SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[WanderingScholar]

2 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I distinctly recall discussion of doing just that.

Frankly now I think about it, I think  Demi did not change the spell, for the sole  reason that it might have a deleterious effect on the Rogue Rebalancing Chosen of Cyric fight. Which means this is a bug.

Like you mentioned, I too prefer it protecting from all weapons. High level scs mages use PFMW as a primary combat protection over renewing mirror images or stoneskins. It also removes the temptation of the player to keep non-magical weapons around as a way to bypass the protection. 

[Bartimaeus]

9 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I distinctly recall discussion of doing just that.

Frankly now I think about it, I think  Demi did not change the spell, for the sole  reason that it might have a deleterious effect on the Rogue Rebalancing Chosen of Cyric fight. Which means this is a bug.

So I dug up the old discussion: https://github.com/Gibberlings3/SpellRevisions/pull/56#issuecomment-901296277

grodrigues wanted to enable blanket protection against magical weapons (opcode 120, Protection from Weapons, type 1), which I attempted to dissuade him of because some special spell-like weapons (such as Sol's Searing Orb) were seemingly set higher than what PfMW would cover in order to bypass it. b18 of SR instead uses 120 opcodes that specify type 0 "Magical Weapons (enchantment level)", for enchantment levels 1-5. The thing is...type 0 covers all levels below what is specified as well. So just doing one type 0 with enchantment level 5 would provide protection against enchantment levels 1-5...AND non-magical weapons. This is where we went wrong and apparently which neither of us understood at the time (or tested). So it turns out, enabling blanket magical weapon protection and removing the type 0s is the only way to restore the vulnerability to non-magical weapons.

Now, whether that's the best idea to do or not...is another issue entirely.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

Aaaaah. I (we) didn't realize type 0 worked that way. Crazy. And annoying.

BUT it’s probably fine because we can just set Sol’s Orb etc. to be nonmagical. Right? Don’t have to worry about interference with ProNormalMissiles, because that is now ProAllMissiles. 

Right?

[FixTesteR]

Ahhhh, I see. I brought up the same topic of PfMW protecting from normal weapons a while ago. It was said the updated SR doesn't do it but it seems it does. So now I won't be able to cheese casters with normal weapons. :F

[Bartimaeus]

13 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Aaaaah. I (we) didn't realize type 0 worked that way. Crazy. And annoying.

BUT it’s probably fine because we can just set Sol’s Orb etc. to be nonmagical. Right? Don’t have to worry about interference with ProNormalMissiles, because that is now ProAllMissiles. 

Right?

It would be an issue because Protection from Normal Weapons would protect against it instead, which I think is worse and more nonsensical than letting Protection from Magical Weapons do so. Also, I don't recall off-hand whether Protection from Missiles protects against Sol's Searing Orb (and a couple of other similar spell-like weapons): Protection from Missiles has to manually specify every single type of projectile type that it protects against, and I'm not sure if it's included or not off the top of my head.

[subtledoctor]

19 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

It would be an issue because Protection from Normal Weapons would protect against it instead

Well  given my understanding of how things work, we could change ProNormalWeapons to  "+0" weapons (type=0). Then set special items to "not enchanted" and "+6" or something like that. That way they should bypass both ProWeap spells, as well as any Mantle-style spells, if some mod adds them back, as well as innate .CRE immunity for demiliches/etc.

Edited October 31, 2022 by subtledoctor

[Bartimaeus]

43 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Well  given my understanding of how things work, we could change ProNormalWeapons to  "+0" weapons (type=0). Then set special items to "not enchanted" and "+6" or something like that. That way they should bypass both ProWeap spells, as well as any Mantle-style spells, if some mod adds them back, as well as innate .CRE immunity for demiliches/etc.

A two-handed sword +1 without the enchanted weapon flag set but still having an enchanted level of +1 is treated as non-magical for this purpose (i.e. as if the enchantment level were 0). I confirmed this a moment ago when said two-handed sword +1 was ineffective against Protection from Normal Weapons.

(e): Ah, but I forgot the second component of that: when having PfNW use type 0 with enchantment level 0 and PfMW type 1 (all magical weapons), setting a weapon to enchantment level 1 but non-enchanted *does* allow it to bypass both PfNW and PfMW. Interesting. In that case, it would work...although again, there is some consideration as to whether this is a good idea in the first place. Also...my memory tells me that SCS does weird systematic stuff with non-enchanted weapons that have enchantment levels, so that might be something to look out for as well.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

I mean, the only reason to do all that is to let nonmagical weapons hit through PfMW. Which, again, I don’t personally care about. But some people do? And it achieves the stated design intent/spell description. And it makes that one battle work properly. 

[FixTesteR]

Hi. Is it intentional that Detect Invisibility goes through the Cloak of Non-Detection? Davaeorn is able to see detect Monty wearing Gurke's cloak.

Also, the description of the cloak has a typo.

[FixTesteR]

23 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

And it makes that one battle work properly. 

Just one? Which one might that be?

23 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

let nonmagical weapons hit through PfMW. Which, again, I don’t personally care about. But some people do?

I do. And if someone finds it cheesy, it's so easy to avoid. Just never carry normal weapons with you from BG2 onward. You might need them for Watcher's keep, but that's it. Letting non-magical weapons hit might be intentional because non-caster parties would have better chances of winning battles against mages.

[subtledoctor]

18 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Just one? Which one might that be?

RR Chosen of Cyric.

19 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

if someone finds it cheesy, it's so easy to avoid. Just never carry normal weapons with you from BG2 onward.

That's exactly what I do, which is why I don't care about this for my own sake.

[Bartimaeus]

20 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Hi. Is it intentional that Detect Invisibility goes through the Cloak of Non-Detection? Davaeorn is able to see detect Monty wearing Gurke's cloak.

Also, the description of the cloak has a typo.

@1385 = ~Whispers of Silence
Reportedly created for a lineage of the greatest burglars ever to walk the night, this cloak was apparently a success, allowing the wearer to became non-detectable by magical means such as Detect Invisibility and True Sight. No record exists of previous owners.

STATISTICS:

Equipped Abilities:
 Spell: Non-Detection

Weight: 3
Not Usable By:
 Wizard Slayer~

I've read the description three times now, and I do not see a typo, though I do see a little bit of an oversight in still calling True Seeing "True Sight" instead. As for the issue of Davaeorn, the AI can be...inconsistent in how it reacts to Non-Detection. What exactly did you experience?

[subtledoctor]

Well, if Detect Invisibility is using op193 like base SR then it can see and target anyone who is invisible, even if under non-detection. So in that case the description of "non-detectable by magical means such as Detect Invisibility and True Sight" would seem to be wrong. In SR non-detection protects your invisibility from being dispelled, but it doesn't protect you from being seen by folks with op193.

Idea: theoretically, you could add op100 effects to the non-detection, like the Scroll of Pro Undead. Say, op100 vs. EA / All, and then you would be completely undetected and ignored by everyone while under non-detection. But, crucially, apply the op100 via a repeating subspell, and gate the subspell via op326 to only work when the rogue has STATE_INVISIBLE. So if you lose your invisibility you can be targeted again.

Only work on the EEs, though.

Also now that I wrote that out, I love it and I am doing it  myself.

[Bartimaeus]

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Well, if Detect Invisibility is using op193 like base SR then it can see and target anyone who is invisible, even if under non-detection. So in that case the description of "non-detectable by magical means such as Detect Invisibility and True Sight" would seem to be wrong. In SR non-detection protects your invisibility from being dispelled, but it doesn't protect you from being seen by folks with op193.

Idea: theoretically, you could add op100 effects to the non-detection, like the Scroll of Pro Undead. Say, op100 vs. EA / All, and then you would be completely undetected and ignored by everyone while under non-detection. But, crucially, apply the op100 via a repeating subspell, and gate the subspell via op326 to only work when the rogue has STATE_INVISIBLE. So if you lose your invisibility you can be targeted again.

Only work on the EEs, though.

Also now that I wrote that out, I love it and I am doing it  myself.

This issue is that I've tested this about three times now and even SCS spellcasters (with the exception of those who are deliberately scripted to always ignore invisibility, e.g. liches and powerful fiends) do not properly react to creatures hidden by stealth/Invisibility + Non-Detection even after casting a Detect Invisibility or True Seeing that grants them opcode 193. I just tested again on a SCS+SRR EE game to make sure:

1. With exactly one character, I go up to Lavok with Non-Detection already active and start the dialogue/fight.
2. I cast Improved Invisibility; although he has True Seeing memorized, he does not cast it and just waits around doing nothing.
3. I attack him (thus breaking my normal invisibility but retaining the spell-untargetable improved invisibility state).
4. He casts Time Stop, Absolute Immunity, and then True Seeing.
5. Timestop ends, I cast Invisibility again.
6. He mostly stands around. He *knows* my character is there because he continues to cast self-targeting defensive spells (unlike before he cast True Seeing when he was literally doing nothing at all while I was invisible), but he will not target my character with spells until I break normal invisibility again. Bizarrely, he occasionally tries to melee attack (thus indicating he definitely has the 193 opcode) but then will inexplicably stop a moment or two later.
7. I attack him again, thus breaking normal invisibility (again, still retaining the spell-untargetable improved invisibility), and he casts Horrid Wilting, Remove Magic, and other stuff immediately after - as he should, because Detect Invisibility/True Seeing are supposed to allow the spellcaster to pierce the improved invisibility state even if Non-Detection is running...just not stealth/normal invisibility.

This has been more or less my experience every single time I've tested this. While this is...weird, convoluted, and certainly less than perfect, if you have stealth/Invisibility + Non-Detection running, Lavok instead directs his attention towards non-invisible characters, and thus it practically works as intended. If you're playing a solo character...I can definitely see this looking a little glitchy and being less than ideal, but I don't really have any avenues to fix it and it's "mostly" harmless. If there are people who have contrary experiences, I would very much like to hear about them - perhaps the circumstances I keep testing have been too narrow (for the record, this is the first time I've tested specifically Lavok; Tolgerias and his cronies were another, while I don't remember what was the last).

Edited November 2, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[FixTesteR]

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've read the description three times now

"allowing the wearer to became"

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

What exactly did you experience?

Dav just straight up revealed Monty. I tried it two or three times. And then he started to attack him in melee, since at that point, Dav was out of spells. Monty's invisibility was due to Hide in Shadows. Is HiS different from spells II or I? Maybe that's the culprit. But I can't say if the problem is with the cloak or DI spell. This is where your help would be indispensable.

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Also now that I wrote that out, I love it and I am doing it  myself.

You're the best. Share share share. You're putting it under your misc mods? Let's see what Bart is gonna say/do