DavidW

I do understand (I think) but it might take a few days before I have a chance to address it.

It's not SCS (well, not intentionally anyway, and I can't see a way it could happen accidentally).

As for the clash between SR and AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS... I guess in hindsight it was antisocial for me to code the latest ds.tph to assume it. I'll see if I can work out a version that doesn't require it (it may be difficult; I've been coding with AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS for seven years...)

SFO definitely doesn't work without it, in that it does a sanity-check for it: /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Sanity check for AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// OUTER_SPRINT var testers OUTER_SPRINT players var ACTION_IF !"%%players%%" STRING_EQUAL testers BEGIN FAIL "AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS is not set (you need to include it in your tp2 preamble to use SFO)" END

Do you have AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS in your tp2 preamble?

Oh - got it. Yes, version 3.x has some functionality (installed via the ds_altered_spell function) intended to tell later mods how to allow for changes to spells when installing DS, and SR makes (a very small amount of) use of it. My view was that it wasn't really robust and changes would have to be allowed for explicitly to work, so I deprecated it in v4. I think the v4 DS should handle SR fine (well, at least as fine as the v3.9x DS) without that functionality. I would just add DEFINE_ACTION_FUNCTION ds_altered_spell BEGIN END somewhere, if you don't want to strip out the ds_altered_spell functions manually.

Are you sure? It looks like the unaltered v3.95 (which, absolutely, was written by Ardanis). SR's code uses DS to load a custom table of spell changes, but that table is empty in any case so it doesn't matter. Which macro is missing when you try SCS's version? I just tried installing it on a clean test mod (no other function libraries) and it seemed to work fine.

This works, I think (testing required). You need my extension of the ALTER_EFFECT family. DEFINE_PATCH_FUNCTION match_fog RET value BEGIN READ_ASCII 0x14 resource PATCH_MATCH "%resource%" WITH "\(%WIZARD_STINKING_CLOUD%D?\|%WIZARD_CLOUDKILL%D?\|%WIZARD_DEATH_FOG%D?\|%WIZARD_INCENDIARY_CLOUD%D?\|%CLERIC_WRITHING_FOG%\|RR#WI502\|DVCKILL2?\|DVWCKILL\|WAND13\)" BEGIN value=1 END DEFAULT value=0 END END COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP ".*\.spl$" override PATCH_IF INDEX_BUFFER ("\(%WIZARD_STINKING_CLOUD%\|%WIZARD_CLOUDKILL%\|%WIZARD_DEATH_FOG%\|%WIZARD_INCENDIARY_CLOUD%\|%CLERIC_WRITHING_FOG%\|RR#WI502\|DVCKILL\|DVWCKILL\|WAND13\)" >=0 BEGIN LPF CLONE_EFFECT INT_VAR multi_match=1 match_opcode=206 opcode=142 target=1 parameter2=icon_ref insert_point=99 STR_VAR match_function=match_fog END LPF CLONE_EFFECT INT_VAR multi_match=1 match_opcode=206 opcode=139 target=1 timing=1 parameter1=RESOLVE_STR_REF (@1000117) insert_point=99 STR_VAR match_function=match_fog END END BUT_ONLY You don't need the INDEX_BUFFER, it's there for performance. (COMBINING COPY_EXISTING with ALTER_EFFECT/CLONE_EFFECT can be slow.)

Use READ_SBYTE, which interprets a byte as lying between -127 and +128. READ_BYTE interprets it as lying between 0 and 255.

That makes sense. DS sorts stats.ids after appending all the new entries, but the sort used by DS 3.9x (the one in SR) is destructive, and ends up deleting duplicates. The version in SCS 33 (let's call it v.4.0) sorts nondestructively (iirc).

SSL itself doesn't need Detectable Spells. But you're probably using the SSL library (library.slb) that SCS uses? That has stats.ids entries that are added by DS.

In modding prehistory, there were a bunch of Detectable Spells, with G3 (iirc) eventually maintaining a more-or-less shared one. I recoded it, and more-or-less took ownership of it, quite early in SCS's history. (I think roughly when SCSII was released.) Since then, it's bounced around the small number of people who do tactical/AI modding in a sophisticated way - I've coded various versions, I think Wisp might have done one for aTweaks, and Ardanis has done a couple, including one that was used in Siege of Dragonspear. I released a new version along with SCS v32, and I think I still have ownership. Annoyingly, I seem to have managed to leave out version numbering on the current SCS version, and should reinstate it. But I think the version in Angel's mods is the current SCS version or near enough. In any case, taking the one from the current SCS edition is probably the best strategy. The version in SR is somewhat out of date and probably worth updating. Can you say more about the 'removing entries in stats.ids' issue - i.e. is that SR's version, or Angel's/mine, that's doing it? And which stats? (The current version shouldn't be able to remove stats.ids entries, but might be misbehaving.)

Yes. The installer references it but the game ignores it. Delete it after you've installed SCS if you like. If you skipped the option, those ini entries are ignored. If you'd chosen the option, Balduran's Shield would have been left alone and everything else would have been changed. Thank you!

...all of which is intrinsically reasonable, but that component of SCS isn't a systematic recoloring of icons: it's an installation of the IWD spells in BG2. I take my basic options to be (1) force the IWD spell icons to match the BG color principles, or (2) adjust the BG icons to match the IWD principles. I chose (1) - partly because I like the aesthetic of IWD more, partly because it seems more in keeping with the component, but mostly because it requires fewer recolorings. Adopting an entirely new set of color principles wasn't something I considered.

But, I concede, difficult to get working exactly right.

Realistically, if 2.6 is available in beta then it was feature-complete, or virtually so, a while ago, so your last chance passed some while back. (I don't have inside information, this is just based on the general pattern for game releases.)

This is vanilla IWD behavior in both cases; SCS doesn't change it. I *think* IWD's logic is that weapon-creating spells are always green, being a form of summoning. I should probably recolor some of the BG2 weapon-summoning spells. Basically, yes. It's hardcoded which summons get recolored by SCS (basically, the vanilla-game ones and the SR ones, albeit I think there are some glitches with the latter). Partly that's because it's not straightforward to identify a summoning spell, but mostly it's because SCS's recoloring algorithm is a fairly crude color-swap and I don't really trust it on BAMs that I haven't inspected by hand. Heavenly Inferno isn't a player-available IWD spell, it's used by (iirc) Brother Pocquelin in IWD, and doesn't have a description. At a guess, TotLM-BG2EE is accidentally converting it. (SCS definitely isn't.) I'm not sure what SCS is doing to it, but it won't have anything to do with the missing description.

Well, that's a different matter. The fix to that is much easier: don't install it. (But obviously I don't agree, or I wouldn't have coded it.)

I haven't solved it yet, so thanks. If I recall correctly, the 'aesthetic reasons' were to do with the order the powers appeared on the bar. But I don't recall clearly, and in any case it's clearly not working correctly.

But using a Wand of Magic Missiles isn't sufficient reason to be arrested by the Cowled Wizards. (From a Realms-lore POV, I don't think there's any suggestion that the Council of Six or the Cowled Wizards have a problem with non-mages moonlighting with magic items; from an in-game POV, using a wand in Athkatla doesn't (iirc) trigger a Cowled Wizard intervention.) I think you'd do better to give Imoen innate Bhaalspawny abilities that look like arcane magic. (That also pays homage to the fact that she's flirting with magic even if she doesn't dual-class.)

The clay golem is still there on higher difficulty levels. IIRC, the reason I removed Enchanted Weapon is that it works differently in EE games. But I should check, especially as it looks like I didn't get around to documenting it.

Thank you for this helpful contribution.

I don’t think I have anything further to add to what I’ve already said. I recommend uninstalling SCS if it’s irritating you that much.

Unpack 33.3, then run the installer. It’ll ask you if you want to reinstall the components; say yes for each.

No, that looks good.