SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[pochesun]

14 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Yeah, I don't like it either. I think I'm going to make the BG2 version the default. Thanks for making me investigate further, pochesun, .

I am glad i helped. I think i also like BG2 version more, it makes the most sense considering other spell's presence like Breach (as @subtledoctor mentioned) and it makes spells like Spell Thrust more valuable. 

I presume the same change will be implemented for Remove Magic spell?

Edited June 1, 2020 by pochesun

[Bartimaeus]

3 hours ago, pochesun said:

I am glad i helped. I think i also like BG2 version more, it makes the most sense considering other spell's presence like Breach (as @subtledoctor mentioned) and it makes spells like Spell Thrust more valuable. 

I presume the same change will be implemented for Remove Magic spell?

Yes, .

[Nathan82]

Hello

Hopefully this is the right place to ask but not sure if its a PI thing or a SR_r thing. Plus i might have asked similar before and forgot the answer (sorry if thats happened)

Im using PI to install mods  and BWP 18.2 pdf as guide for install order

BWP lists different components than show in PI

BWP lists (for Spell Revisions v4beta16 with SR Revised V1.1.0 (2019 February 5th)) the following;

Component 0 [Spell Revisions]

Component 10 [Deva and Planetar Animations]

Component 20 [Mirror Image Fix]

Component 30 [Dispel Magic Fix]

Component 40 [Cure Sleep Fix]

Component 50 [Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screens]

Component 55 [Spell Deflection blocks AoE spells]

Component 60 [Update Spellbooks of Joinable NPCs]

 

But PI shows;

Component 0 [Spell Revisions]

Component 10 [Deva and Planetar Animations]

Component 20 [Mirror Image Fix]

Component 30 [Dispel Magic Fix]

Component 55 [Spell Deflection blocks AoE spells]

Component 60 [Update Spellbooks of Joinable NPCs]

Component 65:Revised Warrior HLAs

 

So, have components 40 and 50 been depreciated or merged into the main component and i've not read the documentation properly, and the bwp guide is wrong because these are newer versions or is PI not displaying them for some reason?

And what about Component 65:Revised Warrior HLAs?

Thanks

 

 

[Bartimaeus]

Cure Sleep Fix (#40) is non-EE-only, since it's an .exe patch made specifically for ToB. I also don't think it's needed on EE games?

Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screens (#50) was absorbed into the main component of SR like two versions ago, so I decided to take heed and do the same.

Here is what the SRR readme has to say about the Revised Warrior HLAs (note: also a component in SR, but never described):

Revised Warrior HLAs (may be used with or without the main component)
A minor addition that doesn't completely fall within the scope of SR, this component slightly revises a few warrior high level abilities. Hardiness is changed from 40% resistance to all damage to 25%, while Whirlwind Attack and Greater Whirlwind Attack are changed from 10 attacks per round for 1 round to simply twice as many attacks per round for 2 rounds.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

Changes as of V1.3.29:

1. Globes of Invulnerability have gotten a makeover. More AoE spells from both SRR and IRR properly protected against, and the default option is now that globes are no longer brought down by Dispel/Remove Magic, but will still pierce through it to dispel other effects. The old BG1-style behavior can be enabled in settings.ini OR you can enable the super-globes that also protect against Dispel/Remove Magic instead.
2. Physical Mirror now correctly says 1 turn + 1 round/level (forgot to ever update it).
3. A few graphical effects from 1pp have been restored for EE games (specifically, a couple of mage armor spells and the Cause Wounds series of spells).
4. Minor update for the Mirror Image Fix component to make sure all SR/R projectiles are caught and to introduce better compatibility with IRR (once upon a time, someone reported that IRR's AoE wands weren't piercing through Mirror Image - now they will if this component is installed).

Edited June 4, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:27 AM, Bartimaeus said:

Globes of Invulnerability have gotten a makeover. More AoE spells from both SRR and IRR properly protected against, and the default option is now that globes are no longer brought down by Dispel/Remove Magic, but will still pierce through it to dispel other effects.

Out of curiosity, how do you do this?  Set the power level of Dispel Magic to 0?

EDIT - sorry, it already is.  I assume you set Dispel's power level to 3, in order to prevent it bypassing MGOI? (If that option is chosen)

Edited June 7, 2020 by subtledoctor

[Bartimaeus]

8 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Out of curiosity, how do you do this?  Set the power level of Dispel Magic to 0?

EDIT - sorry, it already is.  I assume you set Dispel's power level to 3, in order to prevent it bypassing MGOI? (If that option is chosen)

What you quoted makes it sound like you're asking about the middling option (i.e. BG2/EEs behavior), but your edit makes it sound like you're asking about the stronger option (i.e. "superglobes"). So I guess I'll explain both:

1. Middling Option: All of the globes' effects simply need to be set to non-dispellable. I mentioned it before, but I'll mention it again: the opcode used for total immunity to spell levels (as used by Globes of Invulnerability) does not work consistently against AoE effects: I do not know why. For example (something that I just tested to make sure I'm not crazy), I have a Dispel Magic with all effects set to power level 3, Obscuring Mist with all effects set to power level 1, Grease with all effects set to power level 1, Fireball with all effects set to power level 3, Stinking Cloud with all effects set to power level 2. What are the results when these spells are cast at me while I'm under the effects of a Minor Globe of Invulnerability? Obscuring Mist, Grease, and Dispel Magic pierce the Globe, while Fireball and Stinking Cloud do not. I do not know or understand why, I've checked the power levels on each spell, and it just does not work consistently. So as a rule, I make the Globes immunize against individual AoE spells as well, which then actually fully protects the caster. And that leads us to 2...

2. Stronger Option: Simply define Dispel/Remove Magic as specific spells that the globes protect against. There are about 5 or 6 different Dispel/Remove Magics between BG1 and BG2 (Divine, 2x Arcane, Ajantis', Inquisitor's...something else?).

[subtledoctor]

Ah.  Interesting.  And weird.  And super annoying.  But workable. 

As far as GOI protecting against Dispel, here's an edge case I'm considering: how to deal with on-hit dispel, like from Carsomyr and The Axe of Bala?  If an Inquisitor's innate ability counts as a 3rd-level spell (in this limited regard) then shouldn't the item effects also?  But if that's the case, then (M)GOI becomes a shield against Carsomyr unless/until the target's spell protections are gone... which kind of defeats the point of that item ability.  (OTOH it is a stupid, overly powerful item ability, so I'm not crying...)

I'm leaning toward making a GOI that blocks Dispel spells also block Dispel from items.  It is after all the "stronger option," and if the player doesn't like it they don't have to use it...

(I’m including these three GOI-vs.-Dispel options as configurable settings in the magic battles overhaul mod I’m working on... just trying to game out where to draw the lines when setting it up.)

EDIT - speaking of Carsomyr, it's sort of silly that it is designed for use by paladins but any high-level thief can come along and be just as effective with it. It would be interesting to tie the Dispel's chance of success to the wielder's Wisdom score, or Charisma, or something like that.  (Would be a good idea for IR, but alas, it's probably only possible on the EEs.)

EDIT 2 - Weird that the GOI behavior you tested distinguishes between AoE projectiles and single-target projectiles.  Have you tested with SR's 'Deflection blocks AoE spells' component?  Given that turns AoE effects into individualized targeted spells, maybe the bug would not manifest?  In which case the only problematic spells would be those with stationary effects like Grease or Cloudkill.

Edited June 7, 2020 by subtledoctor

[Bartimaeus]

Spell Deflection Blocks AoE Spells: I would *imagine* but haven't actually tested that whatever spells that mysteriously penetrate spell level protection that aren't either stationary or Dispel/Remove Magic (they're not specified as spells to affect in this component, among a number of others in non-revised SR) would stop doing so if that component is installed. However, not everyone may use that component (...although with the amount of work I put into cleaning it up and making sure every spell worked with it, they really should), so I still erred towards adding every AoE spell it's supposed to protect against as a precaution when I recently rebuilt M/GoI.

Carsomyr: The "use any item" ability or whatever it's called is so silly I'm not ever going to try to balance for it, . But yeah, something like that only sounds possible on the EEs.

On-Hit Effects: I think we've had this discussion before. Because IR seems to fundamentally consider item effects that aren't specific item abilities (e.g. on-hit item effect called "Dispelling" vs. literally saying "Dispel Magic") to be different from usable abilities/spells, I would not immunize it on the basis of power levels, or at least not the same way. For whatever reason, IR doesn't give these effects magic resistance checks, usually doesn't allow them to be dispelled, and doesn't give them power levels. I don't know *why* exactly that is, but it would be a big design change to, well, change that. So while I have added immunities against spell-like abilities from IR, I did not do wholesale immunizing to item effects in general. Whether or not that is conceptually correct is an entirely different matter - I was just going with how it had been designed, .

[grodrigues]

The description of Faerie Fire has the line: "Those who succeed at a saving throw vs. spell are totally unaffected by the spell. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light." but the first opcode Force Visible [136] has no save and there is no Use EFF to protect undead (do not know what "dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light" means exactly). Am I missing something or is this indeed a bug?

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, grodrigues said:

The description of Faerie Fire has the line: "Those who succeed at a saving throw vs. spell are totally unaffected by the spell. The light is too dim to have any special effect on undead or dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light." but the first opcode Force Visible [136] has no save and there is no Use EFF to protect undead (do not know what "dark-dwelling creatures vulnerable to light" means exactly). Am I missing something or is this indeed a bug?

I don't know for sure, but the way I'm reading it simply suggests that it's flavor text. Undead and other dark-dwelling creatures would normally be vulnerable to great light sources - the text there is simply saying that it's too weak to have any special effect on them vs. what it might do to a normal creature, not that the spell should have no effect at all on them. Other light-related spells like Sunray, False Dawn, Sunscorch, etc. all have special effects on undead - this one is just saying that it doesn't. Perhaps a tad unnecessary and a little confusing, but it helps give flavor to a spell description (...and also, I don't think I'm the one that wrote it anyways).

(e): Also, yeah, I think it should have a saving throw - I think. It's possible that it's been designed correctly, but the text is incorrect. I wouldn't imagine this is an oft-used spell anyways, so I might just rewrite the description to say that the remove invisibility part always takes effect, but the other malus doesn't. Feedback on it welcome, though. I really don't like this as a remove invisibility option compared to Detect or even Purge, as you have to target it, the AoE effect is tiny (5'!?!?!? What!? How are you supposed to use this against invisible creatures!?), it only takes effect once, and the penalty it applies (-2 AC) is pretty weak and subject to a simple save vs. spell. Making the anti-invisibility part of it also subject to the save vs. spell seems abominably bad to me. In fact, I don't think I can in good conscience let this be as terrible as it is...even for a level 1 spell, that is really, really bad. Maybe something more like 30' with both effects subject to a save vs. spell would be more reasonable.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Guest guest]

Was spell revision thought to make every spell more useful, or to make the fights between mages more interesting?

I'm really undecided if I should install it, because I don't know if there is something to change to begin with, concerning the spells. After all, there will be always a tier of better spells and a tier of worse spells. 

So... if you had to convince me, would I be wrong by saying that in vanilla game I use 40% of the spells (BG2:SOA) while with spell revision I would use 60%?

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Guest guest said:

Was spell revision thought to make every spell more useful, or to make the fights between mages more interesting?

I'm really undecided if I should install it, because I don't know if there is something to change to begin with, concerning the spells. After all, there will be always a tier of better spells and a tier of worse spells. 

So... if you had to convince me, would I be wrong by saying that in vanilla game I use 40% of the spells (BG2:SOA) while with spell revision I would use 60%?

That's a sensible way of considering it, although the numbers there are a little fuzzy - SR attempts to give every spell at least some kind of valid use case at the minimum, while buffing up spells that were interesting concepts but so weakly executed they were unusable compared to other options (there are a number of spells which I would never, ever use in vanilla that are legitimate options in SR), while also introducing some new spells with their own concepts (or completely replacing some of the very worst offenders like Infravision with something vaguely related like True Strike, which is a spell I like to use with certain class combinations). It may be a wise idea to download the mod and give the "list of spells" part of the readme a read-through to see what you think.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

Faerie Fire is too weak; Sunscorch is too strong.  I need to address these outside SR.  (Alicorn Lance is also too weak.)

Granting a saving throw to the force visible effect would be a mistake, IMHO.  Just modify the flavor text.  I think the idea is, even if you save and the nimbus of light around you is not strong enough to cause out-and-out combat disadvantages, people can still tell where you are by locating the nimbus of light.  Force visible and prevent going invisible are the main advantages of this spell.  The primary use-case in my eyes is for a caster with SR-style Detect Invisible (so only the caster can see or detect the invisible person) to cast this, and thereby enable the rest of the party to see and target the invisible person.  Essentially, you can use two low-level spells in two rounds to do the work of one high-level spell (Oracle or True Sight) in one round.

Something like that.  But, Sunscorch is so much better than this spell that it's crazy.  It does too much damage, and has an incredibly useful secondary effect (blindness) behind a save.  I would (will?) move these two spells closer to each other in power: Sunscorch should probably do NO damage, except to undead.  In effect, consider Sunscorch as an improvement on vanilla Blindness: what if you gave Blindness an extra use against undead?  That would be cool, I think.  And Faerie Fire should do more: describe flashing and swirling motes of light that dazzle and distract the target.  Maybe something like, force visible with no save, and 2-point penalties to thac0 and AC and 25% casting failure on a failed save.  I even have a good animation I use for my mods' version of faerie fire (my Elven Archer can deliver it by arrow).

EDIT - I just took a look, and I actually like the IWD version of Sunscorch better than the SR version.

Or maybe something further afield: to simulate turning away from combat momentarily to swing wildly at the faerie motes swirling around you, maybe the target must save each round while affected, and on each failed save suffers a 1-round Confusion effect.  (Or, a 2-3 second Panic effect.)  The point of the spell is distraction, right?

Edited June 9, 2020 by subtledoctor

[Chitown Willie]

Subtledoctor,

Good timing.

I'm playing a Druid now, and agree 100% that Sunscorch is overpowered. In fact, the only worthy Level 1 spells are Animal Summoning I + Sunscorch + Entangle; can't imagine why anyone would pick anything else.

Other random thoughts:

• I believe there was a time in the Spell Revision history when Faerie Fire had a greater area of effect (15' or 20', perhaps), so an Entangle + Faerie Fire combo was pretty effective against the masses (-4 AC total).
• Animal Summoning I feels slightly overpowered; those bats seem to keep almost anything at bay until my ranged weapons finish 'em off.
• Both Magic Stones and Sunscorch are more effective against undead; perhaps just one or the other as an "undead weapon"?
• Maybe bump up Shillelagh a little to reward druids who are bold enough to melee?