grodrigues

On 4/15/2023 at 7:26 PM, Vincent Wood said:

Obscuring Mist and Monster Summoning 1 have no icons for their spell scrolls.

Fixed already in master.

Quote

I have the exact same issue with Protection from Elemental Energy.

Yes, the spell is bugged in 4.18 as it misses the 2da file. Already fixed in master.

Edit: I have the clear memory of this file missing the 2da table for spell selection (which would also explain the symptoms you are seeing), but crawling through the git history tells me that the file was there all along, so maybe the problem was somewhere else. At any rate, fixed in master. Try to drop the attached file in your override folder to see if it solves the problem (if it overwrites something, then the problem is somewhere else).

Anyone reading this, should hop to the SpellRevisions GitHub and download the most recent 4.19rc3 where these and many other bugs are fixed.

DVWI426.2DA

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

So, you want an item that can be used by a lawful good trueclass fighter, can be used by a blackguard, and can't be used by a trueclass paladin? Nope, sorry. I'm pretty sure that's completely impossible. The item usability system is entirely subtractive - it only ever works by making things unusable to some category of creature - and it only considers one characteristic at a time. You can look at kit to exclude trueclass characters, but that'll exclude trueclass characters of all base classes.

 

Yup, that is what I would like. I was hoping there was some entry in some ids to match against and only against trueclass paladins that I had missed, but apparently not. Thanks anyway.

For the purposes of using the Restrict Item [319] opcode, how can we match trueclass paladins? The IESDEP says class PALADIN matches all paladins, kits included, so this does not work. The question comes about because I am trying to make a Blackguard-usable but other-paladins-unusable item, and cannot use filtering by alignment as other classes may use it as well. Thanks in advance.

15 hours ago, temyankee said:

Perhaps, specific installation instructions for each operating system. "weinstall spell_rev" is foreign to me. Once it was explained to me, especially that I needed to account for the GOG version with SoD by using the DLC Merger first, I was able to get through it better. Another thing that might help would be to explain each option given during installation a little bit better. I am having trouble with Divine Remix installing. Not certain what some of the Yes/No options are for and not certain about other options as well. Regardless, after making all of my decisions for that one, I get nothing. I will start BG EE, select Single Player, then select New Game. At that moment, it freezes and creates a crash log. Not sure where that would be located, but with help, I could post or forward that to get additional assistance.

Thanks, this is helpful; I will try to cobble something together. If you do not mind me asking, if "weinstall spell_rev" is foreign to you, how do you install mods? There should be a tutorial on mod installation floating around somewhere on the forums (by camdawg, I think?)...

Edit: google is your friend for these cases. The tutorial can be found here: New player guide to installing and playing mods.

Unfortunately, cannot help you with the problems with Divine Remix, as I do not use the mod, but someone here might be able to help.

Also, as a warning, there is currently a bug with SR when installed on BG: EE (the problem does *not* exist on BG2:EE or EET); when casting some spells you will get non-sensical text thrown into the log window. This problem is a PITA to solve, and I have not had the time to address it -- or more precisely, I have installed the scaffolding necessary to solve it, but only solved it for a couple of spells.

The instructions for installing spell revisions are right there on the README.md

To recap:

1. Requirement: have weidu installed and on your path.

2. Download the latest source release.

3. Unzip the zip and copy the spell_rev subfolder to your BG installation.

4. Run "weinstall spell_rev"

This all seems obvious to me, but I am on linux, and I regularly work on the command line, so I am not even aware of what problems a new user might face. So, first question: how can the instructions be improved? Second question: how can the visibility of such instructions improve?

@Mike1072I am very busy atm, but will try to push a release this weekend, no promises though. Furthermore, have been mucking around with a mod on top of SR lately and I think I found another bug, this time in the Banishment spell, so would like to get that in first.

Must have used the time machine somewhen, because the typo in Improved Haste description is already corrected in 4.19.

@EndarireDoubling apr is the province of HLA's (or I should say, nerfed SR Whirlwind and GWW), not of a 6th level spell that even bards have access to. On the other hand, the spell is now party wide, so there's that.

@EndarireThanks for spotting this. Will patch it this coming weekend.

@Trouveur80

Patch is commited. Only the minimal testing was done (check that it installs on a clean BG2 EE install) and I have not had time to check the other mismatched refs, but I *think* I can automate most of the drudge work without having to go through every single spell in NI -- it will take a bit to work through it though.

@mickabouille

The latest patch introduces a new string ref, at the end of arcane.tra. Most likely more will be added, I just need to first write a crawler through all the spells to dump the needed info.

3 hours ago, Trouveur80 said:

Here are some more :

Ooof... I never encountered this rash of mismatched string references in my latest EET run, so I have to assume that either BG EE has different string refs or some mod in your load order is borking them all.

Will look into it.

17 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I don't know what the  heck "Unholy Fireball" is. You can ignore it I think.

"Unholy fireball" is a version of fireball used by the Death Knight (I think, have to double check).

17 hours ago, Prof Errata said:

So what I need to know in fact if the number - and the types - of SR arcane spells could be modified yet - one more one less here and there ? - by the modders of this section before the final release (soon ?), even if we have now a release candidate available now;

Am not sure what you are asking here; I personally have no ideas for any major spell changes. Any major spell change usually goes through an RFC and whoever is interested can chime in, but all the examples up to now have been in the "fixing some perceived shortcoming" camp -- for example, see Avenger's Cone of Cold -> Confusion or RFC: Chaos and related issues: berserk -> feeblemind in chaos

Finalized, stable releases with everything pristine and in order, is a chimera. It *may* be a good ideal to strive for, but it's not a realistic one.

As a general rule, I tend to be very conservative and view my role as maintainer as receiving what I have inherited and hand it down in a better shape, but I am not totally opposed to more radical ideas. Just make as clear a case for them as possible (and bear the brunt of the work?).

5 hours ago, Trouveur80 said:

I wonder if there also a string problem with Weaves of Fatigue, after casted on a NPC, the dialog window shows the NPC's name but nothing else is displayed. Shouldn't it says "fatigued" or something like that?

Also, the lich in SoD uses one spell in his contingency which have a string problem too, but I didn't identify it yet.

Yes, for Waves of Fatigue; it has a 139 opcode to display "Fatigued". As for the lich I would have to look into it, as it may be using a SoD copy of some vanilla spell and thus is not touched by SR.

Patch to fix the string issue is up. Not commited yet to let it stew for a bit and because I have not had the time to do the minimal testing yet.

14 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I'd bet a bunch of strings are different in IWDEE as well.

Nah, that is nuke to kill a fly; dead fly with nuclear fallout is not a good trade off.

The *specific* problem has an easy *specific* fix (insert the tra ref, patch 139 opcodes, etc.). The problem is one of maintainability. As these kinds of fixes accrue we ought to have some sort of scheme, say by stages, to orchestrate the whole mess. But this needs a clear architectural view of how SR works or ought to work, which we do not have. At any rate will code a patch this coming weekend.

11 hours ago, Trouveur80 said:

I just tried V419RC1 and when I cast Regenerate Light Wounds, I have the "where exactly are we supposed to meet up this Sarevok?" line displayed.

I *think* I know where the problem is -- an hardcoded string ref in the 139 opcode.

Some mod is clobbering that text line -- could you please tell me what, if any, mods are installed before SR? This is the kind of thing that is conceptually easy to fix but actually not "pretty" (delete the 139 opcodes or make a subsequent patch to insert the right string refs)...

First stab at more info about installation order in the top readme in a PR. Comment there, please.

@mickabouilleYes, I too would much prefer gender-neutral terms like "caster", "target", "victim", etc. But the docs are semi-auto generated and they have not been updated since the last stable, so I have to figure how that works. Your patch is also good, commented in the repo with a request -- please comment there.

16 hours ago, Endarire said:

@grodrigues
May we get an option for Harm to deal 150 damage as per SCS and 3.5 instead of 90?

Sorry to be a killjoy, but no. This is exactly the type of thing that ought to be done in a personal tweaks mod, not in SR. Of course one could retort that SR should *facilitate* making such personal tweak patches, but that is a different issue altogether.

Edit: unless of course you are willing to write the code, submit the patch, allow me to relentlessly critique the code for maintainability, etc.

1 hour ago, mickabouille said:

I just checked, none of the commits after the merge changed any of the .tra files (unless I missed something).

What I had in mind was the PR Fix wizard shapechange ability names in IWD:EE Assuming IWD installed it inserts the names via, say:

SAY NAME1 #36185

Does it not mess things up? It should be done in a better way, at any rate.

Hmmm, that is still a lot later than I expected. As a term of comparison, my latest EET install, a very spartan by megamod standards, was following the ancient BGT megamod guide in its broad outline and was something like:

• UI mods

• Ascension (latest version by DavidW)

• SR (main component and fixes)

• IR (main component and store revisions)

• BG1 mods (a few: bgqe, bg1npc, etc.)

• BG2 quest mods (a few like Tower of Deception)

• Wheels

• NPCs (only one, Kelsey)

• Banter mods (e.g. banterpack and iepbanters)

• RR

• personal tweaks

• rest of SR (npc updated spellbooks)

• rest of IR

• Tweaks anthology

• Atweaks (only a few components)

• SCS

• generalized biffing (mostly because without it, NI slows to a crawl)

I managed to finish BG (and defeated SCS Sarevok for the first time, probably the craziest, most difficult battle I ever had in BG) and then went on to finish SoD for the first time. But by that point was out of stamina so abandoned it and never wernt on to do BG2 and Ascension -- to this day never managed to do it. At any rate had no issues I can remember.

So given what both of you just said, what would be the potential problems with an install order as outlined above? Add whatever other mods to it as you fancy.

I just pushed a public release in the GitHub repo, git-tagged 4.19rc1. Dropped the beta, as at this point I do not think it makes any sense to keep it. Tagged it rc (release candidate) for now; will iterate if needed, and then do a full release. The latter needs:

1. Prepare the windows and linux packages. This boils down to running a couple of G3 scripts; I have not had the time to look at them but I expect no problems here.
2. Fix the docs, both the online and the ones that ship with the mod. This is iffier as their generation is only semi-automated.

As far as translations, only the French one is up to date, minus a couple of minor commits that were since made, courtesy of a patch by mickabouile.

Any other fixes to get in? Furthermore, what is the general consensus about the install order -- (would like to put this, along with general install instructions, in the top readme). Since it replaces and adds spells, "very early" in the install order is the general recommendation. Anything more concrete?

SR does not touch creatures to add or delete memorized spells; it does not touch Baresh, much less give him spells. SCS certainly does give spells (depending on the settings you chose), so there could be some weird interaction going on -- what do you have in mind subtledoctor?

@Sullen Dwarf1) and 2) are fixed in Master. I do not know what the quoted last line about Animal Growth refers to. If you are feeling adventurous, hop to the GitHub page , click the green button labelled "Code" and download the latest release. Unzip the zip and copy the spell_rev folder to your bg install. Installation is now as a normal weidu mod, e.g. something like "weinstall spell_rev". Holler if something is not working.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

This seems weird, I feel like this used to work. Maybe the file got changed at some point?

This is indeed weird. But according to git log, there is only the initial commit for the file. Anyway, thanks for the fix (btw, what exactly was the fix?).

By the way, the workfow for submitting PR's is simple: fork the repo. Git clone the fork into a local copy. Git branch to make a new branch. Checkout to new branch. Hack away. Git push the branch to your fork. Submit PR.

PR is up.

@subtledoctor: It shouldn't and in this particular case it is actually incorrect, because dvbanish is also called in the second eff targetting unknown = no-limit summonables. Will make a PR fixing dvbanish the coming weekend.

In the PR Arcane level 9 spell fixes I reworded the description with some fluff to mention the (very important) fact that it kills the imprisoned critter after a set period. I also added a note to put up an RFC with the suggestion of following IRR and adding a save. Never got around to it, so thanks subtledoctor for tackling this.

I have no really good ideas, and I am even skeptic that there is a good solution to this. It is good as a plot point (e.g. as in the cited Harper encounter), but really has no place in a *generic* spellbook. I said somewhere else that this is the ultimate eff you spell if used against the party and cheese if used against the enemy, but given that it is a level 9 spell, it *is* supposed to be powerful.

As far as the options subtledoctor listed go, I do not have any strong preferences, but option 2 of "go back to the vanilla implementation, maybe adding a save, and let players deal with the broken script stuff" is for me the worst idea, as SR has an explicit goal of fixing vanilla spells. It is not clear to me that 1 and 3 are *that* different.