Bartimaeus

2 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Yeah ... but why then not +4 to ranged attack, too? Maybe the answer is already in your post but I just fail to see it.

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.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:47 AM, pochesun said:

@Bartimaeus have you managed top check Wraithform? I think it grants +4 bonus to Thac0 for projectiles also. Is it supposed to be this way or its a bug?

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

10 hours ago, pochesun said:

Still the bonus Thac0 +4 remains permanent and i assume also applies to projectile attacks (like darst, for instance), though description says "any melee attack..." Is it supposed to be this way?

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.

10 hours ago, pochesun said:

Regarding status: Last time i fresh installed BG with mods was 2 months ago, maybe something changed since then or some additions were made to mastery version. I only use Tweaks Anthology (nothing relating to spells, just some charachters different locations and maxed HP), SRR, IRR and SCS, nothing else. On my installation its says "Spell Immunity". I dunno, i will check it again when i fresh instlal  the mods again and tell you if it gets fixed.

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

3 hours ago, pochesun said:

The odd thing to me that Wraithform spell description does not mention any bonuses to Thac0 so i guess it should be mentioned so it wont be misleading  

I guess i framed it poorly also, let me rephrase it: what i meant was that a hidden or invisible creature performs any melee attack that creature receives +4 Thac0 bonus to that attack (only to that attack). Obviously if a creature remains hidden or invisible all other attacks will be performed by that creature with + 4Thac0 bonus also. But, as far as i know, this bonus +4 Thac0 is not a permanent state by any means. SO i assumed since Wraithform kinda (sort of) turns a mage into a creature without any discernable form then this mage can get similar +4 bonus to attack while being in this form - that i can understand. The thing that i failed to understand was why that + 4 bonus to Thac0 is permanent (state like effect). Thats why i think this should be mentioned in description to avoid misunderstandings.

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.

3 hours ago, pochesun said:

Forgot to add. The game uses the same icon: icons of Sepll Immunity (from original game) and Dispelling Screen are identical. Its just that in my current game i have a status (at charachter information page) that says "spell Immunity" instead of "Dispelling screen".

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.

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

Incidentally, patch 2.6 changed this behavior. Now, turning effects can only bounce a spell twice. If a vanilla Elder Orb casts Minor Spell Turning and follows up with a Cause Serious Wounds ray against a PC with the Shield of Balduran equipped, that ray will bounce off the shield back to the beholder, bounce off the MST (exhausting it) back to the PC, and hit the PC for 17 points of magic damage.

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...

17 hours ago, pochesun said:

Also, i wanted to ask why Spell Turning was removed from the game by SR? Seems like very fun spell to play with.

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.

17 hours ago, pochesun said:

Also wanted to ask why Wraithform spell grants +4 bonus to Thac0 while active. I presume because it turns caster into incorporeal form which is akin to invisible (maybe) and every attack from invisibility is performed with 4 bonus to Thac0 and since Wraithform is a state effect it also gives the same "attack from invisibility" state effect? Am i wrong about it ?  

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.

17 hours ago, pochesun said:

I just noticed that Dispelling Screen imparts "spell immunity" status in charachter information screen (where all stats are and all). I presume, it happens because Dispelling Screen spell was introduced instead of Spell Immunity spell. Not sure if its important at all  Maybe it should be this way.

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.

On 4/15/2023 at 11:01 AM, NdranC said:

I just checked and this seems to be an issue in the base EET install (technically it has bg1 unfinished business, ascension, rr, transitions and bg1npc), maybe even base BGEE although I didn't check. What was the weidu command to search for all the mods that have modified a specific file?

The changelog tool can be found here: https://github.com/InfinityMods/WeiDU-FileChangelog

18 hours ago, NdranC said:

Does IR or IRR remove Lothander's boots of speed? I can't remember is this was the case last time I played but I killed him after he gave me the antidote like I remember doing and he didn't drop them.

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.

3 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Right! Sorry to have missed your answer. But here's my confusion: SR makes priest's DM into a RM, too. Which does away with the described abuse. What am I missing here?

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.

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Good catch

Would you know why SCS creators decided so?

On 4/19/2023 at 11:25 AM, Bartimaeus said:

Dispel Magic is supposed to target both enemies and friendlies while Remove Magic only targets enemies; the AI (and SCS) are not so foolish as to try to cast Dispel Magic and possibly dispel its own buffs, which is also why SCS doesn't let divine casters cast Dispel Magic (and if the message log says SCS is having its mages cast Dispel Magic, it's actually Remove Magic)

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!

7 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Is this spell just blocked from their books? What else can they then cast to dispel? They don't have other spells that arcane casters do.

It's less "blocked from their books", more "never memorized". They don't have/use anything for dispelling, it's left for mages to do with Remove Magic.

On 4/19/2023 at 9:22 AM, FixTesteR said:

Thanks! So I'd only have to be consistent myself when using divine DM of my divine party members. Good. I'll copy both files, and only in spell_rev folder, even though SR only has one of these spells.

Thank you for all your work and contributions!

EDIT: Never knew SCS doesn't use divine DM, not even SCS divine casters.

My understanding is that SR only allows the player to use SPWI326.spl (Dispel Magic) but the AI continues to use SPWI302 (Remove Magic). I don't know if it currently works this way in the latest version of SR, but Dispel Magic is supposed to target both enemies and friendlies while Remove Magic only targets enemies; the AI (and SCS) are not so foolish as to try to cast Dispel Magic and possibly dispel its own buffs, which is also why SCS doesn't let divine casters cast Dispel Magic (and if the message log says SCS is having its mages cast Dispel Magic, it's actually Remove Magic).

SRR has both Dispel Magic and Remove Magic enabled for the player, but changes Remove Magic's projectile size from a 15' radius (same size as a Fireball) to a 10' radius (Skull Trap) while leaving Dispel Magic at the larger 15' size. This makes SCS' spam of Remove Magic slightly less insane while also reducing its potential power for the player as well, obviously...and giving some kind of benefit to using Dispel Magic instead, though I imagine most people still prefer Remove Magic because of its ease of use.

9 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

In general, meaning even when I do a clean vanilla install and before I install SCS, you wouldn't recommend me putting them in the override folder?

If trying to fit that special SRR Remove Magic into normal SR, I think the best way to approach it would be to replace both SPWI302.spl and SPWI326.spl in spell_rev\spwi3## folder with your spwi302.save.spl before installing SR. It still wouldn't update the description, but it would result in both the player and AI having access to and using that Remove Magic. It wouldn't change how the divine or Inquisitor Dispel Magic work though, but SCS AI doesn't use those.

4 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

Thanks to both of you @subtledoctor and @Bartimaeus!

Would I have to find other folders where these spells are? I take it you see a problem because spells could be duplicated in other folders, and not a problem due to SCS not being able to handle a modified DM in game.

Also, since SR only has DM, do I just modify RM?

Does your version of DM/RM dispel ALL of status effects if it isn't saved against? Or does ST have to be made for every effect you have on your person?

Lastly, I take it this file swap should be done on a clean install. Right? Not mid-game, and possibly not when starting a new game on an old install? Or ... what if I make a backup like you said, overwrite the files, try if the game works, and if not, revert back. Everything should work then, yes?

The issue with SCS is basically...
A. SCS will often duplicate spell resources as they currently exist to other names/resources.
B. SCS will then use the duplicate spells for special uses.
C. Any updates to those spells after SCS has been installed will not be effective - you would've had to make those changes before SCS was installed so that the changes could be applied to the duplicated resources.

Honestly, between SCS and both Dispel Magic/Remove Magic existing in SRR but not SR, putting those .spls in your override is kind of just a bad idea in general.

6 hours ago, FixTesteR said:

But would that be hard for me as a lay person to fix for SR? In my next playthrough I might give SRR a chance. Dm just overshadows all other dispel options, which sucks.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/93jimnb7nqmnm0b/spwi302.save.spl

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/7zu2a2wgkf4b222/spwi326.save.spl

Remove the ".save" from both filenames and place it in your override and both Dispel Magic and Remove Magic will work that way instead. The descriptions of those spells will be busted, but the spells should work. Maybe make a backup of spwi302.spl and spwi326.spl first.

(e): I don't know that this will work if you currently use SCS though, because SCS does a lot of spell duplication for use with its AI. So I definitely do not make any guarantees of this working here.

Just now, morpheus562 said:

I don't think it is cutting off my nose in the slightest to state consensus wasn't reached. Either it was developer intent like the other HLAs or it was a bug like the other HLAs. I do not think any fixpack change should be piecemeal with the HLAs, and they should be adjusted holistically. I agree that Assassination is a more egregious example, but it should be treated as the others.

That's fine, just that...one person disagreeing with everyone else is probably a lot closer to consensus than you seemed to imply in your initial reply.

1 hour ago, morpheus562 said:

This consensus was not reached for Assassination. Either it is dispellable like the other items mentioned, or it was intentional like the other items mentioned. You are welcome to rehash in the main thread, but consensus was not reached.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually believe you are the only one that maintained that particular position. Even subtledoctor said that Assassination should be corrected given that there is absolutely no mechanical basis of any kind for it to be considered a combat protection, unlike the others - even though he still agreed with you that those others should be changed as well. Let's not cut off our noses, shall we?

12 minutes ago, FixTesteR said:

I tried finding readme for SRR but after a few minutes I decided I'll just ask you. DM and RM in SRR don't work by underlevel/overlevel percentage bonuses, but rather, ST penalties are implemented? Is that explained in more detail anywhere? I also really hate original/SR Dispel Magic. If only SR came with a possibility to tweak this one spell. And maybe MGoI and GoI like you have it in SRR. Thanks for your answers.

It's an optional tweak in settings.ini. Here's what the SRR readme says:

alternative_dispel_magic (default 0)
When set to 1, Dispel Magic (arcane, divine, Inquisitor's, and Yeslick's) no longer uses the caster level vs. target level mechanics as per vanilla, but instead a simple saving throw that scales with level (-1 for every 5 levels of the caster, up to a maximum of -4 at 20th level). When set to 0, the vanilla dispelling mechanics are used. When set to 2, Dispel Magic becomes a sort of lesser Breach AoE effect - one combat and one specific protection are removed from each creature, growing to two of each at 10th level, then three of each at 15th level.

alternative_remove_magic (default 0)
Identical to the component above, but instead applies to the Remove Magic.

27 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I don't know that vampire encounters without NPP are unmanageably difficult; I like the idea that my tank soaks up some level drains and is left weaker after the encounter.

I was really thinking more when you run into venerated and ancient vampires, the few Bodhi fights (especially if you install the improved Bodhi from SCS...), and maybe a couple of others. No saving throw level draining in those more difficult encounters are...well, certainly quite difficult without any Negative Plane Protection, and I'd say those fights are very likely to last longer than 5 rounds. I have memories of running into those super vampires in Firkraag's lair at like level 9 or 10 and having a very bad time. The more random vampire encounters with generic vampires are obviously not nearly so big a deal.

I'm all for making changes to how both level draining and petrification work, but...it's not something you can assume that other players will want/use, so you kind of have to make do with what you assume the majority of players will have installed.

6 hours ago, polytope said:

Negative Plane Protection (it had such a short duration for a good reason) stand out in this respect

Man, I had no memory of NPP being only 5 rounds in vanilla. But...it's kind of the same old Protection from Petrification problem, really: without its protection, the relevant encounters become unmanageably difficult; with its protection, those encounters get a bit trivialized. Make the protection too short and...what, the player fills up their entire 4th level spellbooks with only Negative Plane Protection when they have a difficult series of vampire encounters? Or worse, they just rest in between every battle so they have their spell slots again? Ugh. Level draining and petrification as currently designed in the official games are two really annoying mechanics that don't leave a lot of operating room to avert besides these stupid "I win" spells. Probably a good idea to use subtledoctor's "level draining has a saving throw" component.

Are the spells you've pointed to with the 2DA named? I changed the Spell Immunity 2DA in both oBG2 and BG2EE to point to SPWI101, and in both games, it showed the Grease spellbook icon and displayed "Grease" when I hovered my mouse over the option - no other modifications necessary.

@NdranC

My own bias speaking here, I personally don't really love the majority of stationary spells (e.g. Cloudkill) compared to instant effect spells, so for me, it's really a no brainer to use Spell Deflection Blocks AoE Spells. Might as well give those stationary spells that unique advantage to make them more attractive options for myself - certainly can't hurt them.

Dispel Magic: Well, you can make it so Globes of Invulnerability completely protect against it via the dispel_globes option, you can make Spell Protections protect against them as if they were any other hostile spell via the spell_protections option, and there are also the two alternative Dispel Magic options via the alternative_dispel/remove_magic options. For myself, I leave dispel_globes at 1 (globes can't be dispelled but don't protect against dispelling either), spell_protections at 0 (dispels go through spell protections), but change alternative_remove_magic to 1 (scaling saving throw Remove Magic). I feel like that gives the optimal amount of power to Remove Magic as used by SCS while making it a bit less insane - there's no blanket immunity to it, but even if a lich casts it at you, a -4 saving throw is by no means insurmountable for the player. Combined with a Dispelling Screen, and some of your characters might be able to make it through even a 3x Remove Magic sequencer. Plus, it makes it so that the player can also use it against higher level enemies and have it succeed some percentage of the time, as opposed to typically no percentage of the time as it generally is with the ridiculous level/percentage-based system. What a cloddy idea that whole thing was.

10 hours ago, NdranC said:

Does IR or IRR change the icon for the "Gold Digger" sword? I noticed the icon in my install seems to be cropped wrong

Is this BG1EE or BG2EE?

(e): Don't think it matters, IRR doesn't touch the Gold Digger's icon as far as I can tell. Does doing a file search for "isw2h22.bam" in your entire game directory turn up any results? Interesting thing about BG2EE is that icons are always auto-sized and auto-aligned purely based on the dimensions of the image, which...can be helpful but also an issue. In the original games, icons were never auto-sized and always had to be manually aligned using offsets, but BG2EE ignores these values. A number of EE icons are mis-sized or misaligned because of this feature with Beamdog never noticing or bothering to fix the issue. Look at all them baby icons!

...But I don't know the issue with Gold Digger here, I installed IRR on BG2EE just to make sure and it seems fine.

35 minutes ago, WanderingScholar said:

I'm currently making my way through a SCS SRR+IRR install on BGT. I can confirm that those bonuses, at least with my mods, are indeed being applied.

I probably didn't speak clearly enough: what I meant is that I didn't want the text of those item/spell descriptions to reflect those bonuses, not that I didn't want those bonuses to actually be applied. You know, a hobgoblin might have 16 base HP, which is what the spell description says, but if their constitution happens to give them a bonus to that base HP, it doesn't get listed in the spell description...but it could still apply. Mind you, I didn't love this approach either, because certain bonuses can become...difficult to estimate (your example of a pit fiend having 24 strength is a good one: the player might not remember offhandedly that 24 strength gives a whopping +12 damage and +6 THAC0 with the standard strength bonus table) but I figured it would be better to let players who have played this game for 20 years to be able to roughly estimate rather than force my own calculations that won't be right across different most game and mod installs.

35 minutes ago, WanderingScholar said:

I'm currently making my way through a SCS SRR+IRR install on BGT. I can confirm that those bonuses, at least with my mods, are indeed being applied. Furthermore, the increased hit point components from SCS are also stacking on top of some summons modified by SR. For example, pit fiends like "DEMPITSU.CRE" have ~270hp and -7 THACO in my game with all the bonuses applied. I have SR fiends=1 mostly because I prefer the improved stat blocks, but needless to say this could use some tweaking. The SR pit fiends also hit like trucks since they're boasting a strength of 25 (dragons), and IMO should be lowered to be more in-line with say, Balors at 21. 

Yeah, I don't really know what to do with the fiend summoning stuff. I personally go with atweaks' fiends instead and then just use a mini-mod I made to SRR-ize the spell descriptions, but...I don't know, I feel like fiend summoning spells are really better left for the AI to abuse rather than the player, so I tend to avoid them.

35 minutes ago, WanderingScholar said:

In any case, I'm actually planning to systematically re-adjust the stats of many creatures, fiends in particular, in what will hopefully be my first tweaks mod. With SR installed broad inconsistencies arise between the SR summoned creatures, and others of the same type that exist in game. I want to rectify this and make some other small stat adjustments to creatures that should probably receive some improvements, but are left out of the party. 

SR creatures being wildly different from actual creatures of the same type is something that really bothers me - I don't mind if they're a little different/better, but sometimes the disparity is just so great. That was actually the motivation for me switching MS2 and MS3 from vanilla SR (and upgrading baby wyverns to normal and greater wyverns, and otyughs to neo-otyughs, and...), because the way those slimes and hobgoblins had their stats setup made zero sense to me. I'll probably never be able to get that quite how I would ideally want it though, because I know that if I go too far in changing certain summonables to be more like their actual game incarnations, it just makes those spells unattractive or downright unusable, and I don't want to do that, that's even worse. But I've tried to make sensible adjustments where I could.