Feedback

[Ardanis]

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

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?

The same as always, to block off grunts while wizards are busy with a boss?

 

Ghost Armor

The +3 vs spells bonus is assuming that Spirit grants +3 vs death, Clairvoyance - +3 vs Breath and Blur - +1 vs all.

Three spells with a large bonus to every save type, and one with a small bonus to them all.

Since you have a reason not to change Blur then I imagine Ghost could have +1 to all.

Because as of now, it's hardly worth a slot two levels higher than Mage Armor occupies. It only provides +1 more AC and some stealth bonus, while the duration is much shorter.

 

Flame Arrow

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

Pardon, it was rather a modding question than a suggestion. I had all these bug reports/feedback accumulating slowly in the txt, some might have used a better catergorization.

 

 

PS

Fighter vs wizard

Indeed it is I've mentioned - when I was to deal with Edwin's CW I had no choice but to dress F/M in half of his memorization allowance and go whack two golems while the rest of party were hiding on a floor beneath.

 

I'd say it merely is an alternative to loading full memo with MIs, Stoneskins and PFMWs. Both the average duration and amount of slots required are quite close to each other.

 

Besides, unlike fighter's equpment arcane protections can be dispelled.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Ardanis

[Jarno Mikkola]

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?

Spi, spi, no spirit armor here. And there is a typo in there, as one of the Level 4's needs to be Level 5.

 

Now about the spell, and Ardanis suggestion... the though is that if we enhance this spells AC bonus, we also increase the damage... so when the SA'ed caster runs out of spell duration, he could be dead... as the 6d6+fight damage taken from a few fireballs could kill the mage easily...

 

And then just about the spell... as the spell is a 4th level spell and the -2 is way too much for BG1 random spell and the AC of 2 to be a bit too weak on level 40, I propose to making the spells AC increase as the caster levels up to the 50th level with the AC then being near -20. So that in plain language is, The spell set the casters AC to 2+ (-1 per 2 levels after the 7th level) that and the 6d6 damage to the caster after the spell expires.

[Demivrgvs]

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

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?

The same as always, to block off grunts while wizards are busy with a boss?

Yeah, I know, but if a mage can become a fighter (same thac0, AC, hit points, ...) with only a couple of spells and without any drawback (e.g. he can still cast spells under TT) what can possibly add to the party a plain fighter that a mage can't do? You'd just use a party full of mages, with a couple of mages that act as tanks even better than fighters (because under TT they'd continue to re-cast MI, Stoneskin, PfMW, ...). Am I wrong?

 

The only "advantage" fighters would still have imo would be a "better" equipment (greatswords, heavy armors, ...), but is it enough to prefer having a fighter instead of another mage?

 

 

Spi, spi, no spirit armor here. And there is a typo in there, as one of the Level 4's needs to be Level 5.

As the title says those are only the most notable changes else I'd spend a couple of months only to update such post! You're right about the typo, hilarious.

 

And then just about the spell... as the spell is a 4th level spell and the -2 is way too much for BG1 random spell and the AC of 2 to be a bit too weak on level 40, I propose to making the spells AC increase as the caster levels up to the 50th level with the AC then being near -20.

I'm sure you already knew my reply when typing something like "-20 base AC". I'm open to discuss something like Ardanis suggested (adding 3-4 AC points) but I'm not going to add such a ridiculous amount of AC (21 points more than vanilla? really?).

 

And I know you love lvl50 mod just as well as you know I'll NEVER remove the lvl 20 cap used in PnP for tons of reasons (why not a Magic Missile that goes up to twenty missiles at 50th lvl?).

 

 

Ghost Armor

...as of now, it's hardly worth a slot two levels higher than Mage Armor occupies. It only provides +1 more AC and some stealth bonus, while the duration is much shorter.

I get your point, and you're probably right about it not being much more useful than Armor, though you may be forgetting that this is an illusion spell now (not affected by Breach), and that it can be cast on other targets (which is a huge plus over 1st lvl Armor). That being said a small improvement surely wouldn't make this spell overpowered. Edited June 12, 2010 by Demivrgvs

[Ardanis]

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

Yeah, I know, but if a mage can become a fighter (same thac0, AC, hit points, ...) with only a couple of spells and without any drawback (e.g. he can still cast spells under TT) what can possibly add to the party a plain fighter that a mage can't do? You'd just use a party full of mages, with a couple of mages that act as tanks even better than fighters (because under TT they'd continue to re-cast MI, Stoneskin, PfMW, ...). Am I wrong?

Well, I did mention the reduced duration for compensation, didn't I? And, as I've said, priests can cast Divine Power + Righteous Fury without suffering any drawbacks, and that on top of their heavy armor and weapons.

 

The only "advantage" fighters would still have imo would be a "better" equipment (greatswords, heavy armors, ...), but is it enough to prefer having a fighter instead of another mage?

Weren't you among those advocating for RP approach to resting? Doing it once per dungeon at most, or better yet once per day in some inn? And, again, fighter doesn't need to rest at all, unlike a wizard he's always ready for melee combat.

 

Long story short, if you're trying to say that a wizard can possibly compete with 40th level Sarevok, I fear you are wrong

 

why not a Magic Missile that goes up to twenty missiles at 50th lvl?

Because the engine allows for the max of 11? Edited June 12, 2010 by Ardanis

[Demivrgvs]

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

...as I've said, priests can cast Divine Power + Righteous Fury without suffering any drawbacks, and that on top of their heavy armor and weapons.

Ehm... You do have a point here. Ok ok, you've seriously started to convince me...

 

Weren't you among those advocating for RP approach to resting? Doing it once per dungeon at most, or better yet once per day in some inn? And, again, fighter doesn't need to rest at all, unlike a wizard he's always ready for melee combat.

Well, that would rebalance mages A LOT, but I'm not sure I can assume players roleplay like I do. If they rest often and have even a minimum knowledge of spells nothing can beat a party of mages (not to mention a party of cheesy kensai-mages)

 

Long story short, if you're trying to say that a wizard can possibly compete with 40th level Sarevok, I fear you are wrong

Actually I'm pretty sure an archmage is much more powerful than an epic warrior, unless the latter has enough equipment to make him immune to most "disabling" spells, and survive a Time Stop + Alacrity. Anyway, we've discussed this so many times in so many topics that I should have opened a topic to discuss it once and for all!

[DrAzTiK]

Hi,

 

 

Greater malison : maybe make it bypass magic resistance could be better. I don't know what others think about this spell now but I don't use it very much personally. (in BG2/ToB, many creatures have magic resistance)

 

Cure disease : Have you not planned in the past to allow this spell to cure confusion ?

 

reflected image: I wonder if this spell is not bugged a lot. My character seems almost untouchable under this spell. (and same with cloak of mirroring with Item revisions)

 

 

Just suggestions ^^

Edited June 13, 2010 by DrAzTiK

[Ardanis]

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

Actually I'm pretty sure an archmage is much more powerful than an epic warrior, unless the latter has enough equipment to make him immune to most "disabling" spells, and survive a Time Stop + Alacrity.

I meant a wizard fighting in melee, substituting a fighter. I trust you won't argue that a fighter will have an edge in melee nonetheless. Mage can perform averagely if situation demands, yes, but he goes nowhere close to GWW with ~30 damage per hit.

That was my point, I surely wasn't attempting to start another round of 'steel vs spell' debate

[DrAzTiK]

death spell : I find really unfair to allow a level 12 mage to instantenely kill all level 8 cre. . I wonder if this number shouldn't be decrease a bit. (in fact I don't think it will make more incidence in the game,)

 

==> Thanks god, Semaj is not a level 12 mage in BG1 (o maybe yes it is ?)

==>With SCS, ennemy mage use frequently monster sumoning and make this spell worth to be memorized, at leat for this task witch is very good ^^

 

 

 

Chaos/confusion : In my game, I have reduced duration to 6 rounds and I personally find these spell more balanced. ( it is surely worth to debate but I don't understand why nobody complain about a 10 round duration)

 

Pierce magic : Casting time 6= seems a lot to me for just some % of MR. In comparaison Secret word remain a lot more attrative for me. (with a 1 casting time)

Edited June 13, 2010 by DrAzTiK

[Demivrgvs]

Greater Malison

Maybe make it bypass magic resistance could be better. I don't know what others think about this spell now but I don't use it very much personally. (in BG2/ToB, many creatures have magic resistance)

Mmm...for some reason a lot of players understimate the effectiveness of this spell. Unfortunately vanilla BG2 offered us a "double strength" version of the original spell (PnP, NWN, IWD and any other D&D material use SR's Malison), and thus SR's one tend to seem a huge nerf. Anyway, let's get to the point...I probably wouldn't vote to make a 4th lvl AoE spell bypass magic resistance (are there mid-low lvl spells with such a feature?) unless "it makes sense" for most players.

 

Just as I was writing my reply another suggestion for Malison come up in my mind...what about making it work as a sort of "curse"? It would become non-dispellable via Dispel Magic (though Break Enchantment should remove it). Would it make the spell more appealing/interesting, or not?

 

P.S To understand Greater Malison's power lvl you may confront it with Doom and notice that the former:

+ is a sort of Mass Doom (this alone generally cause the spell being 3 slots higher than the original if you see Greater Command, Mass Invisibility, and so on)

+ doesn't allow a save (PnP/IWD/SR Doom does)

+ lasts much much longer than Doom

- doesn't cause -2 penalty to hit/dmg (else they could have just called it Greater/Mass Doom )

 

 

Cure Disease

Have you not planned in the past to allow this spell to cure confusion ?

No, because 'confusion' is neither a disease nor a necromantic effect (it's an enchantment). But since V3 you can use Break Enchantment (the old Remove Curse) to dispel it, which also happen to use the very same 3rd lvl slot for priest (and even mages get it, though as a 4th lvl spell).

 

 

Reflected Image

I wonder if this spell is not bugged a lot. My character seems almost untouchable under this spell. (and same with cloak of mirroring with Item revisions)

Well, it grants 50% miss chance, which means that if coupled with a very good AC he/she may indeed seem almost untouchable. The spell's effect is indeed outstanding, that's why I've used a very short duration (only 4 rounds, +1 round every 3 levels to a maximum of 60 seconds at 20th lvl). If the spell seems overpowered to some of you we may try to find a way to "nerf" it without making it once again useless as it was in vanilla.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

Death Spell

: I find really unfair to allow a level 12 mage to instantenely kill all level 8 cre. . I wonder if this number shouldn't be decrease a bit. (in fact I don't think it will make more incidence in the game,)

 

==> Thanks god, Semaj is not a level 12 mage in BG1 (o maybe yes it is ?)

==>With SCS, ennemy mage use frequently monster sumoning and make this spell worth to be memorized, at leat for this task witch is very good ^^

I do agree, in BG1 and against mid-low lvl opponents the 'death' effect is hugely overpowered (no save, large AoE), and then it suddenly become a useless feature (within SoA I always used it as an anti-summon and nothing else).

 

That's why for V4 I was actually going to suggest to remove the 'death' feature, rename the spell Banishment (or Dismissal), and make it an Abjuration spell. It will probably seem only a cosmetic change for 99% of you, and it surely won't affect much the spell-system (I'm almost sure SCS already uses it only as an anti-summon)...but it would be a much more consistent spell as it would make more sense for it to "dispel" non-living creatures (e.g. undead) and there wouldn't be the strange paradox of it not killing a lvl 9 grunt, but obliterating a lvl 16 greater elemental.

 

 

Chaos/Confusion

In my game, I have reduced duration to 6 rounds and I personally find these spell more balanced. ( it is surely worth to debate but I don't understand why nobody complain about a 10 round duration)

Probably for the same reason nobody complain about Hold lasting 10 rounds...because they consider it a "save-or-else" spell. I'm quite sure we already discussed this somewhere, and I said I was somewhat open to go for it (especially for Chaos' no-save part of the spell).

 

 

Pierce Magic

Casting time 6= seems a lot to me for just some % of MR. In comparaison Secret word remain a lot more attrative for me. (with a 1 casting time)

Eh...I do get your point (though the Lower Resistance part of this spell is not a small feature in theory considering there's a 5th lvl spell dedicated only to that).

 

The main problem is that there are really too many spell removals (Spell Thrust, SW, Pierce Magic/Shield, RRoR, KWW, Spellstrike) and making all of them interesting without overshadowing each other is a real pain. What was your suggested change? If it's to lower its casting time I'm not too much into it as I like spells to have casting time set as per spell lvl unless there's a "good reason" for it being lower/higher)...

Edited June 13, 2010 by Demivrgvs

[Jarno Mikkola]

And then just about the spell... as the spell is a 4th level spell and the -2 is way too much for BG1 random spell and the AC of 2 to be a bit too weak on level 40, I propose to making the spells AC increase as the caster levels up to the 50th level with the AC then being near -20.

I'm sure you already knew my reply when typing something like "-20 base AC".

I'm open to discuss something like Ardanis suggested (adding 3-4 AC points) but I'm not going to add such a ridiculous amount of AC (21 points more than vanilla? really?).

 

And I know you love lvl50 mod just as well as you know I'll NEVER remove the lvl 20 cap used in PnP for tons of reasons (why not a Magic Missile that goes up to twenty missiles at 50th lvl?).

Hmm, can I interpret that you'll do it then... don't dismiss the idea even though my spelling would make it sound bad at first glance.

 

That, as you'll cap the spell to the 20th level, you'll still follow my suggestion and lower the AC of 2 with 3 or 4 points at appropriate levels when the caster level approaches the 20th? As that's all I wanted...

Am I twisted or what?

[Ardanis]

Greater Malison

Just as I was writing my reply another suggestion for Malison come up in my mind...what about making it work as a sort of "curse"? It would become non-dispellable via Dispel Magic (though Break Enchantment should remove it). Would it make the spell more appealing/interesting, or not?

I'm kinda neutral here, but let's try it out.

 

Cure Disease

What about immunity to disease, much like Neutralize Poison does?

I do recall we had a talk about Pro Poison scroll and various sources of blindness/deafness, them somehow not working out well (I have all logs saved, if you don't remember details either), so these may be better off not included.

 

Chaos/Confusion

Six rounds is fine imo. I wish these two spells were more different though.

 

Death Spell

A week or so ago I was battling Jonny in Spellhold. After he had departed several murderer have wandered in, invisible backstabbing 7th level guys. A scroll of Death Spell has worked perfectly there.

But that's the only case I can remember to ever use it against 'living' opponents. Banishment is fine, I think I've even agreed with it before.

 

Am I twisted or what?

Yes, Sir Imp, you are. Edited June 13, 2010 by Ardanis

[DrAzTiK]

Probably for the same reason nobody complain about Hold lasting 10 rounds...because they consider it a "save-or-else" spell. I'm quite sure we already discussed this somewhere, and I said I was somewhat open to go for it (especially for Chaos' no-save part of the spell).

Yes sorry it 'not the first time I speak about this spell lol. I just wanted to have confirmation about opinions ^^.

Of course Hold last 10 rounds but got a small AoE, this is why it's not disturb me

 

 

The main problem is that there are really too many spell removals (Spell Thrust, SW, Pierce Magic/Shield, RRoR, KWW, Spellstrike) and making all of them interesting without overshadowing each other is a real pain. What was your suggested change? If it's to lower its casting time I'm not too much into it as I like spells to have casting time set as per spell lvl unless there's a "good reason" for it being lower/higher)..

Sorry I don't have a big imagination. I was thinking about a lesser casting time lol But maybe it's ok...

 

 

Some others bugs :

 

Tenser Transformation :

 

Darts don't benefit from additional ApR and futhermore, number of attack is reduced. (2ApR with darts if I use Tenser Transformation)

 

reflected image : I don't understand, In my game, the character is almost untouchable. It is more noticeable if the attacker got a decentn umber of ApR. It is impossible for a character with 7ApR to hit notehr character under reflected image. Only secondary effect like elemental damage bypass (like what happens on a character protected by stone skin)

 

 

To Ardanis :

 

Death Spell

A week or so ago I was battling Jonny in Spellhold. After he had departed several murderer have wandered in, invisible backstabbing 7th level guys. A scroll of Death Spell has worked perfectly there.

But that's the only case I can remember to ever use it against 'living' opponents. Banishment is fine, I think I've even agreed with it before.

Maybe one day I will realease a "butchery" mod using many cre with average level. In this cas, death spell would be overpowed but of course it's not problematic in general ^^ (while a bit unfair on the paper)

Edited June 13, 2010 by DrAzTiK

[Demivrgvs]

Cure Disease

What about immunity to disease, much like Neutralize Poison does?

Mmm...isn't this spell already quite appealing for a 3rd lvl slot? It cures any disease (even a 6th lvl spell like Dolorous Decay or a 7th/8th lvl one like Symbol of Weakness), and it cures both blindness and deafness (which are relatively common). Neutralize Poison is a 4th lvl slot and is effective against a single opcode... Long story short, I'd vote against it.

 

I do recall we had a talk about Pro Poison scroll and various sources of blindness/deafness, them somehow not working out well (I have all logs saved, if you don't remember details either), so these may be better off not included.

I don't remember right now sorry.

 

 

Chaos/Confusion

Six rounds is fine imo. I wish these two spells were more different though.

Me too, though they both work as per PnP right now, and I generally prefer to remain close to PnP when possible...but have you any idea? Eveything I can think about to make Chaos not work as Confusion is something similar to what I did with Sphere of Chaos, but then we would have simply moved the "issue" from a couple of spells to a different couple of spells.

 

 

Death Spell

I think most of you wouldn't mind to let me replace it with Banishment. My only "complain" is that there already are tons of abjuration spells, and very few Necromantic ones.

 

 

Tenser Transformation

Darts don't benefit from additional ApR and futhermore, number of attack is reduced. (2ApR with darts if I use Tenser Transformation)

My fault. To make it non-stackable (with itself, or similar sources like Divine Power) I've made it "set apr". I'll think about another solution.

 

 

Reflected Image

I don't understand, In my game, the character is almost untouchable. It is more noticeable if the attacker got a decentn umber of ApR. It is impossible for a character with 7ApR to hit notehr character under reflected image. Only secondary effect like elemental damage bypass (like what happens on a character protected by stone skin)

I'll re-test it asap and let you know. Edited June 14, 2010 by Demivrgvs

[Demivrgvs]

Reflected Image

I don't understand, In my game, the character is almost untouchable. It is more noticeable if the attacker got a decentn umber of ApR. It is impossible for a character with 7ApR to hit notehr character under reflected image. Only secondary effect like elemental damage bypass (like what happens on a character protected by stone skin)

I'll re-test it asap and let you know.

Just tested it with both 5 apr and 10 apr, it works fine. Can you please test it again in your game (e.g. try to hit your own character)? Remember that if your target has decent AC it comes to play BEFORE the 50% miss chance. Thus if your attacker has 6 apr, but a couple of attacks fail the "to hit" roll, you are left with 4 attacks, each with 50% miss chance. On average 2 attacks should hit the target, but it may as well happen that all of them fail, or vice-versa.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Reflected Image

And also one has to remember that other spell visuals might alter the appearance of the actions the character makes... say you have a Haste spell on the attacker, the character might seem to attack the target 10 times per round while it only does so a few... the game feedback might help in this: Options -> Game Play -> Feedback -> The sliders to maximum & To Hit Rolls *active.