Kalindor

I prefer Barkskin's SR implementation over the vanilla one by far. However, it was not as useless in vanilla as Demi is painting it as due to the fact that you do not start off with those powerful armors but must accumulate them throughout the game. Barkskin was pretty useful on several characters early on in vanilla BG. However, it is now useful throughout the game on basically everyone, which is a nice improvement. I should mention that, when you talk about nerfing the duration of a buff like Barkskin, the difference between 1 turn/level to 5 fixed turns is not particularly meaningful to me. This is because I see a buff as one of the following: a cast-after-rest buff, a cast-before-battle buff, or a cast-during-battle (emergency) buff. 1turn/level and 1hour still both fall into the cast-after-rest buff category, for me at least.

Residual eyestrain!

You are correct, I forgot to mention that I am using BG:EE. OK. It still says "save vs. spells" in the top part of the rage description though. It is as you say. I don't think it is necessary to list all of them. Perhaps just say something akin to one of the following: "Gains divine spells that are focused on healing," "Divine spellbook is focused on healing spells," or "Loses access to offensive spells in favor of healing spells," for example. HLAs I too am looking forward to these, but would rather have the base classes worked out first if the HLAs will be a major time commitment.

I'm starting a test run with a Cavalier, Archer, True Ranger, and Berserker. Here are some things I noticed right away: -Berserker rage description leaves me wondering if he gains a save vs. death, spells, or both with increasing level. -Berserker frenzy description leaves me wondering whether frenzy occurs in offensive stance only or also during rage. -Archer and Stalker descriptions appear as per vanilla during character generation and on the in-game kit description screen. -Cavalier description mentions Heroism but does not feature a description of how it works. -Cavalier kit description appears as per vanilla on the in-game kit description screen only. In addition, you might want to mention in the kit descriptions when the kit's spellbook is altered.

This is pretty neat because you can make Quarry add any kind of additional effects to Tracking. Cool.

Is it possible for Quarry to allow the user to target the foe through his invisibility without preventing him from going invisible?

Quarry sounds interesting. I like the idea of it preventing enemies from going invisible, but I do see what you mean about SCS mages. I think one possible compromise is to make the Stalker's Quarry ability special in that it prevents enemies from going invisible, whereas the other Rangers' Quarry abilities do not. This would be a good opportunity to make the Stalker more unique and seems to fit his kit name. We were looking for ways to make him more distinct anyway. *Edit: This would also make it rather acceptable to foobar SCS mage defenses since it would be such a limited scenario.

It sounds manageable with IR, but I must admit that it does make the concept of the Archer even more appealing in comparison.

I am in no hurry. kreso might actually transform into a berserker if he has to wait too long, however.

As for the Archer, I think they should lose the animal summoning spells as well as summon insects. An additional +1 casting time penalty may also be in order. They are lucky they do not lose spellcasting entirely. I think they should keep animal empathy and hide in shadows personally.

I will try it out whenever it is ready.

I agree completely about the last sentence: it sounds much better as Salk phrased it. I was trying for some atmosphere, but the original sentence sounded awkward to me as well. I'm glad you proofread this and pointed out that you found it unclear. I would revise the second sentence as follows: "Illusions no longer hold any power over the caster, which allows him to detect and target invisible creatures as well as completely ignore hostile illusion spells such as Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird." In both the original case and the revised one, it is the situation of illusions holding no power that is being referenced and not the word "illusions" per se. If one were to write it out even further, you could say: "Illusions hold no power over the caster, a situation which allows him to..." but that is starting to sound unwieldy to my ear. In terms of dropping the clause "Illusions no longer hold any power over the caster," I agree on the grounds of utilitarianism but disagree on the grounds of flavor text. I suppose I am unclear whether Demi wants the most utilitarian description possible or a more immersive one. For a purely functional spell description, I would suggest something like the following: "This spell enables the caster to detect and target invisible creatures and renders him immune to blindness. Until the spell expires, the caster is also is unaffected by the following Illusion spells when cast by enemy spellcasters: (list them here). Hostile illusionary clones will not be dispelled by True Seeing, but will be highlighted."

Here is a quick revision: "When this spell is cast, the caster gains the ability to see all things as they truly are. Illusions no longer hold any power over the caster, allowing him to detect and target invisible creatures as well as completely ignore hostile illusion spells such as Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. In addition, no form of blindness may affect the caster for the duration of the spell. Note: True Seeing does not dispel illusionary clones such as those conjured by Mislead or Simulacrum, but instead clearly highlights them, revealing them as the deceptions that they are." Obviously this can be modified to incorporate whatever penalty you wish to inflict upon the illusionary clones. I am always willing to proofread descriptions or write text if you want to PM/email them to me.

You could always make the tripping attack a HLA and give it specifically to the true Fighter or some such. *Edit: Or Monk.

It seems that every time I check these forums, kreso has a new implementation of the Berserker.

I agree with kreso that, if the Ranger can indeed tank similarly to a Paladin, that this should be ameliorated by removing their heavy armor proficiency, and maybe even their shield proficiency. I would be reticent to touch the d10 HP simply because I think of them as a warrior class. If everyone else is for d8 HP, I will have no complaints. As kreso says, I would really like to see some offensive firepower or serious utility bestowed upon the Ranger if you are going to nerf both armor and HP simultaneously. I regret that my research is preventing me from devoting too much time to testing this mod at the moment. I will try a party of a True Fighter, True Ranger, and True Paladin in the Black Pits component of BG:EE this evening and report the results to you. *Preliminary testing results: Tracking is cool and gives the Ranger a bit of a niche. I think it could stand to improve later on, either through increased chance of detection or reduction in movement penalties. A+ on this stance. The Ranger's automatic two points in two-weapon fighting style actually allow you to have the leisure of specializing in a ranged weapon at level 1. Normally fighters are tempted to invest two stars in a melee weapon and two in a fighting style, but the ranger is more free to also choose a ranged weapon. If only you didn't have to go to the inventory to unequip your off-hand weapon before switching to a ranged weapon... Wild Empathy has an unfavorable combination of being too conditional and too weak. I would either make it less conditional (improves to affect monstrous/magical beasts as well) or make it more powerful (-2 save penalty, improving to no save at all at high levels). Animals are not a large percentage of opponents, especially threatening animals worth charming. It does happen sometimes in BG1 with bears, but in BG2 it is not often useful. Choosing heavy armor over stealth is a no-brainer early on. I would either: a) restrict Rangers armor proficiency, or b) make stealth more useful. When I say "make stealth more useful," I am not referring to increasing the chance of entering stealth mode, but rather making stealth mode open up more options for the Ranger than what it currently does. Right now it's only helpful for scouting around, and scouting around is not mandatory by any means. I'm not certain that there is anything within your power to make it more interesting, sadly. Right now there is almost no reason to forgo heavy armor in favor of stealth. Honestly, even without heavy armor I am not sure how often I'd use stealth on a ranger. Woodland Stride is very nice in combination with Entangle. It would be extra nice if there were other situations where it was useful. Perhaps some new higher-level terrain modifying spells for the Druid and Ranger are in order? The existence of spells that create poisoned brambles or quicksand would make Woodland Stride greatly appealing.

It would be nice if we could get a Banishment type of spell that rids us of gated creatures. Demi mentioned that this is unlikely due to some technical reason about how the gated state is specified on a creature, unfortunately. In terms of Spellstrike making lower-level forms of protection removal obsolete, I am fine with that as Spellstrike is a level 9 spell. After all, Monster Summoning I seems pretty obsolete once you acquire Monster Summoning III, but this is "balanced" by their respective spell levels. In this case, you have used a couple Time Stops, Improved Alacrities, a Spellstrike, and a Pierce Shield in order to remove the protections of the enemy character. That's a total of about 4-5 level 9 spells and a level 8 spell (Pierce Shield is level 8, right?). I would expect any mortal human character to crumple under the power of five level 9 spells and a level 8 spell. That's like hitting a Fighter with five Meteor Storms and a Horrid Wilting. If they are not dead/vulnerable, it's time to cry. Refinements also takes Improved Alacrity away from Sorcerers, which helps to balance things a bit. I am not sure if Kit Revisions will do the same.

Haste-inducing Goodberries... I'd have to see that in practice. I, too, vote for a one turn duration for Absolute Immunity. It would then be more appealing than Time Stop for defensive purposes. In addition, a 9th-level defense spell should force opponents to do more than simply wait ~25 seconds before beating you down. I am OK with Spellstrike stripping all defenses, but that sounds like something you could instead use as a HLA spell for a specialist mage. Anything you can do to improve the spells that create magical weapons is fine by me!

Free Action seems to suit the Ranger rather well IMO. The more I think about it, the less I like Rangers being able to cast a Hold Person spell. I suppose a new Hold Animals spell would be too useless to consider. Perhaps if it were level 1 and had a saving throw penalty? Use your discretion, but I vote for no holding people on Rangers. In terms of the Cleric/Ranger, I think your workaround is fine in theory. It only sounds noticeable for people who pause while leveling up, but the current system is also wonky if you do that. Maybe go ahead and give it a try.

Agree with removing Armor of Faith. Bless is probably too priestly as well. Magical Stone is borderline. No addition of Sunscorch, please. That seems invocation-y for a Ranger. Faerie Fire would be great. I have no problems with Contagion. Dispel Magic could be removed as kreso suggests. No problems with Free Action or Poison. Lesser Restoration is borderline. Agree with removing Cloak of Fear.

I think there should be some repercussion for the Ranger when his animal companion dies. Obviously not some sort of permanent repercussion like with familiars, but some sort of temporary penalty (or enrage like you suggested) may make the animal companion less disposable than a regular summon. Alternately, you could make the bonuses that the Ranger (or maybe just Beast Master) gains from fighting alongside his animal companion increase with level. This would also make the animal companion less disposable and more of a "companion" than a regular summon.

I see no reason why we should object to this spell giving Rangers a pseudo-thief ability. We have already allowed Tenser's Transformation to give mages pseudo-fighter abilities. I don't think there is any risk of this spell superseding thieves.

I vote light. Either is fine with me, though.

Agree with veyn about spell protection removals. Have you considered moving Blindness to level 3? Is there a reason why this should not occur?

Immunity to slow and haste is fine with me. I think it is thematically appropriate.