Demivrgvs

- known issue, I did not posted a hotfix because I expected a new beta to be out sooner...- I do not have a more appropriate portrait icon, and I think one is necessary. - both

True Seeing I'm obviously not against flavor per se, but I think BG spell descriptions generally only include essential informations (and in vanilla they were lacking in this department too) and very few, if any, flavor text. If we can throw in a bit of flavor it's cool imo, but only if it also serve some purpose (e.g. better explain why the spell works as it does). I would probably not include purely cosmetic lines. Mmm...this description doesn't make clear how the spell behave when it comes to Blur and Mirror Image (unfortunately those two spells are still dispelled). Overall I like this template a bit more, but while "Completely ignore hostile illusion spells" could work for Spook, Phantasmal Killer and so on, I would not list Mirror Image as an "hostile" spell. Just that we are here nitpicking everything, does "illusionary clones" remain fine to describe "illusionary creatures" too? I fear not. Right now I don't have added Shades yet (no bams for it, and most new spells are on hold to quicken a BGEE compatible release), but sooner or later we'll have to deal with that type of "summons".

True Seeing I'm posting this because I'm having trouble writing down a good description of what the spell does now and I hope to get some help. I've taken inspiration from the official PnP description because the spell finally behave much closer to it, but it's rather generic and within SR we have always strived to put as much informations as possible to make sure any player can easily understand all the small details. Short story, right now I have this: "When this spell is cast, the caster gains the ability to see all things as they actually are. The caster sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, and sees through illusions, effectively neutralizing spells such as Blur and Mirror Image, and allowing to see and target invisible creatures normally. The caster is also cured from any form of blindness and is immune to it for the duration of the spell." what do you think of it? I think we might also need to add two additional informations: - caster is immune to hostile illusions such as Spook, Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Door and Weird - illusionary creatures and clones are not dispelled anymore, but they are "detected/highlighted" (I'm also considering to make them suffer a reduced % of hit points when detected as illusions)

I believe you could actually make Quarry give Ranger +x to Attack Rolls and Damage against chosen target. Not sure if that's possible but I'd say it could be nice.Afaik it's not possible. Well, both Archer and Stalker are already limited to light armors (the Beastmaster will be limited to armors of natural sources as druids), thus allowing the base class heavier armor is a really nice distinction imo. Medium armor could have been enough yes, but overall I'm fine allowing heavy armor too for those who like to keep Minsc as a ranger or want to reproduce Aragorn. Furthermore, with IR armor system if you want your ranger to consistently hide, attack fast or excel at range, you'll probably pick medium or light armors anyway.

I can't give you all the details yet, but more or less it will contain the following changes:- slight revision of Fighter and Archer's Called Shot features (ranged Trip has proven itself too powerful, especially when used by the Archer, and we are replacing it with Pinning Shot) - another attempt at introducing Barbarian's Leap Attack feat - heavy changes to the Berserker kit to hopefully make it less overpowering within BG1 and more controllable for BG2 (e.g. Frenzy loses +1apr in favor of increased damage, and Frenzy mechanic itself is slightly revised) - complete overhaul of the Cavalier (re-enabled spellcasting, but with a slightly unique spellbook focusing on AC boosting and "bodyguard" role, standard Smite Evil "replaced" with Challenge Evil - as discussed here) - small changes to the Undead Hunter to hopefully carve him a more defined role and overlap less with the base class - implementation of Ranger's Quarry innate ability (after brief study a single target suffer AC and physical resistance penalties and cannot hide) and small upgrades to both Tracking and Animal Empathy If possible I'd love to add at least the Stalker, because Beastmaster's Animal Companion might slow me down too much.

PW:Kill The problem is that being a 9th level spell it simply "cost" too much for what it does. Once mage protections are down you have much cheaper alternatives to kill him in an instant. Even PW:Stun itself is as effective as PW:Kill in that case, and it's more reliable (90hp limit instead of 60), cheaper and even more versatile imo (stun works against almost any creature). While I would surely not buff it to the extremes as suggested by Arda, I do think in its current state this spell simply isn't worth one of those scarce 9th level spell slots available. If it wasn't for its casting time it couldn't even compete with things like Finger of Death or Disintegrate. Well, using it against those who are not allowed to save is still the optimal choice imo, we're not worsening AI performance. Also note that while the AI can instantly check target's hp, players can't, and thus right now the AI actually has a noticeable advantage when it comes to decide when using this spell. The new feature simply makes this spell more versatile, and allows players to use it without fearing of wasting it completely.

PW:Kill Only for targets with more than 60hp. It still kills targets with less than 60hp without allowing a save, but while vanilla PW:Kill had completely no effect on targets with more than 60hp, now those targets need to make a save or be slayed regardless of their hit points.

Imprisonment I think you are. There's actually no difference at all between blocking Maze and Imprisonment even with Revisions mods (I added one item to protect from them, but it works against both), and considering SI:Abj surely is extremely more popular than SI:Conj protecting oneself from Imprisonment actually seem slightly more common. Speaking of this matter, while immunity to vanilla's Imprisonment is a must have in certain circumstances please do not use immunity to Maze. That spell's appeal is almost entirely based on the ability to temporarily remove from the battlefield a dangerous foe, and if the only eligible targets are made immune I fear the spell might as well not exist. Target's INT value can already be used to be sure the Maze effect isn't OP against powerful foes, doesn't it? P.S Btw, very nice easter egg! This could backfire easilly. The only known ways to protect yourself from Imprisonment is SI:Abj, or vanilla Rage. IR has boots with Dimensional Anchor. Other than that - one thing can save you - never let a high-level SCS mage get near you, and if he does, and starts chanting some Abjuration spell - go invisible so he looses targeting (does not always work). Casting time and range increase would, in this case, mostly benefit only AI. Well, I would surely not go for this if the spell keeps its permanent timing (not to mention game over on charname), but the reduced duration ensure the spell is powerful but not insta-win. Btw, I could be fine reducing casting time while keeping touch range if we think it serves some purpose. Well, you are not getting rid of it completely, you are only postponing the inevitable fight. Much like Maze is an improved Resilient Sphere, this solution would make Imprisonment an improved Maze. If you don't like the concept or use of those spells that's a different story. Would it make any difference? If an oponnent is out of the battle for 60 seconds, rest assured - when he comes back, he will find no comrade of his alive.That's exactly what I was suggesting. The whole point of Maze-like spells is to temporarily disable power foes which would probably fail save-or-else effects (Dragon Age had similar spells too in the form of Force Field and Crushing Prison). PW:Kill Ehm...a "no save just die" PW:Kill is terrible imo. I really don't like the idea that a 20th level warrior can be killed instantaneously on sight by a mage without even allowing a slim chance. The planned PW:Kill is already potent enough imo as long as the save to avoid death is very harsh. It can be cast in an instant to an injured target to kill it outright, or it can be used as a slightly deadlier Finger of Death (now that we're going back to AD&D style save penalties I've assigned a more modest -2 penalty to FoD, and -4 to PW:Kill).

First of all, glad to have you back Arda, now that you're here I feel like I can triplicate my time on Revisions mods. I just need to buy some good coffee to spend a bunch of sleepless nights. Imprisonment Does the current implementation handle it flawlessly? I feared the "almost permanent maze" effect could not work so well and I was suggesting to add en EFF to deal with it directly. My point exactly, right now there's absolutely no reason to ever memorize this spell, and even assuming this spell could be one of those cases where the AI could benefit from it more than players (such as spells with long lasting penalties like diseases and curses), facing an AI which uses Imprisonment is annoying at best, if not game-breaking with the current implementation. My question was: does countering gated demons (and tweaking it to counter celestials too) offer any appeal to this spell? Can we imagine ways to make this spell actually usable? For example, a daring idea could include all or some of the following tweaks: - lower casting time - increase range - replace permanent timing with "only" a very long duration (eventually the spell description could say things like "particular rituals and intimate knowledge of the target may allow to make the spell's effect permanent, but normally..." - obviously/hopefully written in a much better way) This way Imprisonment would turn into an Improved Maze with at east two big advantages: * bypass magic resistance * not limited by target's INT Worth trying or pointless? Any better idea?

PfMW & Mantles @DavidW, do not lose your patience with the imp, and do not worry about SR implementing changes which interfere with SCS, you know I always take your AI as granted when shaping SR's spells (e.g. you do persuaded me to revert PfMW back to 4 rounds). Regarding Mantles, I'm glad to see SCS finally seems to use them more often (judging by your readme), I take it that making it grant complete immunity to weapons is not a problem for SCS, isn't it? Imprisonment I think I suggested it too ages ago, but I seem to recall the consensus was against changing it. 3E and Pathfinder do added a save to fix the clearly broken mechanic of this spell, but made it so that knowledge of the target could raise the save penalty of the spell to reach almost impossible to resist levels (DC of a level 9 spell is already high within 3E rules, and this spell is the only one with an additional -4 penalty of top of it). That being said, my issue with this spell isn't much its OPness (though it indeed is OP) but rather than it completely lacks any appeal for a player imo. Powerful targets are made immune to it because of how stupid it would be to simply cast it to end each and every boss fight, and against vulnerable targets I would surely pick Maze over this spell (same results, but I don't miss xp and loot) or even the much cheaper Resilient Sphere against weaker ones. Right now I feel this spell has no purpose, am I the only one to think so? Speaking of giving it a purpose, one thing it could accomplish well which is hindered by its implementation is to use it to counter uber powerful gated demons. Assuming we could tweak it to make it work with less issues (e.g. imprisoned creatures tend to mess with the summon limit), could such a feature make the spell appealing? If yes, should I consider making celestials vulnerable to it too?

LOL @kreso, the next version will pretty much include everything you're wishing for. The Stalker really isn't a problem, the only reason it wasn't there in the current version was that in theory it should be out after the Beastmaster and not before it.

Afaik yes.

Entangle Probably because they know I'm attached to PnP, where it has always been party-unfriendly. That being said, with a bit of help (via items or spells) you can easily use this spell imo, and SR actually already buffed it by adding a no-save reduced movement rate which can be used to keep some distance while casting spells from afar. As yarpen says, a party-friendly Entangle would be extremely OP in BG1 because you could cast it every single time and have your entire party kite here and there unpunished, rain down arrows or even get close in melee (an entangled opponent with -2 thac0/AC is an even easier prey for Fighter immune to it). While that was surely true in vanilla, I think that even in the current state SR already made druid's spellbook really great. There can always be room for improvements, but I don't feel like druid's spellbook needs any more love than cleric's one right now. Am I wrong? Well, Ranger's Woodland Stride feature does indeed grant immunity to entangle within KR (I'm sure KR's Archer loves this spell), and Druids are kinda destined to get the same ability considering that they share it within PnP. PfMW Erhm, could you remind me what those are ? If we remember the fact that the 90% of the enemies that use the spell are actually immune to the normal weapons, naturally. For instance, aVENGER's AI uses non-magical weapons against PfMW, and that alone is a good reason to keep such weakness. Then, regardless of how many ways there are to "cover" that weakness, it's still a weakness as long as Mantles offer more than PfMW. My issue with PfMW isn't strictly with PfMW but rather that in vanilla there was absolutely no reason to use Mantles because they were inferior to their little. If Mantles turn into really superior spells than vanilla's PfMW is fine imo, and it surely doesn't need to be buffed.

PfMW & Mantles See first post. Mantles getting full immunity is fine with me, making these two spells unique instead is a pain. PfMW needs to keep its weakness imo. Power Words There are TONS of Power Word spells in the Races of the Dragons 3E book.

It's intended to avoid stacking too many bonuses. Adding portrait icons is not a simple task for many reasons. I really don't know if we can do something about it. :/ The files seem fine. The pro file is a vanilla one and radius is set to 256 (what vanilla's projectiles always used for 30 feet AoE). The spell's effects are not centered on the caster.

I was not aware of this until recently, but thanks for reminding me this. I do agree with you. Not to mention that even assuming that stealing such valuable items from a drow merchant is possible, he would probably have the thief hunt down till the end of the world. @Arda, take notice, Store Revisions need to make almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to steal from drows. @Kreso, I'm getting old and I guess the version of Psion's Blade currently available to players isn't the same of my current build. Does it still grant full Mind Shield and no Mindbreaking on hit effect?

+1. You get plenty of +3/+4 Two-handed swords anyway, and Psion's blade is indeed tailored for Githyanki.While I'm favourable to move the Axe of the Unyelding slightly earlier, the Psion's Blade needs to remain where it is imo. We moved it there because there's no point in having an anti-mind flayer weapon and getting it after the Underdark. While I agree it could suit a Githyanki in terms of role, it does not lore-wise, and I prefer it to not come as a "free" loot. Right now both Psion's Blade and Mirror Shield (aka vanilla's Shield of Balduran Cheese) are really convenient but extremely expensive items. This way, players who consider the Illithid City and/or Beholder's Lair too hard can make the choice of spending a fortune to make their life easier, but if those items were granted as loot we would just have convenient items which make the game easier for everyone. Don't you agree?

As Kreso says I'd limit the "issue" to axes, because morningstars share the weapon type with maces, and between the MoD +3/+4 and Skullcrusher +3 you should be fine. When I was working on the currently pathetic BGEE Golden Axe, I thought about raising the enchantment level of the two classic SoA axes, Frostreaver and Stonefire, while using the new BGEE filename for a low level axe. That being said, for SoA they are actually fine imo, and +3 enchanted 1-handed weapons within IR generally aren't available before the Underdark (aka a Stonefire +3 would not be fine for De'Arnise quest but to a post-Spellhold one). Making the Axe of the Unyielding available slighty earlier might be a better solution.

I just quoted PnP where it says certain rods can be wielded as clubs or light maces, and both AD&D and 3E description of rods clearly indicate a size which excludes staves. That being said, I do agree that they are not supposed to be weapons in the first place. Mind you the Rod of Smiting existed since AD&D. In PnP it can be used as a weapon but it consumes charges when used to slay a golem. Furthermore it also causes triple damage against extraplanar creatures, draining one charge in the process. The Rod of Terror do exists within AD&D. It's not much different from BG implementation, though its enchantment level is +2. I do thought about making it work as other rods, but a fear effect is already used by both the Rod of Lordly Might and the Wand of Fear.

They are pretty much the same thing imo (see Wiki here), both in terms of shape and "fighting style". I picked club proficiency simply because BG maces are very heavy weapons (they are not light maces), and because rods should be usable by mages imo. Conceptually I do agree that a warrior who can wield a mace should be able to use a club the same way (the latter is actually easier to swing), but with BG2 weapon proficiency system I do think club proficiency is a better pick than maces for rods.

We will, no matter the cost. PnP describe rods this way: "They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their sturdy construction.)"Even BG vanilla description says "Rods are about three feet long and as thick as your thumb." How can rods perform as two-handed weapons like staves? Regarding the overall rod changes, they are obviously debatable (e.g. in particular I'm not sure if I like the Rod of Resurrection having more than 1 use per day), but I think you agree they at least give rods their own distinguished category.

Just a quick update on the progresses. I've uploaded my latest build for Arda and Mike, and we still want both this relase of IR and the next SR to be available either before or just in time for BGEE2. I'll try to keep you updated on the latest changes as fast as possible, but I've very little time, and I need to split it between modding, updating this very topic (see below), and brainstorming for the last things to do. Anyway, I made a mini update to the first post here, and the latest additions are: - Korgan's unique axe, which I called Bloodaxe but might be renamed if necessary - finally a first attempt at handling Dak'Kon Zerth Blade - all rods Feel free to comment or post feedback in case you like or dislike some of the changes (they are already implemented and packaged, but if I did something really wrong I can still fix it). Speaking of rods, leaving aside specific changes to each of them, there's quite a few overall changes: * unlike wands, rods can now be used by any class * wands cast copies of existing spells, while rods have unique spell-like abilities (maybe similar to available spells, but customized) * wands still consume charges, while rods have been changed to allow x/day uses * the few rods which could be used as weapons have been changed from staves to clubs (*) All these changes are an effort to provide more uniqueness to them, while still keeping an eye at how they work in PnP. (*) I don't know if the following tweak belongs more to IR or KR, but I and Arda agreed that within the next IR clubs will be usable by mages.

Wands All of this actually belongs to IR more than SR. As discussed there I don't know if their behaviour against II targets can be tweaked, we'll see. Within IR wands are indeed supposed to have 10 charges (30 was just insane imo), we'll make sure BG1 wands follow that rule. As soon as Arda manages to find the time to update his component for BG1 we'll also make sure there aren't too many free wands around, though I've read SCS might play a role in mages leaving them around as loot (can someone confirm it?).

SCS specialist mages Enchanters are, and in BG1 are very deadly. BG2 features much more items/spells for mind protection so their power diminishes fast.Good to know they are there (I haven't managed to play since ages), I love the Enchanter. Btw, if you think something should be done to reduce immunities within IR just let me know. I find ironic that an Abjurer, which should be the most "defensive" mage, is not there because he lacks a defensive spell. Leaving aside that I do think he could do very well using Mirror Image or other defensive spells, I actually think DavidW did not included Abjurers because they lack a distinctive array of spells which would make them stand out. Especially because pretty much all SCS mages, regardless of their specialization, use TONS of Abjuration spells (both protections and removals). Yeah, guess scripting a Transmuter and making him as tough as the other mages must be a real pain, if not impossible in a vanilla game. Too bad, I think that it would be extremely fun to fight at least a couple of times a mage which exploits SR's Shapechange a little bit or turns your own mages into little rabbits just for fun. I'm not sure I can provide to SCS a truly "self sufficient" Transmuter with v4, but using Swift Etherealness in place of PfMW, and taking into account that within SR not all removals belong to Abjuration (e.g. Secret Word for BG1 and RRoR for BG2), Transmuters might start to be viable. In a vanilla game this specialization is pretty much pointless as it offers absolutely nothing more than tons of variations of Improved Invisibility and a bunch of overpowered illusionary clones. That being said, with v4 this school will finally offer tons of different options, going from save-or-else, to summons, and maybe a little bit of fake evocations too. Vitriolic Sphere Nah, in 3rd ed Vitriolic Sphere is more like an improved damage aoe Melf's Acid Arrow, especially the version from Spell Compendium (6d6 damage, reflex save for half, if save is failed 6d6 damage next two turns, otherwise only thing that happens is the initial 3d6 damage). The IWD version however is mostly single target however which is why I wanted an edited version of it as a single target 5th level spell to close that gap. Orb of Acid is a direct damage spell instead: a 1d6 damage/lvl(max 10d6) single target ranged touch attack with no save. Also 4th lvl while Vitriolic Sphere is 5th. I just meant that Vitriolic Sphere already perform the same role of an acid orb, and is both more cool (splash damage plus ongoing damage) and more "canonic" within Forgotten Realms.

@April, sorry I missed a post of yours. Mordenkainen's Force Missiles I have two options:1) make it single target 2) make it "multi-target" a la SR's Flame Arrows I was planning to opt for 2 simply because 1) would add very little to the gameplay, if anything at all considering that 2x MM into a Minor Sequencer would pretty much be the same thing. Vitriolic Sphere is pretty much an Orb of Acid already, isn't it? Last time I checked I did not see that animation between those available (many IWD spell animations were hardcoded). Well, I'd need to think about it, but I admit that little things like this are cool imo. Conjurations bypassing magic resistance Well, this is a case for DavidW, not the maker of SR tbh. In the same way he has to manually add your new spells to SCS to account for them (most recent example is that sunscorch is used by SCS24), he would simply have to remove those mr checks for the affected spells when SR is installed. As it is now, if SR is installed and SCS isn't, the result is that the player gets several new spells the AI doesn't use making it a pure advantage for the player anyway.You do have a valid point. Dragon's Breath well, if this spell was a strangely adapted variant of Gate, I doubt the summoned dragon would be so kind to not hurt neither the mage who dared to disturb him nor his companions. Overall I just think that the way they implemented it he current spell concept doesn't entirely fit either school. Btw, PnP Dragon's Breath (be it 3E one or Pathfinder's one) is much more closer to what I would expect from a spell with such name, aka an Evocation spell which simulates breath attacks of dragons. In fact, I'm tempted to slightly tweak this HLA to allow different types of elemental damage - and removing that dragon shaped effect could help making the spell's concept more clear.