Mike1072

I wouldn't have anything against you using the current icon, if you cleared it with @bob_veng.

I've moved those posts into this topic to help de-confusify.

You want the FnP & SR variants to co-exist?

The old icon is no longer being used in SR.  You could ask the original artist for permission - @DreamSlaveOne.

Sounds like the discussion has run its course.

10 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I think ideally, I'd like to have 3-5 non-store locations for each of these, as they're all level 1 spells and they're all pretty basic spells. If there are any oddball useless scroll placements (e.g. Identify) that could be harmlessly replaced, could also do that as well - I just haven't been able to play through BG1 and identify good spots.

For vanilla BG1 scrolls, the store in High Hedge has most of them up to level 3 and Sorcerous Sundries has most of them up to level 5 (with the selection diminishing for the higher levels).

Each scroll can also usually be found in a couple of containers in the world and in the inventory of a single unique enemy mage.

The level 1 through level 3 scrolls (and some level 4 ones) are present in RNDSCROL.2DA, which is referenced by the other random treasure tables and so may appear randomly as loot.

The spells introduced in BG2 are rarer, with their scrolls showing up in perhaps just one or two locations in BG:EE.

I'm simply maintaining SR.  kreso may be more open to implementing new content, but including spells from other mods is not one of SR's goals.

Firstly, SR is intended mainly as a rework of the existing spells in the game.  It adds some spells where necessary to fill gaps (e.g. differentiating druids from clerics, filling out specialist spellbooks), but arbitrarily adding new spells is not the focus.

Secondly, if the spells exist in working form in another mod, you can use that mod together with SR; there's nothing gained by duplicating the content within SR.

If it's a matter of wanting to rebalance spells added by other mods, that won't be addressed in SR.  Your best bet for that is to address it at the source, or if that proves impossible, to create a separate mod specifically for rebalancing mod content.

Off-hand THAC0 bonuses and penalties have no effect unless you are dual-wielding, so it is indeed harmless to have on a two-handed weapon.  It wouldn't be hard to add a two-handed check to the item patch, though.

Here's a combination of my understanding of your steps 3 through 5 mixed with some suggestions.  I have no experience with using these opcodes, just operating based on the descriptions in the IESDP.

To add the appropriate spells, you have 7 different 326 effects, each comparing a different bit of the stat and casting a spell that adds all spells the appropriate number of times:

• if bit 0 of stat is set, cast spell "add1x"
• if bit 1 of stat is set, cast spell "add2x"
• if bit 2 of stat is set, cast spell "add4x"
• if bit 3 of stat is set, cast spell "add8x"
• if bit 4 of stat is set, cast spell "add16x"
• if bit 5 of stat is set, cast spell "add32x"
• if bit 6 of stat is set, cast spell "add64x"

Then those spells cast subspells for each level.

• "add1x" casts:
  • "addlvl1"
  • "addlvl2"
  • "addlvl3"
  • "addlvl4"
  • "addlvl5"
  • "addlvl6"
  • "addlvl7"
  • "addlvl8"
  • "addlvl9"
• "add2x" casts "add1x" twice
• "add4x" casts "add1x" four times
• "add8x" casts "add1x" eight times
• "add16x" casts "add1x" sixteen times
• "add32x" casts "add1x" thirty-two times
• "add64x" casts "add1x" sixty-four times

When the player has 1 spell point remaining, you want "addlvl1" to be applied and none of the other "addlvlX" subspells, so you're trying to apply an immunity to "addlvl2", etc.  It sounds like you're using the correct relation, so I don't know why that isn't working.

Instead of applying immunity to those subspells, you could try changing "add1x" so it conditionally casts the subspells, using opcode 318 to only cast when the stat is greater or equal (relation 4) to the spell level.

New "add1x":

• if stat >= 1, cast spell "addlvl1"
• if stat >= 2, cast spell "addlvl2"
• if stat >= 3, cast spell "addlvl3"
• if stat >= 4, cast spell "addlvl4"
• if stat >= 5, cast spell "addlvl5"
• if stat >= 6, cast spell "addlvl6"
• if stat >= 7, cast spell "addlvl7"
• if stat >= 8, cast spell "addlvl8"
• if stat >= 9, cast spell "addlvl9"

Yes, you won't be able to push directly to a G3 repo unless you are the maintainer of the mod.  Our standard practice is for contributors to create a fork of the G3 repo, push their changes to the fork, then submit them to the G3 repo via pull request.

After you create your fork, you can adjust the remotes in your local repo with these commands (using the appropriate URL for your fork in the second).

git remote rename origin upstream
git remote add origin https://github.com/yourusername/SpellRevisions.git

With these remotes, you'll be able to push to origin (your fork) and pull from upstream (the G3 repo).

I'm encountering an error when trying to install iesh.  I'm using Python 2.7.17 and running python ./setup.py install in the repo folder.  I receive a message about a syntax error on this line.

The full output is below.

running install
running build
running build_py
running build_scripts
running install_lib
byte-compiling D:\Programs\Python2\Lib\site-packages\infinity\cache.py to cache.pyc
running install_scripts
running install_data
running install_egg_info
Removing D:\Programs\Python2\Lib\site-packages\ie_shell-0.0.3-py2.7.egg-info
Writing D:\Programs\Python2\Lib\site-packages\ie_shell-0.0.3-py2.7.egg-info
  File "D:\Programs\Python2\Lib\site-packages\infinity\cache.py", line 33
    self.
        ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

I commented on Faerie Fire in your original thread.  This is a bug that I can fix.

1. You should definitely apply your changes to the resource files inside the mod folder instead of the ones installed in the game.  There is little chance that SR patches will override what you do, because SR doesn't really use patches that way.  The patches that exist in SR mostly do things that can only be done at install-time.  
2. If you're comfortable creating separate branches for each feature as you suggest, that's absolutely the best way, because it lets us add further commits on that branch if necessary and then squash when merging.  Many modders are newcomers to git, so this is not a requirement.

On 11/15/2019 at 12:31 PM, Mike1072 said:

For reference, this is opcode 330.

I don't understand how the effect works, but it references strref 45232 in parameter 3.  Strings 45232–45239 all appear to be lines that it should display.  I don't know if it's hardcoded to use the 7 sequential strrefs starting at the one listed in parameter 3, but that's where I'd start experimenting.

If that is how it works, then you'll have to figure out how to insert 7 strrefs sequentially, with sounds, which sounds like a fun challenge.

It doesn't seem to be hardcoded.  Instead it uses 8 sequential strings starting with the strref specified in parameter 3.

I've submitted a pull request that adds the strings with sound effects to dialog.tlk using RESOLVE_STR_REF and assigns the first strref to parameter 3 of the .eff file.

STRING_LENGTH string

Should be:

STRING_LENGTH ~%string%~

If this makes you feel stupid, don't worry.  You wouldn't believe how many times I've accidentally done the same when comparing strings.

3 hours ago, grodrigues said:

And is there a way to treat the string as an array of bytes to test it -- maybe looping over it and read byte by byte with READ_BYTE?

Yes:

INNER_PATCH ~%string%~
  READ_BYTE  0x00 type
  READ_BYTE  0x01 flags
  READ_SHORT 0x02 location
  // etc.
END

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

Lots of install orders put the first component if IR where you have it, but push all the other components later, to right before CDTweaks. 

Yeah, the other components affect items in the base game as well as items added by mods.  With the above install order, items added by Song & Silence or Rogue Rebalancing wouldn't be affected by the "Revised Shield Bonuses" or "Kensai Can Wear Bracers" components.

On 12/28/2019 at 2:32 PM, ermo said:

Could someone with authority to do so kindly update the README on the Item Revisions page to point to the v4beta10 version?

It currently appears to point to the v2 one.

TIA

The v2 readme is accurate for v2, which is the last official release.

The readme in v4b10 is not completely up to date, which is to be expected, since it's a beta.  (It's perhaps not expected to remain in beta for this long a time.)  Part of preparing an official v4 release will involve updating the contents of the readme.

10 hours ago, grodrigues said:

- Glitterdust: Has protection against non-existent SPPR114F.

Thanks.  This needs to be corrected in both spwi224.spl and sppr114.spl.

10 hours ago, grodrigues said:

Doing a (long term) project to implement some of the changes of SRR to SR via patching and then some more of my own. The scaffolding is done, now is just the grinding. In the meantime, uncovered a few bugs in SR v4.18 as of stable release, that is, if any new commit fixed them in the meantime I missed it. I will add more as I uncover them, to this post or some other post.

Any fixes that you can contribute to the GitHub repo would be appreciated.

6 hours ago, NdranC said:

Has it been considered before to change the armor's dexterity penalty from percentage to flat negatives?

...

My suggestion would be subtle -1 to -3 flat bonuses if at all.

That's exactly how it was originally implemented.

I tried to find the rationale for the change to a percentage-based system, but the best I could find was the following exchange from the Revised Armors thread.

On 10/21/2013 at 8:03 PM, yarpen said:

Also, I do have an idea about Dexterity penalties, but I am not sure if that's applicable. "Dexterity Penalty from armor can reduce character's Dexterity to minimum of 9." That would actually solve the biggest issue I have with Dexterity penalties. I just really hate to see my character with 4 Dexterity just because he tried to get into that sweet platemail.

On 10/22/2013 at 2:02 AM, Demivrgvs said:

Your are grossly exaggerating this. I've used % values instead of fixed -x penalties exactly to counter what you says. A character with DEX 9 would get to DEX 7 when wearing full plate (no difference at all in terms of gameplay - and with a plate mail he would have suffered only 1 point of penalty!). A character with DEX 6 gets to 5, while to get DEX 4 in full plate your character need to have DEX 5 as base value, which means you are trying to give a full plate to an old man who cannot even raise himself from bed.

I have a recollection that the percentage values chosen were designed to mimic the original penalties (-1 to -3) for a character at 18 DEX.  Essentially, the percentage-based system should behave similar to the flat value system regarding bonuses for high dexterity without penalizing low dexterity characters as much.

14 hours ago, Jon Tanah said:

Not sure if this is the right place to say this but the Wizard spell Protection from Elemental Energy doesnt do anything. Its extended effects and resource is pointing to SPWI422 whereas I suspect it should be pointing to DVWI426. I made the change using DLTCEP and it caused it to work correctly.

Im using the beta18 though I have SCS 32.7 installed too which Im aware may not be fully compatible yet..

Thanks for the report.  This was a bug in SR that will be corrected in v4b19.

Edit: The bug also affects Animal Growth.

@Bartimaeus is responsible for IRR, so your question is best addressed to him.  As far as I know, your only options are to use IRR or not use it.

I've moved this discussion out of the SCS thread.

I don't think anyone's been deleting your posts.  It looks like the forum might have mangled the one that's 2 posts up.  If you register for an account, you'll be able to edit your posts.

Jarno excels at derailing threads.  Sometimes it's best to ignore.

I've moved the off-topic discussion here.

2 hours ago, Endarire said:

Dispel Magic: The doc description mentions "Remove Magic" which no longer exists in the docs.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:40 PM, Endarire said:

Improved haste shouldn't mention that it affects an area as an advantage over haste when haste also affects an area.

Fixed for the next version.

2 hours ago, Endarire said:

Magic Resistance: It seemingly uses the same icon as Dispelling Screen.  May we get a version of one of these icons which faces right instead of left?

The icons are similar but not identical.  I'm not sure how I'd feel about making a minor change like a flip, since both icons are from the vanilla game and the issue hasn't come up before.  Dispelling Screen uses the icon for Spell Immunity, the spell it replaces.  If we were to make a change, I'd prefer a redesign that makes one of the icons more distinctive.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:40 PM, Endarire said:

Do spells that scale based on caster level like dispel magic scale into epic levels (21+)?  I was disappointed when my previous run's dispel wasn't the auto-win I expected at CL40ish.

The per-level improvements of spells (e.g. increased duration) are capped at level 20, like in vanilla.

Dispel Magic's effectiveness depends on both your caster level and the enemy's caster level.  I don't think it has a cap.

However, you'll be as successful dispelling 10th-level magic when you are level 10 as you will be dispelling 25th-level magic when you are level 25.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:40 PM, Endarire said:

Does free action/freedom of movement negate haste?

No, it does not.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:40 PM, Endarire said:

What are the descriptions of the fixes mentioned in the EET installer (Dispel Magic Fix, Mirror Image Fix)?

Mirror Image Fix: This component fixes mirror images so they no longer protect from AoE spells such as Fireball.

Dispel Magic Fix: This component prevents innate weapons (like claws provided by Polymorph and Shapeshift spells) from being dispelled by Dispel Magic.

I believe both of these bugs were fixed in the EE games, but if you're installing SR's main component, you'll need to install these components to affect the resources added by SR.

I'll probably move the fixes into the main component in the future.

On 12/6/2019 at 9:40 PM, Endarire said:

Do items that produce spell affects revised by this mod (like a Ring of Free Action) also produce the revised spell effects?

Spell Revisions does not change items.  If an item has on-equip effects or activated abilities that do not match specific spells, there will be no change in how they function.  However, if an item has an activated ability to cast a particular spell, then that spell will most likely be the SR version.

If you install the main component of Item Revisions, it will update the item effects in a manner consistent with SR.  The mods were designed to be used in tandem.

On 12/8/2019 at 4:31 AM, Guest Big Fan of SR, IR, and SCS said:

Hi Mike, thank you for taking up the work on SR.

I'm a huge fan of SR+IR+SCS and I mod quite a few spells to suit my tastes and fix (what I consider to be) errors. I could write an essay on how insightful and superior the SR spell list is from my perspective.

Question: I've been playing with SCS v32.7 and SR v4beta16 since when DavidW explicitly made them compatible. Do you know if SCS is compatible with v4 beta 17?

Just checking before I consider switching over to v17.  I understand the issues surrounding v17's "filenames assigned dynamically at install-time ", and while SCS may handle that perfectly through IDS aliases, my own personal mods probably won't.

Thanks for the nice words about the mod.  All praise should go to @Demivrgvs and the other contributors.

Regarding SCS, I expect it will require an update to achieve compatibility with SRv4b17+.  I believe @DavidW is aware of what may need to be changed as we discussed the SR changes here.

LPF ALTER_EFFECT INT_VAR match_opcode = 142 parameter2 = icon END

26 minutes ago, Daeros_Trollkiller said:

Does it matter which number parameter 2 is set to on the effect I am changing?  By that, I mean would it mess up other portrait icons if the effect started with the portrait icon something common like confusion or stun?   I'm just wondering is there is a "best practice" here when it comes to setting the initial parameter to be changed by ALTER_EFFECT

The reason you might want to match on parameter 2 is if the resource (spl/itm/cre) has multiple 142 effects that display different icons.  It lets you target the effects that reference a specific icon and leave the effects that reference other icons alone.

If you are using it to modify your .spl file that has only a single 142 effect, you could get rid of match_parameter2 entirely.