Big Changes In How Some Spells Work

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:05 am

I just completed IWD II with my first party. I should have months ago but got sidetracked by other games and trying out some different starting parties in this one. It wasn't until the final fight that I realized how powerful Improved Invisibility had become in this game. Wish I had been using it more earlier in the game. In IWD I and BG II, Improved Invisibility is not anywhere NEAR as powerful as in IWD II, IMHO.
**Spoiler**
Isair cast Imp Inv on himself and I didn't have anything to take it down. My cleric didn't have Inv Purge memorized and I couldn't target him with anything else, spell or weapon. As he stayed close to one of my party members to whack them I couldn't really throw any area spells against him. I had 2 potions of See Invisibility but they did not work (bug maybe?). I ended up taking the character he had "targeted" and just had them run around in circles (with him pursuing) while the rest of the party worked on Madae. Since she could cast heal on herself it took me a while to win the fight.
This is huge difference from BG II where enemies can still target and hit you, at a reduced chance albeit, but still they have chance. It is not like the near total invulerability it gives in IWD II.

Another spell I noticed a big change in (this time wimping it out) Find Traps. It adds a whole whopping "+4" to the caster's Search skill. How many are going invest their Cleric's precious skill points which are few to start with in Search. Adding +4 to (usually 0 or 1) still leaves them behind the average rogue even at 3rd level when you get it. Why bother memorizing it? Granted that in the other games it is quite powerful (perhaps overly so) by being able to find just about any and every trap. But this change virtually neutered it.

I know there are about 300 spells in IWD II. I realize too that some changes may be due to the change from AD&D ver.2 to ver.3 (or 3.5) Anyone else noticed some spells that are significantly different from the other Bioware IE games?

kmonster · Post by **kmonster** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:57 am

It's a well known bug that characters with improved insibibility are totally ignored. It is fixed with the patch.

Static charge was moved from level4 to level5 and does less damage than in IWD1. But it's still very powerful.

Stoneskin is useless against highly enchanted weapons, provides only damage reduction and can be cast on other party members.

Animate dead yields one strong undead now.

"Save or die" spells like finger of death got far more powerful. It's nearly impossible to survive a finger of death cast by a charismatic sorcerer with GSF necromancy.

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:31 pm

Stoneskin

Ah, Stoneskin!

Thanks Kmonster. I meant to put that (and Ironskin) in my original post. You are so right they are both pretty different than IWD I and BG II. Stoneskin was hit worst of the two, IIRC. Going from total immunity to physical damage (for limited number of hits) to a mediocre (at best) damage reduction was quite a let down. In the latter part of the game against opponents who routinely do 30-40+ points of damage it becomes a very limited use spell (which is terrible for a 4th level spell IMHO). I much prefer IWD I and BG II version of these.

Good stuff about the others. I suspected that Imp. Inv. may have had a bug. I haven't patched my game. Is that patch available here on GB?

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:41 pm

Stoneskin

Double Post.