Demivrgvs
-
Posts
5,369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Mods
News
Store
Posts posted by Demivrgvs
-
-
I'm with you on this, in fact I said I would have limited Raise Dead to temples, and kept it rare and "complicated". I myself almost never used Raise Dead in any of my games (I tend to reload after the battle is over, even if I win), and I do appreciate those so brave to seriously play a "no reload" game...but this is D&D, and more precisely BG, thus we can't make Raise Dead almost unusable, it's out of SR's scope imo.As far as I know he was doing stuff like this. ^^' Well, sorry for stupid argument. But I just don't like the fact that Raising Dead is so... easy. And mechanical. "oh, they died - c'mon, get up get up'. Then please tell me why bad guys cannot be ressurected? -,- I'd love to see some mechanics which are going to make it "lesser evil" - and well, making death of character greater factor and tragedy.When it comes to add a temporary CON penalty, I may agree with it. I suppose it's there to make sure that without a full rest you can't be resurrected 10 times in a row without problems, right? Still, it's a roleplaying feature that I fear many players may end up hating.
-
Raise Dead & Resurrection
Yes please. Yay for PnPBringing closer to PnP.The former can't raise elves, incurs semi-permanent -1 CON penalty. The latter has no such drawback, but perhaps doesn't heal fully.
Mmm...wouldn't it be a "must comment out on install" change for most players? I don't see how making elves immune to it would benefit the gameplay.I've made mod like this long time ago.
And YES for such a change! By the way, even half orc are not affected by it within AD&D. The CON penalty seems permanent, why do you say semi? The manual actually says that character's starting CON indicates the maximum amount of times he/she can be raised from dead. I suppose this was just a way to avoid the easy spamming of this spell, and conceptually I may agree (raising dead should have been limited to temples imo), but adding limitis or permanent penalties seems more an invite to not use the spell at all rather than an interesting tweak. Am I missing something?P.S I forgot Slay Living is supposed to be the reverse of this spell...
-
I was going to say the same, though I tend to agree a little more with Ardanis and DavidW.It's an interesting debate and both parties have point and merit.When it comes to "balance" instead of "concept" I'd say summons shouldn't grant xp. It's probably not a game changing issue, but this game already offers really too much experience points, too easily.
This is true only for the "Planar Binding" serie of spells, in BG terms a very limited amount of summoning spells (vanilla's Genies, Conjure Elementals, and gated demons). And considering only summoned demons still work this way I'd say such point could be valid only for them.Still I am on Daulmakan's side in the end. This because, just in opposition of what phordicus said, I can't see a summoned creature as a mere tool of the caster but as an individual opponent. In PnP lore a summoned creature might not be tolerant to the summoner's will and be hostile. Especially if we are speaking of demons.When summoning, my enemy calls forth powers that might well be beyond their direct control and as such I consider summoned creatures unique and worthy of their own XP value.
-
Cleric & Druid's spellbooks
Actually I'm not deciding it myself, I'm following PnP, and I was even quite "forgiving" for player's sake because else I should have removed from druids quite a lot more spells (e.g. Doom, Bless, Cloak of Fear, etc.), and clerics should have the incredibly more restrictive sphere system used by Divine Remix.1.Please don't decide for players what spells should be clerics' and what should be druids'.
Only Morninglords of Lathander should be able to cast from the sun sphere, and druids were never able to cast the Cause Wound serie of spells. What's CS by the way?I was really upset when I found in the middle/later part of the game that my cleric could not cast Sunray and Jaheira could not use CS+Harm.P.S Cleric should be able to handle undead monsters with their innate ability to Turn Undead (if not, what's there for?), and already have a bunch of anti-undead spells.
Actually it's not a matter of divine spells being counterparts of arcane ones (not to mention gate is another arcane spell thus I don't see much difference in that regard), it's that, as you noticed, summoned demons are extremely powerful, and letting a L14 priest summon a 24HD Pit Fiend would be outstandingly OP.Moreover, I don't think Level 7 divine spells should be some counterparts of Arcane ones of the same level, so why no Gate for a cleric. I always think priests should be better at summoning creatures than wizards.In theory I could restore Gate, but it would still summon weaker creatures than its 9th lvl counterpart for obvious reasons. I even though about making it more like PnP, using good aligned creatures too for non-evil characters (e.g. Devas), but that's another story.
Last but not least, I really don't think priests should be better summoners than mages (the latters even have a specialized kit, the Conjurer), there's absolutely no reason behind it.
I'm sympathetic to this, but I don't think it will happen, sorry.You can make a separate component, such as "heavily modified priest spell book".Heavily modified or replaced spells
When it comes to compatibility I assure you there's no such issue, but I partially agree with you. Anyway this is something I very rarely do, when it happens it's for good reasons*, and I never do it without asking player's opinion.2.Please don't make radical changes to spells. Nature's Beauty, Symbol Fear, etc. You can make overpowered spells less powerful (saving throw, duration, etc), weak ones more useful, but please don't change those spells to totally different ones. Both for game play consistency and compatibility.
I consider SR a community mod almost as much as a mod of mine, thus I try to discuss everything with players (which also makes much harder/slower to mod trust me), and what you see generally is the end result of long debates. Both NB and Symbol changes were heavily discussed back then, especially the former. If your wishes meet the ones of the majority of the community then it's quite probable I'll please them. Long story short, I always encourage feedback (even negative one) and feel free to open discussions on those things (like this post) but remember I can't please EVERYONE, I think it's obvious such task is almost impossible.
*Vanilla's NB was almost broken because the AI cannot cope with blindness as players, whereas Symbol of Fear was kinda weak as a 7th lvl spell considering a 1st lvl spell can both cure and protect the entire party from it (in fact it's a 6th lvl spell in PnP - as a side note I may restore it as such).
I agree, in fact this won't happen in V4, and Mages will probably get both Animate Dead and Summon Shadow.No animate dead for wizards? It's odd that a necromancer cannot raise skeletons.Summoned Creatures
We recently discussed this a little and within V4 quite a few summoned creatures will be slightly weaker (e.g. less hit points), but most of them are very fine in terms of concept, abilities and qualities.3.Some summoned creatures are a bit overpowered compared with those "natural" ones in the game or with those should-be-powerful-but-weak creatures.
I know, and I agree, though SR almost gives for granted that SCS will be installed with it. What I said above (about nerfing some summons) is particularly true for demons and celestials but don't expect them to become extremely weaker than they are nowFor example, if one don't have SCS installed then SR's demons are much more powerful than those in the game.Summoned creatures granting XP
Well, time permitting I could make it so that only AI summoned creatures grant XP, removing possible exploits. I'll take it into account when I start to seriously work on V4.4.Please give players xp for killing hostile creatures (unhappy demons and those summoned by enemies). This is reasonable. It is strange that you get no xp after doing quite some work.
Some one may think this will be exploitable (killing demons for xp), but whether to exploit it or not depends on the player. I don't think this is what modders should consider. We can get infinite xp on the walls of Saradush if we like that.
Summoning Cap
SR doesn't remove such cap, though many players asked for it, and I may be favourable to add it as a separate component.5.Summoning cap has been removed. I like this idea but can we restrict the number of demonic/celestial creatures to 1? When my low level charname was surrounded by 8 SCS enhanced glabrezus and 2 mordy swords summoned by a nameless lich, I felt hopeless.
Another problem is that skeletons are not affected. You cannot summon more creatures if you already have 5 skeletons, but you can summon up to five skeletons no matter how many other creatures are already there in the field.
Do summoned demons ever had a cap? I'm not sure. Anyway, SCS removes their "summoned demon" flag, thus any eventual cap, and it's not SR's "fault" if you end up fighting tons of them.
Various
I'm sympathetic, but I'm not sure this will happen. Vanilla's items are very "outdated" in this regard, and don't use actual spells but custom effects. I could spend a lot of time to explain you what this means, but let's just say that I would have to seriously alter the itm files to make them work as they should, and that I'm not sure doing it within SR is a good thing (even if it can be done via patching code the end result would be a heavily modified item).Please make SR version of spells cast by items for people who don't want IR.That being said, how many times SR spells are so much different than vanilla's ones? Not to mention you can consider spells cast from items as custom spells rather than perfect copies of the original ones, which is even more true in vanilla because it's exactly what they are and how they work.
Except a few "must have" re allocations (e.g. SCS ones are mandatory for compatibility reasons) such component will surely be separate from the main one, though, as with many other IR components, I'll always give for granted they are installed for various reasons.And for IR, please make item re-allocation a separate component. -
Invisibility Sphere
I know, it's more or less what happened when I precviously made Pro vs Evil 10' work as per PnP Magic Circle Against Evil (as an aura with small AoE), most player hated it because it was too hard to use effectively.
only thing to make it p&p is to attempt an aura via scripting. play-wise, it'd be more trouble than it's worth trying to keep all the avatars bunched up onscreen.P.S I never found a way to make it work more like PnP instead of like a Mass Invisibility. In theory a Mass version of a spell is always 3 lvls higher than the single target one, whereas it's just 1 lvl higher here, is it a problem or the spell's power is so low that it doesn't matter? Pixie Dust for example is "correct", but it look quite unappealing if I'm not wrong.In this case the implementation is also almost impossible afaik, thus you're probably right about it not being worth the effort.
Mmm, I can probably, it would make it work more as an "get away" rather than Mass Invisibility, and a group of thieves using it to "mass backstab" a second time wouldn't mind the shortened duration.the best thing to do might be to tremendously shorten its duration --1 turn, perhaps, otherwise it's an almost invited exploit. -
Invisibility Sphere
It's vanilla's behaviour afaik, but you're indeed right, it's almost a fix rather than a fix. Will do thanks.Invisibility Sphere needs to affect party only, or is this intentionally left as "make everyone, including neutrals and (if it's unchanged from the first time i saw it years ago) hostiles, invisible"? kinda fun but that's not the point.P.S I never found a way to make it work more like PnP instead of like a Mass Invisibility. In theory a Mass version of a spell is always 3 lvls higher than the single target one, whereas it's just 1 lvl higher here, is it a problem or the spell's power is so low that it doesn't matter? Pixie Dust for example is "correct", but it look quite unappealing if I'm not wrong.
-
(Improved) Mantle
You do have a point, but at the same time I can assure you that even the "lesser" Mantle within SR (and SCS) grants immunity to almost anything within SoA (how many creatures have +4 weapons/attacks?), not to mention Improved Mantle (+5 ench is very very rare if I'm not wrong).Maybe double their AC bonus? First thing, imo +1 saves equals +2 AC, not +1, as there're far more ways to improve the to hit chance, unlike saves penalties. Second, it still comes back to not being able to tell beforehands if monster hits as +2 or as +5.If you cast antiweapon, you probably mean to ensure you'll be safe, not to find yourself struck the next round. Current Mantles' AC bonus allows to avoid the worst case scenario to some extent, but imo insufficiently, while +6/+8 bonus is actually a serious thing already by itself, which can alter spells' concept from 'immunity with some bonus AC' to 'AC with bonus immunity', and with this in mind I think we can safely assume that their worst flaw IS fixed at last.
That being said, I do agree that for some reason the fact that you can't really be certain the spell is going to be as effective as you expected makes these spells somewhat unappealing (and the fact that PfMW is so appealing makes it worse).
Anyway, the change is "drastic", as it turns the spells into AC monsters, completely altering the spell concept (as you say yourself). I'd like to have more feedback from players on this matter, while at the same time I need to think about it a little more.
P.S the +x AC/saves idea come out from Cloak of Protection serie of items (Mantle seems to hint a similar magic)
Absolute Immunity
You mean immunity to ANYTHING? I "only" suggested to make it grant immunity to any form of damage (PfNW + PfMW + Pro from Energy).As the name implies, it's better off as immunity to everything, not just weapons. Although I believe it was suggested already before.Making it grant immunity to everything (thus including Free Action, Chaotic Command and Death Ward) scares me...wouldn't it be even more powerful than Time Stop? It would work almost as a Time Stop (though you can be de-buffed), but with slightly higher duration, and uber fast casting time (1 instead of 9!),
-
That's what I was trying to say too.Commenting from an enemy-AI perspective: anything that gets you half as many hits as you'd expect over any significant period is worth having, if you can find the time to cast it. (There's a delicate tradeoff in wizard scripting: how much time to spend renewing buffs, vs how much time to spend doing damage, and given the need to keep up Mirror Images, Stoneskins and Pro/Weapons spells, as well as anti-spell defences, there might not be room for another short-duration defence spells in wizard scripts.)
Let's say that with a short duration (4-6 rounds) only fighter-mages would really find this spell appealing imo...though I think it's outstanding for them, even with a short duration.Incidentally, if prebuffing immediately before a battle, even a seven or eight round duration is worthwhile. My impression is that most BG2 battles are over, or at least under control, by about five or six rounds in (exception: wizard fights, where you have to wait out defences).I don't think I'd be able to find the time to use RI in combat after about eighth level, at a guess, though it might be nice in a Minor Sequencer with Mirror Image.
In this case even via sequencer you can't combine them, simply because one "cancels" the other.
Yes. As you can use Protection from Magic Weapons and the Protection from normal Weapons & Mantle with them... you can combine any and all other spells with them too, same goes for the AI casted spells, but that's it's own subject...I don't think they're combinable, or does using a sequencer negate this check?Regarding PfNW and PfMW stacking if cast via sequencer it's true, it's a clear exploit/cheat, and I may be able to fix that (via secondary type)...
-
Reflected Image
As I tried to say, I'm unsure myself. I do saw the huge potential of the spell and I made it start with a really short duration...I then added a small duration increase to keep it interesting for higher lvls because I thought 4 rounds was too little for a mage who already have to renew more important buffs and cast offensively at least half the time during a battle.I think it's odd people would argue that a 1st level spell offering a virtual 50% resistance to all non-AoE damage (including magic missiles, flame arrows, and irregardless of a weapon's enchantment level, in case of melee), wouldn't be useful if it doesn't last up to 1 turn.
You do have a point here. Even if AoF can be used together with other sources to reach a much higher effectiveness, RI is much more effective if cast by a high lvl caster.How does this compare to armor of faith, a 1st level divine? That spell offers 20% resistance for 1 turn to only melee (and doesn't include elemental melee damage).
Good, let me know then. If I had to nerf it I'd probably not be as drastic as 4 round though, 5-6 rounds should be enough.Anyway, I've nerfed mine locally. I'll try and let you know how it plays out (along with those summons, when I eventually get to them). -
If you insist...
Those are 7th and 6th level spells... the 1st level spell can do the the same 50% of the times. And that's a lot for the party, as it saves a 5&6 or a 7th level cleric spell, 50% of the times, in close combat when the mage needs just a few seconds more so the melee'ers can finish the monster...Edit: and no, this is not a spell for emergencies imo, because 50% of times it won't save you. If you're bout to die and need a quick escape or protection you go for Mislead, Stoneskin, PfMW or similar spells which can really save your ass (100% chance) for a limited time.I haven't mentioned a single 7th lvl spell there (two 6th and one 4th) and those were just examples. If you need a quick temporary way to avoid serious threats there are low lvl spells too in that "similar spells" list, like Invisibility (cast and run away) or Mirror Image (for the first hits you have 1/9 - 1/8 chance to not be hit, instead of 1/2).
I'm not saying RI sucks in those cases, but it's not where it shines. The main role of RI is to protect fighter-mages who often find themselves in melee, not to act as an "emergency escape" spell.
That being said, StixO may be right about reducing the duration, I'm simply not convinced enough.
-
Reflected Image
I do read the response, but probably you didn't...unless this is only your usual annoying behaviour to simply create some havoc.Let's look like a donkey, again...
Erhm, did you actually read the response you quoted ?
Are 10 rounds enough to consider it a pre-buffing spell? ...Maybe it's a difference in playstyle. I don't buff my party to the hilt, or use redundant buffs.that you'll never use it, because you can't afford to lose 1 round every 4 on this spell.
If the buff is an emergency response, it doesn't need to be casted every 4 rounds... but when you have 5 hit points and the next hit will definitely kill you...
StrixO also said "if we insist on needing this buff to have enough of a duration for pre-buffing along with every other higher level buff" and I was responding to that.
Edit: and no, this is not a spell for emergencies imo, because 50% of times it won't save you. If you're bout to die and need a quick escape or protection you go for Mislead, Stoneskin, PfMW or similar spells which can really save your ass (100% chance) for a limited time.
-
Reflected Image
Are 10 rounds enough to consider it a bre-buffing spell? I generally consider pre-buff only long lasting spells (e.g. at least 2 turns if not 1 turn per lvl). A shorter duration may cause what David says imo, that you'll never use it, because you can't afford to lose 1 round every 4 on this spell.Well, I'm clearly in the minority regarding this tweak. Maybe it's a difference in playstyle. I don't buff my party to the hilt, or use redundant buffs. And I don't think a level 1 spell needs to be able to compete with 5th and 6th level spells for utility. I think 'reflected image' would serve as a good emergency buff when all the useful, higher-level stuff runs out. If you insist on needing this buff to have enough of a duration for pre-buffing along with every other higher level buff, what's the point of playing? You know who is going to win.Regarding RI being comparable with a 5th or 6th lvl spell: it's clearly not my intention, and I'm not sure it comes even close to that. We can try to compare it with the 4th lvl Stoneskin, but the latter is twice as much effective, lasts an entire day and is more difficult to tear down with spells (a simple Divination of 3rd lvl can get rid of RI).
Summons
I made Shamblers as per PnP (I forgot to put them in the on-line topic), thus other than reducing hp (from 146 to 106 if I'm not wrong) I don't see anything wrong about them. What's there you don't feel right?I briefly looked through the summons and most seem nice. The only real double take I had was for the aforementioned shambling mound (how about a jackalope?), hp/resistances on the elementals, and the hp on the fiends/celestials.
That's not fair.That being said, I haven't played around with these summons much in-game, so I haven't given these tweaks a fair shake.
-
Ehm...actually I was asking your opinion on the Skeleton Warrior matter.And just that you're following this, may I ask your opinon on this matter?Reflected Image
Well, it seems there's not such consensus thus I'll take my time to decide if nerfing it is really necessary...though I'm almost sure I did some "calculation" back then to compare RI to MI.
I'm not entirely clear what the new version does. But a 4 round duration probably makes it fairly useless at high level. A fighter/mage already needs to pause every 4th round to renew PMW or the like, not to mention stoneskin. They probably don't have time to keep a second protective spell up.
Regarding Reflected Image, I made it work as a permanent single image, not affected/disrupted by damage. This means a permanent 50% miss chance, which more or less is a half strength Stoneskin. To balance such powerful effect the duration is very limited: 4 rounds +1/3 lvls up to 10 rounds for a 18th lvl caster.
-
Skeleton Warriors
Interesting notion, and great job as alwyas David...but that actually has little to do with the main cases where this 3rd lvl summon is really OP, like fighting beholders and mind flayers.
Just one thing to remember about skeleton warriors: they can be turned. I don't think the vanilla AI ever tries to turn undead, but SCS(II) does. That presumably reduces their attractiveness versus non-undead creatures with the same stats.
Indeed I know this (it's not in a hidden manual but the base 2nd ed MM), and that's another reason I never nerfed them, but like aVENGER and David I also think that being 100% true to PnP isn't always the best choice. Furthermore, if you really want to be 100% true then you should also know that these creatures cannot be controlled without a circlet of power, that a caster wouldn't be able to control more than one SW at once, and that PnP Animate Dead spell doesn't allow to summon any powerful undead, only lesser skeletons and zombies.Without consulting the Monster Manual I'm pretty sure the 2nd ed PnP Skellie Warrior have 90% MR - it would be a pretty substantial non-canon move reducing it to 50%... As I've come to trust your encyclopaedic knowledge of D&D Demi, I take it you know this but still thinks it's a good move (for game engine reasons?)?And just that you're following this, may I ask your opinon on this matter?
Reflected Image
Well, it seems there's not such consensus thus I'll take my time to decide if nerfing it is really necessary...though I'm almost sure I did some "calculation" back then to compare RI to MI.
-
Reflected Image
This is indeed a hard spell to balance. If most players agree such a short duration doesn't cripple its appeal I may be fine nerfing it. I thought that using a very slow progression (+1 round every 3 lvls) was enough to limit it, but I may be wrong, and I don't want it to overshine Mirror Image, I only want it to be a viable alternative instead of a useless Lesser MI.Another suggestion I've seen others make - I just wanted to second it: 'Reflected Image' is strong for a lst level spell. It's equivalent to 50% melee resistance for it's duration (except you get to keep every other stoneskin!). I'd cap it at ~4 rounds, for use in brief, close-quarters situations (like PfMW). At 4 rounds, I'd definitely still have the SR version in a spellbook for fighter-mages.Skeleton Warriors
Indeed I know this (it's not in a hidden manual but the base 2nd ed MM), and that's another reason I never nerfed them, but like aVENGER and David I also think that being 100% true to PnP isn't always the best choice. Furthermore, if you really want to be 100% true then you should also know that these creatures cannot be controlled without a circlet of power, that a caster wouldn't be able to control more than one SW at once, and that PnP Animate Dead spell doesn't allow to summon any powerful undead, only lesser skeletons and zombies.Without consulting the Monster Manual I'm pretty sure the 2nd ed PnP Skellie Warrior have 90% MR - it would be a pretty substantial non-canon move reducing it to 50%... As I've come to trust your encyclopaedic knowledge of D&D Demi, I take it you know this but still thinks it's a good move (for game engine reasons?)?
Well, they would probably be fine as a 6th lvl summon (Create Undead), but their 90% mr could still be exploitable occasionally (e.g. a group of SW can wipe out a beholder's lair with ease except Elder Orbs).I wouldn't mind moving the SW to a higher spell slot though.I kinda like Animate Dead, Summon Shadows and Create Undead to be themed, summoning skeletons only, shadow-like undead and zombie-like undead respectively...but your suggestion is probably a valid alternative to nerfing SW.
-
Not to mention that creatures without an actual "PC class" cannot be build Jarno's way at all, and at least half of vanilla's creatures hadn't a class assigned.
It's not the way I do it (and it's fairly obvious from the CRE files that it's not the way the developers do it). And (unlike 3.0 or 3.5) the AD&D leveling system really isn't suited for this sort of method of assessing creature strength (and there is no direct map from creature HD, THAC0 etc onto character level, THAC0 etc.)As I know that you make the creature by first making a new character in the game, then you level it up with a XP cheat so you get the basic stats to somewhat right, then you export it and then perhaps adjust it later with a IE tool. I know this because it's the way I do it... did it.Jarno, I could put here a "wall of text" to describe you how I build creatures but I think most players really cannot care less of it, thus let's return to more on-topic matters.
A "nerfed" Planetar may have base thac0 7 (3/4 of 18HD) and 128 hit points (if we want summons' hit points to be more similar to AD&D progression instead of 3rd ed one).
Edit:
NO. I DIDN'T.
But the point was, that in the case of the Planetars, Demivrgvs did, as you can see from looking at the stats... like I pointed out in the post before the last...
It's not the way I do it...As I know that you* make the creature by first making a new character in the game... -
Planetars
Jarno, it's kinda pointless to continue debating such a useless thing. The planetar could have the very same stats, resistances, abilities, and so on while being a true cleric, which is more or less what happened in vanilla. The Pit Fiend example is very simple to understand, as it's quite clear he is not the class displayed by cre file, just like Elementals and most summons don't fit any class at all (what are they? fighters with less hp and worse thac0 per HD?). Creatures have tons of special qualities and abilities, they don't fit any class, I only use base classes to help me build them, especially when I have to deal with spellcasters.
If we want to slightly nerf celestials (e.g. worse thac0) I'm open to discuss it, and I can probably agree on some aspects, but the whole "18/18 vs 18" is really meaningless.
-
Planetars
For godsdamn sake, they are 18HD creatures NOT 18/18 multiclass fighter/cleric. Does it have grandmastery like any 18th lvl fighter? No. Does it need to be a fighter to "legitimaly" have 3 attacks per round? No, it had 3 apr even in vanilla. Damage resistance has NOTHING to do with being a fighter. Was vanilla's cleric-only restriction denying the planetar from wielding a vorpal two-handed sword? No. Should I go on?
Sorry, I was wrong, it's not a Paladin/Cleric... but a 18/18 Fighter/Cleric, which is still as bad, cause their Thac0 is 2, with Strength 19 etc. It becomes better than many of the NPCs in the game, if they don't have special equipment for them, Anomen.Man, it's a 18HD creature not a 18/18 paladin/cleric...consider it a 18th lvl cleric if you want. Now, I can easily agree they are over the top, but they are HLAs, and you can't summon more than one at a time. Are they much more powerful than in vanilla?In my opinion the Vanilla Planetars were too though for a summon spell... you just took their one unique thing, level 25 cleric and made it 18/18 fighter Cleric... which improves their Thac0, Hit Points, and melee damage resistances... and doesn't really affect their spells much.
I simply used the fighter/cleric template as a base upon which construct the creature. Are Pit Fiends 24/24/24 fighter/mage/cleric? No, they are tough fighters with spell-like abilitites from both divine and arcane repertoires.
Regarding the 25th lvl thing not changing much...are you kidding? That would mean +14hp even with the less powerful 2nd ed hp progression table (which ironically is the exact amount of hp granted by being considered a 18/18 fighter-cleric hybrid instead of 18 cleric-only), better saves, slightly more powerful spells (not much), much more spells per day (a huge difference because of high lvl slots), extremely powerful Turn Undead ability, and in theory even HLAs!
Furthermore Planetars are not 25th lvl anymore because such a high level should be kept for Solars as per PnP. The hierarchic order of Devas, Planetars and Solars is quite important imo, if only for the "immersion factor".
Elementals
Ok, I was wrong about the damage resistance, it's more effective than I thought. As I already said I'm open to lower the amount of hps of these summons, this is another good reason to go for it.
Skeleton Warriors
Yeah, buffed they become even more OP, because their innate (not-dispellable) 90% magic resistance make those buffs even more effective (e.g. try countering a group of hasted skeletons with Slow spells...good luck). You know what, I think I'm going to nerf mr to 50%, even if I'm pretty sure it will be unpopular.Please do nerf skellies. I use to buff them, and they are OP in my eyes. -
Call Woodland Beings
I didn't used arcane spells simply because I opted to remain true to PnP (both AD&D and 3rd ed), and I don't even see arcane spells that would fit her so much more:I like the new nymph, but I might remove her summons, and have it rely on (lower level) charms and enchantments instead. Rather than a straight druid spellbook, why not include a few arcane spells?- Charm and Dire Charm are "pointless" because she have Charm Person & Animal
- Hold Person is outshined by Hold Person and Animal
- Confusion as a 4th lvl spell would probably be welcomed back by most players, but I don't like to break a rule (druid-only) only for it, not to mention it would raise balance questions (the Nymph is a 4th spell itself, that's why I'd use only a 4th lvl spell which isn't "optimal" when cast by a low lvl caster).
That being said, there'are several small changes I may work on for her like 1) adding her PnP abilities or 2) slightly revising her spellbook.
1) Blinding Beauty may actually be OP, because it's a sort of Mass Blind spell (though limited to humanoids) but Stunning Glance can be made as a sort of Command-like effect with a short 1 round duration to limit its effectiveness.
2) Doom should be replaced by a more druidic spell like Faerie Fire, or Sleep if we end up adding it a la NWN (granting her one more enchantment as you suggest). Magic Stone may be a better choice over Shillelagh considering her stats and role. We may add one additional Charm spell removing Resist Fire/Cold. The only spell which could replace Animal Summoning imo is Cure Critical Wounds...but I'd probably stick with the former to give her more staying power consider how fragile she is.
P.S In-game nymph has her AD&D 50% magic resistance, while the summoned one never had it...that's a really huge difference.
Summons
Well, I want everything to be as balanced as possible, that's the very reason which made me start working on SR ages ago. That being said, priests don't need a Mordy-like summon at all, but if they have a 7th lvl summon it must be of considerable power, at least slightly more powerful that a Greater Elemental or an Air Servant.Does everything need to be perfectly balanced? Sometimes I use less-than-ideal spells just for fun. I also wouldn't use a mordy sword as a benchmark for balance; its a strong spell and one reason to play a mage. Do druids and clerics need balanced analogues?
As I said, this can be done.Most of my gripes about the summons come down to SR HP assigments, I think. There's too much HP for my game, and I'd like to see many of the summons slightly more fragile. A thought like this resonates strongly with me:
Still considering thac0 and AC assignments. Too many details for me all at once.That being said, you have a point, and if most players want to slightly lower their hp using 2nd edition progression for HD higher than 9 I may agree, but...Elementals
Perhaps I'm wrong but (188/100)x140=263. If we lower their hit points we also lower the effectiveness of their resistances (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it may be what most you prefer). Are hps your only issue? What about damage outputs for examples?
Assuming straight melee damage and 40% melee damage resistance, the party needs to inflict 188/0.6 (=313) damage to reduce to zero, I guess. Shambling mound is similar strong meatshield with resistance (melee, fire, cold, electric), and it regenerates.How the hell 188 becomes 313 is a mistery.Skeletons
Yeah, 50% would probably keep them outstandingly powerful (especially considering it's a 3rd lvl summon) but at least not overpowered and exploitable. Are we the only two players who'd prefer to have more balanced Skeleton Warriors?
The skellies are awesome, but I agree with Demi about the MR. Nerf them. I'd cut MR to at least 75% (50% sounds good to me), and reduce HP by 20% (SR's hit point assigment). An unpopular idea, I'm sure, but it's a level 3 divine...If you instead had told me about Skeleton Warrior's magic resistance being OP, then I would have fully agreed with you.P.S casting Magic Resistance on a nerfed Skeleton Warrior would be a really powerful buff.
Thanks, and don't worry, I really don't take your suggestions as an offense. I do appreciate criticism when it's constructive.Anyway, still appreciate all the work you've put in. -
Call Woodland Beings
Yes, sort of. In theory I planned to have more creatures for this spell (e.g.dryads for mid-low lvl druids and then nymph at higher lvls), but then I dind't had the time to work on so many summons and kept only the nymph. The point is that the nymph summons only two wolves, while a mid-high lvl druid can cast up to five wolves with ASI. That being said, I agree that for a mid-low lvl druid the nymph is a better choice in almost all cases, but that because I didn't managed to make the spell scale with caster lvl a bit.This is something I've been meaning to ask you for some time but never got around to - Call Woodland Beings.It's a 4th level divine spell, and the summon you receive can cast 4th level spells..? So instead of casting Animal Summoning I (lvl 4) I could just summon a nymph that can do this:
1° Cure Light Wounds (x2), Entangle (x2), Shillelagh, Doom
2° Barkskin, Charm Person or Animal (x2), Resist Fire and Cold, Slow Poison
3° Call Lightning, Hold Person or Animal, Summon Insects
4° Animal Summoning I
Intended?
Still, I really don't think I made the Nymph much more powerful than vanilla's one, considering the latter had powerful spells such as Confusion (the 7th lvl divine version, though you can count it as 4th), Mental Domination, and Mass Cure (a 5th lvl spell!
). I simply granted her a much more appropriate spell selection.Summons
Well, you're the second then.
Well, he is not the only one of the opinion that some(most) the summons are a bit too much...You're probably the first one asking to tone them down instead of improving them. I'll look into Shamblers but it's a 7th lvl summon, thus very hard to balance when compared to things like Genies or Mordy Sword, not to mention that it has to be quite stronger than a Greater Earth Elemental for example. Which other summoned creature seems too powerful?
Sure, though you could spare me the unnecessary lesson about 2nd and 3rd edition considering you do know I'm well aware of PnP rules of any edition (including the horrible 4th).Examples?Elementals
How the hell 188 becomes 313 is a mistery. Anyway, earth elemental resistances are there to compensate fire resistance of the fire elemental, and in general to make each elemental different. Furthermore I removed the their vanilla's outstanding immunity to magical weapons, which was making them much more exploitable than they are now (e.g. I do remember a couple of fire elementals wiping out the entire Unseeing Eye dungeon in vanilla).- The Earth elementals, which all have their 40% (melee)damage resistances and Greater's 188 hit point(->313 hit points)... a 20th fighter doesn't have that many hit points, and mostly not that much melee resistance either, let alone an summon which is free to be sacrificed to save others (from the damage).That being said, you have a point, and if most players want to slightly lower their hp using 2nd edition progression for HD higher than 9 I may agree, but don't try to say that a 16HD elemental can compete with a 20th lvl fighter, because even a 10th lvl fighter with decent equipment can beat a Greater Elemental within this game.
Skeletons
It's already there, as skeletons are resistant to anything but crushing damage. I simply used values almost identical to in-game creatures instead of something so radically different as you suggest.- The Skeletons need to be vulnerable to Blunt melee damage. So -50% to the Blunt damage resistance to all the summoned once would fit quite well.If you instead had told me about Skeleton Warrior's magic resistance being OP, then I would have fully agreed with you.
Planetars
Man, it's a 18HD creature not a 18/18 paladin/cleric...consider it a 18th lvl cleric if you want. Now, I can easily agree they are over the top, but they are HLAs, and you can't summon more than one at a time. Are they much more powerful than in vanilla?- The Planetar is a ~18/18 level Paladin/Cleric ally with really hyped out stats... and a bad spell selection in some cases but fine in others, that's a little too much from a summon, don't you think.
If they need a little nerf I'm all for it, but only if most players agree, and it doesn't conflict with SCS (where fiends and celestials need to be and are outstanding creatures as per 3rd edition).P.S I do have plans to somewhat limit them. Turning HLAs into innates you won't have more than 1 planetar per day, and (un)Holy Word may get PnP ability to banish them (perhaps even Banish spell itself could be able to do it as long as a save is allowed to negate the effect, but I'm not sure).
-
SR V4
I don't know, I'll probably be back on SR within a month yes, but after IR V3 I have to work on Kit Revisions thus I'm not sure how much time a new SR release could take, it could be 2 months, but it could just as well be 4.Thanks for the reply. Are you expecting to get a working v4 out in the next few months, or more long term?Divine Confusion/Sphere of Chaos
I partially agree with you that Confusion-like spells doesn't seem to fit clerics much (I replaced Rigid Thinking with Contagion myself), but they do have other Enchantment spells like Hold Person, Mental Domination or (Greater) Command (they had Rigid Thinking too in theory). I'm not sure I have strong arguments to replace it with somthing completely different.Have you considered/thought of any spells to replace Divine 7 Confusion/Sphere of Chaos? Neither seem wholly appropriate to a divine spellbook. What about an extra-strength Chant, or an AoE chaotic commands?Summons
You're probably the first one asking to tone them down instead of improving them. I'll look into Shamblers but it's a 7th lvl summon, thus very hard to balance when compared to things like Genies or Mordy Sword, not to mention that it has to be quite stronger than a Greater Earth Elemental for example. Which other summoned creature seems too powerful?And are there any plans to tone down the summons? I agree that many were rubbish prior to revisions, but as I've played with it a bit, several now seem severely strong (as do the new ones, like Shambling Mound). I'd be curious to know other user's impressions.AoE spells causing neutral characters to go hostile
Probably yes...I simply didn't thought back then that having Web as an hostile spell could be a problem rather than normal behaviour.
First, I'd reconsider following Anvil's route that strictly, and second, can't you use Nature's Beauty solution?What Jarno says is a good reason, though spells cast on others automatically break invisibility, but what you say is also true and may cause serious exploits...thus I'm not sure I'm fine removing the 'break invisibility' (aka "hostile") flag from those spells. -
AoE spells causing neutral characters to go hostile
Probably any AoE spell that has negative effects on those affected.What other non-damaging AoE spells besides entangle and web cause those affected to go hostile?
I discussed this very thing not long ago, and I kinda agreed.I'm not a fan. While it is odd for the random bystander to have no reaction to being held by a spell, I think it is more odd to have them re-classified as enemy after the same effect. The subtleties of a PnP game are lost with the coarse categorizations of BG, but I don't imagine many PnP games where bystanders would seek the party's deaths after being caught in non-damaging crossfire...
What Jarno says is a good reason, though spells cast on others automatically break invisibility, but what you say is also true and may cause serious exploits...thus I'm not sure I'm fine removing the 'break invisibility' (aka "hostile") flag from those spells.Or have you implemented this feature to prevent webbing/entangling and abusing of NPCs who would otherwise go hostile after a dialogue with the PC?Save Penalties
Then you'll be glad to know that SR V4 will indeed cap save penalties at -4 (no more -5 and -6). There won't be a "fixed" rule for save penalties anymore, as the saves will be based on the spell effects to balance everything out (more or less as PnP AD&D): for example Entagle might remain with no penalties (it had +2 bouns in vanilla) but the new "slippery" effect of Grease probably requires an easier save like +2 bonus because it completely disables the targets making it potentially OP.I think all save penalties should be capped at 4. If I had the time, I'd hack the SR spls to give -4 to level 9 and 10 arcane, and maybe level 8 divine (not level 7, though). Dunno how I'd break down save penalties on lower levels. -
Vampiric Touch
No, multiple LMD spells currently stack. Should I make it not stack?has this line
- does the exact same thing apply to Larloch's Minor Drain ?Note that this spell may not be cast multiple times to radically increase the caster's hit points. The caster must wait for the first Vampiric Touch spell to run its course before casting another
LMD's max hp bonus is 10, instead of VT's 30, and they last 10 rounds instead of 50...thus it may be unnecessary in terms of potential abuse.
Contagion
It's intended, because within SR casting time and save penalties are tied to the spell lvl. Thus the 3rd lvl version is fester to cast with an easier save, while the 4th lvl one is slower to cast but it's harder to resist. Save vs death/poison is the very same thing, but I should make both descriptions use the same "name", will do.The divine and arcane spell with the same name (confusing
) have different saving throw modifiers, saving throws (death/poison) and even casting time - intended?Magical Stone & Luck
5 turns (real time) = 1 hour (in game) Perhaps I should always use rounds/turns.Duration 5 turns, but description states "each stone expires after one hour".Blindness
Eh, leftover of its old V2 version, where it and Blindness were indeed permanent (a la Contagion). I'll fix the description.Duration 8 hours, but description states "permanently blinds its target". -
1st lvl Invocation Spells
Let's start with Magic Missile vs Burning Hands. Magic Missile also has the advantage of using 'magic damage', while BH is fire-based, which is the most common resistance for monsters. The multi-hit property is a plus too, because each projectile makes its own check to bypass magic resistance, making MM the most effective spell-disrupting spell against targets with magic resistance, and also useful to tear down Mirror Image. MM is still almost always the better choice imo, because BH's AoE is quite small (you can easily hit 2-3 targets if they're close, but not much more) and its very short range makes the caster vulnerable. That being said, BH is the only 1st lvl damaging spell with AoE, and in the right hands can indeed cause more damage than MM, but it's "harder" to use. One thing you're correctly pointing out though is that BH's damage goes up much more quickly. If I've convinced you about the above things (let me know) then I can probably agree to make it progress more like MM and cap at 9th lvl (it may actually be a must have for BG1 balance). Deal?Comparing Burning Hands, Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp, the first seems to come out strongly on top, and the last way behind.BH: 1d4 --> 5d4 @ lvl 5; auto hit, area effect
MM: 1d4+1 --> 5d4+5 @ lvl 9; auto hit, long range
SG: 1d6 --> 5d6 @ lvl 9; roll to hit or wasted, touch range, can also stun
BH seems to win out both through the fast levelling of damage, but also the area effect. Though for the times when you have allies/neutrals in the area, MM would be the better option. But SG.. the damage is actually statistically the same as MM, but it's touch range and one-try hit-or-wasted (based on Mage THAC0, albeit with +4 bonus). The stun effect is a plus though. Any way to fine tune this? (see 2. also)
Shocking Grasp and similar "on-hit or wasted touch spells" are a pain to handle. I come to the conclusion that I don't like this kind of spell at all, and I'd remove all its instances. For V4 SG will lokk like one of the two following way:...Shocking Grasp, Chill Touch, and Ghoul Touch) - of those the latter two have a 1 turn duration and only SG is hit-or-wasted. Possibly give SG a duration?1) electrical equivalent of Chill Touch, with stun as secondary effect
2) major overhaul, to make it work like Vampiric Touch (no hit roll required)
And speaking of the latter solution, that's what I'm going to suggest for the Cause Wounds serie to make those spells at least a little appealing. Making CW spells work like that has the following advantages:
- the effect wouldn't be considered a "weapon" anymore, preventing the weird issue of PfMW granting immunity to it
- the effect would be considered a "true" spell, thus protections like Spell Deflection or Globes of Invulnerabilty are correctly applied
- working via spl allows many refinements such as making CW not harm Golems (yes, you can harm them with CW now), or having Protection from Magic Energy work flawlessly against it (no "damage animation" issue)
- minor consistency improvement, because they'd work more like Cure Wounds (no hit-roll)
Long story short, they'd be a sort of Magic Missile with no range.
Magically created weapons
Yes, that's exactly the improvement I've added over vanilla's behaviour.
All good, but if you ARE proficient with the weapon (i.e. Specialized or Master) - will you benefit from it?Phantom Blade:The caster wields the phantom blade as if it was a long sword but he suffers no penalty for non-proficiency.
Shillelagh:
The character using the shillelagh wields it as if it was a club, but suffers no penalty for non-proficiency.
Flame Blade:
This blade-like ray is wielded as if it was a scimitar, but the character using it will suffer no penalty for non-proficiency.
Black Blade of Disaster:
The caster wields the blade as if it was a long sword but he suffers no penalty for non-proficiency, and brandishes it with a base THAC0 of 0.
Correct. I probably have to re-consider a ltittle all these spells and make everything more consistent.
No proficiencies apply then, only base THAC0?Spiritual Hammer:The caster wields the spiritual hammer as if proficient with the weapon, at his normal THAC0.
Fire Seeds:
They still "suffer" from an old solution I used to make it bypass most "weapon immunities" because in theory these shouldn't be considered weapons by combat protections. Anyway, making them a sort of improved MMM is the best solution, and thus you're right, +4 enchantment should be enough (no creature is immune to +4 with PfMW or simialr spells).They have a +6 enchantment level, which I kind of like, but I seem to recall you saying "NO +6!!"
And YES for such a change!
If they need a little nerf I'm all for it, but only if most players agree, and it doesn't conflict with SCS (where fiends and celestials need to be and are outstanding creatures as per 3rd edition).
) have different saving throw modifiers, saving throws (death/poison) and even casting time - intended?
Feedback
in Spell Revisions
Posted · Edited by Demivrgvs
Disintegrate
Right now the only nerf I planned was to lower its save penalty. Its damage output seems insane but:a) we can't lower it much without making this spell unappealing compared to lower lvl ones imo
b) on a failed save this spell should "disintegrate" almost all non-bosses
Greater Globe of Invulnerability
What's confusing for the AI? It detects and counters it quite effectively. The only small issue I can think of is that high lvl mages could ignore it (aka not dispel it) and cast 6th+ lvl spells against the protected mage, but casting a spell removal and then use any other spell (which is what SCS AI does against it) is still the most effective way to face GGoI imo.Mind Blank
Turning CC into Impregnable Mind is only a cosmetic change, other than that the spell will remain as per V3. Impervious Sanctity of Mind is a divine spell, while Mind Blank is almost its arcane version. Long story short CC and Impregnable Mind were two different 5th lvl spells within AD&D (see here), and together they granted almost full immunity to mind affecting spells, but BG2's CC already grants all sort of immunities, deprecating ISoM and making Mind Blank extremely unappealing (8th lvl slots are not cheap).Ice Storm & Meteor Swarm
I suggested to make Meteor Swarm deal haf elemental half crushing dmg and the same could be done to Ice Storm indeed (it works like that in 3rd edition). That being said I'm not 100% sure because these spells are Evocations, not Conjurations, and thus they should be made of pure energy (magic or elemental dmg).Should Protection from Elements (and its 5th lvl cousins PfCold & PfFire) still grant immunity to them in case we opt for a similar tweak?