Bartimaeus

3 hours ago, Salk said:

Let me see if I understand correctly, SRR's changes are somewhat incompatible with some of SCS's script?

If that is so, couldn't SRR have a component that can be installed only after SCS which adjusts the scripts for full compatibility? The advantage being SRR does not need to rely on SCS being updated in order to have the two mods play nice with each other?

If I am completely off the mark, my apologies.

1. I don't believe it's specific to SCS. The AI can see invisible creatures when it has opcode 193 applied to it (exactly how it behaves as a result of being able to do so...may not always be consistent, but it can). This creates an awkward situation where the player expects Non-Detection to protect them from, well, divination spells used to detect invisible creatures as per the current description of the spell, and are not actually afforded that protection; meanwhile, if the AI casts the combination of Invisibility + Non-Detection, they are protected from the player's divination spells. So not only is the AI's behavior/reaction erratic at best, but the AI gets an advantage out of it that the player can't. I find this rather untenable and certainly very undesirable on both grounds, especially after having just tested BG2EE and being instantly smashed to bits by cheating AI.

2. In my opinion, Non-Detection should provide protection from detection. That is, after all, the name of the spell, and presumably what Demivrgvs intended when he left it called "Non-Detection" (as opposed to something like "Protect Your Other Non-Invisibility Illusionary Protections"...well, hopefully something much more concise and fitting than that) while specifically having it immunize the recipient against the effects of invisibility dispellers such as True Seeing and Detect Invisibility (not to mention having the description of Non-Detection explicitly say "[Non-Detection] makes the creature touched undetectable by divination spells such as Detect Invisibility, Oracle, and True Seeing, or by a thief's Detect Illusion abilities"). I do not personally know how much Demivrgvs tested opcode 193 or whether he was aware of it behaving unequally between player and AI (or if he believed it to be acceptable or not), but given that he is not presently here to argue for its case anyways, it truthfully matters very little to me at this exact moment. Though if someone wants to dig up his argument for it, if it survives to the present day somewhere publicly readable, then I would be very interested to read it.

3. However, SCS assumes installations with SR (and SRR) will require either Detect Invisibility or True Seeing to cast through improved invisibility (and does not use its normal "anti-magic spells can always pierce improved invisibility" setup), and thus I feel that my hands are tied, given the obvious importance of SCS in the BG modding ecosystem. Furthermore, in order to fix at least the AI being able to "cheat" seeing through your invisibility when the player cannot do the same to them, I would have to let Detect Invisibility and True Seeing actually dispel invisibility (but only invisibility, not improved invisibility or anything else!), which is not only a bit annoying to implement, but is also a change of how these spells function. The current situation is that only AI spellcasters who cast Detect Invisibility or True Seeing can see through invisibility, but if I were to attempt to make it 'fair' for both player and AI, Detect Invisibility and True Seeing (and maybe Invisibility Purge?) would actually reveal those invisible characters to everyone else. That's quite a bit of a change to mull over. And good lord, how the hell am I supposed to explain these mechanics in the descriptions of these spells so that players can have a possibility of actually understanding how any of this works? They're already pretty convoluted as it is, and apparently I need to add even more!

4. In effect, I think using opcode 193 is just kind of a bad idea and would prefer the SCS/EE approach at this point, but I cannot really do much about it unless the official version of SR decides to make a change as well, which I do not believe is going to happen.

5. ...Maybe it's possible to do a mass-scan/patch of all .bcs files looking for that particular condition and replacing it with the non-SR equivalent, but that's certainly not an ideal place to be. A lot of people use automated installs these days, and requiring people to add another random mini-mod way after SR/R is installed to fix broken behavior is really just not fantastic, even if it's not my fault. And that's assuming it's always going to be easy to replace, which I am not sure of either.

On 6/13/2023 at 1:59 AM, FixTesteR said:

Isn't he totally invisible? I + ND?

But it does seem logical to try II + ND. After all, I + ND = Sanctuary, but the result of II + ND is a much more crucial one.

I did try that, and anyone who's played SR/R should have run into this exact situation at some point and seen what happens. Even so, there is a very crucial difference between asking about how something works (i.e. asking me to test it, or explain it if I already had)...versus leaping to wrong conclusions about something which wasn't being discussed (no big deal, we all make mistakes in communication, both when we ourselves write and when interpreting others!), then suggesting that I was the one at fault for misspeaking and leading them to those wrong conclusions (I was not), and then shifting the goalposts as if the first option, that they were just 'asking' that it be tested, was what had actually happened in the first place...all the while making snide comments about how I was the one having some kind of attitude issue here. No, sorry, the conversation started out perfectly harmless, and I tried to be as inoffensive as possible given the circumstances, but I've had quite enough at this point. This is the absolute last I'll say of the matter.

9 minutes ago, jmerry said:

This proposed change would need a concurrent change in SCS; you see, the scripts for using anti-magic spells (as of v34) have this condition:

TriggerBlock(SpellProtectionTargetSecretWord|Enemy|Helpless|SRDetectInvisible)

It's that "SRDetectInvisible" condition that matters here. If the spell system is SR, that unpacks to the following:

     OR(3)
        CheckSpellState(Myself,DETECT_INVISIBILITY)
        CheckStatGT(Myself,0,TRUE_SIGHT)
        !StateCheck(scstarget,STATE_IMPROVEDINVISIBILITY)

Basically, the current version of SCS is aware that SR antimagic can't target through improved invisibility, and changes the scripts for using the spells accordingly. (And SRR fits under the umbrella of the SR spell system)

Yeah, that's what I'm finding out now. Well, this really seems to be a "you made your bed, now lie in it" kind of situation. From that OR, it looks like the issue applies to both Detect Invisibility and True Seeing? Which would mean I can't implement my secondary idea either. Well...if I want it to be fully fair and functional, I guess the only thing to do is have Non-Detection...you know, protect everything except for the invisibility/stealth state. Which is like, the complete opposite of what one would envision the spell as doing. Sigh.

20 minutes ago, Relay said:

dvhobsha.bcs 7.95 kB · 0 downloads

so here's my file... I just did the same test as you and the live version worked 100%, so it must be my own git desktop modifying it on my end only. I had just assumed it wasn't because no other repo's with scripts in them are doing the same. 

I don't know how we can go back without resorting to antimagic attack's bypassing invis again, which is even more janky imho. I'm much more comfortable with Non-detection being a shield for the AC from II and mirror image than being just a spell tax before breaching enemy's. 

Yup, your version has the wrong line endings (CRLF instead of LF). But if it's the fault of your Git client, then that's a relief, as I was about to turn into the Joker. Can you easily work around it? Not sure what I could do on my end anyways.

Non-Detection would continue to shield Invisibility, Improved Invisibility, Mirror Image et al. from being dispelled until Non-Detection has been stripped, but True Seeing and Detect Invisibility would lose the "you can target a semi-invisible character with any spell" ability; instead, yeah, anti-magic spells would just always be able to target through the semi-invisible state. A few people have complained about enemy spellcasters already doing this when SCS is installed over the years, so it's quite possible that this is how SCS AI already operates (in that it assumes anti-magic spells should always penetrate the semi-invisible state and forces them to do so even if it shouldn't be possible), and if that's the case, then it really only just makes sense that the same ability should be given to the player. This would also make Non-Detection being a spell protection make way more sense than it currently does, as anti-magic spells which strip spell protections are the only spells given the unique "can target through the semi-invisible state", which makes them a natural counter to Non-Detection when it's a spell protection.

I'm making an install right now to see if that's exactly what happens when opcode 193 isn't given by True Seeing/Detect Invisibility, though, just to be sure. If it's not, then a different idea will have to be used for sure. Even if it is how it works, it's not impossible that the function of Non-Detection could change to something better nonetheless, but I'm viewing the current way as too big of an issue to just let it be as-is. One quick-and-easy alternative would be to let True Seeing retain opcode 193, remove it from Detect Invisibility, and then just always have True Seeing strip the normal invisibility state regardless of Non-Detection (but letting Non-Detection protect everything else): that would at least make the system fully functional and fair.

10 hours ago, Relay said:

Also, while playing with scripts I noticed devagood.cre had it's class set to fighter at some point locking it out of spellcasting. Not sure if SR had settled on fighter/cleric or just straight cleric for these guys. 

Fixed, thanks! Did this actually full lock it out of scripted spellcasting, or just out of player-initiated spellcasting?

10 hours ago, Relay said:

Hey I'm having this same issue again with creatures scripts, not sure if your git setting got reverted sometime again, but my bcs files are not running until recompiled same as before.

Can't confirm, I just downloaded the live repository version, checked several .bcs files, and they all had the right line endings. I dropped the hobgoblin shaman script (spell_rev\spwi2##\dvhobsha.bcs) straight into my override, cast Monster Summoning II, and the shaman cast Resist Fear upon being summoned (which is what it's scripted to immediately do upon being summoned). Moved around, and all the hobgoblins automatically followed me. If none of that happens for you, could I have your dvhobsha.bcs so I can check it out?

10 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

What you posted suggests that someone with ND won’t be targeted by spells, period, even if technically visible to the enemy caster.

After re-reading my post, I just don't believe that I did. I'd be curious to see exactly what of was the key passage of issue in my recounting of events. My post specifically says my character cast Non-Detection and Invisibility (not Improved Invisibility, not Shadow Door) upon themselves, and that I had them stand next to Brother Pol with no mention of any hostile actions. Even if I had made any unmentioned hostile actions, again, only Non-Detection and Invisibility.

10 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

And anyway you didn’t test what is actually important: how ND works with II. What you posted suggests that someone with ND won’t be targeted by spells, period, even if technically visible to the enemy caster. That’s problematic. IMHO at least. 

I believe that would be because I wasn't speaking to you and it wasn't relevant to whom I was nor the issue at hand. The post to which I was responding to:

The issue at hand being, "[...] the mage will cast Detect Invisibility or True Seeing, they'll gain the ability to see through invisibility, and they'll be able to target the invisible creature. Even if it's still fully invisible to everyone else. Whether it has Non-Detection active or not. Nothing protects against opcode 193, because it doesn't act on the creature being observed at all. For as long as that effect is active, that mage is equivalent to a creature that can naturally see through invisibility." The whole conversation gives some helpful context on what exactly was being tested here. But all of this is kind of irrelevant for SRR, which will be ejecting opcode 193 wholesale after I do some testing of SCS+SR behavior to ensure that the AI can dispel Non-Detection with anti-magic spells even when improved invisibility is active. If it can't, then some other measure will have to be taken.

16 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

First off, thanks for taking the time to write that post about Invisibility, Improved Invisibility, and Non-Detection.

So, is ND a specific protection or spell protection in SR? How about SRR?

It's a spell protection in both SR and SRR.

16 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Can this be remedied for SR EE? Is it possible to make the experience the same that you had in oBG2? Or is there a mod that deals with this thing and can be applied over SR?

By the way, could Brother Pol not do anything to your mage as long as you remained invisible? There is no possibilty for him to use anything whatsoever in his spell book, no matter what spell was in it?

Can one have I and II both in effect at the same time?

1. It cannot be remedied for the EEs, that opcode is hardcoded behavior for both games.

2. He could not or at least did not. After Brother Pol cast True Seeing, my sorcerer stood right next to him with nothing but Non-Detection and Invisibility active and he did not directly act against my character in any way.

3. Improved Invisibility (the spell) gives both invisibility and improved invisibility. "Invisibility" is the invisible state that breaks when you do hostile actions (and some non-hostile actions, like talking), "improved invisibility" is the semi-invisible state that makes it so you can't be targeted by spellcasting.

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

This confuses me. It sounds to me like your EE test is actually optimal behavior. Whereas in your oBG2 test it appears that Nondetection cannot be countered? Which seems wildly OP and even rather cheesy, for such a low-level spell. 

Wizard Eye is a 4th level spell, and that's effectively what you turn your character into if you cast Invisibility and Non-Detection on yourself and then proceed to perform zero hostile actions. I guess if the recipient is a cleric, they can cast healing spells with zero fear of reprisal, but honestly, not really seeing what's so terribly powerful about it. Oh no, they can do that thing they could already do with a 1st level Sanctuary, except for longer if you decide to use a 3rd and 2nd level spell on it!

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

It might be interesting if ND could block 2nd-level Detect Invisibility, while making 6th-level True Seeing specifically counter ND. This actually sounds doable, for some reason, on your oBG2 game (just needs a subspell added to TS). I don’t understand why, but I guess it sounds like an engine difference and not doable in the EE engine. 

I think Non-Detection would just need to not explicitly give immunity (opcode 206) against the pulsing sub-spell of True Seeing like it currently does.

1 hour ago, NdranC said:

Forgot to ask about this, would you be willing to add an optional setting to make these two and maybe blade barrier breach-able? I can't decide which one I like better but sometimes I do feel like breach does too much as it is.

No, sorry, I don't mess around with sectypes as such willy-nilly. It's less of an issue of "can it be done?" (it would be very easy), and more of an issue "should it be done?". To which if the answer is "if the AI can't figure out how to adjust accordingly, then no".

3 hours ago, jmerry said:

Correction: the mage will cast Detect Invisibility or True Seeing, they'll gain the ability to see through invisibility, and they'll be able to target the invisible creature. Even if it's still fully invisible to everyone else. Whether it has Non-Detection active or not. Nothing protects against opcode 193, because it doesn't act on the creature being observed at all. For as long as that effect is active, that mage is equivalent to a creature that can naturally see through invisibility.

Non-Detection will protect against the subspell pulses that force enemies to become visible on the player's screen. So if you're controlling the mage and they were fully invisible, you won't be able to click on that enemy to target or attack them. But if the mage is acting on their AI script, they'll be able to target and attack that enemy on their own initiative.

(And this time, I actually downloaded copies of the relevant SRR spells to look at them)

I could swear I had tested this rather extensively in oBG2 against a few different casters at least a couple of times now. I would get them hostile and get them to cast True Seeing while my invisible + Non-Detection character was standing right next to them, and they would largely ignore my character. I say "largely", because I think they would sometimes do weird stuff like suddenly try to melee my character, but then freeze up like they wanted to cast a spell against me but couldn't. If there was another character of mine on screen that they could target, they would go straight for them instead. What SR wanted to accomplish with its systems seemed to effectively work out, even if it looked a little erratic.

So I just tested this again against the Vigil Knights at the foot of Watcher's Keep...except this time, I did it with both oBG2 and BG2EE. Same mod install:

~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ #0 #0 // Spell Revisions: v4 (Revised v1.3.927)
~STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2~ #0 #5900 // Initialise AI components (required for all tactical and AI components): 34.3
~STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2~ #0 #6000 // Smarter general AI: 34.3
~STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2~ #0 #6030 // Smarter Mages: 34.3

The spellbooks for each install, of course, will be different, because SCS creates the spellbooks for spellcasters at install time. However, for both installs, Brother Pol got True Seeing in his spellbook, so it happens to work out here. In both games, I had my sorcerer cast Non-Detection and Invisibility upon themselves, then had Jan Jansen go attack the Vigil Knights, then quickly cast invisibility upon himself. In both games, Brother Pol casts True Seeing and Jan Jansen is summarily murdered by the Vigil Knights in mere moments. However, this is where the similarities stop: in BG2EE, Brother Pol then kills my sorcerer with an immediate casting of Finger of Death; in oBG2, he casts a Timestop, then a Mantle, and then just...stands there. He doesn't do anything else, and his True Seeing wears off with not a single hostile action made against my character who's standing right next to him. In my experience, SCS AI doesn't cast spells like Timestop and Mantle unless they see hostiles, so...it's like he knows I'm there, but for some reason can't do anything about it until I actually reveal myself. I think the implementation of opcode 193, or the way the AI reacts to it, must be somewhat different between oBG2 and BG2EE, because each time I've tested it in oBG2 (and I think this is the third time in the history of this thread), it seems to work O.K., but him immediately dusting my character in BG2EE would sure seem to be a problem.

In any case, it would seem wise for SR to get rid of this whole silly system where opcode 193 is used if A. SCS doesn't really want to gel with it in the first place and prefers "you and the AI can just cast anti-magic spells through improved invisibility whenever", and B. the AI can fully abuse it (at least in the EEs) but the player can't. Maybe what SR wants to do works fine in the original engine, but it seems most albeit not all current players prefer the EEs, so that's kind of important. Also, on a personal level, C. I was never very attached to this whole system in the first place, and in fact, close to the beginning of this thread when I was starting SRR, I implemented and strongly argued for the SCS/EE system of anti-magic spells always penetrating improved invisibility. subtledoctor talked me out of it and into more thoroughly testing how SR wanted to do it, where my tests seemed to conclude that yes, it did seem to more or less work how it was intended...at least on my preferred game engine, which is oBG2.

1 hour ago, NdranC said:

Honestly the one argument that I might have against Non-Detection being a spell protection is that I don't care to remove it. It still doesn't do enough for me to care on an average party, and what's even worse, it might use one of my precious turns casting a spell attack getting rid of it instead of some other stronger spell protection. The upside is that it's a level 3 spell protection so it should be the last thing to ever be picked by a spell attack except for maybe Minor Globe.

If I'm at a point where the next thing I can dispel is Non-Detection then that means I should be breaching. That is a dead mage with or without Non-Detection, a couple mirror images are not saving that mage.

Speaking of invisibility, I feel like True Seeing needs a little pick me up to be more useful. Either lasting a full turn instead of 5 rounds or maybe allowing all your party members to target Improved Invisibility with spells while it lasts. Because a lot of mages just randomly have non-detection on, dispelling mirror images is countered easily. I might as well cast Detect Invisibility which is a second level spell vs a 6th one. Maybe I should be trying to use 5th level anti illusions spells more but I've never been tempted to pick them, it's a very contested level with good spells.

True Seeing: It already lasts 1 turn, and also, isn't True Seeing the main anti-illusory spell that the player uses once they have access to it? If you have multiple sources of True Seeing (e.g. an Inquisitor and a mage), maybe you have the mage memorize Detect Invisibility instead, but otherwise I thought True Seeing was pretty much always the player go-to. Like, who's casting Detect Illusion? Maybe Oracle in certain situations, but True Seeing getting rid of invisibility, improved invisibility, Mirror Image, Blur, and Reflected Image every 3 seconds for an entire turn is hard to beat.

Non-Detection: I tend to go mage-heavy for my party builds, so it being difficult to do away with Non-Detection can be annoying: if I'm trying to overwhelm a mage that has ND+II, it often means having to have Detect Invisibility or True Seeing running on each spellcaster, which...that's a round of spellcasting each for them, especially what with Detect Invisibility only lasting 5 rounds and True Seeing 1 turn, combined with possibly getting dispelled...it can be a real pain in the butt to get everyone on the same page.

3 hours ago, jmerry said:

In patch 2.6, and in older versions of the game with SCS, spell-breakers such as Secret Word can target creatures under Improved Invisibility. This is pointedly not the case for Breach, which lacks the (EE-only) "Can target invisible" flag. I'm not too familiar with the mechanical details of the SR system, though, and there's another issue here...

The "Non-Detection" opcode does precisely one thing: it blocks "remove invisibility" effects. Which you're already getting rid of in SR; Detect Invisibility and True Seeing grant the ability to see through invisibility instead , so the fundamentals of what the Non-Detection spell does have to be changed if you want it to do anything at all.

Based on what I can deduce from the descriptions, ND gets modified to instead directly protect against divination attack spells. Immunity to the likes of Detect Illusion and Oracle. But now Detect Invisibility is a self-affecting spell that grants the ability to see through invisibility rather than an enemy-affecting spell that removes invisibility, and True Seeing includes that self-affecting part. I don't think there's any way at all to protect your invisibility from a "can see through invisibility" ability. "By casting this spell, the wizard makes the creature touched undetectable by divination spells such as Detect Invisibility...". I'm sorry, but this does not seem like an accurate spell description.

So we're back around to ND being basically useless, because it doesn't protect against the spells you need to cast anyway to target someone under invisibility.

[Edit: OK, not useless. If I'm reading things right, ND does protect illusionary buffs like Mirror Image and Blur. It just doesn't protect invisibility.]

In SR, invisibility (opcode 20 type 0) is protected by Non-Detection (note: when referring to "Non-Detection" in the context of SR, I mean the spell, not the nigh useless opcode). A creature which is invisible and affected by Non-Detection should be completely undetectable by divination spells such as Detect Invisibility - SCS AI may "hear" your character walking around and cast Detect Invisibility or True Seeing to try to detect you, but it should fail to reveal your character, and you should remain invisible and thus perfectly safe. The exceptions to this are creatures which naturally see through all invisibility, such as mindflayers and liches, where no amount of invisibility, improved invisibility, or Non-Detection will ever help you even an iota against them. Improved invisibility (opcode 20 type 1), on the other hand, is only protected from being dispelled by e.g. True Seeing, but if you are no longer invisible (opcode 20 type 0), then anyone currently running Detect Invisibility/True Seeing is allowed to target you through your improved invisibility, as you have already been revealed/detected. Non-Detection should perfectly protect the invisibility state, but it does not perfectly protect the improved invisibility state - it just prevents it from being actually dispelled which would allow all spellcasters to directly target you with spellcasting. Having Non-Detection protect improved invisibility from being dispelled makes it so that only spellcasters which have Detect Invisibility/True Seeing currently running are able to directly target you with spellcasting.

SR (and SRR) do not have any spells which can always pierce improved invisibility - if the EEs made anti-magic spells able to do so, then SR goes right ahead and reverses it when it does its overwrites. Well, SRR gives the option of allowing anti-magic spells to do so for players that got used to playing with that and preferred it, but it's defaulted to off for a reason. It is expected that you use Detect Invisibility and True Seeing to counter enemies who are protected by Non-Detection and some source of improved invisibility. So in SR, whether Non-Detection is a specific protection or a spell protection, the process would be much the same: you wait for the enemy who has ND+II to reveal themselves*, you have your mage cast either Detect Invisibility or True Seeing, and then using the same mage cast an anti-magic spell that strips them of their Non-Detection, thus allowing their improved invisibility to be stripped by True Seeing/Oracle/Detect Illusion/Invisibility Purge. Whether that anti-magic spell is Breach or Secret Word doesn't really make any material difference for breaking the ND+II combo, except that if Non-Detection were a specific protection and not a spell protection, Breach would also dispel the rest of their protections in the same step. Though if it's Breach, there's also the possibility of it being protected by e.g. Spell Deflection (and Dispelling Screen); if it's instead Secret Word (or similar) that you have to use, it may dispel some other spell protection entirely and leave their ND+II combo protected until you can get another one off. It doesn't help here that anti-magic spells always target the highest level spell protections, which allows Non-Detection to be "protected" under virtually every other spell protection, as only Minor Spell Deflection is of lower or equal level, which can leave you up crap creek if you're desperately trying to dispel Non-Detection so that your other spellcasters can dogpile them but you keep dispelling other spell protections like globes and spell deflections instead. Overall, I think Non-Detection being a specific protection would work better for reducing how annoying the combo can be, but I think I have to stay in lockstep with the official version of SR here.

*Or if you know where they're standing because of special visual effects (or you saw them before their ND+II combo went up?), I guess you could try either a Remove Magic or Spell Thrust to pre-empt them, but that's kind of cheating. Whatever, though - pretend that you "heard" them walking or casting spells just like SCS gives the AI a chance of doing, I guess.

46 minutes ago, jmerry said:

Non-Detection is an illusionary protection in the base game, which ... no. Base game Non-Detection is completely useless against Oracle and True Sight, because they remove it and then break the invisibility it was protecting in the same spell.

So, it needs to change if you're building a better spell system. A specific protection, like Chaotic Commands and other "immune to status X" effects? That would make sense, but it has a poor rules interaction - the semi-invisible state that ND is supposed to protect prevents Breach from targeting the protected creature, and Breach is what's needed to take down specific protections.

So, for lack of a better alternative, Non-Detection becomes a spell protection.

I remember it being a specific protection in SR, but I think that was back in the days of anti-magic spells always piercing through improved invisibility. But I don't quite understand what you mean with regards to Non-Detection preventing Breach. Whether it's a specific protection or a spell protection, one still has to use Detect Invisibility / True Seeing before you can cast either Secret Word or Breach (depending on which sectype you set it as) against an Improved Invisibility + Non-Detection character to be able to strip them of their improved invisiblity, so I don't see how it really changes anything in that regard. But Breach dispelling it instead means one less layer of spell protections, which can make a bit of a difference against enemy spellcasters who can have 3 or 4 layers of spell protections.

14 hours ago, NdranC said:

I noticed what I think might be a small omission from the spell descriptions.

Pierce Shield doesn't mention that it removes Non-Detection despite this showing up on all other applicable spell attacks.

@776=~Pierce Shield
(Abjuration)

Level: 8
Range: Long
Duration: Special
Casting Time: 8
Area of Effect: 1 creature
Saving Throw: None

By means of this spell, the wizard may launch a massive attack on a target's physical and magical defenses. Pierce Shield will dispel one spell protection of any level from the target creature. This will always dispel the highest level of spell protection on the target first. If the target has two or more protections tied for the highest level, the choice will be random. After piercing through magical protections, this powerful spell will breach each and every combat protection on the target creature. Magic resistance does not affect this spell.

The spell protection spells dispelled by Pierce Shield are: Minor Spell Deflection, Minor Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Deflection, Spell Shield, Globe of Invulnerability, Greater Spell Deflection, Shield of the Archons, Mind Blank, and Spell Trap.

The combat protection spells dispelled by Pierce Shield are: Mage Armor, Shield, Armor of Faith, Barkskin, Protection from Missiles, Spirit Armor, Stoneskin, Protection from Normal Weapons, Protection from Magical Weapons, Physical Mirror, Prismatic Mantle, and Absolute Immunity.~

EDIT: Actually after looking into it a little bit more. Is it intentional for Non-Detection to be tagged as a spell protection while Mind Blank is tagged as a specific protection?

Because Ruby Ray, Khelben's, Pierce Magic, Pierce Shield and Spell Strike mention they will remove Mind Blank as a spell protection but it doesn't seem to be the case.

As well as mentioned before, Pierce Shield doesn't mention Non-Detection as a spell protection it should dispel.

Yeah, Mind Blank is not a spell protection but a specific protection - removed by Breach and a general dispel, but nothing else. Fixed both that and the Pierce Shield issues, thank you! And yes, Non-Detection is supposed to be a spell protection...though it wasn't always this way, but I didn't personally hear the specific reasoning for it at the time that it happened.

3 hours ago, NdranC said:

@Bartimaeus I might be misinterpreting the way the engine works but what if you make dispel have a power of 6? It would still be a level 3 spell but it would bypass liches/globes and it would be blocked by deflection while having the special interaction against them of consuming double the charges a spell of it's level would normally do. It could be denoted in the description as well.

If it were power level 6, it would bypass Minor Spell Deflection completely. From a mechanical standpoint, I'm not a big fan of 3rd level AoE dispel which isn't supposed to be guaranteed to work counting as level 6 (Dispel Magic) while a 5th level single target dispel which is guaranteed to work only counts as level 5 (Breach). It seems...hacky and disproportionate to me.

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Only popping in to disagree with this. 

I knew hyperbole would be my downfall one day.

11 hours ago, NdranC said:

Yeah specially because the one character would have to be an arcane caster of some sort (which would make mages a little harder and that's a good thing imo) dispelling screen would still have 2 uses. Act as a support skill for the party members that can't cast arcane spells as well as acting as an extra layer of protection for mages.

In this hypothetical scenario, if you are both protected by Spell Deflection and Dispelling Screen, which one would be affected first when casting remove magic?

11 hours ago, jmerry said:

If it's anything like the interaction between multiple deflection effects I've seen before ... both of them. When a character has multiple deflection effects that all apply to the same spell, all of them are used and the decrementing-type effects all decrement.

Deflection effects come before immunity effects. One such interaction I've run into in the vanilla spell system: if a lich (immune to level 4 spells) casts Spell Shield (1 level deflection against MAGICATTACK) and you cast Spell Thrust (hits as level 4) at it, the Spell Shield is used up.

I decided to test it. Had Jan cast Spell Deflection, used up its charges until it only had 1 left, then cast Dispelling Screen. Had my character cast Dispel Magic at him, it used up the Spell Deflection first, but the Dispelling Screen stayed put and it took an additional Dispel Magic to dissipate it. Seems to work the same way if you instead cast Dispelling Screen first: it isn't dissipated until the Spell Deflection is all used up.

I completely forgot about Dispelling Screen with regards to this theoretical tweak. Well, Dispelling Screen applies to everybody and Spell Deflection to just one character, I suppose, so I guess the conflict wouldn't be too terrible...

5 minutes ago, NdranC said:

Sounds great. I would make sure cosmetic issue is mentioned in the readme so people are aware.

I'm not sure if you've looked at it but @subtledoctor has a mod that already does this (among other changes) https://github.com/UnearthedArcana/magic_battles_revised. Maybe you might want to take a look at it.

Well, what am I doing designing this for, then? Go use that!

...I'm assuming it's because you specifically want this one change and not everything else that his component does. The biggest problem I have with this idea is that SCS will have no possibility of knowing that Dispel/Remove Magic will be deflected and thus it will try to use Remove Magic against the player to not much avail (though at least each cast will drain charges!), otherwise I think I'd probably use this tweak myself (...and also, I'd be much more motivated to get it working). But if SD has already designed and implemented this exact idea already (and to be sure, he is an infinitely better coder than I am), I am a little loathe to spend the hours necessary to implement and troubleshoot the danged thing with my meager and pained skills.

38 minutes ago, NdranC said:

... I don't know what I was thinking. You did say that. Sorry.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it. Would that tweak enabled cause dispel magic to be resisted by creatures who are immunte to level 5 and lower spells?

As currently designed, yes. With my theoretical re-design I was just brainstorming that I've explained below that I'm putting here just in case I fail to get around to it or if I think of some kind of problem with doing this, no:

Dispel Magic et al.:
1. Base spell with projectile that has no power level, casts two subspells (opcode 146)
2. 1st subspell is the actual dispel, has no projectile or power level
3. 2nd subspell has some kind of placebo effect (THAC0 or AC bonus of 0 for duration 0?), no projectile, power level of 3
4. AoE spell deflection component targets the first subspell but not the base spell or 2nd subspell Unnecessary, as splitting Dispel Magic et al. in this fashion has incidentally already made it subject to the AoE spell deflection component whether the player likes it or not - perhaps this optional tweak should actually be in that component and not the main component?

Spell Deflection et al.:
1. Clone opcode from opcode 201 (spell deflection) and opcode 200 (spell turning) with a parameter 1 of 3 (level 3) for all existing .spls
2. New opcodes will be 206 (protection from spell) specifying 1st subspell of Dispel Magic et al.; clone for as many Dispel/Remove Magics used (currently 5 in SRR)

Actual Effect:
Spell Deflection et al. will give blanket protect against 1st subspell (i.e. the actual dispel) of Dispel Magic et al., but not against the base spell or 2nd subspell, thus allowing the 2nd subspell to drain charges as per normal; M/GoI's behavior with regards to dispelling will then be determined by the setting used for dispel_globes (whose effects are set either to dispellable, not dispellable, or not dispellable + blanket protection against Dispel Magic et al.); creatures immune to spells of 3rd level or higher will be immune to the useless 2nd subspell, but not the base spell or 1st subspell (i.e. the actual dispel), thus making them vulnerable to dispelling...though such creatures will likely display "spell ineffective" even when the dispel actually works as a result of the 2nd subspell also hitting them (acceptable minor cosmetic issue...somewhat avoidable with creature-targeted immunity .effs, but probably not worth the trouble?).

26 minutes ago, NdranC said:

Would it be possible for me to install SRR with the spell_protections optional component and then edit the globes spells to not protect against dispel/remove magic with nearinfinity?

Or could I just install SRR without the component. Copy/backup both globes spl files and then uninstall and reinstall with the component ON the copy over the backup files? The ideal outcome is to have both globes to not protect but also not get dispelled by dispel/remove magic while having all the deflection type spells protect against it.

EDIT: SPWI406.spl and SPWI 602.spl? Are those the only two that I need to backup?

EDIT2: It seems dvginvul.spl is also modified by SRR so I assume that one as well. Can't do anything about rr#wi406.spl since it's not patched by SRR.

As mentioned earlier, that optional tweak changes only Dispel Magic and Remove Magic. The tweak simply sets their power levels set to 3, which makes them subject to the various forms of spell deflections...and necessarily the globes as well, as they use the same power level mechanic to determine what they protect against. There's nothing to restore, as whether you use that tweak or not, all the spell deflection and globe .spl files come out exactly the same. If you can give me a few days, I'll try to figure and test out a workaround.

Just now, NdranC said:

Oh sorry, I should've been clearer. The description is correct, but the style of the description is wrong. It's using "School: Illusion" instead of Blindness (Illusion) like all the other bgee spells.

Oh, right! Well, that was incidentally fixed now as well, and I don't see any other spells where "School:" is listed.

8 hours ago, NdranC said:

Minor issue I noticed after the latest install. Blindness is fixed but it's still installing with the old bg description instead of the bgee one. All the other spells are correct.

Meaning, it says a -10 penalty instead of a -4 penalty? I just simplified its installation, which should hopefully fix the issue.

8 hours ago, NdranC said:

I agree completely. Ultimately it's better to make sure the mod remains as compatible as you can with SCS. That reminds me, I know in base SCS anti-magic spells are changed so that you are able to target people under improved invisibility for both npcs and players. I know as a player under SRR I can't do this anymore unless I use the optional setting, does it apply to npcs as well? In other words do npcs by default under scs+srr know and use a different version of antimagic spells that allows to bypass improved invisibility?

4 hours ago, jmerry said:

The targeting change for spell-breakers is a simple change in the spell's flags. Which was also applied to the unmodded game in patch 2.6, so SCS no longer needs to do anything in the latest version of the game.

The same rules apply to the AI as the player here. The vanilla mage AIs mostly just use See() checks with no special handling for improved invisibility, so they would handle the updated targeting just fine. SCS has a "SRDetectInvisible" clause in its blocks for using spell-breakers, which ... if SR is present, this gets added to the conditions:

     OR(3)
        CheckSpellState(Myself,DETECT_INVISIBILITY)
        CheckStatGT(Myself,0,TRUE_SIGHT)
        !StateCheck(scstarget,STATE_IMPROVEDINVISIBILITY)

I'm not sure on the exact details for how that switch is done, but it's one of a bunch of replacements that get made all with the same conditions; it doesn't appear to be aware of any optional component on the SR side. Looks like AI mages with SCS/SR will behave as if the standard SR targeting rules are in place, even if they aren't due to an optional component. If you want that optional component to be reflected in mage AI, you'll need an update on the SCS side.

The last time I tested, which was not v34 of SCS but maybe v33, SCS seemed to mostly work with SR's Improved Invisibility / Non-Detection / Detect Invisibility setup...but it could act goofy and do things in not quite the right order. I don't think SCS would have any way to determine whether or not that tweak, which is disabled by default for a reason, is enabled. However, that particular tweak is actually intended to just be a mild cheat for players who just want the whole problem simplified and be able to cast anti-magic spells without restriction like they could in the past - it was basically an option I added by 'popular demand' as a result of the number of players very frustrated with the improved invisibility mechanics over the years, so I am okay if SCS does not adjust its behavior any for it.

8 hours ago, jmerry said:

The main tool I used? Near Infinity's search features. Open up the "StringRef" panel from the search menu. You can input a number directly if you already know what string you're looking for, or search the strings for any that contain a bit of text - in my case, that was searches "Fire Shield" and "Fireshield". Once you have a string you're interested in, you can search for references to it with the "Find References" button. By default, it searches all file types. So, for example, if I ran that search for string #13070 in BG2EE, I'd find exactly one reference to it - SCRL1W. Or if that's #8279 I search for, I get two references - PROST5.DLG and STATDESC.2DA. The former is an obvious false positive; one of those garbled dialogue files copied over from BG1 (Specifically, a generic courtesan from the Undercellar). The latter is the meaningful one, and the entries in STATDESC.2DA correspond to the elements of STATES.BAM; that 2DA is the key that associates names to portrait icons.

I just forgot that separate strings for other stuff like scrolls and portrait icons might be a thing with my first post on this; correcting that oversight was what my "... Right" was about.

Alrighty, thank you! I think there are a few other spells in SR/R that could use some correction...

45 minutes ago, jmerry said:

... Right, scroll names and portrait icons. "Fireshield (Blue)" as a scroll is #30196 in BGEE and #13070 in BG2EE. "Fireshield (Red)" as a scroll is #30224 in BGEE and #5018 in BG2EE. "Fire Shield Blue" as a portrait icon is #25059 in BGEE and #8279 in BG2EE. "Fire Shield Red" as a portrait icon is #25058 in BGEE and #8277 in BGEE. (The portrait icon strings are entries in STATDESC.2DA)

Six different string numbers for each fireshield spell: BGEE spell names, BG2EE spell names, BGEE scroll names, BG2EE scroll names, BGEE portrait icon names, BG2EE portrait icon names. Plus three numbers for the descriptions; duplicated spell and scroll descriptions in BGEE, same string for both descriptions in BG2EE.

And some of these string's might get referenced elsewhere as well; both SoD and BG2EE have items with abilities that cast a red fireshield, so there are entries in TOOLTIP.2DA that use the spell's name.

String #13070 in BGEE is "Fire Shield" and I'm pretty sure it's completely unused. No references found by Near Infinity.

My gosh, I'm so sorry, and thank you so much. What's the best way to be doing these look-ups for portrait icon strings so somebody doesn't have to pester you or someone else to figure these out?

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

On fire shield spell names in the EE ...

Fire Shield (Blue) is #12061 in BG2EE. Fireshield (Blue) is #25700 in BGEE (with or without SoD).

Fire Shield (Red) is #25880 in BG2EE. Fireshield (Red) is #26326 in BGEE (with or without SoD).

The spells were added to the BG1 campaign for the EE, which meant new strings were needed. Hence, new numbers. And they weren't even consistent on how to spell the (English) names. (I just went down a rabbit hole chasing down all the mentions of "Fireshield" or "Fire Shield" to report to the EE Fixpack - pretty sure one word is the current standard here, especially since the spell descriptions use it that way in both BGEE and BG2EE.)

... I do wonder just what design you're using here that the string numbers matter. A conventional SAY operation on the SPL files wouldn't care, after all.

This is more or less how SR does it:

STRING_SET ~13070~ @565 // Change portrait icon from Fire Shield (Blue) to Acid Sheath

Just a straight override of the currently existing string in dialog.tlk. At least, this is how SR usually does it, but this particular one is disabled in the base SR package...probably because somebody noticed it didn't work right for the EE games and didn't want 13070, whatever it happens to be in the EE games, to be overwritten with "Mestil's Acid Sheath". But you see, I am lord king of the bozos, so I re-enabled it...though I was wise enough to at least put a check around it.

ACTION_IF (GAME_IS ~bg2 tob bgt bg2ee eet~ AND NOT GAME_IS ~tutu tutu_totsc bgee~) BEGIN
  STRING_SET ~13070~ @565 // Change portrait icon from Fire Shield (Blue) to Acid Sheath
END

BG2 and BG2EE strings typically match up, so I suppose I didn't think to actually check BG2EE before I re-enabled it, and I never bothered to go figure out what BG1EE's string was. Lord king of the bozos indeed. Thank you!

15 minutes ago, NdranC said:

Would you consider adding an optional setting for this?

More importantly, what I wish to know is whether SCS is aware that Fire Shield/Acid Sheath are not breachable when SR is installed. If it is not, I would just set them back to breachable...but if it is, then no, because I'm not a fan of optional tweaks like this that introduce broken/sub-optimal behavior in ways that the player cannot reasonably expect when they enable an optional tweak like this. This reminds me that I never figured out if SCS AI can use targetable Chant or not...sigh. That's another thing that if I knew the answer, I might remove entirely if it doesn't work how I'd like.

9 hours ago, NdranC said:

Speaking of which, does gear or effects that increase caster level affect dispel/remove magic's calculation? I've been assuming that it does.

Apparently, it does...both ways, too. I didn't think it would, but I dispelled Jan Jansen successfully six times in a row...and then I put on him a ring of +20 caster level, and suddenly the next six didn't work. That actually probably makes your idea of having Dispelling Screen increase your effective level against dispelling possible albeit not easy to implement. Some sort of conditional duration 0 caster level increase applied by Dispel Magic when it hits you that dissipates right after.

9 hours ago, NdranC said:

I noticed Acid Sheath buff is still called Blue Fire Shield and Prismatic Mantle is called Mantle. Is this an engine limitation?

The former gets updated in oBG2, but the string location must be different for EE games since it doesn't get updated there. For the latter, I don't think anybody thought to bother.

10 hours ago, NdranC said:

EDIT: Actually, a couple more questions. What is the rational for breach going through mantle but not Fire Shield and Acid Sheath?

Interestingly, without SR, the Fire Shields are actually "Specific Protections", so they do get dispelled by Breach. Although I can see the argument that they don't directly protect the caster, I think I would've left them as breachable myself.

1 hour ago, NdranC said:

Thank you for considering it. I have a chip on my shoulder regarding dispel/remove magic and general mage chess battles and I'm trying to fix it before I finish my next install.

Speaking of suggestions, I have another one. Would it be possible for Dispelling Screen to instead of disappearing when you cast dispel/remove magic and canceling it out to instead provide a couple levels of advantage against the dispel check?

Example, I'm a level 10 sorcerer that casted shield and dispelling screen on myself. A level 20 npc mage casts dispel magic on me. Instead of the check being level 10 buffs vs level 20 dispel for a 75% chance of success (if i understand the effect correctly) dispelling screen could provide a bonus of... let's say 5 levels so it would be 15 level buffs vs level 20 dispel for a 50% chance of success (again if i understand correctly).

My one annoyance with scs and srr is that at higher levels enemies throw dispels so frequently and fast, specially with sequencers that dispelling screen barely feels like it does much at all but I also don't think the entire party should be easily able to become immune to it either.

I don't think that idea is possible, but I don't know for sure. The only remotely close thing I can think of in implementation is @subtledoctor's Protection from Petrification evasion tweak, which grants two saving throws against petrification which could theoretically be used for Dispel/Remove Magic here as well...but I think you'd have to use a saving throw version of Dispel/Remove Magic for that to even work. I don't know how you would work such an idea with the default level mechanic of Dispel Magic.

45 minutes ago, NdranC said:

I have a suggestion regarding the optional settings.

We currently have access to "dispel_globes" which allows 3 ways to customize how globes interact with dispel magic. In particular we could set it up so globes protect other buffs against dispel magic. Which is great customization.

Then we have "spell_protections" which offers the option to make both globes and deflects protect other buffs against dispel magic. Isn't this overlapping partially with the previous option? Wouldn't it be better for this setting to ONLY affect deflection spells since we can already achieve globes blocking dispel with the previous setting?

This would allow a new configuration to make deflect protect against dispel while making globes ignore it. Which is what I ideally wanted to try this time around.

On a side note, I've been thinking this might be the most consistent way to deal with this spell. I feel like dispel/remove magic are breach like effects and have more in common with each other than any other spell. So if you can dispel liches and rakshasas which usually are immune to spells of 5 and lower then it makes sense that globes shouldn't block them either. As well as if breach is supposed to be stopped by deflections then probably dispel/remove magic should be as well.

What you're saying makes sense and I always thought the overlap between these options was rather awkward myself, but the path to do it would be weird. The way the "spell_protections" tweak works is that it actually sets a power level for the different Dispel/Remove Magics, so that when they hit e.g. a Spell Deflection, Spell Deflection absorbs it as if it were any other 3rd level spell (such as a Fireball), depleting charges. By necessity, this also makes M/GoI absorb it as well, since those two also work on the basis of power levels.

Maybe...if Dispel/Remove Magic was broken into two subspells, one that doesn't do anything but has a power level set so that it can drain charges of e.g. Spell Deflection, and then another that has the actual effects of Dispel/Remove but which Spell Deflection et al. specifically grant immunity against, thereby protecting you from the dispel until your Spell Deflection (or whatever) has been used up. Globes would thus protect against the (useless) charge-depleting subspell, but against the actual dispel. I suppose that would work, and I don't...think anything horrible would result elsewhere. Oh, except it wouldn't work correctly for non-EE games, since the immunity to Dispel/Remove Magic would have no way of dissipating itself, thus continuing to grant you immunity to them even after your Spell Deflection (or other similar spell) has been used up. At least, I think that's how Spell Deflection works in the EEs. Maybe this would be best as a fourth option.

43 minutes ago, NdranC said:

omg, great timing. Thank you, I was about to wipe everything to check if basic install got corrupted somehow. I keep installing and uninstalling mods so much that I never know if I messed up somewhere.

I reinstalled SRR approximately 30 times, and that's not really an exaggeration, trying to figure out what was going on. It's definitely not very fun.

@NdranC

I reinstalled with your settings.ini, and everything was still fine. Hmm, well, I suppose this is one of those times I have to actually download the live repository version instead of using my own files, just on the off-chance something weird with GitHub has transpired...My program that manages my GitHub repositories, SmartGit, says that my directories are the same, but it wouldn't be the first time that it hasn't been entirely truthful with me.

And...would you look at that?

Hmph. Fixed it, and redownloading master and reinstalling...confirms that it now works again. Sorry about that.

5 hours ago, NdranC said:

Is the blindness icon change intentional? It used to be fine but now it shows up like this on my new install.

Edit: To add to this, the spell works as intended but the animation of the spell is also messed up, it looks like Fire Storm lol.

I just installed the latest version of SRR with the "blindness" switch set to 1, and it was Blindness both in appearance...

...and effects, as I was able to blind my own (ToB-leveled) character after casting it a handful of times. Setting the switch back to 0 and reinstalling, it is fully Obscuring Mist:

So...what mods have made changes to your SPWI106.spl?