Aha, then it is ok. For me protagonist level is indifferent, what count is the average party level, or more preciously the average XP of your party. But I played a custom party (only exception is Cernd), with Bioware NPCs the situation could be different.

I think that you should do something in case the protagonist is a cleric. I think the difference is too much and make Spellhold very-very challenging. And I still think a simple XP limit would be the best, because it clarifies the situation or the player. It is not good to force the player to load an old save just because he is not able to handle the situation. Clear rules are more important IMHO than a little bit disbalance.

This is quite off current topic, but isn't that ranger stronghold spirit (a new friend at your cabin) a bit too much? What I mean is this: If you're a fighter, you get a keep stronghold. So, you've got some land and peasants to work for you. Week income is measly 500gp. Paladins get 0gp. Clerics - 0...etc. Yet this new friend is an endless supply of incredibly valuable potions and (to a less degree) scrolls. You can sell those scrolls for 6500gp (something like that) to the local merchant so you can get 6500gp each week. I doesn't make any sense to me that ranger stronghold is so ridiculosly more useful than any other, since rangers are already far more powerful in IA than any fighter kit, due to ranger-specific weapons, items and abilities. I mean, they're nice and all, but I believe there should be a balance between warrior classes.

She supplies you for a limited number of weeks in IA v6.

Great news... I see I will play a druid protagonist in v6. Also I like those changes when useless summons, like Joolon and Cerebus are tweaked also.

I like those changes also when infinite gold problem is solved, like Scribe Scroll and Alchemy HLAs and ranger stronghold. Please don't forget mage stronghold also, where scrolls are endless also.

I like many many, well most of the changes in v6, but a very few I don't. I won't write all, just one example:



Why is this neccesary? Immune to backstab is useless skill now, since there always will be a partymember who is not guarded by Stoneskin or PfMW, so enemy thives always will find legal target for their backstab. It they can't detect immunities, then there were a chance (let say 25 % in normal party), when they BS was wasted on barbarian...

It was in v4.2 that the number of those scrolls where infinite. They are already limited in v5.

Uh oh... what's this that I spy?



Looks like IA v6 is going to be much tougher!

Agree, hard and dark times are coming with v6.

Qestions about protective item restriction:

I can wear a cloak+2, 2 rings+2, an amulet+1 and an armor. > +7 bonus + armor
If I want to equip a cloak+3 or ring+3, I cannot wear any of the above mentioned items. > +3 bonus and no armor.
I think there won't be any player who chose the 2nd option. So it is pointless to be +3 cloak and ring option at Cromwell or Cespenar... Even if a character cannot wear armor, there aren't good cloaks or rings to counterweight +4 AC and saves...

And the big question: Is Ring of the Gaxx a protective item in this restriction?

The +3 cloak and ring are ingredients for upgrading some other items. So, perhaps some players may still want to forge them. Moreover, till late in the game, you won't have so many +2 rings and cloaks to cover all of your party members.

Ring of Gaxx is not among the list of items you can't wear with armors; it's +2.

I have never been happy with the component of EoU which removes the restrictions of using rings and cloaks with armors; however, since some enemies have +1 or +2 protection items with armors, I didn't forbid that component of EoU to let the player have a fair game with the enemies. Later, I noticed that enemies don't use +3 or better items together with each other or with armors, while the player can easily abuse the situation and wear several powerful rings and cloaks; so I decided to chang the restrictions for party members to be the same with the enemies.

I don't have problem with this change, just I won't use +3 items anyway. Sadly there are not really good cloaks in the game (best cloaks are removed), not even which can be in pair with a +1 prot. cloak. Almost same situation with rings, only Wizardry, The Four bard ring, and cleric ring.
And of course I wanted to ask Improved Ring of the Gaxx, which is +5.

So just so I understand this, you can't wear a +1 cloak with a +3 ring?

Or does the restriction only apply to multiple items with a +3 enchantment or greater?

Hi leonidas... I think the restriction only applies to multiple items with a +3 enchantment or greater. Therefore, I think +3 rings are usuable with +2 rings or cloaks. However, most armors I tend to use in the late game would be +3 or higher, so I think that from v6 on, those +3 (or higher) rings would mainly be of use to spellcasters only.

This might be a little late, but happy birthday, Sikret!

In my interpretation: if you use + ring or cloak, you cannot use any armor or any other protective item (including +1 or +2 ones).

LZJ's interpretation is the correct one. If your character has not worn any armor, he can use a +3 ring with a +2 ring, a +2 cloak and a +1 amulet. However, more than one +3 protection items can't be worn together.

Are improved Ring of Gaxx and Nalia's ring subject to restrictions? I ask since they was usable in combination with any other protective items in unmodded game.

This is a question regarding a couple of new animal summoning spells (Animal Summoning IV (7th level spell) and Animal Summoning V (druidic HLA)).

Which of these two creatures should be considered to be generally more powerful than the other one (consider both of them at their full calibre):

- An Anaconda
- A Smilodon

If you wish, you can also divide your answer to several categories (THAC0, HP, AC, etc) and may say that one of them has perhaps better defense but inferior attack compared to the other one. Or alternatively, if you think that one of them should be considered more powerful than the other one in all aspects, that can also be a valid answer.

Realistically, an anaconda isn't much good at attacking, let alone chasing something down; I think they prefer to drop on their prey, or have it stumble over them. Once coiled around the prey, that's it, but I have trouble imagining a snake that large actually fighting. In any case, it should have very high strength (STR 23 or 24) and either do crushing damage or have a particularly powerful crushing special attack. Not sure about defense, really, though crushing and piercing damage resistance might make sense: one might kill it by cutting it in half or chopping its head off, but good luck trying that with a dagger or mace!

A smilodon wouldn't be spectactularly fast, since they didn't specialise in hunting fast animals. However, it should be strong (STR 20 or 21) and have good THAC0 and AC; it's still got a cat's reflexes, after all. Slashing damage for claws, but huge piercing damage for that bite. Also, add bleeding damage, perhaps?

I can't really say who'd be more powerful, and depending on the situation, it could be a no-contest either way. Incidentally, 'Smilodon' as a name would seem a bit out of place to me; I'd just call it 'Sabretooth' (I know, that term covers many species, but so what).

Anaconda, also known as "Water Boa", is an ambush predator specialized in aquatic hunting. It's a capable swimmer and fast. Interestingly, the word "Anaconda" also means 'Good Swimmer'. But this is about their hunting method in reality; I was asking for something different. I want you to imagine an anaconda who is forced to fight (rather than hunt) for her life and somehow stimulated by the summoning magic. A bit of imagination should be added of course. Once summoned, she is not a hunter, but a fighter.



This is a good point.

Good point about anacondas; I was thinking of boas in general, didn't even realize anacondas were primarily aquatic. Anyway...

I suppose an anaconda's main fighting feature would be to immobilize enemies by wrapping themselves around their legs and lower bodies; then they would start squeezing. So, a small chance of a hold effect with continuing damage (cf. Bigby spells) might be appropriate.

Since the smilodon would probably pounce on his victim, a knockdown/throwback effect might be an idea, either instead of or in addition to bleeding damage from the deep bite.

All good points, Zarathustra! Thank you.

The rough idea I had in mind was to make Animal Summoning IV a 7th level spell available to both clerics and druids, with one difference: If cast by a druid, it summons an anaconda, but if cast by a cleric it summons a weaker snake (perhaps a Python).

Animal Summoning V is supposed to be a druidic HLA (not available to clerics) and I thought that it could gate to a mighty Smilodon (who can't be killed by death spell). So, according to my draft and temporary design, Anaconda was used for Animal Summoning 4, while Smilodon was used for Animal Summoning 5. Later, I started to think whether I was correct to assume that a smilodon should be considered more powerful than an anaconda by default (and hence, to be used for Animal summoning 5) or not; and that's why I decided to ask the question here.

Do you want to replace old summing spells at priest level 7 and at quest spells? If you don't want, there are many summoning spells at these levels, like Conjure Earth Elemental, Gate, Elemental Summining, GR. Elemental Summoning, Summon Deva, so the newest summoning will be more superior than these, I think. Personally I think Conjure Earth Elemental, and Gate could be replaced with new spells, and Elemental Summoning maybe also.

I agree with Zarathustra in all things, but personally I think a Smilodon should be the most dangerous.

I agree that a smilodon should be more dangerous as a fighter. Not as a hunter, I think anakonda is better in that area but during fight anaconda cannot use his stealth ability. Smilodon could have a really good AC (it is very fast), average damage, multiple attacks per round and a good THAC0. I think anaconda can cause more damage, a little bit worse THAC0, worse AC and 1 or maximum 2 attacks per round.

May I ask, what is a smilodon!? Never heard of it. Sounds like a Rhino...but Rhinos are not very fast..

Smilodon (pronounced /ˈsmаɪləˌdɒn/), sometimes called saber-toothed tiger, is an extinct genus of large machairodontine saber-toothed cats.

See a painting of the creature here.

Aaah...it's that pre-historic animal. I believe that's more powerful than an anaconda. Faster, stronger. Perhaps less dmg resistance.

Hi Sikret! It's been a long time since I've posted but I've always kept up with progress on the mod. It hasn't been mentioned in a while but I was wondering when the final Throne of Bhaal battle would be absurdly improved (which is a good thing) by IA

IA7?

Hi, luan!

Sorry for the delayed reply. I saw your post the day you sent it and wanted to answer in a few days, but I got busy and forgot it for a while.

Improving the final battle with Melissan is what I certainly plan to do, but it's a very delicate thing, because it is located after the extended Twisted Rune and EDE. The extended Twisted Rune is a new quest/encounter added to TOB in IA v6. It's a fearsome marathon and one of the most difficult battles I have ever made; it's probably even harder than EDE_v5 (though not as difficult as EDE_v6). EDE is also improved quite a lot in v6.

We need to test these two battles many times and find a comparative balance between them. It's just then that we can start to think about the final battle with Melissan and decide over the possible ways we can improve it. We will have two general ways to improve the battle with Melissan:

1- Should it be even harder than EDE_v6?! If so, then we will have some crucial problems to solve. First of all, how can we possibly manage to design such a fearsome battle (i.e. a battle harder than EDE_v6 ) without running into the risk of making the battle totally impossible to win? The desgin will require much thinking and even more testing. Second, how can we justify such a level of difficulty? Is Melissan truly supposed to be more powerful than the Rakshasa Prince who is already a greater god in his full calibre? Perhaps, Melissan should be supported in a way by an evil god there; otherwise, it doesn't look justifiable to show her even more powerful than the prince.

2- What if we improve the final battle, but keep it still easier than EDE? It's certainly easier to design and even easier to justify. But, then the tactical player may encounter an anticlimax. The player who has presumably read in the mod's documentation that the final battle is improved expects something very special. He has just won EDE in the hope of seeing an even more epic battle. How can we possibly find a good way to improve the final battle and yet keep it easier than EDE without running into the risk of a tactical anticlimax? Perhaps, some additional RP features and dialogues can help us to acheive the desired result.

All these problems make me postpone improving the final battle with Melissan to when ETR (extended twisted rune) and EDE_v6 are both fully tested. Just then we will start a discussion with the testing team to decide what to do with the final battle at Throne of Bhaal.

If you make the battle nearly as difficult as EDE, but to require completely different tactics, I think it's fine.
Different summons at least.

What's Cyric's angle on Melissan again?

Well apart from making it harder maybe we should focus on making it different. I had never liked the final fight with Melissan and Ascension does a very good job doing it different. Even if the resultant Ascension finale had been much easier than the origial ending i would prefer the Ascension.

A couple ideas;

-I was thinking something vaguely similar to the ending of Planescape Torment. Upon arrival on the Throne of Bhaal all your party members are scattered and you can only reach one of them of your choice (through some sacrifice maybe i don't know) then you fight Melissan to the end, possibly gaining access to more party members during the process. The player is forced to make a tactical choice of deciding at which order he should resurrect/summon his companions.

-This one involves Rakshasa prince, Solar and Helm of opposite alignment. From its description;



Here, the legions of evil is of course Rakshasa prince and his goons. As a last attempt of revenge he forces the helmet to the Solar through some mysterious ways and leaves us fighting with her along with Melissan. It can actually be pretty interesting.

Anyway i see you are not going to be working on the final battle for quite some time but i just wanted to throw in some ideas.

Yes, this kind of maneuvers and plots are good, because they can give us new ways and options to make the battle difficult (even as hard as EDE) without actually requiring us to assume that Melissan (herself) is more powerful than the prince.

Well, consider that the Rakshasa Prince, even though a greater deity, is not fighting on his own native plane. From D&D lore, beings in their own plane are exponentially more powerful than if they were in a foreign one. I'm sure materializing on a foreign/hostile plane would handicap his powers. Further consider that the Prince confronted the player in the players *own* plane which should boost the PC to become even more powerful.

I'm sure a few of you have played against Tactics' Irenicus and his final battle in Hell. He was able to leverage his affinity to the pocket plane due to the link he had from your stolen soul. This made him tremendously powerful and difficult as the general rules of the universe didn't necessarily apply! Yes I know it's a completely different mod, but the concept still applies.

Now in the Throne of Bhaal it is the dead god's plane. The player character holds a great deal of Bhaal's essence, but who possesses much, much more? Melissan.
So basically, it can be justified to make the final confrontation even more difficult than EDE as it takes place on a plane that Melissan holds much affinity to.

Apsis' idea is also pretty cool, but don't we already fight against Fallen Solar? What would be the difference between a Fallen Solar vs a Solar + artificial identity crises?
Perhaps there are different ranks of Solars.

Anyhow, I'm all for making the final confrontation the penultimate challenge. As for how to make it more difficult without being virtually impossible? Well... I don't know. That's Sikret's job, but I'm confident he and the IA team could get it done

All very good points, luan! These arguments can indeed justify making the final battle as hard as we want it to be.

Well, now i am inclined to ask whether Sikret wants to make the final battle with Melissan harder than EDE? For now, Melissan battle is the finale of the Baldur's gate while EDE is the finale of Improved Anvil. Is this supposed to be changed?

I don't know yet. That's a question we will need to discuss once ETR and EDE_v6 are fully tested several times and after collecting all possible suggestions about various ways we can improve the final battle with Melissan.

What I said above was that luan's post presented some good arguments to justify making the final battle even harder than EDE. But I didn't say that I made any final decision.

We should avoid the possibility of a tactical anticlimax, but this can be done in various ways. One way is to compose a special battle similar to what you suggested; one other way is to make the battle involve some other god who works on melissan's behalf (or at her side) and again another way is to make Melissan a much stronger character for the sort of arguments luan presented. The final battle is also a good playground for various RP features, new characters, more dialogues and etc... I prefer not to touch it unless I find a perfect way to make it so special and unique that no player will ever miss (or even remember) 'Ascension' ever.

I think changing the climactic battle with Melissan is a great idea and offers up much possibilities. Bringing in another powerful god to assist her does not ring true IMO as she is already a goddess (at least in her own mind) and should therefore be the strongest foe in the encounter.
The battle should require different tactics than EDE but should not necessarily be more difficult. Improving the defenders of the platforms can make the encounter a test of attrition (if I remember correctly you may not rest at the Throne of Bhaal). The time element could come into play here - the quicker you can dispatch these groups and get back to Melissan the more advantage you enjoy.
Melissan should certainly have powerful allies when directly confronted, they may be in keeping with her area of expertise which is Murder and each successive group should be more challenging.
Just my two cents

I can't remember if this is already in the game, but if not it would be cool if on the weapon proficiency choosing screen (both at character creation and level up) in the weapons descriptions it would be nice if it said what damage type it was, since varying weapon damage types is crucial in IA and people like me always forget which are piercing vs slashing

edit: along those lines, if the race selection screen gave exact information on the save bonuses of various races that would really help people who don't know that information (like me)... I alwasy hear dwarves and gnomes have good saves but never remember what they are when it comes to actual character creation...

these are just minor suggestions to help people still learning the game and tactics but if its easy to implement it would be appreciated by folks like me

My condolences to all cheaters and cheesy players! A lot more hidden anti-cheat utilities are added to the mod. As an example, the major golems and many other important bosses in the game will be bullet-proof against the infamous timestop-melee cheat. You will have to stand and fight like a man, I'm afraid!

Of course, players who play fair and without using any cheats or cheesy methods won't even notice the existence of such hidden anti-cheat features of the mod.

Check the initial post of this thread frequently.

EDIT: Moreover, I have also modified vanilla scripts such as SHOUTDLG to require the normal time progress to turn true (such scripts will turn false while the time is frozen). This is very important for those enemies who are immune to Time Stop and have a dialogue to say. Ancient Dragon is a good example. Even when the enemy is immune to timestop, those vanilla scripts which forced him to initiate dialogue would halt the creature's normal behavior during timestop, because even though the enemy is immune to timestop, he would keep trying to talk for no avail (if for example, the SHOUTDLG script had a higher prioirty to the creature's combat script). Cheaters could abuse this possibility (by casting Timestop offscreen) as well. With the new changes to those vanilla scripts, enemies who are immune to timestop will be able to fight normally during timestop and will try to say their lines only when the normal time resumes. They are not immune to melee damage during timestop because they can defend themselves. I have not added a global effect to the timestop spell to grant immunity to melee damage; I have implemented different workarounds for different enemies. Those enemies who can effectively defend themselves during timestop would still take damage from melee weapons. Only those who can be killed easily (as if ctrl-Y-ed) will be impervious to melee damage during timestop (and even for them, the type of solutions I have implemented differs from case to case). As I said, it's just a hidden anti-cheat feature of the mod; players who play fair and square won't even notice it.

I just realized that bards not only get a spell progression nerf with max. lvl 5th spells, but they level progression is nerfed also. They level up in v6 as mages do which is the slowest in the game. I really don't want to argue about bards again, just I am curious. If Sirket, or any tester could asnwer me: What should the reason to use bards in party? They fight awfully badly, like thieves, only 1 attack per round. They don't have most thieving skills as thieves have, and they level up much slower now. They will get low level level spells only, which are mostly unusable at end of SoA and in ToB. Many ppl think single class thieves are weak class in IA. As I say at least swashbuckler can be played in v6, I am intended to try it. But I see bards seems weaker than a normal thieves or maximum equal which means bards and thieves (exc. swashie) are the weakes class in IA. So I would be happy some tester who use bard could write down some reason to use bard in the IAv6 party. Fighter/mage seems much better now.
In know some tactical genius can do whole IA even with unkitted bard and thieve in the party, but if you compare these classes to vagrant, auramaster, sorcerer, or to berserker, barbarian, mage, multi/dual class mage, cleric, or even to non kitted ranger, paladin, fighter, wizard... well it seems they are not near to these classes in IA environment.

Let me to repeat, I don't want to flame. I just would like to hear the reasons of "other side" who think bard are good class still with these nerf.

Swashbucklers are currently being tested and they have proven to be quite useful with their new HLA table despite losing the UAI ability. Bards testing run-throughs have not begun yet.

Another good news is that the new masterpiece Valiant is making for IA is near completion. As you know, it's a huge and magnificent new wilderness area to be used in the expanded druid stronghold quests. I will probably ask two or three powerful testers to start a testing game session for the expanded druid stronghold in the near future and will ask them to have bards in their parties as well. As you can see in the initial post, the estimated date of release has changed and we will have enough time to do all the required tests before that time.

Side effects of this change:
1. Dual class became weaker cause of longer leveling in 2nd cast.
2. Int became irrelevant, since my mage will learn only 6-8 spells per spell-level (well, max. 10 at certain levels). There are a LOT of crap spells at all spell-levels. Int counts only in spell learning now, but many ppl reload or use 100 % spell learning mod.

Second is much more pain then 1st.



Side effect of this change: Thief was not popular in IA games. Only boost was the XP from traps and locks if you played a thief (which meant a bit harder game since thief was the weakest point in IA parties). Now this boost is diminishing, traps can be avoided or healed out, locks can be knocked = don't need thief in party at all...

I am sure you had good reasons to do this changes Sikret, just see htere are maybe more drawbacks than gaining with these changes. Maybe you should add a harder and different traps into the game. And you should boost the importance of some ablities like Int or Cha (maybe Wis also, since it gives only some low level crap bonus spells till 18 Wis, and more Wish options). For example Wisdom could modify your saves vs spells, or only vs mind affecting spells.

See this post.

Dual classing will become more sensible, yes. Blocking the easy xp from learning scrolls to activate the first class after dual-classing was one of my reasons for this change.

My only concern (as explained in the post I linked to) was the possibility that the early stages of the game might become too difficult and that's why I postponed the final decision to receive reports from my testers; but after receiving their feedback, I finally decided to implement the tweak.

It's strange, do you think that the main use of INT was to harvest xp from scrolls?! One who wants to gain xp in this way can do it even with low INT by saving the game each time he learns a spell successfully and reload each time he fails to learn the spell. I don't understand how INT can have any importan impact here except that with a high INT, he will need to reload fewer times.



Again, harvesting easy xp is not a good motive for playing a class. If a player wants to play a thief just because of the easy xp he could harvest from traps and locks, then I'm glad that his motives are gone. However, with the new swashbuckler kit in v6, I'm sure that more players will be tempted to play a swashbuckler (and with a good reason this time, not just for the easy xp)



I think I have already increased the importance of INT to some extent by adding those monsters who drain INT and by improving mind flayers as well. Now, it's at least very risky to create a warrior with very low INT, because he may run into grave danger in certain battles.

Yes, if I want to cheat with learning XP, then I can do it with low Int. But at least for me, high Int meant to learn more spells WITHOUT cheat, which meant some XP boost at low levels... Now I will learn only the really imporant spells and all other scrolls will be sold. This has only one good point for me: I can keep more useful scrolls for a thief with UAI (like PfMW etc.), and still I have a same amount of gold from scroll selling, since useless spells are not needed in my spellbook anymore.



Yes, it is good for fighters, they should have at least 10 Int. But I am not talking about fighters, I am talking about mages and bards.
Now my mage will have only Int score 13, since 9 spells per spell-levels are enough to get all needed spells in IA. So I don't need 18 Int, I can max. out Str, Dex, I can put Con to 16, Wisdom to 18 for Wish etc. it is strange to me that mage with 13 Int can be better in the game than mage with 18 Int. One method to avoid this if weak spells get some boosts, and some never used spells are required in certain battles. So mages still should need a wider spellselection.



I really don't understand you at this point. I am NOT harvesting XP... XP for locks and traps were the part of the game. It is not cheat or cheese method. When I have to decide if I take thief or not there were some points what I have to consider. Thief made my party a bit weaker in fights, but it made to handle traps and locks easier AND it meant some bonus XP. Now this last reason is diminished. OK, you made swashbuckler more appealing, which is very good, and I will try this kit in v6, but there are more thief kits and there is a base cast also, they are still weak in IA.


Anyway, I am a player in BG and IA (I am a DM in AD&D, D&D 3-3.5 for many many years) so I am giving only feedback what I think about these changes. I never wanted to cheat, and yes I used some cheese method earlier (I think all of us did), but I want to play without cheese (however ppl here think differently what is cheat and cheese). I want the best balance in IA, balance among classes, abilities and spells also.

But what will you do if you fail to learn a spell? Will you reload over and over to learn it with your 13 INT? I thought you were implying that you don't like reloading countless times to learn a spell.

What I meant was that the amount of xp for disarming traps and picking locks were unreasonably high in the vanilla game; I didn't remove it altogether; I've just lowered it.



Thank you, shadan! Keep sending your feedback. I certainly read and consider all feedback I receive, but I naturally can't/don't promise to fulfill every request or accept every suggestion.

Well this is a good point. I don't remember if 100 % spell learning mod is part of EoU (which is recommended), I guess not. Anyway I always hated that spell learning failure, even with 18-19 Int, you have 5-15 % failure. Have you reloaded game cause of failed spell learning anytime, Sikret, in your plays? However with 18 Int I don't consider so cheese the fix spell learning mod, but with an intentionally 13 score of Int, yes it is.
However I still believe you should do a complete spellrevision (similar to what I sent you about cleric spells and all HLAs) not only just replace some spells and nerf some overpowered spells. I know there is not enough time to do it in v6, but it would be so good if high Int wouldn't means only the spell failure but I would like to scribe all spells into my spellbook since all of them are good and needed. This would nerf sorcerer a bit which is superior than mage atm.
And yes, I would be happy if thief class would be stronger all in all, not only swashbuckler (which is my favourite thief kit anyway). And if we are speaking about fair fights, paladins could get some boost in stronghold, items etc. But I know, your time is limited, so lets stay at spellrevision and other thief kit/main class boost in the future.

I don't want any misunderstanding: these are only my wishes, not a demand. I know you are doing a lof ot free work on this mod and your time is limited.

No, I don't reload after failing to learn a spell; the only exception for which I will reload if I fail to learn the spell is the new spell (in v6), "Recast Vital Energy", which has only one single scroll in the entire game and needs to be researched in the expanded mage stronghold. If my Necromancer protagonist fails to learn it, I will reload the game. I may even add a small tweak to the mod to make sure that this particular spell will never fail to be learned after being researched (the justificaion can be something in the lines of 'since you and your apprentice have researched the spell, you know it well enough not to fail in writing it in your spellbook').

There are some other spells whose scrolls are also very rare in the game in v6. For example, Time Stop, which has only 3 scrolls in the entire game and one of these 3 will be needed as an ingredient to do something in the expanded mage stronghold (so, practically there will be only 2 for scribing) or Spell Shield which has only 2 scrolls), but I won't reload the game if I fail to learn them. In other words, the reason/justification for which I will reload if I fail to learn Recast Vital Energy is not even that it has only one scroll in the game; the reason is that the spell is researched in my own stronghold.



Currently, sorcerer is not really superior to Necromancer (in v6); at early stages of the game, sorcerer may look better, but once the necromancer gets his stronghold and new items and spells, he is certainly superior to the sorcerer. I have good plans for other specialist mages as well. Diviner and Transmuter will be next to follow the Necromancer.

Also, note that the Wish spell can't be exploited to boost INT before learning spells from scrolls. This exploit has been blocked in v6.

Thanks Sikret, this was useful infos, and it is good to block Wish trick for spell learning. I wonder on rarity of Time Stop since if I remember well, I found more scrolls in my games. But maybe just because I have a sorcerer, and I can easily pick Spell Shield, Time Stop and similar rare spells with him. This is why I don't like Imoen's spell selection. I found her lvl 5 spells not the best, Oracle is not needed if you have mage, cleric in the party, Spell Shield would be much better.
I will try new Time Stop in v6 game, but as I wrote before in my v5 and v4.2 runs I was not able to use it efficiently since when I would use it, the main enemies in those fights was immune to it, and it is not too wise to play my single class wizard face to face with those nasty guys. And when enemies was not immune, there was not needed any Time Stop.

I was talking about v6.

Oracle is underrated by most players. It is a very useful 5th levl spell. it has shorter casting time and in conjunction with Improved Alacrity it is certainly superior to True Sight. If an enemy turns invisible while you have Improved alacrity active (just imagine those rune assassins), you can dispel his invisibility quickly by Oracle; relying on your cleric's True Sight will waste your time and will practically kill your Improved Alacrity, because even if your cleric has already cast True Sight, you will need to wait idle for some time before the true sight kicks in again to dispel the enemies' new illusions. When I was choosing Imoen's spells, I had this important point in mind.



Spell Shield is still somewhat bugged. I have fixed its bug against Spell Strike, but it may still become buggy against Ruby Ray of Reversal. I don't recommend Spell Shield as a pick for your sorcerer, because if its bug kicks in, you will win the battles against enemies much more easily than intended.



The difference between timestop in vanilla game with timestop in v6 is just that the latter is less cheesy than the former, but still, I agree that timestop is not a good choice as a 9th level spell (especially for players who don't intend to use timestop with this or that known cheesy tricks).

There was a discussion recently at http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=16659 about how this might be worked around... I'm a little reluctant to do it for SCSII because I see a lot of compatibility problems, but it might be of interest for IA, where you can make rather more reliable assumptions about what other mods the player will have installed.

I checked it. Its main idea, which is assigning a different "secondary type" to the Spell Shield spell and then removing it by the protection removal spell is excatly the way I have fixed the problem between Spell Shield and SpellStrike (I wonder why he didn't mention it if he has looked it up in IA). He has of course tried to extend the solution to work for other protection removal spells as well. It's not that simple though; there are a few subtleties which should still be solved (for example, contrary to what it may look at the first glance, applying such radical changes to the spell-system will require modifying a few other spells too; it's not just confined to modifying Spell Shield and protection removal spells; Its impact on the game is bigger than it looks at the first sight). I have solved all such problems for Spellstrike with a lot of work and I doubt that I would ever want to try it for other protection removal spells (for example, implementing the solution to Ruby Ray of Reversal is a lot more problematic and complicated than SpellStrike and implementing it to Secret Word is even more complicated than RRoR and that's why I didn't -- and probably won't-- try it for other protection removal spells). Fortunately, the very few enemies who still use Spell Shield in IA, don't use it in conjunction with SI:abjuration; hence, casting Spellstrike works as a perfect solution in practice (i.e. since they don't use SI:abjuration, the player's choice of protection removal spells is not limited to RRoR).