Demivrgvs

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!

Animal Companion Thanks for the additional work! Anyway I do have thought about allowing more than one creature, I just selected the panter because it's the best one to fit the role imo. The bear is fine with me for a second option, because it can be interesting in a different way (no stealth, frontal assalt tank), but what could possibly offer the wolf? Wolves have great tracking ability but the ranger already has it. A wolf is a good hunter and fighter within a pack, but on itself it's neither tough nor stealthy (at least not as much as the other two animals). P.S I wouldn't tie the animals to an alignment. P.P.S using the creature script is a much better solution because dplayer scripts can be disabled. Animal Horde Well, that's because we haven't worked on the Totemic Druid...yet! Jokes aside, it's not my fault if developers implemented kits completely ignoring their PnP version and what they should look like. Totemic Druid in PnP D&D choses a totem animal, then he has it as animal companion, and he can shapeshift into it. Anyway this wouldn't be too great in BG, and developers solution was better imo, I'm just saying it's not my fault if a rightly implemented Beast Master looks too similar to a wrongly implemented Totemic Druid. At least Spirit Animals are slightly different than normal animals. Ehm...you know I'm quite against it for balance reasons... I would have actually done it like Ice says, ally/summoned.

Beast Master The worst implemented kit ever imo. The revision I have in mind mainly consist of three aspects. 1) Animal Companion: this should actually be the most important feature of this class imo. Beast Master should have a familiar-like companion who level ups with him and fights alongside with him. My idea is to use a black panther, make the panter a decent fighter, with stealth ability (to scout together with his master), and perhaps even a x2 backstab multiplier at higher levels. In PnP the animal companion would have +4 to saves vs. charm-like effects, and for technical reason I'd simply make it immune to charm. 2) Animal Horde: instead of assigning him Animal Summoning I/II/III I'd create a custom innate which would summon different types of animals depending on Beast Master level. 3) Slightly restrictions: vanilla's weapon restrictions were too harsh imo, I'd propose to have the class use weapons usable by druids plus short bows and long bows. I'd slightly revise the armor restriction too, allowing a Beast Master to wear armors heavier than light as long as they are not made of metal (ankeg plate, dragon armors, ...). Let me know your opinions and additional suggestions.

Archer Conceptually I like it, but regarding its implementation: - unfortunately I cannot allow the player to select where to aim. Actually I could, but then the ability would be unusable by the AI. I may try to implement it as I did for Chromatic Orb: the effect is randomly selected, but the possible outcomes remain level dependent. - blindness within BG is incredibly powerful, against the AI you pratically make the target unable to react. It can be used at higher levels though. - I use movement rate penalty instead of slow only because the former slows down regeneration rate and poison effects too, which isn't appropriate in this case imo. - a critical hit is a "common" effect, stun is more cool imo. P.S Should I add in the description more details like "leg - movement penalty", "arm - thac0 penalty" and the like? The Archer will surely have something like that as HLA (no backstab though). Stalker Thus you don't like to my suggestion about replacing those spells with more appropriate ones? It seems movement rate bonus would be welcomed by most of you, and it may be used to give the kit something decent in the first levels. I was just saying that I didn't understand too well your logic in the first place, as after saying 1) was not a great disadvantage you proposed a lesser version of it. Anyway you're right, if you roleplay a Stalker it's not a big disadvantage at all, whereas it's a noticeable disadvantage if you look at it from a powerplayer point of view...but these are two good reasons to like it for me! Except for its name, which doesn't sound too appropriate for a ranger, an HLA like this wouldn't be bad for Stalkers yes. Beast Master Don't hold your breath because it's actually the longest kit to implement, but I'll post what I have in mind within today.

Archer Ok, I'd say at 15th level it should be fine. Called Shot Fine with me, now we have to find a fifth effect for it. Stalker 1) Well, I wouldn't consider having a ranger class unable to use flails, maces, spears, two-handed swords, axes, and so on as "not much of a penalty". I actually feared that many players would have been against such a noticeable disadvantage, but I'm always glad to see there are a lot of players who like to roleplay instead of powerplay. 2) AD&D rangers are almost paladin-like, and I can't see them having a poison-like ability as class feature. 3) stalker already has a +20% bonus, a higher bonus would only be noticeable at very low levels, but we may opt for it if we can't find any other feature to assign in the first few levels. 4) Yeah, that would be useful and appropriate for this class, I'm for it. 5) ehm...isn't 1) much more restrictive? Fine with me, and with the additional pro-stealth spells stalker would still has its advantages over a F/T while being more unique. Restrictions Yeah, it seems very appropriate for both classes. I'm for it. We're going to make a lot of usability changes (I'm sure Mike will kill me for this ).

Called Shot So why not make the effect none cumulative with itself, just with itself.Well...with some work it should be doable, but I wouldn't like to make it a "special case" (the description would have to mention that only this effect is not cumulative, and I'm not sure there would be an explanation for it). Anyway, except a few things regarding Called Shot (e.g. have we to make it available at 1st level?), I'd say the Archer kit is done. Am I missing something? We may add a +5% chance to score critical hits at 15th level similarly to Kensai, but I'll let you decide as this kit was already good imo, and with 4th level spells+SR it's going to be even better. Its disadvantages aren't so big to justify big improvements imo. Stalker Again a fine kit imo, though slightly less powerful than the Archer and clearly inferior to a Fighter/Thief. Let's see what can be discussed... 1) Am I blind or this kit has not a single noticeable difference over a ranger at low levels? (only +20% to hide) 2) Should the kit reach a backstab multiplier of x4 instead of x3 in order to be competitive compared to a F/T? 3) What about revising the small arcane repertoire at Stalker's disposal? I'd go with a spell per spell level instead of 3 for the 3rd only. Good candidates imo would be spells like True Strike, Invisibility, Non-Detection, and if we let rangers use 4th level spells (I think we will), Improved Invisibility. This should make the Stalker quite appealing even without a backstab multiplier as high as the F/T. 4) I'd say we should implement an actual disadvantage to this kit (it's simply limited to light armor, which is not so noticeable for a ranger imo, even less if IR is installed). In PnP this class is limited to weapons that can be easily concealed (short swords, daggers, and the like), but I fear that would be too much (especially for Valygar ). What about allowing it to use only weapons available to thieves?

Tracking That's not a difficult matter. Frankly speaking, to a certain degree it can be algorithmized to attend every area present in game.It's not a priority imo, but it would be cool to assign a more appropriate description to each area. Archer 1) Thus something like +1 at 1st level than +1 at levels 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th.2) yeah, it seems appropriate, but -1/2 apr is devastating against non fighter classes imo, and even against fighters with 3-4 attacks per round you'd be taking away 2 full attacks per round, pratically nullifying target's apr. Ability score draining effect must be handled with caution, but at least DEX can't be used as in combo with Ray of Enfeeblement, which was an uber-exploit indeed. P.S Should we add a 1st level effect to Called Shot, or it's better to give its first use at 4th level?

Archer I think the Archer kit was quite well implemented, with decent disadvantages and not uber powerful advantages (though in the right hands this kit literally rocks imo). There are only a few things I'd like to discuss: 1) +1 hit/damage progression and 2) Called Shot 1) is the current progression fine for BG1? Should we make it start at 1st level? 2) I didn't liked most of the effect applied to a called shot (e.g. why on earth a ranged hit on a target's weak spot should cause a penalty to saves vs. magic?!), and I replaced them long ago with effects more similar to what a called shot would cause in PnP. Secondly, a called shot in PnP is made at -4 penalty to attack rolls, to simulate the difficulty in targeting a specific part of the target. Vanilla Called Shot (last 10 seconds each attack has the following effects depending on character level) *4th level: -1 to THAC0 of target -- may be raised to -2 if we implement the -4 penalty to thaco *8th level: -1 Save vs. Magic of target -- ehm... *12th level: -1 Strength of target -- I know powerplayers liked to exploit it *16th level: +2 damage bonus -- when your only other unique feature raise damage as you level up, why should this do the very same thing? Revised Called Shot (last 2 rounds - 12 seconds) *4th level: -1 to THAC0 of target for x rounds -- unchanged, I suppose the target here is the arm *8th level: target's movement rate is halved for x rounds -- less exploitable, more appropriate, still quite effective imo *12th level: -1 to dexterity of target for x rounds -- would you prefer a penalty to AC? *16th level: stun target for 1 round -- a save or a % chance is much needed imo P.S ironically vanilla's .eff files were already named archhit.eff, archslow.eff, archmov.eff, and archstun.eff.

Tracking I think this is a very good idea! Considering I'm going to chance each and every HLA table making this far from powerful ability available as a "normal" ranger feature seems logical. Similar to Refinements we could also allow a ranger (once reached a certain level perhaps) to detect invisible creatures in the area following their tracks.

Charm Animal/Animal Empaty Well, I'm not the police and I cannot force players to roleplay, but I may add a limited XP reward for a successful use of this ability similarly to how thieves get XP points for disarming traps. I'm not sure how to handle this, but it may be doable. I do agree with Ice. Well, we may discuss it, but surely I won't remove Spirit Animals from Totemic Druid arsenal. I actually have plans to make them scale a lot better so that they are not overpowered in BG1 and useless in ToB. All rangers start with two points into dual weapon style, and it's an hardcoded feature. I may assign them the last point at a certain level though. Your suggested "learn" method is cool, but I'm not going in that direction sorry. It can't be done, and it would stress out well establised rules. I don't want to upset too much how D&D class system works. Racial Enemy & Armor Limitations As I said, even if I'd like to improve Racial Enemy feature a lot, I fear there's little I can do except what Refinements did with an HLA. Regarding armor limitations I'm glad to see we generally agree on this. I'd leave them proficiency in medium armor though, mainly because else Archer and Stalker limitation wouldn't be a disadvantage anymore, but also because medium armor still allows a decent degree of mobility (IR's chain mails can still allow a ranger to perform scout roles while being more armored than a thief). Casting Ability I'd like to, but that would require a whole revision of how spells are assigned, just like Divine Remix does. I've not time for that unfortunately, thus unless Mike (or any other experienced coder) decides to implement it within SR himself I don't think I'll do it anytime soon. When it comes to rebalance the appeal of multi, dual and single classes I'm convinced that we can do a lot about that: - assigning unique abilities at mid-high levels (it pratically never happens in vanilla, where most bonuses are gained right away). - creating a lot more complex HLA system with many custom tables (Refinements does a good job, and we can further expand this concept). This is the most important thing imo, as by the time you reach 20th level a class generally hasn't much more progression, and considering a fighter/mage can become a fighter20/mage18 with 6mln xp that means currently a single class fighter even at 30th level is too behind the sheer power offered by the multiclass (even with the unnerfed thac0 tables which I don't like). New Description... Drizit Des'Urdan, who? The game was set to a period in time when Drizzt wasn't dead, yet... so you perhaps might want to look for more appropriate reference, someone who was more generally known(perhaps even Montolio Debrouchee). By the way, Drizzt is Fighter 10 ->Barbarian 1 -> Ranger of Mielikki 5... so in BG1 when the player sets out, he really wasn't that well known ranger... Yeah, in 2nd edition he probably was a 16th level ranger, but I'm quite sure he is very well known at the time period the game is set in. Many NPCs knows about him and I remind someone in the party comment about him being famous, not to mention his whole group consists of renowned adventurers. Anyway I don't care much about this line in the description if it does bother players. I thought mentioning him was the easiest way to add Forgotten Realms lore into the description, and that he does represent well the dual-wielding ranger character who roams the lands.

Armor proficiency Shadow Dragon Armor still is light armor. And yes, I'm sure there are players like me and you who'd use rangers with light armors anyway, but making them unable to wear heavy armor can be an appropriate restriction to justify other improvements to the class. Casting Ability Well, the Rangers and Paladins have the XP 'penalty' and other features that should take them down a few pegs.As Yarno says rangers and paladins gain levels at a slower rate than any other class, but these classes (in their non-kitted versions) has always been considered a weak choice even if they can cast spells (though vanilla paladins are far better than rangers imo). In general most True Classes are somewhat less appealing than their kits, and I'm trying to rectify this. Returing on the matter in question, allowing an earlier spell use doesn't mean rangers become only a few levels behind a druid when it comes to spellcasting capability. I'd still assign them a very slow progression, meaning that they'd probably be able to cast 4th level spells only at 16th level or something like that. Ups, so it's not there... I could see the Ranger having few 6th level spells on levels 39-50. Having a class which is almost as good as a Fighter in melee cast 6th level spell is clearly unbalanced/unfair if compared to the other class. I can use HLAs to make rangers more interesting above 20th level, but I'd never allow them to cast 5th level spell, sorry. Animal Empathy No. One reason is that the hostile flag removes the invisibility, a feature that is needed for Charm spells... Actually I think any spell casted on a target which isn't 'TargetSelf' breaks invisibility, and if it isn't so (though I'm quite sure) it would still be able to make it break invisibility as I did for Barbarian Rage. Conceptually I agree with you, but it can't be implemented because aura-like effects (with cast spell on condition) have been proved to cause a few issues. New Description Here's my first attempt at re-writing rangers descriptions (most of it is taken from forgotten realms wiki): "Rangers are often stereotyped as wild frontiersmen and are thought of as woodland hunters of deadly prey, skilled in wilderness lore. This is not, however, true of all rangers and others are more at home within ancient ruins, vast deserts, caverns of the Underdark, or city sewers. The stereotype is not without merit, however, and many rangers fit the image of cunning hunters and protectors of forests or other wildlands. These rangers see themselves as the enemies of nature's enemies and have a special affinity for barbarians and druids, who often share similar goals. As their aspirations may differ so do rangers' backgrounds, some coming from special military training while others learn under solitary mentors who vest them with lessons on how to survive in places where few of the civilized races care to tread. Whether through military or personal training, all rangers are fairly self-reliant and as much, if not more, at home in the wild as they are in a bustling city. Rangers can be useful scouts, but they can also be deadly fighters, capable of holding their own against many foes with their skill in dual weapon melee combat. Generally, they prefer to be lightly armored, as it allows them more agility and use of their reflexes then heavier armor makes possible. Most rangers worship gods of the wilderness, such as Mielikki or Silvanus, which grant their followers a limited amount of divine spells, as long as they retain a good alignment and doesn’t intentionally commits an evil act. The most famous of all Toril's rangers is by far the legendary drow Drizzt Do'Urden."

Casting Ability I think that they should start their spells earlier. In BG1 there's very little chance for seeing ranger using Entangle in action which is weird. Maybe 5th level? Rangers are usually weaker than Paladins (Lay on hands, Turn Undead, Protection against Evil, faster and wider spell progression, Holy Avenger)... Yeah, I'd vote for it, the level should be somewhere between 4th and 6th imo. I'd like to know more opinions on this matter. Are you sure you're talking about Tweak Pack? As I do remember such a tweak but I don't think it's within Tweak Pack. Anyway I don't think the two tables would be the same, especially because most mods that aim at level 50 are slightly overpowered for my tastes and because we're talking about changing the progression to grant rangers a few spells at lower levels. Animal Empathy I'm not sure I'm following you sorry...isn't a simple charm spell not flagged as hostile what we're looking for?

When it comes to the ranger classes I'd say we have a slightly underpowered and underused base class, with an outstanding kit (Archer), a very interesting one (Stalker), and a potentially cool concept wasted with an incredibly weak implementation (Beast Master). As always I'd like to discuss what has to be done to make sure we can please as much players as we can while maintaining the goal to rebalance the classes. True Ranger Class Features: - Rolls d8 for hit points. - Can use light and medium armors. - Can specialize (++) in any weapon proficiency. - Gets +4 bonus to attack rolls against a selected Racial Enemy - Can use Stealth to hide and move silently with a 30% chance. This improves by 5% for every level, up to 100% at level 15. - Can use Tracking at will. This ability improves significantly at level 10. - Can use Wild Empathy at will. This ability improves significantly at level 4. - At 1st level, gets two points in two-weapon fighting style. - At 2nd level, gains Hunter's Quarry. This ability improves significantly at level 11. - At 4th level, gains Divine Spellcasting. - At 5th level, gains Woodland Stride. - At 7th level, the ranger gains an additional half attack per round. This increases to a whole attack per round bonus at 13th level. TRACKING: Each round the ranger has a 50% chance to detect hidden creatures within 30 feet. While tracking, the ranger suffers -2 penalty to attack rolls and -4 penalty to movement rate. This stance lasts for 6 rounds. At 9th level, the movement rate penalty while tracking is halved, and the chance to detect hidden creatures is raised by 10%. WILD EMPATHY: targeted animal must save vs. spell or be charmed. This ability cannot be used multiple times against the same creature. At 4th level, the ranger can use this ability to summon a wolf. HUNTER'S QUARRY: after studying the opponent for a brief moment the Ranger designate a target as his quarry. For 2 turns, all attacks against the marked creature are made with a +2 bonus to the attack roll, and ranger's chance to detect the quarry using Tracking is doubled. At 11th level, all physical attacks against the marked creature deal 10% more damage. DIVINE SPELLCASTING: the ranger can cast 1st level divine spells. At levels 8, 12 and 16 he can cast 2nd, 3rd and 4th level spells respectively. At level 6 and every other 4 levels he can memorize one more spell per day for each spell level he currently knows. WOODLAND STRIDE: the ranger can move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at his normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. Notes: KR's Ranger is still largely based on AD&D Ranger, but I've also taken some inspiration from 3E and Pathfinder. - unfortunately there's little I can do about Racial Enemy. - I've slightly altered Stealth progression to make it more reliable at low levels - I've added a low level Tracking ability because it has always been a classic feature of this class since AD&D and it makes no sense to wait till HLAs to have something similar. - I've renamed Charm Animal into Wild Empathy, made it an "at will" ability and slightly improved it. - Divine Spellcasting has been revised with a progression more similar to 3E and a more appropriate spellbook (similar to druids but not identical) with a few unique spells (Blades of Fire, Longstrider, Snare, Swift Haste) - I've added a 3E-like Woodland Stride feature, which might be refined or expanded in later versions. Archer Advantages: - Can achieve grandmastery (+++++) in short bow and long bow - At 1st level, gains a +1 bonus to hit and damage with missile weapons. For every 4 levels, this bonus increases by +1, up to +5 at level 16. - At 4th level, can use Called Shot once per day. For every 4 levels, the ability can be used an additional time per day. - At 11th level, gains a +2 bonus to AC vs. missile weapons. This bonus increases by an additional +1 at levels 14 and 17. Disadvantages: - Can only become proficient (+) in melee weapons (including those that can also be used as missile weapons.) - Can only become specialized (++) in non-bow missile weapons (ie darts and slings.) - Cannot wear armor heavier than light. - Cannot use shields. CALLED SHOT: When making a Called Shot, a warrior attempts to hamper fighting ability or mobility. For one round, the archer takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls, but his first successful ranged attack carries dire consequences for his opponent. Targets struck are allowed a save at +2 bonus to reduce the effects. At 8th level and every other 4 levels the saving throw difficulty class improves by 2, up to -4 penalty at 16th level. CALLED SHOT (DISARM): With this attack, the archer chooses to impede fighting ability. When hit, the target will suffer a -4 penalty to hit rolls for 6 rounds. If a save vs. breath is made the duration is halved. At 10th level, any target who fails the save is also unable to attack for 1 round. At 19th level, any target who fails the save will also have his strength reduced by 50% for 1 turn. CALLED SHOT (TRIP): With this attack, the archer chooses to impede mobility. When hit, the target will suffer a -50% penalty to movement speed for 6 rounds. If a save vs. death is made the duration is halved. At 10th level, any target who fails the save is also knocked down for 1 round. At 19th level, any target who fails the save will also have his dexterity reduced by 50% for 1 turn. Notes: Conceptually, KR's Archer is pretty much identical to vanilla's one, which seems like a mix of Pathfinder's Archer and Elven Archer. - bow-armed characters in general were somewhat overpowered within BG1 because of the better thac0 and 2 apr but IR tries to rectify this (a full in-depth discussion on this can be found here). - the progression of hit/damage bonuses with ranged weapons has been slightly changed to take into account BG1 low levels. - Called Shot currently works as the same ability from KR's True Fighter, but the Archer can perform them only with missile weapons. - Evasive Archer's AC bonuses vs. missiles comes straight from Pathfinder's Archer Beastmaster NOT DONE YET Advantages: - Animal Companion (can choose between a bear and a panther) - Has access to a limited number of unique spells (e.g. Enrage Animal) Disadvantages: - Cannot wear metal armors. - Can only wield "weapons usable by druids" and bows. ANIMAL COMPANION: Notes: Vanilla's Beastmaster had great potential but a terrible implementation. KR's version remains very close to AD&D kit. - I've replace vanilla's Find Familiar (yeah, because a ranger summoning a Fairy Dragon familiar makes sense) with a more appropriate Animal Companion (at the moment I'm implementing only a panther, but I'm not excluding multiple choices in the future). For more info look here. - vanilla's bonus spells (Animal Summoning I/II/III) used as normal divine spells might be replaced by a similar Animal Horde innate ability. - Beastmaster's armor and weapon proficiency is pretty much identical to PnP Druid, except that he can use bows Stalker Advantages: - +20% to stealth ability - At 1st level, can backstab with a x2 damage multiplier, which increases to x3 at level 9 and x4 at level 17. - Has access to a limited number of unique spells (Camouflage, Briar Web, Non-detection, Improved Camouflage). Disadvantages: - Can only wield "weapons usable by thieves" (we should re-write this imo) - Cannot wear armor heavier than light. - Cannot use shields. - No Charm Animal ability. Notes: KR's Stalker is just an improved/refined version of vanilla's kit, clearly based upon AD&D version. The only similar class I could find in more recent PnP editions is 3E Darkwood Stalker. - the Stalker is now limited to use weapons suited to backstab as per AD&D. - vanilla's Backstab progression has been slightly revised. An early x2 multiplier is essential to make the kit behave as it should from the start of BG1, while the higher x4 multiplier is there to make the Stalker competitive compared to a F/T which can get both x5 multiplier and grandmastery. - I've replaced vanilla's bonus spells (Haste, Minor Spell Turning, Protection from Missiles) with a list of more appropriate spells with higher sinergy imo (Camouflage, Briar Web, Non-detection, Improved Camouflage), distribuited among the various spell levels.

Spiritual Hammer Kudos for spotting such a small thing! Thanks, will fix. Invisible Stalker It's a known issue reported by BGT players yes, sorry for not having fixed this before. I'll create two different Stalker .cre files to fix this, one for the summoning spell and one for BG1 encounters.

Sunfire : very strange, after checking I do have both the penalty to saves and the small tweak to avoid the hurt animation on caster. Can someone confirm this? Secret word : I'll fix the description thanks. Enchanted Weapon : I already fixed it internally together with a few more small fixes, I may release a new hotfix within the day. Scroll of Khelben : I'll look into it. Divine Traps : isn't it always been so? I think Skull Trap too, but I may be wrong. Defensive Harmony : I may raise it to 15' if it seems the AI is wasting this spell. DavidW should now it better than me. Doom : I think you're understimating it. Once it connects every other subsequent spell is much more effective, and -2 to hit and damage is quite noticeable too imo. Furthermore the spell save isn't too easy to resist, and casting time is almost instantaneous.

Klye, I've moved your last post and answered to it here. I know, should I assume you'd like this form?

Polymorph Self Winter Wolf: yeah, I've thought about it when I was working on it. It isn't its main attack though, but a separate special attack, and in theory Polymorph Self shouldn't grant such abilities. I'll think about it. Mustard Jelly: I don't remember right now why I chose +2 enchantment. I can probably agree with you on this matter, especially because, as you say yourself, this form is really 'awesome' with so many immunities and a powerful ranged attack. Suggested New forms: I actually thought about implementing a Troll form, but I fear a "cheap" regeneration would be too exploitable, especially considering how much this spell lasts. Regarding a Carrion Crawler form...well, I'm not too fond of such creature and I'm not sure if it can be considered as useful as the other forms, but perhaps it's not required to have equally powerful forms as long as each of it is interesting and doesn't completely outshine the others. You're right. There's a limit to the amount of text for a spell description, but if it can be done I think I should do it.

Teleport Field I'm simply considering wht this spell can do, and if this spell can be put in a contingency I have to take it into account, yes. The Robe of Vecna was actually used only as example of another instance (not a direct comparison) where a combination turns a quite balanced spell into an utterly overpowered one, and it obviously was an extreme example! And why shouldn't I consider both sides?! There are tons of instances where a spell is clearly more useful in the hands of the player, why should we always make sure the players get the most from everything? If you were surround by too many enemies a single TF won't protect you, yes, because at least a few of them probably end up being teleported near the caster...but if the opposing group have only a few dedicated tanks, than it will probably screw their attack attempts. Anyway I do understand your position, and I'll think about it. I'd like to hear more players on this matter as they were the ones who suggested me to add the save to this spell in the first place. Running with your idea and completely suspending disbelief. Maybe TF would effect the arrows in flight as they enter the TF field. What should happen to these missiles? NO idea. To be consistent with the spell maybe they are randomly teleported, so just travel back out of the TF field in a random direction. So, I guess giving the caster (all friendlies?) a significant AC boost vs missiles would be way to implement the effect.Yeah...something like that, but I'd implement such change only if most players agree with it.AoE stationary/stackable spells I don't like this concept, unless there's a really good explanation for preventing two AoE spells from co-existing. There are two sources of cheesiness in AOE stationary spells. The AI just doesn't deal with them well (*just run out of the stupid thing!*), and that you can stack them. I say, an acid cloud is an acid cloud. You didn't make it more acidic. For example, if you mix two jugs of HCL- you get more HCL, not super HCL. I say, a grease spot is a grease spot. You didn't make it more slippery. I say, a teleport field is a teleport field. You didn't make it more.... teleport(y?). In fact, the only effect recasting these things twice should be they cover more area. Well...SCS's AI surely handles this issue much better than vanilla's AI. Regarding multiple AoE spells co-existing:- two Acid Clouds may increase the acidic vapor density - two Grease spells may actually create a higher amount of slippery substance - two Ice Storms means there are more hailstones battering the area and so on...

Teleport Field Judging the real effectiveness of many spells usually is more difficult than it appears. Teleport Field for example never got my attention before seeing it used by Tactics liches, and it even left me amazed when I realized that multiple TF could make a spellcaster almost unreachable by "tanks". To understand the true spell effectiveness we must take into account possible combinations, one outstanding issue is vanilla's Robe of Vecna which makes a reasonable spell like Improved Alacrity utterly overpowered imo, and in this case a possible combination simply is multiple TF. You're right, a single TF won't make the caster unassailable by melee opponents, but it's ok imo, as it's only a 4th level spell with good duration and a big friendly AoE, and without a save multiple TF were considered by many players too powerful/annoying. Anyway, just to throw in some suggestions we may spice things up...for example disadvantaging ranged attacks within the TF as well, after all how an archer is supposed to perfectly shot at his opponents while his own position is suddenly completely changed?! This would probably be achievable by either increasing caster AC vs. missile or reducing targets thac0 with missile weapons. Is it a bad idea? I don't like this concept, unless there's a really good explanation for preventing two AoE spells from co-existing.

Color Spray I'm not so sure opponents usually are of lower level than your party, especially with SCS installed, anyway blindness lasts "only" 3 rounds not 5, and stun lasts only 6 seconds (I fear by "5+" you might have thought that in total you have up to 9 rounds duration, but they are overlapped). Anyway, I haven't received "complains" about this spell till we decided to replace 'unconsciousness' with 'confusion'. Try it in-game and let me know, if it still seems too powerful we'll find a way to nerf it. Hit Dice cap (e.g. Sleep) ... Once, I felt as you did. By god, sleep is sleep. It should be possible to effect anyone. There not should be HD/level based limits. But then, why not apply this same argument to the rest of the spells? Fireball, Magic Missle, etc - all now scalable to 20lvl. And WHY, dear spirits, should I have to wait 2 levels for my vampire hand spell to gain an extra 1d6? And it should scale... well... as long as I want and at each lvl. And why stop there? The 20lvl cap is arbitrary, and so it should....no must ... go the way of the do - do. But that would be crazy. We Sorcerers/Wizards would be become all powerful. So, I considered the alternative. There must be a reason these lvl 1 spells don't scale forever and be equally useful against whatever opponent I face. ... Yeah, but you're talking about two different things imo. A cap at xth level in terms of damage/save penalty/... is one thing, a cap which makes the spell effectively useless is another thing. Thus I do think there's nothing wrong about a damage cap at 10th level for a Fireball, but having Sleep completely useless against any creature with more than 5HD seems "wrong" to me (and almost 99% of the creatures in BG2 have more than 5HD). If we don't want to call it "wrong", at least I'm sure I can call it a "waste", as there's very little point for such a spell to exist, especially in a game like BG. Teleport Field Interesting...I don't think I can do such a thing without messing around with different effects (the original "teleport field" effect is hardcoded), and I'm not sure it would make much difference as it's main usefulness would remain almost unchanged. As Ice suggests it's almost only purpose is to block melee opponents (SCS makes good use of it if I'm not wrong), and it does it extremely well imo, especially if you have multiple fields at the same time.

Color Spray This spell is particularly tricky to handle, and it's current status is due to the fact that I simply implemented its PnP version and then replaced 'unconsciousness' effect with 'confusion' (as players suggested) to slightly "nerf" it. This spell seems to rock (and probably does) but it also has two quite noticeable weaknesses: - it shines only against opponents weaker than the caster - it's not party friendly The latter being a quite noticable thing if you keep in mind its shape coned AoE isn't so good to handle either. I'm not sure this spell is "SO much better" two spells you've mentioned: - vs. Blindness: first of all I should say I had to nerf my original work on this one (it previously lasted forever, and it was removable only with a Cure Disease). Having allowed Dispel Magic to "cure" it, and reduced its duration to 8 hours its advantages over Color Spray are surely less than expected but can still be an asset in some situations. Color Spray's 'blindness' lasts only 5 rounds and works only against foes quite weaker than the caster, while Blindness spell allows you to effectively get rid of a foe, even incredibly more powerful than the caster, and for the entire duration of the encounter. - vs. Spook: this spell advantage is quite noticeable imo, the penalty to its save (up to -4) really makes a difference against powerful opponents. I'm not saying these three spells are equally powerful, I'm just trying to make a full comparison in case any other player wants to step in and discuss this matter with us. Sleep I'm not sure if you know I've also added a new feature that makes sleeping opponents wake up if hurt, that's supposed to severely nerf this spell, as in vanilla a sleeping opponent was as good as dead (you could beat him to death as much as you wish without waking him up). Regarding the eventual HD cap...I do hate them. What's the point in having a spell which become completely useless as soon as you reach a certain level? You say that " it's only supposed to be a stop gap spell until the later lvl spells", but I strongly disagree with this "philosophy", and most SR users probably do as well as long as the spell is not unbalanced.

Feel free to create your own topic on any aspect of SR, but if you don't want to, or simply have only a few things to ask/suggest, this is the topic for you. Let us know what you think of Spell Revisions and how it could be improved.

Wands Wand of Magic Missiles Special Abilities (consumes charges): Magic Missile: three missiles, 1d4 +1 points o magic damage each, 1 target Requires: 10 Intelligence Usable By: All Notes: previoulsy fired only one missile. All wands now require an intelligence score determined by the wand's "power level". Wand of Sleep Special Abilities (consumes charges): Sleep: save vs. wand or fal asleep for 1 turn, opponents with less than 10HD within 30' radius Requires: 10 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: it previoulsy affected only creatures with less than 5HD. Wand of Fear Special Abilities (consumes charges): Fear: save vs. wands at -1 or flee in panick for 5 rounds, opponents within 30' radius Requires: 11 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Fire Special Abilities (consumes charges): Fireball: 6d6 points of fire damage, save vs. wand at -2 half, everyone within 30' radius Scorcher Ray: 5d6 points of fire damage, everyone between target and caster Requires: 12 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Frost Special Abilities (consumes charges): Freezing Sphere: 6d6 points of cold damage + slow for 5 rounds, save vs. wands at -3 half, 1 target Requires: 13 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: vanilla's versions dealt 8d6 points of damage, without slowing the target. Wand of Lightning Special Abilities (consumes charges): Lightning Bolts: three bolts, 3d6 points of electrical damage each, save vs. wands at -3 half, up to 3 targets Requires: 13 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: BG1's version fired 1 bolt for 6d6 damage, BG2's version fired 6 bolts for 3d6 damage each. Wand of Polymorph Special Abilities (consumes charges): Polymorph: save vs. wands at -3 or be permanently polymorphed Requires: 13 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Druid Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Cloudkill Special Abilities (consumes charges): Cloudkill: as per Cloudkill spell Requires: 14 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Paralysis Special Abilities (consumes charges): Paralysis: save vs. wands at -4 or be stunned for 10 rounds, 1 target Requires: 14 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Monster Summoning Special Abilities (consumes charges): Summons 12HD of monsters Requires: 14 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of the Heavens Special Abilities (consumes charges): Column of Fire: 9d6 points of fire damage, save vs. wands at -3 half, 1 target Requires: 9 Intelligence, 13 Wisdom Usable By: Cleric Druid Notes: mostly unchanged. Wand of Cursing Special Abilities (consumes charges): Curse: save vs. wands at -2 or be blinded, deafned, and silenced for 10 rounds, 1 target Requires: 12 Intelligence Usable By: All Notes: mostly unchanged. I've made it non stackable with itself or similar spells. I'd like to make it use a "curse" effect, but the AI probably wouldn't be able to handle it. Wand of Spellstrike Special Abilities (consumes charges): Breach: as per Breach spell Pierce Magic: as per Pierce Magic spell (10th caster level) Requires: 15 Intelligence Usable By: Bard Mage Thief Notes: this wand is the very reason that made me rebuild all of them to use .spl files. It's now correctly flagged as a Magic Attack and spell protections will handle it appropriately.