DavidW

On 2/28/2020 at 6:43 AM, Merlin said:

About the fine weapons installation in BG1EE:

Fine weapons instead of +1 weapons is a very good mod. But it seems to have some bugs:

1. A fine flail +1 has a damage code of 1d6+1.

2. The fine short bow sold by Taerom in Beregost gives only +1 thac0. Should it give +1 dmg also?

3. The damage and thac0 codes of the fine composite long bow in Feldepost's Inn are such low that the basic composite long bow is better.

 

The faster or more realistic bears mean that bears may remain neutral even if 6 characters shoot them with arrows.

1. Corrected, thanks

2. No: fine bows, like magic bows, don't affect damage.

3. THAC0 is correct, I think (+2, vs +1 for the basic bow). Damage should be +2 and not +1; corrected, thanks.

Bears: that's not SCS (so far as I can tell), I don't mess with their script beyond a quick apply-speed-spell block.

1 minute ago, pochesun said:

Can @DavidW confirm that bug?

 

No, because I check bugs at the same time as fixing them. If I haven't got around to looking yet, I can't confirm it.

On 3/14/2020 at 5:23 PM, Grunker said:

A minor thing concering the import of IWD spells: I really like this feature, but I raised my eyebrow about the duration of Call Lightning and Static Charge being different. Is that SCS? Specifically, Call Lightning has a duration of 1 turn per 4 levels whereas Static Charge lasts one turn per level, meaning you get a lot more bolts for your buck with the latter.

I've just had a look at this. In IWD, Call Lightning also has a much shorter duration (1 round per level), so this isn't an inconsistency introduced by a mismatch between IWD and BG2 spells. It also doesn't lead to any egregious problem in spell use, of the kind that SCS's spell tweaks address. So I think it falls outside the scope of SCS. 

I agree that it's a bit odd: if I were designing the spell system from scratch I wouldn't do it this way. But if I started adjusting every oddity like this, I'd be writing a different mod.

@neuroghast

1) Most of the problems in the NPC Customisation component can be worked around by keeping Party AI turned on while levelling. Valygar's immortality can't be, though. Do this at console instead:

C:Eval('Kill("valygar")')

2) I can't reproduce the monk problem, and while I'm using my latest local version (which has the main NPC Customisation bugs fixed) I can't think of anything that would have helped here. So I think it's probably a compatibility problem with Monastic Orders. I don't know that mod; if I have a chance I'll have a look, but it might be a while.

Probably.

I haven't tested it this time around. IIRC it worked ok on 2.0.0.

What do you mean "second column"? (I may be misremembering this myself, I haven't looked at this bit of code for a while).

As for the questions:

1. Yes

2. Yes, though I'm not looking at it myself until I've had a chance to play SoD

3. Look at the read_in_combat_scripts function at the bottom of stratagems/genai/genai_shared.tph

Yes, it’s NPC management. That’s been annoyingly buggy, sorry.

The AI install problem is an incompatibility between IWDification and current SCS.

1. SCS assumes HLAs aren't present on a BG1 install and so doesn't bother checking creatures to see if they have them. (It's an installation-time-saver, basically.) You can turn that off by going to around line 350 of stratagems/lib/always.tph and removing the disable_hlas instruction - but I have no idea what will happen or even whether it will install. (Probably it will: it handles BG1 creatures on an Enhanced Edition Trilogy install.)

2. SCS's algorithm for assigning HLAs basically picks a sequence of HLAs at random from a list, and then selects HLAs one at a time from the sequence until either it's got its full complement or it reaches the end of the sequence. (The list for non-spellcasters is in stratagems/genai/hla_choices/vanilla.) Since the sequences only have five-to-seven items, no-one gets more than that number of HLAs. (I'm actually surprised anyone's getting 12, actually - I don't know whether that's because they're multi-class, because of some glitch introduced by these changes, or what.) As for why the sequences stop at seven: basically nothing in the game is high enough level to get more than seven HLAs, and in any case I doubt many enemy creatures will be able to get through more than seven HLAs in a single fight. Making these sequences longer will grant more HLAs.

EDIT: I've just seen you're on a Trilogy install - so the issue is that you're getting HLAs but they're not being used. It's a similar issue, though (I think) - the scripts given to BG1 creatures don't contain code to use HLAs, because they're assumed not to have them and it clutters the script unnecessarily. If you want to change it, go to line 333 of stratagems/genai/genai_shared.tph.

All absolutely at your own risk, of course.

I don’t think there’s any need to.

Your call.

On 4/11/2020 at 2:35 PM, Rae said:

I just wast to know if the ability to change the equipment while in token form is an intentional design choice, basically.  

No.

I don't know, I'm afraid. But SCS v32 was quite drastically rewritten under-the-hood, so I'd expect lots of bits of Jimfix to need updating in order to work correctly.

That's not live code - it gets used by the code I run to get the IWD resources and strings, but doesn't get run when the player installs.

ALIEN: maybe get the installer to stop looking for tp2 files in subfolders once it's found one further up? (Not that it's a big deal.)

Elemental arrows don't penetrate PNM. But Arrows of Dispelling do.

SCS got there first: it's been doing this for about fifteen years, long before the Enhanced Editions.

I'd say that over those 15 years the strong majority of players prefer the current default - and SCS AI is optimized around it - so I won't be changing it. It is easy enough to disable if you don't want it.

I'm not very moved by strict fidelity to D&D rules. BG2's system is obviously based on AD&D second edition but it's a different system, and makes lots of changes to better fit a CRPG setting (as well as many changes inspired by D&D 3e).

This is documented, actually: removing clone quickslots is one of the spell-system changes, and all of them can be disabled in stratagems.ini.

On 3/13/2020 at 11:30 AM, Bartimaeus said:

Yep, best of luck. I have trouble reading a lot of SCS's coding because everything is insanely recursive (one thing linking to another thing linking to another thing linking to another...in a lot of shorthand coding that's not much like other mods, either, and hardly anything has readable comments). 

Sorry about that! I tend to find SCS's 'SFO' language fairly self-commenting  - but of course, that's only true if you're familiar with its function library, and that's not documented at all.

SCS doesn't actually do this - I think it would be cheating to peek at a weapon's enchantment status. I mark up weapons to help creatures work out when their own attacks are ineffective (mostly this is unnecessary in EE, of course). SCS wizards cast their protection spells without reference to what weapon the enemy is actually using. (Though higher-level wizards tend to skew more towards carrying PMW and less towards carrying Mantle et al).

Right. It's BG/BG2 only, at least for now.

You need to edit the code in lib/hla.tph, specifically the grant_hlas and number_of_hlas functions.

There's an argument that I ought to parse lunumab, but right now I don't.

Bartimaeus is right: that's how it is supposed to work. I'll have a look to see if it's broken somehow.

If you want to use v31 you're on your own, sorry.

Each one is tied to a BG2 scroll; anywhere the BG2 scroll turns up, the IWD one does too. The list of ties can be found in stratagems/iwdspells/data/iwd_arcane.2da

It's hardcoded. Look at the hla_level_minimum function, in lib/hla.tph, and also at the hard_minimum variable in the grant_hlas function (same location) if you want to try your own tweaks.

Locking this, now that 2.0.11 is out.