DavidW

You can always turn it off using the difficulty control.

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.

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.)

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.

I think I’m happy with it being standalone for now.

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.

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.

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.

That’s harmless.

Ah. I’m probably not updating the non- Windows versions.

You’re not using WEIDU v247.

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.

I don’t really do things at that grain of analysis: whether someone has Death Spell learned is a somewhat complicated random process.

Will consider. I’ve never played that path myself so not that on my radar.

ToB = Baldur’s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal. (It will probably work on BG2 without Throne of Bhaal too.)

Come and join the Cult of Immutability. We have cookies! (But no-one is allowed to touch them.)

This is the reason.

Ah, that’s what’s going on. From SCS’s POV, swapping it for Confusion (or a 5th level version) would be simplest. But I can perfectly well deal with CoC now I know. (And I draw the line at supporting SR and SRR separately here!)

Well, no way to completely change the language ( e.g. voiced lines). But if you just want to change the written strings, just get a copy of the English dialog.tlk file and drop it into your main game folder. ( I’d upload one but I’m not at my desk right now).

One of them is supposed to be hidden. (It can’t be replaced without risking breaking NPC scripting.) I’ll have a look at why that’s not happening.

Don’t add it to spell.ids. Only SPCL, SPIN, SPWI, SPPR can go there.

That is severely confused. But as you say, no-one is dragging me into the topic, so if you want to be rude you’re on your own.

Oh, ok. I don’t think I can help, then - the install situation you’re describing is complex enough that I don’t know how to diagnose it. (It is some weird consequence of the partial rollback given that your clean install is fine.) (As to why that component is looking at item files at all: probably it’s looking for scrolls, but I’m not sure.)

Just as a point of historical interest, I don't think that supposition is correct. SCS had at least one Avenger in it since v5 (March 2008) when Improved Faldorn was introduced; I'm not 100% sure when I started giving the Avenger kit to druids more widely (I foolishly haven't kept copies of the earliest versions) but it's probably v10 (August 2009) when I started auto-writing spellbooks, and certainly by v16 (February 2011) when spell lists were externalized. Meanwhile SR wasn't released until later in 2008, and of course Demi was actively engaged in it until around 2016. From a compatibility point of view SCS's update cycle (right now) is probably faster than SR's, so I could handle it on my side (it wouldn't be a problem for Avengers to have/cast Cone of Cold, I just need to know that's what it's doing). That said, as far as I can see this is completely undocumented in SR (either in the in-game kit description or in the mod documentation) so I am inclined just to silently revert it in SCS (and I suggest to whoever's maintaining SR that they document it or take it out - undocumented kit modifications aren't a good idea).

If you're doing that level of rolling back installs, swapping versions of SCS, and hand-replacing items, I'm going to ask you to see if you can reproduce the install error on a clean install with the up-to-date version of the mod before I try to diagnose the problem.