Bartimaeus

That makes a sort of sense, but then I'd be tempted to also change it for throwing axes and hammers and maybe darts, because the mechanisms of those types of missiles are not really the same as an arrow or a bolt either (and for that matter, I'm sure someone could make an argument that there can be a bit of a difference between a crossbow and a bow, too - in my mind, crossbows are the most like a gun, being used for mostly point-and-shoot straight-shooting, and fit what a "missile" type of damage should be, while bows are a little more flexible in terms of using gravity and parabolic arcs to rain death from above...though that type of arrow shooting isn't particularly relevant to Baldur's Gate gameplay). And while you could start doing that, I think I'd prefer to just let the original design stay the original design, as I'm not into making an arbitrary choices about what constitutes as "missile damage" and what doesn't. I feel things are "missile damage" just because they're a missile - simply a distinction between melee and ranged weapons. And if a bullet, or throwing axe et. al. is not missile damage, do you prevent Protection from Missiles from protecting against them? I don't want to have to think about this more than the original devs probably did, . (e): words

Yep, almost all even semi-modern ones as far as I'm aware. There may be (and probably are) exceptions that I'm unaware of, though.

Thanks for the fixes! I posted about a bug back in v6 that I just checked the patch notes for in the v7 and v8 changelogs but see no notice of, so I'm wondering if it ever actually got fixed or if it just got forgotten. ToB-Style NPCs breaking Imoen in BGT games.

Yeah, I hate .exes even on Windows - luckily, they're usually openable directly by 7zip.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the same must happen in non-Revised games, since SRR does not touch kreso_ee.tph at all. You suggest using opcode 318, but that would crash non-EE games. I'm just gonna have to go on a case-by-case basis here, I think, which isn't ideal, since it means I have to look through all the spells. And thanks @ Storm Shield. V1.0.9 released: Storm Shield (both druids' and Priest of Talos') should now properly block against insect spells again. I'd added the new Death Knight icon to the arcane version of Summon Death Knight, but forgot to for the divine version - now fixed. Vampiric Touch's secondary effect (that grants a maximum HP bonus) was self-immunizing against an old version of its filename (and therefore not working). Protection from Evil spells were not self-immunizing against Magic Circle Against Evil. A number of spells have improved or simply added support with Kreso's "update instance of spell" code for EE games (related to the function Relay described above that was accidentally deleting Fire Shield's protection against insects), including: Bless, various Protections from Evil, the Regeneration series of spells, Draw Upon Holy Might, Magic Resistance, the three different types of Mage Armor spells, Expeditious Retreat, Reflected Image, Wraithform, Vampiric Touch, Fire Shield, Mestil's Acid Sheath, Minor Globe of Invulnerability, and Larloch's Energy Drain. To eventually do: the Hastes(?) and Storm Shield (harder because of all of their self-immunities).

It's a "problem" with the latest version of SR, beta 16. MS9 was disabled in favor of re-enabling Gate again, mainly because MS9 needed a total redesign.

V1.0.8 released: Dispel Magic now correctly says "any creatures" instead of "any enemies". Polymorph Other now correctly states "no penalty" instead of a "+2 bonus" for creatures 11-15 HD. Harper's Call now applies its stat penalty to Jaheira instead of the raised character (I did figure out what was going on, but ultimately it's more trouble than it's worth, and also I thought wouldn't any party member with less than 6 points in any given stat be instantly killed upon being revived with no way to avoid it, whereas Jaheira should always have the stats for this unless you cast it too many times at once...and with that in mind, the stat penalty has been decreased from 5 to 3). Various anti-magic attacks no longer mention being able to dispel Dispelling Screen when they shouldn't be able to. Larloch's Energy Drain no longer grants +30 maximum HP, but instead +20 (which is what it is in regular SR - the idea being that you get 5 per level drain) but also immediately heals 30 hit points on top of that. Still not ideal, but each level drain instead giving 6 HP was annoying me. A few spells have their own unique icons courtesy of @DreamSlaveOne and @Pacek's work that never got implemented - specifically, Dimension Step, Summon Death Knight, and the Regeneration series of spells (no more re-using the Cure series, which was a bit of a problem if you were running a Cleric-Druid). subtledoctor's updated spellbook fixer is disabled in favor of my original one (which is perfectly functional as far as I know, if a bit clunky to mod). Prismatic Mantle's range has been fixed to 5 instead of 1000. When the enchanted_weapon settings.ini switch is set to 0 on EE games, the description and stuff is still updated to the proper SR format now. Confirmed that the dispel_globe settings.ini switch is working as intended when set to 0 (i.e. M/Globe of Invulnerability makes you immune to Dispel and Remove Magic). Reviewed innate abilities and confirmed that spell-like abilities such as the Bhaalspawn powers should have their power levels set for the most part...but then discovered that @Relay's report was about a non-SR spell, since both the innate version of Vampiric Touch and Larloch's Minor Drain already have their power levels. Poison's power levels on its initial damage are fixed (can no longer pierce Spell Deflections/Globe of Invulnerability). Call Woodland Beings' Hamadryad and Nymph's spellbooks fixed. Nymph no longer has two Entangles but instead has two Dooms (too many Entangles is more annoying than helpful, I find), while Hamadryad's wasn't at all what it was supposed to be, and is now (albeit a little revised). Will update post and thread title when actually fully released. (edit): Now live. One thing I'm still looking out for, if anyone wants to bother, is where some additional scrolls might be placed in BG1 (and possibly BG2, but mostly BG1). Specifically Detect Alignment, Friends, and Wraithform.

Polymorph Other is supposed to say no penalty for 11-15HD, not a +2 bonus. I was pretty sure I thoroughly tested Harper's Call, but I'll give it another look at before updating to 1.0.8 to make sure. Incorrect spells: You're quite right - but it's not my fault this time! When SR was updated to b16, @subtledoctor took my expansion of the "Update NPC Spellbooks" subcomponent and changed it in a number of ways to effectively make it more modular and easy to handle, and when b16 was released, I just integrated it into SRR and assumed it was working without actually testing it. Unfortunately, I just tested SR b16 without SRR on a clean install of BG2EE, and it looks like the Update NPC Spellbooks component is broken now and literally does not modify a single file from what I'm able to tell. Uh, so that's not exactly ideal. I'm gonna revert it back to my version of the subcomponent that I tested to make sure actually works (and confirmed again right now) until subtledoctor can take a look at it and figure out what happened. But that's unfortunate that the official b16's version of that subcomponent no longer works at all now (and also that I can't easily figure out why it doesn't work). (e): It has been reverted now.

Right, thanks for testing, and also cool, so I guess that means custom ranges can be defined for that sort of triggered effect - good to know. Yeah, that *should* already have been fixed with SRR, but I think I recently copy+pasted a description edit that affected both Dispel Magic and Remove Magic that overwrote the text difference like a big ol' dummy. Thank for you the spot. As for it dispelling potions...yeah, that's currently in a little bit of flux - Kreso was going to make it so potions could be dispelled, though I was personally against it. Good spot as well, though.

1. Not correct, thanks! 2. Shouldn't make a difference, if I'm not mistaken (the range on the applied spell should not affect the range at which it actually kicks in...at least, I don't think). 3. I think so, yeah. I'll be updating to 1.0.8 with a few fixes as soon as I have access to some Regeneration icons that were supposed to be implemented years back but never were courtesy of DreamSlaveOne (and Pacek).

Yeah, that's kind of what I figured. In an unmodded game, SPIN977 applies a -4 penalty for 45 seconds every time it's cast...so if stone golems actually cast it every round, or if SCS or some other mod is making it cast it every round, you'll have a THAC0 penalty of 24 after seven rounds of fighting. Brutal.

I think dragons are a little weak even with the HP increase (mainly because they always fight alone and have limited spellcasting abilities outside of their special dragon breaths), but of course, it's somewhat determined by your play style and party setup.

From SRR specifically? No, but it could come from SR as a whole. I need more context, though - is one casting of Golem Slow causing massive THAC0 loss, or multiple? Golem Slow does not protect against itself (with or without SRR), so yeah, it will stack if cast multiple times...but if it's causing characters to lose more than a few points of THAC0 with only one cast, then that's probably worth investigating.

@DavidW 1. OGREGRSU 2. Let me just reinstall SCS real quick here again (yes, I do wish I had had the forethought to look before wiping, especially because I should've)...looks like it gets assigned DW#SUMEI to override script. 3. SPCL321

Dryad's spells appear to be correct, while yeah, something's up with Hamadryads, will fix (looking at non-Revised SR's Hamadryad, it appears to be an inherited issue). Ogre Berserkers do correctly use their Berserk ability in combat (confirmed with a clean install with just SRR), except when you install some unknown component of SCS (confirmed with installing SCS after a clean install of SRR). Not sure why SCS is affecting that, since I think @DavidW has previously said that mod-added scripts are usually left untouched. Danged thing. The Ogre Berserker has every script entry blank except for its default script, which is set to dvbrsker - really shouldn't be affected by SCS.

From what I tested with both SRR and SCS installed, what you said about Tolgerias/other regular casters (I tested both him and Karun) is not true. Once he casts True Seeing, if you put up invisibility and Non-Detection again, he just sits there and does nothing until you break your invisibility again (presuming he has no other targets, of course). It seemed like their scripts respected the Non-Detection + Invisibility combo where fiends and Firkraag (what I tested) did not, even with True Seeing currently active. Perhaps you have different test results, though?

Yeah, I don't think Relay has contradicted me at any point - we're just adding on to each other explanations. Some specific creature types like fiends and dragons are special and can always see through any kind of invisibility, regular, improved, with or without Non-Detection - it doesn't matter. But for non-special creature types (i.e. players, other demi-human creatures, and most regular monster types), the rules should be pretty consistent between everybody. If Tolgerias wants to target your Non-Detection + Improved Invisibility character with single-target spellcasting, he'll need to wait for you to reveal yourself (as anti-invisibility spells like True Seeing can't dispel the standard invisibility effect when protected by Non-Detection), then he'll be able to cast True Seeing to target you through the improved invisibility effect with single-target spells. A SCS quirk is that once your character has revealed themselves, he'll actually try to dispel your Non-Detection with antimagic attacks like Secret Word first BEFORE casting True Seeing, but the result is pretty similar to what the player has to do, just slightly out of order (actually, if anything, the player has the advantage, because the player can simply wait for a spellcaster like Tolgerias to cancel their standard invisibility by attacking you, then you can cast True Seeing without bothering to dispel the Non-Detection and you can start directly targeting him with other single target spells). Obviously, it'd be nice if it was the other way around, but it's not really a huge deal. Creatures like fiends don't have to do any of that crap because they always see through invisibility literally all of the time, and that's probably for the best.

2. I think you're right in that SCS can (or at least did, as of previous versions) have certain types of creatures somehow force-target invisible creatures. I can't really do anything about that no matter what I change, though - SCS would be forcing that regardless of whether you have SR installed or not. I also am not sure if it's even incorrect behavior, because some types of creatures have psychic powers that can detect invisible creatures via other means than sight like Non-Detection protects against, so it makes sense. The thing I wanted to know is whether a standard mage e.g. Tolgerias or Karun cheats or not, and from my testing, they do not, though they do have the slight problem of them being able to cast anti-magic attacks like Secret Word through improved invisibility (but not regular invisibility) before they their scripting tells them to then cast True Seeing, rather than the other way around. It's not a huge deal, since they still have to cast both, but it is reversed from how a player has to do it. And if your Non-Detection hasn't dispelled and you put standard invisibility back up even if their True Seeing is still going, they can't detect you again, which is correct. 3. Right on.

Probably already mentioned, and it's a minor thing, but the "fine-tune settings" ability's icon looks pretty messed up.

Uh...I would suggest just reinstalling your game if necessary - a brand new computer would be super overkill, :P.

Bizarre. I would suggest creating a new game and typing CLUAConsole:MoveToArea("AR1100") into console (google how to enable if necessary) and then looking around to see if that's the case in a brand new save game. Hard for me to troubleshoot your exact setup.

I'm fairly certain that SR does not touch Valygar or his ranger friends. So just to be clear, when you walked up the stone stairs by the mimic cave, there was no ranger confrontation? And then when you went into Valygar's cabin and opened the bedroom door, Valygar was not in there? ~SPELL_REV/SETUP-SPELL_REV.TP2~ #0 #0 // Spell Revisions: v4 Beta 16 (Revised V1.0.7) That's my weidu.log that I just tested with by jumping to AR1100 (Umar Hills) and seeing everything was correct - what's yours? @Jarno: I just tested with creating a fresh SoA game and immediately CLUAing to the Umar Hills, and Valygar and his pals are still there, so it should be unnecessary?

1. I would think the Thief's Detect Illusions ability is hardcoded to be how it is. Definitely not my area of expertise, but that's my guess. 2. But that's the thing - Non-Detection *does* foil detection by True Seeing et. al. The tl;dr version: invisibility/stealth and improved invisibility are two distinct statuses, and Non-Detection fully protects the invisibility status, but it only partially protects the improved invisibility status. Just to be clear, there are two different invisibility statuses that are are applied and can be dispelled differently but often overlap: A. Standard invisibility that makes it so that nobody can see the invisible character until either dispelled or the affected character does some sort of hostile action (granted by stealth mode and all invisibility spells, including better spells like Improved Invisibility et. al.). B. Improved invisibility that that creates a semi-transparent mode even after you've engaged in some sort of hostile action that makes it so opponents cannot target the improved invisible character with spells (not granted by Invisibility but by better spells like Improved Invisibility et. al.). Non-Detection fully protects status A, but not status B. As an example, if you cast Non-Detection upon yourself, then go into a Ranger's/Thief's stealth mode or cast Invisibility, then walk into a pile of wizards and priests casting True Seeing and Oracle and what have you, you will not be detected. The key difference is simply with improved invisibility - if you or an enemy are affected by both Non-Detection and improved invisibility (granted by Improved Invisibility, Shadow Door, Mass Invisibility, and Pixie Dust, etc.) and an opponent casts something like True Seeing, the improved invisibility status will not prevent that specific caster from casting other spells targeting the improved invisibility character...but it will not actually dispel either invisibility or the improved invisibility status. This has two practical functions: 1. If you, the improved invisible character, are also standard invisible (i.e. have not engaged in hostile action or otherwise been detected), you will continue to be invisible to them even if they have cast Oracle or True Seeing; and 2. Only the one character with a spell like True Seeing active will be able to target the improved invisibility character even after they're engaged in hostile action - no-one else will be able to, including even allies in the party. I just tested all of this to make sure my understanding of how Non-Detection works is correct, and it was as far as I could tell. I rewrote the descriptions of True Seeing, Invisibility Purge, and Detect Invisibility to mention this, but perhaps Non-Detection should explain it in further detail as well. And of course, as both you and Relay pointed out, Non-Detection also makes it so Oracle and True Seeing do not dispel other types of illusory protections such as Mirror Image. Improved invisibility would be completely game-breaking for both players and the AI if there was no way to at least partially break it - we'd have to go back to anti-magic attacks always being able to pierce improved invisibility without it, which people seem to regard as the inferior solution. 3. There are four categories of protections: A. Spell protections: spells that protect wholesale against generic magic attacks, e.g. Spell Deflection, Globe of Invulnerability. B. Combat protections: spells that protect against generic physical attacks, e.g. Mage Armor, Barkskin, Stoneskin, Protection from Magical Weapons. C. Specific protections: spells that protect against a very particular type of attack or status type, e.g. Death Ward, Resist Fear, Protection from x Element. D. Illusory protections: spells that use illusions to prevent detection or misdirect/make attacks miss, e.g. Invisibility, Improved Invisibility. For your protections, countermeasures, and foils idea, it would probably indeed be helpful, but how exactly would you express it? You pointed out yourself that Non-Detection is only a partial foil for True Seeing. I don't exactly want to have to exhaustively describe every single situation in every spell as to what protects against and counters and foils what, and because some stuff is only partial, you can't really provide a standardized list either (as it would be incorrect to simply state that Non-Detection foils True Seeing in the same breadth as stating it foils Oracle, as it completely foils the latter but not the former). Anti-magic attacks like Breach and Secret Word already list exactly what they dispel, but they're the only ones that do, and it makes sense to do so since they're pretty black-and-white situations.

Looking at its effects, it should remove Stun (opcode 45), Hold I (opcode 109), and Hold II (opcode 175). Both clerics' and mages' Hold Person use Hold Person II (opcode 175), so it SHOULD work. Using a fresh install of SRR with no other mods, I cast priests' Hold Person on a created Hobgoblin (HOBGOB01) and successfully hold him, then add it to party and cast Remove Paralysis, and he is free to move. What was your process?

SRR is based off of b16 (with some of the proposed V4 Final changes as well), but works just fine with b15 as well. Animate Dead: Usable by all all priests (it's like the one mid-level cleric summoning spell - would be pretty broken if it was missing for good clerics). Insect Spells and Fire Shield: It was supposed to already be like this, but a bug I identified a long while back prevented it from working as intended, which is why it's mentioned as now actually being implemented for b16 (and was already implemented for SRR). Maze/Imprisonment: I think Subtledoctor has floated the idea of making Freedom also a buff that creates an area-wide anti-Imprisonment/Maze effect or something like that, but without feedback from others, nothing happened (ALSO, Freedom is a level 9 spell, which makes it an ineffective way of protecting against Imprisonment since you don't have access to it for a long time). I personally kind of hate Imprisonment, so I'm in favor of allowing some way to resist it (-6 saving throw?, Freedom or Mind Blank protecting against it, I don't know - just something), but it's not currently there. Improved Invisibility: I could be wrong, but I THINK Non-Detection protects against the anti-invisibility part of spells like True Seeing, but what it does not do is protect against the anti-improved invisibility part of spells like True Seeing (and keep in mind that it's only effective for the caster using the anti-invisibility buff in cases like that). In other words, I believe you can use Non-Detection to avoid outright detection, but once you choose to reveal yourself, you're more vulnerable to casters using stuff like True Seeing. Spell Shield and Dispelling Screen: Spell Shield protects a single usage of anti-magic attacks like Secret Word and Ruby Ray of Reversal (and only for the caster), while Dispelling Screen is an AoE buff that applies to the entire party that prevents one Dispel?Remove Magic or one Breach. Spell protection spells like Spell Deflection are not affected by Dispel/Remove Magic, period, no matter what (at the end of every Spell Deflection-like spell reads this message: "This spell will not protect the caster from a dispel magic, but it will not be affected by a dispel magic, either."), but yes, Carsomyr would dispel Dispelling Screen and make it so that subsequent Dispel Magics have the chance of being effective. As for Pierce Shield that dispels one spell protection and also breaches combat protections, I could be wrong and somebody could correct me if I am, but I think the breaching part of the spell would not occur if protected by Spell Shield. Other Spells: You're probably best just looking at the arcane.tra and divine.tra files in spell_rev/languages/english (the mod folder that you download and install from) with a text editor if you want to read every detail of every spell, .