DavidW

I'm extremely confused as to how this is happening. If anyone can reproduce on a clean install, let me know. (hulkamania is getting multiple applications of the spell that grants you a save bonus - but those spells are supposed to clean up after themselves, they shouldn't be able to stack like that.)

This is working fine on my install. Probably that means I messed up the hotfix. I hope beta 9 is fairly imminent so I won't try to replicate it.

Going into the weeds a bit: the description of a spell lives in a certain string ref (strref) in the file 'dialog.tlk'. The spell file itself references that strref. SCS reads the strref assigned to it and changes it to include the new spell description. In the unmodded game, the exact same strref is assigned to the scroll description. If the spell and scroll descriptions in your game differ, something must have reassigned the scroll description to a new strref. Do you know how to do a WEIDU change-log? If so, could you run one on SCRL84.ITM ?

OK, I can start a game normally on a clean install of SCS on vanilla BG2 (the GOG version I think). So I'm afraid I don't know what's going on there.

OK, thinking more about this, it's pretty weird and I'm not sure what's going on. Could you email a zipped save file to davidmwwallace@outlook.com ?

Pretty sure, yes.

No, it’s a pure bug. Hit points aren’t meant to be adjustable except in special cases. SCS makes sure NPCs have at least 75% of their max hit points; the algorithm calculating them is broken.

Fixed locally, will be in SCS v35.11 and ToF beta 9.

Interesting - not at all sure how that could happen but I'll take a look when I have a chance.

Thanks for these. Ice Knife is fixed locally, will be in 35.11 (and ToF beta 9). Strength of Stone and Chromatic Orb were fixed in ToF beta 8 but I haven't had a chance to roll those fixes to SCS yet. They'll be in SCS 35.11. I can't reproduce the bugs with scroll descriptions. Do you have any other mods installed? (It's possibly a library fix on my local version that hasn't got to the public release yet.)

I don't use EET myself and ideally I'd support importing. But it will probably be fiddly, and I haven't done a lot of testing on it. I'll check out the rest of these issues when I get the chance.

Not especially, no - I think I was testing on BG2EE, in fact. I'll check if I made a mistake with the upload.

I'll have a look when I get the chance.

The ToB text is the same. But none of it says anything about caster level, so I think deeming it to be cast at level 1 and applying a level 1 (bespoke copy) version of LMD would be fine.

Original (non-EE) BG2?

There is a (new) hotfix to the crash bug at the previous thread. You can probably fix the other problem by dropping the attached file into stratagems/sfo2e/lua (or dw_talents/sfo/lua, as appropriate) before installing. ui_spell_system.tph

OK, I can now reproduce this - thanks for the careful description. Fixed locally (after a painfully long hunt), will be in v35.11 (and ToF beta 9). Until then, drop the attached file into dw_talents/sfo/lua or stratagems/sfo2e/lua. ui_extra_spells.tph

It's a bug: a library that stopped being loaded as of v35. Fixed locally, will be in 35.11; and yes, it will affect all spellcasters, sorry about that.

The specific error is something in the berserker patch but it's difficult to see what - it will be some interaction with your existing mod list but I'm not sure what (the component installs cleanly on my ToF-only install). That chunk of code has in any case been rewritten for beta 9 so I can't easily chase it. If you like, try turning off the berserker changes by setting rebalance_berserker=0 and possibly also rebalance_barbarian=0 in the dw_talents.ini file.

The game will normally treat genasi (and aasimar, and tieflings) as human, though I don't 100% guarantee no problems here. That's very kind. (Though I'm afraid there are still lots of bugs to squash.) Yeah, that does seem kind of out of control. Albeit that is kind of strange. True, but ToF in general goes with the third-edition idea that you should be able to play strange/unusual combinations and make up your own story as to why. (I guess I could have given the new races default class options and then turned them off again if you install the 'allow all class/race combinations' , but it seems a little pointless since players can always make up their own restrictions (as well as being quite difficult to implement - it would have to be done via UI editing).

You can look in stratagems/[genai|mage|priest]/hla_choices/tof to see which ones are supposed to be used. If you're seeing that little, it might be a bug. Neither are applied, no - feats seem low-key enough (most apply passive bonuses) that the effort of writing an installer for them seemed more trouble than it was worth given that the player mostly won't see anything, though I'm open to reconsidering. For 'might' read 'will'. There is certainly some balancing work required but I'm prioritizing getting it stable right now, and struggling to find sufficient time even for that. The HLA allocations probably prioritize flavor over balance - one of SCS's goals is to make sure different sorts of wizards fight differently, rather than just max/min ing. One issue is just that I don't necessarily have a good enough sense myself as to how the various things play together - I have done a practice run with ToF before release but it was mostly to test stability rather than balance (it was TPB, so only up to level 8ish). I would appreciate feedback on this (though, again, balance for now takes a back seat to bugsquashing). That was certainly the goal. Also worth saying that I'm not much of a min-maxer myself and tend to choose options on flavor grounds, and my own playstyle is probably tacitly present in all my mods. (In SCS, my preferred playstyle is Hard but not Insane, and with extra damage turned off.) You can do this yourself if you like - it's controlled in dw_talents.ini. hla_level_min is the level you first get feats, hla_level_step is the subsequent interval. Don't set hla_level_min to 1 or you'll confuse the engine. In general I would welcome feedback on balance, especially on which specific combinations seem to work (maybe too) well.

Which is why mods come in components. Most of ToF doesn't assume its ability score system. (The origin of that system was actually thinking about how much of IWD2 could be done in the EE engine.)

I think you're misunderstanding how that system has evolved. The odd numbers aren't useless in 3e/3.5e - feat qualification requirements are usually odd-numbered, and it functions as a mechanic to ration ability score boosts - but they're certainly much less significant. But the logical conclusion isn't 'we need to invent something for odd-numbered values to do': it's 'we need to drop odd-numbered ability scores entirely'. You see this most clearly in recent versions of Pathfinder - what matters are the bonuses, with the base scores kept around only for nostalgia value, and indeed dropped entirely in the most recent version (one just talks about having Strength +4 or Intelligence -1). Of course, there's a gap between abstract RPG design and what makes sense internal to the IE and its modding community. (It would be technically feasible to move to a pure + system, given UI editing, but it feels like a bridge too far. Though it might be interesting to code, just as an exercise.)

However, ToF should not be that fragile - something isn’t being wrapped in quotes, probably. Could you post m_dw_ssd.lua?

Probably next weekend. (The critical bugs in beta 8 have brought my schedule forward a bit, hotfixes or no.)