Demivrgvs

@kreso, I've re-uploaded it with the following changes: - clab files now uses a new dvcl323e ("normal" cast spell) to apply dvcl323c (cast spell when helpless), both with prmantnet timing modes - dvcl323c triggers dvcl323d, which removes all the supposed helpless effects and cast dvcl323a (Frenzy)

Mmm...all the files seem to have correct target values. Let's try what you suggested about using a different 'cast spell' within the clab file to apply the 'cast spell on condition', though it should have worked considering I simply edited the files we were using for activating Frenzy when struck, and that version worked.

That's exactly what need to be tested. IEDSP suggests that it works against hold effects (both hold person and web) and sleep too (thought it seems to work only if sleep has permanent timing, which would be useless ), but no other opcode seems to set the state to helpless. I do hope it works against stun and/or confusion, or something at all. On a side note, this will finally make us discover the 'helpless' condition is useful for mage's Contingency (never used it my games because I had no clue how it worked) or if this is just another missed opportunity.

I really don't know how to make Berserker's description shorter. For Ao's sake I hate this limitation. It's a temporary left over and not the only one around for classes with still many work-in-progress things. Anyway, it doesn't matter because using OS itself should remove the ability from the menu e re-assign it after expiration. lol Well a "charge" maneuver surely fits the Berserker, but it would kinda overlap with our Barbarian in terms of gameplay. Regardless, I'm tempted to give back few immunities while enraged (e.g. fear and charm as per 5th edition Berserker), but let's see what the new level 5 ability can do first.

Ehm...I just got back home 5 minutes ago. I only managed to package the Berserker for a stealth update because I promised it. @kreso, download it at your own risk. Regardless I'll wake up early tomorrow morning to work on both KR and SR. I'll be around for any quick fix and probably provide a more official new beta within the morning. P.S Added Revised Grandmastery text update on my to-do list for b20.

I have to go out but the good news is that the Berserker is fully ready. I'll be back after dinner to package it (still need to upgrade the tra files) and hopefully include all the other changes as well. If the other changes takes too much I'll upload a b20 before going to sleep anyway, with just the new Berserker (plus jarno's HLA progression table and the small cosmetic changes for the True Fighter and Barbarian) because I really cannot wait to have it tested (and I'm sure kreso is just as eager as me ). One thing I wasn't sure about and I can quickly edit (or you guys can edit in game to make multiple tests) is the new Frenzy duration (I've set it to 9 seconds) and the % chance to trigger it while using OS (still 10% right now). While enraged I'm using 100%, do you agree?

The paladin xp level HLA table thing(modified "lunumab.2da" -file). Edited and included just to shut you up about it. Jokes aside, it will require more changes because the whole "revised xp tables" is actually in an alpha stage and needs refinements. Fair point. It's a very good spell for it's level.Well, I do expect kit specific spells to be very good, else there would be no point adding them.

Noted. What's so problematic about it? Drinking a Potion of Invisibility is the same thing, actually slightly faster because Stalker's spell has casting time 1 not 0. Thanks for reminding it, it was a small typo within Arda's code, it's fixed now.

@beta testers, if you can provide more feedback on b19 this is the right time for it as I'm working on b20. Right now the planned changes are: - True Fighter's Called Shot renamed into Called Hit - Barbarian's Cleave ability display its name when triggered - 100th attempt to make Berserker's Frenzy more "friendly" - Berserker gains Reckless Offensive at 2nd lvl (doubles Offensive Stance dmg bonus, but adds -2 penalty to AC/saves vs. breath) - Berserker no longer gain Terrifying Rage at 5th lvl - Berserker gains Unchecked Fury at lvl 5 (when "helpless" trigger Frenzy) - Cavalier's Challenge no longer gets additional magic damage, added a ProCreature effect to improve its intended role - Cavalier's Shield Other spell revised into a sort of Defensive Harmony - Undead Hunter armor restriction lifted (this kit will surely require attention) - Ranger's Quarry no longer prevents the use of invisibility, but doubles the chance to be detected by Tracking Am I missing anything?

For Item Revisions Arda uploaded his final version more or less a week ago and we only needed to prepare the readme, package everything and upload it, but this time around it was Mike's turn to be uber busy with RL stuff. For SR we're a bit behind. I'm counting on finishing my part during this week-end, and I actually think Arda has already prepared most, if not all, his stuff. Do expect more news during this week-end though.

Oh, I thought he said it was one hour. It isn't. EE also got the descriptions wrong in regard to duration. -1 round is 6 seconds -1 turn is 10 rounds -5 turns is 5 real-time minutes Yeah, but 5 turns are 1 hour in terms of in-game time. For example SR's Stoneskin now states that it lasts 8 hours because resting takes 8 hours in terms of in-game time, not real time.

Barkskin Well, I'd have used barkskin more if it lasted longer in vanilla. But I actually used it quite a bit before having access to the shadow dragon armor on my party thief to ensure she survived on the front lines in my last BG2:EE playthrough.Shadow Armor (available even within BG1) has AC4, but even using less powerful light armors I would not waste a spell to give my thief +1 AC, especially considering he is supposed to be the most elusive target of all. Otoh, Druids (not to mention vanilla's F/D) and rangers simply do not get anything from vanilla's Barkskin. Btw, I'm really curious to know if anyone agrees with you, as of now every single time this spell has been mentioned it was either a "cool, this spell can finally be used" or "cool, but slighty nerf it", I really don't remember anyone saying "noo this spell was so great in vanilla, you ruined it". Aye, I understand. But try to keep an agnostic view on how you implement your different mods , because if you're altering things mainly/exclusively due to what you did in another of your mods, that means that they basically are just one huge mod in the end, rather than three separate mods. (Note the emphasis on the mainly:exclusively words )Well, in the long run they are actually intended to be a sort of single huge mod. By doing so I can actually achieve things I would not be able to do if we had no control over other aspects of the game. You can still use any Revisions mod by itself, on any install, and they would still work fine, they simply do not show their full potential imo. It's fine since that +9 AC is a limitation from the class that you overcome with a magic spell.. Hell, even wizards recieve +9 AC from that spell if they are not using rare/pricey items.No, it's not fine and I've already explained why this mechanic is broken: you cannot design a class behind a weakness and then completely get rid of it with a single item/spell - either the class sucks without such item/spell or it becomes overpowered with it. In your case the +9 AC seems fine because a vanilla Kensai by itself was kinda "meh". The same broken mechanic can be brought to the extremes, such as Kensai-Thief's UAI allowing him to actually wear armors. In this case they managed to allow turning a slightly underpowered kit into a ridiculously broken one (seriously, I played one ages ago and even Ascension seemed easy-mode with this combo). Bracers of AC 6-7-8 are actually far from rare (even within BG1 you can get them), and within vanilla BG2 your mage could get base AC 5 via bracers or robes extremely easy. Short story: for a mage (or a KR's Kensai) Spirit Armor is more like a +4 or +5 AC, which is much more reasonable, and unlike vanilla Barkskin, armor spells are actually useful to the caster himself. Both Tweakpack and IR allows to wear Protection items alongside armors, but even assuming you can't, don't forget you could have used those ring/bracer slots for something else by picking the armor, thus your comparison isn't really a fair one. Not to mention you had tons of much better armors than a Studded Leather +2 even in vanilla (afaik Ankheg Armor wasn't even treated as magical there, and you could equip a Ring of Protection alongside it).

Barkskin As I said, vanilla's Barkskin was actually useless for pretty much everyone except a Kensai. Even without IR, druids and rangers had access to armors with equal or superior AC values. Btw, it is obvious for Revisions mods to take into account each other, it would be stupid not doing it. I always strive to make everything work in all the possible scenarios (e.g. vanilla BG, BGEE, without mod x, with mod x+y, etc.) but it is granted that depending on your install things may work a little different, it is straight impossible to make huge mods like IR, SR and KR work the very same way on all installs, there's simply too many variables and tweaks one can apply. If you think that it is fine for a long lasting, mid-low level spell to grant +9 AC to a warrior than we have completely different views of what "balance" means. A thief/avenger/stalker getting +6 AC is very unlikely considering that a studded leather +2 (surely not the best armor around even in vanilla) has the same AC of a vanilla's Barkskin with caster level 8-11. To put Barkskin on everyone you need all your 2nd level spell slots, and the first Dispel Magic will wipe out all of them at once. That being said, if I have to pick one between:- a spell which works good on everyone - a spell which is completely useless for almost everyone, meh for 1-2 classes, but brokenly good for the Kensai It's a no-brainer indeed which one I would want in my mods.

Blur vs. True Seeing Same old issue - can't grant thaco mod vs specific creature. What you suggest will work, but will also affect attacks made against non-blurred opponents if the attacker chooses to switch targets. Does cast spell on condition (AttackedBy - 7) makes the thac0 penalty take effect on the first attempted strike? If yes, we just neeed the penalty to last 1-2 seconds each time the attacker tries to strike the Blurred creature and switching target in such a short time would be very unlikey to say the least. If opcode 232 doesn't allow for that, well, the entire idea is just not implementable. Barkskin This has been done on purpose to counter a few things such as AC quickly becoming irrelevant in the later stages of BG2, and mages never picking AC enhancing spells (mind you, DavidW still doesn't consider them a valid option even after SR's buffs). Otoh, if too many things stack and/or I overdid something just let me know and we will see if something has to be done (e.g. v4 Barkskin will have a slower progression and no longer stack with Potion of Defense). Unlike mages, druids and rangers can use armors, making vanilla's Barkskin pretty much useless for themselves (leaving aside the most powerful BG2 dragon armors, even just BG1's Ankheg Armor has the same AC as vanilla's Barkskin when cast by a level 20 caster!), not to mention that with Ranger's caster level capped at 9 the spell was crippled for them. The only real use I could see for vanilla's Barkskin was to buff your thief, but even then it is just a matter of getting a very small AC bonus considering they can wear light armors (and those armors are great with IR installed), making it behave pretty much as SR's one, simply less "stackable". The thing is, do we really want a spell to have such a small niche and be utterly useless for the very same classes that can cast it? Regarding Barkskin raising saving throws, I can imagine it raising save vs. death if we really want it (though all editions after AD&D dropped this idea entirely), but making it grant better saves vs. breath makes really no sense (a wood-like skin is now resistant to a red dragon breath? o.O). Special mention on buffing the Kensai with armor spells, it's a very stupid game design imo, because it implies that Kensai's AC is pathetic without a caster buffing him, and that armor spells on him are ridiculously more effective than on everyone else. You end up with a class which is poorly balanced by himself, and too much buffed by a single spell (a vanilla Kensai gets +9 AC from Spirit Armor, that's insane!). I'm really glad we fixed this with IR and KR.

Cone of Cold If something needs to be added, and I'm not sure, I would add a slow effect rather than a "mass hold" one. It would be easier to balance imo, especially considering that we have Hold Monster at the same level, and that sooner or later we'll have Icelance and Otiluke's Freezing Sphere to perform what you suggest. When it comes to Sunfire/Fireburst vs. Cone of Cold, they don't overlap so much anymore imo, as we greatly reduced Sunfire/Fireburst AoE, while making its casting time almost instantaneous. Cone of Cold has a different damage type, and gets a larger AoE with bigger "reach" in exchange for a slower casting time. If there's a consensus, and/or it helps creating more variety I could imagine capping the damage at 15th level while adding a slow effect. P.S @Arda, you know that we do have a Cone of Freezing Cold ability within IR, don't you? Edit: Blur vs. True Seeing Mike has gone MIA thus I'm messing with SR and KR in these days and one thing struck me...I actually think we can make True Seeing work as per PnP even against Blur, and the solution seems very easy (so much that either I was blind or I'm missing something now). Technically: - Blur cast a secondary spell to apply a -x penalty to attack rolls to attackers (*) instead of improving caster's AC itself - True Seeing grants immunity to this secondary spell --> the result should be that a creature under TS can attack a blurred creature without suffering the thac0 penalty, but all the other creatures still suffer those penalties because TS doesn't dispel Blur anymore. (*) I need to test if cast spell on condition (when attacked) can impose the penalty on the first attack itself

It sounds like descriptions need quite a few fixes...- I've reverted it to vs. death as older versions - yeah descr is misleading, will adjust. While using OS you have a 10% to trigger Frenzy, while enraged you have 15% chance, if you use OS while enraged you have a total of 25% chance per hit. - I assume you are playing BGEE, for some reason I left BGEE compatibily code for those two class descriptions commented out in the tp2. Will fix. - it should mention Divine Spellcasting instead, fixed. - what do you mean? It looks ok in the character generation screen but not in-game after it? o.O? I should probably mention it yes, though I'm not sure how. Listing all new spells might seem cool but then you may start wondering why I don't list the entire spellbook of base classes too, especially considering that even the base classes now have very different spellbooks compared to vanilla (the True Ranger in particular). HLAs Because he dislikes vanilla HLA tables . I'm fairly certain I won't be needing them once KR implements them.You won't need them indeed. KR's HLAs will pretty much be an updated/expanded version of Refinements ones.

Quarry @Mike, thanks for confirming RR too can handle SR's Glitterdust. Yeah, for as long as "Know oponnent" doesn't keep resistance-lowering feature. My bigger concern about it (as it is now) is that it makes Tracking skill pretty useless.Wait a second...your last statement made me realize one possible solution. Technically: - add to the current Tracking two cast spells effects (let's call them A and B) - spell A makes everyone immune to spell B - spell B reveals invisible targets with a much higher % chance (100% might be too much, doubled % could be fine instead) - Quarry makes the selected victim immune to spell A The end result should be that only the target of Quarry is affected by spell B, and thus ranger's selected Quarry isn't immune to invisibility anymore, but can be quickly re-tracked again each round. Doesn't it sound cool?

Quarry I kinda expected this. I forgot that we may try one thing, as SCS (not sure about RR) actually takes into account SR's Glitterdust using a local variable (if you look at SR's Glitterdust you will see a "set local variable - dvgldust" and a delayed "cast spell" to reset the variable to 0), but even if that might eventually prevent mages from wasting time trying to go invisible I would still fear that this feature could be too powerful against SCS mages (note that the similar effect of SR's Glitterdust lasts only 4 rounds and allows a save). I'm not convinced about scaling %, that's why I made SR's Armor of Faith not scale. A fixed % resistance scale by itself when advancing in the game because everyone deals more damage later. Othoh, scaling AC makes sense because a fixed AC value becomes increasingly less effective when everyone gets better thac0. Not against a single target, it would allow the ranger to target any invisible creature, not just his quarry. On a side note, perhaps I'm too much worried, but do you think Quarry has the potential to remain a cool ability even if it cannot be used while hiding in shadows?

Sling I'm probably fine too. That's how things work right now within IR. Short Sword vs Dagger Well, in theory none of them is completely inferior:- clubs deals only 1 point less of damage compared to hammers, but they are both faster and lighter (not that I would dual wield clubs or backstab with them, but the feature is there). Not to mention that classes such as the druid (mages too within KR) don't have access to hammers/maces, making the club the only valid option for them. - darts have 3 apr, thus they do have some purposes, such as being used with Assassin's poisons The dagger is slightly inferior to the SS (both are very fast, thus dagger's speed isn't as appealing as the sword's higher damage), but I would not say it's clearly inferior. My main issue actually isn't between dagger and SS, but between SS and Long Sword, with the latter having tons of small disadvantages for just +1 dmg. Dual wielding Dagger Assassin with over 9000 backstab modifier and Assassination online. Scary.Yeah, that's the only reason I'm against it. The former is pretty much what I suggested (if we make SS use slashing type the dagger gains the advantage of better thaco against armors), the latter has the very same problem of increased backstab multiplier.

Slings "Reloading" a sling doesn't require much indeed, but firing it does as you have to swing it a couple of times to give the bullet some kinetic energy. Low speed factor is there to represent its low "initiative" and fire rate. Can't be done, BGEE or not Maybe add a small concussion chance to all bullets? Like 15% to stun for a couple of seconds, possibly with save vs death severe enough for it to be somewhat viable in early ToB. Perhaps -4? Personally I don't like this idea, I know I'm exaggerating but it sounds like we turn each sling into a lesser Celestial Fury. In terms of semi-realistic representation the only advantage I can imagine over a short bow is the range, because in terms of accuracy and fire rate there's really no match imo, and slings are actually much harder to master. That being said, I do think it is often underestimated how useful it can be to wield a shield while using a sling, especially within IR. Even if a ranged character benefit less often from shield's AC than a melee one, he pretty much gets twice as much while equipped effects compared to a character wielding a bow or xbow, and having Shield of Harmony's immunities or things like that isn't a small feature imo. Between BG1, BGE, ToB, BGEE and BG2EE I've lost track of these things. I think BG1 had slings with STR bonus, then it lost it until BGEE or BG2EE. Bows and xbows never had it, throws axes/hammers had it in all BG versions imo, and I think darts/daggers never had it. Short Sword It seems the consensus it to leave this weapon type unchanged. Weapon Finesse Afaik it's not possible, am I missing an externalization or opcode change?

Quarry Sadness. For some reason I hoped the hide skill could keep the ranger invisible for a bunch of seconds similarly to what happens on a failed backstab.

Quarry I did the same. Probably yes. In the beginning it actually was 6 seconds, but I need to know one thing, can you remain hidden with stealth skill at least long enough to study your quarry?

The main spell wasn't casting the sub-one. Fixed and re-uploaded. Not sure about the "not refreshing" issue though, I've tried one thing but it seemed fine even as it was...let me know.

Since the new KR is out and Arda is back I'll try to update this topic asap because the new IR might be ready anytime soon now and I don't want to have non-documented changes when it's out. Arda sneaked into his components quite a few things we discussed in private for like 2 seconds (I and Arda tend to pretty much think the same way at the the same time). Generally I prefer to discuss such things in public before implementing them, especially because I tend to have daring ideas that scare myself. Anyway, let's see what we have... Weapons changes It all started from the idea of making short bows allow more "mobility" than long bows (Dragon Dogma style if anyone has played that game), while pointing out that xbows have uber fast "point and click first shot" but do have a unpractical reload mechanic. Ranged Weapons: - short bow speed factor remains 6 (which actually means 4 taking bows +1/2 apr into account) - long bow speed factor changed from 7 to 9 - composite long bow speed factor changed from 7 to 10 - light xbow speed factor changed from 5 to 1 - heavy xbow speed factor changed from 10 to 1 - after firing a bolt, light xbow now requires 1 second to reload, during which the character cannot move - after firing a bolt, heavy xbow now requires 2 seconds to reload, during which the character cannot move - sling speed factor changed from 6 to 10 What do you think? On a side note, we are still discussing about slings allowing STR bonus to dmg (BGEE seems to have opted for it). Thrown Weapons: thrown axes/daggers/hammers/spears range lowered from v3's 20 to 15. Dagger vs. Short Sword vs. Long Sword: now this is something I only mentioned to Arda but he implemented it before I could play the devil's advocate against myself. Anyway, I think it takes a second to revert if necessary, and the change I'm talking about is making short sword use slashing dmg type instead of piercing. The current situation is this: - when it comes to "daggers vs. short swords" you have to decide between a slightly faster weapon (speed factor 1 vs. 3), there no other difference between the two weapons. I'd say SS are very slightly better, but overall the balance is fine I guess. - when it comes to "short sword vs. long sword" instead, the latter has +1 dmg, but worse speed factor (5), off hand thac0 penalty, backstab multiplier penalty, and worse armor penetration (piercing weapons have better thac0 vs. armors). Now, some of long swords penalties are "situational" (e.g. not all characters need to backstab or dual wield), and if the wielder is a warrior with high apr long sword's speed factor quickly lowers itself (from 5 to 2.5 with 2 apr, 1.67 with 3 apr - almost as fast as a thief with daggers), and thac0 against armors shouldn't be a problem (even more so if the warrior is a fighter class with weapon mastery). Conclusion: on paper the long sword is indeed inferior in terms of global stats (tons of drawbacks for just +1 dmg), making it a poor choice for a non-warrior imo, but it might still be a valid option for a warrior, is it?

I think this isn't KR's doing. It could easilly be an issue with Refinements which I installed on top of it. EDIT: It's about UH usability flags. Removing the UH flag from plate armor makes it usable by Berserker as well. Weidu: If Arda doesn't notice this post I'll remind him about the issue, very strange though.