SR V3

[aVENGER_(RR)]

I'd probably vote to allow a save against the "cannot hide" feature, and no save for the dazzling effect (-2 thac0, reduced sight). The new SR/PnP feature is potentially uber-effective against thieves and mages, and for balancing purposes I'd prefer to allow at least a chance to avoid it.

 

aVENGER's vote counts double on this matter.

 

Allowing a save would probably be better for balance reasons. However, since the AI can now detect the effect (thanks to Mike) it's not going to cause problems either way.

 

Anyway, I still think Mass Blindness is too powerful for a 2nd level spell. You said RR's AI handles it by making the victims randomly walk hoping to find a target in melee, but a thief or a mage with -10 penalty to thac0 is not going to hit anyone (only critical hits, which is kinda ironical). If you ask me, "mass blindness" alone is already almost as effective as Hold Monster (with a larger AoE), and immunity to blindness is less common than immunity to hold.

 

Agreed, a dazzle effect would fit the spell better.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Glitterdust & Faerie Fire

PS, the beholders, and a lot of other creatures can and should be able to resist the 1st and 2nd level spell effects, or even be immune to them, don't you think.

Not at all, beholders are already uber-powerful without the need to be immune to 1st and 2nd level spells! Actually, their "vulnerability and low hit points" are the only weaknesses of those incredibly effective killing-machine.

 

...Anyway, I still think Mass Blindness is too powerful for a 2nd level spell.

Well, there is vulnerability, and vulnerability, I am not saying the the Beholders should be immune to every 1st and second level spell, but they sure should have a natural high level resistance to the save vs. or die spells with this spell for example for them is. So, that's why the spell needs to have a save bonus, cause its large effect zone, and death like effect for many opponents, even with the weakened effect, but yes, viewable area needs to be 1.

[Ardanis]

Cumulative Blindness

I'm not sure I follow the conversation well, but does GD use 74? I would assume that not, otherwise how could you set the visual range to 10. So unless I'm missing something vital, it doesn't seem to be connected to Taimon's hack.

 

In any case, there's always a backup in form of sectypes.

[Demivrgvs]

Glitterdust & Faerie Fire

I'd probably vote to allow a save against the "cannot hide" feature, and no save for the dazzling effect (-2 thac0, reduced sight). The new SR/PnP feature is potentially uber-effective against thieves and mages, and for balancing purposes I'd prefer to allow at least a chance to avoid it.

 

aVENGER's vote counts double on this matter.

Allowing a save would probably be better for balance reasons. However, since the AI can now detect the effect (thanks to Mike) it's not going to cause problems either way.

 

Anyway, I still think Mass Blindness is too powerful for a 2nd level spell. You said RR's AI handles it by making the victims randomly walk hoping to find a target in melee, but a thief or a mage with -10 penalty to thac0 is not going to hit anyone (only critical hits, which is kinda ironical). If you ask me, "mass blindness" alone is already almost as effective as Hold Monster (with a larger AoE), and immunity to blindness is less common than immunity to hold.

Agreed, a dazzle effect would fit the spell better.

Unless many players disagree I think I'd gor for this then: dazzle + save or cannot hide.

 

 

Cumulative Blindness

I'm not sure I follow the conversation well, but does GD use 74? I would assume that not, otherwise how could you set the visual range to 10. So unless I'm missing something vital, it doesn't seem to be connected to Taimon's hack.

Glitterdust currently use 'blindness opcode' but Mike pointed out to me that its "Mass Blindness" effect is really too powerful.

 

I come up with a "dazzling" effect to replace 'blindness'. I and Mike are quite convinced about this, and considering aVENGER seems to agree I'd go for it. Removing the hardcoded 'blindness' opcode I can set visual range freely.

 

In any case, there's always a backup in form of sectypes.

I thought about it too, but Taimon's solution is more mod-friendly imo, as it fixes blindness opcode to work as it should.

[Dakk]

Just checking in. Proofing arcane, v15 and doing fine. Originally I had hoped to be finished before the weekend, but I busted my head yesterday (:p ) ending up with stitches and a mild concussion - so my concentration are somewhat lacking atm.

 

But I'm still on the case

[Shaitan]

Hi!

 

English isn't my strongest side, but I'll give it a go:

 

Chromatic Orb

It says that magnetism gives -4 to AC. Shouldn't it be +4 which I assume to be worse in BG2/2nd edition rules?

 

Cheers

[Ardanis]

I, for one, always take + and - AC/Thaco modifications as bonus and penalty repsectively, not vice versa.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Chromatic Orb

It says that magnetism gives -4 to AC. Shouldn't it be +4 which I assume to be worse in BG2/2nd edition rules?

I, for one, always take + and - AC/Thaco modifications as bonus and penalty repsectively, not vice versa.

Shouldn't it be just:

Magnetism: Gives 4 points of penalty to AC.

 

PS, what if my Quarterstaff is made of wood?

[Shaitan]

Well just that we all agree.

[Demivrgvs]

Chromatic Orb

It says that magnetism gives -4 to AC. Shouldn't it be +4 which I assume to be worse in BG2/2nd edition rules?

I, for one, always take + and - AC/Thaco modifications as bonus and penalty repsectively, not vice versa.

This comes up quite often, but it's like Ardanis says. In almost all cases we also specifically say "-x penalty" and "+x bonus", but within SR a "-" always means "penalty". Else I can assure you descriptions would be a lot more confused.

[Shaitan]

Ok. I decided to read descriptions carefully and well... As long as you are consistent.

 

Cheers

[Jarno Mikkola]

Ok. I decided to read descriptions carefully and well... As long as you are consistent.

Well, ahm, I might not be satisfied with that, cause for example with the AC's, the Magnetism: -4 to AC at the v2.9 has two faults, first of all the -4 can be perceived as:

Gives 4 points of penalty to AC.

, Giving 4 points of bonus to AC or as giving the character an armor quite similar to Full plate mail +1 and Girdle of Bluntness, as the index is 10 to begin with.

 

So why use the positive(+) and negative(-) indexes at all? It's different with items as the +1 to +5 have traditionally been interpreted as enhanced with magical means.

[Mike1072]

Magnetism: -4 to AC

Fixed for v3.

[Shaitan]

Call Woodland Being

The Nymph got a male casters voice. I know it's cosmetic, but I think the Nymph is feminine

 

Edit:

Faeire Fire

After installing the latest beta (15) I haven't succeeded casting FF, nor have I seen any signs of it working or the like. I cast it and that's that. Nothing happens, zip, zero, nada. You got it

[Demivrgvs]

Call Woodland Being

The Nymph got a male casters voice. I know it's cosmetic, but I think the Nymph is feminine

It's not my fault, the gender is correctly set to 'summoned' and I cannot set it to 'female'.

 

 

Faeire Fire

After installing the latest beta (15) I haven't succeeded casting FF, nor have I seen any signs of it working or the like. I cast it and that's that. Nothing happens, zip, zero, nada. You got it

Why problems never happened before suddenly pop up? The spell files seems fine...I don't understand..

 

Edit: I've tried FF in-game and it worked. Then I copied the files over again just to be sure, and the spell worked again.