SR V2.9

[Jarno Mikkola]

Flame Arrow

 

Polymorph Other

By the way, your "creatures with more Hit Dice (especially relative to the caster) have bonuses to their Save" plan seems ideal. Or maybe the spell could be given a non-permanent duration, so that low-level casters can only keep Firkraag in squirrel form for just a couple of rounds.

Actually I think I won't allow you to polymorph a dragon at all. The idea was to make it affect creatures with equal or less HD than the caster exactly to prevent a single 4th level spell from insta-killing creatures like liches and dragons.

FA: 5*4d5 is good idea. And the pure fire damage is the best, as we then can use it against the piercing immune once without the regeneration factor...

 

PO: Well, so my 7 level caster-> 50 Fighter would be able to polymorph a dragon, but 25th level caster can't even have a chance. Or do the hit dices stop increesing in 9 or 10 level for humans...

And if it does, it would actually be against the lore...

Either way in this case, SixOfSpades suggestion would be far better.

[Shaitan]

Flame Arrow

It took my quite some time but I've finally made it work as it should have been from the beginning. It now effectively fire multiple arrows, and each arrow can potentially hit any opponent within 30 feet from the designed target. The first arrow will always hit the target specified when casting the spell, while the subsequent ones will hit a random target within range. If there's only one opponent all arrows will hit the the same victim. This spell is even more powerful than before, as it now works as a beefed up Magic Missile (hits 4 times, thus the chances that at least one arrow bypasses magic resistance is quite higher). I'd like to make it as per IWD/NWN if it doesn't goes against most of you:

- 4d6 arrows every 4 levels (up to 5 arrows) instead of 5d6 ones every 5 levels (up to 4 arrows). This allows a better/faster scalability, and makes it slightly more effective because of the added arrow.

- remove the piercing damage to slightly nerf it, as currently this spell is really too powerful imo. Acid Arrow doesn't deal piercing damage, and I think Flame Arrow should work in a similar way.

[Demivrgvs]

Polymorph Other

By the way, your "creatures with more Hit Dice (especially relative to the caster) have bonuses to their Save" plan seems ideal. Or maybe the spell could be given a non-permanent duration, so that low-level casters can only keep Firkraag in squirrel form for just a couple of rounds.

Actually I think I won't allow you to polymorph a dragon at all. The idea was to make it affect creatures with equal or less HD than the caster exactly to prevent a single 4th level spell from insta-killing creatures like liches and dragons.

Well, so my 7 level caster-> 50 Fighter would be able to polymorph a dragon, but 25th level caster can't even have a chance. Or do the hit dices stop increesing in 9 or 10 level for humans...

And if it does, it would actually be against the lore...

What lore? Anyway when we talk about HDs we may just as well say levels, a 16HD shambler was a creature with 16 levels, but we say 16HD instead of 16 levels because it actually doesn't have any class in which it gained levels.

 

Regarding your concern on a dualled Mage I thought a level 7 mage casted as a 7th level caster no matter how many figheter levels he/she had. Anyway I highly doubt anyone is going to build such a character in BG, the fighter class is always the one in which you take fewer levels.

 

Last but not least, spells stop improving at 20th level, thus creatures with more than 20HD/levels would be immune.

 

Tieing the save bonus/penalty to the difference in levels between caster and target is a nice idea, but it would involve an incredible amount of work and I just don't have that amount of time.

 

Once again, if aVENGER and/or DavidW have any preference on this matter I'd like to do what they suggest, and it seemed to me DavidW himself considered this spell too effective once properly fixed to block target's spellcasting abilities.

[SixOfSpades]

I would use both Miscast Magic, so AIs can detect it, and Disable Spellcasting Abilities, in case the target is immune to Miscast Magic effects.

I'm not sure that's as good as you say. If a creature is immune to miscast then there's a pretty good chance it has a reason to be. And disabling it anyway isn't the best course of action imho.

If a creature was plot-specific enough that BioWare decided to make it immune to Miscast Magic, then they would have made it immune to Polymorph Other too, thus making this point rather moot. Besides, as was just said, the Miscast Magic is almost necessary, so that AIs can detect that they're unable to cast spells.

 

 

. . . unfortunately, many innate abilities (including Wing Buffets) are scripted, so even disabling innate ability use wouldn't prevent them. AFAIK, the only way to rectify that would be to use a script disabling opcode on the character (i.e. Feeblemind) but of course, that might cause other issues.

Couldn't the default script of the Dragon/Beholder/whatever be edited, so that before it Wing Buffets/Lightning Bolts/whatever, it first checks to make sure it's physically capable of doing so?

 

 

Actually I think I won't allow you to polymorph a dragon at all. The idea was to make it affect creatures with equal or less HD than the caster exactly to prevent a single 4th level spell from insta-killing creatures like liches and dragons.

Wait, so a spell that was designed to be useful only against boss creatures . . . can now no longer be used against boss creatures? Sure, I'm all for keeping players from ruling the world using just 1 Level 4 spell, but it's got to retain some appeal. That's why I supported giving higher-level victims a larger Save bonus, or higher-level casters a longer Polymorph duration. (Or, perhaps, higher-level victims a shorter Polymorph duration). Alternatively, maybe the spell's Polymorph Into Specific somewhat could be tweaked, so that instead of changing all victims into the same Squirrel, with the same stats, it weakens all of the victim's combat stats by 50%, so that a Firkraag-squirrel would beat the tar out of an Amalas-squirrel.

 

Regarding your concern on a dualled Mage I thought a level 7 mage casted as a 7th level caster no matter how many figheter levels he/she had. Anyway I highly doubt anyone is going to build such a character in BG, the fighter class is always the one in which you take fewer levels.

I'm in the dark myself about how the game calculates the "level" of Dual- and Multi-classed characters. But actually, a low-level Mage dualled to Fighter is a surprisingly good build, especially if you Dual at Level 2. A nearly fullclassed Fighter who can Identify, use Wands, and bust out scrolls of Stoneskin and PFMW while in Full Plate? Count me in. And if it's CHARNAME we're taking about, you won't even lose any hitpoints from those 2 Mage levels, because your Familiar makes up for them.

[Demivrgvs]

Polymorph Other

. . . unfortunately, many innate abilities (including Wing Buffets) are scripted, so even disabling innate ability use wouldn't prevent them. AFAIK, the only way to rectify that would be to use a script disabling opcode on the character (i.e. Feeblemind) but of course, that might cause other issues.

Couldn't the default script of the Dragon/Beholder/whatever be edited, so that before it Wing Buffets/Lightning Bolts/whatever, it first checks to make sure it's physically capable of doing so?

I highly doubt it can be done within SR, it involves patching all scripts using innate abilities, including mods not yet come out and mods which should be installed after SR. Anyway this is really too much work for just one spell imo, and not even a spell, only one feature of that spell. If I had the power to stop the time I would do it, but I have quite limited spare time which is gonna become even more limited anytime soon.

 

Actually I think I won't allow you to polymorph a dragon at all. The idea was to make it affect creatures with equal or less HD than the caster exactly to prevent a single 4th level spell from insta-killing creatures like liches and dragons.

Wait, so a spell that was designed to be useful only against boss creatures . . . can now no longer be used against boss creatures? Sure, I'm all for keeping players from ruling the world using just 1 Level 4 spell, but it's got to retain some appeal. That's why I supported giving higher-level victims a larger Save bonus, or higher-level casters a longer Polymorph duration. (Or, perhaps, higher-level victims a shorter Polymorph duration). Alternatively, maybe the spell's Polymorph Into Specific somewhat could be tweaked, so that instead of changing all victims into the same Squirrel, with the same stats, it weakens all of the victim's combat stats by 50%, so that a Firkraag-squirrel would beat the tar out of an Amalas-squirrel.

Who said Polymorph Other was created to be useful only against bosses?! Actually I think it's much more effective to get rid of a mid level opponent which would normally requires much more than a single spell.

 

Anyway, my main issue is that "tieing the save bonus/penalty to the difference in levels between caster and target is a nice idea, but it would involve an incredible amount of work and I just don't have that amount of time", unless you propose me a very simple table like 'targets with less levels than caster always saves at -3, those with more levels saves at +3', perhaps adding a no save/penalty if target has the same level. And even this "easy" solution triplicate my work. What would you suggest?

[aVENGER_(RR)]

. . . unfortunately, many innate abilities (including Wing Buffets) are scripted, so even disabling innate ability use wouldn't prevent them. AFAIK, the only way to rectify that would be to use a script disabling opcode on the character (i.e. Feeblemind) but of course, that might cause other issues.

Couldn't the default script of the Dragon/Beholder/whatever be edited, so that before it Wing Buffets/Lightning Bolts/whatever, it first checks to make sure it's physically capable of doing so?

 

Theoretically yes, but that would probably cause even more issues.

 

As noted earlier, the cleanest solution would be to add a feeblemind effect to the Polymorph Other spell which would effectively disable all script activities on the affected creature until dispelled.

[Demivrgvs]

Hi pals, though my spare time is reduced to a few moments I've managed to do some work and I think only a few spells remain to do (plus familiars which may take a full day or two).

 

Enchanted Weapon

This spell will fill your override folder with tons of files because now it allows to create any type of weapon (I've added ranged weapons too), and each weapon requires both a .spl file and a .itm one. I assure you it wasn't fun to work on this spell.

 

What do you think about allowing it to create +3 arrows/quarrels/bullets?

 

Incendiary Cloud

I've replaced the blindness effect (which is handled quite badly by the AI and completely nullify ranged and spellcasting creatures) with very similar effects which also are more customizable. Creature within the area still have limited sight (I've opted for something 10' radius), and suffer -4 penalty to attack rolls and armor class. The spell doesn't affect fire elementals, fire giants and salamanders. Does it seem ok?

 

Implosion

If Galactiygon doesn't mind I've replaced vanilla's ugly animation with somthing almost identical to Spellpack's one (very gorgeous). With the new animation I think the fire damage is completely out of place, and I'd use crushing damage only. It seems vanilla's spell bypasses magic resistance, but I think that feature combined with 20D10 points of damage is really too much for a 7th level spell, don't you agree? We have two possible ways to rebalance it imo: either make it "not bypass magic resistance", or reduce the damage dealt. Any suggestion?

 

Note: bypass magic resistance + crushing damage make it an outstanding anti-golem spell, I don't know if it's appropriate or not.

 

Shambling Mound

I've refined it to make it as similar as I could to RR's shamblers. Let me know if it seems interesting/balanced.

 

Shambling Mound (16 Hit Dice):

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

HP 146, AC 0, THAC0 2, Saving Throws 4/6/5/4/7

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. breath each round to break free, else it will suffer 2d6+10 points of damage and remain entangled

 

Special Qualities:

Regeneration: 1hp/round

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

Electrical Resistance 125%; Fire Resistance 100%; Cold Resistance 50%

Crushing Resistance 100%; Slashing, Piercing, & Missile Resistance 50%

[Ardanis]

I've added ranged weapons too

What do you think about allowing it to create +3 arrows/quarrels/bullets?

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought this spell's design was to provide enchantment high enough to hit really tough guys. So, perhaps it should create not ranged weapons but exaclty the ammo?

 

It seems vanilla's spell bypasses magic resistance, but I think that feature combined with 20D10 points of damage is really too much for a 7th level spell, don't you agree?

It affects only a single target, unlike wizard's HLAs. Hard to say, but with fire damage (easily resistable by high level party member) replaced with extra crushing I have to say that you do make a point.

[Raj]

Enchanted weapon: woot, lot of work ; now I won't feel bad for asking the impossible about other spells . Maybe it's material for Item Revisions, anyway those weapons were unusable by clerics with the IR component that let them use edged weapons.

 

+3 projectiles are going to be useful for a long time in game because there're no +3 ones in SoA so the spell could still be useful in the late stages of the game ( I guess making it scaleable from +2 to +4 would mean fill the override folder even more so out of question? ), then adding them is a good thing. How many projectiles, 40?

 

 

Incendiary Cloud: do you mind add fire skulls and Azamantes to the list of unaffected by it creatures? the encounter with the lich at the 5th level of watcher keep starts with those (3) skulls casting incendiary cloud on top of their 'heads', one of them hitting its undead master too; it's unchanged in SCS2, and the lich not always get the protection from fire buff. Skulls are fire creatures so the immunity makes sense from a roleplay prospective, the lich is more a conveniency thing, but as all liches see through invisibility some smoke shoudn't interfere too, then maybe all liches could be made immune.

Then while you are at it efreeti, balors, glabrezus, pit fiends shall join the club, as well as dragons that while immune to blindness I don't know how could react to the new feature.

Hey after all that work I might finally be happy about this spell so it's worth it

 

I'm tempted to say that all creatures with a innate 100+% resistance to a element should get the benefits of the revised protection from x element spells, but if it takes too long and is material for a 'Creature Revision' mod then ignore me

 

 

 

Implosion: well, it's single target, but yes compared to delayed fireball ( 20d6 as per v3? ) it is going to have some convenient damage and a stun effect; I'd say lower the damage ( to 20d6, death at -6 for half ) and let it ignore the mr, so that fire storm becomes the most damaging spell while implosion is easier to use.

[Mike1072]

Enchanted weapon: woot, lot of work ; now I won't feel bad for asking the impossible about other spells . Maybe it's material for Item Revisions, anyway those weapons were unusable by clerics with the IR component that let them use edged weapons.

IR's component only removes cleric weapon restrictions from multi-class clerics, not single-class ones.

[Raj]

I know, but Anomen can use a longsword +3 but not a magical created one for example.

[Guest guest]

Shambling Mound

I've refined it to make it as similar as I could to RR's shamblers. Let me know if it seems interesting/balanced.

 

Shambling Mound (16 Hit Dice):

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

HP 146, AC 0, THAC0 2, Saving Throws 4/6/5/4/7

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. breath each round to break free, else it will suffer 2d6+10 points of damage and remain entangled

 

Special Qualities:

Regeneration: 1hp/round

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

Electrical Resistance 125%; Fire Resistance 100%; Cold Resistance 50%

Crushing Resistance 100%; Slashing, Piercing, & Missile Resistance 50%

 

Can i just ask something? Are the spell descriptions for summons and such going to be like that? I think it's very cool to know all this info about whatever you're summoning, so are they like this in-game, or just for these forums to let us know specifics?

 

I wouldn't mind if it was different i guess, i realise it's a bit long and others may not like it, but whatever you do, i hope you do provide some info on the creature summoned in regards to major perks/flaws it may have?

 

Thanks, and keep it up.

[Mike1072]

I know, but Anomen can use a longsword +3 but not a magical created one for example.

Installing it on my clean install makes ENSW1H01 usable by fighter/clerics, among others.

 

The component works by checking if weapons are usable by the other half of the multi-class, in this case fighters, and if so, then ensuring that it is usable by the multi-class, in this case fighter/clerics. The only way this should fail is if 1) the item is not usable by fighters, 2) the item doesn't have a weapon animation (ie. is not a weapon or is completely messed up).

 

Check ENSW1H01.ITM to start to see if it is flagged as usable by fighter/clerics. If it isn't, run a --change-log on it. If it is, following SPWI417.SPL(->2DA->SPL)->ITMs will check which items are being used by your Enchanted Weapon spell.

[Demivrgvs]

Enchanted Weapon

I've added ranged weapons too

What do you think about allowing it to create +3 arrows/quarrels/bullets?

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought this spell's design was to provide enchantment high enough to hit really tough guys. So, perhaps it should create not ranged weapons but exaclty the ammo?

+3 projectiles are going to be useful for a long time in game because there're no +3 ones in SoA so the spell could still be useful in the late stages of the game ( I guess making it scaleable from +2 to +4 would mean fill the override folder even more so out of question? ), then adding them is a good thing. How many projectiles, 40?

It seems most of you would welcome enchanted projectiles, and yes, I have 40 ammos in mind. Regarding the enchantment level I may work on scalable +2 to +4 weapons in the future, but it requires a lot of work, and I already have problems deciding the bams for these weapons.

 

These weapons are copied from SR and thus are usable by clerics, which is not an issue in case you don't have IR, as even if they can wield them they wouldn't have proficiency points without SR, making it "not-exploitable".

 

Implosion

It seems vanilla's spell bypasses magic resistance, but I think that feature combined with 20D10 points of damage is really too much for a 7th level spell, don't you agree?

It affects only a single target, unlike wizard's HLAs. Hard to say, but with fire damage (easily resistable by high level party member) replaced with extra crushing I have to say that you do make a point.

well, it's single target, but yes compared to delayed fireball ( 20d6 as per v3? ) it is going to have some convenient damage and a stun effect; I'd say lower the damage ( to 20d6, death at -6 for half ) and let it ignore the mr, so that fire storm becomes the most damaging spell while implosion is easier to use.

On second thought my vote would actually go for keeping the 20d10 damage and make it not bypass magic resistance because this spell is supposed to kill on a failed save imo (at least most of the times), it doesn't bypass magic resistance in PnP, and I don't see why it should.

 

P.S Regarding Dragon's Breath, as of now I've only reduced its damage output to 20D8 to slightly offset the increased penalty to saves (-6 instead of none). I don't like that it bypasses magic resistance (only a true dragon's breath should in PnP as it's a supernatural ability and not a spell), but I'm not sure if I can change that without affecting the AI. If we keep this feature I think 20D6 is more balanced, as it would be a Horrid Wilting which damages different

 

Incendiary Cloud

do you mind add fire skulls and Azamantes to the list of unaffected by it creatures? the encounter with the lich at the 5th level of watcher keep starts with those (3) skulls casting incendiary cloud on top of their 'heads', one of them hitting its undead master too; it's unchanged in SCS2, and the lich not always get the protection from fire buff. Skulls are fire creatures so the immunity makes sense from a roleplay prospective, the lich is more a conveniency thing, but as all liches see through invisibility some smoke shoudn't interfere too, then maybe all liches could be made immune.

 

Then while you are at it efreeti, balors, glabrezus, pit fiends shall join the club, as well as dragons that while immune to blindness I don't know how could react to the new feature.

Hey after all that work I might finally be happy about this spell so it's worth it

The problem with these creatures is that they aren't recognizeable via gender/race/class, I'll ask Mike if it's not a huge problem to add a small patch for these creatures.

 

P.S Are all demons supposed to be immune to fire? In that case adding the immunity for them would be easy...

 

I'm tempted to say that all creatures with a innate 100+% resistance to a element should get the benefits of the revised protection from x element spells, but if it takes too long and is material for a 'Creature Revision' mod then ignore me

In theory I agree with you...but I'm not sure I'll be able to do it, probably not anytime soon.

 

Edit:

Can i just ask something? Are the spell descriptions for summons and such going to be like that? I think it's very cool to know all this info about whatever you're summoning, so are they like this in-game, or just for these forums to let us know specifics?

I guess you haven't used any old version of SR. Yes, in-game descriptions look like this. I already did it for SR V1 and I think it really helps the players, I'm glad you like it.

[Guest Guest]

Looks like some really nice ideas here. Out of interest, what's the advantage of Electrical Resistance being 125% instead of 100%? Will it mean electrical damage actually heals the creature?