Penality to saves according to spell level

[Aranthys]

Ok, this is something I've tried to discuss tons of times (with no results), and it's really crucial. It seemed not even -5/-6 penalties were makin save or else spells so effective (at least no players actually reported this as something which was really affecting his/her game), but I'm open to suggestions.

 

The real issue imo are save or else spells. Those spells sucked big time in vanilla because without penalties not even a mass save or die spell like Wail of Banshee could be of much use, now I may have created the opposite situation. This is even more noticeable to single target save or else spells, which were almost completely useless. When I started working on SRV1 I was far more strict about remaining as PnP-esque as possible, but this issue can actually be reduced a lot by adding small secondary effects to most of these spells, in particular to single target ones. I've already done it to several spells, for example:

- Poison now works almost as a 'save for half' spell

- Disintegrate now deals 5d6 magic damage anyway

- Dolorous Decay still deals -1 to str, dex and con if the target saves

I think we can find cool ways to implement secondary effects if you think the concept is good (e.g. Feeblemind may cause some mind-affecting penalty for a limited time). AoE save or else spells are imo much less of a problem (e.g. look at how effective things like Web and Confusion are), but if we do cap the save penalty, some high level spells can make good use of it (e.g. Wail of the Banshee may cause deafness).

 

Now that being said, let me discuss the tables, and things that must be taken care of imo:

1) save penalty absolutely has to increase at each level for low-mid level spells imo

2) the highest save penalty imo should be reachable (if not already reached) by 7th level spells

3) my proposed table was based on many vanilla's values in order to not change them too much (e.g. Web from -2 to -1, Confusion from -2 to -3, Chaos keeps vanilla's -4), and keeps into account that Malison is not overpowered anymore.

 

1) Looking at some spells in particular like Charm-Dire Charm and Confusion-Chaos, it's easy to notice that unless their save penalty is different it's going to be difficult to make both of them appealing.

2) 8th level spells and especially 9th level ones really don't need to have higher save penalty compared to 7th level ones, as their powerful effects generally are more than enough to justify their level (Horrid Wilting anyone?). Furthermore, I don't think it would help the balance, and an earlier cap would actually help mid level spells to remain appealing.

 

That being said, if we do think -5 and -6 penalty are causing problems having tables like Aranthys and Ardanis suggest won't remove the core of the issue imo. You'd still have -5 and -6 penalties respectively, and you'd have it on the most powerful spells (e.g. Wail of the Banshee, Horrid Wilting). Thus I have two alternatives, but feel free to discuss this matter a lot, as it's really important.

 

 

Alternative 1 (just a lower cap, much less work for me )

Level 1 : No penalty

Level 2 : -1 to saves

Level 3 : -2 to saves

Level 4 : -3 to saves

Level 5 : -4 to saves

Level 6 : -4 to saves

Level 7 : -4 to saves

Level 8 : -4 to saves

Level 9 : -4 to saves

 

 

Alternative 2 (radical change, lot of work)

Level 1 : +2 to save

Level 2 : +1 to save

Level 3 : No penalty

Level 4 : -1 to saves

Level 5 : -2 to saves

Level 6 : -3 to saves

Level 7 : -4 to saves

Level 8 : -4 to saves

Level 9 : -4 to saves

 

 

Alternative 3 (ehm...)

Remove the table, have each spell works on its own a la AD&D. It was badly implemented imo (just look at Chaos and Domination. Both 5th level spells, the former had a -4 penalty with large AoE, the latter was single target and with only -2 penalty), but can be made to work fine. Anyway this is so radical and ivolves so much discussions that I surely can't even think about it for V3.

 

- In Vanilla, Greater Malyson wasn't overpowered, since most spells had no penality to save.

- You gave all spells the same penality against save that they previously had with greater malysion, except low level spells. Greater level spells even gained a penality that is 1.5 as big (-6 instead of -4)

- I do not agree that low level spells should have their penality scale every level. Save scaling is linear (From level 1 to 20), so should be the spell penality to saves progression, otherwise you will have overpowered spells around level 7-11.

- I also do not agree that level 7 spells & level 9 spells should have the same penality. Level 9 spells are much stronger than level 7 spells. They are also gotten at level 18, instead of level 13 for level 7 spells.

- About save-or-else spells : These are usually the most powerful spells around, but at the price of sometimes not doing anything at all. I do agree that single target Save-or-else spells should provide an effect if the targets manages to save.

 

<more to come later>

[Demivrgvs]

1) In Vanilla, Greater Malyson wasn't overpowered, since most spells had no penality to save.

2) You gave all spells the same penality against save that they previously had with greater malysion, except low level spells. Greater level spells even gained a penality that is 1.5 as big (-6 instead of -4)

3) I do not agree that low level spells should have their penality scale every level. Save scaling is linear (From level 1 to 20), so should be the spell penality to saves progression, otherwise you will have overpowered spells around level 7-11.

4) I also do not agree that level 7 spells & level 9 spells should have the same penality. Level 9 spells are much stronger than level 7 spells. They are also gotten at level 18, instead of level 13 for level 7 spells.

5) About save-or-else spells : These are usually the most powerful spells around, but at the price of sometimes not doing anything at all. I do agree that single target Save-or-else spells should provide an effect if the targets manages to save.

1) Malison was too powerful anyway for its level. I'm not saying it was breaking the game (it surely didn't) but it was too powerful. There's a dedicated topic about it within SR forums. It's math not an opinion, thus I really can't accept different opinions on this matter.

2) yeah.

3) overpowered spells at lvl 7-11? Scaling would still be linear (and improve with a slower pace than targets' saves imo), I simply prefer more appealing low-mid level spells over overpowered 9th level ones.

4) level 9 spells are already more powerful than any other spell! Granting them an additional save penalty is only going to make them even more appealing than they already are while reducing the appeal of 7th and 8th level spells, why on earth should I prefer this solution?

5) it's exactly what I said, save or else spells with an AoE are generally fine, the single target ones instead are quite unappealing. At least we agree on this!

[DavidW]

For what it's worth, I actually use Wail of the Banshee and Domination in SCS. Wail is nice when players and their summons are piling on a lich or something: even if each individual is reasonably likely to save, the odds of one of them failing are respectable. Dominating an enemy is materially more useful than just confusing them, particularly if you prioritise a fighter-type.

Well, being appealing for a lich isn't the same thing as being appealing for players, you know it.

Of course, but as I've argued before, a spell doesn't have to be useful to the players for it to be useful in the game.

 

Regarding Chaos vs. Domination let's not forget the former can affect tons of targets, the latter can affect only a single target. Add on top of it that Chaos had a much better save penalty (-4 penalty instead of -2) and I think no one can doubt which of the two spells was more powerful.

 

Well, certainly some one "can doubt", because I'm doubting. I may be foolish to do so, of course.

 

I'd say that in general Chaos is somewhat more useful, but (and again, this is from an enemy-AI point of view)

- area effect isn't as useful as it looks, because players can scatter, and because often (especially in the late game) the only vulnerable players are the ones who have been breached.

- having a player character charmed is fantastic - it very reliably takes one PC out of action, and (assuming you've picked on someone halfway good in a fight) it's generally a pretty effective way of harming other PCs. On the other hand, Chaos is a bit hit-and-miss: in general the player can avoid taking active damage from chaos-ified PCs, and it's not that uncommon for them still to stay in melee.

 

Malison was too powerful anyway for its level. I'm not saying it was breaking the game (it surely didn't) but it was too powerful. There's a dedicated topic about it within SR forums. It's math not an opinion, thus I really can't accept different opinions on this matter.

 

"Malison decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is math.

"Malison is too powerful because[/b[ it decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is an opinion.

[Aranthys]

1) In Vanilla, Greater Malyson wasn't overpowered, since most spells had no penality to save.

2) You gave all spells the same penality against save that they previously had with greater malysion, except low level spells. Greater level spells even gained a penality that is 1.5 as big (-6 instead of -4)

3) I do not agree that low level spells should have their penality scale every level. Save scaling is linear (From level 1 to 20), so should be the spell penality to saves progression, otherwise you will have overpowered spells around level 7-11.

4) I also do not agree that level 7 spells & level 9 spells should have the same penality. Level 9 spells are much stronger than level 7 spells. They are also gotten at level 18, instead of level 13 for level 7 spells.

5) About save-or-else spells : These are usually the most powerful spells around, but at the price of sometimes not doing anything at all. I do agree that single target Save-or-else spells should provide an effect if the targets manages to save.

1) Malison was too powerful anyway for its level. I'm not saying it was breaking the game (it surely didn't) but it was too powerful. There's a dedicated topic about it within SR forums. It's math not an opinion, thus I really can't accept different opinions on this matter.

2) yeah.

3) overpowered spells at lvl 7-11? Scaling would still be linear (and improve with a slower pace than targets' saves imo), I simply prefer more appealing low-mid level spells over overpowered 9th level ones.

4) level 9 spells are already more powerful than any other spell! Granting them an additional save penalty is only going to make them even more appealing than they already are while reducing the appeal of 7th and 8th level spells, why on earth should I prefer this solution?

5) it's exactly what I said, save or else spells with an AoE are generally fine, the single target ones instead are quite unappealing. At least we agree on this!

Malyson was not too powerfull in Vanilla actually, since 95% of spells didn't have a penality to saving throws. If Malyson WAS too powerfull in vanilla, then your current implementation of ALL penalities to saving throw >=2 is too powerfull used in cunjunction with your revised Malysion.

[Demivrgvs]

Malyson was not too powerfull in Vanilla actually, since 95% of spells didn't have a penality to saving throws. If Malyson WAS too powerfull in vanilla, then your current implementation of ALL penalities to saving throw >=2 is too powerfull used in cunjunction with your revised Malysion.

No, you don't get it, read here please. What I'm trying to say is that Malison was too powerful on its own, and that is math. Malison + SR save penalties can be more effective than before, but that doesn't mean Malison is as powerful as before per se.

 

I never said and never will that Malison was breaking the overall balance in vanilla, just that it was too powerful. It's quite difficult to explain.

 

"Malison decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is math.

"Malison is too powerful because[/b[ it decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is an opinion.

Malison being more effective than any other spell of the same level is not an opinion imo, I'm quite sure I've made it clear when we discussed it. Casting Malison+Confusion is a lot better than casting Confusion+Confusion (or any other combination of two spells), and that without counting that Malison also improves any other spell casted by any other ally, and that it lasts for the entire encounter!

 

P.S Malison has always been only -2 in any PnP version and in any other game. Only BG made this mistake.

[Aranthys]

Malyson was not too powerfull in Vanilla actually, since 95% of spells didn't have a penality to saving throws. If Malyson WAS too powerfull in vanilla, then your current implementation of ALL penalities to saving throw >=2 is too powerfull used in cunjunction with your revised Malysion.

No, you don't get it, read here please. What I'm trying to say is that Malison was too powerful on its own, and that is math. Malison + SR save penalties can be more effective than before, but that doesn't mean Malison is as powerful as before per se.

 

I never said and never will that Malison was breaking the overall balance in vanilla, just that it was too powerful. It's quite difficult to explain.

 

"Malison decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is math.

"Malison is too powerful because it decreases the chance of a successful save from x% to y%" is an opinion.

Malison being more effective than any other spell of the same level is not an opinion imo, I'm quite sure I've made it clear when we discussed it. Casting Malison+Confusion is a lot better than casting Confusion+Confusion (or any other combination of two spells), and that without counting that Malison also improves any other spell casted by any other ally, and that it lasts for the entire encounter!

 

P.S Malison has always been only -2 in any PnP version and in any other game. Only BG made this mistake.

In BGI it's also -2. And i agree that -4 is too much.

Your point is : Greater malyson is too powerfull for its level.

My 1rst point is : Greater malyson is fine with vanilla spells, regardless of its level.

My 2nd point is : You considered that +20% chance for target to miss their save was too powerfull for a level 4 spell... so you gave ALL level 5+ the same 20% chance, while also permitting to use Greater malyson for up to +30% chance to miss the save, and actually +20% chance for all spells of level 3+

You actually gave even more power to mages, since they don't even have to greater Malyson like they did in Vanilla to obtain the same effect (And sometimes, much, much worse).

 

By the way :

- Saves increase in a Linear way for characters

- Spell attained per level is also linear

 

Why would you want the penality to save not to be linear then ?

If the penality increase looks like this :

 

						 ** ** **
			   ** ** 
		   **
	   **
	*
  *
*
 *
*

While both spell level gained & saves increase like this :

						  **
				  **
			   **
		   **
	   **
   **
  **
*

I think you can clearly see that around midlevel, saves penality WILL be too powerfull.

 

About level 9 spells, they should provide a difficult save because at the moment, people are not using level 9 spells that grant a save-or-else.

They are using Timestop, Improved Alacrity & so on.

[SixOfSpades]

Alternative 3 (ehm...)

Remove the table, have each spell works on its own a la AD&D. It was badly implemented imo, but can be made to work fine. Anyway this is so radical and ivolves so much discussions that I surely can't even think about it for V3.

This is the only one I can support. The various spells are so wildly different (how many targets, at what range, severity of effects, how long the effects last, whether the effects are more useful against Warriors or spellcasters, possible target resistances, whether they can affect Liches, whether the effects are something I even want, etc.,) that trying to set all spells of a given level to have the same bonus/penalty to the Saving Throw is ludicrous, especially when you're implying that a target's Save vs. Death is going to be roughly equal to its Save vs. Wands, or Breath Weapon, or whatever.

 

Trying to readjust the Saves of all the spells at once is a mammoth task that is almost guaranteed to return value worth only a fraction of the work put into it, and could very likely do more harm than good. Instead, we should continue working as we have been, with changes to a spell proposed on a case-by-case basis, and different people giving their opinions on its various aspects--including whether or not the Save is in accordance with other spells of the same level and/or of similar characteristics.

 

If anyone wants a true overhaul of the Saving Throws, do it right: Rename the Saves entirely, ditching the Save vs. Spells/Polymorph/etc. in favor of the Will/Reflex/Fortitude/etc. system. But thinking that the game would benefit from all Saving Throws being a direct function of spell level? Bad idea.

[Demivrgvs]

P.S Malison has always been only -2 in any PnP version and in any other game. Only BG made this mistake.

In BGI it's also -2. And i agree that -4 is too much.

Well, we sort of agree on what really counts for me, I'll confute Malison once again in the appropriate topic, but I don't think it's necessary to continue this debate too much.

 

About level 9 spells, they should provide a difficult save because at the moment, people are not using level 9 spells that grant a save-or-else.

They are using Timestop, Improved Alacrity & so on.

Well, try Wail of the Banshee, and Comet and let me know, and unless opponents are resistant to fire Meteor Swarm simply disintegrate whole parties. Anyway, you do have a point, but actually the problem is that Time Stop is really overpowered (in PnP it's way less powerful), and having all 9th level spell become overpowered doesn't seem a great solution to me.

 

 

Speaking of how penaltis and spell level scale...

Your curves aren't correct (as save penalties don't have an asymptote but a more radical cap) but you more or less have a point. At mid levels spells would be slightly more effective. Problem is that saves don't progress as fast as new spell level are gained, but that was true even before, where you got Hold Person with a -2 penalty as a 2nd level spell (with a 3rd level cleric) while saves at 3rd level are the same of 1st level in AD&D except for fighters (mages in AD&D have the very same saves until they reach level 6!! ).

 

I'll think about it. In the meanwhile I'll let you discuss this, as I don't think I'm always necessary to decide/discuss everything!

 

P.S I partially agree with Six right now...but I surely won't embark on alternative 3 for V3.

[SixOfSpades]

P.S I partially agree with Six right now...but I surely won't embark on alternative 3 for V3.

Well, perhaps I spoke too soon when I quoted your "have each spell work as it does in AD&D" as what I agreed with . . . you'll see that my interpretation of alternative 3 is "judge each spell on its own, just like we have been doing."

[Demivrgvs]

Now regarding save penalties...

 

Well, to cut it short, my opinion is this: if the modification to the saving throws makes the casters' spells more effective than vanilla, then I'd rather see this undone.

 

As I said, casters (with SCS) are already an extremely powerful class and I don't think they need the extra help.

Now, this is not so easy to judge...the modification makes save or else effects more powerful, but I do have taken them into account when designing the spells:

* Horrid Wilting use d6 instead of d8, Dragon's Breath will more likely knockout opponents but deal 20d6 instead of 20d10, Implosion deal 20d8 instead of 20d10, and so on

* save or else spells without these penalties may become too unappealing (does some of you would ever use Disintegrate instead of Chain Lightning without allowing the former a decent chance to take place? is there someone who has ever considered vanilla Wail of the Banshee appealing compared to Dragon's Breath or Comet?

 

Last but not least, most of the times when players consider spellcasters incredibly powerful I don't think they point out the true reasons of it. If you ask me what makes them so powerful aren't damage dealing spells nor most of their save or else spells per se, but mainly few spells:

- Time Stop (have I to illustrate how many cheesy exploit can be achieved during a TS? Not to mention you can even cast consecutive TS to leave opponents unable to react for 6-9 rounds! yeah!)

- PfMW (we discussed it a lot, without it mages are as good as dead within BG environment, with it they are almost immune fighting machines)

- Spell Immunity (this spell is not even near to its PnP version and incredibly overpowered for its level, but we have to deal with it)

- gated demons (perhaps SCS uses them a little too much, and these summons can surely cause a lot of troubles considering that Protection from Evil won't allow you to become immune within SCS, which is a nice tweak imo)

- ...

 

Players can make spellcaster even more powerful with things such as PI and Improved Alacrity+Vecna, but most of the incredibly effective tactics/exploits aren't affected so much by save penalties.

 

 

That being said, if save penalties really make spellcasters too powerful I'm fine reducing or even removing them. I'm here to make the system more balanced/interesting not to make mages the gods of BG! But I'd like to have feedback on actual gameplay of V1, V2 or V2.9 not statements based on assumptions (no offense intended Salk).

 

 

P.S I partially agree with Six right now...but I surely won't embark on alternative 3 for V3.

Well, perhaps I spoke too soon when I quoted your "have each spell work as it does in AD&D" as what I agreed with . . . you'll see that my interpretation of alternative 3 is "judge each spell on its own, just like we have been doing."

I understood correctly.

[DavidW]

As I said, casters (with SCS) are already an extremely powerful class and I don't think they need the extra help.

Now, this is not so easy to judge...

Let me second this: the actual flow of mage combat is very intricate, and theorising about it isn't really a substitute for trying in practice. For what it's worth, I don't actually expect SR to make a dramatic difference to the difficulty of SCS mages, either way. My comments and objections have usually been to those rare things that do make a difference, and Demi's been good at taking that on board.

 

* save or else spells without these penalties may become too unappealing (does some of you would ever use Disintegrate instead of Chain Lightning without allowing the former a decent chance to take place?

 

I don't use Disintegrate because it forces a reload, but I do sometimes use Flesh to Stone instead of Chain Lightning. A failed save basically takes the target out of the fight for a while, whereas at high levels, Chain Lightning's damage isn't all that exciting. At lower levels, I agree.

 

is there someone who has ever considered vanilla Wail of the Banshee appealing compared to Dragon's Breath or Comet?

To be fair, Wail is a "mere" 9th level spell, whereas DB and Comet are 10th level, for all that they're fighting for the same slots. I think the principle that HLAs are better than ordinary 9th level spells is important (Wish is a counter-example, but it's functionally a HLA in many respects - only turns up in ToB, etc.)

 

Last but not least, most of the times when players consider spellcasters incredibly powerful I don't think they point out the true reasons of it. If you ask me what makes them so powerful aren't damage dealing spells nor most of their save or else spells per se, but mainly few spells:

 

I don't entirely agree with this. After all, apart from the demon summoning none of the things you list are any good unless combined with offensive magic. But I agree that without things like this, spellcasters wouldn't be at all effective.

 

- Time Stop (have I to illustrate how many cheesy exploit can be achieved during a TS? Not to mention you can even cast consecutive TS to leave opponents unable to react for 6-9 rounds! yeah!)

- PfMW (we discussed it a lot, without it mages are as good as dead within BG environment, with it they are almost immune fighting machines)

I think the best way to look at it, at least at high levels, is just that the process of killing a mage is totally different from the process of killing a fighter. To kill a fighter, wear down his hit points and his healing potions. To kill a mage, wear down her spell protections and her armouring spells. I think I could change most ToB mages to have one hit point and it would make very little tactical difference.

 

- Spell Immunity (this spell is not even near to its PnP version and incredibly overpowered for its level, but we have to deal with it)

No comment!

 

- gated demons (perhaps SCS uses them a little too much, and these summons can surely cause a lot of troubles considering that Protection from Evil won't allow you to become immune within SCS, which is a nice tweak imo)

 

Too much from a style point of view? I have some sympathy: in SCSIIv10 demon-summoning is restricted to Conjurers and liches.

[yarpen]

- Time Stop (have I to illustrate how many cheesy exploit can be achieved during a TS? Not to mention you can even cast consecutive TS to leave opponents unable to react for 6-9 rounds! yeah!)

- PfMW (we discussed it a lot, without it mages are as good as dead within BG environment, with it they are almost immune fighting machines)

- Spell Immunity (this spell is not even near to its PnP version and incredibly overpowered for its level, but we have to deal with it)

- gated demons (perhaps SCS uses them a little too much, and these summons can surely cause a lot of troubles considering that Protection from Evil won't allow you to become immune within SCS, which is a nice tweak imo)

Beer for Demi! Again I'll represent my opinion: wizards without these uber-spells still can be powerfull. And as example I'd show Icewind Dale.

 

Spell Immunity allows some really good tactics (being immune to divinations or abjurations) but is clearly overpowered. In really revised magic system there should be some spells and abilities which mimics some of the immunities. Concealment spell which makes you immune to divinations. Monks immune to transmutation (Diamond Body?). Powerfull item which makes you immune to necromancy. But 5th level spell which grants you a possibility to select immunity is just non-climatic.

 

Time Stop: potentially for me it's great candidate for HLA of the Year. Improved Alcatricity looks finer as 9th level spell.

 

Protection from Magical Weapons: personally the only solution is making a Lesser Mantle from it. Wizards don't deserve absolute immunity at this level, and even making later, WEAKER spells lasts longer makes it only funnier. AI handles it even worse than players so I don't see a reason why not.

 

Also - Protection From Magical Weapons + simple Stoneskin is far better than even Greater Mantle. Why? Because with PfMW you can try only with non-magical weapon and there's no chance for elemental damages which could breach stoneskins and allow for a simple thing as interrupting in spellcasting. Connected with Mirror Images wizard got a time to summon some demons and go for a dinner.

 

I think the best way to look at it, at least at high levels, is just that the process of killing a mage is totally different from the process of killing a fighter. To kill a fighter, wear down his hit points and his healing potions. To kill a mage, wear down her spell protections and her armouring spells. I think I could change most ToB mages to have one hit point and it would make very little tactical difference.

Yes, but there are some differences.

- Fighters don't have Contingencies which are IMO the worst drawback of BG2's spellcasting. Without it everything could be nicely balanced. There would be a chance to interrupt spellcasting and not being instantly slayed. There would be a possibility of some action and oldest-simpliest tactics. Fighters should defend their wizards.

- Fighters don't have insta-kills and complete immunities to spells. Fighter's need 3-4 hits to kill a wizard, but that's very difficult because of the fact that after 10s after removing wizard's spells he gets new. Especially in SCS.

- Wizard can lower fighter's HP very easily, but Fighter cannot tear down even simpliest wizard's defence.

- Fighters don't have nearly anything with the exception of the equipment. And there's for example nothing which would allow to breach stoneskin-mirror image combo.

- Solo true fighter?

 

BG2 looks as game from wizards for wizards - I think that there could be a possibility of changing how it looks even a bit.

[Demivrgvs]

* save or else spells without these penalties may become too unappealing (does some of you would ever use Disintegrate instead of Chain Lightning without allowing the former a decent chance to take place?

I don't use Disintegrate because it forces a reload, but I do sometimes use Flesh to Stone instead of Chain Lightning. A failed save basically takes the target out of the fight for a while, whereas at high levels, Chain Lightning's damage isn't all that exciting. At lower levels, I agree.

You can now use Disintegrate without fear with SR, and Chain Lightning now deals twice as much damage to the first target (up to 20d6 to him, and then 10d6 to secondary targets). As of V4 Flesh to Stone will also be a lot more user friendly (as of now players won't be happy to know that you use a spell which breaks romances, and may force reloads just like vanilla's Disintegrate).

 

is there someone who has ever considered vanilla Wail of the Banshee appealing compared to Dragon's Breath or Comet?

To be fair, Wail is a "mere" 9th level spell, whereas DB and Comet are 10th level, for all that they're fighting for the same slots. I think the principle that HLAs are better than ordinary 9th level spells is important (Wish is a counter-example, but it's functionally a HLA in many respects - only turns up in ToB, etc.)

Well, within SR I don't want HLAs to be more powerful than 9th level spells, but point taken. Anyway, it was only an example of 'save for half' vs. 'save or else'. Horrid Wilting vs. Symbols is another one, and I suppose every single player here has always preferred ADHW over a Symbol (though the stunning one isn't wasn't bad at all imo).

 

Last but not least, most of the times when players consider spellcasters incredibly powerful I don't think they point out the true reasons of it. If you ask me what makes them so powerful aren't damage dealing spells nor most of their save or else spells per se, but mainly few spells:

I don't entirely agree with this. After all, apart from the demon summoning none of the things you list are any good unless combined with offensive magic. But I agree that without things like this, spellcasters wouldn't be at all effective.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, sorry for not being clear. Mages do need offensive spells to be effective, I'm just trying to say that what makes players really fear spellcasters is facing their offensive spells under Time Stop, or facing them while having to tear down tons of spell protections. Offensive spells per se generally don't scare me at all.

 

- Spell Immunity (this spell is not even near to its PnP version and incredibly overpowered for its level, but we have to deal with it)

No comment!

 

- gated demons (perhaps SCS uses them a little too much, and these summons can surely cause a lot of troubles considering that Protection from Evil won't allow you to become immune within SCS, which is a nice tweak imo)

Too much from a style point of view? I have some sympathy: in SCSIIv10 demon-summoning is restricted to Conjurers and liches.

Great!!! It was too much from a style/roleplaying point of view, and slighlty unfair, but as I said I do love to face them, just not to face them more often than any other summon. Having liches and Conjurers cast them is very appropriate imo, but having all mages rely on them was not, because in theory gated demons shouldn't be reliable allies at all, and should be rare summons.

 

I take it that without SR most summons are incredibly weak but with SR I'm fairly sure Djinn and Efreet can be really dangerous, Elementals are very tough opponents for fighters (how vanilla handled them for wizards made them almost unusable), Invisible Stalkers can be pretty nasty if properly scripted, and even Animal/Monster Summoning spells can say their own imo (especially against players who don't memorize tons of Death Spells, and I suppose most don't). Having to fight many different foes like Mordenkainen's Swords, and Nishruus instead of always facing demons again and again would considerably raise the experience appeal imo, as long as we make sure all these summons can be decent opponents.

[DavidW]

As of V4 Flesh to Stone will also be a lot more user friendly (as of now players won't be happy to know that you use a spell which breaks romances, and may force reloads just like vanilla's Disintegrate).

 

Unless I'm missing something, it's fairly easy to fix this at script level, so that romances don't get broken when people get kicked out involuntarily. If that works out I'm planning to include it as an SCS component. (I'm basically committed to a willingness to use Flesh to Stone anyway, given Beholders.)

 

Horrid Wilting vs. Symbols is another one, and I suppose every single player here has always preferred ADHW over a Symbol (though the stunning one isn't wasn't bad at all imo).

Actually, I think the deciding factor from an enemy-AI point of view is that symbol is party-unfriendly. Without that, I'd use it extensively (though this may be asymmetric: I can see why players might not). The vanilla game actually has two sorts of Symbol spells: party-friendly ones for the AI, party-unfriendly ones for the player. That breaks SCS's "play-fair" rule, so I had to either make player Symbols party-friendly or stop using enemy Symbols. I chose the latter, but I think that may have been a mistake; I'll revert, probably, in the next release.

 

- gated demons (perhaps SCS uses them a little too much, and these summons can surely cause a lot of troubles considering that Protection from Evil won't allow you to become immune within SCS, which is a nice tweak imo)

Too much from a style point of view? I have some sympathy: in SCSIIv10 demon-summoning is restricted to Conjurers and liches.

Great!!! It was too much from a style/roleplaying point of view, and slighlty unfair, but as I said I do love to face them, just not to face them more often than any other summon. Having liches and Conjurers cast them is very appropriate imo, but having all mages rely on them was not, because in theory gated demons shouldn't be reliable allies at all, and should be rare summons.

Well, I'm more-or-less committed to their not being unreliable in battle. But I have some time for the rarity concern. (The other thing I'll do - though only at the NPC level - is start using tanar'ri and baatezu versions of all three spells, rather than having the L7-8 ones summon baatezu and the L9 one summon tanar'ri. That's mostly for flavour reasons - drow shouldn't summon pit fiends, etc. It also makes it easier to introduce specialist wizards - previously, no wizard would cast both Gate and Summon Fiend, because of Blood War issues.)

 

I take it that without SR most summons are incredibly weak

 

I use efreeti and swords, iirc - swords are always at least a nuisance (tying up wizards) and sometimes really dangerous, and efreeti and djinn already get boosted in SCS

[Demivrgvs]

Flesh to Stone

Unless I'm missing something, it's fairly easy to fix this at script level, so that romances don't get broken when people get kicked out involuntarily. If that works out I'm planning to include it as an SCS component. (I'm basically committed to a willingness to use Flesh to Stone anyway, given Beholders.)

Well, broken romances aren't the only issue caused by this spell: with the gore option on players will more often than not be forced to reload if the petrified creature is destroyed, and having a character expelled from the party is both an annoying immersion breaking issue and a slight problem during a fight.

 

 

Symbols

The vanilla game actually has two sorts of Symbol spells: party-friendly ones for the AI, party-unfriendly ones for the player. That breaks SCS's "play-fair" rule, so I had to either make player Symbols party-friendly or stop using enemy Symbols. I chose the latter, but I think that may have been a mistake; I'll revert, probably, in the next release.

SR makes them party friendly and thus I obviously prefer you to use them.

 

 

Gated Demons

Well, I'm more-or-less committed to their not being unreliable in battle. But I have some time for the rarity concern. (The other thing I'll do - though only at the NPC level - is start using tanar'ri and baatezu versions of all three spells, rather than having the L7-8 ones summon baatezu and the L9 one summon tanar'ri. That's mostly for flavour reasons - drow shouldn't summon pit fiends, etc. It also makes it easier to introduce specialist wizards - previously, no wizard would cast both Gate and Summon Fiend, because of Blood War issues.)

Cool this is something I was going to do too sooner or later. But if you're going for it in the next version I'd like to discuss it a little for compatibility/conceptual issues with SR.

 

Cacofiend: I've replaced it with a necromantic version of it Summon Death Knight, and clerics within SR cast this instead of Gate (really too much for a 7th level spell considering how powerful pit fiends/balors are within SR and SCS). I'm currently making sure myself that SCS's mages/clerics use them too by adding the respective DW# versions of these spells (as you suggested me ages ago), but I don't know how this would work if you add further changes.

 

Summon Fiend: which creatures are you going to use here? I was going to move here a beefed up Cacofiend's Cornugon and have both Cornugon and Glabrezu with 17HD as your current readme suggested.

 

Gate: I suppose you'll have chaotic aligned mages cast Balors right?

 

 

Summons

I use efreeti and swords, iirc - swords are always at least a nuisance (tying up wizards) and sometimes really dangerous, and efreeti and djinn already get boosted in SCS

Yeah I know, I was only suggesting to increment the variety by using elementals, undead creatures (within SR I've added shadow, wraiths, ghasts, mummies), and the underused Nishruu/Hakeashar. As always, take mine as simple suggestions, nothing more.