SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)

[JosephJohnson]

Well my main gripe with good clerics having animate dead replaced with a repulse undead spell is that there's already so many other spells that do the same thing. Not to mention turn undead which is like an all in one anti undead spell. I can see why you guys think it should be removed though.

 

I was under the impression call lightning did 3d6 per bolt, with an additional round for every 4 levels? If it is 30d6 max damage then yeah I'd say that isn't underpowered at all. lol By the way I don't have either of the games installed right now so I'm most likely wrong.

 

The Divine Smite sounds good. The reason I say it should affect everyone not of the clerics alignment is because I remember Holy Smite/Unholy Blight's damage never affecting my PC in BG1 ( my characters are always true or chaotic neutral) which made some fights really easy (Bassilus, the bounty hunter in the inn, the cousin of the berserk commander etc.)

[Lawlight]

Animate Dead

Then, the hard part. THIS SPELL IS EVIL. Good aligned priests, not to mention paladins, should not have this spell! Please tell me you agree.

I agree. Evil clerics control / summmon undeads, while good clerics destroy / repulse them and neutral clerics do what they want. -> I'm fine with that. In addition, I'm agree with Demi & Salk, that in term of consistency Repulse Undead should be for good (neutral) clerics only.

 

Holy Smite & Unholy Blight

While it makes perfectly sense that good aligned priests and paladins would not harm non-evil creatures imo (neutral aligned priest should at least take half damge) and their gods wouldn't support this either, it makes absolutly no sense to me, that evil aligned priests would not harm evil creatures, because an evil aligned priest gives a sh** about who he might hurt with his spells and so do their gods. In my opinion it should look like that:

 

Holy Smite Damage: 0% against good / 50% against neutral / 100 % against evil creatures

Unholy Blight Damage: 100% against each and everthing

 

That almost every enemy in the bg series is evil aligned is no problem imo. Neutral or evil aligned partys / party members will no longer have an advantage in some fights, if UB deals alignment undependent damge. Implementing my suggestion would ensure that every one in this game, who should be effected by those spells, is actually effected by them, and that using these kinda spells is appealing for priests of all alignments.

 

Cure Wounds & Cause Wounds

Merging these two spell concepts in a single spell makes actually sense gameplay wise, but I don't like the idea much.

 

Storm Shield

Wind Wall sounds fine. Storm Shield is fine, too. Either way.

I've pretty much the same opinion here.

 

Summon Insects

I'm against lowering it casting time to 5, but actually agree that the insects should ignore MR for beeing summonend creatures. Since there are offered so many protections against this spell then (which is a good thing imo), this change should be balanced.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Lawlight

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Concept wise, the idea is that good aligned priests and paladins would not harm non-evil creatures, while evil priests, being evil, actually enjoy hurting neutrals too.

 

If you do this, you might also want to make those spells party-friendly.

 

Otherwise you'll get enemy priests harming their own neutral aligned summons (i.e. animals and elementals) with Unholy Blight while the party could accidentally kill neutral aligned commoners with Holy Smite during battles that take place in the city.

[Salk]

I am with Demi here and I believe Animate Dead should be Evil only (even for consistency with the Turn Undead power) and if we go for it the logical choice for Repulse Undead (I like it better than Searing Light) is to make it a good-alignement only spell. But then the problem is: what about neutral clerics? Will they lose both spells? It'd be atrocious so my proposal is to let neutral clerics gain both spells halving their effectiveness somehow.

Halving a spell's effectiveness would mean making it pointless imo. Neutral clerics should just simply get both spells (as they do for Holy Smite, Holy Word and their evil versions) or only one.

 

I understand the problem but giving both spells or non seems unfair in both cases.

 

Would it be possible to grant higher saves for the targets when such spells are cast by neutral clerics? I still do think that neutral clerics should have both but that the spell effectiveness should be minor somehow.

[Alathan]

Hello everyone. Since im new here i'd like to praise everyone here for their contribution to one of the best games there are. Demivrgvs, if i was a rich man i would send you a paycheck right now but since im not youl have to wait a few years. Anyway a job well done !

I realise that my post is a bit late on topic but i have a few ideas about arcane spells.

Charm Person

Overpowered for its level or level 3 so maybe change it to cause confusion (just the confused part). Than would remove the control but still disable the target. An explanation for this would be something like :" The charmed creature seeing its friends fight one another stands confused.It joins the fight only if it is attacked, attacking the one who attacked him".

Cone of Cold

Not an idea but please change the animation if you can.

Sunfire

An AE knockback like gust of wind would make this spell diferent from a fireball and more unique . Maybe lower the dmg for balance.

Flesh to Stone

I like your improved slow idea and would add an dot like efect that permastuns the target if saves vs petrification. The target is slowed without a save then rolls to save vs imroved slow and then rolls to save vs permastun. Add save penalties and/or more rounds to balance it. Imagine a target slowly turning to stone.

Absoulte Imunity

Everything Demi sugested + make it 4-5 rounds like Ardanis sugested ( a 9th level spell should protect you for more than 1-2 rounds) and make it protect you agains TS .

I don't know if it can be done but i seen some NPC immune to TS and maybe you could steal it for a short duration. Also it should make you slowed during ts (spell casting speed especialy) so the TS caster has some advantage over you.

Spell Trap

The spell collects the magical residues near the caster and refreshes x number of Y lvl spells (on casting of this spell). Refreshes more Y lvl spells per spell cast by anyone near the caster ( dont know if it can be done, maybe use the log as a counter for the coding) or simply make it refresh spells per round for z amount or rounds. Ofcourse keep the spell protection part.

Wail of the Banshee

Lower save penalties and make it add wraths created from the souls of the slain to make it unique. 3:)

Black Blade of Disaster

I think it only needs +8 to hit bonus and its fine. Worse than other 9th lvl spells cast on their own but combined with a few spells or in the hands of a f/m it become much more powerfull.

Let me know what you think.

[Shaitan]

Animate Dead

Then, the hard part. THIS SPELL IS EVIL. Good aligned priests, not to mention paladins, should not have this spell! Please tell me you agree.

I hope you'll make this change, AD is not to use by others than evil clerics.

 

Glyph of Warding

A more expensive Fire Trap using a better damage type (I'd dare to say that it's even better than Skull Trap's magic dmg if we make ). It probably doesn't need any change.

I love this spell, works very nice for a thief/cleric also

 

Gust of Wind

I'd dare to suggest moving it down at 2nd lvl as per 3E. It can actually become a mandatory change if you approve the change I'm going to propose for Storm Shell.

 

I would also suggest to make this spell "dispel" an insect swarm affecting the caster (its casting time 1 makes it possible).

Moving this would be fine IMO, dispelling insects would also make sense, Bats also?

 

Miscast Magic

I don't know, is it fine/appealing?

I like using it for my druids

 

Strength of One

Not my favourite spell, but I guess there's little to do here. I would make it not usable by druis though.

It's also used by enemy AI. Fine as it is.

 

Unholy Blight/Holy SmiteI like the changes proposed here

[Demivrgvs]

Hello everyone. Since im new here i'd like to praise everyone here for their contribution to one of the best games there are. Demivrgvs, if i was a rich man i would send you a paycheck right now but since im not youl have to wait a few years. Anyway a job well done !

Welcome to the community! It's always a pleasure to see new members, especially when they contribute to the ongoing dicussions. I'll reply to a few important things first, then to your post.

 

Holy Smite/Unholy Blight

It seems like most (if not all) players would prefer these spells to not be so heavily alignment-limited as they are (even the good version).

 

If an "evil" priest casts unholy blight type of spell on the enemy, why shouldn't the enemy be affected, just because he also happens to be evil? It's not like there is some sort of an alliance between all evil gods of Faerun

I actually agree, but it should at least not affect targets of the same faith.

 

Same idea applies to "good" priests with their holy smite. In any case, I'd say we can safely assume that whatever actions the priest performs are somewhat aligned with the goals of his god - otherwise the priest would probably lose access to all his spells anyway.

The difference imo is that a good aligned god would never "smite" neither an innocent nor a follower of another good god (especially within FR where many good and neutral gods are allied).

 

...you might also want to make those spells party-friendly.

 

Otherwise you'll get enemy priests harming their own neutral aligned summons (i.e. animals and elementals) with Unholy Blight while the party could accidentally kill neutral aligned commoners with Holy Smite during battles that take place in the city.

Yeah, don't worry, I do take into accounts things like that. In fact, the more I think about it the more I convince myself we should probably just make them party friendly, regardless of eventual merging and/or alignment limitations.

 

I'm also slowly convincing myself that they should probably harm caster's opponents regardless of alignment restrictions. For evil priests this is pretty obvious, two evil clerics facing each other should be able to unleash the power of their gods against each other. For good priests I have more doubts (see above) but we may assume a good aligned priest, or a paladin, would probably not use Holy Smite against good aligned opponents in the first place.

 

I'm still not sure about merging them into a Divine Smite spell, but I have to admit it's not so bad as I initially thought, and it surely makes sense, both conceptually and gameplay wise, not to mention it would "fix" the whole "what should neutral priest do?" issue very well. It's just that I like the little differences between Holy Smite and Unholy Blight (e.g. the evil priests having a more evilish named spell, with a cursing secondary effect). Mmm...

 

Animate Dead

The idea to restrict "animate dead" based on alignment makes even less sense - animate dead is a simple necromantic act, and it's not like necromancy is considered inherently evil in ADnD...

Necromancy itself is not evil, especially within AD&D where healing spells belongs to that school (within 3E they don't), but certain spells of that school (e.g. Flensing) have always been considered evil in any PnP edition. Animate Dead is one of those objectively evil spells, as a good-aligned priest would never defy the rests of a dead person to create a mindless skeleton/zombie and force it to obey his orders.

 

Charm Person

Overpowered for its level or level 3 so maybe change it to cause confusion (just the confused part). Than would remove the control but still disable the target. An explanation for this would be something like :" The charmed creature seeing its friends fight one another stands confused.It joins the fight only if it is attacked, attacking the one who attacked him".

The problem here is that the spell works fine when cast by the AI, but doesn't when cast by players. The spell cannot be changed though and I just have to hope A64 will hack the opcode to make it work as it should (he already said sooner or later he will). Then it would be even more cool to add in-game circumstances where this spell could shine (e.g. to convince an hostile guard to let you pass without fighting). Afaik, within BG2, Nalia's quest is pretty much the only time where Charm Person is used in a cool and appropriate way (though using Break Enchantment would be even better imo).

 

Cone of Cold

Not an idea but please change the animation if you can.

Not sure if we have a better looking alternative...perhaps IWD's one?

 

Sunfire

An AE knockback like gust of wind would make this spell diferent from a fireball and more unique . Maybe lower the dmg for balance.

This spell already is quite different from a Fireball now, and adding a knockback effect would make it too similar to Dragon's Breath instead.

 

Flesh to Stone

I like your improved slow idea and would add an dot like efect that permastuns the target if saves vs petrification. The target is slowed without a save then rolls to save vs imroved slow and then rolls to save vs permastun. Add save penalties and/or more rounds to balance it. Imagine a target slowly turning to stone.

Are you suggesting it for the single target Flesh to Stone, or an eventual AoE Improved Slow?

 

Absoulte Imunity

Everything Demi sugested + make it 4-5 rounds like Ardanis sugested...

Actually I already had 4-5 rounds in mind (but even 5-6 could be fine imo). Ardanis would prefer a much longer duration (e.g. at least 1 turn) and much less invulnerabilities (e.g. only immunity to weapons a la vanilla).

 

...and make it protect you agains TS .

This cannot be done, neither here nor in any other spell or item. DavidW was clear about it, it would break the AI.

 

Spell Trap

The spell collects the magical residues near the caster and refreshes x number of Y lvl spells (on casting of this spell). Refreshes more Y lvl spells per spell cast by anyone near the caster ( dont know if it can be done, maybe use the log as a counter for the coding) or simply make it refresh spells per round for z amount or rounds. Of course keep the spell protection part.

What's the difference between this and what Ardanis suggested (absorbing AoE spells)?

 

Wail of the Banshee

Lower save penalties and make it add wraths created from the souls of the slain to make it unique. 3:)

A sort of combo between PnP WotB and IWD Soul Eater. Interesting, though probably a little over the top.

 

Black Blade of Disaster

I think it only needs +8 to hit bonus and its fine. Worse than other 9th lvl spells cast on their own but combined with a few spells or in the hands of a f/m it become much more powerfull.

You mean +8 total? Right now it already sets base THAC0 to 0, and then add +5 on top of that. Afaik, thac0 really isn't the problem of this spell, am I wrong? Edited May 20, 2012 by Demivrgvs

[Ardanis]

Cone of Cold

Not sure if we have a better looking alternative...perhaps IWD's one?

White-colored fireball animation? It looks decent enough as a cone. Edited May 20, 2012 by Ardanis

[Alathan]

Charm Person

The problem here is that the spell works fine when cast by the AI, but doesn't when cast by players. The spell cannot be changed though and I just have to hope A64 will hack the opcode to make it work as it should (he already said sooner or later he will). Then it would be even more cool to add in-game circumstances where this spell could shine (e.g. to convince an hostile guard to let you pass without fighting). Afaik, within BG2, Nalia's quest is pretty much the only time where Charm Person is used in a cool and appropriate way (though using Break Enchantment would be even better imo).

Great. I hope he does.

 

Cone of Cold

Not sure if we have a better looking alternative...perhaps IWD's one?

 

Hm forgot how it looks. Anyway i have faith in you you'l find something good.

 

White-colored fireball animation? It looks decent enough as a cone.

Sounds ok to me.

 

Sunfire

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

An AE knockback like gust of wind would make this spell diferent from a fireball and more unique . Maybe lower the dmg for balance.

This spell already is quite different from a Fireball now, and adding a knockback effect would make it too similar to Dragon's Breath instead.

As i see it, the difference between Fireball and Sunfire is in the fact that sunfire ignores mr. Ignoring mr isn't that great at the level you use this spell since groups of monsters (at this lvl) usualy aren't magic resistant and using an AE spell for a single target isn't that productive, especialy when it requires you to stand near the thing you want to blast. When it comes to comparing it to Dragons Breath, it does look like it, but dragons breath is party friendly; you can target with it and it has a much bigger range wich implements a whole different strategy of use (not to mention that by the time you get DB you will be near the end of bg2 if not in tob). So i suggest adding a small knockback effect maybe 10 feet around the caster and removing the ability to ignore mr.

 

Flesh to Stone

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

I like your improved slow idea and would add an dot like efect that permastuns the target if saves vs petrification. The target is slowed without a save then rolls to save vs imroved slow and then rolls to save vs permastun. Add save penalties and/or more rounds to balance it. Imagine a target slowly turning to stone.

Are you suggesting it for the single target Flesh to Stone, or an eventual AoE Improved Slow?

 

I was thinking something like this :

you cast the spell the spell and it lasts 5-10 rounds :

1st round: the target is afected by slow (regular one) no save ; lasts to the end of the spell duration

2nd round : the target rolls to save vs imp slow at -X (and if succides rolls again the next round and

so on)

4th round the target rolls to save vs petrification (permanent stun) with normal saves or maybe bonuses

How does it differ from desintegrate ? Well desintegrate makes you roll agains high dmg usualy death with a high save penalty wich if you succed pretty avoids the spell. Flesh to Stone would have a higher "failed" efect but a lower succes efect that comes from mulitlple needs to save agains the imp slow ( verry high chance) and a low chance of petrification (permastun). Basicly it would work as a single target imp slow that has a small chance of permanent disable with the cosmetic efect of progresing from slow to imp slow to stun. It can also scale with lvls by incrising duration wich would also incrise the chance of imp slow and petrification occuring. And a stoneskin animation on the target would also be cool

 

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

...and make it protect you agains TS .

This cannot be done, neither here nor in any other spell or item. DavidW was clear about it, it would break the AI.

Darn.

Spell Trap

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

The spell collects the magical residues near the caster and refreshes x number of Y lvl spells (on casting of this spell). Refreshes more Y lvl spells per spell cast by anyone near the caster ( dont know if it can be done, maybe use the log as a counter for the coding) or simply make it refresh spells per round for z amount or rounds. Of course keep the spell protection part.

What's the difference between this and what Ardanis suggested (absorbing AoE spells)?

If i understand it corectly the the problem of absorbing AE spells lies in the fact that their efects act like multiplications of the same spell (some with no save and others with no efect on save). As i recall the log only states that only one spell was cast, so maybe if you could code the spell to count the number of spells cast and then calculate the amount of spells it can restore. ( and since the log doesnt mention at whom the spells were cast i suggested that the spell "collects magical residues from spellcasting" and restores spells, not the same amoun or level as the ones in the log ofcourse). If that can't be coded then maybe just make it restore x amount of spells per round. As i see it the spell would function as a regular spell deflection with more spell level points + a mages wounderous recall that restores Y amount of spell instantly and X amount of spells the longer it lasts. Y and X can be changed to balance it out. spell points and duration can be as well.

 

Wail of the Banshee

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

Lower save penalties and make it add wraths created from the souls of the slain to make it unique. 3:)

A sort of combo between PnP WotB and IWD Soul Eater. Interesting, though probably a little over the top.

 

 

This spell used as a purelly dmg spell is imposible to balance. If you put one save penalty on it it does nothing, if you put another it is overpowered ( kills everything but the things that are imune) so i was thinking not to use it as a dmg spell but rather as a tactical one. In the situations where one powerfull foe has many weaker minions/summons this spell would negatate that advantage (like other lover level spells) and add your own minions (like another lower level spell) in one spell cast. And since summons are much easier to balance than save or else spells this is easily tuned. Basicly like a Dismis+low lvl death spell + high lvl summon.

 

Black Blade of Disaster

veyn, on 18 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

I think it only needs +8 to hit bonus and its fine. Worse than other 9th lvl spells cast on their own but combined with a few spells or in the hands of a f/m it become much more powerfull.

You mean +8 total? Right now it already sets base THAC0 to 0, and then add +5 on top of that. Afaik, thac0 really isn't the problem of this spell, am I wrong?

Didn't know that it sets the THAC0 to 0. Then in balance terms it sound fine. I think it comes down to play stile. Do you like to blast things out of existance or buff your self up and hack them down to bits.

[Ardanis]

Sunfire

Ignoring MR was actually a vanilla bug, not an intended feature. Whoever has built this spell, that person had poor knowledge of IE's mechanics, which becomes apparent once you see how the caster's immunity was implemented.

 

The difference from Fireball is in the minimal casting speed, as well as caster's immunity to his own Sunfire. Also I think we were going to increase the damage die to d8, to match Greater Fireburst - the only PnP spell ever close to Sunfire. All in all, this means very different tactics - Fireballs are being launched from a safe distance, while Sunfire requires strong protection (either PFMW for caster, or ProFire for the tank) but has much greater killing potential.

 

Wail of the Banshee

I have no problem with the added Soul Eater effect, but then it ceases to remain true to spell's name. I also don't know any alternative PnP spell with the described effect.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Ardanis

[Demivrgvs]

Flesh to Stone

@Alathan, ok now i get it, you're suggesting such tweak for FtS, not for Improved slow. It's similar to what I have in mind, and your exact idea was suggested some time ago by some other player too. I really don't understand why they put FtS and Disintegrate at the same spell lvl, they perform a really too similar role, they both affects a single target, and they belong to the same school! A 7th lvl Petrification spell not limited to targets with "flesh" would have been a much better choice imo.

 

Furthermore, the more I think about it the more I'd like to see AD&D Improved Slow implemented (we have Slow, Haste, and IH, why not IS?), but that would outshine FtS too as disabling option. At least IS doesn't overlap with Disintegrate at all, being an AoE spell with a completely different role.

 

 

4th Level Divine Spells

 

Animal Summoning I

It will become ASIV for obvious reasons.

 

Call Woodland Beings

I'd like it summon lesser beings at low levels, and keep the Nymph only for high lvl druids (e.g. at least 12th lvl imo). Dryads are the obvious choice, but I don't know how much effective they can be. With AD&D they only have Charm Person, but within 3E they can also use Entangle and Sleep. We don't have animations for anything else (e.g. pixies, centaurs, etc.).

 

Cause/Cure Critical Wounds

We're discussing them elsewhere.

 

Cloak of Fear

I thought this spell didn't need any change, except perhaps changing its save penalty, but now I'm going to suggest adding its reverse spell, Cloak of Bravery. Within AD&D CoB grants only immunity to fear, making it kinda pointless imo considering a 1st lvl spell can counter fear effects for the whole party. I suggest to make Bravery works as a sort of hope/heroism spell, granting immunity to fear and +2 to hit/dmg rolls to nearby creatures, and make Cloak of Fear cause instead -2 penalty (no save?) and fear (on a failed save).

 

Death Ward

If you ask me I'd make it work as per 3E, thus merging Negative Plane Protection into it. The latter spell is very situational, and I don't think 3E Death Ward is OP. What do you think?

 

Defensive Harmony

I could make it work as per PnP, but it a very complicate thing, and in the end the result would be pretty much identical. What do you think of this spell? Do you use it now? Should I make it last longer?

 

Divine Power

Does it need any change?

 

Farsight

I'll make its duration match wizard's version (5 turns). Other than that I guess the spell is fine.

 

Free Action

Obviously fine, though it will need some additional tweaks (e.g. immunity to Spike Growth spell).

 

Ice Storm

Thanks to some player's in-game reports I've realized this spell already is pretty great. Within PnP druids get it at 5th lvl instead of 4th, but I don't know why mages should get it sooner (well, actually I don't even get why mages get Stoneskin first).

 

Lesser Restoration

Very situational. We may try to make it at least dispel fatigue effects, but I guess there's very little we can do about this spell.

 

Magic Circle against Evil

Unless we think moving it to 3rd lvl a la 3E is a good idea the spell is more or less fine. I really don't like that it performs pretty much the same role of Defensive Harmony though.

 

Mental Domination

Little to do here.

 

Negative Plane Protection

See Death Ward.

 

Neutralize Poison

No changes needed.

 

Poison

Have I managed to make it appealing?

[F-man]

Call Woodland Beings

I'd like it summon lesser beings at low levels, and keep the Nymph only for high lvl druids (e.g. at least 12th lvl imo). Dryads are the obvious choice, but I don't know how much effective they can be. With AD&D they only have Charm Person, but within 3E they can also use Entangle and Sleep. We don't have animations for anything else (e.g. pixies, centaurs, etc.).

Maybe you should look what was done in aTweaks if you already haven't as your suggestion sounds very similar.

 

Death Ward

If you ask me I'd make it work as per 3E, thus merging Negative Plane Protection into it. The latter spell is very situational, and I don't think 3E Death Ward is OP. What do you think?

I agree completely. DW and NPP together would make a lot more useful spell but clearly not OP.

[Salk]

Cloak of Bravery

 

I don't see a real need of it so I'd leave it out.

 

Death Ward

 

Agree with you and F-man.

 

Defensive Harmony

 

I don't think its duration is too short but I don't find this spell very appealing for its level. How is the PnP version of it?

 

Divine Power

 

I like the way it is now.

 

Lesser Restoration

 

It is situational, yes but it's not the only one that shares this characteristic so I'd leave it unchanged.

 

Magic Circle against Evil

 

If you feel that it is somehow a duplicate of Defensive Harmony why was this spell ever introduced? Because it's not a vanilla spell in BG, is it? Doesn't it come from IWD? (Forgive me but it was a long time since I played the game)

 

Poison

 

Decent enough but I'd not tear my hair if it was not available.

[Shaitan]

Call Woodland Beings

I'd like it summon lesser beings at low levels, and keep the Nymph only for high lvl druids (e.g. at least 12th lvl imo). Dryads are the obvious choice, but I don't know how much effective they can be. With AD&D they only have Charm Person, but within 3E they can also use Entangle and Sleep. We don't have animations for anything else (e.g. pixies, centaurs, etc.).

ewhere.

I think this change mwill be welcome. Nymphs are good summons especially in BG1. I'd also point to aTweaks and what aVenger is doing.

 

Cloak of Fear

I thought this spell didn't need any change, except perhaps changing its save penalty, but now I'm going to suggest adding its reverse spell, Cloak of Bravery. Within AD&D CoB grants only immunity to fear, making it kinda pointless imo considering a 1st lvl spell can counter fear effects for the whole party. I suggest to make Bravery works as a sort of hope/heroism spell, granting immunity to fear and +2 to hit/dmg rolls to nearby creatures, and make Cloak of Fear cause instead -2 penalty (no save?) and fear (on a failed save).

I'm with Salk here.

 

Death Ward

If you ask me I'd make it work as per 3E, thus merging Negative Plane Protection into it. The latter spell is very situational, and I don't think 3E Death Ward is OP. What do you think?

This also will be very welcome, makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Divine Power

Does it need any change?

Is fine as it is.

 

Lesser Restoration

Very situational. We may try to make it at least dispel fatigue effects, but I guess there's very little we can do about this spell.

It's also used quest wise (skinner quest)

 

Poison

Have I managed to make it appealing?

Indeed, it's more appealing now.

[Lawlight]

Call Woodland Beings

Yeah, aTweaks could be a real muse here.

 

Cloak of Fear & Cloak of Bravery

Personally, I like your idea of adding CoB, since clerics already have many reverse spells and this addition would expand this concept nicely.

 

Death Ward

I'd welcome the merge.

 

Defensive Harmony

I don't think its duration is too short but I don't find this spell very appealing for its level. How is the PnP version of it?

I don't think its duration is too short either, because of its instant casting time. Within PnP this spell granted +1 AC for every creature effected in the radius (up to +5 AC), which means that at least two creatures need to be linked for this spell to work. PnP version is more realistic, that's all.

 

The concept of this spell is pretty cool, but there is one passage in the original description that made me think about whether it is possible to expand the concept in the offensive direction.

 

"Defensive harmony grants affected creatures a defensive bonus by bestowing an enhanced coordination of their attacks and defenses."

 

The description and name of the spell would need to be changed (Harmony for example), but what about giving the effected creatures a +4 bonus to hit too. Bad idea?

 

Divine Power

Doesn't need any change imo.

 

Magic Circle against Evil

If you feel that it is somehow a duplicate of Defensive Harmony why was this spell ever introduced? Because it's not a vanilla spell in BG, is it? Doesn't it come from IWD? (Forgive me but it was a long time since I played the game)

It was formerly Protection From Evil,10' Radius.

 

Unless we think moving it to 3rd lvl a la 3E is a good idea the spell is more or less fine. I really don't like that it performs pretty much the same role of Defensive Harmony though.

I think this spell is pretty much fine as it is, but I have no problem with it gettin' moved to 3rd level a la 3E. Other than that, there is nothing you can do here to differentiate it from Defensive Harmony without changing the base spell (Protection from Evil) - leading to the conclusion that Defensive Harmony is the better candidate for changes.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Lawlight