Feedback

[Jarno Mikkola]

2. ... Is it possible, after installation of Spell revisions, to remove the level cap of spells by simply adding effects in NI? Or would I have to make a more complicated approach?

Strontium Dog can probably help you better than me, because I personally never worked on compatibility between SR and spell50 mod for obvious reasons: it's like asking me to vote for Berlusconi.

Well, I looked up an answer for Strontium Dog for that question(from the mods .tp2 file), and the answer is surprise surprise that you need to custom make the spells just like the 50th level spells have been done, as it just copies over pre-made spells and it doesn't even patch the description, cause it doesn't have to... cause the cap was never actually announced, in most spells or the player would presumably know, wow.

 

So if Polyphrast wants to make the spells reach the 50th level, he needs to reproduce the spells so they can reach the 50th level copying the effects etc how ever it's done. And I would presume that he is free to use your work Demivrgvs, cause you weren't payed to do what you did and it's distributed freely as long as he gives you some kind of credit if he then redistributed the resulting works and they have to be free.

[Guest Polyphrast]

Thanks for the quick reply!

So after the full installation of all mods modifying the *.spl files via NearInfinity should do the trick... If I haven't overlooked something.

using lvl50 Spells to remove the cap wouldn't work anyway, I would have to add effects for higher levels manually for each spell - that isn't too much work, though, as it's mostly copy&paste, change a number or two, and repeat...

The Flame Arrow in particular I like very much as you changed it - and 5 Arrows should be enough anyway for most battles.

Thanks again, and all the best,

Polyphrast

[Guest Polyphrast]

Oh, and I would not ask anyone to vote for Berlusconi. Ever. That'd be like... well...

Well, I just wouldn't do it.

[Duckfeet]

Grease

What about reducing the duration from 1 turn to 5 rounds?

Exactly! This works... and increase the radius. Keep the KO chance. So, it's now half as effective at disabling, but if you double the radius it's potentially twice as effective at antimobility, which cancels out the half duration.

Well, it's not so simple. Halving the duration doesn't mean the "KO" effect is half as effective, and increasing the AoE surely doesn't mean making it twice as effective. A bigger AoE in particular isn't necessary an advantage for un-friendly spells, actually a smaller AoE for those spells can much more effective in some cases.

 

To be precise, not really thinking about it in terms of "effectiveness", but more along the lines of "antimobility" vs "disabling".

 

Exemplary antimobility spells: Teleport field, entangle, Repulse Undead, SR versions of Ice Storm and Acid Fog, Slow, Haste

Exemplary disabling spells: hold person, confusion, emotion, insect swarm, any other save-or-else spell

 

Antimobility spells artifically create space between you and the enemy so you can pound them with artillery or take extra time to deploy your own troops. Disabling spells mess with the enemies' ability to fight effectively. Grease seems to me to be intended to be an antimobility spell. So is Web but right now Web is more disabling than antimobility. I feel the general trend in SR is to make more antimobility spells vs disabling spells, to add tactical color to the gameplay.

 

Increased AoE improves antimobility relative to disabling precisely because it makes it more party unfriendly and has a greater space to effect the enemy's mobility. In terms of pure "effectiveness" as you pointed out the advantages vs disadvantages of greater area mostly cancel out.

 

opponents tend to be able to run across it completely before the round-tick checks for application of any effects

Well, I may try to fix that, I had to do something like that for IR's Belt of Inertial Barrier.

 

Anyway, after thinking about it I think you're supposed to cast Grease under target's feet, not in front of them while they advance (unless in a narrow corridor). BG's AI is quite limited and will continue in your direction, but in theory only a feebleminded character would be so stupid to do it when he can just opt for a longer but safer way.

 

Agree, however there is danger going down the "two wrongs make a right" approach, because it just gets more and more removed from the implemented game mechanics. How is a player to know that you are supposed to cast the spell at the target's feet based on the meta-reasoning that otherwise in an ideal world the target would run around it, when in the game world they just don't? The normal expected behavior is, the enemy comes into the stationary AoE, they will be affected, if this doesn't happen then it looks like a bug. If you're concerned about the AI exploit, then Grease should NOT in fact be a stationary AoE, but more like GrCommand where you get a one-time save to avoid KO, if you fail then you get to try to save every round to get up. This latter option is also quite a feasible option if you combine it with a no-save movement rate penalty for a short time, e.g. 3-5 rounds.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Duckfeet

[Guest N-ghost]

Can it be possible to make healing magic do harm to undead?

And reverse healing spells such as 'harm' heal them, respectfully?

 

Meanwhile Jaheira is healing ghouls.

[Guest N-ghost]

Btw description of 'Cure light wounds' says that it couldn't heal 'not living', but ghoul have himself healed just fine.

[Demivrgvs]

Can it be possible to make healing magic do harm to undead?

And reverse healing spells such as 'harm' heal them, respectfully?

 

Meanwhile Jaheira is healing ghouls.

I thought about doing something about it but it's a little messy.

 

Healing Spells: I can very easily make them not heal undead, and I can also make them harm such creatures with some additional EFF files (Mass Healing though would require a lot of work for the targeting system). Such change may cause some AI issues (e.g. undead creatures casting healing spells on themselves).

 

Harming Spells: these are much more problematic because they work in a completely different way (as 1 charge weapon which needs to score hit on a target), and adding a healing effect that can potentially miss the allied creature seems silly. For V4 I was actually going to suggest to completely change them into something more similar to Ghoul's Touch (no charges), because these spells are absolutely useless right now (except Harm, which can actually be really OP under Time Stop).

[yarpen]

Harming Spells: these are much more problematic because they work in a completely different way (as 1 charge weapon which needs to score hit on a target), and adding a healing effect that can potentially miss the allied creature seems silly. For V4 I was actually going to suggest to completely change them into something more similar to Ghoul's Touch (no charges), because these spells are absolutely useless right now (except Harm, which can actually be really OP under Time Stop).

Good catch. It can be short-term but it's better than was the possibility of miss (and then you're loosing time for casting spell, spell slot and nerves).

[Guest pol]

Hello. I have played with SR for a while and I like that some overpowered spells (Spook, Emotion, Chromatic Orb etc.) were toned down. I just have noticed the new Disintergrate spell.

 

2-12 damage per level is overpowered for a spell with a save penalty - even original ADHW doesn't inflict so much - especially since Disintergrate can be put into spell trigger.

 

I notice the 3rd edition version of Disintergrate requires an attack roll; may I suggest either making it a ranged attack like Sol's Searing Orb (or a ranged version of Harm, it still does comparable damage to SR Harm)? Or just reducing the damage a bit.

[Shaitan]

Hello. I have played with SR for a while and I like that some overpowered spells (Spook, Emotion, Chromatic Orb etc.) were toned down. I just have noticed the new Disintergrate spell.

 

2-12 damage per level is overpowered for a spell with a save penalty - even original ADHW doesn't inflict so much - especially since Disintergrate can be put into spell trigger.

 

I notice the 3rd edition version of Disintergrate requires an attack roll; may I suggest either making it a ranged attack like Sol's Searing Orb (or a ranged version of Harm, it still does comparable damage to SR Harm)? Or just reducing the damage a bit.

Either way sounds good to me.

[Demivrgvs]

Various

Hello. I have played with SR for a while and I like that some overpowered spells (Spook, Emotion, Chromatic Orb etc.) were toned down.

I'm glad you noticed some of the "less famous" changes, and you liked them. Emotion in particular was indeed OP (it was cheaper Hold Monster with a much bigger AoE) though only the most experienced players noticed that spell for some reason.

 

 

Disintegrate

2-12 damage per level is overpowered for a spell with a save penalty - even original ADHW doesn't inflict so much - especially since Disintergrate can be put into spell trigger.

 

I notice the 3rd edition version of Disintergrate requires an attack roll; may I suggest either making it a ranged attack like Sol's Searing Orb (or a ranged version of Harm, it still does comparable damage to SR Harm)? Or just reducing the damage a bit.

My first revision inflicted much less damage yes, but then most players seemed to agree that the damage should be high enough to instantly kill 90% of times (except SCS dragons or similar uber-tough creatures). After all, it did killed on hit in vanilla, though the save was so easy to make that almost every player skipped this spell (not to mention the destroy loot issue made it even less appealing).

 

For completeness:

- SR/SCS Harm deal 150 points of damage, while SR's Disintegration deals up to 40-240, thus 140 on average

- SCS/vanilla Harm allowed no save, while SR one allow a save for half damage. SR's Disintegration instead deals a relatively small amount of damage (5d6) if the target successfully save.

 

I can let players decide if this spell really needs to be nerfed (as long as it deals outstanding damage), but just so you know, a 3x Disintegrate on a sequencer won't help you much, because the save is made only once (I know it sounds strange but I'm almost sure), and thus on a successful save you'll deal 15d6, while on a failed save a single Disintegrate would have probably been enough. A 3x Chain Lightning is hugely more effective imo.

 

Regarding save penalties, V4 will almost surely use less powerful penalties for high lvl spells. I think I'll cap them to -4, because some spells like Wail of the Banshee went from too weak (vanilla's no penalty) to too powerful (SR's -6 penalty). Not to mention that I actually don't like much save-or-else spells because they either end the encounter in a second or they are completely useless, whereas even a small secondary effect (e.g. Disintegration and Finger of Death small amount of damage) can make those spells more appealing while allowing the main one to not be uber-effective. For instance, if it wasn't against PnP I would have probably suggested a "deafness" secondary effect for Wail of the Banshee, thus removing the necessity for the insta-kill effect to have an uber-high save penalty to make the spell appealing.

[Guest n-ghost]

Thanks for the responding.

Also, here — http://www.shsforums.net/topic/30535-relea...ated-creatures/ — is the .exe patch that enables conversation with charmed/dominated creatures.

Could it be included in further SR versions, since both are modyfing .exe file of the game and don't stack?

[Mike1072]

Could it be included in further SR versions, since both are modyfing .exe file of the game and don't stack?

The .exe patches used in SR and other mods modify only specific portions of the .exe file, not the whole thing, so they should stack fine.

[Ardanis]

Spirit Armor

AC bonus is mediocre for it's level (haven't even got fullplate's bonus vs slashing/piercing), +2 to saves possess no unique feel, backlash is pathetic and is being saved against at the casting of spell, so if you don't see 'Target - Save vs Spells' message then you know it will hurt ten turns later.

 

I propose making it +3 full plate armor (-2 AC) with +3 bonus to saves vs death. Increase damage from 2d4 to 6d6, do it at the moment of expiration (via 177) and at SR's standart penalty for 4th level spell (-2 or -3? I forgot where we've settled).

 

Enchant Weapon brings forth a +3 weapon for a full day, so why can't the same level spell create for 10 turns a +3 armor, which also pretty often stings for ~20 damage? Needs to convince David to use this spell again, fighters gonna have serious trouble striking a mage under this.

 

Having playtested it some, I'm quite fond of the result. Backlash is not lethal, but can no longer be smirked at. And with SCS's AI preferring wizards over others, it finally lets me play F/M without having to load all slots with MI and Stoneskin (can't afford PFMW yet), something I was berating David for time ago.

 

If you think -2 AC is overpowered then reduce the duration from 10 turns to 5 rounds per level.

 

 

Barkskin

Change from '1 + 1/3 lvl' to '1 + 1/4 lvl'? Jaheira will need few more levels to provide the full bonus. And iirc rangers stop at 9th caster level, so they won't get to max this spell out. Yet, a cosmetical change it remains at most.

 

 

Blur

Desc says 'penalty to attackers', not 'bonus to AC'. Perhaps it should be split into 'AC vs type' bonuses then? Since normal AC gets capped at -20.

Also, maybe change save bonus (+3 to vs spell) back to +1 to all? And give the 'vs spell' to either Armor or Ghost Armor? I think the latter, because it doesn't look great as of now, whereas the former has very long duration and is a 1st level spell.

 

 

Clairvoyance

Desc says +3 bonus, but it gives +2. We've talked something about changing it from '+2 for 1 turn', what was that? Imo should be either '+3 for 1 turn' or '+2 for 2 turns'. I think I was against +3 back then, but now I feel the first is better

 

It too probably should be split into 'AC vs type', as the insight bonus iirc is supposed to stack with everything else (?), plus it's short duration doesn't allow for serious abuse.

 

 

Ghost Armor

Give it +3 vs spells, see Blur. What about additional 5%-15% to stealth? And I'd consider removing the glow, it's an eyesore if used frequently.

 

 

Acid Fog

Change damage from 10 to 2d8 or similar. Self explanatory.

 

 

Lightning Bolt

Revert back to old graphics! For example, use 'lightblt.pro' - it doesn't bounce, although for a reason unknown isn't registered in ids, so needs to be ADD_PROJECTILE'd first.

 

 

Flame Arrow

Was there any particular reason to split it into consecutive 146s? When I began working on Lightning Bolts trap I at first was going to try this solution, but after it didn't work (SPLs were fired from the caster, not the ground spot), I was forced to find another way. Which had nicely revealed itself in a form of multicharged projectile (like clouds). The only problem was the PRO firing like a chaingun instead of the set number, but after a quick study I set the 4th bit (no overlap) true and it started behaving as it was meant to. It still requires as many files (SPL and several PROs) as Galactygon's solution (several SPLs and PRO), however, but at least it's simplier and fewer SPLs to load when working in DLTCEP or WeiDU.

 

 

Farsight

Set the duration to 5 turns, for both arcane and divine version. I for one do use it on occasion, usually in beholder lair in Underdark - after rigging the place with unholy amount of traps and provoking eyeballs onto minefields

 

 

Tenser's Transformation

If it disables spellcasting I will NOT use it no matter what, ApR bonus or not. It is not that much greater than priest's combat self-boosts, and it occupies a 6th level slot which already is higher than priest analogues.

 

If you're still inclined to find it overpowered then cut the duration in two, but do not block spells/innates.

 

 

Conjure Elemental

The arcane version. I don't like at all the failure chance, be it 5%, 15% or 95%.

[Demivrgvs]

Is there a reason my f*****g connection always destroys my post after spending twenty minutes on them?! I'm annoyed to hell to have to re-write everything, thus I'll cut it to the essential parts sorry.

 

 

Spirit Armor

Enchant Weapon brings forth a +3 weapon for a full day, so why can't the same level spell create for 10 turns a +3 armor, which also pretty often stings for ~20 damage?

Yeah, but you're actually suggesting to make it create an Elven Chain Mail +7 (no spellcasting failure, no encumberance, ...), not a "normal" +3 plate mail.

 

Anyway, on one hand I wouldn't mind to make this spell (and Ghost Armor too) more appealing, on the other I fear an even better AC may be really too much for a class which is actually supposed to have bad AC. What's the point of fighters if mages can use Spirit Armor + TT to be just as effective as them on top of all the other great spells?

 

I'd like to know what other players feel about these spells because I'm not convinced myself, at least not enough to tell you a "NO I won't follow your suggestion".

 

 

Barkskin

Change from '1 + 1/3 lvl' to '1 + 1/4 lvl'? Jaheira will need few more levels to provide the full bonus. And iirc rangers stop at 9th caster level, so they won't get to max this spell out. Yet, a cosmetical change it remains at most.

Actually the pace was intended to:

- have Barksink start with a +2 as soon as you get it 3rd lvl)

- have rangers max it out

If it's a matter of balance (e.g. too much AC too soon, or too good spell for rangers) then I'm open to discuss it. else I'd prefer to keep it unchanged.

 

 

Blur

Desc says 'penalty to attackers', not 'bonus to AC'. Perhaps it should be split into 'AC vs type' bonuses then? Since normal AC gets capped at -20.

Nice idea, will do.

 

Also, maybe change save bonus (+3 to vs spell) back to +1 to all? And give the 'vs spell' to either Armor or Ghost Armor? I think the latter, because it doesn't look great as of now, whereas the former has very long duration and is a 1st level spell.

No, there's a reason I made the change. I've used Planescape Torment version of this spell because its description gives a "reasonable" explanation for it granting a bonus against mind affecting spells, whereas I really cannot understand why a blurred outline should protect you from things like diseases or poisons, and even less from AoE spells such as fireballs.

 

 

Clairvoyance

Desc says +3 bonus, but it gives +2. We've talked something about changing it from '+2 for 1 turn', what was that? Imo should be either '+3 for 1 turn' or '+2 for 2 turns'. I think I was against +3 back then, but now I feel the first is better

"Long" duration may be needed for the 'immunity to backstab' to be effective, but the casting time is quite fast thus I kinda like the +3/1 turn solution too.

 

It too probably should be split into 'AC vs type', as the insight bonus iirc is supposed to stack with everything else (?), plus it's short duration doesn't allow for serious abuse.

I was saying the same within my Blur's reply.

 

 

Ghost Armor

- Give it +3 vs spells, see Blur.

- What about additional 5%-15% to stealth?

- And I'd consider removing the glow, it's an eyesore if used frequently.

-

- fine

- actually I do like what I managed to do, and at least a couple of players wrote me they love it

 

 

Acid Fog

Change damage from 10 to 2d8 or similar. Self explanatory.

Fine with me.

 

 

Lightning Bolt

Revert back to old graphics! For example, use 'lightblt.pro' - it doesn't bounce, although for a reason unknown isn't registered in ids, so needs to be ADD_PROJECTILE'd first.

Cool, I'd love to have it use the old animation. I'll look into it.

 

 

Flame Arrow

Was there any particular reason to split it into consecutive 146s?

To have a small delay between arrows, to have them indipendently select their random targets, and because that was the only way I found to code the spell.

 

When I began working on Lightning Bolts trap I at first was going to try this solution, but after it didn't work (SPLs were fired from the caster, not the ground spot), I was forced to find another way. Which had nicely revealed itself in a form of multicharged projectile (like clouds). The only problem was the PRO firing like a chaingun instead of the set number, but after a quick study I set the 4th bit (no overlap) true and it started behaving as it was meant to. It still requires as many files (SPL and several PROs) as Galactygon's solution (several SPLs and PRO), however, but at least it's simplier and fewer SPLs to load when working in DLTCEP or WeiDU.

Would I (or players) get any beneficial effect from changing the spell?

 

 

Farsight

Set the duration to 5 turns, for both arcane and divine version. I for one do use it on occasion, usually in beholder lair in Underdark - after rigging the place with unholy amount of traps and provoking eyeballs onto minefields

Fine.

 

 

Tenser's Transformation

If it disables spellcasting I will NOT use it no matter what, ApR bonus or not. It is not that much greater than priest's combat self-boosts, and it occupies a 6th level slot which already is higher than priest analogues.

 

If you're still inclined to find it overpowered then cut the duration in two, but do not block spells/innates.

As per Spirit Armor, I'd prefer to have players discuss this because I have many doubts myself.

 

 

Conjure Elemental

The arcane version. I don't like at all the failure chance, be it 5%, 15% or 95%.

I already removed it in my V4 beta.