More dual class options

[SixOfSpades]

I apologize if my post may have seemed condescending--that was never my intention, but on the Internet where you cannot hear tone of voice, and where many trolls lurk waiting to flame the unwary, well, people tend to hear what they expect to hear. The "sorry" at the end of my post was not sarcasm, but an actual expression of regret that class combinations such as Multiclassed Ranger/Bard (the ultimate backup character!) are impossible. (Except, apparently, with GemRB--I didn't know about that.)

 

As for "big & obvious," I'm afraid that yes, expanding class-combination selection fits that description, as one's character class is a huge factor in the game, and modders have been banging their heads against that wall for quite some time. My choice of terminology was not meant to be belittling, but simply comparative, as follows:

"Why can't my party members ride horses?" Big & obvious: Because the amount of new animations required would be insane (there isn't even an animation of a horse simply walking, let alone rearing up in combat while its Male Elven Mage rider is casting an Enchantment spell), to say nothing of the new combat dynamics (the Mage failed his Save vs. Hold Person, but the horse is immune due to its size, so can it still fight without making the Elf fall off and break his neck?).

"Why can't I make a Halberd that grants the user an additional proficiency point in Halberds?" Small & obscure: Because the opcode that affects proficiency points cannot add or subtract proficiency points, it can only set them. This is something that only a modder (or at least someone familiar with DLTCEP or the IESDP) would know.

 

I am by no means hostile to Baldur's Gate newbies--quite the contrary, in fact. This website should serve as ample proof of that; you may be interested in the Class Combinations section of Chapter 4, and the very end of Chapter 12.

[Jarno Mikkola]

On the other hand a druid/mage isn't very hard to "fake" - you can start with a cleric mage, remove the "cleric only" spells like blade barrier, add the "druid only" spells, shapeshifting and druid specific HLAs and restrict them to non metal armor/weapons.

There's a few unpleasant surprizes on the combination... unforseeable until you try it. Like yeah, the removal of the spells is not as easy as it first seems, as the newly reapplied kit's *CLAB*.2da file cannot actually do that... as the multiclass'es own file sidesteps it. Tried this...

So it might be better to put forth the actions instead of the words. I, too trying to achieve this.

 

class combinations such as Multiclassed Ranger/Bard (the ultimate backup character!) are impossible. (Except, apparently, with GemRB--I didn't know about that.)

The GemRB is still in the works... it can be coded to do whatever you wish, is it a good idea to make a Sorcerer/Barbarian/Assasin/Priest of Mystra available for the game, it's up to the one coding the horror, it might be possible, but definitely won't be easy, nor is it going to really be worth the trouble. Well, that's my oppinion on the matter...

 

Because the opcode that affects proficiency points cannot add or subtract proficiency points, it can only set them. This is something that only a modder (or at least someone familiar with DLTCEP or the IESDP) would know.

Well, it can only set them upwards. So a weapon that sets them will indefinetly alter the .cre file... so you cannot set it back to zero... or to one, two, three or four if it's more.

[Keldor]

Well to be honest, I hadn't noticed you weren't the OP, so I'm sorry.

Fair enough.

In any case, I don't see his answer was insulting, nasty, nor did he refer to the question as "stupid".

It's insulting to tell someone that what they have asked is obvious! It implies that he should have known better than to have done so! To do this to a new member is especially unfair (and treating people unfairly, implying they are stupid when they aren't, is, surely, nasty. Why should a new member know things relative to a specific community when they are clearly new to that community?

And as I said before, he also tried to answer the OP with actual useful information.

No, you didn't say that before. You said he had provided a lot of useful information. In fact, this information was challenged. So maybe the answer wasn't so 'big and obvious' after all. However, the point you still seem to be missing is not one about the information SixofSpades provided but the way he provided it.

[Keldor]

I apologize if my post may have seemed condescending--that was never my intention, but on the Internet where you cannot hear tone of voice, and where many trolls lurk waiting to flame the unwary, well, people tend to hear what they expect to hear.

I can accept your apology and hope the OP can too but I felt insulted based on what you actually wrote, not what I expected you to write.

As for "big & obvious," I'm afraid that yes, expanding class-combination selection fits that description, as one's character class is a huge factor in the game, and modders have been banging their heads against that wall for quite some time. My choice of terminology was not meant to be belittling, but simply comparative, as follows:

"Why can't my party members ride horses?" Big & obvious: Because the amount of new animations required would be insane (there isn't even an animation of a horse simply walking, let alone rearing up in combat while its Male Elven Mage rider is casting an Enchantment spell), to say nothing of the new combat dynamics (the Mage failed his Save vs. Hold Person, but the horse is immune due to its size, so can it still fight without making the Elf fall off and break his neck?).

You're wrong. You think it's big and obvious (or, more properly, you thought it was until someone seemingly taught you better). How can a new member be expected to know such a thing? A new member may not even have played the game. Only yesterday I read a new post by a newbie who stated that he hadn't yet played BG at all and was wondering if he should mod first.

 

Besides, this is not what you referred to as 'big and obvious'. That question was about dual classing and your reply has proved embarrassing since another member has pointed out something which you admit you didn't know about. If you didn't know about it, how much sense does it make to expect a newbie to do so?

"Why can't I make a Halberd that grants the user an additional proficiency point in Halberds?" Small & obscure: Because the opcode that affects proficiency points cannot add or subtract proficiency points, it can only set them. This is something that only a modder (or at least someone familiar with DLTCEP or the IESDP) would know.

You obviously fail to see that a newbie is likely to see both questions as equally obscure.

 

I am by no means hostile to Baldur's Gate newbies--quite the contrary, in fact. This website should serve as ample proof of that; you may be interested in the Class Combinations section of Chapter 4, and the very end of Chapter 12.

Again, how would a newbie know this? His first contact with you included an implication that he'd asked a stupid question and was recommended that he should learn your rule of thumb so he won't do it again. Do you really think yourself so special that newbies can be expected to seek out and read your posts (over those of thousands of other members') to learn what a helpful chap you really are so they don't feel insulted when you reply with an insulting tone?

[lynx]

Jeez, I thought this thread was about dual classing.

 

Jarno: I'm pretty sure we'll never support more than 3 class multiclasses in the old sense, but adding new combos is as easy as adding all the relevant tables, strings and resources, since it is all dehardcoded.

In iwd2 mode, it would of course be different, but I haven't thought about it much.

[Senka]

How can a new member be expected to know such a thing?

It's simple. Read. And learn.

A new member may not even have played the game.

What do you do here? This is modding forum.

Only yesterday I read a new post by a newbie who stated that he hadn't yet played BG at all and was wondering if he should mod first.

When you learn BG by heart only then play mod.

And, you see, before posting would be wise from you to read this forum.

[Keldor]

How can a new member be expected to know such a thing?

It's simple. Read. And learn.

No it's not - it's IMPOSSIBLE.

A new member may not even have played the game.

What do you do here? This is modding forum.

I was making a point.

Personally I've come here to download game fix packs and patches. I don't need to know anything about modding to have a use for this site - and neither does anyone else.

And, you see, before posting would be wise from you to read this forum.

Yes, and before you try to communicate in English you'd be wise to learn the language properly! Tell me, how long must I read the forum before I should post?

[Keldor]

Jeez, I thought this thread was about dual classing.

It's ironic that you should be the one to make this comment because it was you who first replied to Jlad with a distinctly perfunctory, dismissive reply:

Impossible, get a kit that functions similarly.

Jlad responded to suggest that he didn't find it very helpful and he immediately got a response that was rude. I pointed this out and the thread dissolved into feeble attempts to deny what actually happened and to defend the indefensible - with the exception of SixofSpades who has at least apologised.

[lynx]

Maybe it got lost in interpretation, but my reply was not meant to perfunctory or dismissive, but concise.

 

The followup was informative, whether you find the last paragraph rude or not. Personal disputes should be solved via private messages (PM), not by sidetracking topics where issues occured.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Jeez, I thought this thread was about dual classing.

It's ironic that you should be the one to make this comment because it was you who first replied to Jlad with a distinctly perfunctory, dismissive reply:

Impossible, get a kit that functions similarly.

Jlad responded to suggest that he didn't find it very helpful and he immediately got a response that was rude. I pointed this out and the thread dissolved into feeble attempts to deny what actually happened and to defend the indefensible - with the exception of SixofSpades who has at least apologised.

Actually you read the situation wrong...

 

Now, let me refrain the what lynx answer... with the words he wrote.

 

It is impossible to make a class combo that mixes the from Sorcerer and Monk, because the two classes are not kit's but base classes that nobody is able to combine because the game engine limits that, your best option to simulate that fact is get a kit that functions similarly.

 

The SixofS...'s answer came to say just the facts, perhaps with the wrong stressing on a few points because he had tried an approach and later learned that it was impossible to archive, because the code that regulates the functionality of the classes is coded so that one needs to remake it completely to archive the desired result... and a few facts that weren't totally accurate, but no wars were fought because of those... but none of us know everything. NOT EVEN YOU.

And then you came in claiming that somebody else had been wronged ... when the information wasn't shared. Perhaps because lynx tried to redirect to more appropriate/easier approach, perhaps shortly because he needed to go somewhere, who knows, but the intention was good.

 

, since it is all dehardcoded.

Aaa-ah, yeah, if you include the ability table, one doesn't even need the four multi classes, as one can make a class that can do all with it's own restrictions...

[SixOfSpades]

It's insulting to tell someone that what they have asked is obvious!

Is it? If a car slams right into a tree and sits there, radiator wrapped around the trunk, as the driver stumbles from the wreckage clutching his bleeding forehead, and the woman watching this scene from across the street asks, "Oooh, did that car just hit that tree?" then yes, that question is pretty friggin' obvious. If the woman feels insulted by my statement that her question was obvious, then that's her problem, not mine. It's not my fault that she chose not to employ the 6 or 7 brain cells it would have taken to answer her own question. Granted, the Dual-classing question actually at issue here is a less extreme example than Car Hits Tree, but I stand by my statement that the game's class structure is something so fundamental that it's nearly impossible to come up with any new ideas about it--and yes, even total newbies should know this. They should know that the game is over 10 years old, and that it's been heavily modded for well over half that time by people with extensive backgrounds in both PnP D&D and Computer Science, and therefore they should know that the odds of their just waltzing onto a modding forum and dropping off some revolutionary, paradigm-changing idea is, to put it bluntly, not gonna happen. I'm not saying that new users to the forum can't have good ideas, I'm just saying that they can't have good BIG ideas (that can feasibly be implemented).

 

I also stand by my right to classify a question or idea as obvious--or even stupid. "I want to play the game from Irenicus's perspective!" "Let's make a mod where the party goes to Chult to fight dinosaurs!" "Bodhi should be a BDSM dominatrix, and she enslaves the main character and makes him kill his own party members, and then the XXX-rated end movie plays!" . . . ehhhh, how about not. Those suggestions (with the possible exception of Irenicus) are just plain stupid, whether they're brought up by a new user or not. As the saying goes, Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

 

I felt insulted based on what you actually wrote . . . treating people unfairly, implying they are stupid when they aren't, is surely nasty . . . your reply has proved embarrassing . . . you obviously fail to see . . .

If you felt insulted based on what I actually wrote--the three words "big & obvious," then I'm surprised you were able to wring that much righteous indignation (on behalf of a 3rd party, no less) from those three little words, and of course from the condescending tone that you interpreted them to have. And while my previous post was aimed to soothe any bruised feelings I might have caused, and while the previous section of this post defended my right to have (and express) low opinions of others, the only person in this thread who actually is deliberately and repeatedly insulting other users is . . . you. I don't know whether you're simply easily offended, or are just a slightly more original form of troll, but the fact that you continued your diatribe well after my post of explanation and apology certainly seems to smack of the latter. Whichever is true, I think it would be best to avoid posting here again until after you've calmed down.

[Keldor]

Is it?

Yes, and I've explained why. You remain ignorant if you want (or have no choice) but I'm not going to keep explaining why you're wrong.

and yes, even total newbies should know this. They should know that the game is over 10 years old,

That's just plain nonsense. It's true to say that certain people can be expected to know but not to say that they should know.

...and therefore they should know that the odds of their just waltzing onto a modding forum and dropping off some revolutionary, paradigm-changing idea is, to put it bluntly, not gonna happen.

When the premise is wrong, any conclusion made upon it must also be wrong.

I also stand by my right to classify a question or idea as obvious--or even stupid.

You can stand by your 'right' to run around howling at the moon if you so desire but it wouldn't alter the fact that your response was rude.

If you felt insulted based on what I actually wrote--the three words "big & obvious," then I'm surprised you were able to wring that much righteous indignation (on behalf of a 3rd party, no less) from those three little words, and of course from the condescending tone that you interpreted them to have.

The size and number of the words used isn't the measure of their affect; and so what if I'm sensitive enough to feel for someone else. I sympathised. Is that difficult to understand? Then, you would be surprised at my indignation if you didn't realise you'd been disrespectful. Also, do you think that a person only has a right to speak up against such behaviour when they themselves are personally targeted by it? Of course not.

And while my previous post was aimed to soothe any bruised feelings I might have caused, and while the previous section of this post defended my right to have (and express) low opinions of others, the only person in this thread who actually is deliberately and repeatedly insulting other users is . . . you.

Come on then, show where I've insulted others in any that wasn't retaliation.

I don't know whether you're simply easily offended

Yes, I've heard this one before - develop a thicker skin because on internet message boards casual disrespectfulness abounds. It still doesn't make it acceptable.

...or are just a slightly more original form of troll, but the fact that you continued your diatribe well after my post of explanation and apology certainly seems to smack of the latter.

I hadn't directed a single post towards you after that post, had I? Indeed, I'd remarked that I respected you for that. Now however, it seems you want to stir things up again - indeed, with your accusation that no one but me has been insulting, you well and truly have stirred it up. That is the action of a troll. My continuation on this matter - my "diatribe" ...was against others' comments, insults, and false accusations. What do you expect me to do when I'm attacked, slink away like a coward? Perhaps that's what you're used to seeing when a bunch of you gang up on a new member.

I think it would be best to avoid posting here again until after you've calmed down.

And I think you should have let this lie instead of stirring it up. I also think you should learn to accept when you're wrong instead of nonsensically insisting that no one should be ignorant of the history of Baldur's Gate and the fundamental concepts employed in its design.

[Keldor]

"Bodhi should be a BDSM dominatrix,

By the way, what does the acronym 'BDSM' stand for?

[Keldor]

Actually you read the situation wrong...

No I didn't; and the OP's bewildered response supports this. Please consider: English isn't your mother tongue - it is mine.

Now, let me refrain the what lynx answer... with the words he wrote.

See what I mean about your English comprehension? Come on, be reasonable!

...but no wars were fought because of those... but none of us know everything. NOT EVEN YOU.

I know I don't know everything! Where does that even come from? I've been openly expressing my ignorance as a non-modder and that I'm having trouble understanding the acronyms, and you say this!

Perhaps because lynx tried to redirect to more appropriate/easier approach, perhaps shortly because he needed to go somewhere, who knows, but the intention was good.

That may be so but both me and the original poster are new here (at least I haven't been here for years) so how are we to divine his intention? We can only go on the words. I thought his answer was abrupt and dismissive. Okay, NOW I know this wasn't intended but come on! Anyone can see how short and terse his reply was.

[polytope]

There's a few unpleasant surprizes on the combination... unforseeable until you try it. Like yeah, the removal of the spells is not as easy as it first seems, as the newly reapplied kit's *CLAB*.2da file cannot actually do that... as the multiclass'es own file sidesteps it. Tried this...

So it might be better to put forth the actions instead of the words. I, too trying to achieve this.

Try using a .spl with a small delay... To ensure that the removal/addition of spells comes after the normal spell table applied by the multiclass.

 

the fist change for monks should be trivial to add to other classes. For some wierd reason they hardcoded this mess and didn't just use clab files, but that doesn't mean you can't do the same — just swap the default fist with something else (mfistX in the case of monks). Well, unless they hardcoded fists themselves too in which case you could lose the new ones on certain occasions.

What opcode are you going to use to create the new fists? If you use 111 then the character is stuck with fists and nothing else, if you use 143 then whatever was in the weapon slot before the fists is gone - maybe not an issue if you apply it at level 1 and ensure that the "fist" is unmovable between weapon slots; but the character still has 1 weapon slot less with this change - it's not easy to duplicate the abilities of monks with softcode.

 

Perhaps that's what you're used to seeing when a bunch of you gang up on a new member.

It's interesting that Jlad, the poster who was apparently insulted on the first page, hasn't complained of such, there is no implied rudeness in being succinct. Stating that someone's suggestion is "obvious" does not imply that the asker is stupid, just that it has been conceived before, and in this case, discarded as impractical.

 

Also, if you espouse an unpopular or illogical opinion in a public forum then you are likely to find multiple posters disagreeing with you... This does not mean they are "ganging up" on you. Such a term could be applied to, say, a concerted attack on someone's Facebook page, but not a forum topic where you voluntarily participate.