Hello,

I'm quite interested in your mod and I wonder if it is still in developpement?
I've read some posts about v7 but looking at last activity's date, I think it might be halted ?

Previously, I was sticking with Spell Revisions, but I'm getting interested in Lost Crossroads because it adds many interesting spells.
I'm convinced that vanilla spells are broken and a mod focus on spells is almost mandatory. In my case, I'm making all spellcaster's spellbooks in BG1.
I have chosen Spell Revisions because I didn't know Lost Crossroads, but now, I'm not sure which one to use.

Thanks for your interest,

I am extremely busy finishing my degree, which is why I haven't got to continuing development. Once summer comes, I intend to have a new version of SpellPack as well as a TweakPack released.

In the meantime, I will be around to answer questions and/or bug reports.

-Galactygon

Thank you for your answer.
I will thoroughly test your mod.
My criteria are :
- stability : crashs are unwelcome and I avoid mods that cause too many crashes
- diversity : more spells choice on each spell level is something I am looking for. Spell Revision is very good, but it only adds a few spells. I know it is a choice for better compatibility with other mods (especially AI mods). More diversity would allow me to make very different spellbooks.
- quality / balance : this is a very important point.

I will post here a complete review, but it should take me quite some time to do it

I am gladly anticipating a review, it will be useful for me once I get to releasing the next version.

-Galactygon

I will start soon.
Each spell will be tested on both sides : party and enemies.
It is very important that enemies can use most spells efficiently. If not, party will get a big advantage and/or enemies will get less variety in their spells selection.

2 questions:
- I read SpellPack, but it seems to be called Lost Crossroads. Is SpellPack only a part of this mod ?
- Documentation : is there any better document that readme ? Readme doesn't contain many details. For example: We still don't know what bonuses it does grant, and I guess ingame description is better. If not, I will have to check SPL to see what it does. I know that writting documentation takes time, but it helps a lot, especially for modders that use SpellPack as a required mod If ingame description is good, I could generate a full documentation very quickly.

I have read the entire readme and there are several spells that might be difficult to script. There are all clerical spells that create a stationary effect. It is quite difficult to detect and efficiently use them with scripts.
Hopefully, I didn't see any of them (or very few) in wizard's section.

Globally, there are many interesting spells and I really like overlapping effects for haste/slow.
A few things that bug me:
- there are still many spells untouched and potentially bad. For example, many summoning spells.
- something I don't like in vanilla game is resist fear effect. At level 3, one spell is enough to make party immuned to any fear effect, rendering useless many fear spells. Of course, there are dispel spells but... I was wondering if a resist fear effect should not be weakened or cancelled by a fear spell (or effect) ?
- saving throws : one thing I like in SR is harder saving throws. Many spells are easy to resist in vanilla game... I mean, would you prefer to try a disintegrate spell at -2 or chain lightning spell that will surely do (good) damage ?

Certainly. That's a major criteria I use when making design decisions.


Originally I had planned for SpellPack to be pre-release, or a small taste of a much larger mod, Lost Crossroads. However, Lost Crossroads is far too ambitious of a concept to be realized.

I've stopped working on Lost Crossroads and decided to opt to specialize in smaller mods. I would then talk to mod authors of other mods (SCS, aTweaks, PnP [insert creature name here], and Divine Remix) to integrate SpellPack with those mods.

I am now using Lost Crossroads as an umbrella term for any works I (plan to) release: Lost Crossroads SpellPack, Lost Crossroads TweakPack, etc.


I've originally had the complete spell descriptions in the readme, but as the number of spells grew I figured it would be better to be concise in the readme. The complete spell descriptions can be read in SpellPackB6/Languages/English/setup.tra.


Thanks for taking the time to do this. Scriptability is an important aspect when making design decisions. The most important scripting perks (ie invisibility purge sets a local variable) are in the readme. The less important ones, like how to detect a Cloud of Pestilence are not, and I am aware I should make these known.


I am taking it one spell at a time, there are many planned changes yet to be implemented.


I can't comment on this for now, I do not have a concept regarding fear effects. If I do come to dealing with fear concepts, I will



I do not, or rarely scale saving throw penalties based on level. A concept to change all spells to have scaleable saving throw penalties is outside of SpellPack, which deals primarily in changing individual spells. Although this concept does not come from AD&D, it can always have room as an optional component in a tweak pack. For now, my answer is: I don't know whether or not I will get to this.

btw: In SpellPack I go as far to deviate from the AD&D rules to impose a saving throw penalty against dodging disintegrate's green orb for large/very large creatures. I feel comfortable doing this because it enhances the realism of the game.

-Galactygon

Actually, I haven't made a very advanced detecting script because if I want to take care of everything, I would end up with a very big script (more than 20 000 lines I think) for high level mages. And with this very basic language, it is a pain to script anything, even a simple thing.

Basically, I like to script my enemies in a way they don't know much about their enemies. I mean, a mage wouldn't cast invisibility because party had cast invisibility purge. But... did he really saw that spell casting? Maybe, he was busy with something else like a fighter swinging his weapon at him or whatever...
A berserker will attack under rage, my script could try to charm or hold him, how can he knows he is a berserker?
[...]
Normally, with a good language, a script should make a mistake once and learn if no effect is applied, meaning target is immuned. But this is almost impossible to do here.
I keep things quite simple, but when a spell is cast, I try to obtain a good result : casting a stationnary spells is quite difficult to script, except if area of effect is huge (20 or 30 feet).


This is a good news, but this also means that currently, vanilla spells should be avoided if they are not good enough.
And it will need an adjustement later on.



I understand your point but I think P&P spells are not equally balanced or they are not adapted for a computer game.
In P&P, between level 1 and 7 (as in BG1) will not get very good items that allow, for example, to get very low saving throws.
Between potions and items, it is rather easy to have very low saving throws in BG1.
Although it will rarer for enemies, at least in BG1.

In result, all spells that do nothing if saves are successful are very risky to cast.
As a player, I've almost never used any charm spells. Why? because it is very good to land a dire charm or domination. But if target saves, it is just a spell lost.
In a difficult battle, this makes a difference between victory and defeat, especially if you play with no (or very few) reloads.

So, domination is saves vs spell at -2 in vanilla game. In bg1, you will get this spell near the end and so, at this point, it will fail about 2 times over 3.
At this same level, you can get spells like sunfire, cone of cold, chaos that are more reliable. Chaos saves at -4 and is area of effect, Sunfire and cone of cold do very good damage, and even if some targets saves, they might still take some damage, and some others may not save [...]

Maths are simple : in vanilla, many spells are almost useless because of saving throws.
It might be like P&P, it doesn't change anything : players won't use them.

Now, I'm not suggesting anything, I just want to make a point on spells.
With Spell Revisions, I have made several enemy enchanters and they are efficient. Domination saves at -4 or -6 (don't remember), and many others spells are quite good.

In vanilla, tendance is to go for evocation spells because they are still potent even with successful saves.
I like this general rule : no saves (or with very high malus) should be allowed when a powerful wizard cast a spell on a low level target.
For example, a level 20 wizard should easily dominate a level 7 fighter (no save) but not a level 15 fighter (saves at -4).

You talked about realism but currently, it is quite possible than a level 10 fighter saves vs 5 domination spells cast by a level 20 wizard, just because it is not difficult to saves at -2. That level 20 wizard would have killed him for sure with 5 level 5 evocation spells.

Indeed. AD&D spells are meant also for role-playing use, whereas this aspect is nonexistant in BG(II), a combat-oriented RPG. In PS:T you can use the Friends spell for great effect, but in the BG games it's useless.

There are changes I make to individual spells to level the playing field. When I do so, I always compare the spell with the most powerful spell at that level.


The charm/domination spells are actually stronger in PnP than in BGII, which I have rectified. A 1st level spell which changes a foe to an ally is pretty darn good, so the problems lie with the higher level spells.


You have a point with Domination.



Correct. While implementing a scaleable saving throw penalty system might help save-or-else spells like domination, let's not forget that it will also make damage spells more powerful. The end result will be: it's still going to be more worth investing into evocation spells than, say domination.

The problem is then with the individual spells: they have to give something special in order to be worth taking them over a spell like sunfire. I am not a fan of changing the numbers (ie saving throw penalties), but rather making a minimal change and giving a logical explanation.

For example, I just have the idea to force the victim to make a wisdom/intelligence check in addition to a saving throw in order to resist a domination spell. A wisdom check works like this: a 20-sided die is rolled and then compared to the wisdom score of the victim. If the value of the die is greater than the victim's wisdom score, the victim has failed its wisdom check. Now I'm liking this idea and considering implementing it.

This type of idea is much more interesting than balancing the numbers until they feel right. I feel SpellPack is more than just changing the numbers.

-Galactygon

For harder saving throws, it wouldn't be for evocation spells. Evocation spells are all very good in their current state (or almost).
It is more for enchantment and alteration spells I think.
Necromancy are ok for most spells.

I like your idea of more checks.
It would make sense for wisdom. In P&P, high level wisdom gives some immunities to mind affecting spells.
And also, it is right that area of effect spells are usually a better choice than single target spells.
Worst, even when there is only ONE target, area of effect spells are usually a better choice than most other spells !

I am currrently making a spellbook for Ulcaster in BG1, he can now be attacked and will defend himself as a level 17 invoker ghost.
His power is impressive and most of his invoker spells are very efficient : chain lightning, fireball, sunfire, cone of cold, acid fog, cloudkill, delayed fireball, incendiary cloud...
One of them is not impressive at all through : Bigby's Clenched Fist
Strangely, it is a single target spell. Very low damage compared to what he can do with others spells, not area of effect, and an hold effect but if target saves, it will be released from this spell.