Jump to content

Feedback


Recommended Posts

The thing is that without SCS tweak to SI you'd have AI mages "cheat" by using SI within contingencies and triggers, but with your tweak we're creating a mess imo. Sorcerers cannot learn the multiple version, and mages have both single and multiple version of SI, which is even worse imo. :) In this "environment" I'd probably prefer to remove the single version from both sorcerers and mages, though I don't know how to "justify" such thing. It would be easy to justify a rare spell being available only to mages who find an ancient scroll, but SI is used by pretty much any mage within SCS. :D

 

I think the best solution is nagging Ascension64 to allow contingency/trigger menus to be linked to .2da spell-immunity type menus, so that the menu of SPWI59x's appears instead of SPWI510.

 

My thoughts about SpellImmunity: I would rather keep this spell as it is - the most I would do at most is remove its ability to protect against level 9 spells/HLAs. I do think that Spell Immunities should not stack (in AD&D, casting a new SpellImmunity overrides the old one). Stacking is also going to create problems where DS is concerned if it uses one stat for them all, unless you find out a way of converting all the stats into state-bits (or nagging Ascension64 to do it).

 

-Galactygon

Link to post
Can you define "cheap"?
low cost, high effect. like SI:I

 

On that basis, a high-level caster casting Remove Magic is cheap.

 

Can you define "abusing"?
the trick where you can make the project image immune to divinations is very abusive.

That's an example, not a definition.

Link to post

@Demi:

 

Let's have a go at rethinking this from scratch (within SCS's parameters). I've been running through the problem this evening, and I can't myself improve on my original set of solutions, but this may be my own lack of imagination.

 

Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells.

 

In vanilla rules, Breach takes down anti-weapon spells, so one survives only until Breach is successfully cast. The version of Breach that's cast directly penetrates Spell Turning, so only invisibility is a shield against it. The version of Breach that's loaded into wands of spell striking can't penetrate Spell Deflection et al, so Spell Deflection and invisibility are both shields against it.

 

SCS allows Spell Deflection to block Breach, even when cast directly. I'm very reluctant to lose that; anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume it. (If you want to argue me out of it, go for it; I suspect you're in favour, though.)

 

With that change made, taking down a wizard is a four stage process:

 

(1) remove his Improved Invisibility, which stops you using Ruby Ray et al to lower his anti-spell defences

(2) remove his anti-spell defences with single-target antimagic

(3) remove his anti-weapon defences with Breach

(4) cut him to pieces.

 

This process can in principle be shortcutted by Dispel Magic. Pre-Taimon, this was basically ineffectual. These days, it's better, but still hit-and-miss at best.

 

Now, here's the dilemma.

 

A) If SI:Div is allowed, then in the vanilla rules there is no way at all to take down Improved Invisibility (short of the hit-and-miss strategy of using Dispel Magic). So the whole process can't get started and you're stuck at step 1. (That's the Tactics/IA situation).

B) if SI:Div is not allowed, then any sane party has Truesight running as part of their pre-combat buffs (and even if they didn't buff, the cleric can throw it up fairly quickly). So step 1 happens almost automatically. Only steps 2-4 remain.

 

In (A), things are annoying and boring. I don't like the Tactics/IA situation one bit.

In (B), mages go down too quickly. (You can see this in SCS by looking at how quickly clerics go down: I'm just unable to protect them.)

 

My ideal, unimplementable solution is for single-target antimagic spells to work even against invisible targets. In that case, you just hit mages with antimagic, in the presence of Truesight, till they're targettable, and then kill them. It takes long enough to cut through a wizard's defences that things are fairly even (I predict). In this situation, SI:Abj and SI:Div don't seem to me unbalanced: they're just one more step in the defence process. (I'm leaving out the legitimate irritation that SI:Abj doesn't seem to do what it says on the tin.)

 

As I say, this is unimplementable. The nearest I can get to an implementation is the small area of effect used in SCS. That's imperfect, and you've noted above you don't like it; it's also the best I can think of to resolve the dilemma.

 

At the moment, SR doesn't seem to help. Non-detection is penetrated by Truesight (as I understand it) so we're back in situation (B). If SI:Div is allowed, but area-effect antimagic isn't, we're instead in situation (A).

 

Thoughts welcomed. I'm genuinely amenable to restructuring SCS's antimagic framework if there's a genuinely better (and not-much-more-disruptive-to-vanilla) solution out there. Area effects for antimagic is my least-worst solution, not my ideal one.

Link to post
Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells.
Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value? I do understand this problem, but at the same time I continue to not understand why it doesn't seemed to affect IWDII where PfMW doesn't exist, and Stoneskin is way less effective. Could part of the problem be that we don't have any concentration check within BG and even 1 point of damage can disrupt spellcasting? :)

 

It's even more strange for me when you say that you cannot make clerics last. They surely don't miss hit points and AC like mages, and they do have tremendous buffs (especially within SR). Do they really need things like PfMW to pose a serious threat? :D

 

SCS allows Spell Deflection to block Breach, even when cast directly. I'm very reluctant to lose that; anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume it. (If you want to argue me out of it, go for it; I suspect you're in favour, though.)
I do find your tweak almost a fix (which I gladly copied for SR), because I really don't see why Breach should bypass Spell Deflection/Turning.

 

With that change made, taking down a wizard is a four stage process:

 

(1) remove his Improved Invisibility, which stops you using Ruby Ray et al to lower his anti-spell defences

(2) remove his anti-spell defences with single-target antimagic

(3) remove his anti-weapon defences with Breach

(4) cut him to pieces.

Ok.

 

This process can in principle be shortcutted by Dispel Magic. Pre-Taimon, this was basically ineffectual. These days, it's better, but still hit-and-miss at best.
At least we can say that Post-Taimon having a Bard or an Inquisitor in the party to cast Dispel is a viable solution.

 

Now, here's the dilemma.

 

A) If SI:Div is allowed, then in the vanilla rules there is no way at all to take down Improved Invisibility (short of the hit-and-miss strategy of using Dispel Magic). So the whole process can't get started and you're stuck at step 1. (That's the Tactics/IA situation).

B) if SI:Div is not allowed, then any sane party has Truesight running as part of their pre-combat buffs (and even if they didn't buff, the cleric can throw it up fairly quickly). So step 1 happens almost automatically. Only steps 2-4 remain.

 

... Thoughts welcomed. I'm genuinely amenable to restructuring SCS's antimagic framework if there's a genuinely better (and not-much-more-disruptive-to-vanilla) solution out there. Area effects for antimagic is my least-worst solution, not my ideal one.

If you ask me the crucial point is how SI:Div works: its "invincibility" factor vs divinations. As I said in my previous post, PnP Non-detection would make the whole system much better and you wouldn't need to add an AoE to spell removals (by the way, your current AoE surely isn't small, but if you've followed this you know it ends up being a good thing). With PnP Non-detection (instead of SI:Div) to reach step (2) you'd need to remove it with a Divination spell, but such protection could buy the mage some time (even True Seeing could take a few rounds to successfully dispel it). Afterall, didn't you said yourself that your main concern is (A)? This is caused by SI:Div, whereas PnP Non-detection could still protect the mage for a couple of rounds (even if the first Divination attack works the mage would still buy at least 1 round because such attack would have dispelled II right away instead of Non-detection) without causing the "annoying and boring" factor you mention.

 

Another idea we discussed with Ardanis not long ago was to add "invisible detection via script' to Truee Seeing, allowing any spellcaster under TS to cast spells even at II targets. In this case though having TS is enough to automatically counter step (1), even if Non-detection is up (TS may not dispel it and II, but still allows to cast spell removals at the target), thus I'd probably avoid it unless necessary.

 

Last but not least a fixed Spell Shield surely makes step (2) slightly harder.

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post
On that basis, a high-level caster casting Remove Magic is cheap.

well, no. the dynamic of remove magic is that it is almost useless half the time. SI:I is useful ALL the time.

 

That's an example, not a definition.

well, an example serves better in the context of defining cheats/abusing in the game than quoting the dictionary...

Link to post
@Demi:

 

Let's have a go at rethinking this from scratch (within SCS's parameters). I've been running through the problem this evening, and I can't myself improve on my original set of solutions, but this may be my own lack of imagination.

 

Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells.

 

In vanilla rules, Breach takes down anti-weapon spells, so one survives only until Breach is successfully cast. The version of Breach that's cast directly penetrates Spell Turning, so only invisibility is a shield against it. The version of Breach that's loaded into wands of spell striking can't penetrate Spell Deflection et al, so Spell Deflection and invisibility are both shields against it.

 

SCS allows Spell Deflection to block Breach, even when cast directly. I'm very reluctant to lose that; anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume it. (If you want to argue me out of it, go for it; I suspect you're in favour, though.)

 

With that change made, taking down a wizard is a four stage process:

 

(1) remove his Improved Invisibility, which stops you using Ruby Ray et al to lower his anti-spell defences

(2) remove his anti-spell defences with single-target antimagic

(3) remove his anti-weapon defences with Breach

(4) cut him to pieces.

 

This process can in principle be shortcutted by Dispel Magic. Pre-Taimon, this was basically ineffectual. These days, it's better, but still hit-and-miss at best.

 

Now, here's the dilemma.

 

A) If SI:Div is allowed, then in the vanilla rules there is no way at all to take down Improved Invisibility (short of the hit-and-miss strategy of using Dispel Magic). So the whole process can't get started and you're stuck at step 1. (That's the Tactics/IA situation).

B) if SI:Div is not allowed, then any sane party has Truesight running as part of their pre-combat buffs (and even if they didn't buff, the cleric can throw it up fairly quickly). So step 1 happens almost automatically. Only steps 2-4 remain.

 

In (A), things are annoying and boring. I don't like the Tactics/IA situation one bit.

In (B), mages go down too quickly. (You can see this in SCS by looking at how quickly clerics go down: I'm just unable to protect them.)

 

My ideal, unimplementable solution is for single-target antimagic spells to work even against invisible targets. In that case, you just hit mages with antimagic, in the presence of Truesight, till they're targettable, and then kill them. It takes long enough to cut through a wizard's defences that things are fairly even (I predict). In this situation, SI:Abj and SI:Div don't seem to me unbalanced: they're just one more step in the defence process. (I'm leaving out the legitimate irritation that SI:Abj doesn't seem to do what it says on the tin.)

 

As I say, this is unimplementable. The nearest I can get to an implementation is the small area of effect used in SCS. That's imperfect, and you've noted above you don't like it; it's also the best I can think of to resolve the dilemma.

 

At the moment, SR doesn't seem to help. Non-detection is penetrated by Truesight (as I understand it) so we're back in situation (B). If SI:Div is allowed, but area-effect antimagic isn't, we're instead in situation (A).

 

Thoughts welcomed. I'm genuinely amenable to restructuring SCS's antimagic framework if there's a genuinely better (and not-much-more-disruptive-to-vanilla) solution out there. Area effects for antimagic is my least-worst solution, not my ideal one.

 

My feeling is that there are already other ways to beat vanilla II + SI:D +SD + PfMW.

 

1. Detect Illusion Thief ability

2. Dispel Magic

3. Glitterdust

4. Death Fog

5. Chaos

 

Having either a thief, inquisitor, bard, or cleric trivializes most mage fights with dispel. Glitterdust probably is not a solution in SCS2 due to the high GoI use. Death Fog, Chaos, and similar other area disruption is very difficult for Wizards to deal with. Even casting Chaos 3 times in a row to get a failed save is preferable to anti-magic penetrating II, since that takes several spells to strip protections to get the SI's, 1 to dispel II, 1 Breach.

Link to post
On that basis, a high-level caster casting Remove Magic is cheap.
I fully agree. A lich stripping every last buff from everyone not protected by SI:Abj is near the top in my 'most annoying things in BG' list.

 

I would in fact appreciate the following tweak to both dispels - one is a single target spell and uses the caster level check, while another is party-friendly AoE and uses a save.

Link to post
That's an example, not a definition.

well, an example serves better in the context of defining cheats/abusing in the game than quoting the dictionary...

 

 

Not really. The dictionary definition doesn't especially help, since this is a technical context. I already know that you think II+SI:Div is abusive, so requoting that example doesn't help either. What I want to know is what you actually mean by that term. (My experience is that 90% of the time it doesn't mean anything very coherent beyond "I dislike this", but feel free to prove that you're in the 10%.)

Link to post
Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells.
Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value?

 

Well, primarily I'm reporting experimentally confirmed behaviour rather than theorising, but for what it's worth: a 12th level fighter with strength 18/00, specialisation and a +3 weapon (i.e., what you have about 1/3 of the way through SoA) with modest buffing hits 3-4 times per round at THAC0 2, and so lands a couple of hits per round even on a wizard with AC -8. An 18th level fighter with strength 21 and a +5 weapon (i.e., what you have by the end of SoA) and modest buffing hits at least 3-4 times per round at THAC0 -8, at which point even AC -10 is hit every time except for critical misses. Does SR allow an archmage to get to AC -25 or better? If not, I doubt it helps.

 

I do understand this problem, but at the same time I continue to not understand why it doesn't seemed to affect IWDII where PfMW doesn't exist, and Stoneskin is way less effective.

My recollection of IWD2 (which admittedly I haven't played in many years) is that it does affect it: mages go down very quickly.

 

Could part of the problem be that we don't have any concentration check within BG and even 1 point of damage can disrupt spellcasting? :)

In part, yes.

 

It's even more strange for me when you say that you cannot make clerics last. They surely don't miss hit points and AC like mages, and they do have tremendous buffs (especially within SR). Do they really need things like PfMW to pose a serious threat? :D

Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs.

 

SCS allows Spell Deflection to block Breach, even when cast directly. I'm very reluctant to lose that; anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume it. (If you want to argue me out of it, go for it; I suspect you're in favour, though.)
I do find your tweak almost a fix (which I gladly copied for SR), because I really don't see why Breach should bypass Spell Deflection/Turning.

I still think Fixpack's "developer intent" definition of "fix" is best; by that basis, this can't be called a fix as Breach's penetrating spell deflection is fairly clearly deliberate.

 

At least we can say that Post-Taimon having a Bard or an Inquisitor in the party to cast Dispel is a viable solution.

Yes, agreed (putting aside SI:Abj, but I could always have disallowed that if it were the only factor). But I'd rather not have to require parties to have one of those classes present.

 

If you ask me the crucial point is how SI:Div works: its "invincibility" factor vs divinations. As I said in my previous post, PnP Non-detection would make the whole system much better and you wouldn't need to add an AoE to spell removals

 

At least from the current SR description of Non-detection (and truesight) I don't see how this is: N-D claims to protect against Truesight, which makes it functionally equivalent to SI:Div. Elsewhere on the SR forums you seem to imply that it doesn't protect against Truesight, but now we're back to II going down in the first couple of seconds due to a pre-cast Truesight. What I want is a happy medium where taking down II takes time and effort but isn't impossible.

 

Can you clarify?

 

Last but not least a fixed Spell Shield surely makes step (2) slightly harder.

Yes, and I need to think about how the availability of that fix affects things.

 

My feeling is that there are already other ways to beat vanilla II + SI:D +SD + PfMW.

 

1. Detect Illusion Thief ability

2. Dispel Magic

3. Glitterdust

4. Death Fog

5. Chaos

 

This isn't exactly what I'm after in SCS. I want a situation in which the vanilla game's intended pattern of buff and debuff actually works effectively. So sure, there are ways to take an end run around a wizard's defences, but that's not what I want here. (You're welcome to say that I should want something entirely different, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm taking my basic design goal as read.)

 

Having either a thief, inquisitor, bard, or cleric trivializes most mage fights with dispel.

 

This is the number 1 reason why I think SI:Abj is important, even if it doesn't block single-target abjuration antimagic attacks.

Link to post
Not really. The dictionary definition doesn't especially help, since this is a technical context. I already know that you think II+SI:Div is abusive, so requoting that example doesn't help either. What I want to know is what you actually mean by that term. (My experience is that 90% of the time it doesn't mean anything very coherent beyond "I dislike this", but feel free to prove that you're in the 10%.)

 

 

its abusive in the fact that it makes it a do-or-die situation to have a mage WITH the right spell selection at hand to deal with in a timely fashion. a cleric, no matter how epic would be wasting his true sight. its abusive because it requires a few key spells to be memorized at all times. im sure there are various ways to deal with without dispelling and/or targetting, but im seeing it from a solo-play point of view.

I just feel that the SI is too powerful (im not saying that its wrong to use it, especially not in the context of 'smarter mages') but as a whole it has a feel of dictating the spell selection and style of the game.

Link to post
Not really. The dictionary definition doesn't especially help, since this is a technical context. I already know that you think II+SI:Div is abusive, so requoting that example doesn't help either. What I want to know is what you actually mean by that term. (My experience is that 90% of the time it doesn't mean anything very coherent beyond "I dislike this", but feel free to prove that you're in the 10%.)

 

 

its abusive in the fact that it makes it a do-or-die situation to have a mage WITH the right spell selection at hand to deal with in a timely fashion. a cleric, no matter how epic would be wasting his true sight. its abusive because it requires a few key spells to be memorized at all times. im sure there are various ways to deal with without dispelling and/or targetting, but im seeing it from a solo-play point of view.

 

I'm not much moved by that. The spells you need are the same spells you need to deal with any mage: a mixture of anti-magic spells like Secret Word, Ruby Ray etc. I agree, if you don't have a mage in the party, or if your mage hasn't bothered to learn any antimagic, you have a problem. That doesn't bother me. I've no problem with solo play, but I don't feel any obligation to go out of my way to make up for you not choosing to take a balanced party.

Link to post
I'm not much moved by that. The spells you need are the same spells you need to deal with any mage: a mixture of anti-magic spells like Secret Word, Ruby Ray etc. I agree, if you don't have a mage in the party, or if your mage hasn't bothered to learn any antimagic, you have a problem. That doesn't bother me. I've no problem with solo play, but I don't feel any obligation to go out of my way to make up for you not choosing to take a balanced party.

 

you're right, of course. The AI isnt as much a concern to me as the spell being used is capable of almost unlimited cheese when used by the PC. thats why im partial to advocating the removal of SI in favor of already established spells in D&D sourcebooks. like nondetection. im sorry for articulating poorly; has a less cheesy feel to it.

Link to post
I'm not much moved by that. The spells you need are the same spells you need to deal with any mage: a mixture of anti-magic spells like Secret Word, Ruby Ray etc. I agree, if you don't have a mage in the party, or if your mage hasn't bothered to learn any antimagic, you have a problem. That doesn't bother me. I've no problem with solo play, but I don't feel any obligation to go out of my way to make up for you not choosing to take a balanced party.

 

you're right, of course. The AI isnt as much a concern to me as the spell being used is capable of almost unlimited cheese when used by the PC. thats why im partial to advocating the removal of SI in favor of already established spells in D&D sourcebooks. like nondetection.

 

What cheesy things are you thinking of? (Not that I'm ever really sure what "cheesy" means in these discussions either.) I'm fairly relaxed in SCS about being able to counter PC uses of SI, but possibly there are things I'm missing.

Link to post

Wizard's AC

Here's the basic problem. In BG2, Protection from Weapons spells (and, at lower levels, Stoneskin and MI) aren't supplements to hit points and AC: they're replacements for it. No mage can survive for any relevant period of time without them. Call these anti-weapon spells.
Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value?

... Does SR allow an archmage to get to AC -25 or better? If not, I doubt it helps.
Well, probably not, at least not until I add Foresight (but this is another story). Right now I think SR mages might get only a +4 AC bonus compared to vanilla's ones.

 

A mid-lvl mage can have:

* Base AC 3, 2 or 1 depending on which "armor" spell is used

* +2 AC from SR's Shield (lasts 1 hour)

* +3 AC from Blur (lasts 1 hour)

* +4 AC from any II spell (short duration, but II-like spells are common - SR's Shadow Door is quite nasty as reported by many players)

* +2 AC from SR's Clairvoyance (this one is not affected by Breach, nor dispellable, but duration is relatively short right now)

* +X AC from DEX

* +Y AC from equipment

Thus a mage can reach AC -10/-15 relatively easy (MI and Stoneskin can greatly improve the effectiveness of this AC), but dispelling it with Divinations (note that within SR Ghost Armor isn't affected by Breach, but it's considered an illusionary protection) or Breach is also relatively easy unless you put on other defences.

 

The problem is that later on there isn't any way to further improve AC (except SR's Mantles, but they have trivial duration), thus even a 20th lvl archmage is stuck with this AC. If you think improving "armor spells" could seriously benefit mage duels I'd be glad to work on it. Not long ago Ardanis suggested me to make Ghost Armor and Spirit Armor improve with caster level (as per SR's Mage Armor), and that could be a solution.

 

 

Concentration

Could part of the problem be that we don't have any concentration check within BG and even 1 point of damage can disrupt spellcasting? :)
In part, yes.
:)

 

 

Clerics

It's even more strange for me when you say that you cannot make clerics last. They surely don't miss hit points and AC like mages, and they do have tremendous buffs (especially within SR). Do they really need things like PfMW to pose a serious threat? :p
Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs.
? I was speaking of buffs not affected by Breach such as Divine Might (Champion's Strength is better later on) or Divine Power, but I forgot they weren't so great in vanilla. :D

 

 

PnP Non-detection

If you ask me the crucial point is how SI:Div works: its "invincibility" factor vs divinations. As I said in my previous post, PnP Non-detection would make the whole system much better and you wouldn't need to add an AoE to spell removals
At least from the current SR description of Non-detection (and truesight) I don't see how this is: N-D claims to protect against Truesight, which makes it functionally equivalent to SI:Div. Elsewhere on the SR forums you seem to imply that it doesn't protect against Truesight, but now we're back to II going down in the first couple of seconds due to a pre-cast Truesight. What I want is a happy medium where taking down II takes time and effort but isn't impossible.

 

Can you clarify?

Yep.

 

Non-Detection currently doesn't grant complete protection from Detect Illusion, Oracle and True Seeing (it does only in case the protected creature is invisible via thief hide in shadow ability, but not via invisibility spells) because else it would be an uber powerful and cheap SI:Div. Adding a custom Secondary Type to it would allow me to have it partially protects from Oracle/True Seeing. As per PnP when affected by a Divination spell the protected creature would be allowed to make a save, a successfull save means the divination fails, a failed save means the Divination spell is able to detect the protected creature (aka removes the custom Secondary Type, destroying Non-detection).

 

What do you think?

 

 

Breach

Speaking of how easily Breach destroys clerics buffs reminded me an old doubt I never dared to speak about...isn't Breach really too powerful? :D I mean, a single mid-lvl spell with no save nor magic resistance check that can dispel even dozens of combat/specific protections at once is kinda insane if you ask me.

 

That being said I know that nerfing it is a daring suggestion...but even small changes can seriously affect the gameplay imo. For example if it doesn't affect Fireshields (are they really Specific Protections?) those spells suddenly become incredibly potent melee defences. The same can be said of cleric's Blade Barrier, is it really a Combat Protection?

 

Making it dispel only x protections at once is not doable, and limiting the maximum level of spell it can dispel (e.g. only spells of 6th lvl or lower) may be a very drastic change to handle. On one hand allowing a save can be a great solution (buffs wouldn't be uber easily disintegrated) but on the other hand it could be bad (Breach could become unappealing if casting it often produces no effect).

 

I'm just thinking loud... :laugh:

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...