Bartimaeus

I considered it, but didn't like the inconsistency it would create for items where you'd *need* to start at the 0 due to additional effects (e.g. Flail of Ages).

@Kilgor Can't confirm on a clean ToB + IR install. Spawned SENKEN01.cre via console, CTRL+Y-ed them, there they are on the ground. You may have to changelog SENKEN01.cre.

Their probability is 0-14%, which is 15% (as 0 is the first percentile). You're right on the 3D8 slashing damage, though, so thanks!

@Kilgor Thanks, confirmed. Inherited from base SR, will get a fix on the master git sometime soon.

Sort of related: do you have atweaks' improved fey creatures installed? I have wanted to get to the bottom of the insane sirines in BG1, and I figured it was that component in atweaks that was making their strength and behavior so crazy. Their endless kiting tactics are so ridiculously over the top, I don't think even most players would stoop to the lows they go.

Yes. A large portion of my text work was integrated into base IR a few years ago, in mid-2016, though I've continued to work on it since. It's the only thing I have directly submitted for integration in either IR or SR, so the sniping doesn't even really make sense. It's also why my name is listed under the "contributor" credits in IR, . @DavidW Something to also keep in mind is that SR changed Goodberry to have a duration of only 8 hours (i.e. disappear on rest). Vanilla's last for forever, while SRR's last for a more moderate 24 hours, so the dynamics of creating them and easily using them are a little different for SR users. @Jarno Mikkola Actually, Goodberry is a level 1 spell in SR.

"Who cares?" Me, . I didn't spend many, many hours cleaning up both IR's and SR's language files to be free from inconsistencies and vagueries because I didn't care. If you want to establish an order outside of that, be my guest...but this is SR within the Revisions series of mods, and I'm working within its rules where it has been overwhelmingly consistent to that and where I do not think a quantity of 2 fits. That is all. SR's Cure Wound Spells all have a base heal of XD8 + X per level (where X equals spell level, e.g. Cure Moderate Wounds would be X = 2), maxing out at level 10, regardless of whether X is 1 or 4. So Cure Light Wounds would be 1D8 + 10 at level 10, for an average of 14.5 points of healing. Your Goodberries would be 21 points of healing per cast that does not require mid-combat spellcasting, and can be prepared in advance - however, it is split into three different uses. That's kind of the problem with instant healing here - you want Goodberries to be worth the cast, but you don't really want to have it outshine Cure Light Wounds for mid-combat healing, which is probably why a regeneration-based approach makes more sense (and possibly you actually meant this to be regeneration-based, in which case, those numbers make much more sense).

No problem. As for Insect Plague, Insect Plague should also have to target someone the same as Creeping Doom, so I'll fix that. Thanks!

Virtually nothing in this game comes in two like you are suggesting. Special "per day" abilities on items come in 1 or 3. Goodberry itself historically comes in 5. I would never pick 2 because it doesn't fit - 1, 3, or 5 would, and you already said that 1 removes an interesting mechanic of the spell in having splittable quantities, and 5 is too many because it splits the effects between too many uses. So...3 would seem to be the closest to what you want. Rule of three exists for a reason, after all. I thought this was obvious.

Should go in the IRR thread, . Anyways, it does, but it works oddly. The character with the Blade of Roses must actually be attacking for it to sing. So simply standing around with it out will not be enough. I'm trying to recall why it's like this instead of the always on passive, but I'm struggling to remember...

Uh, okay.

Hi @pebnugget, I'll respond here since you PMed me as well with your new account. I am a little confused by your problem, since the error doesn't really make sense to me. IRR and SRR are definitely compatible with BG2:EE (I tested the current versions of IRR and SRR just last week with both BG1:EE and BG2:EE as a matter of fact), but I must admit that it's difficult for me to troubleshoot MacOS-only problems seeing as I don't have MacOS. Also, please note that IRR and SRR are actually separate branches from the main IR and SR mods - that is to say, the link you gave in your previous post actually leads to base Item Revisions, and you must also download my Item Revisions Revised as well. I realize that this is somewhat confusing, but that's the price I pay for stacking IRR and SRR on top of the original mods. However, I will give you combined archives for you to test to see if you still get the same errors, so you do not have to go through the trouble of combining them: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/6s4ozebczx78bta/IRR and SRR MacOS.zip Let me know if you continue to have that problem, although I'm unsure as to what exactly I can do about it. I'd probably have to ask for help from elseones who are more familiar with MacOS.

It's hard to quantify exactly why, but I absolutely agree. It just feels wrong to me, :P.

They certainly are, .

That's correct, but unfortunately, as I mentioned in the previous post, I'm relatively sure it's either an .exe patch or through ToBEx. I will check now to make sure. Yep, that subcomponent is only available on ToB games, and yep, it's only available through ToBEx. Literally all that component does is REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~Disable Stoneskin Grey Colour=0~ ~Disable Stoneskin Grey Colour=1~ in the ToBEx ini file. Already an option when you install ToBEx, I guess it's if you were too lazy to install ToBEx before installing SCS? Either way, the visual effect is hardcoded to the Stoneskin opcode. So you'd have to enable the ToBEx Disable Stoneskin Grey Colour flag, then you'd have to simulate the grey color through various Stoneskin effects yourself. Which is not impossible...I guess I'd need the exact palette color of Stoneskin to even test adding it to just the mage Stoneskin spell.

Thanks. I think Stoneskin's graphical effect is tied to the stoneskin opcode itself, unfortunately, and can only be removed with an exe patch/ToBEx, and once you do that, there's no opcode to actually bring it back (although maybe you could simulate it with a mass amount of color palette opcodes?). That would've been a good one to do, too. @K4thos: Thanks for the table. I have been working on remedying this problem, but for various reasons, progress has been slow. But I'll get there eventually.

That's been SR behavior for years now, actually. I think the reasoning behind it (since I'm not the one that implemented it, I can only guess here) being that it doesn't break character relationships (since the original style of petrifying booted your characters out of your party, which at least non-EE games used to think of as a relation-ending), doesn't lead to permadeath if their statue gets destroyed (since they remain in the party), and doesn't destroy items like petrification did. I actually am still considering whether to restore classic petrification behavior for non-party members - see here in the "Imprisonment" block.

Regenerate Wounds: At first, I thought it might be because druids aren't actually supposed to have access to the Cure Wounds series of spells in D&D 2.0, but that's not the case. The idea of the Regenerate Wounds series seems to be provide a sort of slow, more naturalistic method of healing for a greater amount but over a long period of time in contrast to the instant necromantic Cure Wounds series. It's an interesting idea, and provides some variety and flavor between the options clerics and druids have...but in practice, I found that it gimped druids to the point where you cannot really have a druid without a cleric in a relatively standard party setup, and I thought that kind of sucked. One thing you sort of raised that I had not considered at all was simply allowing druids (not clerics) to cast both. Some sort of sphere system that gives you greater input on which one(s) you have would also work (which SR doesn't bother at all with given it's working relatively within the confines of the BG2 class and kit system, where a sphere system simply doesn't work). Previously, it was a huge annoyance to me that both Regenerate Wounds and Cure Wounds had the same icons for Ranger-Clerics, but I fixed that with the help of @DreamSlaveOne, so that's a potential solution for allowing the original idea of the Regenerate Wounds series to continue existing, even with a super long duration. Goodberry: I like three better than two - two feels like a really oddball quantity, especially coming from its original five in both vanilla and SR for forever. It feels a little dodgy to have a level 1 spell potentially be better than healing potions, but then I realized Cure Light Wounds already is, so that's kind of a silly thought. If turned into regeneration instead, I suppose you'd want to prevent stacking long term regeneration buffs a la the Regenerate Wound series, so you wouldn't want two Goodberries to stack on one character. How that interacts with healing potions I'm not a hundred percent sure, since I'm not a healing potions kind of guy. On the issue of giving druids an option for quick healing in the face of a lack of the Cure Wound series, one should bear in mind that this is a single level 1 spell, and while increasing the utility of a unique concept spell is desirable, the spell should not be scaling upwards to the point where it could ever possibly be even in the realm of competing with much greater healing spells, and so I don't think it could really ever work as a substitute without buffing it to the point on unreasonability.

I don't disagree that it can be useful as a buff, but it's not good for "I need healing now"-type situations. And the Regeneration series of spells doesn't need to be as good as the Cure series of spells at that specific task, but I think it needs to at least be able to do it at least a small degree...which it can't in non-Revised SR, which makes having a druid without a cleric a troublesome prospect for me. There's also the issue of conceptual overlap with the actual proper 6th (Druid)/7th (Cleric) level Regeneration spell that I don't particularly like. I'm fairly happy with the compromise I made in SRR where each Regeneration spell lasts 5 rounds instead of the several turns like it does in SR - you only have to wait a round or two to at least get a chunk of your HP back before you can get your character back into action, but 5 rounds is also still long enough that you can cast it on someone before they've taken significant damage immediately before sending them to get ground up. Even a flat turn that does not increase with levels (but rather the healing effect over the turn increases with the levels) would be much better for me than what SR currently does - the key is simply making it so I don't have to keep my wounded character hidden away for an entire turn before they've healed enough that I can bring them out again. Since it's a food item, really slow regeneration does probably make sense for Goodberry. Keeping it at five berries conjured per casting, I'd probably make it a base of...say, 2 hit points regenerated total at a rate of 1 hp/round at level 1, with an additional hit point regenerated via an additional round for every two extra experience levels up to a maximum of 10 at 17th level. If you decreased the amount of berries to say...3, however, I'd probably make it more like a base of 3 hit points up to a maximum of 10 at 15th level. That's a bit of an awkward spot mathematically speaking (as you almost want to increase it to a base of 4 hit points, but not quite), but I feel kind of squicky about making it only two berries (which I would probably just up to like 5 hp base at that point).

Yeah, they're not really supposed to be used for quick combat healing, so I would not necessarily be in favor of either ideas in the original post. Regeneration, on the other hand, seems like it might have some merit. You could even make it one berry instead of two or five (the spell, after all, is called Goodberry, not Goodberries) if you were doing regeneration.

@Kilgor With the ini switch for making Dispel Magic penetrate Globes? Thanks for the spot, will fix. @NdranC If it is incompatible, I do not know how - it is a very simple component that adds a few graphical files with unique filenames without too much avenue to go wrong. I discovered the source of the problem for Ray Enfeeblement - it turns out, this particular spell actually has two different spells that both BG1 and BG2 use: SCRL6F and SCRLAI. Nothing to do with EET. I'll guess I'll just make a redundant copy over it. Finally, I also discovered the issue with Zargal and his Whistling Swords. Well, sort of - I fixed it, but I'm not sure why it was necessary, since it hasn't been a problem before. Basically, I had been using "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM sw1h09_", when it needed to be "REMOVE_CRE_ITEM ~sw1h09_~". Normally, the tildes are optional, but I guess if your item has an underscore in it, it's mandatory.

I don't see any conflict between SR and the first, second, and fourth options of that component - Dimension Jump will use the IWD-style animation if you install those. Would not recommend the third option "Use IWD animation for spells, retain BG2 animation for other visuals", since it seems to do the opposite of what it says from what I tested - the arcane spell Dimension Jump will use the BG2-style animation, while Irenicus's scripted teleport in the SoA intro will use the IWD-style animation. Also, Ray of Enfeeblement problem: I think EET makes copies of scrolls for redundancy purposes much the same way it did with Telbar's Armor and the Whistling Sword, so I think that might be the issue. I'll check it out more in depth sometime soon.

@NdranC 1. Alright. 2. Yeah, it's funky, because different damage-increasing opcodes will increase the displayed number, while others don't. Don't think there's much you can do about it besides petitioning the EE developers to patch the opcodes to display correctly, since some simply have different use cases that can't otherwise be replicated. 3. I'll take a *very* close look at it and get to the bottom of it when I next update for the shields thing. Sorry for the annoyance, not entirely sure why it's having trouble with such a simple thing. 4. Hah, yeah. Note that I'm not the one that made it into the fire damage weapon effect - that's normal IR stuff.

@NdranC 1. Ray of Enfeeblement isn't touched by IR - that would be an SR thing. And since SR definitely modifies Ray of Enfeeblement (unless for some reason the file name is different in Enhanced Edition games), you'd best off do a changelog to see what's reverting its description. It should be scrl6f.itm. 2. How are you determining that the extra damaged is not being added? As I recall, a couple of other people have claimed this about these gauntlets before, but it turns out whatever text they were reading for their extra damage was simply incorrect. Try testing out with doing actual fist damage or a club (as they're low damage variance weapons) - record the maximum amount of damage you do with your fists while these are equipped for like 10 hits against a companion, then without - if it's not actually any different, then I'll be surprised and look at it. But I tested it myself a moment ago, and I was doing 5-6 fist damage without, and it immediately went up to 7-8 with. 3. Really? I cannot imagine how that might be, since it's such a simple edit. Does Sendai in BG1 have two copies of Telbar's Armor +2? It's modified in much the same way, so I would expect it to have the same problem. 4. Sorry, what do you mean you "tried to use [it] as an AoE potion"? That's an option? Should be "drinkable" only. Changelog potn13.itm as well, since I just used this in-game myself and it immediately functioned correctly as per its description.

Thanks, David! SR (and not SRR) replaced Blindness with Obscuring Mist. In the spell_rev folder, there is a settings.ini switch I added to SRR (at the request of @Salk!) that's disabled (to keep normal SR behavior as the default) to restore a mildly revised Blindness over Obscuring Mist, and instead leave Obscuring Mist as a druid-only spell. I'm not the biggest fan of stationary spells like Obscuring Mist, Grease, et al., so I personally use it as well.