SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)

[Demivrgvs]

Call Woodland Beings

Yeah, aTweaks could be a real muse here.

Thanks for reminding me to chack it. Anyway, I see now aVENGER does pretty much the same I have suggested with the difference that he also adds hamadryads between the dryads and the nymph. Still, his hamadryads (aka dryads with Entangle) are pretty much identical to my suggested dryads (I guess 3E made the two types of dryads the same creature). I'm not sure I like dryads without neither Entangle nor Sleep (or something in general), they would just stand there and cast tons of Charm Person spells. Mmm...

 

On a side note: why the hell no one told me aVENGER already implemented Fog Cloud? I'm still here wondering if reduced LoS is a pain to handle for the AI and he instead did it without heasitation!

 

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.

It's exactly the "reverse" thing that lead me to this spell.

 

Defensive Harmony

...what about giving the effected creatures a +4 bonus to hit too. Bad idea?

I don't know...it would pratically take the role of both ProEvil and an eventual Cloak of Bravery.

 

ProEvil doesn't work much for the AI (most of the times party members are not evil), in the current state this spell can be the ProEvil equivalent for AI opponents, but with its short duration I guess SCS rarely (if ever) bothers with it.

 

Magic Circle against Evil

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.

At 4rd lvl it should work as per PnP (a 10' aura), because a Mass ProEvil at 3rd lvl would be too much imo, but both players and DavidW convinced me the to make this spell a Mass spell, because V2's aura was a mess to handle for players and too unreliable for AI.

 

Considering this damn spell doesn't even work as it should, and never will unless A64 fixes the opcode I would be tempted to make it ignore alignment limitations and rename it Magic Circle of Protection. Unfortunately I think the spell is really too much canonic to be changed.

[veyn]

Merging DW and NPP is a very cool idea IMO.

 

Defensive harmony - its effect is already very nice (I use it in prebuff sequence, for example). It could use longer duration (5 turns or 1 turn/lvl would be perfect, but even 2 turns like Clairvoyance is fine), but that's not particularly critical.

 

Magic circle against Evil - removing alignment restrictions and making it universal is a great idea too Did you consider applying similar change to 1st level (single-target) pro.evil?

 

Also I'm wondering - was there any thought about adding some sort of non-personal dispel protection? I didn't see such discussions - sorry if it was already brought up before. Thing is - SCS/SCS2 mages seem to love Remove Magic; in most tougher battles they are significantly higher in level than the party, so this spell is very devastating. I always found it strange that a single 3rd level spell can instantly trash many high level layers of protections, and at the same time only party mages have any way of protecting themselves from it (i.e. SI:Abj). This non-personal dispel protection can be weaker (i.e. protect only against single dispel - so one would have to recast it during combat) and/or higher level than SI (but not much higher, otherwise it would be obtained too late).

[Ardanis]

Dispel Magic

I too hate it greatly. Two options are to reduce the radius of effect and to cap the power at 20th level.

The third is to roll individually for every spell (i.e. a group of effects with the same parent source) being dispelled. I have already asked A64 to add this option to ToBEx.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

I'm not sure I like dryads without neither Entangle nor Sleep (or something in general), they would just stand there and cast tons of Charm Person spells. Mmm...

 

aTweaks' Dryads also have Speak With Plants (a.k.a. "Unentangle"), Wild Empathy and Dimension Door.

 

On a side note: why the hell no one told me aVENGER already implemented Fog Cloud? I'm still here wondering if reduced LoS is a pain to handle for the AI...

 

Not for aTweaks/RR AI. The only requirement is that reduced visual range is caused by the blindness opcode and therefore sets STATE_BLIND. Also, it should be noted that all effects caused by cloud spells have a base duration of 6 seconds and get re-applied every round but only if the victim actually remains within the cloud.

Edited May 24, 2012 by aVENGER_(RR)

[Kalindor]

Speak With Plants could be a nice first-level spell for Druids to make them immune to plant-based AoE like Entangle or Spike Growth, etc.

[Demivrgvs]

Call Woodland Being - Dryads

I'm not sure I like dryads without neither Entangle nor Sleep (or something in general), they would just stand there and cast tons of Charm Person spells. Mmm...

aTweaks' Dryads also have Speak With Plants (a.k.a. "Unentangle"), Wild Empathy and Dimension Door.

Well, it doesn't change much imo, it's not like those abilities give dryads much more things to do during an encounter, unless we count moving here and there with DD or eventually "charming" animals instead of persons. Perhaps I'm wrong but without a minimum variety (e.g. adding Entangle, and perhaps Sleep too, as per 3E) a summoning a dryad is almost pointless (unless we think standing there to make the party immune to Entangle is enough).

 

Btw, may I ask how you implemented SwP? Aura or at will ability? If the latter when/how does it work? Having a summoned dryad keep the whole party protected from Entangle is a kinda great feature.

 

Speak With Plants could be a nice first-level spell for Druids to make them immune to plant-based AoE like Entangle or Spike Growth, etc.

Well, Speak With Plants is a 3rd lvl spell within PnP (kinda high I know). I'm not sure I'd like it as a separate spell though, especially considering it could be one of the few things to make dryads appealing summons.

 

Fog Cloud

On a side note: why the hell no one told me aVENGER already implemented Fog Cloud? I'm still here wondering if reduced LoS is a pain to handle for the AI...

Not for aTweaks/RR AI. The only requirement is that reduced visual range is caused by the blindness opcode and therefore sets STATE_BLIND. Also, it should be noted that all effects caused by cloud spells have a base duration of 6 seconds and get re-applied every round but only if the victim actually remains within the cloud.

Interesting. I actualy thought to make it less drastical than mass blindness (and making True Seeing grants immunty to Fog Cloud would be strange imo). Following Polytope's discoveries I planned to make FoC heavily reduce LoS, but not completely blind targets.

 

Why do you think using blindness opcode is is better? Would my suggested FoC break your AI?

[F-man]

SwP is at will ability with description (From aTweaks readme):

 

Speak With Plants

 

This spell allows the caster to converse with plants and to exercise limited control over them. Creatures entwined by an Entangle spell can be released (even if the spell was cast by an opponent) and are protected from all subsequent entangle effects for 1 turn. Furthermore, by communicating her intent to nearby plants, the caster can prevent her own Entangle spell from affecting her allies - this ability is always active.

 

 

EDIT: To clarify from what I read from forums, Druids' own entangle doesn't effect allies and SwP itself is spell-like ability that give entangle immunity to all allies for 1 turn.

Edited May 25, 2012 by F-man

[Demivrgvs]

Speak with Plants

@F-man, ok I'm an idiot, I read aVENGER's readme too fast. I guess he made it work as an aura then, granting anyone allied with the dryad immunity to entangle spells. That's exactly how I would have done it, which is good, this way SR's version will perfectly match aTweak's one.

 

Well, just that I'm here, I'll copy&past another part of of my huge draft regarding pre-existing spells.

 

5th Level Divine Spells

 

Animal Summoning II

Nothing to say here.

 

Champion's Strength

I'm not in love with this spell, but I guess there's little to do here.

 

Chaotic Commands

This spell actually is more similar to AD&D Impregnable Mind (though hugely more powerful), and not PnP Chaotic Commands which granted immunity only to spells that place a direct verbal command, such as Taunt, Forget, Suggestion, Domination, Geas, Demand, Succor, Command, Enthrall, Quest, Exaction, but neither to effects such as confusion, fear, feeblemind and hold, nor to psionics. PnP IM instead grants +4 to saves vs. pretty much all those effects, including psionics.

 

I'd rename the spell because Impregnable Mind is more fitting imo, but other than that there's little to do here. BG version of this spell is obviously quite OP imo, as it single handley counters an entire school of magic (matching 8th lvl spell Mind Blank) but changing it is not an option because of the AI. Fortunately unlike PnP we have Breach here to counter it, and for some reason its OPness is "under control".

 

Flame Strike

It should be fine, isn't it? Should the damaged be increased from d6 to d8? Mmm...

 

Greater Command

I've made it as per PnP but many players seem to not like the "muliple saves" thing. Should I make affected creature "sleep" for at least 2 rounds before making again a save to wake up?

 

Insect Plague

See Summon Insect.

 

Magic Resistance

I suppose this is fine, +40% magic resistance is a very good buff imo.

 

Mass Cure

Will be discussed elsewhere.

 

Pixie Dust

Other than making sure it doesn't count as an illusion I think there's nothing to do here.

 

Polymorph Other

I'm not sure I understand why PnP made druids get this spell later than mages. Anyway, this spell should be more or less fine, but many players seem to consider it very unappealing.

 

Protection from Acid/Cold//Electricity/Fire

These spells will be merged into a single spell, thus making it better slightly better because of its "on the fly" adaptability.

 

Raise Dead

I'm one of those PnP players growed up with a great DM who convinced him not giving clerics this spell would make the campaign more interesting. With this spell players end up not fearing death at all (except charname within BG), while having temple-related quests to resurrect a dead party member would be more cool (such as Yoshi's one, though in that case it's not to resurrect him). Anyway, end of my rant, this spell will stay (we even have a damn rod which allows Noober's grandma to resurrect as if she was a god) and there's little to do here. Within a PC game like BG a convenient spell like this probably makes sense.

 

Righteous Fury

I like what I did, but I'm not sure I'm 100% satisfied with both this spell and Divine Power. Should we differentiate them more? Any suggestion?

 

Slay Living

I'm tempted to make it add an "on hit" ability to the caster's weapon, instead of replacing the weapon itself. What do you think?

 

Stoneskin

Do you have anything in mind which could "balance" the spell lvl difference between mages and priests? For example within PnP this spell can be cast on others, but if you don't like that we could simply grant druids more skins.

 

True Seeing

As discussed for mages. Do you have anything in mind which could "balance" the spell lvl difference between mages and priests? Should mage's version last longer?

[aVENGER_(RR)]

 

Why do you think using blindness opcode is is better?

 

Blindness sets STATE_BLIND which is used as a script check in my AI. Reducing the visual range does not.

 

Would my suggested FoC break your AI?

 

It depends on how much your lower the visual range. Reducing it by half probably wouldn't be that much of a problem, but going any lower than that without setting STATE_BLIND would almost certainly cause issues.

[F-man]

5th Level Divine Spells

I generally agree.

 

Flame Strike

d6 is enough in my opinion.

 

Slay Living

Sounds very nice especially in case of multi-class, hopefully this doesn't give problems with AI.

 

Stoneskin

Stoneskin to others is OP I would say, extra skin or two should definitely be enough.

 

True Seeing

I don't really think that mage's need balance but if it last round or two longer that could increase it's appeal if that is needed.

Edited May 25, 2012 by F-man

[Kalindor]

Slay Living

I like your suggestion and think it should be done for all melee weapon spells.

 

Stoneskin

More skins for Druids would be nice.

 

Flamestrike

It seems effective enough as it stands.

 

True Seeing

I think it's fine as-is. Priest need as much help relative to mages as they can get.

[Ardanis]

Flame Strike

Only if you want to boost SCS clerics' performance. PCs need to memorize multiple CCs, and can't really fill their entire 5th level with buffed FSs only. AI, however, is less restricted.

So, yes for d8.

 

Polymorph Other

I simply pretend it doesn't exist

 

Raise Dead

Add it's PnP features of not working on elves and adding permanent level drain. Maybe even two drained levels, or add additional temporary max HP penalty.

 

Slay Living

Living Bane?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Ardanis

[Kalindor]

Ardanis, I like those additional penalty suggestions for Raise Dead. I think one permanent level lost would be sufficient. The penalty would have to be permanent or you could just rest it off. However, I think the not-working-on-elves part would only serve to be annoying.

[veyn]

Adding permanent level drain to Raise Dead is equivalent to removing it completely, since amount of possible XP is (almost) limited. Adding removable level drain would simply require one to memorize additional Lesser Restoration before resting, so it would only increase annoyance. Making it not work on elves is just a completely arbitrary restriction (why just elves? why not humans/dwarves/...?). I would strongly prefer if it isn't touched (or at least made optional), as convenience far outweights concerns like "cheapness of death", at least for computer RPG.

[Kalindor]

In that case, you could make it inflict some sort of ailment that can only be removed by visiting a temple. That way, the result is not permanent yet still necessitates a trip back to down to lick your wounds.