SR V2.9

[Demivrgvs]

It seems most of my suggestions were welcome...great!

 

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.

Make the AoE spell effect only the undead...

Considering Fire Seed too is a semi-AoE spell I think I'll agree with Ardanis. For a "single target" 6th level spell 1D6/level up to 20D6 seems much more appropriate than the current pathetic damage output (even for a player who dislike power playing like me), especially considering Flame Arrow does the same damage and it doesn't even require a "to-hit roll". The blinding effect is incredibly effective in BG and thus should make more than enough to compensate the "not outstanding" damage. An undead creature hit by the spell would suffer 40D6 points of damage (save to half), and though it seems an extremely high output (it is! ), it's like being hit by a Disintegrate spell, thus it's still very appropriate imo.

 

Fire Storm

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

Yes it would. The spell lasts 4 rounds, thus I should use a repeated EFF to constantly check which creatures are within 10 feet radius and make them immune to the spell's effects. You already know all the issues caused by repeating EFF opcode.

Being this a spell and not an equipped item I may be able to avoid most issues, but I would have to use a "cast spell" effect each x seconds to manage the immunity within 10' radius...probably not very userfriendly.

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

What do you mean by "old spell"? Your solution is a little convenient, but reasonable in terms of usefulness, I'll think about it, though I prefer the other one if doable.

[culmore]

Well here are my votes.

 

Arcane Spells

 

Power Word Sleep Yes

 

 

Ray of Enfeeblement Okay

 

Clairvoyance Good idea

 

 

Enchanted Weapons Yes

 

Otiluke Resilient Sphere Yes

 

Incendiary Cloud The blindness is what is great about this spell. Not sure I would get any use out of it if it where not for the blindness.

 

 

Summon Insect, Insect Plague & Creeping Doom - YES please to checking each round for spell failure!!!!!!!

 

Poison Yes

 

Magic Resistance Hmmmm

 

Physical Mirror YES

 

 

Unholy Blight/Unholy Word Ekkk Nice for the enemy AI, worse for the player.

[lac]

Have any of you read the books of Oliver Sacks -- The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat -- is probably the most famous. It is absolutely incredible how a person who cannot perceive something -- due to neurological damage --

can create a world view that explains the damage away.

 

There was one woman who could not see the right (or maybe it was left) side of things. She would eat all her

meals by eating all the food on the left side of the plate. Then rotating the plate so she could eat half

of what was left (turning the plate 90 degrees and then eating the other half would not work). Then

she would rotate again and get half of what was left over.... until it wasn't worth the effort any more.

 

Her ability to perceive had been greatly damaged. She was perfectly aware that this was the case, and

knew that the right hand side of things had to exist somewhere, and intellectually believed in their existence.

But she couldn't perceive them. And she couldn't perceive that there was something wrong with her

perceptions, either. They felt just fine to her. She reasoned out, from past experience, that there had to

be more food than she was given, and if she followed this procedure, she could find it, and get fed, but

actually perceiving this was completely beyond her.

 

That is how I think invisibility spells work. They simulate neurological damage making it impossible for you

see things you should. Note -- there are some people who have problems seeing certain things. So

the reverse of the plant experiment has been done -- take a plant, and cover it with an object that your

damaged person cannot see. They will continue to see a plant. They will discribe it moving in the

breeze, should you blow air in the room -- even if you have taken special care to make sure that the plant

does not move in the breeze at all. They see what they believe they ought to see. And the frightening thing

is that they don't have any sense that 'they are making this all up' or using their imagination at all. What they

perceive comes back perfectly tagged as 'reality' -- the same as what real things do.

 

Just more things to think about,

Laura

[culmore]

What about two versions of secret word, one single target one AOE? Can Warding whip have a AOE version also?

 

Spell thrust, Khelhen's Warding whip, and spell trike are already AOE spells

 

I think it is okay to keep piece magic and Pierce shield single target. As they do more then just get rid of a spell shield. But maybe...

[SixOfSpades]

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".

If a theory predicts results that empirically do not turn out to be correct, the theory is flawed. I suggest that while the "Illusion spells do not actually effect real creatures/objects, only my enemies' perception of said creatures/objects" explanation does work for some spells (if you cast Blindness on a creature, he will not actually be blinded, he will only think he is), the same idea does not work for other spells. This whole "Invisible/not really Invisible" debate is nothing compared to the nonsense of your Simulacrum running around bludgeoning things to death.

 

I for one would be perfectly happy with a redefinition of the Illusion school, describing it simply by the effects that its spells cause, regardless of the means by which those effects are achieved.

 

Doom

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?

I say "-1 bonus" and the like just because that's the way the backwards system works. (This was finally fixed in 3rd Edition, right?) Anyway, the Save bonus was to counteract your complaint about how a full-strength Doom would effectively neutralize a low-level (BG1) enemy, so I thought I'd allow those same enemies (who have lousy Saves anyway) a fair chance to avoid it. Yes, it would take 10 levels before the Save bonus goes away, but the continuing penalty keeps the spell useful.

. . . then again, other 1st-level spells, like Sleep, kick a hell of a lot more low-level ass than Doom anyway, so there goes THAT logic.

 

Clairvoyance

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?

I think it should be Dispellable: When you cast the spell, you don't immediately gain foreknowledge of everything that's going to happen during the next turn, you merely gain an extra split second of warning . . . which lasts a full turn, and therefore can be dispelled. (Some trap-detection capabilities might also be appropriate.) As for RevealArea--the only solutions I've come up with are allowing different versions of the spell, determined at time of install, and having the spell, when cast, allow you to choose whether you want to reveal the map or not. Both possibilities seem unattractively clunky to me.

 

Obviously I'm curious [about changes to the Specialist Mages] now!

The fact that each of the Specialist kits is defined not by its own strengths, but by its Opposition's weaknesses, annoys the hell out of me. 90% of the people who love Edwin for being a Conjurer spend most of their time using him to blast opponents with Evocation and Necromancy. So if I were a PnP DM (i.e., God), this is what I would do:

ADVANTAGES:

- Can memorize 1 additional spell of each level (the same as they do now)

DISADVANTAGES:

- The first 2 spellslots of each spell level can NEVER contain any spell not from their chosen School

- 75% penalty to the odds of sucessfully scribing a spell from their Opposition school(s)

Given that INT potions are practically limitless in-game, that means your odds of scribing an Opposition spell max out at 75%, which I think is fair given that it's your Opposition and all that. The "You MUST cast at least 1/3rd of your spells from your own chosen School" rule will be impossible to enforce, though. I would also mix up which schools are opposed to which other schools, in order to make more sense: Divination & Illusion hate each other, etc.

 

Summon Insects, Insect Plague, Creeping Doom

Since 99% of all Saving Throws in the game are Death and Spells, I'd like to see as much focus as possible shifted back onto Wands/Breath/Polymorph. Also, you didn't mention the percentage of Spell Failure each of these spells would generate.

I know I've mentioned reworking these particular spells myself, but to be frank I haven't gotten to that point yet, as I'm trying to work out some all-new spells first.

 

Poison

You say that you're going to make it more damaging . . . and then you describe reduced damage. Sure, I strongly approve of some "damage no matter what" element, but I'd like to know how much.

 

Dolorous Decay

I don't like the CON penalty. All targets with less than 13 CON will die by stat drain, which grants no EXP, and the spell actually does more "damage" to targets with higher CON. I propose it be made more like a Cleric's version of Horrid Wilting: Small area of effect, Slow, does Magic damage over time, targets with no actual flesh (Skeletons, Elementals, most Golems) are immune.

 

Sol's Searing Orb

The AoE makes sense, but there's already Fire Seeds. The vs. Undead is nice, but the game is too heavily stacked against Undead anyway. What I'd like is to see the Orb be made sticky: It clings to the target for about 5 rounds, does Fire damage over time (all right, extra damage to Undead), makes them glow brightly (AC penalty), and the Blindness is based not on a Save, but on the 20% chance that you hit them in a spot close enough to their face that they can't get the light out of their eyes. It could carry a more appealing THAC0 bonus to counteract the "if you miss, the spell is wasted" part, but as a counter to that, while it's still in the Cleric's hand it would confer its negative effects (Fire damage, glow, AC penalty) upon the Cleric.

 

Fire Storm

Well, you could make the party immune as well . . . but even if it's just the caster, you've still got the issue of him standing right next to the bad guy--neither one is immune to Fire damage, but only one is taking damage. Your proposed change is a decent idea, but it would be too easy to abuse.

[Demivrgvs]

Illusion School

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".

If a theory predicts results that empirically do not turn out to be correct, the theory is flawed. I suggest that while the "Illusion spells do not actually effect real creatures/objects, only my enemies' perception of said creatures/objects" explanation does work for some spells (if you cast Blindness on a creature, he will not actually be blinded, he will only think he is), the same idea does not work for other spells. This whole "Invisible/not really Invisible" debate is nothing compared to the nonsense of your Simulacrum running around bludgeoning things to death.

 

I for one would be perfectly happy with a redefinition of the Illusion school, describing it simply by the effects that its spells cause, regardless of the means by which those effects are achieved.

I was thinking about giving this interesting debate its own topic, lac's post alone deserves it! Anywya, I do agree with Six here, and Simulacrum is the best example to describe the flaws in the original description of the school. In PnP its description says "Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow." Thus I think Illusion school is defined by the effects it creates (illusions, distorted perception of reality, shadows, ...) "regardless of the means by which those effects are achieved."

Secret Word

What about two versions of secret word, one single target one AOE? Can Warding whip have a AOE version also?

 

Spell thrust, Khelhen's Warding whip, and spell trike are already AOE spells

 

I think it is okay to keep piece magic and Pierce shield single target. As they do more then just get rid of a spell shield. But maybe...

I don't like the idea of having two versions of the same spell, but if players thinks the 5' radius is appropriate and balanced for Secret Word too I may do it, I'm not particularly radicated on this matter. Instead Warding Whip is not an AoE spell right now, and I would be slightly against it because it's already quite effective in prolonged battles with its 4 rounds duration.

Doom

I say "-1 bonus" and the like just because that's the way the backwards system works. (This was finally fixed in 3rd Edition, right?) Anyway, the Save bonus was to counteract your complaint about how a full-strength Doom would effectively neutralize a low-level (BG1) enemy, so I thought I'd allow those same enemies (who have lousy Saves anyway) a fair chance to avoid it. Yes, it would take 10 levels before the Save bonus goes away, but the continuing penalty keeps the spell useful.

. . . then again, other 1st-level spells, like Sleep, kick a hell of a lot more low-level ass than Doom anyway, so there goes THAT logic.

I complained about how effective it was without allowing a save, but a normal save already reduces its effectiveness by almost 25%. Making it connect even less than I planned would probably mean most players will avoid this spell like a plague imo.

 

Clairvoyance

I think it should be Dispellable: When you cast the spell, you don't immediately gain foreknowledge of everything that's going to happen during the next turn, you merely gain an extra split second of warning . . . which lasts a full turn, and therefore can be dispelled. (Some trap-detection capabilities might also be appropriate.) As for RevealArea--the only solutions I've come up with are allowing different versions of the spell, determined at time of install, and having the spell, when cast, allow you to choose whether you want to reveal the map or not. Both possibilities seem unattractively clunky to me.

I like your point of view on how the increased perception works, and it allows me to make it dispellable which is a better solution in terms of gameplay imo.

Regarding the Trap-detection I'm against it, else Find Trap spell would results in a complete waste of a spell.

 

Summon Insects, Insect Plague, Creeping Doom

Since 99% of all Saving Throws in the game are Death and Spells, I'd like to see as much focus as possible shifted back onto Wands/Breath/Polymorph. Also, you didn't mention the percentage of Spell Failure each of these spells would generate.

Actually with SR installed all spells that seem to require reflexes to be avoided use a save vs. breath. That being said, I'd like too to have at least a save vs. breath here, and I suggested it myself.

Spell failure is 100% because I allow a save each round to avoid it.

 

Poison

You say that you're going to make it more damaging . . . and then you describe reduced damage. Sure, I strongly approve of some "damage no matter what" element, but I'd like to know how much.

I've said I was going to improve its "damaging factor" appeal, and indirectly I've somewhat raised the damage too because the spell damage now increase faster than before with caster's levels. Regarding how much damage is unavoidable I've already pointed it out, the "instant damage" doesn't allow a save. Thus for example at 7th level Poison would deal 2D6 (no save) + 2/round for 1 turn (save negates).

 

Dolorous Decay

I don't like the CON penalty. All targets with less than 13 CON will die by stat drain, which grants no EXP, and the spell actually does more "damage" to targets with higher CON. I propose it be made more like a Cleric's version of Horrid Wilting: Small area of effect, Slow, does Magic damage over time, targets with no actual flesh (Skeletons, Elementals, most Golems) are immune.

Actually the spell is still less effective against target with higher CON, because they last longer. I agree with it not affecting some creatures, but this spell must remain tied to disease imo, I'd never use magic damage for this spell. If creatures that die by stat drain don't give exp that would be annoying as hell, I'll check it asap.

 

P.S I never liked Horrid Wilting's magic damage. It doesn't make sense imo that it deals damage as a Magic Missile or a Skull Trap. Not to mention that using Energy Resistance to resist it doesn't feel right. Changing it to something else (e.g. either cold or physical damage) may be interesting but it would have issues as well (e.g. why cold/physical resistant creature should resist it?). A quite creative tweak may be using "stunning" damage, which should be able to bypass most resistances just like magic damage, but you would have the knock unconscious at 0 hit points effect (which may be considered appropriate or not). PnP does have a 6th level druid's spell that works similarly to a single target ADHW (actually it does almost the opposite ), and it knocks target unconscious at 0 hit points. I'm talking about Drown.

 

Sol's Searing Orb

The AoE makes sense, but there's already Fire Seeds. The vs. Undead is nice, but the game is too heavily stacked against Undead anyway. What I'd like is to see the Orb be made sticky: It clings to the target for about 5 rounds, does Fire damage over time (all right, extra damage to Undead), makes them glow brightly (AC penalty), and the Blindness is based not on a Save, but on the 20% chance that you hit them in a spot close enough to their face that they can't get the light out of their eyes. It could carry a more appealing THAC0 bonus to counteract the "if you miss, the spell is wasted" part, but as a counter to that, while it's still in the Cleric's hand it would confer its negative effects (Fire damage, glow, AC penalty) upon the Cleric.

Interestings suggestions, though I don't agree with all of them. I'd like to know players' opinions on this matter. Would you prefer to make it work as I previously suggested, or to make it deal ongoing fire damage?

 

Fire Storm

Well, you could make the party immune as well . . . but even if it's just the caster, you've still got the issue of him standing right next to the bad guy--neither one is immune to Fire damage, but only one is taking damage. Your proposed change is a decent idea, but it would be too easy to abuse.

I'll try to make the 10' radius around the caster work because it would be indeed less exploitable, but if it doesn't work well I wouldn't go as far as making the whole party immune to the spell. That would be really too exploitable!

 

Specialist Mages

The fact that each of the Specialist kits is defined not by its own strengths, but by its Opposition's weaknesses, annoys the hell out of me. 90% of the people who love Edwin for being a Conjurer spend most of their time using him to blast opponents with Evocation and Necromancy. So if I were a PnP DM (i.e., God), this is what I would do:

ADVANTAGES:

- Can memorize 1 additional spell of each level (the same as they do now)

DISADVANTAGES:

- The first 2 spellslots of each spell level can NEVER contain any spell not from their chosen School

- 75% penalty to the odds of sucessfully scribing a spell from their Opposition school(s)

...I would also mix up which schools are opposed to which other schools, in order to make more sense: Divination & Illusion hate each other, etc.

I feel the very same way about specialist mages being not tied at all to their chosen school right now, but my proposed solution is actually way easier to code and still very similar. Instead of giving them an additional spell slot per level I'd give them one spell of their chosen school per spell level, a la Divine Remix.

Opposition schools are "hardcoded", they are tied to exclusion flags that would probably mess up things like SI if changed. What can be done instead is to add another opposition school (e.g. Divination vs. Illusion, Conjuration vs. Evocation) and balancing it with additional features (e.g. Invokers may have elemental resistances, high level Enchanters may be immune to charm spells, and so on...). Anyway, while I'm sure going to do my first suggestion (assigning an appropriate chosen school's spell per level), I'm not so sure about this latter feature, as it's probably more difficult to find a general consensus on this matter.

[Demivrgvs]

Dolorous Decay

One good news and a bad one. The bad one is that Six is right and death by constitution loss doesn't grant exp, thus my proposed solution is less appealing than I hoped. The good one is that Slow caused by "disease" opcode works slightly different from a normal slow: it isn't prevented by the "immunity to slow" or Free Action spell, only by "disease immunity", thus preventing the major issue I was afraid of. On a side note, "disease slow" doesn't reduce attacks per round rate like the normal "slow" effect, thus it may be slightly less appealing than we thought.

 

Now we have to find another way to make this spell worth of a 6th level spell. We may simply raise the damage output (even vanilla's 4th level Poison deals more damage at higher levels), and/or we may insist on the concept of it being a sort of "Contagion + Poison" by adding penalties to physical attributes (perhaps decreased with time instead of instantly). Have you any suggestion?

 

Edit:

 

Summon Insect, Insect Plague & Creeping Doom

Regarding the request to make "save vs. breath" really matter for this spell, have you any suggestion? It could halve damage dealt, replace the "save vs. spell" against spellcasting failure, or perhaps reduce spell's duration. Let me know.

[Salk]

Dolorous Decay

 

The way to go is the "Contagion+Poison" effect that you initially conceived.

 

My suggestion:

 

-4 Con on hit and -1 for every round for for the next 3 rounds.

 

This would give a max. total reduction of 7 points of Constitution.

 

I'd think that NPCs with a Con value of 8+ cover 99% of the total. At the same time, the initial, greater Con penalty (compared to the proposed -2) would be a considerable loss on enemies with high constitution.

[yarpen]

A quite creative tweak may be using "stunning" damage, which should be able to bypass most resistances just like magic damage, but you would have the knock unconscious at 0 hit points effect (which may be considered appropriate or not)

 

According to IESDP when you kill someone with this type of damages, game crashes.

 

Opposition schools are "hardcoded", they are tied to exclusion flags that would probably mess up things like SI if changed.

 

Song and Silence have Gypsy class who can use only three schools of magic. Maybe NightMARE or CamDawg can help in this stuff.

 

Dolorous Decay you say... what about disabling regeneration? You know, when you have to fight with wolfveres or trolls it could be quite useful you know.

 

 

 

I don't like enhancing penalty to constitution. Most of monsters and bandits have constitution at level of 16 or something like that. So they have +2 points per level from higher constitution, right? I'd rather prefer penalty to maximum of hit points.

 

Poison (also you should reconsider that, for me diseases [blah don't know how to write] should be more weaking than damaging) + stopping regeneration + slight penalty (-2) to strenght, constitution, dexterity and charisma + slow effect.

 

Permanent penalties to attributes (cured by Cure disease spell) would be great.

[Salk]

Dolorous Decay you say... what about disabling regeneration? You know, when you have to fight with wolfveres or trolls it could be quite useful you know.

 

This sounds nice.

 

It would be effective only for a number of enemies but it's pretty original and could be combined with my suggestion above where, by the way, I meant to imply of course that the Con penalty is permanent untill Cure Disease is cast.

[Ardanis]

According to IESDP when you kill someone with this type of damages, game crashes.

Stunning type works okay, I've used it about two years ago and the recepient went sleeping instead of crashing game.

 

Dolorous Decay

Another idea - may be change it to contaminate nearby enemies, should they come close enough? I think it's an issue free abuse regarding.

[Demivrgvs]

ADHW

A quite creative tweak may be using "stunning" damage, which should be able to bypass most resistances just like magic damage, but you would have the knock unconscious at 0 hit points effect (which may be considered appropriate or not)

According to IESDP when you kill someone with this type of damages, game crashes.

Stunning type works okay, I've used it about two years ago and the recepient went sleeping instead of crashing game.

Yes, and to make Horrid Wilting effectively kill instead of knock unconscious a single point of damage applied after the "stunning" one should be enough.

The question is, would this be worth the trouble? The only real advantage is that we make ADHW not affected by Energy Resistance, which would be quite appropriate imo, but perhaps not much of a problem, and less "immersion-breaking" than having creatures die for a single point of damage after being knocked unconscious.

 

Opposition School

Song and Silence have Gypsy class who can use only three schools of magic. Maybe NightMARE or CamDawg can help in this stuff.

Adding prohibited schools to a kit is quite easy, replacing the original opposition school is not.

 

Dolorous Decay

...what about disabling regeneration? You know, when you have to fight with wolfveres or trolls it could be quite useful you know.

Not doable, I tested it while working on a Werebane item for IR.

 

I don't like enhancing penalty to constitution. Most of monsters and bandits have constitution at level of 16 or something like that. So they have +2 points per level from higher constitution, right? I'd rather prefer penalty to maximum of hit points.

I was going to point this out myself. Unless used to effectively bring a character to CON 0, which we have stated is not desiderable, CON penalties above 3 or 4 points are completely pointless (except extremely rare opponents). That is why I chosed -4 to all physical attributes for Symbol of Weakness instead of PnP's 3d6 points of STR.

 

Poison (also you should reconsider that, for me diseases [blah don't know how to write] should be more weaking than damaging) + stopping regeneration + slight penalty (-2) to strenght, constitution, dexterity and charisma + slow effect.

 

Permanent penalties to attributes (cured by Cure disease spell) would be great.

That's more or less what I had in mind (Poison + Contagion). Removing the poison damage would make the spell pointless unless we add something else. The trick is to not consider it "poison damage" just like you shouldn't consider Horrid Wilting's damage "magic damage". At least the "disease poison damage" caused by Dolorous Decay is correctly blocked from "immunity to disease", though it's also blocked by "reduce poison damage" opcode which is used to make creatures effectively immune to "instant poison damage".

 

Another idea - may be change it to contaminate nearby enemies, should they come close enough? I think it's an issue free abuse regarding.

That would be really interesting imo, though the name of the spell doesn't seem too appropriate to me (Contagion seems more of a "spreading plague" than "Dolorous Decay"), is it?

 

Summon Insect, Insect Plague & Creeping Doom

Regarding the request to make "save vs. breath" really matter for this spell, have you any suggestion? It could halve damage dealt, replace the "save vs. spell" against spellcasting failure, or perhaps reduce spell's duration. Let me know.

I'm quoting myself. After thinking about it I would personally vote for a save to have the duration, but would it make sense?

[Salk]

Dolorous Decay

 

On top of the slow effect and the -2 to Str, Con, Dex and Cha, we could think of an amount of damage which doubles itself to simulate the decay.

 

Example: on hit, -2 HPs at first round; -4 HPs at second round; -8 HPs at third round, -16 HPs at fourth round, -32 HPs at fifth round.

 

Feel free to expand on this concept if you find it interesting enough.

 

EDIT: Even better perhaps, to have the damage expressed in percentage of the total HPs.

 

Example: om hit, -5% of the total HPs; -10% of the HPs left at second round; -20% of the HPs left at third round, -40% of the HPs left at fourth round and finally - 80% of the HP left at fifth round.

 

Would this be codable?

[lac]

re specialist mages

 

right now the options I have contain 'cannot memorise spells from your opposition school'. So no evocations for me. I thought this was standard? If not, where is this coming from -- Divine Remix?

 

Laura

[Icendoan]

Cannot Learn/Memorize spells from Opposition School is vanilla.

 

Icen