Bartimaeus

Moment of Prescience is SR's renamed/repurposed Improved Mantle, which uses SCRL9C. SR doesn't add SCRL9C to any new locations, and SCRL9C can't be found from either of Bernard's stores in the vanilla game.

Sorry, I have no idea what this item is, and doing a Google search didn't turn anything up. Might have to do a changelog. Thank you, will fix.

Gauntlets of Parrying: You made sure to check your character sheet (somewhere near the bottom) to look for the specific vs. damage type AC bonuses/penalties before and after equipping the gauntlets? Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise: Someone else once complained about this for the IR Revised thread, and I'm fairly certain the issue is that the the bonus melee damage does actually work regardless of the inventory/character sheet display being incorrect. I believe I tested it out by setting the bonus to 100, seeing that nothing changed, then actually attacked an enemy and they immediately exploded because of the +100 damage.

It's not listed in the SRR description, but if you're playing with SCS, it automatically re-generates those lists and may include erroneous entries SR/R can't control for. I'm also not particularly pleased SCS decides to go by straight alphabetical instead of by level and then alphabetical, but what can you do?

That's what I'm talking about. His dialogue and the journal description specifically say the South of Beregost hobgoblins, so why even allow the Ulcaster hobgoblins to ever drop it? Just replace that one particular South of Beregost hobgoblin with a HOBGOBZH.cre that for sure has BOOT02ZH.itm instead of bothering with this silly scripted nonsense that can change where the boots can drop. It's a pretty bizarre solution.

Yes...I suppose it's out of some desire to not let the player return any old pair of Boots of Stealth but rather specifically Zhurlong's boots. I don't know why BOOT02ZH would ever appear on anybody but the South of Beregost hobgoblins, seeing as that's where Zhurlong specifically mentions losing them, but for sanity's sake, it's better not to question the thought processes behind a number of things that Beamdog has done to these games. Anyways, I think I got confused here: it seems likely that Nadarin dropped BOOT02.itm (boots that grant 40% Move Silently) while the pair you got much earlier in the game are BOOT02ZH.itm (20% Move Silently and 15% Hide in the Shadows). That would make much more sense than anything else that I can think of. Perhaps I should make a tweak to copy BOOT02.itm over BOOT02ZH.itm for consistency's sake? It's not as though their strength or function is much different from each other, and it doesn't seem as though BOOT02ZH.itm has a different description that specifically mentions Zhurlong, so... There's another hobgoblin at Ulcaster that has an additional pair, so I'm usually more than happy to let Zhurlong keep his boots.

BOOT02ZH are an EE creation used for completing Zhurlong's quest that are dropped by one of two Boots of Stealth-wearing hobgoblins out in the wilderness (I think one in Ulcaster Ruins, and another...somewhere else, maybe south of Beregost). From what I understand, it is scripted so that BOOT02 is replaced with BOOT02ZH for the first of those two hobgoblins you happen to run into, while the second one will simply drop BOOT02.itm. Did you run into either of those hobgoblins before now? I think the Quoningar potion quest is added by BG1 Unfinished Business. Should probably look into a text replacement nevertheless.

@NdranC Can you give me a copy of NADARI.cre? Curious to see what item code is in his inventory.

Nadarin (NADARI.CRE) gives Boots of Stealth out as a reward for clearing his basilisk quest (assuming you roll a high reaction). In BG1EE, the item code is BOOT02.itm, which is simply the standard item code that IR/R uses. I just checked an EET game, and it's still BOOT02.itm, so it would seem some other mod has changed the item code to something that is not BOOT02.itm.

No, the effects of potions will remain immune to generic dispelling. Some potions can still be removed by more specific counters (e.g. Breach taking down the various potions of elemental resistance).

Your description sounds about the same as mine, only that I failed to communicate Slow's...er, slow effect being subject to a saving throw. If you want to make it more 'fair', I could modify Haste to require your characters fail a saving throw to apply, . I've taken a look at Potion of Speed, and it specifically gives immunity to the arcane spell Slow. Though the description of Potion of Speed mentions that it cannot be dispelled, when this is said throughout IR/SR, it should mean by way of a generic dispel (e.g. Dispel/Remove Magic, or Carsomyr's Dispelling property), not something like Breach (or in this case, Slow). I've always intended for Potion of Speed to be countered by Slow, so I will be removing that, thanks for reporting it!

Slow/Haste: They both override each other equally. That is to say, a character who is currently affected by Slow who has Haste cast upon them will have the Slow dispelled and the Haste will apply, while a character who is currently affected by Haste who has Slow cast upon them will have the Haste dispelled and the Slow will apply. Though with a caveat that I just noticed: a Hasted character will always have their Haste dispelled by Slow even if they resist the saving throw (or make their magic resistance check!). I'm not sure if that last bit is really intended or not, and I'm not sure what I'd like to do about it. Potion of Speed: Is this IRR's Potion of Speed? It should be treated the same as Haste, I think.

You know, I could swear I've noticed this problem a few times before, but I don't know why I've never fixed it until now. Thanks for bringing it up again.

No, I don't think I ever made any changes there. Don't believe I ever reached a good decision on what exactly I wanted to do.

I would presume because being ethereal at range doesn't make any material difference versus not being ethereal at range, so where would any benefit come from? Dodge, deflect, or block the projectile as per usual.

Yeah, it does look like it's just a generic THAC0 bonus instead of specifically a melee THAC0 bonus, will fix, thanks!

If by "permanent", you mean "for the duration of the spell", then yes. The THAC0 bonus applying to ranged weapons would be an error, though. No changes with regards to the character status names have happened in forever, so one of those is changing them. Not sure which.

Yeah, the player can have a pile of mages in their party, can choose their spellbook memorizations, and heck, even if they choose wrongly, they can just decide to fix it and try again. The AI, on the other hand, gets what it gets, and if it can't dispel a Spell Turning, welp, what is it gonna do? Spell Turning just puts the AI into really tough spots. I wouldn't be surprised if the sticking point that made it necessary to get rid of Spell Turning was the AoE Spell Deflection component though. I said it would leave a gap in a mage's defenses earlier, but actually what happens is that nothing is reflected and AoE spells are simply deflected as if you were using a less powerful Spell Deflection instead. A few fireballs and enemies' Spell Turnings are absorbed without ever having reflected anything. Which...may be better than simply letting them get through, probably, but still not ideal.

as someone who listens to a lot of audiobooks, I have to tell you an AI impression of David Warner is legitimately better to listen to than the majority of actual real human readers for audiobooks, and this may prove incredible if the right companies can license the right voices it's not nearly a perfect impression by any means, but it's still better

Assuming you're using SRR (you are posting in the SRR thread!), it should. Taken straight from the arcane.tra file where descriptions are pulled from during installation: "When this spell is cast, the wizard and all of their gear become insubstantial. As an incorpreal creature, the caster moves silently and cannot be heard or backstabbed, and is vulnerable only to magical attacks of +1 enchantment or better (or by creatures otherwise able to affect those vulnerable only to magical weapons). Non-damaging spell effects affect the caster normally unless they require corporeal targets to function (e.g. Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, Disintegrate, and Implosion) or create a corporeal effect that incorporeal creatures would normally be unaffected by (e.g. Entangle, Grease, and Web). While in wraith form, the caster also has a base AC of 4 and is immune to the effects of disease and poison, but is unable to cast spells. Any melee attack made while in wraith form is considered a melee touch attack (+4 bonus to THAC0), while projectiles become corporeal as soon as they are fired. The transformation lasts for the duration of the spell or until successfully dispelled, but cannot be used in conjunction with other shapeshifting spells such as Polymorph Self and Shapechange. Multiple castings of this spell and Ghostform are not cumulative." A number of spells use similar verbiage, e.g. Phantom Blade: "Strength modifiers do not apply to THAC0 or damage, and attacks with the shadow blade are considered to be melee touch attacks (+4 bonus to THAC0)". If it does not mention it, some other mod has overwritten Wraithform's description. Spell Deflection: Do keep in mind that you can run Minor, normal, and Greater Spell Deflection all at the same time - a Secret Word will only take down one of them. Can't run multiple instances of the same one, though. I just did a fresh install of SRR on a copy of BG2EE. Not sure what's happened in your game that strings have seemingly gotten overwritten. That's pretty funny. Probably won't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things for the poor beholders against that silly shield, but...

I don't know the official reasoning for it on the part of Demigrvs, but I have a few theories: 1. There's no way to have the "Spell Deflection Blocks AoE Spells" component work with it, I think, leaving the AI with a major gap in their defenses if they choose to memorize this instead of Spell Deflection. 2. The AI doesn't typically have all the tools that the player does: if the AI doesn't have an antimagic spell that can dispel it, its only options are to either avoid the affected character (if it has other targets available!) or to continue to cast magic at them and possibly get themselves blown up. Neither of these are great options. 3. AI will presumably choose to blow themselves up if you aren't using SCS AI. 4. It can cause dumb stuff like instantly exhausting the Spell Turning if two casters both have it running. A number of spells give that "melee touch attack" +4 THAC0 bonus, and I have to be honest, I'm not really sure what the rationale behind it is exactly, but it's a convenient excuse for making summoned weapons and miscellaneous spells like Wraithform a little more powerful. On a side-note, I actually didn't know the invisibility state gave a +4 THAC0 bonus. That should really be noted in the description of at least second level Invisibility, where it would seem to be the most relevant. I thought it used the icon of Spell Immunity but actually said "Dispelling Screen".

Unholy Word: From deafness to silence? But...it's Unholy Word! The entire idea is that it's something you hear, . I can see where you're coming from though, the design of this spell is a bit...difficult to balance. Arcane spellcasters shouldn't be quite as affected from it if you have the 'Spell Deflection blocks AoE spells' component installed, though - sure, you can hit them with it once when their spell protections are down, but assuming you're using SCS, you can't just Holy Word right at the beginning of a fight and make a big group of mages all useless. I never really thought about the fact that a mage can vocalize through silence but not deafness. Spellstrike: You know, I couldn't ever really put it into words, but I never really liked the idea of Spellstrike giving spell failure, and I think you just made me realize what it is: there's no counter for it. It doesn't matter how powerful of a spellcaster you are, how high your magic resistance is, or what protections you have running*, a spellcaster is just...straight up disabled with no counter by Spellstrike, and you have to just sit there and take it, and if you're a player that can feasibly cast multiple of them in a row, an enemy spellcaster just has...no recourse whatsoever. That's not really very cool. *Okay, technically, I think Spell Shield will absorb a Spellstrike, but Spell Shield is so easily done away with via a Secret Word that it's barely worth mentioning. I'd actually be more in favor of making Spellstrike kill Spell Shield and the other spell protections as its "unique" factor rather than doing the silly spell failure thing...buuut I'm not sure how SCS AI feels about that. Dispelling Screen: Don't think this one will change, think it would make it way too unattractive. Maybe a simpler tweak would be to reduce its AoE down to 10' radius (size of a Skull Trap) from 15' (Fireball), making it a bit more difficult to effectively use in an already raging battle.

The changelog tool can be found here: https://github.com/InfinityMods/WeiDU-FileChangelog I think so, part of a cleanup of weird/inexplicable duplicates I did at some point. But...sometimes, I feel like I should probably revert ones like this, where it's obviously never intended that you kill Lothander in the first place, where a normal player would never find the duplicate anyways - removing Boots of Speed from him is really just putting a damper on the fun of the more exploity players who just want their cheese.

That SCS doesn't have special behavior specifically for SR installs to account for Dispel Magic being changed to only affect enemies, contrary to the vanilla behavior. It probably doesn't help that that change only happened within the past few years.

To my knowledge, SCS AI doesn't like to cast a ton of spells where there's a high probability of friendly fire, and it would be pretty egregious for it to consider Dispel Magic: if the caster's Dispel Magic hit themselves, it'd be a 50% chance of dispelling all of their own buffs. Unlike mages, priests don't even usually have multiple castings of most buffs, as many of them are supposed to be longer duration AoE single cast spells (plus they don't get Mirror Image or Stoneskin, where there's obviously going to be a good use case for having multiple memorizations). Dispel Magic's initial projectile follows the target until it hits IIRC, so the player could easily abuse the hell out of that with Dispel Magic. Oh, a priest is attempting to dispel my fighter? I'll have them bum-rush the priest before it hits so that it dispels them too!