IR Revised V1.3.800 (2022 January 11th)

[Hubal]

Damage: +2 (missile) 

Damage: +1

Damage: +1 bonus

It's just inconsistent

Also weapons deal Crushing and Piercing  or Crushing OR Piercing  (whichever is better)?

It's confusing.

Long Bow description states that they have longer reach than short bows. Is that true for the game?

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by Hubal

[Bartimaeus]

1 minute ago, Hubal said:

Damage: +2 (missile)

Damage: +1

Damage: +1 bonus

 

Okay, now that you mention it, I do see the distinct lack of a "(missile)" after the second +1. The third one, again, is an RR-added item, so I do not (at least yet) have any intention of trying to fix it, considering that it's not being "broken", it's just the result of RR installing items in the original BG2 format instead of an EE format. Perhaps an issue to try to tackle at some point in the future...

[Hubal]

I do not think (missile) is needed at all. Arrow description has it.

Elf specialized in Long Bows but not in Short Bows. Please look at THAC0

Elf Specialized in Short Bows. Please look at damage

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by Hubal

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, Hubal said:

do not think (missile) is needed at all. Arrow description has it.

I dislike the entire EE style of description from pretty much top to bottom, so you'd be preaching to the choir here - however, it is what is shown in the EEs, so it should match.

Bows: Uh...I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to get me to look at, but I'm not familiar with the EE's UI. From what I can tell, in the second example, you have specialized in short bows, so you get 1D6 + 2 damage = 3-8 damage. That seems correct? In the first example, you have specialized in long bows, so 1D6 damage for the short bow and 1D6 + 2 (proficiency) + 1 (long bow bonus) damage for the long bows = 4-10. All that seems correct. I can't seem to understand your THAC0, though - why is it still at 15 when the text seems to imply it should be at 18?

(e): Missing (missile) should now be fixed, broken halberds should now be fixed. Thanks!

Edited October 17, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[DavidW]

On 10/15/2021 at 6:28 PM, subtledoctor said:

the current updated version of the mod leaves the Silver Sword as a non-artifact weapon that hits as +3. But again, while this may sound "weaker," I challenge anyone to write a list of enemies who can't be hit by such weapons. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two. Maybe three.

Four in the unmodded game, I think: Fallen Solars, the Ravager, the Aurumach Rilmani, and the Lesser Demon Lord.

(And any wizard who casts Improved Mantle, of course!)

[InKal]

GWW+Silver Sword=easy mode

[Bartimaeus]

I've been doing some icon excavation between the original BG1, BG2, and IWD2 and comparing to current 1pp/the EEs, and I'm looking for some opinions:

1. Mithral Field/Full Plate, should it look like this:

Spoiler

(1pp/EE appearance, current, old BG1 icon for full plate mail)

or

(BG2 appearance, same as used for full plate mail)

or

(unused plate icon, originally belonged to...something, I don't remember what)

I don't like any of these options, and I've never been able to make a decision about what I want here, so I've always defaulted to the 1pp/EE appearance, but I really hate that super low detail graphic. Other ideas welcome. There's also...

(Gorgon Plate)

...which is currently being used for Full Plate Mail +2 (as the armor that would have used it, Casiel's Soul, uses a different unique icon). I don't think anything quite fits what's supposed to be spectacular mithral full plate.

2. Plate Mail:

Spoiler

(BG1, current)

or

(BG2)

I have no strong feelings about this one - however, it is a little weird to me that we currently use the BG1 icon for regular plate mail but the BG2 icon for full plate mail. I think the BG1 looks better, but the BG2 fits in better.

3. Mithral Chain Mail:

Spoiler

(1pp/EE, old BG1 icon)

or

(BG2)

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I feel like the BG2 icon is actually better in this case.

4. Chain Mail +3:

Spoiler

(1pp/EE, BG1 icon)

or

(BG2)

This one's odd, because 1pp/the EEs seem to generally prefer BG2 icons over the BG1 for chain mail, so using the BG1 one kinda looks out of place to me when next to all the other BG2 icons.

I've included a horde of icons between the two different games that are currently unused (and will probably stay that way), but at least they're around. BG1 icons will use a "1" prefix (instead of the standard "i"), while BG2 icons will use a "2" instead. I had forgotten what some of the original BG2 icons (like Leather and Studded Leather, or the aforementioned Plate Mail, or some of the original terrible ToB weapon icons) look like after all these years of using 1pp.

5. Two wands (but not icon-related):

Spoiler

Wand of Fire originally offered Fireball and Aganazzar's Scorcher; in IRR, only Fireball is offered (basically to make it on equal footing with the Wand of Lightning and Wand of Cold...Wand of Ice? ...Wand of Frost! Yes, that. Did anyone ever use Aganazzar's Scorcher on the Wand of Fire? For a long time, I didn't even realize it *had* Aganazzar's Scorcher. One weird aspect of having two different abilities on a wand is that once one is expended, the wand automatically destroys itself, so if you used all of the fireballs up but had full scorchers still, it doesn't matter, bye bye wand.

Similarly, the Wand of Spell Striking is a similar situation with both Pierce Magic and Breach charges. I've honestly thought about just combining this to a Pierce Shield via SRR instead, so that there isn't the issue of two abilities. This would mean increasing the intelligence requirement up to...16, I think, though, and I really don't feel all that strongly about wands, so I guess I don't really care that much if these two inexplicably just have two abilities.

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Guest w tiger]

Thx for the mod. You're doing really important job improving one of the best mod of the game.

Though I also liked scs's replacing +1 weapons with fine ones, i cant make these two run together. I followed your install order, in IRR ini corresponding component is disabled by default saying its outdated and use scs's instead. But in scs i cant install either, skipping the component because it thinks it installed by item revisions

[Bartimaeus]

2 hours ago, Guest w tiger said:

Thx for the mod. You're doing really important job improving one of the best mod of the game.

Though I also liked scs's replacing +1 weapons with fine ones, i cant make these two run together. I followed your install order, in IRR ini corresponding component is disabled by default saying its outdated and use scs's instead. But in scs i cant install either, skipping the component because it thinks it installed by item revisions

I'd actually just been taking a look at masterwork/fine weapons, coincidentally (indeed, that was originally the point of trawling through IWD for icons, because masterwork weapons actually already exist in IWD with their own unique icons). I saw the same note in the settings.ini (which comes from normal IR, I haven't changed the note there) and didn't think much of it except that I should check out how SCS does it to compare - didn't realize SCS considered itself incompatible with IR on that front. In IR, I believe the issue with masterwork weapons is that IR will straight up convert ALL +1 weapons to masterwork weapons indiscriminately(?), leading to there being no +1 weapons in either BG1/BG2(?)...which, in my opinion, is not exactly ideal, even though I understand why it's done that way, since trying to manually hand-pick them would be...very tedious*. I thought SCS had a more...elegant way of handling it, but now that I think about it, I guess I don't really remember being offered the option to check it out. @DavidW?

*This approach actually makes sense in a way, because it's a lot easier to replace all of them with masterwork by replacing the .itm resources entirely...but then I'd like to go through the additional step of creating a backup of the +1 weapons to a different .itm resource name and then restoring them to hand-picked locations where they're appropriate.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[DavidW]

SCS does exactly what your * suggests, i.e. the default magic +1 weapons become high-quality, but there's copy made of each of them and the copies are placed in hand-picked locations.

(Well, that's what happens in BG1. In BG2 I don't bother with the hand-picked placements since there are so many +2 and better items anyway.)

[Bartimaeus]

31 minutes ago, DavidW said:

SCS does exactly what your * suggests, i.e. the default magic +1 weapons become high-quality, but there's copy made of each of them and the copies are placed in hand-picked locations.

(Well, that's what happens in BG1. In BG2 I don't bother with the hand-picked placements since there are so many +2 and better items anyway.)

Thanks! Is there any particular reason the SCS component is disabled for IR players?

Edited October 21, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[DavidW]

I assume because someone told me IR already introduced high-quality weapons.

[Lianos]

22 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Wand of Fire originally offered Fireball and Aganazzar's Scorcher; in IRR, only Fireball is offered (basically to make it on equal footing with the Wand of Lightning and Wand of Cold...Wand of Ice? ...Wand of Frost! Yes, that. Did anyone ever use Aganazzar's Scorcher on the Wand of Fire? For a long time, I didn't even realize it *had* Aganazzar's Scorcher. One weird aspect of having two different abilities on a wand is that once one is expended, the wand automatically destroys itself, so if you used all of the fireballs up but had full scorchers still, it doesn't matter, bye bye wand.

I always saved 1 charge of Fireball in order to use the charges of Aganazzar's Scorcher. I usually ended up with ~10 wands, each with 1 Fireball charge left... Aganazzar's Scorcher just in't worth it in BG2. It would be cool if one could overcharge a wand, like have a Fireball with 10d6 instead of 6d6, but it consumes 2 charges and is only available for high-level users.

 

22 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Similarly, the Wand of Spell Striking is a similar situation with both Pierce Magic and Breach charges. I've honestly thought about just combining this to a Pierce Shield via SRR instead, so that there isn't the issue of two abilities. This would mean increasing the intelligence requirement up to...16, I think, though, and I really don't feel all that strongly about wands, so I guess I don't really care that much if these two inexplicably just have two abilities.

I would like that. /edit The Pierce Shield idea I mean.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Lianos

[Bartimaeus]

23 minutes ago, DavidW said:

I assume because someone told me IR already introduced high-quality weapons.

Alright. Weirdly, IR itself recommends players not to use the optional masterwork setting (which is also disabled by default) in favor of SCS's.

@Lianos Thanks for the feedback. I didn't see much reason to change Wand of Fire back to how it used to be, so unless someone feels very strongly about it, it'll probably remain the same. Wand of Spell Striking...may suffer the same fate at some point, .

Edited October 21, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

I see no problem with simply removing all +1 weapons from the game...