DavidW

The simplest way around is to use an intermediate variable (perhaps that's what you mean by 'variable inside that loop'). Put OUTER_SPRINT this_npc $npc_list("%npc%") and then use this_npc inside your inlined script. It is possible to do it more directly, though. $npc_list("foo") can also be referred to as %npc_list_foo%. So you can put %npc_list_%npc%% into your inlined file. But it has to be done with care. You need two EVALUATE_BUFFERS (or one if you've got AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS, probably). If "npc" is "foo", the first EVALUATE_BUFFER replaces %npc_list_%npc%% with %npc_list_foo% and the second replaces it with its value. Most of the time it's easier to use an intermediate variable though.

At the start of Shar-Teel’s dialog, cast a spell that sets Grey’s gender to ‘Other’. At the end of it, cast another spell that resets it to ‘male’.

If you have innates that let you select a weapon proficiency, I think you must have another mod installed that's trying to do something similar to SCS's NPC customisation and management component (I'm not sure which). That will almost certainly lead to compatibility problems.

It’s not intended; I’ll check it out. Do you know how to cheat them in?

The override is where you have to put any compulsory content for an NPC, as it's the only slot that ignores the AI button. I agree that this particular content looks weird.

No, sorry.

If the enemy is 5+ levels higher than you, it’s pretty much automatic.

I’d also add that if you’re thinking only in terms of making yourself immune to RM in the first place, you’re restricting yourself unnecessarily. If your buffs are brought down, put them up again (at least the most significant ones). Enemies do, after all.

Thanks, good catch.

Incidentally, for third parties: note that (i) Jarno makes rude and insulting claims on the basis of false information (ii) it is pointed out to him that his claims are based on false information (iii) there is no apology and no acknowledgement of error This is why I advise people not to pay attention to him.

Enemy() is an action - it sets your Allegiance to ENEMY.

Correct. The “working code” is now live, in v33.3.

Note that SCS has tra files in several places. Most of them are in stratagems/lang, but there is also one in stratagems/sfo2e/lua/lang, one in stratagems/iwdspells/lang, and several in stratagems/lang_som. (The reason for scattering them around is that SCS shares code, including translations, with other mods, and it makes it easier to keep those various mods in sync.) The tra files in iwdspells/copyover/tra and bg2spells/copyover_bg2/tra do not need to be translated. They are autogenerated from the base game (and correcting problems with the translations in the base game is out of scope for SCS). [old post left for archival reasons] I've been doing an audit of the translations of SCS, something I haven't generally paid much attention to. They fall into three groups: 1) Current translations: French, Russian, Italian. All of these have been updated since v32 came out (in two cases, since v33 came out). They're complete or nearly so. 2) Recent translations: Polish, German. Each of these was last updated when v31 (the maintenance release Cam organised) came out. They cover most of SCS's content but have some significant gaps (notably, the difficulty system). 3) Out-of-date translations: Korean, Chinese, Spanish. These haven't been updated in (at least) several years, and so they're very incomplete and out of date. For (1) and (2), I've marked the most recent version that was translated in the setup text, so that players who use the Polish or German translations know they're a bit out of date. I've deprecated the translations in (3) - they're so partial that I think it's misleading to players to advertise them. (The files are still there, though, and anyone who wants to use them just needs to uncomment the relevant lines in setup-stratagems.tp2.) Anyone who wants to update any of the old translations is more than welcome.

I've updated to v33.3, to fix the mxsplbrd edge-case bug, the incompatibility with DSotSC, and the incompatibility with whatever mod introduces T-BONE01. EDIT: I should note that these aren't all the bugs I'm aware of; in particular, a bunch of compatibility issues with IWDification still need attention. These bugs were (a) readily fixable and (b) critical, in that they'd lead to install-time errors or crashes in some circumstances.

That’s interesting. Will consider - thanks! EDIT: the problem, of course, is that I am still trying to support non-EE games. Though I suppose it's not the end of the world just to remove the animation on non-EE. I assume that larger sphere is created manually - there's no autoscale option I'm missing?

What I said: If you'd bothered to actually download the file in Caedwyr's post, and not just guessed at its content and accused others of lying or incompetence on that basis, you'd have seen that it does, indeed, have all zeroes in its last column.

I'm going to create a new thread here to move inaccurate or confused comments by Jarno, since they're cluttering my main release thread.

Got it. Thanks.

1) Before installing, edit stratagems/stratagems.ini in a text editor. Change mage_level_scale to a value lower than 100, and/or mage_level_add to a negative number. All mage levels will be scaled according to new level = (old level x (mage_level_scale)% ) + mage_level_add to a minimum of 1. The same applies to priest levels. 2) Before installing, edit stratagems/mage/override/bg2/level.2da in a text editor. (Swap bg2 with bg1 if you want to alter BG1 wizards' levels.) You'll see a long table where in each row, the first entry is the name of a CRE file and the second entry is their level. If the mage you want to edit is listed, just change their level to what you want it to be. If they're not, add them in the same format. (You'll need to use Near Infinity to find the CRE file name of the mage you want to edit.) A few points: (i) If you do both, note that the global level scaling (controlled by stratagems.ini) comes after the individual level scaling. So if you lower all wizards' levels by 5 and then set Tolgerias to level 15, he'll be level 10 in game. (ii) As a point of interest, SCS infers levels from a combination of (1) the actual level on the CRE file; (2) the level of spells the creature has memorized. (The original game is not always consistent: some spellcasters use 8th level spells but are given a CRE level of 10, etc.) That algorithm occasionally gives wild results, usually for high-level wizards who get set to ridiculous levels; the manual override is to adjust for that. (iii) Both (1) and (2) (and lots of other tweaks like this) are documented in the readme, under 'customization'. (iv) In an ideal world I'd have made spellcaster levels responsive to the difficulty slider. But it's not practical. (Quintupled install time, just for starters.)

OK, reproduced (and identified) on Caedwyr's copy of mxsplbrd.2da. Here's what's going on: I'm not sure I'd call that file malformed, exactly, but it's got a very odd feature: the eighth-level spell column is entirely zeros. That confuses SCS when it reads in the bard spells: it does a column count on mxbrdspl.2da and concludes that bards have spells up to level 8, and so it assumes that spell_level_to_caster_level("bard" "8") ought to be set to something (the level at which bards get level 8 spells) but then when it goes through the file, it never actually discovers any such level, and so the variable remains unset. Then it chokes when it tries to use that variable. I can, and probably should, guard against that in SCS's macro. That said, it probably also points to some oddity in one of Caedwyr's mods, or in the way they're interacting: I may be missing something, but I can't think of a good reason to add an 8th-level column to a spell list but have it entirely blank.

I'll put it on the list to have a look at some point. Is it actively maintained?

That would be telling.

@MachoGrande You may be misunderstanding SCS's goal. It's not intended as a systematic rebalancing of the game (if you want that, try a mod like Spell Revisions, which does have that aim). It's an attempt at intelligent AI within basically the core rules - "basically", because I tweak the core rules in fairly-small places to deal with situations that were getting in the way of writing interesting AI. (The lack of a good counter to Improved Invisibility + SI:Divination is the first and best example). Against that backdrop, I found (in playtesting) that Inquisitor dispel magic got in the way of interesting encounters: it was too systematically effective an attack relative to other things that were going on. I also found it a bit thematically excessive: a 12th-level character automatically dispelling an archmage's defenses. Hence the component. But it's not an example of a tweak that my AI assumes or needs, which is why (contra claims in your other post) it's optional. If your assessment differs from mine, don't use it. (There's a reason that I didn't wrap that component into the install-by-default tweaks when I released SCS v32.) As for giving wizards sequencers as innate, it's mostly a convenience tweak: it reduces the inconvenience of having to repeatedly rearrange your spellbook to relearn sequencers. (And 'inconvenience' is the right description, because for the most part the game imposes only minor constraints on your ability to rest as much as you like.) It's not intended to affect the actual class power. I appreciate that it boosts sorcerers; my own intuition is that it does so in an interesting rather than annoying way but I don't have first-hand experience with a sorcerer party member so I may be misjudging. Again, if you don't agree with my assessment, don't install: once again, it's not something the AI presumes and so it's an optional component, not installed by default. @Ront: My own view on comparative power levels (at least in party-based BG2) is that asking whether mages are the most powerful character is like asking whether artillery units are the most powerful units in an army battalion. In both cases, the point is that you have a collection of different units with different skills that complement each other. (In pen-and-paper D&D I think it depends a lot on how much you optimize and use edge-case rule advantages - my own, fairly low-optimization campaigns don't tend to end up with wizards outclassing others.) @polytopeThose are all defensible tweaks but I don't think any are actually required to make SCS work. (I do voluntarily refrain from putting multiple ADHW into a CC.) As for warrior HLAs: SCS uses the in-game power levels to determine who gets HLAs, and then filters it. So you have to have 3 million XP to get HLAs, no matter what. There are quite a lot of wizards in SoA who have 3M XP, but very few fighters; that's why you basically don't see fighter HLAs in SoA. (Buried in there is a deeper issue: why, in Bioware's original designn, are the mages in SoA higher level than the non-spellcasters? I think it's partly thematic (Amn is intentionally being portrayed as a high-magic setting, even if that's a bit thematically in tension with the PnP description) but mostly I suspect it's because the original game's mage AI is very weak, so that a mage badly underperforms against a fighter of the same level. So they upped mage levels as a brute-force fix. SCS comes along and gives mages AI more commensurate with their abilities, and now it really shows that they're so high level. By this stage I think this is part of the flavor of the game, but of course SCS does have an ini option to lower mage levels if you want to use it.)

@MachoGrande 1) "SCS plays fair" means that the rules for enemy spellcasters basically conform to the rules for PC spellcasters. It doesn't mean that enemies who are higher level than you don't get an advantage from being higher level. & SCS doesn't make them higher level for the most part: that's just how the basic game works. 2) Most of the feedback I get from players is that Firkraag is if anything a bit too easy. If you need to reload fifty times, you're doing it wrong. 3) If an enemy lowers your defenses, try putting them back up again. You're not required to restrict buffing to the pre-battle phase, and they don't have infinitely many dispel magics (and each round when they're casting dispel magic is a round when they're not casting something else.) 4) While mostly this is just opinion and taste, this claim isn't true: It's not enabled by default. It's where it always has been: as its own component. The description of that component is completely clear as to what it does, both in the readme and in the description the WEIDU installer gives you. I assume you either used some third-party installer that preselects components, or weren't paying attention at that point in the install process? @subtledoctor Firkraag (and other large creatures) don't use globes of invulnerability for aesthetic reasons: the globe animation looks silly overlaid on a large sprite.

Yeah, that certainly looks well-formed... how odd. I’ll see if I can reproduce the error.