Bartimaeus

55 minutes ago, pochesun said:

i am not sure about that, the description is a bit misleading to be honest. Why not just put " +2 vs Missile" as any other item got?

Elven Court Bow, Gauntlets of Gauntlets of Swordplay, Cloak of Displacement, Martial Staff, Malakar, and Malakar's Companion all use the same format:

Quote

Elvencraft: +4 bonus to AC (none vs. missile weapons)
Parrying: +2 bonus to AC (none vs. missile weapons)
Displacement: wearer gains a +2 bonus to AC (+4 vs. missile weapons) and a +3 bonus to saves vs. breath and wand

The intended statement with Elvencraft is "you get +4 to your general AC...except not against missile weapons". With Kazgaroth, it's "you get +2 to your general AC...except actually +4 vs. missile weapons". It's a shorthand way of conveying the different AC properties without needing to add a whole separate thing about it. Item statistics should be brief where possible.

2 hours ago, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus I am not sure but i think The Claw of Kazgaroth (cursed item) grants only + 2 bonus against missile instead of +4 (as its written in desciption). Could you check it please?

I believe it's intended to be +4 total, not +4 additional. So since you already get a +2 general AC bonus...

9 hours ago, pochesun said:

small bug: for some reason a target of Greater Maloson spell is denoted as "dominated" in combat log. False strings i presume. 

Thanks, fixed 3 days ago when I happened to notice the same issue. The string update code was there, just happened to point to the wrong string (23002 instead of 23005).

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

My favorite explanation for this sort of thing is one I saw... Morpheus562? Bartimaeus? ...give recently about Arbane's Sword. The sword specifically makes you immune to Hold/Paralysis, but does not immunize you against Entangle or Web. I think of Ghasts the same way: their undead(-ish?) nature prevents them from being paralyzed or held rigid via a magical enchantment effect (like the Hold Person spell), but they still have physical form and normal mobility, so they can still be hindered by objects like tree branches or sticky webs.

So, working as intended IMHO.

I don't think it was me, but maybe. Probably Morpheus. Yeah, I don't...really see any reason most undead shouldn't be held by webs or roots, I guess I was more thinking that if other ghasts are immune, then so should Tiax's...but if that's not the case, then I don't see an issue.

1 hour ago, pochesun said:

I have a question regarding Web and ghasts. Presumably ghasts are immune to hold effect, and Web spell inflicts hold effect on a creature when this creature fails save vs breath. My ghast from Tiax seems to be not immune to hold effect from Web. Is it supposed to be this way, since i believe thee are 3 or 4 different opcodes for hold effect and maybe ghast missing one?

I don't think I ever touched the ghast summoned by that spell, I guess I should probably take a look.

8 hours ago, pochesun said:

I have a question about Edwin's Amulet. In BG1 he is now lvl 4 and with amulet he can memorize only 5 first level spells and only 4 second level spells (basically 1 extra spell per level as it stands in description of the item). But i checked ini settings of the IRR installation and there is an option to make it an item with 1 extra level spell and + save vs Breath. My current amulet does not have + 3 save vs Breath and i did not chose that option when i installed IRR. So i assume the default installation would be an item giving 2 extra spells per level (which i prefer but dont currently have). Am i missing something?

nvm i forgot that Amulet got different powers for BG1 and BG2  

Yeah, that .ini tweak is basically for nerfing the amulet back to BG1 levels but with the added bonus of assigning the vs. breath saving throw bonus to both versions so that they're consistent. I personally think Edwin getting that many extra spells is pretty unconscionable, especially given that he's already a Conjurer which is both the strongest and the least interesting of all the mage school specialists, but...people like their cheese.

You know, I've never really liked HLAs either, especially with the absolute ridiculous glut of different spells and abilities you have by the time you get to ToB (not that I have...uh, you know, finished ToB in practically forever). Maybe disabling them would actually be the best choice in reducing the amount of crap you have to manage. Plus, I think if you play with SCS, you can disable HLAs for all of them as well via the modular difficulty management ability.

12 minutes ago, pochesun said:

planar explosion graphical effect - good description, thats what i meant  Honestly i am fine with current haste/slow graphic but i have and issue with it that its not always very noticable in the rage of the battle, the planar explosion however was pretty noticalbe and it was convineint. Up to you of course whichever is better.

 File attached. Tiax will be very dissapointed though cuz i used Gauntlets on him and without malus he performed pretty well with his Sling  I actually like this item quite a lot, it gives +3 Strenght and for some characters its pretty vital - like Tiax who got only 9 STR naturally and for me it was crucial he got to 10 at least.

brac08.itm 306 B · 0 downloads

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/b8lclj1eucr82vp/brac08.zip

Tiax, of all people...well, that is a very admirable and proper use of them indeed, .

4 minutes ago, pochesun said:

Which folder should i put that file?

Override. I'll need brac08.itm to fix your Gauntlets of Might.

Animation: Okay, so I just took a look at both graphics. Uh...you know, I'm not sure that either of these are necessarily correct for a stun graphical effect. The original graphic used by The Stupefier is like a...planar explosion graphical effect, but the one used by dvstun.spl is just like a green/grey-ish looking haste/slow graphic. I don't think stun is typically accompanied by one in the first place, which probably makes sense given that getting stunned can be a fairly "natural" effect and may not be magical in origin at all...but they can be useful for telling when something happened. Hmm, I'm not sure. I guess I'll just leave it as it is for now, since I'm not really sure what's a better option.

4 minutes ago, pochesun said:

I will let you know if i encounter similar messages. I remember i reported same issue with Werewolf Cloak about 2 years ago (when was used it delivered same message) but it got fixed. 

I presume the stun effect animation was changed in SRR and i just did not pay enough attention to notice it?

Gauntlets of Might: i literally just tried it on my mage with strenght 13 (Xan) - it granted+ 3 strenght (gave + 1 damage modifier) granted 2 malus to DEX (2 penalty to armor modifier) but no effect on Thac0. I tried it on completely unequipped Xan - same effect. NO extra boosts/potions/spells - nothing. Base Thac0 is 19 and the same effective Thac0. 

If you want to remove the message for Stupefier: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4b68i012oxcc59a/dvstun.spl

Animation: Is it the spinny gold thing? That graphical effect is really supposed to be reserved for hold effects, not stuns... Hmm.

Gauntlets of Might: You are right. On initial inspection of the .itm, I thought everything was correct...but actually using it in-game, nothing. Well, it turns out that the effect is gated to a 100-100 percent chance of happening, which is actually 0% (a normal effect that happens 100% of the time is 0-99 or 0-100). Thanks for making me check again.

1 hour ago, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus Ok i did some testing now, looks like stun effect happens more often now, but the animation and visual effect (when stun happens) looks different from what it was before with this mace and when stun effect occurs a phrase appearse in the combat log: "You dont remember Aldeth's brother, most interesting" when stun effect occurs (i presume it should says that the target is stunned or something instead). I also play with BG overlay that allow me to see which effects are applied on the target when i right click on it and now i cant see stun effect in the list when the stun happens (it was visible during my testing before you patched the mace).

Stupefier: dvstun.spl must not have its string updated when installed for BG1EE. I got all of those for SRR, I believe, but I have not been as prudent with IRR I fear... If you notice any other such item effects giving similar wrong messages, let me know. I have no idea how the "BG overlay" mod works or why it would detect an effect from an .itm but not a .spl, unfortunately. Virtually all of IR/R's items' effects work by externalizing effects to .spls (so that they can be re-used, edited en masse, directly protected against, and so on), so it's not really something I can change.

Gauntlets of Might: The THAC0 penalty is there. Bear in mind the scaling of 2E strength: a score of 16 gets you +0 THAC0 and +1 damage, a score of 19 (+3 from Gauntlets of Might!) gets you +3 THAC0 and +7 damage. The way 2E statistics scale is ludicrously stupid in general, but especially strength due to the "Exceptional Strength" nonsense that a player can easily bypass to get "superhuman strength" with but a mere +1 bonus.

9 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

@Bartimaeus You know this talk about petrification breaking banters and romances permanently? Surely there must be a way to reset a character with a console? Roleplaywise, it's just a memory loss.

Also, using SR, I've encountered Ajantis, while being protected from petrification, had a color change (to grey-brown) after being repeatedly hit by a basilisk gaze. Sometime later, his colors reverted.

I'd like to clarify something. I know that in SR, Break Enchantment rids your party member of the petrified form. Could Stone to Flesh also be used, or a scroll of the same action? Could Break Enchantment be cast before petrification takes full effect (3 rounds), and still work? What if you cast Prot From Petr during that time?

I can only answer for SRR:

1. Break Enchantment should stop petrification in the slow phase, but it currently doesn't. I'm trying to figure out why not.
2. Green Stone to Flesh cures both soft/hard petrification just like Break Enchantment, though it too does not (currently) stop petrification during the slow phase.
3. Blue Stone to Flesh doesn't exist in SRR (its resource is used for a different spell), but the way the petrification update function works should catch it and accomplish the same as well even if it did still exist.
4. I just had like 5 Greater Basilisks attack my Protection from Petrification-ed character, and it doesn't seem my character ever turns grey/grown no matter how many times he gets hit by their gaze...but annoyingly, they did get slowed, which probably shouldn't happen. It'd be nice if Protection from Petrification carried a "do not attack with gaze" state so basilisks would at least try to melee you.
5. If you cast Protection from Petrification before you're petrified, you should be protected from the actual petrification (but not the temporary slow effect).

1 minute ago, pochesun said:

and what should i do with the file? its saved as txt file, how i convert it to the format similar inm override folder? 

Hmm. Extract the .itm from this zip and put it in your override instead, not sure what's going on: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/u738ik4ntwvssw1/blun41.zip

19 minutes ago, pochesun said:

link is broken? Also is it with dvstun?

CTRL+S when you open it. Yes, it uses dvstun.spl.

1 minute ago, pochesun said:

attached. 

blun41.itm 554 B · 0 downloads

Here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4bhnqczzfcpooar/blun41.itm

7 minutes ago, pochesun said:

I believe the vanilla version had 25% chance to stun with no save but in EE it was changed in some patch to 10% with save vs Spell. Anyway  hope you will fix the item cuz i like it a lot actually and its a good alternative for cleric/warrior in BG1. I assume it will use IR stunning .spl after the fix so it will work more stable

It's fixed in the github repository now, but if you want me to fix it for your current game, attach a copy of BLUN41.itm from your override.

3 minutes ago, pochesun said:

I might suggest there is something wrong with Mace of Stunning (the Stupifier +1). I can stun target 1 out of maybe 30 or 40 sucessful hits. You sure its 33%  chance and not 3%?

Though I had the best intentions, it appears I forgot to actually modify this item, so it still has its vanilla value of 10%. Whoops. It's not even using the standard IR stunning .spl, all the effects are just in the item itself. Most of the changes I made to the BG1EE items was nonsense I made-up without spending more than a second or two thinking about them, because most of those items are just kind of pathetic, so a lot of them just got brainless buffs like changing that 10% to 33%. If it was a BG2 item, it'd have just been 100%, but you can get it in like two seconds in BG1, so...well, I just knew that 10% was mindbogglingly ineffective, so it had to be at least a little higher.

16 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Hey, thanks! Do I need NI to do that, or does notepad do the trick?

.tpa and .tph files are just plain-text, so Notepad is just fine. Search for the text or hit CTRL+G for the go to line function. However, you must have made this change before you installed it - editing the file after you've already installed the mod you're editing doesn't do anything. Near Infinity would be needed to revert it in a game already being played.

20 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Wow! Sounds great! I take it this is only a feature of SRR. And so, what can be done with SR? When installing SR, is it possible to leave Petrification at vanilla version? I don't care that much about breaking romances, and it seems stone to flesh loses all utility within the party. Thanks for your answers. Or anyone's!

SR is always the third option, soft petrification for everyone. But you could dig into the files and disable SR's petrification changes. In spell_rev\components\main_component.tpa, commenting out/deleting line 3351 ("INCLUDE ~spell_rev\lib\kreso_petrification.tph~") should do the trick.

7 hours ago, polytope said:

If you want to revise basilisks with a permanent hold type effect then just tack on an opcode 100 against RACE = BASILISK (102) with the same saving throw, that way the basilisk will simply ignore anyone who it has faux-petrified, just need to ensure that it's removed by Break Enchantment (opcode 321 on EEs, needs a sectype on original engine), and that anything that would prevent the hold effect also prevents all effects of the basilisk's gaze attack (easiest if externalized as a .spl).

Thanks - luckily, petrification already comes with its own sectype for SR. That will at least get them to attack other people besides the already petrified character.

7 hours ago, polytope said:

I'm not sure if it's worth the effort just for consistency between an arcane spell and a monster's special attack though, why must petrification from a basilisk be identical to a wizard's Flesh to Stone spell?

I gotta be honest with you, I think SR's changes to petrification are...well-intended but mostly fruitless, since while it does solve one big problem (preventing character banters/romances from being permanently broken), it introduces another equally big problem in preventing the party from ever leaving an area if a character is petrified - necessitating kicking them out of the party, which...yup, permanently breaks banters/romances. I guess it does introduce one way to get out of it, which is killing your own petrified character, though it's probably not immediately clear to most players that that is an option. A few of us tried to put our heads together at some point in the past to figure out how to fix petrification once and for all, but no-one was able to come up with anything that adequately solved all the issues without functionally getting rid of the permanent nature of petrification, which was undesirable as well - I ended up just allowing players to choose what kind of petrification they prefer (soft petrification for all creatures, soft for player characters but hard for non-player characters, and hard for all creatures; I generally choose the second option on my own installs).

9 hours ago, Chosen said:

Is it possible to modify SR style petrification effects so AI can react to it? For example basilisks should melee attack held chracters instead of using their gaze weapons. Maybe by changing every instance of STATE_STONE_DEATH in scripts to .. something? Or maybe by setting a false state without the actual petrification.

Basilisks getting stuck in a "I'm going to petrify you even though you're already petrified" loop is pretty undesirable. I'd probably have to ask for help on how best to implement something like that though, as scripting states aren't something I'm very knowledgeable about.

Let me know if your new game build fails as well, I'll try to to see if I run into the same issue.

9 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Frankly, I think it's worth changing Ras as well... it's not like it's a difference in power, I always have a backup weapon to use when Ras disappears. It's just a matter of convenience.

Yeah, especially seeing as it's otherwise just a Long Sword +2...I guess it kinda just feels wrong to me. It's supposed to dance its way out of your hands - that's why they call it the Dancing Blade! If Ras were a quick slot item that just stayed there, it'd probably be way more enticing to use to me. Is anybody actually using Ras as a weapon? Maybe if you have three or more party members with long sword proficiencies? Hmm, I think I'll make a mini-mod for myself...

6 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

The vanilla version of Ras talks about it jumping out if your hand to attack on its own, while Spectral Brand mentions “summoning” a spectral sword to attack with you. It’s been a long time since I played with Spectral Brand in my party, but if you say Demi changed the description to be inaccurate, that is a bit weird. But, why would you change the item in a way that annoys you, rather than just changing the description??

Well, to be honest, I didn't know it worked that way in vanilla in the first place, so I'm guessing I just figured it was behaving incorrectly and I should make it consistent with Ras, particularly seeing as the description says "can attack on its own", which would definitely imply it leaves leave your hand. But if the original item worked that way, I'm gonna change it back...

12 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Spectral Brand doesn't actually do that, only Ras does. Which is the number one reason I prefer Spectral Brand to Ras 

It's removed from your inventory in IRR...but not in IR. The description in IR says "the sword can attack on its own", same as Ras, but in one case, it doesn't leave your hand and in the other it does. That's pretty weird.

18 hours ago, pochesun said:

I dunno, a person turning into werewolf naturally should tear off clothes / armor (unequip)  If i was a werewolf -  i would  

If creating a magical weapon (e.g. Flame Sword) unequipped all of your weapons, if using a figurine to summon a magical creature (e.g. Kitthix) removed the figurine from your quick slot, if using one of the mage Armor spells unequipped your armor, if transforming into something always removed all of your gear...it would make using all of those annoying for no reason. I have no desire to annoy the player in this manner, especially not when these things haven't previously worked that way. Well, I think the figurines used to, but they don't in my game, .

Though perhaps it's my own bias speaking - I find Ras and Spectral Brand to be really annoying in that their sword-summoning abilities remove themselves from your inventory, so I never use those abilities. In those particular two cases, there's not much that can be done about it since the alternatives would make no sense.