Ardanis

Call Lightning

As I said in my previous post, I do tried back then. I seem to recall the problem was that only the external main spl check for the flag, whereas the subspells ignore it. I'll try it again.

Whoops, didn't notice it. I suppose it won't work then, just like casting failure only works upon the true casting.

Lightning Bolt

So the thin cone hits targets correctly, even if barely touching the selection circle? When I was working on traps, I found out that the trigger radius is checking for the circle's center, so a dragon could easily walk over radius=1 trap and not trigger it.

 

How to enforce a single bolt, hmm... Offhands I've no idea. Maybe using the VVC field would help, like it did with Flame Strike, but this is a cone... Well, added it to the 'try to do' list.

 

Call Lightning

What about making it stronger when used outdoors? Two subspells, one has the 'outdoors only' flag, the other doesn't.

Heck, Entangle may be tweaked the same way too then.

 

For it's name, in NWN2 it's still called the same, but can be used indoors just as fine.

Perhaps we could just agree on adding the tertiary effect, to work against casters? Percentage failure, casting speed, caster level, spell slot loss, whatever. It won't be much useful, but may add the spice and flavor.

 

Lowering INT to 3-5 will make the target vulnerable to Maze.

 

Lowering save vs spells will do... what? With only mind-affecting spells left to use this save type, it probably is safe to go with even as much as -4 penalty.

I think I got the concept.

 

Assuming that the chance of successful casting is dependant on primary ability score (like not implemented priest spellcasting failure with low WIS), the FB nullifies that chance, whatever it was before. In that light, high INT wizards indeed suffer far more than orcish barbarians.

 

Problem is, naturally, that there's no such a thing in BG as the casting failure due to low stat, and everybody is (theoretically) fine even with INT 9.

 

In other words, we're back to miscast magic in it's vanilla form. Well. It may not be such a bad thing, because enemies can be immune to hold/charm/feeblemind, but none to my knowledge is immune to the percentage casting failure. Also, being held qualifies as being helpless and may thus release a contingency with Dispel Magic on self - hardly ever happens imo, especially with AI, but still.

 

 

PS

SCSII handles them so-so. (SCS doesn't handle them at all). It's still possible to exploit cloudkill, but it's hopefully the case that you're less likely to end up "accidentally exploiting it", as it were. (Basically, (most) creatures not otherwise engaged in melee or what-have-you will move directly away from the centre of the spell.)

Big Picture uses the 180th stat (WIZARD_GREATER_MALISON), values >10, for cloud detection. Among the other uses, I saw BP trying to shoot opponents trapped within a cloud while, rather than approaching them in melee.

Feeblemind

Last but not least, I still believe that adding non-lethal dmg as a secondary effect could make Feeblemind appealing even compared to Domination and Breach without being a too radical change. I'm still waiting for someone to comment on it, does it suck so much that you'd prefer to replace Feeblemind with another spell like Ardanis suggests?

Non-lethal damage is a cool finding imo.

 

Magic Missiles

The projectile is hardcoded, so regardless there can be no change made anyway.

 

Creature Revisions

Using EFFs is actually a better choice, because it doesn't depend on install order and such.

As for starting this project - later, as Demi and I have our hands full atm.

 

True Seeing & Detect Invisibility

Surprise, but I think I suddenly grew quite fond of AoE solution. Fond enough to neglect ToBEx's solution and stick to old one

That said... SCS will target II'ed opponents with antimagic in any case, so it's only a matter of how the issue is dealt with by human players. If AI will ignore casting TS prior to antimagic attack, I think I can live with that. It may seem like cheating on AI's part, but then aren't we cheating on it too, like taking the advantage of casting AoE on the ground?

 

Breach

working against ProEnergy spells makes sense, and I can live with it breaching Death Ward, Free Action and Chaotic Commands though it fits slighty less the concept imo.

Imo Pierce Magic makes even more sense as a placeholder for those. We'll see, when I start the next playthrough I'll try out this little tweak (thanks to David for shipping AI in easily adjustable SSL format).

Breach... yep, you're right about it being always the best choice against wizards. It's been pointed out already several times before.

 

Is it sensible to limit the list of Combat Protections to weapon immunities only? I remember Demi suggested to remove Fireshields, but imo all AC-boosting spells (and Armor of Faith) can go as well. Reason - if fighters have trouble hitting a wizard even after breaching him, then trying to cast offensive spell is the next logical step.

 

Acid Sheath can also contribute here, by increasing the damage that grunts would take.

 

PS I wish Stoneskin could be changed to physical resistance. With ToBEx's concentration check, it would work wonders.

 

True Seeing & Detect Invisibility

@Ardanis, perhaps I'm an idiot, but can't we use opcode 136 to make Detect Invisibility remove normal invisibility without dispelling II state? That would make an excellent difference between it and Invsibility Purge. If it works, it could also make TS work more it should when coupled with 193, though the whole "TS removes illusionary protections from targets" still remains a problem for such concept.

I don't know... 136's description says yes.

 

P.S Did David used the suggested 193 opcode for TS as he once said, or the recent ToBEx hacks made him ignore it and go for "all spell removals ignore II"? Using 136+193 on a 'power lvl 0' Detect Invisibility can allow pretty much anyone (except Conjurers right now, but they have Glitterdust) to have their personal ignore II without the need for hacks or tweaks which kinda break the rules. Am I wrong?

He went wth ToBEx, as far as I can see.

Are we still talking about Feeblemind here or Miscast Magic? Because a Mass Feeblemind would surely deserve a 7th or 8th lvl slot!

 

If we're talking about Miscast Magic instead we may discuss it, though the AoE has to be small, or the duration must be lowered to keep it balanced imo (not to mention it would kinda overlap with my planned PnP Nahal's Wildzone spell - aka a Miscast Magic "cloud-like" spell).

Replace Feeblemind with mass Miscast Magic (the failure chance, as in vanilla). Yes, a bit daft, I know.

 

What if the save penalty of Feeblemind was inversely proportional to Intelligence? Like -10 save, +3 for each Int point under 18. So 16 Int would be -4 (normal save for M5 spells) but 15 would be -1 and lower Int would get big bonuses. Still pretty weak compared to Breach vs. mages, but shines for the solo Sorcerer at least.

I'm not sure I'd like it, but it's not doable anyway.

It actually is possible to build a spell in a such way (two 146s, the first 206s the real effect, which goes second) that picking a specific CRE and adding to it a 206 will make it the only one to suffer the effect.

The problem, imo is the woeful inconsistency in creatures' stats. More often than not they have everything set to 9.

Feeblemind

I fully agree with Amanasleep. There're four disabling spells on 5th level, and each one belongs to the Enchantment school.

As for Miscast magic, this points out the conundrum with anti-mage spells: if they are single target they are useless, since you could have cast Breach to guarantee death. Serious consideration should be made towards making any anti mage spell an area effect or bypass invisibility somehow.

I think I like the AoE idea. I most definitely WILL memorize it then.

 

Another wild thought - rename this spell to Solipsism (the effect is identical to BG2's feeblemindedness) and pretend that having a useless Illusion spell makes a difference.

Or remove completely and use the space for something else entirely new.

 

Shadow Door

It still has AoE, and grunts are ones who tend to swarm a foe.

 

Speaking of capped duration, do you know that maze opcode works by force applying the delayed freedom effect onto the target? It's possible to cast Maze, then Freedom, the Imprisonment, then watch how the character pops up well and fine once Maze's freedom kicks in. Worse yet, there seem to be no way to protect from it, even 101 doesn't work against freedom opcode (regardless of it's source).

 

Lightning Bolt

if it's only a matter of speed I can easily increase it, but I also think Ardanis hinted me a way to restore vanilla's animation without using the hardcoded projectile. I'll look into it.

Yes, the LIGHTBLT projectile.

Feeblemind

Move here vanilla's Miscast Magic? In 3rd Ed this spell lowers INT and CHA, so connection must be obvious.

For the secondary effect, casting speed penalty is fine imo.

 

Except, as noted, a target worthy of this spell and vulnerable to it is usually no longer a danger anyway.

 

Lowering INT can make a grunt more susceptible to Maze, but Imprisonment is just one level higher. And it bears the danger of instakilling with INT-drain.

 

...

Nope, I still wouldn't use it.

 

True Strike

It's not very useful imo...

Change it to one-time critical hit, with duration of 1 turn? It would work well with touch spells in their current implementation.

 

Shadow Shield

From NWN, as a replacement for SI:Necromancy.

Immunity to necromancy, death effects, level drain, 1 round/lvl, 7th level. Maybe keep +5 AC bonus too, I dunno.

Imo SoA's Entangle could pass, if recolored to black.

Of course an improved entangle effect would be the best

Evard's Black Tentacles?

 

EDIT

Acid Sheath

So, ToBEx now allows for increased damage. Which means that little PnP feature of this spell can work too.

Web and Entangle

Okay, my 'final' conclusion:

- Entangle should be stackable, with -1 cumulative penalty

- Web should keep it's -2 save, but last for 5 rounds

Web

When I'm allowed to choose, I generally prefer two different abilities, than a lesser-greater couple. Diversity, you know.

 

In vanilla, I used to throw in 3-4 Webs for guaranteed result, then began bombarding them. With shortened duration, that scenario is obviously not as appealing. Using sequencers and support casters can change that back, but it does require the use of said extra options, which is not for free.

 

But it creates two entirely different possibilities - either I can entangle them for slight penalty, or assuredly immobilize for a short time.

 

Concentration Check

The luck there is 32th stat. The concentration stat hasn't made it through yet, apparently.

Chant

I said that with concentration enabled, being interrupted during that round of casting doesn't automatically mean the loss of spell and waste of round.

 

Contingencies and Triggers

Yes, indeed...

 

Web

Well... imo lowering save penalty brings it closer to Entangle, while lowering duration instead distinguishes even more. Theoretically, I wouldn't mind having 4 round long Web with -4 penalty.

Contingencies and Triggers

@Ardanis, I'm not at home to check it right now, were you saying that making them innates prevents us from flagging contingencies and triggers as "not usable during combat"? I'd be pretty annoyed by this, though having them their long 1 round casting time partially makes up for it anyway.

Nope, more like 1/day use.

 

Web

The web effect can be a drawback too, when fighting trolls. Bastards refuse to fall over when webbed and remain immortal.

 

For a nerf, I'd reduce duration to 6 rounds.

Instead of removing the malus to the saving throw, I would keep things the way they are but allow for melee-only attacks with severe THAC0 penalty (-4 or -5).

I'm unsure only how the resistance to missiles is justified. There're not huge bulging roots obstructing the shot line.

Imo 2-3 AC per Web should suffice.

 

Entangle

Either I have no hotfixes, or it's not there yet, but it seems to stack.

 

Chant

SCS AI casts prayer istantly during the prebuff routine, or tries to cast it during the battle effectively wasting a round so there is no middle ground.

With concentration check, they have far greater chance to succeed.

Web

My discontent with non-stacking is due to this restristion not extending to other area spells. Unless Entangle, Storms, Clouds, etc. aren't cumulative too, it will look weird. Also, AI is known to try and take advantage of stackability.

 

Contingencies and Triggers

I do not think it is a problem if wizards dominate the game. By definition, they should so. And altogether, it in no way suggests they can have an easy life without a fighter escort. That is, unless they rest around every corner. In my own vision, the escort drags itself through the dungeon, dispatching lesser foes, and the wizard makes an intelligent use of magic to help deal with tougher ones. Then everybody counts the loot, and goes to the nearest city to rest.

 

On the other side, nobody forces to rest after setting triggers ready. Hmm...

Spell Know opponent :

 

Do you think it could be possible to have a similar spell (at a highter level) witch could give some informations (thanks to a dialogue box) about enemy. (like RM, resistance to elements, class, race, etc...).

Many rpg have these sort of spells. It could be usefull especially to know RM.

It's been suggested before. Reading creatures stats and reporting them should be possible for an invisible summon, but it will require an awful lot of script to account for every value possible (iirc stats can't be read into variables and displayed via token), which may result in delays. I.e. can be done if really needed, but I wouldn't vouch for stability.

 

Reading active spells is different, since it relies purely on a couple of SPLs to work.

 

About triggers/sequencers and contingençies : do you think it could be possible to make the spell inate in order to not have to memorize it and sleep after to have a free slot ( I think you understand me) . I don't like to sleep after set my triggers /sequencer just to have a free slot so I have ofen my trigger spells still memorized and it is a waste.

It may also attend to recasting them in the heat of battle. Not that I'm particularily bothered by it, but Demi iirc somewhat was.

Acid Sheath

AI casts two FSs at once, so unless it is allowed to use a spell not available to players, it needs a substitute.

I don't think PnP FS and AS are really so identical - one is a defensive spell (with a slight damage bonus), with a total of 100% resistance bonus, while the other only inflicts heavy damage to attackers.

 

Know Opponent / Detect Alignment

In theory I'd obviously like such a feature for a Divination spell, but is it really possible? How?

ProFire - opcode=206, resource=immune

KO - 146, immune; 146, firedesc

immune - 206, firedesc

firedesc - 139, ~Protection from Fire~

 

I mean, in a world where a single Breach removes EVERYTHING what could possibly serve knowing which specific/combat protection is still up?

Thankfully, we no longer can pierce every spell protection with a Breach, so sometimes it's more useful to toss a heavy damaging spell instead which the enemy is not immune to via ProElements.

Also, I still keep a slight hope that removing specific protections will be moved to Pierce Magic

Knock

Rename to Battering Ram?

Fireshields

Two near identical spells, both actively used by AI, yet not supposed to be stackable in PnP.

I suggest to perform the following move - move both resistance types to one spl (a-la NWN), and transform the other into Acid Sheath.

 

Know Opponent / Detect Alignment

What about Arcane Sight - detection of enemies' active combat/specific protections once per round for 1 turn? Shell system should allow for it.

While I highly doubt there's a logical reason why spiders should be immune to magical instakill poison, for game balance's sake I'd make them fully immune. I didn't like the suggestion when it first sounded here, but after re-thinking I believe it is a good way to increase the appeal of summonable spiders, if only by a bit.

* they currently does, but they probably shouldn't (I can easily make all spiders immune to Cloudkill)

* I've currently left DB out for balance purposes but I'm not much against making ProFire grant immunity to it

* V3 ProAcid makes the affected caster immune to all Acid Fog's effects

* within V3 yes, SR's Efreet are immune to all fire based spells, and their LOS isn't affected by Incendiary Cloud

If it's spell descriptor that ProEnergy protects from, then yes. If it's only making the target immune to damage, then clouds' secondary effects seem less like coming from direct contact with skin.

Only one hundred, iirc.

That's true. Okay, so CD_INN (?) and FL_STRONGHOLD it is.

I look at this and think it's messy already. There're only 8 flags available, so what's the point of having an array of different prefixes?

 

Btw I guess that's a fine idea to maintain a list of entries somewhere. Sectypes may need it too.

What comes to the Melf's Acid Arrow and Flame Arrows, how do you think the caster is going to launch them, so they always hit... little hint; the mages Thac0 is the worst the game offers, which means that the answer is: Magic. Resistable magic.

Dear... Has the Imp just said something both comprehendable and logical?

 

 

For insects, imo fine if they ignore MR. They're quite nerfed already, and there aren't too many magic resistant enemies.