SCS v32 Release Candidate (now Version 10) Available for Testing

[agris]

For what its worth, I too would appreciate an IWD-style alignment restrictions on divine spells component - or conversely, that being default behavior when IWD divine spells are installed, and an option to unlock them from alignment restrictions.

[DavidW]

Restricting evil clerics from using healing is way too severe a nerf (the Cause spells are far less useful). But I don’t feel at all strongly about restricting Cause Wounds if people prefer it unrestricted.

 

I won’t make it optional, though: fine-grained options for a spell system sound good in theory but they’re a nightmare when it comes to enemy AI management.

[Throari]

In this case I would plead for unrestricted use. If I want restrictions I can roleplay them. The other way around involves me modding the game on a regular basis .

Edited November 24, 2018 by Throari

[DavidW]

Im confused: why would I see it as a downside if you mod the game?

[david77]

I like how I have to choose an alignment right now for the clerics

 

evil get a potential for the cause wounds etc

 

good get the lathander shields.

 

These restrictions make it interesting, something in a good direction for cleric of course.

Edited November 24, 2018 by david77

[KronoKinesis]

I would very much argue for the restrictions. It really rubs me wrong to see "Cause Wounds" im my good aligned party members spell lists. I agree that they should still be able to cure, unlike in PnP - as a crpg some concessions must be made. But allowing evil and good clerics to have the exact same spell lists kind of defeats the purpose of a clerics alignment. It makes joinable npcs less interesting and differentiated and cheapens the effect of the main characters alignement choice. I would much prefer to see evil clerics be unable to cast some other classically good spells as a tradeoff for being able to cast "Cause Wounds".

[Throari]

Im confused: why would I see it as a downside if you mod the game?

You shouldn't . With modding the game I meant primarily changing the rules of the game during a play through, which I don't like doing for different reasons (save game breaking bugs). It's as good a reason as any to convey that I for myself am not hooked on the idea of adopting partial restrictions. But to be fair I didn't yet run a serious game with these rules implemented.

Then again I wouldn't mind restrictions if they were consistent for all alignments, giving good, neutral and evil clerics each their unique spells as I understand the proposal by KronoKinesis.

 

But for my consideration, the extension of the restrictions on BG-spells is only implemented for the scs ruleset of the iwd-spells. Or do you also implement these rules for IWDification?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Throari

[agris]

Restricting evil clerics from using healing is way too severe a nerf (the Cause spells are far less useful). But I don’t feel at all strongly about restricting Cause Wounds if people prefer it unrestricted.

 

I won’t make it optional, though: fine-grained options for a spell system sound good in theory but they’re a nightmare when it comes to enemy AI management.

I would very much argue for the restrictions. It really rubs me wrong to see "Cause Wounds" im my good aligned party members spell lists. I agree that they should still be able to cure, unlike in PnP - as a crpg some concessions must be made. But allowing evil and good clerics to have the exact same spell lists kind of defeats the purpose of a clerics alignment. It makes joinable npcs less interesting and differentiated and cheapens the effect of the main characters alignement choice. I would much prefer to see evil clerics be unable to cast some other classically good spells as a tradeoff for being able to cast "Cause Wounds".

I think this is the most reasonable option; healing spells are unrestricted by alignment while cause wounds spells are restricted by alignment IWD-style (only neutral/evil can cast). When IWD-style divine spells are installed.

 

I don't recall vanilla BG1/2 behavior, which is why I included the previous sentence, but I believe cause wounds was also alignment restricted.

 

 

Im confused: why would I see it as a downside if you mod the game?

The poster you were replying to was saying that restrictions on any spells based on alignment would be a downside for them, because they would be "forced" to modify their game to remove said restrictions.

Edited November 24, 2018 by agris

[DavidW]

OK, catching up:

 

- archers retreating inconsistently: reproduced and fixed.

- Called Shot missing from Archer kit: reproduced - the unmodded FERALAN clab file (clabrn02.2da) is malformed, and that's confusing SCS's kit-editing function library. You can work around it by editing clabrn02.2da in a text editor and removing the sticking-out **** entry on the far right, but I'll try to do a fix shortly.

- Archers with Grand Mastery don't get extra attacks: nothing to do with SCS, and not (I think) a bug: bows always give 2 attacks per round, irrespective of mastery.

Edited November 26, 2018 by DavidW

[DavidW]

...and kit fix is up.

[DavidW]

Regarding Cause Wounds: having done an audit of the number of spells restricted by alignment, I'm persuaded that Cause Wounds should not be restricted in BG2, so I've removed this. There is an ini option to revert to the original behavior. Code upload as soon as I've checked it installs correctly. (In fixing it, I also noticed that I'm not setting usability restrictions for scrolls correctly; that's fixed too.)

[DavidW]

I can reproduce, and have fixed, the problem with Sarevok's death scene and with the doppelganger quest in the Merchant League.

 

I haven't managed to reproduce any problem with Andris, so I'll need a more detailed description to progress with this.

 

There will be a new RC shortly.

[DavidW]

Release Candidate 5 is now up.

 

At this point, I think I've closed all bug reports so far with the exception of the Andris report, which I can't reproduce.

[Vlar]

Hello, I've been playing SCS RC4 on BGEE. I have a few questions:

 

- I saw that at level 0 you can change class/kit, is this a SCS feature or BGEE?

- Rangers per description get 2 points in Two Weapon Fighting, but when I level them up they don't get them

- I made Kivan an archer, but he couldn't wear the Ankheg plate, I'm rather sure I could do this in one of my previous modded BG games, also the description says it's no heavier than studded leather. Is this from SCS or BGEE?

 

I'm using SCS and no other mods.

 

Also, is there a mod that change monster experience to something more sensible? Basically in BGEE, I go alone hunting ankhegs, and I could reach the cap like that in no time. There are big jumps in experience given, from ~0 to 500+ with little justification (imo).

Edited November 26, 2018 by Vlar

[DavidW]

Hello, I've been playing SCS RC4 on BGEE. I have a few questions:

 

- I saw that at level 0 you can change class/kit, is this a SCS feature or BGEE?

SCS.

- Rangers per description get 2 points in Two Weapon Fighting, but when I level them up they don't get them

That's a bug, not fixed in RC5. Congratulations on finding the first bug of this release cycle!

 

- I made Kivan an archer, but he couldn't wear the Ankheg plate, I'm rather sure I could do this in one of my previous modded BG games, also the description says it's no heavier than studded leather. Is this from SCS or BGEE?

Nothing to do with SCS; this is unmodded behavior in BGEE (and also in BGT, though not BGTUTU).

Also, is there a mod that change monster experience to something more sensible? Basically in BGEE, I go alone hunting ankhegs, and I could reach the cap like that in no time. There are big jumps in experience given, from ~0 to 500+ with little justification (imo).

No idea, but this thread isn't a good place to ask.