veyn

I am quite sure it is possible to change that if you're willing to hack the executable. Did a quick search - it seems that this is caused by the following check in the update loop: if ( !InfScreenWorld__isActivePCAvailable(thisa) ) // "active" here means not dead, not charmed, not imprisoned/mazed { v62 = g_pApp->pInfGm; v61 = v62->protagDeathTimer; // >0 if "protagonist dead" sequence is already running if ( v61 <= 0 && !bDeathTimerExpired && !thisa->bLostGame ) { v60 = g_pApp->pInfGm; v59 = v60->unkStru58.modeFlags; if ( v59 != 4096 ) { v58 = g_pApp->pInfGm; CInfGm__onProtagDeath(v58); // this kicks off "protagonist dead" sequence } } } The simple 2-byte hack would be to skip the block regardless of the check result (BG2: 0x7D3723: 0F 85 -> 90 E9). Note: I didn't actually test that, since I don't have BG installed, so it is possible that I've missed something. If it doesn't work, but there is still someone really interested in this fix, I can investigate more. Now, the question is whether this is in-scope of SR; I vaguely remember *R not taking in exe patches. OTOH I didn't follow these forums for more than a year now, so maybe something has changed

Obviously, by making 9th level spell much more powerful; right now Absolute Immunity can't compete with things like time stop / wish / etc. Speaking about enemy mages: Stoneskin won't help vs. elemental damage + it is stripped away quite fast; Mirror Images don't last long too + they can be dispelled by true sight; Invisibility doesn't protect well enough against melee attacks (and is dispelled by anti illusion too). So, enemy mage without PFMW-like buff is as good as dead - he'll always have an improved hasted fighter or two swinging at him. And I've explained in previous post why do I think different levels of PFMW that differ only by +X enchantment is not a good mechanic. IMO PFMW is really critical for enemy mages. For party mages I usually find stoneskin + AC buffs + positioning to be enough (except for very late SOA-TOB); in fact, I usually fill my first 6 lvl slots with ImpHaste and ProMagicEnergy. For sorcerers, PFMW is like 4th or so pick. +1 to all this.

Enemy mages would be completely useless without "proper" PFMW - they would be killed almost instantly in every battle. +2 weapons are very abundant in game. Protection from weapons is the main way how enemy mages survive in battle, at least with SCS AI. For player, there are many other ways to keep party mage in safety. So nerfing PFMW will significantly upset the game balance in favour of the player. Besides, I don't really think that having "protection vs. +X" with X increasing per spell level is a particularly interesting mechanic. On one side, that would mean that protection of any particular enemy mage is either significant (when no one in party has good enough weapons) or non-existant (there is zero reason to remove mantle if party's weapons bypass it anyway). On the other side, game doesn't give any indication of what "plus" do enemy weapons have, so there would be no way for player to decide which "mantle level" to use (without metagame knowledge). IMO PFMW should stay as it is. Level 9 Absolute Immunity should give total immunity to damage and status effects, maybe for a longer time too (I think this was already discussed on this forum). Level 7 and 8 mantles should be strictly better than PFMW; if it isn't possible to make them unique enough, they can even be removed completely (not sure whether it is acceptable for SCS).

Regarding antimagic AOE - personally I strongly prefer the way SCS handles them (default option, at least in v20): keep them single-target, but add new tobex flag allowing them to target invisible creatures.

Ardanis Here is a diff with latest tobex sources from git, with additional option to externalize spellcasting restrictions for paladin/ranger kits. If you guys are actually going to use that, we can ask Ascension64 to review that and add something similar to the next tobex release. (btw, can't attach file to this post for some reason - keeps telling me I'm forbidden to do that)

I meant that one can make an exe hack which externalizes spellcasting restrictions to (new) 2da, similarly to what tobex already does for many other things; it doesn't have to be limited to paladin kits.

Demivrgvs Why do you say that exe hack can handle only paladin's kits? This stuff can even be stored in 2da if needed, with any combinations of classes/kits getting mage/priest spellcasting. Dual and multi classes can also be handled in whatever way is desired.

Regarding divine spellcasting for paladins/rangers: vanilla behaviour is determined by function at 0x007887CE. It looks like this: return ScriptObject__isOfClass(&pCharacter->soBase, ClassIDS__CLERIC, 1) || ScriptObject__isOfClass(pSOBase, ClassIDS__DRUID, 1) || ScriptObject__isOfClass(pSOBase, ClassIDS__PALADIN, 1) && !(ObjCreature__getUsabilityFlag(pCharacter) & 0x10) || ScriptObject__isOfClass(pSOBase, ClassIDS__RANGER, 1); If you don't mind modifying the executable, it is relatively simple to disable priest spellbook for other kits.

Mass Cause Wounds - so is it going to be essentially a mini-ADHW (same magic damage type, party-friendly aoe)? Interesting, but could be tricky to balance. Is it going to be switchable to "cure" version on the fly? Rejuvenating Cocoon - what is the planned duration? PfmW equivalent - interesting, but I'm not sure whether PfmW alone (without additional breach/dispel protection) would be a significant protection. Oh, and "Lathander only" restriction for that kind of spell makes little sense imo

I'm also not particularly bothered by spells with slightly different power for different classes sharing the same name, or even by exactly same spell being of different level for different casters (especially when the difference is just 1 level, and especially considering that different classes gain same spell level at different xp levels). I'm neutral about druidic Ironskin having few more skins than mage equivalent - that's not going to affect the appeal of the spell. Anyway, I don't even see much problem with druids having "ironskin" (I always considered druid's restriction to iron armor to be related to the fact that such armor is manufactured using relatively "high-tech" process, not to the properties of the actual material - and there is no "manufacturing process" factor for spell that makes skin hard as iron) - but, again, this is kind of a thing that doesn't bother me much.

Regarding raise dead, I guess I'm ok with 8h penalty (con drain/fatigue/etc) or something similarly minor. I still don't really see the point (pnp flavour? dunno, maybe - I don't really care about BG being faithful to pnp), but, on the other hand, that's not something that would bother me much

IMO, any serious penalty (i.e. the one that significantly decreases effectiveness of the character and can't be simply ignored) will be just an annoyance. Having to backtrack to the entrance of the dungeon, going to the temple, pressing a button there and going back is an operation that simply takes time and doesn't add any particular depth to the game; in cases when it is not possible to return to temple at will (i.e. planar prison, sphere, spellhold, etc.) having such penalty will be almost equivalent to not having Raise Dead spell at all. Same for having to press rest button multiple times until the penalty wears off. In PnP, having to revive someone can be made into an adventure (finding the proper temple, maybe undertaking some small quest there, etc.). In BG (or in any other CRPGs I've seen) this is not the case: things like revive are simple services. IMO the real value of BG is the story (so good mods that improve/add that are welcome) and the battles (so mods that improve AI and give better or different resources to enemies and players - like Ascension/Tactics/SCS/IA/SR/IR/Rogue Rebalancing - are also welcome); the changes in these mods should strive to reduce the amount of annoyances, not increase them (i.e. planned SR v4 contingency/sequencer changes are great; "nerfing" of Raise Dead proposed above is not).

Adding permanent level drain to Raise Dead is equivalent to removing it completely, since amount of possible XP is (almost) limited. Adding removable level drain would simply require one to memorize additional Lesser Restoration before resting, so it would only increase annoyance. Making it not work on elves is just a completely arbitrary restriction (why just elves? why not humans/dwarves/...?). I would strongly prefer if it isn't touched (or at least made optional), as convenience far outweights concerns like "cheapness of death", at least for computer RPG.

Merging DW and NPP is a very cool idea IMO. Defensive harmony - its effect is already very nice (I use it in prebuff sequence, for example). It could use longer duration (5 turns or 1 turn/lvl would be perfect, but even 2 turns like Clairvoyance is fine), but that's not particularly critical. Magic circle against Evil - removing alignment restrictions and making it universal is a great idea too Did you consider applying similar change to 1st level (single-target) pro.evil? Also I'm wondering - was there any thought about adding some sort of non-personal dispel protection? I didn't see such discussions - sorry if it was already brought up before. Thing is - SCS/SCS2 mages seem to love Remove Magic; in most tougher battles they are significantly higher in level than the party, so this spell is very devastating. I always found it strange that a single 3rd level spell can instantly trash many high level layers of protections, and at the same time only party mages have any way of protecting themselves from it (i.e. SI:Abj). This non-personal dispel protection can be weaker (i.e. protect only against single dispel - so one would have to recast it during combat) and/or higher level than SI (but not much higher, otherwise it would be obtained too late).

Regarding animate dead and holy/unholy blight - the whole ADnD alignment system never made much sense to me. While I can understand it somewhat when it is used just for flavour (i.e. a simple tag on the character sheet very roughly describing character's motivations, etc.), it loses its meaning completely when it starts to be used as an actual game mechanic. If an "evil" priest casts unholy blight type of spell on the enemy, why shouldn't the enemy be affected, just because he also happens to be evil? It's not like there is some sort of an alliance between all evil gods of Faerun Same idea applies to "good" priests with their holy smite. In any case, I'd say we can safely assume that whatever actions the priest performs are somewhat aligned with the goals of his god - otherwise the priest would probably lose access to all his spells anyway. The idea to restrict "animate dead" based on alignment makes even less sense - animate dead is a simple necromantic act, and it's not like necromancy is considered inherently evil in ADnD (one could create good-aligned necromancer mage, both in BG and pnp; there are descriptions of good-aligned liches in pnp; etc.). I'd say the only reason why "animate dead" can be forbidden for a given priest is if his god is very anti-undead - but unless we want to create separate priest kits for each god, or differentiate gods in some other way, I'd say such restrictions are better left to player's discretion. Merging cure & cause wounds spells actually is quite interesting IMO, though that would probably be imbalanced for heal/harm. Conceptually that would make sense - the only difference between these spells is whether "positive" or "negative" energy is used - and this is a kind of decision that could conceivably be made "on the fly". At the very least that would make more sense than the third-edition ability of priests to convert any spells to same-level cure/cause (now, this is the idea that never made sense to me).