pochesun

What does that mean?

Thats true. But its also true that infinite resting abilities without penalties makes the world even less dangerous. For what its worth, if i was a modder, i would restrict or prohibit any resting while being in dungeon. Ability to rest is the most broken thing in BG anyway and there is no way to fix it as things stands, as i can see that.

@johncpatterson IR and IRR are extremely hard to be defined as cheating mods. From what i have experienced so far they balance things quite well. Also, ask yourself, is potiion that gives your character 25 strength a cheat? Before answering think about potion that gives you 23 strenght. But before answering this try to to answer for 19 strenght. Its all too relative. Some people believe that the game should not allow characters with less than 13 strength to equip a sword at all

I am glad i helped. I think i also like BG2 version more, it makes the most sense considering other spell's presence like Breach (as @subtledoctor mentioned) and it makes spells like Spell Thrust more valuable. I presume the same change will be implemented for Remove Magic spell?

Will do.

You should not be Just a quick recap: SRR offers dispelling Globe as default I thought it didnt work as SRR intended in current patch but was wrong Then Bartimaeus mentioned that in Vanila Globe always been dispellable and said that no-once change it since. My last post is about EE turned out to have changed it so Globe can not be Dispelled (its not a bug record of proposition to make some changes - its jsut a thought).

@Bartimaeus an intersiting thing, kinda food for thought. I just tested casting Dispell Magic on Minor Globe of Invulnerability in BG EE 1 unmodded, and it seems that Dispell Magic wont work against Globe, it does not dispell it. Also, dunno how much this thread related to the topic, just in case https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/60024/cant-dispel-globe-of-invulnerability As i said, only a food for thought, but its interesting how EE changed some things to make them different from vanilla (many of those very subtle) and people realize it so many years later.

Cool, great work. Will use it as soon i get to BG 2 with my current run lol.

great one! I think Kahrk is level 13 (according to WIKI) and i casted dispells and remove magic as level 5 or 6 dont remember exactly. But i have heard that there are some enemies that are specifically very resistant to certain types of dispelling effects, and probably Kahrk is one of those (WIKI and Beamdog forum says the same). Regarding Spell Thrust, i think you have already done it (according to the commits of the latest SRR release)

@Bartimaeus i guess it was a false alarm I tested it on BG 2 with console EXP upping and Dispel worked against both globes. I was misleaded in a way by the fact that in BG 1 i could not dispell globe from Kahrk from Firewine Bridge, and now i read about it that he is super resistant to all kind of dispell magic, and with ghost in Durlag's Tower i didnt do many tries. Well... happens.

Yeah thats correct, but then my question from post n1 still stands: why i can not dispell globe with Dispell or Remove Spell while i have 1 in my ini.settings file by default and i havent changed anything?

Now i am totaly confused. First, Vanilla says can or can not? Second, if its always been indispellable why there is "1" by default instead of "0" in ini.settings file? (latest SRR zip pack) As far as i read it 1 means globes can be dispelled and 0 means can not.

I got 2 questions. In SRR ini.settings there is "= 1 // set to 0 to make globes of invulnerability not be dispelled by Dispel/Remove Magic". 1) So, presumably, by default Globes can be dispelled by Remove Magic and Dispel but its not happening in my default installation. 2) When Globes became susceptible to Dispell and Remove magic and what was logic behind the change, since I believe in unmodded BG EE Globes can not be dispelled by Dispell and Remove magic. I am not objecting the change, just curious

Any ETA on b11?

All cool. Thank you. Just curious if any other similar spells (like affecting magic protection ones) works properly. I think its worth checking. I am not sure i will be able to test those for next several days (during daylight i am busy, and evenings i am doing BG run ). Next week probably i could check those and report if i notice any abberations. But its probably more effective if you check it on your side as well :). Also i once wrote about Potion of Absorbstion duration and its discription discrepancy in IRR thread. Just a reminder in case you have not had an opportunity to check it.

@Bartimaeus I know it could sound silly, but i dont understand how Spell Thrust works, specifically interraction with Minor Globe of Invulnerabilty. I am playing BG 1 atm and Spell Thrust wont affect enemies with the Globe on them. Targeting them or dropping near them to make use of radius of the spell covering 20 - nothing works. The Globe just stays there (though, according to discription, Spell Thrust should remove Globe). Experienced it with enemies like Goblin Mage at Firewine Bridge, Ghost in Durlag's Tower. I could be possibly doing something wrong but could you check if the spell works as it should at all? Thank you in advance.

Darryls reference presented in video part number 1

@Bartimaeus In ini. file i found "celestials = 1 // set to 0 if you prefer alternative celestials without SR mucking things up". Could you please specify what it means The "mucking things up" part confuses me a bit. If i leave it at 1 would it mess up with SCS behavior? Same for fiends.

No, you just implement the change to fix the bug and make it default. The optional would be to make manual change in ini.settings file (like substitution 0 to 1 value or something like that) before you start installation.

Sorry but logic fails here Following this logic one can assume that any patch change should be optional. That does not make much sense. Besides other people on this forum discussed the way to fix shapeshift exploit/bug with extra off hand attack so clearly that's the issue that bothers people. I have not been playing BG for several years and now i am reinvigorated with the urge to explore the game again and do multiple runs with mods, well... when i started playing i found that shapeshifter could do extra off hand attack and i was really surprised. I posted my concern about it here, and i bet other people like me would be truly surpsised about extra off hand attack as well. Thats why i think its much better to try to fix the bug with the solutions like @Bartimaeus introduced.

If its clearly a bug (and it is) why make it optional? I am not digging it Would it not be better to make optional to allow off hand attacks and make the change you made as default?

@Bartimaeus only judging by the number of commits for the patch it took a lof of time indeed. Good job man!

GJ

Yeah, i posted a detailed discription of both planetar's behavior here, probably could help you if you haven't seen it yet. Its the post from Thursday i think.

If @Bartimaeus wishes to delve into SR AI - i dont mind. If he does not i guess i will wait till new SCS patch, install with latest SRR patch, hopefuly new IR patch and will give it a run. Will report results.