Bartimaeus

8 hours ago, JediMindTrix said:

Hi there, I'm getting parsing error messages from SCS when installing SRR on BGEE. Here is my weidu and the error log

sfo_warnings.txt 3.29 kB · 0 downloads WeiDU.log 7.93 kB · 0 downloads

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.

On 11/24/2022 at 7:17 AM, pochesun said:

Regarding 4.19rc1. Does it have Master version (same as SRV4 had) or is it just a finished release?

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.

On 11/24/2022 at 7:17 AM, pochesun said:

thx for explanation. Honestly i agree with original charm effect, i think it should not last forever, for sure, form both gameplay and game mechanic perspective. But it would be interesting maybe to create a spell (say level 3 or 4), maybe particular mage school, something like that: Oblivion, this spell erases1 spell from target mage spellbook (good in combat), and when cast on a neutral creature (merchant for instance) erases all memories regarding main charachter (so, when you unsuccesfully try to steal from the marchant, that merchant wont turn enemy against you forever). Maybe add some other features. Again, just an idea.

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).

15 minutes ago, pochesun said:

I would like to clarify what "hostile reaction" means  For instance, i tried to attack a merchant and then i cast charm on him/her and then, after charm effect expires, that merchant will not have "red" circle and will behvae the same way he/she behaved before i attacked?

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.

19 minutes ago, pochesun said:

So, as far as i understand, now i have to instal 4.19rc1 and then SRR on top of it (with all required files being overwritten) instead of SRV4 and the SRR on top of it (with all required files being overwritten)? So basicaly i never touch SRV4 ever again?

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, .

19 minutes ago, pochesun said:

Also, wanted to ask about BG1 NPC Project. I wanted to try it but i dont know how it will behave with SCS, IRR and SRR. Does it have any conflicts with those? Also, whats the best order to install it if i use SCS, IRR, SRR and very limited components of CDTWEAKS (Tweaks Anthology)? 

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:

On 9/7/2018 at 1:30 AM, Bartimaeus said:

Your general install order (excluding ToBEx/BG2 Fixpack/1pp/BGT if you're playing an Enhanced Edition game) should look something like this:

1. ToBEx
2. BG2 Fixpack
3. Baldur's Gate Trilogy
4. Ascension
5. BG1UB (and other BG1 content mods)
6. Unfinished Business
7. Quest Pack (and other BG2 content mods)
8. Rogue Rebalancing
9. 1pp (EXCEPT for the "Smart Avatar & Armour Switching" component)
10. Item Revisions (main component)
11. Spell Revisions (main component)
12. Infinity Animations (main component)
13. Spell Revisions (secondary components - key here is to be before SCS if you're using it)
14. Item Revisions (secondary components - key here is to be before EET_END if you're using it)
15. Anthology Tweaks
16. Sword Coast Stratagems
17. atweaks
18. polytweak
19. Infinity Animations (secondary components)
20. 1pp/Anthology Tweaks ("Smart Avatar & Armour Switching" component / "Avatar Morphing Script")

2 hours ago, Salk said:

Yes, of course. 

I misunderstood the ""Disable hostile reaction after charm" was one of the very first things I ever did in SRR part... 

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.

3 hours ago, Salk said:

This is interesting.

That is one of the ToBEx engine changes. You mean that SRR allows for it without ToBEx?

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, .

2 hours ago, pochesun said:

Hello, i was away for a while.

what is Source release v4.19rc1 ? :)) 

also i have an idea. I found 1 tweak from bg tweak interesting: "disable hostile reaction after charm". I was wondering if its reasonable to implement it in SRR?

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.

3 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

You know how there is a nice webpage showing differences between vanilla and SR? Is there anything similar for IR vs IRR?

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.

11 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

YES! Exactly like the last time on my old PC. You helped me back then, too. I didn't have this file after switching to a new PC. Thank you. After pasting it into override folder and starting up my game again, the existing two potions of Marek changed in looks, they became exactly as in my previous playthrough, and after drinking it, the quest was completed. It seems my installation always needs your file.

@subtledoctor, here's what I was able to gather from the change-log of IR. I don't have IRR.

TO DO LIST
- ...
- ...

V4 - Beta 10 (20 June 2017)
- Obsidian Ioun stone tweaked not to allow going below 0 HP

etc etc...

I can say that under TO DO LIST, there are things I definitely don't have in my game, and below that the version says 2017. Maybe Mod Installation Tool used the latest official version, but there are unofficial ones that fixed lots of things, including this one?

Anyway, I now have to keep Bart's file!!!

EDIT: Thanks for saving my no-reload EET playthrough, Bart.

EDIT: One thing I remember, though, is that your version of Marek's antidote doesn't heal any other poison, so the other nine uses can only be sold or dropped.

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.

1 hour ago, FixTesteR said:

I have this potn47 item in these four folders:

EET_Fix, item_rev, override, weidu_external\cdtweaks

If you stick this into your override and use it, does it it work? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/bvyfqgvc9xr6hvz/potn47.itm One other thing I wonder is if there might be some small difference between BG1:EE-only games and EET games that is complicating matters...

42 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Hi! Again, I know this is SR/R, but awhile ago, in my other installation, Marek's antidote didn't work. @Bartimaeus sent me an itm file for it and when I drank it, that made my quest complete and I was healed. Only the protagonist had to drink it, though you're always given 10 potions.

This time, the potion Marek drop doesn't work again. I still have Lothander's half. They don't combine. I had all my party members drink it, yet no Journal change. Should I EEKeeper in Marek's potion? Should I try finding the itm file @Bartimaeus sent me over a year ago? Is this a problem with IR?

Thanks, guys.

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.

31 minutes ago, Quester said:

It does have a helmet animation.

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.

Just now, Quester said:

It does have a helmet animation.

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?

28 minutes ago, Quester said:

Hey. Could a check be added to the IR component Revised Critical Hit Aversion to include Moidre's unremovable helmet? (Moidre is an NPC from Glam's NPC pack).

As it is her helmet retains Critical Hit immunity, and seeing as she has it from level 1, it kind of feels wrong when you have this IR component installed. She is after all one of the tankiest of all NPCs even without this.

Edit: Actually this reminded me that her tower shield also doesn't conform to the changed IR shield bonuses. Worth a look as well, though that one is removable so it's not as big of a deal.

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, .

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Demi's vision, like yours, was that protection not directly stemming from a magical effect should not be breachable.

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.

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

Resist Fear/Remove Fear, as they are now:

Wizard Resist Fear: breachable

Priest Remove Fear: not breachable

Cavalier Remove Fear: not breachable

I'd say that all three of those should be the same; Breach doesn't care about the difference between arcane and divine protections, and these spells all do the exact same thing. Also, removing these protections won't do anything about the instant panic-removing effects; it'll only make it possible to panic the targets with further effects.

The type used for Resist Fear is "specific protections" rather than "combat protections". It's not the same type as Stoneskin; it's just that both types are subject to Breach.

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.

17 minutes ago, polytope said:

It gets even stranger though, because Breach in vanilla specifically lists Resist Fear as a protection it targets, clearly it can "debuff" a state of emotional fortitude, but in the vanilla game casting Emotion, besides the hopelessness effect on enemies gives the caster a personal resist fear buff for the spell duration, which is not a strippable protection. The cavalier's innate Remove Fear ability (SPCL222) didn't count either.

Personally I have far more difficulty reconciling Resist Fear and Stoneskin as the same types of protections (which the cavalier innate isn't) than grouping Hardiness with Stoneskin.

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.

3 hours ago, CamDawg said:

Next time I'm taking a picture of my monitor with my cellphone and posting that.

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", .

2 minutes ago, polytope said:

I'm losing credibility? You're literally the only poster trying to hyperextend the analogy and argue that Assassination and a berserker's rage should be breachable, seemingly for the sake of contrariness.

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...

14 minutes ago, Sam. said:

This went so long without a comment I just figured everyone silently passed on it.  For the record, the animation shadows on the wyvern use the normal pure black in palette slot 1 (counting from zero) which the engine renders as semi-transparent (probably ~50%).  When rendered over a white/light background, it looks grey.  The 70% vs 80% is referring to a scaling factor on the height of the shadows.

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.

2 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

Breach explicitly states it removes only Spell Protections.

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:

Quote

When this spell is cast at a creature, it breaches and dispels all of the specific and combat protections on the target creature. Here is a complete list of all the specific protection spells that are dispelled by Breach:

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.

17 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Duplicate the entire game folder with all 700 mod component installed and the mod folders present. (NOTE: to make this work, Weidu needed the backup folders and the files contained therein to be present. Bart, is there some way you get around this?)

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.