Recommendation re horrid wilting etc.

[Strontium Dog]

Hello,

 

Just had a quick look at the spells-description on the top of the forum. I must admit I'm not happy with the idea that horrid wilting doesn't affect undead. Strictly speaking, horrid wilting doesn't attack the lifeforce, it simply destroys the water-content of flesh and bone, so only non-corporeal undead should remain unaffected by horrid wilting.I do agree that horrid wilting should be made, like in Icewind Dale, to affect all creatures within the area of effect, including party-members.

[Icendoan]

So, how would that be achieved?

 

It should insta-kill Mists then, as they are ALL water!

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

I must admit I'm not happy with the idea that horrid wilting doesn't affect undead. Strictly speaking, horrid wilting doesn't attack the lifeforce, it simply destroys the water-content of flesh and bone

I admit it's been a while since my shining in the chemistry field have met an end, but where would you find water in a dry bone?

[Icendoan]

The marrow.

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

where would you find water in a dry bone?

[Strontium Dog]

where would you find water in a dry bone?

 

 

I think even dry bone has a little water-content in it.

[Demivrgvs]

Horrid Wilting is supposed to "evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature". Even if an undead creature still has a small amount of water within its rotten corpse, would said creature be damaged from loosing it? I don't think so. The point is that removing the water content from a living being is deadly, removing it from a dead body is not...as it's already dead and doesn't need water to sustain itself imo.

 

That being said this rule also help to rebalance this spell, which in vanilla was way overpowered: it was more damaging than a 9th level spell Meteor Swarm, and Meteor Swarm doesn't even have the huge advantage of being party-friendly.

 

I do agree that horrid wilting should be made, like in Icewind Dale, to affect all creatures within the area of effect, including party-members.

It won't be implemented in SR as it would create serious issues with the AI.

[Strontium Dog]

Horrid Wilting is supposed to "evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature". Even if an undead creature still has a small amount of water within its rotten corpse, would said creature be damaged from loosing it? I don't think so. The point is that removing the water content from a living being is deadly, removing it from a dead body is not...as it's already dead and doesn't need water to sustain itself imo.

 

That being said this rule also help to rebalance this spell, which in vanilla was way overpowered: it was more damaging than a 9th level spell Meteor Swarm, and Meteor Swarm doesn't even have the huge advantage of being party-friendly.

 

I do agree that horrid wilting should be made, like in Icewind Dale, to affect all creatures within the area of effect, including party-members.

It won't be implemented in SR as it would create serious issues with the AI.

 

I'm aware that undead don't need water. But, since even bone has some water in it(4%??), it would do some damage, and undead with flesh(eg:- zombies/vampires) would undoubtedly be severely affected - zombies would become skeletons etc.

 

1 other problem I have with nerfing damaging spells is that most damaging spells become largely useless when going through the TOB portion of the game, so that I view it as necessary to boost them , instead. I mean 1 fireball launched at a pack of goblins in BG1 may well work, but against the standard orcs etc. of TOB 3 fireballs is still pretty ineffective. What that implies is that almost everyone would be forced, instead, to cast (and unmodified)greater malison and 1 of the spells specially strengthened, save-wise, by the Spell Revisions mod(eg:- flesh to stone, wail of the banshee etc.)

[Salk]

Horrid Wilting not damaging undead is sensible for the reason that the water (if there is any at all) doesn't have the same function that it has for living creature.

 

However like Demivrgvs said, it's too powerful and I think the damage could be simply nerfed by reworking the dice rolls.

[Demivrgvs]

Damaging Spells

1 other problem I have with nerfing damaging spells is that most damaging spells become largely useless when going through the TOB portion of the game, so that I view it as necessary to boost them , instead. I mean 1 fireball launched at a pack of goblins in BG1 may well work, but against the standard orcs etc. of TOB 3 fireballs is still pretty ineffective.

Damaging spells are considered much more effective than save-or-else spells by any experienced hardcore player, and it's undeniable imo. Boosting them isn't generally a good choice at all, I know you're using spell50 mod to boost them, but that mod is intended to be unbalanced, even its author claimed that the mod "will change the balance of power in the game in favor of spellcasters", and while BG1 probably fovored warriors, in BG2 spellcasters clearly already are the most powerful characters.

 

I may agree that some low-mid level damaging spell wasn't very effective (e.g. Ice Storm's damage output was pathetic), but you've chosen the wrong spell to point it out. ADHW was, and still is the most effective damaging spell (except HLAs), but vanilla's ADHW was way overpowered.

 

SR doesn't nerf damaging spells, on the contrary it adds penalties to their saves, making most of them slightly more powerful than before, but spells like ADHW which were already too powerul have been slightly nerfed for balance purposes.

 

Last but not least, SR is not intended to make the game easier, as BG already is very easy for a skilled player. I'd really be satisfied if by installing SR players would find the game slightly more challenging.

 

Greater Malison & Save-or-else Spells

What that implies is that almost everyone would be forced, instead, to cast (and unmodified)greater malison and 1 of the spells specially strengthened, save-wise, by the Spell Revisions mod(eg:- flesh to stone, wail of the banshee etc.)

Actually that would be almost cheating imo, or at least an exploit. SR's save penalties are already quite effective, combining them with an unnerfed Greater Malison isn't intended, and surely leads to unbalanced save-or-else spells. You're free to do what you prefer, but don't make claims about balance issues when you do this sort of things.

 

As I've demonstrated not long ago Greater Malison is still incredibly effective as per PnP/IWD/PST/SR, while its vanilla BG version is overpowered. It's math, not an opinion.

 

Horrid Wilting

However like Demivrgvs said, it's too powerful and I think the damage could be simply nerfed by reworking the dice rolls.

Already done, it deals up to 20d6 points of damage instead of 20d8, but SR adds a -6 penalty for half damage, which should be more than enough to "counter" the loss in terms of maximum damage output.

[Icendoan]

I don't find SR more challenging unless I play with SCSII, but different. I follow back on my old strategies and I am surprised when something different happens!

 

My sorcerers no longer learn Chromatic Orb, with no instakill at level 1.

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

But, since even bone has some water in it(4%??), it would do some damage,

Uh, well, it's not really related to adhw, but I keep insisting that there is no, in fact, any water in bone materia. I highly doubt that the spell is capable of decomposing hydrates, or that having a bath would render a skeleton vulnerable to being dried out with lethal consequences.

[Strontium Dog]

I should point out that 1 of Spell-Rev's spells is a death-knight-summoning spell(replacing Cacofiend) which gives the death-knight the ability to cast a 20d6 fireball. Granted, it's in line with AD&D's version, but I figure if NPCs are allowed to cast such 20d6 fireballs, so should PC spell-casters.

 

As regards spellcasting classes supposedly being more powerful in BG2. I'd have to disagree. The Inquisitor, for example, is able to defeat most protections with dispel magic and true seeing, and several weapons introduced by mods dispel magical protections etc.(not forgetting the paladin-sword in the original game) And AD&D spell-casters are severely limited in spell-use(except, I think, in the recent 4th edition AD&D?), so that once a spell-caster runs out of spells,they're defenceless - fighters, after all, by the time they reach HLA-levels, usally have such low saving-throws that it's extremely difficult to hit them even with a greater malison added on.

 

One really notices the weaknesses of spell-casters in Neverwinter Nights, where I had to rest before virtually every single potential encounter in order to regain necessary spells against fighter-type villains, especially at low levels. In the case of BGT, I'm currently in the BG1 portion of the game, and am finding the SCS1-/Big Picture-enhanced gibberlings etc. to be a real challenge, for the very first time. So, having more powerful spell-casters is necessary for me, since all my NPCs in the game are set at maximum hitpoints etc.

 

Whatever the case, I am extremely grateful for spell-rev's improvements of low-level spells like sleep/color-spray. I never saw the rationale behind only allowing the 1st level sleep spell to affect 4th level PCs or below.

[lac]

Some undead --ghouls vampires mists -- apear to have water in their bodies. But is that

an illusion?

[Icendoan]

Uhm... Mists? When will a mist not contain water?

 

Icen