Aranthys

*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

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 that both don't stack is compensated by the fact that protection rings grant additional bonus to saves IE : You can either get "great AC" + other ring or "Good AC + Saves bonus", and it's pretty well balanced for me that way

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 fine since that +9 AC is a limitation from the class that you overcome with a magic spell.. Hell, even wizards recieve +9 AC from that spell if they are not using rare/pricey items. Barkskin + Ring of protection +2 is in every way better than studded leather +2. Actually, bracers of AC6 + Ring of Protection +2 is better than Studded leather +2. Only those with low base AC (IE : Not warriors / clerics) will lose that since the others don't need it , and, well... isn't beeing susceptible to dispell magic part of the deal of using magic to increase your defense and overcome a class weakness in the first place ?

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. Barkskin This has been done on purpose to counter a few things such as AC quickly becoming irrelevant in the later stages of BG2, and mages never picking AC enhancing spells (mind you, DavidW still doesn't consider them a valid option even after SR's buffs). Otoh, if too many things stack and/or I overdid something just let me know and we will see if something has to be done (e.g. v4 Barkskin will have a slower progression and no longer stack with Potion of Defense). Unlike mages, druids and rangers can use armors, making vanilla's Barkskin pretty much useless for themselves (leaving aside the most powerful BG2 dragon armors, even just BG1's Ankheg Armor has the same AC as vanilla's Barkskin when cast by a level 20 caster!), not to mention that with Ranger's caster level capped at 9 the spell was crippled for them. The only real use I could see for vanilla's Barkskin was to buff your thief, but even then it is just a matter of getting a very small AC bonus considering they can wear light armors (and those armors are great with IR installed), making it behave pretty much as SR's one, simply less "stackable". The thing is, do we really want a spell to have such a small niche and be utterly useless for the very same classes that can cast it? Regarding Barkskin raising saving throws, I can imagine it raising save vs. death if we really want it (though all editions after AD&D dropped this idea entirely), but making it grant better saves vs. breath makes really no sense (a wood-like skin is now resistant to a red dragon breath? o.O). Special mention on buffing the Kensai with armor spells, it's a very stupid game design imo, because it implies that Kensai's AC is pathetic without a caster buffing him, and that armor spells on him are ridiculously more effective than on everyone else. You end up with a class which is poorly balanced by himself, and too much buffed by a single spell (a vanilla Kensai gets +9 AC from Spirit Armor, that's insane!). I'm really glad we fixed this with IR and KR. Part of the problem, I'd guess is that you're making theses changes with KR and IR installed in mind. While I understand why (Hell, you're the one behind these three mods) remember that not everyone that uses SR will also install KR and/or IR, and that buffing spells such as spirit armor/barkskin are basically MADE for classes that do not have access to the best armor class items - the disadvantage beeing susceptible to dispell / breach and the loss of time casting the spell & memorized spell slots. A Vanilla kensai may be getting 9 AC when a thief/avenger/stalker is only getting 6 AC, but several spells benefit some classes / kit much better than others, so I don't see how this is relevant here : It's perfectly fine for a spell to grant a better benefit to some classes Actually, having spells that grant great benefits to some kits/classes (and not accross the board) makes for a less bland spell system, because any buff that it a must have and grants the same boost to everyone basically becomes a no-brainer "I just rest, okay, let's cast barkskin on everyone". Regarding the balancing, that's another matter entirely, because the balancing factor of the base AC limitation depending on the class has always been able to be overcome through spells or equipment in AD&D (IE : Base AC doesn't matter much since you can always get bracers of set ACX OR a spell that grants you an incorporeal armor that will defend you just as well as a full plate armor) But this is your mods, in the end and I guess I'll have to agree to disagree, or make my own "mod from your mod" since it's basically nitpicking about a few spells here and there ;p

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 thief to ensure it has the same protection as a fighter (IE : Base AC1, AKA fullplate) The only change that was required there was an increase in the duration of the spells. The effect itself was quite fine. Is it redundant with the Armor arcane spells ? Yes, somehow, but it lets druids (IE : Avengers) or rangers (IE : Stalkers) be able to reach base AC1 even without a Wizard in the party.

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

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 (Lots of creatures are immune to hold, few creatures are immune to petrification) - Free Action (If I remember well) - Higher save penality (In Spell Rev) Regarding Stone to Flesh : Break enchantment dispells the petrified status ? This is something I kinda dislike (Beeing petrified != beeing enchanted / cursed) If you want to improve the spell, have grand bonus if cast on Golems (All but flesh golem) by, say, increasing their AC / Lowering their damage resistance. Regarding Desintegrate : Seems fine as it is right now, except the save penality (But you are reviewing these, so it should be fine). Used to be a save-or-die spell, it's now (a bit) less powerfull on a failed save, but has added value if the save is made. Seems fine to me. Regarding Breach : Rather than limiting what spells are affected by it, can't you limit the amount of dispelled protections (IE : up to 4 protections max are dispelled) and remove the protection from magical weapons effect (Even if innate) from affected creature ? Rename Pierce Shield to "Greater Breach", and have it remove up to , say, 8 protections / remove protection from magical weapons from the creature. Regarding Sunfire : Not keen on the spell becoming DnD 3.0 Fireburst, but, well, it's a made up spell that doesn't exist in PnP, so I guess it's up to you Regarding Feeblemind : See Stone to Flesh to understand why it's different from "Hold person". Regarding Flame Arrow : Just cap the damage at very high level. The current damage progression makes sense (About 1d6 per level : 5d6@Lvl5, 10d6@Lvl10, 15d6@Lvl15 & so on) Another thing : You should really create a dedicated thread about upcoming saves penalities. It's hard to compare spells when we don't know what you have in mind

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 Clerics can already get the same APR as fighter classes by using divine power) Sure, I was just giving another way to make Improved Haste usefull to other classes than just melee characters. I meant, having the spell ONLY give the alacrity effect for 1 round and nothing else. While powerful indeed when combined with "-casting speed" items (which there are two IG), having the spell only last 1 round makes it quite less powerfull than it's level 9 counterpart. You could also easily balance it by setting the spellcasting speed bonus to 0 (negating item bonuses) and having the spell require a full round to cast. That also was just a suggestion : There are TONs of buffs to help increase melee characters, whereas there are very few spells that increase spellcaster effectiveness before getting access to improved alacrity, that is, well, basically overkill with spellcasting speed bonuses (At 3m exp) Just trying to provide other way to improve/change the spell rather than just a basic "improved haste" that does what a level 3 spell does, but slightly better. Trying to think out of the box, that's all

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 chosen by the developpers) fatigues at the end of the spell. Since the drawback is not as huge, the benefit is much lower, and only grants +1 APR : original version sounded fair... the +1 THACO / +1 AC comes from DnD 3.5, and doesn't really belong here... the spell is powerful enough without that bonus. Regarding Improved Haste, this is a completely made up spell, so, I'd instead turn it into the following : 6th lvl Improved Haste: Effect : +2 apr / +100% movement rate / -1 Spell Casting Time Duration : 1 round / level up to 20 rounds Affects : Single target Single target haste, more powerful and more versatile (adds a nifty bonus for spell casters, and the same APR for all classes, better for non-fighter classes). Granting additional APR & speed is more than enough power for that spell, I really don't understand the reasoning for boosting these spells even more by granting THACO and AC, beside having the spell look more "D&D 3.5-like", which is not what your mod is trying to achieve (?) These spells were already "bread & butter" of Baldur's Gate I & II before even boosting them. It's like granting bonus to other very powerful spells, like PFMW or Time Stop, or Improved Alacrity & so on.. Another thing that you could do would be to rename the spell into "Alacrity" rather than Improved Haste, and have it grant the same bonus as Improved Alacrity, but for the duration of 1 round, which would make it balanced, I guess ? Edit.: Forgot PnP haste also grants -2 bonus to initiative, might want to add it if you want to stay true to PnP, but it's not like initiative is *that* important in baldur's gate (?)

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

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.

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 appealing at all at the moment. You only memorize them when A) You're roleplaying OR B) Have no other option.

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.

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