Bartimaeus

3 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Yes, I just adjusted that a bit. I have a version working now that modifies some of the checks to use proficiencies instead of item types, while using other checks to distinguish tricky ones like morning stars/wakizashi/ninja-to. This version works normally in an otherwise vanilla install, and gets 85% of the way to proper compatibility with FnP. A small function for targeted compatibility takes care of the last 15%. I have added the change to my branch of the mod. If anyone wants to look over the differences, they are within that file,  item_rev\lib\identify_item.tpa

Only obvious thing I can see is that flails can be animations FL, F0, F1, or F3. Beyond that, it's just testing across different game types with and without the main component installed to make sure that nothing funky happens (as IR's subcomponents, such as Weapon Changes, are largely supposed to be agnostic with regards to whether the main component is installed - i.e. they should still ideally work even if the main component hasn't done its complete .itm overwrite, which...at times can be troublesome when you're trying to get compatibility between all different game types). Realistically, it'd probably be difficult to identify any potential problems short of someone making a real install and playing while specifically keeping an eye out for anything weird.

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

3) IR’s code can read weapons by proficiency instead of type. 

If you take a gander at item_rev\lib\identify_item.tpa, you'll see that its approach varies on a 'by need' basis. Some items are identified by item type, some by proficiency, some by both, and some by a combination of item type, proficiency, animation, and even strength requirement due to particularly tricky to identify item types (and the more elaborate it is, the more likely something will slip through the cracks, especially once you start throwing in mod-added content). It seems to be specifically designed around vanilla oBG2 and issues may indeed arise if another mod goes and makes changes to the ecosystem. Take, for example, your problematic morning star: in oBG2, morning stars and flails use the same proficiency and animation, and IR's Weapon Changes wishes to globally change all morning stars (including any added by other mods!) to the mace proficiency. Luckily, item type identifies the difference between morning star (0x16) and flail (0x17), so it just uses that...but if your mod or someone else's changed that, then how might you identify which is which? Different but similarly reliable methods would have to be determined that work across both oBG2 and the EEs (and hopefully the majority of mod-added content) if you want to go changing the item type identification process.

1 hour ago, FixTesteR said:

https://gibberlings3.github.io/SpellRevisions/spells/arcane/level-7/prismatic-mantle

So this is outdated?

It's safe to say that documentation is always outdated, . If you ain't looking through the arcane/divine .tra files (which is what will actually appear in your game when you install the mod), then you're looking in the wrong place. Honestly, speaking at least for myself here, if a maintainer barely has time to fix outstanding bugs, they are certainly not going to have time to consistently keep on top of all the different layers of documentation.

(e): Also, technically, the last few versions of SR on github are "release candidates", so maybe they shouldn't even be documented until they're final. Thing is, the latest official versions of SR have been betas or release candidates since forever at this point, so how compelling of an argument that actually is in practice...I'm not sure. I think the most important consideration is what version people are actually playing with, which...I assume is b18 and not any of the b19 releases, because the official G3 download link still goes to b18.

5 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

It says: Opponents that hit the caster with a weapon or spell from within this radius are subject to a random prismatic effect.

So it doesn't seem to give any direct protection. When was this supposedly changed? I didn't see it in the official github page.

https://github.com/Gibberlings3/SpellRevisions/blob/master/spell_rev/languages/english/arcane.tra: "When this spell is cast, an opaque globe of shimmering, multicolored light temporarily surrounds the caster. This magical mantle confers complete invulnerability to all weapons of +3 or less enchantment."

Specific commit. Looks like grodrigues just yoinked SRR's description and maybe made a couple of edits (that or I've made edits to Prismatic Mantle's description since then), which is fine.

My big thing with mod content (be it NPCs/characters, locations, items, spells, combat encounters, et al.) is that it should feel like it seamlessly belongs to the game world it is being inserted into. Unfortunately, it is understandably very difficult for most modders to write, make art, design characters, create/balance new items and abilities, voice act, and so on, in a style and with enough attention to detail to really make it feel like high level mimicry...and that's when modders even attempt to do so in the first place, as I feel many do not and instead just want to go off and do their own thing with no heed for whether what they make will cohesively fit into the already existing game world or not. That's their right, but it's not for me.

Whenever I've tried the EEs, I feel like a significant percent of the new content added by Beamdog fails my standards for "does this actually make sense and fit in?". The new party members are, of course, the most extreme instances of that, but even more minor stuff like a lot of the items Beamdog designed and even where they put them, too many of their boneheaded decisions* make me grind my teeth when I come across them. Anyways, I don't suggest anyone ever tries to make anything to suit my tastes, as it would almost certainly be a fool's errand.

*Mind you, BioWare had a number of pretty boneheaded decisions themselves...

2 hours ago, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus could you answer to my previous post please?

Sorry, forgot to respond: no, it is no longer necessary. Thanks for your help!

3 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I was going to say, that probably only holds for the pre-EE engine; I guess from the presence of a CELESTIAL line in the EEs’ SUMMLIMT.2da that the behavior is no longer hard-coded. 

But in fact the EE behavior is weirder and more interesting. In order to enforce the celestial summoning limit, it checks not just gender but also the animation ID. Which means 1) my idea would fail, and 2) my mod that changes planetars’ appearance may unwittingly circumvent the celestial summoning limit. 

This is all good to know - if perhaps frustrating to work around. 

So too would SR's celestial appearance component... Definitely good to know, definitely weird and annoying.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

My guess would be that it is in the SR EE extension code. SR’s Icelance does pure cold damage, do it would make sense for kreso to have included it in his add-on code. 

Well, I have to confess, I was a little stupefied by you saying that SR's Icelance is pure cold damage, as I had zero recollection of ever splitting the damage into cold/piercing purely on my own initiative. It's not the worst decision, if one looks at an Icelance as being more literal a la what SR does with Acid Arrow and Flame Arrow (acid/fire damage...AND missile damage, because they're arrows!), but still seems a bit odd to me with the vast majority of other elemental spells being...well, pure elemental damage. And with that in mind, I didn't even think to check the EE .tphs...because yep, it's right there. Good call: now commented out for both arcane and divine Icelance. Yay for finally tracking that down!

What's even more curious to me is that I already tested it out on a BG2EE game, as explicitly mentioned at the end of this post. I don't know what I did or saw wrong that it failed to crop up in that test. This is why I should always take videos of any tests I do... It wouldn't help, of course, but at least I could go watch my video and be like "look, we can literally see that Icelance did piercing damage to my 100% cold resistance character, right there!".

2 hours ago, DavidW said:

SCS's spellbook/casting priority won't really be affected by this - probably liches and vampires and rakshasas overuse PfMW compared to Mantle on SR, but I doubt it's especially noticeable. All that matters is that PfMW does at least what it does in vanilla.

SCS's targeting should also be fine, I think - I don't think I particularly try to exploit the nonmagical-weapon hole in PfMW. (Rogue Rebalancing does, though.)

Thanks. Has SCS historically had normal mages (i.e. those who don't already have protection from normal weapons) use Mantle instead of PfMW even when SR is installed? Mantle for the longest time in official SR didn't give any direct protection against attacks, but that was somewhat recently changed.

2 hours ago, polytope said:

In my games at least if you do it the other way around it chokes, if you have 5 controlled creatures with gender = SUMMONED then you can't summon anything else no matter what the allegiance or gender field. On the other hand you can have arbitrarily many friendly but uncontrolled monsters with gender = SUMMONED, or controlled monsters with 0x20, but only if they're summoned first.

Yep, that is true, and I did not know that. I would expect the same limitation applies to oBG2. But...I think it's of pretty limited risk: Dark Swarm would not work if you already have 5 normal summonables active...but 4 or less, and all of the shadows/wraiths will come in just fine, and they won't affect the normal summoning limit once they're in. I think it's acceptable, even if less than ideal. And a player that uses either Anthology Tweaks (EE-only) or d0tweaks' (oBG2) no summoning limit has nothing to worry about in the first place.

48 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

What about celestials? What if you 1) changed all celestials to gender SUMMONED, changed summons to gender CELESTIAL, set the “celestial” summoning limit to 5, and used a different method to restrain celestials. (The limit is one, so have every such spell kill any on the battlefield before summoning the new one.)

I think (but am not positive) that the celestial summoning cap is actually hardcoded to work on the basis of opcode 67s (Creature Summoning) using one of the 4 default celestial .cre files (DEVAGOOD, DEVAEVIL, PLANGOOD, PLANEVIL). Simply renaming one of the .cre files to something else and having the HLA summon that instead will bypass the celestial summoning limit. Let me test this to make sure before I make a fool of myself...I was pretty sure that it worked that way, but it sounds really dumb, so it's better to just make certain.

Okay, yep: renamed "DEVAGOOD.cre" to "DEVAGOOF.cre", changed SPDEVA.eff to call DEVAGOOF, and was able to summon two of them. However, I did find out that there's some additional mechanic that is similar to the Dark Swarm issue with the summoning cap and the order of how you summon: if you've already summoned a creature with the "Both" gender (0x5, which is what the celestials use) and then try to summon one of the four aforementioned celestial .cre files, it will run afoul of the summon cap as well. So I had a DEVAGOOF already summoned and then tried to summon a PLANGOOD as well, and it was a no-go...but I summoned a PLANGOOD first and then a DEVAGOOF, and that did work. Weird stuff.

20 minutes ago, pochesun said:

Somehow i always thought Fighter Thac0 stops at 0. Ok then.

It does, but as the Fighter starts with THAC0 20 at level 1, level 20 would only be 19 levels later and thus decrement THAC0 to only 1 and not zero. Fighters reach THAC0 zero at level 21, and the spell specifically mentions that it stops scaling at level 20.

22 minutes ago, pochesun said:

Somehow i always thought Fighter Thac0 stops at 0. Ok then.

I am attaching file you asked for from override folder but... i dont think i pulled files from override folder before (lol)  I will from now on, though.

spwi323.spl 1.49 kB · 0 downloads

Your Icelance has EE-specific 324 opcodes set to type 99, which provides complete immunity to the spell in the event of 100% or more cold resistance. This is not something that either SR or SRR adds to Icelance. Someone else who is more familiar with the EE modding scene might be able to discern which mod you have installed that would do that, but as I do not play on the EEs, I would be wholly unfamiliar with a mod that adds these 324s. You could try doing a changelog on SPWI323, which would likely identify the culprit.

37 minutes ago, polytope said:

Unless the most recent version of EE changes this, having 5 "summoned" allies (or whatever value is in summlimt.2da) already in an area prevents any more allied creatures being summoned, regardless of what's in the creature's gender field.

Well, I'll leave it for you to determine whether or not it's a change in the latest version of the EEs (I do not believe it is, because as far as I ever remember, this has always worked...though with the caveat that I only test EE stuff when I'm changing something specifically for it or in situations like right now), but in a vanilla BG2EE game, I just changed Spider Spawn's SPIDSWSU.cre's gender from 0x6 to 0x20 and was able to summon six of them just fine...then I tried to summon six skeleton warriors (whom I did not modify), but was only able to get five before the summoning limit kicked in.

1 hour ago, Nehreis said:

I confirm that my in-game description of PfMW doesn't include the or non-magical weapons part, and that I installed SRR (and I got all the other differences with SR). But again I installed it at least seven months ago, if it can explain the mismatch ? Here is the relevant line in weidu log :
~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ #0 #0 // Spell Revisions: v4 Beta 18 (Revised v1.3.900)

Also, I would argue that it's confusing in this description to specify blessed or enchanted weapons, or attack of powerful monsters, since *all* physical attacks are included.

I totally get your point for sticking with SR general behaviour.

One last thing : I noted that some effects which don't stack, like haste and offensive spin (or mage armor and spirit armor), have the stronger one canceling the weaker one. It felt awkward to me, punishing the use of offensive spin whenever the party was hasted. I would have expected the haste to take effect again at the end of offensive spin. Is it a choice (from SR ?) or an engine limitation ?

 

1. Yep, good call: V1.3.900 doesn't include the newer PfMW text. That change occurred in the V.1.3.908 commit. I really ought to make a V1.4 sometime soon.

2. I'm not...really sure what the intent of that passage about "enchanted" and "blessed" weapons is supposed to be, to be honest. I think it's just a rather fluffy leftover from the original/vanilla description of the spell: "When the spell is cast, it confers complete invulnerability to all magical weapons. This includes weapons that are blessed or enchanted. The attacks of powerful monsters are also considered magical weapons."

3. Haste/Offensive Spin: Can't work that way, unfortunately. The options are either that haste immunizes against Offensive Spin (thus using Offensive Spin while hasted does absolutely nothing) or haste is replaced by Offensive Spin. In oBG2, it's the former because that's the only option that works there, but the EEs introduced the possibility of the latter and so that's what's used there instead.

I think I would like to upgrade these shadows to wraiths (43 HP and 4 AC instead of 34 and 7 respectively) just for a little more staying power...and exempt them from the summoning limit, which just means changing their gender from 0x6 (summoned) to 0x20 (no limit summoned). Though having them be autonomous might not be the worst idea either...but they need to have a script to follow the wielder around, and having them crowd the wielder with no ability to override their movement could get awfully annoying.

1 hour ago, morpheus562 said:

I am going about it by creating an undroppable robe armor for him with the stats of Shuruppak's Plate. This way, it won't be flagged by any mod that adds DR to plate.

That seems like as good an idea as any. Yoink!

1 hour ago, Nehreis said:

2. Oh ok the Ust Natha store. It's somehow vicious as a location, since the item gains a lot in perceived value when you get Ravager and talk to Cespenar.

I'm not...super high on it myself, but I would guess the rationale was that Serpent Shaft should ideally have some kind of theoretical utility to the player in of itself rather than its use being totally tied to the Ravager, so it needed to be placed in SoA and that's where it happened to end up. It's actually kind of bad design in the sense that if one were playing just ToB, it would lock you out of ever having the chance to upgrade the Ravager.

36 minutes ago, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus I found the file, thx for directing me  "Override" folder completely escaped my mind.

@Nehreis mentioned (alongside Tenser Transformation issue) an issue with Devine Power spell setting base thac0 of 1 at high level instead of 0 (as i assume is supposed to be). I think i also encountered that issue too but just forgot to report it. Doing it now just in case  

SCRL6I.ITM 322 B · 0 downloads

I don't believe there's an issue with Divine Power, as Divine Power mentions that it stops scaling at level 20 in its description, and level 20 fighter would have a base THAC0 of 1, so it makes sense it would stop at 1 and not 0.

Icelance: SPWI323.spl is Icelance in your game. But...you've been making sure to pull all previous files that I've asked for out of your override, right? Because if you had been pulling them out of, say, the item_rev\ or spell_rev\ folders...that would mean all the files you've previously attached for me are the unmodified install files and not what your game is actually using (i.e. they would be what I already have on my own end, and thus of no help). What's in your override is what your game actually uses, and so files should always be pulled from there unless otherwise indicated.

1 hour ago, Nehreis said:

Strange, I don't see any reference to non-magical weapons in PfMW in-game description (also, not fan of this choice to include them).

Assuming you are playing with SRR and not SR (they are different!), this should be the exact description of Protection from Magical Weapons: "This spell creates an immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere around the caster that cannot be penetrated by magical or non-magical weapons; all such weapons are harmlessly deflected (missile weapons strike the sphere, then immediately fall to the ground). This includes weapons that are blessed or enchanted as well as attacks of especially powerful monsters. Due to this spell's short casting time and duration, it is mainly used to buy the wizard a few rounds in the thick of combat."

While SRR makes a great many deal of changes both small and large with relation to SR, there are certain things that SR decided upon that I am not willing to touch unless the official version of the mod does so as well for fear of creating potential issues, and this would be one of them. If SCS thinks PfMW is supposed to grant blanket protection against magical and non-magical weapons because the official SR version of the spell grants it and SCS formulates its spellbooks and spellcasting priorities around that particular fact, then I cannot even consider changing it no matter the arguments for/against it.

20 hours ago, Nehreis said:

Thanks for the great mod! I liked the new armor system, the modified item stats and the relocations.

I have two minor things to report :

- Spectral brand "dark swarm" ability didn't seem to work at all

- I *think* I never found Serpent shaft

2. Serpent Shaft should be on Azamantes (Watcher's Keep final seal guardian) if you did not install Store Revisions. If you did install Store Revisions, it's at the drow weaponmaster store in the Underdark.

1. For some reason, all ten of the summoning effects are zeroed out. Weird. Hmm. In my opinion, this ability...uh, kind of sucks? Like, it seems as though it really sucks, but maybe I'm wrong. You get Spectral Brand in the middle of Watcher's Keep, where all enemies are going to have enchanted attacks, as they all do in ToB. Regular shadows only have 34 HP, have 15 THAC0, and 7 AC. They're going to be killed in two hits that are going to hit 95% of the time. Worse, by default, the summoning cap applies to these shadows, so...like, they prevent you from summoning anything else and all ten of them cannot be summoned at the same time anyways unless they're being immediately killed as they're being summoned every round. This just doesn't seem very useful.

On 9/23/2023 at 8:33 PM, pochesun said:

I failed miserably in attempt to find that file (scrl6i.itm), lol  I only found scrl06.itm but i am afraid its not it. Just in case i attach it here.

scrl06.itm 218 B · 0 downloads

scrl6i.itm is the scroll that both SR and SRR use for Icelance. Unless you've biffed your game, it should be in your override.

16 hours ago, Nehreis said:

I just finished a 7 months run, I tried SRR for the first time and really liked it, thank you very much! I even used Larloch's energy drain.

These are some minor problems I encountered :

- I *think* magic armor went to AC 5 at level 4 rather than level 5 (no big deal)

- protection from magical weapons protects also from normal weapons (quite frustrating)

- Tenser transformation doesn't seem to work as described, the base thac0 is set at 9 at best when cast by a high level mage. The similar spell Divine power gives a base thac0 of 1 at high level (I guess it should be 0, but no big deal).

1. Yep, you're right. Even more, AC 4 kicks in at level 8 instead of 9. Odd. Thanks, fixed!

2. The description of PfMW mentions it, which is the only difference between SRR's and SR's version of this spell (i.e. SR's PfMW also protects from non-magical weapons...but doesn't mention it in the description). Presumably, this was to prevent the player from completely trivializing the protection by just whacking mages with unenchanted weapons while the AI has zero ability to work around it.

3. I completely forgot about the Tenser's issue: https://github.com/BartyMae/SR_Revised/issues/22

Quote

Thanks, will take a look into it and update.

I am a certified liar.

16 hours ago, Mordekaie said:

Just for clarification and to make it clear about new spells:

- If you just install a new spell from any mod, the new spell can't be used by the ennemies ? I wasn't aware about that. In a R&P perspective, it is quite unfair.

- A mod like SCS will make spells from SR an IWDification usable by ennemies.(i guess SRR is also included?)

Adding a spell to your game doesn't make other spellcasters suddenly have it in their spellbooks, or know what they do or how to use them or their level of effectiveness relative to other spells. SCS 'knows' SR and IWDifcation enough that if those mods are installed at the time of SCS being installed, SCS will use spells from them (yes, including SRR which SCS does not see as being distinct from SR).

57 minutes ago, polytope said:

I'd therefore propose to other modders that item changes to vorpal weapons specifically be packaged as a separate component to more global item rebalancing, which minimizes the extent of cross-mod conflict, this way the player can decide on install which version they want. Tagging @Bartimaeus and @morpheus562 , since after all this pertains to more than just my own modifications of vorpals.

I'm afraid I don't seem to understand. @Connelly wants FA's additional damage for a failed/immune vorpal blow (which IRR also implements for some but not all vorpal weapons) combined with polyvorp's general revisions of the vorpal mechanic...so the solution is "FA and IR/R should not install their own changes to vorpal weapons at all"? How does that follow or in any way solve Connelly's issue?

Anyways, as IR adds additional vorpal effects to weapons (Heartseeker and Impaler) that polyvorp makes no attempt to account for, I'm not really sure it's the best idea to try to combine these mods in the first place - it will just result in either items not having the effects that they're supposed to (if they're not installed) or inconsistency in how they're applied (if they are). Either situations would be very undesired.

18 hours ago, pochesun said:

Could you direct me where to fing that file?

As a new spell (and not a spell that replaces another), Icelance's resource name is dynamically added to the game as "spwi3xx.spl" where the "xx" could theoretically be anywhere between 01 and 50, I believe. If it were me, I'd use DLTCEP or Near Infinity to search/peruse through the list of spells and see which spell in the spwi3xx range has the Icelance name/icon. But if you don't have those tools or know how to use them...uh, probably the easiest method would be to open up scrl6i.itm (Icelance's scroll) with a plaintext editor (e.g. Notepad) and see what it lists at the end:

2 hours ago, pochesun said:

I dont think its the Protection from Cold scroll issue, i believe its Icelance spell issue (at least in my current installation), because it does not matter how a charachter acrrues 100%> Cold resistance (for instance i used 50% from boots and 50% from Potion of Energy Protection, so it gives 100% Cold resistance total) but still when i cast Icelance - no effect at all and log says "Unuffected by effects from Icelance". I could give you Icelance spell .spl if you want but as i said i am using 5 months old installation so presumably its somehow already been fixed. I will report if i face this issue with renewed installation. Just in case, i forgot to mention, i tested Icelance in BG 1.

Regarding Goblet: wanted to ask if its possible to somehow make other hostile creatures "effuse"  specific fear aura (maybe with different opcode than regular fear) which is activated when the Goblet is activated by the imbiber? 

I guess you can send me your Icelance as well, but I wouldn't expect to find anything interesting unless some other mod has royally screwed with it, but it doesn't hurt to take a look. I don't know for sure what its resource code is in your game, since there's a possibility of being dynamic upon install, but it might be SPWI323.

Durlag's Goblet: I think any attempt to do something like that would be ratchety as all hell. It'd probably be best to use an opcode 272 ("Apply Effect on Condition") with a 1 round frequency that casts an opcode 232 ("Cast Spell on Condition") with condition 1 ("Enemy Within Sight") that just casts a 7 duration fear effect, which should theoretically lead to a seamless chaining of fear effects whenever an enemy is within sight of your 'cursed' character.

16 hours ago, pochesun said:

My issue with Goblet is it is supposed to be a cursed artifact, and the curse was put on it by some truly evil forces of Durlag Tower (and from Durlag's past life that was filled with hatred and fear). So presumably the curse should be quite strong and malicious. But making it easily dispellable like any level 1 spell turns that curse into a mere trifle. When i was talking about Goblet change i meant a change where the curse effect should be more aggrevating and the range of means dealing with the curse, in my opinion, should be truncated, not the opposite. 

Yes, it would be neat, but as previously discussed, it's really not technically possible to implement it like that, so to have the effect avoidable and dispellable by every method besides a general dispel would seem awfully strange to me. The only way I can really see making it stronger and having it be relatively consistent is by having it apply a total dispel on use (getting rid of any temporary fear immunity...along with everything else) and then protecting against any new attempts to provide resistance to fear...but that still wouldn't prevent Cavalier's innate immunity to fear or Kiel's Helmet from working. Eh.

16 hours ago, pochesun said:

Attached another file.

Still no dice even using your version of the scroll: BG2EE, cast Protection from Cold from SCRL04.itm, cast Icelance on myself, I receive the piercing damage + am held.

3 hours ago, pochesun said:

Are we talking about Icelance spell?  Because Protection from Fire would have not affect Icelance in anyway. I was talking about Protection from Cold and Icelance interraction however. Just in case i attached file you requested.

Oops, sorry, I meant SCRL04.spl, Protection from Cold, not Protection from Fire.

3 hours ago, pochesun said:

hen honestly i dont get the idea behind it. I thought Goblet was supposed to cause more aggrevating issues (from Lore point of view as well) and with effect being dispellable now it has become less aggrevating. At least before target under Fear effect from the Goblet could only be brought back to normal state by Remove Fear, and now negative effect is even more easy to deal with. Though i have to admit, cast Dispell on your buffed party member, especially during fight, might be ill advised

Because there's no way to get it to mechanically work like a curse (and is in fact easily removable by level 1 Resist Fear or any other source of fear resistance/removal), it would seem inexplicable to me to not have it be generally dispellable, especially given its 8 hour length. Interestingly, though the positive effects of potions in IR are considered "alchemical" and thus not generally dispellable in nature, the negative effects of "strange"/cursed potions are dispellable. Hmm. To be honest, I'm not the hugest fan of those potions always having negative effects...always felt like "strange" potions should have a 50/50 chance of either doing what they're supposed to do or something bad.

7 hours ago, DavidW said:

This is helpful.

(1) isn't going to happen: handling antimagic attacks is really complicated and deeply embedded into SCS, and I've been clear since Demivrgvs that I wasn't going to write a whole new version for SR. (I would consider it if someone actually coded it for me, I suppose.)

(2) is reasonable but more complicated than it looks. SCS actually doesn't contradict the vanilla rules, because vanilla EE also lets antimagic spells bypass invisibility! Of course that's not a coincidence - Beamdog intentionally copied SCS, and liaised with me about it. On an EE install, SR is actually overwriting the original-game behavior. But it wouldn't be difficult to cancel that overwrite. 

Do people agree with SD that this would be a good idea? If so I'll implement it.

Yes, but I would personally prefer it if SR took a more definitive stance on exactly what it's trying to accomplish (preferably in a fair and cohesive manner!) with regards to the combined issues of improved invisibility/Non-Detection/anti-invisibility spells/the anti-magic spell system: it shouldn't be SCS's responsibility to try to patch up the problem that SR is needlessly creating. But...in the face of no agreed upon way forward for SR, it would at least mean that SCS players can expect fairer play between SR and SCS until/if something is decided. Over the years, there have been a number of threads like this one as well as posts within the SRR thread complaining about how these systems interact, which is why I added the option of patching the "can penetrate improved invisibility" flag back to anti-magic spells for SRR, so I do think it is important that the situation be improved in some manner.

6 hours ago, pochesun said:

You mean undispellable?

No, dispellable: you may dispel it. There's no way to get that fear effect to act anything like a true curse, so it may as well be dispellable, particularly with how annoying the "causes immediate morale panic" effect is. Honestly, the berserking effect would make a lot more sense and work better, but it doesn't really go with the lore.

6 hours ago, pochesun said:

-  i am not sure if its important, but when a character tries to save for not being held the log says "save vs. Death" while Icelance spell description states " save vs Paralysis".

In AD&D/2E, vs. paralysis/poison/death all use the same base saving throw, though unlike in the IE games, bonuses/penalties could be weighed in on individual types (e.g. a necklace charm granting a bonus to saving throws vs. poison would only apply to saving throws vs. poison, not paralysis and death as well). So no issue.

6 hours ago, pochesun said:

-  i found when i cast Protection from Cold scroll (green one) the game log says "We are not here as mercenaries, we are here to save Grand Dukes from assasination". And when i cast Protection from acid scroll (green one) the game log says "You must excuse me, but i am teribly busy right now". Bad strings again.

Thanks, should be fixed with the latest repository version.

6 hours ago, pochesun said:

Again, i tested all these on my current installation that is about 5 months old so take it with a grain of salt, probably you already mended some of the issues i discribed, but feel free to test Icelance with this post in mind  Anyway i will report any deviations with Icelance, if any occur, after i fresh install the mods.

I just tested it on both oBG2 and BG2EE again, and the piercing damage always applies even when I have Protection from Fire applied. If you still have a copy of it from that install, give me your SCRL06.spl so I can take a look at it, as that's about all I can think of to do.