Ardanis

The point is that other players don't reload after a battle where something went wrong and fix thing 'by the rules', going to the nearest temple or using raise scrolls/wands/spells.

I know about the only NPC elves being clerics themselves. Blame Bioware for that

 

Regarding CON penalty, yes, I meant long-lasting (say, 5-10 days) but not permanent, as, since you can just reload, the latter would automatically label the thing as 'DNUT'.

Raise Dead & Resurrection

Bringing closer to PnP.

The former can't raise elves, incurs semi-permanent -1 CON penalty. The latter has no such drawback, but perhaps doesn't heal fully.

Furthermore, I think it is very clear, both in pnp and BG2, that summoned creatures killed by the party are intended to yield xp. In particular, for BG2 note the "I wish to be more experienced" option for Limited Wish, which immediately summons hostile monsters for the party to defeat (and gain experience from).

Limited Wish is not really a combat, it's a wish.

 

What about wizards who have Golems, mephits and other magically constructed/bound creatures guarding their lairs? These were created/summoned by the wizard, so shouldn't they also yield zero xp?

They should definitely count, because wizard has created them long ago. Even more, if a wizard were to summon several long-lasting things, then rest/wish rest, then start a fight, he'd be at max potential again and with extra backup, so in this case his monsters from yesterday would definitely be an XP gain.

 

But when it's a confined dungeon with no yesterday, I'd expect physical laws to have their effect.

 

 

To a person who buys the argument that a wizard = {hp + abilities + offensive capability + defensive capability + spells and their antecedent effects}, XP is tied up in the caster, not in summons, because you do get that "double XP". For those who see a castor as a conduit, so wizard = {hp + abilities + offensive capability + defensive capability } + { spells and their antecedent effects} could argue that passing a save vs. magic or a save vs. fire needs an XP gain; after all, dodging that fireball successfully is a skills gain through repetition. Summons would be XP gain killing them.

Yep, that's what I've been saying. Either summoned XP is included into caster's worth, or all spells should count individually as well.

 

 

Now, I fully agree on demons, and not only because indeed they're tougher and all. If we assume that in order to gain a fiend's servitude a caster must give something in return (precious gems, as per coming revision in v4), then those extra resources - gems - indirectly become a fighting force. And since wizard is presumed to have carried them from the start, then of course these resources should be added to the total XP worth of challenge.

I'd say 20%-30% would add a bit of a bonus, without unbalancing the fight. 4000 for DK, 5500 for Glabrezu, 7000 for Gate.

2) the XP isn't generated out of nowhere, you're just bringing along a creature that was somewhere else at the point previous to the casting. Teleporting/plane shifting to its location instead and killing it would accomplish the same effect.

Destroying celestial's avatar or banishing a demon from Prime doesn't kill the original creature, it remains where it belong after the fight is over and perhaps just feels bitter. Same is true for elementals, afaik. So going to extreme, you do not perform an actual kill, so no XP for it.

Where do regular gnolls/animals/nymphs come from btw? I don't recall it's been ever specified anywhere... But I think it doesn't happen for a group of kobolds to walk around a cave, minding their own business, and suddenly be teleported into the midst of fireballs and die for nothing.

 

Taking your extreme example to the extreme, taking an enemy wizard prisoner and giving him a spellbook of only summoning spells and engaging him each day under monitored and regulated conditions by the party wouldn't yield XP because the DM could rule that there is no actual challenge there. Blatant exploits aren't part of my argument.

That's exactly what I've been talking about.

Why would there be no challenge? Soldiers train all day long, over and over again, in order to gain as much XP as possible, not because they've got nothing better to do.

 

In that case, you get XP for completing the test, as in Quest experience. The fact that it involves fireballs is irrelevant.

Would then it be relevant it there were summoned monsters, in place of fireballs? Apparently no, because as you say it could be a riddle as well.

You keep ignoring what I say: the nature of the products is entirely different.

You say that we can use several spells to generate XP out of nowhere, perpetuum mobile? It contradicts laws of thermodynamics, and while I know we're talking about magic in fantasy setting, I'd find it strange to not apply it onto well-developed game system.

 

If the summoned monster would yield XP when killed individually, why killing it when summoned by a mage doesn't?

Let's say there's a trial, in which party needs to dodge ten fiireballs (roughly speaking). Would it get XP for completing this quest? It should. Are fireballs any different from ones invoked by a lich? No. Does then fb yield XP in one case and doesn't in another? Yes.

In case of enemy spellcaster, fireballs and summons are already accounted for and XP reward for them is included in caster's worth. If they're independent source, then they count independently too.

 

If you prefer no XP to be awarded for summons because it makes the game harder, then it's enough of a reason.

I'm talking only about the concept, not game balance.

Alterations in the spell system is what concerns me most as I doubt the AI can use their new spell book efficiently. Maybe SCS can deal with that but what will happen if SCS is not installed? I have two copies of BG installed, one with SCS and one without.

Quoting David, "vanilla AI is sufficiently stupid for all these changes to just roll over it".

 

You missed my entire point. A Demon is an extra creature defeated, a Fireball is not.

The was no demon to begin with, as there was no Fireball. They are not independent entities and do not appear by themselves, but only if and when a wizard wishes so. Both are the offensive product of said wizard's spellcasting, that party has to deal with one way or another.

 

Killing a Glabrezu demands resources: attacks, spells, and so on. Resisting a Fireball is a passive action.

Resisting a spell requires protective buffs, dispels and healing potions, sometimes even raising dead, depending on the type. It is not for free and consumes resources just as fine.

 

The demon has an XP listed value, a spell does not.

Spell slots contribute to caster's total XP worth. If he had no spells available at all, he would be 500 XP at most, as a mediocre fighter with no skill.

The XP value represents the overall amount of challenge a creature may pose in a fight. Basically, you get XP for surviving Fireballs, dispelling protectons, etc., not for landing a killing blow.

Similar to how AC is not a chance to avoid an attack, as some novice players think, but an summary chance to not being dealt a damaging blow, either through evasion or damage reduction.

 

So if there a single lich in a dungeon, I would expect a 20k XP worth of challenge in there. In what form it may come - Abi-Dalzims or fiends - doesn't really matter, because the DnD is a game system with simplified rules, not a reality simulator.

 

In both cases, the party gets the same XP for defeating the same creature, even though the process for each case differes greatly.

That's what I'm saying. The process is different (fireballs or demons), the end result is the same.

 

PS In case it's not obvious - I'm advocating the position that granting XP for killed summons is not justified within game rules.

You're as stubborn as ever

 

No, the Glabrezu is not a spell. The spell doesn't CREATE it, it just brings it to the fight from somewhere else. If you encountered that same Glabrezu in the lower planes, you'd get XP for killing it.

It IS a spell in a sense that a wizard has to waste one of his spell slots in order to summon it from the Abyss.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this, it doesn't seem sensible beahaviour and neither do I see the relevance to the point of discussion.

There's an enemy lich worthy of 20k XP. It can toss at PC three 8th level spells.

 

Now, in the 1st scenario the lich covers itself with Improved Mantle, shoots Incendiary Cloud, shoot Abi-Dalzim. Pretty tough for 10th level party, right? I think anyone who managed to withstand the Cloud and Abi, for they were unable to interrupt them due to Mantle, surely deserves those 20k XP.

 

2nd scenario, lich summons three glabresu (let's assume they're of vanilla's strength, since SCS/SR does boost them significantly), and that's all. Party manages to kill those three vanilla-weak demons, gets XP for them, then turns to lich. The only thing a lich can do is to watch as it's being sliced in pieces, because it has no spells to fight with. Is this easy kill worth 20k XP? Never.

 

In BG however, in the second case party would rightfully gain XP for killing summons, and also those 20k that lich is no longer worth of. I think you get the general idea.

You whacked 2 critters instead of 1 in scenario 2.

And? Another critter is an 8th spell of the main one.

 

PS Otherwise the caster should yield less XP, because he only summoned a demon and then stood idly watching the fight.

Moreover, I don't think Level 7 divine spells should be some counterparts of Arcane ones of the same level, so why no Gate for a cleric.

You have a point, but priests in ADnD were given only 7 levels of spells for a reason. They're far more capable in melee and also can turn undead, and wizards counter it by having access to higher levels of magic (which imo is logical - they are, after all, are based on stereotypical sorcerers from fantasy novels).

What's CS by the way?

Critical Strike

 

4.

Please give players xp for killing hostile creatures (unhappy demons and those summoned by enemies). This is reasonable. It is strange that you get no xp after doing quite some work.

Some one may think this will be exploitable (killing demons for xp), but whether to exploit it or not depends on the player. I don't think this is what modders should consider. We can get infinite xp on the walls of Saradush if we like that.

It's reasonable... but has it not been in many games since ancient times that summons do not grant XP or loot? And if they do - if they're treated equally to 'real' combatants - then party shouldn't receive XP for whatever summon kills, etc.

Personally I'd prefer to remain true to historically developed concept and treat summons as if they were a form of magical manifestation, not real flesh and blood.

 

Another problem is that skeletons are not affected. You cannot summon more creatures if you already have 5 skeletons, but you can summon up to five skeletons no matter how many other creatures are already there in the field.

I think it is hardcoded issue. A player on russian boards recently encountered a bug where four active party-aligned summons had stuck somewhere he couldn't find them and thus inhibited any further summoning. I've suggested to install the XP cap removal as a form of cure, and game only permitted to summon a single creature per cast (Summon Monster X conjure several things), despite them no longer being marked as 'summons'.

 

PS Regarding Gate, I'd let priests to pick it as a HLA.

Definitely yes. I once run into poisoned Harper random encounter, and the mage thug used 10' Invis, concealing the guy as well. And it being just at the start of the game, I also had no dispel anywhere.

(Improved) Mantle

Maybe double their AC bonus? First thing, imo +1 saves equals +2 AC, not +1, as there're far more ways to improve the to hit chance, unlike saves penalties. Second, it still comes back to not being able to tell beforehands if monster hits as +2 or as +5.

 

If you cast antiweapon, you probably mean to ensure you'll be safe, not to find yourself struck the next round. Current Mantles' AC bonus allows to avoid the worst case scenario to some extent, but imo insufficiently, while +6/+8 bonus is actually a serious thing already by itself, which can alter spells' concept from 'immunity with some bonus AC' to 'AC with bonus immunity', and with this in mind I think we can safely assume that their worst flaw IS fixed at last.

 

Absolute Immunity

As the name implies, it's better off as immunity to everything, not just weapons. Although I believe it was suggested already before.

David actually gave a very good hint about short-lasting RI being unsuitable for high level combat. First, you'd probably go with Stoneskin and PFMW anyway to defend against melee, and protection from single-target spells is often covered by more universal spell and specific protection. As such, RI wouldn't add as much as it could at lower levels.

 

Thus, perhaps just leave as a low-level thing? With fixed duration of 5-6 rounds? It will allow F/Ms to engage powerful opponents right away from the start, and will also help against greater golems and such, against whom you'd probably wouldn't wish to waste expensive PFMWs.

Skeleton Warriors

Imo 90 MR is the one reason to use them.

As for their effectiveness against beholders, it's not as much of a slaughter but rather one-on-one fight. SCS beholders also use telekinesis alot, which is quite effective against SWs. And you can always unload a couple of Chaos spells, following slaughter will be much more sighty then with SWs.

 

If they go to 6th level, I absolutely wish them to keep 90 MR.

 

Reflected Image

3+1/4 = 8? 2+1/5=6?

Skeleton Warriors

You know what, I think I'm going to nerf mr to 50%, even if I'm pretty sure it will be unpopular.

That's okay, I'll just raise it back to 90% locally

But I recall you've mentioned to exclude the Warrior from 3rd spell compeltely and move it to 5th spell?

 

@Jarno:

1) Please, stop discussing coding techniques here already.

2) You do know what HitDice stands for? It's the amount of levels in Monster class. Planetars use Fighter/Cleric class for technical reasons, because the engine can't handle DnD mechanics.

AoE spells causing neutral characters to go hostile

What Jarno says is a good reason, though spells cast on others automatically break invisibility, but what you say is also true and may cause serious exploits...thus I'm not sure I'm fine removing the 'break invisibility' (aka "hostile") flag from those spells.

First, I'd reconsider following Anvil's route that strictly, and second, can't you use Nature's Beauty solution?

Earthquake

The chance to kill, however small, always means that even 1000 hp PC is a subject to it. Therefore, unless we find a way to remove gameover-if-pc-dies feature (which we should not), PC must Death Ward himeslf if the spell is about to be cast. Otherwise it's a reload on failured %. Unlike the save, % is completely beyond player's control. And casting DW against low-chance IK is like casting 6th level PfME against a lowsy MM.

Not rational at all, but becomes necessary due to BG2 special game over condition.

 

To tell the truth, the instant death is what I dislike the most in a great variety of games, so it might be just my habit to see it an enemy. What you say about high damage isn't much different, although it looks to be more fair.

 

What to do with it now, you guys decide for yourself

Earthquake

I'm not sure I understand what's the problem here...that it's hard to use this spell without risking to kill party members?

It may well be my personal bias but I think a spell should not insta-kill 'sometimes'. Either often enough to recognize it as a true death type spell and therefore treat it accordingly or never. Because unlike other curable debilitating effects (confusion, charm, hold, etc.) death is irreversible when it affects PC or, as in the example above, NPCs.

Against opponents it may be fine to kill some once in a while (even if I personally don't like to kill enemies 'unintentionally' ), but when it is used against party and/or has no party-friendly flag it means a player has to treat it as a full power WotB - which Earthquake is not - otherwise they must take a gamble and reload when they lose.

 

Symbol of Death

For Symbol of Death it's more complicated imo...because you'd end up with a Wail of the Banshee at a lower lvl.

Perhaps no save penalty for 60+ then? Or small AoE, 10'? I would vote to change it to something else, but that would mean even more confusion for AI (it already mistakes Symbol of Disease for a Symbol of Fear).

Earthquake

Now, if it's a matter of effectiveness keep in mind that in V4 all those save penalties will be less powerful (-4, -2, 0) insteao of (-6, -4, -2). And if the death effect takes place too often we can adjust that.

Well, reducing death effect further will probably render it completely impractical to rely upon, and consequently even more frustrating when it does manage to kill an ally. That's why I suggested Hold, as the next closest effect type. Actually, I'd very much want to see an Imprisonment-like effect, curable via Freedom, but impris equals death and it's lesser brother maze can be resisted by Enrage (which makes as much sense as Death Ward protecting from falling into fissures).

 

For the "friendliness" aspect, I actually suggested to make it at least not affect the caster (I think it worked like that in IWD), making it a great combo for an archdruid and his/her elementals bodyguard.

I don't mind at all it affecting allies, although what you say about self-immunity is very interesting.

 

Symbol of Death, Power Word Kill

Damage resistance, not magic. Since killing effect was unaffectable by Pro Energy spells.

Save at 60+ is fine (hmm, and what about PW:Stun allowing 90+s a save or be stunned for 1 round?), so let's keep it

 

Symbol too then? Affecting only >60s is rather useless. Even more so if Tweakpack's Maximum HP for NPCs is installed.

Earthquake

I do understand the reasoning behind it killing things outright. But yesterday I was doing Vithal's quest in Underdark and fought SCS's upgraded earth guardian (who casts Earthquake among the other). On the first try PC died and I had to reload. On the next another man died, with no way to trace the source. On the third - invisible Vithal died.

I took the SPL apart and decided I don't like it much. First, it probably is much more annoying than useful, especially if we consider no party friendliness. Second, immunity to instant death doesn't suggest a creature can't fall few meters down the earth. Hold effect, with extra damage added, seems more in place here - like Implosion, whose animation you've used for the killing effect. Whether or not Free Action should block it, I don't know. I'm 50/50 on it.

 

If you do agree to change it to Hold, then I would suggest to slightly augment other effects as well, since Hold probably will end up being weaker than insta-kill.

 

Energy Blades

Decrease ApR to 5. This is primarily to eliminate the double movement speed caused by blades' Improved Haste effect.

 

Symbol of Death, Power Word Kill

It's been brought up before, and iirc repeatedly. Reduce current HP by 60, so no resistance can block the effect.

 

Breach

Desc needs to mention it also dispels druid's Storm Shield.

Elemental Prince

Description typo - Chan is not prince, she's princess.

 

Storm of Vengeance

The only advantage it has over Fire Storm is party friendliness. The latter deals more damage, lasts longer, and even allows for some PF as well.

 

I couldn't find AD&D 2 reference to it.

Storm of Vengeance

Conjuration (Summoning)

Level: Drd 9, Clr 9

Components: V, S

Casting Time: 1 round

Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)

Effect: 360-ft.-radius storm cloud

Duration: Concentration (maximum 10 rounds) (D)

Saving Throw: See text

Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell creates an enormous black storm cloud. Lightning and crashing claps of thunder appear within the storm. Each creature beneath the cloud must succeed on a Fortitude save or be deafened for 1d4x10 minutes.

If you do not maintain concentration on the spell after casting it, the spell ends. If you continue to concentrate, the spell generates additional effects in each following round, as noted below. Each effect occurs during your turn.

2nd Round: Acid rains down in the area, dealing 1d6 points of acid damage (no save).

3rd Round: You call six bolts of lightning down from the cloud. You decide where the bolts strike. No two bolts may be directed at the same target. Each bolt deals 10d6 points of electricity damage. A creature struck can attempt a Reflex save for half damage.

4th Round: Hailstones rain down in the area, dealing 5d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save).

5th through 10th Rounds: Violent rain and wind gusts reduce visibility. The rain obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target). Speed is reduced by three-quarters.

Ranged attacks within the area of the storm are impossible. Spells cast within the area are disrupted unless the caster succeeds on a Concentration check against a DC equal to the storm of vengeance’s save DC + the level of the spell the caster is trying to cast.

So, maybe increase duration by 1 round and radius to 40'-60'? And add the deafening effect.

Btw, I think it's possible to create the delayed AoE, thus fully matching the PnP description. I'm short of time a bit atm to investigate it further, but when v4 will be in more active development I should have been finished with other projects.

 

Shroud of Flame

Are you sure we need another fire-based spell, especially on 5th level? Sunfire and Vitrolic Sphere, as a damage-over-time spell, would make it non-unique.

In my game, your ogre got +++ profenciencies in flail/morning stars and it seems bonus affect the cre. (1.5 apE, thac08 or thac06 under berseker rage with your revisited grand mastery)

Afaik BG2 makes no use of the old proficiency system.

Greater Malison

Just as I was writing my reply another suggestion for Malison come up in my mind...what about making it work as a sort of "curse"? It would become non-dispellable via Dispel Magic (though Break Enchantment should remove it). Would it make the spell more appealing/interesting, or not?

I'm kinda neutral here, but let's try it out.

 

Cure Disease

What about immunity to disease, much like Neutralize Poison does?

I do recall we had a talk about Pro Poison scroll and various sources of blindness/deafness, them somehow not working out well (I have all logs saved, if you don't remember details either), so these may be better off not included.

 

Chaos/Confusion

Six rounds is fine imo. I wish these two spells were more different though.

 

Death Spell

A week or so ago I was battling Jonny in Spellhold. After he had departed several murderer have wandered in, invisible backstabbing 7th level guys. A scroll of Death Spell has worked perfectly there.

But that's the only case I can remember to ever use it against 'living' opponents. Banishment is fine, I think I've even agreed with it before.

 

Am I twisted or what?

Yes, Sir Imp, you are.

Spirit Armor & Tenser's Transformation

Actually I'm pretty sure an archmage is much more powerful than an epic warrior, unless the latter has enough equipment to make him immune to most "disabling" spells, and survive a Time Stop + Alacrity.

I meant a wizard fighting in melee, substituting a fighter. I trust you won't argue that a fighter will have an edge in melee nonetheless. Mage can perform averagely if situation demands, yes, but he goes nowhere close to GWW with ~30 damage per hit.

That was my point, I surely wasn't attempting to start another round of 'steel vs spell' debate