Bartimaeus

Assuming you're playing an EE game, you're just supposed to drink "Marek's Potion of Antidote" to cure the poison. The item code is potn47; if you use that and it still doesn't work, let me know.

I was mistaken: apparently, if the item is set to non-movable, it is also skipped. Hmm, it's kind of clumsy, but I guess I'll put in an exception. I also added the tower shield as the largest type of shield to the shield list.

Then it should be patched like other helmets. You installed the IR component after the NPC is installed, and you're certain that you can't crit the character wearing it?

The component patches all mod-added helmets already...so long as they have a non-circlet helmet animation set. Presumably, this unremovable helmet does not have a helmet animation?

I'm not going to lie, I completely forgot the function of Clairvoyance in vanilla: literally had no clue it just revealed the map. Whoops, that's on me. Why are the two Emotion spells breachable again? Functionally, Courage just sounds like Mass Aid, while Hope sounds like Greater Bless, and neither Bless or Aid are breachable, so I'm not really seeing why those should be breached. Also, I have an alternative explanation for why polytope isn't responding about Emotion: every time you mention it, my immediate inclination is to say "who give a crap about IWD's terrible spells, who were also designed by a completely different developer: we're talking about Baldur's Gate here". I might be biased because of my dislike for IWD though, . Are you saying he actually said that? That seems at odds with IR, as the effects of potions are considered alchemical (i.e. not magic, not dispellable) but are specifically given sectypes that make them breachable.

I am not certain that polytope was looking at Stoneskin and Resist Fear as being the "same type of protection" in the sense of them being specific or combat protections, but rather the fact that Resist Fear should be classified as a type of protection at all particularly with regards to me having just mentioned Clairvoyance not being considered one (well, a combat protection, that is) - when the concepts of both make it pretty clear that they're all mental...and likewise with IWD's Emotion: Courage. I wouldn't have any of them breachable.

Yeah, another case like potions that just does not sit squarely with me, particularly because the spell description literally says that it works by "instilling courage" in them. Anyone who wants to say that it isn't consistent either way can certainly do so without complaint from me. It seems like too much of a quagmire for a fixpack to really be able to handle on anything but a very limited basis, more along the lines of "does the community want Hardiness (and possible other similar edge cases) to be breachable, regardless of logical reasoning for or against it?". That's probably a lot more straightforward and beneficial.

Make sure you take it from a lopsided viewing angle as well, so there's an even better illusion of "one side is darker than the other", .

The crime of someone is approaching an issue from a slightly different angle than me is great indeed, and surely worthy of attacks on one's integrity, impartiality, and/or intelligence.

I feel like I gave out a pretty good conceptual interpretation of Breach. With regards to Defensive Spin, I don't know what Defensive Spin is. I mean, I know it's a Blade ability and I kind of have a vague idea of what it's supposed to be (the Blade spinning around with swords really fast in a kind of defensive maneuver...right?), but with no description with which to interpret what it does, it's difficult for me to say for absolute certain whether it should or shouldn't be breached. The concepts of these spells and abilities do matter: while Clairvoyance also gives combat protection-like bonuses a la Shield, Breach doesn't do anything against it because it would make zero sense for Clairvoyance's concept of simply being a type of foreknowledge (likewise for the bonuses of Emotion: Courage being the result of one's enhanced emotional state). One could possibly stretch a similar kind of explanation for Berserker's Rage ability as well as some other edge cases. I don't really have a good feel for why the heck Rage gives all the protections it does though (...level drain?), so I'm not the one to do so as it's entirely fraught with more personal interpretation of something that is not described enough in-game, or at least not to my liking. The concept and bonuses for Assassination lend absolutely nothing to being any kind of protection that would be suitable for breaching. If Defensive Spin is really just "Blade is spinning around really fast with their swords", then I'd probably say it shouldn't be breachable, because Breach, to my knowledge, doesn't punch holes through real walls, or one's armor, or weapons...or your skin, for that matter, and it doesn't stop you from moving around, so what exactly would Breach be puncturing here in practice to make the Defensive Spin stop? Though I have to say, Breach possibly setting a target's base AC to 10 for a limited amount of time is kind of an interesting idea for being able to deal with ridiculously high AC enemies, but...

That makes a lot more sense, I was really having trouble differentiating in that tiny and also bad quality jpg (who saves anything in jpgs these days?)...so let's blow it up. The jpeginess is not my fault: *I* saved this in .png, . Looking at it this way...probably 70%? I'm still not sure, really.

According to the AD&D Monster Manual, they cast neither shadow nor reflection. No reflection is strange enough, but no shadow? Uh, so like...if you have a light source right in front of you, and then a vampire walks in between you and said light source, you would see the light source straight through them? Honestly, that makes zero sense with the visibility of other objects and surfaces also being dependent on reflecting light into our eyes, so really, if vampires don't cast shadows (i.e. don't block, reflect, or otherwise interact with light), that would mean they should be completely invisible. Pretty weird and a probably not super well thought out idea, whoever came up with it (perhaps going back to some element of mythology before the mechanics of light were more generally understood?). As Sam pointed out, this probably doesn't qualify as a "fix" per se, since it's really an issue of AD&D vs. what the developer actually did...unless people agree that it does. I'm...neutral on the idea, I guess. Wyvern: Darker.

To my eyes, it really doesn't do any such thing. I even checked Beamdog's description to make sure they didn't make any changes for the Enhanced Editions: The first sentence makes no mention of spells, purely "specific and combat protections" (and note that it says "breaches and dispels", not just "dispels"). The second sentence, as it states, is a complete list of spells that it dispels, which does not at all preclude the possibility that there are other non-spell abilities not listed here that it could still breach. In an effort for full disclosure, however, it must be noted that various potions with combat/specific-protection-like abilities (such as Potions of x Resistance) do not have their sectypes set; if Breach were intended to tear down non-spell protections, you would think that potions would be the most obvious inclusion here, and yet I checked every single one, and only the Potion of Invisibility had a sectype set (illusory). Coming from someone who uses IR which historically sets potions to not able to be dispelled (alchemical!) but also to have sectypes which makes them breachable where appropriate, that doesn't sit squarely with me or help my case, but it ought to be mentioned regardless.

IMO, it especially sucks for the MIH mods because they come relatively early into the install, and it's a hassle to work around, particularly if you've had to rebuild several times. SCS at least has the decency to come very close to the end of the install where, if nothing has gone wrong up to that point, you're likely in the clear.

Conceptually, I don't think of Breach as being an anti-magic spell in the same way as Dispel/Remove Magic or Secret Word, Spellstrike et al. are. I think of it more in the vein of Lower Resistance, which will lower a creature's magic resistance regardless of whether that magic resistance comes from a spell, their equipment, or a class/race/other ability. Similarly, Breach punctures a hole straight through all of the temporary protections currently enveloping a target, "breaching" their defenses and leaving them vulnerable...regardless of whether said defenses are magical in nature or not. Now personally, I don't really care that much about it either way, since this is just a meaningless "conceptual" perception of the spell, but having Breach destroy Hardiness does make sense to me. Assassination, on the other hand? No.

I keep a "master" weidu.log and put an asterisk next to any mod that requires the backup files in order to reinstall. Typically, this is because of READLNs - free-form user input prompts that cannot be captured by the weidu.log. For a mod that uses READLN (such as BGT above or BGGraphics), the backup folder for the component in question contains the "READLN.#" and "READLN.#.TEXT" files that store these choices; copying them over will preserve your choices and allow them to reinstall, and you do not need anything else from the backup folders. Alternatively, trying to do 500+ components in one-go is really sketchy in terms of "did anything go wrong? if so, welp, I have to start all over since this is impossible to safely stop until it's way too late" as well as weidu speed and stability (the longer it goes, the slower weidu seems to get - possibly from a result of constantly appending the relevant .debug file? Presumably, you don't want a .debug file that is 20 MB large). So instead what I do is I'll add chunks of the old weidu.log to the new weidu.log, then "re-install" in batches - hundred components there, manually install the READLN component that I've asterisked, then another hundred, and so on. It's a process fraught with danger for sure, but once you know the pitfalls and have how it works down, it's very handy. If you're adding new mods or new versions of mods, you should definitely be installing those manually for the first time. READLNs wouldn't be an issue if weidu allowed you to supply them in the event of missing input, but instead the installation fatal errors - very annoying, and something I wish would change with weidu. (e): Though I have to say, I'm not sure which, if any of your components would actually have READLNs; it is possible other issues cropped up because of leaving the backup folders totally in-tact (which I have never done; only the READLN files), IDK.

Guess this is why typos happen - thanks! If Montaron was the only character in his line of sight, that probably figures. I wonder if you can backstab a creature if it can see you like this while it's currently targeting someone else. To be honest, given how many issues it's caused over the years while just being overall pretty sketchy, I kind of just wish Non-Detection wasn't in these games. SD probably has the right idea in replacing it with a "you can't dispel illusions" concept instead. SPWi611.spl, remove all but one of the #120 opcodes (Protection from Weapons), change it to type 1 and enchantment level 0. No, he does not, but in the scenario that I laid out, he was granted opcode 193 after casting SRR's True Seeing. Liches and certain other types of creatures (such as glabrezu) are supposed to be able to always see through invisibility, hence why they do not care. Meanwhile, Lavok's behavior even after getting opcode 193 does not include targeting invisible characters with spellcasting until the invisibility has been broken even when they have a 193 opcode active. The idea in SR is that you're supposed to use Detect Invisibility or True Seeing in order for your mage to be able to target improved invisible characters. However, SCS's spellcasters as they are right now would be hamstrung by that limitation, and instead allows its spellcasters to forcibly use anti-magic spells (such as SW) on improved invisible characters; those settings are there just to allow the player to play by the same rules (or just make spellcasting battles less complicated).

This issue is that I've tested this about three times now and even SCS spellcasters (with the exception of those who are deliberately scripted to always ignore invisibility, e.g. liches and powerful fiends) do not properly react to creatures hidden by stealth/Invisibility + Non-Detection even after casting a Detect Invisibility or True Seeing that grants them opcode 193. I just tested again on a SCS+SRR EE game to make sure: With exactly one character, I go up to Lavok with Non-Detection already active and start the dialogue/fight. I cast Improved Invisibility; although he has True Seeing memorized, he does not cast it and just waits around doing nothing. I attack him (thus breaking my normal invisibility but retaining the spell-untargetable improved invisibility state). He casts Time Stop, Absolute Immunity, and then True Seeing. Timestop ends, I cast Invisibility again. He mostly stands around. He *knows* my character is there because he continues to cast self-targeting defensive spells (unlike before he cast True Seeing when he was literally doing nothing at all while I was invisible), but he will not target my character with spells until I break normal invisibility again. Bizarrely, he occasionally tries to melee attack (thus indicating he definitely has the 193 opcode) but then will inexplicably stop a moment or two later. I attack him again, thus breaking normal invisibility (again, still retaining the spell-untargetable improved invisibility), and he casts Horrid Wilting, Remove Magic, and other stuff immediately after - as he should, because Detect Invisibility/True Seeing are supposed to allow the spellcaster to pierce the improved invisibility state even if Non-Detection is running...just not stealth/normal invisibility. This has been more or less my experience every single time I've tested this. While this is...weird, convoluted, and certainly less than perfect, if you have stealth/Invisibility + Non-Detection running, Lavok instead directs his attention towards non-invisible characters, and thus it practically works as intended. If you're playing a solo character...I can definitely see this looking a little glitchy and being less than ideal, but I don't really have any avenues to fix it and it's "mostly" harmless. If there are people who have contrary experiences, I would very much like to hear about them - perhaps the circumstances I keep testing have been too narrow (for the record, this is the first time I've tested specifically Lavok; Tolgerias and his cronies were another, while I don't remember what was the last).

@1385 = ~Whispers of Silence Reportedly created for a lineage of the greatest burglars ever to walk the night, this cloak was apparently a success, allowing the wearer to became non-detectable by magical means such as Detect Invisibility and True Sight. No record exists of previous owners. STATISTICS: Equipped Abilities: Spell: Non-Detection Weight: 3 Not Usable By: Wizard Slayer~ I've read the description three times now, and I do not see a typo, though I do see a little bit of an oversight in still calling True Seeing "True Sight" instead. As for the issue of Davaeorn, the AI can be...inconsistent in how it reacts to Non-Detection. What exactly did you experience?

A two-handed sword +1 without the enchanted weapon flag set but still having an enchanted level of +1 is treated as non-magical for this purpose (i.e. as if the enchantment level were 0). I confirmed this a moment ago when said two-handed sword +1 was ineffective against Protection from Normal Weapons. (e): Ah, but I forgot the second component of that: when having PfNW use type 0 with enchantment level 0 and PfMW type 1 (all magical weapons), setting a weapon to enchantment level 1 but non-enchanted *does* allow it to bypass both PfNW and PfMW. Interesting. In that case, it would work...although again, there is some consideration as to whether this is a good idea in the first place. Also...my memory tells me that SCS does weird systematic stuff with non-enchanted weapons that have enchantment levels, so that might be something to look out for as well.

It would be an issue because Protection from Normal Weapons would protect against it instead, which I think is worse and more nonsensical than letting Protection from Magical Weapons do so. Also, I don't recall off-hand whether Protection from Missiles protects against Sol's Searing Orb (and a couple of other similar spell-like weapons): Protection from Missiles has to manually specify every single type of projectile type that it protects against, and I'm not sure if it's included or not off the top of my head.

Original 5 CD version of the game on the latest patch: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/gv31zua2udd1c6v/bgmain_FBgi0TYTCz.mp4 The strangest thing occurred here: although I spent a couple of minutes trying to get Physical Mirror to reflect the bolts, including with a reload, and nothing would do, they were just seemingly deflected. But the exact moment I ended the video, all of the bolts that Keldorn had fired suddenly all came back at once and hit him. I then reloaded the game, and all of them were being fired back at him as was expected...and then I reloaded again and once more, none of them were fired back. Uh...okay then. Then I tried the GOG version, and I started to think it would never work on the GOG version because I reloaded like ten times and they were never reflected...but it finally happened right as I was about to give up. So...I don't know what to tell you guys, Physical Mirror's reflection predominantly did not work but rarely did with both versions of the game for me.

So I dug up the old discussion: https://github.com/Gibberlings3/SpellRevisions/pull/56#issuecomment-901296277 grodrigues wanted to enable blanket protection against magical weapons (opcode 120, Protection from Weapons, type 1), which I attempted to dissuade him of because some special spell-like weapons (such as Sol's Searing Orb) were seemingly set higher than what PfMW would cover in order to bypass it. b18 of SR instead uses 120 opcodes that specify type 0 "Magical Weapons (enchantment level)", for enchantment levels 1-5. The thing is...type 0 covers all levels below what is specified as well. So just doing one type 0 with enchantment level 5 would provide protection against enchantment levels 1-5...AND non-magical weapons. This is where we went wrong and apparently which neither of us understood at the time (or tested). So it turns out, enabling blanket magical weapon protection and removing the type 0s is the only way to restore the vulnerability to non-magical weapons. Now, whether that's the best idea to do or not...is another issue entirely.

I did (godrigues and I worked on many of them together...), but it's possible I missed one or two, even though I specifically remember working on that one with him. Unfortunately, I can report that it seems like normal weapons don't pierce PfMW in either b18, 4.19rc1, or SRR: clearly, grodrigues and I misunderstood how the "Protection from weapons" opcode works, since we both handled it incorrectly. Well, it should be called Protection from Weapons in that case, or at least make it clear in the description.

@WanderingScholar "SAY" is what is responsible for giving items/spells/creatures new names/descriptions, so if you comment out a spell like so... COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\spwi308.spl~ ~override~ // Lightning Bolt SAY NAME1 @515 SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @516 COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\scrl1k.itm~ ~override~ SAY NAME2 @515 SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC @516 -> /*COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\spwi308.spl~ ~override~ // Lightning Bolt SAY NAME1 @515 SAY UNIDENTIFIED_DESC @516 COPY ~spell_rev\spwi3##\scrl1k.itm~ ~override~ SAY NAME2 @515 SAY IDENTIFIED_DESC @516*/ It prevents the spell and associated scroll resources from being overwritten with SR's main changes, which will additionally prevent any name/description changes as well. In practice, there are certain spells that will cause SR to crash and burn if you prevent them from being installed though, so beware that; generally, most should be okay, Lightning included (...I, too, sometimes miss the old bouncy lightning).