Jump to content

Bartimaeus

Modders
  • Posts

    2,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bartimaeus

  1. In that case, may I have a copy of your spwi311.spl? Also, you might as well give me a copy of arow05.itm just so I can make sure it has the new projectile type. I have been conducting my own tests and have found that Protection from Missiles is *not* protecting from many types of enchanted arrows on BG2EE, so I am curious to see how yours does.
  2. ...But you don't have SR installed, so, uh...how does that help? (e): Also, I'm confused - WHY does Protection from Normal Missiles protect against all missiles if you don't have SR installed?
  3. Basically, the Enhanced Editions, and 1pp for non-EE games (from where the Enhanced Editions originally take it from), introduce a bunch of new projectile animations, ones that better match the inventory graphics of the items they're assigned to. To block a projectile like Protection from Missiles does, opcode 83 ("Protection from Projectile") is used, where you define a single projectile to be blocked. That is, every single type of projectile that you want to block must have its own specific opcode for that to happen, so naturally, Protection from Missiles has about 20 of these opcodes to protect against all the standard projectiles from the original non-Enhanced game. SR was not made with 1pp or the Enhanced Editions in mind, and unless there's a patching mechanism that I'm not aware of, it would seem like Protection from Missile could very well be missing its protection against these various types of missile animations. If you could, would you please test to see whether SR's Protection from Missiles currently protects from all types of arrows? You don't have to keep track of which ones do or don't - just the fact that it's missing more than like 1 would be proof enough, I think. Note that you should not be testing with non-Revised IR installed, since non-Revised IR changes back all of them to the non-EE projectiles (but IR Revised should use the correct ones).
  4. Interesting to note that Protection from Missiles (full missile immunity and all) used to be a flat 2 turns in V3, but was patched to be only 1 turn at some point in V4's development, though it took many years for that to be reflected in its description (as it continued to say 2 turns when it was actually just 1 for quite some time). Personally, I think 1 turn is too short for me to consider using it myself, but do not care for awkward 2 turn durations, which is probably also too long for a 7th level caster casting it (especially given that there's not any counter at those levels). I think I mentioned 5 rounds + 1 round/level being what I'd change it to if I were changing it, and I think that's about right. One major technical consideration with changing its duration is 1pp's improved projectiles subcomponent/the EEs. You're on an EE game, right?
  5. Are there any encounters in particular that you're thinking of that is necessitating this train of thought? I've played through BG1/2 (but not ToB, since ToB kind of sucks) plenty of times with SCS and SR, and I don't remember any particular encounters where I thought, "well, that PFM ran out really quickly and now they have no defenses"...but I also don't think it was much on my radar to begin with. It was mostly my impression that it's usually lower level mages that this spell is most effective for, and even then, not really if they don't also have Stoneskin and/or Mirror Image up. So do you have anybody(s) particularly in mind?
  6. The name and description (both being examples of what the game calls "strings") of the spell are set by the setup executable - i.e. they're set when you install the mod via its normal exe. When you just drop a .spl or .itm file into your override, you're basically putting a nameless and descriptionless version of the file into your override, except sometimes instead of referencing nothing, the name and description might reference some other random string from the game, since it wasn't set like it was supposed to. The fact that you took the SR version of the file and put it in your override and it immediately worked correctly simply proves that it wasn't SR causing the problem (...this is not always a totally safe assumption, as SR could be patching it in some other way after it drops the .spl file into your override, but I know it to be the case with 99% certainty for this scenario in particular). So do a changelog and figure out what else could be messing with it.
  7. 1. Cause Wounds series: Yeah, there's a huge damage disparity. The SR version does like 3.5x the damage on average, has no saving throw, isn't subject to magic resistance, and doesn't need to be cast in melee. I would probably reduce its extra damage scaling to half speed (capping out at 20th level instead of 10th) if it didn't require an attack...and I'm not sure how it would affect the AI, if they'd correctly target enemies with it. 2. I don't think there's any problem there. The problem with Prismatic Mantle was that SCS expected it to grant weapon immunity, and that part of the spell had been completely removed. This is just a matter of a shorter duration.
  8. 1. Protection from Missiles is also way more powerful than vanilla's version of the spell, since it grants total immunity to all missiles rather than simply unenchanted ones. Still, one turn is pretty short...it's actually not the AI I'm worried about abusing it, but rather the player. Setting it to something like 5 rounds + 1/round level will make it last for quite a while if players use it at later levels, and once again, blanket immunity to missiles can be pretty strong when used for the right encounters. 2. Yeah, the waking on hit part of Greater Command isn't likely to change, since that's simply how the sleep status is supposed to function. 3. Uh...what makes you think the Cause Wounds series of spells offer a saving throw? 4. Slay Living: You really think a 5th level instant slay spell that's not subject to magic resistance should have no saving throw? It has additional damage if it fails. Contrast with Feeblemind, also a 5th level spell, which needs a -2 vs. spell saving throw and *is* subject to magic resistance.
  9. Use the "Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screen" subcomponent to fix this. That's what it's there for, after all.
  10. Those are disabled. See here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/e7yj7nd5ujzlwfp/2019-07-17_02-53-02.mp4 ~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ #0 #0 // Spell Revisions: v4 Beta 16 (Revised V1.1.0) ~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ #0 #50 // Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screens: v4 Beta 16 (Revised V1.1.0) If they are not disabled, either you did not install the "Remove Disabled Spells" subcomponent or something else has re-enabled them somehow (overwrote hidespl.2da?).
  11. Erik(.cre) uses AROW13, which are, as you said, dummy arrows. Still do zero damage with IR installed (including Weapon Changes). However, if you have Weapon Changes installed, then a Long Bow will give a damage bonus of 1. How much damage is he doing with those arrows?
  12. Thanks! Seems relatively straightforward, actually. Much easier to manage than the web browser client.
  13. Windows. That's the problem: Windows is case insensitive, github isn't, so when a github file is sw1h01.itm and I update a file from my machine that is SW1H01.ITM, instead of overwriting it, it creates a duplicate. If Windows wasn't case insensitive, I would notice locally that there is a duplicate, but I don't go through the item_rev\itm folder on github every time I update something to make sure there aren't any duplicates (especially seeing as there are a thousand plus files in that folder and it doesn't even render them all on the browser client). And since I do everything through the ever so painful browser client...
  14. Thanks for the explanation. That's pretty cool, although...so I guess with that installed, Non-Detection does absolutely nothing against the mage/cleric with opcode 193, but continues to act as invisible (i.e. untargetable via spells or attacks) for everyone else?
  15. A bit off-topic, but could you expound upon this point? I opened up the Tome and Blood readme pdf real quick to see if it mentioned improved invisibility and possibly see what you meant by this, but it did not.
  16. I see somebody opened up an "issue" in github like two weeks ago, but I didn't notice because I guess there are no notifications for such. Thanks and merged. Now if only I could replicate the same thing on desktop so that this doesn't happen again, seeing as this isn't the first time this has happened...
  17. Even better (and also more helpful if you've completely biffed your game), take renal.cre from your item_rev\backup\1030 folder and stick it in your override. That'll revert him to the last version of himself immediately before he got corrupted. Yes, he is fixed. His inventory was getting screwed up by an incorrect length text replacement that I actually already knew shouldn't be used like that, but simply overlooked from when I did it years ago and forgot to fix. I also looked for any other instances like that and believe there are no more.
  18. It's a one-off speedbump for the character with Detect Invisibility/True Seeing, yeah, but nobody else. I think that makes it a pretty interesting protection vs. the other "harder" style of protections and counters that dominate the game, and it makes intuitive sense for something to do with sight - just because one character can see something doesn't mean everyone else should. If you want to reveal that character for the rest of your party, you have to dispel the Non-Detection/SI:Divinity, at which point the system becomes similar to the SCS system but in the reverse order.
  19. Presumably to make it so that the spell system works. Before SR's usage of opcode 193 to allow an affected character to bypass the improved invisibility effect, a character affected with improved invisibility + SR Non-Detection or vanilla Spell Immunity: Divination was essentially invulnerable to normal spellcasters outside of a lucky Dispel/Remove Magic. You can't remove the improved invisibility because of immunity to divination spells, and you can't remove the Spell Immunity: Divination because of improved invisibility making it so you can't target them with anti-magic. It was a broken combination. So SCS made spells have an AoE effect that was often janky but allowed you to penetrate improved invisibility, and then the flag to penetrate improved invisibility altogether was discovered/made (...was this a ToBEx feature?) which made the AoE effect unnecessary. Doing it this way also made it fair for players if SCS spellcasters happened to use the same combination. I reverted it because I agreed with you, SR's way of doing it is better. But David didn't know about that opcode when writing SCS, and he says it would take way too much to change it now, which means SR and SCS are mildly inconsistent on this point. I tested a few different spellcasters with SR & SCS installed and, if I remember correctly, SCS makes them do the same amount of steps but in the opposite order. The player has to cast Detect Invisibility/True Seeing first and then use an anti-magic spell like Secret Word to dispel Non-Detection/Spell Immunity: Divination and consequently the improved invisibility; the AI will instead cast something like Secret Word first and then use an anti-invisibility spell. The advantage for the player is that they don't strictly need to dispel the Non-Detection since the Detect Invisibility/True Seeing allows them to start attacking the improved invisible character immediately with any kind of spells if they wish; the advantage for the AI is that they are not bound to the duration of Detect Invisibility/True Seeing, and can also use other spells like Detect Illusion and Oracle to remove the improved invisibility. So it is currently inconsistent, but kind of fair, I guess? On a side-note, I would not necessarily be against patching *all* spells to penetrate improved invisibility to be rid of this silly "you can't target characters with improved invisibility" mechanic once and for all. I've always thought it was a terrible mechanic especially given the inconsistency of single target vs. AoE spells.
  20. I think we had a discussion about it in the IR Revised thread a while back. I think I liked giving it either the strength bonus or like +1/2 APR, but nobody seemed to care that much probably because slings, after all, are supposed to be a weak category of weapons, so I didn't end up bothering.
  21. Yeah, I wrote that in the SRR description with the specific intent of shedding light on the Improved Invisibility + Non-Detection mechanics (since Non-Detection's description in current SR is inaccurate in describing what it does and even more unhelpful in explaining how everything interacts), but people do actually have to notice that the description has been updated and read it, haha. On a side-note, I actually originally had it so that anti-magic spells all penetrated improved invisibility a la SCS...but @subtledoctor helpfully informed me of how things were *supposed* to be working in SR, and I ended up reverting it and rewriting a number of the relevant spell descriptions instead. Perhaps I should also provide a settings.ini switch or subcomponent that makes them penetrate again so that if you want it perfectly match SCS behavior, the option's there.
  22. Glad to hear you solved it. Makes sense that it'd be Solaufein, given the age of that mod and the infancy of weidu modding when it was made!
  23. Yeah, the BG Wiki does list it as Transmutation/Alteration, so that's not changed by SR, I guess.
  24. @amitlath Uh, AR2000.bcs is the Trademeet area script. Don't possibly see how your game could be lacking it, seeing as how a whole lot of vanilla quest stuff in that area would be broken without it (including the Skinner, Mazzy Fentan, and Dao Genie questlines). My copy of BG2:EE certainly isn't lacking it. I'm unsure of what the "ERROR: cannot resolve trigger 0x40de" error pertains to. Doing some Googling, it seems like the two errors might be related, and that a critical identifier file, trigger.ids, may have been corrupted by a mod you installed, leading it to do...something. My quick and dirty suggestion would be to move trigger.ids from your override folder to somewhere else and test installing it again - if it installs correctly, then another mod would indeed seem to be the problem with it and I'd probably suggest doing a changelog on it to figure out the culprit.
×
×
  • Create New...