Bartimaeus

You're welcome. As always, let me know if there are any problems.

For those who use 1pp, the 1.03c version of my 1pp fixes has been released - it's just a compatibility fix to avoid a problem I've run into with too long filenames, but it's important if you use IRR. I'll update this when it's been updated on the Big World Project Fixpack.

I actually misspoke - CDTweaks *is* supposed to be installed right before Stratagems. Your current install order seems fine, although it would depend on what you have after that to know for certain.

However, the point about the Big Fixpack is still valid. It has a lot of critical compatibility updates.

1.15 released:

1. Arrow of Detonation no longer applies its missile damage to the group of enemies it explodes upon, but rather only the one actually hit by the missile (suggested by Luke).
2. The Carsomyrs no longer let you use Reverse Magic (the single target Dispel Magic that always succeeds if the target fails a -4 wand saving throw), but rather use Dispel Magic once again. Reverse Magic had originally been intended to simply be a stand-in while I fixed SR's Dispel/Remove Magic conundrum, but somewhere along the way, I forgot to change it back. Unlike its original version, however, this is cast at caster level (albeit instantly) and does not always succeed as a result (as 3x always succeeding 30' AoE Dispel Magics was insanely OP previously).
3. Enfeebling effects (e.g. Ardulia's Fall) are now distinct from slowing effects as per SR (from "target is slowed and suffers a -1 penalty to THAC0, damage, and AC for 1 round (save vs. spell neg.)" to "Enfeebling: target suffers a -2 penalty to THAC0, damage, and movement speed for 1 round (save vs. spell neg.)".
4. Likewise, slowing effects (e.g. Flail of the Ages' Cold Head) are very similar to SR's slow effects.
5. Strong Arm, instead of the Oversized property, receives the Mighty Weapon property for now (and its strength requirement is back to 19 as a result). I'm still unsure of the balance of this item, but it's still very slightly less powerful than vanilla IR's Strong Arm (by 1 damage), so it's something.
6. Mana Bow +4's Illusion Bane chance was upped to 33% (from 25%).
7. More Mustard Jelly fixes, specifically regarding protection from stun and petrification as well as a damage fix.
8. Blackmist +4 receives the Paralyzing effect for now (33% chance for 2 rounds).
9. Malakar +2 had the wrong weight.
10. A number of missing colons after "STATISTICS" and a number of missing commas, as usual.
11. The Kuo-Toa bolts were apparently supposed to be 1D10 base damage (1D12 with Weapon Changes) and 1 pound each according to Demi's original notes...so now they are.
12. The alternative forms of Rods of Lordly Might should actually have their correct descriptions now - whoops!
13. Some more consistent protections.
14. A bunch of sectype fixes for SR, specifically relating to petrification, haste, slow, and dispel. Specifically, haste effects from different sources should properly revert slow effects, slow effects should properly revert haste effects, Improved Haste should now properly protect against slow effects, items/effects with protection against petrification should now properly protect against SR's style of petrification, Methild's Harp's Break Enchantment should break petrification a la SR, and dispelling effects should cancel out Dispelling Screen. These only apply if you have SR installed.
15. Protection against projectile fixes for the EEs. The EEs have 1pp's custom projectiles added by default - now items like Gloves of Missile Snaring should protect against them (while the fixes I added to the BWPFP for 1pp will make 1pp patch these items for IRR if you use 1pp on non-EE games, as 1pp must be installed after IRR).
16. IR's spell protections effects (e.g. Amulet of Spell Warding's Spell Deflection) should now make use of new EE 2.5 functionality that destroys the effects of these spells when the number of deflections have been depleted.

And now...just Spell Revisions to go.

As Mad Mate said, it does look like you're installing some things out of the recommended order (for example, CDTweaks should definitely not be before SCS), and the Big World Fixpack, at the very least, is critical these days for fixing compatibility problems that the official versions never got updates for.

Use SCS instead. It's for both BG1 and BG2.

Even base IR is fairly compatible with BG2:EE/T, outside of some graphical issues (that are not game-breaking), but I think IRR's only real "incompatibility" with BG2:EE/T is that some BG2-EE-only items are still not handled yet (I have all of the relevant files, but I need to go through them) and BG2:EE's new stores do whatever they want, but outside of those inconsistencies, should be good to go I THINK. If you play it, feel free to let me know any oddities or inconsistencies.

 

Yeah, spell durations were the only thing I "uncapped"

 

I suspect that would create more confusion than it's worth, as players would starts worrying about which aspects of which spells scale past 20, in addition to the already-confusing question of which spells scale in the first place.

 

Frankly AD&D is a mess in this regard (naturally, since the content can via literally hundreds of different sourcebooks, written by many different people with many different perspectives for many different kinds of adventures). SR goes a little way toward making this better - I think Demi tended to standardize the new spells on durations that make sense for the game, i.e. 1 turn/2 turns/5 turns/4 hours. Something like that. It would be cool if SR would do this to all of the spells in the game - maybe as an optional extra component.

 

Incidentally I have a mod that actually does that - code starting at line 1090 here:

https://github.com/UnearthedArcana/Low_Magic/blob/master/low_magic/low_magic.tp2

 

It's geared toward reducing spells' duration to make magic more ephemeral and less powerful (Confusion only lasts 3 rounds!) but it operates by user-definable .ini settings so it easily standardize spells on longer durations too.

 

"I suspect that would create more confusion than it's worth, as players would starts worrying about which aspects of which spells scale past 20, in addition to the already-confusing question of which spells scale in the first place."

That's the thing - in SR, everything else mentions its caps. Burning Hands says "up to a maximum of 5D6 at 9th level", Magic Missile says "up to a maximum of five missiles at 9th level", Command says "up to a maximum of -4 at 9th level", etc. And if it wasn't there already, I changed it so that it was. Spell durations, though? Outside of just a few exceptions that specifically mention a limited scaling duration, if you never looked at the .spl file itself, you could be forgiven for thinking that they keep scaling. Two turns is a bit of time, and unless you're sitting there measuring the seconds, you're probably not going to notice that it's not going to 3 turns like you might've expected (if for some reason you have an absurdly high level character, that is). So that's why I didn't like it. The change actually makes very little difference, because you're generally not much higher level than 20 anyways, but like I said earlier, I hate random end points and I wrote an autohotkey script to fix it via hex editing.

Agreed on AD&D. Many spells aren't really concretely described at all from what I researched - and BioWare just made up their own versions of them as a result.

That's pretty cool, actually. A neat idea for people who get tired of mages' (and to a lesser extent, clerics') dominance of everything beyond level 5 or so.

@SR: I have been writing up some notes for stuff that should be fixed. It won't be as comprehensive as actual SRR, because like IR I crawled through every file and noticed literal dozens of incorrect stuff that I can't remember anymore, but it'll hopefully at least get the official version of SR in a more working state. IIRC, you can't even play with SR on non-EE games without the Big World Fixpack due to the invalid opcodes on some spells. That's kind of a problem.

Okay, I get you now. Though the numbers don't add up for other composite longbows, as they require 16 strength, which would be +1 damage in AD&D (or +3 in 3.0), but Demi's weapon changes specifically makes it +2 damage. Strong Arm, on the other hand, does have +7 damage with Weapon Changes (ignoring the enchantment bonus) with a 19 strength requirement, which would be correct for an AD&D 19 strength (but if you don't have Weapon Changes, it would only be +6, which is incorrect). That's fine, though - we can just treat Strong Arm as a unique exception. Strong Arm was a bow that I really didn't "get" and was struggling to figure out what to do with, so a little more wisdom on its concept is welcome.

So in IR with Weapon Changes, there's a total of +9 damage and +2 THAC0, while in IRR with Weapon Changes right now, it's +8 damage (+2 from composite bow, +4 from Oversized, and +2 from enchantment) while the THAC0 bonus is 0 (+2 from enchantment and -2 from Oversized). I can change it from the generic Oversized property to a unique property, but what exactly do I want the end numbers to be here? It's a difficult bow to balance. I'm thinking maybe leave it at +2 enchantment bonus for simplicity's sake, and make the additional damage +3 instead. If you play with Weapon Changes, that adds up to a total of +7 damage/+2 THAC0 with 19 required strength. A little bit of a nerf from vanilla IR's Strong Arm and it sort of reaches the +7 STR damage (helped by the enchantment bonus), but a little better than the one currently in IRR with the Oversized property. How does that sound? If you really wanted "true" +7 damage from strength (i.e. not factoring in Weapon Changes' bonus damage from enchantment), that would almost necessitate reducing its enchantment level (or removing its enchantment completely)...which would just make it significantly weaker, so why bother? Sometimes game logic has to be eschewed with to make an item work, I think.

Yeah, spell durations were the only thing I "uncapped", so to speak, since it created random end points. (1 round/level would make 2 turns, 5 rounds + 1/round level would make 2.5 turns, etc...and these "maximum" durations were never specified in the spell text, as opposed to maximum damages for spells like Fireball and such.) And unlike AD&D, BG does not really treat post-20 levels any differently from pre-20 levels, so it just seemed a little strange. But like I said, it's easy to chop them off.

I see (and I assume your final sentence was meant to say 20). Either way, it's trivial to cut off the extra levels.

Sort of? I mean, I have 1,164 changed files. A good percentage of it is pretty minor stuff that I'm not even going to look at, some of it is a restructure of the mod (e.g. I made it so that SR's new spell icons have a dv prefix so that they're not overwriting or otherwise conflicting with the base game's or the 1pp/EE icons), some of it is fixes, some of it is design changes. The fixes I can probably just look at old bug reports and grab the relevant files - if I haven't changed them for some other reason.

Mike, do you know if there's any particular reason spells with durations modified by level do not go higher? e.g. Tenser's. Is that intentional design, or was it just too much work to extend it for very little gain? I wrote an autohotkey script to automate it to a degree, so it's not much trouble for me to extend them higher.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/b4sr7233n0dlci7/spwi603.zip

Here's my fixed Tenser's, for example. it fixes the ApR problem, fixes the sorcerer problem, provides immunity from IR's and SR's polymorphing abilities, and it scales up to level 50 (5 turns or 1 hour) instead of level 20 (2 turns), but it does not scale in any other way (i.e. the bonus HP from the spell does not continue to increase). Wondering if I should chop the additional levels for anything I'd want to submit like that.

I didn't change anything - I don't have access to SR to make changes. I think changing Haste back to AoE was done by kreso 1) in response to player requests; and 2) to aid the AI (maybe SCS?) which uses Haste expecting it to be sn AoE buff.

 

BUT I have a Github and I can fork b15 and host a version with fixes until the official version catches up - IF that is okay with the G3 folks. I don't mean this as offense, but I'd much rather have a temporary-but-normal alternate version of the mod than a set of fixes tacked on after the fact.

 

All I would need is 1) permission from Mike or Camdawg or someone; 2) an easy-to-digest list of things that need updating - I don't have time to hunt down info in forum posts, I suggest creating a new thread like "updates that are needed for b16;" and 3) some patience, as my free time is a bit unreliable at the moment.

Oops. Yes, kreso.

That would be ideal, and as with IRR, anything from my fixes to make the official version better is more than encouraged. It's a little easier than with IRR, too, thankfully - for the most part. I am not sure whether I should release SRR, then. Maybe some people would still want it, and it would still be useful to have public? Guess it would depend on the progress of a new version.

@Huo: No, I do not - but since a number of people have been asking for it, I'm probably going to release an SR Revised (a la IR Revised) add-on so that people at least have the option of having this stuff fixed.

@Rebel: Yep, the Hastes were changed by subtledoctor in the latest patch, but he did not update their description. As for the incorrect spells in spellbooks, they are disabled versions of spells that essentially act as backups for the AI (in the event they're trying to use the original spell resource) that are supposed to be removed by the "Update spellbooks" component, but I have also noticed that it doesn't always happen - something I have to look into yet. I think it's currently even worse on the EEs from what I tested - there are a number of copies of arcane spells at the wrong levels that you can select as a sorcerer during level-up or as a mage/bard during character creation.

Demi wanted Composite Long Bows to give strength bonus? That's...interesting, but maybe also pretty crazy, which is why it probably never got implemented? In the vanilla setup (which includes playing with just the main IR component), long bows get +1 damage, while composite long bows get +1 THAC0 and damage, and both get +1 ApR and no enchantment damage bonus. With IR's weapon changes subcomponent, long bows still get +1 damage, while composite long bows get +2 damage, and both get +1/2 ApR and enchantment damage bonus. I did not change this - this is all Demi. To change composite long bows to strength bonus instead, you'd be changing the minimum damage bonus to +1, while the maximum strength bonus would depend on whether you're using 3rd Edition style stats, which IR is kind of made for with its changes to stat bonuses (adding +2-5 instead of setting to 18+). If you start with 18 strength, then equip the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you now have +8 damage...in addition to whatever enchantment bonus the bow has as well as the ammo. That is so much damage output from a ranged weapon, especially bows that already have +1/2 ApR. Like, what would even be the point of crossbows anymore, which are already not really the best?

Regarding the launcher vs. ammo dichotomy, I think it's because the other launcher and ammo types having both damage and THAC0 bonuses that Demi wanted arrows to also do, since it was mysteriously inconsistent, but since bows were already the strongest, they got the ApR nerf. If it were me designing this from the ground up, I'd probably do things somewhat differently, especially in regards to slings which are just...terrible (I really never understood why slings have 1 ApR, since it makes no sense from either a gameplay or conceptual point of view - they should probably be the ones to have 2 ApR, and even then, they still wouldn't be hardly strong enough for that to be of much note). But since IRR aims to be like IR in most ways, that's probably not going to happen, .

Another version of IR will be coming out soon. Hopefully today or tomorrow.

@Jarno: I already use that, but there is, as far as I can tell, no incompatibility. A level 15 swashbuckler with two proficiency points put into Short Swords gets 3/2 ApR with a short sword, then dual-class to mage and level up to 16, re-equip the short sword, still gets 3/2. Then cast Tenser's - you now get 5/2, which is correct: base 1 + 1/2 profiency + 1 from Tenser's. The type 1 ApR opcode from Tensers only overwrites other type 1 ApR opcodes. So no problem here, but it would be a problem for launchers/shapeshifts that set your ApR with type 1, such as bows, daggers, darts.

@Huo: You're correct - the incorrect effect is specified for specifically sorcerers. Regardless of level, it applies the A (3/2 ApR) effect instead of the B (2 ApR). Thanks.

@kjeron: Yeah, this seems more of a concern. SR could fix this by deleting the set type 1 opcodes and replacing them with additive type 0 opcodes, but it would immediately break again with any mod-added weapons installed after SR, such as IR (but also a lot more since SR is installed fairly early into most install orders). I could easily fix that for IRR, but that doesn't solve it for everyone, obviously. Does anyone have other proposed solutions?

(e): Wait, I'm a real dummy: just go the other way around by changing Tenser's to add a half or full attack instead of setting to 3/2 or 2. Okay, done. Also probably want to prevent shapeshifts (and prevent Shapeshifted users from using Tenser's) in order to prevent ApR abuse, I suppose? Also, overlooked is the fact that you can cast Tenser's multiple times, and its bonuses added up cumulatively. Whoops, .

How so? Are there weird arcane classes/kits that have been added that change that?

Can you give a rundown of the exact situation where you feel there is an error? SPWI603A.eff, which sets the caster's ApR to 1.5, and SPWI603B.eff, which sets your APR to 2.0, only come into effect if you are a non-fighter arcane caster - where your base ApR would only always be 1 anyways.

0. Regarding Helm of Despair: Yeah, I think Demi's idea was simply to have two oppositely blessed helms, the concept of which I've seen in other games. However, I find it to be...a bit of a waste of a helmet, to be honest? Especially because it's not even that good of a helmet? Personally, I hate fear effects (more trouble than they're worth as far as disables go, IMO), but it is called the Helm of Despair. Hmm.

1. I'm not sure - I don't play on the EEs, so it's not completely relevant to me, but I'm pretty sure I looked at the patchnotes and didn't see much of note as it related to IR. However, it may be the case that I missed something or they did. ...But, as I said, I don't play on the EEs, so somebody would probably need to inform me if there's something I should be aware of.

2. Short Bow vs. Long Bow. For BG1, you have the Long Bow of Marksmanship vs. the Eagle Bow - I'd take the Long Bow, personally. For SoA, it's kind of a mixed bag? Mana Bow is certainly not the greatest, but as with some of the other +4 weapons in SoA, I don't think they're necessarily supposed to be, especially because most of them are easily obtainable...which is pretty much exactly the case for Mana Bow. I don't think it should really be on the same level of Iron Bow of Gesen at all - that's supposed to be a legendary bow that you have to craft (that I already nerfed compared to its utterly ludicrous damage in vanilla IR, too, which I was actually just thinking about recently in that it perhaps deserves something to compensate). And though it's not +4, Heartseeker is pretty darned good. Then, in ToB, you have Darkfire Bow vs. Taralash, and I would consider those to be pretty equal (although the +4 version of Darkfire is a bit better than the +4 version of Taralash). As for Tuigan Bow...I'm actually not totally opposed to nerfing it to +1/2, but then I also should probably do that for the other +1 ApR launchers, which means Light Crossbow of Speed, Sling of Everard, and Taralash. This change would almost certainly hurt Taralash, a long bow and the weapon category you're trying to buff, more than short bows, so I'm not sure of the wisdom of that.

If you don't have a clone to git grep through, github is a good basic searching alternative:

https://github.com/Gibberlings3/SwordCoastStratagems/blob/d25ff1b6568690c1bc4dc3b8c8788e4c7d205780/stratagems/caster_shared/caster_shared.tph#L170

You can also use notepad++'s "search in files" tool.

I think you'd actually need to correct line 49 to specify the correct resource, too - it points to k1#insect (9 characters!), when it should be k1#inse (the insect secondary removal spell that it creates above).

Many thanks for massively simplifying this all.

Already has the immunity to blindness (+ immunity to backstab thrown in!) and the saving throw penalty, and I'm pretty sure "effect upon critical hit" is an EE-only opcode. So out of those ideas, you have a blinding effect, a paralyzing effect, or a +1 to AC effect. Out of those, I'd probably prefer a paralyzing effect - another blinding effect is extremely one-note, and AC is generic as heck.

Tell that to the BioWare devs who didn't even give good or even neutral players the option of choosing the evil path for that particular quest, .

Yeah, that's true - though the Lesser Demon Lord is not slain for his item, it's given when you give him the silver dragon eggs, which I think is a pretty special occasion all things considered. For the rest of what you said, I think I like the Duskblade and Blackmist ideas, but I'd be very hesitant about putting Dragon's Breath as the reward from the Lesser Demon Lord, because that means only evil characters can get it. That's part of why sometimes doing something thematically (really evil quest that requires you to be evil -> item that only evil characters can use) is practical, as you'd otherwise make good and neutral players want to do something completely reprehensible just for the sake of a reward. Right now, you get Blackmist and the ability to make Human Flesh for sacrificing her eggs, and you get the Ring of Air Control for saving them. Hmm. Like I said, I think I'll have to think about it more.

​I'm not really in the habit of sticking random properties into items with an already set design and lore where they don't fit just for the sake making them a little stronger, though. Sometimes, a +4 weapon is just a +4 weapon without a lot of bells or whistles, and I think that's okay. Most of the good to great +4 weapons in SoA are ones you have to craft - the ones you just happen to find or buy (Mana Bow, Rod of Smiting, Crossbow of Affliction, Blackmist, and Soul Reaver + Staff of the Woodlands to lesser extents) aren't that great...with the exception of Carsomyr, of course, which is a special exception for obvious reasons.

​

​The shame with Blackmist is that its property is basically impossible to use by the time you get it in SoA (most everything has magic resistance at that point), it does not really fit its location (I'll talk about this in a moment), and it's difficult to move it further back in the game due to its enchantment level. If you wanted to put it somewhere pre-Spellhold, you'd basically have to nerf it to +3. As for its current location, it doesn't even really make sense where it is, because it's a reward given as a result of doing something extremely evil, something so evil that literally only evil-aligned characters are given the option in a non-modded game (only the second of quests that I know that do this in BG2), and it's not even an evil item, unlike fellow halberds Duskblade and the Ravager - in fact, its history mentions that it was a Paladin's weapon, which is pretty much the opposite of what this kind of quest should give! Something like Soul Reaver or maybe even Unholy Reaver (the opposite Carsomyr that's currently non-droppable, I believe) would make much more sense for this location.