IR Revised V1.3.800 (2022 January 11th)

[Luke]

13 hours ago, kjeron said:

BIT9 (Break Sanc/Invis) breaks both sanctuary and invisibility.

So this flag no longer breaks only Sanctuary...?

Also, it is useless to set both flags to 1 (see for instance WIZARD_FIREBALL), right? It should be either one or the other, mainly depending on how they should interact with op102 (so in particular with (Minor)?Globe of Invulnerability and the like)...?

[Lord_Tansheron]

18 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I have a feeling that even if more spells break invisibility, SCS AI will play just fine. Time will tell though...

The only thing I could see as being a relevant problem is the already mentioned Sanctuary, as priests in SCS like to go in a corner and heal themselves back to full while in Sanctuary. If that breaks instantly on the first heal, that's a bit awkward.

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

The only thing I could see as being a relevant problem is the already mentioned Sanctuary, as priests in SCS like to go in a corner and heal themselves back to full while in Sanctuary. If that breaks instantly on the first heal, that's a bit awkward.

Yes. I think the answer is to simply let Cure Wounds spells not break invisibility. I suppose that gives a boon to a C/M who can cast Invisibility and then heal at will. Beamdog making this fully configurable is a good thing; but they should have gone the extra step and distinguished Sanctuary from Invis. 

[kjeron]

If you want to break only one or the other, you can always add op160 or op136  as a global effect to the spell.

It's possibly more reliable than setting BIT9:

• unlike BIT9, it will still break them when cast through a sequencer/contingency.
• unlike BIT9, it will still break them when the spell is cast instantly through op146.

[Bartimaeus]

3 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

If you want a bit of a fast forward dealing with this, check this code from lines 506-656. It was written for 2.5, not specifically for 2.6, but it’s a quick way to set a list of spells that should, or should not, break invisibility. 

Eh, original game behavior (and various amendments to it with engine patches) always seemed pretty weird and arbitrary to me. IMHO default behavior should be “casting a spell breaks invisibility” and then consider whether a select few exceptions should be made. (Sanctuary is a different story since it is kind of designed for friendly spellcasting... to me the most annoying change about this patch is lumping Sanctuary together with Invisibility. (But then again my mod already does that so who am I to complain?)) 

I have a feeling that even if more spells break invisibility, SCS AI will play just fine. Time will tell though...

Thanks for the link, should prove helpful.

Never heard of any engine patches that change that particular behavior. The original game behavior made sense to me - spells that only affect yourself are fine, spells that affect anyone else aren't. Simple and relatively easy to understand once you see it in action. Now not only do I have to make arbitrary decisions about which spells should or shouldn't break invisibility, but whatever arbitrary standard I come up with will have to be painfully figured out by other players who use SRR through experimentation, as it's not like I'm going to also introduce a new field for each spell (Breaks Invisibility: Yes?) that explains whether it breaks invisibility. No sir, I don't like it one bit. And the fact that original game behavior is not imitable at all is just icing on this crap sandwich by Beamdog.

[subtledoctor]

12 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Thanks for the link, should prove helpful.

Just be aware, I wrote that with only one “breaks invisibility” flag in mind; now there are two. So it will need a bit of consideration. 

12 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

The original game behavior made sense to me - spells that only affect yourself are fine, spells that affect anyone else aren't. Simple and relatively easy to understand once you see it in action. Now not only do I have to make arbitrary decisions about which spells should or shouldn't break invisibility, but whatever arbitrary standard I come up with will have to be painfully figured out by other players who use SRR through experimentation, as it's not like I'm going to also introduce a new field for each spell (Breaks Invisibility: Yes?)

IIRC the original game was not that consistent, having a few random hard-coded and unexplained exceptions. My understanding of the rules-as-written was that “friendly” spells would not break sanctuary, and that all spells break invisibility; but of course that is not how the game engine actually worked.

But 1) IMO the best way to handle this is to build the array(s) in a fairly human-readable .tpa or .ini file, and then perhaps call it from the end of the main component. That way you don’t have to justify anything; players can see - and tinker with - the lists of spells on their own. 

And 2) this is something base SR should handle as well, do you don’t need to take sole responsibility for it in SRR.

Edited September 6, 2021 by subtledoctor

[Lianos]

Dwarven Shield +2 (SHLD19) has AC bonus of 6, should be 5.

[Bartimaeus]

2 hours ago, Lianos said:

Dwarven Shield +2 (SHLD19) has AC bonus of 6, should be 5.

That's a weird one. Never even considered upgrading its AC bonus, so I'm not sure how it happened. Thanks!

[Hubal]

I have checked ini file before installing IRR and Edwin has 3 spells on level 1. Shouldn't he have 4? 1 base plus 1 conjurer plus 2 amulet?

 

[Bartimaeus]

25 minutes ago, Hubal said:

I have checked ini file before installing IRR and Edwin has 3 spells on level 1. Shouldn't he have 4? 1 base plus 1 conjurer plus 2 amulet?

 

The .ini doesn't explain it perfectly, but no: in BG1, his amulet only gives +1 to all spell levels; it's in BG2 that it's upgraded to +2. That's vanilla behavior, so the ini option simply allows them to be unified into +1 to all spells with a +3 saving throw vs. death. I'll try to make the settings.ini description more clear.

[Guest Sadame]

Another question: for the "keen" weapons (+5% chance to crit) I'm not entirely sure how it works in detail.

1. does this stack with Two-Handed Weapon Master/Single Weapon Mastery which already gives +5% crit? So crit on 20, 19, 18 roll? Or is it redundant if you already crit on 20, 19?

2. does this work on the main-hand weapon if the "keen" weapon is wielded in the off-hand? Or does the effect only apply to the weapon's own hits?

3. What about the gloves that give +5% crit (Gloves of the Rogue) do those stack with Mastery/"keen" weapons?

[Bartimaeus]

2 hours ago, Guest Sadame said:

Another question: for the "keen" weapons (+5% chance to crit) I'm not entirely sure how it works in detail.

1. does this stack with Two-Handed Weapon Master/Single Weapon Mastery which already gives +5% crit? So crit on 20, 19, 18 roll? Or is it redundant if you already crit on 20, 19?

2. does this work on the main-hand weapon if the "keen" weapon is wielded in the off-hand? Or does the effect only apply to the weapon's own hits?

3. What about the gloves that give +5% crit (Gloves of the Rogue) do those stack with Mastery/"keen" weapons?

All forms of +crit% stack, but do not compound. The base chance of getting a critical hit is 5% (only a roll of 20 on a 1D20); "+5%" from a keen weapon means the chance of getting a critical hit is 10% (19-20 on a 1D20); add the bonus from e.g. Two-Handed Weapon Style and now it's 15% (18-20). The modifier applies to both weapons even if it comes from one particular hand (engine limitation in the original games, though the EEs now support applying it to only the weapon it's on, perhaps something I should patch). A fighter-thief could use the Silver Sword (or Wyrmcleaver, Backbiter, or Martial Staff) with Gloves of the Rogue and Two-Handed Weapon Style to get critical hits on a full 25% (16-20) of all attacks made - pretty whack.

[Guest Sadame]

17 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

A fighter-thief could use the Silver Sword (or Wyrmcleaver, Backbiter, or Martial Staff) with Gloves of the Rogue and Two-Handed Weapon Style to get critical hits on a full 25% (16-20) of all attacks made - pretty whack.

I'm not saying this was exactly why I asked, but yes this was exactly why I asked

Good to know! Something interesting to try out.

[Bartimaeus]

18 minutes ago, Guest Sadame said:

I'm not saying this was exactly why I asked, but yes this was exactly why I asked

Good to know! Something interesting to try out.

Except for obvious and extreme cases, I have a general policy of "don't nerf stuff just because it's powerful when combined with multiple something elses", .

[subtledoctor]

Whoa - I just glanced at the IESDP, I didn’t realize they made the crit bonus opcode stack with itself!