Demivrgvs

This should be possible. The discussion around Sanctuary is not tied to the ability to target II, but that hack could probably interest David indeed for anti-magic purposes. Healing potions are enough. Jokes aside, I've only mentioned PnP spells (Shield of Lathander can be found in IWDII too), I'd never suggest things like Stoneskin for clerics or Contingency for druids. Rest assured I'm quite strict when it comes to these things, SR isn't going to go wild on new spells. For example there actually is a 6th lvl cleric spell, Immunity to Weapons (starts as a PNW spell and improves with caster lvl up to Mantle-like status) within AD&D Spell Compendium, but in theory it's for Oriental Setting's shukenja (aka kara-tur clerics). I haven't mentioned it just because of that "oriental flag" in its description.

Sanctuary Agreed (this is on my to-do list too). But actually, the awkwardness in both cases is that ideally the animation should be visible when the player casts it but not when enemies do. But implementing that in SR is probably impossible. (I can do it in SCS because enemies can use modified versions of the spell.) If you like, leave the invisibility off Sanctuary and the graphic on, and I'll offer it as a tweak, for enemies only, in SCS. I don't think enemy spellcasters in vanilla use Sanctuary anyway. Fine with me, but my point was that this way players would see AI clerics vanish in an instant (as per Invisibility spell) which is clearly not what you'd expect from Sanctuary. Are AoE spells so problematic? I know players could counter this spell by casting them AoE spells but their options are relatively thin imo. Most offensive AoE spells aren't party friendly (e.g. Fireball), thus I'd assume in most cases they should rely on disabling spells (e.g. Hold Person/Monster, Confusion/Chaos) but you could easily protect the priest with a Potion of Clarity (though vanilla's one is easily dispelled *). I mean, Sanctuary obviously isn't the perfect solution to all your problems for making boss-like priests more effective (see discussion below), but it's a 1st lvl spell after all, and it still offers you quite a lot of potential anyway, no? (*) have you ever thought about taking advantage of IR's revised potions? Some of them could greatly enhance your possibilities imo. On a side note, why do you think animations should still be visible under II for players? Is there a negative effect I'm not aware of? I usually play with feedback options set to zero (e.g. no green circle under party members) and I actually like my characters to really become almost invisible when they hide. As Gal and Ardanis say I can use 177 to limit the effect on AI opponents, but my real problem is another: I can handle the whole thing easily for II spells, but handling normal invisibility (e.g 2nd lvl spell) is a real pain (specifically, the problem is that you'd need to make all animations reappear as soon as the creature attack or cast an offensive spell/innate). Long story short you'd need to do a huge revision much like the one I was suggesting for Sanctuary (sec type, and patch every attack/spell to remove it). Priests effectiveness @David, I've given a thought or two on this matter and I'd gladly try to offer my help on this matter. First of all something non-SR related, give boss-like priests a good class. A plain cleric is supposed to be used to enhance a party (and they truly shine when correctly used this way imo), not to fight alone against a full party (they suck at it). Instead, a high lvl fighter-cleric can be a different story (especially considering most of his offensive buffs are not affected by Breach), and a cleric/mage can be even more deadly than a plain mage (e.g. I think Sendai is a good example). The latter solution is not always viable for roleplaying reasons (e.g. Nyalee is a druid, and other boss-like priests may clearly not have a C/M "background"), but the former is almost always viable, and I can hardly imagine players complaining because of it. Then, speaking of things I may do within SR. What is you need the most? I guess PfMW-like spells and spell protections (mainly for anti-Breach purposes), right? You'd also like contingencies/triggers but it seems you agree with us that such spells really don't (and shouldn't) be part of priest's repertoire. For PfMW-like spells it might be possible to do something. There are two PnP spells I know of that are almost identical to this kind of spell, Shield of Lathander and its greater version (and I planned granting Mantle to KR's Watcher's of Helm). Leaving aside for a moment the details, what I'm trying to say is that these spells kinda fit this class (they might even fit clerics more than mages imo), and if they are crucial to you we may try to do something about it. That being said, you probably need spell protections more than PfMW-like spells, am I wrong? On this matter I can say a few things too, for example that AD&D Shield of the Archon (evil priest should have Shield of the Tanar'ri instead) is much much more powerful than this lame copy of Spell Deflection, or that priests do have Spell Immunity (though PnP SI is a 4th lvl spell, and it's much less effective than BG one). Long story short, I can do some research and suggest various solutions, but all of them would obviously involve changes to vanilla's "status quo", thus the question is, are you interested in some of the above mentioned things?

Sanctuary I don't feel strongly. For the sake of debate, though:(i) I at least use invisibility for longish durations (ii) Sanctuary is self-only, which is a fairly crucial disadvantage (in particular, it's not well suited to scouting, unless the party has a cleric/thief I guess) (iii) Most importantly, Sanctuary already functions as an invisibility spell when cast by the player; this is just a matter of evening the score Point taken for (i) and (ii), especially for (ii) though I never used it on a party member in my entire life (in fact I actually forgot it could be cast on others ). For (iii) I may add that for such tweak I should also have to remove 'sanctuary' opcode and its hardcoded animation (only the latter if possible), else players would still see it, and the whole invisibility thing would be pointless. If I'm not wrong, turning Sanctuary into a self cast Invisibility is exactly what we are discussing. This reminds me that in my to do list I have something like 'II-spells make the caster immune to spell overlays', though I'm not sure it's fully doable. I do hate those supposedly invisible caster walking around with visible, sparkly animations (e.g. Spell Deflection/Turning/Trap).

Sanctuary Unless I'm horribly and utterly mistaken, IDSs are static, unlike dynamic NearestEnemyOf(). You'd have to go with 2nd param of 0, protected from everyone.If you're right about IDS being static then we have to find a completely different solution because I tested the "protected from everyone" solution and it's not a viable solution, as then even the caster can't target himself. @David, I've looked again at AD&D Sanctuary description and it says "If the saving throw is failed, the opponent loses track of and totally ignores the warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to attack the subject remain unaffected. Note that this spell does not prevent the operation of area attacks fireball, ice storm, and so on)." Thus, on one side I was right about it not granting protection from fireball-like spells, on the other your idea about adding an "invisibility" state isn't so far from that "losing track of". Still, I don't particularly like the whole "invisibility" thing as a concept, and on balance I think it's slightly too much considering Invisibility is a 2nd lvl arcane spells and Sanctuary would become pratically the same thing but better. Sanctuary would have faster casting time (which is a big plus), immunity to divinations (which is a huge plus) but shorter duration (not that I ever used Invisibiliy to remain invisible for long). On a side note with 'invisibility' opcode 'sanctuary' one becomes redundant, because 'invisibility' itself allows the caster to heal and buff himself without breaking the invisibility. Divination spells In theory it's a good concept, in practice it's not doable imo. What would you do? You can't removing 'detect illusion' because then TS would be useless against invisible targets until the partially reveal themselves, and you can't have the caster ignore illusionionary protections without dispelling them. Regarding Dispel Illusion and Oracle not being appealing, I planned to male the former the only Divination spell which can dispel illusionary creatures (e.g. Mislead clone, PI, Shades, etc. - not sure about Simulacrum, but it should be doable via scripts), and the latter will also have a Mass Know Opponent effect.

Me too, but so many players complained about SR's permanent disease effects that I ended up accepting that not all players like these roleplaying features, and in many cases they really cannot bear them at all. I forgot to reply to the original post! Sorry onerous. Mass Healing really cannot have an embedded Mass Cure Disease effect, but if you can cast it than memorizing a bunch of Cure Disease spells shouldn't be a huge problem. As you already know you can also can buy Elixirs of Health, or better, as Dakk suggests, go to the nearest temple (they are pretty much everywhere within BG) and have even a whole party cured with ease.

Is this a bug, or something legit but annoying? It's SR's Symbol of Weakness, I've made all others disease effects not permanent at player's request but this one seems to still be permanent. In theory I don't like disease effects to go away on their own but I suppose I'll have to make this too go away with a rest.

Sanctuary Ops, we posted in the very same minute. Well, in PnP nothing prevents you from casting a Fireball right next to the protected creature. You can even cast it directly at the sanctuaried target if you win a check. That being said, if you're going to rely on this spell more, and adding an invisibility effect is crucial for you I can obviously accept to go for it, though adding an invisibility effect (which must be an II effect to work as intended) requires me to go for the huge revison (custom secondary type, and a patch for all weapons, attacks and spells to remove it) regardless of the above mentioned points a) and b).

Sanctuary I have looked into it a little more, and for some reason I really understimated this spell in its vanilla's version (I don't know why I thought it wasn't working at all). (1) I was wrong, vanilla's sanctuary opcode allows the cleric to cast "non-self targeted" spells on himself without breaking the spell. (2) I have yet to test if setting opcode 100 with Ea.IDS - 2 / Enemy - 255 works for the AI but it should considering PCs is indeed detected as Enemy - 255 within scripts. Thus it's all a matter of deciding if: a) do we want Sanctuary to let clerics cast non-hostile spells on allies as per PnP? b) does replacing 'sanctuary' with 'ProEnemy' allow AI scripts to handle player's Sanctuary better? a) If we don't want it for balance reasons then the spell is already almost fine (unless b) is true) without the huge revision I had in mind. Lowering casting time and getting rid of 'remove sanctuary' opcodes from divinations spells should be enough. b) if it can help you then I'll go with the overhaul, else the spell can remain almost unchanged.

Sanctuary I'm ambivalent about whether it's a good idea but at worst I think it's not going to cause major problems; at best I think it's pretty good. As long as the spell doesn't actively hide the graphic, though, it's definitely more useful for players than the enemy, as PCs can see Sanctuaried creatures but the computer can't. In your place I might actually consider slapping on an Invisibility effect. Ok, seems pretty much everyone is fine with lowering its casting time to 1 and making it not affected by divinations. Fine. Regarding your suggestion to slap an invisibility effect on it I'd go for it only if you need it, because in terms of concept Sanctuary really shouldn't make the cleric invisible. Actually for the huge revision I had in mind to make it work as per PnP I planned to not use 'sanctuary' opcode at all (because it gets dispelled even if the cleric cast a Cure Wound spell on himself), but rather a 'protection from creature' opcode working on any creature type. Would that help you (ake the AI) in any way? I seem to remember that liches were able to cast Dispel or similar spells to creatures using ProUndead scrolls, as well as I'm almost sure RR PnP fiends cast a bunch of spells to tear down ProEvil spells. Pre-buffs without animations Cool. I mean no animation at all, including any lightning effect or vvc used when the spell is cast. It's not a small deal for some spells (e.g. Stoneskin animation is extremely noticeable).

Pre-buffs Can you clarify the motivation?Sure. Because right now the supposed pre-buffs look like contingencies, and at the start of the encounter you see tons of animations play on the caster. It's very immersion breaking (at least imo) and makes it look like mages are cheating by casting tons of free Contingencies. I know it may involve some boring additional work, I was just thinking loud, but for me this "issue" alone is enough to make pre-buff option unbearable. I don't know if I'm the only one around feeling this way, am I? Edit: I'm not. Sanctuary @David, may I ask you to reply to my questions? But for sure, Blade Barrier should remove it. But then... damn, Fireshield should too. But that's a bit logical. ;]I've already blocked Sanctuary+Blade Barrier exploit ages ago (I think in V2). Fireshields instead cannot be exploited because opponents need to see and hit the caster for it to work.

Ghost Armor Adding hit-point bonus to this spell isn't so bad. In 3rd edition there was a spell called False Life. Or did I created it? I don't remember. Still, it added 20 additional hit points, but lowered saving throw vs. death by 2. What about making such a spell 1-shot protection from necromancy spell? False Life is indeed a 3rd edition spell, it's pratically a lesser Aid spell for necromancers (raises only hit points, and cannot be targeted on others). That being said, I don't have much space for 2nd lvl spells (I have two slots right now, but I've planned to fill them with Geedle's Electric Loop and Snilloc's Snowball Swarm), and this one in particular isn't a must-have imo, because such effect could indeed be added to either Ghost Armor or Spirit Armor. This way we'd make a pre-existing spell much more appealing instead of adding a new spell only players would use. Sanctuary My plan was "simply" to make it work as per PnP, thus allowing the cleric to heal and buff both himself and his allies without ending the spell.Oh, I thought the discussion was to (also?) set casting speed to 1? I'm still in favour though, makes it cool and useful.Well, I said my plan was to make it as per PnP, not that I'm absolutely against amanasleep's suggestion to lower it casting time to 1. I'm worried a fixed Sanctuary with instant casting time could be seriously exploited by players, but this is mostly because one of the changes to make it as per PnP involves it not being affected by Divination spells such as True Seeing. Am I the only one finding too strange that Detect Invisibility dispels Sanctuary? @David, what do you think about: a) lowering casting time to 1? b) making it not affected by Divinations? Yep, this is more or less a Mislead spell which doesn't allow offensive actions. With the pre-buffed option (which I don't particularly like for cosmetic reasons*) this can indeed make the cleric completely immune to damage, at least assuming SR's version of ProElement spells. (*) David, I don't know if I've already suggested you this, but have you ever thought about making SCS copies of pre-buff spells with no animations? I know it's only a cosmetic tweak but for me it would make the pre-buff option A LOT better. In theory I'd remove also spells names (to avoid all those text messages saying those spells are cast at the start of the encounter), but some players may not like it because they wouldn't know the ongoing buffs as usuals.

Only if it has an area effect (and wasn't the whole point of this discussion to avoid there being one?)Ah fine, I said I was fine with ST (and Spellstrike) having an AoE but if we want to make even ST back as a single target then yes, tweaking TS seems the only alternative indeed. Regarding your suggestion about tweaking the same way Detect Invisibility instead I'm not persuaded, as a 2nd lvl Divination spell seems really too cheap to bypass SI:Div, no? I agree for most early encounters, but Ihtafeer's group might be almost unbeatable for many players (depending on their party). I have to run a game sooner or later though, because as David correctly says: "theory only gets you so far". High lvl characters within SR have Pierce Shield. "Unfortunately" I really cannot find any reason to justify Breach working on liches and rakshasas. Fine. Well, having a thief with Detect Illusion skill (which bypasses any immunity, be it liches/rakshasas innate resistance to spells or SI:Div) and Keldorn with his Double Strength Dispel (humanoid mages are as good as dead against him without SI:Abj) is a HUGE difference. I think David was trying to find a solution that could suit most parties and not forcing players to have a thief (though I really can't imagine a party without it) and/or an Inquisitor. Ghost Armor @Dermit, I do suggested your solution back then when we were discussing SR V3, but many players voted against it because "illusionary hit points" seemed too strange and they kinda persuaded me, even if it's a PnP effect. Additional hit points are probably more appropriate for a necromantic spell like Spirit Armor. Regarding it being a poor alternative to Mage Armor I can only say that it has slightly better AC, it's not affected by Breach and can be cast on others (this last feature alone is worth a +1 lvl), but I agree it's not particularly appealing.

Most of these solutions are (or, I suppose, should be: I don't know how you've coded them) blocked by Minor Globe (which in turn can't be dropped by single-target antimagic when II is active).You're right, though Spell Thrust do work against (M)GoI, removing the former and ignoring the latter (thus still dispelling SI even if protected by GoI), because both in vanilla (at least in my vanilla install it looks so) and SR it has 'power' set to 0 (a la Dispel Magic). I do agree with amanasleep that ST looks a tad too powerful (that's why SR seriously nerfs it by making it remove only one spell protection at once), but at the same time we have to accept either this or that players can't face mages unless they have a mage themselves of equivalent or higher lvl (almost never early on). It's not as easy as it seems but I'll see if I can do something about that. Ruby Ray of Reversal dispels any illusion it strucks within PnP (amongst many other things) and I planned to make it as per PnP for V4, but if we make it again single target then it obviously wouldn't work against II. Let's assume that PnP RRoR could be SR's solution for liches, we still have rakshasas to handle, and in this case it's not 6th+ lvl spells, but 8th+!!! I'd dare to say that for them it's pointless to add an anti-SI 8th lvl spell imo, because Spellstrike is just one lvl higher (though those 2 caster lvl are not cheap). I think David was concerned like me that mid-low lvl parties can do almost nothing against rakshasas except waiting for their buffs to end (isn't it the reason behind SCS tweak to Breach?). Spell Thrust could be enough to handle them if they weren't immune to the highest anti-illusion spell available to players, True Seeing, but they are immune to it, and thus unless I also add an 8th+ lvl TS-like spell any "normal" spell removal is quite pointless. One solution I suggested ages ago was to add to Spellstrike an "Improved Remove Magic" feature (e.g. +5 or even +10 caster lvl), but you'd still need archmages to fight rakshasas. That being said, adding "see invisibility by script" to True Seeing pretty much ends any problem indeed (though describing such feature within spell's description would be a pain ), and it might even makes things a little too easy with SCS Breach. Priests & Sanctuary Indeed. But is Sanctuary really so effective then? What about area-effect magic? They can still be targeted by AoE spells, but if I make Sancutary not affected by Divination spells then the cleric is also "permanently invisible", making it almost untargetable by players unless they start spamming Fireball-like spells everywhere. On a side note, Sanctuary is not available to druids (e.g. Nyalee). My plan was "simply" to make it work as per PnP, thus allowing the cleric to heal and buff both himself and his allies without ending the spell.

True Sight I think I'm with you on balance, though it's a neat idea.But what ill consequences it could create?My "doubts" regarding this solution are:1) we'd create a case where even if SI:Div makes you invulnerable to Divination spells a Divination spell works against it 2) conceptually it looks strange imo that TS has both "see invisibility" and "dispel invisibility" at once 3) on balance we'd be seriously nerfing mages protections 4) "see invivibility by script" opcode makes AI opponents see completely invisible targets 1) perhaps this is not a big deal considering we already have the case of most Abjuration spells bypassing SI:Abj. In this case SI:Div would still protect illusionary buffs (II, MI, Blur, etc.) from TS, but for me it would be one further reason to consider the whole concept behind Spell IMMUNITY a failure 2) this is only a conceptual issue, and probably a minor one 3) without this tweak you'd have to dispel SI:Div, then II, and finally be able to target the opponent, with this tweak you can ignore the first two steps (though in both cases you can pre-cast TS, thus you miss only one step). Restoring Spell Shield should make up for this. 4) @David, I'm not sure "Truesight et al wouldn't actually reveal a genuinely invisible creature; it would just make an already-revealed creature targetable"? At least this isn't true for the AI imo, because if I'm not wrong "see invivibility by script" opcode is used by many vanilla demons, and they do see an II character even before he/she is partially revealed. Your concern about player's AI being able to target totally-invisible creatures is part of this problem if I get it right. Just so you know, both Detect Invisibility and Invisibility Purge lasts 5 rounds within SR. In PnP they even lasted much much more, but players voted to drastically reduce it (I used a full turn in V2) as they felt it was making them too much appealing compared to higher lvl Divinations. Furthermore, within SR InvPurge is an Abjuration spell as per PnP, not a Divination as in vanilla BG, thus it already bypass SI:Div. This whole "anti-SI:Div" discussion exists almost only because of liches and rakshasas sad immunities imo. If it wasn't for them within SR you already have plenty of options to counter SI:Div+II combo: a) thief's Detect Illusion b) wizard's Glitterdust (this one bypasses even SI:Div+SI:Abj) c) cleric's Invisibility Purge (it's stopped in case of SI:Div+SI:Abj) d) druid's Faerie Fire (it's more or less a lesser Glitterdust) You have 4 different classes there! If you add Inquisitor's Dispel Magic (to a lesser extent single class bards and priests) almost any party can handle SI:Div+II. Perhaps instead of drastically altering the current system you could consider b) and c). Both don't work in vanilla, but I doubt anyone would complain if you implement those tweaks, as they are very minimalist: b) is actually a fix (I don't remember right now why it didn't worked in vanilla, but there's no reason a Conjuration should be stopped by SI:Div) and c) is just a matter of changing a spell's school to match PnP (I know you don't care much about PnP, but I'm mentioning it just to say that it's unlikely a player would complain about a change which restores PnP rules). Adding Faerie Fire isn't within SCS scope instead, but it's a lesser problem because druids shouldn't be your classic anti-mage character (though their insect spells say the contrary ). What do you think? Aren't those counters enough against "normal" spellcasters? Agains liches and rakshasas instead it's a whole different story, not to mention the formers are also immune to cleric/druid's TS, and the latters to wizard's 6th lvl version too (making SI:Div "redundant" for them ). Still, having Spell Thrust affect them as per SR (edit: vanilla's ST already seems to works like that in my fresh install ) may be enough for me. You make Breach bypasses their immunities (unlike SR), and ST makes even more sense because anti-magic attacks already bypass pretty much everything. Such spell is a natural anti-SI spell removal, and for some reason (e.g. its icon) it's the only anti-magic attack I can see with an AoE except perhaps Spellstrike (I can't bear RRoR with an AoE, it's a RAY for god's sake - not to mention within V4 I'd like to add it many PnP features that don't go well with an AoE). ST is a "cheap" spell, and any decent SCS player probaly already consider ST a must-have spell, as it's the cheapest spell removal, and the best one to counter SI (it will even be the best one to be wasted on Spell Shield too because of its "low cost"). P.S all of this assuming that a) there's no way I can convince you replacing SI as we previously discussed and/or b) there's no way I can convince you replacing those damn liches/rakshasas immunities with 50% and 75% magic resistance respectively (which is kinda my dream ) Breach & Pierce Magic I'm obviously with Kalindor and Ardanis, but it seems like David absolutely needs Breach to work against specific protections thus they have to stay. That being said, Ardanis "justification" to it not affecting "armor spells" may persuade me. In that case Breach will remain more or less unchanged, but it won't affect Fireshields, Blade Barriers, and "armor spells". Priests I really cannot see them with metamagic things like contingencies and triggers. Reducing Sanctuary casting time to 1 would surely make up for it once we fix this spell to work as per PnP. Actually it could even make it OP imo, because with instant casting time every injured priest could quickly become "invulnerable", heal, and re-buff, before attacking again. Speaking of fixing this spell, in theory I should also make it not affectd by TS-like spells, as it's neither an invisibility spell nor an illusionary protection. Cause Wound spells Yep, but it's probably better to not add this matter to the ongoing discussion. Actually this one deserves its own topic as it's a kinda huge thing, which involves Cure Wound spells too. Just wow!

PnP Non-detection The general point is that minimalism is defined - for me - relative to BG2 itself. I'm not particularly bothered by fidelity or lack of fidelity to PnP. And in BG2 you can see II characters.Fine with me, but even leaving aside PnP I don't see how altering many anti-magic spells is more minimalist than altering one spell (not to mention the latter is almost a fix). True, you can see II creatures within BG, but you have text messages everywhere proving that not being able to directly target spells at them is still the intended behaviour as per PnP. How can removing such feature be a minimalist change? Breach I think that's a good idea, sufficiently good that I might consider stealing it. (It does affect my AI scripts a little bit, but I can work around that.) Cool. Thinking about other reasons to justify why Fireshields and Blade Barrier shouldn't be affected by Breach (they are Invocations spells, meant to inflict damage) I may have found a way to justify "armor spells" and a bunch of other spells to not be affected by Breach even if you can't give up on ProEnergy and accept a more PnP Breach. What about making Breach remove only Abjuration spells? CC and Death Ward wouldn't be affected anymore though, do you need Breach to work against them too? I'll try to think about other alternative solutions...though the more I think about it the more I'd like Breach to work only against PreWeapons spells a la PnP.

PnP Non-detection Do you really think that adding an AoE to many anti-magic spells is more minimalist than simply fixing Non-detection to work as per PnP? I'm kinda curious about your possible workaround to make II creatures targetable, but on the other hand I'd dare to say that such tweak would be far from minimalist too. There's a reason you cannot directly target II creatures: you cannot see them. I know within BG you can, but within PnP you'd be able to spot them only for a split second when he/she attacks (much like what happens with BG's misleaded characters). Perhaps I missed it, but what do you think about adding "invisible detection by script" to an existing divination spell (Ardanis suggested TS)? I personally am not so convinced about it, but it could work for you. Breach Well, I prefer to reach a consensus rather than creating this mess, thus if you don't want to alter Breach anymore I'm pretty sure I'd drop it too. One thing I'd personally do anyway (whatever you decide) is to make Fireshields and Blade Barriers not affected by it (it seems right, and it doesn't affect your AI scripts judging by what you said). It would be great to remove "armor spells" from this list too (you seemed to agree), but I really cannot see how we could justify it if we keep the current "concept", thus they'd have to stay. Pierce Magic in particular is underused, but 6th level spell slots aren't (Death, PMW, Truesight, etc). 5th level is quite a convenient place for the relevant breaching spell to be: I think it makes really quite a big difference to have it at 6th level. I'm also reluctant to have to load up with two different lots of spells where previously I only needed one.One more reason to use Mantles instead of PfMW! Jokes aside, point taken. I would still prefer it, as it makes an underused antimagic-attack much much more appealing, and at the same time makes Breach less overkill. I think all of us more or less agree that right now a succesfull Breach is a death sentence for any mage (that's why making it not bypass Spell Deflection/Turning was great), as it removes tons of buffs at once (even high level ones). I'd love to make it work as per PnP (you know that Breach too is a 6th lvl spell there? ) and affect only ProWeapons spells but if you absolutely need it to counter specific protections, and another spell doing it is not enough for you, than I guess I have to keep it more or less as it is. On a side note, Breach is an Alteration spell in PnP and I would actually like to have a second 5th lvl spell for that school (right now I have only Lower Resistance, which I had to add myself because for unknown reasons it was considered an Abjuration spell by BG! ), but it kinda interferes with the tweak that makes it not bypass SD/ST. Such tweak also make Breach unable to bypass SI:Abj (which is not bad considering 99% of Abjuration spells bypassed it), and making Brach an Alteration spell would restore vanilla's status (sort of). I suppose you like SI:Abj to stop Breach, am I wrong? Not to mention that without its other PnP feature (removing any PfMW-like natural ability from creatures such as liches, golems, vampires, etc.) the current concept is fine as an Abjuration. @Yarpen, it would be quite interesting to make Breach work exactly as per PnP, but a) I fear it's almost impossible to do and b) it would drastically affect gameplay, with potentially disastrous consequences. For example allowing it to make liches vulnerable to normal weapons would almost surely break SCS AI that heavily relies in the trick of "exploiting" such innate feature in combo with PfMW. Anti-Spell Immunity attack @Guest_suttree_*, we don't need to add a new spell to work like that, vanilla's Spell Thrust with SCS added AoE already works like the perfect anti-SI spell, because a single use of ST wipes out each and every SI together with a bunch of other spell protections. SR slightly nerf this by making ST remove a single spell protection at once (as any other-anti magic attack) but it still remains a great anti-SI tool, because ST ignores spell protections of 6th lvl or higher, and if there's any Spell Immunity on the target that's always the first thing ST is going to remove (unless there's ProNormal Weapons, but who the hell uses it?!?).

Clerics I don't think their spells casting time is the real issue, as they aren't much different from arcane's spells, but rather that mages under PfMW can cast undisturbed for a bunch of rounds, whereas cleric's spells can be easily disrupted. As I was suggesting before the lack of any "concentration check" is a serious problem. What about asking A64 if it's possible to make spellcasting uninterruptable? (there's a flag for it in theory, but it's doesn't work) If it's doable, then we could easily re-introduce a more balanced and less random spell failure on hit (as per Wizard Slayer's attack). On a side note, I can second the suggested use of Sanctuary, and I may add that I should have found a way to finally fix this spell too within SR V4 (though it requires some heavy lifting code), greatly enhancing its appeal/effectiveness. PnP Non-detection Guilty as charged, at least where the antimagic system is concerned. (I'm very unkeen on saves for a spell like Breach, because you end up having to carry silly numbers of them; this is less of an issue with non-detection.) I could try to offer a defences of the scissor-paper-rock debuff system, but ultimately I just see it as quite core to the way BG2 antimagic works, so I don't really want to mess with that within SCS.Yep, but we're not speaking of antimagic attacks here but divination attacks, and Non-detection isn't a spell protection. If you want something that temporary shields II but goes down in a single hit you could make Non-detection go down against the first divination attack without a save. That would make it a sort of anti-divination version of Spell Shield. Breach Eh, as I said I'd be quite against Breach affect "random" spells (aka cutting across sectypes) instead of following a well established concept. As Ardanis says Pro Energy is a single target spell, are you sure that prioritizing Breach vs Pro Energy is the best thing to do when the other five party members (without counting summons) could still be vulnerable? The same can be said for CC and Death Ward. What about the suggested tweak to make Pierce Magic (which is currently very underused) remove specific protections instead? Well, the original opcode 221 cannot be used to take down only a limited amount of spells, but in theory we might be able to find a workaround if we really think such solution would be better than any other one. Spell Immunity I second guest's definition of SI, "an inelegant solution". I have a "controversial", invented spell on one side, and various PnP, cool spells on the other. I know such things are irrelevant for SCS, but they are for SR imo. Fighters vs mages Can I remind you that this topic is supposed to be used for feedback and suggestions on spells rather than "class fights"? Anyway, the point is that BG is not PnP. Wizards unfortunately go from almost invincible under buffs, to as good as dead as soon as unbuffed. In PnP you could have fighters protect them (e.g. attacks of opportunity are really nasty) but within BG this is not a doable tactic. That being said, both as a player and a modder I obviously don't want mages or fighter-mages to be "better" than true fighters, but this is another story, for another topic.

Armor-like spells I'm not convinced it would make so very much difference. Breach takes most of them down anyway (albeit see the below discussion) and at high levels, GWW and Critical Strike make AC pretty moot.Well, GWW and CS are ToB things, but you're right, those abilities make AC much less relevant. Anyway even epic fighters should have a bunch of those HLAs not tons, and those few should/can be stopped by Stoneskin, or partially absorbed by Mirror Image. Put an outstanding AC on top of them and even GWW may hit very few times. No? I suggested myself to make Ghost Armor increase AC instead of setting it, but I'm not convinced because it would then stack with the other armors. Clerics Are they so helpful as defences?Well, Divine Power for example almost works as a Tenser's Transformation spell without drawbacks and cannot be breached. And when I say TT I mean SR/PnP TT, which also grants additional attacks per round (as a fighter of the same level of the caster). Thus a single 4th lvl spell spell grants him/her STR 18/00, the same thac0 and apr of a fighter, and up to +20 hit points. Long story short, DP transforms a cleric into a fighter for a short time (up to 20 rounds). Champion's Strength within SR is an Improved DUHM, which grants up to +6 bonus to STR, DEX and CON, with no drawbacks, and a decent duration (up to 20 rounds). What's your main problem with clerics? Lack of offensive magic power? Because they shouldn't have most of mages problems like AC and hit points even unbuffed. PnP Non-detection Well, you wanted a mid-solution between the unbeatable SI:Div and no protection, this is it. Something tells me you don't like "saves" and you prefer things to work as a "scissor, paper, rock game", am I wrong? To make it work you have to alter TS anyway (and any other divination spell you think that should have a chance to dispel Non-detection), as you have to make it (or them) remove the custom secondary type on a failed save, thus you can tweak the save yourself. That being said, even without penalties everything should be fine because multiple mages casting Divination spells can easily and quickly dispel Non-detection. I tend to play low magic parties, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players always include more than an arcane caster in their parties. Breach Cool, I thought I was asking too much. As you say, I'd limit it to combat protections, perhaps removing a bunch of the current ones too. Specifically Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades may not be affected if they are crucial for your clerics. Actually I would even dare to say that making it work only against PfMissiles, PfNW, PfMW, and Mantles (what Galactygon is suggesting if I'm not wrong*) could be fine with me. Such solution would seriously improve the appeal of things such as "armor spells". *@Galactygon, where did you find AD&D Breach? The only similar spell I manage to track down is Breach Defenses, which is a Transmutation spell used to make any creature vulnerable to non-magical weapons (e.g. golems, werewolves, etc.). Unsurprisingly I was going to suggest the same. I'd still keep Fireshields immune to it though, they don't sound as specific protections to me. Like? Afaik Breach is mainly used to counter ProWeapon-like spells, is it heavily used against specific protections too? Perhaps I'm blind but how can Breach so heavily affect clerics? Anyway, I prefer to keep a concept intact, whatever the concept is. If it dispels only combat protections or only PfMW-like spells it should still do it regardless of spell's origin, be it an arcane spell or a divine one. If the concept ends up not including divine spells you're lucky! Spell Immunity I'm glad you are at least slightly sympathetic! I suggested to make Spell Shield protect from Dispel/Remove Magic. Even the original concept of Spell Shield worked more as SI:Abj than SI:Abj itself! Adding to it immunity to dispel (or at least one dispel attempt) is functional and doesn't stretch the concept a bit imo.

Wizard's AC Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value? ... Does SR allow an archmage to get to AC -25 or better? If not, I doubt it helps.Well, probably not, at least not until I add Foresight (but this is another story). Right now I think SR mages might get only a +4 AC bonus compared to vanilla's ones. A mid-lvl mage can have: * Base AC 3, 2 or 1 depending on which "armor" spell is used * +2 AC from SR's Shield (lasts 1 hour) * +3 AC from Blur (lasts 1 hour) * +4 AC from any II spell (short duration, but II-like spells are common - SR's Shadow Door is quite nasty as reported by many players) * +2 AC from SR's Clairvoyance (this one is not affected by Breach, nor dispellable, but duration is relatively short right now) * +X AC from DEX * +Y AC from equipment Thus a mage can reach AC -10/-15 relatively easy (MI and Stoneskin can greatly improve the effectiveness of this AC), but dispelling it with Divinations (note that within SR Ghost Armor isn't affected by Breach, but it's considered an illusionary protection) or Breach is also relatively easy unless you put on other defences. The problem is that later on there isn't any way to further improve AC (except SR's Mantles, but they have trivial duration), thus even a 20th lvl archmage is stuck with this AC. If you think improving "armor spells" could seriously benefit mage duels I'd be glad to work on it. Not long ago Ardanis suggested me to make Ghost Armor and Spirit Armor improve with caster level (as per SR's Mage Armor), and that could be a solution. Concentration In part, yes. Clerics Those buffs are irrelevant in the face of one Breach, and clerics basically can't shield themselves from Breach (very high-level clerics - but not druids - can use Shield of the Archons, but that still only buys half a round), don't have contingencies or sequencers to swiftly renew their defences once breached or hacked through, and don't have ultra-fast-casting-time protection buffs.? I was speaking of buffs not affected by Breach such as Divine Might (Champion's Strength is better later on) or Divine Power, but I forgot they weren't so great in vanilla. PnP Non-detection At least from the current SR description of Non-detection (and truesight) I don't see how this is: N-D claims to protect against Truesight, which makes it functionally equivalent to SI:Div. Elsewhere on the SR forums you seem to imply that it doesn't protect against Truesight, but now we're back to II going down in the first couple of seconds due to a pre-cast Truesight. What I want is a happy medium where taking down II takes time and effort but isn't impossible. Can you clarify? Yep. Non-Detection currently doesn't grant complete protection from Detect Illusion, Oracle and True Seeing (it does only in case the protected creature is invisible via thief hide in shadow ability, but not via invisibility spells) because else it would be an uber powerful and cheap SI:Div. Adding a custom Secondary Type to it would allow me to have it partially protects from Oracle/True Seeing. As per PnP when affected by a Divination spell the protected creature would be allowed to make a save, a successfull save means the divination fails, a failed save means the Divination spell is able to detect the protected creature (aka removes the custom Secondary Type, destroying Non-detection). What do you think? Breach Speaking of how easily Breach destroys clerics buffs reminded me an old doubt I never dared to speak about...isn't Breach really too powerful? I mean, a single mid-lvl spell with no save nor magic resistance check that can dispel even dozens of combat/specific protections at once is kinda insane if you ask me. That being said I know that nerfing it is a daring suggestion...but even small changes can seriously affect the gameplay imo. For example if it doesn't affect Fireshields (are they really Specific Protections?) those spells suddenly become incredibly potent melee defences. The same can be said of cleric's Blade Barrier, is it really a Combat Protection? Making it dispel only x protections at once is not doable, and limiting the maximum level of spell it can dispel (e.g. only spells of 6th lvl or lower) may be a very drastic change to handle. On one hand allowing a save can be a great solution (buffs wouldn't be uber easily disintegrated) but on the other hand it could be bad (Breach could become unappealing if casting it often produces no effect). I'm just thinking loud...

You're right, and it's not intentional. It's not a serious bug but it's still an annoying incongruence, I'll do something about it asap.

Is it because with vanilla's spells they can't reach a decent AC value? I do understand this problem, but at the same time I continue to not understand why it doesn't seemed to affect IWDII where PfMW doesn't exist, and Stoneskin is way less effective. Could part of the problem be that we don't have any concentration check within BG and even 1 point of damage can disrupt spellcasting? It's even more strange for me when you say that you cannot make clerics last. They surely don't miss hit points and AC like mages, and they do have tremendous buffs (especially within SR). Do they really need things like PfMW to pose a serious threat? I do find your tweak almost a fix (which I gladly copied for SR), because I really don't see why Breach should bypass Spell Deflection/Turning. Ok. At least we can say that Post-Taimon having a Bard or an Inquisitor in the party to cast Dispel is a viable solution. If you ask me the crucial point is how SI:Div works: its "invincibility" factor vs divinations. As I said in my previous post, PnP Non-detection would make the whole system much better and you wouldn't need to add an AoE to spell removals (by the way, your current AoE surely isn't small, but if you've followed this you know it ends up being a good thing). With PnP Non-detection (instead of SI:Div) to reach step (2) you'd need to remove it with a Divination spell, but such protection could buy the mage some time (even True Seeing could take a few rounds to successfully dispel it). Afterall, didn't you said yourself that your main concern is (A)? This is caused by SI:Div, whereas PnP Non-detection could still protect the mage for a couple of rounds (even if the first Divination attack works the mage would still buy at least 1 round because such attack would have dispelled II right away instead of Non-detection) without causing the "annoying and boring" factor you mention. Another idea we discussed with Ardanis not long ago was to add "invisible detection via script' to Truee Seeing, allowing any spellcaster under TS to cast spells even at II targets. In this case though having TS is enough to automatically counter step (1), even if Non-detection is up (TS may not dispel it and II, but still allows to cast spell removals at the target), thus I'd probably avoid it unless necessary. Last but not least a fixed Spell Shield surely makes step (2) slightly harder.

Point taken, though I'm mostly taking into account PnP spell system (have I mentioned SI doesn't exist there? ), I'm not designing it from scratch. That being said, I suppose you'd consider any change to vanilla BG the same from SCS point of view, be it from PnP or Demi's delusioned mind. The thing is that without SCS tweak to SI you'd have AI mages "cheat" by using SI within contingencies and triggers, but with your tweak we're creating a mess imo. Sorcerers cannot learn the multiple version, and mages have both single and multiple version of SI, which is even worse imo. In this "environment" I'd probably prefer to remove the single version from both sorcerers and mages, though I don't know how to "justify" such thing. It would be easy to justify a rare spell being available only to mages who find an ancient scroll, but SI is used by pretty much any mage within SCS. That's why our plan didn't included any change on your side. We were trying to make sure SCS worked fine without forcing any multiple options. Well, it do bothers me when SI becomes 8 different spells as per SCS tweak. I obviously doesn't care if they are useless as long as SI remains a single spell. Well, I do said it's quite appealing for a 5th lvl slot, but that's because Non-detection doesn't work as it should. If the latter spell worked as per PnP than SI:Div would be quite unappealing (not to mention Non-detection can be cast on others and lasts an eternity). Ok, on second though it may be fine as a 5th lvl spell, mainly because of the "caster only" thing. I also might have understimated the amount of supernatural abilities like psionic domination, vampire's dominating gaze, or hulk's confusing gaze. On a side note, vanilla's CC doesn't protect from most psionic attacks too. I do take into account duration, castability on others (this alone is almost worth a full +1 level imo), and protection from non-spell attack forms, but I think a 6th lvl slot would fit better than a 5th. I have serious problems instead when a spell doesn't do what its description says. In fact there are still tons of players around thinking SI:Abj protects from Spell Removals. Well, it did, in particular II + SI:Div + SI:Abj (the latter didn't added much in vanilla to this absurd combo, but made sure not even Keldorn could do something against it, making it the ultimate cheesiness), but since we now allow many spell removals to bypass II my main issue against it is gone. Speaking of which, such tweak is also the only reason I can bear the simple SI:Div + II combo, but then again, using PnP Non-detection would completely remove the need for such tweak (and I personally don't like much spell removals such as RRoR having an AoE), as II + Non-detection would be still very effective, but far from unbeatable. Thanks. I like these discussions because I can usually learn a thing ot two myself from them (for example in these last posts you've persuaded me quite a few times ). The question is: as long as we manage to make sure SCS AI works fine as before without changing its scripts, isn't it ok for us to remove SI? Last but not least, if we fix and reintroduce Spell Shield I do need to remove one 5th lvl spell to avoid the cap, and SI is a good canditate indeed. Then I would have two ways of proceeding: a) replacing the various SI spells with equivalent spells such as Non-detection, Spell Shield, ProEnergy, Mind Blank b) keep 8 mage-only scrolls with the various SI spells, more or less like you do within SCS (but removing the single use version from both sorc and mages).

I know I should work only on IR instead of spending time here, but I find these discussions too fun/interesting to resist. Point taken. Regarding DS implementation/compatibility I take for granted that in a way or another it's doable, and when the time comes I'm sure we'll be able to handle it. Thus I'll focus on the ideas behind the suggested changes which is what really interest me. The thing I probably haven't made enough clear is that for SR I want to take into account both the 'concept' and the in-game implementation, whereas SCS probably cares only for the latter (I'm not saying it's a bad thing). Concept: for SCS the fact that SI can be used as 8 different spells is not an "issue" because it simply considers it as 8 different spells, whereas for me it's a single spell doing what 8 different spells should do. Implementation: for SCS you've added a tweak to "justify" the use of SI within contincencies and triggers. AS I've described above (and you seemed to partially agree) I cannot have such tweak within SR because it would overfill the 24 spells per lvl cap. Using pre-existing and different spells partially eliminates the need of this tweak imo, because you can use Non-detection, Spell Shield and so on within contingencies and triggers. Concept (again): even without the 24 spells cap I find it a very bad design concept having 8 SI spells in the 5th lvl slots for quite a lot of reasons, which can be summed up to: * some SI spells are too powerful for a 5th lvl spell slot * some SI spells are too weak for a 5th lvl spell slot * almost any SI spell already has an equivalent spell which can fullfill its role SI:Divination is not worth a 5th lvl slot, though it's still very appealing for the AI, and even for players because Non-detection doesn't work as it should. PnP Non-detection can fullfill SI:Div role as a much cheaper and more unique spell. SI:Abjuration doesn't even work as per description/concept, because 90% of Abjuration spells work against it. That's sad from my point of view. A fixed and slightly tweaked Spell Shield can fullfill SI:Abj role without incongruences. SI:Evocation is worth at least a 6th or 7th lvl slot. ProEnergy probably deserves to be one or two levels higher but not three. You're right that ProEnergy grants protection from a bunch of Conjuration spells, but it also doesn't protect from Web, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill like SI:Evo. Not to mention that any 5th lvl Protection from Fire/Cold/Lightning/Acid spell simply pales compared to SI:Evo imo. SI:Enchantment is worth at least a 6th lvl slot imo. Mind Blank probably deserves to be two levels higher but not three. Also note that within SR SI:Enchantment also protects from the entire Power Word serie of spells. SI:Necromancy is more powerful than Death Ward, but it cannot be cast on others, thus 5th lvl may be fine. SI:Transmutation is too situational to determine its true power, but it's mostly unappealing. If it granted immunity to Time Stop it would be a different story (perhaps OP), but right now it's quite unappealing for a 5th lvl slot. SI:Conjuration within vanilla BG is too situational to be appealing, within SR V3 it's even worse because PW spells are not conjurations anymore, and with V4 it might become completely useless because I planned to make Symbol spells belong to the Universal school. SI:Illusion as a single spell would be simply pathetic. With SR V4 I'll probably add a couple of offensive Illusion spells (Phantasmal Killer and Weird) but it's not going to make SI:Ill appealing. Having different spells with different names and concepts distributed between various levels accordingly with their efficiency is much better imo than having tons of 5th lvl spells in the same slot, with the same name/concept, varying effectiveness, and a bunch of incongruences (e.g. why on earth SI:Abj doesn't protect from most Abjurations?). Don't you agree?

Hang on, something's wrong there. Mind Blank isn't in vanilla BG2, so the fact that you give it a level higher than SI isn't independent of your antecedent belief that SI is overpowered.The fact is that I'm not the one giving Mind Blank a higher level than SI, it's PnP. BG Spell Immunity is an invention of BG developers, and the vast majority of players agree they created an OP spell. You do have a point here. The problem is that you have two caps to how many spells you can learn per level, an in-game roleplaying one (depending on INT, but having 4-5 SI in the spellbook isn't great even if you have INT 18) and a technical one (sorcerers can only learn spells from that 24 spells per level limited list, you can't have 8 SI in such list). That's because SI works much much better for the AI rather than players. Unlike players the AI can use its full spellbook in a single encounter, thus using a couple of slots for SI is much cheaper for it compared, whereas as a player you cannot afford a SI-based buff for each encounter as you would seriously miss other spells such as Breach (a spell you need almost any time you face a mage, and you often need it more than once per encounter!). The AI doesn't even care about SI low duration because it lasts long enough to cover the entire single encounter it has to face, nor about its casting time because it can easily cast multiple SI via contingencies or triggers. Furthermore many roleplaying players probably don't even use the double rest trick to walk around with all contingencies/triggers active and a replenished spellbook (I don't), whereas AI mages are perfectly fine with it (even from a roleplaying point of view) because they aren't supposed to run into tons of fights every day of their lives (thus they probably have the same contingencies/triggers stored for days, if not weeks).

Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think? Oh, that rings a bell. I use SI: Evocation occasionally too, though. I don't think I use any of the others, though I'm at work and can't readily check.Well, SR's Protection from Energy grants immunity to each and every Invocation spell (except Web, Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill - which in fact are Conjurations in 3rd edition) thus I could replace spwi595 with it. P.S speaking of which, it's quite easy to notice how ridiculously overpowered Spell Immunity is when you see that both Mind Blank (which is exactly SI:Enchantment) and ProEnergy (aka SI:Evocation) are 8th lvl spells but SI alone can do both things and much more with a 5th lvl spell slot. There's a good reason Spell Immunity never existed in PnP (at least not in this form, because there it's a 4th lvl divine spell with a much much lesser effect). Good point. As of V3 this problem doesn't exist because I never change the secondary type of any spell (well I do because Non-detection was erroneously flagged as Illusionary Protection, but it's another story) but I admit that like replacing SI:Evo (Spell Protection) with Pro Energy (Specific Protection) may confuse DS depending on how DS is coded. Does DS looks for opcode 204 before flagging spwi59# with opcode 282 as WIZARD_SPELL_IMMUNITY or does it flag those spells as such regardless their effects?