The Future of SR

[urdjur]

I thought these questions deserved a thread of their own so as not to derail the general feedback thread. Let me start by saying I love Spell Revisions as a whole, and feel humbled by Demi's knowledge and the work put into this project. Now that I've played around with SR for a while, my main gripe is that I'm not quite sensing what SR's priorities are - even more so as ideas for v4 get kicked around. I get the sense that Demi is trying to cater to a broad fan base that want this or want that, while the overlying principles that initiated the SR project are getting more obscure. I don't know about you guys (but I hope you'll tell me in this thread), but this would be how I'd prioritize what SR "should" do:

 

1) Play balance. This is clearly #1 for me. Broken spells get repaired. Ãœber spells get toned down. Useless spells get toned up. Preventing abuse and spell exploits possible in vanilla BG-series is primary. Not introducing new ones goes without saying. All changes to vanilla BG should be as small as possible to achieve the appropriate balance level.

 

2) Low key changes. I don't think SR should change anything in vanilla BG just for the sake of changing it. Things I consider low key would be changing spell levels and harmonizing the elemental protections. Changing the name of the spell to better fit a balanced game effect (for example Death Spell -> Banishment) rather than messing with an already balanced game effect is another example. Changing an entire spell such as Know Alignment to Know Opponent isn't, but in this case #1 (play balance) takes precedence, and having a spell that someone will actually use is more important. Keeping changes low key are important, but not as important as preserving play balance.

 

3) Flavor. As long as priorities #1 and #2 are first met, SR could improve on the flavor or "fun" aspect of spells. This includes changing names, improving spell descriptions, animations or other variables that don't affect game variables, changing schools where appropriate, tweaking mechanics, adding spells to create coherent suites etc. It also includes efforts at making BG more like PnP (if this is an ambition unto itself at all), adaptations to better suit the FR world etc. Again, a distant 3rd for me - care must be taken to balance all the endless "cool things" that could be done, to what needs to be done. Especially when it comes to compatibility with other mods like SCSII. Ideally, David W should commission spells from Demi to suit the needs of the AI, rather than the random fan base doing so to suit this or that pet preference.

 

I have a few examples of how to implement the above (if you even agree with it), for version 4. Please consider:

 

*Animate Dead: The progression of this spell was altered to be more gradual. A low key change #2 that improved consistency without really affecting play balance (this is good). Then, it was removed from the Arcane spell list (not a low key change by any means), but still left at level 3 for priests (this was bad). Unless level 5 is somehow considered unbalanced for wizards when priests get it at level 3 (heck, even Paladins get it), I look forward to its return on the arcane list with v4 (Demi has hinted as much already).

 

*ADHW: This was slightly toned down for play balance (good call, satisfying both #1 and #2). However, it was also modified as to what it could affect for flavor reasons (a non low key change to satisfy #3 - i.e. a case of bad priorities). IMO, it would be much better to just change to name (something else than "Big Friendly Skull Trap", but along those lines). Just as Demi is intending to do for Death Spell. Keep it simple and working as the game (and AI) intended.

 

*Dimension Door: I understand this has been in and out in various versions and there's a good reason for that. There should be a zero tolerance for introducing new game breaking spells in SR. Why go to such lengths of preventing contingencies cast when the game is paused, only to introduce instantaneous, mid combat travel across the map? Intoducing a new spell isn't low key to begin with. If it's done, it at least needs to mind play balance (such as restricting to line of sight). Saying "just don't install it then" is like saying "just don't use contingency when the game is paused". SR is a fix first, a tweak second.

 

*The demons: The demons needed some tweaking as they just weren't that good or convenient to use before. But somewhere it went overboard. The current "all or nothing" system with 85% chance of success or 15% risk of utter doom has the following problem:

i) the party is in a desperate situation, needing the power that only a demon can provide (if not, summoning something less risky would work just as well)

ii) if a demon was needed to survive, clearly TPK (total party kill) will be the inevitable result of an unsuccessful conjuration. Otoh, this would have happened anyway since the demon was the only hope.

iii) if a TPK occurs, the player will reload until he passes the 85% bar and completes the encounter.

 

As you can see, the save/load mechanic makes the percentage chance completely obsolete. For no-reloaders (and many enthusiasts still playing the game after all these years may go that route), all SR demons come with a "don't touch" sign due to the unpredictability. Fun and flavorful? Perhaps. But not very useful. An appropriate XP penalty (largely offset by winning the encounter) would be better, despite the cries of the masses. The demons would only be summoned for desperate times indeed.

 

I'm also against removing Protection from Evil as an anti-demonic device. It's no more unbalanced against demons than invisibility (a second level spell) is against the rest of the game. SCS-II demons being able to dispel it is a much better solution than removing the, IMO flavorful (relatively simple protective circles to ward off demons is an esoteric classic), mechanic outright. It still gives the caster the option to go PfE + SI:Abjuration as a defensive strategy against demons, rather than relying on a generic defense like Mislead/SI:Abj/SI:Div, PfMW/SI:Abj or some such combination. I can accept removing this functionality is it's absolutely necessary for SCS-II to work properly, but otherwise I think it should be restored.

 

*Spell Shield: I wonder why this was removed and replaced with "Wizard's Spell Shield" while a beefed up variant of MGoI took its name at VIII-level. It seems like an instrumental spell to block Spellstrike in high level SCS-II encounters. I'd like to see it restored in v4 if possible.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts

[Demivrgvs]

I can second most of what you said, but I'll try to say something myself.

 

Fixing broken spells and balancing the whole system is indeed SR's mainl goal. Using "low key changes" has always been my modus operandi (for all Revisions mods), especially with more recent versions (e.g. IR V3 blends into vanilla game much better than V2 even if it introduced A LOT more changes and refinements than V2). Anyway, the definition of "low key change" may slightly differ from one person to another. For example, your suggestion about replacing a famous spell like Horrid Wilting with a "Big Friendly Skull Trap" is much less "low key" for me than keeping the spell and its concept intact, and simply refining it to work as it's clearly supposed to.

 

I've always been very reluctant about adding new spells into SR (and I still partially am), but in some circumstances I do allow them, because adding new spells may actually be part of the main goal when it seems the only way to achieve balance. For example druids really needed a decent spellbook, and I couldn't reach such goal without adding new spells (1st and 2nd lvl spell slots in particular had an outstandingly poor and weak selection). For the same reason I'm favourable about adding a bunch of new spells to underused schools such as Divination, and granting to each school at least 1 or 2 spells per spell lvl has become quite important for me. You probaly noticed that I do try to achieve all of the above mentioned things without adding new spells first (e.g. Ghost Armor and Phantom Armor becoming illusions, or the entire PW serie of spells moving to the Enchantment school), but it's not always a viable way.

 

I'd add "variety" to your 3rd point, because variety and flavor kinda go alongside each other imo, but the former also plays a small role for the most important thing, balance.

 

Now to your specific suggestions...

 

Animate Dead: indeed I'll restore it for mages, though I'm not sure how. In terms of balance, the revised Skeletons and the new Greater Skeletons are fine as a 3rd lvl summoning spell, but my main issue is that Skeletons Warriors (almost untouched) are really unbalanced there. Comparing it to other summons I'd say that summoning it should require at least a 6th lvl slot. A Skeleton Warrior outshines any Elemental in every possible way imo, though at least Greater Elementals are better tanks against non-spellcasters. I admit I handled this whole matter pretty bad in old versions, sorry.

 

ADHW: as discussed above, I have no plan to further revise it except making sure all elementals and incorporeal beings are not affect. I'm very reluctant to replace/rename the spell and alter its dehydrating concept into something else only because it's currently used as an anti-Mordy spell.

 

Dimension Door: I really never managed to decide once and for all what I should do with this spell, despite the endless discussions over it. I was thinking to suggest moving it to a lower lvl with LOS requirement to avoid exploits and most importantly game-breaking issues.

 

Summoned Fiends: the current solution is only temporary. Xp loss doesn't convince me, but the plan is to make it safely usable, but only rarely, and if certain rquirements are met (caster lvl, charsima, bargain, etc.). ProEvil instead will almost surely remain as it is now, mostly because of SCS but also because I find it better. Vanilla's ProEvil isn't treated as a simple Invisibility/Sanctuary like you said (that would be as per PnP, and fine) because even if the protected creatures harm the fiend they remain completely invisibile, making it really too powerful for a cheap spell, and extremely exploitable.

 

Spell Shield: I removed it because its vanilla version is extremely broken, with various previously unfixable semi-random bugs. Now that I've come up with a solution I'm more than willing to restore it. on a side note "Wizard's Spell Shield" is a disabled spell, it's there only in case the AI wants to use it, not players. You shouldn't get it neither within sorcerer's spell selection screen nor in-game as a scroll.

[phordicus]

other than unseen bugs, i'd say SR is complete. leave SR for now and jot down new stuff for some kind of expansion pack for those that want a more liberal interpretation of the game.

[DavidW]

@Urdjur: I'm not generally in the business of commissioning spells, it increases the scope of SCS from something I can handle (optimising AI within given constraints) to something I can't (redesigning the whole nature of BG2 combat).

 

@Demi: I'm just starting to face the task of writing code to implement your Spell Shield solution, but first I thought I'd check if you had any already. (I'm guessing not, since SR tends to work by crafting spells from scratch rather than patching, but no harm in asking.)

[Demivrgvs]

other than unseen bugs, i'd say SR is complete. leave SR for now and jot down new stuff for some kind of expansion pack for those that want a more liberal interpretation of the game.

I do considered SR V3 an almost complete work, but there are a bunch of things I really want to do, I'll put down a list asap when I get back and release IR.

 

 

@Demi: I'm just starting to face the task of writing code to implement your Spell Shield solution, but first I thought I'd check if you had any already. (I'm guessing not, since SR tends to work by crafting spells from scratch rather than patching, but no harm in asking.)

Actually I'm pretty sure Ardanis went on his own and both coded (as a patching component) and tested it.

[DavidW]

@Demi: I'm just starting to face the task of writing code to implement your Spell Shield solution, but first I thought I'd check if you had any already. (I'm guessing not, since SR tends to work by crafting spells from scratch rather than patching, but no harm in asking.)

Actually I'm pretty sure Ardanis went on his own and both coded (as a patching component) and tested it.

 

 

Aha, so he did. Fantastic.

[urdjur]

@Demivrgvs:

 

Anyway, the definition of "low key change" may slightly differ from one person to another. For example, your suggestion about replacing a famous spell like Horrid Wilting with a "Big Friendly Skull Trap" is much less "low key" for me than keeping the spell and its concept intact, and simply refining it to work as it's clearly supposed to.

 

Indeed, there's no one and only definition for "low key". To me, changing a name will always be more low key than changing a game mechanic. I don't really care if a spell is called Santa's Super Sleigh, Psionic, as long as it does something useful. Differences aside, there's something to be said for a consistent change policy I think. If you select a name change approach for Death Spell -> Banishment, why select another approach for ADHW? A name such as Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Spellblast wouldn't be a significant change in flavor, and still suit the effect better than the world "wilting". I realize you have your mind set on this particular matter and it really doesn't matter much to my play experience anyway - I'm just pointing out the usefulness of a consistent, low key change policy.

 

Animate Dead: indeed I'll restore it for mages, though I'm not sure how. In terms of balance, the revised Skeletons and the new Greater Skeletons are fine as a 3rd lvl summoning spell, but my main issue is that Skeletons Warriors (almost untouched) are really unbalanced there. Comparing it to other summons I'd say that summoning it should require at least a 6th lvl slot. A Skeleton Warrior outshines any Elemental in every possible way imo, though at least Greater Elementals are better tanks against non-spellcasters. I admit I handled this whole matter pretty bad in old versions, sorry.

 

Are you saying that priests currently don't get Skeleton Warriors with Animate Dead (III)? I assumed they did. As for which level, here are some thoughts from my (solo no reload sorceror) perspective:

 

1) You can (or at least should) only have 5 summons at the time, so you want the best ones. Normally, this would be 1 Planetar and 4 Mordy Swords. The selling point of Animate Dead over Mordy Sword is mainly its duration. This permits you to clear out large areas from the convenience of your last rest spot. Once your shock troops (guided by an invisible familiar or similar solution) have cleared the area, you can explore more safely. Using this tactic with short duration summons is inconvenient. Long duration also means extending the value of your clones, as PI and Simmys can replenish your army before expiring. If your team of skellys get wiped out, then that's your cue to buff up and summon some tougher hombres before going in there and dealing with the problem yourself.

2) There are only 2 summons with 8 hour duration - Animate Dead and Invisible Stalker. Skeleton Warriors aren't strictly better than Invisible Stalker, but pretty close. Otoh, SWs can't be had until level 15, so the fact that Animate Dead scales while Invisible Stalker doesn't complicates things.

3) Spell levels 5 and 6 greatly overlap when it comes to sorceror spell picks. For example, you'll want:

*An improved invisibility effect with casting time 1: Shadow Door or Mislead

*An illusion dispeller: Oracle or True Sight

*An AoE-DoT spell: Cloudkill or Acid Fog

*A long duration summon: Animate Dead or Invisible Stalker.

(some must picks like Breach and SI are unique for their level of course)

 

If you look at this list, all the 6th level spells are superior to their 5th level counterparts (as it should be), except for one: Animate Dead and Invisible Stalker. So the logical thing to do would be to swap places between them. I'd also suggest making skellys available from level 12 in that case, when you first get it. Alternatively, adding some sort of scaling to Invisible Stalker. Either way, it doesn't matter much as level 6 slots aren't really any more scarce than level 5 slots when you consider the need for Breach and Spell Immunity (and that the bulk of the summons will be summoned by means of a single level 7 spell anyway, namely Project Image).

 

I also suggest giving it to clerics at 5th level (one level sooner than mages), which also avoids paladins running around with undead buddies.

 

Dimension Door: I really never managed to decide once and for all what I should do with this spell, despite the endless discussions over it. I was thinking to suggest moving it to a lower lvl with LOS requirement to avoid exploits and most importantly game-breaking issues.

 

Could call! You might want to look into the Psychic Warrior on d20srd.org. IIRC, he has a "Dimension Step" as a 3rd level power (i.e. "spell") that is personal and LOS only. Also check out 2nd level Dimension Swap (a good priest spell IMO, especially for paladins).

 

So, what's the latest scoop on Spell Shield? I hadn't realized it (or Protection from Evil) was as broken as you described. Keep up the good work!

[yarpen]

I do considered SR V3 an almost complete work, but there are a bunch of things I really want to do, I'll put down a list asap when I get back and release IR.

I just hope that Familiars are on the list, because they were quite awesome.

 

Dimension Door: I really never managed to decide once and for all what I should do with this spell, despite the endless discussions over it. I was thinking to suggest moving it to a lower lvl with LOS requirement to avoid exploits and most importantly game-breaking issues.

I'd say that 2nd level of arcane spells is perfect for such a spell. There aren't many good 2nd level spells and for example for many casters it'd be easier to spend 2nd level slot than 1st one (where you've got many good - especially for multi-classing wizards - spells).

[DavidW]

If you look at this list, all the 6th level spells are superior to their 5th level counterparts (as it should be), except for one: Animate Dead and Invisible Stalker. So the logical thing to do would be to swap places between them. I'd also suggest making skellys available from level 12 in that case, when you first get it. Alternatively, adding some sort of scaling to Invisible Stalker. Either way, it doesn't matter much as level 6 slots aren't really any more scarce than level 5 slots when you consider the need for Breach and Spell Immunity (and that the bulk of the summons will be summoned by means of a single level 7 spell anyway, namely Project Image).

 

Who'd be an enemy wizard? Not only are you ruthlessly slaughtered by PCs at frequent intervals, but no-one considers your spell needs. Complain all you like about how you need 6th level slots more than 5th level, or that you don't have a chance to use Project Image to summon because the *&?*! party cleric uses Truesight, but do they listen? do they hell. It's enough to make a wizard move to Dragon Age, templars or no templars. No love, no love at all.

[the bigg]

It's enough to make a wizard move to Dragon Age, templars or no templars. No love, no love at all.

Fighter/Mages in Dragon Age are even more OP than in BG2, so they have extra reason to.

[DavidW]

It's enough to make a wizard move to Dragon Age, templars or no templars. No love, no love at all.

Fighter/Mages in Dragon Age are even more OP than in BG2, so they have extra reason to.

 

I'll pass that on to my clients.

[Demivrgvs]

Horrid Wilting

Anyway, the definition of "low key change" may slightly differ from one person to another. For example, your suggestion about replacing a famous spell like Horrid Wilting with a "Big Friendly Skull Trap" is much less "low key" for me than keeping the spell and its concept intact, and simply refining it to work as it's clearly supposed to.

Indeed, there's no one and only definition for "low key". To me, changing a name will always be more low key than changing a game mechanic. I don't really care if a spell is called Santa's Super Sleigh, Psionic, as long as it does something useful. Differences aside, there's something to be said for a consistent change policy I think. If you select a name change approach for Death Spell -> Banishment, why select another approach for ADHW?

Because in one case I'm replacing a PnP spell which doesn't work as it is supposed to work (Death Spell) with another PnP spell which works exactly like the pre-existing one is supposed to (Banishment), in the other case I'm replacing a PnP spell which almost work as it is supposed to with an invented one, when I can instead make the former (ADHW) work as it is supposed to.

 

Long story short, it's hard for me to give up PnP as long as I'm able to implement it. I don't know if most players would feel like me, or would prefer to get rid of ADHW in favour of a "Big Friendly Skull Trap". I might be able to find a PnP spell with similar features to make the change more bearable, but we'd still lose the most famous 8th lvl spell.

 

 

Animate Dead & Invisible Stalker

Are you saying that priests currently don't get Skeleton Warriors with Animate Dead (III)?

No, they do, that's why I said I handled the whole matter quite badly, because SW as a 3rd lvl summon has always been utterly overpowered, even if avaible only for L15+ casters.

 

If you look at this list, all the 6th level spells are superior to their 5th level counterparts (as it should be), except for one: Animate Dead and Invisible Stalker. So the logical thing to do would be to swap places between them. I'd also suggest making skellys available from level 12 in that case, when you first get it. Alternatively, adding some sort of scaling to Invisible Stalker. Either way, it doesn't matter much as level 6 slots aren't really any more scarce than level 5 slots when you consider the need for Breach and Spell Immunity (and that the bulk of the summons will be summoned by means of a single level 7 spell anyway, namely Project Image).

In theory I'd like to keep 3rd lvl Animate Dead for clerics, and just add a 6th or 7th lvl version to directly cast a Skeleton Warrior. Both clerics and mages can have those spells imo. SR's Greater Skeletons are already quite great as 3rd lvl summons imo.

 

Regarding Invisible Stalkers, I think the added backstab feature makes them very interesting and very effective, especially if players directly use them (scripts cannot use them to full effect). I just realized that SR's Invisible Stalker is a sort of mix between PHB's Invisible Stalker and PHBII's Luminous Assasin spells...would making stalkers also able to detect/disarm traps be too crazy? I'd say it could be kinda cool and still fit stalker's concept, but at the same time it may be too much convenient.

 

I also suggest giving it to clerics at 5th level (one level sooner than mages), which also avoids paladins running around with undead buddies.

Well, Paladins would still have quite a few spells they shouldn't have (though this is the most inappropriate).

 

On a side note, I don't like too much spells to have different spell levels depending on the caster, and even less the randomness used to assign them. Why the hell druids get True Seeing before mages? Are they better diviners than Diviners?!? It's not even that divine casters always get spells before mages because at the same time druids get Stoneskin later than mages despite them supposedly being more combat oriented than unarmored, fragile mages. The same thing bothers me for Animate Dead, as clerics really shouldn't be better necromancers than a specialist Necromancer imo.

 

 

Dimension Door

Dimension Door: I really never managed to decide once and for all what I should do with this spell, despite the endless discussions over it. I was thinking to suggest moving it to a lower lvl with LOS requirement to avoid exploits and most importantly game-breaking issues.

You might want to look into the Psychic Warrior on d20srd.org. IIRC, he has a "Dimension Step" as a 3rd level power (i.e. "spell") that is personal and LOS only. Also check out 2nd level Dimension Swap (a good priest spell IMO, especially for paladins).

Yep, even without going to look into less common books, PHBII already has various spells working almost exactly like BG's DD (aka a DD with LOS limitation). We have a 2nd lvl spell, Dimension Hop (difference: it can be cast on others), and a 3rd lvl one, Dimension Step (difference: each party memeber can instantly teleport to any point within sight).

 

 

AI mages

Who'd be an enemy wizard? Not only are you ruthlessly slaughtered by PCs at frequent intervals, but no-one considers your spell needs. Complain all you like about how you need 6th level slots more than 5th level, or that you don't have a chance to use Project Image to summon because the *&?*! party cleric uses Truesight, but do they listen? do they hell. It's enough to make a wizard move to Dragon Age, templars or no templars. No love, no love at all.

Is there a semi-hidden serious request? I mean, are we forgetting to give the AI some love?

 

Speaking of which, and related to the above discussions:

* does SCS use 3rd lvl Animate Dead? If yes, I could make it so that even if SW is moved to a later spell slot the AI could still cast it with the old spell (much like I'm allowing them to cast SR's ProFire with a 3rd lvl slot instead of a 5th lvl one).

* SR's Project Image should be slightly more usable during a fight (instead of being a simple tool for player's exploits) due to the added invisibility effect, and I have various ideas for V4 to make it more similar to PnP, more effective, and less exploitable if you're interested. That being said, I'm pretty sure the AI shouldn't use it because of an hardcoded bug which randomly makes AI casters able to move freely even after casting PI (turning it into an Improved Simulacrum), am I wrong? I think I read about this within SCS forums.

 

On a side note I'd like to point out that I do try to think about the AI, for example the recently discussed SR's disease effects are surely more useful for the AI (Symbol of Weakness is used quite often by SCS) because of their long lasting penalties.

 

If you think there's anything I can do to help the AI (e.g. like you did asking me to restore PfMW's 4 rounds duration) without being unfair to PC's casters just let me know.

[DavidW]

AI mages

Who'd be an enemy wizard? Not only are you ruthlessly slaughtered by PCs at frequent intervals, but no-one considers your spell needs. Complain all you like about how you need 6th level slots more than 5th level, or that you don't have a chance to use Project Image to summon because the *&?*! party cleric uses Truesight, but do they listen? do they hell. It's enough to make a wizard move to Dragon Age, templars or no templars. No love, no love at all.

Is there a semi-hidden serious request? I mean, are we forgetting to give the AI some love?

 

It was pretty unserious; I just like to remind people occasionally that players aren't the only users of the spell system. (Something you're perfectly aware of, of course.)

 

Speaking of which, and related to the above discussions:

* does SCS use 3rd lvl Animate Dead? If yes, I could make it so that even if SW is moved to a later spell slot the AI could still cast it with the old spell (much like I'm allowing them to cast SR's ProFire with a 3rd lvl slot instead of a 5th lvl one).

 

I use vanilla Animate Dead for mages and priests, yes.

 

* SR's Project Image should be slightly more usable during a fight (instead of being a simple tool for player's exploits) due to the added invisibility effect, and I have various ideas for V4 to make it more similar to PnP, more effective, and less exploitable if you're interested. That being said, I'm pretty sure the AI shouldn't use it because of an hardcoded bug which randomly makes AI casters able to move freely even after casting PI (turning it into an Improved Simulacrum), am I wrong? I think I read about this within SCS forums.

There is indeed such a bug; I largely don't use PI any more because of it.

[urdjur]

@David W, naaw, poor enemy casters! I doesn't help that those players combine efforts and post strategies on how to beat them. Nor that they can adventure and move about to get more experience before taking them on. (The Elder Scrolls series fought this fundamental problem by levelling enemies. But loads of 31st level mages running about just because you are one, not to mention level 31 city guards, is just too unrealistic. Plus it makes levelling uninteresting - one of the best strategies to beat Oblivion, IIRC, was to never level up and just get increasingly better gear instead.)

 

In theory I'd like to keep 3rd lvl Animate Dead for clerics, and just add a 6th or 7th lvl version to directly cast a Skeleton Warrior. Both clerics and mages can have those spells imo. SR's Greater Skeletons are already quite great as 3rd lvl summons imo.

 

I like the idea of a a low level and a high level skeleton spell for both clerics and wizards. It would be great if the low level version would also have 8h duration (if at 3rd level, you could compensate for the duration by getting weaker or slower scaling monsters than MS-I would, and also a long casting time) as this provide other tactical options than only having "in combat summons".

 

I'd be careful with the level 7 slot, as it's already overcrowded with quality summons IMO. Level 8 though only has the Glabrezu (and Simulacrum if you count it - it's killed by Death Spell, so I suppose it's a summon then :/ ). If I may be so bold as to suggest a general streamlining of all priestly and wizardly summons, I would structure them (by feature) thus:

 

Features:

A) Long duration and long casting time (A1) OR short duration and short casting time (A2)

B) Immunity (B1) or susceptability (B2) to Banishment effects (a.k.a. Death Spell)

C) Bargaining necessary (C1) or automatic servitude (C2)

 

Ideally, most combinations are available both at low (3-4), mid (5-6) and high (7-9) levels. My suggestion for which summon types that should pack which features are as follows:

 

A1: Skeletons (clerics + wizards) and Animals (druids). The rational is that the magic is less taxing to upkeep if you start with physical raw materials, hence longer duration. The animals are actually called from the vicinity, and come to serve freely. It takes time for them to appear despite the magical help, just as it takes time to stir the bones and animate skeletons. But once the magic is in place it lasts.

 

A2: Here you create a gate and instantly port something in. Quick but it won't last. Teleported creatures from the prime material plane should last longer (perhaps 1 turn/level). Extraplanars only 1 round/level.

 

B1: Celestials (wizards), demons (evil wizards), genies (good wizards) and animals. The reason is that they have come to serve out of their free will and they leave when it pleases them to do so - not for some mortal casting a spell.

 

B2: Everything else. Elemental gates can be closed prematurely, the magic binding skeletons can be dispelled etc.

 

C1: Demons and genies. Level 7-9 only. These should be more powerful than their C2 counterparts around the same level. The most powerful summons - should only have 100% success rate if you're specialized in this somehow.

 

C2: All the others, including celestials (fallen and non-fallen depending on alignment).

 

Summons by class (streamlined suggestion) :

*Druids: 3+ animal summons (e.g. @3rd/5th/7th) and 3+ elementals (e.g. 4/6/HLA), 2 "prime material monsters" (like nymph, e.g. 4th and 6th).

*Wizards: 2 animate dead (e.g. 3rd/6th), 2 celestials (e.g. 4th/HLA), 2 demons/genies (7/9), 3 "prime material monsters" (3/5/8), also clones and mordy sword

*Clerics: 2 animate dead (3/6), 3 celestials (4/5/HLA), rest depends on sphere (elementals, animals, demons, genies)

 

Of course, these are only guidelines and care must be taken not to mess around too much. Banishment immunity and long duration are much needed qualities among some lower level summons too IMO. This doesn't make them unbalanced as such, as long as they are balanced against eachother. Tell me what you think!

 

would making stalkers also able to detect/disarm traps be too crazy? hm.gif I'd say it could be kinda cool and still fit stalker's concept, but at the same time it may be too much convenient.

 

I'd sooner suggest the option of making all summons trigger traps, as this is both more realistic and doesn't risk making Stalkers an über summon. I agree that they are quite powerful and work better than SWs for reconaissance. I still miss my skellys too much, so I'll probably comment out Summon Shadow and reinstall until v4 is released. It's a tough call though - I'd rather have both, but there's so much that needs to fit in those level 5-6 slots

 

By the by, this question of mine was unanswered...

 

So, what's the latest scoop on Spell Shield?

 

Will it work as written in v4? I'd really like to have a pre-emptive Spellstrike protector before taking on Ascension.

[Ardanis]

Summons for v4

 

So, what's the latest scoop on Spell Shield?

It will be in v4, yes.

 

would making stalkers also able to detect/disarm traps be too crazy? hm.gif I'd say it could be kinda cool and still fit stalker's concept, but at the same time it may be too much convenient.

Only disarm. Then a solo wizard can rely on familiar to detect a trap and use stalker to remove it. Can summons disarm traps on doors/chests?