[bg2ee] Weapon animation fixes

[CamDawg]

I fix these in Tweaks, but never got around to getting them into a proper Fixpack, so here we go:

• Habib's Mighty Scimitar uses a katana paperdoll animation instead of scimitar
• Yamato +4 uses a scimitar animation instead of short sword (like other wakizashi)
• Usuno's Blade uses a scimitar animation instead of long sword (like other ninja-to)
• The undroppable copy of the Spectral brand has no animation

The fix to the Spectral Brand copy makes no difference as it's used only by the summoned dancing sword, but it'd be nice to include.

One more I've found since: the Flaming Long Sword +1from the Rod of Lordly Might (rodsword) should use the flaming sword animation.

 

 

[Luke]

I'd also make sure that all ninjatōs use "SS" (short sword) and are coded as "Small swords" (Header @ 0x1C).

They're described as "... short with a straight blade, making it ideal for subterfuge...". However, they are currently coded as "S1" (Long sword) and "Large swords" (Header @ 0x1C), and that does sound to be incorrect...

Edited April 5, 2022 by Luke

[CamDawg]

Outside of Usuno's animation, there's nothing to support either of those changes as developer intent--ninja-tos consistently coded as s1/large swords.

More to the point, this cosmetic change would have actual in-game effects, e.g. someone like Lucette goes from having five pips in her weapon to two because (like many creatures) she's still using oBG proficiencies.

[Luke]

51 minutes ago, CamDawg said:

ninja-tos consistently coded as s1/large swords

OK, but the issue is still there...?

I mean, why are they consistently coded as "s1/large swords" and described as "short, ideal for subterfuge, and more suited to fighting in closed places"...?

IMHO, this is an inconsistency and should be fixed...

53 minutes ago, CamDawg said:

More to the point, this cosmetic change would have actual in-game effects, e.g. someone like Lucette goes from having five pips in her weapon to two because (like many creatures) she's still using oBG proficiencies.

Yes, you're right, those CRE files would need to be edited to account for the new weapon category... Shouldn't be too hard...

[Luke]

1 hour ago, CamDawg said:

More to the point, this cosmetic change would have actual in-game effects,

Related: as far as STO files are concerned (including the various Bags of Holding), those that buy / sell "Large swords" should also buy / sell "Small swords", so that's hopefully not an issue...

[DavidW]

11 hours ago, Luke said:

12 hours ago, CamDawg said:

ninja-tos consistently coded as s1/large swords

OK, but the issue is still there...?

I mean, why are they consistently coded as "s1/large swords" and described as "short, ideal for subterfuge, and more suited to fighting in closed places"...?

IMHO, this is an inconsistency and should be fixed...

At least in my judgement: yes, it's an inconsistency, but it's pretty clearly an intentional inconsistency. Hence, outside scope for a fixpack.

[jmerry]

And remember, ninja-tos didn't exist in BG1. In BG2, they're lumped in with scimitars as a player-usable proficiency, and scimitars have always been large swords. The developers paid more attention to mechanics than flavor when setting things up, but we definitely shouldn't change things and have a BG2 proficiency that splits between two BG1 proficiencies.

[Luke]

6 hours ago, DavidW said:

At least in my judgement: yes, it's an inconsistency, but it's pretty clearly an intentional inconsistency. Hence, outside scope for a fixpack.

OK then, so be it...

Now that I think of it, Item Revision takes care of this inconsistency, so that's fine I guess...

[CamDawg]

Committed.

[subtledoctor]

On 4/5/2022 at 10:08 AM, CamDawg said:

ninja-tos consistently coded as s1/large swords.

More to the point, this cosmetic change would have actual in-game effects, e.g. someone like Lucette goes from having five pips in her weapon to two because (like many creatures) she's still using oBG proficiencies.

A bit off-topic, but I'm not sure I've ever sat down and fully understood how the oBG proficiency values work. These are recorded in 0x6e-0x75 in a .CRE file, right? Am I to understand from this post that these correspond to the "equipped appearance" at 0x22 of an .ITM file?

Edited April 19, 2022 by subtledoctor

[CamDawg]

They're tied to the item type at 0x1c.

[subtledoctor]

On 4/19/2022 at 2:29 PM, CamDawg said:

They're tied to the item type at 0x1c.

Okay then I'll ask this here but spoiler it for being off-topic:
 

Spoiler

If a mod changes, say, bastard swords to use item category #22 "morning stars," would it be sensible to apply something like this to non-joinable NPCs to maintain their combat effectiveness?

COPY_EXISTING ~%cre%~ ~override~
  READ_BYTE 0x6e large_sword_bg1_prof
  PATCH_IF (large_sword_bg1_prof > 0 ) BEGIN
    ADD_BG2_PROFICIENCY ~PROFICIENCYBASTARDSWORD~ large_sword_bg1_prof
  END
BUT_ONLY

 

 

Edited February 12 by subtledoctor

[CamDawg]

Yes, that will work fine.