grodrigues

I am a bit confused on how anti-spell protections should work in SR(R) + SCS. It was my impression that they penetrated improved invisibility but after checking from experience that they do not, and checking in NI that they do not have the right flag set up, and also checking the SCS docs that this particular change is not implemented if SR(R) is detected, my question is how are we supposed to handle enemy mages with a higher level than the party? A typical end game BG1 mage will have non-detection, MGoI and dispelling screen. The odds of Remove Magic succeeding are not that great so that is prolly not a good option. If he goes Improved Invisible and I want to breach him (assume BG1 endgame and that I have a mage with access to level 5 spells), I have to dispel improved invisible. For that I have to get rid of non-detection. The only anti-spell that works then is spell thrust since it is aoe. Suppose we aim right and that the mage does not move in the meantime (as he so often does in SCS). Potentially you may need 3 spell thrusts and then can dispel invis and then can launch breach, so that is five rounds of being kicked in the groin with nasty spells. Of course by then PfMW will have expired so the whole rigmarole was probably for naught. So what am I missing? Of course he will also put up Protection from Missiles so ranged weapons are now basically useless as well (unless you have arrows of dispelling, which allow a save). There are not many usable damage spells in levels 4 and 5. So what is a 6-full party with 1 full arcane caster and a backup one (in SoA it will be 2 backup arcane casters) to do besides just taking it like a man?

Is there a rationale for Secret Word belonging to the Enchantment School instead of Abjuration like other anti-spell protection spells? Noticed when Dynaheir could not learn it. If it is a bug, the docs should also be amended (but maybe they are generated automatically?).

That is precisely what I wanted to avoid, as the mod is personal-use only and I have no intentions of making it public. Anyway, thanks for the heads up; I will just use the current solution.

I have a personal mod I use that is installed before the wide-range change components of IR (IRR actually). What I do currently is to add at the end of lib/armor_list.tpa the following block:

ACTION_IF MOD_IS_INSTALLED ~items_pack/items_pack.tp2~ 0 BEGIN
    OUTER_SET $armor("iu#leat1") = 194  // Armor of the Shadowmaster
END

Is there a way to do this kind of thing from my own mod so that IR will pick it up later (it is not currently picking it up without the above insertion, so that e.g. resistances are not being set) and allow the general components to do their thing? Messing with other mod's source is always very brittle.

Just done an install of SCS. No major errors, just a couple of warnings in the AI initialization component, so I am just putting it here in case it is of any use:

WARNING: no effects altered on spwi418d.spl
WARNING: no effects added to scrl07.itm

[./override/SPELL.IDS] loaded, 26998 bytes
Warning: you've called an include with no argument

Attached is my weidu.log (nothing like a megamod install, but still relatively heavily modded) and the sfo_warnings.txt file in weidu_external folder. I would also attach the (homongous) debug file but the way I install SCS it contains only the part relative to tactical challenges, so it is not of much use.

weidu.log

sfo_warnings.txt

The latest commit "more SR spell.ids robustness " on your GitHub trpo has a typo in the line: "+ 1702 => CLERIC_STALEKR". I presume it should be CLERIC_STALKER.

On the latest version in GitHub, typo in line 1928 of store_revisions.tpa: UNLIMTIED -> UNLIMITED.

Documentation bug: does not mention the +5% mr on the third good Bhaalspawn power.

Not a per se bug, but I got one warning on installing Ascension v2.0.4 (after ToBEx and Fixpack), so putting it out in case it is important:

WARNING: no effects altered on spermel.itm

override/spermel.itm copied to weidu_external/backup/ascension/0/spermel.itm, 938 bytes

"Yeah, I'm curious where these probabilities come from."

Me too. Even though I do not have a dog in this fight, it seems both sides of the debate are arguing over the probability of a process terminating in life without specifying, or really having any concrete idea about, what that process would be. The problem with mumbling about molecules banging around and forming stuff, quite apart from whether the probability parameters are acceptable instead of say, being pulled out of thin air, is that it is not even a theory. We simply do not have acceptable theory for abiogenesis and so we have no, and cannot have any, idea how probable it is.

"The only way to get to God is by some kind of ontological argument, and, well, that route is not promising... "

Whether the ontological is problematic or not (and I actually do agree that it is, although probably not for the same reasons), the idea that it is the only way to God is false as Plato and Aristotle, convinced theists, have shown -- and western philosophy is basically a series of footnotes on those two. Now, of course you can try to argue that cosmological arguments like Aristotle's or Plotinus' or St. Thomas Aquinas' or Leibniz's are also problematic, but that is a distinct objection.

@Luke:

"Are you talking about the fact that properties should not be used to give definitions? "

No. where did you get that idea? What I was saying, or tried to say, was (1) by *definition* the *limit of a sequence*, when it exists, is a *real number* (once again, sticking to real analysis) satisfying a certain property that David gave (in symbols, the sequence x_n converges to x if (by definition) A e > 0 E n_0 \in N A n > n_0: |x_n - x| < e with N the set of natural numbers, A the universal quantifier and E the existential one) and (2) in your very sentence you speak about the limit as " the value that", so unless you are using the words in a total novel way, it is baffling (at least to me) why you are asking "how can it be exactly zero?"

\math

@Luke:

""As far as I know (Mathematical Analysis I course, engineering curriculum), a limit is the value that a function or sequence approaches as the index approaches some value. So, how can it be exactly zero? "

Your question is baffling because you give the answer in it. A limit of a sequence or function  (that it is *the* limit, when it exists, is a theorem) is *by definition* a *real number* (let us stick to real analysis here) that satisfies a certain property, "the value" in your sentence. Period. *The* limit lim_{n->0}(1/n) *is* a real number, namely 0; adding "exactly" does no work and conveys absolutely nothing.

\math

I do not use Anomen, so not really a problem, but his symbol j#belt13 is neutral only; should it not be good instead, as if he passes the test he becomes lawful good?

In stratagems.ini there is an option with the format:

Do_Not_Fix_Thac= 0_Errors = 0

Is this correct? It certainly is not standard ini format.

And a question. Is it possible to set difficulty per component (in classical BGT) by say, editing some file which I failed to find before install?

Edit: should have read the readme more attentively. Let me rephrase the question. Does the innate abiility also work on classical BGT (with ToBEx)? And if not, is there anyway for such customization in BGT?

@Greenhorn:

It installs but with warnings in the log file. Specifically you get:

How bad is that I do not know, but since I wished to get BGT installed without errors or warnings I hunted down the fix and bumped into the thread CamDawg linked to.

DavidW: just a heads up in case you miss it. By mistake, made a testing report in the "Last Call" thread instead of here.

On Linux, running classical BG2 GOG through wine, with ToBEx and BGT.

Getting errors in several components, starting with smarter ones. These are all due to missing states in Stats.ids. I will list them here:

[CheckStat] argument [MIND_BLANK] not found in [Stats.IDS]
[CheckStatGT] argument [PRIORITY_BREACH] not found in [Stats.IDS]
[CheckStat] argument [TURNING_TO_STONE] not found in [Stats.IDS]
[CheckStat] argument [PROTECTION_FROM_MAGICAL_WEAPONS] not found in [Stats.IDS]
[CheckStat] argument [DETECT_INVISIBILITY] not found in [Stats.IDS]

I do not know who is to blame here for these missing states; attached is my weidu log file. I will probably make some more alterations in the mods loaded before SCS, but this is already very close to the final one. I just wanted to test that SCS installed without errors or warnings.

Extra info: First, all the above errors are in the context of something like:

[tb#_compile_eval_buffer/weidu_external/workspace/ssl_out/dw#hlgla.baf] PARSE ERROR at line 421 column 1-46
Near Text: )
    [CheckStat] argument [MIND_BLANK] not found in [Stats.IDS]

Second, I checked Stats.ids in NI and MIND_BLANK is present (number 499), PRIORITY_BREACH is present (number 497), TURNING_TO_STONE is present (number 502), PROTECTION_FROM_MAGICAL_WEAPONS is *not* present and DETECT_INVISIBILITY (which accounts for the majority of errors) is *not* present, what is present is DW_DETECT_INVISIBILITY (number 503).

I found no other errors and only one warning:

[stratagems/lang/ENGLISH/mage.tra] has 21 translation strings
warning:illegal argument for CRE_enforce

I can zip and attach the debug file, but it is very big (over 10Mb), so will only do it if you really do need them.

Edit: and while I am at it, a question. I must have missed it if this already exists, but is possible to set the difficulty per component? Say core for smarter mages and insane for smarter priests, and on and so on?

weidu.zip

The latest BG1 NPC v24beta is barfing on the second component for me. On linux, running classical BG2 GOG through wine with ToBEx and BGT- Attached are the weidu.log and the debug file. The offending lines seem to be:

[SAREVO.DLG] loaded
WARNING: internal label [17] not found in processed DLG [TAZOK]
WARNING: EXTEND_BOTTOM state #17 out of range 0-7, SKIPPED
WARNING: internal label [33] not found in processed DLG [TAZOK]
WARNING: EXTEND_BOTTOM state #33 out of range 0-7, SKIPPED
WARNING: internal label [8] not found in processed DLG [TAZOK]
WARNING: internal label [13] not found in processed DLG [TAZOK]
ERROR: processing .D actions [tb#_compile_eval_buffer/bg1npc/Phase2/dlg/x#kivantazok_tutu.d]: Invalid_argument("index out of bounds")

Before that, there are two warnings:

[YESLIJ.DLG] loaded
WARNING: EXTEND_BOTTOM #position 1 out of range 0-1

[CORANP.DLG] loaded
WARNING: REPLACE specifies no WEIGHT for state 16 and DLG uses non-trivial weights.  Using weight from DLG (4). [4]

setup-bg1npc.debug.zip

weidu.zip

Sorry to bother you guys with more complaining, but I have been trying intermitently the link above to dltcep v7.8.0.2 for the past 48h and I always get a "We're sorry, but a temporary technical error has occurred which means we cannot display this site right now."

Just as the title says. In the thread with that title in the dltcep subforum, Avenger posted a link to dltcep 7.8.0.2, but the link gives an error. I would use v7.7 but it is not working for me (linux, using wine).

Do you use case insensitive partitions http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28516

See third line of my post.