SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[DrAzTiK]

1 hour ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Can the spell even be casted on a target other than the wizard themselves ?

Yes, with SRR, It is possible to cast non detection on another target

great work Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

@Jarno Mikkola Without SRR, too - whether with just SR or even vanilla ToB, it's always been a "can target other creatures" sort of spell. Reason is pretty obvious once you remember that the original Non-Detection spell used to only protect non-magical stealth mode for thieves and rangers and stuff, not magical invisibility for mages.

@subtledoctor Yes, Non-Detection (the spell) gives blanket immunity to those sorts of spells (in contrast to Non-Detection the opcode, which is junk and does almost nothing except for the above-mentioned stealth protection). As for your description, I generally try to stick close to the original sort of verbiage the game uses so writing styles don't clash, and that's sort of the problem I'm running into here, and probably why it sometimes feels so difficult to describe what a spell does in a concise and detailed manner. It doesn't help that I'm trying to explain properties that simply don't exist in vanilla. ...Probably why this spell never got a real description in SR to begin with.

(e): You know...uh, it is called Non-Detection, not "Spell Immunity: Divinity". Maybe it really shouldn't give blanket protection to all these anti-illusory spells to begin with, but simply the "force visible" parts of them. For the time being, though, I guess it is what it is. It would almost be easier to just give a list of spells it protects against like Breach provides a list of spells it removes, but that's exactly what I have to keep reminding myself that I'm avoiding, because a part of those spells still functions (the anti-improved invisibility part) and therefore it's incorrect to say it straight up gives immunity against them. Ugh.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

13 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

(e): You know...uh, it is called Non-Detection, not "Spell Immunity: Divinity". Maybe it really shouldn't give blanket protection to all these anti-illusory spells to begin with, but simply the "force visible" parts of them. For the time being, though, I guess it is what it is.

Better to simply rename the spell IMHO.  I think protecting illusionary protections like MI and Blur is a good idea, it really gives those spells some bite again. 

I generally don't like the idea of "Spell Immunity: Whatever" but maybe something like "Resist Divination" (matches "Resist Fire" etc.) or "Protection from Divination" (matches "Protection from Lightning/Magic Energy/Weapons" etc.)

EDIT - or "Resist Scrying"/"Protection from Scrying" maybe, for a bit more exotic flair (though technically less accurate).

Edited February 11, 2019 by subtledoctor

[Jarno Mikkola]

11 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

(e): You know...uh, it is called Non-Detection, not "Spell Immunity: Divinity". Maybe it really shouldn't give blanket protection to all these anti-illusory spells to begin with, but simply the "force visible" parts of them. For the time being, though, I guess it is what it is.

1

Well, as long as the True Sight can enable the wizard to see the hostile mage to target them with spells, it's fine I guess... as the True Sight is not targeted spell vs an area, but towards thyself and thus not being able to be immune vs it, it's fine.

Hmm, shouldn't "Spell Immunity: Divinity" also kinda kill the playerchar, if they finish the alternative ending of the Ascension mod ? Spell Immunity Illusion should dispel all the Illusion spells, as should the Spell Immunity: Abjuration cancel itself, with all the other spells of the same nature. And Spell Immunity: Divinity should remove True Sight, etc also from the mage/lich that's casting it... and the opcode #193 from the creatures. Aka, use opcode #101 to the #193 -effect.

Just saying...

[NdranC]

Ok now I get to talk to you here.

I have been getting this error for a while and after finally asking around It was pointed out to me that this could be caused by Spell Revisions messing with this file:

Input file is stratagems/genie/ssl/dvefreet.ssl 

 Output file is weidu_external\workspace\ssl_out/dvefreet.baf 
Copying and patching 1 file ...
Compiling 1 script ...

SFO: Applying patch(es) to CRE file(s) dvefreet=>dw#dvefr... 

ERROR Installing [Smarter genies], rolling back to previous state
Will uninstall  44 files for [STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2] component 6520.
Uninstalled     44 files for [STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2] component 6520.
ERROR: Failure("You are trying to edit dvefreet=>dw#dvefr.CRE, which does not exist in the game")
Please make a backup of the file: SETUP-STRATAGEMS.DEBUG and look for support at: For help troubleshooting installation problems, go to the Sword Coast Stratagems forum at forums.gibberlings3.net.
Automatically Skipping [Smarter genies] because of error.
Using Language [English]

Do you agree? and If so, is there anything you can do on your end to fix it?

[Bartimaeus]

"Messing with the file" is a bit of a misnomer, since it has the "dv" prefix which is used by Demi in his mods. That is to say, the file only exists to begin with because of Spell Revisions. But yes, it should be caused by Spell Revisions.

Here's the relevant block from Spell Revisions:

COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\spwi717.spl~     ~override~  // Summon Efreeti
  SAY NAME1 @749    SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @750
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\scrl8s.itm~     ~override~
  SAY NAME2 @749    SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC   @750
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.eff~     ~override~
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.cre~     ~override~
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.itm~     ~override~
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.bcs~     ~override~

Here it is from SR Revised:

COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\spwi717.spl~     ~override~  // Summon Efreeti
  SAY NAME1 @749    SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @750
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\scrl8s.itm~     ~override~
  SAY NAME2 @749    SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC   @750
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.eff~     ~override~
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.cre~     ~override~
  SAY NAME1 @9183   SAY NAME2 @9183
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.itm~     ~override~
  SAY NAME1 @9184   SAY NAME2 @9184
COPY ~spell_rev\spwi7##\dvefreet.bcs~     ~override~

The only thing I've done is enforced that the creature and its weapon are named properly. I am not sure why it would be saying that the .cre does not exist. Any thoughts/useful advice, @DavidW?

Edited April 10, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[DavidW]

Nothing whatever to do with SR (except that this is an SCS block that only fires if SR is installed).

There is a typo right at the end of genie/genie.tpa - it should say ‘clone_creature’ but instead says ‘edit_creature’. Will add to the fix list.

[NdranC]

Awesome, thank you.
Now that I'm here, did you remove the level 1 blind spell? I can't pick it as a sorcerer or on character creation as a mage. Haven't seen a scroll for it either.

Edited April 10, 2019 by NdranC

[Bartimaeus]

Thanks, David!

SR (and not SRR) replaced Blindness with Obscuring Mist. In the spell_rev folder, there is a settings.ini switch I added to SRR (at the request of @Salk!) that's disabled (to keep normal SR behavior as the default) to restore a mildly revised Blindness over Obscuring Mist, and instead leave Obscuring Mist as a druid-only spell. I'm not the biggest fan of stationary spells like Obscuring Mist, Grease, et al., so I personally use it as well.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[NdranC]

I have a request if it wouldn't be too much trouble. I normally use a component from Atweaks to change the dimension door animation to the one from IWD (and speed it up a little). I can't use that component anymore with SR because it's a conflict.

Would you be able to maybe add an .ini setting that replicates this behavior in SR?

[Bartimaeus]

10 hours ago, NdranC said:

I have a request if it wouldn't be too much trouble. I normally use a component from Atweaks to change the dimension door animation to the one from IWD (and speed it up a little). I can't use that component anymore with SR because it's a conflict.

Would you be able to maybe add an .ini setting that replicates this behavior in SR?

I don't see any conflict between SR and the first, second, and fourth options of that component - Dimension Jump will use the IWD-style animation if you install those. Would not recommend the third option "Use IWD animation for spells, retain BG2 animation for other visuals", since it seems to do the opposite of what it says from what I tested - the arcane spell Dimension Jump will use the BG2-style animation, while Irenicus's scripted teleport in the SoA intro will use the IWD-style animation.

Also, Ray of Enfeeblement problem: I think EET makes copies of scrolls for redundancy purposes much the same way it did with Telbar's Armor and the Whistling Sword, so I think that might be the issue. I'll check it out more in depth sometime soon.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[NdranC]

54 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't see any conflict between SR and the first, second, and fourth options of that component - Dimension Jump will use the IWD-style animation if you install those. Would not recommend the third option "Use IWD animation for spells, retain BG2 animation for other visuals", since it seems to do the opposite of what it says from what I tested - the arcane spell Dimension Jump will use the BG2-style animation, while Irenicus's scripted teleport in the SoA intro will use the IWD-style animation.

Also, Ray of Enfeeblement problem: I think EET makes copies of scrolls for redundancy purposes much the same way it did with Telbar's Armor and the Whistling Sword, so I think that might be the issue. I'll check it out more in depth sometime soon.

Oh my bad. I could swear the EET installer was warning about a conflict between SR and that component but maybe I just assumed. I'll pay more careful attention next time I run an install. I might wait a little longer for some of the fixes you are planning to implement so I can test them out as well.

[Kilgor]

Inquisitor Dispel Magic doesn't penetrate Minor Globe of Invulnerability.

Power is set to 3 instead of 0 like the mage and priest version.

 

[Bartimaeus]

@Kilgor

With the ini switch for making Dispel Magic penetrate Globes? Thanks for the spot, will fix.

@NdranC If it is incompatible, I do not know how - it is a very simple component that adds a few graphical files with unique filenames without too much avenue to go wrong.

I discovered the source of the problem for Ray Enfeeblement - it turns out, this particular spell actually has two different spells that both BG1 and BG2 use: SCRL6F and SCRLAI. Nothing to do with EET. I'll guess I'll just make a redundant copy over it.

Finally, I also discovered the issue with Zargal and his Whistling Swords. Well, sort of - I fixed it, but I'm not sure why it was necessary, since it hasn't been a problem before. Basically, I had been using "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM sw1h09_", when it needed to be "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM ~sw1h09_~". Normally, the tildes are optional, but I guess if your item has an underscore in it, it's mandatory.

[NdranC]

9 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

@Kilgor

With the ini switch for making Dispel Magic penetrate Globes? Thanks for the spot, will fix.

@NdranC If it is incompatible, I do not know how - it is a very simple component that adds a few graphical files with unique filenames without too much avenue to go wrong.

I discovered the source of the problem for Ray Enfeeblement - it turns out, this particular spell actually has two different spells that both BG1 and BG2 use: SCRL6F and SCRLAI. Nothing to do with EET. I'll guess I'll just make a redundant copy over it.

Finally, I also discovered the issue with Zargal and his Whistling Swords. Well, sort of - I fixed it, but I'm not sure why it was necessary, since it hasn't been a problem before. Basically, I had been using "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM sw1h09_", when it needed to be "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM ~sw1h09_~". Normally, the tildes are optional, but I guess if your item has an underscore in it, it's mandatory.

Awesome. I'll be busy with heavy work stuff this week but maybe next weekend I'll be able to test out some of this stuff assuming you already have a new version out. Thanks!