Bartimaeus

Here, follow these very simple instructions:

Oh, right, I think I recall you talking about this once upon a time now. That is clever, but yeah, probably not do-able in non-EE games(?). A good supplement to have for EE players, though. @crackwiseCloak of Non-Detection: "It makes stealthing thieves completely undetectable by any divination spell, right?" Yes. "But when worn by mages, it just applies as a permanent Nondetection spell." You list these two as if they're different effects, but they're actually the exact same thing, haha. If a mage casts Non-Detection and then Invisibility, or is a mage-thief that goes into stealth mode, they are also completely undetectable by any divination spell - only the mage or the thief breaking their own invisibility via an invisibility-breaking action (e.g. attacking) would render them detectable. Cloak of Non-Detection does the same thing.

Non-Detection is still useful in that combined with improved invisibility, makes it so that any spellcaster that does not currently have a Detect Invisibility or True Seeing running cannot target you with spellcasting - same goes for you against enemy spellcasters. This is why Edwin has one major weakness in the fact that he's a conjurer - you can have Keldorn cast his innate True Seeing all you like against an improved invisible + with Non-Detection mage, but Edwin still will not be able to target that improved invisible mage because Edwin himself does not have Detect Invisibility or True Seeing running. Each individual spellcaster you might have would need to have it running - and yeah, it protects the bonuses of Improved Invisibility and other illusionary spells from being dispelled. So about what you might expect from a 3rd level spell. Detect Illusion should be able to strip all illusionary effects upon a successful roll. I only use it every blue moon, personally, so I'm not 100% knowledgeable on it, but that's my understanding. I'm unsure about how it interacts with stealth, Sanctuary, and Non-Detection (would it dispel the improved invisibility effect even if protected with Non-Detection? If so, that'd make it quite powerful).

By what opcode do you make an enemy that is currently invisible (i.e. no selection circle or character sprite at all) visible and targetable to one character but not to another/the rest of your party?

Okay, so a few things here: 1. Non-Detection name: I don't really care what it's called, since I've already done a re-write of its description and have hopefully made it clear what it all protects and what it doesn't. I'd probably only change its name if base SR did as well. I'm a bit of an originalist when it comes to spell and item names, and while it might not be perfect, it's at least loosely related enough for me to not feel like it's in *dire* need of a change. 2. Detect Invisibility: Isn't the thief skill called "Detect Illusion"? Similar, but not a direct overlap with the spell name - and it makes sense, since the thief Detect Illusions also dispels illusionary spells like Mirror Image. 3. "I have fixed all this in Tome & Blood's 'Revised Invisibility' component": I don't quite understand - all three steps that you just listed out...are already what SR does in implementation (sans whatever thingy you did with Sanctuary in the EEs), right? The descriptions of Non-Detection, Detect Invisibility, Invisibility Purge, and True Seeing (all of which I rewrote) are the actual problem (none of them fully explain their mechanics or everything that they do), not the actual implementations which I think already match your descriptions in what I quoted.

SRR and IRR requires that you reinstall IR and SR, which, depending on how many mods you have installed after them, could be quite a hassle to reinstall + a high likelihood of some strings getting messed up for your save file. I *probably* unfortunately wouldn't recommend it.

Invisibility Purge: They do not have the same effects and I don't believe they're supposed to, regardless of what their descriptions say. Invisibility Purge applies a stronger effect that strips invisibility, improved invisibility, sanctuary, and stealth(?) from enemies for everyone - but however, if protected by Non-Detection, has no effect. It's a little oddball, but basically Detect Invisibility is better again Non-Detection enemies since it applies a personal buff that lets the caster of Detect Invisibility to target through improved invisibility, while Invisibility Purge is better in all other cases *not* involving Non-Detection. The descriptions should not be the same and they aren't in SRR (and also Invisibility Purge lasts a full turn instead of Detect Invisibility's 5 rounds in SRR, while it only lasts 5 rounds in SR - my attempt at making it a little bit stronger). Potion of Sight: Even in IRR, these don't allow improved invisibility targeting. Whoops. I'm going to change that, but if you don't use IRR, doesn't do much for you, .

They could've also made stuff optional. Anyone remember how the tablet version of BG1 had the additional NPCs and crap as DLC buy-ins, while the PC version you didn't get a choice and *had* to pay more for stuff you didn't want? Whoops. Not paying money for yer intrusive fanfiction, sorry bubs.

Oh, so basically easy mode with no chance for hostility for failure? That makes a bit of sense gameplay-wise, but of course less so from a realism standpoint (and I'm not sure how P&P handles it, to be honest).

It gets complicated with mega-mod installs, but my general advice for IRR is that *all* item-related 1pp components should be installed after IRR's main component, however you want to accomplish that. IRR is different from normal IR in that it was made to be fully compatible with 1pp, so the BWP advice regarding it does not apply. I don't use Spellpack, but since you do, you may have to install those particular spell-related 1pp components early...but I would not do anymore than that. In other words, all of SRR first, then maybe the spell-related 1pp components (I can't remember their specific numbers), then the IRR main component, then way later you can apply the rest of 1pp and the additional IRR components you like. I don't think the order of those should matter, since it's all patching and they shouldn't undo each other's changes.

How are the pickpocketing mechanics changed in the EEs? Tried to do a quick search, nothing relevant seemed to come up.

Oops, got my levels incorrect there - there's a disabled 6th level Spell Deflection, not a disabled 5th level. Also, what subtledoctor says is true - unless the spell is completely nonfunctional to start with, both by necessity should be blocking the same list of AoE spells (accounting for maximum level handled anyways). aTweaks' P&P Elementals component overwrites SR's Elemental spells, IIRC.

1. 5th level Spell Deflection should not be enabled, as it's moved to 6th level. ...I think? 2. May have another mod overwriting it, like atweaks? 3. That one I don't know about.

Way too much stuff to be able to really troubleshoot all that, sorry. However, if you're using IRR, it should be noted that IR should be installed after SR, not before. Additionally, 1pp should then be installed after IR, not before either SR or IR (in other words, the basic order of these should go SR first, IR second, 1pp third). That won't fix the problems that you're having, but it'll fix a number of inconsistencies relating to those mods.

Yeah, in 2nd Edition, they're from some cosmic horror plane that's outside the normal cosmology called the Far Realm (...and should really qualify as being extraplanar but for some reason don't - I'm not sure at what point creatures stop qualifying as extraplanar after so much time on a plane, maybe they have to simply be born there?). So not native to Abeir-Toril, but have established multiple seemingly permanent bases on it. They're involved with various slaver groups and the Twisted Rune (who make it clear that they want you dead at the end of Shadows of Amn - Shadows of Amn, the title of the game, likely refers to all these groups like the illithid, the githyanki, the Twisted Rune, the Cowled Wizards, and Irenicus' faction, not just Irenicus himself), they have multiple instances of directing others to attack troublesome foes (Durlag and de'Arnise at the very least, but also possibly you through Firkraag and his lieutenant Tazok, and then you also remember that Gorion, a harper, had been a foe of Firkraag, was known to and killed by Sarevok, who was also connected with both doppelgangers and Tazok again), they're involved with government officials (see the Jysstevs, with Lady Jysstev being absolutely aware of them while her husband, Qar, is one of the Council of Six - the illithid compound in the sewers also has a note that makes it directly clear that "the Hidden" was starting to dominate them with possibly the entire Council of Six in mind). There's also some other weird oddities like the planar slavers having captured a group of githyankis, the Hidden making you slay other investigating Githyankis, Irenicus holding a piece of the Silver Sword, Irenicus opposing the Cowled Wizards (obviously) while their apparent most powerful member is Zallanora Argentresses, aka Shoon VII, who attacks you if you resist Cowled Wizard arrest too many times (this gal-guy should really arguably be close to on the level of Kangaxx, as he's an ancient, thousand-year old demi-lich emperor that infiltrated Amn and seized control of the Cowled Wizards and is vying with the Twisted Rune for power, unfortunately severely underpowered in SoA). Probably other weird stuff I can't remember right now.

My impression of the slavers network, Tazok, mind flayers, et al. was that there was an alien invasion going on. I once wrote about it in an unsolved gaming mysteries thread elsewhere: In Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, there is a shadowy cabal of villains collectively known as the Twisted Rune. You see them at the very end of the game after you defeat Irenicus, discussing and arguing amongst themselves as to what to do with Gorion's Ward (your character). You can actually meet and fight them during the game if you just happen to have one of the rare "rogue stone"-teleporting gems when trying to go through a random dead-end door in the game's main city. However, it seems like they were meant to have a proper questline involving a host of connections with all of the different slaver groups you meet throughout the game, as well as the literally alien mindflayers that were seemingly staging a slow and secret alien invasion/takeover of the government in the game (X-Files style). Unfortunately, the developers were pressed for time and a lot of content ended up being cut. Whatever the writers of the game had planned for this never quite came together as they probably imagined it, and so while there are a lot of different hints that all of these things are connected, the final encounter just ends up being yet another fight without any clear lore implications. (e): I should also mention, that there hints of this even in the original Baldur's Gate. Deep in Durlag's Tower, you learn that the mindflayers are responsible for directing the doppelgangers to infiltrate Durlag's home and slay the heroic warrior-king and his family. Tazok is one of Sarevok's top lieutenants in Baldur's Gate 1, and he makes a return in Baldur's Gate 2, nominally in the service of the anti-Harper dragon Firkraag (coincidentally(?), Harpers themselves are, among other things, strong anti-slaver agents), and yet he mentions Firkraag not being his true master and he mysteriously holds the only key to the secret mindflayer lair underneath the city of Amn. The mindflayers employed doppelgangers in Durlag's Tower - Sarevok, your brother, employs doppelgangers to infiltrate and seize Baldur's Gate (and your home Candlekeep) as well, and Tazok would seem to be the bridge between the two and the mindflayers as a whole. Note that this wouldn't be the last time the mindflayers would use this sort of tactic in directing weaker monsters like doppelgangers for their dark purposes - the troll lord Tor'Gal also mentions being employed by the mindflayers for the purpose of murdering Lord de'Arnise, one of the major lords of Amn who is notoriously anti-slaver (and it's probably no coincidence that the rival family to the de'Arnises is the Roenall family, who have a bunch of slavers in their employ and whose heir, Isaea, is a slaver himself). It really is a shame that none of this ever really came together as was apparently planned. A while back, I Googled to see if anybody else had noticed some of these things, and there is some more you can read about in this thread if you're interested, including additional oddities like Irenicus holding onto the blade of the Silver Sword of the Gith (the most holy of weapons to the Gith, essentially the original slave race of the mindflayers who finally broke free and now hunt down and slay mindflayers wherever they go, who you can actually see attempting to find the mindflayers in the city of Amn in Baldur's Gate 2 at a certain point...and who will also hunt you down for owning the blade when a certain Irenicus/Bodhi lackey "graciously" hands it off to you).

Magic Resistance: If it doesn't mention ignoring spell resistance, it should be assumed that it doesn't. If it does and it's not mentioned, then it's an error. "Druid"/"Wizard"/"Cleric"/Whatever: These are used as generic catch-alls for arcane, divine, and natural spellcasters, not necessarily strictly indicative of their class. The only time it would be truly inappropriate is if "cleric" or "druid" is used for a spell that's usable by both clerics and druids. Un/Holy Words: That'd be a disaster to list out, and it'd spill to secondary lines and look horrible. Protection from Energy/The Elements: Magic damage is also immunized against in the 8th level spell. Spell Durations: In non-Revised SR, both durations and effects max out at 20. In SRR, durations are extended up towards 50 (not necessarily always strictly at 50, but usually in the 40-50 area depending on its original length). Conjuration Spells: I don't think anybody's going to be renaming classic BG spells on the basis of "calling" vs "summoning". BG is not P&P, and change for the sake of change is not usually appropriate.

Doesn't it already do Entangle on hit?

lmao @ psyduck, it was a character called Yellow Pearl Can't roll for THAC0 with spellcasting, but you could just make it subject to the normal saving and let it be a special exception against undead, who get dunked on by other spells as it is anyways. This is how I rewrote Un/Holy Word in SRR so it made sense and also none of the lines spilled to a second line: Target's Hit Dice - Effects of Holy Word All enemies - Deafness for 1 turn Less than caster - Blindness for 5 rounds 5 less than caster - Stun for 1 round 10 less than caster - Death I think I also experimented with signs (<, >, =), but it looked terrible which is why I tried to devise a different format.

Yeah, I've been trying to consider what exactly Faerie Fire should do as a level 1 spell, and really, what I want to do with it just makes it too similar to Glitterdust, which is also really weak. Like, seriously, who is using Glitterdust instead of Detect Invisibility? Its area of effect is too small, too - this spell has a 30' AoE in vanilla (although the spell description states 20', it's actually 30' when you check what projectile it uses), but SR changes it to 10'. Like...I don't get how you're supposed to use either of these spells against invisible creatures when both of their AoEs are so small. I'm thinking of changing Glitterdust back to 30', changing its effect to last 1 turn but subject to a save (Detect Invisibility lasts for 5 turns but triggers twice a round with no save - I don't think that's an unfair tradeoff), then changing Faerie Fire to 20' and having no save for being forced to visible, and then also having a save for not being able to turn invisible for 5 rounds. Basically a lesser version of Glitterdust with a penalty to AC instead of THAC0. A confusion effect instead might be interesting. Sunscorch: Yeah, pretty overpowered, but while I don't mind buffing up some overlooked spells for SRR, I'm hesitant to strongly nerf what people use if SR itself doesn't nerf it. The IWD version is a little less powerful - an average of 13.5 damage at 10th level vs SR's 21, but the blindness lasts for 3 rounds instead of just the 1. I'd probably shorten it to 1 or 2. @Chitown Willie I just checked bats, and they have 8 AC, 4 HP, and no damage resistances, so I'm not sure how they're standing up that well. However, you do get 5 of them by 5th level, and simply using them to kite enemies around would prove massively effective - but kiting is basically a game-breaking exploit in this game, and not one I'm going to balance for, since it basically applies to all stages of the game all the time with every creature. Not sure if that's what you're doing, but these bats really shouldn't be lasting too long. As for the shillelagh, as Subtledoctor said, it's at an unfortunate place at level 1 compared to Spiritual Hammer and Flame Sword. One thing that I've considered doing is giving it the "touch bonus" (+4 THAC0) that pretty much every other summonable weapon gets.

That's a sensible way of considering it, although the numbers there are a little fuzzy - SR attempts to give every spell at least some kind of valid use case at the minimum, while buffing up spells that were interesting concepts but so weakly executed they were unusable compared to other options (there are a number of spells which I would never, ever use in vanilla that are legitimate options in SR), while also introducing some new spells with their own concepts (or completely replacing some of the very worst offenders like Infravision with something vaguely related like True Strike, which is a spell I like to use with certain class combinations). It may be a wise idea to download the mod and give the "list of spells" part of the readme a read-through to see what you think.

I don't know for sure, but the way I'm reading it simply suggests that it's flavor text. Undead and other dark-dwelling creatures would normally be vulnerable to great light sources - the text there is simply saying that it's too weak to have any special effect on them vs. what it might do to a normal creature, not that the spell should have no effect at all on them. Other light-related spells like Sunray, False Dawn, Sunscorch, etc. all have special effects on undead - this one is just saying that it doesn't. Perhaps a tad unnecessary and a little confusing, but it helps give flavor to a spell description (...and also, I don't think I'm the one that wrote it anyways). (e): Also, yeah, I think it should have a saving throw - I think. It's possible that it's been designed correctly, but the text is incorrect. I wouldn't imagine this is an oft-used spell anyways, so I might just rewrite the description to say that the remove invisibility part always takes effect, but the other malus doesn't. Feedback on it welcome, though. I really don't like this as a remove invisibility option compared to Detect or even Purge, as you have to target it, the AoE effect is tiny (5'!?!?!? What!? How are you supposed to use this against invisible creatures!?), it only takes effect once, and the penalty it applies (-2 AC) is pretty weak and subject to a simple save vs. spell. Making the anti-invisibility part of it also subject to the save vs. spell seems abominably bad to me. In fact, I don't think I can in good conscience let this be as terrible as it is...even for a level 1 spell, that is really, really bad. Maybe something more like 30' with both effects subject to a save vs. spell would be more reasonable.

This reminds me that I actually kind of wanted to make Cure spells hurt undead and Cause Wounds spells heal them...but then I realized that it would be kind of unfair, since Cure Spells don't need an attack while the Cause Wounds spells do. Probably why it's not a thing. Ether Gate is not managed by SR.

It's a shame they got rid of the Charming mechanic in BG2, but I guess it was getting too high level for it to work very well.

Spell Deflection Blocks AoE Spells: I would *imagine* but haven't actually tested that whatever spells that mysteriously penetrate spell level protection that aren't either stationary or Dispel/Remove Magic (they're not specified as spells to affect in this component, among a number of others in non-revised SR) would stop doing so if that component is installed. However, not everyone may use that component (...although with the amount of work I put into cleaning it up and making sure every spell worked with it, they really should), so I still erred towards adding every AoE spell it's supposed to protect against as a precaution when I recently rebuilt M/GoI. Carsomyr: The "use any item" ability or whatever it's called is so silly I'm not ever going to try to balance for it, . But yeah, something like that only sounds possible on the EEs. On-Hit Effects: I think we've had this discussion before. Because IR seems to fundamentally consider item effects that aren't specific item abilities (e.g. on-hit item effect called "Dispelling" vs. literally saying "Dispel Magic") to be different from usable abilities/spells, I would not immunize it on the basis of power levels, or at least not the same way. For whatever reason, IR doesn't give these effects magic resistance checks, usually doesn't allow them to be dispelled, and doesn't give them power levels. I don't know *why* exactly that is, but it would be a big design change to, well, change that. So while I have added immunities against spell-like abilities from IR, I did not do wholesale immunizing to item effects in general. Whether or not that is conceptually correct is an entirely different matter - I was just going with how it had been designed, .