Luke

Unless I am missing something (which, for this kind of code-insert, is always possible) that's nothing to do with SCS - I'm not adding or subtracting things in the CLAB files, unless they're granted spells (and this is an AP_xxxx, I think). One possibility (I don't have BGEE handy right now) is that Borda is a spellcaster whose level is being adjusted down from 7. In which case, there's nothing I can really do about it: I can't auto-adjust third-party CLAB settings without systematically parsing the CLAB file, which is what people (including, on reflection, me) would prefer I didn't do. Yes, I'm talking about an AP_xxxx, so it's probably caused by that level adjustment......

Yep, I confirm: the special field of opcode #328 is now correctly set to 1 BUT: Only Level 7+ Thieves should get it (in the CLAB table the ability is listed under the level 7 column) ----> for some reason, Borda (level 6/6/6) gets it while he shouldn't..... Carbos and Shank lose their Poison Weapon ability ----> they don't have it memorized (I didn't install RR this time). This is probably unrelated with the fix you provided for opcode #328, but it's still worth mentioning......

I see, thanks for the clarification. And yes, on EE games both Assassins and Blackguards use SPCL423, so that's why Wisp created a new SPL for his revised Assassin (to be honest, I'm the one who asked him to do so .....)

That's why I asked if from v32 on AI will use vanilla abilities (e.g., SPCL423.spl) regardless of the actual content of each CLAB table (sorry if you didn't miss the edit to my previous post......) RR changed the spell file name because of this: EE: Assassin's Poison Weapon does not mess with Blackguard's.

Will do. Moreover, I noticed there are problems with other modified abilities too. For example, if you install RR Thief Kit Revisions, then all Assassins will correctly gain the new Poison Weapon ability (i.e., FL#TAS02.spl) BUT their script is not updated accordingly (they're basically scripted to use vanilla SPCL423.spl, so they never use Poison Weapon......) I guess that from v32 on, SCS Assassins will use SPCL423.spl regardless of what abilities contain the corresponding CLAB table, right?

This is DavidW's full answer to opcode #328 (in case you missed it in the other thread): "Because SCS's kit-processing system doesn't think to check for the "special" field. (I think that bit of code probably predates any extensive use of the field in the EE.) It's fixable; on the other hand, I'm persuaded by subtledoctor that it's not sensible for compatibility for SCS to try being that broad in its approach to kits, so from v32 I'll be leaving it to other mods to impose their own kit effects if they add them." So: from v32 on, SCS will process only vanilla kit effects and hopefully there will be no more issues like this one......

I see, thanks for clarifying. I also agree with Subtledoctor on SCS's kit-processing system... In the meantime, do you have a temporary fix?

That seems to be the case: SCS detects a new ability in the CLAB table of Thieves and adds it where appropriate ----> The problem is that the special field is set to 0 instead of 1. Moreover, I don't think this is a small bug: are you sure that opcode works the same? If special is 0, then parameter1 = 252 is (obviously) UNKNOWN....

@DavidW Suppose I want to add an extra (passive) ABILITY to every thief kit in the game. This ability contains a single melee header with one opcode #328 (parameter2 = 252, special = 1). Now: SCS correctly adds this new ability where appropriate (it basically adds a CRE effect with opcode #328) BUT for some reason, the special field is set to 0 instead of 1. Why!?

Nope, SCS does not add a second opcode #328 with special = 0, it modifies the existing one....... Moreover, the same happens if you do not add that opcode to enemy thieves (i.e., if you just add it to the appropriate CLAB tables and comment out the following piece of code:

It's really simple: if parameter1 of opcode #328 is set to 252 (EVASION_CHECK), then the special field must be set to 1 (IWD2 mode). The problem is that SCS sets it to 0 and this is not good...... I'm glad to hear the next version will apply only vanilla kit effects to enemy CREs, but for the time being it'd be nice to have a temporary fix........ Well - no mod except mine, AFAIK. And my mod gives Evasion to enemy .CRE files directly, without any need for SCS intervention (and it sets the 'Special' field to 1). This. I usually install Scales of Balance before SCS. Once SCS is installed, the special field of that opcode is 0 (a bug in 'Smarter general AI' probably........) I quoted you in this thread because we were discussing about how SCS applies kit effects to enemy CREs...

Fun fact: it seems SCS fails to apply that opcode ---> I mean, everything is fine but the special field: it is set to 0 (IWD mode) instead of 1 (IWD2 mode)........ Guess we need to make a little patch that should go right after SCS........ How about a fix in actual code? Do you mean you have a temporary fix for this issue?

It's really simple: if parameter1 of opcode #328 is set to 252 (EVASION_CHECK), then the special field must be set to 1 (IWD2 mode). The problem is that SCS sets it to 0 and this is not good...... I'm glad to hear the next version will apply only vanilla kit effects to enemy CREs, but for the time being it'd be nice to have a temporary fix........

Fun fact: it seems SCS fails to apply that opcode ---> I mean, everything is fine but the special field: it is set to 0 (IWD mode) instead of 1 (IWD2 mode)........ Guess we need to make a little patch that should go right after SCS........

Why you renamed the file? It's literally ".gitignore" with a dot at the beginning. I see, thanks for clarifying -----> reverted it back to ".gitignore".

Could you explain how to use .gitignore ? I have the following file (named as macOS.gitignore) in the main directory of my project..... Nonetheless, sometimes files like .DS_Store pop up in the Source Control of my Text Editor (i.e., they're flagged as pending changes......)

Yeah..... Formal Languages and Compilers: one of the most difficult (and fascinating?) course of the entire M.Sc. in Computer Science and Engineering.....

Anyway, since this dagger is meant to be droppable, what about giving it a unique Inventory Icon? If I'm not mistaken, it's currently using that of the ordinary dagger, which is kinda meh.......

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Precisely To tell the truth, I've already written a mini mod to set the number of charges of all wands to 10 and to prevent stores from buying them..........

I noticed SCS alters the AI of both vanilla .CRE (for instance, mages) and .CREs added by other mods. Is this intended?

Well, this is not the department of SCS (I'm pretty sure IR takes care of that.....) IR changes the kobold dagger by turning it to a weapon with charges? I don't think so. Weapons that do bonus damage and other effects and don't have a permanent dweomer or aren't magical at all have charges in PnP. Sorry, for some reason I thought you were discussing about tweaking the number of charges associated to wands and other similar items......

Well, I think this is subjective. I mean, let's consider Carsomyr as an example: it has a base damage of 1d12 instead of 1d10 like every other greatsword. Yes, sure, this is not game breaking.... Still, someone may not like it and may want all greatswords to have a base damage of 1d10 That's why I asked @DavidW to provide a list of the items (in particular weapons/armors/shields) introduced by his mod ----> it shouldn't be difficult to create a mini mod that can standardize everything introduced by this mod...... Once I know the item code (e.g., dw#[0-9]*[a-z]*.itm), it's just a matter of using COPY_EXISTING along with ALTER_ITEM_HEADER.......)

Got it. I usually install the main component of IR right after spell mods (i.e., after IWDification or Shadow Magic) but before kit mods. The remaining components go right after Tweaks Anthology..........

Well, this is not the department of SCS (I'm pretty sure IR takes care of that.....)

So, are you saying it's safe to install IR (but the main component) *after* SCS? Alternatively, could you provide a list of those items so that they can be patched right after SCS?