SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)

[Lawlight]

Creeping Doom

Cool. Yes for the poison effect.

 

Earthquake

I prefer it to last as long as it does now, but I like your plan to ensure that creatures entering the area after the first round get affected too.

 

Finger of Death

As I said in the other thread: Imo clerics shouldn't even be able to use this spell and Destruction should be clerics Finger of Death instead.

 

Greater Restoration

It's fine.

 

Holy/Unholy Word

1) I'm against both grating a save and replacing it with slow. Isn't there already a slow effect?

2) I'm against a merge, because I like the whole good vs. evil theme of dinvine spells.

 

Nature's Beauty

Yeah I like what you did here too.

 

Regeneration

'Nuff said.

 

Shield of the Archons

Once again you've exceeded my wildest expectations. And yes this would finally make it worth a 7th level spell for clerics. I'm fine with casting time 1 too (actually I'd love it), but I think it should last for something in the direction of PfmW. I'm totally against renaming it to Divine Shield. Shield of the Tanar'ri on the other hand would be a nice addition imo.

 

Sphere of Chaos

Yes keep it.

 

Summon Death Knight

While I agree that it should be useable by evil clerics only (maybe even neutral clerics), I'm not sure if Sunray is an appropriate compensation for the loss of a summoning spell.

 

Summon Shambling Mound

Deal.

 

Sunray

It's fine imo.

[n-ghost]

Btw.

 

This spell summons an invisible aerial servant to find and bring back an object or creature described to it by the priest. Unlike an elemental, an aerial servant cannot be commanded to fight for the caster. When it is summoned, the priest must have cast a protection from evil spell, be within a protective circle, or have a special item used to control the aerial servant. Otherwise, it attempts to slay its summoner and return from whence it came.

 

So, eh. Maybe change it to random area throwdown/slow/hold effects instead of simple attack?

Edited June 7, 2012 by n-ghost

[aVENGER_(RR)]

Unlike an elemental, an aerial servant cannot be commanded to fight for the caster.

 

That's how it works in 2E AD&D, unless you're a Strifeleader of Cyric in which case the Aerial Servant can fight for the caster.

 

Bioware's developers probably wanted to make the spell more appealing, so they made the Aerial Servant fight for any priest. It would have been of little use in BG2 otherwise.

[Ardanis]

Shield of the Archons

I think the NWN-style deflection will render this spell overwhelmingly powerful. Not necessarily bad however, because this is the only spell protection priests have, and a single antimagic attack will bring it down 100%.

 

Holy/Unholy Word

 

2) I'm against a merge, because I like the whole good vs. evil theme of dinvine spells.

I'm with you on the good/evil thing, but this is one same spell - the only difference is what alignment it targets. I very much prefer to have spells with different effects be restricted - like undead summoning and sun-related spells.

[Salk]

Shield of the Archons

 

I agree with everyone above

 

Holy/Unholy Word

 

I have a mild preference for a merge here because as Ardanis said, these two are really two identical spells that differ only for the alignment of the target. About introducing a save, I am not really convinced and I'd rather keep it the way it is.

[Demivrgvs]

Finger of Death

As I said in the other thread: Imo clerics shouldn't even be able to use this spell and Destruction should be clerics Finger of Death instead.

I do share your thought, using Destruction instead of FoD for clerics would have been a more unique/appropriate choice, much like a Drown-like spell would have been hugely more appropriate than FoD for druids imo, but we do have FoD, and we afaik we cannot remove it.

Give David some credit, he doesn't use FoD for SCS druids.

That's cool! Well then, it seems I was wrong, replacing cleric's Finger of Death (even the current spl, so the AI will use it) with Destruction isn't really a problem, because the latter isn't a touch spell as I thought (my memory isn't as good as it used to be), but a perfect copy of FoD which works on non-living targets too. I have to assume clerics are better necromancers for PnP, but considering 7th lvl spell slot is the highest one for clerics I guess it's fine for them to get a slightly better spell than mage's FoD (the only difference between them is that cleric's Destruction can destroy undead creatures, FoD doesn't). I fear some may consider it a cosmetic and unnecessary change, but if there's a large consensus I'd be fine with it.

 

Btw, good luck with the new bam for it Arda!

 

Holy/Unholy Word

2) I'm against a merge, because I like the whole good vs. evil theme of dinvine spells.

I'm with you on the good/evil thing, but this is one same spell - the only difference is what alignment it targets. I very much prefer to have spells with <em>different effects</em> be restricted - like undead summoning and sun-related spells.

Well, in theory we can make them behave differently taking inspiration from 3E. AD&D purists shouldn't be bothered much because if they really want to stay 100% true to AD&D these spells should affect only extraplanar creatures, and not scale with caster lvl (SR added only the latter 3E feature), making these spells completely pointless within BG imo.

 

Long story: while within AD&D these spells were identical (both caused deafness, slow and paralysis), 3E differentiated them a little more. Holy Word paralyzes, blinds, or deafens; Unholy Word (renamed Blasphemy) paralyzes, weakens, or dazes (this evil version is widely considered hugely more powerful than the good aligned one); and then they even added Word of Chaos, which confuses, stuns, or deafens, and Dictum, which paralyzes, slows or deafens.

 

Short story: if we want to keep both spells we could assign them different effects. If we don't differentiate them, then I'd indeed vote to merge them.

 

Regarding Holy/Unholy Word power lvl instead: I really don't know. On one hand I fear the full disable effect (aka paralysis) with no save against creatures with 5HD less than the caster can be really OP, otoh AD&D Chaos did that to targets with just 1HD less than the caster, and as long as there are ways to counter such effect (e.g. Free Action, Remove Paralysis, etc.) players facing more powerful opponents should be able to handle it somehow, shouldn't they?

 

My real concern is when the spell is used by players against the AI instead. This spell gets utterly insane in a game with small parties (not to mention a solo run). Clerics level up quite fast, and in such games it's so fast to quickly make Holy Word unstoppable for many SoA opponents imo. While SCS players may really fear this spell when used by summoned fiends and high lvl clerics, they at least have a chance, but I cannot say the same for the AI if it's the player who has an absurdly high caster lvl. We all know that due to how encounters and xp gain is handled in this game playing with a small party actually makes the game much easier (soloing is even worse imo, and almost break the game balance), but I know many players like to play with small 4-5 parties, and in theory there should be nothing wrong about it. The question is: has Holy Word the potential to get really too powerful/exploitable for players? Mmm...

 

Conclusions: if you ask me, I'd be fine keeping both of them and making them use at least 3 different effects (e.g. sharing only the death one). Regarding the balance instead I'm really torn, I'd be tempted to suggest using less devastating effects (e.g. paralysis, slow, blindness & deafness instead of death, paralysis, blindness & deafness). What do you think?

 

Shield of the Archons/Tanar'ri

I'd like to point out my suggested solution almost perfectly matches PnP (in terms of effects, duration, casting time), the only difference is that in PnP the shield would not offer 360°; protection, but face one direction at a time, and only partial protection (improved saves) from other directions.

 

I think the NWN-style deflection will render this spell overwhelmingly powerful. Not necessarily bad however, because this is the only spell protection priests have, and a single antimagic attack will bring it down 100%.

I forgot that if NWN-style deflection is implemented it cannot co-exist with the old one. Well, PnP SotA would actually work vs AoE spells too, though only offering improved saves, but as you say this is the only spell protection they have, and even a mere 4th lvl Secret Word can tear it down.

 

That being said, what about beholders? I don't want this spell to replace the shield of cheese!

 

Regarding an eventual Shield of the Tanar'ri: in this case the spell would be really the same thing, no way to differentiate them unless straying far from PnP. What's the point of making it two different spells? Furthermore, the AI only knows the current one, thus adding the evil version would be a real pain: 3 new spells, 2 for players, and vanilla's one "hidden" to players and used by the AI to cast the other 2 depending on caster alignment.

 

Summon Death Knight

While I agree that it should be useable by evil clerics only (maybe even neutral clerics), I'm not sure if Sunray is an appropriate compensation for the loss of a summoning spell.

Actually I don't think good/neutral aligned priests really need a perfect 'mirror spell'. A different good/neutral summon might seem the obvious choice, but I don't mind having evil priests not perfectly match good ones, with the formers behaving slightly more as evil necromancers (undead spells), and the latters as bringers of light (sun spells). Edited June 8, 2012 by Demivrgvs

[Ardanis]

Holy/Unholy Word

The question is: has Holy Word the potential to get really too powerful/exploitable for players? Mmm...

I've used it in Yaga-Shura battle, to kill off melee grunts who have been spawning like rabbits. I had, of course, precious few 7th slots by that time, so it wasn't really a manslaughter it may sound - about twenty dead from HW, no more. And they were not exactly a big threat anyway.

 

Shield of the Archons/Tanar'ri

I'm perfectly fine with a single Divine Shield, unless good/evil versions differ so much that it warrants separate spells.

[Kalindor]

"Divine Shield" has almost no flavor to the name. I think "Shield of the Archons" or "Shield of the Tanar'ri" are much better names.

[n-ghost]

Any feedback to my suggestion on aerial servants ?

 

Maybe change it to random area throwdown/slow/hold effects instead of simple attack?

 

Haven't played for a while, but as far as I remember from vanilla, original aerial servants were unstoppable juggernauts that could beat whole game in team of five D:

[Demivrgvs]

Sorry, I've been (and still am) kinda busy. I should be able to make up with a gift by the end of the week though.

 

Aerial Servant

Any feedback to my suggestion on aerial servants ?

 

Maybe change it to random area throwdown/slow/hold effects instead of simple attack?

 

Haven't played for a while, but as far as I remember from vanilla, original aerial servants were unstoppable juggernauts that could beat whole game in team of five D:

I don't remember their vanilla performance, but both SR and aTweak's PnP Aerial Servant are indeed 16HD juggernauts compared to other 6th lvl summons. I do intend to add its PnP constrict ability (aka hold), and aTweaks already did, if that's what you're asking. One more reason to make this spell behave as a Planar ally spell requiring some sort of bargain/cost.

[n-ghost]

Great, thanks

[leania]

Even though It may be too late to write some opinion now, I would like to suggest some ideas/opinions for Divine (especially Druid's) spells because I really love Druids lol.

 

1st Level Divine Spell

 

Magical Stone

Increasing attack rolles, duration, and the number of created bullets are the best solution imo. Compared with MMM, it is still a little bit weak imo even though MS is lvl1 spell and MMM is lvl 3 spell. 3 APR vs. 5 APR, limited/fixed charge (only 10) vs. potentially much more charge (after 10lvl), 1D4+2 (+5 vs. undead) vs. 3D4 (1D4+2D4), +1 enchantment vs. +2 enchantment, and +1 to attack rolls vs. +5 to attack rolls. In addition, as far as I know the duration of MMM is also longer than MS.

 

Even though the spell lvl is different, I think we try to make both spells unique rather than that "higher lvl spell is always better than lower lvl spell". So I suggest MS to have unique feature which increases the additional damage against Undead as you already gave to MS. Of course, the basic abilities such as attack rolls would need to be improved.

 

Long story short, my idea is as below:

 

Current: 3 APR, +1 enchantment, fixed 10 bullets, 1D4+2 (1D4+5 vs. Undead), +1 attack rolls, 1 hour duration.

Suggested: 3 APR, +1 enchantment, 10 + 1 per 1 lvl bullets (up to 20?), 1D4+2 (double damage vs. Undead), +3 attack rolls, 1 day duration.

 

Then the player might consider to use this spell when he encountered Undead monsters. Is it too powerful?...

 

Shillelagh

Actually, though I like the 'magical weapon' concept spells like Shillelagh, Magic Stone, etc., these have been hardly useful even in BG1 part. These magical enchantment weapons usually should be useful for Single Caster rather than Multi-classes (that includes Fighter) because the Multi-classes would use his/her own main weapons rather than weapons created by the spells except very few situation.

 

However, since these weapons doesn't give any APR bonuses, the additional effects, such as holding effect of Shillelagh, seem less attractive. You would be able to easily know why MMM was very useful spell comparing with the other 'creating magical weapon'-like spells.

 

Long story short, I would like to suggest giving fixed 2 APR to Shillelagh rather than Adding +1 APR because the latter may cause balance issue when Multi-classes use this spell.

 

2nd Level Priest Spells

 

Fire Trap

I agree that it was great new spell for Druids. I'm really satisfied this spells, but if you can, I hope the spell range is slightly increased (not AoE, I mean, the maximum castable distance between caster and the trap).

 

Flame Blade

As I mentioned at Shillelagh, this also needs to give fixed 2 apr imo. In addition, some unique effect that doen't be provided by any magical weapons may be required to make this spell more attractive. For example, disturbing regeneration effect?... (For Troll! )

 

Goodberry

Honestly, I was planning to use this spell for Kensai with IR's Bracers of Speed, Backbiter +3, and some regeneration items such as Pearly White Ioun Stone and Cloak of the Wolf if you gives remove fatigue effect to Goodberry lol! Anyway, remove fatigue effect is cool idea imo. In addition, Longer duration is good enough. That would make this spell as something like Potion of Elixir.

 

 

3rd Level Priest Spells

 

Call Lightning

It is very great spell in SRv3.1, however, I think it may need a little modification. First, even though the total damage output of Call Lightning is extremely high at higher level, it requires very long time to deal with enemies. Furthermore, since its saving throw penalty (save vs. breath at -2) is fixed, the damage output get worse drastically in the late game.

 

So I would like to suggest increasing the saving throw penalty according to Druid's level progression. How about increasing it per 3 level up to -4~6?

 

Miscast Magic

This spell is less attractive spell imo. Honestly, the other spells, such as Sleep, Spook, Hold person/animal, Charm, etc., give same/better effect (casters can not cast spell when they failed saving throws) and these spells can be effective to not only spell casters but also the other enemies. I think increasing saving throw penalty might be required for Miscast Magic.

 

Call Woodland Beings

aTweaks's Revised Call Woodland Beings spell give cool thing imo. I think the changes would be fine for SR If it don't bother you.

 

4th Level Divine Spells

 

Ice Storm

It is cool enough exatly. But if we consider something for this, I suggest adding some 'per level progression' feature in terms of duration, damage, and so on. Actually, it may be a little overpowered excepting party might suffer from this spell. For the convenience, we may change it not to affect party and allow saving throw to reduce damage. Then, the increaing saving throw penalty per x level could be good choice for this spell.

 

5th Level Divine Spells

 

Pixie Dust

It is a little bit weak as 5th level spell imo. How about decreasing its casting time to 1 from 5 and increasing the AoE?... Then it could be used as "party escape" spell on combat.

 

Polymorph Other

As you discussed before, this spell is really pointless imo. It would be better to be replaced by the one of new Druid's spells what you are planning. But if it can't, we should consider it to make unique... I think it would be better to be AoE spell instead of single target spell with short-midium duration.

 

Stoneskin

Frankly speaking, I really don't like this spell at all because this spell perfactly prevent backstabbing! I suggest Stoneskin to block physical damage up to 20~30 per skin instead of block physical damage perfactly though I wonder it could be implementable. Then we can distinguish mage's and druid's by adjusting the block rate (e.g., mage's version would block the damage up to 20 and druid's version would block the damage up to 30). Of course, even if the damage is much lower than 20~30, the skin should be taken off as vanilla. I guess IWD2's Stoneskin operates as I mentioned... Is it right?

 

6th Level Divine Spells

 

Fire Seeds

Well, Fire Seeds may be useful in some situation, but generally it is worse than MMM in aspect of efficiency. Fire Seeds is 6 level spells, but it has 2 apr and lower attack rolls. Even though it provides small AoE effect, it is non-friendly. It needs huge boost imo. The non-friendly disadvantage makes this spell to be hardly useful on combat (melee party member have been always hit by this spell with their enemies omg). More apr (3), more attack rolls (at least +6 imo) should be required. In addtion, the number of fire seeds created also be boosted as you mentioned imo. Currently this spell is only used when the enemy casts PfMW.

 

Sol's Searing Orb

The previous mentioned ongoing fire damage and change its background/name is good solution imo. And, the attack rolls should also be increased. BTW, I wonder What SSO's enchantment level is... Maybe +6?

 

I think that 7th level spells look fine all...

 

Total impression of SRv3.1 is that the lower Druid's spells were less attractive than Cleric's spells (1-3 lvl) to me. Hm... Anyway, I really appreciate your all of great mods!

Edited July 19, 2012 by leania

[Ardanis]

Shillelagh

With my proposal (+1 at 1th level, +2 at 5th, +3 at 9th), as well as setting damage to 2d4, it doesn't need ApR bonus. Such level progression is also favoring BG1 strongly, because druids obtain lower levels very fast.

 

 

Flame Blade

Here the ApR bonus might be good, indeed.

 

 

Call Woodland Beings

We indeed will most likely end up using copies of aTweaks' creatures for summoning spells.

 

 

Stoneskin

Damage absorbtion as per 3E is impossible on the engine level.

[leania]

Shillelagh

With my proposal (+1 at 1th level, +2 at 5th, +3 at 9th), as well as setting damage to 2d4, it doesn't need ApR bonus. Such level progression is also favoring BG1 strongly, because druids obtain lower levels very fast.

 

Well, I think the druid's level progression is annoying so I always changes the progression to Cleric's progression from original's. Anyway, boost enchantment level is also good solution, I don't like give high enchantment to lower level spells though.

 

Stoneskin

Damage absorbtion as per 3E is impossible on the engine level.

 

Ya, that's the what I worried about.

[Silverstar]

Heya, I just got an idea for the Flesh to Stone spell.

 

When the spell is cast, this powerful curse starts to turn the victim into stone slowly, starting from his feet and going up. The victim is immobilised (an entangle effect without that yellow wine-animation) without a save (since his feet are petrified and stucked to the ground) and starts to slowly convert into stone. It takes an entire round for the spell to go up and reach the victim's heart and kill him, turning it to stone completely.

 

During this round, the victim must make a save vs spells (at -4 penalty, or whatever is appropriate for this lvl) or is affected by a powerful fear effect. Cos it is pretty scary to watch your limbs being converted into stone, as the curse slowly creeps up to your waist and chest. It's like:' Holy! I am turning into stone! Oooh it is close to my chest! Gaaaaah! HEEELP!' Those who fail this saving throws are helpless, (horror effect) they just scream in terror and flail their arms around helplessly (remember they can not run cos their feet are cased into the ground, ala entangled effect. They are but 'Horror'ed and 'entangled')

 

Those who manage to succeed this saving throw find their courage, and can attack, cast a spell, or drink a potion in that single round. They are still immobilised (but not held, their hands and mouths are still working, just like entangle effect) At the end of the round, the curse has come up to the victim's chest and attempts to kill the victim by turning it to stone. At this point the victim gets a save vs petrification (at whatever penalty you think okay) if succesful, he has resisted the spell, the curse withdraws from his body, the stone parts crumble fast, revealing his normal flesh, and he's freed from the entangle effect, he returns to normal. Although since his limbs are very stiff and achy, he is slowed for 3-4 rounds till he feels the blood pumping back into his limbs. (no save) If the victim fails the save vs petr., that's it. He wails in agony one final time, as his heart is cased in cold stone, and he turns into a complete, lifeless statue.

 

This one round-delay is important, since this spell actually kills the victim, it needs to be a not-so-instantenous death. The scary, instantenous, 'point your hand and he dies!' kind of 'death ray' effect is reserved for the aptly named higher lvl spell:Finger of Death. Technically, Disintegrate is an insta-kill spell too but it just does humongous amounts of damage now, which can be resisted and/or may not be enough to kill the victim still. But you'll still get petrified even if you have 300 HP or something, so this effect is much more powerful technically, and thus one round-grace period is okay.

 

As you can see, the petrification effect is delayed, in coding terms I don't know if it can be coded. You can make the saving throw at the start of the spell, and the 'immobile' round still occurs, but I think it is more scary if the real save is made at the culmination of the round. The victim can drink a potion of magic protection, or cast break enchantment or dispel magic (which will stop the spell) or pro from petrification spell etc. in the one round interval. (if he has not succumbed to fear and panic, that is!) It is like the Nabassu's death gaze ability from ToTSC, but with 'entangled' with a chance of 'fear' instead of merely 'held', and petrification instead of being turned into a ghast.

 

I always thought that Disintegrate is fast and clean and final, it is like 'ZAP! You're gone, dust in the wind, bye!' while Flesh to Stone is much more sadistic, watching the victim turn into stone slowly and all to create a realistic trophy-statue with agony and fear etched on your enemy's face forever...I remember seeing this in a fantasy cartoon back in my childhood, it was pretty scary.

 

What do you think?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Silverstar