SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, pochesun said:

I am not sure if it pertains to SR, anyway, Tiax got a description of Barskin spell insted of Summon Ghast description ability.

I don't think Summon Ghast ever had a player-facing description to begin with (or maybe the EEs added one?). I generally try to zero out descriptions when they're never intended to be seen, so let me know if you see any others like it that you think could be relevant to SR/R.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[pochesun]

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't think Summon Ghast ever had a player-facing description to begin with (or maybe the EEs added one?). I generally try to zero out descriptions when they're never intended to be seen, so let me know if you see any others like it that you think could be relevant to SR/R.

i will let you know if i encounter similar ones.

[Graion Dilach]

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't think Summon Ghast ever had a player-facing description to begin with (or maybe the EEs added one?).

ToBExAL/Improved GUI backported the right-click-on-innates-to-view-their-description feature to classic.

[Bartimaeus]

4 hours ago, Graion Dilach said:

ToBExAL/Improved GUI backported the right-click-on-innates-to-view-their-description feature to classic.

Yeah, I have heard about this, but to my knowledge, Summon Ghast and a number of abilities like it just...never had a description in the first place. So the question is, should they be written or should they just be zeroed out? If you start to add a few, it feels like you might have to add them all...

[Graion Dilach]

The backport includes actually written descriptions outright.

https://github.com/SpellholdStudios/BG2_Improved_GUI/blob/74408f59e49efe7778b3f61557a686e42a3d4302/bg2improvedgui/tra/english/ability_desc.tra#L949-L960

[Chosen]

I was making a new EET installation, I installed SRR seemingly without problems but it failed while installing SCS iwdspells. I think spell.ids file is the culprit.  Are we suppose to use the Source releae 4.19rc1? I may used it instead of beta 18. Can you help me track down this bug if it only effects ids file it would save me a lot time.

Edit: Now I looked at it again I am probably wrong about the ids file, relevant part in debug:

Including and running function(s) sr_nwn_spelldeflection
Copying and patching 1 file ...
[STRATAGEMS/iwdspells/lib/sr_nwn_spelldeflection.tpa] loaded, 3059 bytes
Copied [STRATAGEMS/iwdspells/lib/sr_nwn_spelldeflection.tpa] to [weidu_external/workspace/sr_nwn_spelldeflection.tpa] (NO BACKUP MADE!)
Clearing the IDS map.
[*.IDS] forgotten
Copying and patching 1 file ...
[STRATAGEMS/iwdspells/data/sr_nwn_arcane.2da] loaded, 278 bytes
[./override/SPELL.IDS] loaded, 30428 bytes
FAILURE:
Invalid spell number: -1
Stopping installation because of error.

I added weidu.log . In my previous installation I used  SCS's iwdspells without many problems but this time some variable is changed and it fails

spell.ids

WeiDU.log

Edited February 20, 2023 by Chosen

[subtledoctor]

23 minutes ago, Chosen said:

I installed SRR seemingly without problems but it failed while installing SCS iwdspells. I think spell.ids file is the culprit.  Are we suppose to use the Source releae 4.19rc1?

You are not exactly describing what the failure was. From the fact that you uploaded a spell.ids file, maybe you are saying you ran out of space to add spells? I don't think 4b18-vs.-4b19 or SR-vs.SRR will make a difference in such a case; it just means you have too many spells added to your game.

But SR(R) + IWD spells will not cause such a failure. So the question is, what other mods did you install. Need a Weidu.log, and also maybe the quoted text describing the failure from your stratagems.debug file.

Also, neither here nor there, but IWDification is in slightly better shape than SCS at the moment, as far as adding IWD spells. (They use substantially similar code, I think DavidW contributed heavily to both, but IWDification has had one or two more recent updates for those two components.)

[Chosen]

I realized I was less than clear and edited my post.

[Chosen]

Is it possible to modify SR style petrification effects so AI can react to it? For example basilisks should melee attack held chracters instead of using their gaze weapons. Maybe by changing every instance of STATE_STONE_DEATH in scripts to .. something? Or maybe by setting a false state without the actual petrification.

[subtledoctor]

I don't see anything obviously wrong. Seems SCS had a problem applying NWN-style spell deflection to its own spells. Not sure what to do except try different things:

• It could be something SRR does, so try using normal SR 4b19 instead
• It could be because, as I said, IWDification is in slightly better shape than SCS, so try SRR + IWDification.

I've got SR 4b19 + IWDification installed and working together, with NWN-style spell deflection. So there's not anything inherently conflicting here. SCS is failing on its "RES_NUM_OF_SPELL_NAME" command, which means it is trying to find the filename of a spell IDS name, but that IDS name does not occur in SPELL.IDS.

Edited February 21, 2023 by subtledoctor

[Chosen]

I will try IWDification to SRR to SCS and see if it works. My previous install was working with a very similar setup so some working combination is definitely possible.

[Bartimaeus]

9 hours ago, Chosen said:

Is it possible to modify SR style petrification effects so AI can react to it? For example basilisks should melee attack held chracters instead of using their gaze weapons. Maybe by changing every instance of STATE_STONE_DEATH in scripts to .. something? Or maybe by setting a false state without the actual petrification.

Basilisks getting stuck in a "I'm going to petrify you even though you're already petrified" loop is pretty undesirable. I'd probably have to ask for help on how best to implement something like that though, as scripting states aren't something I'm very knowledgeable about.

Let me know if your new game build fails as well, I'll try to to see if I run into the same issue.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[polytope]

On 2/22/2023 at 2:23 PM, Bartimaeus said:

Basilisks getting stuck in a "I'm going to petrify you even though you're already petrified" loop is pretty undesirable. I'd probably have to ask for help on how best to implement something like that though, as scripting states aren't something I'm very knowledgeable about.

If you want to revise basilisks with a permanent hold type effect then just tack on an opcode 100 against RACE = BASILISK (102) with the same saving throw, that way the basilisk will simply ignore anyone who it has faux-petrified, just need to ensure that it's removed by Break Enchantment (opcode 321 on EEs, needs a sectype on original engine), and that anything that would prevent the hold effect also prevents all effects of the basilisk's gaze attack (easiest if externalized as a .spl).

I'm not sure if it's worth the effort just for consistency between an arcane spell and a monster's special attack though, why must petrification from a basilisk be identical to a wizard's Flesh to Stone spell?

[Bartimaeus]

7 hours ago, polytope said:

If you want to revise basilisks with a permanent hold type effect then just tack on an opcode 100 against RACE = BASILISK (102) with the same saving throw, that way the basilisk will simply ignore anyone who it has faux-petrified, just need to ensure that it's removed by Break Enchantment (opcode 321 on EEs, needs a sectype on original engine), and that anything that would prevent the hold effect also prevents all effects of the basilisk's gaze attack (easiest if externalized as a .spl).

Thanks - luckily, petrification already comes with its own sectype for SR. That will at least get them to attack other people besides the already petrified character.

7 hours ago, polytope said:

I'm not sure if it's worth the effort just for consistency between an arcane spell and a monster's special attack though, why must petrification from a basilisk be identical to a wizard's Flesh to Stone spell?

I gotta be honest with you, I think SR's changes to petrification are...well-intended but mostly fruitless, since while it does solve one big problem (preventing character banters/romances from being permanently broken), it introduces another equally big problem in preventing the party from ever leaving an area if a character is petrified - necessitating kicking them out of the party, which...yup, permanently breaks banters/romances. I guess it does introduce one way to get out of it, which is killing your own petrified character, though it's probably not immediately clear to most players that that is an option. A few of us tried to put our heads together at some point in the past to figure out how to fix petrification once and for all, but no-one was able to come up with anything that adequately solved all the issues without functionally getting rid of the permanent nature of petrification, which was undesirable as well - I ended up just allowing players to choose what kind of petrification they prefer (soft petrification for all creatures, soft for player characters but hard for non-player characters, and hard for all creatures; I generally choose the second option on my own installs).

[FixTesteR]

On 2/25/2023 at 12:59 PM, Bartimaeus said:

I ended up just allowing players to choose what kind of petrification they prefer

Wow! Sounds great! I take it this is only a feature of SRR. And so, what can be done with SR? When installing SR, is it possible to leave Petrification at vanilla version? I don't care that much about breaking romances, and it seems stone to flesh loses all utility within the party. Thanks for your answers. Or anyone's!