Jump to content

SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)


Recommended Posts

SM III vs SS

 

In my experience, they are equivalent more or less so I would not change anything.

 

They are certainly not, and even without ogre-mage.

My test was simple: a few unprotected mage (AC between 6 and 10), doing nothing (moving a bit at best). An enemy cast 2 shadows spells and stop casting. There were 4 shadows attacking my casters. Yet, they standed for about 3 minutes, not worrying about these weak shadows that seemed to have very hard time to hit their target.

I can assure you that ogres don't have this problem, although I haven't tested it recently.

 

Maybe it has something to do with known AttackOneRound or AttackReevaluate bug, I don't know.

 

Whatever it is, summon shadows is weak. They are surely survive longer but this is not the point.

Link to post

SM III vs SS

 

In my experience, they are equivalent more or less so I would not change anything.

 

They are certainly not, and even without ogre-mage.

 

I don't measure the power of a summoning by a mere practical test in a predetermined scenario (built by you). I measure it by checking what qualities the summons have. The Shadows have harder time to hit (not that the Ogre are much better) but they have more staying power, resulting in more attempts to hit. On top of that, they have natural resistances that Ogres can't even dream of.

 

I still think the spell shouldn't be modified.

 

In the end, it's up to Demi.

Link to post

MS III vs Summon Shadows

In my experience, they are equivalent more or less so I would not change anything.
They are certainly not, and even without ogre-mage.

My test was simple: a few unprotected mage (AC between 6 and 10), doing nothing (moving a bit at best). An enemy cast 2 shadows spells and stop casting. There were 4 shadows attacking my casters. Yet, they standed for about 3 minutes, not worrying about these weak shadows that seemed to have very hard time to hit their target.

I can assure you that ogres don't have this problem, although I haven't tested it recently.

This sounds very strange, an unbuffed shadow should hit an unproteced mage with AC 6-10 with a 65-85% chance. Multiple shadows would cause the mage to be hit at least once per round if not more...

 

Maybe it has something to do with known AttackOneRound or AttackReevaluate bug, I don't know.
Which known bug? I don't remember it. :( Btw, I'll take a look at the scripts when I get back home because right now I don't even remember how I scripted them.

 

Whatever it is, summon shadows is weak. They are surely survive longer but this is not the point.
Well, actually that is the point, but only as long as they cannot be completely ignored.

 

Btw, this whole discussion reminds me why I previously thought to discuss all summons on a separate topic. Handling summons is an extremely more difficult task than normal spells, there's really too many variables.

Link to post

This sounds very strange, an unbuffed shadow should hit an unproteced mage with AC 6-10 with a 65-85% chance. Multiple shadows would cause the mage to be hit at least once per round if not more...

 

Which known bug? I don't remember it. :( Btw, I'll take a look at the scripts when I get back home because right now I don't even remember how I scripted them.

 

Here is the link :

http://www.shsforums...tackreevaluate/

 

I will test again these summons. I just have to make sure they roll a dice on each attack, if not, it is that known bug related to attacks. :)

Edited by aigleborgne
Link to post

Acid Fog

Its school is changed from Evocation to Conjuration. I was also thinking about slightly altering its dmg output to last a couple of rounds even after escaping the cloud. Most acid based attacks work like that and it would also make its dmg output work more similarly to AD&D version of this spell (where dmg inflicted increases the more the target remains inside the cloud). Overall the spell wouldn't change much, but ongoing dmg would make it slightly more different than just a more damaging Cloudkill. No?

 

The only real problem about doing the above mentioned tweak would be making the description clear. :D

I't would be a nice change, please go for that.

 

Chain Lightning

It should be fine.

Indeed.

 

Conjure Air/Earth/Fire Elemental

We are thinking to merge them into a single spell, and to move greater elementals (which are generally considered too powerful right now) to 7th lvl in the form of a new Conjure Greater Elemental spell.

Good idea. Needed nerf, as it is now elementals are almost too good for a 6th level spell.

 

Contingency

As discussed elsewhere this will be made an innate ability gained by mages at lvl up.

Looking foreward to that change.

 

Create Undead

Ok, here there's a lot to discuss. Within V4 necromancers will have a lot more minions at their disposal, and the huge overhaul I planned look like this:

* at 3rd lvl I'd add Animate Skeletons (the equivalent of the current SR's Animate Dead)

* at 4th lvl I'd add Animate Dead and make it summons ghouls and ghasts (should I rename the spell?)

* the current Create Undead will summon one Skeletal Warrior

I'd rename it Animate Skeletal Warrior taking inspiration from PnP's 6th lvl Animate Dread Warrior, but it may as well keep its current name. The point it that the current Create Undead is considered too weak for its spell slot (am I wrong?) whereas the uber powerful Skeletal Warrior deserved to be back, but to an appropriate spell lvl (it's so powerful imo that it actually rivals 7th lvl summons).

 

Let me know your thoughts.

Sounds intriguing. As of now I can agree Create Undead is a little too weak, but moving Elemental spells to spell level 7 would perhaps remedy this?

 

Death Spell --> Banishment

As most of you already know vanilla's version of this spell actually was PnP Banishment + PnP Death Spell. For conceptual/consistency reasons I'm thus replacing vanilla's Death Spell with Banishment.

 

I was thinking to then re-add Death Spell to necromancers (to give them at least one offensive 6th lvl spell), but its true PnP form is completely useless within BG imo. Ardanis suggested to make it a sort of Mass Enervation to make it appealing, but now I'm even considering the possibility of not re-implementing it at all, because something else can easily fill this spell slot: Symbol of Fear. SoF didn't make any sense as an 8th lvl spell (2nd lvl spell Horror does almost the same!), but moving it here, as per PnP, and making it a necromantic spell as per 3E, should make it much more viable imo.

 

Speaking of Symbol spells in general, I'd like to improve them if possible and make them work more similarly to PnP. Long story short, Symbol spells shouldn't have an instant duration, they should affect the area for x rounds and affect all creatures entering it (though PnP limits to HD and max hp probably make them last shortly anyway). So, I'd add an ongoing duration (while making sure each creature has to save only once against it), though I still have to find an animation to indicate the area affected.

Your SoF idea sounds good. Making it area bound is even better if doable.

 

Disintegrate

This spell will instantly destroy a Mordy Sword without save as per PnP. Other than that the spell is more or less fine, but I need some feedback on its actual effectiveness. The save to avoid its massive damage will surely be nerfed because the current -5 penalty is above the -4 cap I'm imposing within V4, but there was a discussion back then with some players suggesting to make it -2 if not no penalty at all. What do you think?

 

To further refine the spell, what about making it somewhat affect golems too? We could make it a very limited effect as per PnP (1d12 dmg and slow for 1d6 rounds), but I'd personally make it at least slightly more effective (who'd waste a 6th lvl spell to deal 1d12 dmg?), and I wouldn't limit it to only clay golems. Feel free to bash my idea, the spell would still be very good in terms of power. ;)

A nerf on the save is needed IMO, it's an effective spell, I use it a lot. I wouldn't mind a -2 penalty at all. Regarding Golems: I like the idea, it'd be nice with that twist to this spell.

 

Flesh to Stone

Leaving aside all the technical issues/bugs the spell currently has (we should be able to handle them all within V4), this spell needs some serious improvement imo to compete with its cousin Disintegrate, not to mention I currently prefer even Hold Monster over it (almost same effect in terms of effectiveness during a battle, but with a larger AoE and cheaper spell slot!).

 

Long story short, the only way I can imagine this spell becoming interesting is by adding it a secondary effect, which can still affect a target on a successfull save. I suggest to use one of the following two solutions:

a) target is considerably slowed

b) target is petrified for 1 round

The former would pratically turn this spell into a sort of Improved Slow (which I was tempted to add), while the latter is inspired by vanilla's Implosion secondary effect. What do you think?

b) would be my choice. Target should take some damage also :)

 

Improved Haste

This spell won't grant 2x apr anymore to balance its OP-ness when used on warriors (for dualwielders this pratically was the equivalent of casting Greater Whirlwind Attack 10+ times, with even additional benefits such as doubled movement speed, improved thac0 and improved AC), but it will grant +2 apr, making it finally work for any class (it previously granted only +1 apr to non-warriors).

Great

 

Invisible Stalker

I'd dare to suggest expanding its current concept, making it able to detect and disarm traps. This alone would turn this previously underused summon into an incredibly cool one.

 

If I wanted to really go overboard I'd even suggest to make it able to explore the area outside the "fog of war". :D

Sounds good :D Maybe I'd even use it then...

 

Mislead

The current solution should be fine/balanced in terms of gameplay. I've thought about trying to understand how Galactygon made the summoned illusion take the place of the caster instead of appearing alongside it, but afaik there's no way to prevent the spell from displaying the hardcoded message which indicates a Mislead spell as been cast, making the whole "mislead" concept pointless. :(

You'll have to rely on A64 or BG2EE.

 

Pierce Magic

To make it more similar to its PnP version, more true to how an abjuration spell is supposed to work, and different from Lower Resistance alteration, I'd make it completely nullify magic resistance on target (setting it to 0%) but for a very limited amount of time (only a bunch of rounds).

Great change.

 

Power Word Silence

I guess it's fine, though not hugely appealing imo.

It works, use it once in a while.

 

Protection from Magical Weapons

It may get its 4 rounds duration back because DavidW almost convinced me.

Ok

 

Stone to Flesh

This spell was pointless from the beginning (very situational, underpowered and absurdly "expensive" for the few times you may think to need it), but now that we have Break Enchantment it has become even more laughable.

 

The only idea I found to make it at least appealing was to rename it Shape Stone and make it a sort of improved Stoneskin castable on allies (eventually retaining its cure petrification effect too). Other than that I don't know, if you don't like such solution I surely wouldn't mind removing it completely, and perhaps fill the free spell slot with Improved Slow (though I fear the latter would somewhat overlap with Flesh to Stone's role as single target disabling alteration).

Remove it for better purposes.

 

True Seeing

For balance/conceptual reasons I'd make TS not destroy illusionary creatures anymore. As planned it will reveal invisible characters without dispelling Improved Invisibility's partial-invisibility, while allowing to cast spells against II opponents (as if they were completely visible to the caster under TS). Unfortunately due to technical issues we discussed with aVENGER I cannot make it work 100% as per PnP, and the above solution is the closest one I could find.

 

This spell will also be updated to make sure the new offensive illusions (such as Phantasmal Killer and Weird) won't be able to harm a character under TS.

Nice

 

Wyvern Call

I was planning to remove it completely, but it may instead simply get renamed/merged into the new Monster Summoning VI.

 

Back then I was thinking to override its filename (spwi619) with the new Shades spell, hoping to see the latter being used by the current AI without waiting new SCS updates, but I'm not sure anymore. In the long run it's probably better to simply rename Wvyern Call as Monster Summoning VI to preserve its concept, and hope future SCS updates (or other AI mods in general) will make good use of the new Shades spell to create a true Illusionist

Good call, makes sense.

 

Happy easter

Link to post

Regarding Contingency, Chain Conteingency & Spell Triggers:

 

Having them become innates is.. a HUGE deviation from PnP / Vanilla.

At least, make this component have multiple choices (Not install / Install as Innates / Make them Universal) please.

 

Regarding Flesh to stone :

When compared with desintegrate, flesh to stone has the advantage of beeing an "Save or die" spell

Hold person might be better, but you also have to remember that Hold Perso, as a lower level spell is rendered inneffective by :

- Minor Globe Of Invulnerability

- Globe Of Invulnerability

- Immunity to Hold (Lots of creatures are immune to hold, few creatures are immune to petrification)

- Free Action (If I remember well)

- Higher save penality (In Spell Rev)

 

Regarding Stone to Flesh :

Break enchantment dispells the petrified status ? This is something I kinda dislike (Beeing petrified != beeing enchanted / cursed)

If you want to improve the spell, have grand bonus if cast on Golems (All but flesh golem) by, say, increasing their AC / Lowering their damage resistance.

 

Regarding Desintegrate :

Seems fine as it is right now, except the save penality (But you are reviewing these, so it should be fine).

Used to be a save-or-die spell, it's now (a bit) less powerfull on a failed save, but has added value if the save is made. Seems fine to me.

 

Regarding Breach :

Rather than limiting what spells are affected by it, can't you limit the amount of dispelled protections (IE : up to 4 protections max are dispelled) and remove the protection from magical weapons effect (Even if innate) from affected creature ?

Rename Pierce Shield to "Greater Breach", and have it remove up to , say, 8 protections / remove protection from magical weapons from the creature.

 

Regarding Sunfire :

Not keen on the spell becoming DnD 3.0 Fireburst, but, well, it's a made up spell that doesn't exist in PnP, so I guess it's up to you

 

Regarding Feeblemind :

See Stone to Flesh to understand why it's different from "Hold person".

 

Regarding Flame Arrow :

Just cap the damage at very high level. The current damage progression makes sense (About 1d6 per level : 5d6@Lvl5, 10d6@Lvl10, 15d6@Lvl15 & so on)

 

Another thing : You should really create a dedicated thread about upcoming saves penalities. It's hard to compare spells when we don't know what you have in mind :)

Edited by Aranthys
Link to post

Contingency, Chain Conteingency & Spell Triggers:

Having them become innates is.. a HUGE deviation from PnP / Vanilla.

At least, make this component have multiple choices (Not install / Install as Innates / Make them Universal) please.

They already belong to the Universal school within SR, so there's only one choice to make, innate or not. I agree with you this is a huge change that deserves to be optional, the only problem is that having or not having this spell in the spellbook also affect the # new of spells we can introduce (afaik even with scrollable spellbook hack the display at lvl up is still limited to 24).

 

Btw, I really wasn't expecting someone could be against this change! :) I do love PnP, but the way they work there doesn't work for BG imo. In PnP you would memorize them in one of those days where you don't need all your spells (which is very common unless your DM is making a dumb campaign with no story), whereas in a PC game like BG the frequency of fights is so absurdly high that everyday you end up erasing a memorized spellbook before breakfast and rest again before lunch. :D A better system with such context imo could have been making contingencies/triggers work as a metamagic feat (e.g. if you want to memorize a Stoneskin as a contingency effect you memorize it using a higher lvl spell slot), but I'm digressing too much, I guess you got my point.

 

Flesh to stone :

When compared with desintegrate, flesh to stone has the advantage of beeing an "Save or die" spell
I actually consider Disintegrate slightly more "save or die" than FtS, especially when used by the AI. Only dragons and very few (or extremely lucky) characters can survive Disintegration's 40d6 damage on a failed save, while a petrified character can be cured by an ally. That being said, both spells are pretty much "save or die" spells in most situations.

 

Hold person might be better, but you also have to remember that Hold Perso, as a lower level spell is rendered inneffective by :

- Minor Globe Of Invulnerability

- Globe Of Invulnerability

- Immunity to Hold (Lots of creatures are immune to hold, few creatures are immune to petrification)

- Free Action (If I remember well)

- Higher save penality (In Spell Rev)

I was comparing it to Hold Monster (5th lvl) and not the uber cheap Hold Person (2nd/3rd lvl spell), so:

- neither Minor Globe Of Invulnerability nor Globe Of Invulnerability work against it

- Immunity to hold probably is more common than immunity to petrification, but not much

- Free Action grants immunity to it yes, but ProPetrification within BG actually is ridiculously cheapear (1st lvl)

- leaving aside that in PnP Hold Monster actually has a higher save penalty, within SR V3 they are almost the same (-4 and -5)

Add to the above things that Hold Monster is cheaper and can affect multiple targets while bypassing protections such as II and Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap! Long story short, Flesh to Stone is outstandingly inferior to Hold Monster imo.

 

Stone to Flesh :

Break enchantment dispells the petrified status ? This is something I kinda dislike (Beeing petrified != beeing enchanted / cursed)
From PnP: "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses." I haven't invented anything here, I've just turned a useless BG spell (Remove Curse) into a really great PnP one. :) I think the misleading thing is that enchantment seems to suggest it's limited to enchanter's spells (charms and compulsions), but "enchantment" is a much wider term (e.g. a flaming sword is "enchanted" but it has nothing to do with the Enchantment school).

 

If you want to improve the spell, have grand bonus if cast on Golems (All but flesh golem) by, say, increasing their AC / Lowering their damage resistance.
I do thought about it, but it would still be an extremely situational spell, and I would also need to change its concept/name or turn it into a completely invented spell (why a stone to flesh effect would have any effect on an iron/adamantine golem?).

 

Breach :

Rather than limiting what spells are affected by it, can't you limit the amount of dispelled protections (IE : up to 4 protections max are dispelled) and remove the protection from magical weapons effect (Even if innate) from affected creature ?

Rename Pierce Shield to "Greater Breach", and have it remove up to , say, 8 protections / remove protection from magical weapons from the creature.

I'm not sure how the AI would handle this (e.g. I guess SCS AI gives for granted a target doesn't need multiple Breach spells to become really vulnerable). Btw, afaik targets rarely have tons of protections up (e.g. 1-2 specific protections, 1 PfMW-like spell and depending on situations 1-2 combat protections) so if we want a similar change to matter we would have to limit the amount of dispelled protections even more imo.

 

The point of my suggested change is to keep Breach almost unchanged to not not mess with the AI, but what I like the most actually is to incentive the use of spells such as Mage Armor or even Fireshields.

 

Sunfire :

Not keen on the spell becoming DnD 3.0 Fireburst, but, well, it's a made up spell that doesn't exist in PnP, so I guess it's up to you
I turned an invented spell into a PnP spell while keeping the pre-existing concept almost identical. I'm actually quite proud of it. :D

 

Regarding the neverending 3E vs AD&D thing, it should be clear to anyone that Revisions mods follow a sort of 2.5, using either 2nd or 3rd edition depending on which one seems the better for that particular spell, item, creature, and so on.

 

Feeblemind :

See Stone to Flesh to understand why it's different from "Hold person".
Ehm...see my reply there then. :D Jokes aside, this case is even worse imo because there's really not a single case where I'd pick Feeblemind over Hold Monster right now.

 

Saves penalties

Another thing : You should really create a dedicated thread about upcoming saves penalities. It's hard to compare spells when we don't know what you have in mind :)
You are right, I should probably talk more about save penalties, but in most cases there's very little to say. Save penalties are capped at -4 now, I generally round down -1/-3 penalties to 0/-2 respectively (more close to AD&D PnP), and then we have the unique cases which have to be discussed individually. I tend to mention the save penalty when I think it really matters, but I'll try to mention it more. :) Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post

Breach :

Rather than limiting what spells are affected by it, can't you limit the amount of dispelled protections (IE : up to 4 protections max are dispelled) and remove the protection from magical weapons effect (Even if innate) from affected creature ?

Rename Pierce Shield to "Greater Breach", and have it remove up to , say, 8 protections / remove protection from magical weapons from the creature.

I'm not sure how the AI would handle this (e.g. I guess SCS AI gives for granted a target doesn't need multiple Breach spells to become really vulnerable). Btw, afaik targets rarely have tons of protections up (e.g. 1-2 specific protections, 1 PfMW-like spell and depending on situations 1-2 combat protections) so if we want a similar change to matter we would have to limit the amount of dispelled protections even more imo.

 

The AI would cast repeated Breach spells in that case... Much as if you re-protected yourself after being breached. It's not a huge issue since Breach would still always remove the highest level combat protection (a protection from weapon spell) as well as the highest level specific protection (probably Protection from Energy), which is what both AI and players are usually trying to dispel, to allow use of weapons and direct damage spells.

 

Sunfire :
Not keen on the spell becoming DnD 3.0 Fireburst, but, well, it's a made up spell that doesn't exist in PnP, so I guess it's up to you
I turned an invented spell into a PnP spell while keeping the pre-existing concept almost identical. I'm actually quite proud of it. :D

 

This spell actually existed in al-Qadim setting, but it was 4th level and capped at 10d6 (otherwise identical to the BG2 version). Although the effect should be increased (since it's moved up by one level), 15d8 is really too much (comparable to wilting, three levels higher) - I think bypassing MR is suitable, as enemy mages need some way to deal with skeleton warriors, and conceptually speaking, heat from a natural source like the sun should disregard MR.

 

Feeblemind :
See Stone to Flesh to understand why it's different from "Hold person".
Ehm...see my reply there then. :D Jokes aside, this case is even worse imo because there's really not a single case where I'd pick Feeblemind over Hold Monster right now.

 

I use it for dragons, since they're immune to hold, and deal enough melee damage that Chaos isn't such a great spell to incapacitate them with. It's also supposed to have a tougher save penalty when used on arcane casters (if Breach were made less powerful, as Aranthy's suggests, feeblemind might even be a good alternative)

 

Regarding Skull Trap, making undead immune to the AoE would indeed be good for necromancers, but bad for enchanters: Their mind-affecting spells are all useless against undead and they are denied evocation. ST and Wilting are the only AoE damage spells an enchanter can use, so if neither affect undead the kit seems quite disadvantaged.

Edited by polytope
Link to post

Hold Monster vs. Rest of the World

From what I can hear, the problem is not that other level 4/5 disabling spells are not strong enough, it's that hold monster is too powerful.Just lower the save malus to -2, let the others @-4 and it will be fine :)
Actually I was saying Feeblemind and Flesh to Stone are inferior to other spells of similar or inferior lvl, such as Hold Monster, but not only. Feeblemind is also inferior to both Chaos (a Hold Monster slightly less disabling but with larger AoE) and Domination (obviously better than Feeblemind because taking control of a target is even better than disabling it).

 

Now, I do thought about using save penalties to slightly offset this, but it's not a true solution, and it can actually cause more mess than benefits. For example, making Domination use a -2 penalty and keeping Feeblemind at -4 may give at least one small advantage to the latter, but not enough to balance it imo, and then Domination will start to look unappealing compared to 3rd lvl Dire Charm (though that is also fault of BG engine not making charm effects work as they should). Then again, making Hold Monster use -2 would make it inferior to Chaos, which would have a much larger AoE and higher penalty (in fact SCS already uses the latter much more than the former), and I surely cannot nerf Chaos considering its -4 penalty is pretty much the only thing it has over Confusion (though SR at least added the other HD-based feature).

 

Your suggestion makes sense indeed when simply comparing Hold Monster to either Feeblemind or Flesh to Stone, but in a bigger picture HM really doesn't seem like it should be nerfed imo.

 

Breach

Rather than limiting what spells are affected by it, can't you limit the amount of dispelled protections (IE : up to 4 protections max are dispelled) and remove the protection from magical weapons effect (Even if innate) from affected creature ?
I'm not sure how the AI would handle this (e.g. I guess SCS AI gives for granted a target doesn't need multiple Breach spells to become really vulnerable).
The AI would cast repeated Breach spells in that case... Much as if you re-protected yourself after being breached. It's not a huge issue since Breach would still always remove the highest level combat protection (a protection from weapon spell) as well as the highest level specific protection (probably Protection from Energy), which is what both AI and players are usually trying to dispel, to allow use of weapons and direct damage spells.
What I'm saying is that I don't know if SCS (or AI in general) is prepared to need twice as much memorized Breach spells. But I may get your point now: if we manage to keep the # of required Breaches the same (because we make it still dispel enough protections to work almost as before) then we could achieve a similar result of my suggested tweak (aka lower lvl protections such as Mage Armor and Fireshields may survive a Breach spell). The question is, is this achievable without risking to create some mess for the AI? I'd like to know aVENGER or DavidW opinion on this matter.

 

Anyway, I kinda like the idea of making certain spells not affected by Breach, and perhaps making other spells counter them, regardless of whether or not we opt for the above discussed tweak.

 

Rename Pierce Shield to "Greater Breach", and have it remove up to , say, 8 protections / remove protection from magical weapons from the creature.
Actually its true PnP name, Pierce Any Shield, would fit this solution even more imo (it can still remove all protections imo, it's a 8th lvl spell after all!).

 

Sunfire

I turned an invented spell into a PnP spell while keeping the pre-existing concept almost identical. I'm actually quite proud of it. :D
This spell actually existed in al-Qadim setting, but it was 4th level and capped at 10d6 (otherwise identical to the BG2 version).
Well, that's a different setting (which is more than enough to ban it), and it's far from identical to BG2 version anyway considering it also has a different concept (it isn't necessarily centered on the caster). Al-Qadim's Sunfire is a fireball spell in all aspects (including range), the only difference is that the caster is immune to it.

 

I think bypassing MR is suitable, as enemy mages need some way to deal with skeleton warriors, and conceptually speaking, heat from a natural source like the sun should disregard MR.
Conceptually speaking Evokers don't manipulate natural ("real") sources but magical ones. Generally only conjurers and abjurers have spells which bypasses mr, though exceptions do exist. I don't see why we should try to justify a vanilla's bug (aka self targeted spells ending up bypassing mr) only because it was convenient.

 

Against player's Skeleton Warriors the AI already have THE counter, as Banishment (aka vanilla's Death Spell) can destroy multiple SW without even allowing a save. A higher lvl caster could actually make a nasty Pierce Magic + Control Undead (no save vs a 9HD undead) combo, but it's probably too much expensive to counter a single 6th lvl summon.

 

Feeblemind

I use it for dragons, since they're immune to hold, and deal enough melee damage that Chaos isn't such a great spell to incapacitate them with.
Ok, we have 1 case over 100 where Feeblemind is more viable than Chaos or Hold Monster, but what about the other 99 cases?

 

It's also supposed to have a tougher save penalty when used on arcane casters.
Yeah, actually it's supposed to have no penalty to its save unless cast against an arcane spellcaster (-4 vs them), and to be weaker against divine casters (they make the save with even a +1 bonus!). So, unless we want to nerf this spell even more I'd leave this PnP feature out. :)

 

If Breach were made less powerful, as Aranthy's suggests, feeblemind might even be a good alternative.
??? Why would nerfing Breach make Feeblemind more appealing than before?

 

Skull Trap

Regarding Skull Trap, making undead immune to the AoE would indeed be good for necromancers, but bad for enchanters: Their mind-affecting spells are all useless against undead and they are denied evocation. ST and Wilting are the only AoE damage spells an enchanter can use, so if neither affect undead the kit seems quite disadvantaged.
Leaving aside that having a kit disadvantaged in at least a couple of situations seems fitting (that's the point of kits, specialize to become better in certain situations and worse in others), I'm simply applying PnP rules here (strange how many times I'm accused to do the opposite eh?).

 

With the current rules Enchanters should probably rely on conjurations to fight undead creatures. Summoned elementals for example are a great choice as they are immune to almost all abilities used by undead creatures (e.g. charm, hold, fear and disease effects). You can easily use spells such as Acid/Flame Arrow instead of Skull Trap imo, and at higher lvls you have multiple options. If you have access to Necromancy school you don't need vanilla's Horrid Wilting to fight undead creatures, you just need the cheaper and more effective Control Undead (watch them destroy each other then, or bash them as much as you like while they stand there helpless because of your control over them).

 

Btw, V4 Vitriolic Sphere will indeed be another good option to fight undead creatures for those without access to Evocation spells, and I'm also making Minute Meteors belong to Conjuration school (in PnP it belongs to both schools).

 

On a side note, within KR I'm re-adjusting opposition schools to make them have some actual sense (how the hell Divination and Illusion are not opposite?!?). I was going to suggest Enchantment to be opposed to Necromancy, while Evocation could be opposed to Conjuration.

Edited by Demivrgvs
Link to post

Protection from Normal Weapons

Since ADnD purists are clearly against seriously altering or replacing this spell, the only mild change I can think of is to increase it's duration. And greatly so, to 1 turn/level (or even fixed 8 hours). Then perhaps it's not a waste of a highly valuable 5th slot to memorize it.

 

It imposes a complication, however, - the caster will not be able to cast PFMW during this time, which is a good enough reason to avoid PFNW once again... Well, if it were up to me, I'd allow it to stack with PFMW (it does anyway when cast from a trigger). No big deal imo, no AI uses normal weapons against PFMW except RR's Cyricist party - where, coincidentally, you start with no buffs, thus can't afford to waste a round or a slot in a trigger to include PFNW.

 

I suspect, however, that despite my reasoning above the stackability won't be accepted anyway, so there is a backup option - to allow casting it on the others.

 

Breach

I'll need to investigate it further, but I think there are several places where AI is trained to dispel fireshields and armors as well. Still I doubt there'll be any field for abuse.

Link to post
Ok, we have 1 case over 100 where Feeblemind is more viable than Chaos or Hold Monster, but what about the other 99 cases?

Most SoA/ToB boss, liches, fiends... quite a lot of people :)

 

Obvisouly, feeblemind and flesh to stone are really more usefull than a pathetic Hold monsters vs Big and semi big boss , especially in ToB.

 

I have personnally stoped to use feeblemind and flesh to stone coz I found these spell too powerfull and not fun.

Link to post

Protection from Normal Weapons

Since ADnD purists are clearly against seriously altering or replacing this spell, the only mild change I can think of is to increase it's duration. And greatly so, to 1 turn/level (or even fixed 8 hours). Then perhaps it's not a waste of a highly valuable 5th slot to memorize it.

 

It imposes a complication, however, - the caster will not be able to cast PFMW during this time, which is a good enough reason to avoid PFNW once again...

We could probably make PfMW serie of spells remove PfNW when cast, but this doesn't sound great anyway imo.

 

Well, if it were up to me, I'd allow it to stack with PFMW (it does anyway when cast from a trigger). No big deal imo, no AI uses normal weapons against PFMW except RR's Cyricist party - where, coincidentally, you start with no buffs, thus can't afford to waste a round or a slot in a trigger to include PFNW.
I have to think about it... I'll be back on this matter.

 

I suspect, however, that despite my reasoning above the stackability won't be accepted anyway, so there is a backup option - to allow casting it on the others.
Fine with me, though it certainly doesn't change much this spell's appeal. This spell is competing with things such as Breach and Protection from "x element" spells, as well as classic choices such as Chaos or Shadow Door, it needs much more than being able to be cast on others and/or a higher duration to become a really viable alternative.

 

Breach

I'll need to investigate it further, but I think there are several places where AI is trained to dispel fireshields and armors as well. Still I doubt there'll be any field for abuse.
You mean the are places where the AI would prioritize Breach if it detects Mage Armor?

 

Feeblemind

Ok, we have 1 case over 100 where Feeblemind is more viable than Chaos or Hold Monster, but what about the other 99 cases?
Most SoA/ToB boss, liches, fiends... quite a lot of people :)

 

Obvisouly, feeblemind and flesh to stone are really more usefull than a pathetic Hold monsters vs Big and semi big boss , especially in ToB.

 

I have personnally stoped to use feeblemind and flesh to stone coz I found these spell too powerfull and not fun.

Well, liches are actually immune to Feeblemind (if they are not it's an oversight), but you made me want to re-check how often the immunity to feeblemind comes up. I still believe it's usability is really low, but it's a welcome surprise to see someone actually thinking this spell rocks right now, it makes me want to re-study the spell to see if I was wrong. I'll let you know.
Link to post

The feeblemind duration (8hours) make this spell appealing. At the end of SoA and in ToB, fights last ofen more than ten rounds making chaos/hold less appealing.

Most annoying boss and powerfull enemy are immune to charm/hold/chaos/death(!) effect but really a few one are immune to flesh to stone and feeblemind.

 

You can cast feeblemind on Yaga Shura, Illasera, Sendai, Bhaltazar, Abazygal...

 

Just my opinion.^^

 

But surely liches are immune to feeblemind. ( coz immune to lvel 5 spells). But flesh to stone is good against liches. (making slesh to stone also ofen/always better than finger of death....)

Edited by DrAzTiK
Link to post

Protection from Normal Weapons

Balance wise it should be on 3rd level, where ProNMissiles was/is, one offering greater duration and ability to cast on allies, the other including melee weapons as well.

 

And since ProNMissiles became ProMissiles... It's not really a suggestion to switch them, but I think you get my meaning :)

Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...