Demivrgvs

Is there a reason my f*****g connection always destroys my post after spending twenty minutes on them?! I'm annoyed to hell to have to re-write everything, thus I'll cut it to the essential parts sorry. Spirit Armor Yeah, but you're actually suggesting to make it create an Elven Chain Mail +7 (no spellcasting failure, no encumberance, ...), not a "normal" +3 plate mail. Anyway, on one hand I wouldn't mind to make this spell (and Ghost Armor too) more appealing, on the other I fear an even better AC may be really too much for a class which is actually supposed to have bad AC. What's the point of fighters if mages can use Spirit Armor + TT to be just as effective as them on top of all the other great spells? I'd like to know what other players feel about these spells because I'm not convinced myself, at least not enough to tell you a "NO I won't follow your suggestion". Barkskin Actually the pace was intended to:- have Barksink start with a +2 as soon as you get it 3rd lvl) - have rangers max it out If it's a matter of balance (e.g. too much AC too soon, or too good spell for rangers) then I'm open to discuss it. else I'd prefer to keep it unchanged. Blur Nice idea, will do. No, there's a reason I made the change. I've used Planescape Torment version of this spell because its description gives a "reasonable" explanation for it granting a bonus against mind affecting spells, whereas I really cannot understand why a blurred outline should protect you from things like diseases or poisons, and even less from AoE spells such as fireballs. Clairvoyance "Long" duration may be needed for the 'immunity to backstab' to be effective, but the casting time is quite fast thus I kinda like the +3/1 turn solution too. I was saying the same within my Blur's reply. Ghost Armor - - fine - actually I do like what I managed to do, and at least a couple of players wrote me they love it Acid Fog Fine with me. Lightning Bolt Cool, I'd love to have it use the old animation. I'll look into it. Flame Arrow To have a small delay between arrows, to have them indipendently select their random targets, and because that was the only way I found to code the spell. Would I (or players) get any beneficial effect from changing the spell? Farsight Fine. Tenser's Transformation As per Spirit Armor, I'd prefer to have players discuss this because I have many doubts myself. Conjure Elemental I already removed it in my V4 beta.

Various I'm glad you noticed some of the "less famous" changes, and you liked them. Emotion in particular was indeed OP (it was cheaper Hold Monster with a much bigger AoE) though only the most experienced players noticed that spell for some reason. Disintegrate My first revision inflicted much less damage yes, but then most players seemed to agree that the damage should be high enough to instantly kill 90% of times (except SCS dragons or similar uber-tough creatures). After all, it did killed on hit in vanilla, though the save was so easy to make that almost every player skipped this spell (not to mention the destroy loot issue made it even less appealing). For completeness: - SR/SCS Harm deal 150 points of damage, while SR's Disintegration deals up to 40-240, thus 140 on average - SCS/vanilla Harm allowed no save, while SR one allow a save for half damage. SR's Disintegration instead deals a relatively small amount of damage (5d6) if the target successfully save. I can let players decide if this spell really needs to be nerfed (as long as it deals outstanding damage), but just so you know, a 3x Disintegrate on a sequencer won't help you much, because the save is made only once (I know it sounds strange but I'm almost sure), and thus on a successful save you'll deal 15d6, while on a failed save a single Disintegrate would have probably been enough. A 3x Chain Lightning is hugely more effective imo. Regarding save penalties, V4 will almost surely use less powerful penalties for high lvl spells. I think I'll cap them to -4, because some spells like Wail of the Banshee went from too weak (vanilla's no penalty) to too powerful (SR's -6 penalty). Not to mention that I actually don't like much save-or-else spells because they either end the encounter in a second or they are completely useless, whereas even a small secondary effect (e.g. Disintegration and Finger of Death small amount of damage) can make those spells more appealing while allowing the main one to not be uber-effective. For instance, if it wasn't against PnP I would have probably suggested a "deafness" secondary effect for Wail of the Banshee, thus removing the necessity for the insta-kill effect to have an uber-high save penalty to make the spell appealing.

I thought about doing something about it but it's a little messy. Healing Spells: I can very easily make them not heal undead, and I can also make them harm such creatures with some additional EFF files (Mass Healing though would require a lot of work for the targeting system). Such change may cause some AI issues (e.g. undead creatures casting healing spells on themselves). Harming Spells: these are much more problematic because they work in a completely different way (as 1 charge weapon which needs to score hit on a target), and adding a healing effect that can potentially miss the allied creature seems silly. For V4 I was actually going to suggest to completely change them into something more similar to Ghoul's Touch (no charges), because these spells are absolutely useless right now (except Harm, which can actually be really OP under Time Stop).

My fault, I had a doc about it back then in v2 but when I planned the huge re-revision I removed it. I'll provide you a topic or a link to it, but don't expect anything revolutionary, as the ones within V3 are the same I had in V1, and they probably aren't as good in quality as most other things we've worked on in recent versions. Strontium Dog can probably help you better than me, because I personally never worked on compatibility between SR and spell50 mod for obvious reasons: it's like asking me to vote for Berlusconi. For this spell in particular I highly doubt you can extend it as you wish, because it uses a quite complicate shell system of multiple spells, and I don't recommend to mess with it. Removing the cap seriously ruins the game balance, but it's your game and I'm not the police.

Grease Exactly! This works... and increase the radius. Keep the KO chance. So, it's now half as effective at disabling, but if you double the radius it's potentially twice as effective at antimobility, which cancels out the half duration.Well, it's not so simple. Halving the duration doesn't mean the "KO" effect is half as effective, and increasing the AoE surely doesn't mean making it twice as effective. A bigger AoE in particular isn't necessary an advantage for un-friendly spells, actually a smaller AoE for those spells can much more effective in some cases. Well, I may try to fix that, I had to do something like that for IR's Belt of Inertial Barrier. Anyway, after thinking about it I think you're supposed to cast Grease under target's feet, not in front of them while they advance (unless in a narrow corridor). BG's AI is quite limited and will continue in your direction, but in theory only a feebleminded character would be so stupid to do it when he can just opt for a longer but safer way. Ehm...that sounds like "falling to the ground" (current Grease effect) rather than "staying up and casting or fighting" (which is Entangle's effect). Greater Command Well, the advantages of Greater Command are:1. -4 penalty to save (more or less you can translate it into a +20% chance to affect each target) 2. 20' feet radius (twice as much as Grease) 3. party friendly (this is a quite noticeable advantage) In theory GrCommand has another huge advantage over most other AoE spells, the instant casting time, but Grease right now has the same feature.

Well, that familiar is overpowered per se in BG1, but if you exploit it even more with a multiple Grease you surely end up with a broken system yes. Anyway...replacing slip with entangle? Since when a layer of grease can entangle? In 3rd edition PnP, IWD and NWN it works just like I made it, but I do agree I have to reduce the effectiveness of the KO secondary effect. In theory I should also increase its casting speed because 1 is really too fast for a stationary-AoE spell, but I'm not sure about this because this spell probably needs to be cast fast enough to be in place before the enemy approaches the mage. What about reducing the duration from 1 turn to 5 rounds? P.S Vanilla's Ring of Wizardry is also part of the issue, because you shouldn't be able to memorize 6-8 Grease!

Grease I'm glad to have some more feedback for BG1. Let's see...I think the things we may work on are:1) save 2) casting speed 3) "stackability" 1) The "problem" here is that I indeed need to slightly refine the whole system (as some players like Six correctly noticed) because I made all spells of a certain level use the same saves (e.g. lvl 1 with no penalty, lvl 2 with -1 penalty, ...) but I should instead take into account more things (e.g. has the spell secondary effects? is it a save-or-else spell, or a save for half damage? and so on). Long story short, Grease had a +2 bonus to targets' saves in vanilla, and I removed it in V1 because else the spell was really useless, but with time I refined the spell quite much and I think restoring such bonus might be fine. As you noticed the smaller AoE actually makes it more effective, and the slow effect (no save) make sure opponents have to stick in it at least for some time instead of runnnig at full speed through it (which could actually cause the targets to walk over it without having to make a single save). 2) I think that 1) should be enough to balance the spell, but if most of you think it's not we may raise the casting speed from 1 to 5 like most persistent-AoE spells (Entangle, Web, ...). The casting speed is somewhat "necessary" imo to effectively use such a small AoE (10' feet), but I may be wrong. 3) multiple Grease spells, just like multiple Web spells is quite a problem in terms of balance yes...but when I prosed to block it a lot of players were against it because blocking it "made no sense", which is kinda true because I think two Web spells simply make the area even more "webbed".

I'm sure Mike will fix it. I and Mike spent a lot of time to make descriptions as accurate as possible: "A creature that succeeds on their saving throw can walk within or through the area of grease but will have their movements slowed considerably." Grease (movement rate set to 1) and Entangle (movement rate set to 50%) slow everyone in the area with no save, while a save is allowed to avoid slip/entangle effects. Ice Storm and Acid Fog have no save at all, not even to halve the damage. V4's Web will have a similar effect if we replace the overpowered hold effect with an entangle-like one.

If you're familiar with Shadowkeeper or Near Infinity it's quite easy to add those spells to your character's known spells list and you'll not break anything. Sorry to bring this up, and let me say thankyou for all the hard work being put into this. I was considering just editing these spells out during install, but after reading this i'm not sure i would be able to.... Is that still a viable option to let a cleric use those spells? or is shadowkeeper etc the only way? If editing the install would i need to alter any component in addition to the spells themselves? Many thanks. If you edit them out they work like in vanilla (Sunray is almost unchanged, but False Dawn was completly different), and are available to clerics. If you want their SR's version but still want your cleric to use them you have to edit your cleric spellbook with shadowkeeper without commenting them out on install. Let me know if it's not clear.

Yeah, it's because BG consider sleep and unconsciousness the same thing (even when it comes from a dragon's breath). I think I can try to fix that at least for SR's undead creatures, will try.FWIW in Tutu I went to High Hedge and fought the skeletons surrounding Thalantyr's mansion. Those skellies went down to grease while my own didn't. It was amusing.That's very strange, but I don't know BG1 so well, while within BG2 all undead are indeed immune to sleep/unconsciousness (via ring99.itm).

Yeah, it's because BG consider sleep and unconsciousness the same thing (even when it comes from a dragon's breath). I think I can try to fix that at least for SR's undead creatures, will try. By giant I mean giant, such as fire giants, while ogres are "only" large. Now this is a bug sorry, I've done a mistake in a file which handles the immunities (and a similar error is there for Web, and Stinking Cloud too). I've attached here the fixed files, simply put the 3 files in the override, no need to re-install.

False Dawn & Sunray If you're familiar with Shadowkeeper or Near Infinity it's quite easy to add those spells to your character's known spells list and you'll not break anything.

False Dawn & Sunray Sorry, documenting everything for such a huge mod is quite difficult but I should have made more clear that Sunray too is now a druid-only spell. These spells belong to the Sun Sphere, and even if I don't really implement a full "sphere system" a la Divine Remix I've made them druid-only as per PnP. I've tried to make both classes spellbooks a little more unique (and against undead clerics have turn undead in theory) and this change is part of it, but if most of you feel Sunray absolutely need to be within cleric's spellbook I'm always open to player's feedback. P.S Amongst clerics only Morninglords of Lathander should be able to cast False Dawn and Sunray as domain spells, but SR doesn't handle that.

Spider Spwan In my install the script is modified by SCS, and indeed targets the players. Should I use a custom script, or should SCS patch it in a different way? Both?

Farsight I played with SR v3 quite some time ago so forgive me if I am writing wrong spell names or anything. I think the name of the spell is Farsight and it lets you click on one point of the fog-of-war to reveal the map. I did that. And the spell worked fine. But then, after having done it. I open the map, and on the top right corner, there is a button you can click to switch from local map to world map. Well, it is greyed out and no longer usable. I hope I am describing the issue well enough. Well, that's great, it seems hardcoded. SR doesn't change this spell much, and I even tried vanilla's one just to be sure, but this damn behaviour is there in both cases. I don't know what to say...

Farsight Ghost Armor Fixed thanks. Hotfixes will be updated tonight. Yeah, I had some fun trying to add a unique animation and I'm quite satisifed with the end result.

You're welcome. Absolute Immunity I'll add this suggestion to the possible solutions for V4 (but it actually is something I was going to use for a 9th lvl divination spell, Foresight). Currently we were planning to make it grant complete immunity to damage. Break Enchantment Actually I did it...but it seems there's a second .itm file for the very same scroll, and somehow I missed it. Will fix, thanks.Dimension Door You should be able to find a scroll somewhere, but surely in the Temple of Helm (Sister Garlena has it), from the Temple of Sekolah (Underwater City), from one of the duergar's merchants in the Underdark or from the Temple of Rillifane.

Arcane Remix and SR When I was talking about compatibility I was referring to the three components above mentioned, the mod in its entirety is probably going to be conceptually incompatible with SR just like Divine Remix is. Surely if NIGHTMARE doesn't mind (and I don't think he would considering how quickly he kindly offered his code) I can look at Arcan Remix for inspiration and implement things SR players would like to have within SR itself. The Wiki is down though, and I don't know what Arcane Remix is aiming to do, is there a way to better know about it? For example the .tra file would have given me the chance to see which spells will be changed and how, or which new spells are introduced if any.

Could this by any chance a) be implemented at all? b) If so in a future SR release, as I hope SR v3 is closing in a) yes, especially if most players agreeb) it wouldn't take me too much time to implement them, but we haven't discussed them at all and generally SR changes are discussed with players instead of "imposed". Anyway, unless I wake up tomorrow realizing this is a must-have I think it will have to wait as V3 is indeed closing in and I still have some things to do/decide even without adding these! Let's dicuss this briefly anyway: 1) I'd leave something like this to Kit Revisions. I may agree on it but it would require a wider revision of the class imo, else I suppose most players wouldn't like it at all. Furthermore, I'm not even sure this can be fully achieved as you can't assign more than one "exclusion flag" at a spell. You can flag scrolls to work this way, but on character creation you'd still be able to select spells which belong the secondary opposition school (NIGHTMARE can prove me wrong though). 2) this is extremely easy to do, but I'm not too sure about it for a simple reason: Use Any Item. I do hate this HLA when used by thieves (especially when exploited by kensai/thieves), but it's quite appropriate for bards, and would make this change minimal. 3) I like this, and it would be again a rather simple thing to do. P.S I don't feel much hurry to do these things as Arcane Remix would probably be compatible with SR.

Dispel, Minor Globe of Invulnerability & Spell Immunity Remove magic is 3rd level spell so Minor Globe of Invulnerability(4th level spell) works wonders against it. Unless you have a modified Remove magic casted on you. Oh boy I never thought about using minor globe of invulnerability against remove magic Well, probably because you can't. Dispel/Remove Magic is not considered a 3rd level spell, its level is set to 0, which allows it to bypass liches/rakshasas immunities as well as any Globe of Invulnerability. I never changed this "feature" if you're asking, it has always been there. SI: Abj should protect against Dispel though! I did a terrible error making it belong to Universal school in some old version of SR, but it should really be an Abjuration spell by now, at least in V2.9 (even without the hotfixes). P.S Just so you know, having a lower caster level is one of the very few disadvantages of a F/M over a pure mage, thus even if I don't like how easily a uber-high level opponent can dispel any protection, I do find natural that a F/M can get his/her buffs dispelled more easily.

What do you mean with "all of these abjuration & metamagic related changes"? I've reverted many changes (the one I regret the most is Spell Immunity, as I hate vanilla's stacking Spell Immunity ), and the ones I can think of still present in V3 are very few:- Spell Shield: it was irreparably bugged, and both RR and SCS scripts don't use it because of this - Pierce Shield: now has a breach-like effect (absolutely needed because liches and rakshasas are immune to Breach) - Spell Strike: as of V2.9 it doesn't have the breach-like effect anymore If your concern is the small aoe applied to some antimagic spells it's something I had to do because of SCS AI. Actually, most of the changes to the whole spell protection and antimac attacks system is done with SCS AI in mind.

Spellcasting Revision After a few tests:1) caster level of paladins and rangers isn't capped at 9th level despite what the manual says. 2) even if we allow them to cast spells before they normally could, their caster level is considered to be 1 till level 8-9 for rangers and paladins respectively. If 2) can be verified by someone else too it means we're not going to change the level at which paladins and rangers start having spellcasting abilities.

Spell shield I know, but you should also know that the only reason Spell Shield is so effective against beholders is because it's bugged! That being said, the problem imo is that BG version of beholder's anti-magic ray is extremely overpowered. It has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of its PnP version (beholder can't use all of their frontal rays as long as the anti-magic one is used). I already discussed this with DavidW and I'll see if I can implement an optional component or a mini-mod to nerf the ray without creating issues with SCSII AI. Saving throws penality Have you tried it in-game? Because I do feared the same but the feedback provided by players actually convinced me that even those harsh penalties aren't a problem. This is something for which a lot of feedback would be welcomed. Regarding Greater Malison it has been nerfed to cause -2 penalty as per PnP, IWD and BG1; instead of the overpowered -4. I'll post a topic on this matter because I fear many players don't understand how powerful this spell was in its BG2 version. Spellstrike Are you referring to its latests version? Because in V2.9 the Breach-like ability has been removed exactly because the fear of it being too powerful. Anyway vanilla's version of this spell was really too weak for a 9th level spell and something had to be done. My latest suggestion was to add a Remove Magic-like feature (which I think was present in PnP).

Spellcasting Revision The caster level is simply based on the level at which the class gets the first spell if I'm not wrong, thus rangers would cast spells as druids of 4 levels lower. If I remember correctly the cap at 9th caster level doesn't really exist in BG, it says rangers stops at 9th level because without SoA they couldn't reach a higher level. I'll make sure both statements are true asap, unless someone can confirm this before I do.

I've just checked the .tra file in the hotfix and the description correctly says necromancy. Are you sure you're using it? Sorry I didn't notice it...the pinned hotfix (outdated for v2.9) was just too shining That's why we need a V3. Again, very strange, the spell is indeed updated in my game. Anyway, if something like this is reported I'll make sure it doesn't happen in V3. When I implement such drastical changes we generally discuss it a lot before I do. Dispel/Remove Magic have been restored as per Vanilla (mainly because DavidW convinced me to do it), and thus it's not considered a change of mine anymore. Vanilla's Spell Shield hardcoded effect is bugged, SCSII AI don't use this spell because it's broken, and using it in some cases end up being very cheesy. If I could fix the spell to work as intended without bugs I would have done it, but I can't. In V3 Spell Shield won't be available at 5th level. Due to spell number limit per spell level (I've added few 5th level spells) I ned to remove one spell, and this one is clearly the more problematic because the original was broken and the revised could be considered too powerful. I'll take about it asap, but my solution would be to keep it more or less as it is in 2.9 and move it to a higher spell level slot.