SR Revised V1.3.900 (2022 August 8th)

[subtledoctor]

1 minute ago, Bartimaeus said:

you could actually cast those spells without fear of being interrupted, as you'd be invisible during the entire spellcasting period and only be revealed after the fact

Eh, from a DM perspective I'm fine with that - I feel like if you're invisible, you deserve to get a spell off. And I've spoken elsewhere about becoming tired of the laser-focus on spell interruption being a crutch in these games. But yeah, it would be different behavior from pre-patch behavior. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Beamdog defender. To make this change in this way is pretty stupid. I mean, as long as they're delving into the engine guts and adding/changing the effects of this or that bit value in the file format, they seemingly could have just added or changed the effects of another bit value as well, setting invisibility to break for self-targeted or externally-targeted spells. Good to try to expose the hard-coded guts and make it more moddable, but cripes, do that in a comprehensive way! At least comprehensive enough to allow modders to simulate the former unmodded behavior.

But they didn't do that. Welcome to Beamdog, I guess. For you personally this doesn't even matter, right? On the pre-EE engine you'll retain your previous behavior. For you as a mod maintainer, you can pretty much absolve yourself of responsibility for how this affects the mod, because it's not your fault and not in your power to change. So like I say, easiest thing is to come up with a really simple rule (like "no different from Beamdog's implementation") and just write up some code to make it work. Done.

[Bartimaeus]

@subtledoctor

Re: being able to get a spell off, yeah, but I hate inconsistent behavior like that, . Now if ALL spells worked that way, that'd be different...

Yeah, spell interruption is a really dumb mechanic and can be abused hard. There's a number of timing elements in these games that, if you abuse them in the right manner, make it very difficult for effective response. I wouldn't be against disabling spell interruption entirely, but I'm not as big of a fan of setting everything to instant cast...too bad the concentration formula can't be modified in either EE or ToBEx.

As it turns out, Beamdog's standard for what should break invisibility/sanctuary is exactly the standard I came up with myself anyway. Funny.

[Hubal]

@subtledoctor This is SRR thread so everything I said is in regard to SRR. You have a VAST knowlegde about the game and now i feel like  drowned in bottomless pit of game quirks and obscure mechanics. 

@Bartimaeus If I have read spell description 10 times can I be pretty sure that spell descriptions in SRR are acurate? I mean if the spell sais that it ads 1 damage for example, is that what it EXACTLY ads and NOTHING more?

I have done some testing.

.

Bless gave 1 thac0 1 damage and this bonuses are visible in Lefreut's UI.

Aid gave  1 thac0 1 damage and this bonuses are visible in Lefreut's UI.

Chant gave 1 thac0 1 damage and saves  and this bonuses are NOT visible in Lefreut's UI.(they work alright but only saves are visible)

Bless Aid and Chant do stack! 

I have changed my opinion on Chant. It is offensive but still it shouldn't break sanctuary (just to make cleric viable). It should break invisibility though.

If you are going to make Chant break Sanctuary @Bartimaeus could you at least make chant work as Bless? So cleric could cast it from a safe distance?

Edited September 16, 2021 by Hubal

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Hubal said:

If I have read spell description 10 times can I be pretty sure that spell descriptions in SRR are acurate? I mean if the spell sais that it ads 1 damage for example, is that what it EXACTLY ads and NOTHING more?

Yes, all spell descriptions should be up to date, especially in regards to at least basic statistics. In regards to Chant, IIRC the Chant effect is weird and may not correctly display what it does in characters' statistics, but it should do what it says regardless.

As for Chant, honestly, that's always been my biggest issue with Chant as well. Having it auto-target at self makes it more difficult to use than it should be, IMO, especially given you don't have access to Mirror Image at low levels like a mage would (...although I guess that's a good use case for a mage-cleric). And why, when you can use something like Bless where you like? However, the reason I've never changed it is two-fold: 1. Chant has always worked that way, and I don't want to change it without feedback from others; 2. The AI actually uses Chant and there is potential to break the spell for the AI by changing its targeting type (this has been an issue for other spells in the past, like when Haste was single-target instead of AoE). If the latter is true, then unfortunately, it should not be changed...though if there was enough interest from others to do so, there is a possible workaround. Just depends on how others feel about it.

[Hubal]

So my feedback is not enough? You have hurt my feelings and I will go cry in the corner...

On serious side I already have beautiful Chant.

Bless description is little confusing for me but english is not my mother language.

SR and SRR description are pretty much the same:

Upon uttering the Bless spell, the caster raises the morale of friendly creatures by +1. Furthermore, it raises their attack and damage dice rolls by +1. The caster determines at what range he will cast the spell. At the instant the spell is completed, it affects all creatures in a 30 foot radius centered on the point selected by the caster (thus, affected creatures leaving the area are still subject to the spell’s effect; those entering the area after the casting is completed are not). 

 

First sentence states that spell is party friendly, third(second in SRR) sentence states it's not party friendly. So I suggest changing "all creatures" in third sentence to "friendly creatures" just like in first sentence.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Hubal

[Bartimaeus]

46 minutes ago, Hubal said:

So my feedback is not enough? You have hurt my feelings and I will go cry in the corner...

On serious side I already have beautiful Chant.

Bless description is little confusing for me but english is not my mother language.

SR and SRR description are pretty much the same:

Upon uttering the Bless spell, the caster raises the morale of friendly creatures by +1. Furthermore, it raises their attack and damage dice rolls by +1. The caster determines at what range he will cast the spell. At the instant the spell is completed, it affects all creatures in a 30 foot radius centered on the point selected by the caster (thus, affected creatures leaving the area are still subject to the spell’s effect; those entering the area after the casting is completed are not). 

 

First sentence states that spell is party friendly, third(second in SRR) sentence states it's not party friendly. So I suggest changing "all creatures" in third sentence to "friendly creatures" just like in first sentence.

SRR's description:

"Upon uttering the Bless spell, the priest grants a +1 bonus to THAC0, damage, and morale to friendly creatures. The caster determines at what range they will cast the spell, and the instant the spell is completed, it affects all creatures in a 30 foot radius centered on the point selected by the caster. Multiple castings of this spell are not cumulative."

The second sentence basically exists as an artifact of trying to explain how the mechanics of an AoE spell work for new players (i.e. for new players when BG1 originally came out back in 1998). It mostly still exists just for history/flavor in a select few low level spells rather than actually meaning anything. You're not wrong that it should probably just say "friendly creatures" instead, though.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Lord_Tansheron]

Not sure if this is within the scope of SRR, but I've experimented with Inquisitor Dispel a lot and changed it to be 100% dispel but single-target only - which led to a VASTLY improved playing experience for me. Not only does it tone down the power of the dispel without it bricking on LoB (where the extra monster levels basically mean even x2 level dispel almost never works for most of the game, let alone the x1.5/x1 nerfed versions on some mods), it also makes it synergize nicely with Inquisitor's True Sight since you need to see invisibles to target them, is more party friendly (easier to dispel someone who's charmed, for example, without dispelling your entire team), requires you to choose between dispelling an enemy or a friend (rather than double dipping), and even works better in terms of class fantasy as you're a zealot who's REALLY focused on the bad guy

Don't need this to be added to any mod of course since I can just do it myself, but I thought it might be something worth sharing.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

Not sure if this is within the scope of SRR, but I've experimented with Inquisitor Dispel a lot and changed it to be 100% dispel but single-target only - which led to a VASTLY improved playing experience for me. Not only does it tone down the power of the dispel without it bricking on LoB (where the extra monster levels basically mean even x2 level dispel almost never works for most of the game, let alone the x1.5/x1 nerfed versions on some mods), it also makes it synergize nicely with Inquisitor's True Sight since you need to see invisibles to target them, is more party friendly (easier to dispel someone who's charmed, for example, without dispelling your entire team), requires you to choose between dispelling an enemy or a friend (rather than double dipping), and even works better in terms of class fantasy as you're a zealot who's REALLY focused on the bad guy

Don't need this to be added to any mod of course since I can just do it myself, but I thought it might be something worth sharing.

That sounds...insanely powerful. Not even the single target Reverse Magic is 100% guaranteed, it at least offers a saving throw. That has to pretty much break encounters with only one caster e.g. liches, right?

[Lord_Tansheron]

33 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

That sounds...insanely powerful. Not even the single target Reverse Magic is 100% guaranteed, it at least offers a saving throw. That has to pretty much break encounters with only one caster e.g. liches, right?

In non-LoB play, unmodded Inquisitor Dispel has always been pretty much 100% dispel already (barring the VERY start of the game against high-level enemies). This is no different, but toned down in terms of AoE and double dipping - before, you could dispel an entire group of enemies, including multiple casters, with a single action.

Meanwhile in LoB Dispel Magic (of any kind) is practically useless because the increased enemy levels mean you won't ever dispel anyone, period, until pretty much ToB levels. Which also feels very... bad. Not to mention that the level disparity also means enemy dispels work practically 100% of the time.

I agree it's powerful - I think I might modify it further to be subject to spell immunities (like regular Dispel) so it gets stopped by Liches. Then again, it's also not fun to have fights vs. mages devolve into whether or not you can load enough protection removers to counter their 5,000 sequencers and contingencies that re-buff them instantly... It feels like having a silver bullet at the cost of a party slot is not an unreasonable trade-off when the alternative is to bring 3+ arcane casters or go home.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Lord_Tansheron

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

In non-LoB play, unmodded Inquisitor Dispel has always been pretty much 100% dispel already (barring the VERY start of the game against high-level enemies). This is no different, but toned down in terms of AoE and double dipping - before, you could dispel an entire group of enemies, including multiple casters, with a single action.

Meanwhile in LoB Dispel Magic (of any kind) is practically useless because the increased enemy levels mean you won't ever dispel anyone, period, until pretty much ToB levels. Which also feels very... bad. Not to mention that the level disparity also means enemy dispels work practically 100% of the time.

I agree it's powerful - I think I might modify it further to be subject to spell immunities (like regular Dispel) so it gets stopped by Liches. Then again, it's also not fun to have fights vs. mages devolve into whether or not you can load enough protection removers to counter their 5,000 sequencers and contingencies that re-buff them instantly... It feels like having a silver bullet at the cost of a party slot is not an unreasonable trade-off when the alternative is to bring 3+ arcane casters or go home.

Yeah, I guess I tend to use SCS's 1.5x dispel for a better middle ground between "still powerful" and "not broken" - 2x is pretty insane as it is. It's difficult to balance for all situations, difficulties, and how people want to play with what strategies and party compositions... I'm generally loathe to change the design of something like that too greatly, because I know how much people like how things "used to work" when how they "used to work" was more powerful than how it currently works after even a small nerf. Dispel/Remove Magic in particular are very tricky to get right, which is why we're still where we're at with them...

Edited September 17, 2021 by Bartimaeus
accidentally a word

[Lord_Tansheron]

That's a fair point. And yeah Dispel is such an awkward spell to say the least... I'm no great fan of the highly random nature of a lot of what's going on in BG but I guess that's just part of the game's identity. I prefer trade-offs where you get guaranteed results, but at some kind of cost - be that ease of use, class/kit choice, or whatever.

And as you keep saying, LoB is not how most people play and so designing around that made specifically is perhaps not the best way to about things  I'll just modify things myself as needed, but I'm always looking for new inspiration on old mechanics.

[Bartimaeus]

57 minutes ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

That's a fair point. And yeah Dispel is such an awkward spell to say the least... I'm no great fan of the highly random nature of a lot of what's going on in BG but I guess that's just part of the game's identity. I prefer trade-offs where you get guaranteed results, but at some kind of cost - be that ease of use, class/kit choice, or whatever.

And as you keep saying, LoB is not how most people play and so designing around that made specifically is perhaps not the best way to about things  I'll just modify things myself as needed, but I'm always looking for new inspiration on old mechanics.

If/when I ever get to a new install and playthrough,  I'm gonna be testing out the "saving throws only" versions of Dispel/Remove Magic (currently optionally available for just Remove Magic via the settings.ini) while eschewing the whole silly level vs. level mechanic and seeing how that goes. Does LoB also give massive saving throw bonuses, out of curiosity?

[Lord_Tansheron]

8 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Does LoB also give massive saving throw bonuses, out of curiosity?

It does, in principle. It's allegedly bugged, not sure if that's outdated information though. Here's a list of the LoB changes for enemy units, from the wiki:

HP x3+80 (player summons/familiars get x2+20, double the damage taken option, if not disabled, doesn’t apply to them)
+1 APR
THAC0 -5 bonus
-11 AC bonus
Saving throws -5 bonus (note: there appears to be a bug where STs are 5 points worse, not better)
Levels are treated as level + 12 for some checks
Non controlled sprites cannot fail morale checks
+75 gp per pickup
Player max rest encounters increases by 1

[Chitown Willie]

Hi Bartimaeus,

Thanks for fixing the Sunscorch - Much appreciated.

Attached is "sppr116.spl" from the override folder.

sppr116.spl

[Bartimaeus]

57 minutes ago, Chitown Willie said:

Hi Bartimaeus,

Thanks for fixing the Sunscorch - Much appreciated.

Attached is "sppr116.spl" from the override folder.

sppr116.spl 346 B · 1 download

Oh, right, dynamic positions of new spells: this is actually Cause Light Wounds instead of Sunscorch. I'm afraid I can't make sense of why Cause Light Wounds is in this spot in order to determine where Sunscorch is, though. sppr114.spl seems the most likely to me instead, but I can't say for certain. If you can figure out what Sunscorch's resource name is (somewhere between sppr110 and sppr120 almost certainly), please attach that instead and I'll fix it - sorry for the trouble!