NdranC

I'm not sure if this has already been fixed by v33 but in the current version I'm playing with SRR, golem curse is not stopping the healing from druid's regeneration type spells.

Thanks, that fixed my breach so far. I definitely think you should consider the implications of Pierce Shield. Thanks to it I was able to defeat the Planar Sphere Lich with a single Pierce Shield, even though he had Dispelling Screen and some type of Spell Deflection. He was also unable to get his Time Stop or Planetar off. The poor guy died in 1.5 rounds. Granted I'm probably over leveled for this encounter and I have 3 arcane casters so I could have also overwhelmed his protections pretty easily. I'll keep an eye out for it and give some general feedback once I'm done with the game. Time Stop: Yeah I just tested it in single player in Irenicus Dungeon and I noticed that not only insect plague will tick for damage but the mefhits kept spawning from the machine. I also tested poison dagger and noticed that even though the poison damage ticks stop with time stop, the poison effect will run out while in time stop. Suggesting that even though the character doesn't take damage their debuff timer is still ticking. EDIT: I forgot to add. I also noticed I can use Druid Regeneration through Curse even though Curse is stopping Cleric healing spells. Not sure if it's intentional or not.

@Bartimaeus Thank you. I also noticed that if you cast Creeping Doom (probably other insect spells as well) on an enemy and you Time Stop, the insect will still tick for damage while time in stopped. I guess the insect spells are pretty... buggy Ok I'm sorry about that. Please still patch my breach. spwi513.spl

Personal question. I would imagine it's your preference to play without SR (IR?). Is there a particular reason besides probably being more accustomed to vanilla? Or are the changes made by SR not to your taste?

Probably the best way to change it without messing with the AI's conception of this spell is to do the subspell. I'm not sure how SCS works but I would imagine the AI would have to be changed to account for a drastic change to this spell. Actually now that I think about it. Is the SCS AI more "fleshed out" to work with Vanilla Spells compared to SR? I would imagine one has more work and testing than the other. I just left the underdark and I'm about to go kill bodhi and I haven't found a significant number of mages breaching me or using anti-magic spells. The only thing that gets spammed often is remove magic. I remember a really nasty remove magic from the Drow Lich. I don't know if this is a scripted "cheaty" remove magic or if it was a sequencer but he insta casted 3 remove magics as soon as combat started followed by Incendiary Cloud. Luckily I had buffs in my sequencers and his cloud position was off so I killed him first time. Does SCS or SR or both fix that old bug that made casters interrupt their spells even if they took no damage from having over 100% in the corresponding elemental resistance?

My install is older. I think it's been several months since I made this client. All of these spells mention Dispelling Screen as one of the spell protections they deal with. Maybe worth mentioning in the description as a counter to Spell Shield. Can you help me update my current one? Not having breach stopped by spell deflections feels like it goes against everything SCS stands for. As it's stands the only thing it would stop it is Dispelling Screen and maybe Spell Shield? Didn't test the latter one. It would just take at worst 3 casts of Breach or 1 Dispel Magic and 2 Breaches to solve any mage encounter. Isn't this too strong? The way I currently play (and understand spell combat) is that I need to dispel combat protections so the mage can die to my summons/fighters/rogues/Melf's/Clouds. If that's the ultimate goal, and assuming Breach is fixed to no longer bypass Spell Deflection, wouldn't Pierce Shield solve almost every encounter with a single cast? I guess the only thing it can stop it is Spell Shield so at worst a single mage can be killed by casting 2 Pierce Shields. The way I pictured this in my head was that Breach like effects needed to be stopped by almost every spell protection, then spell protections need to be removed by anti-magic spells and you can use spell shield to stop those but only once. Unless I'm missing something, PIerce Shield would be better than even Spellstrike. In my head I though that because Secret Word can't dispel Spell Trap, that Spell Trap would be stronger/stop Secret Word from working. If this is how it works then maybe Spell Thrust is not as bad as I though? One of the main things I have an issue as a mage is illusion spells protected by Non-Detection. So maybe if mages have Spell Deflection/Greater Spell Deflection I can cast Spell Thrust (hopefully it will bypass everything and just get the Non-detection down) and then cast Detect Invisibility/True Sight. Or I can just bring a rogue and detect illusions for a round.

I sat down at an Inn and started testing some of the anti-magic spells in the game and I the results don't seem to be in accordance to the description. All my tests were done casting spells of protected party members. 1. Secret Word, Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield, Khelben's Warding Whip, Ruby Ray of Reversal and Spellstrike will not remove Dispelling Screen even though in their description they claim to do so. 2. Spell Shield will absorb Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield and Spellstrike while preventing the secondary component of those spells to activate, the Lowered Magic, Breach and Spell Failure effect. This does not seem to be the case with Khelben's Warding Whip. It will remove Spell Shield and continue to remove other spell protections every round. 3. The breach component of Pierce Shield seems to ignore other spell protections. If I have a mage with Greater Spell Deflection and Spell Trap it will dispel both my Spell Trap and Stoneskin while leaving my Greater Spell Deflection up. This might be related to point 5 in a much bigger issue. 4. Secret Word will post in the chat "Spell Protection Dispelled" even though it gets nullified by Spell Trap. 5. And the worst of all. Breach is NOT getting stopped by Greater Spell Deflection or Spell Trap. Never really tested it before because that's the whole point of SCS/SR so I'm not sure what's going on here. I might have a bugged install? Does breach skip spell protections if casted on party members? Again, all of this was tested by casting spells on myself or party members and reloading. Bonus: False Dawn has a conflicting description. It says 20' radius in the top breakdown but the description says 30'.

If I'm allowed to add something to this. Maybe it's because the way I play RTwP games but I almost never use AoEs unless my group can take no damage from them. Yes you can try to snipe once in a while an enemy group from the sidelines, something that gets increasingly more difficult to do in BG2 because of the lack of open spaces, the linearity of the scripted story and SCS making all relevant enemies protected to everything. Protection from Fire comes much early than Protection from Magical Energy for arcane casters and shows up at all in the Divine Caster kit. Giving you the ability to protect your party from Fire much earlier and faster. There are also some decently common items that make Fire Resistance fairly common. To me this is an advantage to Fireball. Most enemies early in the games when these spells are relevant are not going to be fire immune while you can make your party be. Not taking into account the fact you want to be doing this anyway since a lot of mages use fireballs as is, helping you kill a lot of their own companions, summons and/or minions. Also I think SR(R) makes Skull Trap not works against undead which is a negative towards the spell. All of this paints a picture that skull trap might not be as deserving of so many nerfs. The current sorcerer that I'm playing picked Skull Trap over Fireball mostly because of the abundance of Fireball Wands in BG1 (this was before you introduced the wand charge nerf). My experience with skull trap hasn't been amazing. Using it as a trap seems really unreliable to me. If you see a group of enemies, cast skull traps on the way, then lure them. First of all is hard to tell how close you can get without triggering the trap yourself. Second, you have to use other tools to lure them with enough leeway, like dimension jump, or haste, or boost of speed, or slowing them. Third, even if it goes off, a lot of the times the group of enemies I lured gets fragmented on their way over and only hits the first 2-3 out of the rest. Maybe if skull trap had a triggering radius of 5-10' might help with some of these issues. Having the enemies only trigger the trap when they touch the skull might not be awful. If an enemy mages uses that on me and I happen to dodge it by an inch then it all of the sudden there is some terrain control by the enemy not freely allowing me to use all the battlefield for movement. I might end up kitting something into it by mistake. I understand the problems with traps is that it encourages to use meta knowledge to abuse them but honestly you can't really stop someone from playing how they want to. I would rather develop for people who want to make the game fun for themselves. The problem with cheese tactics is when you NEED to use them to win, or when you stumble upon them by being creative yet punishing you with boring gameplay that invalidates other options.

Does someone knows if IR(R) moves the Short Sword of Backstabbing in BG2? According to the wiki it says "The Shadow's Blade" is rewarded by providing evidence and killing Mae'var. I did a long time ago and I didn't get it. The only mods that I could think of that could affect this items are "Rogues Rebalanced" "SCS" and "IRR".

I've been eyeing out your mod for a while now. I might try it for the next playthrough but I want to finish this one as is. I'm a little concerned by the drastic nature of the change. Do you play with it often? I guess maybe this is a dumb question to ask the author... do you like it? @Bartimaeus I started re-reading spells and MR is inconsistently displayed . For example, Fire Seeds ignores MR but it doesn't say so in the description. Am I supposed to infer that summon weapon attacks ignore MR by default? Sol's Searing Orb specifically mentions that it ignores MR but Melf's Minute Meteors does not. A lot of these summoned weapon attacks have saves and behave like spells so it didn't seem far fetched that they would mention how they interact with MR if relevant. In my quick search for MR ignoring spells in the middle of combat I'm quickly scanning text for the words "Magic Resistance" and if I don't see them then the default position is that the spell gets blocked by MR.

Sol's Searing Orb, False Dawn, Sunray, Creeping Doom, and Earthquake: You have a point, mind you these are all divine spells. I mean my point was not particularly strong, there are ways to defeat them with summons and fighters as well. That fight was more annoying based on circumstance. Misc recently got perma'd so I'm running with 5 people. Jaheira is stuck in the druid level lull and she only has 1 (7th) and 2 (6ths) slots, most of which were spent. I think I had sunray from dawnstar +4 but I didn't remember that skips MR. I also change my gameplay based on my protagonists class. If I'm playing a mage I try to solve problems with my main character as a mage and I keep everyone else mostly a supporting roles. So maybe that's why as a mage I felt solving that encounter felt disappointing. This comes back to my previous suggestion. I just need to sit down and re-read all spells now paying attention to the MR part of it since it's increasingly becoming more relevant. That being said, personally I find MR design just awkward. We already have saves, elemental resistances and combat protections. Lower Resistance seems to be only really fun to use if combined with Spell Trigger. At the high MR levels that the game puts into the game, MR is essentially an ON or OFF effect. Either enemies have it and might as well treat it like it's 100% or they don't. I don't see why Lower Resistances needs to lower MR by such a small amount when it takes a single (but correct) spell to take down combat/spell protections. I've been relaying a lot more on Pierce Magic because of this. I probably just need more experience with it. Malison also feels like a disappointment to use. I throw it in every time but the high MR from drows, or honestly any enemy worth debuffing instead of out-right killing, makes it not do anything. Even if it lands through the high MR now your subsequent spells need to roll the dice against MR and then a save on top of it. I keep trying to buff spell thrust because out of all the "dispel" effects, it's really the weakest. Doesn't go through liches, yeah it's aoe but it will not go through high level spell protections so its rare when that's useful. Secret Word is just one level later and so far has remained pretty useful. At this point I'm just throwing ideas to see what sticks but maybe it could work like Pierce Magic? but only 1 round of MR nullification. That way you can combo it with malison or another mage's AoE. You can time spell thrust with one mage then land a horrid wilting with another. I don't think it should cannibalize Pierce Magic that much. Maybe it could be 50% MR reduction for 1 round instead. Not sure. I'll finish the game first and then bring you more mature feedback. ------------------------------ BTW I've been getting this bug for a while now and I'm not sure if it's SRR fault but I'll bring it up. I'm noticing sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, spells are failing to cast from metamagic like triggers and contingencies. I got reminded of it because it happened to the Drow Lich. He used his chain contingency and out of the 3 spells only 1 happened. The other 2 said in chat something like "the spell failed to cast" or something along those lines. This happened to me a couple times and it seems to happen more often with certain spells. For example I stopped putting skull traps into my sequencer because at some point when I went to use them, all on them failed to cast. Then I would proceed to test it and they would cast just fine every time I tested it. Normally it would be a long time before I would use a sequencer so maybe time/resting/reloading a multiplayer game affects this somehow. I hadn't brought it up before because I couldn't replicate it reliably. Now that it happened to an enemy I feel confident enough to bring it up. If it ever happens again I'll try to remember to take a screenshot.

Hey I noticed too, but there are so battles that just require 6 text changes while others require hundreds. I had to give in on the scimitar one. At least I can solve it on my own end without a text patching macro.

Now I get to bother you over here. Suggestion: At one point you made Fireburst only work on enemies to give this spell something special compared to similar AoE. I bring this up because I just did the house you get access to after you kill the Drow Lich in the underdark, and even though it was certainly not "hard", boy was it annoying to deal with all of those 20 high MR drows. I sure wished there was a way to either lower MR in AoE. Or, maybe an AoE spell that ignores MR. See where I'm going with this? Maybe it's my fault for not being more knowledgeable about MR spells but I believe there isn't a single AoE nuke that ignores MR. I was lucky that as a Dragon Disciple I got a single cast of my breath weapon and that thing apparently ignores MR. Would it be too silly to make Fireburst ingore MR? You can even roll back the enemies only change if you think it's more appropiate. I can understand a single boss enemy with high MR, I can even understand multiple enemies with low MR. But multiple enemies with high MR seems tedious or annoying to deal with. Maybe if the idea is sound, add another single way to address this? Maybe spell thrust could have a small MR reducing component, like 20% or something like that. If not spell thrust, maybe malison could at least ignore MR or even lower it a bit as well. It feels pretty nerfed to me and for a spell that is supposed to make you more "susceptible to magic" it would not be insane to think it might lower your natural magic resistance a tad without bringing it back to OP territory. Or maybe I'm just not using the right tactics in these types of combat. I mean I did kill them without anybody dying. Mostly with summons, MMM and banishing their summons.

I feel personally attacked. I bet at least 2 extra people will notice the difference... right?... Thank you for spending your free time working on the update and accommodating so many annoying requests that probably don't even affect the client you play in. I'm looking forward to my next run.

Scimitars: Understandable. I tend to manually go in in NI and manually rewriting some stuff myself after all my installs if necessary, thankfully not needed for scimitars if I edit the item descriptions file. BTW is there an easier way to edit the dialog.tlk file than NI? <DOTS>: This is how it looks by default in the latest IRR. This is one that I'm currently using and manually edited it myself: Notice the proficiency titles renamed to have BOTH weapons just like inside the description. Instead of "Short Sword" is "Short Sword/Ninja-To". Also notice the spaces between the line breaks between the <DOTS>. If you don't have them then the paragraphs describing all the different proficiency levels of those weapons are smushed together. All the other weapon proficiencies use these line breaks on their descriptions. Not sure if it's an EE thing or not. Proficiency text on actual weapons: Well, it's obviously up to you. When I invest a proficiency point I'm very keenly aware of what weapons become usable due to the name "Short Sword/Ninja-To". I understand that is a 2 for 1 deal and it also shows in my character record screen as "Short Sword/Ninja-To". I sometimes have a hard time telling what a weapon is supposed to be because several weapons share the same animation or break conventions like a dagger that deals 1d6 damage. Sure you can have a ninja-to that says "Proficiency Type: Short Sword/Ninja-To" and it will convey you already have that proficiency, but saying "Proficiency Type: Ninja-To" will also convey this while at the same time telling very specifically what type of weapon this should be. The way you currently have it it will say "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" on a ninja-to which to me sounds obfuscated since the paper model doesn't look like a Short Sword. Why is that useful? Well, not sure if it matters. I like to compare the weapons stats based on what I know Ninja-Tos should look like maybe... I guess I find it annoying that I can't look at a weapon at not immediately tell what it's supposed to be. It's worse with Katanas and Wakishashis since they are both part of the same proficiency and have the same animation. Technically doesn't matter if you are wearing one but damn it I want to know. This is how it looks in my character record: These are my edits to make this happen: I obviously also called the right macro per weapon. In this case all of them very minor and easy edits, and at least on my end I haven't found a single item out of line up to the underdark. Magic Resistance: Hmm if I were to do it I might do something like Saving Throw: None Magic Resistance: Ignores Saving Throw: Negates Magic Resistance: Negates Saving Throw: Partial Magic Resistance: Special Ignores means it will ignore MR, Negates is just like making your saving throw, if the creature makes it's "MR roll" then it negates the spell. Special would probably be exclusively for "Lower Resistance" and "Pierce Magic". Summons could either skip the line entirely or use "None" or "Ignores".

Regarding description rewriting. I've been doing it and so far it seems to work. I've also added (manually instead of a macro though) "Keen:" to every scimitar since I play with 3e scimitars. Lower casing dice both in SR and IR and up-casing the damage types and what not. Now my experience is not exhaustive but so far it's been working and haven't noticed any inconsistencies. Now that I have your attention on descriptions. I think weapon proficiencies have 2 inconsistency issues. The ones patched (short sword, katana, mace... maybe another one, can check at the moment) their translation files have them listed this way <DOT1> <DOT2> <DOT3> <DOT4> <DOT5> without any spaces. I'm not sure if this is EE only but all other proficiencies have spaces/line breaks between every <DOT> entry. The other issue I have with them, and this might be a personal one, is that I prefer weapons to list their proficiency as the actual weapon they are. So currently, both short swords and ninja-tos show "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" while I think it would be more intelligible if it was "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" or"Proficiency Type: Ninja-To" based on the actual weapon it is. To match this change, I think the actual proficiency names in the proficiency screen should be "Short Sword/Ninja-To" or "Katana/Wakisashi" or "Mace/Morning Star". This way you can tell what weapon something is by looking at it's proficiency while at the same time you can tell what proficiency is relevant for that weapon based on the name of said proficiency mentioning both weapons it pertains to. I believe if you install the cdtweaks component that changes weapons proficiencies on top of IR it fixes some of these issues, but I keep fixing them myself by creating my own functions in the code that call for the macros to rename them properly. About the only one I haven't wanted to mess with creating is the "Keen:" one for scimitars since I'm not sure I understand how to do it yet so I just manually do it. Obviously it's up to you, but if I can convince you to like some of these changes it will offload some of the work I have to manually do every time I download a new version of IRR and SRR SR descriptions: This is probably also a personal taste thing, but, do you think it might be worth it to add a new item to the top of spell descriptions, maybe right after the "Saves: partial" that at a glance highlights if the spell bypasses MR? Just as a convenience thing mostly. Maybe we could add some of the mage chess info there as well, like if something is considered a spell protection or a combat protection. Just a thought.

I believe EET requires SoD. EET makes the stats consistent across both games favoring the stats of BG2. There are mods that allow you to customize this however so at the end it's up to you. Stat increases and class changes will carry over to the next game. For example in my current playthough I dualed Imoen to mage at level 4 thief and gave her the tome of intelligence and both of those changes carried over to the next game.

This could definitely help. Thank you! I'm probably gonna find sometime this weekend and see what I can get done. @Bartimaeus I got some more annoying questions. The way I understand how IR(R) works: The "main component" basically just has a lot of custom versions of vanilla items like the Claw of Kazgaroth that the mod just copies over to the override folder and then proceeds to patch the right dialog.tlk strings for the descriptions to match. Every other component will use patch routines to standardize items to a new set of behavior based on either the armor/weapon stat tables or the different sub-components that change backstab multipliers, etc. Presumably these patch routines could also patch items copied over by the "main component", so if the main component installs a custom version of the Scarlet Ninja-To, then IR(R) further modifies it based on other settings like what the weapon table says the damage of a ninja-to should be like. On top of all of this I think there is custom "exception" code that will purposely exclude custom IR(R) items to be patched by the sub-components if they are meant to be different than other items in that category. For example custom named daggers that do 1d6 damage instead of 1d4. Assuming I understand all of this correctly. Does IR(R) only patch items that are in the lib/*_list.tpa files? So if a mod adds a new ninja-to but I told IR to make ninja-tos 1d12 slashing, any new items that were properly installed before running IR(R) will NOT see their stats changed? If I were to add items to this list manually. What is the extend of the automatic description modifications? Will items added by other mods have descriptions that perfectly match IR(R) items? My assumption based on the little code I saw is that it will adapt the blurb at the end of the item, like the strength requirement or add the "damage type: slashing" line to it but the main item effects at the top will not be adapted. Like for example, it will not remove the hyphen from each item special effect/ability. Assuming the above is correct. I noticed that @Cahir already provided you with updated *_list.tpa for items dealt with by the SoD-to-BG2 mod. Does that mean that most SoD items should be already getting patched by the sub-components? (Probably something only cahir would not the answer to) Then it's stands to reason that the only thing you are missing is manually going through all the SoD items and change the ones you feel need a manual touch up so they better fit the IR(R) ethos? --------- On a separate note. At what caster level do items cast spells? and is it affected by other mods that change the scroll casting levels? How do you feel about changing descriptions to dice numbers from 1D12 to 1d12 or changing the upper case on description items like "Damage type: slashing" to "Damage Type: Slashing" to be more consistent with other items stat entries like "Proficiency Type: Axe" or "Speed Factor: 6". These are changes I already make to IR(R) and SR(R) descriptions every time myself based on my own preference. My love for ocd like consistency is the bane of my modding adventures on any game.

I also agree with this but to a limit. Do to the nature of mods, we are changing things for what we think it's better. IR changed attribute settings items because it felt it was worse for the game but the end result arguably just shifted the power balance without spreading it (easily fixable by using 3e stats). As a player it sucks when you have a cool idea but the game doesn't do the bare minimum to reward you gameplay or your build choices. There is so much suspension of disbelief I can do to my gameplay before I just can't justify playing unfun and unrewarding playstyles that look like they could be possible if only we tweak the numbers a little. We don't have to make everything perfectly balanced but maybe striving for closing the gap to make playstyles viable would increase the levels of fun for people that want to try something new. That being said my original point was an open ended one about the personal struggle I face when modding videogames too much to the point of becoming unrecognizable.

Do you mean something like this? SetPrivateProfileString('Mage Spells','SPWI606','93') My lua file already has this line in it but this specific spell doesn't work while using SRR.

As a fan of newer DnD editions I tend to agree with this yet I personally struggle with the idea of modding a game too hard to the point of being unrecognizable from the original "spirit". This is obviously a personal choice and a shifting line but there is something to be said for both sides. One of the issues IR and SR has going on for it is not being able to control or know what the greater balance of the rest of the game looks like to make spell or item changes. Including but not limited to kits, HLAs, stats, the combat encounters, etc. I was recently making the point that the change to items from setting an attribute to giving a flat bonus to said attribute doesn't work very well without 3e DnD style attributes. In vanilla+IR that belt that patched a strength hole on a character but didn't help an already strong one, now in theory should help both but in practice the already strong one becomes busted while the weak one remains unaffected do to how all strength bonuses are staked towards the end.

Yeah I'm currently using v32 and it's unlikely it's safe to upgrade but it would be nice to know how it got fixed so I can look forward to it next time.

I could probably do this with IE but do you know of a way to filter down the list to only items from SoD? I guess if it was easy you wouldn't need help. I'm gonna give it a shot and see what I can find. Even if it's a few at a time. I'm gonna use the wiki to help myself out. I do remember that I got a Ring of Free Action and for some reason the one you can get in SoD was vanilla even though I had already another gotten from BG1 that was patched by IR. I guess the SoD one uses a different .itm file which seems weird. Ring of Clumsiness: I agree with you, not a big fan of percentage based stat changes. It's hard to balance since we play with 3e like stats. That being said, isn't that what IR balances around anyway? In vanilla, if you had a character with average strength (lets say 10) the Girdle of Hill Giant Strength would patch this weakness on a character and make them a good fighter while an already good fighter would not benefit at all from it. Thanks to IR changes to item stats now the belt can benefit both characters but not truly without 3e like stats. The character that was already strong gets even more busted quickly while the character with 10 strength now has 13 and no combat improvements to show for it. It's kinda the reason why you changed the Claw of Kazgaroth to be -10% for the vanilla con system while I think with the 3e stats the -2 con would preserve that DnD feeling a lot more. Besides interacting with attributes feels more fun to me than +10% more this or that. In the spirit of making cursed items interesting trade-offs, I'm stretching the cause of the clumsiness to be recklessness or poorly thought out actions. The lore description on the ring doesn't exclude this possibility. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the Jester met his ultimate demise at the hands of that wizard and couldn't escape "quickly enough". The strength was an attempt to give something of value to melee characters. On the mage side of things: 1/5 change to fail your spell cast but your spells cast 4 faster. On the fighter side of things: Your thaco is worse by -2 but your damage is +4 OR maybe spray and pray "flailing" style more APR. An alternative interesting effect could be to make the weapon drop to the ground or to your inventory with a 5% chance. Not sure how easy that would be to pull off. Maybe you are so uncoordinated now that you have a horrible off-hand thaco killing dual-wielding. Or a random chance that when you are attacking you can fall prone for 1 round. The upside needs to be worth it for SOME builds. Or at least addressable to some degree with magic, potions, scrolls or gameplay choices.

Reduces dexterity and stealth to 50%.Casting failure is 75% while wearing this ring. Being clumsy can have several degrees. Maybe the downsides could be tuned down to 25% each, probably even removing the stealth part since lower dex already affects thief skills. The upside of being clumsy or "careless" could be that since you don't put that much though behind your actions consequences you miss more but you hit harder or maybe you rush to action without thinking so your weapon speed could be set to the fastest and also your casting speed is lowered. Like the concept of "spray and pray" in an FPS. Equipped Effects: Casting Failure +20% penalty Casting Speed: +4 bonus Dexterity: -20% penalty (or -4 dexterity) Strength: +20% bonus (or +4 strength) I know maybe the Casting Speed bonus looks big but casting failure is the worst. If you need a breach out right now and it fails, not only your casting speed became +9 at least because of the wasted round but it leaves the enemies open to cast another AoE or another summon. Maybe if you are the type of fighter that wants to do more damage at the expense of AC in melee or THACO in range you can do so. As a mage I'm not sure I would take it still. I really hate casting failure but I might after experiencing +4 casting, not sure. Obviously it can be workshop-ed or approached from a different angle. The description can be slightly updated to highlight the clumsiness comes from increase reckless abandon. The Claw of Kazgaroth: It's essentially a Ring of Protection +2 with a downside as is. One of the upsides is you can get a Ring of Protection +2 early in baldur's gate if you buy the claw. I don't think you can actually get them until you make it to baldur's gate 2 and even then I've only seen 1 so far. The missile AC is useful only early BG1 so it's a plus to get it early. Maybe... Maybe it should also make you immune to death ward? That would make me sweat a little. Make sure I have Spell Deflection Up more often. Or maybe it could reduce healing received by half. Amp up the weakened/closer to death angle. I'll mull it over some more and maybe show you some more ideas that might inspire you or someone else to refine them or come up with something else.

I play with SR(R) and I noticed that the keybind spell menu doesn't contain the right names. At the beginning I though it was just a cosmetic issue but I'm starting to notice that is more than that. Some spells do work but I have others that do not for seemingly no reason. For example, Protection from Magic Energy. This is SPWI606, if I bind it to a key and check my baldur.lua file it seems correctly assigned like this: SetPrivateProfileString('Mage Spells','SPWI606','93') So the keybind is pointing at the right spell name but it still doesn't work. My question is, what mod domain would be the one to talk to fix something like this. Is it, SR? maybe my UI mod so LeUI? Who's responsible for keybinds?