amanasleep

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 and Spell Trap. The more I think about it, AoE for Spell Deflection but not for Turning or Spell Trap would be tactically interesting, so I am now in favor of that change. OK, but Spell Turning doesn't make you immune. You can still use Spell Protection removal to bring it down (4 MMM's will do it too, and only the fire damage will be reflected) or ignore it with AoE. As a Level 7 spell, Spell Turning really should be formidable, and people rarely use it now. It is actually easier to bring down than Spell Deflection, because Secret Word and other removers remove the highest level protection first, which means that Spell Deflection might not get removed if you also have GoI active. Really, I don't understand the problem people have with the current system. The only problem I have is that I wish there was a way for Spell Turning to bounce spells more often in practice, but otherwise everything works great (under SCS at least).

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 consider it to be a great dynamic.

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 already? My apologies if it has. I seem to recall it being voted down as impossible to implement. But it's in IWD. Can it not be recreated in BG2?

Great idea, but I would prefer Shout. Has a much more classic PnP feel to me.

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.

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 powerful spellcasters screwed by it seem a pretty random behaviour instead. My concept is that it affects only the higher brain functions, those used in spellcasting, while leaving the lizard brain alone. Therefore a spellcaster with a genius intellect is devastated while a dumb fighter (or say, an animal like a bear or tiger) has no such higher brain function to lose. I do not accept that Feeblemind as an Enchantment has any relation to PK, an Illusion. Illusion spells of this kind in PNP always stated in the description that they affected the mind by the intensity of the illusion. Only an enchantment is capable of directly affecting the mind itself (and Alteration spells are never allowed to "alter" the mind). Untrue. The balance goal is to make it different from casting Hold Monster or Domination, which work on any target, and to make it an "anti-spellcaster" spell. This change does both. In addition what "ordinary" spellcasters are there? Every important arcane caster in the game has Int 18. There is an argument to be made that my change makes it useless vs. clerical spellcasters, which is valid. Consider this example: A solo sorcerer has just cast Pierce Magic on his mage opponent, removing his last spell protection. He has 3 spells in his spellbook: Hold Monster, Domination, and Feeblemind. Which should he cast? Under IR v3, they are all equally effective if the enemy mage is alone. If there are other enemies present then Hold Monster or Domination are vastly better depending upon their location. But if Feeblemind has the save penalty vs high Int then it is the best pick in this situation, because it has the highest chance of working.

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 how making you dumb translates into damage, nonlethal or otherwise. I still think the best thing to do is make effectiveness inversely proportional to intelligence--a reverse Maze. I'm still a little fuzzy on how non-lethal damage is implemented in BG2. Can you explain? Does it wear off with rest? If so, then it will be most interesting when used by the AI against the player (when the player uses non-lethal damage it might as well be lethal, since the AI cannot rest). Assuming we like the concept (I do, but WE may not), Feeblemind would become a quite unique Enchantment spell, somewhat similar in use to Disintegrate imo (with both spells you're pretty much screwed if you fail the save, and if you don't you still take dmg). Even if we give it a relatively small dmg output (PnP PK inflicts 3d6, thus something like 4d6), I may often prefer it over Domination just because even on a successful save it damages the target (for Enchanters this may open the way to PW spells), and even has a chance to incapacitate the target if he was low on hp (unlikely but possible). I'm not trying to make it "better" than the other spells at this lvl (aka Domination), I'm just trying to make it appealing compared to them. For my playstyle for example, I'd probably take this Feeblemind over Domination just because I don't like save or else spells, and for roleplaying reasons I may like my Enchanter to devastate the mind of his targets instead of controlling them. The problem with save or else spells in BG2 is that they ramp up to save or die very quickly, then have nowhere to go, especially the single target ones. Even secondary "real" damage would not make Feeblemind different enough to stand out. Incapacitating the target is good, but doing minor damage if the target saves is mostly useless. 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 Armor and all similar spells) and similar spells (e.g. Barkskin and even Stoneskin imo) is a must. Long story short, Breach should only work against those spells which grant invulnerability imo, it worked only against ProWeapon spells in PnP, but working against ProEnergy spells makes sense, and I can live with it breaching Death Ward, Free Action and Chaotic Commands though it fits slighty less the concept imo.I like this idea. The fact that Breach removed specific protections and combat protections always seemed like overkill to me. However, should there be a seperate spell that only removes specific?Eh, in theory I and Ardanis suggested Pierce Magic for it, but David didn't liked the idea much, especially because 6th lvl slots are already very critical (PfMW, Death Spell, True Seeing). OK, that makes sense. As long as there is some way to get rid of Pro Energy.

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 Armor and all similar spells) and similar spells (e.g. Barkskin and even Stoneskin imo) is a must. Long story short Breach should only work against those spells which grant invulnerability imo, it worked only against ProWeapon spells in PnP, but working against ProEnergy spells makes sense, and I can live with it breaching Death Ward, Free Action and Chaotic Commands though it fits slighty less the concept imo. I like this idea. The fact that Breach removed specific protections and combat protections always seemed like overkill to me. However, should there be a seperate spell that only removes specific?

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.

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.

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 inversely proportional to Intelligence? Like -10 save, +3 for each Int point under 18. So 16 Int would be -4 (normal save for M5 spells) but 15 would be -1 and lower Int would get big bonuses. Still pretty weak compared to Breach vs. mages, but shines for the solo Sorcerer at least. There is another issue that makes Feeblemind weak vs. Breach: in SCS2 Breach works on Liches, but Feeblemind doesn't (although do Liches have Undead immunity to it anyway?)!

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 is we should make this spell an appealing alternative to Domination (which has a more powerful main effect), thus something you'd want to cast to "unprotected" spellcasters (but how?) or at least against spellcaster-like opponents with no access to spell protections (e.g. mind flayers, Githyanki, etc.), or better against anyone (despite its original concept which is clearly 'anti spellcaster'). I can throw here a random suggestion that may be crazy: stunning damage. I planned to use 'stunning damage' as a secondary effect for a couple of mind affecting spells (Phantasmal Killer and Weird), and in theory it can fit this spell as well. Those two illusion spells have such effect in PnP (dmg type is not specified, but BG's stunning/non-lethal damage is simply perfect imo), thus I'm not inventing anything new, I'm just extending the whole "mind affecting spells can damage the target" concpet to one more spell. What do you think? Any other idea? We have 4 disabling spells at M5: Feeblemind Single Target Standard Save penalty 100% Disables any target Domination Single Target Standard Save penalty 100% Disables any target AND counts as a summon for the party Hold Monster Small Area (must have 1 target) Standard Save penalty 100% Disables any target Chaos Large Area (ground target) Standard Save penalty Disables targets, but some melee will still attack I think the differences between Chaos and Hold Monster adequately differentiate them. Domination is properly powered for its level. That leaves Feeblemind. It is underpowered for L5, and L5 has too many disabling spells. I think it either needs to be at L4 with a -3 penalty, where it will contrast well with Polymorph Other, or else it could be made an area spell at L5. Maybe if the effect disabled spells but not melee? Still too much overlap with either Chaos or Hold Monster. As for Miscast magic, this points out the conundrum with anti-mage spells: if they are single target they are useless, since you could have cast Breach to guarantee death. Serious consideration should be made towards making any anti mage spell an area effect or bypass invisibility somehow.

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 of a 2nd lvl spell, and you'd pratically have an "unfriendly Mass Hold Monster automatically re-cast each round"! One of the main thing differentiating Hold X spells from Web is that Hold allows direct melee of the held creature, while Web requires ranged attack or immunity to web. Still, I agree that Web's power need not be enhanced, and could IMO be nerfed within SR without making it unusable. I would be in favor of allowing stackability but removing save penalty--you can make them denser and force more save checks, but powerful creatures will still pass them all. Actually it's one of my more commonly memorized spells even late in BG2. It's really cheap, the bonus/penalty to saves alone are unvaluable imo, and the other effects are quite effective both for offense and defense, especially when large parties are involved. Chant remains one of the best ways to buff innate damage in backstab multipliers. Yep, I'm kinda persuaded it can be a good tweak. At least it's surely worth to be an optional component to try it out imo. This is very interesting. I see several consequences, some of which have been mentioned here: 1. Sorcerers basically already had this ability, and it was a strong reason to pick them over mages for ease of use alone. 2. I agree that this would drastically reduce spell memorization micro, and am very much in favor. 3. One "negative" is that this is basically a free spell slot for every Contingency/Trigger an arcane caster knows. Consider that currently, to fill a contingency and a trigger, a mage would: A) Memorize Contingency, Trigger, 4 Spells B) Rest C) Cast Contingency, Trigger, place 4 spells in them D) Remove Contingency & Trigger from Memorized E) Rest Result: Full memorized spells, plus active Contingency and Trigger, no contingency or trigger memorized. Under the innate rule, the mage would: A) Memorize 4 spells B) Rest C) Innately cast Contingency & Trigger, place 4 Spells D) Rest Result: Full memorized spells, plus active Contingency and Trigger, plus contingency and trigger memorized. As mentioned earlier, gets an extra combat casting available. IMO this is still not OP, and the ease of use argument is so compelling as to make me disregard any advantage this may give the player and "making the game too easy". If it's optional, and people know the pros and cons, and it doesn't break AI then it's really worth having.

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 around randomly with his null turn to get out of the way of incoming party AoE. In particular scripting dispels for high level priest enemies can make sure that TS don't hang around long. Sanctuary (with a decent casting time) will certainly require players to spend time dealing with it. I don't think it will make Solo Priests as fearsome as mages, but it improves their survivability. It will definitely improve enemy party priests.

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 to defeat. GoI is very close to as good as Lich Immunity once Breach can affect Liches, and stuffs many of the area disabling workarounds that can routinely kill Wizards who don't run it. And within SCS they always run it! I agree that it's best to take a step back and decide what sort of magic attack/defense dynamic is desired. As DavidW has earlier stated, to tear down layered defenses what is desired (once Breach can be bounced by spell protections) is to: 1. Remove Invisibility 2. Remove Spell Protections 3. Breach (or cast around any specific protections) 4. Attack If SI is preventing Invisibility from being removed, then SR and SCS should have different responses: IMO, the best SR response is to create 5+ level spells that remove invisibility for schools besides Abj and Div. That way the combo is still good, but requires a particular spell or spells to break. The SCS response must be different. AoE is one response. Currently, the resulting best attack routine against an optimally protected Wizard is: 1. Remove high level spell protections until GoI is removed 2. Spell Thrust removes SI's 3. Remove II 4. Breach This is a good dynamic, but results in odd things like Spell Thrust is really powerful, particularly in the early game, as it removes MGoI, and can dispel protections from multiple enemies at once in many circumstances. In SCS, only GoI can provide real protection for the wizard. There are also the issues with targeting which playtesting has revealed are undesirable. Personally, I am unconvinced that we can really improve upon this, as the ideal order of magical attack/defense is perfectly emergent. If it is technically possible to have spell removal remain single target but go through invis then that is ideal. However, if we imagine returning to single target spell removal once more, then one or more of the protections must acquire additional vulnerability. As with the SR response above, I think it needs to be II that is more vulnerable, but for SCS to justify it will require further engine modification rather than changing the rules. This is not really a problem if you consider that the priest will effectively be unable to aid his/her allies during this period, which is really the whole point of a priest. Already clerics are much more powerful than is generally supposed because of Sanctuary--but keep in mind my change was to help the AI Priests be more competitive. The player can easily make do with casting time of 4 for Sanctuary. The "disadvantage" of not being able to help the party while sanctuaried is negligible considering the priest has likely cast the spell to avoid death himself! In any event the problem for DavidW as I understand it was Enemy priests that were not in a party. I think the biggest misunderstanding in playing Priests is to treat them like Arcane casters or else like Fighter. Priests have a much different optimal strategy, which involves selective combat, frequent withdraws, and creative defenses.

Understood about Contingency--that's my view as well. Reducing the casting time of Sanctuary to 1 could have a similar effect (while being less outside the SCS mission statement). Dispelling the party frequently would help with removing pesky TS's that might interfere with Sanctuary. If the high level enemy priest can sanctuary at the drop of a hat, he becomes harder to deal with and better protected, as he has more time to refresh his protections. In addition, sanctuary is a natural combo with Harm/Slay Living, since these can be cast without breaking Sanctuary, the priest gets to "backstab" (Thac0 bonus), and can get in range unmolested to make the attack. A fully buffed Cleric under Sanctuary will almost always hit with Harm. Of course, this helps the PC Priests as well. But in my view, it would make party and enemy priests vastly more interesting and enjoyable with just a very small change. Raising the level of solo priests may also be desirable if it's too low. Gives them many advantages, like good dispel characteristics (offense and defense) and access to many extra spell slots, plus many good priest spells scale with level.

Maybe we could make a rule that enemy priests always come prebuffed with some of the longest lasting protections, particularly Shield of the Archons, Death Ward, Remove Fear, and Chaotic Commands (maybe even Skeleton Warriors, since they last for hours--I know I'd cast one every morning if I thought there was even the slightest chance I'd meet danger that day!). If their first move was Sanctuary followed by Blade Barrier and Physical Mirror, they could end up pretty well protected when they cast Gate or whatever. I also believe that UnHoly Word doesn't break Sanctuary. In any event, I might suggest that normally prebuffed clerics start with Regeneration active, which could dramatically increase survivability and reduce the necessity for potions (and more importantly, spell actions) during combat. I use most of these, but ultimately it's still the case that one antimagic attack plus breach takes nearly all of it all down. ... I'm not theorising here: it's an experimental observation that enemy clerics (especially solo ones) go down very quickly in SCS, quicker than I'd like. (Though this isn't disastrous.) OK, let's try a different angle. Suppose Priests had Vanilla Contingency in their Spell list. Does this help? First, do we think this would actually increase Divine caster survivability? I'm inclined to think it would, although the big problem here is the fact that vanilla contingency couldn't have Shield of the Archons. But it could contain important protections like Physical Mirror, which prevents missile spell disruption of all types, and Righteous Magic or Holy power for healing/buffing, and Blade Barrier for combat protection. Demi, would this work from your angle despite having no justification from PnP? DavidW, is this totally outside the scope of SCS? Additionally, can/do Priests use Harm and Slay Living in SCS? I don't believe I've seen this much. However, if it's possible then It might make solo high level priest opponents more deadly vs. a party. Harm is more effective than Slay Living, but Slay Living is cheap and can be pretty effective against a low level party fighter (but so can Unholy Word and Greater Command). If Priests can get their combat buffs up (which incidentally I believe are Breach proof), then they can make their 1 APR count better.

Maybe we could make a rule that enemy priests always come prebuffed with some of the longest lasting protections, particularly Shield of the Archons, Death Ward, Remove Fear, and Chaotic Commands (maybe even Skeleton Warriors, since they last for hours--I know I'd cast one every morning if I thought there was even the slightest chance I'd meet danger that day!). If their first move was Sanctuary followed by Blade Barrier and Physical Mirror, they could end up pretty well protected when they cast Gate or whatever. I also believe that UnHoly Word doesn't break Sanctuary. In any event, I might suggest that normally prebuffed clerics start with Regeneration active, which could dramatically increase survivability and reduce the necessity for potions (and more importantly, spell actions) during combat.

Priests do have a way to put up multiple protections without interruption, called Sanctuary. The ideal combat profile for Divine spellcasters is: 1. Prebuff self/party 2. Turn Undead (if necessary) 3. Cast disabling/damage spells 4. Heal/Raise/dispel party debuffs 5. Melee 6. Sanctuary, rebuff, exit melee area 7. Next target The only hole in this is Sanctuary's casting time of 4, but invisibility potions can be held for emergencies. PS I understand that the above works for party clerics but not for lone clerics like Nyalee. In general I feel that clerics far more than mages are not really suitable for single combat against a party unless they are casting L7 and Quest. Even then they are vulnerable. However, effective prebuffing can mitigate this somewhat. Unfortunately some Priest encounters do not allow for the Priest to have prepared for the party.

My feeling is that there are already other ways to beat vanilla II + SI:D +SD + PfMW. 1. Detect Illusion Thief ability 2. Dispel Magic 3. Glitterdust 4. Death Fog 5. Chaos Having either a thief, inquisitor, bard, or cleric trivializes most mage fights with dispel. Glitterdust probably is not a solution in SCS2 due to the high GoI use. Death Fog, Chaos, and similar other area disruption is very difficult for Wizards to deal with. Even casting Chaos 3 times in a row to get a failed save is preferable to anti-magic penetrating II, since that takes several spells to strip protections to get the SI's, 1 to dispel II, 1 Breach.

Vanilla 8th level had several other good spells: PW: Blind was almost OP in Vanilla, Maze and Simulacrum were excellent, and Vanilla Pro Energy was vastly better than most people thought, particularly for Solo Sorcerers who could use it to shrug off all magic damage types without wasting slots on lower level protections.

I'd be interested to hear the evidence that enemy spell selection is modelled through quest XP. Are you seriously proposing I should model this in SCS? (If so, it's pretty easy, in principle: a wizard whose spell selection includes a spell that summons a creature worth N experience points also yields a minus N experience point quest xp reward!) More generally, I think people are treating XP as if it's some kind of mystic energy, rather than an abstraction that represents a reward for the difficulty of the combat. Any such abstraction, applied along simple rules, is going to have occasional pathological cases that don't work properly - the monster-summoning wizard who teleports away is a case in point. But in general, not giving separate XP for summoned monsters seems to produce far fewer problematic cases than giving it. In pnp, this modelling is possible and desirable: a wizard who devoted all his slots to throwing monsters at the party has fewer to defend himself directly. In practice, it makes sense only if summon spells are relatively equal in power to other spell selections the wizard could have made. I think the case has been made that many summons are more powerful than other spells of their level, particularly when cast by the AI (Demons with no risk, etc). In particular, subtracting the xp total of summoned monsters from the wizard has many operational difficulties and perverse incentives: what if the summon is disrupted? It would seem to be not in the player's interest to do so, lest the xp for the summon be lost. What if the xp total of the summons exceeds that of the summoner? A pnp enemy wizard who makes sub-optimal spell selection (perhaps he is insane) would justify a lower xp award, and any gm would have discretion in making it based on the overall combination of factors present. This is not really possible in BG, although many quests (Circus Tent is a great example) do seem to follow this pattern, with a weak and low xp enemy surrounded by powerful (and higher xp) minions/effects and quest xp-bearing challenges. At the risk of treading on your sovereign right to decide the philosophical limits of your own mod, I might note that since SCS increases tactical difficulty significantly without then increasing xp awards, it may be outside of its purview to modify xp here on that basis.

The only legitimate issue regarding xp for summoned monsters is the repeatability of summon spells, resulting in an infinite xp exploit for the party. Since as others note, summoning and Gate spells do not create the creatures (but transport them from other locations), in pnp this type of abuse is usually handled (in my experience) by attaching game world consequences, such as friends of summoned/slain creatures seeking out the wizard or the discovery of areas laid waste due to the disappearance of entire families of wolves, to a powerful spellcaster summoning the offending party to die in an impossible battle, etc. In BG2 there can be no such restriction, but since other xp exploits exist in most builds of the game, I see no reason why this one should be singled out here. It is clear that summoned monsters killed in the course of normal play do not unbalance the game. Furthermore, I think it is very clear, both in pnp and BG2, that summoned creatures killed by the party are intended to yield xp. In particular, for BG2 note the "I wish to be more experienced" option for Limited Wish, which immediately summons hostile monsters for the party to defeat (and gain experience from). In AD&D, combat xp is assigned for killing creatures, generally modelling the expected gain to combat ability from the experience of defeating them. As others in this thread have noted, this value is meant to be the combat potential of the creature. The actual events of the battle, including the spell selections of spellcasting enemies, and other factors such as environment, difficulty of reaching the battle, importance to the story, and placements within a larger quest, are modeled through quest xp which pnp and BG2 give in addition to combat xp. I find it nonsensical that a party could defeat a monster without gaining xp from the battle, regardless of how the monster was transported to the battlefield. I am not pursuaded why the experience value of fighting, say, an orc, disappears simply because a wizard summoned him. If the wizard used Teleport Without Error instead (and stayed out of sight), any resulting battle would obviously gain the party xp, despite the entire battle having been caused by the wizard's spell. What about wizards who have Golems, mephits and other magically constructed/bound creatures guarding their lairs? These were created/summoned by the wizard, so shouldn't they also yield zero xp?