SR V2.9

[Salk]

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?

 

First of all, nothing in theory guarantees that your invisibility'd succeeds (this is where the source material is lacking, in my opinion). It's a trick and it might not work.

 

Said that, you should think of it as a dynamic process. The invisible creature occupies a physical space but the environment isn't altered in the least. The creature looking towards you (invisible) still perceives the image the way it was before that occupied space would obstructs the full view.

 

The degree of success of the invisibility spell should depend on various factors (as I said above, it's just a trick), among them the level of delusion of the target and perhaps even the size of the invisible creature, like you suggested.

[Mike1072]

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.

I know. But is this how most people view invisibility? When I hear the word, I generally imagine it the other way (a physical alteration to allow light - and not objects like hands - to pass through).

 

It seems very hard to justify it as an illusion and refer to it as true invisibility at the same time. If I was on one side of a wall, and I turned the wall invisible, by the definition of invisible, I should be able to see what's on the other side. But how could an illusion provide accurate information about this?

[Salk]

If I was on one side of a wall, and I turned the wall invisible, by the definition of invisible, I should be able to see what's on the other side. But how could an illusion provide accurate information about this?

 

It's not the illusion providing accurate information about this but your own perception.

 

By definition of the Illusion school according to AD&D 2nd. Edition, no real changes to the environment can be made through spells belonging to this school.

 

The real limit of this concept - I think - is not what you and others (SixofSpades) believe but rather the infallibility of the result.

 

If I am the one casting my own illusion, I shouldn't be affected by it so turning the wall invisible wouldn't make it disappear in front of my eyes.

 

This makes sense if you think of the non-fantasy concept of illusionist. They wouldn't fall for their own tricks, would they?

[Jarno Mikkola]

It seems very hard to justify it as an illusion and refer to it as true invisibility at the same time. If I was on one side of a wall, and I turned the wall invisible, by the definition of invisible, I should be able to see what's on the other side. But how could an illusion provide accurate information about this?

But the greatest illusions do not provide accurate information about what's on the other side. After all, the spears launchers behind the surface of the wall are there for trap defense, and thus also invisible.

[SixOfSpades]

All things considered, I think it's safe to say that Not-Quite-Invisibility, the kind where you define a creature or area, and describe how others are going to visually percieve that creature/area, is best left in the world of PnP D&D, where each casting can be handled on a case-by-case basis between the player and the DM. ("I cast Invisibility upon the door, so that others viewing it will continue to see it as a closed door. I then open the door to see what's on the other side.")

 

Meanwhile, we on the BG side can save a great deal of time, energy, and brain cells by saying that the various Invisibility spells used in-game turn the target actually, physically, Invisible, in that light hitting the creature or object is bent around it to come straight "out" the other side.

[Ardanis]

Meanwhile, we on the BG side can save a great deal of time, energy, and brain cells by saying that the various Invisibility spells used in-game turn the target actually, physically, Invisible, in that light hitting the creature or object is bent around it to come straight "out" the other side.

Seconded.

[Salk]

If we had to accept this definition (which might be more rational than the actual implementation) and still keep "Invisibility" as an Illusion spell, then the specific school of Illusion would lose its key-prerogative: to alter the way that creatures and persons perceive reality without causing any real changes.

 

Having the 'light hitting the creature or object bent around it to come straight "out" the other side.' would mean to move the spell Invisibility from "Illusion" to "Alteration".

[Ardanis]

Altering the way that creatures perceive reality without causing any real change is nearly the same as charming said creatures. So, one way or another, Illusion would be out of place.

[Salk]

Altering the way that creatures perceive reality without causing any real change is nearly the same as charming said creatures. So, one way or another, Illusion would be out of place.

 

I disagree.

 

Illusion doesn't manipulate directly the mind of the creature (in fact, illusions would work also for non intelligent beings) like Charm does.

 

It just creates an apparent, alternate reality which is the mean of delusion for the others. It's the third party that convinces himself of something. It's not the caster's doing like for Enchantment/Charm spells.

[yarpen]

Charms: playing with mind.

Illusion: playing with light.

[Demivrgvs]

Doom

I agree, allow a Save, but on a sliding scale varying with the caster's level. Something like Save vs. Spells with a -5 bonus at Level 1, but with a +1 penalty for every 2 caster levels?

When you say "-5 bonus" you're actually saying what I generally call a "+5 bonus". Anyway, most player feel that even a normal save nerfs this spell too much, and assigning a +5 bonus to the target do seems too much imo, especially in BG1 and at low-mid levels. It would take a 10th caster level to have the spell work with a normal save just like any other 1st level spell. Am I wrong?

 

Knock

I don't think it'd be worth the effort. Those who actually use Knock need it for its intended purpose, and those who don't would much rather memorize Acid Arrow anyway.

I've already done, tested and implemented it. It didn't take much to do it, it's just a matter of deciding if it's appealing or not.

Currently I've make it inflict 2d6 crushing damage (no save) and knock back (10 feet) unconscious for 1 round (save vs. spell negates). Any other player has an opinion on this matter?

 

Clairvoyance

In its current state, I never use it because I consider its effect to be an actual drawback: I like being able to see where I've explored vs. where I haven't. I'd like the spell if you replaced the ExploreArea with -1 AC / immunity to Backstab. (Save / Luck bonuses would make this too unbalanced for a Level 3 spell.)

I propose + 2 bonus to AC and saves vs. breath, plus immunity to backstab, for 1 turn. Should these effect be dispellable? They shouldn't imo, but I'm not sure. I have to think about your suggestion about removing the "reveal area effect", does anyone think it would be better?

 

Ghost Armor

...becomes Death Armor: Why would a Level 3 spell be more useful than a Level 4 spell? If it's going to be Spirit Armor + FireShield, it should be at least Level 5.

Death Armor is a 2nd level spell actually, and I suggested to make Ghost armor just like it plus the current "set base AC to 3" effect. I don't think it would make it worth of a 5th level spell, does it?

 

Spirit Armour

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....

I haven't planned to change it exactly because it seems fine as it is.

 

Chaos

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.

You're probably right...

 

Furthermore the "rebalancing of schools" has very little importance right now imo, but it will surely gain much more value when I'll manage to work on Specialist Mage kits.

I have some pertinent (and/or impertinent, depending on your preferred definition of the word) suggestions on that point, though it's a very safe bet that they can't be implemented. Let me know if you're curious.

Obviously I'm curious now!

 

As soon as I have some more time I have a lot things to discuss, and I've also already implemented quite a few changes that may be discussed a little. I'll be back.

[Ardanis]

Knock

Looks useful. There were only notable spells at the 2nd level - Melf's Arrow and Mirror Image, so it might be a good addition.

 

Clairvoyance

Dispellability - hard to say imho. Removing the revealing effect - I think it's okay. Hardly anyone seems to use it and should it be needed for a quest I'd just provide a party with a necessary device rather than having the player to buy and learn once-per-game spell.

 

Ghost Armor

IWD2's version uses AC bonus different from say Mage's or Spirit's bonuses, thus stacking with them. Perhaps something like that? The Blur was doing very similar thing, but I recall it being tweaked already (unless I desperately confuse it with something else, as it doesn't present in the readme changes).

 

Protection from Magical Energy (6th lvl)

What about it protecting against MMs and Abi-Dalzims?

[Demivrgvs]

Ok, let's start with a long list of suggestions...

 

Divine Spells

 

Shillelagh & Spiritual Hammer

Would it be too much to have Shillelagh improve its enchantment level? Just for example something like +2 at 6th level and +3 at 12th. Spiritual Hammer, which already has this feature may be improved too to reach higher enchantment level similarly to 3rd edition Spiritual Weapon (+1/5 levels up to +5).

 

Call Lightning

A very small change: the spell now lasts 1 round every 3 levels up to 5 rounds at 15th level, instead of 1 round +1/4 levels up to 5 rounds at 16th.

 

Miscast Magic

I've done something similar to what Six suggested, the spell now last 5 rounds, and each round a save is allowed to avoid the wild surge effect.

 

Summon Insect, Insect Plague & Creeping Doom

I've completely re-done them and they are coded in a completely different way (I now have to test if these changes are correctly taken into account by Detectable Spell). In terms of what you players are interested in what I've tried to do is to make them more standardized (Summon Insect get the missing panic effect and the 5th and 7th level versions get the combat abilities penalties), and slightly improve how they work (Spell Failure check was made only in the first round, and on a failed save spellcasting was impossible for the whole duration of the spell, instead I'd prefer to have a check each round). I'd like to discuss a few things, but firstly as a general guideline I may say that each version has four effects:

 

- Damage (1hp/2seconds for Summon Insect and Insect Plague, 2hp/2seconds for Creeping Doom)

- Combat Penalties (-2 penalty to AC and THAC0)

- Spell Failure, 1 round, each round a successful save vs. spell negates (no bonus/penalty for Summon Insect, -2 penalty for Insect Plague, -4 penalty for Creeping Doom)

- Panic for 1 round, each round a successful save vs. death negates (+2 bonus for Summon Insect, no bonus/penalty for Insect Plague, -2 penalty for Creeping Doom)

 

I think we may either increase the damage output allowing a save vs. breath to reduce it to half, or we may allow the save to negates combat penalties. I'd prefer the former.

Furthermore, we may even decide to completely remove the spellcasting failure considering the damage output every 2 seconds disrupts 80% of spells anyway. Alternatively the damage can be changed into "once per round" to allow characters who successfully save to have a much higher chance to cast a spell (e.g. dispel on self).

 

Poison

As of now this spell is really too weak even with SR's save penalties. As a save-or-else spell it hasn't much potential because its "else" effect isn't as powerful as a "save-or-else effect" generally is (e.g. hold, dominate, stun, or similar incapacitating effects, not to mention death effects!). As a damaging spell it's far from being great too, its a 4th level spell but its damage output is more or less the same of a 3rd level spell like Flame Arrow, with the huge disadvantage that a successful save negates all damage instead of reducing it to half.

Thus we have two options, make its "else" effect more threatening, or improve its "damage spell" aspect. I'd vote for the latter, and the solution imo would be pretty simple: the damage dealt on hit would be unavoidable, and a save would negate the ongoing damage. Then I would very slightly revise its scalability (reduced "on hit" damage, faster "level up") to look like this:

7th level: 2d6 + 2/round (previously 2d8 + 2/round at 7th level)

9th level: 3d6 + 3/round (previously 3d8 + 3/round at 10th level)

11th level: 4d6 + 4/round (previously 4d8 + 4/round at 13th level)

13th level: 5d6 + 5/round (previously 6d8 + 6/round at 15th level)

15+ level: 6d6 + 6/round (previously 8d8 + 8/round at 17th level)

 

Dolorous Decay

The same things I've said for Poison are true for this spell as well. Furthermore there's a "hidden" issue some of you probably don't know which is related to how slow and poison effect work together. The former reduces the damage dealt by the latter by half, to off-set it Dolorous Decay inflicts 120 points of poison/disease damage to effectively deal 60 points, but this mean that a creature immune to slow will actually take double damage by this spell!

Contrary to Poison I would favor the "save-or-else" factor here, making this spell a semi-equivalent cleric's version of Disintegrate. For example: it can keep the slow effect, but instead of dealing damage it may cause 2 points of constitution loss "on hit" and 1 further point each round for 1 turn, or perhaps until the target dies (a Cure Disease would prevent it though).

 

Sol's Searing Orb

I think we should either raise its damage output or make it an AoE spell (sort of Fireball).

 

Fire Storm

In PnP the AoE of this spell is shapeable ("Two 10-ft. cubes per level"), making it extremely more useful (e.g. 10' around caster can be left untouched to protect him and his allies). The only "issue-free" way to implement it would be to make it not affect the caster.

 

 

I still have to think about a few spells, first and foremost Nature's Beauty, but this is already a quite long list of possible improvements imo. I'll update the main 1st post so that everyone can easily check everything we're discussing.

 

I'll write a similar extensive post for Arcane Spells as soon as I have the time, there are even more possible changes there and I'm working on some "fixes" too (e.g. with a simple change over vanilla's way of coding it Sunfire no longer provides fire immunity to the caster, thus eliminating its related exploit; and the spell won't cause the caster to display the damage/hit animation anymore ).

[Ardanis]

Sol's Searing Orb

I'd increase the power of effect rather than making it AoE, since Flame Strike and Fire Storm are there already.

 

Fire Storm

"Issue free" - I think an additional projectile with the immunity effect should cause no serious issue (if any). I think.

 

Sunfire no longer provides fire immunity to the caster, thus eliminating its related exploit; and the spell won't cause the caster to display the damage/hit animation anymore

That's good to hear! It's really a mystery to me why nobody else have fixed it earlier.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Just my opinions...

Shillelagh & Spiritual Hammer

Would it be too much ..?

No

 

Call Lightning & Miscast Magic

 

Summon Insect, Insect Plague & Creeping Doom...

Furthermore, we may even decide to completely remove the spellcasting failure considering the damage output every 2 seconds disrupts 80% of spells anyway. Alternatively the damage can be changed into "once per round" to allow characters who successfully save to have a much higher chance to cast a spell (e.g. dispel on self).

Unfortunately that's not always the case... but if you like to switch features like the spell failure away from the first two spells and make the damage once per round for the first... go ahead, so they are more balanced.

 

Poison... I'd vote for the latter

You stole my words.

 

Dolorous Decay

 

Sol's Searing Orb Make the AoE spell effect only the undead...

 

Fire Storm Would it be too much to ask to make the old spell majorly(70-80% damage) party friendly?