Demivrgvs

Fireshields If I've understood correctly you're suggesting to remove the blue version with cold dmg, and add cold resistance to the other one, right? It kinda makes sense on paper as long as it doesn't interfere with the AI (and it shouldn't if properly done), and I never really liked much the concept behind the blu version, but regarding Acid Sheath (which in theory is a 5th lvl spell despite being almost identical to fireshields) I'm less interested. What's the point of removing one of the two stacking fireshields and then add another almost identical and stacking spell? P.S on a side note, I would indeed like to open a spell slot for new 4th lvl spells, because I'd like to add Phantasmal Killer, and perhaps even Mordenkainen's Force Missile (there's really too few spells dealing magic dmg imo). Know Opponent / Detect Alignment In theory I'd obviously like such a feature for a Divination spell, but is it really possible? How? And would it be worth the effort? I mean, in a world where a single Breach removes EVERYTHING what could possibly serve knowing which specific/combat protection is still up? The tweak to remove Stoneskin's silly color change slightly (very slightly) improves the appeal, but unless David implements my suggestion regarding pre-buffs (the one about removing all animations and text messages) you always know every spell and buff the target has. Knock Ahahaha, I can't believe it, I was thinking the same a couple of days ago (it's the spell that inspired my changes). In theory I was also thinking it should be an Evocation, as per PnP. As long as the changes doesn't bother anyone I'd go for it.

Cough cough. You're right I could have said with "SR and Spellpack", but I was just trying to prove a point (that too many details/refinements might end up being a problem), it wasn't my intention to glorify a mod or another.

No they don't within SR V3, because refinements such as this require custom secondary types. We started discussing them and their potential only when V3 was about to be released and I decided to leave such things for V4. Speaking of "fire vs web", I'm still uncertain about it mainly because such feature would make much harder to "draw a line" between what we should/could do and what we shouldn't/can't. I think it's cool to have fireshield protect from web and insects, but I'm less sure about letting a simple flaming blade grant such immunity, whereas some players may start to ask it as soon as the former is implemented. In vanilla such doubts don't exist because there were no similar small details/refinements. Before SR no one would have complained about small things such as Entangle affecting incorporeal or flying creatures, whereas with SR we started to discuss all these small details and having a fire elemental destroyed by dehydrating spell like Horrid Wilting suddenly becomes unbearable. Long story short, I like what we managed to accomplish and I'm favourable to continue in that direction, but I have to ponder if adding too many small refinements may end up being "a problem" rather than an asset.

Within V4 I'll probably remove their immunity to posisons for consistency with in-game spiders. As previously discussed Mordy Sword needs many refinements (it's almost as per vanilla right now), but it should indeed be unaffected by Entangle, Web and Grease imo. Genies are not identical. Within SR you can easily distinguish them by their animation, as the flyining genie with no legs is the djinni, whereas the walking genie is the Efreeti, whereas vanilla game was inconsistent on this matter if I'm not wrong (it still is for in-game genies). Long story short, djinn are flying creatures, and thus are unaffected by Entangle, Web, Grease and Earthquake, whereas efreet are affected by all of them (though they are not affected by fire-based spells). On a side note, Mordy is not the only creature needing small refinements, because I just noticed djinn are not immune to Gust of Wind (and they should), and they should probably be immune to cloud spells too (shouldn't they? ). Actually they aren't "very large" within SR because they don't share Solar's animation anymore. Right now they are not considered "flying" despite their wings, but you have a point, I may add such immunities. Creatures with 100% resistance to an element are considered immune to such element rathen than resistant, whereas creatures with limited resistance simply absorb part of the damage, nothing else.

I don't think so. (As an aside, this is an interesting example of how what people think of as "realism" is so varied. I have mild realism angst about creatures being immune to an inhaled toxin just because they use an injected one, and exterminators across the world can testify that poison gas works on poisonous invertebrates. But I can't say it's something I'm going to lose sleep over.) I thought you had a problem with "immunity to poison = immunity to Cloudkill" while instead I now realize you have a problem with "creature use poison -> creature is immune to poison". I do agree the latter is not true, in fact I don't always give for granted that a poison dealing creature is immune to poison (e.g. SR's wyverns are not immune to poison). In this particular case the fault is mine, because I was giving for granted BG spiders are immune to poisons, which is not true. In the end it seems like I have to remove such immunity rather than refining it.

I second this. I'm leaving spell changes out of the hotfixes unless they are semi-fixes, but I have both a separate install to test new things, and a to-do list to keep track of things I have/wish to do. Great, I think that's very appropriate. I don't think there's any need to (though: feel free to do so if you've got other reasons to). There's more than one kind of poison.Spiders being immune to Cloudkill's "deadly poison" isn't mandatory, I give you that, but it makes sense indeed, and it may help improving spiders appeal and the variety of possible tactics. If that causes any issue (e.g. SCS AI uses Cloudkill to kill spiders) then I can back off from this. In theory I also need the "full immunity tweak" to make spiders immune to Cloudkill's dmg animation (which is a must), but it seems like ToBEx will handle that anyway.

It doesn't break any rule, actually, it just gives others the option to break it.Isn't it the same? If you use it, you do it to break a rule, it has no other purpose. Are you going to use this instead of the previously discussed tweak to make creatures under TS able to target II creatures? If yes, which spells will have this feature? I suppose all spell removals. ... If this is the approach taken, will it be applied consistently or considered for each effect? For example: *Will a Sword Spider have to save vs. death in a Cloudkill? *Will you be immune to blowback from Dragon's Breath if 100% fire resistant? What about if an actual red dragon breathes on you? *Would your sight still be obscured, slowing you though immune to acid, in an Acid Fog? *If incendiary cloud works as per the v3 description, and a non-protected mage stands 12 feet away from an Efreeti (both are in the cloud), will the Efreeti be able to target him but not the other way around? * they currently does, but they probably shouldn't (I can easily make all spiders immune to Cloudkill)* I've currently left DB out for balance purposes but I'm not much against making ProFire grant immunity to it * V3 ProAcid makes the affected caster immune to all Acid Fog's effects * within V3 yes, SR's Efreet are immune to all fire based spells, and their LOS isn't affected by Incendiary Cloud As of now it isn't something strictly needed by any SR spell, especially if I keep the current system for ProEnergy spells. Any game will greatly benefit from it imo, but I don't have much reasons to force such hack into SR. The only one I can foresee could be a separate component to add an entirely new "concentration checks" system to BG.

Just wow. Stoneskin + ProEnergy = no more dmg animation and spell disruption even from elemental weapons! Cool. On a side note, this great hack doesn't make my work on ProEenergy serie of spells completely redundant because of spells secondary effects (e.g. SR's ProCold grant immunity to Ice Storm's slow effect), thus the question is: should I keep this features or not? I'd keep them to enhance the appeal of these protecion spells, but it may be just me. Not sure I like the second hack, as it breaks an established rule (you cannot target an II creature), but David will probably love it.

I think one of aVENGER's mods revises temples granting them more and better services. Ardanis also did a similar revision which will be part of IR V3. I'll think about it. This is a bug report rather than a suggestion. Anyway, the spell works fine against feeblemind, but it seems like it doesn't remove feeblemind portrait icon. I'll fix it asap.

Conjuration spells bypassing magic resistance Not really, see the BG2 as a game has one elemental thing, and that's Edwin, who not only has +1 to all spells per level, but a +3 with(the +2 comes from) his amulet.Sorry I don't get how Edwin's absurd amount of spell slots is connected to my statement. My thought exactly, but that is just another reason the spell shouldn't belong to Conjuration, because launching real arrows with perfect accuracy sounds more like telekinesis, but surely it's not part of a school which is simply supposed to conjure/summon/create objects and creatures. At least 3rd edition Acid Arrow requires a 'to hit' roll. Long story short, to be true Conjuration spells Acid/Flame Arrows should work more like MMM imo, creating real arrows that can be thrown. The way they work in BG makes them Evocation spells imo. That being said, I'm not particulary convinced of either "solutions" (making them bypass mr, or changing their school to Evocation). Did you added missile dmg to Acid Arrow? Anyway, it would create a kinda noticeable exception to the rules followed by all other spells: either the spell's effects bypass mr or they don't. I'm not sure I like this solution. Regarding PfMW protecting from them, it indeed makes sense if they are conjurations (thus real projectiles). For the very same reason I made SR's Protection from Missiles protect against these two spells.

This is so awesome I'm getting all tingly thinking about it Me too. I can assure you that despite my usual delays (they are my trademark!) I have no intention of stopping before at lest SR V4 and KR V1. As long as Ardanis is willing to work on it with me I would even dare to promise a QR/CR in the distant future, maybe this summer. Conjuration spells bypassing magic resistance Well, the list of spells that would be buffed isn't so long to drastically alter the school's appeal, not to mention I have plans for other schools as well (e.g. Evocation will probably get quite few spells with the underused cold and electricity energy type). Currently the complete list of offensive Conjuration spells is: * Grease * Glitterdust * Melf's Acid Arrow * Flame Arrow * Maze Pretty thin don't you think? (also see below) Eh, you're preaching to the choir on this matter. I really never understood why Acid Arrow should be considered a Conjuration, especially considering that it doesn't deal any physical dmg (at least vanilla's Flame Arrow dealt a small amount of piercing dmg), and it isn't fired with a bow (in PnP it requires a 'to hit' roll, but how the hell did the caster fire it? With bare hands?!?). The concept behind these two spells surely strikes me as an Evocation, as they simply are a variant of Magic Missile with a different energy type. The only reason I'm reluctant to change Acid Arrow's school is that it has always been a Conjuration spell in every D&D edition. Expanding this discussion, I always thought Web should instead be a Conjuration spell as per 3E rather than an Evocation. Why should it be an Evocation? I really don't think it's made of "magic energy" else spiders would be affected by it! Then, even most cloud spells strikes me as conjurations rather than Evocation (in fact, they all are within 3E), at least Stinking Cloud which cleary isn't made of any energy type. On a side note, I've always noticed a particular pattern regarding acid based spells: almost none of them are Evocations. Acid Arrow, Vitriolic Sphere (which looks like an Evocation even more than Acid Arrow), and Acid Fog to name a few, are all Conjurations. Should I assume that within PnP acid is more "real" than "magical"? Exactly. Summoned animals don't have to bypass magic resistance to bite their targets, and insects are just like that, it's only that being hundreds of minute beings they don't roll a dice to hit your AC because it's given for granted that at least some of them always hit if the target is within the swarm, and they don't have an AC value because it's given for granted that you can't kill with a sword hundreds of flying small insects (thoguh you can instead damage many of them at once with a simple flaming torch). PnP explains very well this whole matter. The way I see it a Banishment spell doesn't directly affect the creature, but rather the link between him and its plane of origin, or the mental link between him and the caster. The spell's duration doesn't indicate how much the creature lives, but rather how long the caster can maintain the gate open (conjuration) and/or how much his mental influence can keep the creture on his side (summoning).

IMO it's blown out of proportion. SOME things being broken/unbalanced is a far cry from making the entire 2E system broken, that is simply nonsense.I never said the entire 2E is broken, nor would I think something so radical, else I wouldn't spend half of my modding time reading 2E books (despite having played only 3E in my youth) and I wouldn't always try to stay as close as possible to PnP in general. Yes it is. Volume 2 of the Priest Spell Compendium. And I don't think it's that big of a deal. IIRC there aren't that many deities with access to the Time sphere, and most that do have access to it are restricted from other useful spells from different spheres. Of course, introducing it into BG2 would clash with the ingame implementation of Wish, given the nature of the game. But complaining against something that hasn't been done seems moot. My fault, I was thinking we were talking about arcane spells. Found it. It would have some limits compared to Wish, because it wouldn't be usable during a fight (the targets really sleeps for 1 hour) and cannot be used more than once per day...still, a 2nd lvl spell which grants full rest and refreshed spells/abilities to the entire party is outstandingly broken imo (especially in BG because its limits would count nothing in such environment).

Giants and dragons are immune to it, skeleton warriors are not (though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway).Does MR work against Grease? IMO that shouldn't be the case, the greasy surface is there ("real") whether you are immune to magic or not. Case in point; Dispel Magic doesn't remove the greased surface.Eh, I do agree with you but this is a long story. The short one would be: I didn't do this kind of tweaks for "AI friendliness". If you ask me all Conjuration spells should ignore magic resistance, and such feature is indeed addressed in 3rd edition, but I don't know if I can implement it without running into more "conflicts" with either AD&D purists or SCS scripts (which cannot take such changes into account unless David really have the time and willingness to work on it). Not long ago I also suggested to make Insect spells bypass mr, and in that case it's even more obvious imo because those insects are summoned creatures, it's only that they attack in a different way (no to hit roll). The only two spells I'd be unsure of are Acid Arrow and Fire Arrow (though the latter even had partial physical damage, reminding its "physical" nature and setting it apart from Evocations). Obviously such change would have to be taken into account when it comes to balance those spells, because bypassing magic resistance is a HUGE asset for any spell. Let's say I'm open to discuss this matter for SR V4.

Regarding the whole PnP thing, I thought it was clear I wasn't saying "if it's in PnP go for it", but "if it's in PnP many players are familiar with it, thus are more likely to accept it". Anyone familiar with my mods knows that I don't feel so much restricted by PnP rules and books if I think something there is broken or can be done better, but still I do look there everytime because I'd feel uncomfortable inventing "ex novo" too many things. For example, if I add Snilloc's Snowball Swarm I doubt anyone would find it odd (it's a spell for the specific setting BG is based on, FR, and IWD has it too), but if I add an invented "Glacial Prison" spell which "kills" the target by turning it into ice many D&D players may feel uncomfortable with it, and it would be even worse if I make it replace Flesh to Stone. That's it, only a matter of "familiarity". Regarding many PnP things being broken and unbalanced I obviously agree, but tweaking it seems more smooth than reinventing the wheel. Anyway, that's my opinion, not the established and absolute truth. P.S Nap isn't included in the official AD&D Spell Compendium, and as urdjur says expansion books are the worst nightmare of DMs (though it's easily resolved by telling players: "NO"). Whatever the source of that spell is, the spell is beyond OP. If it's from an official book than it's a good example of how PnP can be seriously broken. I haven't changed it exactly because of that, and specifically because I know SCS heavily relies on Pro(Magic)Energy to counter ADHW. Good question. I don't because even if they belong to the same plane, they aren't air elementals. Just like fire salamanders are not fire elementals. Giants and dragons are immune to it, skeleton warriors are not (though their insane mr makes them almost immune to it anyway). The problem with this is that none of the AI (not SCS, not Tactics, not vanilla) knows this, and so it all treats ADHW as what it game-mechanically is (and how it's used in vanilla BG2): a straightforward, magic-damage-inflicting attack. This isn't critical, but it's likely to be visible, and it's certainly exploitable, accidentally or deliberately. (Swords remain my most pressing concern.)I know, but unless I'm seriously understimating the whole thing it's not a game-breaking issue. The entire party and most summons are still affected in the same way, and SCS itself prioritize other ways to counter the sword (e.g. Death Spell and Magic Missiles). I do hope I don't have to revert it for SCS sake, because having a dehytrating spell destroy a sword made of magic energy is really unbearable for me. On a side note I've made it dispellable, and SCS seems to use Dispel/Remove Magic, especially early on during the encouters, which means any pre-cast sword is likely to get dispelled too. I know it's not intentional on SCS side, but it's probably effective anyway. No?

Which spell would it be? "PnP says so" is a very good argument imo, as long as we don't blindly take it as god's law. It's only a matter of using a standard setting most players can feel comfortable with. Then, home made changes over it are indeed fine, and PnP itself is far from being immune to criticisms, but going "wild" isn't a good idea imo. Ignoring PnP might really appeal some players (e.g. IA is an example), but the majority of D&D (and BG) players generally prefer to remain more true to the system they are familiar with. Regarding SR's ADHW not affecting constructs, undead and incorporeal beings it's both for PnP and realism's sake. I'd personally add to this "variety", because I like spells to have some uniqueness. Horrid Wilting isn't a simple damage dealing spell like most Evocations, it's a dehydrating effect, which doesn't deal direct damage (I wanted to replace magic dmg with lower hp a la IR V3's vampiric effect, but it would have caused issues with the AI), and shouldn't affect creatures that doesn't depend on water at all. P.S Speaking of which, I just noticed ADHW still affects fire/air/earth elementals, and it shouldn't imo. I'll "fix" it asap.

Note to self: when casting multiple Gate spells, keep Demi happy by summoning Balors. Jokes aside, my point was that having the AI summon a Pit Fiend with 100% chance of it not turning hostile to his summoner is fine, but three would make really hard to believe imo. Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.This is largely right, but I do use ADHW against swords on occasion too.Sadness. At least ADHW has a huge AoE, thus even if cast upon Mordy it will probably take most of the battlefield.

HLAs Good for your scripts then! If the AI takes advantage from something players can use I don't see any problem. Within IR V3 I think I'm giving non-spellcasting characters A LOT more tools to counter spellcasters (e.g. not dispellable potions above everything else imo), and within KR I can try do do something if we think mages rule the battlefield too much. Having enemy wizards spam Spellstrike could be a serious threat for PC mages, but as long as we restore Spell Shield it should be ok. One thing though, please don't use those couple of free 9th lvl slots to unleash 3 Pit Fiends at once on players. Cool! Horrid Wilting & Mordenkainen's Sword Whoa! This is excellent news. I reckon this is because ADHW isn't supposed to be pure magic damage, but rather an evaporation effect, meaning constructs and undead are immune?Exactly. They are not the only ways because Disintegrate can now be used too (right now it's not a 100% sure counter because the sword takes only 5d6 dmg on a successful save - but I'll add an EFF to make it always destroy the sword as per PnP), a Black Blade of Disaster can destroy Mordy quite easily, and now even a Dispel Magic spell can destroy it (as per PnP - though I just noticed I haven't included the workaround we needed to use for Nishruu's similar weakness, will fix asap). On the other hand, Skull Trap is a grey area because in PnP it unleash "negative energy" dmg (aka it shouldn't affect undead beings - though it still does in BG), and I don't know if Mordy can be harmed by it in PnP, but I've not added any mentioned of it within the revised description, thus it still works against Mordy. I'm mostly interested in its immunities. Does this imply immunity to Death Spell? Charm/hold/sleep/paralysis etc?It's immune to all mind affecting spells, and it should be immune to pretty much any spell that doesn't work on incorporeal beings (e.g. polymorph, petrification, etc.). I've checked it right now though and noticed I have to seriously refine it to match V3 standards because it's currently missing a bunch of immunities that it should have imo (e.g. entagle, grease). Right now the sword and its immunities are almost identical to vanilla. Death Spell shouldn't work on it, but to not break the AI I've left this unchanged. That being said, within V4 Death Spell resource will be turned from a necromantic spell into an abjuration one, Banishment. This way such spell will keep its anti-mordy and anti-undead properties without so blatantly ignore its concept (a death spell which kills undead beings and a sword made of energy? ) Afaik I haven't done any change which requires particular handling on AI side. The AI won't use Dispel Magic against it (and without the abovementioned fix such feature works only for the AI - thus none has it right now ), and SCS probably simply use Death Spell or a Spell Matrix with 2x Magic Missile.

Mordenkainen's Sword is not a summon but an Evocation. It doesn't have physical and mental stats nor a HD value (well, it has for technical reasons within BG, but you should consider it as it doesn't). Afaik I haven't tweaked it much (except for relatively small but crucial things such as making it not affected by Horrid Wilting), and the in-game description in not standardized like summoning spells on purpose. That being said I might add it to the on-line documentation anyway. Most fiends are supposed to be more powerful than celestials when it comes to raw melee power (though planetar's vorpal weapons are a serious threat in melee), and just so you know +3 weapons work on pretty much any BG creature (except 3-4 unique beings). Neutral characters has to choose between one of the two celestial for obvious roleplaying reasons.

In NWN epic spells weren't consuming any slots. Same here - you pick an epic spell, it appears in your innate bar, while all 9th slots are used for memorizing 9th only spells.Careful with this change. Wizards could end up with a lot more high-level spells, and they're arguably powerful enough as it is.Well, the fact is that such change belongs as much to SR as to KR. With a revised HLA table (or even Refinements one) we're not going to cause any absurd increase of power at all. Mages within KR will have various non-spells HLAs to consider like additional spell slots (this may take 2-3 HLAs - note that within KR I won't use the "unnerfed" spell table), scribe scrolls (unless we do prefer aVENGER's solution) or innate permanent features, and in a normal game a single class mage has only 6-7 HLAs choices. Even without KR few additional high lvl spells per day aren't game breaking imo, even more so with things like aVENGER's PnP scribe scroll tweak which can grant mages much more high lvl spells than a bunch of HLA choices. It's not crucial how many spells per day a mage can cast imo, because during important battles you cannot rely only on slow high lvl spells that take an eternity to cast and the first 3-4 rounds generally decide the fate of a duel between two archmages, thus having four 9th lvl spells is more than enough to cover the them even if we assume that mages cast only them (which is not true imo - things like RRoR and Breach are too much important). If you ask me, the change will simply allow players to finally use some 9th lvl spells they never used like Energy Drain, Spellstrike (especially with SCS), Absolute Immunity, and so on. Mages will be slightly more effective yes, mainly because they could have a more different spells at once, but I don't see them becoming more dominant then they already are. I could be wrong though.

That's exactly how a party friendly Fireball is supposed to work in PnP when cast by an Archmage with the Mastery of Shaping feat. It doesn't make much sense indeed though.

I'm obviously with Dakk and Salk on this matter. In fact I consider SCS/SR tweak to Blade Barrier an almost mandatory tweak because it had really no sense for such spell to be "friendly" only when used by the AI (which wouldn't be able to handle an unfriendly BB), despite the fact that BB concept seems to leave little space for "friendliness". Within a SR game I really don't want a spell to work in a different way when cast by the AI (for example SR's Protection from Evil is an inevitable consequence of SCS work on summoned fiends). I do thought a couple of times about this "problem" and there's little I can do imo, though something (little) may be doable. The thing is that some spells are really not suited to be 'party friendly' (and the two spells you mention are amongst those) because of their concept and/or their animations. I dwelled quite a lot over the fact that 3rd edition Archmages can cast party friendly Fireball and Cone of Cold, but I don't know how much I could like something that looks so wrong (in fact I hate that DB is party friendly). Am I the only one that would find "strange" a party friendly Fireball even if cast by a 21th lvl mage? On the other hand Ice Storm could work as SR's Fire Storm, which I tweaked to have PnP's small unaffected area around the caster. Meteor Swarm could probably be fine as a party friendly spell within SR because of its new animation and concept. In PnP it's more or less a 4x Fireball, whereas I've turned it into a rain of minute meteors, and the caster may be able to make them fall only other selected areas. That being said, unless SCS can make good use of these things I'm not too much into it. It did with a bunch of SR's "friendly changes" like Lightning Bolt, Symbols, Glyph of Warding, and perhaps Silence, but I don't know how much David is willing to take into account our deliberate changes.

You have forgot to mention that I've lowered Sunfire's casting tme from to 3 to 1, making it an "instant spell". This is a kinda huge advantage imo. That being said, I do thought about making it use d8 instead of d6, but I'm not sure. I based it upon PnP Fireburst (Spell Compendium), which goes up to 15d10, but it's from 3rd edition, where mid-high lvl characters have more hit points. I also reduced its AoE from 30 to 15 (making the spell identical to PnP) which makes it more friendly imo. With instant casting time and medium AoE a skilled player can easily position the caster and quickly hit all opponents without hurting party members, whereas with vanilla's huge AoE and slower casting time it was really difficult to properly use it in many circumstances. Long story short, I do think this spell is really fine right now (except perhaps a slight increase to its dmg output), but I'm always open to discuss everything. On a side note: * Skull Trap vs Fireball has always been a pain to handle. The former has same casting time, higher dmg output in the long run (it was simply INSANE before SR/SCS nerf), better dmg type (magic instead of fire), and can be used as a delayed trap. The advantages of Fireball are its long range and larger AoE (large unfriendly AoE isn't always a good thing, but it works well with a long range spell), but I'm not 100% sure they are enough to make it on par with Skull Trap (though its shorter range can seriously limit its use in many circumstances imo). * Horrid Wilting uses a better dmg type compared to Dragon's Breath, but yes DB is way better overall. Anyway, DB is an HLA not a 9th lvl spell, and for V4 I'll make it work as an innate (which will also help to justify an Evocation which bypasses mr). In theory you'd have to compare ADHW to Meteor Swarm (aka party-friendliness vs outstanding dmg output).

Cool, I feed on feedback. Actually I have reduced their arrows from an initial 20 to 10 for a reason. The Hobgoblin Shaman you get at 12th lvl goes in melee after casting a bunch of buffs, and I wanted his allies to go with him instead of leaving him alone and continue to fire arrows from afar. Perhaps I can script them to follow him in melee even if they don't run out of arrows. I'll try to test them a little when I get back to SR. Sorry for the misleading document, but yes, it's intended they don't disarm traps like thieves. Mmmm... If it's a safe change that doesn't cause issues I may be fine with it, but I'm not sure. Speaking of traps and allowing mages to partially handle them I might do something about it for V4 if I manage to make Ruby Ray of Reversal work as per PnP, where it does A LOT more things than in BG, like reverting polymorphed creatures to their natural shape (implementing this can make it the only counter to Shapechange's Iron Golem), dispelling illusions and setting off traps. It's intended, because both spells are Evocations, and thus made of pure energy. If I'm not wrong I've made them have no weight. For V4 I was gogin to suggest to either make MMM a Conjuration spell or to make them deal fire dmg only (they currently do physical missile dmg too).

Also, I don't think Stoneskin needs any more buffs. It is appealing enough for a spell slot already.Fine with me, I do said I was probably daring too much. That being said, I wasn't suggesting it as a boost for Stoneskin, but rather as a nerf for Breach. Stoneskin is sligthly overstimated imo because its effectiveness is much higher when used by players, as AI warriors rarely have weapons with elemental dmg or on hit abilities that bypasses it, whereas any party can have tons of such weapons, forcing the AI to heavily rely on PfMW. My mages very rarely need PfMW because Stoneskin and Mirror Image are more than enough, whereas an AI mage is pretty much doomed without PfMW protecting him/her from Carsomyr, Celestial Fury, and so on. Not too mention my spellcasters generally have a much better AC than AI ones. Just my 2 cents, but I can live with Breach affecting it, and surely Stoneskin already is one of the best 4th lvl spells. On a side note, I suggested ages ago to turn Stone to Flesh spell into a multi purpose spell and amongst its effects allowing it to work as a Stoneskin usable on other targets, but I just discovered that both Stoneskin and Ironskin could be cast on others within AD&D! Would add such feature to druid's version of this spell be a bad idea? In theory it would "justify" its higher lvl slot compared to wizard's version. There's another huge difference in PnP between wizard's and druid's version of this spell, but it's not implementable, and it doesn't even make much sense imo. Wizard's Stoneskin could be teared down even when attacker's "to hit" roll is failed. I mentioned it for the sake of completness, but sometimes being 100% true to PnP clearly isn't the best thing to do.

Sanctuary Well, it is what you'd expect from sanctuary if you've installed a tweak that says that.Point taken. Then I assume the tweak will more or less consist of splitting the spell in two different spells:* player's version will still use 'sanctuary' opcode (with the animation) * AI version will be an Invisibility spell Right? For SR I could handle everything within sppr109.spl via 177 but I may as well do nothing to player's version (like you suggested) and you can use DW#op109.spl for the AI. There's still a small problem for me, I wanted to make Sanctuary unaffected by Divinations, but if you turn it into an Invisibility spell it's hard to do. Perhaps you can handle it using a non-detection opcode via script. This assuming you care about this feature...else I guess I'll have to live without it. But considering the large AoE of most of these spells is the 'invisibility' state going to really help? Unless you plan to have the cleric run away (and fast) from where he cast Sanctuary it's not going to be hard for players to still guess where to cast those spells...and if they guess right it's even better for them if the cleric ran away because they are even more free to use non-friendly spells. Non-SCS tweaks for SCS Having said all of which, it's also interesting to work in other peoples' frameworks, which is why I'm generally quite keen (in principle) to write AI that makes allowance for SR. That probably goes for potions too, in principle, but it would always be as some additional step, not as part of the core project.It's more than enough for me to know that there's at least a small chance you'll take those things into account. Priests effectiveness Ok, it's just that sometimes it's difficult for me to understand when a tweak is "minimalist" or not (e.g. tweaking Breach to affect liches is worse than tweaking Shield of the Archon to be more like PnP for me). Thus sometimes I might be tempted to suggest things thinking they are fine for SCS too when they're not, other times I suggest things thinking I'm daring too much and instead they are widely accepted (e.g. tweaking Breach to reduce the huge amount of spells it removes). If you want to stay almost completely true to vanilla there isn't much to say about making boss-like priests much more effective...they can't be very effective (I'd probably fear more an enraged epic Berserker). Cleric: as we already said fighter-cleric class is much much more effective than a plain cleric for a solo character. Many divine buffs are not affected by Breach but most of them are kinda weak too in vanilla. Ironically 2nd lvl DUHM is the most powerful in vanilla and have a very fast casting time, but Righteous Magic is quite good too. In combo they're pretty effective, but they are both short lasting, and the latter has a very long casting time, thus the AI may find difficult to properly buff unless using Sanctuary. If you tweak Breach then Blade Barrier can be a real pain, and you may use Armor of Faith to absorb some damage in the heat of the battle considering its instant casting time. If you make use of Sanctuary I might also suggest trying to cast Chant as it's an extremly powerful spell (in fact it's A LOT more powerful than its PnP version), but once again it shines on encounters with tons of creatures, not for a boss-like cleric unless he/she has plenty of summons (the only good summon in vanilla is the Skeleton Warrior, but it's more than good, it's outstanding). Other than that, the real problem is that within BG system it's quite hard to have a solo cleric cast offensive spells without being interrupted. Physical Mirror could help, but it's far from cheap, and covers only ranged attacks. Long story short, if the cleric is a boss-like solo character than I'd dare to say that unless we're talking about a fighter-cleric (as we exclude cleric/mages) he's not going to be threatening at all. Druid: here we have less buffs and you don't have Sanctuary too (though a Potion of Invisibility can do exactly the same if necessary, especially after your tweak) but we have Stoneskin (Ironskin in vanilla) which is one of the best. I'd dare to suggest making Breach not affect Stoneskin too, because that would drastically increase the chances of druids being able to cast the vast arsenal of offensive spells at their disposal (though weapons with elemental dmg are kinda common mid-late in the game). With vanilla's resources we're pretty much done discussing what a solo druid can do imo (just hope he/she manages to cast an Insect Plague while under Stoneskin).