Resistance 125%; Fire Resistance 50%

Crushing Resistance 90%; Slashing, Piercing, & Missile Resistance 50%

 

Unless we decide for minor changes to its values, which wouldn't take long anyway, the spell is finished and implementes. Same goes to the following ones.

 

Nature's Beauty

The permanent blindness was overpowered, and it ruined most AI's scripts, not to mention Sunray already grants a mass blindness spell much more balanced. This spell probably need further adjustments and improvements (e.g. adding a stunning effect; perhaps making creatures immune to consecutive casting of this spell).

"When this spell is cast, the caster appears to undergo a remarkable transformation. The caster becomes the very ideal of beauty, for a male, this is usually a nymph or a dryad, for a female, the image varies. Anyone viewing the illusion must save vs. spell at -6 penalty or be charmed for 5 rounds. The transformation is instantaneous, but lasts only seconds, affecting those in the area but excluding fellow party members.

 

If the caster harms, or attempts to harm, the charmed creature by some overt action, or if a Dispel Magic spell is successfully cast upon the charmed creature, the charm spell is broken. If two or more charm effects simultaneously affect a creature, the most recent charm takes precedence." The area of effect has been increased to 30 feet radius.

 

Finger of Death

I've added the +1damage/level on a successful save to the arcane version of this spell.

 

Mordenkainen's Sword

I've added a custom script to make it 'not turn hostile when hit' and to make the magical sword dispellable (the AI shouldn't dispel its own swords because it uses remove magic). I've also slightly improved how its resistances are handled, adding all the immunities to damage-dealing spells as per Protection from Fire/Cold/Acid/Electricity. Furthermore the sword is now immune to ADHW, Finger of Death, Wail of the Banshee, and vorpal effects.

 

Summon Djinni/Efreeti

I've re-written the description to better describe the new features of the genies: immunity to Death Spell, gaseous form ability, no casting time, and no 'turn hostile when hit'. A few undocumented changes are small improvements like making the djinni immune to spells which shouldn't affect flying creatures (e.g. Entangle, Grease, Earthquake) and making the Efreeti completely immune to fire based spells as per Protection from Fire.

"With this spell, the conjurer can cajole a djinni/efreeti, a massive genie with powerful abilities, to leave the Elemental Plane of Air/Fire and enter the Prime Material Plane. The gated genie is immune to Death Spell and can use several spell-like abilities as 10th level caster, which it can cast instantly. Once per day a djinni/efreeti can turn into gaseous form, becoming immune to almost all forms of damage for a short time. The genie will generally use this ability when badly injured, to either regenerate before attacking again, or to leave the battlefield avoiding further damage. The djinni/efreeti will serve for the duration indicated above, attacking the enemies of the conjurer until the duration of the spell runs out".

The two creatures retain the same spells they had in V2, but their statistics are slightly changed. The two most noticeable things are the additional hit dice which makes them 10HD creatures (this improves their caster level too), and djinni's additional attack per round. In the future I'd like to add djinni's whirlwind ability too, which would be extremely fun imo. I sincerely hope genies will finally be worth a 7th level spell slot this time around.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Just so you know I've not stopped to work here's some more progress report and a new spell I've never mentioned before.

 

Summon Shambling Mound

IR's Staff of Woodland will use the same creature and aVENGER did a very similar work on shamblers for one of RR's items which summons them.

 

If you wish, feel free to copy over RR's version into Spell Revisions verbatim. In RR v4.0 and above, the Shambling Mound (RR#SHM02.CRE) has its full PnP immunities as well as the scripted "blend into natural surroundings" behavior. I've already given this permission to Caedwyr for his Geomantic Sorcerer mod as well as to CamDawg for Divine Remix.

 

I only ask that you change the corresponding prefixes in the file names and script veriables from RR# to your own, just as Caedwyr did.

[Salk]

Nature's Beauty

 

Like you propose it now, it is nothing more than a mass charm. Add a paralyzed effect (lasting as long as the charm effect + 2 rounds because of the confusionary state the creature would be in after it) on top of it to make it more unique and original.

[Demivrgvs]

Summon Shambling Mound

If you wish, feel free to copy over RR's version into Spell Revisions verbatim. In RR v4.0 and above, the Shambling Mound (RR#SHM02.CRE) has its full PnP immunities as well as the scripted "blend into natural surroundings" behavior. I've already given this permission to Caedwyr for his Geomantic Sorcerer mod as well as to CamDawg for Divine Remix.

 

I only ask that you change the corresponding prefixes in the file names and script veriables from RR# to your own, just as Caedwyr did.

Thanks I'll take a look at the scripts for the blending ability, though if RR ones are still AI-controlled I don't like that feature too much.

 

Regarding the creatures instead I prefer what I did, but we can discuss it a little more in-depth if you wish, perhaps you can convince me I'm "wrong". My concerns are that (1) your shamblers have imo too many HD, and (2) how you've implemented the 'Constrict' ability. I'm also unsure about the (3) scalable resistances too, but I think you needed them to make lesser shamblers balanced for the early levels, right?

 

(1) & (3) The shamblers in the manuals has 8-9HD, thus your "lesser" shambler is already quite more than a lesser shambler, while the resistances you gave to the lesser and 'normal' version are quite lower than the original ones. I'd prefer you shamblers to have 8, 12 and 16 Hit Dices respectively, with higher resistances if needed to rebalance them. My current 12HD shambler has pratically the same statistics, hit points, AC, THAC0, damage, abilities of your 16HD one, except much better resistances. Have you chosed those HD values to balance their THAC0 values? Because if it's mainly for hit points not-nerfing their physical resistances works the same way imo.

(2) This is a more noticeable difference imo. You've coded it as per ToB, but it doesn't work as it should imo. The two most noticeable improvements (let me know if you think they're not improvements) I've made are:

- multiple entangle effects doesn't stack anymore. This is especially noticeable with your Greater Shambler, but actually the entangle can take place twice even with a 'normal' shambler if you're lucky (which means double penalty to AC and THAC0, as well as double damage, which is 24 points in your case).

- the constrict ability lasts more than one round if the creature cannot break free.

 

I'd like to know what you think because if it's possible I'd prefer to make mine version as similar as possible to yours, to avoid what it currently is very common in BG, multiple versions of the very same creatures with quite different statistics.

 

If players think it would be a better solution I may work to add a more powerful shambler at 20th level as you did, while the lesser shambler is probably too weak for a 7th level spell (RR itself limits it to druids of 14th level or less, which is when they get 7th level spells).

 

Nature's Beauty

Like you propose it now, it is nothing more than a mass charm. Add a paralyzed effect (lasting as long as the charm effect + 2 rounds because of the confusionary state the creature would be in after it) on top of it to make it more unique and original.

Yes you may consider it a druid's version of Mass Charm, though actually it should be slightly less powerful than Mass Charm which is a 8th level spell (and currently the only advantage of Mass Charm would be the long range). As you know I like the idea of a stunning effect but I'm not sure how to implement. If you're suggesting to have stun at the same time of charm though I don't agree, what would it be the point in charming a stunned character?! What I had in mind was to allow a second save to those who are not being charmed, to avoid being stunned for 2 rounds or something like that. Putting those 2 rounds of stun at the end of the charm (similarly to what you're proposing) would be fine as well, but not issue free, as some creatures immune to charm effects would be stunned after 5 rounds without apparent reason.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Thanks I'll take a look at the scripts for the blending ability, though if RR ones are still AI-controlled I don't like that feature too much.

 

They are, but that is very easy to change, you simply need to delete the "Remove feet circle" opcode from the shamblers' items. AFAIK, Caedwyr already did that for his mod.

 

multiple entangle effects doesn't stack anymore. This is especially noticeable with your Greater Shambler, but actually the entangle can take place twice even with a 'normal' shambler if you're lucky (which means double penalty to AC and THAC0, as well as double damage, which is 24 points in your case).

- the constrict ability lasts more than one round if the creature cannot break free.

 

Nice catch! IIRC, the shamblers were first coded up back in RR v2.xx (circa 2002) and back then I didn't know how to apply the on-hit effects in a non-stackable way. I'll definitively rectify this in RR v4.03 though. BTW, I'd prefer that breaking free of the entanglement requires a save vs. breath (as in RR) rather than a save vs. death as you proposed.

 

I'm also unsure about the (3) scalable resistances too, but I think you needed them to make lesser shamblers balanced for the early levels, right?

 

Yup, that's pretty much the reason. However, note that RR's Shambling Mound (the one that Druids can summon at level 14) has the correct PnP resistances.

[Demivrgvs]

Thanks I'll take a look at the scripts for the blending ability, though if RR ones are still AI-controlled I don't like that feature too much.

They are, but that is very easy to change, you simply need to delete the "Remove feet circle" opcode from the shamblers' items. AFAIK, Caedwyr already did that for his mod.

I've just stolen the small code to let them hide in forest areas, and I've actually slightly changed that too.

 

multiple entangle effects doesn't stack anymore. This is especially noticeable with your Greater Shambler, but actually the entangle can take place twice even with a 'normal' shambler if you're lucky (which means double penalty to AC and THAC0, as well as double damage, which is 24 points in your case).

- the constrict ability lasts more than one round if the creature cannot break free.

Nice catch! IIRC, the shamblers were first coded up back in RR v2.xx (circa 2002) and back then I didn't know how to apply the on-hit effects in a non-stackable way. I'll definitively rectify this in RR v4.03 though. BTW, I'd prefer that breaking free of the entanglement requires a save vs. breath (as in RR) rather than a save vs. death as you proposed.

Fine then, I'll use save vs. breath.

 

P.S In RR there's actually no save to break free as the entanglement automatically ends after one round. There's only the save to avoid being entangled. Just to point out the difference to those who can't look at the files as we do.

 

I'm also unsure about the (3) scalable resistances too, but I think you needed them to make lesser shamblers balanced for the early levels, right?

Yup, that's pretty much the reason. However, note that RR's Shambling Mound (the one that Druids can summon at level 14) has the correct PnP resistances.

Sorry, for the statistics I considered valid this post of yours (I haven't RR installed right now). Ok then, comparing your latest .cre files it seems RR's 16HD shambler is almost identical to SR's one except for the hit dice value (only the saves are noticeably better because of the +4HD). Judging by your last post you've changed the level at which you get the 16HD shambler right? Because it previously was 15th level instead of 14th, I'd prefer it to be the 14th, so that SR's spell will simply skip the lesser shamblers (as you get lvel 7 spells at 14th level). I'll think a little more about the HD difference to see if I may raise mine without affecting too much the balance...are you absolutely sure you want to keep those high values?

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Sorry, for the statistics I considered valid this post of yours

 

LOL, did you check the date of that post? It's from 2003 and thus horribly outdated. FYI, the RR shamblers are a lot different now, feel free to look up the v4.02 versions. If it helps, you can find some up-to-date info in this section of the readme (scroll down to the italic text).

 

BTW, you might want to take a look at aTweaks as well as it has a component which restores the proper soundset to Shambling Mounds.

 

I'll think a little more about the HD difference to see if I may raise mine without affecting too much the balance...are you absolutely sure you want to keep those high values?

 

Nah, the levels are not set in stone, but since the shamblers can legitimately reach 20+ HD in PnP AD&D, I'm not that worried about it either.

[Salk]

Nature's Beauty

Like you propose it now, it is nothing more than a mass charm. Add a paralyzed effect (lasting as long as the charm effect + 2 rounds because of the confusionary state the creature would be in after it) on top of it to make it more unique and original.

Yes you may consider it a druid's version of Mass Charm, though actually it should be slightly less powerful than Mass Charm which is a 8th level spell (and currently the only advantage of Mass Charm would be the long range). As you know I like the idea of a stunning effect but I'm not sure how to implement. If you're suggesting to have stun at the same time of charm though I don't agree, what would it be the point in charming a stunned character?! What I had in mind was to allow a second save to those who are not being charmed, to avoid being stunned for 2 rounds or something like that. Putting those 2 rounds of stun at the end of the charm (similarly to what you're proposing) would be fine as well, but not issue free, as some creatures immune to charm effects would be stunned after 5 rounds without apparent reason.

 

Well, the practical effect is null. Having an enemy both charmed and paralyzed is obviously something that doesn't let the player take advantage of the fact that the enemy is charmed. But its originality lies in this, according to me.

 

Still I understand its practical limitations. In that case, my second best option would be to have a stunning effect without charm involved for X number of rounds plus confusion for 2 rounds after the charm effect is finished.

 

I understand the issue about the secondary effect (stun/confusion) affecting previously not charmed NPCs.

 

Is there no way to go around it?

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Since I'm in the process of revising the entanglement ability of the RR shamblers, I've made a few small adjustments which might be applicable to the SR versions as well.

 

Most notably, entangled opponents now lose any dexterity bonus to their armor class until they manage to break free, while exceptionally large creatures (Dragons, Giants, Iron Golems) and incorporeal creatures (Shadows, Mists, Air and Fire Elementals) cannot be entangled by the shamblers.

[Demivrgvs]

Sorry, for the statistics I considered valid this post of yours

LOL, did you check the date of that post? It's from 2003 and thus horribly outdated. FYI, the RR shamblers are a lot different now, feel free to look up the v4.02 versions. If it helps, you can find some up-to-date info in this section of the readme (scroll down to the italic text).

I see. You've opted to a full immunity to blunt weapons, I was concerned about how the AI would respond to it as this would allow a shambler to destroy an army of golems without even a scratch.

 

BTW, you might want to take a look at aTweaks as well as it has a component which restores the proper soundset to Shambling Mounds.

I noticed it a few days ago, I think I'll manually add the soundset to my .cre file and leave the tweak to a more appropriate mod like yours.

 

I'll think a little more about the HD difference to see if I may raise mine without affecting too much the balance...are you absolutely sure you want to keep those high values?

Nah, the levels are not set in stone, but since the shamblers can legitimately reach 20+ HD in PnP AD&D, I'm not that worried about it either.

You're right...it's only that a shambler with so many hit dices seem strange to me. I don't like a mere shambler to have as many HD as some of the most powerful creatures in the realms, but it's more an aesthetic problem than a balancing one.

 

Nature's Beauty

Having an enemy both charmed and paralyzed is obviously something that doesn't let the player take advantage of the fact that the enemy is charmed. But its originality lies in this, according to me.

 

Still I understand its practical limitations. In that case, my second best option would be to have a stunning effect without charm involved for X number of rounds plus confusion for 2 rounds after the charm effect is finished.

 

I understand the issue about the secondary effect (stun/confusion) affecting previously not charmed NPCs.

 

Is there no way to go around it?

Patching every single creature immune to charm to make it immune to nature's beauty spell may avoid the weird issue, but it wouldn't be so easy imo, and it wouldn't make much sense wither, as we would allow those creature to be completely immune to the spell even if it does more than just a charm effect.

 

Since I'm in the process of revising the entanglement ability of the RR shamblers, I've made a few small adjustments which might be applicable to the SR versions as well.

 

Most notably, entangled opponents now lose any dexterity bonus to their armor class until they manage to break free, while exceptionally large creatures (Dragons, Giants, Iron Golems) and incorporeal creatures (Shadows, Mists, Air and Fire Elementals) cannot be entangled by the shamblers.

I love these kind of details.

 

Anyway though I like the concept I'm not sure about the dexterity penalty...did you took the idea from 3rd edition entangle where instead of -2 penalty to AC you get -4 penalty to dexterity? I have two objections to this change: (1) the penalty to AC would be either reduntant or too much imo (2) most vanilla's creatures have very messed up statistics, and more often than not a plain AC penalty is much more reliable than a dexterity penalty.

 

Regarding large creatures I did the same for Entangle spell, but I think I'll add the immunity to incorporeal creatures too, it seems very appropriate. Entangle is becoming less and less effective though...I may think to add a concentration check to avoid spell failure while entangled as per 3rd edition to spice it up again.