Istfemer

Regarding IWD1 content in post-SoD world:

I think Limited Wish is simply not powerful enough to be up to this task. Wish, on the other hand, might just be able to resolve the existing plot conundrum. Moreover, there may be no need to let the player do the wishing part. A wish could be forced on Charname by *others* instead, as part of an IWD1/IWD2-related quest; forced to suck Charname into a full blown Wish-scale adventure "like no other". With Wish, you can let a hostile/neutral character like a powerful follower of Belhifet or someone otherwise closely connected to him attempt to alter the status quo with a specially crafted Wish of their own.

If Charname visited Easthaven in the 'timey-wimey' timeline it wouldn't make sense to not also have Easthaven on the worldmap in the current timeline. And since this is EET, if it's on the worldmap it should be explorable unless a *really solid* justification exists to the contrary.

Regarding Kuldahar and similar overlapping areas:

I don't know if the engine of EEs supports the (temporary) removal of known areas from the worldmap. Probably not, but if it does some day: remove IWD2 Kuldahar -> replace it with IWD1 Kuldahar and keep it so until the 'special adventure' ends -> remove IWD1 Kuldahar & restore IWD2 Kuldahar. Shouldn't cause continuity problems, should it?

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

1 hour ago, Istfemer said:

How are you going to handle IWD's areas if your plan is to let Charname tumble down the time travel hole? Will those areas still be accessible from the world map when Charname and the player finish their 'special adventure' or not? I'm talking primarily about areas that are unique to IWD1.

No. 

Well, I guess this approach of yours does avoid the hassle of rewriting dialogue etc. in order to make those areas compatible with the 'normal' EET timeline. However, it creates a noticeable issue: you'll have many more areas on the worldmap that'll read 'DESTINATION UNREACHABLE' and I have no idea how you're going to justify all that. *Why* should Easthaven be suddenly unreachable in current timeline? Such unexplained unreachableness will stick out like a sore thumb.

How are you going to handle IWD's areas if your plan is to let Charname tumble down the time travel hole? Will those areas still be accessible from the world map when Charname and the player finish their 'special adventure' or not? I'm talking primarily about areas that are unique to IWD1.

4 hours ago, K4thos said:

that's something I've been thinking as well as part of the above mentioned "Belhifet's book" story idea. The post was already long enough, so I didn't mention it, but it's actually possible to force the engine to clone whole party and continue playing with those cloned guys. So theoretically it's possible to implement it in a way that all XP you gather, any adjustments to characters, all items found, would be local to one party and not another. Based on my limited tests some time ago, it's also theoretically possible to switch between those parties (jump into past and present) at your own will (for example by "opening" and "closing" the Belhifet's book in inventory) or make it, so that when your party dies in the past you simply continue playing your present time party (with the assumptions that the party death is how Belhifet's book has ended), without game over. Or how about "Day of the Tentacle" style item transfers between past and present? (possible via bags of holdings or containers and MoveContainerContents script action) 

While I think this idea sounds nice on paper the reception from the players would not neccessary be good, since many people finds stuff like XP, items etc. something that can be considered reward for your effort, so making them local to the party that stays in the past, could be frustraiting for them.

Hmm. "Belhifet's book" as a framing device... for a side adventure.

For some reason, this suggestion reminds me of certain "role playing game" one can play in Watcher's Keep.

Please, no time travel. Or at least no time travel of any conventional kind. Those things are too hot to handle. They tend to blow up in spectacular fashion sooner or later.

From non-EE dialog.tlk for BG2 (with GTU Light v13 installed):

pro-Northern direction: (1 mention)

---

pro-Northwestern direction: (1 mention)

---

pro-Western direction: (3 mentions)

-----

So:
a) 3 out 5 sources imply that Temple Ruins are to the west of Imnesvale, 1 out of 4 implies they're to the northwest and 1 out of 4 implies they're to the north. The one that now implies that Temple Ruins are to the northwest of Imnesvale (first half of Tombelthen's Journal) used to say that Temple Ruins were located to the east of Imnesvale, but GTU Light at some point patched that item's description to say 'northwest'.

b) Temple Ruins are definitely somewhere out in the Umar Hills region.

c) As far as my work is concerned, SoA's vanilla map is totally bonkers in both original BG2 and BG2EE. However, even the vanilla map shows Temple Ruins as lying much more to the west of Imnesvale than to the north (or even northwest) of it.

I'd like more consistency in this matter.

Personally, I'd much prefer it if BG2 Fixpack (and BG2EE as well!) chose the western direction, but I can live with the northwestern one being chosen.

My suggestion for Wisp's GTU Light: please change 'north' in A Note from Mazzy Fentan and 'northwest' in Tombelthen's Journal (1st half) to 'west' OR change both to say 'northwest' and edit the lines of the inhabitants of Imnesvale + quest entries in the Journal.

I'm working on a new worldmap for EET and I'm trying to fix/tweak area placements on it. I've run into conflicting sources regarding the position of Temple Ruins.

Does anyone know if BG2EE standardized Temple Ruins' location in and across dialog.tlk? Is it west, northwest or north of Imnesvale in BG2EE?

I need advice on how to handle Small Teeth Pass.

Small Teeth Pass is SoA's most peculiar area. It's placed in the Tethir Forest on the worldmap, but it's also called Small Teeth Pass as if it belongs in the Small Teeth mountains.

It actually belongs in Brynnlaw. If you look closely at Brynnlaw's worldmap icon, you'll see that it has a curious series of waterfalls in its lower part. These waterfalls are the same terrain that is found in the area of Small Teeth Pass. They match up perfectly. Brynnlaw & Small Teeth Pass also share vegetation: palms & other tropical trees. Brynnlaw had a true wilderness area early on in its development, likely placed between Brynnlaw proper & the Asylum. This is also corroborated by monster spawns: early versions of SoA had shadows, shadow fiends, wraiths & vampiric mists spawn at night in Small Teeth Pass (which had already migrated to the Tethir Forest by then). The Asylum (AR1500) still includes these creatures in its nightly spawns. Incidentally, Brynnlaw's present worldmap icon has these waterfalls in the wrong place. (south/southeast of Brynnlaw proper)

So first, a suggestion for someone who's better at GIMP/Photoshop than me:
Split those waterfalls off Brynnlaw's icon and use them as a new icon for the area of Small Teeth Pass. (currently STP has the same icon as the Forest of Tethir area). The remaining part of Brynnlaw's icon will require some fixup work though, so that it can look nice again.

---

Second, what to DO with Small Teeth Pass that received (or didn't receive) a makeover?

This area, as it exists in BG2, has nothing to do thematically with either the Small Teeth or the Tethir Forest. It has a misleading name. However, STP was placed in the latter region in the original game and it remains there in BG2:EE. Moreover, there are quest mods out there some components of which touch this area somehow (Weimer's Tactics definitely does this). It means I probably shouldn't move it to Brynnlaw.  What should I do with Small Teeth Pass on this map? Do I just leave it alone? Possibly move it somewhere further south?

The map loads fine and the rest of your instructions look straightforward enough. I'll send you the file when I'm done with my "first draft".

Only one problem: I don't have the EE games, only the originals. I suppose I need to install EET first, too.

@K4thos

Yes, please! I'd like to.

BG 2: Throne of Bhaal

1. Watcher's Keep (AR3000). I'd put it northwest of the Omlarandin Mountains and south of Shilmista, due south of the Shining Stream close to where it begins to flow south in a straight line. That is, I'd put WK in county Morninggold in easternmost Tethyr. It'd make WK feel much more like a proper part of ToB than it is now and would still preserve geographic continuity with SoA. That pier in AR3000 need not automatically imply that WK is located anywhere near the sea.

2. Forest Valley a.k.a. ToB North Forest (AR6400) should be in the northeastern, not the northwestern corner of the Forest of Mir. It's supposed to be somewhere south-ish of the Siege Camp area and not very far from it. Remember, In ToB you need to pass Forest Valley on your way to the Temple in Mir.

3. Marching Mountains area should be located in the southeasternmost corner of the mountains of the same name, in the sweet spot between a field of brown rocks & the edge of the Mir forest.

4. The Oasis area on this map is located far too deep in the Calim desert. CHARNAME has no business going that far in that direction. Better to put it where Sendai's Enclave is placed on this map.

5. Amkethran area should be east of the proper Oasis area (that is, east of Sendai's Enclave on this map), somewhere in that field of brown rocks. Remember, in ToB you need to pass the Oasis first to get to Amkethran. And you need to reach Amkethran first to be able to get to Sendai's Enclave & Abazigal's Lair later.

6. Sendai's Enclave. Oh, I'd put this area right into the triangle formed by a rocky extension of the Marching Mountains and two streams that converge into the Calim River further south.

7. Abazigal's Lair. I'd put it where the Marching Mountains area is on this map.

8. I'd move Clearing (Neera's quest's map; OH6400) further west, close to the tiny forested blotch. Or even better: put it beyond that spot; put it on the plain between two rivers just northwest of the Forest Of Mir (north of Forest Valley on this map) to cut down on all that empty space.

9. Deepstone Clanhold... I wish I could advise better where to put it. Anyway, I'm convinced DC definitely shouldn't be located in the southern parts of the Alamir Mountains. Perhaps migrate DC to the northern parts of this mountain range?

BG 2: Shadows of Amn

1. Definitely put Trademeet in its proper place on the Trade Way road south of the Small Teeth mountain range (west of Helmite Camp on this map), away from its present baffling position southeast of Lake Esmel.

2. Druid Grove definitely shouldn't be in Shilmista! It should be someplace not too far away from Trademeet. I'd put it northwest of where Trademeet should be, in a small clearing in the southwestern corner of the Small Teeth range (in Ommlur Hills, as that's where one would expect to find swamps/floodplains in the Small Teeth region).

3. Put Umar Hills in the northeastern foothills of the Small Teeth. Southeastern foothills won't work well for this area in my opinion.

4. Temple Ruins shouldn't be too far from Umar Hills. I'd put Temple Ruins near the tiny forested blotch southwest of where Trademeet is located on this map.

5. Windspear Hills are placed way too far to the east. According to this map they aren't even in Amn! I'd put them south of the Troll Mountains, in the area where Umar Hills are on this map.

6. I'd put Underwater City north of that huge peninsula (Dragon's Neck Peninsula); put it north of its northern tip, actually.

7. I'd put Underdark southeast of the proper Underwater City area and to the east/southeast of the aforementioned northern tip; in the sea but very close to the coast. On the present map there is a looong gap between Underdark and Underdark Exit.

8. Underdark Exit is placed too close to the Trade Way road. I'd move this area west of it and onto the Dragon's Neck Peninsula, closer to Underdark proper.

The attached map doesn't look at all cartoony to me.
It looks pleasant and topographically ACCURATE for once, unlike the original SoA & ToB maps or this EET map.

I don't agree with the placement of several area icons on this map, but that's a problem I have with *all* maps made to date for SoA/ToB/BGT/EET.

-----

My (possibly subjective) criticisms & suggestions:

BG 1: Tales of the Sword Coast & Siege of Dragonspear

1. Balduran's Isle area isn't on the map. Which one of the islands west of Baldur's Gate should be Balduran's Isle?

On 7/9/2019 at 6:25 PM, subtledoctor said:

Doesn't seem like any of this would work well in this engine.

...

It boils down to manufacturing ways to abuse the fact that the game isn't turn-based - exploiting systems for an unfair advantage, instead of playing and winning within the system. That doesn't seem like a mod I'd want to use. 

I sort of agree with the first quoted sentence, but the last two somehow make no sense to me. Huh? What do you actually mean? Whose 'unfair advantage' are you referring to? That of the human player or that of the AI? Who'd be doing the exploiting job in a hypothetical mod according to you? The human player or the AI? As for me, I think none of them would be as they both would be on even footing then.

Don't you get the same kind of instant intel as I do when AI wizards/priests begin casting their spells? Don't you consider it an unfair advantage to the human player that the AI cannot benefit from the same kind of instant intel when it's the player's wizards/priests who do the casting? You realize you can't simply erase this knowledge from your memory once you've received it, don't you? The game *forces* it on you; forces you to exploit it whether you like it or not. As long as you are the sole recipient of the aforementioned instant intel, you are definitely NOT 'playing and winning within the system'. My goal is to close exploits, not introduce them and that's what my suggestions are meant to be a guide for.

Yes, BG games are 'realtime with pause' games. I'm not convinced that rebuilding IE as a true realtime/turn based hybrid would necessarily improve gameplay or, say, make the system any closer to P&P.

On 7/9/2019 at 6:25 PM, subtledoctor said:

- It all depends on casting times - and only human players have the ability to lower their casting speed.

Aren't there a few enemies in SCS (Vongoethe?) who can be given items granting casting time reduction at install time? Anyway, it shouldn't take long (no more than a round) for an experienced enemy caster/wise non-caster to figure out that a PC has such items, which are very rare by the way, and make adjustments. (I liked how IR nerfed Robe of Vecna/Robe of Larloch or whatever it's called these days.) Casting times *are* a concern, but they aren't a showstopper.

On 7/9/2019 at 6:25 PM, subtledoctor said:

- It all depends on being able to wait - to not cast anything when your 6-second timer is up and instead wait a split-second to see what the enemy does. But only human players can do that. 

For pure casters? Yes, pretty much. And in my view, choosing to wait with spells (and do something else useful in the meantime, e.g. switch to ranged weapons instead, even for just half a round or change position on the battlefield) is a legitimate tactic that ought to be extended to the AI. It's not an exploit. Not even close.

Pure warriors & rogues usually don't need to wait for anything as they seldom have & use (non-prebuff) spells. They only need to know such things like whom to engage in melee, whom to avoid in melee, on whom to focus ranged fire, when to retreat and whether to use certain potions/wands/scrolls/thief skills/special abilities when they see a spell of a certain school being cast by the enemy. (yeah, I'm probably oversimplifying here but not by much)

Multi-classed casters (except wizard/priest multis) are the most versatile when it comes to reacting. They may cycle between either approach quite freely depending on how the battle goes.

On 7/9/2019 at 6:25 PM, subtledoctor said:

- Or you could get yourself into a rhythm, to be half a second behind the enemy every round, and thus able to consistently stymie them. Or to be 1.3+ seconds ahead of the enemy every round, and inly cast very quick-casting spells, so the enemy can never stymie you. Again, only humans have the ability to do this sort of thing.

No need for enemy spellcasters to use this tactic every round. Make it so they have a random chance of using it every round and vary the length of the "waiting window". It may be a good idea to force spellcasters to use this tactic more often and wait longer if they can detect that their human opponent spams this tactic constantly, trying to outwait them all the time. Unfortunately, it's probably very difficult to write code that properly detects whether such abuse has, in fact, occurred.

As I said before, it's not *only* about countering the slow-casting spells of your enemy with the quick-casting spells of your own (offensive, defensive or otherwise). Other actions can and should be taken if the situation at hand calls for it.

13 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Well else... the fact that you become visible by casting a spell has nothing to do with opcodes, but rather the effect of you actually being vocal and start making visible magical symbols with your hands to gather the magical essence needed in the casting.

Did doctorstrange ever cast things while being invisible ? And yes, you can hide yourself behind a cupboard to cast a spell, but that's not invisibility.

So you're arguing that the magical symbols that casters draw in the air as they cast their spells shouldn't be affected by invisibility because those are external to casters. Is that right?

---

'As you can't cast without vocals'

And that's a problem. I hold that you should be able to if you're affected by Vocalize.

---

I'm not familiar with Doctor Strange, only with Doctor Strangelove.

13 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Yes, but do people just intuitively understand exactly what the other person, that has suddenly become silent, tries to sign to them ? Cause I use signs in my work, being behind a window and heavy sound of manufacturing goods, and even though it should be very simple communication, it's definitely not always, and it leaves a lot to be desired from. ..which is why other means to communicate, has been supplied in there.

Fair enough. I think simple gestures/actions would suffice for calls for help, as it should be relatively easy to get your buddy's attention in a threat-rich environment, which a great part of BG1/2-era West Faerun is. Advanced information transfer is tougher to justify, but we can assume that the group in question uses a robust, pre-agreed sign system (like military squads & SWAT teams do). And if they aren't ('cause they're too green/careless), they can be expected to learn to use one after they stumble upon an encounter that is specifically designed to test their cooperation skills and it ends in disaster for them. Yeah, yeah, that encounter doesn't have to be specifically designed to test anything. It could be totally random and totally not a DM's decision. Yep.

2 hours ago, temnix said:

I have, however, sketched a counterspell system myself some time ago, and while I'm not going to finish it as a mod, I can tell the curious how to implement counterspelling without much hassle and with use.

1. The basic principle: opposition schools cancel each other. Never mind particular spells and text information. Casting glows are sufficient. To stop a starting spell of Alteration, cast anything from Abjuration on anyone. This will, among other things, make low-level spells useful even at high levels. Carry around Friends to cancel Fireball, for instance. On the other hand, long and unwieldy high-level spells may be useful for quick counterspelling, and a limited assortment of powerful spells would find more application. 9th an 8th wizard spells are not numerous to begin with and one comes by them slowly, so it is quite possible to go around with just Wish on page 9 and no desire to summon that stupid pseudo-genie. Or with Incendiary Cloud and no opportunity for wholesale destruction. If Incendiary Cloud could counter any Enchantment/Charm spell instantly and if Wish could counter any spell at all, players would get a bit more breathing space.

...

This system's flaw is obviously that counterspelling is not optional but happens between any opponents casting from different schools. Characters would have to be aware that their spells may cause other ongoing spells to fizzle instead of achieving the end result. No trying Finger of Death when someone is in the middle of Illusion/Phantasm unless you are prepared to expend a high-level spell to terminate what may just be Reflected Image (if you can beat casting time 1). And enemies may accidentally disrupt the party's spells by casting their own. But this, on the whole, should end up adding to excitement rather than detract from it. What are the enemies casting? Do I agree to adapt and choose a different spell from the one I wanted or should I try to be quicker the next time and whip out the essentials before the other side does? Is this spell being cast worth disrupting or should I let it happen and then bring my own spells into play as I wanted? Mages, too, would finally get a boost over specialists because of their wide spell selection and therefore broader counterspelling options. Curiously, in this system specialists have no way to break the spells of their school - necromancers get no Illusion/Phantasm access to disrupt somebody else's necromancy. I think that is a fair description of a narrow specialist, though.

Besides, one can role-play the situation easily. Who is to say the enemy mage did not mean to break the coming Alteration threat with his flash of Abjuration? What was going on in that duel? And these are, may I remind everyone, role-playing games. But if a modder absolutely wants counterspelling optional, he can go ahead and give a Special Ability to all spellcasters, target "Caster (keep spell, no animation)". This would simply block or unblock the first of the linked subspells for Everybody, turning the counterspelling mode on or off. I think the system is better without, though. NPC get no such controls, so giving them to the player to be even more clever with his tactics while NPC stumble around on scripts tips the balance in the party's favor another step.

The big problem with this approach is that it doesn't make much sense. It is too far removed from P&P (in general, not just 2E/2.5E). I *could* see it work but only in some bizarre 'homeruled' equivalent of a 'wild magic zone', and even then probably not in the Prime Material plane of Toril. I mean, WHY should my single casting of Friends cancel out *all* enemy Fireballs being cast in my vicinity in that particular moment? What's the justification here?

22 hours ago, Istfemer said:

Now, disabling some casting animations (just those displayed during a spell's "charging up" phase) for improved-invisible/sanctuaried casters is an interesting approach. Same goes for disabling casting sounds for casters affected by silencing spells AND/OR Vocalize. In the latter case Silence does this by default. I don't quite remember how Vocalize deals with various 'shut up' effects. Vocalize appears to only override opcode 0x26 (State: Silence) with opcode 0x30 (Cure: Silence), so it looks like we require a separate opcode that would only block the casting sounds and nothing more. Were these tweaks actually implemented as a "simpler solution", Improved Invisibility/Sanctuary + Vocalize (+ SI:Divination/SR's Non-Detection) combo would only gain in value for enemy casters. It would give most of them a special advantage of surprise in spell combat that they never had before, and thus make life harder for player's casters.

I forgot to account for Blindness & Deafness in the above paragraph.
Opcode #74 (0x4A) State: Blindness

Isn't Opcode #47 (0x2F) Cure: Invisibility the one that specifically reverses (non-improved) invisibility during casting? Vocalize is #48. Or did you mean something else?

1 hour ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Well, have you actually played the BG1 ? Where did you find these 5 other casters ? And how did you travel to them, without getting yourself killed far before that ?

Now yes, you can get Jaheira quite easily, but you can't keep her(as she has a non-magic user companion), Branwen is a bit harder, as you need the gold. The drow biach is behind a HARD fight with plate armored fist dude. Xan needs to get to the mine to get, with goblins, the bane of magic users. Dynaheir you can't keep either. Yes, Xzar is easy to get to... he is not that good, and you shouldn't be able to keep him either. Garrick is easy to get to... but he again has a hard fight to face before you get to keep him. ... Not looking good for this approach. There's Edwin yes...

Yes, I am aware that you can single/multiplayer cheat to get to 6 party members... but that's a boring CHEAT. Or use Level 1 NPCs NPC components... but you still run into too few hit point and no good armor -ringer.

I have. Original Saga edition with Baldurdash fixes (BG1FixPack v1.1 & BG1TOSCGameTextUpdate v1.1 by Kevin Dorner), 16 replacement .mus files and nothing else. 10 or so years ago I made a (nearly) complete playthrough with that configuration. Since then there have been several brief excursions into several select BG1/TotSC areas. Nothing major. Why? What does it have to do with this topic? I'm seriously not getting what you're getting at.

2 hours ago, DavidW said:

There’s no great difficulty in letting the AI detect that a spell is being cast, but as for doing something clever with that information... let’s just say you might be overestimating what the IE scripting system is capable of.

I very well might be. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like to be. I'm curious to know just how much I am overestimating here.

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

A far simpler solution would be to set all spells to use the same casting sound and animation, thus removing your advantage...

Simpler? Yes. Simpler does not necessarily mean better. I have this advantage as a player and I'm convinced that the AI should have it as well. Having it as a *mutual* advantage/disadvantage would make for a better, more tactical game in my opinion. Setting every spell to use the same casting sound and animation would make the game look less colorful and sound more monotonous.

Now, disabling some casting animations (just those displayed during a spell's "charging up" phase) for improved-invisible/sanctuaried casters is an interesting approach. Same goes for disabling casting sounds for casters affected by silencing spells AND/OR Vocalize. In the latter case Silence does this by default. I don't quite remember how Vocalize deals with various 'shut up' effects. Vocalize appears to only override opcode 0x26 (State: Silence) with opcode 0x30 (Cure: Silence), so it looks like we require a separate opcode that would only block the casting sounds and nothing more. Were these tweaks actually implemented as a "simpler solution", Improved Invisibility/Sanctuary + Vocalize (+ SI:Divination/SR's Non-Detection) combo would only gain in value for enemy casters. It would give most of them a special advantage of surprise in spell combat that they never had before, and thus make life harder for player's casters.

6 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Well, considering the reason why the opposition is in the game... it would be kinda hard to implement this. I'll come back to the above point later, but I'll first define why the opposition is in the game. They are there to either provide a sufficient challenge for the player to overcome, or be there to block their advance in case they don't have the sufficient muster to get at it.

Now, you said: "party of 6 to 10 casters"... you are playing the game wrong... it's intended to have about 3 casters and 3 near/far-fighters... not 6 casters, definitely not. This will show up in your game timer, where you spend most of your in-game hours sleeping and not actually adventuring. And that's kinda hard to do in BG1 where you are supposed to get attacked nearly at every rest, except in taverns. And will get re-attacked in the same area if you rest as the random monsters get resummoned.

Now, when you said the enemy has limited supply of spells... that's supposed to be far more than the player does. And Limited Wish kinda looses the "Limited" part with multiple casters. Now yes, the Time Stop is a 9th level spell... but there are similar spells earlier in the spell-tree that applies well to the exact role assigned here. There's Contingency and (Minor) Spell Sequencer that are instant for the opposition if you install the component that allows that in SCS. And yes, if the opponent wished, they could use them all in one go. Why they don't do this is cause the player can't, but the enemy can.

"My enemies failed to notice the schools of spells my party had been casting earlier in that round & guess the most likely spells I had tried to use against them in their & my particular circumstances. They lost precious seconds that could've been better spent." Yeah, what would you use your time for then ? Not the biggest over all damaging effect the enemy is not immune to ? But to Dispel the Armor spell the strongest opponent has to disapprove the 6 caster tactic. Yes, tht effect could be Time Stop, it could be summon or anything .. but also say Fireball.

1. From a gameplay point they are; from a narrative point they aren't. And if it would be hard to implement these abilities, it would be not for the reasons you stated. Change my mind if you disagree.

2. 'not 6 casters, definitely not.'
WHY not? Why having 6 casters in my party (whether arcane or divine, pure or multi) should inevitably break the game for me? I understand why having 10 in a party may break it, but 6? I can also understand why having 6 dual-classed casters is bound to break it, as the very concept of dual classing in BG games is badly broken and has been broken for more than 20 years. I'm not aware that EEs changed any of that. Also, I don't like to rest until completely healed. I prefer adventuring instead. BG games are too lenient on consecutive rests for me. Am I playing the game wrong? Hardly so.

3. Yes, it's supposed to be far more. No argument here. Funny that you should mention sequencers & contingencies, as I'd prefer Limited Wish & Wish to work in a somewhat similar manner, kinda like the vanilla sequencers & contingencies did. Like this:

Make LW & W belong to the Universal school. You memorize LW/W then cast it or you use a scroll. No djinni appears, but you gain a *pre-spent* innate with the same name (modify the spell to display an icon with a charge counter pre-set to 0). You'll have to rest first to actually gain LW/W as an innate. When you do that, you'll be able to summon a wish-granting djinni normally. Your innate will then disappear. If you re-cast the spell now, you'll simply re-gain your pre-spent innate & thus waste your spell slot/scroll. This method partially blocks the 'Wish>RegainSpellsWithoutResting>Wish' exploit. I think letting the whole party regain spells in this manner is giving them way too much power. Letting only the caster do it would be enough. I don't know if SCS mages make use of this exploit though.

BTW, I happen to like 'Multiple sequencers/contingencies for enemy mages' or whatever its proper name is. I'm totally okay with that approach. Enemies' LWs/Ws could use the same treatment. Some high-level enemy mages could even be given several uses of Limited Wish/Wish per day.

4. 'Yeah, what would you use your time for then?'

Suppose I'm leading a squad of battle-hardened fighters & assassins against a particularly rude adventuring party that dared to break into our cozy compound. I'd be able to see then that that particular enemy wizard (Conjurer?) over there, yes, the one in red robe and with a weird accent is beginning to cast a *necromantic* spell. He may be casting a damaging spell or not; at us or not. Being a fighter/mage by profession & based on my extensive knowledge of battling casters, I'd be able to guess that the spell he's casting is very likely to be revealed as 'Skull Trap' or 'Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting' when it goes off and is totally not going to be revealed as 'Flame Arrow' or 'Rabbit Horde' or some other dandy *conjuration* spell. I'm sure I'd appreciate this kind of battlefield intel and be able to think of appropriate response -- like taking sensible precautions & ordering my squad to rapidly scatter in organized manner, to regroup later just as rapidly in another spot on the battlefield. It might turn out to be *not* ST or ADHW but another necromantic spell, like Animate Dead. It's up to me to take the risk or not. I choose to play it safe this round. *I* know my fighters' & assassins' skills. They can take down a Skeletal Warrior or even 2-3 of them. Yes, they might be forced to waste a round running back to SW's summoning point and engaging it, and the Red Wizard will undoubtedly respond with something equally nasty afterwards. I understand that. I also understand that my underlings stand no chance as a fighting squad against a direct hit by a very probable ST or ADHW. Getting mass casualties (even without any deaths) from either would compromise if not cripple their fighting ability that even large quantities of healing potions would likely not be able to restore in time. Moreover, getting badly bruised in the opening stages of our battle would only bode ill for the battle's ultimate outcome. (from my point of view)

Obviously, the farther my (hypothetical) party of 6 to 10 casters gets into the game(s) & the higher the levels its members attain, the harder it would be for enemies to predict-on-the-fly the spells my party might use against them.

So, in case SCS doesn't presently have this feature, how feasible would it be for enemies to gain such abilities? Would it be a genuinely good idea? Would it make enemies behave smarter & make them more challenging in a fight? How difficult would it be to introduce this functionality into SCS? Can it be done with the assistance of Tobex or perhaps EEex? Or is GemRB the only thing that can potentially offer a solution here?

2 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Nope. But they can detect every effect you have on.

Which is fantastic, yes. However, even if they can & have done so, it's all post hoc detection. My enemies failed to notice the schools of spells my party had been casting earlier in that round & guess the most likely spells I had tried to use against them in their & my particular circumstances. They lost precious seconds that could've been better spent. I don't know whether SCS has something like 'hostile spell prediction trees'. I suppose it doesn't, but only DavidW can answer that.

Of course if a spell's casting time is short enough (say, 1, 2 or 3) then even if my enemies detect its school in time, it is likely they won't be able to act on their knowledge before my mage finishes casting that spell. Some or even most of the time. And that's perfectly fine. However, if a spell's casting time is sufficiently long, I think my smarter enemies should be able to detect its school properly, restrict in their head that spell to a sufficiently small list of probable picks & react adequately based on that info. e.g. Adjust their plans for their next round's spell & try to squeeze that one into the current round OR interrupt my mage's spell with fast damaging/disabling spells if they believe my mage is casting something *really* hideous OR set up emergency defenses of their own OR use escape items/innates OR try to melee rush my mage OR fall back & switch to ranged combat at safe distance OR do an in-depth tactical retreat).

2 hours ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

So the delay is just 6 seconds at most. And usually, casting instant Time Stop is more beneficial that say Dispel spells.

Not sure I'm following you very well, Jarno. How do the instant version of Time Stop & Dispel effects figure into this discussion? As potential responses enemy casters could make?

Time Stop/Limited Wish/Wish spells aren't in inexhaustible supply for most enemies. Besides, I'm more interested in raising combat intelligence of the low-to-mid level spellcasters & non-spellcasters (especially those from BG1 & early/mid SoA) than combat intelligence of the multi-9th/7th level spell & multi-HLA wielding Ubercaster crowd.

*In this way*, at least.