SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)

[Pacek]

Raise Dead: How about a CON drain which wears off after something like a week?

[Demivrgvs]

Slay Living

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

Well, not all "melee weapon spells" would fit imo, the category is full of very different spells. I suggest it for Slay Living because the spell's concept doesn't cleary indicate a "hand attack" (such as Shocking Grasp or Chill Touch, or all Cause wounds spells), and because it always bothered me that Slay Living and Harm were pretty much performing the same role in almost the same way (a touch attack requiring a hit roll). Making SL enpower the priest's own weapon (though I'd still limit it to melee weapons) would make it hugely more unique, and much more appealing too imo.

 

On a side note, vanilla SL's icon displays a dagger hitting the target's head, it must have been destiny to make this change.

 

Living Bane?

Isn't the death effect enough? Or you mean on top of that?

 

True Seeing

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

I'd like to point out that I'm neither suggesting to nerf priest's TS nor to buff mage's one. I wouldn't do more than just making the 6th lvl version last a little bit more. It's not a big deal anyway, the spell is and alway be a real must have regardless of spell lvl.

 

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.

You have a point, but pretty much all players think it already deals enough damage. Mmm...

 

Polymorph Other

I simply pretend it doesn't exist

Why?

 

Raise Dead

...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.

Well, I really like the idea. Concept wise, draining CON as Pacek suggests seem the more fitting (it simulates a system shock), but afaik there's not an easy way to make it work other than implementing the "ailment" with a custom sec type and then add temples a unique version of Restoration able to remove it. Would the result worth the trouble?

[veyn]

IMO, any serious penalty (i.e. the one that significantly decreases effectiveness of the character and can't be simply ignored) will be just an annoyance. Having to backtrack to the entrance of the dungeon, going to the temple, pressing a button there and going back is an operation that simply takes time and doesn't add any particular depth to the game; in cases when it is not possible to return to temple at will (i.e. planar prison, sphere, spellhold, etc.) having such penalty will be almost equivalent to not having Raise Dead spell at all. Same for having to press rest button multiple times until the penalty wears off.

 

In PnP, having to revive someone can be made into an adventure (finding the proper temple, maybe undertaking some small quest there, etc.). In BG (or in any other CRPGs I've seen) this is not the case: things like revive are simple services. IMO the real value of BG is the story (so good mods that improve/add that are welcome) and the battles (so mods that improve AI and give better or different resources to enemies and players - like Ascension/Tactics/SCS/IA/SR/IR/Rogue Rebalancing - are also welcome); the changes in these mods should strive to reduce the amount of annoyances, not increase them (i.e. planned SR v4 contingency/sequencer changes are great; "nerfing" of Raise Dead proposed above is not).

[Ardanis]

Flame Strike

I usually can afford 1-2 FS memorized only. A 5th spell that does 15d6 damage to a single (most often) target is not that great. For comparison, CoC does the same damage over much wider area, and Sunfire/Fireburst - even 15d8.

 

If you want Wounds spells to be on par with wizards', why shouldn't be FS then?

 

 

Raise Dead

Can we make a CON drain, curable only by specific spell? I'm under impression that no.

Temporary drain (8 hours?) sounds fine, the amount - probably -2 CON.

 

@Veyn

I do not see the need to travel back to city, if a character dies and is raised back with CON drain. This penalty is simply an expense of dungeon crawling, the deeper down you go, the more weary your party becomes.

[Salk]

Raise Dead

 

For gameplay reason, it is impossible to apply all the PnP limitations into the game because, especially with AI mods installed, characters die, and some times often. I don't remember if it happens already in vanilla but one thing that could be done is to make the resurrected character fatigued.

 

Flame Strike

 

I am also against raising the damage output.

 

Slay Living

 

Yes, Demi. Go for it!

 

Chaotic Command -> Impregnable Mind

 

Yes.

 

Greater Command

 

I don't think a change is needed.

 

Stoneskin

 

I am against spells that are name exactly the same and that perform differently for arcane and divine. On the other hand, it's arbitrary to have druids learn the same identical spell at different level (why?). My suggestion is therefore to lower the level to match the wizard's progression table. If that can't be done, then let's add 2 layers and change the name slightly ("Improved Stoneskin?") to reflect the improvements.

 

Magic Resistance

 

A 40% is still less than a half chance to resist and according to me it is not enough. I would raise it to an even 50%.

 

Polymorph Others

 

Here too I'd like to see the spell level lowered in accordance to the wizard's progression table. Personally I don't think it's bad but it's not worth the level slot it occupies.

 

Righteous Fury

 

Fine as it is.

 

True Sight

 

See Polymorph Others and Stoneskin above.

[veyn]

Regarding raise dead, I guess I'm ok with 8h penalty (con drain/fatigue/etc) or something similarly minor. I still don't really see the point (pnp flavour? dunno, maybe - I don't really care about BG being faithful to pnp), but, on the other hand, that's not something that would bother me much

[Demivrgvs]

True Seeing, Stoneskin & Polymorph Other

@ Salk, on paper I do agree that I'd like spells shared by different spellcasters to use the same spell lvl, but moving all these spells seems too much, especially because True Seeing and Stoneskin are almost surely two of the most used 5th lvl spells by both players and AI. Mmm...

 

Ages ago I thought to "solve" this by using slightly different names to "justify" very little differences. For example:

* Cause Disease - Contagion (mage's version is one lvl higher, in exchange it could have a small AoE or contagion-like behaviour)

* Stoneskin - Ironskin (the problem here is that Ironskin name for druids makes ZERO sense)

* Polymorph Other - Baleful Polymorph (druid's version is one lvl higher, in some way it could be more "baneful" )

* True Seeing - True Sight (this was actually there in vanilla, bu the two spells were identical)

I gave up the idea because there were too many of these instances (e.g. Hold Person, Symbols, vanilla's priest version of Confusion), and in some cases I couldn't really found a solution (e.g. Ironskin for druids? Alternate name for Hold Person? Difference between True Seeing and True Sight?).

 

Raise Dead

Can we make a CON drain, curable only by specific spell? I'm under impression that no.

Temporary drain (8 hours?) sounds fine, the amount - probably -2 CON.

Why not? We modify the stat (opcode #10, not disease) with a spell using a custom sec type, than make a specific version of Restoration removing the sec type. The problem is that we have to patch all temples just for this.

 

Yes, -2 CON could be fine imo. It's enough of a penalty to remind you of the character's recent death experience, and keep him more wary but not so severe to make it impossible to continue playing until you reach a temple.

 

Regarding raise dead, I guess I'm ok with 8h penalty (con drain/fatigue/etc) or something similarly minor. I still don't really see the point (pnp flavour? dunno, maybe - I don't really care about BG being faithful to pnp), but, on the other hand, that's not something that would bother me much

Yes, I never had in mind something to make Raise Dead completely pointless, but to at least make it only a temporary solution, and not the free ticket from death to life it now is.

 

That being said, I do agree that what works in PnP don't necessarily work in a PC game, and thus I can probably live even with the current Raise Dead.

 

The question is: does making a trip to a temple necessary to fully restore one character to life add more fun or immersion to the game? Or does it only make it more annoying?

[Salk]

Demi,

 

Ironskin could fit the arcane version and Stoneskin (the better version) could fit the divine one.

[Ardanis]

PnP lists Greater Stoneskin on 6th level, with doubled power of 4th Stoneskin.

 

Magic Resistance

I'm 50% in agreement with Salk. On one hand it is cumulative with any other MR source, on the other - it is a 5th level spell.

[Kalindor]

Magic Resistance

Spell should be nullified by Lower Resistance?

 

Also, is this affected by Spellstrike and co.?

Edited May 28, 2012 by Kalindor

[Demivrgvs]

Spells using different spell levels depending on caster type

First of all, should I assume that you'd actually like me to restore that old idea of mine to give slightly different name/effects to spells such as Cause Disease/Contagion, Polymorph Other/Baleful Polymorph, and so on? You know it won't be easy, do you? I'm not sure it's a good idea.

 

Ironskin could fit the arcane version and Stoneskin (the better version) could fit the divine one.

I'd agree (I was actually thinking the same), but for some absurd reason it was the opposite within PnP. Changing the name of a spell so classic, and so heavily used as Stoneskin doesn't sound good imo.

 

PnP lists Greater Stoneskin on 6th level, with doubled power of 4th Stoneskin.

So? Druids simply get Greater Stoneskin instead of Stoneskin?

 

Is it really such a big deal to keep the same name and just give druids a bunch more skins?

 

Magic Resistance

I'm 50% in agreement with Salk. On one hand it is cumulative with any other MR source, on the other - it is a 5th level spell.

Well, balance wise I guess making it 10% +2% per level wouldn't be a huge problem, though I consider this spell already extremely good because of the stackability (not to mention Viccy is fully immune to magic with this spell), decent duration, and lack of easy counter (aka only Dispel and Lower Resistance).

 

On a side note, that would also mean a 2x Lower Resistance would have 100% chance to dispel the entire magic resistance of any target. Improving LR isn't a bad thing per se, but my intended buff for Pierce Magic (completely negate magic res for few rounds) will be less appealing if LR can reach too high % values.

 

Spell should be nullified by Lower Resistance?

They didn't in vanilla, but I've made them match each other in terms of progression. So as long as the two casters are of the same lvl the two spells negate each other, else they still counter each other, with the more powerful caster getting slightly more % increase/decrease.

 

Also, is this affected by Spellstrike and co.?

No, the only counters to Magic Resistance are Lower Resistance (to a lesser extent Pierce Magic), and Dispel Magic. Edited May 28, 2012 by Demivrgvs

[F-man]

Spells using different spell levels depending on caster type

I really don't care about the same names, they are practically same spells so why bother giving them different names if other is just on another level and a little bit more powerful. Stoneskin is a classic wizard spell so no renaming it and it would make no sense to name druid's version to improved stoneskin when they don't get the normal one. Maybe druid version could be Druidic Stoneskin or something like that if renaming is absolute necessarily.

[veyn]

I'm also not particularly bothered by spells with slightly different power for different classes sharing the same name, or even by exactly same spell being of different level for different casters (especially when the difference is just 1 level, and especially considering that different classes gain same spell level at different xp levels). I'm neutral about druidic Ironskin having few more skins than mage equivalent - that's not going to affect the appeal of the spell.

 

Anyway, I don't even see much problem with druids having "ironskin" (I always considered druid's restriction to iron armor to be related to the fact that such armor is manufactured using relatively "high-tech" process, not to the properties of the actual material - and there is no "manufacturing process" factor for spell that makes skin hard as iron) - but, again, this is kind of a thing that doesn't bother me much.

[Ardanis]

I have a problem with different - even by 1% - spells sharing the name. Same spell on different levels is fine.

[Lawlight]

I have a problem with slightly different spells sharing the same name too, because that could be pretty confusing for someone who does not know better.