Bartimaeus

Strange: opcode 31 with type 0 seems to work perfectly fine for items you equip (using any kind of timing mode, be it 0, 1, 2, or 9), but nothing seems to apply when you do it through a .spl (and possibly an .itm's extended effects?).

1. I have never looked at RR's items, so as far as I know, no concepts/designs are lifted from it for IRR (and I would say probably not IR either). ...This is not entirely true, as I did once install those components probably around a decade ago, saw that it added IWD-like items, and immediately yoinked it out of my install. If I were to ever add it back, it would be only after I significantly re-designed all of it...and nobody wants me to do that, me least of all, . I'm of the mind to leave everyone else's content alone at this point outside of truly tiny tweaks that I could put in their own mini-component (i.e. nothing in the scope of IRR/SRR). General install order would be...IIRC, RR's item additions/modifications change a few vanilla items, so it depends on whether you want IR's or RR's changes to be the final word - if the former, you install IR's base component after RR; if the latter, you install RR's item-changing components after IR's base component (but before its secondary components). I have no comment on how well they fit in beyond what I already said and it not being for me, as I think I am probably the harshest judge around regarding this sort of thing. 2. If you're on the EEs, you need not worry about ToBEx or anything it did - the vast majority (but not quite all!) of what ToBEx does was implemented for the EEs, and the few things that weren't you can't change with or without ToBEx anyways, so there's nothing that you can do about it AFAIK.

Yeah, I have heard about this, but to my knowledge, Summon Ghast and a number of abilities like it just...never had a description in the first place. So the question is, should they be written or should they just be zeroed out? If you start to add a few, it feels like you might have to add them all...

I don't think Summon Ghast ever had a player-facing description to begin with (or maybe the EEs added one?). I generally try to zero out descriptions when they're never intended to be seen, so let me know if you see any others like it that you think could be relevant to SR/R.

No problem, totally understandable. Indeed, it would've been the very first thing I mentioned if I had actually remembered before doing all that troubleshooting, but it's as obvious to you as it is to me - which is to say not at all, . I only "remembered" because on my second test with your weidu.log, instead of the umber hulks, I smashed Jan and it suddenly stopped working...until I remembered, oh wait, it's an AoE effect that only targets enemies...hey, wait a second...

I can't see anything wrong with it. Just to make sure, you are testing it on a hostile creature, right? These kinds of AoE effects generally only work on hostiles. Since your weidu.log is pretty short, I tested the same install you have short of the SCS components, and spawning some umber hulks and using Crom Faeyr on them still worked.

I was about to be the big mad again, because I swear I've fixed Thunderclap at least a couple of times over the years, but after installing IRR on a fresh copy of BG2EE and spawning a bunch of umber hulks and throwing Crom Faeyr at them, it does work correctly. Phew. So the question is more why doesn't it work in your game - can I also get a copy of HAMM09.itm from your override? Everything with your spell seems to match mine besides the projectile being one number different (but that's normal, since the projectile number will depend on when the projectile is added in your mod install).

I installed the exact versions of the same mods that affected your BAZEYE01.CRE. The only errors/warnings during I received during SCS's installation (see debug file here) was one about the Stone to Flesh scroll not existing (which is correct, Stone to Flesh does not exist in SR, as it's replaced by Break Enchantment) and about a number of creatures unexpectedly using ranged weapons instead of melee weapons (presumably not a big issue, and also probably nothing to do with SR/R). Your specific error is "not_found", which...sounds like the file is unexpectedly missing (as opposed to corrupt or something else), but at least some of the files you listed as being affected are present in vanilla BG2EE and so it should it be impossible for SCS to not be able to find some version of them, so I don't know how that would be.

Yeah, I give a warning in the second line of the original post: "If you are on a non-Windows OS, make sure that the two folders are combined: if the "change-log.txt" file still exists in "(game directory)\spell_rev\", then you should be good - if it doesn't, post in the thread for help." In the past, when someone's had an issue, I just manually combine the archives for them in a temporary link.

Yeah, so I don't believe I ever said I didn't care about IWDEE compatibility, . What a weird, mouth-stuffing conclusion to immediately make, particularly given my history of introducing optional settings that I don't use for other people (and having literally offered to make a mini-mod for Lord_Tansheron having the issue with Un/Holy Word!). I'm not a fan of it, but I wouldn't go that far: people should play their game however they want, and if LoB makes it more interesting/enjoyable to them, that's all well and good. I can kind of see the appeal: if you've played the game a hundred times and you want to be forced to consider different approaches and strategies you might not otherwise have to, to go to a power-gaming extreme you've never had to go to before, that can certainly shake the experience up. But it's not the main way of playing these games, and both IR/SR were designed with...actually, solely oBG2 in mind (even if there were later BG1/BGT/IWD/EE compatibility additions eventually added), so it's a little much to go expecting everything to always work in perfect harmony when you're talking about something as wacky and extreme as what Legacy of Bhaal does. But the beauty of modding is that you can personally fix these kinds of issues, or ask someone to help you out if it's a small enough thing like stripping a couple of spells of their death effect.

Didn't see anybody holding a gun to Beamdog's head to make them implement it in the BG games, or implement it in the same exact way. Haven't really ever played IWD1 (by far my least favorite of all the IE games, I've probably only ever gotten through maybe 1/4th of it), so I can't really comment on how well it works (or doesn't) for that game - only for the BG games, where Beamdog is wholly responsible for its inclusion and implementation. Either way, too difficult to re-design certain spells around.

No offense to Beamdog, but I think it would be folly to try to balance for an extreme and unbalanced difficulty mode whose questionable design will be inherently subject to issues like this. It's true that instant party death is not intended, but the vast majority of mods (SR/R and IR/R included) are not even slightly intended to played with LoB either. Get your Skull of Death, Periapt of Life Protection, and Hindo's Doom out and memorize a few Death Wards, I guess. I could also just write you a mini-mod that strips Un/Holy Word of their death effects if you like: I imagine those spells have zero use for you the player anyway sdue to everything always being too high level.

Yes to SR, no to IR. I would not really expect it to have any issue, but I have not checked. Regardless, in both cases, they'd be superfluous (i.e. whatever changes they'd make compared to the previous/base versions should be included or overwritten by IRR/SRR anyways). As the official version of IR is what IRR is intended for, I would recommend that instead, whereas I have tested with the newest official (release candidate) version of SR. It seems in 5E, "silver" weapons were more like "silvered" weapons, meaning that such weapons aren't usually typically made completely out of silver, but just have a silver coating. Which...does make sense, considering silver would be an atrocious weapon material. However, who knows for Gith silver swords...

Not me, Demi and Mike, the creators of Item Revisions, I just run this "Revisions Revised" off-branch. Unless you're actually talking about specifically my changes, in which case, O.K., fair enough, but you'd have to have played non-Revised IR and know it very well to know which is which, so when in doubt, just give credit to them. I honestly don't remember the history of the Gith silver swords: are they actually made out of silver, or do they just...look like glowing silver? I'm reading the Forgotten Realms wiki page on them right now, and it's really not clear to me. Willed into existence...from maybe a piece of a portal to the Far Realm? Maybe it's just assumed they're actually made out of silver, I don't know...

There are a few different items throughout BG2 that are kind of head-scratchers with where they're placed, as there's just not much realistic possibility you don't have something undeniably better by that point. Depending on your party composition and what quests you've done by that point, their current location doesn't guarantee that they're useless...but in some cases, it can be pretty bad. A couple of points here: Carsomyr: IR changed it from +5 to +4 until you enhance it in ToB, and also chopped down its 50% MR to 20% (25% enhanced). IRR changes it from 20% to 10% (20% enhanced) but gave it additional Dispel Magic charges (its original 3 instead of just 1). I'm still not certain how I feel about this, I'm sure it's made someone somewhere kind of mad that the SoA version has so little MR in comparison to vanilla's insanity. Silver Sword: In normal IR, the Silver Sword is actually not usable by Paladins, which...I kind of get, but I also kind of don't. IR introduced a number of "paladins can't use such an evil artifact!" item restrictions, but unlike something such as The Ravager, the Silver Sword is not an inherently evil artifact as far as I'm aware (decapitation is kind of grisly to be sure, but the other vorpal weapons aren't disallowed to paladins and I'm not certain that paladins would actually have a problem with such). Two-handed weapons are paladins' bread and butter, so it feels like an unnecessary form of pigeon-holing to force them into Carsomyr, especially with how relatively easily accessible Carsomyr is. The "if the death effect fails, then it at least deals some extra damage" was my own invention for making the vorpal effects less "it either works or it doesn't"-y, which also makes it easier to not worry about the saving throw penalty (or lack thereof) being too weak as much. At this time, IR doesn't make any kind of large changes to how items are allocated in BG1. It would be nice to fix up BG1 stores, but it's also an incredibly daunting task with how many there are and how many are completely useless. The changes IR makes to BG2 stores with its Store Revisions must have taken positively ages to work through. Yeah, I think these really just take off after vanilla in intended design for the most part (even if the exact effects have been revised, who they're made for and their general effect has stayed mostly the same). Not sure why BioWare made the color choices they did. Thanks for the feedback!

You can see mention/investigation of the issue from last year here: I thought Angel did end up fixing this, but perhaps it didn't quite work as intended.

It's unfortunately not so simple. Even if you increase the number of charges on the .itm files themselves, when an item exists in an area or on a creature, the charges are individually set in each instance as well irrespective of what the .itm file says. If the .itm file says 50, but the .cre on which the wand is dropped from says 10, it's gonna be 10. However, if you just want to kill IR's nerf of wands (i.e. set them back to the number of charges they had in vanilla), you'd really have to do two things: 1. Go into each wands' .itm and set the maximum charges back to their original values (50? IDK what they are in vanilla). 2. Disable the "// Wands" sections of item_rev\components\main\fixes\item_charges.tpa. 3. Optionally: if you have Store Revisions installed, change the number of charges for sold wands from 10 to whatever you want them to be. It may be easier to just do only step #2 (which is what actually sets the charges of each wand found in-game) while then selling and re-buying whatever wand you want to re-charge when you need to.

It doesn't seem like any of the errors are of great concern, and also, I can't rightly tell if any of them are actually related to SR/R. I don't know what the "CDBREAKx" spells are, and none of those listed creatures are anything that SRR (or SR to my knowledge) make any kind of deliberate or specific change to. But...there are always a lot of unforeseen possibilities with modding.

rc1 is a finished released, but if any other additional changes were made since it was released, you could download the master version from github as well. Such a spell could have the "reset reaction" effect target specifically only the 'innocent' class (which is anybody who would penalize your reputation if you kill them).

No, their reaction is whatever it was before you charmed them. If it was neutral, then they're neutral; if they were hostile, then they're hostile. In other words, the automatic hostile reaction is disabled. While hostile -> neutral charm would be an interesting idea, it's not something the charm opcode can accomplish by itself and would take some scripting trickery. It wouldn't be a desirable change for me due to sequence-breaking that it would cause, and the fact that charm isn't really supposed to have a lasting effect once the duration is over AFAIK. Either version as a base works fine, it should not make any difference, but yes, you can switch to 4.19rc1 and never touch the old version again, . Sorry, I have no idea, as I haven't ever used the BG1 NPC Project. Actually, I think I did install it once, but the writing style didn't even remotely try to stay in the style of the BG series and it was very jarring for me, so it got yanked pretty early. I don't really see why there would be an issue, though. Install order from original post:

Understandable: from what I know, ToBEx enables it for use but doesn't actually do so, so you would have to use BGT Tweaks (or SRR) to make use of it. There is probably at least one other mod or two that also makes use of it, I would imagine.

Uh...no, because both SR(R) and IR(R) automatically install ToBEx if it's not already installed, while the EEs already have the functionality, so it's just a matter of actually using the correct mode/type with the charm opcode, .

4.19rc1 is the latest version of the official version of SR. "Disable hostile reaction after charm" was one of the very first things I ever did in SRR, to my memory - always been a part of it. However, you'd be forgiven for not noticing given that I don't think I ever changed the description of charm spells to make note of it, I think mostly because that tweak didn't either.

Not really, no. I think the second post of the IRR contains a kind of list of changes to items as well as the text of the original post before I wiped it which details some more generalized changes, but it's pretty wildly out of date.

It doesn't? It casts POTN20.spl, which is the same .spl resource that the Potion of Antidote casts to cure poison so it should...well, whatever, I really don't know crap about non-Revised IR after all these years of using IRR given all the differences between the two, and this POTN47.itm is made for IRR, so I'm not gonna sweat it, . Glad it fixed your problem.