Jump to content

DavidW

Gibberlings
  • Posts

    6,404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DavidW

  1. I don't think either do anything except enable the quest.
  2. I can't reproduce this on an SCS-only install. What else do you have installed?
  3. Again, not in SCS's remit. (Use SI:Abjuration.)
  4. If you're cloning spells, it will lead to other problems: spells that give explicit immunity to a spell won't give immunity to the cloned copy. I imagine you're patching that at the point at which the mod is installed, but that won't help for subsequent mods. I take the point about Cowled Wizards (and thanks: that hadn't occurred to me as an issue) but I suspect it's the lesser of two evils. SR behavior isn't being modified by SCS, but only because SCS explicitly insulates SR. Specifically, SCS does (by design) rewrite fiend-summoning spells, to summon alignment-appropriate fiends, but it excludes the player-controlled version from that rewrite if SR is installed, and it does so by giving it renamed resources. (I can't just skip these changes entirely if SR is installed, because enemy AI relies on them, and coding around that exceeds the amount of effort I'm prepared to go to to support SR's spell system.) That works fine for SR itself, but it creates problems when some third mod uses summoned-fiend resources too. SCS doesn't know that, so there's a mismatch between what the cloned spell does (summon a friendly fiend) and what the resources do (create a fiend with an I'm-not-friendly script). That isn't to say there's anything intrinsically wrong with FnP's clone strategy - it's a tradeoff between one set of problems and another. Ultimately the spell system is not by nature modular.
  5. Casts, or clones? From Alkaid's description it sounds as if the new spell points to an effect file that points to a cre file (which sounds like a clone of SPWI807), not points direct to SPWI807.
  6. In SCS: - the default summoned fiends have an AI script intended for uncontrollable, hostile fiends - if those fiends are summoned by an enemy (mostly this is liches, plus a very few living spellcasters) they swap to a much better-behaved, more controllable script - there is a narrow and hidden route by which players can also summon controllable fiends. In that case, again they get the better behaved script. That script will only have the fiends cast spells if they have no player instructions running (and you can turn off their AI entirely by hotkey). If SR is also installed, the player-summoned fiends are SR's, not SCS's, so the SCS behavior doesn't get seen at all. In this case, it sounds as if FnP has a fiend-summoning spell that is supposed to summon a player-controlled fiend (in which case you'll get a fiend with a script that doesn't fit its allegiance). But without looking at the spell, I can't tell directly.
  7. SCS isn't touching the FnP spell directly, it's touching DEMGLASU. It's adjusting hit points (in 'Improved Fiends') because I want to standardize hp before applying SCS's difficulty-based hp modifications (albeit I think the standardization is slightly funky - it should be setting hp to 80, not 70, and it shouldn't be leaving max hp unchanged).
  8. Yes, I'm not quite sure why SCS is doing that. (It definitely is, I just can't recall the rationale.) There's only so much I can do to catch third-party-added fiend-summoning spells, of course.
  9. There is no SCS 'Shapeshifter Rebalancing (Weimer)' component. SCS's 'Improved Shapeshifting' component has this description in the mod readme: There's nothing about immunity to +1 weapons. (Nor should there be, as it's absurdly overpowered. CHARNAME getting immunity to nonmagical weapons at the end of Shadows of Amn is arguably a bit overpowered; getting it at 1st level would be ridiculous.)
  10. OK, so 'DWDVGLAB.cre' and 'DWDVPITF.cre' are clones of, respectively, DEMGLASU.cre and DEMPITSU.cre. I make them so that I can isolate SR's versions of the spell from SCS's versions (which inter alia might summon demons or devils depending on caster alignment). SCS mages carry on using the SCS versions but players keep the SR versions. I don't otherwise modify those files - they should be identical to the SR versions - although they might be being swept up in some of SCS's general hp/thac0/save algorithms. What's actually wrong with them?
  11. There were some specific conversations between me and Demivrgvs, ages ago, about how to make SCS's and SR's death knights and fiend summons play nicely with each other; DWDVGLAB is one of the consequences of that, I think. It wouldn't surprise me if subsequent changes in how either SR or SCS is implemented has messed it up (to say nothing of SR-vs-SRR issues).
  12. To comment on this from a design perspective: SCS's design philosophy is to adjust the AI to play as effectively as possible within the existing rule system, and only to modify that rule system if it creates hard blocks, hard counters, or otherwise breaks gameplay. (This isn't SR(R)'s design philosophy, because SR(R) is a spell-revisions mod, not an enemy-AI mod.) So, from that perspective: in the vanilla game liches are immune to all level 1-5 spells, period. (You can't breach a lich's PMW in unmodded BG2, iirc - in fact I don't think there's any alternative to waiting it out.) So I'm not asking 'does it make sense for this to extend to antimagic attacks' but 'does this extending to antimagic attacks create insuperable problems?' From that POV, it's not a problem that Spell Thrust and Secret Word don't affect liches - there are other, higher level, anti-spell-defense spells, like Ruby Ray, that do affect them. But it is a problem that Breach doesn't affect them, because Breach is singular: no other spell does what it does. Short of adding new higher-level spells (which is again rather outside SCS's scope), letting Breach penetrate liches' defenses (and of course documenting that in the in-game description and mod readme) is the most minimal solution. Now, SCS has over the years got a bit more relaxed about spell system tweaks, both as it's got more popular (so that I don't need to worry so much about losing audience) and as WEIDU, and my ability to code in WEIDU, has got more sophisticated. These days I might consider just having a blanket rule that antimagic spells ignore level-based immunities - it would certainly be more legible to players, without seriously affecting game balance. There are implementation issues but they're not so serious for anti-spell-defense spells. (For Breach, I have to remove liches' immunity to level 5 spells and then manually grant immunity to all other level-5 spells - I can't just mess with the internal spell level because it's referenced in other game effects, e.g. spell turning. But I *think* that would be less of an issue with Spell Thrust and the like.)
  13. The tasloi spear is part of their core animation, i.e. can't be changed. And there aren't really multiple spear types they could carry (halberds are implausible and it's hard to think where they'd get high-quality weapons from).
  14. You can always turn it off using the difficulty control.
  15. This is incorrect. The Calling version only has the story changes, not the AI/tactical changes, and the original version is still available in SCS.
  16. I'm not sure I understand the 'bias towards the defense'. The average attack spell brings down more than one defense, so in a contest between someone who's trying to lower defenses and someone who's trying to raise them, the person trying to raise them is going to get outraced. I suspect the changes your describing will make fighting mages significantly easier for mixed parties, especially at high level. Spellstrike + Breach + melee pile-on will bring down even high-level mages in a few seconds. (At a technical level, though, I think SCS's AI will handle that change fine.) I also suspect your NWN 'spell turning affects AoE' is shifting the balance a lot here. Without it, mid-level and high-level AoE spells become effective against mages. (They have counters, but they're not the same as the counters for single-target spells.)
  17. If you shortened spell durations to 4ish rounds, it would be difficult for wizards to have much time to do anything other than keep their defenses up, even when not under magical attack. If you lengthened attack protection durations, I think it would be overpowered.
  18. The method of reading a file into a data structure, modifying that data structure, and then writing that data structure back into a file, is totally standard in programming.
  19. SCS isn’t really tuned like that - and variation in player skill and party composition is a lot more significant than XP - but if you want a definite answer, probably the TotSC XP threshold, I.e. 161,000.
  20. Yes. How dangerously do you like living? Spell systems are not very modular. SCS assumes the standard choices here; you run the risk of breaking it. No, because WIZARD_ICELANCE isn't listed in overwrite_sr.2da.
  21. Ah. I’m probably not updating the non- Windows versions.
  22. Not that weird. SCS reads the contents of a CLAB file into an array, modifies that array as required, then writes it back. It reads the array via COUNT_2DA_COLS and READ_2DA_ENTRIES_NOW. If there are anomalously short columns, that will miss them. I would complain that people shouldn't break the CLAB file format and that if they do, it's not my fault if it leads to problems - but to be fair, looking at the IESDP writeup for 2da files it's apparently legal to have incomplete rows, so I should probably support the possibility. Probably not an imminent fix, though, as it involves rewriting a routine fairly deep in SCS's kit-editing functionality.
×
×
  • Create New...