Bartimaeus

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).

Being aware of and thankful for your circumstances is always a good frame of mind to occupy. Thinking of how different and how much harder your life would likely be if you were born at most any other different place/time in the world and throughout history should naturally induce such a feeling...as well as at least a little empathy for the others that were not blessed with your fortune, who from birth have always been on the outside looking in for one reason or another. Though that's also no reason to ignore that we can also strive for better, that we must strive to at least prevent the kind of encroachment that will inevitably makes things worse.

Dutifully noted, though I admittedly have very little patience for people who take undue pride in their (arbitrarily decided at birth) nationality and the related issues that come with it. But then again, probably just a hair less than half of the population of my own country would have very choice words for me indeed for my thoughts and feelings regarding said country. Hey, maybe I'm just a big ol' jerk with a little too long of a memory. So not counting today... 2017 December (weidu itself): 2018 January (BG2 Fixpack): 2018 February (Tweaks Anthology): 2018 August (IR): 2018 August (Tweaks Anthology): 2018 September (Tweaks Anthology): 2018 September (TBL): 2018 September (BG2 Fixpack): 2018 September (Tweaks Anthology) 2018 September (SCS 2018 October (TBL): 2019 January (TBL): 2019 Feburary (SCS 2019 April (TBL): 2019 June (SR): 2019 July (SR): 2020 Feburary (SRR): 2020 Feburary (SR again after I said "haha, no, never" in the SRR thread): 2020 April (IM10_Simd0): And the list keeps on going, but I don't want to read any more than that. Hey, uh...hey, maybe...maybe stop doing that. Yeah, you'd think it'd be a learning tool even for young native speakers. The multitude of sounds that letters can make in English is not at all conducive to getting a grasp over the language, and never mind loan words. You could phase out using them as you get older. Heteronyms can also be a problem where diacritics would be helpful. Read vs. read, as an example: one of them is pronounced with a short E, one with a long E...there are certain sentences where you can't accurately distinguish between heteronyms and the sentence is ambiguous as a result. Eh.

Sharp remarks? Just trying to have a friendly conversation about language and its proper use, .

I apologize that my language has borrowed one of the words from yours and transliterated a widely accepted variant without the pointless* diacritics, but that's the way she goes. *Note: pointless in English. I'm sure they serve their use elsewhere, but as English is entirely without them, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to use them. Given how inconsistently letters are used in English, it might prove helpful for those learning the language if it did have them, though...that might be a very useful learning tool if you're coming from a different language where they're the norm.

lmao If one is experiencing symptoms of deja vu...

lmao, think this poor guy had a couple of too many ales...or perhaps something else Although pretty different from the BG1/2 art styles (stylistically speaking, they remind me more of NWN1 than anything else - generally more natural looking lighting and colors than NWN1 would offer, though, which helps them fit in more with BG), they are quite neat.

I did not see this thread until just now, whoops. I don't believe it's possible that you could have seen that particular error regarding strrefs.tpa if you tried to install IR from your link, because the linked V3 does not contain any mention of "strrefs.tpa" in the entire mod: that's a V4 thing. Now I do believe you when you say that you got that particular error when you tried to install IR v3 + IRR, as you would receive that error (along with a great deal many others even if that error were fixed), because IRR is based off of and requires IR v4, and there are substantial differences between the two. As for why IR V3 failed to install in the first place...well, it would depend on what exact error you got there, but I just don't think it could've been the same strrefs.tpa error, as I literally did a complete search of every single file within the V3 package for that, and there was not a single mention of it...in contrast to V4, where it's one of the first lines of main_component.tpa, which is practically the first thing that runs when you try to install the main component of IR.

Mildly pointless note: that particular tweak comes from and is in base IR.

Not as far as I know, no; if anything, I think 4.19rc1 should be slightly more compatible with IRR versus b18 due to some slight compatibility additions for 4.19rc1.

Alright, best of luck. Not sure what to try with the bad file for the time being.

Well...that's very strange. The component is essentially "this list of AoE projectiles should bypass Mirror Image, so scan all .itm and .spl files to see if they use one of the projectiles from this list, and if so, set said .itms and .spls to bypass AoE; also, here are some special cases that we will manually set as well". If it only happened once, I'm inclined to believe it was just a bizarre fluke...probably. Did any other mods touch this file? I installed it straight from the link you provided (and confirmed that G#TFVAMP.cre was in my override) and then installed SRR immediately after, no issue. If some other mod touched this .cre, it may be that I need to install that as well to figure out what went wrong.

Thanks! So the Mirror Image Fix error suggests that it doesn't install because the Main Component wasn't already installed, so I think we can safely ignore that for the time being. Although that component really should still be installable even if the user chooses not to install the main component, so I'll have to fix that regardless; if I had to guess, that issue will occur in the non-Revised version of the component as well, because that chunk of code concerning sppr951d.itm has not changed between the official version and my version. The simplest fix would be to simply gate it behind a "make sure the file actually exists in the first place" check, which I'll implement. (e): Now implemented in the latest repository version, fixing that particular issue. The main component error is a little more...mercurial to me. Creature "G#TFVAMP.CRE" failed to patch correctly, but why is it being patched in the first place? Presumably some global creature patch (a patch that scans all .cre files and potentially makes changes to them depending on if certain criteria at met) at some point in the mod is failing on that particular creature, but I don't know which global patch, I don't know who/what the creature is (except that they're probably some kind of vampire based on the .cre filename), I don't know which mod the .cre comes from, and I don't know why it's failing. If you would be so kind as to do a changelog for that particular .cre filename to see where it comes from, it would be of great help for me to track down the issue; sadly, a Google search for it did not turn up even a single result. Possibly your spell_rev.debug and a copy of the .cre would help as well, though I suspect I'll have to use your changelog of the .cre and create an install that matches your install log in order to figure it out.

"Currently SRR doesn't apply to SR per latest update"? What exactly is spitting that out, and on what criteria? But yeah, I don't really know what the installation process of a mod looks like on non-Windows environments, I guess. From what I can tell looking at the .tar.gz files for both b18 and b19, the structure for both is identical, so I don't see why anything would have changed: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/3054q6gp3imvm6y/explorer_jbEyQgaTv7.mp4 In the past, I've created combined archives for people in the event of non-Windows OSes not being able to combine them correctly, so if you ever need that, just hit me up.

No, I've always disliked Find Familiar - for those reasons, and also because I prefer to control less characters (to this point, I usually only use a maximum of 5 party members), not more, and Find Familiar is obviously a bit of an antithesis to that in basically adding another semi-party member without much purpose. The thief-like familiars don't get ever good enough thieving abilities to make a thief unnecessary, and the caster-like familiars get a couple of utility abilities, but both are so vulnerable outside of like right at the beginning of BG1 that the hassle is not really worth the trouble. So you get your bonus HP and have the thing sit in your inventory 99% of the time...at least, if you're sane. I know there's at least one mod out there that revamps Familiars (though I haven't played around with it myself since I just...fundamentally don't like the idea of familiars), but I don't know about just killing the constitution/HP stuff.

Did it fail to install, or are you using some other measure to determine how cleanly it copies over? v4.19rc1 hasn't changed the process any here on Windows: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/qp17a23i25tgqd4/explorer_Ef3xgztbRJ.mp4