DavidW

Just flagging this bug in " PnP Proficiency Rules on Dual-Classed Characters" (and also flagging @subtledoctoras I think it's his code and he might be reusing it elsewhere).

1. "Enforce PnP Proficiency Rules" has a typo (specifically, in the file 'cdtweaks/2da/dualfc.2da'). At one point, it contains the string ''AP_D5_DUAFCAP_D5_DUAFC". There is a missing space: it ought to be "AP_D5_DUAFC AP_D5_DUAFC". You can fix it for yourself in a text editor; alternately just skip that component of Tweaks Anthology. 2. It should be fine to install all of SCS after EET_End.

On the Ring of Wizardry issue: you can store 0-15 in each proficiency byte. And no-one has fifteen spells. So can't you decide that PROF=5 codes zero spells, PROF=6 codes one spell, ... PROF=15 codes 10 spells? Then if you can cast 4 2nd level spells, the relevant proficiency is set to 9. If you put on a ring that adds 2 spells, it increases to 11. If you cast all six spells, it drops to 5. Taking off the ring sets it to 3, which is still in the safe area. Or, being more abstract and general about it: if the maximum permissible extra spells from a ring is R, and the maximum learnable number of spells is S, then PROF=R+x codes having x spells, and you just have to enforce 2R+S<16. There might be some issues with people wearing multiple extra-slot items, because you couldn't have two rings affecting the same ability - the crudest solution would be to add them all to ITEMEXCL, but there are subtler ways involving spellstates and 318. And you'd probably have to abandon the ring that doubles number of spells, or else recode it to add a fixed number.

If you can cope with two half-bytes, you could do it with 16 splprots. But that’s already cumbersome, and the combinatorics will be unmanageable beyond two.

v29, probably, but I don’t support it, so you’re on your own.

Yes:typo. and no, I don’t try to use cleric Dispel Magic.

Remove. Party-friendly effects are a nightmare to script around.

That was my fear. I quite like the +5%/-5% change, but I don't think I like it enough to want to maintain that kind of complexity. Too bad.

I'm not super familiar with the "binary not match" description, but from the description, "no bits in common" is more demanding than you want. Restricting to the first byte for simplicity, you want (if I understand correctly) to block the effect on 0b0000xxxx, because you want to keep within the effect range of that second half-byte. And you're doing it by a binary-not-match with 15<<4 = 0b11110000. But (for instance) if the stat's value is 0b00000000, there are bits in common: the bits in the first half-byte. So the effect will return false and the block won't happen.

How does the changed % rate for DM work technically?

OK, here's what's going on. (This is as much a 'note to self' as anything else, so I'll go into technical details.) You have installed SCS's implementation of the Icewind Dale spells, in particular the CONJURE_WATER_ELEMENTAL spell. Spells are all recorded in a file called 'spell.ids', which is basically a map from human-readable names for spells to the actual files used by those spells. But for reasons I can't fathom, the IWD spells haven't been entered into spell.ids. I've no clue why that is, or whether it means the spells aren't on your system at all or they're on it but not in spell.ids. (And you apparently installed in multiple goes, so the debug doesn't tell me anything about your installation of those spells.) But in any case, when one particular subcomponent of SCS's initialise-AI component looks for CONJURE_WATER_ELEMENTAL, it fails to find it, and that causes the install to fail. I suggest you uninstall SCS completely (well, almost completely - you've installed the improved textscreen component earlier in your order for some reason, and I don't think that can be having any effect), reinstall the SCS IWD spells components, and then check if spell.ids containts CONJURE_WATER_ELEMENTAL. If it does, we can put the problem down to some bizarre unreproducible glitch, and you should be good to install the rest of the mod. If it doesn't, we can talk more.

So much for that idea. (This is a weird bug I haven't seen before; it will be some odd interaction with another mod but my first theory wasn't correct.) I think I do need to see your debug. Can you email it to [removed] ? Can you also post the 'weidu.log' file from your main game directory?

Could you attach the file "spell.ids", from your override directory?

The very fact that Slow is 3rd level makes it weaker, of course - it won't penetrate MGI.

Not only are there noble efreet in D&D lore, there are noble efreet in BG2 itself - one is imprisoned in the Planar Prison, one is in the Sphere. Neither are anything like as powerful as the summoned Planetar, though. Genie-summoning is intrinsically cool, and I find the argument against fallen planetars pretty persuasive (I'm less moved by the argument that good-aligned wizards can't summon regular planetars), but losing the alignment coding of the spell will cause some AI difficulties - nothing serious, but you'll mostly only see enemies use whatever version subs for DARK_PLANETAR. A similar-style alternative would be to replace the Dark Planetar with a Balor Lord (if you don't object to 3e-isms) or just a Lesser Demon Lord - same idea, just substitute the animation and name.

“This is how it was supposed to be in vanilla BG” isn’t a persuasive argument for a tactical mod. if SCS actively improved Kahrk’s level, or attack rolls, or resistances, I’d be more sympathetic. But it just gives him better AI and spell/proficiency choices. The normal philosophy for SCS is : give creatures the best AI possible; if they’re still not challenging enough, mess with their abilities. I hardly ever actively nerf creatures’ abilities. ”Hardly ever” isn’t “never”. I’m not averse, in principle, to reducing Kahrk’s abilities. (I can see the case that interpreting his level as a spellcaster level is inappropriate given that he doesn’t use sixth level spells.) But I don’t find the comparison to Sarevok in the vanilla game to be a good argument for that reduction.

True, but it’s a special case of “spellcasters are weak compared to non-spellcasters”. SCS systematically increases the efficacy of spellcasters relative to non-spellcasters, just because spellcasters benefit much more from improved AI. Compensating for that is way outside the scope of SCS.

Again, that’s a completely different quest. Oversight’s version, Roxanne’s version and my version are all different quests around the same underlying idea. (Mine is a pretty conservative restoration of the original cut content; Oversight’s has the same idea as the original cut content but a quite different implementation; Roxanne’s is a new quest loosely inspired by the cut content.)

Is it actually that unreasonable? (I've not really played with it). You need to take along a thief (probably a slightly underpowered class tactically speaking), to invest in the skills to use it effectively, and then don't you have to sit around for a couple of seconds waiting for it to trigger? (Correct me if I'm wrong; like I say, not much experience). And then you've taken down mages' illusion defenses, which isn't nothing, but isn't the most critical part of their defensive layering. On the purely technical side, opcode 276 modifies Detect Illusion. If you want things like SI:Abjuration or Nondetection to interact with thief DI, you could probably do it aura-style with a bit of thought.

You can see it when leveling, so I assume it must be!

Can't you do it via the UI?

No apology needed. But I don't really mind that Kahrk can be more powerful than Sarevok (there's a very long tradition of optional bosses being tougher than the main boss) and if I did, I'd probably respond by nerfing Kahrk. Consensus seems to be that SCS Sarevok is already powerful enough.

Can you explain why? Not yet. It's on my to-do list, but lowish priority (sorry). I think you can just summon the rope via CLUA. (It's bazplo05.)

I don't actually single out Kahrk for special treatment, so this is just the automated code messing with him. But he's listed as 12th level, and SCS keeps him that way - and since he's an ogre-mage, he gets treated as a fighter/mage. That gives him another APR, which probably is double-counting since he's already given 3 - I might tweak that later. He'll be specialized with his weapon and have two pips in one-weapon style, and his ability scores are awesome. He has 18 Dex and a base AC of 1, so that's AC -3 before his defensive spells kick in - again, that's just the vanilla game. And of course he's 12th level, which is pretty high level for BG1. I don't give him anything special to make him immune to MM - could he have had Shield running? So: with the arguable exception of that extra APR, this is just an already-pretty-tough BG1 creature that gets horrendously tough when SCS gives him level-appropriate spells and proficiencies. So, on the one hand I can see the case for toning it down, since that 12th level flag is mostly nonfunctional in the baseline game but creates a hellishly dangerous SCS opponent. On the other hand, this is a completely optional fight which you get into only after a conversation that goes something like this: CARSA: this jar caused all my companions to die; it wants me to open it; I won't. PC: Give me the jar. CARSA: No, if I give it to you we'll all die. Run now. PC: Give me the damn jar! CARSA: No! Get away or I'll release the thing in the jar and it'll kill you. PC: We're taking the jar by force. CARSA: KAHRK! To be honest, I think if you let Kahrk out you get what you deserve

If you're adding new spells that enemy AI ought to detect, very possibly. I can talk you through it if you want.