Bartimaeus

39 minutes ago, DrAzTiK said:

some bugs in my current game : 

-Effreti bottle summons nothing. I don't know why because I did'nt have this bug before.

- the stoneskin of ring of earth control last only 60 seconds

-Ras +2 : the magical sword doesn't have attack script

- bolt of polymorphing : magic resistance seems to block the polymorphing effect

 

You made a good job about rebalancing potion of energy protection and potion of energy shielding.

 

I still find that potion of magic resistance is innapealing (+20% means nothing). Same for the items providing magic resistance. But if nobody complain about it, maybe it is ok.

Ring of Earth Control: The description specifically mentions that it only lasts a turn, does it not? I'm not exactly hundred percent sure why, but protective spells cast by items only last 1 turn in IR, and I opted to keep it that way.

Bolt of Polymorphing: Still sometimes weird that these effects aren't supposed to be magic resistable when it feels like they very much should be. Confirmed and fixed.

Efreeti Bottle: Can't confirm - summons fine for me. The item is misc3c.itm, uses dvefreet.eff as the summoning effect, and the creature is also dvefreet.cre. Please confirm that it is indeed broken, and if so, confirm the existence of these files (and upload them for me so I can take a look if they all do).

Ras: You are correct. As if using this summonable wasn't annoying enough, huh? Confirmed and fixed.

Thanks!

Arrow of Detonation has its projectile set to 351 ("bdimodag" - whatever that is). I'm not really sure why, since if you're using IR Revised, it should be using 3 ("Arrow Exploding"). Some other mod must be setting it to that, but only a changelog of it might reveal why. Anyways, that would be why it's not blocked. ...Actually, wait a second: I just recalled that I actually made a new projectile just for Arrow of Detonation so that it would correctly apply the missile damage only to the target while applying the fire damage to everyone in the AoE blast, so that's probably what's happening here and why it's seemingly set to a random projectile for me. So I need to remember to fix that, too.

Arrow of Biting is set to the correct projectile. Looking at spwi311, it looks like Protection from Missiles somehow has opcodes defined for the new EE/1pp projectiles...but how? I installed SR on my BG2EE, and those opcodes didn't get added. Any insight into how that might've happened?

6 hours ago, DrAzTiK said:

I have copied  SPWI311 from another instalation with SR revised and pasted it into my override folder.   (and increase duration to 5 turn thanks to near infinty) It looks like it works perfectly.

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.

...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?

7 minutes ago, DrAzTiK said:

yes, I am on BG2EE 2.5. What is the problem exactly ?

 

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).

6 hours ago, DrAzTiK said:

In my current game, I am at underdark and 90% of  enemies mage do have PNM memorized, even liches. So we are not speaking about a random spell...

  All situations are differents : sometimes you face against only one solo enemy mage and it will not be the end of the word to have him unprotected against ranged missiles   because you are ofen going to breach him anyways. (note that a mage casting time stop will waste 3 or 4 rounds of PNM)

Sometimes you have to face multiple mage, you cannot breach them all and in this case, it is important for enemies mage to be protected from missiles.

Also with a short duration (one turn),  enemies mage will not even cast PNM in a prebuff routine (according the options you are choosing in SCS) and all mages will be unprotected against missiles at the begining of the fight.(it is not really worth for an enemy mage to cast PNM during the fight.) 

 

ToB do not sucks !

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?

8 hours ago, DrAzTiK said:

The duration change from 5 turn to 1 turn : It can leads to a big difference in term of gameplay/ difficulty etc... many fights last more than 1 turn, especialy in BG2/ToB.  how you can say that there is not any problems.

Ok the vanilla PNM is weaker but item revision add a lot  of magical ranged weapons  ( returning to the wielder hand, aka free magical projectiles) so it is justice to make PNM also protecting from magical ranged missiles. (to have enemies stand a chance against us)

the SCS version of PNM doesn't protect from magical missiles but is designed to work with another component limiting the number of magical ammunition in the game. 

I prefer the SR approach : making PNM also  protecting  from magical ammunitions and not limiting the number of magical ammuitions. ( I tweak Ribald store to make him selling infinite ammount of magical ammunitions and potions)

But nevermind, it is only my opinon and I can tweak the spell myself but I think  duration should be longer.

 

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?

2 hours ago, harticus33 said:

So I did this, and it got kinda interesting...

Sanctuary, as it is intended, was restored: blue cylinder thing, the right amount of time if immunity. BUT the description is super wacky. The spell in the spellbook now has a period after it, and the description reads: "Nowhere he can help me against such fighters as these."

Weird stuff. I made a copy of the pre-existing SPPR109 so I could put it back in if needed. Not sure how I'll continue. Having a weird spell description takes me out of the experience a bit, but it is nice to have the spell work as intended. 

Does this prove some other mod I have interfered with SR?

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.

10 hours ago, DrAzTiK said:

1- About cause wounds series and slay living :  sorry I didn't speak correctly. I mean that these spells need a successful hit (in melee).  And it is quite difficult for a priest to make a successful hit considerind bad thac0 of priest/ low ApR etc... but considering the amount of damage deal by cause wounds spells, maybe it is better.

Well at least for the cause wounds spells, it would have been consistent to make them similar to the cure wound serie... (aka no need a successful hit.).  The cause wound serie from IWD is  better Imo. ( https://gibberlings3.github.io/Documentation/readmes/scs_iwd_desc_divine.html)

 

2- About PNM : I am still not sure about what  the SCS version of this spell provide so I am going to wait a bit .  But I think it is dangerous to make big modification in comparaison to what enemies mage with SCS script are expecting. At least , enemies mages with SCS expect this spell to be a long duration one.

I remember that SR Mantle, Improved Mantle, and Absolute Immunity were in the past different from the SCS ones and it was a disaster for enemies AI...

 

 

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.

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.

Use the "Remove Disabled Spells from Spell Selection Screen" subcomponent to fix this. That's what it's there for, after all.

8 hours ago, BlackTalons said:

Found a bug that carries over from SR b16: there are extra instances of Mestil's Acid Sheath and Monster Summoning IV at fourth level in the arcane spellbook at character creation. In normal SR its MS II, in SR-R its MS IV. They share the same descriptions as the moded versions. Also, the scroll for Monster Summoning VII has an old icon, diferent than the other MS scrolls.

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?).

3 hours ago, n-ghost said:

There was also some inconsistency involved between him and all sorts of item revisions, as in they tend to replace dummy arrows of his buddy with something lethal.

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?

1 hour ago, AL|EN said:

@Bartimaeus Windows case-insensitive isn't a problem. You simply need to enable ignorecase for git and use decent Git client like: SmartGit/SourceTree:

I really recommend it even if the initial impression regarding interface might be overwhelming.

Thanks! Seems relatively straightforward, actually. Much easier to manage than the web browser client.

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...

35 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

SR's use of 193 allows you to penetrate Improved Invisibility, but not basic invisibility.  TnB covers both - someone with basic invisibility + nondetection in a TnB game could be targeted by a mage who casts See Invisible, but not by the mage's companions.

The code used to achieve that is limited to the EE engine, so I don't recommend that SR do the same thing.  EE players who want the more comprehensive version can just install TnB.

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?

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Well, I think SR's use of 193 could be more comprehensive, but players can get that in Tome & Blood when installed on top of SR, so I don't think SR itself needs to change.

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.

51 minutes ago, AL|EN said:

@Bartimaeus There is a PR with Fix for case sensitive files, fix for https://github.com/BartyMae/IR_Revised/issues/7

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...

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.

45 minutes ago, DavidW said:

Yes, it was a ToBEx feature.

I don't actually know if I'd use the SR method if I started SCS all over again. I'd at least consider it. On the other hand, I'm unsure it makes the logic of spell combat more interesting - on the SCS implementation, invisibility is one of a number of protections that have counters, and counters to the counters; on the SR implementation, it's basically a one-off speedbump. From where we are now, the issue isn't that it would take lots of work to implement - after all, I do implement it if SR is installed - it's that I'm very confident SCS's existing mage-combat system works and is interesting, because I've tested it a lot myself and I have a decade of feedback and iteration from players, whereas a radical change to it could imbalance lots of things. (When I support SR, that's not my problem - I just go with the spell system I'm given - but where my own spell tweaks are concerned, I need to be confident they work well with the AI.)

 

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.

8 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

It just seems so inconsistent to me... why would Breach be able to target semi-invisible characters but not Magic Missile, or Finger of Death?

If a mod were to make semi-invisible targetable by Breach, I would want them to be targetable by any spells, and provide some other benefit in place of being untargetable. Maybe let them be targetable by spells, but allow a saving throw to avoid them, like rogues' Evasion in IWD. 

Hmmm... that would actually be totally doable. Quick, Robin - to tbe bat-cave!

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.

10 hours ago, Relay said:

I cant quite figure out why, but Renal.cre is being corrupted by the Item_Reallocation component. Once his boots are patched all his Item slots and locations are being overwritten, Including Misc4T, the papers to join mae'var's guild. 

Tested on a fresh 2.5 install

Thanks for the heads up, fixed.

On 7/9/2019 at 10:26 AM, Guest Jc2486 said:

Do slings need some buff? Without any apr and str dmg bonus, the damage seems subpar to me.

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.

17 hours ago, grodrigues said:

(A little light-bulb goes on in an otherwise dark skull). I missed the last sentences in Non-Detection description: "Note, however, that specific opponents affected with anti-invisibility spells such as True Seeing will be able to target the recipient with spellcasting through improved invisibility for as long as such anti-invisibility spells are active."

Thanks for setting me on the right path. I really should have read the descriptions with more attention.

I do wonder however why not simply set the flag bypass improved invis on the targeted anti-spell protection spells. Sure sounds easier. And saves a round if you do not prebuff or use sequencers for other things. Whatever.

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.

15 hours ago, amitlath said:

Some digging around on forums got me the answer. The culprit was Solaufein mod. It messes up the triggers.ids file. Applying the fix from the BWS fixpack to that mod solved this and similar problems I was having with other mods.

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!