Jump to content

amanasleep

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About amanasleep

  1. Not certain I understand why burning through protections is ineffective. If a wizard has Spell Deflection, you have 3 options: 1. Secret Word, Pierce Magic, etc. 2. Burn through with other spells (best option is Melf's Minute Meteors, which will take 3 levels off per meteor). 3. Ignore and cast AoE. Making Deflection block AoE could make it easier to burn through as you say, although on balance I think this change protects wizards more than it makes them vulnerable. In any event, AoE protection on Spell Deflection is arguable, but I think it's largely too abusable on Spell Turning an
  2. Untrue, although your post points to a possible improvement in SCS scripts. If an opposing wizard is covered by Spell Deflection, then you have the option to cast spells at them to "burn through" the Deflection. Spell Turning provides a penalty for that option. You can still attempt to burn through, but take care that you are immune to the burn through spell. If both wizards are protected by Spell Turning, then the attacking wizard will get the spell through while cancelling both Spell Turning spells. I am not in favor of removing Spell Turning from the game. Improve it if necessary, but I
  3. Hi Demi, I'm curious if you have considered some of these IWD spells: Level 6 Antimagic Shell A Classic for sure. Is it abusable? The drawback seems pretty balanced in most cases, but it can be very powerful for a wizard that prebuffs for melee. Lich Touch Seems weak for this level, but I do like the Goul Touch on steroids aspect. Could be a great Necro pick at L5. Soul Eater I love this spell!!! Extremely Necro. Has many possible applications, including summoning your own creatures to cast it on. Level 7 Seven Eyes Has this been brought up alre
  4. Great idea, but I would prefer Shout. Has a much more classic PnP feel to me.
  5. Chill Touch is actually pretty good, but nobody uses it. The cold damage goes right through Stoneskins, and the weapon is considered unenechanted so it goes right through PfMW. It also grants +4 Thac0. The on-hit Thac0 drain has a save, but if you can get enough attacks in on a powerful opponent it can save you some hits. Temporary Strength drain might be better, but could make it overpowered as this can instakill. Maybe temp Str drain with a 3 round duration? It is really good for F/M and Bard characters to disrupt enemy spellcasters.
  6. Leaving aside that to implement it we'd need to rely on things like "invisible creatures and scripts" (this alone is enough to discard the idea for me), I really don't get the concept, and I have doubts about its balance. Concept: Maze vs INT makes perfect sense, having a spell work the opposite way doesn't imo. How can an Enchantment spell be easy to resist if you have average INT, and difficult to resist if you are a genius? It doesn't make sense. I already didn't get much AD&D's "it works better vs caster" thing, but I could accept that, while having "dumb casters" resist it and power
  7. OK, can you describe exactly how you propose this should work? Weird and PK have obvious applications for non-lethal damage, even brilliant ones, but it seems out of place for Feeblemind.Isn't the application the same of Weird and PK? All these spells attack the mind of the target, damaging it, if it doesn't completely screw it, either killing with fear (Weird and PK) or making the target comatose (Feeblemind). Weird and PK "damage" the target by tricking the mind into believing that the target's greatest fears are attacking him. Feeblemind is supposed to reduce intelligence. I don't see
  8. True, but no other single spell would force that trigger or PfMW recast. OK, can you describe exactly how you propose this should work? Weird and PK have obvious applications for non-lethal damage, even brilliant ones, but it seems out of place for Feeblemind. And the central question remains: how does it make Feeblemind a better choice vs. the others at this level? Yep, we discussed this with David back then, and I think he kinda liked the idea as long as we keep Breach working vs specific protections. I think making Breach not work on armor spell (e.g. Armor of Faith, Mage Ar
  9. But there are already area spells in the game, and they are all for that reason "anti-mage". My point is that any single target spell that is only good against mages needs something extra, because all mages in the game will be immune to it, and the moment they become visible that spell becomes worse than Breach.
  10. From what I can see, spellcasting creatures tend to have accurate Int stats. The point is for it be great against spellcasters and weak against fighters with Int 9.
  11. The purpose of II is to prevent direct spell targeting, sure, but is it not enough to be protected from magic missile, acid arrow, Maze, Imprisonment, all the PW's, etc.? The issue is that the exact spells that are supposed to disable mages are weakest against them because every mage is II, and any mage who does not have II should be Breached immediately and bashed. The only possibility where this is not true is a pure mage duel, but even then you are better off with Chaos than Feeblemind against any mage as long as the save penalties are equal. What if the save penalty of Feeblemind was
  12. The last sentence says it all. Anyway, Miscast Magic (aka spell failure) is pointless as a primary effect considering the current main effect is much better (it completely disable the target), and INT drain is problematic. Spell failure can probably be as good as casting speed penalty (or even combined with it) but I have to agree with Raj's post, this won't help much the appeal of this spell, because an "unprotected" spellcaster can be killed with cheaper spells (or in general spells that you'd pick anyway because they are useful in more situations) or by few physical attacks. The point
  13. Me too, I just don't see how making Web's severe save even more harsh can add "variety" to the gameplay, while making it less severe and adding a secondary effect reduces the variety. On a side note, Entangle is druid-only, while Web is mage only, thus no character in the game can have both of them. Avengers still get Web in SR, no? This is one of those incredibly rare cases where we don't agree, actually I cannot agree less. I don't know what other players (or David) think, but even with a short 4-5 rounds duration making Web's save at -4 penalty is insanely OP. We're speaking
  14. Indeed. But is Sanctuary really so effective then? What about area-effect magic? Area affect still hits the Priest, but they can't be hit with weapons or single target spells, while still being able to cast protections. This is almost equivalent to Mislead. Of course, the party can respond with fireballs, etc. which will disrupt the priest, but clerics have a lot of HP and could have specific protections against elemental magic, etc. The party can have TS running, which may dispel sanctuary this round or the next, but weapon damage is stopped immediately, and the priest can move a
  15. Most of these solutions are (or, I suppose, should be: I don't know how you've coded them) blocked by Minor Globe (which in turn can't be dropped by single-target antimagic when II is active). That's a good point; I ought to bear it in mind in scripting. (Though again, Ardanis's modification of TS still works.) (Minor) GoI is why Liches and Rakshasa's are not actually a special problem within the spell system, but are rather just more powerful examples of the general problem of layered defenses. A mage with II +SI:D + SI:A + GoI + Weapon/Magic damage defenses becomes very hard t
×
×
  • Create New...