Bartimaeus

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.

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:

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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. 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. Thanks, should be fixed with the latest repository version. 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.

Strongly against the "specialists can use 3rd level or lower spells of their opposition school" idea as a solution: no real argument against it, I just don't like it. I would honestly favor eliminating opposition schools altogether before that. I don't know if anyone else has had this thought, but I really am starting to think that the whole mechanic of improved invisibility preventing direct spellcasting targeting but not indirect spellcasting targeting or ability targeting or melee targeting or ranged/missile targeting but only just direct spellcasting targeting...is flat-out kind of dumb to begin with. Honestly, if we're talking about trying to find "least bad solutions", get rid of the mechanic by setting every spell to be able to target through improved invisibility en masse. I think it would solve the following issues: 1. The Non-Detection problem, which is a whole other thing that still needs to be resolved in of itself...but all spells being able to pierce through improved invisibility would mean that you can get rid of the "can see through improved invisibility" opcode and let Non-Detection truly protect the stealth/invisible/improved invisibility states without issue, further eliminating the AI's current advantage of always being able to see through invisibility when they have Detect Invisibility/True Seeing running even when the player can't. 2. Conjurers not having a way to pierce invisibility, which you don't need to fix if their general spellcasting can always pierce improved invisibility. 3. The AI, assuming it's aware of it a la SCS, would no longer ever need to worry about whether it needs to cast (or perhaps even memorize!) Detect Invisibility or True Seeing before going into its normal spellcasting against an improved invisible target. 4. Invisibility Purge is no longer hot garbage in comparison to Detect Invisibility (and actually would be stronger, as it probably should be at 3rd level spellcasting compared to Detect Invisibility's 2nd level); also, other spells like Glitterdust probably don't feel quite as bad to memorize anymore. However, there are four issues of varying importance that I feel it would introduce: one, non-SCS AI would presumably not be aware it can use spellcasting against improved invisible creatures, allowing the player an advantage if they have SR installed but not SCS (how well does the vanilla AI and vanilla spell memorization handle dealing with improved invisibility in the first place?); two, any spells installed after SR would be unaffected (...unless it's put in a secondary component installed much later a la the other secondary components); three, improved invisibility gets marginally weaker (but IMO not really, because SCS is always having its spellcasters memorize invisibility-piercing spells, and this mechanic doesn't affect anyone but spellcasters); four, anti-illusory divination spells get weaker (but I'm not exactly sure how much - I feel like there's still good cause to memorize both Detect Invisibility and True Seeing even if they don't allow you to directly pierce improved invisibility, but...).

Yes, and I totally didn't just fix it seconds before posting here: 1. Durlag's Goblet: Removed the cursed icon in exchange for a fear icon, duration of fear lasts for 8 hours instead of 12, fear is dispellable, and the goblet itself is unsellable. A vendor being able to refill this unique cursed goblet of blood and open up the possibility of a player with immunity to fear abusing it for full heals makes zero sense, particularly in the face of there being no way to counter a player being immune to fear...but I'll let the player abuse it for the six charges that it comes with (six, one for each member in your party presumably?). The item is only used in BG1, but is more or less intact for BG2 (...the identified name changed to "Blood of Quallo's Friend", but is otherwise the same - IRR will set it back to Durlag's Goblet). 2. Protection from Fire and Protection from Acid no longer directly protect against Melf's Acid Arrow and Flame Arrow respectively. 3. I never experienced your Icelance issue: if it happens again in your new installation, it will need further investigation.

That sounds like it would be even more problematic for the AI than it is for the player, which is already substantial when you're talking about how frustrating it is to cast a high level spell that completely misses its intended target because the target randomly decided to wander off in the middle of you casting the spell and you have no way to adjust where you targeted once you've started.

Has there been any talk of migrating projects elsewhere? No way to recover all the invaluable discussion that was lost, of course, but closing in on six months of no communication would seem to portend a rather grim outcome. Though I thought a similar situation recently with another site of mine that had been missing its lead for over six months before then going down for an entire month and a half with almost no communication basically meant the end of that site too, but I was proven wrong.

In this day and age, it's extraordinarily rare for an official company's online presence to be in any way seriously threatened by downtime: even for relatively smaller companies like Beamdog, it's pretty much pocket change for companies to do things right to ensure that downtime is pretty minimal. It's when you're just an individual or a small group of individuals and you just don't have the time, expertise, and/or money to needlessly burn on keeping something running that is where things can get dicey as soon as something goes wrong...

I just tested on a vanilla oBG2 install, and polytope is correct: 1. Haste + Slow = Normal 2. Slow + Haste = Normal 3. Haste + Slow + Slow = Slow 4. Slow + Haste + Haste = Haste 5. Haste + Slow + Haste + Slow = Normal Though interestingly, simply installing the BG2 Fixpack will somewhat break the interaction as a result of introducing 206 opcodes (Protection from Spell), intended to prevent the stacking of the effects of spells but also incidentally preventing e.g. a Hasted character from being Slowed twice in order to both negate and replace the Haste.

Yeah, Slow is brutal, which makes sense: the Slow opcode is the Haste opcode's opposite in all the worst ways. O.K., I think you've convinced me. I would definitely not be against it being an option, and I don't think either implementation would much change how the AI would approach situations (if at all), which makes it the perfect candidate for a "player's choice" setting/component. Implementation for the original engine, on the other hand...well, the slow and haste sectypes already exist in SR, it's just a matter of making them do what you want them to do. I, too, am not currently in a position to do much at this particular moment, but I will write in my to-do for now so I don't forget it entirely at least. Though there's still the larger issue of how Haste should work in the first place...which I have not had much input on because I haven't loved any of the proposed solutions nor have I been able to think of anything I like better myself. I suspect, like a number of things over the years, it will become a matter of choosing "the least worst" option... (e): How did SR players feel about single-target Haste back when it was a thing anyways? Though balance is important, if players at large don't like something, it's probably a bad idea to go through with it even if it means letting something stay poorly balanced. I would personally never even dream of changing Haste to single-target unless the official version of SR has already done the same - it's just too big of a change to a fundamental spell.

Merely negating, whether you're casting Haste or Slow, feels too much like you're casting a really lousy dispel that only affects haste/slow - particularly problematic for Slow, which is already gated behind a saving throw.

You're right: the cleric component is "Loosen Equipment Restrictions for Cleric Multi- and Dual-Classes", but the druid component is "Change Equipment Restrictions for Druid Multi- and Dual-Classes" and allows it to go either way, either loosening (less weapon restrictions) or tightening up (more armor restrictions). Ideally, I'd like to enable both options (as I don't think multi-class druids should be weapon-restricted but I do think they should be armor-restricted), but I don't know if you can with just Anthology Tweaks.

I believe IR's component only affects weapons, which is what the Anthology Tweaks component for clerics does as well, but the Anthology Tweaks druid component does additional stuff such as making dual/multi-class druids able to use e.g. plate armor. My personal choice is to use IR's loosen weapon restrictions for druids only option: unlike clerics whose gods specifically forbid it, druids can already (albeit rather inexplicably to me) use certain types of bladed weapons such as scimitars, so I don't really get the restrictions against some but not others. (e): I also use the PnP Equipment for Druids option, as it doesn't make sense to me that a multi-class druid could suddenly start to wear plate. So...better weapon options, worse armor options is the net result for druids in my game.

It's been fixed: https://github.com/BartyMae/SR_Revised/commit/4901111d40838e9020c70a8cc785c9c7e391f615 Thanks to you both for bringing it to my attention.

Oh. My knowledge of installing SCS in a BG1-only game is pretty much nil, unfortunately.

Isn't the "CD" prefix used by Anthology Tweaks? Let's see here... Ah, yes, the CDBREAK series of spells are added by Anthology Tweaks' "Gradual Drow Item Disintegration". In truth, I'm not sure why SCS is concerned about mod-added spells not existing in your game. I don't use the Gradual Drow Item Disintegration component myself, but I can't remember ever seeing any errors about not having it while installing SCS either. And on a side-note, I believe those items you listed are all items that should exist in a vanilla oBG2 or BG2EE game (they're all monster weapons), so I don't know why it would be complaining about them not existing either...

I always recommend the "live" version, i.e. V1.3.937.

1. At this time, SR/SRR does not add descriptions to any innate abilities. That may change some day, but it's not a particularly high priority right now. 2. Grease: the size and text in-game is correct, it's just the terminology that has changed since I wrote that in the original post. In SR, a Fireball has a "30' radius"; in SRR, what was previously called a "30' radius" is now called a "15' radius". So with Grease, it went from a 10' radius to a 20' radius...which is now called a 10' radius. If this sounds silly, it's because the way AoE sizes were listed in oBG1 and oBG2 was messy and inconsistent, and it could've arguably gone either way on that basis so I don't blame Demivrgvs for going with the doubled values, but Beamdog decided upon the opposite by instead calling a Fireball a 15' radius, and for the sake of consistent values, I changed them accordingly. 3. Bonus information: If one is trying to match up the length of range values with the length of AoE sizes, the non-doubled values are accurate. For example, if you cast a Fireball at maximum range (range value of 26), the AoE will reach roughly about 60% of the way towards from where the caster was standing upon finishing casting the spell, so a range of 26 and a radius of 15' does more or less make sense (15 divided by 26 = 0.58, or 58%), whereas a range of 26 and a radius of 30' would mean that the Fireball should easily reach the caster if they do not move after finishing casting, which it obviously does not. In fact, if one changes the radius of a Fireball to be a real 26' (same as the maximum spellcasting range), the Fireball just reaches where the caster is standing and damages them - moving even a tiny bit away from the blast epicentre makes it so that it the caster is not harmed. See said 26' radius fireball here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/wo9rqijr35b5qcxmvxf0f/bgmain_FqtNPj63Ut.mp4?rlkey=2zlemj3lpt1f7i8dvfec7s37c&dl=0

I personally hate the double speed stuff, but if it's breaking a bunch of stuff, it's breaking a bunch of stuff and has got to go. And wasn't single-target Haste reverted because it was found to be breaking the AI? Something to keep in mind is that even if DavidW modifies SCS to get it working with SR changes, it's not necessarily the best idea to go around breaking vanilla behavior either, though that's dependent on that actually being the case. I'd be fine with a hard limit of a 5 round AoE as suggested by subtledoctor, particularly given the multi-round fatigue* afterwards, and I think Improved Haste could stay as-is: 1 turn, AoE, no fatigue afterwards, fully protects against slow. *It's currently -2 THAC0, damage, and AC for 3 rounds, the parameters of which could also potentially be modified, as it's not true fatigue, but rather just an imitative debuff.

ya made sure to talk to the guard first, right

I'd feel a little gross about removing the at-range gaze attack altogether, since it's kind of their distinctive feature, but I'd probably say to yes to everything else. I'd probably keep it as their opening salvo for a round or two before having them switch to bum-rushing the player with their enhanced move speed and melee capabilities: even the "have them petrify with their melee attack" makes sense, considering it's going to be tough to engage in melee combat without looking at it.