DavidW

Physical Mirror reflects the ARROWFLM projectile, which is used by vanilla Flame Arrow and also by some, but not all, of SR Flame Arrow's secondary spells. So I think (I admit I haven't tested it in-game) that Flame Arrow will be rather inconsistently reflected by Physical Mirror, which I assume is unintentional.

(The same will be true for Entropy Shield if IWD spells are present, though arguably that's not your problem.)

11 hours ago, Cahir said:

@DavidWdo you plan to release SCS update during your current modding window? If yes, how much time do you think you need to do it? I'm asking because I'm about to run a large EET installation, but I'm inclined to wait a week or two if this is the case. 

It is fairly likely that I will release a new SCS (little or no new content, but lots of bugfixes) in the next 1-2 weeks. No promises, though.

I'll have a look. It's fairly unlikely you can hotfix this: workaround is not to use the spell, sorry.

On 11/12/2019 at 3:16 PM, czacki said:

also:

 

wasn't he supposed to be protected from "slay"?

that was anticlimatic - took 1 blow (mace of disruption), died instantly.

For my records as much as anything since the original comment is six months ago, but:

This isn't a bug - as in, he was never supposed to be protected. But after some consideration, I'll probably add protection on the next SCS release. I was about to decide not to - it's no fun if your cool anti-undead weapon never works on powerful undead - but checking the AD&D Monster Manual, the Mace of Disruption explicitly doesn't one-shot a demilich. That swung it for me. (In SCS, AD&D source material doesn't get treated as infallible, but it does get treated as important.) 

There are so many scripts (mostly) because I don't want to waste space and processing time including every HLA and class ability in the AI script. So (e.g.) kensai have their own script, and only that script uses Kai.

If you look in genai/ssl/hla.ssl, that's where all the HLAs and kit abilities are kept. The various 'requireblock' bits make sure only certain bits of it get compiled for each script. 

As for thieves: all thief multiclasses use the same script. (Under the constraints of the Infinity Engine AI, there's not much tactical difference between how thieves and fighter/thieves ought to fight.) (Greater) Evasion is listed in the HLAs (look in 'thief') but using it isn't implemented as of 32.8: that will change in the next release.

I can't reproduce this (on EE, SCS 32.8). If anyone else gets it, can you give me some details? (Your WEIDU.log and which version of the game you're using should suffice.)

Thanks, that confirms my suspicions

I can't reproduce this. Give me a specific scenario that reproduces it if you want me to investigate.

This will not generically work, I'm afraid.

The name and description don't live in these files. The files just contain numbers which reference lines in the master text-string file (dialog.tlk), and those lines aren't included in the files. This works on Avanade's computer because s/he has already installed SCS, and WEIDU mods leave new lines in dialog.tlk even after uninstall. But it won't work on someone else's computer, and it won't work on Avanade's computer if s/he reinstalls BG2.

9 hours ago, pochesun said:

Regarding Planetars: i mean it absolutely could be the issue of AI, but it was stated in SCS (the latest version of it) that its compatible with SRR latest version. Is @DavidW aware of the issue, that there could be some problems with planetars etc?

I don't think I did state that. I stated compatibility with SR, not SRR.

I agree, this is clearly an AI issue. It's complicated by the fact that Planetars have SR-dependent AI. Will check.

IWD-in-BG2 is defunct as a project (as noted on the pinned threads) - it was absorbed into Icewind Dale: Enhanced Edition.

I should probably have closed this thread; apologies. I'll do it now.

I will have a look.

A warning, though: I don't officially support SRR and IRR, only SR and IR.

OK, this is a little weird. My test case was:

1) Imoen casts True Seeing

2) Someone casts Power Word Blind on Imoen - she's unaffected.

Can you give me an exact scenario like that to reproduce the problem you're seeing?

(I should say that I haven't checked yet if it can *dispel* blindness, rather than *protect* from it. But your report says neither is working.)

On 12/21/2019 at 1:43 AM, Guest Ludwig said:

Another spell not working as expected is True Sight. In the description, it says it will protect against magical blindness for 1 turn, but it does not do that at all. It doesn't dispel blindness, in addition, when you cast power word blind on someone who has true sight active, they still get blinded. It has the same effect on enemies and allies alike. I'm using IWD spells component using the latest version of SCS, and I'm not using any other spell tweak mod like Spell Revisions.

Thanks

I can't reproduce this on 32.8.

On 2/28/2020 at 6:43 AM, Merlin said:

About the fine weapons installation in BG1EE:

Fine weapons instead of +1 weapons is a very good mod. But it seems to have some bugs:

1. A fine flail +1 has a damage code of 1d6+1.

2. The fine short bow sold by Taerom in Beregost gives only +1 thac0. Should it give +1 dmg also?

3. The damage and thac0 codes of the fine composite long bow in Feldepost's Inn are such low that the basic composite long bow is better.

 

The faster or more realistic bears mean that bears may remain neutral even if 6 characters shoot them with arrows.

1. Corrected, thanks

2. No: fine bows, like magic bows, don't affect damage.

3. THAC0 is correct, I think (+2, vs +1 for the basic bow). Damage should be +2 and not +1; corrected, thanks.

Bears: that's not SCS (so far as I can tell), I don't mess with their script beyond a quick apply-speed-spell block.

1 minute ago, pochesun said:

Can @DavidW confirm that bug?

 

No, because I check bugs at the same time as fixing them. If I haven't got around to looking yet, I can't confirm it.

On 3/14/2020 at 5:23 PM, Grunker said:

A minor thing concering the import of IWD spells: I really like this feature, but I raised my eyebrow about the duration of Call Lightning and Static Charge being different. Is that SCS? Specifically, Call Lightning has a duration of 1 turn per 4 levels whereas Static Charge lasts one turn per level, meaning you get a lot more bolts for your buck with the latter.

I've just had a look at this. In IWD, Call Lightning also has a much shorter duration (1 round per level), so this isn't an inconsistency introduced by a mismatch between IWD and BG2 spells. It also doesn't lead to any egregious problem in spell use, of the kind that SCS's spell tweaks address. So I think it falls outside the scope of SCS. 

I agree that it's a bit odd: if I were designing the spell system from scratch I wouldn't do it this way. But if I started adjusting every oddity like this, I'd be writing a different mod.

@neuroghast

1) Most of the problems in the NPC Customisation component can be worked around by keeping Party AI turned on while levelling. Valygar's immortality can't be, though. Do this at console instead:

C:Eval('Kill("valygar")')

2) I can't reproduce the monk problem, and while I'm using my latest local version (which has the main NPC Customisation bugs fixed) I can't think of anything that would have helped here. So I think it's probably a compatibility problem with Monastic Orders. I don't know that mod; if I have a chance I'll have a look, but it might be a while.

Probably.

I haven't tested it this time around. IIRC it worked ok on 2.0.0.

What do you mean "second column"? (I may be misremembering this myself, I haven't looked at this bit of code for a while).

As for the questions:

1. Yes

2. Yes, though I'm not looking at it myself until I've had a chance to play SoD

3. Look at the read_in_combat_scripts function at the bottom of stratagems/genai/genai_shared.tph

Yes, it’s NPC management. That’s been annoyingly buggy, sorry.

The AI install problem is an incompatibility between IWDification and current SCS.

1. SCS assumes HLAs aren't present on a BG1 install and so doesn't bother checking creatures to see if they have them. (It's an installation-time-saver, basically.) You can turn that off by going to around line 350 of stratagems/lib/always.tph and removing the disable_hlas instruction - but I have no idea what will happen or even whether it will install. (Probably it will: it handles BG1 creatures on an Enhanced Edition Trilogy install.)

2. SCS's algorithm for assigning HLAs basically picks a sequence of HLAs at random from a list, and then selects HLAs one at a time from the sequence until either it's got its full complement or it reaches the end of the sequence. (The list for non-spellcasters is in stratagems/genai/hla_choices/vanilla.) Since the sequences only have five-to-seven items, no-one gets more than that number of HLAs. (I'm actually surprised anyone's getting 12, actually - I don't know whether that's because they're multi-class, because of some glitch introduced by these changes, or what.) As for why the sequences stop at seven: basically nothing in the game is high enough level to get more than seven HLAs, and in any case I doubt many enemy creatures will be able to get through more than seven HLAs in a single fight. Making these sequences longer will grant more HLAs.

EDIT: I've just seen you're on a Trilogy install - so the issue is that you're getting HLAs but they're not being used. It's a similar issue, though (I think) - the scripts given to BG1 creatures don't contain code to use HLAs, because they're assumed not to have them and it clutters the script unnecessarily. If you want to change it, go to line 333 of stratagems/genai/genai_shared.tph.

All absolutely at your own risk, of course.

I don’t think there’s any need to.

Your call.