Wounded_Lion Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 From the readme: Error in Fallen Paladin/Ranger Ability Tables The ability tables for paladins and rangers were missing a column. Files altered: clabfi05.2da CLABFI05.2da? What? CLABPA05.2da is the ability table for the Fallen Paladin. CLABRN05.2da is the ability table for the Fallen Ranger. CLABFI05.2da does not exist in a default game. The Fixpack does strange things to these files. First, CLABPA05 and CLABRN05 both receive extra ability lines (the last of which is numbered "A"). CLABPA05 receives an applied spell that disables the Stealth button (which Paladins do not have). CLABRN05 receives an applied spell that disables the Turn/Control Undead button (which Rangers do not have). CLABFI05 is created and is... odd. So... what gives? Fortunately, these errors do not interfere with my Fallen Paladin and Fallen Ranger components (Morrow Gate). But it's still weird. Veeery weird. - D Link to comment
Nythrun Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 These rows are numbered in hex, the last row in an unmodded game for these 2das already is ABILITYA. Similarly, the screwy looking spell application is already there in an unmodded game and isn't due to fixpack, which doesn't alter clabpa05.2da or clabrn05.2da in any way. clabfi05.2da exists in an unmodded game and looks like this before patching: 2DA V1.0 **** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ABILITY1 AP_SPCL151 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** AP_SPCL153 **** GA_SPCL152 **** AP_SPCL154 **** GA_SPCL152 **** AP_SPCL154 **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ABILITY2 GA_SPCL152 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ABILITY3 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ABILITY4 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ABILITY5 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ABILITY6 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** Link to comment
Wounded_Lion Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 These rows are numbered in hex, the last row in an unmodded game for these 2das already is ABILITYA. Why would these tables have more than the standard six or so rows in an unmodded game? Similarly, the screwy looking spell application is already there in an unmodded game and isn't due to fixpack, which doesn't alter clabpa05.2da or clabrn05.2da in any way. I don't recall this from the time before the Fixpack. Perhaps I had another mod installed (possibly Baldurdash) that fixed this? clabfi05.2da exists in an unmodded game... So... what's it used for? I don't remember it from the time before the Fixpack. But again, perhaps I had another mod installed that fixed this? And why does the readme claim to alter CLABFI05 in order to fix Fallen Paladin/Ranger ability tables? Makes no sense to me... - D Link to comment
Nythrun Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Why would these tables have more than the standard six or so rows in an unmodded game? To account for clabpa03.2da and such, which also have ten rows. I don't recall this from the time before the Fixpack. Perhaps I had another mod installed (possibly Baldurdash) that fixed this. There's no fixing involved, both rangers and paladins get the same three spells applied when they fall: disable stealth, disable spellcasting, disable turning. So... what's it used for? I don't remember it from the time before the Fixpack. But again, perhaps I had another mod installed that fixed this? It's for barbarians. Removing it would break them totally and not be a fix. And why does the readme claim to alter CLABFI05 in order to fix Fallen Paladin/Ranger ability tables? Makes no sense to me... Typo in the documentation I'd assume Link to comment
Wounded_Lion Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 To account for clabpa03.2da and such, which also have ten rows. But when the new table is applied, why would it have to account for the rows of the previous table? I'd think that the old table would be removed and the new table added (intuitively). I'm not a programmer... does this have something to do with the mechanics of the switch? There's no fixing involved, both rangers and paladins get the same three spells applied when they fall: disable stealth, disable spellcasting, disable turning. Why are non-applicable spells applied? It's for barbarians. Removing it would break them totally and not be a fix. Barbarians are essentially a Fighter kit, then? That's interesting. Typo in the documentation I'd assume I suppose so... - D Link to comment
Wounded_Lion Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 I examined KITLIST.2da. Despite being a class (not a kit), there is an entry for the Barbarian. You are correct about the Barbarian class using CLABFI05. Also, the file lists the Barbarian's parent class (which it shouldn't have given its status as a class itself) as Fighter. I never bothered much with the internal workings of the Barbarian class since it cannot be kitted. Perhaps this is why it cannot be kitted? Because it is essentially a kit itself? I am now curious why the Barbarian wasn't coded as a simple Fighter kit. It's hardly worthy of its own class. - D Link to comment
Grim Squeaker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I examined KITLIST.2da. Despite being a class (not a kit), there is an entry for the Barbarian. You are correct about the Barbarian class using CLABFI05. Also, the file lists the Barbarian's parent class (which it shouldn't have given its status as a class itself) as Fighter. I never bothered much with the internal workings of the Barbarian class since it cannot be kitted. Perhaps this is why it cannot be kitted? Because it is essentially a kit itself? I am now curious why the Barbarian wasn't coded as a simple Fighter kit. It's hardly worthy of its own class. - D Yes, this is true. Similarly monks are fighters and sorcerors are mages. However they also have a lot of hardcoded extras added to them making them more than just kits. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Yeah, this is a docs error. clabfi05.2da has 40 columns, but the first row has 50 entries. I went from memory, thinking it was the clab for fallen rangers/paladins but this was clearly a mistake. Barbarians are, internally, fighter kits in the same fashion that wild mages are mage kits (which is why you can tweak them to allow dual-classing). Sorcerers are actually their own class. Link to comment
Grim Squeaker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Barbarians are, internally, fighter kits in the same fashion that wild mages are mage kits (which is why you can tweak them to allow dual-classing). Sorcerers are actually their own class. Damnit, yes I was thinking of Wild Mages. Link to comment
NiGHTMARE Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I am now curious why the Barbarian wasn't coded as a simple Fighter kit. It's hardly worthy of its own class. Simply because it's a seperate class in 3rd Edition pnp. (The 2E barbarian is indeed a kit, but the one in BG2 is based on the 3E version.) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.