Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aranthys

  1. *kicks that orcish butt* I'd love to get Lvl1 NPC for BG:EE/BG2:EE. The BG1 NPCs really lack kit flavour, and it's a pain to recruit NPCs that already have wasted thieving points/proficiencies
  2. I guess we just don't understand each other and don't have the same opinion about the use of a spell that sets base AC, exactly like we disagree about spells/items that set stats (I prefer spells/Items that set abilities to <Value> you prefer spells/items that grant a bonus to that ability) Finally, about stacking armor and rings of protection, even in PnP both didn't stack, but it's part of IR, and I have no interest in IR (Due to that, but also due to other changes that I dislike - even if I acknowledge the fact that it's a great mod for those that like it )... For me, the fact t
  3. Well, I'd have used barkskin more if it lasted longer in vanilla. But I actually used it quite a bit before having access to the shadow dragon armor on my party thief to ensure she survived on the front lines in my last BG2:EE playthrough. Aye, I understand. But try to keep an agnostic view on how you implement your different mods , because if you're altering things mainly/exclusively due to what you did in another of your mods, that means that they basically are just one huge mod in the end, rather than three separate mods. (Note the emphasis on the mainly:exclusively words ) It's f
  4. Same old issue - can't grant thaco mod vs specific creature. What you suggest will work, but will also affect attacks made against non-blurred opponents if the attacker chooses to switch targets. Does cast spell on condition (AttackedBy - 7) makes the thac0 penalty take effect on the first attempted strike? If yes, we just neeed the penalty to last 1-2 seconds each time the attacker tries to strike the Blurred creature and switching target in such a short time would be very unlikey to say the least. If opcode 232 doesn't allow for that, well, the entire idea is just not implementable. Bark
  5. Regarding barkskin : Why the need to implement another stacking AC bonus, rather than improving the vanilla effect ?. One of the few things that irk me about SR is that there are a ton new ways to lower AC, and these all stacks together (Haste, Improved haste, barkskin, blur - that even had to be changed to stack over the current cap -) In Vanilla, Barkskin provides a character with a +1 to saves except vs. spells and set their base AC to 6 (- 1 per 4 level, IE : AC1 at Caster level 20) It's basically the same as an armor spell, but for druids, capable of buffing either a Kensai or a
  6. From what I can hear, the problem is not that other level 4/5 disabling spells are not strong enough, it's that hold monster is too powerful. Just lower the save malus to -2, let the others @-4 and it will be fine
  7. Regarding Contingency, Chain Conteingency & Spell Triggers: Having them become innates is.. a HUGE deviation from PnP / Vanilla. At least, make this component have multiple choices (Not install / Install as Innates / Make them Universal) please. Regarding Flesh to stone : When compared with desintegrate, flesh to stone has the advantage of beeing an "Save or die" spell Hold person might be better, but you also have to remember that Hold Perso, as a lower level spell is rendered inneffective by : - Minor Globe Of Invulnerability - Globe Of Invulnerability - Immunity to Hold (
  8. Well, I guess let's agree to disagree, I don't think effect should mirror each other, since they didn't in PnP, neither did they in vanilla. +2 THACO / +2 AC is a significant buff, whereas limiting the APR bonus to +2 is not that much of a nerf, except for dual wielding fighters. 2H / Sword & Board fighters are left pretty much in the same state, except that they get +2 thaco / +2AC. Other characters do get +1APR, so it's a welcome bonus if you plan on meleeing with a Cleric or a Rogue (But, well, can't say it's what these classes excel at: Rogues are better left backstabbing, and
  9. Good suggestions, but here's how I think these spells should more-or-less be : 3rd level haste : Effect : +1 APR / +50% movement / 5 rounds fatigue after the spell ends. Duration : 1 round / level up to 20 rounds (Why set the duration to 10 rounds ?) Affects : Whole party Basically, same as Vanilla except the fact that speed is only improved by 50% / fatigue uses your (much better) system. In advanced D&D, haste doesn't grant AC/THACO bonus, but doubles attacks / speed and ages the recipient of the spell Instead of aging the character, your version (and the one ch
  10. Well, I agree that some do. Most don't, that's all I'm saying Or they just memorize the spell, rest, resurrect the character(s), unmemorize the spell then rest again. Kinda defeats the purpose of the "PnP-ize the spell" way to see it. I've no clue of "what most players do", but I guess some rely on reload. Well, when guessing about "what most players do", just think about the less troublesome way to handle things
  11. Well, I agree that some do. Most don't, that's all I'm saying Or they just memorize the spell, rest, resurrect the character(s), unmemorize the spell then rest again. Kinda defeats the purpose of the "PnP-ize the spell" way to see it.
  12. Perhaps, but I would imagine most of the remaining BG players have some tolerance for RP Well, not when it's just a big nerf to an ability without any point beside "It was meant to be this way in the PnP handbook !". Most people reload when they lose a character since it's already a pain in the ass to have to loot all your equip again, then to have to heal the character, & so on. Now, unless you like RPing, nobody would use the spell, ever. (Well, unless you're talking about a temporary CON malus, and not a permanent / un-rezable elves spell ) Still, these spells are not
  13. Summoned Creatures should grant XP. Just for the fact that they're usually much more capable than a spell of the same level. Now, how about, instead of having it grant the same XP as the original critter, only grant half the XP or 10% ? And, I've got to say, I agree with Daulmakan.
  14. 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
  • Create New...