Dermit

Yeah I thought it might be hardcoded, but it had been so long since I'd looked at the game files I thought it was possible after looking at the prof 2das. Moot point, but I've never gotten why Rangers and two weapons go together (Drizzt aside and that seems like a weak reason). It fits with a class like Swashbuckler, but what about a wilderness warrior/hunter/defender/scout suggests this rather fantastic fighting style? From a gameplay standpoint a melee style doesn't fit so well for a light armored class, scouting and bow skill seem more appropriate. Oh well, the D&D gods decided this one

Two suggestions for the Ranger: First, take away the two free points in Two-Weapon Style and give the Ranger two free weapon proficiency points at first level instead. To balance that out the proficiency development of the Ranger could be changed to one every four levels. That would simulate the idea of a warrior specialized in a weapon of choice (longbow, spear etc.) while not approaching the level of sophistication and diversity a fighter can. This would be a little bit closer to the 3.5 Weapon Styles path which was a step in the right direction for Rangers IMO. Unfortunately that would

You are also conjuring up an invisible bow of infinite accuracy? :shrug:

Well, if it is only magical in the summoning act then why is there a spell duration for summons and would there be specific abjurations for dealing with them? Either way it is a balance first, magical logic question second kind of deal. I would imagine that if the projectile were purely fire it would be evocation, but since it is a flaming arrow it wold more properly be an Evocation/Conjuration spell.

Well it sounds like you aren't going to touch it, but if you think about it from a lore standpoint Conjuration bypassing MR doesn't make complete sense. While Conjuration is distinct from Evocation in that; rather than bringing forth forces or items of pure magic or elements, Conjuration calls up a real item or creature either from another plane, place or possibly from a conception in the caster's mind (presumably a conjurer could call up one of Plato's ideal perfect triangles). Nevertheless that item or creature owes its existence or connection to the current plane to an act of magic, you mig

Referring back to the discussion about modifications to Armor spells, what if we were to rework Ghost Armor into something more like this PnP spell ? While I like the notion of Ghost Armor, the 20% stealth bonus is rarely applicable and while a detectable illusion for a protection sounds like a cool idea, in practice this makes it a poor alternative to the first level Armor Spell. I would think an Armor spell that gives Mages some bonus hitpoints (either set or level scaling bonus) would be more useful and more challenging when utilized by enemies.

I'm pretty sure that is what he was in the first FR campaign setting sourcebook.

Perhaps, but I would imagine most of the remaining BG players have some tolerance for RP

I'd use it. It was sort of like that in IWD, and I didn't much mind. Making the CON penalty permanent would make that spell a never cast though. STR and CON penalty lasting at least a day a la Harpers call would make sense, as the PNP Con resurrection limit can't be modeled.

Scorching Ray? Is that one that works like the projectile for Aganazzar's Scorcher? Because that would be my suggestion, a short duration effect like that. If nothing works I would agree that your revision is preferable to the old ping pong version

While the current incarnation of lightning bolt is an improvement over the old bouncing one it seems like it doesn't really have a niche. There are plenty of other good direct damage spells, and it doesn't really stand out in this regard. I liked the idea of it acting sort of like a thinner directional version of it's counterpart Fireball, but the bouncing in tight areas either made it too powerful or just plain annoying. Would it be possible to implement a version more like the one in IWD 2, where it deals damage to whatever it goes through?