SR V2.9

[Demivrgvs]

Doom

Perhaps you could make it last a bit longer but make it -2 to all saving throws, and nothing else with no save ... so it's not reverse luck, but weaker version of the Greater Malison. As that's how I use the spell... against casters, not fighters.

 

And you can't kill with Doom, unlike with Energy drain...

That would probably be quite balanced, but it seems to me a forced change to meet a player convenience imo. It's not Minor Malison, and the spell is supposed to be effective against any type of opponent.

 

P.S Killing with Energy Drain is almost impossible unless you target a 4HD creature (2HD in vanilla! ) with a 9th level spell or you use multiple Energy Drains, which surely isn't a chep way to kill a creature.

 

Ghost Armor & Spirit Armor

And yes, the ability to cast on others makes Spirit Armour valuable, especially if you hang out with archers and stalkers much. So if, as an idea, you could only cast Ghost armour on others, and it lasted longer than Spirit Armour, while Spirit Armour was a better class of Armour, with better saves, but with a shorter duration than Ghost Armour, then you might have a reason to pack both spells. But why bother?

Because I don't like that currently Ghost Armor is just plain useless compared to Spirit Armor, and it's pity imo to have so many spells available and not making all of them appealing.

 

I'd rather have a stoneskin that you can cast on others, if you are looking for spells to make....

Stoneskin is already incredibly powerful as it is, allowing it to be casted on someone else would be really too exploitable imo.

 

I am thinking about the other spells.

[Icendoan]

Stoneskin is hardcoded....

 

Icen

[lac]

re: stone to flesh -- I think its flesh to stone you mean, and see the Bigg's Tweaks for a way to prevent it from ending the game when cast on charname. see

 

http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?act=ann...f=252&id=12

 

there is a change to natures beauty in there, too, making it last 8 hours so you can sleep it off.

 

I like the power word sleep and ray of enfeeblement proposed changes.

 

I like chaos the way it is. I see no need to make confusion more appealing. Dropping it altogether would be fine with me.

 

I am always happy to see new spells for Enchanters, since I play one very often.

 

I really like the idea of having wail of the banshee not effect deafened characters. Then I would want a helmet of deafness, too. I suspect there are some other spells which would work nicely as 'not effected on deafened characters' -- chant comes to mind ...

[Icendoan]

I wonder if you can prevent Bard Song from deafened characters?

 

Deafness is a horrible, horrible thing for spellcasters. No Cleric wants to be deaf, even if it means immunity to this spell.

 

Icen

[lac]

Thinking more on things, I don't think its a good idea, in general, to rescue spells such as confusion by toning down other perfectly good spells. Better, in my view, to remove the spells that time has shown are a waste of time. And that way, when people scream about it we can all learn ways we never thought of that spells we thought were complete dogs were useful.

 

But, I cannot stop thinking about such ways, for all of that. Spirit Armour uses the target's life force to produce the armour. Thus attacks that damage the target's life force ought to bring it crashing down. So disease and ray of enfeeblement, as examples, should cause the spirit armour to be dispelled, or perhaps just less effective?

 

Thinking out loud again, but not sure I like that I am doing this. I really like Spirit Armour the way it is and don't really want to find ways to make it less appealing ....

[Icendoan]

It could make you more susceptible to disease and so on. Maybe lower your CON while active?

 

Icen

[Salk]

It's not like he changed color spray to necromancy or another arbitrary school that has no correlation with the spell: he moved it to illusion and that's the right school for the spell in the 3ed/4ed; many changes are already following this path.

 

I think there is a basic error here.

 

Following 3ed/4ed changes is not a guarantee of not arbitrary modification.

 

The schools of magic that BG adapt can't be "partly changed" to 3rd edition or later.

 

It's a matter of keeping things consistent with themselves.

 

And AD&D 2nd Ed Illusion school says:

 

"Illusions rely on the idea of believability, which in turn relies on the situation and the state of mind of the victim."

 

Now, I doubt that Colour Spray belongs there, really.

[SixOfSpades]

And AD&D 2nd Ed Illusion school says:

"Illusions rely on the idea of believability, which in turn relies on the situation and the state of mind of the victim."

Wait, what? An Invisibility spell doesn't actually turn me invisible, it just convinces enemies that I'm invisible? It uses psychology on the bad guys, including those that have no minds to begin with? Sorry, but that's full of it.

 

Of course, it's still not as bad as setting Illusion and Necromancy as each other's opposition schools, as opposed to Illusion and oh, I don't know, Divination.

[Salk]

And AD&D 2nd Ed Illusion school says:

"Illusions rely on the idea of believability, which in turn relies on the situation and the state of mind of the victim."

Wait, what? An Invisibility spell doesn't actually turn me invisible, it just convinces enemies that I'm invisible? It uses psychology on the bad guys, including those that have no minds to begin with? Sorry, but that's full of it.

 

Of course, it's still not as bad as setting Illusion and Necromancy as each other's opposition schools, as opposed to Illusion and oh, I don't know, Divination.

 

Blame the AD&D 2nd Edition if you like.

 

From the Complete Wizard's Handbook:

 

Illusion

 

Description: Spells from the school of illusion bend reality to create apparent changes in the environment, in the caster, or in other persons or creatures. These spells do not cause real changes as alteration spells do, but instead alter the way that creatures and persons perceive reality. This school includes both illusion and phantasm spells.

 

Just tell me, if you cast invisibility on yourself and I touch you, would my hand go through your body?

 

Since the answer is no, it's obvious that the perception of your body is merely concealed to my sight.

 

It's not about psycology, as you said, it's about perception. Since a skeleton or an animal perceive their environments (they don't need any specific intelligence), then it makes sense to accept this definition.

 

Take it or leave it.

[SixOfSpades]

If I cast Invisibility on myself and you look at me, will you see what's on the other side of me? Granted, I'm not very large, so your brain could easily look at the background and fill in the blank spot, but that doesn't really work with creatures as big as, say, Draconis. If Draconis is between Jaheira and myself, and he goes Invisible, will I be able to see things like how badly she's injured, or what weapon she just switched to?

 

Yeah, I blame the handbook. If the source material doesn't make sense, screw the source material.

[Mike1072]

Needless to say, this arguing is fairly pointless - but fun.

 

Just tell me, if you cast invisibility on yourself and I touch you, would my hand go through your body?

No, because invisibility never claims to make you incorporeal. If you mean would your hand appear to go through the invisible person, also no - you'd look like a mime.

 

More relevant, if you put a plant in a hole in the ground, and had an invisible person or object lying on top of the hole, would the plant get the same amount of sunlight as it would if the object was not "blocking" the light?

 

Since the answer is no, it's obvious that the perception of your body is merely concealed to my sight.

I think the argument is 'invisibility physically changes the creature' versus 'invisibility affects the perception of those viewing the creature'. It sounds like they have defined invisibility as the latter in D&D, which is interesting.

[Jarno Mikkola]

More relevant, if you put a plant in a hole in the ground, and had an invisible person or object lying on top of the hole, would the plant get the same amount of sunlight as it would if the object was not "blocking" the light?

No, obviously, as the light would be called creature light.

[SixOfSpades]

I REFUSE TO SUPPORT ANY VERSION OF SPELL REVISIONS THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE LEOMUND'S LAMENTABLE BELABORMENT

[Raj]

Needless to say, this arguing is fairly pointless - but fun.

 

 

coudn't resist.

[Salk]

First dear Raj,

 

we are not arguing. We are discussing the rules of the game, contributing the way we can. I do believe that discussions help growth. Dismissing this as pointless (like Mike believes) or even courtyard bickering doesn't seem right to me.

 

Mike,

 

 

No, because invisibility never claims to make you incorporeal.

 

That's the point. There is no physical alteration of the reality. Just an illusion. Remember where all this started?

 

More relevant, if you put a plant in a hole in the ground, and had an invisible person or object lying on top of the hole, would the plant get the same amount of sunlight as it would if the object was not "blocking" the light?

 

It wouldn't. Because the light would not go through an invisible creature. Proof is that the invisible person would cast a shadow.

 

I think the argument is 'invisibility physically changes the creature' versus 'invisibility affects the perception of those viewing the creature'. It sounds like they have defined invisibility as the latter in D&D, which is interesting.

 

That was what I was trying to say from the beginning.