DavidW

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.)

OK, I think this is fixed now - a bug that crept into disjunctive_substitution, and also an error in its application. Putting the attached versions of disjunctive_substitution.tph and druid_multiclass.tpa into dw_talents/sfo/lua and dw_talents/kit respectively should hotfix it. Thanks for spotting the problem. I'm pleased someone spotted that! druid_multiclass.tpa disjunctive_substitution.tph

Fixed locally, will be in beta 9. You can hotfix by dropping the attached file into dw_talents/sfo/lua. ui_spell_system.tph

OK, all this should be fixed as of beta 9. Probably a bit complicated to try to hotfix though, sorry.

None taken, but I'd list the common ability-score modifiers as one of the 'good things' in 3e - note that it's stuck around through all subsequent editions, as well as in Pathfinder. Ironically, same XP table for all classes is a 3rd-edition feature I'm much less keen on - at least in a single-player game - and have no interest in bringing into IE.

It's trivial enough to add variant formulas so I might add more, or at least explain to people how to customize it.

Mostly this is SCS, not the unmodded game. The Durlag's Tower encounter, Irenicus-in-Spellhold encounter, and pocket-plane challenge three, all use a fixed CRE file that's cosmetically disguised as the party, using PolymorphCopy or CreateCreatureObjectCopy. (In vanilla BG there's not even a disguise; that's added by BGEE). SCS replaces the first two with actual copies of the PC using a Simulacrum copy. The Spirit Temple witch battle copying is added by SCS, it's not in the vanilla game at all. (I ration myself to one use of this trick per game.)

Just to clarify: it’s not currently a goal of mine to support aTweaks with SCS. Compatibility with mods that install after SCS is very complicated and usually requires active maintenance of the post-SCS mod to allow for SCS’s own evolution. Many years ago I was persuaded to work actively with aTweak’s author to facilitate mutual compatibilty, but that lapsed long ago. My official advice now is that people should either use SCS or aTweaks.

Sorry not to have noticed this before. The change to c#5minhp.spl is harmless (it's riffing of the 101 immunity to petrification and adding additional immunity to petrification via spellstates - that's unnecessary, since c#5minhp.spl is never going to be used on Player1, but SCS can't know that, and it won't do Grey any harm having the effect). The culprit is c#7rest.spl, which contains the Raise Dead opcode (32) and which (I assume) is cast on Grey on party-join. The Raise Dead opcode has a little-used setting to restore the animation of the creature it's used on, and this component of SCS uses that setting to restore the animation of disintegrated or otherwise obliterated characters. It's getting the answer wrong for Grey, because the engine doesn't know about races other than the standard ones and so defaults to human... but in any case SCS doesn't need to patch this spell, because it only needs to use that opcode setting for Resurrection and it's being applied more broadly just because of code carelessness on my part. Fixed locally, will be in SCS v35.11. In the meantime, it can be hotfixed by just dropping the original version of c#7rest.spl (attached here, or else from c#greythedog/7thpmm/spells) into the override after installing SCS. c#7rest.spl

OK, the saving throws are a bug, not a balance issue. (More accurately, they're a bug, or rather two bugs, in my code that attempts to address the balance issue.) All saving throws are supposed to be increased by 1-3 points (depending on class and save type) to allow for the effects of ability score bonuses. In addition, paladins are supposed to lose their hardcoded +2 to all saves (CHA bonuses are supposed to not to supplement it, but to replace it.) Neither was working correctly. Fixed locally, will be in beta 9.

SCS does it using the Simulacrum effects, but that's probably overkill if you just want an appearence clone.

I think it's doable, actually, but it's slightly fiddly (requires script->UI communications, which is doable but delicate). I might see if I can rough something up if I have a chance.

I wondered about that.

Various things in play here: - yes, saving throws are clearly too good, especially for paladins. I need to investigate that - the differences are large enough that there may actually be a bug somewhere - I am reluctant to have too-bespoke modifiers for ability scores. One goal of that component was to have a simple rule that does not vary by ability score (as 3rd edition D&D and later does). - To clarify: the suggestion is that the progression rate for THAC0 is unchanged but that there is a cap that's higher than the fighter cap of 0? I can certainly see the case for that, though even a 5-point penalty is quite severe especially given that fighters also get proficiency bonuses and probably the best gear.

This is helpful; let me mull over it.

The hotfix now addresses this.

Great. It's hideous, isn't it? A basic design issue in the Infinity Engine is that immunity to an effect also requires immunity to an icon, some strings, and some visual effects, and nothing logically ties them together. (I think IWD2 partly addressed it.)

In this case it’s moot, since the aasimar bug was already reported elsewhere.