Bartimaeus

3 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Does Death Ward really not protect against vorpal attacks? Is there any way to protect against them so as to become immune to them?

Why wouldn't it?

1 hour ago, FixTesteR said:

Well. GoI should block VS as per description that it blocks aoe.

Subtledoctor should've already fixed that - it was set to power level 0 (which would bypass spell protections) when it should've been level 4.

(e): Actually...now that I think about it, Globe of Invulnerability should have a carved our immunity to Vitriolic Sphere in its entirety that should make the power level issue moot, so I'm not sure why it wasn't protecting against it.

8 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Is SR/R incompatible with aTweaks components PnP Fiends and Fiendish Gating (description found here: http://readme.spellholdstudios.net/readme_atweaks.html)

I'm asking because maybe they both try to modify the same files. Thanks.

atweaks is not "incompatible" insomuch as aTweaks simply overwrites SR/R spells. How undesirable that is is left up to you.

11 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

So what will the aftermath of VS be? Do you all want spell deflections to deflect it completely, even though it's a splash spell, like a minor fireball?

Yes, if you choose to install the AoE Spell Deflection component: that's the idea. A Vitriolic Sphere or two could kill a number of mages who would have no other effective way of protecting themselves otherwise, which seems less than ideal.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Upon closer inspection it looks like in my install, the damage effects in SPWI426D.spl have a power level of 0. So maybe they are sneaking past spell deflections and possibly even GOI. (For reference, the Fireball subspell SPWI304D has damage effects with power level 3.)

I don't know why that is. I think those subspells are auto-created by the AoE Deflection code, no? If so i don't know why it would properly set the power level for Fireball but not for Vitriolic Sphere... sigh, I guess now I have to look at the code...

EDIT - looks like the damage effects have a power level of 0 in the base spell SPWI426 if you don't install AoE Deflection. Seems like a bug. I'll put up a PR for a fix.

Where did we land as far as the range of this spell? Did we decide that the "medium" range  spells like this (range=20) were problematic for SCS? If so then this would be a good time to address that as well.  But we can discuss that in a different thread.

For SRR, I ended up making pretty much every spell I believed to be conceivably used for a contingency/sequencer that'd target an enemy long range, which included Vitriolic Sphere. While having some variability in range was a neat idea, I don't think it really made much practical difference to change them all to long besides making sure contingencies/sequencers didn't break. Actually, since SCS uses Vitriolic Sphere a bit, it seems like that particular one benefited the AI more than the player, .

That would do it; I had a similar issue recently with the arcane HLAs, except instead it was setting them to level 1 instead of 0. Touchy!

30 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

By “that component” do you mean the AoE Reflection component? I’ve never made any substantive changes to that… if I touched it at all it was only for something typos in the code I think. And I’m not sure what differences of opinion you’re referring to. 

I haven’t looked much at Vitriolic Sphere… I can’t see any issue with it. If AoE Deflection is not installed, then you could as easily tag Irenicus with a Fireball or any other AoE. If AoE Deflection is installed, Vitriolic Sphere splashes should be blocked. But admittedly I haven’t tested it. Possibly there is something about the VS projectile, being aimed at a target, that doesn’t interact well with AoE Deflections?

If I'm not remembering incorrectly, we've had discussions in the past about how stationary spells should be handled as well as the particulars of some of the more tricky spells. Good to know it hasn't been changed too much in recent history, though - for some reason, I thought you'd made a few more substantial changes to it. Unfortunately, it would prove to be a bit difficult to port over the improvements I've made to it, since some of the spells that I added had to be implemented in a special manner which is why they were missing from the component in the first place. Something best left to some other time, I think.

I was definitely assuming @FixTesteR had the AoE Spell Deflection component installed, but if not, yeah, those spell deflection spells are not going to work against any AoE spells period.

1 hour ago, FixTesteR said:

I see. Then it's gonna be a problem. My installation will have numerous mods, and the MI Tool will install them in the right order. The Tool stops once everything is installed. So is there any possibility to patch spells up with SRR at the end? Like I said, copying over files? Otherwise I'd be forced to choose between SRR and a whole list of mods that I really like. Thanks!

With the Big World Setup in the past, it used to be that all selected mods were extracted into the game directory before any of them were actually installed. You could then select that SR was to be installed, wait until it was automatically extracted, and then simply put SRR on top before the installation started and thereby install SRR instead, but I have no idea if the Mod Installation Tool works that way. As the original post of this thread states, the installation process is extract SR to your game directory, extract SRR on top of it, then install as if it were a normal Spell Revisions installation via setup-spell_rev.exe.

4 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

I'm in the middle of mod selection, and will check SRR, too. Strengthening weaker spells sounds like a great idea. If I opt for SRR, do I do it after the megamod installation? Or can I just copy some spell files in specific folders?

Are you referring to install order, or when you should extract SRR? If the latter, it would be anytime past the point of when SR has been extracted but before it's installed. If the former, I'm...not sure? SRR should be installed at the same point that SR would be installed, which is probably beyond when other content (items, spells, creatures, areas) mods are installed, but certainly not at the end.

10 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

I realized that spell protections don't really protect against Vitriolic Sphere, as it does a splash effect. I'm thinking that maybe GoI would stop it but I haven't tested it. That fact makes VS a very potent and useful spell. I was able to interrupt Irenicus himself about 3 times if not more with a repeated VS.

The only area of effect spells which spell deflection spells like Spell Trap et al. shouldn't protect against are "stationary" ones that stick around in a given area, e.g. Cloudkill, Web, Sphere of Chaos, Teleport Field, and so on (and this is due to a technical limitation; every time one of those stationary spells "tick", they would drain charges equal to whatever level of spell they are...so a single Cloudkill spell could drain ~50 levels of Spell Trap, which would obviously exhaust Spell Deflection after just a few ticks). As such, Vitriolic Sphere should be protected against...in SRR, at least. Subtledoctor is the one who has implemented the latest official version of that component, and I'm not going to touch it due to our differences of opinion in how it should be handled; I primarily maintain SRR, not SR.

10 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Does the Mod Installation Tool

Sorry, I have no idea; zero experience with any of the automated tools, so I don't know if they do or do not even include SRR as an option. SRR is intended for people who people who specifically seek it out and know what they're installing, not people just casually installing SR expecting it to be the same as it's always been, so overall I am not too concerned. SRR will not ever become the official version due to a number of concerns both ideological and practical in nature, so if people are going to install it, I want them to be aware that they're installing it and never get it confused with the original SR.

10 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Also, what if I only want some specific spells to come from SRR while the rest are SR? Do I do it manually after the megamod install?

SRR replaces the entire official SR package: you do not install SR and then SRR, you only install SRR. Unless you're only trying to revert maybe a couple of spells back to their original SR versions, it would probably be too much trouble. Though I'd be curious as to what somebody would want to revert, particularly since most of my design changes have primarily concerned strengthening weaker spells.

On 8/19/2022 at 12:13 PM, subtledoctor said:

Ha ha, fair enough!

I recently made a pull request to fix the Sleep issue... I don't know if grodrigues is actually around these days to evaluate or accept it and I don't want to accept my own pull request. If you want to look at it and make the decision I trust your judgment. I'm honestly not aware of anything else that needs doing... was there something about the AoE deflection code? I think the main  thing holding up a "release" is a Readme, for which I am not holding my breath.

My opinion is that we should make a "release," in the Github sense of the word, of 4b19, and we can still call it a beta since it has no full Readme. But at least it would give players a stable download link to get all the recent fixes... the situation right now isn't great: the best/fixed version of the mod is right there but people are not finding it.

As I have discovered over the years, lots of people really don't like downloading the latest repository version...in their defense, some modders very specifically say "no, don't do that, the repository version is not intended to be used by end users". The inconsistency and possibility of an "unstable" version can be more than enough to turn away people who just want to play their game without major issues.

I replied to the GitHub pull.

5 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Are the makers of SR still active? I've found a number of typos in spell descriptions.

Technically...subtledoctor, grodrigues, and I are all supposed to be the maintainers of the official version of Spell Revisions, but grodrigues was the primary maintainer and I think SD and I were both okay with that. But there have been communication issues between here and GitHub that have made getting out a release to fix a number of things more lengthy than initially envisioned (I believe the word "imminent" has been used for probably over twelve months now?). Personally, I'm not really sure what else needs to be done, and I feel like SD and I are in the awkward spot of not really knowing how to finish it without grodrigues, who was putting it all together, giving it the final greenlight, hence why we're currently in limbo with it. But as SD said, if you're reporting actual bugs about SR and not SRR, it would probably make more sense to report them where SD linked...however, I do specifically recall the issue with Protection from Magical Weapons having already been fixed in the latest repository version of SR, so it is unnecessary to report it, I think.

5 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Also, quick question. Is Dispel Magic able to remove every magical effect accross the board? Except those that aren't dispellable. Meaning spell, combat, and specific protections, all in one swoop?

Spell protections aren't typically dispelled by Dispel Magic (with the odd exception of M/GoI in normal SR?), but combat and specific protections along with most everything else should be, whether it's the regeneration spells, Luck, Flame Sword et al.

5 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Hi @Bartimaeus! I just tested my SR installation of PfMW, and it also blocks normal weapons. Would you be so kind as to check the spell file for me? Of course, I don't know which filename that would be Thanks... Are you using NI to find and correct errors in spell files? Are they easy to spot?

PfMW is spwi611.spl.

7 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Is there a way to remove a Polymorph squirrel effect with SR/R, now that there's no vanilla Dispel Magic?

I would assume Break Enchantment would work in SR; SRR has both Dispel Magic and Remove Magic.

22 minutes ago, ratatosk said:

Thanks! I was actually trialing a newly modded installation, and I'm still configuring SCS to my preferences, so I've temporarily uninstalled it. Is it ok if I upload the override files just with SRR installed (including the aoe spell deflection component in question)? If so, here they are.

dvwi922.spl 202 B · 0 downloads spwi925.spl 202 B · 0 downloads

Yeah, these repaired files should do it if you drop them into your override: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/fe4tzni97aiw5aa/dvwi922.spl + https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/szfaikheyfw3ic1/spwi925.spl

50 minutes ago, ratatosk said:

In my installation of SRR + SCS, minor globe of invulnerability is blocking Comet and Dragon's Breath. Has anyone else noticed this bug?

It is an issue with the AoE Spell Deflection component, which I have now fixed. If you want me to fix it for your current game, upload SPWI925.spl and DVWI922.spl from your override.

7 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Hi. Isn't Sanctuary supposed to protect against any harm? Ulitharid attacked through it, causing 2 crushing damage, devouring brain and killing my party member. Ideas?

The very first line of Sanctuary:

"When the priest casts a Sanctuary spell, it causes all opponents to ignore their existence, as if they were invisible."

Doesn't sound much like complete invulnerability to me, . Some creatures, such as the psychic mind flayers, are less subject to this type of protection than others.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Can SCS enemies handle that, or will they keep casting dispell magic in vain?

SCS would not be able to discern, but unless you're playing solo, it doesn't really matter - the dispel will still work against your other characters. If you are playing solo, then you probably don't really mind Globe of Invulnerability being a little too powerful in the first place, considering the types of tactics you have to use to successfully solo the game anyways.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

So it seems logical that MGoI can be taken down by Secret Word, because it is L4. But GoI actually blocks up to L4, so that should make SW useless against GoI. Agreed? Though ... What about Spell Thrust, then? That spell is specifically aimed at spell protections. Well, so is SW. Sigh ...

No sir, anti-magic spells (with the exception of Breach and possibly the anti-combat protection half of Pierce Shield?) are always effective against all spell protections (Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Trap et al.), even if they don't actually dispel anything (i.e. casting Secret Word against a creature only protected by Spell Trap would have the Secret Word bypass the Spell Trap, even if there's nothing low enough level for the Secret Word to be effective against).

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

I think spear is supposed to be 1D8. You think you want to upgrade the Salamander attack? And his fire damage?

Spear is 1D6 piercing in BG1/BG2; I think Salamander is already one of the better forms with the good AC/dexterity combo and damage output, all things considered.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

What does SR mean here? Magic damage resistance?

Slashing Resistance, Crushing Resistance, Piercing Resistance, Missile Resistance
Fire Resistance, Cold Resistance, Electrical Resistance, Acid Resistance

Magic damage resistance would be noted in special characteristics as its own thing if a creature had any; there are no creatures in SRR or IRR that do.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Why does Troll have mind shield? Is that in the DND rules?

No idea, but it's given to all trolls within the game (you can't confuse, charm/dominate, hold, etc. any trolls), and it makes the form more interesting for the player.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Do you know if SCS can handle II+Non Detection? Or does SCS just cheat so it's pointless to do it?

If I recall correctly, what will happen is that SCS will mildly cheat because if they don't have Detect Invisibility or True Seeing, they will force target the player with anti-magic spells (e.g. Secret Word) in order to try to dispel the Non-Detection even when they shouldn't be able to...but otherwise, I think it should work.

39 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

Lesser healing potions are only viable in BG1 and possibly some SoD. And SRR berries heal about a half that of a potion while still taking a whole round. On paper, that doesn't seem viable. Have you tested it in your playthrough? I should try that in action but I usually have quite enough potions and I mostly use them when I need to rapidly increase my lost health. So anything worse than a lesser healing potion is kinda questionable to me. I think in my next playthrough, I'll test and see if you've buffed them just enough not to make them OP.

I like them a lot better now, but it's ultimately a level 1 spell aimed for use with fighter-types that can use them in the middle of combat when you'd like to get some extra healing in before you need to use a potion of extra/healing. Being able to create them before combat means not having to use a round of casting for a Cure Light Wounds as the alternative.

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

You've thought much about Goodberries, and what I'll suggest may have been thought of before. Make them unusable during combat but be able to heal a substantial amount outside of it. Or, maybe they could give the user +1 attack for one round so that they could eat a berry and not lose a turn.

Subtledoctor does it one way (making them more of an out-of-combat spell), SRR does it another because I value having them at least somewhat usable in combat:

"Casting a Goodberry spell creates 3 magical berries that the caster can carry with them or give to others. When consumed, these berries restore 5 hit points and one additional hit point for every three experience levels of the caster, up to a maximum of 10 at 15th level. The berries last for 24 hours or until eaten." Basically, a lesser healing potion and not quite so ridiculously bad as the SR version of the spell.

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

If I changed the M/GoI behaviour to protect against DM also, would SCS know how to handle it? I'm asking because it seems AI usess DM almost exclusively to dispell just about anything. And due to a higher level of the enemy caster compared to my party, the dispell is pretty successful. So I don't really see Secret Word, or Spell Thrust, being used at all.

1. M/GoI isn't dispelable via Dispel/Remove Magic in BG2; SR makes it so that it is for some reason.
2. You have SD's solution to change how Dispel Magic works...but there are also a few SRR-specific options as well:

dispel_globes (default 1)
When set to 1, globes of invulnerability cannot be taken down by dispelling effects (e.g. Dispel/Remove Magic, Carsomyr, etc.), but the globe will not protect the rest of their spells from being protected (vanilla BG2 behavior). When set to 0, the globe can be taken down as well (vanilla BG1 behavior). When set to 2, the globe cannot be dispelled and will protect all other effects on the protected creature from being dispelled as well. With any setting, globes will still be taken down with normal anti-magic (e.g. Secret Word, Ruby Ray of Reversal, etc.).

spell_protections (default 0)
When set to 1, all spell protections (e.g. Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Deflection, Shield of the Archon et al.) will protect against Dispel and Remove Magic as if they were any other 3rd level spell.

alternative_dispel_magic (default 0)
When set to 1, Dispel Magic (arcane, divine, Inquisitor's, and Yeslick's) no longer uses the caster level vs. target level mechanics as per vanilla, but instead a simple saving throw that scales with level (-1 for every 5 levels of the caster, up to a maximum of -4 at 20th level). When set to 0, the vanilla dispelling mechanics are used. When set to 2, Dispel Magic becomes a sort of lesser Breach AoE effect - one combat and one specific protection are removed from each creature, growing to two of each at 10th level, then three of each at 15th level.

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Is Polymorph self ever useful? It seems those alternative forms don't really help much.

I don't remember much about SR's Polymorph Self, but I put in some effort to try to make them more useful for SRR for at least a single-class mage or maybe even mage-cleric:

Quote

When this spell is cast, the wizard is able to assume the forms of six creatures: that of a mustard jelly, an ogre mage, a salamander, a sword spider, a troll, or a winter wolf. For the duration of the spell, the caster may transform into any of the new forms at any time, as many times as they wish. Physical characteristics are altered to that of the new form, and the caster gains their natural attacks but cannot cast spells while shapeshifted. However, the caster's mental characteristics are not affected, and nor is there a risk of changing their mental capabilities or personality. Additionally, any natural protections that the new form offers are conferred to the caster.

Mustard Jelly (7 HD):
STR 14, DEX 10, CON 10
AC 4, THAC0 13, APR 1
5D4 Acidic (Corrosive Spore +2)
SR 30%, CR 30%, PR 100%, MR 85%
FR 0%, CR 50%, ER 100%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Magic Resistance: 100%
Protected Against: Backstabs, Disease, Level Drain, Normal Weapons, Petrification, Poison, and Stun
Mind Shield: conferred protection against many forms of mind-affecting magic, such as charm, command, confusion, emotion, domination, fear, feeblemind, hold, sleep, stun, psionics, and other similar effects
Slowing: target is slowed for 1 turn (save vs. breath at -2 neg.)
Venomous: target suffers 2 poison damage every round for 5 rounds (save vs. poison neg.)

Ogre Mage (7 HD):
STR 18/100, DEX 10, CON 16
AC 2, THAC0 12, APR 2
1D10 + 3 Slashing (Katana +1)
SR 0%, CR 0%, PR 0%, MR 0%
FR 0%, CR 0%, ER 0%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Regeneration: 1 hp/round
Spellcasting: spells can be cast in this form

Salamander (7 HD):
STR 18/76, DEX 19, CON 15
AC 2, THACO 13, APR 2
1D6 Piercing (Spear +2)
SR 0%, CR 0%, PR 0%, MR 0%
FR 100%, CR -50%, ER 50%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Fiery: target suffers 1D6 fire damage

Sword Spider (5 HD):
STR 17, DEX 16, CON 15
AC 3, THAC0 15, APR 4
2D6 Piercing (Legs & Bite +1)
SR 0%, CR 0%, PR 0%, MR 0%
FR 0%, CR 0%, ER 0%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Protected Against: Poison and Web
Venomous: target suffers 1 poison damage every second for 2 rounds (save vs. poison neg.)

Troll (7 HD):
STR 18/00, DEX 16, CON 20
AC 4, THAC0 12, APR 3
1D6 Piercing (Claws +2)
SR 0%, CR 0%, PR 0%, MR 0%
FR 0%, CR 0%, ER 0%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Regeneration: 1 hp/second
Mind Shield: conferred protection against many forms of mind-affecting magic, such as charm, command, confusion, emotion, domination, fear, feeblemind, hold, sleep, stun, psionics, and other similar effects

Winter Wolf (6 HD):
STR 15, DEX 17, CON 15
AC 5, THAC0 14, APR 1
Frostbite (Breath +2)
SR 0%, CR 0%, PR 0%, MR 0%
FR -25%, CR 100%, ER 0%, AR 0%

Special Characteristics:
Frostbite: target is blasted with icy breath, suffering 6D4 cold damage (save vs. breath half)

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

In SR, how does one dispell a combo of improved invisibility plus non-detection? Detect Invisibility, Oracle, True Seeing don't work, nor should a thief's Detect Illusion. Are we left with just Spell Thrust and the powerful Dispel Magic? And hope the target doesn't run away since you can't target them directly? I wonder how an AI spellcaster does away with that. EDIT: Don't tell me it's a level 3 Invisibility Purge.

What SD said - also, again, SRR provides a settings.ini tweak for allowing all anti-magic spells to always pierce improved invisibility:

anti_magic_spells_pierce (default 0)
When set to 1, all anti-magic spells will always pierce through (i.e. be able to target creatures with) the improved invisibility status regardless of Detect Invisibility/True Seeing status. This applies to Spell Thrust, Secret Word, Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray of Reversal, Khelben's Warding Whip, Pierce Shield, and Spellstrike. When set to 2, Breach is also included.

Some of these things have been pretty common complaints by other people over the years, so I try to provide ways of making things easier for players who want things to be just a little simpler...

The official version is indeed broken; the latest repository version is not. Why? Well, a hex-view comparison of the two files shows a few differences...but the key one being that the 321 opcode is set to a target of 2 in the old version, and a target of 1 in the new version. One quick test confirms that that is the issue causing the problem. To my surprise, this is already fixed in SRR's version of kreso_ee.tph...since October 10th of 2021, a couple of weeks before grodrigues made a similar change in the official repository version of SR. Well, I wish I'd remembered that we already solved this and avoided all this trouble about it, .

The first one @FixTesteR attached was the one from \spell_rev (which even if you ignore the fact that the 201 opcode hasn't been converted to a 321 opcode, you can tell because the description string reference is in the 70,000s i.e. a new string reference for an oBG2 game, whereas the second one they attached is in the 300,000s, i.e. a new string reference for BG2EE), so it would not be helpful, since the one there in \spell_rev is O.K. - it's only when Clairvoyance is actually installed for an EE game that the EE-specific patch occurs and breaks the spell.

Try this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ndzp496wribqud6/spwi301.spl

I still don't understand it, as it's the same exact technique used for dozens of other spells (a 321 opcode targeting itself as the first effect of the spell), but for some reason it inexplicably dispels itself while working perfectly fine in other cases. If someone else wants to figure that one out, they're more than welcome to, because I could never do so.

On a side-note, I don't mind SR-specific problems being posted here if you're looking for specifically my help/input; I generally browse by unread posts because I really don't like the sub-section navigation on these forums since the forum software "upgraded" a couple of years back, and posting here is a surefire way that I'll notice whereas I might not with a thread I've never seen or posted in before. However, you could also just tag me.

7 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Hello! I must also apologize for derailing the topic. With SR installed, Clairvoyance does nothing, not even add a state to a character. Actually, an icon that looks like "Luck" briefly appears on a portrait and then disappears. Does SRR in any way change this spell? Or maybe my installation is broken. If there's any of you who has either SR or SRR installed, please test it. The easiest way, if you don't have it memorized in your current game, is to go to ToB and create a Sorcerer or a Dragon Disciple. Thanks in advance.

Alternatively, if any of you thinks this can be easily corrected, let me know how. I've heard of NI but never used it.

I recall someone reporting this before...here's a patch note for SRR from a few years ago:

Quote

Prevented Clairvoyance from auto-dispelling itself in EE games (although at the cost of not allowing new instances with re-casting - currently unknown why this happens).

I didn't understand why it happened then, I don't understand why it happens now, because the order of the effects looks correct and it shouldn't happen, but I ended up forcing it to not be possible by disabling the EE-specific patch that was causing it, and no-one has complained about it since.

It should be fixed in Near Infinity by removing the 321 opcode from effects; you can post your spwi301.spl, and I can do so.

The Luther Rose as your avatar instead of the previous ultra-low quality jpeg of Howl is leaving on a bit of a high note, at least. Actually...I guess it's not a Luther Rose, it just looks remarkably similar in design to one. Huh. Well, that's probably for the best anyways, really.

1 hour ago, polytope said:

Temnix has said that he won't be reading these forums, but I must say, he did interesting things with the game engine that honestly wouldn't have occurred to me.

Don't think there's any doubt he had some interesting ideas and some talents, but...well, it can often be difficult for many people to separate the artist from their art, .

On 8/3/2022 at 10:05 PM, polytope said:

It's possible to benefit from this inadvertently and not just through deliberate kiting cheese (which you've said you don't want to block).

What situation would this be, anyways? Preventing obvious exploitative behavior is nice when it doesn't conflict with or require design changes, but if it does, then it's usually not worth the trouble: let players who prefer exploiting play how they like without impacting anyone else.

2 hours ago, Guest Morgoth said:

Found it, it was here: 

 

Oh, sorry. I will probably purge that dropbox link at some point, perhaps I should upload it somewhere more permanent just in case...

SR V1.3.900 released. Thanks everyone who helped me figure out issues recently and since I started this project, .

6 hours ago, Satrhan said:

No like I said, it's a clean (steam) install, only mod I installed was SRR for testing purpose. The installation procedure is still:

1) extract V4b18 (did this from the source code file from github page linked in first post) 2) overwrite SRR files over it 3) install using weidu installer (done without any other tweaks to ini or anything)

?

Correct. Well, I decided to test your exact set of circumstances (clean BG2EE install, SRR only), and...you're not crazy, because it happens in my game too! While I am somewhat mystified as to why it seems my own install turned out fine (because the issue should have applied to my install as well, but...for some reason didn't), I am happy to report I figured out the problem. It's another manifestation of this issue discussed between Subtledoctor and I here. The difference here is that instead of pairing "LPF DELETE_EFFECT" with DELETE_SPELL_EFFECT's "opcode_to_delete" where it should be "match_opcode", I have "LPF DELETE_SPELL_EFFECT" paired with LPF DELETE_EFFECT's "match_opcode" where it should be "opcode_to_delete" - i.e. both had their terms reversed and it was causing some...unpredictable results with how it was patching spells. Again, not sure why it doesn't seem to be an issue for the actual install I was already playing...but thanks for reporting it and getting it sorted - the latest repository version of SRR has the fix included. Honestly, potentially breaking a number of spells because of this probably deserves a 1.3.900 release to make sure people aren't using 1.3.800.

7 hours ago, Guest Morgoth said:

Apologize for derailing the thread.

Bartimaeus, I remember you have published a changelog file after many tries where you said it took a lot of tries. Have you still got the changelog file? I m having some issues and it would be cool to have yours.

I'm sorry, can you give me more context for what you're talking about? A changelog for what? Did you mean a weidu.log? If so, here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/8dq8f9unynq0hcp/WeiDU.log It's made for BGT, but fundamentally, changing it to EET doesn't really do much...and this is my EET log, although it doesn't have as much (and isn't as thoroughly tested) because I made it for a multiplayer game: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/1cib21whh9ic77z/WeiDU EET.log (No, I don't know why almost all of the component names are set to question marks.)

7 hours ago, Satrhan said:

Log file path: WeiDU-FileChangelog\"spwi102.spl"-WeiDU-FileChangelog-2022-Aug-08.txt
[WeiDU-FileChangelog.exe] WeiDU version 24700

Mods affecting SPWI102.SPL:
00000: /* created or unbiffed */ ~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ 0 0 // Spell Revisionsv4 Beta 18 (Revised v1.3.817)

It's a clean install otherwise, so no idea what could be affecting it.

Okay, weird. The last time spwi102.spl has been modified on GitHub was 10 months ago, long before 1.3.817 came out, so that shouldn't be it - our versions should be the same. Do you have any other mods installed? Not that it should really matter, because SR/R completely replaces the spell...always hate weird issues like this where there doesn't seem to be a clear reason why something is happening.

12 minutes ago, Satrhan said:

spwi102.spl 1.63 kB · 0 downloads

Here you go, thanks for taking a look.

Here's what the spell's effects look like in my game:

Effect 4 is your AC being set. Here is yours:

No AC is set, and additionally, you have unnecessary "protection from spell" effects added that are already taken care of by the "Remove: ..." effects. In oBG2, "Protection from Spell" is used to prevent the same spell (or similar spells) from stacking their effects by casting it multiple times (i.e. spwi102.spl will "protect" against spwi102.spl from being cast again while it's still alive), but in EE games, we have the new "Removal" effect where if you cast e.g. spwi414, spwi317, or spwi102, these spells will remove your currently active armor spell and replace it with a new instance. If you would like to do a changelog on spwi102.spl in order for to try to track down what other mods have modified the spell (just extract it to your game directory, run the .bat and type "spwi102.spl"), that would be helpful.

Here is a repaired version of the spell specifically for your game: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/htfo3xv28lbwq8x/spwi102.spl Though I am unsure if this will prevent your Sorcerer's AI script from re-casting the spell over and over - if it doesn't, I wonder if the same issue would happen with a Mage that has it memorized multiple times.