Bartimaeus

9 hours ago, NdranC said:

Yeah I've been slowing trying to adapt some of the item descriptions for RR to IRR style. It takes a while and it's not perfect. Specially when it comes to summons; it's a crazy amount of work. If I remember correctly most of the detailed descriptions come from your own modifications which is highly appreciated. RR has become a staple mod for me, I wish I could stop using it since it hasn't been updated in ages but I can't give up it's changes.

Kind of: vanilla IR/SR came up with a format, but I found it to be...messy, so I changed it. For example, the otyugh...

IR:

Otyugh (7 Hit Dice):
STR 14, DEX 10, CON 13, INT 5, WIS 12, CHA 5; AL Neutral
HP 70, AC 3, THAC0 10, Saving Throws 10/12/12/14/12
3 Attacks Per Round, 1d6+3 Piercing or Crushing Damage (Bite & Tentacles +3)

Combat Abilities:
Disease: creatures struck moves at half speed and suffer 1 point of damage per round for 1 turn

Special Qualities:
Immune to disease effects
Slashing, Crushing, & Piercing Resistance 5%; Missile Resistance 100% 

IRR:

Otyugh (7 HD):
ST14, DE10, CO13, IN5, WI12, CH5
HP 76, AC 3, THAC0 10, APR 3
1D8 Piercing/Crushing (Bite & Tentacles +3)
Saving Throws 9/11/10/10/12, AL TN
SR 5%, CR 5%, PR 5%, MR 100%
FR 0%, CR 0%, ER 0%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Protected Against: Disease
Diseasing: target suffers 1 damage per round and slowness for 1 turn (save vs. poison at -2 neg.) 

Mostly, I was annoyed with inconsistent line breaks as a result of lines getting too long. And anyways, I needed to go over all the creature statistics to make sure they were 'accurate' while also re-calculating certain stats anyways (primarily to ensure that only the base values of HP, AC, THAC0, and damage were being used, not any attempt at combining HP+CON or AC+DEX or THAC0/damage+STR/proficiency, mostly because that can get pretty crazy quickly while also opening up the possibility of being very inaccurate depending on which game and with what mods a player is using).

Item descriptions for mod-added content, especially pre-EE mod-added content like RR where there wasn't really any agreed upon format/style between games and modders, is a bit of a disaster. I had thought about trying to provide direct support for re-descripting the items of a few "important" mainstay mods like RR, but it ended up being a can of worms that I decided not to commit to due to how much of a pain it is.

7 hours ago, NdranC said:

I am. I guess that's the issue?

Yeah, so basically, the component takes a list of wands that it knows of (both vanilla and mod-added), changes them to be usable by thieves, tries to strip the usability text mentioning not being usable by thieves (not applicable to the EEs since usability text is generated on the fly, so no issue there), then also tries to add the intelligence requirement text. If the intelligence requirement text already exists, it's not supposed to add duplicate text obviously, but the formatting is different between oBG2 games and EE games, so it would appear to not be catching it correctly in the case of the latter. Will look into it, thanks.

11 hours ago, NdranC said:

 

Noticed a weird description issue with wands. They all have their requirements listed twice.

Are you using the "Thieves Can Use Wands" component, by chance?

@subtledoctor Thanks, I didn't even consider the issue of the specific version of SCS. Kind of forgot that it's only been within the past few versions that that change happened. I wonder if it's the case that @WanderingScholar was insistent upon mixing these versions together, whether it might be a good idea to simply disable all spell.ids-related changes in spell_rev\components\main_component.tpa for more optimal results.

13 hours ago, NdranC said:

I was reading the code for the weapon changes component and I noticed that is doing a calculation based on the strmod.2da file to determine the extra strength bonus damage that the bows will have. It's been a while since I've dealt weidu scripting, could you clarify what it's doing? I have a custom strmod.2da file and it causing the bows to  have +6 and +7 extra damage which seems too much.

That's not something I have personally interacted with during working on IRR, but I recall mention of Weapon Changes making it so that composite bows have their bonuses tied to the equivalent level of strength that is required to use said composite bow. So if a composite bow has an unusually high strength requirement, I believe it will get unusually high bonuses to match; alternatively, if your strmod.2da is radically out of line from the original game, then strange things may result across the board as well.

1 hour ago, WanderingScholar said:

I think this might be the culprit. It happens regardless of chaos=1. Why does this spell use REPLACE_TEXTUALLY as opposed to APPEND in spell.ids? 

Looking over similar spell.ids-related REPLACE_TEXTUALLYs, I would think you're right. The only time REPLACE_TEXTUALLY seems to be used except for this one case is to make it so that a spell cannot be found (i.e. where the spell has been hidden/deprecated), presumably so that it's not erroneously chosen as a part of SCS's spellbook choices (or any other mod similarly trying to use spells based off of their IDS identifiers). In this particular case, I know that SCS has different spellbook assignments if it detects SR being installed and presumed that it would expect "WIZARD_WAVES_OF_FATIGUE" and not "WIZARD_CHAOS", so I figured it would be best to keep it as WIZARD_WAVES_OF_FATIGUE.

So that raises three questions:
1. Does SCS ever put SR's Waves of Fatigue into spellbooks? I thought it did, or at least at one point that it did, but I can't rightly say for certain right now.
2. If so, why isn't the original Chaos being put into spellbooks right now when it uses the same/expected identifier?
3. If not, then is there a way we can change SCS's mind so that it does get into spellbooks from the point of SRR? Would not doing the REPLACE_TEXTUALLY to WIZARD_WAVES_OF_FATIGUE (or changing it into an APPEND) actually accomplish anything, or would SCS still not care and skip it over thinking Chaos should not ever exist in an SR game?

If it's both true that SCS doesn't like to assign Waves of Fatigue and that it also doesn't believe Chaos should ever exist in an SR game, there's probably nothing SRR can do to change its mind. But if it does like to assign Waves of Fatigue, then it's something SRR has somehow broken and it should be fixed.

10 hours ago, NdranC said:

I noticed SCS now adds a new item, a katana to the level 13 mage ogre boss in bg1. Do you know if this item is "accounted for" either by scs or by IRR when both are installed?

Not touched. IR/R couldn't really touch this even if it wanted to, seeing as all of IR/R's components are supposed to be installed before SCS.

10 hours ago, NdranC said:

And might as well ask this here, would you recommend installing the SCS IWD spells together with SRR? I know they probably don't touch each other but I was wondering from a game balance or design point of view if they don't stand out too much compared to SRR ones.

I find the meshing of the two systems to be incongruous at best, but there are absolutely others who enjoy them together. I personally think it'd be a better idea if SR were to just bring some of the most worthwhile spells over (while getting them more in line with the rest of SR's design) while letting the rest be optional with the use of such components, but that's something that would have to be done from the point of official SR, not SRR.

36 minutes ago, NdranC said:

This is my current weidu log (I haven't finished installing). In a couple hours I'll have more time to test it out with no other mods but eet and item_rev and I'll let you know.

weidu.log 9.98 kB · 0 downloads

Found the issue: you're using V1.3.800, not the latest repository version. I do need to make a new release sometime soon, it's been quite a while, but the "latest repository version" means...this:

I generally recommend the latest repository version, not the latest release. The "latest release" is supposed to be the latest "stable" release, but...well, it's been over a year since I updated it and there have been nearly 80 changes since then. The latest repository version should have the helmet issue fixed, though I'm not exactly sure why it didn't correctly detect an EET game for your install, but I did just try an EET + IRR install with the description styles set to 0 and it correctly detected it, so...it should work.

There are...two, I think, outstanding issues that I want to resolve before a new "release", but neither of them are by any means critical. The first is finishing up the Store Revisions' masterwork weapons rework, and the other is ensuring that ioun stones/circlets do not protect against critical hits even when you do not have the Revised Critical Hit Aversion component installed.

(e): ...As well as further compatibility with the "lite" version of Anthology Tweaks' Unique Icons.

8 minutes ago, NdranC said:

I'm using EET with

ee_style_item_descriptions  = 0

ee_style_ac_descriptions = 0

...Strange. There must be something wrong with the detection here, because the description style shown in your image is oBG2/IR (i.e. ee_style_item_descriptions = 1), not the EE style (which would be 0 or 2, as "2" is forced EE style, while "0" is "will pick depending on what game type you're on", which in your case should be 2). When I install the main component and and Revised Critical Hit Aversion with it set to 0 on BG2EE, this is what it looks like for me:

Notice the dash before "Armor Class", which is how properties on EE items are formatted (which they aren't in oBG2). What's even odder to me is even when I set the description style to 1 for forced oBG2 style descriptions on my BG2EE game, everything still looks right for me (albeit in oBG2 style). Hmm...

52 minutes ago, NdranC said:

I think there might be a bug with the critical hit aversion helmet's description. Downloaded the latest github master.

 

There's been some revision to that component recently to try to fix some of its issues. Are you using oBG2-styled descriptions on BG2EE? I don't think @MikeX (who was the one primarily putting work into the component) or I tested this particular configuration.

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

Interesting you mention Edwin there. His brand of evil is that he's a wannabe supervillain. He wants to take his death rays (well, death spells) back home where he grew up and SHOW THEM ALL! The adventures that he gets involved in are just a means to an end for him, building up enough power to realize his dreams.

Isn't that the exact type of evil I just mentioned? Pure vanity and selfishness? There's no real guiding principles behind the way he looks at himself or society, or the way treats other people - just his own ego and how much others will serve (or annoy) him. If good characters serve him while treating him with the respect and admiration that he thinks he deserves, I don't think he'd spend any more thought upon them than absolutely necessary, not unless they get in his way for some reason or another. Although if someone fawns over him to manipulate him, maybe that'd be even better? Yeah, he'd probably love that a lot more - the low wisdom score and being street-stupid as he is, I suppose.

Tiax seems to be the more unhinged and less intelligent version of Edwin, but otherwise they seem to be largely one and the same. Strangely, one of them is chaotic and the other lawful... Well, IIRC the law vs. order spectrum of D&D is predicated upon the society one inhabits, so Tiax having his own unique albeit insane ideals of how the universe should serve him and only him run pretty contrary to...how everything else in existence feels about it, so I suppose it makes sense he'd be chaotic. Edwin doesn't seem nearly so concerned with that sort of nonsense, so I would've figured him to be Neutral Evil.

But I get your point regarding specific issues/motivations, and that it's really just the gamey mechanics that are the real issue here. I'm kind of the opinion that most evil characters probably shouldn't care about their reputation, because most evil characters are not really the "I have to be known for my lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering" types. Probably only Viconia really cares about not being thought of as a "hero" - most of the rest of the lot would probably smirk, say "why yes, I am a great big hero", and then use it to their advantage wherever possible (note: I don't know anything about the EE companions, maybe one of them is more like Viconia...and maybe Shar-Teel is also more like Viconia, now that I think about it).

3 hours ago, jmerry said:

The new NPCs have some mixed reviews, but they do fill things out in important ways - you can now build a full evil party in BG2EE with a protagonist and five recruited NPCs, and it'll include all of the essential party roles regardless of your protagonist's class.

You know...most "evil" people/characters, including in these games, are of the utterly vain and selfish variety rather than the more idealistic "I have grand ideas about how the world and everyone in it should be, it's just that they're evil" types. You know who really selfish people don't generally get along with? Other really selfish people. You know who really selfish people do usually like being around and taking advantage of? Unselfish people. Like...Edwin should be just as likely (if not more) to backstab and murder someone like Shar-Teel compared to Jaheira, and vice versa. Now maybe Lawful Evil people are more likely to be an exception to this (hello baatezu and other well-organized evil!), but it doesn't really feel like there is a lot of actual Lawful Evil being put into meaningful action for the most part.

Well, what was my point? I guess just that the generic evil person is probably more likely to get along better with a generic good person rather than another generic evil person.

52 minutes ago, Salk said:

My bad for not checking on this personally.

Unfortunately I have much on my plate at the moment.

Hey, lord knows I barely ever test anything I do these days... That's how all my best work is done! Heck, if I wasn't very personally familiar with the _.itm series of BG1 items being specifically my own creation, I might've believed they were from official IR myself.

6 minutes ago, MikeX said:

@Bartimaeus

Thank you for the clarification and sorry for the crap .

It wasn't just you, . There are a great many deal of differences between IR and IRR - if one wishes to say something that you believe to be true about the both of them, it is probably a good idea to check or at least ask me before you do first, .

Um...all y'all should actually poke around and preferably test before you start making crap up, . The Helm of Opposite Alignment does not exist in any capacity whatsoever in official IR, not as helm02.itm or as helm02_.itm (the "_" series of .itms are IRR's initiative in order to restore original BG1 items that were overwritten by IR back to BG1!), so Cursed Items' code for "helm02_.itm" was an invention made specifically for IRR and can be safely discarded if IRR no longer uses it. How that affects official IR is rather immaterial given that the helm does not exist there in the first place and Cursed Items didn't have any special handling of IR's overwriting of it before now anyways. The most you could do for official IR is either skip patching the item or manually restore Helm of Opposite Alignment...but you could do that in the same exact manner IRR is anyways (i.e. helm02.itm becomes Helm of Opposite Alignment again while Helm of Despair gets a unique item code specific to it). I personally want The Helm of Opposite Alignment to exist within IRR regardless of whether the player installs Cursed Items or not, so it'll continue to be included in IRR in this manner, especially seeing as other mods affecting the Helm of Opposite Alignment assume that it will be helm02.itm. Either skipping over or restoring helm02.itm for official IR is something you would have to do for proper compatibility regardless of whatever IRR chooses to do.

If it were me, I'd firstly detect if IR's main component is installed, then detect that "dvhelm02.itm" (IRR's Helm of Despair) exists: if yes to both, go ahead and patch helm02.itm because you know it's still the Helm of Opposite Alignment; if yes to IR's main component but not dvhelm02.itm, then do not patch helm02.itm because you know that it's IR's Helm of Despair and the Helm of Opposite of Alignment does not exist. After all, if official IR wants the Helm of Opposite Alignment to exist, it probably shouldn't completely overwrite it with some other unrelated item: it's not really Cursed Items' responsibility to figure out how best to restore it (particularly given that its appearance and description will all be different between oBG2, BG1/2EE, IR, and IRR games!).

4 hours ago, Chosen said:

Hi, when looking at my thiefs stats I saw a disperancy as move silently was 2 higher than its suppose to. This is not a big deal in itself but may indicate something a a wrong opcode or something so I looked at for the cause and found resist fear effect by whispering sword. I checked and and spell have the same issue. So I opened them in the NI and had look. Only thing that catched my eye was modify script state(282) with state(22). I don't know thich state it suppose to set but I think there is something wrong with it. Maybe It is a EE vs classic issue and values are changed? https://gibberlings3.github.io/iesdp/opcodes/bgee.htm#op282 this link suggests something is different but I am not familiar enough with this to figure out what. Of course maybe it is something comletely different like install issue or something so I added weidu log of the install just in case.

WeiDU.log 48.95 kB · 1 download

Yeah, when The Whistling Swords' resist fear aura is active, my thief gets +2 to Find Traps. It seems to disappear when the aura goes as well, so it's not a huge bug, but thanks for bringing it to my attention - very strange. I'm not even sure if that particular scripting state does anything for oBG2 players, I think I copied the effects from SRR's Resist Fear spell, which I wouldn't be surprised if has the same issue. Not really my area of expertise, to be honest.

3 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Neither of those is really necessary.

Well, that's good, because the Haste opcode is ludicrous. I was not aware of the nitty-gritty details behind how it worked, just saw morpheus saying "well, then don't install SR" and "I'll disable the kit from installing if SR is detected", .

I would say that there is approximately zero chance of the official versions of SR or IR ever bringing back the Haste opcode in any capacity, so if the kit is completely dependent upon it, well... Well, I suppose someone would be better off making a mini-mod that reverses it and restores the broken Haste opcode.

19 minutes ago, MikeX said:

(not tested)

Salk's descriptions usually blend different components of original and EE descriptions. Let's see if your suggested change works... Nope. But I figured it out - was just missing a backslash:

@100422 = ~[%LNL%%MNL%%WNL%]\([ %TAB%%emdash%]*\)\(Special:[ %TAB%]+\)?Protects[ %TAB%]+\([Aa]gainst\|[Ff]rom\)[ %TAB%]+[Cc]ritical[ %TAB%]+[Hh]its~

Guess the "|" character needs a backslash when used for an expression as well. Thanks!

2 hours ago, MikeX said:

HELM02, as far as NI is telling, has no use references in oBG2 (That's probably why Item Revisions changed/used it?).

The primary creator of IR, Demivrgvs, never even played BG1 if I remember correctly. There were definitely some interesting ramifications resulting from this when Tutu and BGT came about and mods started becoming compatible with them, .

2 hours ago, MikeX said:

1. jamie.cre, but it is not assigned to any item slot

Doesn't drop in vanilla AFAIK, though a certain 'fixing' mod (lolfixer) can accidentally enable it to do so.

2 hours ago, MikeX said:

2. deathk1.cre, the death knight that appears outside Durlags Tower killing the tourists and disappears.

Yeah, that was another reason I was surprised any other mod touched it, since it's almost impossible to get in the first place. But...I think BG1EE makes it so it drops when you properly defeat him as well? Not a hundred percent sure about that, but definitely part of the equation here if so.

I'll get the situation sorted out sooner rather than later.

For the erroneous Armor Class Bonus line, I'll look into that as well, thanks. (e): I think the problem there is that vanilla's descriptions are so all over the place that the regexp can't catch all cases when IR's main component isn't installed.

7 hours ago, MikeX said:

@Bartimaeus

Could you have a look at how HELM02.itm and HELM02_.itm are distributed to a BGT game, please?
After installing BGT there is only HELM02.itm as 'Helm of Opposite Alignment'.
After installing Item Revisions main component HELM02.itm becomes 'Helm of Despair' and it creates HELM02_.itm and makes this the 'Helm of Opposite Alignment'.
There are at least to npc mods (Brage, Atjantis) that react to HELM02 being the 'Helm of Opposite Alignment', so HELM02 should probably not be changed (at least for BG1/BGT).
Salk's Cursed Items mod also seems to assume that HELM02 is the 'Helm of Opposite Alignment'.

Thanks.

Base IR overwrites Helm of Alignment completely with the Helm of Despair - the former no longer exists at all. IRR restores it but to HELM02_.itm instead while replacing HELM02.itm on the Death Knight with HELM02_.itm so that he has the Helm of Opposite Alignment. It would probably be a good idea to instead move Helm of Despair to its own item code to prevent these kinds of issues - I didn't know any other mods interacted with it, but there's always been a bit of a fascination about this item, so I suppose it makes sense that there would be.

37 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

It's actually not terrible at level 1. It changes your thac0 to 16, which is good enough for a ~55% chance to hit a bandit or wolf, and a ~75% chance to hit things like gibberlings. That's a better to-hit chance than a fighter with 18/00  strength. Of course the fighter will have 3/2 APR and do more damage. But still, as far as the increase in damage output at 1st level, this probably edges out Magic Missile/Larloch's Drain/Shocking Grasp/Chill Touch. If you have one spell and are anticipating using in in one fight between Candlekeep and the FAI, it's not the worst pick.

Still, I remember when the duration was only one round. I kind of think this would be better as a proper, single True Strike. I.e. give you an automatic crit, once, and then go away. Unfortunately that is an EE-only proposition...

I personally use the shorter duration version that gives a +10 THAC0 bonus instead, but I have not included it in SRR. A guaranteed critical hit seems it could be...strong for backstabbing.

On 3/14/2023 at 5:53 AM, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus what would you say about my suggestion regarding True Strike i posted above? In case you missed it i repost it again here :

increase the duration of True Strike at least for 1 round (from 3 to 4). Spell is very interesting and can be useful in many situations by different class combinations and do differnt cool tricks with it (ghoul touch combo for instance etc) but, from my experience, short duration really limits its usefulness: in game, especially on high difficulty with SCS often you have to maneuver on the battlefield and waste priceless seconds of that spell while in effect. I understand that for level 1 spell it cant be too overpowered for mid game (even in late game with long duration it could be super strong) but, in my opinion, it should last a bit longer than 3 rounds.

I think 3 rounds can arguably be too long. But I most likely wouldn't ever use it with a pure mage/sorcerer unless I had Melf's Minute Meteors up, which probably influences how I use it: with a mage- or fighter-thief that can have better HP/AC and multiple attacks per round with their normal weapons, 3 rounds is a pretty good chunk of time to get a +4 THAC0 bonus for a level 1 spell. Actually, that's part of why I left its duration alone - at level 1, your base THAC0 at 20 is trash and increasing it by 4 is helpful but you're still pretty likely to miss a lot of attacks, and your APR is going to be bad so the spell needs to be a few rounds long to be in any way worth casting. Compared to a level 1 1D4+1 Magic Missile, 3 rounds seems about right. But compared to a level 9 5D4+1 Magic Missile...well, if your character already has good physical damage output, True Strike being an instant cast at 3 rounds duration can still be a pretty good value if used against difficult to hit enemies - the issue is if your character doesn't, then the spell doesn't offer much. It's a bit difficult to get right later on in the game.

18 hours ago, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus i got a question about Mirror Image spell. If a mage is protected by Mirror Image it affects only enemy attacks right? Friendly creatures always can hit the original and ignore copies?

In BG2EE at least, not even self-targeted spells will pierce through Mirror Image (e.g. casting Flame Arrow on yourself after casting Mirror Image will likely have the flame arrow hit one of your images).

On 3/10/2023 at 8:04 AM, pochesun said:

non summoned one

SR overwrites Spiders' Web Tangle (SPIN683.spl), which...yes, does have the string you're talking about. Guess I need to freshly string it. Thanks!

7 hours ago, Chosen said:

I made quick install to try "Mild petrification overhaul",but i dont it works right now. I think patch deletes petrification effect from dvbaspet.spl even for petrification=0 option but doesn't replace it with anything. Maybe an early loop end at line 81? I know It is not released yet so if it not finished you can ignore this.

Thanks! You more or less got it right: I forgot to move a few blocks above that END at line 81. Basilisks' petrification is only supposed to be changed if you use option 1 or 2, so they still instantly petrify if you use option 0. Should be fixed now.

3 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Is this the name of a mod? Or what mod is this a part of?

Just the name of a commit on GitHub for SRR.

1 hour ago, pochesun said:

Gian Spiders (when lay infect effect on target or throw web) say: "Your death if you dont keep still and quiet...." False string again, i presume.

Summoned Giant Spiders from MS4, or non-summoned found in the game world?