AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

IF more spellschools are going to be given the abjuration treatment in the future, I'd suggest limiting it to lower level spells per spellschool and giving it something that's more of a convenience than anything else.

Here's my suggestions

Transmutation:

Ultravision -> Changed to permanent until rest OR 2 hours per level.

Evocation:

Flame Weapon -> Changed to permanent until rest OR 2 hours per level at ESF.

Divination:

See invisibility -> Changed to permanent until rest OR 2 hours per level at ESF.

Illusion:

Displacement -> Change from rounds to turn on ESF.

These spells are ones that are typically "always on" or available to be for most mages, and this change would simply be a quality of life improvement and give the ESF focuses their own "thing" for going it besides the obvious mechanical benefits to DC's and such. The displacement change is the most powerful I listed, but to give illusion some love It'd either be this one or bumping up ghostly visage to 2 hours/permanent until rest. I settled for this one since it's superceded by imp invis in most cases AND it makes a somewhat ignored spell more vieable to be used as a sort of "always on" type buff like the other ones I listed for the other spellschools. Each one of these (save displacement) can and often are always up for some mages, given that as long as you're out of combat, you can easily fit in 2 extended castings with regular rests to always keep yourself buffed with at least one of them. The same goes for imp invis in this case, just to point out that displacement won't be wildly op.

Not gonna propose anything for abjuration, conjuration, necromancy or enchantment as they're already plenty powerful and regularly picked for the huge DC/Summon benefits that comes with it, not to mention the insane buffs abjuration now gets.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of giving any spellschools mroe bang for their buck by buffing them the same ways the prexisting changes have. What I'd really love to see though, is more flavor type stuff that gives each spellschool it's own "thing"/"reward" for investing in it.

Stat buffs - greater changes them to a 1d2+3, epic gives them an aoe.
rounds/level transmutation buffs go to 2 rounds per level with greater and turns a level with epic.
inferno scales at whatever the evocation scales to.

donezo.

Maverick00053 wrote:

Polymorphs are a fricken nightmare to work on. I really mean a nightmare too. Once I get it down to a science we might touch them but for now I don't think you should expect any changes to them. If we do tackle polymorphs Druids will be getting love first.

Also tbh the polymorphs aa of right now don't need touching. They've got no combat applications outside of severely low level, abusing sneak attack immunity, or acid spitting and frankly I think that's fine. Shifters exist and are still strong if played with skill.

That said making the druid wild shapes good before Dragon Shape would be awesome but kind of unnecessary since druids are awesome.

But having the shapes be a viable leveling option does sound awesome.

Transmutation Suggestions

Bless Weapon
Burning Hands
Animal Buffs
Knock
Stone Bones
Ultravision
Bestow Curse
Haste (Not Mass Haste)
Quillfire
Slow
Blackstaff
Shapechange
Timestop (Even I'm iffy on this one)

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Maverick00053 wrote:

Polymorphs are a fricken nightmare to work on. I really mean a nightmare too. Once I get it down to a science we might touch them but for now I don't think you should expect any changes to them. If we do tackle polymorphs Druids will be getting love first.

Also tbh the polymorphs aa of right now don't need touching. They've got no combat applications outside of severely low level, abusing sneak attack immunity, or acid spitting and frankly I think that's fine. Shifters exist and are still strong if played with skill.

That said making the druid wild shapes good before Dragon Shape would be awesome but kind of unnecessary since druids are awesome.

But having the shapes be a viable leveling option does sound awesome.

They have combat applications outside of severely low levels, sneak attack immunity 'abusing' and acid spit. Just need to figure them out. Therefore, I disagree with the above statement, they can be utilized rather well in high lvls too, therefore making it good spell to have as it is. In that I agree that no changes power-wise need to be added, imo.

If this is simply speaking of polymorph spell and not of the shapechange, I might have understood in

I'm not really arguing that the wizard shape spells need changing though.

So I guess we agree...?

Just wanted to point out there are uses for shapshift spell outside of low lvls.

Anyhow, the TimeStop spells suggestion, I disagree fully on. First stopping the time and getting auto-haste on top of that? If that comes in, I would definetly rebuild to Epic Focus Transmutation now, seeing they have the golemn summon too.

Having seen both in action I'd still take the sentinel but the golem is fun too.

Even I'm kind of "probably shouldn't" about the timestop one, and I main an epic transmuter. The rest I think have serious merit.

Yes, if you make the comparison between undead and golem. However, other summons are not as efficient. Immunities are great when you have them, or need to resist damage.

Therefore, by ESF Transmutation you get an excellent epic summon and on top of that an excellent PvP spell. I would certainly open with that spell if I was unbuffed. Get a self-buff that is one of the most important buff in game (Haste) and two rounds of time to do stuff or is it one. Anyhow.

but isn't timestop already technically super-haste?

Personally I think giving a guaranteed +3 or +4 stat buff is a bad idea, and making the spell buff caster and target is even worse. Just too overbalancing and 'easy mode'. And with the BoT you already get AoE +2 to the party.

Flame Weapon really doesn't need a buff, it's already 20+ minutes for a non-epic caster and you can extend it easily for double that. I'd also rather not see perma-til-rest spells, at least how it is now you have to recast them after a certain point.

Bless weapon should cap at +5, no other spell goes over that and paladins don't need a buff in any way.

Stone Bones, not really sure. Doesn't seem like it needs a buff at all. Especially not with more AC. Remember undead shape users get buffed by it, too.

Haste definitely needs no buffing.

Timestop likewise needs no buffing.

i'd expect more niceties then raw power. hence my "make your non maximized stat buffs a little better" and "make them AoE so you don't have to cast/prepare quite so many."

that and make rounds/level into turns/level.

just convenience shit.

Quote:

Personally I think giving a guaranteed +3 or +4 stat buff is a bad idea, and making the spell buff caster and target is even worse. Just too overbalancing and 'easy mode'. And with the BoT you already get AoE +2 to the party.

Honestly I made this with the idea my suggestion with the idea that maybe a transmuter can be a super buffer. An empowered spell could easily be maxed out by a transmuter and that's not really game breaking since amia already gears up to +12. But it is a pretty big buff, I'll give you that.

Quote:

Bless weapon should cap at +5, no other spell goes over that and paladins don't need a buff in any way.

The +6 ab mod (not eb) is versus undead only in this case, and only if they take 25+ levels. I don't really know many paladins willing to do that but I'll concede that bless weapon is already a pretty dope spell.

Quote:

Stone Bones, not really sure. Doesn't seem like it needs a buff at all. Especially not with more AC. Remember undead shape users get buffed by it, too.

If the +6 ab is going on bless weapon I'd lower the dr by 5. An undead shifter getting something from a spell isn't terrible, especially with the current nerfs in place to make the class much more reasonable. That said they would still need to know a transmuter to get the buff. The point of transmutation is to make things into other things or make them work differently. But this spell is honestly not a huge deal for the school. It would just be a kinda cool buff, which are a lot of my proposals really.

Quote:

Haste definitely needs no buffing.

Timestop likewise needs no buffing.

Yeah those two were honestly just spitballin' anyway. Though I think something in the single target haste would be preeeety cool hate is already the best buff in the game..

Lets not introduce any plus six aside from monk gloves imo.

It's an npc racial type only and would have no impact on the playerbase because even when undead are allowed they aren't given racial type changes.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

It's an npc racial type only and would have no impact on the playerbase because even when undead are allowed they aren't given racial type changes.

Undead shape

Are we really worried about a level 25 Paladin having a +6 vs undead weapon? It makes sense for them to be super anti-undead, and also 25+ paladin is an awful build. Throw them a bone.

MisterLich wrote:

Are we really worried about a level 25 Paladin having a +6 vs undead weapon? It makes sense for them to be super anti-undead, and also 25+ paladin is an awful build. Throw them a bone.

Yes we are and no it isn't.

Throwing a bone to a pally... Well, maybe lets start with the fighter class. We need more pure fighters!

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

It's an npc racial type only and would have no impact on the playerbase because even when undead are allowed they aren't given racial type changes.

Yes they are.

Any chance since we're fuckin with spells to get Barkskin to use a different visual or vfx or just remove the visual alltogether? The stock one is so so so bad.

It is possible but I doubt it will happen. The spell vfx represents what the spell is doing pretty well. If it is too ugly for you then you can survive without that AC

I like that vfx. Your taste in tree bark attire is definitely lacking.

Maverick00053 wrote:

It is possible but I doubt it will happen. The spell vfx represents what the spell is doing pretty well. If it is too ugly for you then you can survive without that AC

worth a shot. i hate burying reskins in bark. i'd wear a natural armor neck if it merged. alas~

Maverick00053 wrote:

It is possible but I doubt it will happen. The spell vfx represents what the spell is doing pretty well. If it is too ugly for you then you can survive without that AC

Hm, I don't think the vfx represents the spell very well at all:
"Description: Barkskin hardens the target creature's skin, granting a natural armor bonus to AC based on the caster's level."

This vfx turns then entire PC into a treant: cloak, helm, boots, weapon, armor...not just the creature's skin. If that was all it did, I wouldn't mind nearly as much. But bark helm-to-boot-to-tip-of-sword, I just don't get. I'm sure the engine can't do just the skin, I recognize the limitations, but still, I don't buy it, and it's just creepy looking.

I use the spell a lot, so just put up with the annoying vfx.

i agree with user "sun dog."

Quote:

Barkskin
Transmutation
Level: Drd 2, Rgr 2, Plant 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

Barkskin toughens a creature’s skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at caster level 12th.

doesn't say why it turns all my clothes and weapons and shield and everything else into wood.

lets give it a different vfx or just drop it. it looks so god-awful people literally cast it on others as a prank because everyone knows how shite it looks.

I've never seen it cast as a prank and that would be a waste of our developers' time, I feel.

Yeah this is not something that really will merit much attention. And, honestly, it does make sense. I'm going to assume it's an engine limitation but, really, I don't think I've heard anyone but maybe two people outside this thread even comment on it.

And if someone casts it on you as a 'prank': One, they need to be more creative. Two, you debuff it. Three, deal with the free AC? Seriously, that's not even a complaint.

If I remember correctly this is something that was brought up before (the removal of apparently ooc effects for spells) for numerous things like the floating eyes for true sight, and the skin for barkskin, and the decision was that they should remain in place.

That being said those are really simple to change (one line adjustments) and wouldn't mind changing them, but it is up to the group as a whole to decide weather or no to change them.

i would rather it use a different effect if it has to use an effect at all.

druids are shapeshifters, buying skinchangers only to have them replaced with one hideous texture is lame, and it really REALLY looks like ass. Stoneskin however looks fine, so does shadow-shield, but barkskin? bleh. the texture quality is so low and there's really just no reason for it.

MisterLich wrote:

I've never seen it cast as a prank and that would be a waste of our developers' time, I feel.

hang out in bendir dale. ppl pop those grime-rings on ppl all the time because everyone knows how ass it looks.

i say we make it use an orbital effect, like when you cast stoneskin on something huge-sized, or just drop the visual all together.

unlike some spells that convey necessary information (does that person have true sight?) i don't really see how a natrual armor buff is in the same area. not to mention, other effects that do the same thing and more (undeaths eternal foe) don't have to deal with the horrible vfx.

look how ass this is

it's so stupid terrible.

I've always liked the texture myself. Sure it could be better, but come on NWN is how old? It's not that big of a deal, to be honest. Sure it sucks to have your skinchanger overlayed with it, but that's the price of using a spell that turns your skin into bark.

Commie wrote:

hang out in bendir dale. ppl pop those grime-rings on ppl all the time because everyone knows how ass it looks.

This must be a new phenomenon. Ah well, just debuff. And people should remember things like that can lead to PvP when you are casting magic on people at random, especially if it's unwanted.

I'm not designing a new effect and updating the hak pack with anything, but if there is an existing VFX that everyone would rather use then I could easily replace that. It's like a 5 minute job. That being said, I think and orbital like the floating stone for stone skin is dumb as snot, but that's just me.

Definitely agreed on that.

I wish we could get rid of the floating rock >_> It always irks me, but as I gather it's an engine limitation.

some examples of better effects to use

VFX_DUR_IOUNSTONE_GREEN 502

Little green circles go around you. Barkskin is plant based and it's green, and nothing ig uses this specific effect. it's not just the green ioun stone effect.

VFX_DUR_AURA_YELLOW_DARK 564 or VFX_DUR_AURA_GREEN_LIGHT 559

You softly glow dark-yellow or green. This doesn't actually give off light but just shows some minor magic is at work (which barkskin is, minor magic).

VFX_DUR_MIND_AFFECTING_DISABLED 208

Small, unobtrusive, and looks like magic. A little white smear above your head.

There's also that hak effect (think it's a hak effect) of occasional falling leaves that would work perfectly but I can't find the name/id.

help us msheeler. you're our only hope.

Honestly those all look like awful representations of a spell that turns your skin into bark. Swirling orbs don't make any sense and neither does a glowing aura. I'd rather wait for a better barkskin VFX, personally.

Naivatkal wrote:

Honestly those all look like awful representations of a spell that turns your skin into bark. Swirling orbs don't make any sense and neither does a glowing aura. I'd rather wait for a better barkskin VFX, personally.

It literally doesn't turn your skin to bark read the spell description a few posts up. It just toughens your skin. Seriously both nwn and 3.5, neither changes your skin to bark. It's just a few posts up.

Also I think the falling leaves vfx would work best but cant find the I'd for them.

Good point, but it is a bit ambiguous. 'Toughens the skin to a bark-like consistency' could be interpreted as turning your skin to bark. Regardless, I don't see any (and I looked through them) VFX that better represents what Barkskin does.

This is such a minor thing, we'd be better off discussing other changes. It's just a cosmetic thing, and a trivial one at that.

Naivatkal wrote:

Honestly those all look like awful representations of a spell that turns your skin into bark. Swirling orbs don't make any sense and neither does a glowing aura. I'd rather wait for a better barkskin VFX, personally.

Yep, even though it doesn't say you literally turn to bark, it also doesn't say you glow all yellow.

The PHB says that Barkskin "toughens a creature's skin", that's it, and we all know the spell vfx are just eye candy for a video game. I despise the way Barkskin and Stoneskin make a PC look in NWN, it's absolutely ridiculous. Very few spells actually have a visual effect that others can see, and you couldn't tell that someone was "buffed to the Nines" as they walked past, or whatever. I know it was ruled before that the spell vfx stay, but my vote was to have them ALL removed.

msheeler wrote:

Naivatkal wrote:

Honestly those all look like awful representations of a spell that turns your skin into bark. Swirling orbs don't make any sense and neither does a glowing aura. I'd rather wait for a better barkskin VFX, personally.

Yep, even though it doesn't say you literally turn to bark, it also doesn't say you glow all yellow.

So just remove the effect alltogether then. Undeaths eternal foe doesn't do it and it's a ninth level spell that gives five natural armor, so neither should barkskin, a much lower level spell. Thats my vote.

Naivatkal wrote:

Good point, but it is a bit ambiguous. 'Toughens the skin to a bark-like consistency' could be interpreted as turning your skin to bark. Regardless, I don't see any (and I looked through them) VFX that better represents what Barkskin does.

This is such a minor thing, we'd be better off discussing other changes. It's just a cosmetic thing, and a trivial one at that.

Yeah that's why I'd like to just remove the vfx. It's a five minute change according to sheeler and it would really, really, REALLY be an appreciated change.

Undeath's Eternal Foe is only +4 AC, though it's a different effect. It's normally Deflection AC and we changed it to Natural to give clerics a bit of a buff.

And I don't think you can say it would be a 'really, really, REALLY be an appreciated change', unless you are only speaking on behalf of yourself. It's not like there are tons of people saying 'omg change it'. Most people seem content with how it is.

I actively avoid using bark skin and stone skin because I think the effects look awful

Naivatkal wrote:

Undeath's Eternal Foe is only +4 AC, though it's a different effect. It's normally Deflection AC and we changed it to Natural to give clerics a bit of a buff.

And I don't think you can say it would be a 'really, really, REALLY be an appreciated change', unless you are only speaking on behalf of yourself. It's not like there are tons of people saying 'omg change it'. Most people seem content with how it is.

Who else would I be speaking on behalf of? Also I know its natural that's why I compared the two spells directly.

I also really question how anyone can look at the screenshot I posted and say it looks good. Or barkskin in general. Partic when it's used on large models.

I mean, it doesn't represent what the spell does, it literally looks like crap, people cast it on others as an ic prank specifically because it looks so terrible, other spells thst grant natural do it without a vfx, its not some high level ward that deserves a visual notification... Why keep the effect?

Im totally for removing it, or if possible having the vfx toggleable if you guys are still capable of making transmutation pages for the book. Barkskin is ugly af.

Stoneskin is only slightly better. Id love to see it replaced by its alternative vfx for larger creatures that is a few rocks that float around the target.

Have to agree to disagree there, I think the skin is way better than giant floating boulder that makes absolutely zero sense for being there. I'm mean really, what's a giant rock doing whirling around you like that anyways?

msheeler wrote:

Have to agree to disagree there, I think the skin is way better than giant floating boulder that makes absolutely zero sense for being there. I'm mean really, what's a giant rock doing whirling around you like that anyways?

i like the stoneskin statue look but could do without it, shadow shield effect is cool and shadow shield is important enough of a ward to get a visual marker.

it's really ONLY barkskin i don't like.

Spell FX should stay, it is as much IC as it is an OOC balance indicator.

[*]New Spell updates -

Identify: +5 Lore per Spell focus
Remove blindness/deafness: ESF adds rounds/level Immunity to Blind and Deafness
Feeblemind: Greater Spell Focus also applies the ability damage to Charisma, Epic Spell Focus allows Feeblemind to damage all 3 mental ability scores.
Legend lore: Greater Spell Focus allows the ability to add to Craft Armor and Weapons skills. Epic Skill Focus allows the spell to add to Spellcraft skill.
Bane: Epic Spell Focus makes this save less.
Doom: Epic Spell Focus makes this a small (Mass Heal sized) AoE.
Aid: +1d8 temp HP per Spell Focus.
Balagarn's iron horn: fixed to true strength check
Blindness/deafness: Reduce duration to 2 rounds +1 round for Epic Focus. Greater Focus adds small (Mass Heal sized) AoE.
Tasha's hideous laughter: Could remove the DC modifier due to "language barriers".
Mind fog: Each Spell Focus adds -2 Wisdom penalty (so -6 total) to the target on a successful save as long as the target stays in the cloud.
Horizikaul's boom: Spell Focus makes the damage die d6, Greater d8, Epic makes it a small (Mass Heal sized) AoE.
Ice dagger: Each Spell focus adds +1d4 damage to the damage cap (so +3d4 total), Epic makes it a small (Mass Heal sized) AoE.
Magic missile: Each Spell Focus adds +1 damage per missile, Epic Spell focus makes each missile bounce once to a new target.
Combust: Each Spell Focus adds +1d6 damage to the initial damage and the DoT secondary damage.
Flame lash: Each spell Focus is +1d6 damage. Epic Focus Entangles the target on a failed Reflex save.
Gedlee's electric loop: Each Spell focus is +1d6 to the damage of the spell. Epic Focus doubles the AoE and adds +1 round to the stun's duration.
Sound burst: Each Spell focus adds +1d8 to the damage of the spell. Epic Focus adds +1 round to the Stun's duration.
Call lightning: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus allows the spell's dice to be d8 when in outdoors and wilderness areas.
Fireball: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus gives 10% fire vulnerability to targets that fail their save for 5 rounds. Nonstacking.
Lightning bolt: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus adds a secondary Will save to stun for 1 round, similar to Gedlee's Loop.
Scintillating sphere: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus gives 10% Electric vulnerability to targets that fail their save for 5 rounds. Nonstacking.
Searing light: Each Spell Foci adds +2d6 to the dice cap for damage, Epic Focus adds a fort save vs a 3 round Blind
Flame strike: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell.
Hammer of the gods: Each Spell Focus adds +2d8 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus Evocation makes the damage dice of the spell d10 against the caster's opposing alignment (Good <-> Evil, Law <-> Chaos. TN gets nothing, sorry.)
Wall of fire: Each Spell Focus adds +1d6 to the damage of the spell. Epic Focus applies a Combust effect, burning the target for 2d6 damage a round for 3 rounds after the target leaves the wall. Does not stack.
Ball lightning: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus applies a -3 penalty to saves vs electricity for 5 rounds.
Cone of cold: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Spell Focus applies slow on a failed save, and -3 saves vs Cold for 5 rounds. For the BoT variations - fire does a 3 round dot like Wall of Fire, acid does a Acid Breath style one round dot and electricity does the one round stun on a secondary will save like gedlees.
Firebrand: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus applies a -3 penalty to
Delayed blast fireball: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic Focus makes the trap version do d8 damage dice instead of d6.
Fire storm: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell.
Great thunderclap: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell. Epic focus adds +1 round to the various control effects
Prismatic spray: Spell Focus turns the Fire damage portion into 40 (up from 20). Greater Focus turns the Fire and Acid into 60 damage (up from 40 each.) Epic Focus turns all three damage types into 80 damage.
Earthquake: nerfed to 20d8, spell focus makes it 21d8, greater spell focus makes it 23d8 and epic spell focus makes it 25d8.
Incendiary cloud: Each Spell Focus adds +1d6 to the damage of the spell.
Sunbeam: Each Spell Focus adds +2d6 to the dice cap of the spell, and +1d6 to the damage vs living targets.
Meteor swarm: epic spell focus reduces the safe zone around the caster to 0.1 feet.

[/list][/quote]

Welcome to Evocation (and a few divination and enchantment) changes, ladies and gents! There are a few missing spells here that were accidentally missed - notably Blade Barrier and Chain Lightning. Don't worry, we didn't forget.

Interesting changes. Would also have been nice if the focuses, for divinations had made the duration of ide tify and legend lore more useful. The fact remains that even with extended, you will be casting them a lot to keep them up. As long as I remember based on my experiences. Seems taking evocation focuses became even better option on top of epic elemental summon and damage.

To be honest, it feels odd that conjurors do not have the most potent summon, exclusing the PM one from comparison, from the selection available even though what lore says on conjuration. Though I underetand that the summons balancing is a whole matter on it is own.

Thanks though, this really makes a difference when choosing a school focuses and gives clear benefits in them.

Spell Changes Discussion

Who is online