DavidW

I found that argument persuasive; SCS v34 will address it. On 2.5 and 2.6, that item's Haste seems to be dispel/resist=1, i.e. it's dispellable. Some are stripped already (PnM I think). There's a case for stripping the rest (it's not a priority, since it's mostly cosmetic.)

SCS does not change this. (In fact, I'm not sure I even know how to change it.) What other mods are you using? It's possible LoB does something like this automatically - I have no experience with how it works.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Spell Turning wasn’t even in original BG1 and Beamdog doesn’t add it, unless I’m seriously missing something. Vanilla Kahrk prebuffs with Haste, Pro/NM and Minor Globe, all dispellable normally.

If you can give me an exact reproduction scenario, I'd appreciate it. HOWEVER: If you delay dualling, you will probably break the game. The leveller system does not handle it properly. (Just respec her as a thief if you want her to dual later.)

Kahrk's very high power level isn't intentional design, exactly. SCS's code autogenerates scripts and spells based on the creature's level, and Kahrk is marked up as 12th level in the unmodded game. He's pretty much a legal L12 fighter/mage (there is actually a slight double-counting in his APR from his fighter level that I'll correct in the next version). Furthermore, this wasn't invisible in the unmodded game: it shows up in the number of spells he casts (which is much higher than other unmodded-game ogre mages) so I don't think it's a slip - Kahrk is intentionally much more powerful than other ogre mages in the original game. SCS just gives him a script and spell choices that fully realize his stated power. Now, occasionally I've nerfed creatures in this situation where SCS gives them an unusually large power boost, especially if they're on the critical path. But (as I remarked before in a previous thread on this subject), Kahrk is a completely optional encounter which you only get after a dialog that looks something like this: If you open the jar, I think you get what you deserve.

Balors in SCS are supposed to be able to use Stoneskin once per 3 rounds, though they only use it once per day at lower difficulties. (The documentation is out of date; I'll update it.) It looks as if that's working correctly so far as I can see. If anyone can confirm it's more often than once per 3 rounds, let me know. A small number of exceptionally-powerful Earth Elementals can cast Stoneskin at will; that's intentional. Balors cast at 24th level; incidentally; Jarno's comments in this thread are confused. (If someone's actually seeing them only get one skin, let me know that too!)

No, HaveSpell works fine for sorcerers: it returns true for any spell they have in their spellbook, provided they have at least one slot at that level. If I were doing sorcerer AI from scratch, I'd use globals to set some kind of reserved-slot system to keep slots back for emergency actions, and then turn off the reserved slots for sorcerers who just plain run out of spells. I'd also need quite a different spell allocation system. But (a) there are few or no sorcerers in the unmodded game, and (b) I'm not convinced that the sorcerer/wizard distinction is visible enough to the player to justify the effort.

I can't reproduce this.

I can't reproduce this. On my install, cleric/mages are getting a spellbook normally (once they've levelled).

I don't think this has anything to do with SCS (I don't touch the damage of the dragon-breath ability). It looks like an EET problem.

Sorry, I think I gave you the wrong line. The 'tv=1' to change is line 196, not line 193. (I've just tested that myself on EasyTutu and it works on my install.)

Belated thanks for this list.

Yes; check the 'customize' bit of the ini.

If a mage has Stoneskin memorized, the only thing they can do with that slot is cast Stoneskin. So it makes sense to cast it whenever it's helpful. If a sorcerer casts Stoneskin, it uses up a 4th-level slot that they might have been planning to use for something else. It's much more difficult to anticipate when a player might or might not want to use that slot, so I leave it up to players by default. (This is actually the result of a specific request from someone who played sorcerers, years ago.)

Correct. It's ancient code, going back to the start of SCS; it could probably use a refresh.

It's not intentional behavior for SCS to let wizards/priests cast through the Pro/Magic scroll. (I think it's a bit of an exploit to use it that way but I don't block exploits.) I suspect there is a bug here.

I haven't tested it, but I think a bug has crept into stratagems/help/help.tpa. Try this: - open that file in Notepad or similar - on line 193, replace 'tv=1' with 'tv=0'.

Noting this belatedly: there's no fundamental reason why there couldn't be NPC sorcerers, but they'd require somewhat different AI from mages, and since there aren't any NPC sorcerers in the vanilla game, I didn't bother writing any. SCS's AI will handle sorcerers adequately, I think (though I haven't tested it). The main problem is that optimal AI would hold back a few high-level slots for buffs and debuffs, whereas the mage scripts just outsource that task to spell choices. But I think they'd probably play okay. (But yeah, I wouldn't do a systematic swap.)

That's overstated. There are plenty of legit reasons to delete actors. (SCS deletes the Amazons and Gullykin assassins, for instance.) Of course you have a compatibility problem with a mod that wants to use those actors, but that just means the two mods are trying to do two incompatible things.

You can't delete the 'songlist' structure, because every area has exactly one songlist structure - deleting it would give a malformed file. What you want to do is edit that structure. (I'd say more, but I wouldn't want to be unnecessarily detailed.)

My method is normally to look at the third and subsequent letters.

Mostly it doesn't: the 318 family of opcodes is a really substantial expansion of the capacity of the engine, basically porting into BG2 the very expanded functionality of IWD's opcodes 206/290. (These opcodes were introduced in IWDEE for that reason). There are workarounds (IWD-in-BG2 used many of them) but they're often horribly clunky, and many things can't be worked around at all.) If you want to look at examples of how the various partial workarounds work, the best thing is to install Fixpack on old BG2 and then just look at oBG2 and BG2EE in parallel to see how a given resource in EE (like green slime) is handled in oBG2. The fixpack makes a much more systematic attempt than the original game to catch problems that 318/321/324/326 is best at dealing with, but you'll still see lots of cases where it can't be done. An example: the EE games mostly remove previous instances of a spell whenever a new instance is applied to prevent spells stacking, via 321. There's no simple way to do that in oBG2 (you can do it with a custom sectype and opcode 221, but that can get unmanageable without fairly sophisticated code). In unmodded oBG2 the issue is mostly ignored. The Fixpack uses opcode 206 to give immunity to further iterations of the spell while the first one is running, but that's nonideal because you can't rebuff until your old buff has expired.

That's fair enough; sorry if I sounded irritated. The problem is that SCS is quite complicated, and lots of attempted fixes don't do what people think they do. By the time I've satisfied myself that I really do understand what a given bug is and how a solution works, I might as well just implement the fix myself. (Notwithstanding my snark above, I do realize there are several small issues with SCS at the moment (mostly 2.6-related), and I'll have a look when I get the chance.

It's possible you're confusing me with someone who is paid to maintain SCS. The update schedule for SCS is, always has been, an d always will be: when I have some free time and feel like using it for this.

The return interface is a bit tricky. Is one returning just the last result obtained, or an array of all of them?