SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[Bartimaeus]

Completely agree with subtledoctor's unstated but definitely there opinion that purple should always be used for the best versions of things. Though I might be slightly biased, seeing as my favorite color is precisely that,  .

[DavidNYC]

 

On 3/1/2021 at 10:05 AM, subtledoctor said:

How did you come up with the colors for the Deflections? I wonder if it's worth trying to systematize it. To me green says "novice" or "introductory" and gold says "the best." Also, in some of my mods I use purple for more high-level magic, since purple seems like a weird, arcane color to me. E.g. I like the progression of PfNW (green)->PfMW (blue)->Abs. Immunity (pink). Just throwing out random thoughts though, it's not a knock against what you've already done.

100% I intend for them to have a progression as a visual mnemonic. But I added to the list over time, and Spell Trap got green for absolutely no particular reason. Generally I like 'dim, dull color' for the weakest effect > 'bright, saturated color' for the most powerful. We're on the same page. If I were redoing these four spells I would, in fact, tweak them to better reflect the scheme.

I'd emphasize though that you guys should do whatever you think has the broadest appeal. I'm just providing a starting point. I've been playing with this for a while and I'm 100% sure it works as intended, but it's a whole other story to put the work into a usable mod.

On 3/1/2021 at 10:05 AM, subtledoctor said:

I'm curious, did you also disable the normal animations? In my game I have revised Non-Detection, and I just noticed that it creates the big blue bubble, probably because I added an opcode 205 effect and I guess that animation is hard-coded to opcode 205? It's super annoying because it is exactly the opposite of what Non-Detection should look like.  I also had the "shimmering ground" vanilla spell shield effect when casting Haste, because I set Haste and Slow up to cancel each other rather than replace each other, via sectype removal.

Yeah, I'm using (Spell Revisions: v4 Beta 16) and I don't even remember what all the starting animations are. But yes, I suppress the 'default' animations like spmagglo and spturni2 where necessary so that each spell has the desired animation and I'm not locked into the defaults.

So spmagglo is attached to opcode 201, spturni2 to opcode 200, etc. My solution was (and still is) to shrink down those BAM's by 99% so you can't see them, and then I layer on the new animation I want.

I've subsequently learned you can suppress all these animations via code (e.g. #202 (0xCA) Spell: Bounce (by School) --  Maintains animation SPTURNI2 on the target, can be suppressed by opcode #291). That's obviously a cleaner solution, but my method also works fine.

 

At the risk of being all over the place:

----------------------------

I'm certain my code is producing the desired effects, but SR v4b16 definitely has some spell protection errors which I have fixed in my version. e.g. Dispelling Screen is correctly removed by Breach and Dispel (using K1#SCRE.spl), but it isn't removed by MAGICATTACK like Spell Thrust, Secret Word, etc. It's the K1#DISPEL secondary type issue vs SPELLPROTECTIONS. I change spwi510.spl to SPELLPROTECTIONS, and then apply a fix to every Breach and Dispel Magic type spell. Alternatively I could have left it as K1#DISPEL and applied fixes to all the MAGICATTACK.

Long-winded way to say I don't really remember the starting point of SR v4b16. But I first started all this as a debugging exercise because I was frustrated by this specific problem.

----------------------------

On 3/1/2021 at 10:05 AM, subtledoctor said:

I like that the blue bubble is Spell Shield, since visually it sits outside the other animations and seems to protect them. I wonder if Dispelling Screen should use a similar bubble, in a different color? (White?)

My general style preference is: if the animation is something frequently on my party as well as enemies, I want the animation very subtle. If's something brief duration and/or mainly on enemies, I favor something bigger and brighter. The best example is Dispelling Screen which affects the whole party and has a 5 turn duration, and I often have it active on my party. So I definitely don't want an eyesore. The exact transparency of the discs are a matter of taste. I size them big enough so they don't get swamped by the other, brighter animations.

Meanwhile I rarely use Spell Shield on the party and it's single target even if I do use it, so I give it the big blue bubble.

----------------------------

I consider SCS' "animation invisibility" to be an essential part of this. I run all the animations through a version of his code and all my new animations disappear/reappear as expected on enemies. Mentioning this just because it definitely works as desired. Dispelling screen is the trickiest one since it's an AoE effect, and we want it to disappear on an invisible enemy but not on an invisible party member. I recall that required some special tweaks.

----------------------------

My list of BAM techniques is limited to whatever I can do in Near Infinity. But it's enough. Like with the overhead ioun's, it's not obvious from the .jpg's but I stack them at different heights (in the .VVC) overhead to make them more distinguishable. So if you have a grey ioun at head height, then a blue one head height + 10 pixels, then a red one at + 20 pixels, you can get a lot of mileage from that.

For the Spell Deflections, the default spturni2 is shrunk to nothing as mentioned previously, and then I add back a single animation to each one. I implement a fix that prevents a 'worse' deflection replacing a better one. SCS contingencies often do try to cast, say, minor spell deflection when spell deflection is active. I actually checked this and IIRC, the deflected spell levels do stack in SR v4b16 without a fix.

 

I'm glad you guys might be able to do something with this. I may not be able to check back for a couple of days, and hopefully my file upload allowance will be reset!

Edited March 9, 2021 by DavidNYC
Moved images offsite to imgur

[subtledoctor]

2 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

So spmagglo is attached to opcode 201, spturni2 to opcode 200, etc. My solution was (and still is) to shrink down those BAM's by 99% so you can't see them, and then I layer on the new animation I want.

I've subsequently learned you can suppress all these animations via code (e.g. #202 (0xCA) Spell: Bounce (by School) --  Maintains animation SPTURNI2 on the target, can be suppressed by opcode #291). That's obviously a cleaner solution, but my method also works fine.

Actually I recall reading about some unfortunate side-effects of using opcode 291. Ultimately in my own game I just overwrite SPTURNI2 with a blank animation, and patched individual spells to add an opcode 215 "play visual effect" with whatever animation is desired.  If starting from scratch, that's what I would do for a mod like this. Just completely get away from which animations are hard-coded to which opcodes.

3 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

if the animation is something frequently on my party as well as enemies, I want the animation very subtle. If's something brief duration and/or mainly on enemies, I favor something bigger and brighter. The best example is Dispelling Screen which affects the whole party and has a 5 turn duration, and I often have it active on my party. So I definitely don't want an eyesore. ... Meanwhile I rarely use Spell Shield on the party and it's single target even if I do use it, so I give it the big blue bubble.

Makes sense!

3 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

I consider SCS' "animation invisibility" to be an essential part of this. I run all the animations through a version of his code and all my new animations disappear/reappear as expected on enemies.

I don't know  how that portion  of SCS works, but it should be simple enough to Weidu-ize what you have done, and condition that part of the install on SCS being found. (This mod could be installed very late.)

3 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

I implement a fix that prevents a 'worse' deflection replacing a better one. SCS contingencies often do try to cast, say, minor spell deflection when spell deflection is active. I actually checked this and IIRC, the deflected spell levels do stack in SR v4b16 without a fix.

Yeah, Deflections can indeed stack - the number of spell levels absorbed doesn't stack, but the number of Secret Word spells needed to remove them all does increase with each layer of Deflection. It's a little-known tactic, and not very sensible. My mod actively embraces this layering, auto-casting all lesser deflections whenever you cast one, and then gives the magic attack spells an increasing ability to remove multiple layers at once.

3 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

I'm certain my code is producing the desired effects, but SR v4b16 definitely has some spell protection errors which I have fixed in my version. e.g. Dispelling Screen is correctly removed by Breach and Dispel (using K1#SCRE.spl), but it isn't removed by MAGICATTACK like Spell Thrust, Secret Word, etc.

I'm pretty sure that is working as intended: you use magic attacks to remove spell protections, and Breach/Dispel to remove Dispelling Screen.

(Does Dispelling Screen block Breach? In other words, when casting Breach at a target with Dispelling Screen, does the Breach only remove Dispelling Screen? Or does Breach remove Dispelling screen and all combat protections? I assume, and hope, it is the latter.)

[DavidNYC]

Before I forget, is there an admin I could message to see about adjusting my upload limit as a new poster? After 15 hrs I see I have a grand total of 87 kB upload limit restored. I see the staff page but don't know who would actually respond. If there's someone you know to message on my behalf, please feel free to do so.

On 3/1/2021 at 4:40 PM, subtledoctor said:

Actually I recall reading about some unfortunate side-effects of using opcode 291. Ultimately in my own game I just overwrite SPTURNI2 with a blank animation, and patched individual spells to add an opcode 215 "play visual effect" with whatever animation is desired.  If starting from scratch, that's what I would do for a mod like this.

Yep, that's effectively the exact way I've done it.

 

On 3/1/2021 at 4:40 PM, subtledoctor said:

I'm pretty sure that is working as intended: you use magic attacks to remove spell protections, and Breach/Dispel to remove Dispelling Screen.

(Does Dispelling Screen block Breach? In other words, when casting Breach at a target with Dispelling Screen, does the Breach only remove Dispelling Screen? Or does Breach remove Dispelling screen and all combat protections? I assume, and hope, it is the latter.)

No, all the MAGICATTACK spells should take out Dispelling Screen (at least according to the documentation through SR v18). And even setting aside the documentation, I agree they should remove it. The main innovation of Dispelling Screen was to avoid the brutal vanilla cheese of Immunity from Abjuration being immune to Dispel Magic AND all the spell removals.

Spoiler

https://gibberlings3.github.io/SpellRevisions/spells/arcane/level-3/spell-thrust

The spell protections dispelled by Spell Thrust are: Minor Spell Deflection, Non-Detection, Minor Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Deflection, Dispelling Screen and Spell Shield.

https://gibberlings3.github.io/SpellRevisions/spells/arcane/level-4/secret-word

The spell protection spells dispelled by Secret Word are: Minor Spell Deflection, Non-Detection, Minor Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Deflection, Dispelling Screen, Spell Shield, Globe of Invulnerability, Greater Spell Deflection, and Shield of the Archons.

And Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray, etc.

 

On 3/1/2021 at 4:40 PM, subtledoctor said:

(Does Dispelling Screen block Breach? In other words, when casting Breach at a target with Dispelling Screen, does the Breach only remove Dispelling Screen? Or does Breach remove Dispelling screen and all combat protections? I assume, and hope, it is the latter.)

No, it's the former. The first Breach takes out Dispelling Screen. A second Breach is then required for the combat protections. Since the two ways to remove combat protections are Dispel and Breach, the main point of Dispelling Screen is to provide one 'spell shield' that blocks the first removal attempt.

I can't vouch this little chart is 100% correct for my implementation, but I think it is (again as of SR v4b16, with my fixes for things like this Dispelling Screen issue).  Note the 'AoE fireball' column; I implement and expand on SR's "Spell Deflection blocks AoE spells"

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by DavidNYC
Moved images offsite to imgur

[subtledoctor]

7 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

No, all the MAGICATTACK spells should take out Dispelling Screen (at least according to the documentation through SR v18)

Huh. Reflecting, I tend to think of this as a mistake in the documentation, rather than a mistake in the code. Magic attacks counter spell protections, and Dispelling Screen is not a spell protection and doesn't protect any spell protections. Remove Magic bypasses spell protections and does not remove them, so Dispelling Screen is kind of irrelevant to the magic attack-vs.-spell protection, and therefore should not interact with it. Put another way: Dispelling Screen is to combat buffs what Spell Shield is to spell protections. So just as magic attacks remove Spell Shield as well as spell protections, so should Dispel/Breach remove Dispelling Screen as well as combat buffs. I'm not sure what value there is in having magic attacks cross over and interact with the combat buffs side of things. And I can see definite down sides for that; if Dispelling Screen absorbs a Secret Word, then it is acting like a de facto spell protection, another layer like Spell Shield. That system really doesn't need any more layers. Mages can already layer Trap/SS/GSD/GOI/SD/MSD before they can be affected by a Fireball. Adding DS into the mix seems like overkill on top of overkill. IMHO!

7 hours ago, DavidNYC said:

The first Breach takes out Dispelling Screen. A second Breach is then required for the combat protections.

Huh. Can't say I love that.  A mage can already be protected by 4+ layers of spell protections before they can be Breached... adding another layer seems, again, like overkill, and probably leads to more situations where you just wait out their defensive spells instead of overcoming them. If this is standard SR behavior then I might have to modify it in my MBR mod...

Isn't Shield of the Archons basically the same as Greater Deflection, or Spell Trap? I forget. But if it functions the same, maybe it should have the same animation? Maybe the gold one should be for the divine version... or maybe the white one?

........................................

Down to brass tacks, if you want to convert your changes into an installable thing, here is what I suggests

• upload your .BAM/.VVC. files
• roughly list which file goes with which spells/effects
• if you have it handy, list which vanilla animations need to be suppressed
• I'll put it all together with a Weidu installer.

If you're so inclined, of course! And whenever it is convenient.

[Bartimaeus]

In regards to Dispelling Screen, I did not like the weirdities in SR with regards to the exact spells that would be blocked/could dispel Dispelling Screen, and ended up making it so that only a dispel magic (e.g. Dispel Magic, Remove Dispel, Reverse Magic, etc.) OR full breach effect could remove it. I believe I waffled on whether SR's weird hybrid Pierce Shield would be blocked by Dispelling Screen, and ended up making it so it would not - I'm still not sure if that was the correct decision, but it is what I went with.

[DavidNYC]

 

On 3/2/2021 at 9:46 AM, subtledoctor said:

Down to brass tacks, if you want to convert your changes into an installable thing, here is what I suggests

• upload your .BAM/.VVC. files
• roughly list which file goes with which spells/effects
• if you have it handy, list which vanilla animations need to be suppressed
• I'll put it all together with a Weidu installer.

Cool, I'll have time this weekend. I agree that any discussion of how the spells should behave is an entirely separate issue.

It has occurred to me that the vast majority of players play without SR. I'm going to leave this entirely in your hands if you want to release something that distinguishes between a SR game and a vanilla game.

e.g. I chose a Dispelling Screen animation knowing it is an AoE effect, but in vanilla, Spell Immunity:Abjuration is single target. Maybe you'll think something else is better in that case.

 

On 3/2/2021 at 9:53 AM, Bartimaeus said:

In regards to Dispelling Screen, I did not like the weirdities in SR with regards to the exact spells that would be blocked/could dispel Dispelling Screen, and ended up making it so that only a dispel magic (e.g. Dispel Magic, Remove Dispel, Reverse Magic, etc.) OR full breach effect could remove it. I believe I waffled on whether SR's weird hybrid Pierce Shield would be blocked by Dispelling Screen, and ended up making it so it would not - I'm still not sure if that was the correct decision, but it is what I went with.

Non-animation issue: I'd assume 95% of people using any version of SR or your SRR are also using SCS.

The main reason I switched from SCS "vanilla" to SCS "+ SR" a while back is when @DavidW specifically integrated SR v4b15 with SCS 32.

https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/topic/29765-scs-spell-systems/?tab=comments#comment-264334

"Spell Revisions - specifically, SR v4b15. v31 and earlier were officially supporting v3 of SR, which - although still the "official" version - is badly out of date. v32 goes to quite a lot of effort to systematically allow for SR in its spell choices, sequencers, contingencies, targetting, prebuffing, and strategy. (And almost all of SCS's spell tweaks are disabled on an SR install.)"

 I 100% agree with both of you that it's open to debate how things should work for best balance. But it seems the real driver is how @DavidW uses things. e.g. I'm almost certain he's  using WIZARD_DISPELLING_SCREEN as documented. In Chapters 2 & 3, most mages cast WIZARD_DISPELLING_SCREEN as their only defense (SCS Tactical difficulty, his 'recommended' setting I believe). @subtledoctor, if you change your version of Breach to cancel the screen AND combat protections in one cast, his AI isn't expecting that (presumably he'd throw up a Spell Deflection or Spell Shield too). Anyway, your testing may have shown it still gives a good outcome.

Do you guys interact with DavidW? I see he's here occasionally, but the main reason I posted here instead of an SCS thread is you guys are most active. If you do complete something, @subtledoctor, I hope it can be incorporated into SCS for widest use.

 

On 3/1/2021 at 4:40 PM, subtledoctor said:

Yeah, Deflections can indeed stack - the number of spell levels absorbed doesn't stack, but the number of Secret Word spells needed to remove them all does increase with each layer of Deflection. It's a little-known tactic, and not very sensible. My mod actively embraces this layering, auto-casting all lesser deflections whenever you cast one, and then gives the magic attack spells an increasing ability to remove multiple layers at once.

Makes sense. I looked at my code comments and see I came to the same conclusion. "If cast same spell 2x (SD, SD), still only absorbs 6 levels. Still removed by one secret word. If cast two diff spells (SD, gSD), correctly absorbs 9 levels (not 6+9) BUT NEEDS 2 Secret words to remove! Therefore can't allow more than one version of SD."

Since I disallow stacking of (MSD/SD/GSD/ST), always taking the best one, I don't have to consider how these stacked animations look.

 

On 3/2/2021 at 9:46 AM, subtledoctor said:

I'm not sure what value there is in having magic attacks cross over and interact with the combat buffs side of things. And I can see definite down sides for that; if Dispelling Screen absorbs a Secret Word, then it is acting like a de facto spell protection, another layer like Spell Shield.

Heh, yeah. The world of OCD system tweaking. If you mainly attack mages with mages, what you're saying is absolutely correct. It makes things harder for the PC. But if you mainly attack mages by trying to strip combat protections, SR makes things easier by giving the PC several more options (Spell Thrust, Secret Word, etc).

 

On 3/1/2021 at 10:40 AM, Bartimaeus said:

Completely agree with subtledoctor's unstated but definitely there opinion that purple should always be used for the best versions of things. Though I might be slightly biased, seeing as my favorite color is precisely that,

I've got you covered. Behold the Absolute Immunity disco ball.

Edited March 9, 2021 by DavidNYC
Moved images offsite to imgur

[Bartimaeus]

Oh baby, now you're talking.

Yes, I've spoken with DavidW on a number of different things and full SCS compatibility has always been one of my goals, so in cases where I change something that makes SCS not use it quite right, I have reverted or otherwise adjusted it (and similarly, when non-Revised SR has done stuff like make spells that used to have a long cast range instead have a short cast range and break sequencers/contingencies, I've also changed them so that won't happen). I've also always advised everyone (including him) to never worry about specifically SRR, as I would make sure that SRR conforms when needed to instead of the other way around - even if it means not making every change I might want to.

Also, just a note, but you should not use the @DavidNYC pinging function unless you're actually requesting their attention for something specific. Some of the more busy modders, like DavidW, already get enough pings without needing to check out random ones that aren't actually asking for them to look at anything, .

Edited March 4, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Jarno Mikkola]

44 minutes ago, DavidNYC said:

I've got you covered. Have to post on imgur since my upload limit is literally 14 kB right now.

You might want to spare the upload space you have, and to do that, you could upload every image you have by uploading them all to imgur, and then going into the image location, it's not the one you linked to, but a right click on the image and then use the copy location, and post that in your post. Like so:

This way, if you go into your own posts and delete the uploads and still display them as url links from imgur, you get all your used space back and you can upload the files you want.

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, DavidNYC said:

if you change your version of Breach to cancel the screen AND combat protections in one cast, his AI isn't expecting that

Huh, so like, maybe the SCS mage casts PfMW plus Dispelling Screen, with the expectation that he will be protected from being Breached? I see the point, but I suspect it would be a pretty rare event. From the point of view of SCS scripts, 1) I think DavidW leans toward using Deflections to protect from Breach, since he designed his own version of the mage duel system specifically preventing Breach from bypassing spell protections, and SR shares that design. Plus, 2) for that same 5th-level slot, Spell Delfection is a far superior choice with which to block Breach. Spell Deflection will also block stuff like Disintegrate, Feeblemind, and (with the SR option) Skull Trap and Sunfire. The only thing it doesn't do better than Dispelling Screen is, block Dispel Magic.

And if DavidW codes the scripts with some variability and allows them to make slightly suboptimal choices... well, maybe the mage isn't very smart and left himself open to being breached.  Frankly, whether Breach goes through or not, I probably wouldn't bother with the Breach. If the enemy has no spell protections up it's easier to just fry him with Lightning Bolts...

I don't think it ultimately makes that much difference, and comes down to your preferred house rule. If I have the time I'll probably add an option to my mod to cover whether Breach should be blocked by Dispelling Screen or not.

1 hour ago, DavidNYC said:

Since I disallow stacking of (MSD/SD/GSD/ST), always taking the best one, I don't have to consider how these stacked animations look.

Yeah, I didn't want to mess with 206/321 to prevent stacking and risk AI scripts handling it suboptimally, so I figured better to always stack!  For purposes of this project it's no problem to assume no stacking and use the different color animations. For my own mod interacting with this project, I'll figure out later how best to handle it. (Maybe just let the colors mix, maybe find a way for the higher-level spells to suppress the animations of the lesser spells... we'll see.)

[morpheus562]

There would be many issues when trying to get complete compatability with SCS. For starters, many of the new spells (i.e. Dispelling Screen, Mage Armor, etc.) do not update any spell states, so it's impossible to detect if an enemy or player has the spell active. I think this would be a great first step for laying the groundwork for complete SCS compatability. 

Let's look closer at Dispelling Screen and why appropriate spell tracking is necessary. SCS currently checks if the SPELL_IMMUNITY spell state is set at 1 to see if SI: Abjuration is active to appropriately determine what spells to cast at the player. Dispelling Screen updates NOTHING! So SCS will cast spells assuming the player is not protected when in fact the player is. Additionally, there is no way to write player scripts to cast Dispelling Screen because the player will keep casting the spell until every instance of it in their spellbook is used up because there is no way for the script to detect if it's active. Simple solution would have Dispelling Screen update SPELL_IMMUNITY to 1 to mimic SI: Abjuration. This is just one example of many on why tracking spell states matters.

The way detecting enemies with non-detection and improved invisibility is a complete mess. Something is going on at the opcode level preventing scripts from appropriately targeting enemies with this combo active, even when true sight is up by the player attempting to target the enemy. If players are having this issue with scripting, then SCS would equally have this issue when trying to target players with this combo. SCS can partly get around this by using the forcespell scripting command, but that is non-interruptible and a poor work around for an issue with SRR. Players can get around it by manually casting, but scripts won't work.

[Chitown Willie]

Not to change the subject, but any ideas on bats from "Animal Summoning" and their outrageous hit bonuses?

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, morpheus562 said:

There would be many issues when trying to get complete compatability with SCS. For starters, many of the new spells (i.e. Dispelling Screen, Mage Armor, etc.) do not update any spell states, so it's impossible to detect if an enemy or player has the spell active. I think this would be a great first step for laying the groundwork for complete SCS compatability. 

Let's look closer at Dispelling Screen and why appropriate spell tracking is necessary. SCS currently checks if the SPELL_IMMUNITY spell state is set at 1 to see if SI: Abjuration is active to appropriately determine what spells to cast at the player. Dispelling Screen updates NOTHING! So SCS will cast spells assuming the player is not protected when in fact the player is. Additionally, there is no way to write player scripts to cast Dispelling Screen because the player will keep casting the spell until every instance of it in their spellbook is used up because there is no way for the script to detect if it's active. Simple solution would have Dispelling Screen update SPELL_IMMUNITY to 1 to mimic SI: Abjuration. This is just one example of many on why tracking spell states matters.

The way detecting enemies with non-detection and improved invisibility is a complete mess. Something is going on at the opcode level preventing scripts from appropriately targeting enemies with this combo active, even when true sight is up by the player attempting to target the enemy. If players are having this issue with scripting, then SCS would equally have this issue when trying to target players with this combo. SCS can partly get around this by using the forcespell scripting command, but that is non-interruptible and a poor work around for an issue with SRR. Players can get around it by manually casting, but scripts won't work.

As SRR is simply an unofficial add-on/revision of SR, I am at the mercy of SCS reacting to and accounting for SR. If the base mod doesn't give e.g. Dispelling Screen its own specific spell state, there's not much I can do about it, since even if I did add one, it would do nothing without the AI knowing how to react to it. Additionally, in regards to hijacking SI: Abjuration's, that makes no sense to me to have Dispelling Screen use that particular spellstate, seeing as that spellstate is for a spell protection and would likely trigger SCS AI into trying to use anti-magic spells like Secret Word to dispel it, when such a spell would be absolutely wasted. There's unfortunately no analogue for Dispelling Screen, as it has a unique function.

This is not the first time this subject has come up in this particular thread: such talk is better directed at the base mod. However, if there are other analogous spell states for spells currently missing them in SR/R that will not cause bad spell detection/behavior, you're more than welcome to suggest them and I can see about implementing them.

Non-Detection + Improved Invisibility is definitely a little wacky, but while SCS AI doesn't always conform to SR's rules in this regard, my experimentation in testing SCS's handling of it seemed to indicate that it does a "good enough" job that it doesn't act either super unfair towards or get completely broken because of it. Player AI, on the other hand, I know nothing about. This actually reminds me that I planned a long while ago on creating an optional settings.ini tweak to allow anti-magic spells to always be able to always pierce through improved invisibility so that the player can do what SCS can do in being able to force spells through - I wonder if that would help with player AI as well?

@Chitown Willie Let's see here...base THAC0 of 20, no THAC0 bonus with weapon, terrible statistics...nothing looks out of the ordinary...but they do have that odd-ball "Swarm" ability - do they have ridiculous THAC0 even if there's only one bat fighting in an area?

Edited March 7, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[morpheus562]

I think allowing anti-magic spells to target improved invisible creatures with non-detection active would go a long way to resolving the wonkiness surrounding it. I would make that standard instead of an ini tweak.

Would you be able to create your own spell states and add it to the appropriate ids file? That way scripts can be written to effectively use SRR.

[Chitown Willie]

Yeah - I think you're onto something.

Only 2 bats averaging +4 to-hit:

 

And then there's the generic freak bat doing +127?

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Chitown Willie