Demivrgvs

Can it be possible to make healing magic do harm to undead?

And reverse healing spells such as 'harm' heal them, respectfully?

 

Meanwhile Jaheira is healing ghouls.

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).

1. In what way have the familiars been fixed and tweaked?

 

I tried to find something in the forum or the readme, but I didn't - probably I just overlooked it or looked in the wrong place(then I'd be grateful for directions).

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.

 

2. ... Is it possible, after installation of Spell revisions, to remove the level cap of spells by simply adding effects in NI? Or would I have to make a more complicated approach?

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.

 

And would that mean, if I did just that, that Flame Arrow for example would shoot Arrows at more random targets (I like envisioning that idea of a lich sending a hail of magical arrows towards the group of adventurers with the cheek to disturb his studies) - or would it mean that the first target would bear the brunt of the hail of arrows and four arrows would be shot off randomly - or would it mean a simple CTD?

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.

 

Oh, btw, I hope you don't mind me mucking about with your mod - especially since the mod was made in the spirit of balancing the game and what I'm about to do is to seriously tip the balance in favour of magical combat (not in my favour, though, since in my next playthrough the only more-or-less single classed mage in the party will be Imoen...).

Removing the cap seriously ruins the game balance, but it's your game and I'm not the police.

Grease

What about reducing the duration from 1 turn to 5 rounds?

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.

 

opponents tend to be able to run across it completely before the round-tick checks for application of any effects

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.

 

Of course "grease" could have an "entangle" effect. Walk barefoot on a greased floor, or with smooth shoes on ice - if and when you fall you are effectively "entangled" as you struggle to get up. Or for that matter, you could be stuck in really sticky mud...

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

By the way, I just noticed that the level 5 divine spell "greater command" is very similar to the current Grease, except it's a bit bigger, saves at -4, and it's not stationary AoE (so if they wake up, they stay up!) and no movement rate effect. Dunno about the balance at this point since Grease is still under review. But it looks a bit weak to me.

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.

After more playtesting (without that overpowered pseudodragon which can fly through the grease to kick ass) I think replacing the KO with entangle effect and increasing the area will do fine.

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 going to hate myself for saying this, because I love smashing my opponents with the current version of the spell, but I suspect that if you think Web is currently overpowered, then Grease must be also overpowered.

 

...

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".

The entries for Pro Fire and Pro Cold are still listed with level 3 spells in the readme document even though they're noted to be level 5.

 

http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme...ns.html#arcane3

I'm sure Mike will fix it.

 

 

Qestion: is there a save for the 50% movement rate of Grease?

 

How about for that of Ice Storm? Acid Fog?

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.

False Dawn & Sunray

Although I can live without them, is there a way for me to manually add them back without breaking too much?

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.

Corporeal undead seem to be immune to the KO effect of the grease spell: my summoned skellies can just sit in the grease and pummel my unconscious enemies to death with impunity. Probably because they're immune to unconsciousness. Might be working as intended, not sure.

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).

Corporeal undead seem to be immune to the KO effect of the grease spell: my summoned skellies can just sit in the grease and pummel my unconscious enemies to death with impunity. Probably because they're immune to unconsciousness. Might be working as intended, not sure.

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.

 

Also, Grease description states that giant-size enemies are not affected, but I knocked out an ogre with this spell.

By giant I mean giant, such as fire giants, while ogres are "only" large.

 

Finally, my pseudodragon familiar never gets KOed in the grease but their movement rate is halved... shouldn't they be like flying over the grease and so are unaffected?

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

Although I can live without them, is there a way for me to manually add them back without breaking too much?

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

Good day.

 

I've been playing through BG2 with SR3 lately and have enjoyed the changes/tweaks quite a bit. There's one thing that's bothering me though: Where are my Cleric's False Dawn and Sunray gone off to?

False Dawn was apparently moved to the Druid's spellbook if my quick search through this forum is accurate, but I can find no mention of any kind about Sunray getting a similar treatment.

Is this intended, or is some other mod possibly interfering here? (I have the BG2 teaks, fixpack and item revision mods installed as well, although not every single option)

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 SR the summoned phase spiders are using the old script, i.e. they teleport to PC rather than to enemies.

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

After using the spell Farsight I could not go from area map to world map untill I reloaded the game.

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

After using the spell Farsight I could not go from area map to world map untill I reloaded the game.

 

 

Ghost Armor

Ghost armour just gives +2 AC, but the description says it sets base AC to 2. I think that latter is supposed to be the case?? The new animation looks cool though! (this is using SRv3 btw)

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.

Hi, I am playing SR v3.0 and SCSII v10, and I just have some thoughts.

You're welcome.

 

Absolute Immunity

1) I noticed that mantle/improved mantle also adds +3/4 to saves/AC respectively, which I think is a neat addition to make those spells better (well, mostly the saves). But this is not in absolute immunity. I have a suggestion just to keep it consistent, you can either A)add +5 saves to absolute immunity or B)Make absolute immunity grant automatic saves vs all effects (+20 saves to all should do it). That would make the 9th level spell truly awesome.

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

2) You added some spells such as dimensional door, break enchantment to mages. I bought a scroll of remove curse and when I wrote it to my mage, it showed up as break enchantment. Maybe rename scrolls of remove curse to scrolls of 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

At least so far in Amn, I have been unable to find a merchant who sells scrolls of dimensional door. Perhaps you should add a few scrolls of dimensional door to some merchants?

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.

Hello!

 

I just saw nIGHTMARE announcing for testers to Arcane Remix, and I also saw this:

 

Optional components:

 

1) Stricter school exclusions (most specialists are restricted from two schools, rather than only one)

2) 8th & 9th level scrolls unusable by bards

3) Scrolls require higher intelligence (two versions: less than spells, and same as spells)

 

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 agree

b) 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

This isn't really feedback its a question, but I am having some issues as a multiclass F/M. In the first round of any fight all my 10-12 pre-buffs always get remove magic'd...I just can't compare with their caster level 18 or 20. Is there spell of 6th level or lower that can protect against this?

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.

please consider making all of these abjuration & metamagic related changes optional or a separate component. making infravision into a semi-useful spell is one thing; totally revamping magical combat is completely another.

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

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.

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

Not sure if you know, but it's the only spell that will lets your party have a good chance of winning a battle against Elder Orbs if you have Swoard Coast Stratagems installed.

Does the new one also protect againts the behodler anti-magic ray ?

But that's mostly due to the fact SCS beholders are cheesy with their antimagic ray.

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

Another thing that concerns me is that the penality to saving throws to level 8+ save-or-else spells becomes really quite harsh. -6 to saving throws means that any character at level 15 has a 50% chance to be affected by the full effect. Even someone with a saving throw of 1 has a 33% chance to be affected.

If you add Greater Malision to the business, level 20+ character have a 50% chance to be affected.

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

The last spell that concerns me is spellstrike. While in a vanilla game, its mostly useless, in a SCS game the spell really gets usefull due to the amount of protections that enemy wizard usen and it buys you a lot of time make your enemies affected by breach (To remove protection from magical weapons).

You made it the ultimate debuffing spell, making other protections removal spells not worth it once you've access to it, and making it so that any enemy spell caster affected by it dead the round that follows.

 

When playing with SCS, It's already one of the few spells I'd memorize early (With time stop and improved alacrity) since the most dangerous foes are spell casters.

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

How do you handle the spell level for it. Normally a ranger at 8th level can cast the spell on a first spell level, at 9th he can cast the spell on a second spell level until level 16 the ranger cast the spells on the 9th spell level?

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.

Me again

 

spwi106: Blindness: though school changed to necromancy, the description remained to be "School: Illusion".

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.

 

EDIT:

I've downloaded the hotfix for SR2.9 and took a look into it. The .tra file changed a lot, however, not all spells were updated to their description (e.g. disintegrate still deals fixed 100 damage). Maybe they will be finished in SR3?

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.

 

Additionaly, I wonder whether drastic changes to some *key* spells such as Spell Shiel (totally reworked) and Dispel/Remove Magic (school changed back to Abjuration, now affected by SI) would hinder the efficiency of enemy AI

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.

 

At last, for Spell Shield. In vanilla game it is the UNIQUE spell that protect the caster from ALL spell protection breakers (ruby ray, Khelben, pierce shield, etc.). Spell Shield + SI:Abj would effectively force enemy magi to spend two more spell before they can strip your fully-buffed magi nude with a successfull DM. Also I think its new version is too powerful, 'cause it functions very similar to potion of magic shielding, which can be as rare as green PFM scrolls. After all, I personally prefer the vanilla version

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.

Me again

 

spwi106: Blindness: though school changed to necromancy, the description remained to be "School: Illusion".

I've just checked the .tra file in the hotfix and the description correctly says necromancy. Are you sure you're using it?

Spellcasting Revision

As we discussed I'd like to do two things:

1) allow rangers to reach 4th level spells like paladins already do

2) revise the progression table to allow rangers to use a few spells at lower levels (4th or 5th instead of vanilla's 8th) while maintaining a similar spell per day capability at mid levels.

 

A possible table may be something like this:

 

	  1   2   3   4
04	1   0   0   0
05	1   0   0   0
06	2   0   0   0
07	2   0   0   0
08	2   1   0   0
09	3   1   0   0
10	3   2   0   0
11	3   2   0   0
12	3   2   1   0
13	3   3   1   0
14	3   3   2   0
15	3   3   2   0
16	3   3   2   1
17	3   3   3   1
18	3   3   3   2
19	3   3   3   2
20	3   3   3   3

 

What do you think?

 

 

New Descriptions

I've considerably updated the first post, and amongst other things I've added Stalker and Beast Master new descriptions. As always I'm open to suggestions, and I hope someone (who said Mike? ) will be so kind to proofread it.

 

 

True Ranger

I'm still trying to figure out a way to make True class ranger a little more appealing compared to its kits and other classes. What about a feature which improves his fighting skills and works slightly better while dualwielding? I'm talking about a sort of flurry of blows/cleave ability, a +x% chance on a successful melee hit to gain a +1/2 apr on the following round. Just an idea, feel free to discard it, or better propose another one!