Demivrgvs

Insect spells, Gust of Wind & Zone of Sweet Air

Thanks Kreso, you saved me a lot of time. That being said, we might have one last thing to discuss imo: should GoW disperse insects within the entire area (like gases), within 5 feet (like its knockback effect), or only on self? If GoW cures insects in the entire area I fear insect spells will turn from really good spells into utterly useless. Not to mention only players will seriously benefit from this tweak.

Also, I'd like to remove cleric GoW and restore Zone of Sweet Air as a party friendly immunity to cloud based spells for a short duration (max 1 turn). What do you think?

Protection from Fire/Electricity/Cold/Acid

A daring thought. What if I move mage ones from 5th to 4th (many playersconsider them too much expensive) and turn priest ones into a AoE version with much shorted duration? The cool thing is that 2 of them even existed within AD&D: ProFire -> Fire Ward; ProEle -> Grounding. No idea how to call the other 2.

(Un)Holy Word

Wouldn't the alignment of the deity invoked by (un)holy word have some bearing on the effects of that invocation?

My thought exactly. The idea is that an evil deity power would manifest with negative/necrotic like effects, while a good aligned deity would manifest as positive/radiant effects.

Next build

Now there is nothing but to wait for the next SR release: it should be a juicy one.

It will. I'm also sure Jarno will still complain even after I spent hours re-doing each and every summon stat.

I dedicated all my little spare time to summons (if you have feedback on them please share it here) but let's see...

Insect spells

Gust of Wind will counter them. Fire Shield and Acid Sheath already block them within SR. Do I need to edit the description a bit? Because reading it again it might not be clear that these spells already allow a save each round within SR.

(Un)Holy Word

I stand corrected about these spells never having a save, 5E now allows a save (the two spells are merged under Divine Word name). Still, I'm not convinced about adding it because we already have HD limits (5E changed this into hit points limits as Power Words).

The deafness effect isn't a problem for players imo despite geg hating it. Players can block it with spell protections, cure it with a spell or even with a potion. I'm more concerned about its effectiveness against AI, which cannot rely much on those.

To a lesser extent I don't like that the only effect not limited by HD check is purely anti-spellcaster, but that's not a big deal.

I have some concerns about these spells slaying 10HD creatures with no save (even if that requires caster lvl 20). It turns the spell into a Greater Banishment spell that works even on genies, which SCS - and then SR - specifically modified to be immune to.

I have one daring last thought. It looks cool to me but I'm reluctant because "it's not as per PnP". We could edit the effects a bit more and differentiate the good/evil versions more. The evil one for example could cause sickness and nausea instead of deafness and blindness.

Cromwell/Cespenar new recipes

Has there already been a discussion about adding recepies to Cromwell/Cespenar? I'm not too much into new items, but there are a few I'd really like to see "merged" - most notably, those belts of +3 vs specific weapon type. Out of IR scope? The bad thing about it is that new bams would be neccecary for it....

It has come up a few times. I'm not too much into it, except very few cases (e.g. NPCs unique items) but most of all it's just too low on my priority list.

Portrait icons

I've made a code that adds them where applicable.

Are there items still in need of a portrait icon? I agreed to use them by default for cases where you have a full immunity or a not-stackable perfect copy of a spell, and I added them when someone reported an appropriate case. If we want to apply them via patch then for the default install either I restore all of them as per vanilla (pls no) or I remove them all as per IRV2 (but TweakPack can do it). What's the point?

Throwing weapons

Searching the forum, i found many posts talking about buffing darts, throwing daggers, etc by adding thac0, changing the dice to 1D4, etc but i couldn't find any discussion about the range...

Does anyone think throwing daggers/darts should have a larger range or they are fine and i just suck at tactics ?

Most players (and beta testers now) seem to prefer PMs over the forum, but I'm almost sure we had an open conversation on this matter on this forum...

Anyway, many players pointed me out that range 20 wasn't enough different from actual ranged weapons like bow and xbows. With the exception of darts, throwing weapons are also melee weapons, and if they can perform both roles too well you end up creating a situation where a ranged only weapon prof becomes almost redundant.

Darts are a bit special, but at the same time I think they perform a small niche and are not supposed to be on par with other weapons imo. They are great to disrupt spellcasting, and they are the best weapon type to inflict status effects.

A small compromise could be to increase the range from 15 to 17, but I don't know if they really need it.

Break Enchantment vs Charm

Out of curiosity, why does Break Enchantment use a custom SecType for that? Why not just cancel the Charm/Domination opcode(s)?

What do you mean? With the new EE-only method? That would be your answer: it's EE only.

Also, sec type is a much easier way to cover all enchantments that BE should dispel.

Insect spells

- Save to avoid spell disruption and half damage seems kind of meaningless, when any damage causes its own spell disruption (for the majority of players, who don't/can't use TobEx concentration checks).

Well, I also tweaked it so that dmg is applied only once each round on a successfull save. Unless you are really terrible at timing your casting that means you can easily cast most spells, and barely cast even those with casting time 8!

- I don't think these spells should do that much damage anyway. Even a bunch of tarantula wasps (look them up, they are terrifying) will stun you more than kill you. Maybe x hp damage every two rounds, so the victim can get some spells off... but some high chance of spell disruption (~60%) and maybe a -4 AC penalty; and s save to reduce those to a 30% failure chance and -2 AC penalty. And maybe the higher level spell, which presumably summons more painful/venomous insects, could stun the target on a failed save (stun for 3 seconds, save every round - so you can slowly try to escape while writhing in pain).

It's 2d3 per round, 1d3 if saved. I would call those "life-threatening" wounds, but I can lower it to d2 if we really want to. Damage isn't a selling point anyway for these spells, except maybe for Creeping Doom (but that's covered by the new poison effect imo).

I really dislike the idea of using 'stun' on these spells.

- As for eliminating insects: I think Gust of Wind should do it (if it can blow size-M creatures away, surely it also works on little insects). GoW should probably should have a quick casting time for this purpose.

GoW already has casting time 1.

Also basically any AoE fire spell. For instance, I'd even suggest that Burning Hands should disperse them - I think a broad fan of jetting flames would be an excellent tool to disperse angry bees.

The same could be said about Web - a Fireball should destroy it - but t's best to draw a line before we start to ask for 100 small details hard or impossible to implement.

(Un)Holy Word

- I think Holy Word is fine... after all it's kind of the original priestly Quest Spell, before quest spells became a thing. If anything, it should be buffed. Killing less than 5 HD is pathetic and useless - weaker than Death Spell! I would combine the Slow and Deafen effects, so that warriors and spellcasters are both hampered by Holy Word, without the arbitrary HD check that basically lets warriors off the hook if they are 12th level.

I'll think about this spell a bit more tonight and let you know. I'm starting to notice a few things I'm not convinced of. Speaking of which, it's slay effect isn't limited at 5HD anymore, it caps at 10HD with caster lvl 20.

- A bigger issue is perhaps, is there any other way to cure deafness than the Cure Disease spell? (Which you can't cast of you're deaf.) Shouldn't potions that cure disease also cure deafness? Do they already? Perhaps this is an issue for IR, not SR.

Cure Disease has casting time 1 within SR, it's worth taking that 1 chance out of 2 of curing deafness imo.

IR's Elixir of Health cures poisons, diseases, blindness and deafness. No spell failure involved.

Insect spells, Holy/Unholy Word

@Janro and geg Igot your points, I asked for somebody else opinion because yours can be given for granted by now.

Charm vs Break Enchantment

Btw: make note, charm (un;like domination) cant be removed with break enchantment and i think only chaotic commands remove it(need to test it). Is that intended?

I just checked Charm, Dire charm and Charm Person/Animal and many innate variants (used by random monsters I guess), all of them have disabling sec type and are countered by Break Enchantment which removes that sec type. Are you talking about a specific innate variant that I may have missed?

Chaotic Commands doesn't cancel charm or domination, it only prevents them.

Insect swarms

I'd like to hear more opinions on this matter but I don't feel like insect spells are OP. I think we can make Gust of Wind counter it, but compared to vanilla they already allow a save each round (there was NO SAVE in vanilla against dmg and spell failure), they don't cause fear anymore, and can be blocked by a Fire Shield.

Holy/Unholy Word

I am not even sure there should be miscast magic as part of the holy word...

It has been there in every single PnP edition ever printed (not sure about 4E but that's not even D&D imo).

A deafness effect on a sound based spell seem kinda logic, but I admit large AoE combined with 'no save' can make it annoying to handle (not impossible though, because 50% spell failure isn't 100%). I guess adding a save could easily "fix" it, but these spells never had a save in PnP.

Can any beta tester share his opinion?

Unholy Word

For a moment I thought the problem was demons/devils spamming it, but even a Pit Fiend can use it only once.

That would be a nice argument, until you realize there could be thousands of those.
And what about a caster that can't just Cure Disease ?

Thousands Pit Fiends? Then you should die instantly. Jokes aside, afaik among devils only the pit fiend has it, and not a single demon has it, not even the balor.

It's not like all the mage in the game are liches. Aka, undead presumably immune to the effects of... the Holy/Unholy Word is not a disease, it's an negative enchantment, aka a curse. Arguments ? Shut the fuck up. So you gonna die now ?

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the first part...that the spell is OP against AI mages? Spell Deflection can block it with the intended SR setup (aka SD working vs AoE) but I'd be much more sympathetic to this than the above because players have more tools at their disposal to counter it.

Speaking of counters, deafness is still deafness, Cure Disease should work on it much like Remove Paralysis works against Hold spells as well as a ghoul's touch. That being said, Break Enchantment should probably cure the effects of Unholy Word yes. Easily done.

Ideally the druid's insect spells should be also getting a cure. Sometimes they are just too overpowered just like the no save word of faith. they do damage, debuff and completely wreck spellcasting. this is way way too much for a single spell.

 

insect spells could be fixed:

-save checked every round, not once in the very beginning

-cure disease should remove it probably

 

All the miscast magic spells like the word of faith and insects could be further nerfed by giving only ~20% miscast no more.

- Within SR all insect swarms already let the targets save each round to avoid spell failure and halving the dmg.

- Gust of Wind would be much more appropriate. Also, Fire Shield grants immunity to insect spells within SCS/SR.

You really hate spell failure eh? I think you brought up Holy/Unholy Word at least 10 times. Anyway, I'm open to discuss them but its Deafness effect doesn't sound so OP considering a Cure Disease spell cancel it. For a moment I thought the problem was demons/devils spamming it, but even a Pit Fiend can use it only once.

Oracle

Oracle will destroy Mislead clones and Projected Images, correct?

Yes, right now it does. I was actually thinking to remove such feature and leave it to Detect/Dispel Illusions (as a niche feature of that underused 3rd lvl spell).

With the next build Oracle will also work as a Mass Know Opponent.

True Seeing vs. Detect/See Invisibility

What does TS get you that See Invisible doesn't?

TS lasts twice as much and also work as a SI:Illusion giving immunity to Spook, Shadow Door's maze-like effect, plus the upcomings Phantasmal Killer, Solipsism and Weird.

TS can counter blindness (as per SCS) and the new Obscuring Mist.

In the current build TS highlights illusionary clones/creatures, but I was thinking to make it "weaken" them (e.g. halving hit points). It will also come useful against Phantasmal Force and Shades illusionary summons.

Last but not least, priests don't have See Invisibility, but TS is a bit cheaper for them.

"partially visible" via detect invisibility and true seeing and faerie fire removes -4 miss penalty of II?

 

Dpes it work for the whole party or only for the character who cast detect invis/TS?

Just to be sure: "partially visible" and "see invisibility" aren't the same thing.

You are partially visible after taking an offensive action while under Improved Invisibility. The partially visible character appears semi-transparent, cannot be directly targeted by spells or abilities, but can be targeted by physical attacks with a -4 penalty to attack rolls. Within Revisions many spells which once used "remove invisibility" now only use "force visible", making the target partially visible instead of fully dispelling II.

See invisibility allows the affected creature - only him - to target a partially visible creature as if fully visible. Spells and abilities can be directly targeted, physical attacks do not suffer -4 penalty. SR's True Seeing grants the caster this ability but, as I said on my previous post, TS only affects the caster now, the rest of the party still has to deal with partially visible creatures on their own (e.g. an allied warrior still suffer -4 thac0 penalty).

Faerie Fire doesn't remove the -4 penalty from II because it doesn't dispel II. FF turns fully invisible targets into "partially visible". That being said, an II creature struck by FF is easier to hit because of FF's -2 AC penalty (thus the -4 penalty from II can be considered halved).

Improved Invisibility + Non-detection

Can you tell me how is the "imp invis + non-detection + dispelling screen" countered?

 

If i have a dude with imp invis, cloak of non-detection and disp screen, the opponent casters wont be ever able to target me with spells? Provided that they dont see invisible like the fiends.

 

What if i have imp inv + non detection? will the SCS AI be able to AOE dispel me and handle it?

Let's go step by step.

Improved Invisibility:

- Detect Illusion (1), Invisibility Purge and Oracle currently dispel II (same as vanilla)

- with SR Detect Invisibility (2) and True Seeing makes the caster "see invisible" but do not fully dispel II

- Faerie Fire does not dispel II, but can make an II target partially visible, and prevents invisibility for a short period

- Glitterdust removes II

I'd like to rename (1) and (2) as per later editions: Dispel Illusions and See Invisibility. It makes their function much more clear imo.

Non-detection:

- makes you immune to "divination attacks" such as Detect Illusion, Invisibility Purge and Oracle (also Know Opponent, Know Alignment, etc.)

- does not protect from True Seeing because this spell doesn't truly affect targets anymore but rather the caster himself

- both Faerie Fire and Glitterdust bypass it

Dispelling Screen (aka SI:Abj):

- simply adds one more layer of protection over Non-detection

- can be countered by any spell removal if the caster can "see invisibility"

- absorbs only 1 cast of Dispel Magic with Kreso's tweak (much like a Spell Shield but against DM)

Conclusions:

- fully removing II when protected by Non-detection can only be done via Glitterdust or Dispel Magic but the latter can be blocked by DS/SI:Abj

- countering II+Non-detection can still be done via TS, the caster of TS is able to target the II creature normally

Note that TS isn't the end of all illusions like it used to be in vanilla (it doesn't even dispel illusionary clones such as Mislead) thus caster's allies still have to deal with II and eventual other illusions.

Ah, i looked the KR code and i get it now. It modifies RANGER to use HPRNG table but the kits are not modified and use HPWAR. You are right, please disregard my post.

Thanks, I'll fix this asap. Cannot wait to go back to KR.

Ranger Backstab

I think you should consider giving the TrueClass Ranger the ability to backstab at x2 around level 5 - which is where thieves hit x3. It could possibly be set at a higher level, but I would like to be able to actually use it in BG1.

 

I like the current implementation of Rangers using light and medium armor very much, but would love to see them get a bit more out of their high stealth scores. Even with this change, the stalker would still be the prime backstabber among rangers - with the ability to backstab from level one and the possibility of advancing beyond x2. As such, I don't think giving a x2 modifier to TrueClass Ranger would invalidate the Stalker at all, which is of course an obvious concern.

I once dared to suggest adding a spell to temporary give x2 backstab (I don't remember it now but I think it was from Spell Compendium) and it seemed like most players were against it. Overall I'm really torn on the whole idea, on one side I like it because it makes ranger's stealth a bit more interesting, otoh it kinda spoils the Stalker's main feat and to a lesser extent Thief too.

If I am not mistaken, the Inquisitor's Dispel Magic is still missing the appropriate extension for levels 1 to 5.

 

Has kreso's DS been included in this release?

 

And Demi, I was reading the TO DO list and I was positively impressed by your intention of replacing the derivative Reflected Image with Phantasmal Force. I hope it'll come soon!

I left Kreso's tweak out for now until he's back (just to be sure). Beta 12 isn't the build I was hoping to release, only part of it. I had to leave the city and left the dirty work to Mike who released it as part of a bigger "project": moving all our mods and betas to github. That's also why the betas are now open betas.

I'll be back within 2 days and Beta 13 will shortly follow. Phantasmal Force will come soon yes.

Hello

 

I have the latest publicly available beta of KR (from the link in the first page of this thread). Is it compatible with EE or should I try to get a newer version?

BG1:EE

ERROR: [item_rev/itm/amul01.itm] -> [override/amul01.itm] Patching Failed (COPY) (Failure("Unknown function: update_item_descriptions_to_bgee"))

ERROR: [item_rev/components/main/items.2da] -> [item_rev/components/main] Patching Failed (COPY) (Failure("Unknown function: update_item_descriptions_to_bgee"))

ERROR: Failure("Unknown function: update_item_descriptions_to_bgee")

Item Revisions by Demivrgvs (Item Revisions (BGEE)) was not installed due to errors.

Anyone know how to fix this error? The only mod installed before IR is Spell Revisions.

I just tried and it installs fine for me on BG1EE. o.O

In the non modded BG2 game, plat16.itm is Armor of the Hart +3 and plat17.itm is the cursed T'rachie's Plate +5.

 

IR changes that by making plat17.itm Armor of the Hart and plat16.itm the new Casiel's Soul +3, a cursed armor.

Casiel's Soul will not have the 'cursed' flag anymore for technical reasons. If you use Break Enchantment you can remove the armor from the Death Knight. If you're using the armor and cast BE on the wearer (to cure confusion for example) you also end up without armor and cannot re-quip it during the fight.

The switch between the two armors was done long before IR started moving items around. Just think as if plat17.itm is not cursed when IR is installed.

P.S the critical_hits.tpa.tpa file isn't in my dropbox folder. I probably fixed it some time after uploading the build. No big deeal though, it doesn't cause any issue.

Skin of the Forest

a) Armor "Skin of the Forest +3" (item leat14. i think it replaces the "The Night's Gift" that you get from the umar hills mayor) has a base AC of 5 but grants Barkskin so it gives an AC of 1. Does anyone else think the -4AC benefit of barkskin is too much ?

This is the same AC as "Mithral Chain Mail +4", "Bladesinger Chain +4", "Shadow Dragonhide +5" and others that require more trouble to be acquired. With the components that give heavier armors dexterity, movement, thieving penalties installed then the difference is even greater and it outclasses (at least from an AC point) a lot armors. For example, due to the dexterity penalties, a character with 18DEX has -3AC wearing it and also has -3AC wearing the "Deep Guardian's Plate" (base AC of -1) and has -4AC with "Enkidu's Plate" (base AC of -3)

This is a bit long to explain but I'll try.

SotF's base AC value is its only good feature, it has no other special feature. It is extremely good for high DEX characters yes but not so much for low DEX ones. For example a character with 15 DEX would have better AC using Deep Guardian's Plate. You need to consider those medium/heavy armors you mention also grant 10-20% physical dmg reduction instead of just 5% and they have additional special abilities (e.g. Shadow Dragonhide's immunity to level drain). It's less noticeable but also note that in most cases those armors have better AC modifiers vs all weapon types (except vs. blunt), and if you wish, you can cast Barkskin to further improve those armors AC.

Right now this is a really really good light armor, but if I lower SotF to AC 2 or 3 and suddenly there would be absolutely no reason to keep it for more than 5 minutes imo.

Special Arrows

b) The enchantment level of Acid/Fire/Ice arrows are changed from vanilla 0 to 2/1/1 respectively. This is very nice but do you think it would be better if Fire/Ice arrows were also changed to +2 enchantment or they would be overpowered ?

Last time i played an archer and found a Fire Elemental, i thought the most logical ammunition to use is an Ice Arrow but i couldn't hurt it because it was immune to weapons of less than 2 enchantment. Wouldn't it be logical to be able to use these Fire/Ice arrows on enemies of the opposite element ?

Fire/Ice arrows were more common and lessexpensive even in vanilla, I just built upon it.

I'm sympathetic to the whole "can't hit a fire elemental with an Ice Arrow" complain, but that's an issue of the game combat system (aka AD&D rules), not IR's fault. I never liked the "immune to +x enchantment lvl" thing, and that's probably something I would have handled within Creature Revisions if only I ever had the time for it.

On a side note...few players suggested to differentiate elemental ammos a bit more (e.g. Ice could do less dmg but slow target) and I'm tempted to go for it.

c) Why are Arrows of Piercing changed to 3 enchantment and not 4 ?

I do not have anything against this. It is a great change because it solves the problem with long bows and enchantment 3 is enough for pretty much any enemy. I just ask out of curiosity because the original description mentioned +4 to THAC0 so an enchantment of 4 would be the obvious choice.

With +3 you can hit any creature in the game (except 2 demi-liches and 1 boss). I just thought +4 should be "epic stuff" not your barely rare arrow type.

Btw, as you noticed +x thac0 doesn't necessarily mean +x enchantment (e.g. vanilla's Arrow of Piercing has just +1 enchantment lvl). Within IR it's almost always the same, but not always (e.g. Bane weapons or weapons with additional accuracy bonuses such as all xbows).

the problem with the animation only applies to the Inquisitor Dispel Magic (spcl231.spl). I tested it with the mage version of it and it works without problem.

 

Not only that but both in the original game and with SR, the spell is missing the appropriate dispel level for level 1 to 5 so that in a BGT game, the inquisitor would at level 1 cast a level 12 Dispel Magic!!

I wasn't tweaking Inquisitor's Dispel Magic within SR, at least not directly. KR does a better job with it, but I can probably fix that within SR for those who use SR without KR.

But this is the only thing I did to the projectile:

COPY_EXISTING ~spargrnp.pro~ ~override~ // Remove Magic
WRITE_SHORT 0x206 190 // Reduced AoE to 20'
BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

I didn't even touched the spl file.

Are you using the old Dispel Magic (the disabled one)? Even then, I only did this:

COPY_EXISTING ~spklargr.pro~ ~override~ // Dispel Magic
WRITE_SHORT 0x200 77 // Don't affect caster and allied creatures
WRITE_SHORT 0x206 190 // Reduced AoE to 20'
BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

Try commenting them out and this if it works.

Again about holy word/unholy word, deafness and silence. No doubt this thing needs a save. But also when your char is deafened it needs a proper countering cure spell like the cure disease or break enchantment.

 

-maybe deafness should be cured by break enchantment/cure disease so that a party member can help the deafened character promptly to remove this terrible effect.

-can vocalize be cast while silenced? maybe it should be also 100% cast while deafened and cure it too?

 

If it has a save vs deafness and also deafness has a proper cure spell it will become balanced and fine.

unholy word is rly stopping me from playing atm.

I'm tweaking (Un)Holy Word for the next build, but in the meanwhile:

- Cure Disease already counters deafness (and blindness)

- Vocalize cancels Silence and can be cast when affected by the latter

- within V4 Break Enchantment can cure silence but you have to cast it with someone not already affected by Silence itself

I admit a "mass deafness with no save" can be a pain, but it's not a death sentence either.

I have a graphical issue with the Dispel Magic projectile. I posted about it at the 1PP Forum but I am not sure SR is innocent.

 

Here's the link: http://www.shsforums.net/topic/55047-1ppv410-release-download-discussion/?p=583838

I haven't touched the projectile animation...the only thing I did was reducing AoE from 30 to 20 feet. I'll double check but I don't think it's SR's fault.

What variant were chosen in the end? I'll have free time (vacation, yeeaaahhhh! ) soon, so adding or modifying bams will be easy.

Cool man, I'll be very active around 22-29 too.

I never understood the whole "69" icon for regeneration. I personally like the idea of just doing the Cure Wounds crosses in green... assuming green is already used for some spells. (Isn't it? Entangle? Acid Sheath?)

 

Alternatively I like the idea of doing an Ankh (a cross where the top member is a loop) which is a more naturalist symbol of life, vs. the religious (specifically Christian) cross.

 

But even if it's those variations on the sideways "69" symbol, anything to differentiate the regen spells from the cure spells would be very useful for players.

No green icon within BG (except green scrolls but that's another thing entirely).

I think you are suggesting this right? I like it. But I'm fine with V1 or V3 here too.

Jarno and Toxin kinda answered for me but I'll give my 2 cents anyway...

The most important fixes for me to improve the game further:

 

1) reduce MR for all creatures. 50% is way way too much and un-fun if you re trying to use magic other then stoneskin, mirror image, haste and pfmw. 50% creatures should be going to ~20% no more

2) word of faith. i dont know if it works like it used to but it used to deafen everyone for 10 rounds eliminating spellcasting. this is way way too much. And every fiend casts it.

3) automatic contingencies/triggers. on to-do list already.

4) perhaps. lower the effectiveness of Pfmw? It always irked me Carsomyr cant do anything about the spell. Pfmw should maybe check for save vs wand or smth and if the save is failed, the weapon actually hits through?

 

5) What was the idea behind expeditious retreat spell? When is it supposed to be good?

1) It's not related to SR. Many asked for a spell to counter it but I doubt I can find a spot for it within SR. An Abjurer or Transmuter HLA within KR maybe? Overall, I don't see it as a big deal. I think +x weapon immunity and +y spell lvl immunity are two far worse mechanics within AD&D.

2) I was sure I gave it a save somewhere during the beta, but it looks like I didn't. I'll handle it.

3) I suggested to make them innates myself a decade ago, but for some reason I ended up never implementing it. For a while it was planned for SRV4, but I think we settled to let it for KR's revised mages instead.

4) My hands are tied on this.

5) It's as Jarno says, "an escape button", but it can also be used for fast traveling within big areas (that's why I made it affect the whole party whereas its caster only in PnP). It's up to beta testers to tell me if the implementation works or not though.

As for Sunscorch, perhaps just giving a save bonus or something, or... oo! or this: making the Blindness be very short duration at low levels. Like 1 round per 3 levels. That way it's not too powerful at very low levels, but stays useful as you progress higher.

Blindness lasts only 1 round right now. It could be extended to 2-3 but not more imo. Sunscorch already deals a good amount of damage, and Blindness was almost OP by itself as a 1st lvl spell.

@Salk, I forgot about it sorry ( bad Demi, bad) can you point me out to your suggested description again? I fixed the typo on Dispel Magic thanks.