Bartimaeus

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.

The delay is only for re-evaluating whether they should switch weapons (gaze or melee), nothing to do with how frequently or who they're attacking. @skellytz That might be best. I think another issue with basilisks is that they move very slow, which combined with their preference for gaze attacks when targets are at range, means...well, honestly, everything about basilisks is just kind of bad for players who know that a single Protection from Petrification makes the Sharp Teeth Plain a veritable fountain of free XP. But what can you do?

Hey, not nothing...just almost nothing: it basically acts as a bad Spell Shield that won't have priority over other, higher level spell protections. Super useful! It's too bad we don't have the ability to test Lord_Tansheron's install again: if Dispel Magic did have its power level set to e.g. 3, then I would think that the lich's natural immunity to <5th level spells would already cover that and the globe wouldn't be accomplishing anything itself, even if that was what appeared to be the case at a glance. And if Dispel Magic didn't have a power level of 3...well, I'm not entirely certain how what Lord_Tansheron experienced could have happened. Oh well.

Is the U.S. actually there yet with legality regarding deepfakes? As much as I unabashedly hope Donald Trump gets the guillotine, I must confess some concerns with regards to a future where major political figures such as he can be made to dance and say anything via deepfakes and synthesized voices that swathes of the populace easily believe. From what I've seen of such efforts, they're currently not totally convincing, particularly when it comes to anything beyond potato quality, but again, that may well not hold true in the future - and clearly "not totally convincing" to me can be "very convincing" to some, as their use for defamation and disinformation has already been attempted in several cases for recent elections. What's the line between the depiction of a "person" and a "character", anyways? Either way, if we start protecting individuals' likeness (be it their face, words, or even ascribed words) on that particular basis, I think that starts to be a much more cohesive argument for me. Yeah, no kidding, but I'm still of the opinion that even if this sort of derived audiovisual synthesis becomes illegal...the law largely just isn't going to care due to how difficult it is to track down where it originated from. Civil suits exist for collecting damages, of course, but without clear targets, that's similarly difficult to pursue. Though if it's actually illegal, at least semi-respectable online platforms (e.g. Facebook) would probably have to make an effort to try to suppress and remove it, which could be helpful.

Moderation usually only comes in if it proves to be disruptive to an active discussion. If everyone ignores all the extracurricular crap someone in particular is throwing out, moderation will probably let it go (unless it's literally completely unrelated to the topic at hand) - if, on the other hand, people start responding in kind and it threatens to wreck the discussion, that's probably where you're more likely to see some action. I am personally not really a fan of engaging at all with those whom I consider to be difficult to talk to, as it just feels like entirely wasted time and effort on my part, so I usually just throw them on my ignore list and try to forget that they exist...at least for a time. As far as what Graion has said in relation to this particular discussion, I feel the most useful thing he mentioned was being obviously biased having done voice-acting himself. Mind you, bias isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly not for something like this where it's clearly necessary to hear out the different sides and take into account the thoughts/feelings of the people who are the ones being directly affected by whatever is being discussed...but it is critically important to know when someone is biased so you can consider whether or not that's reflected in what they're saying. It's also important to mention that, as far as we know, this kind of technology is still in its infancy. Graion mentioned image "AI" synthesization currently being rather weak and requiring effort to fix, but that may not always be the case in the future. I'm really just not super confident about certain types of art and performances being protected where others are not: either way I see it is people pouring their blood, sweat, and tears into their work and then having some kind of computer program mindlessly derive from those efforts, so why should one type be privileged over the other?

I once saw art of a favorite character of mine turned into a literal genocide-supporting nazi. I certainly found it reprehensible, but should it be illegal to transform someone else's ideas and work? It was basically fan art, no matter how despicable I personally found it. Someone thought up and poured themselves into that character and their concept/personality, someone visually designed that character, someone wrote their dialogue, someone directed how that character should act and speak, and then someone actually acted out that character. Is that final part so sacred compared to the rest that only their creative work should be protected while the rest is perfectly fine for everyone to transform however they please? There are literally BG mods that wholesale take art and animations from other games (and artists?) while implementing them into the BG games that I've heard nary a complaint about, and never mind similar uses that happen outside of the IE games for much more questionable aims. I would be utterly disgusted if a character that I made was transformed by degenerates for pornographic purposes, but...is it illegal, is there anything I can do about it, is there anything that I should be able to do about it? Because that's the reality artists face any time they make basically anything. Again, I am very curious to see how all of this shakes out, and I am still very much open to arguments (though not pointless ad hominem attacks that elucidate nothing) around the subject. Right now, my personal feeling is that this will all eventually become protected when it comes to monetary gain...but I just don't see the law caring about it outside of that, which would mean that nobody is going to be able to do anything about it when such transformative work comes to personal use, fan art, modding et al., no matter how objectionable the original artists and performers may find it. But perhaps I'm looking at all of this way too much from a "this is currently widely considered legal and acceptable" perspective instead of a "what do I personally think is right and should be legal" perspective - the latter would take a lot more thought and consideration on my part, and I'm not sure where I would ultimately land. (e): Literally right now, I am (and for decades have been) using someone else's art to visually represent myself online. Just that is a transformative work in of itself that the artist could find utterly loathsome. What many horrible things have people like me said and done that people will unconsciously associate with the art they use to represent themselves that had absolutely nothing to do with what it was originally intended for? Crap all they can do about it, though.

Alternatively, you could just protect against the projectile used for the basilisk gaze. But I think basilisks are scripted to only ever attack with their gaze attacks, so they just keep pointlessly trying to turn an immune creature to stone (or maybe that's only the case in BGT games - it'd be nice if their AI could be fixed to actually use their melee attack!).

The ethical quandaries of "AI" currently being used to generate "new" content when their "creations" are, in fact, 100% derived from the lives and work of others is indeed massive. We're not talking about a matter of inspiration, homage, or even simple imitation, but rather computer algorithms mindlessly gobbling up, aggregating, and smashing together the greatest of our artists, writers, performers et al. into these gobbledygook monstrosities - in the matter of somewhere between just minutes and hours! I am personally hoping that the law will very fiercely make any monetization of such unlicensed efforts prohibitively illegal. I am also hoping that nobody will be able to give away the "rights" to somebody that has already passed away: David Warner can't agree to have his voice used for this sort of thing, and I would personally find it gross if his family could possibly sell the rights to his voice without the man himself having ever been able to weigh in on the decision. This is very much a new and rather frightening frontier. But for fun? For personal use? For anything that's not monetized in any way? And if it's clearly marked as "THIS IS AN IMITATION GENERATED BY A COMPUTER"? That I am not so sure about, though I am certain that there will be many great debates about it as this technology continues to mature and become more commonplace - for better or for worse.