Demivrgvs

Call Lightning We somewhat discussed the same back in the 2008 here, but it's quicker if I re-post my point on this matter. I've opted for 3E here (though there it also deals slightly more damage if cast outdoors and during a storm), and I don't regret it because druids do needed some serious help with their incredibly lacking speelbook, and having a good spell which cannot be used for 99% of the encounters is kinda pointless (at least within SR's scope of making all spells appealing). Regarding the "immersion breaking" aspect, perhaps it is just me, but can't we simply assume this spell works as Static Charge when cast indoor, and a Lighting Storm when cast outdoor? Not to mention I don't see how casting Entangle or an Ice Storm within a small room is fine whereas calling a lightning bolt is not. If we really want to be pedantic and say "this is a real lightning storm, not a magical bolt", then it should require bad weather, and it should bypass magic resistance (making it almost never usable, and OP when usable). Am I wrong? I'm not sure I'd vote to raise its dmg output. Let's see...right now CL caps at L15 with 30d6, whereas Flame Arrow at the same lvl deals 15d6 (caps at L20 with 20d6), and Lightning Bolt deals 10d8 (because it's capped at L10). CL's dmg output is almost twice as much of similar spells of the same lvl, while its drawbacks are a slower casting time and that it takes 24 seconds to inflict its full dmg. Does it seem so unbalanced in favor of FA or LB? P.S On a side note, afaik SCS now uses Call Lighting if SR is detect, and it assumes it can be cast indoor.

Asking me about release dates is almost a waste of time because I almost always fail to finish my work before them. Let's say that at least this mod should be the "smallest" one compared to SR and IR (the latter is really a monster), thus discussing it is by far the hardest part of it imo. On a side note, Fighter's classes (without HLAs) as already finished (except WS) and I may start releasing them as a mini mod after IR V3.

Feeblemind Guys, perhaps I'm lost, but I thought the problem wasn't about finding a different anti-mage secondary effect, but that a single target spell will never be a good anti mage spell at all in a world where every single mage constantly uses either or both II and many spell protections. I could be fine with pretty much any secondary effect you've suggested as long as we make it not overkill against priests (e.g. spell failure should be arcane only) but they won't make the spell much more appealing imo. Following amanasleep and Ardanis arguments my thoughts were: - this spell will never be a good anti-mage option unless it bypasses II (and thus spell protections) - but adding an AoE to it would turn it into an Improved Hold Monster - thus I should try to make it appealing against any target (its main effect already is effective against anyone) Was I wrong? I had only two suggestions in mind that could fit the spell imo and achieve such goal, the first one was non-lethal dmg, but it seems like we discarded it, and I discarded the second one myself before posting it: a short duration stun effect (too powerful for a 5th lvl spell imo, and I was going to suggest improving PW:Stun with something like that).

Cloud Spells What do you think about reducing their AOE from 30' to 20'? Judging by how your AI reacts to them it should help, woundn't it? Such change shouldn't hamper much normal use of those spells imo, nor affect the nasty tactic used by SCS liches/rakshasas, which is also available to players within SR (e.g. Cloudkill + Neutralize Poson; Acid Fog + ProAcid), and is the most effective way to use those spells. That being said, leaving these spells unchanged wouldn't be a huge problem as long as players don't abuse them exploiting the poor AI. Feeblemind Well then, if we want to exclude non-lethal dmg fine with me, but as Ardanis says, we are going back from where we started: using casting speed penalty and/or miscast magic as a secondary effect. The problem is that we already agreed that such secondary effects don't increase the appeal of this spell against an unprotected mage. I was trying to make this spell appealing against any target exactly because making it shine against mages seemed impossible. Otoh, a % spell failure with no save could be the doom of priests considering they pratically don't have spell protection. Considering David said he already have problems making them shine, I'd avoid tweaking this spell in a way that wouldn't hurt much mages but would ruin priests even more. Am I wrong? I do agree with Kalindor's statement that "it would make more sense if this spell inflicted a lessened amount of mental debilitation", but the in-game implementation isn't easy at all.

Feeblemind Considering this is an Enchantment and not an Alteration I'd say this spell doesn't directly lower target's INT, but screw his/her mind up much like an "Improved Confusion" spell would. I though that just like Weird and PK trick the target's mind causing self induced dmg, this mind affecting spell could do a similar thing. The formers achieve it with an illusion, the latter directly manipulating the mind. Anyway, I didn't get much feedback on this (only you and Adanis), I'd really like to know what other SR players think. Last but not least, while it may not seem the perfect solution it's the only solution I like right now, and the only one that doesn't drastically alter the pre-existing spell (e.g. turning it into a Mass spell or removing feeblemind opcode in favor of other effects). If we find a better solution I'll gladly opt for it. Leaving aside that to implement it we'd need to rely on things like "invisible creatures and scripts" (this alone is enough to discard the idea for me), I really don't get the concept, and I have doubts about its balance. Concept: Maze vs INT makes perfect sense, having a spell work the opposite way doesn't imo. How can an Enchantment spell be easy to resist if you have average INT, and difficult to resist if you are a genius? It doesn't make sense. I already didn't get much AD&D's "it works better vs caster" thing, but I could accept that, while having "dumb casters" resist it and powerful spellcasters screwed by it seem a pretty random behaviour instead. Balance: what's the goal? If the spell remains a single target "save-or-nothing" spell we don't get anything from this change imo. Granting the spell a huge save penalty vs genius spellcasters will simply make it OP vs them and useless vs ordinary ones. No? Non lethal dmg is a type of dmg that ignores pretty much all resistances (no vanilla creature I know of is resistant to it), and stack with normal dmg as long as the target doesn't reach 0 hp. If the target is reduced to 0 hp by non lethal dmg, he/she doesn't die, but is instead knocked unconscious. Perhaps it's just me, but I do love secondary effects on successful saves, because I know that casting such spell never is a complete waste of time, and sometimes its secondary effect is all I need. For example let's take the suggested Feeblemind and compare it to a spell like Lightning Bolt. The latter inflicts 10d6 dmg (10d8 within SR) if the target fails the save, and 5d6 if the target successfully save, while the former would completely disable the target on a failed save and inflict 5d6 on a successfull save. You can use them in a similar way (obviously it also depend on target's resistances), but the former has a higher potential imo. Protection from Missiles I'm really sympathetic to this, but I doubt the end result would be worth the effort. Much like pretty much all players ignore Mantle spells because they don't know if it's going to work or not (do you really know the enchantment lvl of all wepons of all your opponents?), I fear that no one would use ProMissiles unless he/she knows that the spell is gonna work. Furthermore, making it scale looks good on paper (*), but it may not work much in game. In fact, having it grant immunity to +1 arrows only at L10 means the spell is pretty much useless until then (even BG1 kobolds are chuck full of +1 flaming arrows), too random between L10-15 (+2 arrows within BG2 are relatively common), and very effective later on (but so late that you'd almost never use it in favor of PfMW or similar more effective spells). Note that SCS automatically make this spell work like SR's one, probably because of what I just said: without such tweak David's AI wouldn't find this spell appealing enough to be considered a viable layer of defense. (Correct me if I'm wrong) (*) For the sake of information, there indeed is an anti-missile spell which uses your suggested table of progression in PnP: Magic of Faerun's Reverse Arrow. Ironically, such spell is even more powerful than SR's ProMissile because it's a 3rd lvl spell which reflects arrows back at the target (a la BG's Physical Mirror ). Cloud Spells As I said, there's little I can do about them. On one hand I hope SCS AI can handle them relatively well, otoh if players want to heavily exploit them, let them do so and ruin their experience. It's not an exploit you can do "by accident", you have to purposely "cheat" to make them cheesy. The only two things I can think of to limit them and maybe help the AI are: * reducing duration to 5-6 rounds * reducing AoE from 30' to 20' The latter in particular may help SCS AI in quickly escape the area when doable. Let me know what do you think about it.

Cloudkill All cloud spells can be exploited, especially if you can force the AI in a confined space with it (e.g. a small room with a closed door), but I doubt I can do much other than hoping players don't abuse it too much. How are you using it right now to feel like a cheater? Do you feel it cheesy because of the usual cast from off sight and let the dumb AI die in it? I fear limiting casting range on a spell with a unfriendly 30 feet radius AoE would mean turning it into a "suicide spell" even worse than vanilla's Skull Trap was. I thought about limiting their duration to 5-6 rounds but I'm not sure about it either.

Feeblemind OK, can you describe exactly how you propose this should work? Weird and PK have obvious applications for non-lethal damage, even brilliant ones, but it seems out of place for Feeblemind.Isn't the application the same of Weird and PK? All these spells attack the mind of the target, damaging it, if it doesn't completely screw it, either killing with fear (Weird and PK) or making the target comatose (Feeblemind). Assuming we like the concept (I do, but WE may not), Feeblemind would become a quite unique Enchantment spell, somewhat similar in use to Disintegrate imo (with both spells you're pretty much screwed if you fail the save, and if you don't you still take dmg). Even if we give it a relatively small dmg output (PnP PK inflicts 3d6, thus something like 4d6), I may often prefer it over Domination just because even on a successful save it damages the target (for Enchanters this may open the way to PW spells), and even has a chance to incapacitate the target if he was low on hp (unlikely but possible). I'm not trying to make it "better" than the other spells at this lvl (aka Domination), I'm just trying to make it appealing compared to them. For my playstyle for example, I'd probably take this Feeblemind over Domination just because I don't like save or else spells, and for roleplaying reasons I may like my Enchanter to devastate the mind of his targets instead of controlling them. True, but no other single spell would force that trigger or PfMW recast.True, I wasn't trying to say Breach isn't dramatically effective, but just that there's a slim change of surviving it in theory. Yep, we discussed this with David back then, and I think he kinda liked the idea as long as we keep Breach working vs specific protections. I think making Breach not work on armor spell (e.g. Armor of Faith, Mage Armor and all similar spells) and similar spells (e.g. Barkskin and even Stoneskin imo) is a must. Long story short, Breach should only work against those spells which grant invulnerability imo, it worked only against ProWeapon spells in PnP, but 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.I like this idea. The fact that Breach removed specific protections and combat protections always seemed like overkill to me. However, should there be a seperate spell that only removes specific?Eh, in theory I and Ardanis suggested Pierce Magic for it, but David didn't liked the idea much, especially because 6th lvl slots are already very critical (PfMW, Death Spell, True Seeing).

Feeblemind Non-lethal damage is a cool finding imo. Breach 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).You know I agree regarding Pierce Magic, but such change wouldn't be compatible with SCS. Creature Revisions Ops, I forgot to reply in my last post...but this is exactly what I wanted to say. Using EFFs makes sure that everything works as intended whatever install you have. Indeed.

Wow, suddenly so many spells to discuss... Feeblemind But there are already area spells in the game, and they are all for that reason "anti-mage". My point is that any single target spell that is only good against mages needs something extra, because all mages in the game will be immune to it, and the moment they become visible that spell becomes worse than Breach.As Ardanis correctly points out part of the problem is that Breach is so absurdly effective that any other alternative against a visible mage without spell protections pales if compared to the mighty Breach. That being said, I do thought like you that Breach is a death sentece for any mage (and I still believe it's almost true), but a quick PfMW or any trigger/contingency may actually save a breached mage. Regarding Feeblemind getting a small AoE, another option we haven't discussed is to make it ignore II via ToBEx. As I said I don't like this tweak because it creates strange exceptions (why only spell removals ignore II?!?), but it might be different if we make it instead a base rule and decide that only spells which require direct targeting like an Breach or Acid Arrow doesn't work against II (within 3E II doesn't even grant such feature). But then again, tweaking Detect Invisibility and TS to allow such feature probably is an even better solution, which doesn't require to alter pre-existing rules. 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? Breach Yep, we discussed this with David back then, and I think he kinda liked the idea as long as we keep Breach working vs specific protections. I think making Breach not work on armor spell (e.g. Armor of Faith, Mage Armor and all similar spells) and similar spells (e.g. Barkskin and even Stoneskin imo) is a must. Long story short Breach should only work against those spells which grant invulnerability imo, it worked only against ProWeapon spells in PnP, but 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. Stoneskin I'm still waiting to see that tweak tested, and to know how it exactly works. It surely has a huge potential, but I don't know if Stoneskin can be so radically changed without screwing the AI, not to mention we'd add just another problem to the well known 100%+ physical resistance issue. True Seeing & Detect Invisibility Ok then, I think I'll opt for making Detect Invisibility work via 136 for V4. It's a nice additional refinement which makes your old suggestion about TS much better for me. Too bad David didn't tried it out in favour of that tweak, but still everything is better than the obsolute AoE spell removals solution. Magic Missile This spell is really fine as it is. Creature Revisions wouldn't it be easier to start working in some Creature Revisions as a recommended but optional component? it seems it'd be better to provide immunities at the source instead of stacking EFFs across multiple spells.

Feeblemind Is there a way to make Charm Person and Dire Charm work as they should? Afaik A64 simply fixed Charm Person to allow affected creatures to talk (which is a cool feature used in BG1 but unfortunately never used in BG2 - a shame because it could have huge roleplaying potential). Anyway, none of that matters because we're talking about Domination vs Feeblemind, and the former is the only charm spell that already works as it should. You're right about PnP Domination being "limited" to humanoids, but even if I add such restriction it would still cover the vast majority of your opponents. How many non-humanoids creatures are there in BG? More importantly, how many of them are good candidates for a 5th lvl single target "save to negate everything" spell like Feeblemind? A +-2 save penalty difference isn't enough to make a difference imo (especially when Domination's effect on a failed save is way more appealing), not to mention that I'm kinda forced to have Domination go with -4 penalty right now, because it currently is the only advantage it has over Dire Charm. The purpose of II is to prevent direct spell targeting, sure, but is it not enough to be protected from magic missile, acid arrow, Maze, Imprisonment, all the PW's, etc.? The issue is that the exact spells that are supposed to disable mages are weakest against them because every mage is II, and any mage who does not have II should be Breached immediately and bashed. The only possibility where this is not true is a pure mage duel, but even then you are better off with Chaos than Feeblemind against any mage as long as the save penalties are equal.Everything you say is correct, I was just saying that having all anti-mage spells ignore II would completely remove the main use AI does of it (and as you say the AI heavily relies on II, especially SCS). Furthermore, unless Ardanis' work to implement my suggested revision of the Spell Deflection system beomces the standard system, having those spells ignore II would also destroy the main purpose of all Spell Deflection/Turning spells. I'm not sure I'd like it, but it's not doable anyway. Well, Breach shouldn't affect liches, and it normally doesn't. I play SCS without such tweak because I see it as a too much convenient tweak, and I just wait to have Pierce Shield before facing a L25-30 undead archmage. All undead creatures should be immune to mind affecting spells (liches are far from "mindless" imo), but I just checked and liches miss quite a lot of immunities they should have, including immunity to feeblemindedness. I started making spells not affect certain creatures via EFF files for SR V3 (e.g. Horrid Wilting doesn't work on undead), but I gave for granted monsters had the most obvious resistances back then, unlike IR V3 which hugely relies upon this system without leaving anything for granted (almost all abilities now have at least a few of these race/type checks). I'll pay more attention for SR V4. Invisibility Other players already answered for me.

Deciding everything myself would be easier sometime, but other times it's actually more difficult because I have many doubts myself. It surely takes much more time to involve players but the end result generally is much better imo. Shadow Door Its secondary effect is there to make the spell unique compared to the vastly superior Mislead. Anyway, it should indeed be a secondary effect, not its main one. Completely removing its save penalty should be enough imo (roughly speaking it's a -20% chance to trigger). Invisibility spells In the original game, basic invisibility (provided by the 2nd level spell) used to last 24 hours, now it wears off after just 8. That's not enough to travel between most areas, so random encounters in BG1 can become quite messy. As said earlier, avoiding these encounters using invisibility is a very popular strategy in BG1, especially early on when the party is still very weak.Ahh, I though you're speaking of II or similar spells because you used the plural, and I forgot of this small change. It all comes down to a simple rule within SR, spells shouldn't last more than a full rest (e.g. the same happened to Stoneskin). I'm not sure your reason behind the request convinces me ("convenience" rarely does). Doesn't casting Invisibility to escape a triggered encounter (casting time is uber fast) work almost as good as casting it before travelling? Invisibility Sphere may come handy if you need an entire party to escape. True Seeing & Detect Invisibility Mmm...one more reason to restore power 0 (perhaps even quickly with a hotfix update). What about Invisibility Purge and Oracle? They too had power lvl 0 in vanilla, and I guess I should restore them too if I do it for TS and DI, though it doesn't make sense at all at least for Invisibility Purge. On a side note, I do planned to make TS not destroy illusionary creatures, as we're claiming that TS doesn't directly affect the targets, while adding such feature to Detect Illusion. @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. 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? Feeblemind I know. I don't like so much having Chaos there too, but at least it doesn't completely overlap with Hold Monster, whereas Domination and Feeblemind completely overlap each other with the former outshining the latter. Was my suggestion (adding non-lethal dmg) completely rejected? No one commented about it. Feeblemind is too "famous" to be removed imo. I may feel ok renaming or replacing very rare spells (e.g. Sunfire should be renamed Fireburst imo) or non-PnP spells (e.g. BG's Spell Shield never existed), but in this case we're talking of a very classic spell, am I wrong? You do gave me a good suggestion for a new high lvl illusion spell though. Solipsism could fit well an 8th lvl slot as an illusion-based Mass Hold, and still compete with Mass Charm. I think I like the AoE idea. I most definitely WILL memorize it then.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). Regarding "all anti mage spells should have AoE or bypass II" thing, I'm not sure I can agree...what's the purpose of II then? Maze Oh my... Fortunately this never happen.

1) It's not doable unless A64 works on this too creating an apposite hack. That being said, while I'd surely remove it from the Archer kit, I wouldn't remove it from all rangers as its a defining feature of AD&D rangers. Actually, we discussed here to add them an on hit ability to further increase the appeal of dual wielding rangers. 2) I do agree on this. Low lvl rangers should be able to use stealth much more consistently, especially Stalkers.

Thanks. I feed on feedback! Low level buffs Well, it's a long story but I'll try to explain why I used those fixed 5 turns. Those buffs, and low lvl spells in general (*), don't work well with a 1 round/lvl (or similar) duration because it means they last almost nothing early on (for the entire game in case of BG1), which coupled with their dispellability makes them extremely unappealing. Even 1 turn/lvl doesn't work too well imo because it's not enough very early (when you need those spells the most because you don't have access to higher lvl spells) and too much later on (when they become very cheap spells), though the latter is bearable. For some reason I don't like the "x base duration + y/lvl formula", but even If I could live with that it wouldn't change too much the equation imo, because the +y bonus would either be too small to matter or too big when maxed out. Anyway, I'll think a little more about it, and see what other players think. (*) A particular mention imo should go to PnP summoning spells because I think they are really screwed up by their 1 round/lvl duration. Early on you have a valuable creature that doesn't last enough to matter, and later on you have a very weak creature that cannot help you much even if it lasts. Spiritual Hammer If I'm not wrong I and aVENGER did this almost the same thing. Magically created weapons Break Enchantment I couldn't do that back then, but we know how to achieve this now and we should be able to do this for V4. Summons Summons were the most time consuming thing I ever worked on (except familiars), I'm glad it payed off. You may like to know we're planning to work on them even more for V4 (adding a bunch of new creatures, and even illusion based ones). Detect Invisibility & True Seeing This has recently come up in another topic, and you do have a point though the way these spells work within BG is dubious. In PnP the caster would see the invisible creature without dispelling it for his/her companions, whereas BG version of these spells actually directly affect the targets stripping them of their invisibility. In fact PnP's Invisibility Purge (3rd lvl, abjuration) wouldn't be identical to Detect Invisibility (2nd lvl, divination), because the former would directly affect the targets effectively dispelling the effect. Ironically, due to BG engine, following your suggestion (allowing DI to ignore GoI and similar protections) and not doing the same to IP would make the latter less powerful than the former (the opposite of what it should be). That being said, I'm really sympathetic to this, especially for True Seeing. I'd like to know other opinions on this matter. Shadow Door I think I'll reduce or even remove the save penalty if we agree the effect triggers too easily (this alone would be a huge enough nerf imo). Otoh I do want the duration to still depend on target's INT (as of now those with INT 18+ may escape in 1 round, those with INT 15-17 need at least 2 rounds, those with 12-14 need at least 3, those with less than INT 12 always take 4 rounds) thus I won't change the 1-4 round duration to fixed 1. Note that the maze-like effect used by SD isn't as powerful as a true Maze spell, because the latter: - generally lasts much longer (creatures with mid-low INT like most warriors can take ages to escape it) - affects any type of creature (SD has no effect on extremely intelligent ones or those immune to illusions) - isn't stopped by True Seeing (a relatively common spell for SCS priests and mages) - can be cast at long range - DOESN'T ALLOW A SAVE If you ask me, it's more about Maze not being extremely appealing for an 8th lvl slot (it's a good spell, but it's very situational and it needs to be part of a more wide tactic to be useful) rather than Shadow Door being too powerful (except the aforementioned save penalty which is indeed harsh right now). Sleep Well, I wouldn't say the spell per se is nerfed, it's actually much more powerful. It's less OP early on sure (BG1) but it's finally usable for the entire game (it was completely useless within BG2). Anyway, increasing its duration may be fine, but 10 rounds would be more than enough imo. 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. Invisibility spells I didn't reduced the duration of any of those spells afaik.

Feeblemind The last sentence says it all. Anyway, Miscast Magic (aka spell failure) is pointless as a primary effect considering the current main effect is much better (it completely disable the target), and INT drain is problematic. Spell failure can probably be as good as casting speed penalty (or even combined with it) but I have to agree with Raj's post, this won't help much the appeal of this spell, because an "unprotected" spellcaster can be killed with cheaper spells (or in general spells that you'd pick anyway because they are useful in more situations) or by few physical attacks. The point is we should make this spell an appealing alternative to Domination (which has a more powerful main effect), thus something you'd want to cast to "unprotected" spellcasters (but how?) or at least against spellcaster-like opponents with no access to spell protections (e.g. mind flayers, Githyanki, etc.), or better against anyone (despite its original concept which is clearly 'anti spellcaster'). I can throw here a random suggestion that may be crazy: stunning damage. I planned to use 'stunning damage' as a secondary effect for a couple of mind affecting spells (Phantasmal Killer and Weird), and in theory it can fit this spell as well. Those two illusion spells have such effect in PnP (dmg type is not specified, but BG's stunning/non-lethal damage is simply perfect imo), thus I'm not inventing anything new, I'm just extending the whole "mind affecting spells can damage the target" concpet to one more spell. What do you think? Any other idea? True Strike Mmm...you do want to use a secondary type everywhere! Wouldn't this turn it into a sort of Critical Strike HLA? Another crazy idea I discarded back then was to make it grant fighter's THAC0 (one of TT's many bonuses) for a relatively short time (e.g. 1 turn). Both yours and mine ideas don't convince me for some reason...let's see if other players want to share their opinion. On a side note, do you remember we planned to drastically limit the amount of touch spells (e.g. the whole discussion about Cause Wound spells)? Shadow Shield Leaving aside for a moment that I don't undertand the concept behind an illusion spell working like SI:Necr (even if I know almost everything shadow-related belongs to the illusion school), I thought we were kinda persuaded to keep that damn Spell Immunity within V4. I'll try to find those discussions with David and read them again.

Enchanted Weapon Good point, I probably just forgot about them, though not having any existing resource for them might have influenced it (e.g. I don't have any bam for them). I may put it in the to do list for V4, but I cannot promise it until I have the bams for them. That being said, how many of them should be created by the spell? Darts may be 40 as arrows/bolts/bullets but 40 throwing axes/daggers seem too much for some reason...

Web Me too, I just don't see how making Web's severe save even more harsh can add "variety" to the gameplay, while making it less severe and adding a secondary effect reduces the variety. On a side note, Entangle is druid-only, while Web is mage only, thus no character in the game can have both of them. This is one of those incredibly rare cases where we don't agree, actually I cannot agree less. I don't know what other players (or David) think, but even with a short 4-5 rounds duration making Web's save at -4 penalty is insanely OP. We're speaking of a 2nd lvl spell, and you'd pratically have an "unfriendly Mass Hold Monster automatically re-cast each round"! Concentration Check Understood. Probably, but that's much too radical a change for me to assume it in core SCS scripting.Point taken, too bad though. Chant Actually it's one of my more commonly memorized spells even late in BG2. It's really cheap, the bonus/penalty to saves alone are unvaluable imo, and the other effects are quite effective both for offense and defense, especially when large parties are involved. Contingencies and Triggers Yep, I'm kinda persuaded it can be a good tweak. At least it's surely worth to be an optional component to try it out imo.

He can in my game, am I missing something?Yeah, you're missing what the bigg once told me, that "half the imp says is wrong". Because base classes are up for revision as well.Base classes are the base (forgive the pun) upon which kits are built, thus they're actually a quite critical aspect of KR.

Web I would instead, a lot, because that would be way more unbalanced than it already is. With 2x Web trigger anyone unable to successfully make two consecutive saves at -4 penalty every round is pretty much dead (especially the AI). And why lowering the save would make it closer to Entangle while increasing it would not? Anyway, Web already is a very close parent of Entangle, its inevitable imo because their concept is almost the same, in fact they their PnP versions are more similar than their BG ones. Chant Chants doesn't need you to get closer considering it has a large AoE, and I'd prefer an even larger AoE (though it already has the largest amongst all SR's spells) to a ridiculously fast casting time. I'm not saying your changes break your game (we're not taking about a 6 round Time Stop), I'm only saying your changes make this spell insanely powerful for its lvl. In fact moving this spell to 3rd lvl (and renaming it Prayer) would only make it as per PnP (keeping its long casting time), and lowering casting time would make it deserve an even higher spell slot. Concentration Check I did some testing throwing fireballs at some poor ogre magi and noticed that they could pass concentration checks even after taking 20+ damage so that luck parameter did actually matter (and made me turn off that component, it looked more like a ''make casting uninterruptable'' ). Yeah that's what I was asking... What's that "luck" parameter? Is it something we can also affect with an opcode? Having some items or spells able to improve such check would be really cool (though the component itself already is uber cool on paper, even without this feature). Out of curiosity; do you play with prebuff option 1 for clerics and 2-3 for mages? I seem to recall quite a lot of discussions on the SCS board that clerics don't have "enough staying power" - would option 1 help noticeably (I'm considering those settings myself)?Yes, that's my normal choice. (Wizards have enough sequencers, contingencies et al to cope without prebuffs; clerics don't.)Wouldn't a working concentration check help in this regard? I seem to remember in a recent discussion your main issue was that clerics couldn't shield themselves enough to be able to cast spells in combat (because of the lack of spells such as Mirror Image, Stoneskin and PfMW). If the hack allows them to cast relatively more free (clerics should be able to pass that check more easily than mages imo) they should have quite a lot of staying power considering heavy armors, shields, and 2x hit points compared to mages. I'd love to be able to convince myself of this, but I can't.

Join the clubI did ages ago. Chant Do as you wish, but Chant with casting time 2 and no drawbacks is utterly overpowered. It's a Mass Doom spell with no save and almost instant casting time, worth at least a 4th lvl spell slot. Chant is a prayer spell (which requires long concentration in PnP) for true clerics (e.g. Viconia) and spellcasting oriented clerics in general (e.g. Aerie) who have all the time they want to cast it keeping some distance from opponents, not for fighter oriented clerics (e.g. Anomen) who'd better spend their time in the front line buffed up with fast and short lasting spells such as AoF or Divine Might. If you call yourself a roleplayer, you should easily accept that Chant cannot be an insta-casting spell. Chant's casting time was 1 round even in vanilla, thus I assume SCS knows what it does when it uses it. Well, having your own heavily customized SR should't stop you from giving me some feedback to work on (I feed on it!). @Ardanis, I'm curious just like Raj regarding ToBEx's concentation check...what's this luck parameter? Contingencies and Triggers Nope, more like 1/day use.Mmm, perhaps I'm blind, but wouldn't such limit restore the "annoying factor" the tweak was supposed to remove in the first place? Those who complained about having to rest twice to use contingencies/triggers without losing spell slots would now complain that they have to rest anyway to use them more than once per day. Though you could easily say those players would be asking too much. On a side note, sorcerers are the ones losing the most here, because my sorcerers always loved to have multiple contingencies/triggers per day. Long story short, if we are persuaded by David's arguments I'd say that having no limit to how many contingencies/triggers a mage can prepare per day is fine. After all, you are still limited by one contingency/trigger per type for each encounter anyway, and those who want to re-fill them could just sleep and re-fill them. I guess the whole point of the tweak is to simply remove the silly "sleep, prepare, sleep again routine", isn't it? Web 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. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'm trying to find a solution that doesn't require Web to be installed as a separate component, and doesn't require it to be installed very late in the install order (so many mods require that). If I ignore such restriction I'd simply make it work as an Improved Entangle (not so different from you suggestions). With such restriction I need something that a non-patched Free Action can handle, and thus removing the severe save penalty is the only way to nerf it (with or without the non-stackability), and adding a slow-like effect with no save a la SR's Entangle seemed a good way to keep it still very appealing but less OP (not to mention such effect is actually there in PnP).

Well, I could as easily say that the entire "Minsc is a ranger" thing makes zero sense considering his background (he's a rashemi following his witch in the dajemma), his stats (a ranger with no wisdom and thus unable to cast spells?!?) and attitude (Minsc going stealth and scouting the area with circumspection?!? ). Minsc should have been either a barbarian or a berserker, especially considering the well established lore of FR.

Sol's searing Orb It does use it if SR is installed (as of the latest version of SCS).Ohh, cool. Do you prefer it to remain untouched then? Contingencies and Triggers Ok, you're right, I'll re-formulate my statement: making them innates usable at will is a huge boost for roleplayers. For all other players such tweak simply removes the annoying routine of resting twice, and implementing it actually makes both roleplayers and power players on the same ground. I guess this tweak would make no difference for SCS because you already doesn't count contingencies and triggers for AI controlled mages' spell per day limit right? Thus implementing it would actually be a plus for roleplayers in this case, because they wouldn't feel "cheated" by SCS relying so much and so easily on them. Correct me if I'm wrong. @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. Web Entangle is non-stacking because of its cumulative thac0/AC penalties, the other spells are not. You have a point, but we can assume that a single Web spell already fills the area with the maximum amount of webs, and casting another one doesn't add anything, it just replace the other webs with new ones. No? AI takes advantage of multiple Web spells? Really? That being said, what's you position with this spell then? Don't you agree it's OP in its current state? What about removing its -2 (-1 within SR) save penalty but adding an unavoidable entangle-like effect? In PnP creatures successfully saving are still entangled, but we could limit it to a slow-like effect (a la SR's Entangle). Chant It actually put me off using it at all (in IWD). Move slow and can't cast any other spell during the duration? No thanks. I agree with Dakk, if casting Chant effectively removes my cleric from combat for 1 turn (because no spellcasting + slow means he/she can do pretty much nothing) I'd never use that spell in my entire life (which is exactly why I never used it in IWD).

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting: This is not doable, but I tried to suggest doing the most similar thing we can do within engine restrictions. Quoting myself from this very topic: "What about a feature which improves his fighting skills and works slightly better while dualwielding? I'm talking about a sort of flurry of blows/cleave ability, a +x% chance on a successful melee hit to gain a +1/2 apr on the following round." Ranger's allowed armors Actually I'm not sure we reached a consensus about restricting rangers to medium armors, though I'd clearly vote for it. I'm instead pretty sure about Beast Master's usability: they should be able to wear any armor a druid can use (e.g. a medium armor like Ashen Scale or a heavy one like an Ankheg Plate Mail).

Chant This spell is really powerful for its lvl, in fact it works as a higher lvl PnP spell, Prayer. It needs a proper drawback to balance its effectiveness: in PnP this spell requires concentration (BG's manual says the caster is slowed and cannot cast during Chant's duration, but I don't remeber anymore if vanilla's spell really did that) but I opted for a very high casting time, because it's way easier to implement and much more "player friendly". Divine Power I'm really sympathetic to this instead, though the whole "this spell works better on true clerics than multiclassed ones" is intentional, and I like it. I'll think about it. Sol's searing Orb Actually its vanilla version doesn't bypass PfMW (the orb is considered a +6 weapon), but it bypasses Absolute Immunity (this spell really sucks in vanilla). That being said, I obviously agree it should bypass them but implementing it is kinda complicated (though doable). Long story short, as long as we can do it without hurting the AI (afaik it never uses it) I'd actually remove the whole "create a weapon like item" part, and make it work much like a normal spell with a single target. Aerial servant It's rellly hard to balance summons. In this case you have a Air Elemental with lowered combat abilities, but improved magical defences (its permanent II makes it non-targetable by spellcasters). On paper it seems fine to me, but I may be wrong. Bolt of glory Assuming you mean MR (aka magic resistance) this spell already bypasses it, though I just noticed the description doesn't mention it (which is strange, I was sure it did). Finger of death I'm sympathetic to this too, in fact I though about making its save penalty less severe, but increasing the damage dealt on a successful save. Sphere of Chaos Well, the animation is a leftover of vanilla's spell, but if we prefer to remove it I'm not strictly attached to it. Regarding the spell's effectiveness, I know it's powerful, I wanted it to be, but at the same time I thought that allowing a save each round balanced it a little (mid-high lvl opponents more often than not shouldn't fail consecutive saves). Personally I think that lowering the save penalty is a simple way to balance it: I planned to lower it from -6 to -4 (because of the new cap), but if most of you think it needs a more drastical nerf let me know. Web I know. I'm kinda pesuaded the whole "turn it into a sort an Improved Entangle" is unpractical (it involves too many patches to items, spells, and creatures imo), thus I planned to simply make it not stack with itself (stacking Web spells are really unbalancing) and perhaps removing the save penalty from it. Note: some players were against me preventing it from stacking, but I really don't understand why I shouldn't make it non-stackable considering its most similar spell, Entagle, already is non-stackable. I actually think it should have been a default setting of this spell, without even the need to be mentioned in the spell's description (much like there's no such mention within Entangle's description). Vampiric Touch I kinda like mid-low lvl spells to have an earlier cap, but in this case I don't know if say 30hp at 12th lvl would be balanced (probably not). Thus an earlier cap may actually need a lower hp value too. Confusion/Chaos There's very little difference between 10 rounds and your suggested rate (which is 7 rounds by default). If a character is disabled for 7 rounds he/she is pretty much doomed or at least excluded from the entire fight, in fact there was a discussion about lowering the duration to 5 rounds. It's somewhat unpractical to do, but I was thinking to suggest making Chaos more unique by adding thaco/AC penalties (considering it a more severe confusionary status than its lower lvl spell version). Does it make sense? I'm aware it would kinda overlap with SR's Emotion (though the latter could be tweaked too). Power Word Sleep, Kill, stun and Symbol of Death Maybe you haven't noticed but I already addressed this for PW:Sleep, which already affects anyone (it now works even if hp>20, allowing a save), and I planned to do the same for PW:Kill (if hp <90 it kills without save, if hp >90 target must save or die). For Symbol of Death I suggested to turn it into a sort of Improved (party friendly) Skull Trap, adding magic damage as secondary effect. I have no better idea, thus feel free to suggest one, but surely I cannot make its death effect affect anyone, because that would turn this spell into an Improved Wail of the Banshee (which would obviously be uber OP). Contingencies and Triggers On one hand I'm sympathetic to this, otoh turning them into innates usable at-will is both a drastical change to a well established PnP rule and a HUGE boost to mages, who already dominate the game! I'd like to hear more opinions on this matter while I think about it myself a little more. Summons This is probably the aspect which we will try to improve the most for V4, as it seems we planned to add quite a few new summons, and refine the stats of many pre-existing ones (e.g. elementals are indeed amongst the most effective summons, probably too much, and they will be slightly nerfed, though the only noticeable change is going to be lowered hit points imo). Celestials vs Fiends I've already discussed this. The equivalent of Baalors and Pit Fiends are indeed Solars (and not Planetars), but the former are not "subjugated" to the caster, while (fallen) celestials are trusty allies (they never turn against you, and they never cast unfriendly spells, unlike demons who can cast a Meteor Swarm on your head even if they side with you), and fully controllable (you can select them and give any order to them yourself, which is a huge advantage). Long story short, I might lower Fiends' power lvl, but surely I won't replace Planetars with Solar, because the former are already a tad too powerful!

Ohh, very interesting Jarno. I should have investigated it more but it's good you did, and if you're right that could be an easy way to finally fix that lame ranger/cleric class. The only downside is that it would interfere with tweaks which allow druids to be neutral good/evil, which I think are relatively common (and they even make sense imo).

"It's not doable". I mean, having a class with different proficiencies depending on character's race. The only way to do this it to allow any Archer to reach grandmastery in slings, but I don't like it much, I'd prefer to have a separate Slinger class, though adding new kits isn't in my plans. I agree with you, a sling could have been more appropriate, though less paladin-like for some reason. And that kind of restriction is to me, stupid ... cause we can make the possible unbalanced effect go away, without the need to actually change much, yes, when you make the spells, you can restrict them based on the alignment the caster is going to have... the the base druids having only one kind, you can easily restrict the true druid specific spells to just base druids... this also allows great modification ability... if a druid kit doesn't wish to have the unbalanced spells for the ranger build, then they set the alignment restriction to exclude the True Neutral, or whatever, based on what we set them with...Since when we can restrict spells to "true neutrals"? There's an "evil-only" and a "good-only" flag, but there's no "neutral-only" flag afaik. Ranger/cleric is indeed a broken class, but the only way I know of to fix it would involve drastical changes to the spell system to make it work a la Divine Remix. Conceptually I agree with leania that multi or dual rangers generally don't make much sense. Rangers are a sort of fighter-druid, while I don't see how the life of a ranger can be mixed with the one of a cleric (an urban ranger with church duties?). That being said, the ranger/cleric is there and I don't plan to remove it (is it even possible to remove it?).