Demivrgvs

Blindness Mmm, leaving aside hardcoded issues (I think this cannot be done) the end result would be pretty much strange, as you'd have a blinded character simply suffer -10 thac0 and still able to do pretty much everything else normally, like casting a spell at a target 30 feet away from him. Deafness Combining the two of them would create a very powerful 2nd lvl spell, which would make 1st lvl Blindness completely redundant...you know I don't like that sort of things. Yeah, I do thought about this, and I may actually work on it if we assign a custom sec type to Deafness, but that isn't going to make this spell more appealing anyway because it's not like you'd want your caster to deafen himself (not to mention there's a save to avoid it). You could actually want your fighters to be deafened, but it's not something I would provide incentives to. Not sure about this... Because without an AoE this spell is completely useless (just compare it to Silence or its lower lvl cousin Blindness), and assigning it an AoE makes it bypass II. As it stands now I'd probably not use Deafness even as a 1st lvl spell, would you? Now, it's my turn. Something a little more radical which would hugely improve Deafness without removing its core concept would be to "replace" it with a 2nd lvl implementation of another PnP spell, Sonic Blast. We also thought about the much more common Sound Burst, but it's bard-only in PnP, and it stuns instead of deafening. Similarly another Spell Compedium's spell was Thunderclap, a 3rd lvl spell which both stuns and deafen. Long story short, the daring suggestion is to turn Deafness into an Evocation spell, Sonic Blast, with a small 10-15 feet radius AoE, making it inflict a small amount of damage (4d4?) and forcing targets a save to avoid being deafened. What do you think? Spell schools Blindness: what would be the benefit of making it an illusion? The only thing it would accomplish imo is making the whole "Cure Disease removes blindness" thing quite absurd, as an healing spell would dispel an illusion. Mage Armor: this has always been a trademark of conjurers and I think it should stay. Otoh, I could probably vote to make Shield an abjuration spell as per 3E. Luck: I really don't know which school would fit it best, but I wouldn't change a pre-existing school unless I have a very good reason to do so. Ray of Enfeeblement: good point, necromancy does fit a STR draining spell much more than enchantment school (another point for 3E). Stinking Cloud & Web: yeah, I really cannot understand how the hell these could be considered evocations back then.

You're welcome! Chill Touch No, that's not possible. Afaik the only two ways to implement this are:a) flag Chill Touch as magical while keeping vanilla's +0 enchantment b) flag Chill Touch as magical while assigning it high enchantment lvl (e.g. +7) a) Is not an option imo unless we want this spell to not work against tons of cretures including pretty much all undead ones. b) That would mean making it affect ALL creatures. This seems the lesser of the two evils. P.S Both solutions also require to tweak PfMW to make it work as Mantle spells does (aka "immunity to enchantment lvl" instead of "immunity to every weapon with the 'magical' flag") 2nd lvl arcane spells I'll add more stuff to the discussion as only a bunch of 1st lvl spells is not enough for me! Deafness This is the worst 2nd lvl spell imo (Detect Alignment cannot even be called a spell imo), and I cannot tolerate that it's lower lvl cousin, Blindness, is ridiculously more powerful than this. Any suggestion? Adding small AoE (at least it would bypass II)? There's a rare PW:Deafness in PnP, but we already have a PW at this lvl, and I don't think casting time 1 would suddenly make it uber-great. Detect Invisibility This spell won't dispell Improved Invisibility effects anymore (making II's +4 AC much more reliable and effective), but it will reveal invisibile creatures (those under II too) and it will allow to target them normally (aka the reason we don't need spell removals to have that ugly AoE to bypass II). It will also revela creatures using the new Etherealness spell. Knock It will be renamed Battering Ram, and its school changed from Transmutation to Invocation. Ghoul Touch Again, touch spells are my worst nightmare...but this time around I think this one is really understimated. It pratically is a Celestial Fury on stereoids if it wasn't for its low enchantment lvl. Ray of Enfeeblement Is it fine as it is? Stinking Cloud & Web Am I the only one who think their AD&D school assignment makes no sense? They should be conjurations as per 3E imo. For balance reasons I'd make multiple Web effects not stack, but I know there isn't a consensus on this.

I won't quote everything as I usually do to avoid a huge wall of text. Blindness Its -10 penalty to thac0 is hardcoded, and could be changed to -4 AC/thac0 with ToBEx if we wish, but is the latter really better? I know the problems the AI has with blindness, but I'm not sure increasing visual range is a good option (though doable if we implement the spell without the relative opcode but using a custom sec type). I'll discuss this a little with Ardanis perhaps and let you know my conclusion. Charm Person Ideally I'd like to make all charm effects work as they should, but I doubt it's possible unless ToBEx alters the hardcoded opcodes themselves. The 1st lvl version of this spell should not let players control the target, while Dire Charm should cause the target to go berserk, and only Domination should let you control the target and allow him to cast spells. The way Charm Person works for players within BG makes it even more powerful than the 1st lvl Blindness most players (like me) consider OP. That being said, I don't know how to implement any of that in a flawless way (e.g. adding a berserk opcode to Dire Charm, while making it not work on creatures supposedly immune to it via EFFs seems almost perfect, but it doesn't take into account "special targets" such as a human innately immune to charm). Chill Touch I'm thinking about making it bypass PfMW-like protections, but not restoring its vanilla absurd "non-magical weapon" flag, else the attack wouldn't be able to hit really too many BG2 creatures. I think I'll also restore its anti-undead aspect, though I cannot use vanilla's confusion for obvious reasons (undead creatures are immune to it!) and thus we need to opt for something like a daze/hold effect. Last but not least I'll try to study a little if the spell need to improve with caster lvl. Otoh, I really cannot make it work as Polytope suggests as adding "cold damage + thac0/STR drain + anti-undead effect" on top of any weapon the mage (or fighter-mage) may posses doesn't fit the concept and is kinda OP imo. Color Spray I think replacing stun with daze has a consensus. Friends I don't think adding an AC bonus here is such a good idea. Is your opponent not fighting well because you're really too much charismatic? @Dakk, I was gentle. Shocking Grasp I'm pretty much convinced that making it work as per vanilla Vampiric Touch is the way to go. It won't require hit roll, and it won't count as a +x enchanted weapon anymore making it work against any creature and PfMW-like protections as it should. P.S I don't know why some players got the impression I was suggesting to make it a ranged effect, I surely don't want considering its name.

Reflected Image Yeah, even a fixed value between 4-6 rounds range may be fine imo. This spell is very tricky because it's a sort PfMW-like spell which works "only" 50% of times but also work on single target spells such as Acid Arrow. Determing its true effectiveness on paper is really hard. True Strike Wouldn't that sound like granting mages a warrior's HLA as 1st lvl spell. I guess the difference is 1 hit (a pain to implement but doable) vs 1 round duration. Is its V2 version unappealing? Too bad I don't have a custom ids to add its PnP ability to ignore AC bonuses from spells such as Blur and II (much like I would have loved to implement a proper PnP True Seeing). Anyway, my two biggest gripes when it comes to 1st lvl spells surely are Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp. What do you think of them?

Let's start giving you something worth discussing. I think 1st level arcane spells are pretty much fine as they are but... Chill Touch Touch-like spells are my worst nightmare. I haven't received much feedback on this spell, and I guess it's because it's still highly underused...am I wrong? Assuming we agree this spell has to work as a weapon-like spell, should we make it improve with caster lvl? Color Spray Is its stunning effect too powerful? Should we replace it with a less debilitating effect? If yes I'd suggest a daze-like effect (cannot attack nor cast spells for 1 round). Chromatic Orb If ToBEx really allows SI-like spells to work with contingencies/triggers I may expand this spell to let the caster decide the color (aka the secondary effect) of the orb. Grease Because of its small AoE its effects should trigger at least once every 3 seconds instead of every round to make sure opponents walking over its AoE will trigger them at least once (this is especially crucial for its slow-like effect). The save to avoid falling on the ground may get a +2 bonus. Reflected Image Some players consider it OP, what's the general consensus over it? Should I slightly lower its duration? Shocking Grasp Unlike Chill Touch, which doesn't have a limited use, I'm not sure Shocking Grasp's current "weapon-like with only 1 charge" concept is the best way to represent it. Don't you think making it work much like vanilla's Vampiric Touch (touch range, but no hit roll required) would be better? Other 1st lvl spells Is there anything else you'd want to discuss? For example Blindness was OP till not long ago, but now that SCS makes True Seeing "cure" it and that IR V3 revised potions allows non-priests to cure it I think this spell may be fine as it is. I really don't like Protection from Petrification, but there's little I can do about it, unless we agree we can remove it to make space for Ice Dagger. Another spell I really don't like is Friends (aka cheap discount on stores and nothing else because dialogs don't care about you CHR), but I guess I have to live with it.

This is where I'll gather all the planned changes, though Im also going to create a bunch of dedicated topics to discuss few things (e.g. New Spells). Global Changes Saving throws system Done Most players seem to agree that V3's -5 and -6 penalties on high lvl spells made those spells too powerful (in specific cases in particular), and V4 will cap the save penalties to -4. Furthermore, the save penalty won't be strictly standardized anymore (e.g. 1st lvl has no penalty, 2nd has -1, 3rd has -2, and so on) but it's "shaped" to better fit each spell, which is more similar to AD&D vanilla system and also gives me one more variable to balance each spell (e.g spells of the same level can have different save penalties depending on how powerful their effects are). Cure/Cause Wounds & Regenerate Wounds Done As discussed here. NWN-style Spell Deflection Done As discussed here. Innate Contingencies & Sequencers (moved to Kit Revisions) These spells will be turned into innates at will abilities gained by mages at lvl up. Such change should make SCS fights more fair (as SCS mages always have all triggers/contingecies ready), and it will eliminate the odd "rest - prepare triggers - rest again" routine I hear from too many players. Turn level 10 spells (aka HLAs) into innate abilities Done These spells will be turned into innates abilities usable only once per day. SCS already followed our suggestion and implemented this ages ago, but SR will also slightly rebalance them as they no longer have to compete with level 9 spell slots. Divine Spells 1st Level Spell 2nd Level Spells 3rd Level Spells 4th Level Spells 5th Level Spells 6th Level Spells 7th Level Spells Arcane Spells 1st Level Spells 2nd Level Spells 3rd Level Spells 4th Level Spells 5th Level Spells 6th Level Spells 7th Level Spells 8th Level Spells 9th Level Spells

Cure/Cause Wound spells Uh... and what could possibly happen? I don't recall undead creatures using any healing/harm abilities, a fortiori on themselves. Or there is some non-standard usage of healing spells codes?I'm simply not 100% sure each and every undead creature (mod added ones in particular) never use healing spells on themselves. Anyway, I'll look into it for V4 as I would indeed like to implement this PnP feature.

Protection from Missiles This is a rather recurrent debate, but I'll try to summarize everything. I implemented it to make it work as per SCS, but I would have probably done it anyway because vanilla spell was utterly useless. I think SCS does it not only to give a BG1 alternative to Stoneskin but because without it disrupting spellcasting with an archer was incredibly easy within BG. Even with Stoneskin archers would have a really easy time disrupting every spell with fire/ice/acid arrows. When it comes to PnP, Magic of Faerun's Reverse Arrow (3rd lvl spell) actually is more powerful than SR ProMissile as it also has a chance to reflect missiles back. The good thing about that spell, which has been suggested to rebalance ProMissile too, is its scaling system, as it initially grants protection from +1 missiles and gradually improve with caster lvl up to +5 missiles at 20th lvl. Implementing it is rather tricky as we have to alter A LOT of items and projectile files, but we may go for it if the end result really is worth it. We'll see. Giving it a hige AC bonus vs missiles could be a much more easy-to-do solution, and I actually considered it for ProWeapon too (by the time you can cast 5th lvl spells you almost never face opponents with non-magical weapons, making this spell useless in its current state). Fire Shields They currently don't, but they will. Cure/Cause Wound spells We do thought about it, and I actually didn't implemented it simply because I'm not sure how the AI would handle it.

Summons duration Actually I said almost the opposite (thus voting in your favor regarding elementals). Only exceptionally effective summons absolutely have to last so little (aka 1 round/lvl), to avoid having an army of genies, mordy swords and celestials walking with the party for an entire quest. I actually think PnP 1 round/lvl duration for most summons makes no sense (why making relatively weak summons last only a bunch of rounds if they are going to die anyway as soon as you have a decent encounter?), and even less for low lvl spells (the most hilarious thing ever imo is 3E Summon Monster I which lasts 1 round at 1st lvl). I instead think that most summons could last even 1 hour (aka 5 turns, 50 rounds - 5 minutes of real time) without affecting the overall balance at all (the summoning cap is much more critical on this matter imo). I do intend to remove this limitation within V4, summons should be able to follow you even if you change area. You already mentioned them, mages have invisible stalkers, druids have shamblers. Regarding elementals, for a moment I actually thought that giving lesser elementals longer duration made sense, to keep them somewhat interesting even when (greater) elementals are available. Don't worry, it won't be a drastical reduction. By the way, elementals major feat within a IR/SR install isn't their hit points imo, but their incredible amount of resistances and immunities which also allows you to create extremely powerful combos (e.g. entangle/grease/web + any elemental, earthquake + earth elementals, firestorm + fire elementals, and so on).

Conjure Elementals Yes, these creatures are so buffed up within SR that many players asked to slightly nerf them for V4 (tough it mostly is just a matter of reducing their huge amount of hit points). SR also removes vanilla's "mental combat" between caster-summon and its 15% spell failure (actually, it was worse than a simple spell failure) to these spells, which counts as another boost to the spells' appeal. Anyway, I simply made 6th lvl Conjure Elementals spells use the same duration of 5th lvl ones, and more similar to the duration of most summons (a fixed 3 turns duration). That being said, I do want to streamline a little more summons duration within V4, and as a general rule I'm not much against long duration for summons (except uber effective ones such as Mordy, which actually isn't a true summon, and will surely remain 1 round/lvl duration). I'm open to discuss this matter.

Negative Plane Protection The paste tense you used is kinda misleading, I actually didn't do that! The suggestion has its merit but: - most undead attacks aren't classified as "negative energy attack" - granting too many immunities with this spell could ruin the balance of undead encounters (David actually tried to do the opposite by adding new attacks to which players have almost no counter) One thing I do suggested back then but was discarded (I don't remember why) is to make it really grant protection from "negative energy" attacks such as Chill Touch, Cause Wound spells, Skull Trap, Unholy Blight, etc. Actually, I would suggest that those immunities would be better placed in the natural strengths of the Undead Hunter, rather than NPP. Undead Hunters are already nearly completely eclipsed by any NPP item (some of which are laughably easy to attain), so granting that kit some relatively rare immunities gives the UD some much-needed appeal.I partially agree that the current Undead Hunter seems outclassed even by an Inquisitor (immunity to vampire's dominating gaze) as soos as you find a NPP item, but the former doesn't need such item, allowing him to equip something else, and possibly better. Now, there's nothing better than Mace of Disruption to fight undead creatures but Undead Hunters can for example use Daystar, which pratically is a MoD without NPP (and better than MoD in all other circumstances). Anyway, you have a point, it's something I'll deal with when I get to actively work on paladin's kits within KR.

Death Ward vs Death Spell Death ward doesn't protect your summons from Death Spell because the latter isn't actually killing those creature, it's simply "removing them from game" (In PnP terms it is banishing them - in fact PnP Death Spell doesn't do a thing to summons). In theory I'd be favourable to implement your suggestion (though with a small conceptual change - see below), but I fear it may cause some issues with SCS AI, which is unable to detect such immunity and would waste Death Spell on protected creatures. On a side note, David was against allowing summons a save, thus he may be equally against this. Now, just for the sake of information: - Death Spell will be replaced by Banishment within SR V4 - I'll probably add Dimensional Anchor spell, which may indeed grant protection from Banishment if we agree on implementing this feature

What are you waiting for? Just to find the time for it. I'm already having trouble finding time for the ongoing projects, thus an eventual CR is really hard to imagine right now (despite both I and Ardanis would like it). You have a point, and to a lesser extent we already influence creatures but almost only within spells themselves (e.g. via EFF files). There's actually a case where we already patch existing creatures: SR patches WK's Azamantes and Flaming Skulls to be immune to Incendiary cloud (I don't remember right now, but I think we did it at players request because vanilla's AI was crippling them using this spell). Long story short, you're partially right, but a similar component would be hard to implement and maintain, even more so when it comes to mod added abilities and creatures. I'll think about it, but I wouldn't bet on it being part of SR V4. I think David doesn't want CON drain to be curable, else he could have just used 'disease' opcode, but if he wants to make it curable while keeping the non-disease feature (which makes sense, technically it's not a disease), and he adds a custom secondaty type to it, I'll gladly make (Lesser) Restoration cure it.

Lesser Restoration I'd love to do that as per PnP, but it requires help from other mods (in this case SCS), or an eventual Creature Revisions. I could make a restoration effect cure stat drain using a "remove secondary type" opcode, but I'd need all stat drain effects to be tweaked (e.g. working via spl on hit, and with the relative secondary type).

The "follow me" feature can be disabled using ctrl+F while the mouse cursor is over the creature. For spellcasting creatures you have the option to completely disable their AI using ctrl+D (ctrl+E enables it again). It's relatively easy:- dvmelee.bcs handles all non spellcasting summons - for spellcasting creatures they have custom scripts, like dvnymph.bcs, dvdjinni, dvefreet. etc. - you can edit out the first few blocks where you see the "follow me" text Using NI you'll find those scripts under the override folder. I thought having the option to disable/enable them in-game was enough, but I'll think do about it. The warcraft-like feature is not doable (I'm not even sure I'd like it) while making spells such as Fireball and Ice Storm party friendly is out of question for reasons you can probably imagine yourself. Anyway, while the AI have issues with unfriendly AoE spells, players shouldn't have much imo. Protect you front line characters with items granting elemental resistance, or even better make good use of SR's Protection from 'X' element spells, which grant complete immunity from spells of the relevant element. Casting multiple Ice Storm over 1-2 allies protected by ProCold is a relatively easy and very effective combo: all enemies within such area are slowed and take dmg multiple times interrupting their actions, while your melee characters move at full speed unharmed. That's mostly thanks to playes feedback, thus if you think there something not balanced let me know.

Cure Wounds I get the feeling you guys don't play much BG1, do you? As any BG1 player will tell you, healing spells are absolutely essential at lower levels. Nerfing them in this manner would disrupt the game balance greatly. I really have no intention of nerfing healing spells, quite the opposite. The above mentioned solution (which is just a theory for now, I don't have a real table for it) actually improves them all with only one exception which I do mentioned and I do consider something we should avoid: CLW at 1st (2-3 hp) and 2nd lvl (4-6) is too much nerfed. Starting from 3rd lvl the suggested CLW would more or less match V3 or vanilla's versions (6-9 hp, 4-11 hp and 8 hp respectively), and from 4th lvl onwards it would greatly surpass them. CMW would be fine as soon as you get it with a L3 priest, as it would cure something like 12-18 hit points. Vanilla's CMW was available only to L5 priests and cured 14 hp with a 3rd lvl spell slot. CSW and CCW on the other hand may even be kinda OP with the whole 60-80% of max health theory. As I said, I haven't "studied" this much, and I generally prefer to delve into the whole thing (A LOT) before really approving a radical change like the one we're talking about. That being said, I already see too many problems within it to be a real solution (e.g. CLW at low lvls is too weak, CSW and CCW would probably be OP). Don't put too much effort into it Demi, the current (SR) system is excellent. Thanks. I could probably agree if we were talking about BG1 only, in that case CW spells are fine with the current solution. The "problem" arises imo within mid game SoA, where the appeal of these spells quickly vanish. I guess we could say "who cares, it's probably given for granted that by then you have to rely on Mass Cure and Heal and ignore lower lvl CW spells", fine...but why should it be so when we do managed to keep almost all other spells interesting even later on? Then, it all becomes much more clear when you put into this discussion the reverse of these spells, Cause Wounds. Looking at them you can quickly realize how silly the values are. Vanilla's values are not even worth a discussion: Cause Serious Wounds (a 3rd lvl spell with no range, and which requires a hit roll confirm) dealt 17 points of dmg, less than the average dmg of a fully evolved Magic Missile (a 1st lvl insta-casting spell with long range, and no hit rolls involved), which is 17.5. Back to SR. I do not want an hypothetical Cause Light Wounds to be a match for Magic Missile , but 1d8+5 with no range compared to 5d4+5 with long range (and multiple hits) should cause this reaction (or this ) to anyone trying to balance the overall spell system. Am I wrong?

Lightning Bolt Well, I think the first projectile should look the same due to LB's changes which actually make CL a Mass LB. But it's probably a matter of tastes, I can live with LB using vanilla's animation even if it remains as per V2. Yeah, I had a strange idea that we could have a Cone of Lightning projectile, and then tweak it to work more or less as we want LB to work. I've made a little research on fireball.ids and it seems there' nothing we can do. Ih ih, deal. Disintegrate Yep, we already agreed on seriously nerfing its save now that it has a useful secondary effect. Furthermore, V4's version of this spell will have an additional secondary effect with no save to destroy Mordy's Sword as per PnP (also note this will be uber useful to transmuters as they won't be able to cast Banishment). I also though we could make it disintegrate other force effects as per PnP if we make Breach not affect spells such as Mage Armor and Shield. Not an uber useful tweak, but it may add some spice to this spell imo. Cure Wounds If I'm not wrong you're saying: who cares if we make these spells too weak early on, players would still need them because they are essential anyway. Am I correct? If that's so, you have a point, but I don't agree with it much. Theoretically I kinda agree (I actually thought something like that), we could think of CW spells as the following:- CLW cures 20% of the max health of a fighter of caster's lvl - CMW cures 40% - CSW cures 60% - CCW cures 80% - Heal restores health to 100% Its in-game implementation though makes CLW very unappealing at 1st lvl (it would heal 2-3 hit points - slightly appealing only for non warrior classes imo). At 2nd lvl it should heal twice as much (character's hp progression is kinda silly at low lvls imo, as they grow exponentially before reaching as sort of asymptote) quickly becoming very useful and without a cap it could actually become outstandingly more powerful than vanilla's CLW (e.g. at 6th lvl it would cure 12-18 hp; at 9th lvl it would cure 18-27 hp; etc.). Thinking again about it...it may actually work (if we can find tables that more or less work like that)...I have to spend some more time looking at the whole picture. Invisibility Sphere & Pixie Dust Strange, it indeed uses a wrong projectile. Will fix thanks. It's not intentional, and I'll almost surely reduce Pixie Dust's duration too. On as ide note, I was thinking of changing PD from illusion to conjuration (a la Glitterdust - the dust isn't an illusion, is it?) to make it slightly more unique and perhaps more appealing (e.g. its invisibility wouldn't be removed by Detect Illusions or Oracle). I know some players like to "exploit" 24 hours duration to avoid random encounters, but I'm not too much into it. That being said, Invisibility Sphere within V4 will probably be slightly different following players suggestions. We thought to reduce casting time to 1, and duration to 10 rounds, making it a quick "escape spell" rather than a Mass Invisibility (which should actually require a 5th lvl spell slot - just like Pixie Dust).

Lightning Bolt Can CoC animation look like a lightning bolt? Yeah, making LB more like PnP would be cool, but only if we can do so flawlessly. Fortunately, considering how SR's Flame Arrow work since more recent versions, LB isn't in direct competition with it anymore, and is relatively fine as the 3rd lvl single target dmg dealing spell of choice (doesn't it?). Ironically this make Chain Lightning a more consistent Mass Lightning Bolt instead of working in a completely different way, which makes sense imo (why having LB affects anyone on its path when CL does not?). Speaking of LB and CL, a couple of quick questions: a) if LB has to remain single target, do we still prefer to replace V3 animation with vanilla's LB animation? b) if yes, should we make CL's primary projectile look the same? a) my doubt is that vanilla's animation seem to imply a linear AoE instead of a single target (at least more than V3's animation). b) it may be doable removing trailing anim1/2/3 from lightcha.pro, is it? One last wild thought...is there a way to rape either Color Spray or Prismatic Spray explosion projectiles? They look identical (and I can indeed live with it) despite using two different resources. I guess they use spcsprai, spcspra2 and spcspra3, do they share them?

Well, you pretty much achieved the very same I did but in a different way. Which width valu do you use? I used 20 and it seemed to work... Anyway, between the first and second above issues I'd say this solution is far from flawless. Sounds like A64 is our last hope.

Lightning Bolt Actually I do tried a solution with a single bolt:- the main spell casts 2 subspells at 1 target - the first subspell has only vanilla's LB animation and targets only the selected creature - the second subspell has the cone shaped projectile with no animation, and applies the dmg The problems here are: - the timing between LB's animation and dmg application is tricky (though it seems to work fine) - if any creature quickly moves out of the cone shaped area during LB's animation weird things happen (such targets are damaged despite being clearly not hit by the lightning bolt animation). On second thought, the real problem is another (the above mentioned ones can be handled). Cone shaped projectiles are difficult to handle by themselves but in this case the mess is even worse. LB's animation will stop at the selected target, whereas the cone shaped AoE may affect targets well behind the selected target if the spell isn't cast at max range.

Lightning Bolt Well, I tested it only with human-sized targets...I don't know how it behaves with huge creatures. Actually I do tried a solution with a single bolt:- the main spell casts 2 subspells at 1 target - the first subspell has only vanilla's LB animation and targets only the selected creature - the second subspell has the cone shaped projectile with no animation, and applies the dmg The problems here are: - the timing between LB's animation and dmg application is tricky (though it seems to work fine) - if any creature quickly moves out of the cone shaped area during LB's animation weird things happen (such targets are damaged despite being clearly not hit by the lightning bolt animation). I don't think the VVC solution is any different, but if you manage to make it work you're welcome! 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.

Call Lightning I don't mind at all, and there's nothing else particularly important we're overshadowing or leaving behind right now (Lightning Bolt's discussion is more a thing between me, and well...me ). This specification is not really need in my opinion because Baldur's Gate is built around AD&D 2nd Edition for its bigger part. I would feel the need to point out what PnP sources I am talking about only if different from 2nd Edition PnP.Point taken, but you know how I feel about this. Entangle being usable everywhere is: 1) Consistent with PnP (2nd Edition ) 2) Easier to envision in, if not all, many indoor environments (vegetation of any kind could find its way through cracks in walls, stone, etc.) so on my part there is no questioning Entangle being usable pretty much anywhere. "Easier to envision" yes, but still questionable, especially in places where there shouldn't be any vegetation (Planar Prison, Irenicus's Pocket Plane of Air, Hell, etc.) or where such vegetation (we're not taking of thin grass) would find its way only by destroying the area. Once again, I would also mention the spell has to be magical in nature or it would bypass magic resistance (I very much like that 3E conjurations bypass it). Anyway, you're still talking about one example but there are plenty of other spells (Ice Storm, Flame Strike, Fire Storm, etc.) that make clear druids can shape the elements without the need for real vegetation or bad weather. The problem here is the lack of a more reasonable cap. Still, in the context of the druidic offensive magic and that the spell is intended to be used only outdoors, I don't find Call Lightning, even in the vanilla version, a shame to be corrected at its root. Though I envision the spell as a manifestation of Nature and as such I agree with you that the Magic Resistance check is out of place. In the end, Call Lightning in AD&D 2nd Ed. has a very specific character which SR changes deeply. For that reason only, I would change the spell's name. This new SR version of the spell will certainly be more balanced and perhaps reasonable. But also less original. On the last part I do agree. In fact I thought about making it deal more dmg when used outdoors (as per 3E) to preserve the uniqueness, but my attempts were vain (the outdoor flag is checked before casting the main spl, and thus I cannot make it exclude only part of the spell). Summarizing, I still don't regret the changes made to this spell within SR because: - they are consistent with 3E PnP (which is almost as valid as AD&D for me, if not more in some occasions) - they make the spell much more balanced - they drastically improves the spell's usability (and thus druid's efficiency/appeal in general) - they are consistent with its pre-existing magic resistance check

Lightning Bolt @Ardanis, don't mind my last post. I've spent half of this evening on Celestial Fury, testing various solutions to make LB as per PnP but without that damn bouncing effect, and after tons of failures I've managed to found a decent solution, the best I can imagine...which sadly isn't good enough to me. The only way I can make it work is using a cone shaped projectile (width 20) with no animation and casting speed 0 (which actually seems to be the fastest possible), which casts a second spl on every target. This secondary spell contains both vanilla's LB animation and dmg output. In terms of "functionality" it works very fine, but from a cosmetic point of view it doesn't, at least not always (e.g. if two targets are far away from each other you clearly see two bolts instead of a thin long single bolt). Long story short, unless someone have an outstandingly brilliant idea (or A64 can help us), I probably have to keep it single target. Call Lightning Yes, but they have a different background as you well know. PnP version of Call Lightning even requires favorable weather condition, not only that it is cast outdoors! Now, the outdoors only condition is a trademark of this specific spell and I would rather see its name changed in its SR-tweaked version because SR is changing the most defining characteristic of this spell.Just to make the devil's advocate (because I don't have much problems changing the name if most players prefer so and very few are against it): when you say PnP, you should say AD&D PnP, because within 3E PnP this spell neither requires to be cast outdoors nor to have favorable weather conditions. Regarding its supposed "background", I know well it could have a non-magical nature as you seem to prefer (as per AD&D - though it still allows a magic resistance check, which is a nonsense), but it can as well have a classic magical nature (as per 3E) as 99% of druid's spellbook. Should we also start questioning about things such as Entangle being usable pretty much anywhere? The maximum damage dealt is certainly too much (but saving for half damaged is allowed and also: should we evaluate a spell only by its maximal damage?), but its outstanding power is available to those who decide to use one of their 3rd level slots to memorize a spell that most times won't be useful. Game-balance wise I don't find this concept extremely wrong.I don't judge a spell by its max dmg output alone, but 100d8 makes it a Disintegrate spell on steroids (with the disadvantage of requiring 24 seconds to take full effect, but with an outstandingly higher min dmg output). Just compare it with vanilla's Flame Strike, which is two lvls higher and capped at 20d8 (with a save for half just like CL). Leaving aside that I don't agree that game-balance wise the concept is fine, the premises are not even there imo, because within BG you're not taking a gamble by memorizing CL. You do know if you're going to fight outdoors or not, and you are not going to waste a slot on it unless you know you'll be using it. Druids already have a very thin spellbook, thus there's no way I'm going to vote for having one of those few spells turned back into something you can almost never use (not to mention SCS uses SR's CL indoor).

Call Lightning Aren't Ice Storm, Flame Strike, Fire Storm, Sunray and so on druidic spells as well? Sorry but on this I won't be democratic. Having a spell which is unusable for 99% of the encounters, and extremely overpowered the 1% of times it's usable (100d8 with a 3rd lvl slot?!? ), is a very bad design decision from a balancing point of view.

Call Lightning While I agree with your choice, I'd have changed the name of the spell (perhaps Discharge?). Call Lightning is obviously pointing to the open sky. Six's point is exactly what I was trying to say...I really don't understand why Call Lightning indoor makes less sense than conjuring a Comet. If the spell's name really is a problem (it isn't imo, and 3E still uses it), the only other name I'd support probably is Lightning Storm (the 5th lvl version of this spell within 3E is called Call Lighting Storm, though it's identical to the 3rd lvl spell other than a slightly higher dmg output). Actually I do thought about chaning it, especially because of Call Lightning's icon (and having a storm spell for each element would be cool), but I also thought it was unnecessary (uncalled for changes may annoy some players), and the storm spells have a slightly different "template" (Ice/Fire Storm last 4 rounds with an unfriendly or partially friendly huge AoE, whereas Call Lightning has a variable duration, and seems more like a single target friendly spell). Indeed, I've hugely nerfed the dmg output. It previously wasn't a big deal because despite its OP dmg output the spell could almost never be used, but I had to nerf it (as per 3E) to balance its vastly superior usability. Within V3 each bolt deals 6d6 dmg. Within PnP indoor bolts deal 3d6 and outdoor bolts deal 3d10. Vanilla's bolt were outstandingly more powerful, as their dmg capped at 20d8 per bolt! P.S Also note that in PnP this spell requires concentration, which is a major "nerf". Lightning Bolt @Ardanis, I was messing with Celestial Fury's custom Lightning Bolt tonight to implement your solution to restore vanilla's animation while keeping SR's single target property, and a wild thought stroke me...do you think it's possible to make LB work as it should using a cone shaped projectile? I didn't had the time to try it yet, but can't we use a very long cone with an uber thin width value? If it works, we could even further refine it by using two projectiles, with one animation only projectile to avoid multiple bolts being displayed by the cone shaped projectile (if I wasn't a PnP purist I could actually like that ). Should I try it out or is it clearly a dead end of a crazy mind? Though my dream stil is a LB spell working a la Aganazzar's Scorching Ray, or at least to have vanilla's projectile not bounce. I'm too shy to try asking A64 for one of these.