NdranC

I'm using EET with

ee_style_item_descriptions  = 0

ee_style_ac_descriptions = 0

I think there might be a bug with the critical hit aversion helmet's description. Downloaded the latest github master.

On 9/5/2020 at 1:33 PM, subtledoctor said:

The question is, what possible complications would result from sticking 319 effects into all those weapons; and what do you gain by doing so?  IR "More Weapons Usable for Backstabbing" has been around for at least five or six years, and this is the first time I've seen anyone complain that it allows thieves to use (but not be proficient in) maces and bastard swords etc.  I'm not convinced (yet?) that this is calling out to be improved.

Complain is a strong word for this. Mostly highlighting an inconsistency between the expected result based on the available online documentation and the actual results in game. I don't know how else to look for bugs on a piece of software.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm a stickler for video game design that has clear and consistent message for the player to learn from. If the player learns how something works early game, then they should be able to extrapolate behavior of similar features they haven't used first hand before. This would allow them to feel rewarded by making discoveries because the language the game used to communicate was predictable. Having seemingly random changes in rules with no explanation or in-game logic disturbs this balance and nurses a game environment where you don't know why the world works as it does. I would take vague tooltips/descriptions over ones that outright lie any day of the week. I'm looking at you vanilla Protection from Fire spell description.

Obviously a lot of this falls through the window when it comes to mods having constrains like engine limitations, modder's time, mod compatibility, etc. Yet I see no reason why not to strive toward this goal when possible. Regardless, at the end of the day, I find it's better to bring it up and either be dismissed or result on an updated readme, than to leave a potential bug unsquashed.

1 hour ago, Mike1072 said:

It was just how the engine worked - it applied backstabs when attacking with melee weapons usable by single-class thiefs.  ToBex included the ability to change that behaviour.

I don't know if an equivalent feature was added to the EE games or might be added by EEex.

Wait, I'm confused. So are we not able to make ranged weapons backstab? Then why is the component adding backstab penalties to range weapons if we can't make them backstab?

Hmm. My interest in this component was to get backstabbing penalties depending on the weapon PLUS the ability to backstab with thief range weapons. My only option would be to use subcomponent 3 even though it's not there in IRR and I would have to suffer the other consequences.

What makes thief range weapons not usable for backstabs then? In vanilla that is.

@Bartimaeus I think there might be a bug? in the second component of the revised backstabbing. I wouldn't think this is intentional but I'm noticing is causing all weapons in the game to become usable by thieves. Except for Composite Short/Long Bows. Unless I'm misunderstanding the component, I though it would add the ability to backstab to more weapons with careful penalties. Didn't think it was necessary to have single class thieves be able to use all of them since multiclass thieves already have access to more weapons and eventually you get use any item anyway. Just checking.

21 minutes ago, Mike1072 said:

You have the right idea.  Armors are all over the map and manual identification is required.  Weapon detection is a lot easier to automate.  The fields you have to check depend on the specific category of item you want to identify.  Some can be done with just item type or item type and proficiency.  As a general rule, I'd recommend against trusting usabilities to determine weapon type (there are class-specific items that can easily be misidentified).  But they can work if you're doing more of a global change, like IR does with restricting fighter/druids to the same armor options as regular druids (code here).

Ok this makes me doubt what I'm doing then.

COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.itm$~ ~override~

    PATCH_IF (SOURCE_SIZE > 0x71) BEGIN
        READ_BYTE 0x31 prof_type
        READ_BYTE 0x1f legal2fighter
        READ_BYTE 0x20 legal2ranger
        READ_BYTE 0x20 legal2thief
        READ_BYTE 0x1e legal2cleric
        READ_BYTE 0x20 legal2mage

        // FLAG SHORT_SWORDS, CLUBS AND CROSSBOWS FOR MAGES, CLERIC_MAGES, FIGHTER_MAGE_CLERICS, FIGHTER_MAGE_THIEF, FIGHTER_MAGES AND MAGE_THIEFS TO USE
        PATCH_IF ((prof_type = 91 OR prof_type = 115 OR prof_type = 103) AND ((legal2thief BAND BIT6) = 0)) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT2)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT3)
        END
        PATCH_IF ((prof_type = 91 OR prof_type = 115 OR prof_type = 103) AND ((legal2fighter BAND BIT3) = 0)) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT5)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT7)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT0)
        END

        // FLAG QUARTERSTAVES FOR MONKS TO USE
        PATCH_IF (prof_type = 102 AND ((legal2thief BAND BIT6) = 0)) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x21 (THIS BAND `BIT5)
        END

        // FLAG SHORTBOWS AND LONGBOWS FOR DRUIDS AND FIGHTER_DRUIDS TO USE
        PATCH_IF ((prof_type = 104 OR prof_type = 105) AND ((legal2fighter BAND BIT3) = 0)) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT4)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x21 (THIS BAND `BIT6)
        END

        // FLAG ALL FIGHTER ITEMS FOR USE WITH ALL FIGHTER MULTICLASSES (EXCEPT FIGHTER_DRUIDS)
        PATCH_IF ((legal2fighter BAND BIT3) = 0) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT5)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT6)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT7)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT1)
        END

        // FLAG ALL RANGER ITEMS FOR RANGER_CLERICS TO USE
        PATCH_IF ((legal2ranger BAND BIT5) = 0) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT2)
        END

        // FLAG ALL THIEF ITEMS FOR USE WITH ALL THIEF MULTICLASSES
        PATCH_IF ((legal2thief BAND BIT6) = 0) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT1)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT1)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT3)
        END

        // FLAG ALL CLERIC ITEMS FOR USE WITH ALL CLERIC MULTICLASSES
        PATCH_IF ((legal2cleric BAND BIT7) = 0) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT1)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT2)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT6)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT7)
        END

        // FLAG ALL MAGE ITEMS FOR USE WITH ALL MAGE MULTICLASSES
        PATCH_IF ((legal2mage BAND BIT2) = 0) BEGIN
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT5)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x1f (THIS BAND `BIT7)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT0)
            WRITE_BYTE 0x20 (THIS BAND `BIT3)
        END

    END

BUT_ONLY

This is my first attempt at implementing something like this.

I try to give mages the ability to use short_swords, clubs and crossbows (light) and I'm hoping a simple "if it can be used by thieves and it has the right proficiency then it can be used by the mage". The last couple are sweeping changes that I'm just adding as a final pass on my mod install to make sure if an item can be used by a single class then it should be used by it's multiclass as well. I had a couple instances on my last install where this was not the case and I'm hopping this can work as a catch all net for inconsistencies.

Would you say this kind of approach is likely to end in disaster?

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

IR/R: What will effectively happen is that divine spells will usually be cast as per vanilla spells, while arcane spells will be cast as per SR spells. In most cases, you probably won't notice the difference in a functional sense, but there may be a few odd discrepancies (like, I don't think Deafness does any damage in vanilla, so items that cast Sound Burst will continue to do damage...similarly, that one harp will still continue to cast Break Enchantment and not Remove Curse, etc.).

Hmm will the item descriptions update for divine items? I can't remember of the top of my head what items would be the worst offenders.

Out of both IR(R) and SR(R) I'm a lot more in love with IR(R) conceptually and I would find it really hard to go back to vanilla items. Might be my only option for my test though.

Looking at the code of IR(R) I have a couple questions on how it functions. Seems to me that the main component will just replace almost every item in the game with a custom version that is stored in the "itm" folder. Once that is done the other components will patch all items (including vanilla, IR and other mod items) in an attempt to customize them based on the .ini file and the other files with custom values like armor/weapons.

Assuming all of that is true. Is the identify_item.tpa not good enough for armors and shields? I've noticed there is some code attempting to classify armor but is there no reliable data point in game that tells you what armor or shield is supposed to be without a user submitted list?

Speaking of identify_item.tpa, specifically for weapons. Is using the proficiency offset with some help of strength requirement not enough for all weapons? I've noticed there is a lot of animation checking, maybe something else, I can't look at the moment.

I ask because I'm currently making my own mod to change some of the weapon proficiencies and part of that is adding quarterstaves to monks and short/long bows to druids. The way I'm currently doing it is checking all items that have the right proficiency and are also usable by thieves (in the case of quarterstaves) and fighters (in the case of druids). Looking at the IR(R) identify_item.tpa makes me feel this game is filled with contradictions at every step.

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Crom Faeyr: Odd, as Cromwell's strings are actually updated.

Weird. The only component I have installed that I can think off will mess with that is the cdtweaks cromwell also knows cespenar recipes. Maybe that's the issue.

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

What EE items I have: I don't know. If it's not in the following list, then I do not have it included:

I don't know if this would be useful, but do you think it would be easy to implement a debugging .ini setting that when IR is installed it will print a tag in the item name/description to clearly tell if this is a custom item or not? I could do a cheats on playthrough  of SoD and see if I can spot any that fall through the cracks.

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Ring of Kangaxx: Neat idea, but I'd strip it of Finger of Death as well if I went that route, since SRR's Energy Drain has an instant death effect identical to Finger of Death. I rather like this idea and may implement it - as I just wrote recently, I don't care for minor activated abilities because it's often difficult to find time to use them, and the thought of seriously spending multiple rounds to cast Larloch's Minor Drains post-defeating Kangaxx sounds asinine to me.

Sounds great to me. Sidenote. I hate the death spells. They are so un-usable. For kicks I tried to kill both Firkraag and that Acid Dragon in the elven city. I'm almost certain dragons are vulnerable to death effects since I saw saves but after casting malison AND doom plus 4 fingers of death both dragons saved every time. To make matters worse is not like this is even a valid strategy since I could have killed them much quicker than that I was just toying around with them.

It's been a while but I have a couple more updates.

I like what was done to the Ring of Kangaxx. It's a lot more thematically fitting BUT it's also a little disappointing to find "x3 per day Larloch's Minor Drain" on it. It's a weak level 1 spell on the ring of THE ultimate Demi Lich. My suggestion would be maybe "x1 per day Larloch's Energy Drain". Not really an amazing spell anyway and to me it seems a little more fitting that you would find both a level 7 and 9 necromancer spell on the ring.

How does IR(R) handle items when SR(R) is not installed? I've been toying around with the idea of having my next modded install to use SCS+IWD spells (+ Mirror Image Fix from SR) but still keep the IR(R) changes. Mostly I just wan to experience it for comparison and I would also like to point out the new spell animations I talked to you about so that you might be able to steal them for SR(R).

I might have some free time soon and I might use it to get you the data you needed to update SoD items to work with IR(R). Can you remind me exactly what you needed? The item name file name and the description attached to said item? I was thinking of making a little weidu script that could read all items that start with ~^BD.+\.itm$~ and output their descriptions on a text file. Not sure if weidu is capable of that but I'll look into the documentation to try.

Is there any other standard EE item you need for full EE compatibility? I didn't do any EE companion quests in my current playthrough so I'm not sure if you have those covered.

EDIT: Should've read the last post before asking about the EE items. Yeah I can understand your issues with it, I played SoD for the first time this playthrough and even though I fully expected to like it, thinking people were exaggerating, I ended up really hating it. Hard to ask you to account for items you don't want to play with.

EDIT2: I forgot to add. I noticed Cromwell doesn't have item names updated to match the changes. This was particularly noticeable crafting Crom Fayer. Might be too annoying to update the dialog strings but I figured I should bring it up.

7 minutes ago, argent77 said:

Add PRETTY_PRINT_2DA after you're done modifying the 2DA file.

Sigh... thank you. Maybe I should re-read all of the weidu docs every so often. I was so focused on trying to ignore that row when reading/writing the 2da that I didn't consider is always going to happen.

I've been running this code to change some weapon proficiencies:

COPY_EXISTING ~weapprof.2da~ override
    COUNT_2DA_COLS cols
    READ_2DA_ENTRIES_NOW read_weapprof 0
    FOR (col = 4; col < cols; ++col) BEGIN
        READ_2DA_ENTRY_FORMER read_weapprof 34 col val
        PATCH_IF (val == 3) BEGIN
            SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER set_weapprof 34 col 4
        END PATCH_IF (val == 2) BEGIN
            SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER set_weapprof 34 col 3
        END PATCH_IF (val == 1) BEGIN
            SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER set_weapprof 34 col 2
        END
    END
    FOR (row = 31; row < 34; ++row) BEGIN
        FOR (col = 4; col < cols; ++col) BEGIN
            READ_2DA_ENTRY_FORMER read_weapprof row col val
            PATCH_IF (val == 2) BEGIN
                SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER set_weapprof row col 4
            END PATCH_IF (val == 1) BEGIN
                SET_2DA_ENTRY_LATER set_weapprof row col 2
            END
        END
    END
    SET_2DA_ENTRIES_NOW set_weapprof 0
BUT_ONLY

This works as far as I can tell but it bugs me that the resulting file ends up with a misaligned table title text like so:

2DA V1.0
0
ID                       NAME_REF                 DESC_REF                 MAGE                     FIGHTER                  CLERIC
LARGE_SWORD              0                        8668                     9589                     0                        5

I've tried many things to fix this, like setting the column requirement of READ_2DA_ENTRY_NOW to %cols% but it ends up the same.

I'm learning to use weidu so any tips would be welcomed. Mostly concerned I'm doing something the wrong way.

I get that is a P&P thing and in general I'm mostly in favor of such changes. I just personally find Planetars a little too... obnoxious to deal with and I liked the idea of having like an "Improved" banished spell. How do you deal with them in your game? I would ignore them if not for the fact at any moment a mage could cast remove magic and risk a perma kill on someone without a Death Ward. I guess I could Banish them but it's so rng and their saves seem pretty good.

Hmm I might try Globes with that setting at some point. The spell seems pretty pointless as is to me.

On another topic. I've been testing Vanilla+SCS+IWD spells and I noticed not only SCS added the IWD spells but there are new spell effects and animations all over the place. Clerics get a new Red looking orb spell and druid's sunscorch got a face lift. Not sure where these spell effects came from but is it possible for you to use some of these on SR spells? Either to make them look better or to use them to distinguish different spell buffs a little better?

On 8/24/2020 at 1:41 AM, kjeron said:

The lines most likely failing are these two (from comp/setup_metamagic.tpa, line 379-380):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~mageScreen:SequenceSpell( bookSpells\[currentBookSpell\].resref, bookSpells\[currentBookSpell\].masterResref )~ ~mageScreen:SequenceSpell( bookSpells[currentBookSpell].resref, 'DEFAULT' )~

REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~mageScreen:UnSequenceSpell( bottomSpells\[currentBottomSpell\].resref, bottomSpells\[currentBottomSpell\].masterResref )~ ~mageScreen:UnSequenceSpell( bottomSpells[currentBottomSpell].resref, 'DEFAULT' )~

 

The first parts of each replacement (mageScreen:SequenceSpell / mageScreen:UnSequenceSpell) shouldn't have changed even with LeUI, so it's likely the latter part (in the parenthesis) that has changed (the same part that my code changes).  Each has two entries separated by a comma, the first part can be left as is, only the second entry in each should need changing to 'DEFAULT'.

If you do a text search for them in UI.menu, you might be able to manually edit it to work. They're are multiple instances of each in the default file, so they're may still be multiple instances to look for with LeUI.

Update on this. It works perfectly. Thank you for letting me know.

28 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

They are apparently intended to be immune to Imprisonment, as it's a specific immunity listed in the Summon Planetar spell description. News to me, but admittedly I'm not ever gonna remember every last creature immunity,

Hmmm. Not sure I like that. I might have to edit my sorc spells and change Imprisonment for something else since I literally only got that spell to deal with Planetars. Thankfully the vorpal sword can be stopped with Death Ward but I guess the only really way to deal with them is to spam banishment and hope for the best?

Side note. How do you deal with Sequencers with 3 Remove Magic? Last time I fought a strong Lich I learned my lesson and I assumed there would be another 3 Remove Magic sequencer coming from Kangaxx. I was right, unfortunately he still casted it on one of my party members which basically took them out from the rest of the battle. Do you think there is some merit on having an upgraded Dispelling Screen? Maybe having Minor Globe of Invulnerability also protect from dispelling? I think there is a heavy armor that makes me immune to spells 3 and lower. Would that protect from remove magic?

I'm currently in the middle of the Kangaxx fight and I'm noticing that Imprisonment is NOT working on planetars. Is this intended? When I cast Imprisonment I see the same spell effect that banishment has on the planetar and it loops a couple times but nothing happens. There is no save in the chat and the planetar remains active.

23 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Wow that mod looks... kind of crazy.  Reeeeally complicated to use.  But, I guess I understand the impetus, given that in the old engine you could never know what was in a sequencer after you loaded it.  I used to use a journal entry to record what spells I put in sequencers, but that was annoying.

I don't see anything in that readme about have "default spells" to use in sequencers though... maybe I just misunderstood you.

In any event, in the new EE engine, the contents of sequencers and contingencies are recorded somewhere in the Record screen.  So that sort of mod is no longer necessary.

That's really annoying, though.  I really don't want it to work that way, and I put a lot of effort into... well, which is to say, I put a lot of effort into asking @kjeron to help me make sure it would not expend memorized spells.  Kjeron did the real effort of making that work.  I cna only assume that the way TnB patches UI.menu for that purpose fails to match a REPLACE_TEXTUALLY or something when LeUI is installed, because LeUI changes the part of UI.menu that TnB tries to patch.  Or something.  Unfortunately, I have no particular idea what part of UI.menu that is, or what change LeUI makes that causes the failure.

Yeah I'm in a pickle. I noticed that if I use the EEUITweaks and install most of the LeUI components that way I am able to use your component correctly. I guess I have to make a choice between using your metamagic system or using LeUI. Maybe @lefreut has any input on this?

5 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

You haven't mentioned you list of mods, or the install order.  I'm not certain it doesn't work... the order should definitely be LeUI, then TnB.  If you installed them in that order and there is a problem, then I guess there is a problem.  But maybe you have some other UI mod that is getting in the way?  Do you use any UI tweaks apart from LeUI?  (Especially, anything that modifies the spellbook or sequencer screens?) 

I actually uploaded my weidu.log in Might and Guile since this was my second post. I guess you haven't seen my post over there. I'll post it here as well but I'll be making a new client with the purpose to test what exactly breaks it.weidu.log

EDIT: Ok I made a new EET client with only bg1ub, BGEEClassicMovies, SoDtoBG2_IU and nothing else.

Without installing LeUI the 5th metamagic component works as expected.

Installing LeUI before metamagic will pseudo work. It will allow you to pick from spells you currently don't have memorized but it will spend them if they are available.

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

We specifically tested for that and added coded to prevent it.  I can only guess that the other UI mod is interfering...

Darn it. I was hopping it could work if installed on top of it. Not a big fan of the default UI.

I'll keep pocking around that and see if I can narrow down the problem. That change to metamagic would be perfect based on how I play.

Summon Familiar:

I love the changes you made to this spell. The new icons are good looking and I like the Imbue Spell effect. Not sure this would make me want to use Familiars in a normal 6 person run because of the micro but I could see myself using this for a solo run. I don't mind loosing the passive effect if my familiar is not out because I already have more HP with 3e con values.

Metamagic:

I have the 5th option installed. Testing Chain Contingency with a Divination Wizard I noticed a couple things.

- The contingency UI is different than with LeUI. This seems correct based on what you explained to me on how this component is mostly a UI one.

- I can memorize into my contingency any spell that I know even if I don't have it currently memorized. This seems correct as well.

- If I try to memorize spells that I currently have memorized it will spend those spell slots as well. So for example, if I have 2 blinds memorized and I try to put 3 blinds into my chain contingency, it will let me but those 2 blinds I had memorized will be spent. This seems like a bug based on how I though this component was supposed to work.

58 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

That seems fine to me. I mean, why shouldn’t a mage be able to put on armor? As far as role-playing goes, there are any number of situations where that might happen... it would be worthless in combat, but that doesn't mean you couldn’t wear it. BG’s outright equipping restriction is kind if weird.

It's up to the player to decide what they want to live with as long they were properly informed ahead of time. Personally I dislike the inconsistency between mages as a side effect of a kit getting to wear all gear while other classes are not affected by this. I think a simple warning to the user of the unavoidable consequences of installing that component would suffice and they get to decide for themselves.

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

Versus what? Isn’t that how Sleep works? 

I’m pretty sure the only part of this mod that changes Sleep is “Level 1 Cantrips,” which changes it to single-target and calls it “Drowse.”

In vanilla sleep only works against enemies. I'm unsure what mod changed it to work on all creatures in the area of effect. Just checking if it was this one.

Thanks

I started testing Tome and Blood and I found some interesting behavior:

- I think the magus sorcerer kit is causing fighter gear to wearable by all mages. This might be intentional since the magus is part of the mage ethos and you might not be able to specifically only flag that kit but if it is intentional maybe you should put a warning for kits that disrupt the game this much for people that might not want to live with the consequences.

- Is there any documentation on the component "Rebalance Spell Schools"? I noticed some of the changes but it would be nice to have a comprehensive list.

- I'm not sure this is because of Tome and Blood but I noticed my Sleep spell is changed to now affect every creature in the AoE range. I don't think I have another mod that changes spells besides the IWD SCS component. Maybe it's a change caused by Rebalanced Spell Schools?

I'm currently toying around with a new install and I've decided to test some of the features you have in your mods. I did a quick test and I found some possible issues.

EET install, added weidu.log in case you need it. This is a rough first pass to testing some mods so it's possible I installed something wrong. I've only tested assassin so far.

- The new description for assassin doesn't mention the changes to thief skill per level, or at all for that matter.

- The description for assassin is not correctly updated to your new one when checking in-game instead of the character creation screen.

- Looking at the feats, the Dodge and Combat Training Feat show up twice in the same list. At first I though it was intentional since both of those can be taken twice but I've noticed other feats that can be taken more than once only show up once in the same list.

- The feats seems to be inconsistently tracked in the Priest Spell Book. Feats like Stealth, Thieving, Detection Skills, Lore Bonus, Poison Weapon (toxin) and many others do not show up at all in the spell book.

- Feats like Combat Training will not update your damage numbers when you check your inventory. I assume this is because of engine limitations since some items even in vanilla have this kind of behavior but I will never not hate this and will point it out just in case.

I'll try to keep testing some more in the next couple days. I might trim down my install to just gameplay mods so I can test and change things faster.

weidu.log

6 hours ago, DavidW said:

Looking back across the thread, I think the reported problems with short-range spells were in players' sequencers/triggers, not in SCS's... but if that's wrong, let me know.

It happened to me against the Drow Lich. He used a sequencer with 3 remove magic and then tried to use (probably trigger?) with 3 spells 2 out of the 3 failed to cast according to the log.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

 

• Literally just have it cast Breach, maybe with a 1-second delay to make sure the Breach will take effect if the PS removed the last Spell Deflection/Trap. (The delay may not be necessary though.)  This would improve the spell, in that the secondary Breach would remove specific protections as well as combat protections; but it would weaken the spell in that the Breach would not take effect if the target of the PS has [Trap + Greater Deflection] or [Greater Deflection + Deflection] or [any of those + Dispelling Screen].
• Alternatively but in a similar vein, have Pierce Shield remove a spell protection plus Dispelling Screen.  This would be useful even if you don't plan to cast Remove Magic, because Dispelling Screen blocks Breach.  So this would get you one step closer to Breaching the target.

Personally I'm in favor of these two. If we are going to stick with the word "Breach" in the description of the spell then I would rather do the exact same thing Breach does. Respecting terminology to keep a consistent behavior will help players make predictions about how a spell works based on previous interactions with similar effects. I don't mind if it's a new effect but maybe we not use the word "Breach" if it will not work like it.

Side question, I have been avoiding casting these on liches, but does Secret Word/Spell Thrust/Breach bypass lich spell immunity? Or Rakshasa ones for that matter?

@Bartimaeus I'm having  a lot of issues with Time Stop. Not sure if this is something related to SR(R) or my install but buffs and debuff keep ticking away while I'm casting spells. I casted Pierce Magic on a lich to have all the Disintegrates that I casted during Time Stop be absorbed by MR because the 2 round effect wore off in the middle of it. Same with Dectect Invisibility. I have been unable to target Improved Invis mages in the middle of my Time Stop because it wore off.

Changing Breach to be stopped by Spell Deflection is in large part what enabled SCS to create more interesting mage combat and the way Pierce Shield currently works seems to go against this philosophy.

As far as I can tell there are a couple template that mages will use to pre-buff themselves with.

a) 1 Spell Deflection

b) 1 Spell Deflection + Dispelling Screen

c) 1 Spell Deflection + Dispelling Screen + Spell Shield

d) 2 Spell Deflections + Dispelling Screen

e) 2 Spell Deflections + Dispelling Screen + Spell Shield

As long as you can see through invisibility or have a rogue that can Detect Illusions you will be able to "solve" 3/5 of these with a single cast of Pierce Shield and the other 2 only takes to cast a Secret Word right before it. The problem with that is not that it happens but that I can be sure I can solve almost all my problems with a single spell without reading the buffs in chat or without thinking too much about it. Why would I be incentivized to pick Ruby Ray of Reversal or Khelben's Warding Whip or Spellstrike when they are so close and very much inferior?

Spelltrike will essentially silence the mage but breaching their protections will result in their deaths which is much better. It's also a 9th level spell that competes with Time Stop.

Ruby Ray of Reversal's only unique concept is to deal with Spell Trap as cheap as possible but so does Pierce Shield and no need to cast anything else because they are dead.

Khelben's Warding Whip. I don't care about an enemy that has multiple Spell Protections. My breach will bypass all of them thanks to Pierce Shield.

Both 7th level solutions might be 1 level lower but honestly Pierce Shield is worth the wait as a sorcerer.

Anyway, obviously it's your mod and it's wise to hesitate. This is likely a problem with base SR more than something that is your fault but that doesn't change the fact that at least from where I'm standing I almost want to remove Pierce Shield from my spell list because of how it works. Making the breach component happen just the same but be separate and therefore stoppable by Dispelling Screen or other Spell Deflections would be perfect in my opinion. @subtledoctor thoughts on this?