DavidW

The fact is that I'm not the one giving Mind Blank a higher level than SI, it's PnP. BG Spell Immunity is an invention of BG developers, and the vast majority of players agree they created an OP spell.

Leaving aside my points about Mind Blank's greater power, which you accept, I'm not much moved by pure PnP concerns. The BG2 spellcasting context is quite different (and in any case, 2nd edition spell level assignments are hardly immune from criticism).

I'm also not sure what the significance is of your comment about "the vast majority of players" (even if it's correct, which I'm sceptical about - people who are happy with things aren't likely to comment). The salient issue, presumably, is the quality of the arguments, not the number of supporters.

Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration.

Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions.

The problem is that you have two caps to how many spells you can learn per level, an in-game roleplaying one (depending on INT, but having 4-5 SI in the spellbook isn't great even if you have INT 18) and a technical one (sorcerers can only learn spells from that 24 spells per level limited list, you can't have 8 SI in such list).

Granted; in that case, I retract my support for getting rid of the single-use version.

I won't quote the discussion of how SI is more useful to enemy wizards than player ones, because I don't particularly disagree. But if we're discussing whether it's overpowered for enemy wizards, then the fact that it's useable in eight different ways becomes basically irrelevant, because no enemy AI I know takes advantage of that flexibility. In this situation, it comes down to a direct comparison, and that comparison seems to work out okay to me.

In more detail: grant, for the sake of argument, that Mind Blank should indeed be 8th level. It provides immunity to all mental attack forms, including but not limited to enchantments, and it has a long duration, and iirc, it's castable on other creatures, not just on the caster. In comparison, SI:Ench is caster-only, has a short duration, and protects only from enchantment-school mental attack forms. A three-level difference doesn't seem crazy in that circumstance. Certainly one level difference seems too little. (I wouldn't go overboard for 5th level versus 6th, but overall there's a game-interest case for spreading out spells a bit, and 6th is usually pretty oversubscribed... and in any case, in SCS I nearly always use SI via sequencers and contingencies, so 5th vs 6th is irrelevant) Similar arguments apply for Pro/Elements vs SI:Evoc.

Now, granted: enemy wizards are usually less affected by these restrictions than PCs: they don't tend to get attacked by mind flayers, and they tend not to be too disadvantaged by duration (though I don't use SI as a long-term buff precisely because it's got a short duration, so the duration is only irrelevant for players who choose prebuff option 1). But that's not a reason to ignore the restrictions when assigning a level to the spell, any more than the fact that enemy wizards find Fireball very hard to use compared to the player is a reason to lower its level.

P.S speaking of which, it's quite easy to notice how ridiculously overpowered Spell Immunity is when you see that both Mind Blank (which is exactly SI:Enchantment) and ProEnergy (aka SI:Evocation) are 8th lvl spells but SI alone can do both things and much more with a 5th lvl spell slot. There's a good reason Spell Immunity never existed in PnP (at least not in this form, because there it's a 4th lvl divine spell with a much much lesser effect).

Hang on, something's wrong there. Mind Blank isn't in vanilla BG2, so the fact that you give it a level higher than SI isn't independent of your antecedent belief that SI is overpowered. Also, Mind Blank protects (I take it) from mental attacks that aren't included in the Enchantment school (notably Illithid attacks), and (correct me if I'm wrong) has a longer duration; similarly, (vanilla) ProEnergy protects against plenty of attacks not in the Evocation school (e.g. Flame Arrow, dragon breath) and again (iirc) has a longer duration. Finally, I'm very unbothered by the apparent benefit of being able to get 8 different versions of SI from one memorised spell because in practice in BG2 it's highly unlikely that you won't be reasonably clear on which one you need in advance; having said which, it would bother neither SCS nor me personally to remove the single SI entirely in favour of the eight specific versions.

Put it another way. Is SI really the first spell every PC wizard memorises as soon as they get 5th level spell slots? Or even the 3rd? It's not when I play. SI:Abj and SI:Div are occasionally useful for PC wizards as part of an overall buffing pattern, but SI:Ench and SI:Evoc are rarely worth the slot and the time taken to cast them, given that any given wizard's attacks can probably be drawn from a variety of schools and given that you're only protecting one character.

Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.

Didin't we discussed it and reached a solution? If I'm not wrong SCS needs almost only SI:Abj and SI:Div, and thus "secretly" replacing spwi590 and spwi592 with Spell Shield and Non-detection respectively should be fine. If we add Mind Blank I could also replace spwi593 with it (I know we would have a mage cast an 8th lvl spell with a 5th lvl slot, but it's a minor issue imo). What do you think?

Oh, that rings a bell. I use SI: Evocation occasionally too, though. I don't think I use any of the others, though I'm at work and can't readily check.

On a different note, though, is this going to mess up Detectable-Spells-based targetting in SCS? After all, I check for SI:[whatever] when I target a spelll, but obviously I don't check for Mind Shield. (Indeed, there's a more general issue of how you handle detectability of new protection spells in SR - what do you do atm?)

Not for the first time, can I point out that removing Spell Immunity will break SCS compatibility.

maze has never been a spell worth a 8th level slot, and i suspect thats why ALL tactic mods made the npc mages switch it.

SCSII uses it occasionally (1/4 of enchanters' 8th level combat slots). Variety is the spice of life.

Just to clarify: this is a list of what mods I expect to be compatible with the mod. It's not a list of mods that I'm happy being tested with the mod. For testing, I'd rather you don't have any mod installed at all (unless you're Kulyok and testing IWDNPC, or something similar). Probably minor ease-of-use mods are okay, but nothing more dramatic, please.

The relevant parts of 1PP are now included in the core mod, so you don't need to (and indeed shouldn't) install 1PP.

EDIT: I can live with Widescreen too, since it seems to be working okay.

The quest XP comment was facetious, to be honest - I don't actually think it does make sense to use quest XP to allow for spell selection.

This is largely academic as far as SCS is concerned, for broadly the reason amanasleep gives: SCS isn't really in the business of changing XP levels, period. But someone suggested it was my call, so I thought I might as well answer.

I continue to be unpersuaded that it is more effective for enemy NPCs to use summons than to use equivalent attack spells.

The actual events of the battle, including the spell selections of spellcasting enemies, and other factors such as environment, difficulty of reaching the battle, importance to the story, and placements within a larger quest, are modeled through quest xp which pnp and BG2 give in addition to combat xp.

I'd be interested to hear the evidence that enemy spell selection is modelled through quest XP. Are you seriously proposing I should model this in SCS? (If so, it's pretty easy, in principle: a wizard whose spell selection includes a spell that summons a creature worth N experience points also yields a minus N experience point quest xp reward!)

More generally, I think people are treating XP as if it's some kind of mystic energy, rather than an abstraction that represents a reward for the difficulty of the combat. Any such abstraction, applied along simple rules, is going to have occasional pathological cases that don't work properly - the monster-summoning wizard who teleports away is a case in point. But in general, not giving separate XP for summoned monsters seems to produce far fewer problematic cases than giving it.

I'm on the no XP from summoned critters party. But I did find Daulmakan's arguments to make me unsure... Whatever decided (if anything it still is up to DavidW) I feel it will be good enough.

Is it up to me? I didn't think I changed XP levels for summoned creatures?

If it is up to me, expect no XP. I haven't seen a remotely convincing argument to the contrary on this thread. In particular, the double-counting argument (XP for killing summoned monsters is included implicitly in the XP for killing the summoner) doesn't seem to have been addressed. The only exception I can see is Aranthys's observation that summoning spells are substantially more powerful than other spells of the same level. I'm not convinced that's the case (whether I'd rather give an SCS enemy wizard Horrid Wilting or Summon Fiend is pretty situation-dependent) but if I were to be convinced, it's a case for altering the spell system, not the XP system.

Commenting on the narrow point of XP for summoned monsters: The argument against, as I understood it, was that killing summoned monsters was part of what was involved in killing the summoner, and so shouldn't give experience over and above that.

Scenario 1: the Evil Wizard casts Horrid Wilting. You survive and kill him.

Scenario 2: the Evil Wizard summons a Glabrezu. You defeat it, and then kill him.

Shouldn't you get the same experience in both cases?

Some notes about converting an IWD mod to IWD-in-BG2 (mostly aimed at Kulyok for the moment).

Most of it is reasonably obvious. Creature files need to be redone completely, since the IWD and BG2 versions are differently structured. (I have code that does this automatically, but unless you have dozens of creatures it's probably quicker just to do it manually.

Custom spells and items may or may not be okay, depending on whether you've used IWD-specific resources, projectiles and opcodes. If not, you're fine. If so, you'll need to convert them. Again, I have code; again, it'll be easier to do it manually unless there are horrendous numbers of them. (See below if you're using IWD WAV or BAM files.)

Stores need converting, but here the conversion really is simple, and might as well be done by code (which I can provide if desired).

IWD resources are mostly still available under their IWD names. In particular, items, scripts, dialogs, creatures, areas have the same names as in IWD, so you can refer to them in the original way. Death variables are also unchanged: any death variable that picks out a particular actor in IWD will pick out the same actor in IWD-in-BG2.

A small number of IWD spells aren't available in IWD-in-BG2 at all (Wall of Moonlight, Smashing Wave, Seven Eyes, Soul Eater, Mordenkainen's Force Missiles, (Great) Shout, Spiritual Wrath, Whirlwind), so if you've used them (or magic items that use them) you'll need to change them. More importantly, any IWD spell which isn't also in BG2 is likely to have had its resource name (SPPR123 or whatever) changed. This is because I want to avoid overwriting BG2 spells that aren't in IWD, as I think quite a few people will want them available and it's easier to hide unwanted spells than reintroduce overwritten ones.

I suspect the simplest way to handle this is to write some WEIDU code to read in SPELL.IDS so that you have some array $spell_res which associates a spell resource name to each spell descriptor (so that $spell_res(~WIZARD_CATS_GRACE~) gets assigned sprwi214, say). Then add any spells you need at install time via ADD_SPELL, using $spell_res to set the filename of the spell to add. Alternatively, the converter outputs a file that tells you the new filename of each old filename, so you could just read that in and do a REPLACE_TEXTUALLY. (I can probably provide code for anyone whose WEIDU isn't up to this.)

(When the converter is stable, it would probably be simpler to just use the BGT/TUTU dual coding trick. But that relies on the new names of the spells being stable, and they won't be for a little while - basically until I manage to convert and/or permanently give up on the unconverted spells.)

(Scroll files still exist under their old names.)

Scripts and dialogs should basically be fine provided that your IWD mod doesn't use any scripting that doesn't work in BG2. Variables are also unchanged, with one crucial exception: any variable of the form SOMETHING_DEAD now has the form SPRITE_IS_DEADSOMETHING. This is basically forced by hardcoded differences between the variables that IWD and BG2 set when an actor is killed. Given that many variables of this form need renaming, it's much safer and more bug-resistant to rename all of them (not doing this led to a significant fraction of the death-variable-related bugs reported in v4).

The simplest way (I think) to handle this in your code, if you want it to work both in IWD and in BG2, is

(i) get your code to check if it's installing on IWD or IWD-in-BG2 (e.g. by detecting BGMAIN). If it's on IWD, do

OUTER_SPRINT ~SPRITE_IS_DEAD~ ~~
OUTER_SPRINT ~_DEAD~ ~_DEAD~

If it's on IWD-in-BG2, do

OUTER_SPRINT ~SPRITE_IS_DEAD~ ~SPRITE_IS_DEAD~
OUTER_SPRINT ~_DEAD~ ~~

Then, whenever you want to refer to one of these variables (say ORC_DEAD), just put it into your code as ~%SPRITE_IS_DEAD%ORC%_DEAD%~ and compile using EVALUATE_BUFFER. That will compile to the correct value, whatever version you're playing.

(Note that this only applies to things of the form XYZ_DEAD, not XYZDEAD. TALONITESDEAD, for instance, is unchanged.)

Here's a list of current issues that I can't (or can't easily) solve. It's probably incomplete - I'm working from memory here. I'll add new ones as I find them. The more significant an issue is, the harder I've tried (and failed) to solve it.

GAMEPLAY

Critical:

Randomly, very infrequently, irreproducibly, the game crashes to desktop when you look at the map screen. I have no idea why this is or how to fix it.(CamDawg's rebuild of the map files ALMOST fixes this, but once in a long while it still seems to happen)

I've got occasional and irreproducible critical bugs with the cutscene in the Yeti cave in the Vale of Shadows: occasionally, but not often, the game hangs here. (I think various scripting tidy-ups have fixed this.)

Significant:

I don't know how to stop the game ending when Player 1 dies. (I'm unsure whether this really matters or not) (Fixed now, thanks to ToBEx and Ascension64)

I can't convert thieves' Evasion or Sneak Attack abilities (Evasion now done, thanks to Nythrun)

Minor:

I can't block resting in Kuldahar and Easthaven directly. (I fake it, but it involves new dialogue)

In the Vale of Shadows, I think my converter handles spawning correctly according to the INI file that's supposed to control it, but that behaviour doesn't correspond to how spawning in that area actually works in-game. I think there is a hard-coded hack in the IWD engine which overrides the INI file. I haven't done the research to reproduce this, so spawning is somewhat more common in the Vale in IWD-in-BG2 than in IWD proper. (This isn't the same as the ridiculous overspawning noticed by players of v4: that was a bug in the converter, now fixed.) (After playtesting this a bit, I've just given up and blocked spawning in the Vale of Shadows. I have a feeling the playtesters of the original IWD may have had a similar experience)

The "default" soundset comes with no biography. I have no idea why.

SPELLS AND ITEMS

Significant:

I can't convert these spells: Seven Eyes, Soul Eater, (Great) Shout, Mordenkainen's Force Missiles, Spiritual Wrath, Mold Touch, Wall of Moonlight, Smashing Wave, Whirlwind.(Thanks to TheBigg, I've now got a (not quite perfect) conversion of Whirlwind)

I can't convert these items: Three White Doves; those items that cast the effects listed above(Three White Doves now converted, thanks to CamDawg)

My conversions of Cat's Grace, Power Word Stun/Kill, Blood Rage, Animal Rage, Chain Lightning, Static Charge are all a bit suboptimal (Thanks to ToBEx and Ascension64, Cat's Grace now works; actually, so do Kossuth's Blood, Kontik's Ring, Kossuth's Ring, the Ring of Edion, and Strength, all of which were a bit suboptimal but which I forgot to list)

COSMETIC

Significant:

I can't get the white dragon animation to work in IWD: we're making do with the BG2 one (I could use Erephine's version, but at 45MB it's twice the size of the rest of the mod put together, and I can't straightforwardly automate its generation)

The spell animations in IWD often have a sort of glow around them which I find a bit unattractive and which doesn't appear in IWD. I think this is because of some basic engine-level difference, but it might just be down to a VVC setting which I don't know.

Minor:

Something I don't quite understand about the GUI prevents the selected Inn in the room-for-the-night screen from getting the red border it ought to have.

Because the BG2 move-to-expansion command is not reversible but the IWD one is, I can't give IWD and HOW separate maps, so they're combined into one map.

The Kit selection screen in the character generator creates an unattractive shadow (Fixed now)

Some of the selection boxes on the character generator could do with being bigger (Fixed now)

The Bhaalspawn death movie plays at game-over (Fixed, thanks again to Nythrun)

The maps are only 3/4 the ideal size (IWD maps are larger, so that the biggest IWD areas fill the whole map screen).

Summoned monsters don't appear as quickly as I'd like (there's a puff of smoke, then a two-second pause, then they're there.) I could fix this if I knew the BAM file for the "golden bubble" animation that plays when monsters are summoned, but I can't find it. (note to self: apparently it's SPPLANAR ... no, apparently not, that's the more substantial animation you get from MS spells)

For some reason, the floor in certain areas (wooden floors, mostly) hides the selection circle of characters standing over it.(Fixed by CamDawg)

The rest icon is in the wrong place, and doesn't look quite as nice as it looks when it's in the right place.

If you hide the left-hand display bar, there's no button to bring it back (the quick-key still works)

Save-games in Heart of Winter get labelled as "-ToB".

Selecting a fist (i.e. unarmed attack) seems to select all fists (i.e. put a green box around all empty weapon quick-slots). As far as I can see this is purely cosmetic; in any case, I've no idea why it's happening.

IWD loadscreens show a picture of the area you're in. I can't manage to reproduce this.

I can't convert the "spells" (i.e. graphical effects) INNATE_CONTAINER_GLOW, INNATE_CONTAINER_GLOW_BAD, and INNATE_BLUE_GLOW. These all make things glow in pretty ways, but I'd have to reengineer them from scratch. If anyone has the patience to do this, please send me the copy.

The cursor disappears after you return to the credits page having completed the game. I have no idea why.

Do you randomize the components of the Equalizer et al? I ask because the SoA assemblable items actually have hints in their descriptions as to where they're to be found. So if you do, possibly that could be made optional for pedants like me?

No, if MI and RI are incompatible normally then I wouldn't put them in a sequencer in SCS, any more than I'd put multiple Project Images in a Chain Contingency. It's clearly an exploit.

(Not that I care about blocking it. If players want to exploit the system, why should I mind?)

Commenting from an enemy-AI perspective: anything that gets you half as many hits as you'd expect over any significant period is worth having, if you can find the time to cast it. (There's a delicate tradeoff in wizard scripting: how much time to spend renewing buffs, vs how much time to spend doing damage, and given the need to keep up Mirror Images, Stoneskins and Pro/Weapons spells, as well as anti-spell defences, there might not be room for another short-duration defence spells in wizard scripts.)

I don't think I'd be able to find the time to use RI in combat after about eighth level, at a guess, though it might be nice in a Minor Sequencer with Mirror Image.

Incidentally, if prebuffing immediately before a battle, even a seven or eight round duration is worthwhile. My impression is that most BG2 battles are over, or at least under control, by about five or six rounds in (exception: wizard fights, where you have to wait out defences).

And just that you're following this, may I ask your opinon on this matter?

 

 

Reflected Image

Well, it seems there's not such consensus thus I'll take my time to decide if nerfing it is really necessary...though I'm almost sure I did some "calculation" back then to compare RI to MI.

I'm not entirely clear what the new version does. But a 4 round duration probably makes it fairly useless at high level. A fighter/mage already needs to pause every 4th round to renew PMW or the like, not to mention stoneskin. They probably don't have time to keep a second protective spell up.

Skeleton Warriors

Without consulting the Monster Manual I'm pretty sure the 2nd ed PnP Skellie Warrior have 90% MR - it would be a pretty substantial non-canon move reducing it to 50%... As I've come to trust your encyclopaedic knowledge of D&D Demi, I take it you know this but still thinks it's a good move (for game engine reasons?)?

Indeed I know this (it's not in a hidden manual but the base 2nd ed MM), and that's another reason I never nerfed them, but like aVENGER and David I also think that being 100% true to PnP isn't always the best choice. Furthermore, if you really want to be 100% true then you should also know that these creatures cannot be controlled without a circlet of power, that a caster wouldn't be able to control more than one SW at once, and that PnP Animate Dead spell doesn't allow to summon any powerful undead, only lesser skeletons and zombies.

Just one thing to remember about skeleton warriors: they can be turned. I don't think the vanilla AI ever tries to turn undead, but SCS(II) does. That presumably reduces their attractiveness versus non-undead creatures with the same stats.

As I know that you make the creature by first making a new character in the game, then you level it up with a XP cheat so you get the basic stats to somewhat right, then you export it and then perhaps adjust it later with a IE tool. I know this because it's the way I do it... did it.

It's not the way I do it (and it's fairly obvious from the CRE files that it's not the way the developers do it). And (unlike 3.0 or 3.5) the AD&D leveling system really isn't suited for this sort of method of assessing creature strength (and there is no direct map from creature HD, THAC0 etc onto character level, THAC0 etc.)

at high levels (fighters only)

Warriors only(Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers+their Kits). And yes, the Barbarian is a Fighter Kit, but so what.

Sorry, I meant warriors.

It might help to explain, for those not familiar with how CRE files work, that the "class" and "level" parameters in the creature file control very few of the creature's actual attributes. Simply designating a kobold, say, as a 20th level fighter/cleric, has no effect whatsoever on its spells, THAC0, hit points, saving throws, or proficiencies. The "class" and "level" parameters control only a very small number of hardcoded features, mainly:

- the level at which spells are cast, if they are cast

- the ability to turn undead (which, however, won't be used unless the creature was already scripted to)

- the level at which certain spells (e.g. Sleep) affect the creature

- whether additional attacks per round are gained at high levels (fighters only)

It would in many ways be more logical if the creature's base statistics were all determined by its level and the rest of the CRE file just modified, rather than setting, those base statistics - but the Infinity Engine doesn't work that way.

SCSIIv10 now picks up on this and blocks installation of redundant SCS components if you've got SR installed.

I thought it might be helpful to list the Ice-tutu-tweaks NPCs. (Usual disclaimer: these are BG1-level NPCs I built for fun and for testing, they're not fully fleshed out.)

Easthaven

Ragnar (Male dwarf fighter): in the tavern

Vilmar (Male human barbarian): temple of Tempus

Eloise (Female half-elven mage/thief): upstairs at Pomab's Emporium

Endricane (Male human cleric of Lathander): outside the scrimshanders' shop, by the west lakeshore

Marcus (Male human assassin): in the Snowdrift Inn

Kuldahar

Ilauna (Female human specialist wizard): in Orrick's tower (talk to Orrick first)

Moranir (Male human avenger): by the statue (talk to Arundel first)

Elyvir (Female elven archer): in the Evening Shade inn

Morgana (Female half-elven bard): in the Root Cellar tavern

Syleen (Female human undead hunter): in the Root Cellar tavern

Arris (Male elven sorcerer): in Oswald's airship

Kori (Female dwarven fighter/cleric): in the blacksmith's

Coding was done by DavidW and CamDawg.

Ladejarl did the GUI conversion.

Nythrun helped hugely with item and spell conversions.

Thanks to the various authors and maintainers of BGT, BGTUTU and EasyTutu, without which this certainly couldn't have happened.

Parts of the G3 Icewind Dale fixpack and the BG2 Fixpack are included in the mod.

We used the following tools: WEIDU / BiggDU, DLTCEP, NI.

Playthroughs of ultra-unstable beta version 4 by Kulyok, grogerson and Mike1072 have helped enormously in developing v5.

Yovaneth is responsible for de-pinkifying the Vale of Shadows and other map icons.

Erephine's One Pixel Productions mod supplied most of the paperdoll conversions.

Erephine's Infinity Animations, and it's WEIDU-ized version due to Miloch, now handle the animation conversions.

Ascension64's ToBEx executable modifications are included in the mod.

See the readme for a full list of links to tools and resources used.

Thanks to Hannah Wallace for graphical help.

IWD-in-BG2 is currently believed to be compatible with these mods:

• The IWD-in-BG2 Fixpack/Tweakpack (which should be installed as soon as you install the main mod)
  
• TheBigg's Widescreen Mod
  
• CamDawg's IWD Item Upgrade
  
• CamDawg's IWD Unfinished Business
  
• Kulyok's IWD NPCs (you need the IWD-in-BG2 version, available here)
  

With the exception of the Fixpack/Tweakpack, none of these have been tested with version 7, though.

The conversion should be largely compatible with those BG2 mods which don't alter game content. So (fairly obviously) it's incompatible with Quest Pack, Ascension etc. It should be compatible with appropriate components of BG2 tweaks. It might be compatible with other tweakpacks, and should be mostly compatible with kit mods (though possibly the new kits won't get IWD-specific powers like paladins' Smite Evil).

It isn't compatible with the BG2 fixpack or the IWD fixpack; however, it already incorporates the relevant fixes from both. Similarly, it isn't compatible with 1PP, but that's only because 1PP is largely included already.

Obviously, Icewind Dale doesn't come with joinable NPCs, so there's a question of what you do for party members. There are currently 3 options (other than playing solo).

1) You could start a multi-player game and give yourself control of all party members, just as in BG2 when you want to create your own party. This is probably closer to the "pure" IWD experience. It's best to start a game, save immediately, quit, and move the save-game from the "MPSAVE" folder to the "SAVE" folder.

2) The IWD-in-BG2 fixpack/tweakpack ships with twelve joinable NPCs. These are BG1-level (so no banter, not many interjections) and are built out of the portraits and sounds that come with IWD (as well as using bits of class-specific IWD dialog). You can get these NPCs by installing the appropriate component of "ice-tutu-tweaks", the tweakpack that ships with IWD-in-BG2. Seven are in Kuldahar, five in Easthaven.

3) You can use a third-party mod that adds joinable BG2-style NPCs. Currently the only available choice is Kulyok's IWD NPCs mod over at Pocket Plane Group (you need the IWD-in-BG2 version).

Q: What is IWD-in-BG2 ?

A: It's a conversion of Icewind Dale (IWD) to the Baldur's Gate II (BG2) engine.

Q: Catchy name.

A: It has the advantage of being descriptive. (We played with Ice-TUTU, and that might also catch on, but it's less obvious what it means).

Q: What's the point of this conversion?

A: In the short run, it allows you to play with the various features BG2 has but IWD doesn't: notably kits, dual-wielding, sorcerers, monks, barbarians, and various extra spells. In the longer term, it should be a much better platform for modding IWD - in particular, it should allow fully-fleshed-out joinable NPCs.

Q: What's the status of the project?

A: We have a complete, installable conversion. It's been tested all the way through, and we've fixed most of the bugs we're aware of. It should now be basically playable.

Q: Can I play-test it?

A: Please do: play-testing is very welcome indeed. I don't promise that it won't be full of annoying bugs, though.

Q: Who did this?

A: CamDawg, DavidW, Ladejarl and Nythrun. Cam and David did pretty much all the core coding (Cam in spring 2008; David in two goes, in spring 2009 and then summer 2010; Cam and David jointly in winter and spring 2011, and then David again in winter 2011). Nythrun did lots of research on spell and item effects, and coded bits of the converter for them too. Ladejarl converted the GUI. We also borrowed code from all over the place, and in particular we're very indebted to Infinity Animations, BG1TUTU, EasyTUTU, BGT, and ToBEx (which we package with the mod).

Q: Is this compatible with Icewind Dale without Heart of Winter?

A: No. It might be at some later date, depending on demand, but probably not. At the moment it requires Heart of Winter as well as Trials of the Luremaster.

Q: Is this compatible with BG2 without Throne of Bhaal?

A: No, and almost certainly it never will be.

Q: Is this compatible with OSX systems, or is it Windows-only?

A: Windows-only at the moment, though we might be able to change this once we've got it a bit stabler.

Q: Is the conversion perfect?

A: No, but it's pretty comprehensive. See the list on the forum for the things we haven't been able to do.

Q: What do I do for a party?

A: See the forum topic on this.

Q: How does this work on a technical basis?

A: It uses a batch file to make a copy of your BG2 installation (minus things we don't need, like the area graphics), and another batch file to copy over needed resources from your IWD installation. En route, it installs the BG2 and IWD fixpacks. Then it uses BGT-based software to convert the areas.

That's the easy bit; once all that's done, it runs the most convoluted WEIDU script you've ever seen, to (a) convert all the resources in an automated way as far as that's possible; (b) do a million and one small fixes (out of the two million and one that are actually needed, no doubt). The actual process is much messier than TUTU, because the BG1 engine is basically just a restricted version of the BG2 engine, whereas the IWD engine was developed in new directions and differs from BG2 in surprisingly many small ways.

Q: Why does the FAQ shift inconstantly from first person singular to first person plural?

A: Because several people worked on the mod, and deserve credit, but I (David) was solely responsible for it through 2009 until late 2010, and I don't want to blame others for my mistakes!

Q: What is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?

A: The Everett (Many-Worlds) interpretation. My book explaining why would have been finished a good deal sooner were it not for this damn mod.