pochesun

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Oops, sorry, I meant SCRL04.spl, Protection from Cold, not Protection from Fire.

Because there's no way to get it to mechanically work like a curse (and is in fact easily removable by level 1 Resist Fear or any other source of fear resistance/removal), it would seem inexplicable to me to not have it be generally dispellable, especially given its 8 hour length. Interestingly, though the positive effects of potions in IR are considered "alchemical" and thus not generally dispellable in nature, the negative effects of "strange"/cursed potions are dispellable. Hmm. To be honest, I'm not the hugest fan of those potions always having negative effects...always felt like "strange" potions should have a 50/50 chance of either doing what they're supposed to do or something bad.

Attached another file.

My issue with Goblet is it is supposed to be a cursed artifact, and the curse was put on it by some truly evil forces of Durlag Tower (and from Durlag's past life that was filled with hatred and fear). So presumably the curse should be quite strong and malicious. But making it easily dispellable like any level 1 spell turns that curse into a mere trifle. When i was talking about Goblet change i meant a change where the curse effect should be more aggrevating and the range of means dealing with the curse, in my opinion, should be truncated, not the opposite. 

I like the idea of randomness for "strange" potions though, i think its worth implementing - adding more fun never hurts  

scrl04.spl

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

No, dispellable: you may dispel it. There's no way to get that fear effect to act anything like a true curse, so it may as well be dispellable, particularly with how annoying the "causes immediate morale panic" effect is. Honestly, the berserking effect would make a lot more sense and work better, but it doesn't really go with the lore.

Then honestly i dont get the idea behind it. I thought Goblet was supposed to cause more aggrevating issues (from Lore point of view as well) and with effect being dispellable now it has become less aggrevating. At least before target under Fear effect from the Goblet could only be brought back to normal state by Remove Fear, and now negative effect is even more easy to deal with. Though i have to admit, cast Dispell on your buffed party member, especially during fight, might be ill advised

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I just tested it on both oBG2 and BG2EE again, and the piercing damage always applies even when I have Protection from Fire applied. If you still have a copy of it from that install, give me your SCRL06.spl so I can take a look at it, as that's about all I can think of to do.

Are we talking about Icelance spell?  Because Protection from Fire would have not affect Icelance in anyway. I was talking about Protection from Cold and Icelance interraction however. Just in case i attached file you requested.

scrl06.spl

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

1. Durlag's Goblet: ... fear is dispellable...

You mean undispellable?

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

2. Protection from Fire and Protection from Acid no longer directly protect against Melf's Acid Arrow and Flame Arrow respectively.

Thats nice, those scrolls were too OP otherwise.

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

3. I never experienced your Icelance issue: if it happens again in your new installation, it will need further investigation.

Ok, i decided to test Icelance again before i gonna reinstall my game and mods soon. I cast Icelance spell from Scroll (i dont know if it makes any difference than casting it from spellbook, but anyway worth mentioning). So when i cast Icelance on a character that has 100% cold resistance -no effects take place and the log says "X: unaffected  by effects from Icelance" where X is character name. So basically in this case no damage taken at all (!) and no attempts to save taken (either from cold or from being held), though the spell description clearly states that the target must save vs breath (to avoid cold damage) and Paralysis to avoid being held. When i cast Icelance on a character without any cold resistance or resistance less than 99%  - both saves attempts happen. What strikes me the most - while bearing 100% cold resistance or more the target takes no damage at all (not even basic piercing damage).  Thats very weird.

That actually leads to some interesting results, like, for instance, a character with more than 100% Cold Resistance cant be healed by Icelance cold damage because Icelance would not have any effect and deal no cold damage (as i just wrote above) - and that is not how it should work imho.

Also 2 notings:

-  i am not sure if its important, but when a character tries to save for not being held the log says "save vs. Death" while Icelance spell description states " save vs Paralysis".

-  i found when i cast Protection from Cold scroll (green one) the game log says "We are not here as mercenaries, we are here to save Grand Dukes from assasination". And when i cast Protection from acid scroll (green one) the game log says "You must excuse me, but i am teribly busy right now". Bad strings again.

Again, i tested all these on my current installation that is about 5 months old so take it with a grain of salt, probably you already mended some of the issues i discribed, but feel free to test Icelance with this post in mind  Anyway i will report any deviations with Icelance, if any occur, after i fresh install the mods.

@Bartimaeus hello, i am about to make a fresh installation of mods and i was wondering if you fixed Flame Arrow, Acid Arrow (or protection scrolls against those spells for that matter) and Icelance spell i mention about 2 months ago?

Also wanted to ask if you decided to somehow change the effect of Durlag's Goblet? Also curious if its the unique item for BG1 or it is present in BG 2 as well?

12 hours ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

Yes, I guess I found a working solution... But just to clarify, Liches - including that very same Lich in question - were dispelled just fine if they DIDN'T have Globe up. But there's a contingency just for Globe, and as soon as that fired, dispels no longer worked (including for Dispelling Screen). If dispelled before the Globe went up, everything worked as expected.

Have you tried Globe and Dispell interraction against any other enemy? It seems weird that specifically contingency for Globe causes that behavior.

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

The character with the globe cast upon them was dispelled multiple times by a higher level spellcaster without anything being dispelled? "dispel_globes" being set to 1 is the default option, and that means that neither alternative files or patches are used unlike the other two options, so it would seem to be the least likely option to have any problems. You can give me your Minor Globe (spwi406.spl from override) to look at if you're certain.

He also could just overlook that Dispell does not guarantee to dispell at all  

15 hours ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

Not sure if it's my game, but Globes of Invulnerability don't seem to quite work right.

I'm on dispel_globes=1 in the ini, but it appears they act as if it was =2 i.e. can't be dispelled by Dispel Magic and stops Dispel Magic from dispelling everything else as well. (I'm on spell_protections=0 as well)

I just tested - cant confirm. I have set dispel_globes set at 1 in ini. file as well but it works as intended on my installation. Maybe you missing some effects or spells on enemies ( like dispelling screen)?

18 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Thanks. I do have it written down in my to-do list.txt along with a few other items, so it should eventually get done...eventually. End of summer is a busy time of year for me.

gotcha, thx  

@Bartimaeus hello, reminding you in case you forgot to check those issues with Acid Arrow, Flame Arrow and Icelance spells i posted above.  

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

@pochesun Yes, probably, but I'll need to put aside some time for testing myself at some point.

ok, i guess you dont have much free time now. I ll keep reporting bugs or inconsistencies here if i find any, hopefully you will look over them when you have more time  

@Bartimaeus i tested Icelance a bit more (in addition to what i wrote in previous post). It seems that if a character has 100% protection from Cold Icelance ha no effect on this character at all: no damage (either piercing or cold) and even no save required against being stunned for 1 round. Is it normal?

Also wanted to ask what you think of Green Protection Scrolls (considering what i wrote about them in previous post). Are they a bit OP and should they been nerfed or leave them as they are?

On 7/16/2023 at 6:37 PM, Bartimaeus said:

 if I were changing how this goblet works, I would ideally want to make it so that the effect matches the description: instead of simply being "your character runs around in circles the moment you use the goblet", it would be "you have control of your character...until they get into a fight and then they go run around in circles until the fight is over".

that probably would be a good change to be honest. Its also could be a random effect  - character runs in panic from time to time while curse is active (like the character got whiplash of fear). I dunno how difficult it is to be implemented though

On 7/16/2023 at 6:37 PM, Bartimaeus said:

With regards to Melf's Acid Arrow, in my opinion, Protection from Acid should not protect against the physical damage of the arrow. That is, after all, the point of including a physical damage component and treating the spell as if it were a real projectile shot at the target (even subject to the effects of Protection from Missiles and other sources of missile deflection). I wonder if the same issue applies to Flame Arrow and Protection from Fire? Given that Melf's Acid Arrow is a single target spell, it is not really necessary for Protection from Acid to explicitly protect against it in the first place - providing immunity to the acid damage via acid resistance is adequate. Most likely simply an oversight on the part of IR if this issue only applies to the green scrolls that IR modifies.

Yes, i tested it with Protection from Fire green scroll as well - same effect: the character protected by it did not recieve any damage from Flame Arrow spell (neither missile nor fire). SO basically both green scrolls giving protection from acid and from fire do this. So again, if i reach 100% protection from Acid by reading that green scroll that gives "immunity" - then no damage at all from Melf's Acid Arrow. But if i reach 100% protection from Acid by any other combination (blue scroll and potion for instance) then missile damage goes through but no acid damage. 

i also tested Icelance spell with protection from cold effects. And, interestingly, in this case its a bit different. While Icelance has both piercing and cold "parts" of damage if a character has 100% protected from cold then Icelance has absolutely no effect against this character, but in this case it does not matter if the character protected by green scroll or reaches that 100% via, for example, boots (+50%) and Potion of Energy Protection (+50%). Feel free to try it  

I dunno it all those i mentioned are fixable or you will leave it as it is, but "immunity" clause probably has some sense: after all as @jmerry made a point before that Melf's Acid Arrow (at least in theory) is a acid based spell, same for flame arrow spell. Basically those green protection scrolls becomes more powerful in comparison and i dont think its a big deal, but its up to you if you gonna do anythign about it. Icelance spell - i think is a different story, though, its probably bugged or something.

On 7/16/2023 at 6:37 PM, Bartimaeus said:

Thanks, about fully back now. It's been a while since I got a booster, but it ended up being less worse (although still pretty unpleasant) relative to the first time I got it which was shortly after having received a booster. Viruses be wack, yo.

Good to hear. Covid is a nasty thing and i also happened to overcome it once (i was boosted though), and what i experienced - was not pleasant, to say the least  

20 hours ago, jmerry said:

... Looking again at a typical fear protection package...

Ah. Fear protection grants immunity to effects that alter the morale break value. So indeed, if you use the goblet while protected via the helmet, Remove Fear, or a similar effect, the curse won't take hold in the first place.

The one case in which the curse should reassert itself is when you apply that fear protection after using the goblet; then you'll have two opcode 106 effects on you. The newer one takes priority over the older, and when that Remove Fear wears off the goblet's effect will still be there because it lasts 12 hours.

Unless something altered one or more of the pieces involved. SRR's Resist Fear (renamed Remove Fear) looks fine to me. Maybe you should check your version of the goblet?

I just tested and indeed it worked like you described: I used the Goblet, my character fleed in panic, then i cast Remove fear on him - and got control of it. But after 5 mins passed and Remove Fear wore off the character ran in panic away again.

I think i should draw @Bartimaeus 's attention to this: i feel like using Goblet while being proitected should still lay curse effect on the character for the time span of 12 hours and that curse should take priority whenever remove fear effect is not active on the character (especially if the curse icon appears but no effect takes place - thats kinda weird). Also, and i do think it would be cool, if the Goblet sets morale break value to 15 for the time span of 12 hours (kinda permanent and unvariable effect for that duration) and if a character is not protected by Remove Fear effect it should flee in panic even if that character is dealt a small amount of damage. After all the Goblet description says " causes the imbiber to run AT THE FIRST SIGHT OF DANAGER"  

13 hours ago, jmerry said:

I looked up the vanilla (EE) version of Durlag's Goblet before; it sets morale break to 15. Since that's higher than full morale (10), an affected character is always in a morale break state and will never recover naturally.

Fear protection effects suppress the goblet's curse, setting morale break to 1. But when they run out, the goblet's curse reasserts itself. You need to maintain that protection for the full duration. Fortunately, the goblet is just one room away from Kiel's helmet with its fear immunity equip effect.

Also, despite the "Cursed" portrait icon, it isn't a curse mechanically; Remove Curse has no effect. Dispels don't help either.

Yeah thats the issue, in my game it seems that goblet's curse does not reassert itself. The only time morale break happens is when i use Goblet with no protection from fear, but i can easily cast Remove Fear spell and after that it looks like the curse does not exist at all (even when Remove Fear effect wears off), though there is an icon of a curse on the character. Also, when i equip Kiel's helmet and then use Goblet and then unequip Kiel's helmet - nothing happens and my character never fall in morale break.

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I am currently dying of covid, I'll return to this in the days to come (or if I forget, go ahead and re-ping me).

Jeez, thats rough. I hope you will recover with no severe consequences (unfortunately with covid its usually takes about a month to fully recover, if not vaccinated). Anyway, get well soon.

@Bartimaeus I just remembered to ask you to check Durlag's Goblet (it was thinking about it long time ago biut somehow it escaped my mind and only now i recalled it  

I remember i was using the Goblet and on the usage it turned the character not protected from fear to flee. It also seemed to lay a curse on that character that should make it flee when this character felt any danger. But i did not feel like the curse effect persisted, to be honest. I was wondering if you could check, when used, what level of "morale break" Goblet sets the character? 

2 hours ago, jmerry said:

So ... why are you complaining here when it's the other mod that grants the immunity? MAA is pure acid in vanilla; it's only the interaction between the SRR spell adding physical damage and the IRR scroll granting immunity that's an issue at all. And if any changes are to be made, they won't be on this side.

First , i am not complaining, i am just pointing out. The whole reasone for this thread is to make the mod better. When i feel somethign is wrong with the mod, i post it here. I happen to be wrong or miss something so my comment about some bug might be invalid, but i also happen to report bugs or inconsistencies that are indeed subject to mending. The whole process is called "testing". Also, this is SRR thread and i figure any issue regarding spells should be posted here.

Second, The reason i was confused is that "missile damage" part of the spell in the description. If the spell had been a pure source of acid damage then what missile has to do with it, that was my issue. I also compared percentages of resistance that both said 100%, so it made me wonder. I am totally fine with how it works and it makes perfect sense to me, it was just what i thought was an ambiguity of effects.

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

The Protection from Acid scroll only provides 50% acid resistance in vanilla, so I suspect there's a change to that item that's throwing you off here.

From your mod list ... SRR changes the spell, but we've already accounted for that change. SCS adds immunity effects to a number of elemental damage spells so they don't disrupt enemies immune to that element, but (a) that's only done for a specified list of area spells which doesn't include MAA, (b) it would behave the same no matter how acid immunity was achieved, and (c) effect ordering would let the physical damage through anyway, as the immunity effect goes right before the elemental damage.

That leaves IRR ... what does that mod have to say about the Protection from Acid scroll?

Ah. That. Sounds like an "immune to that spell" effect. Regardless of any physical damage attached.

Fair enough but my issue is that Melf's Acid Arrow spell description does not even specify its acid based attack (it just says "magical arrow"), not to mention the description specifically notes the spell includes "missile" part of damage. At least Flame Arrow spell description says "flaming arrows"  But even then missile damage is also a part of the spell.

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

As for Melf's Acid Arrow, I can't confirm what you're experiencing on BG2EE: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/43ud5yzzs35pgol/Baldur_ZHz2JblnR6.mp4 Not pictured here, but I also set it to max (instead of just 101) and had Jan Jansen cast it as well, same result.

I did some more testing and thats interesting. If i cast Malf"s Acid Arrow spell on a character that got say 50% resistance from an ankheg armor and 50% resistance from Potion of Energy Protection (so 100% total, 100 is visible in charachter's info window) then the effect is the same you got in your video. But if i cast Melf's Acid Arrow spell on a charachter that jsut cast Protection from Acid Scroll on himself (hence got 100% and the same 100 is visible in charachter's info window) then nothign happens, the spell deals no damage at all. Confirmed on both casting Arrow from spellbook and from scroll.

I mean in both examples we got 100 Acid resistance on the character but the spell acts differently. Who said that Melf's Acid Arrow spell is only the source of acid damage? Its description specifically implies that it also got missile damage. Feel free to try the same combination (ankheg armor and Potion of Energy protection and then Protection Scroll), maybe i am missing something but i am pretty sure its correct. I only use EE game, SCS, IRR, SRR and couple of tweaks regarding interface. 

I also tested with Flame Arrow spell  - same result as described above with Melf's Acid Arrow.

@Bartimaeus Also found that my character was Dire Charmed by Mage Ogre and then i cast Domination (wizard spell) on the same character to get control of it again and the log says "Protected by the Shiled of the Archons". Bad string, i presume.

33 minutes ago, jmerry said:

Checking the files ... the basic SRR version of Melf's Acid Arrow just does a bunch of damage effects. Resistances apply to each of those individually, and >100% resistance to the acid effect can result in negative damage (increasing the target's damage). But it's a small effect; 2d4 damage at 127% resistance results in an average of 0.875 health gained per packet of acid. Still, the highest level version of the spell is 1d6+1 missile damage and then six packets of 2d4 acid damage; at 0% missile resistance and 127% acid resistance, that's -1.75 average damage over the course of the spell.

For Flame Arrow, the damage is all instant, and the offsetting effect happens immediately.

There's a quirk of game mechanics there; >100% resistance results in negative damage, but only for non-physical damage types.

I still cant understand why at 127% resistance missile damage and elemental damage are not separated as recieved damage. At 100% resistance they are separated. I realize that >100% resistance results in negative elemental damage (basically healing) but those are different types of damage, and those spells specifically say that first the target recieves missile damage and only then elemental (so basically its an incremental process of recieving damage).

@Bartimaeus i have a question regarding Melf's Acid Arrow spell and Flame Arrow spell. It says that when i cast them on target it deals missile damage first and then elemental damage. When the target has 100% resistance against those elementals it receives missile damage first and then recieves no elemental damage, as intended. But if the target has protection from those elements (immune to them) and techincally has 127% resistance - then the target wont recieve and damage (neither missile, nor elemental). Why with 127% resistnace the target recieves no missile damage from those spells?

18 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Are you sure? The poison opcode uses type 3 with the interval being 3, which should mean 1 damage per 3 seconds, i.e. 2 damage per round.

Yeah you are right. Honestly did not know it dealt damage twice per round in chunks of 1 instead of 1 proc in a chunk of 2. Good to know i guess Also i like this split effect even more since its better against mages trying to cast spells.

@Bartimaeus Green orb from Chromatic orb Spell deals only 1 damage per round while in description its said "2 damage per round".

@Bartimaeus wanted to ask you if you managed to make Haste potion being countered by Slow spell? I am about to make a fresh installation, the reason i am asking - i havent seen any changes regarding it in Github commits. If no - consider it as a reminder