The_Baffled_King

I'll link you to a discussion on that topic from the BG2FP days, but please understand that I express no opinion on it. I suspect that it's much easer to make some types of fix optional than others. If so, and there's a will to accommodate optional fixes, perhaps the feasibility of making any given fix optional could be indicated as fixes are proposed? https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/topic/29719-the-new-fixpack-thread-for-compatibility-bug-reporting-changingremoving-fixes/#comments The above post was Camdawg, post edited in 2019, which linked to the below post, cira 2006: https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/topic/7890-i-hate-this-fix/

Thanks for that, it's appreciated. Two further points on developer intent in relation to this issue: (1) Bioware went way over schedule and had to wrap things up. That might explain why they didn't notice unintentional duplication, but it's also possible that some duplications were conscious errors that were viewed as a necessary evil in service of commercial reality; ie the need to release the game. Is a conscious error still an error? Yes, in my view. (2) When game devs do not want magic items to be unique in their in-game world, 99.999999999% of game devs will very easily achieve that goal by NOT painstakingly writing detailed backstories describing unique magic items and attaching said backstories to said magic items. Accordingly, given that the vast majority of duplicated items have generic descriptions, and the vast majority of items with non-generic descriptions are not duplicated, the very existence of duplicated items with non-generic descriptions is more or less all that is required to deduce that an error of some kind was introduced during development. Even if a dev thought "despite the fact that Batalista's Passport is already in Gibberling Mountains, I am going to put a second copy in Candlekeep" then, heck, there is STILL an error - because there's just no way that the ring of fire resistance in the Gibberling Mountains would have a unique description if there was a pre-existing plan to have two rings of fire resistance in the game! In other words, in this scenario, the error is arguably not the placement of Batalista's Passport in Candlekeep; rather, it was the earlier choice to assign a unique name and identity to a ring of fire resistance - an action that is originally correct can become an error when requirements later change. I too think that the case for this falling within the scope of a fix (applying the BG2FP definition) seems very clear. The in-game implementation of lore and the item description of the Paws of the Cheetah (and the like) suggests that they are special and can be differentiated. Also, in the real world I, and other people, have been able to differentiate between my footwear. This is despite the fact that neither I nor my footwear are anything other than ordinary. My footwear has never been rare, valuable, or had special properties. My fame has not spread for any reason, much less a reason linked to the specific properties of my footwear and a memorable related catchphrase. If this is the case, then people on the Sword Coast with sufficient lore can differentiate Paws of the Cheetah from generic boots of speed (and so on). Anyway. It's your prerogative not to like the backstories, the way that lore has been implemented, or Beamdog's usage of new items with generic descriptions. That isn't directly relevant to the question of whether DavidW's proposals constitute a fix.

This is the kind of thing I think that Beamdog could conceivably have dealt with a few years ago, but which becomes a harder sell the more that time passes. My position is not uniform, though: (1) if the survival of a "virtually immune to everything" creature is necessary for the plot, or to advance a quest, then I'm all for it; (2) if a "virtually immune to everything" creature offers no experience or items when it dies, I reckon there's no harm adding a min-HP item; but (3) if a "virtually immune to everything" creature offers decent XP or loot when it dies, and consideration (1) does not apply, then there are people who will strongly dislike having that taken away (I am not one of them, mind). The problem is all the more pronounced given that there are resources out there on t'internet which say "do this thing, which takes X amount of time, and you will get Y reward". I think it's technically correct to categorize things as flaws, in the sense that they are dev errors, if they arose because the devs forgot to account for the player behaving in a way that they did not expect (particularly when there has been some duplication of a resource). However, dev errors can also be cool features, so one should tread carefully when considering applying a fix to an error that might be somebody's cool feature - and with the passage of time, a dev error is increasingly likely to beome somebody's cool feature. I don't play the game in the same way you do, but I'm very much aware of that mode of playing, and it should be borne in mind. Thanks for the shout-out and for the explanation. I'm operating on the principle of speaking up now and then holding my peace, so I've come out with another long post, but I think I'm done advancing my perspective. Hopefully it provides some food for thought. I agree with your logic here; it seems that the phrasing in my paragraph that you quoted was a little loose, so I've edited it to better reflect my original intent (paragraph 4). Ah. I agree with the bit before the comma, but there's been some confusion on my part, because I was under the impression that there was talk of putting all of this together and sending it off to Beamdog in the hope that it would be incorporated into the official game? Just to clarify, I personally would be fine if Tazok.cre lost his Legacy of the Masters, but I would not advocate for it in an unofficial fixpack, and it's the kind of thing I think Beamdog shouldn't do at this late stage cos it'll cheese people off. Different matter if someone had reported it to Beamdog soon after the Legacy of the Masters was added to Tazok's Tent, mind.

On the basis of the discussion in DavidW's thread about the replacement of duplicate unique items with their generic counterparts, it seems that there is substantial divergence of opinion about the aims, standards, options, and terminology to consider in relation to the EEFP. That's surely gonna lead to endless rehashing of arguments and people talking past each other in the threads wherein specific changes are proposed. Sure, it's inevitable anyway, but perhaps the extent of it would be reduced with more discussion here? (1) Does a "Fix" Occur Only if Something is Broken? No. The term has a wider meaning than that. The following definition of a fix that jastey uses is from DavidW's thread that I mentioned above: As a matter of terminology, this definition artificially limits the meaning of the word "fix". Sure, "fix" is used most commonly in relation to things that are "broken". However, it is also not in the least bit uncommon to say that mistakes should be fixed, or that if something is wrong then it should be fixed. Applying jastey's definition as written would mean that errors that prevent banters from firing would not be fixed. It would also mean that errors in triggers that remove reply options would not be fixed, provided that the unavailable dialogue was for roleplaying purposes only (ie the missing options provide no alternative actions or journal entries). Is that your intent, jastey? To be clear, I think that jastey describes a perfectly sensible standard to adopt for a fixpack (although it is not the only sensible standard). It's just that the way in which "fix" was defined is, in my view, objectively wrong - and this contributes to people talking past each other. (2) A "Fix" Occurs When a Change Gives Effect to Developer Intent I don't see how any issue can be deemed a fix unless there is evidence that the status quo is contrary to developer intent. Equally, once an issue is judged to be contrary to developer intent, addressing that issue to match developer intent is by definition a fix. This, as Camdawg and DavidW have pointed out, was the standard used in BG2FP. (3) How Do You Determine Developer Intent? Some stuff is obvious. Otherwise, I think it's totally acceptable to apply logical thinking to draw inferences of fact about what the developers intended. Others might want to apply more strict standards before deciding that the status quo does not meet developer intent. (4) Are Beamdog's Actions Relevant In Determining Developer Intent? I think that Beamdog's actions are relevant. First, I think that Beamdog were privy to information that we are not privy to. Obviously some people who post on this forum are in a position to shed some light on that! Second, I think it's undoubtedly relevant that we're discussing an EE fixpack. Others will differ, and maybe that discussion should be had. (5) What Constitutes a "Tweak"? In the context of Infinity Engine mods, it seems to me (from the G3 Tweaks anthology, for example) that a change is considered a tweak if it is purely a matter of preference, in that there is either no evidence of designer intent, or the tweak changes what was clearly the unambiguous intent of the designer. I agree that nothing that constitutes a "tweak" should be in a fixpack. However, the fact that some players like the situation created by a developer error does not convert something that is by definition a fix into a tweak. (6) What About the Restoration of Content? I would consider the restoration of missing content capable in principle of being a fix, provided that unambiguous Word of Dev exists to clarify that an encounter was omitted only due to time pressures or unintentional error. In practice, given the existence of UB-style mods, it is probably better for such fixes to be omitted. There is one exception I can think of: naming NPCs who (a) are generically-named; (b) are unique characters; and (c) were named within vanilla game resources currently in use. (7) Should the Standards In Existing Fixpacks be Applied to EEFP? Not by default. I mean, Camdawg explicitly invited "re-examination of past decisions". Only, there wasn't much discussion of whether the principles and examples laid out were desirable for the EEFP. One month later, we have DavidW's thread on replacement of duplicate unique items with their generic counterparts, which begins on the basis that BG2FP offers a precedent and framework to follow. Some of the discussion is a respectable difference of opinion on DavidW's interpretation of developer intent. However, some of the discussion was less about the specific proposal, and more about the principles that should be applied to EEFP. (8) Should Mods Adapt to EEFP, or Vice-Versa? I don't know. However, as a matter of principle, I think one has to consider the downsides of allowing mods to dictate fixpacks, rather than vice-versa. I am particularly concerned if a fix is rejected because mod authors are no longer around to adapt their work to a fixpack - sooner or later, one-way compatibility with unchanging mods stifles progress. Obviously I'm not an experienced modder, so I am in no position to identify the point at which the balance tips one way or another. No doubt it depends to a large extent on the amount of work required of modders. (9) So What Am I Saying? Developer intent, and the framework of the BG2FP, provide a good starting point to identify potential fixes. If a different starting point is desirable, it seems productive to try to agree on a (rough) framework early on in the process. I've already posted about how, in my view, the length of time a designer error remains uncorrected is a point in favour of allowing (some) designer errors to remain uncorrected, and I won't repeat myself on that front. Most importantly, when people are making plausible suggestions consistent with a pre-existing framework that has not been subject to any challenge, can we please refrain from accusing them of trying to arbitrarily enforce their personal preferences on a specific issue (we reached that point on page 3 of DavidW's thread, in my view)? It's already been suggested that said pre-existing framework is up for debate - if that's what people want, how about we have that debate? At the end of the day, something that was considered a fix according to BG2FP is very likely to still technically be a fix here and now. What may change in the interim is not the terms by which a fix is to be defined, but the desire of the community to see fixes of a particular nature implemented. If we aren't going to suggest a different framework to the one laid down by the BG2FP then, when faced with fixes one might not like, can we just move straight to saying "I do not like this fix and I hope it will not be implemented"? (10) In Conclusion In my opinion, the BG2FP is a good starting point from which to propose and exclude specific changes. But the framework should work for the community, not the other way around, so we can on occasion depart from it, if we're honest about when that is what we're doing. If we're departing from it often, we arguably need a new framework. However, it tends to be human nature to keep quiet about the things we like, and pipe up only when we disagree with something - which means that a framework made on the basis of complaints about specific proposals is likely to be a little skewed.

I don't. Far more importantly, an appreciable number of people would be outraged if items are removed and not replaced by their generic alternatives. But, as I understand it - and to use your example of Boots of Speed - the proposal is to replace Lothander's copy of "Boots of Speed: The Paws of the Cheetah" (boot01) with the generic "Boots of Speed" (bdboot05"). There would therefore be no reduction in the number of Boots of Speed available. Does that change your stance? To reiterate my position: I absolutely don't support a fixpack reducing the number of magic items in the game (even though I think the game handles magic item placement badly). I'm gonna respond to Sam regarding the two items to which he refers, then make a point of more wider application, and then my piece is said. Thanks for the clarification! I'm not knocking your preference, but I was very surprised at the strength of feeling. As I said, I'm good with it being in the Gibberling Mountains. There are certainly multiples, and I don't have the same visceral dislike for multiple copies of Evermemory as for other duplicates. However, my interpretation is that Sunin might say "this is my ring of wizardry, Evermemory", in much the same way as Galadriel from Lord of the Rings might say "this is my ring of power, Nenya." Ring of wizardry would be the collective noun, while "Evermemory" would be the proper noun for a specific ring of wizardry. For me, the existence of bdring08 supports this interpretation. I think it wouldn't be terrible to leave two Evermemory in the game, but replacing other duplicates with a generic copy whilst leaving two Evermemory seems off.

I strongly agree with replacing unique items with their generic counterparts (which is the current proposal, as I understand it). I strongly disagree with removing duplicates of unique items on the basis that they have no available alternative that is functionally identical, or at least functionally very similar. My comments below relate only to BG:EE. I agree with all of the changes for BG:EE that I haven't commented on (including JMerry's sugestion about The Heart of the Golem +2), both in the sense that the proposals match my preference and the sense that I believe they're objectively correct. First, I have four more duplicates to add. I kind of feel like I had a few more, but I've forgotten them. Adopting your format: (1) Readily handled - bdbrac10 exists. Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise, 'Legacy of the Masters' (brac10). Meilum (swordsman in Firewine Bridge) has it; so does Tazok's tent (AR1901; Container 0) and Tazok.cre Proposal: Meilum is the iconic case. Tazok is the more important character, but his Legacy of the Masters was originally an easter egg/oversight in oBG1, while Meilum's clearly fit his "Sword Coast's most skilled swordsman" schtick. I assume the EE added the copy in AR1901 because the mihp1.itm it gives Tazok makes it hard to acquire his copy. (2) Readily handled - bdbrac09 exists. Gauntlets of Weapon Skill, 'Xarrnous's Second Sword Arm' (brac09). Larze (ogre in Blushing Mermaid) has it; it's also Noralee's quest item (AR1200; Container 18). Proposal: Larze should have it. Larze and the Noralee quest are relatively similar in terms of prominence. However, named items are inherently more desirable, and so more players will benefit if the named item is treasure on an enemy rather than a macguffin given up to complete a quest. That consideration is the tie-breaker, for me. (3) Readily handled - bdbelt12 exists. Golden Girdle, 'Golden Girdle of Urnst' (belt02). Kirian (Waterdhavian adventurer in Mutamin's Garden) has it; so does Simmeon, a blackguard connected to Dorn. Proposal: Kirian is the original possessor; Simmeon got it by accident. (4) Readily handled - bdring08 exists. Ring of Wizardry, 'Evermemory' (ring08). Sunin (mage in BG South West; in AR1111) has it; it's also in a hidden cache outside the Friendly Arm Inn (AR2300; Container 0). Proposal: Sunin is the iconic case. Sunin is "a master mage" (his own words) in a swanky home; in oBG1, 0.0001% of people found the FAI ring without checking the internet. Only adding that I think that Krumm had the only copy in oBG1. I think STO1117 was restored by the EE, whereas STO4907 still exists only in the in-between realm of the game files (it's restored by Unfinished Business, I think). STO4906 actually resides in AR4907... I think the take-home is that Zordral and Bentha were added to AR4906 later on. Sam's point that the copy in Candlekeep might have been added in error is convincing, so I would think it wins out if the imagined intent of the game designer is of paramount importance. That said, I found the comment that replacing Batalista's Passport with a Ring of Fire Resistance in the Gibberling Mountains "would significantly impact the early game" to be incredibly surprising - so much so that I wonder if it was made in the belief that there would be no magic ring in AR5500? From a game design perspective, the critical path is better. I also think it makes sense to find famous magical items in the crypts of famous and influential named individuals and/or in fancy repositories of arcane knowledge. But, really, I don't much care. If a few people really care that a named copy is in AR5500, that's a good reason to keep it there. TotSC introduced a duplicate copy of Kondar (Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters - Aldeth Sashenstar's sword) in Ulgoth's Beard, and the Enhanced Edition replaced it with a generic Bastard Sword +1. I'm taking that from the BG wiki, which is not something I like to do, but it chimes with my dim recollections of playing TotSC waaaaaaay back in the day. Given the precedent set by the removal of the duplicate Kondar, I think that a copy of the Harrower should be replaced by a Long Sword +1. It may be relevant that Harrower was introduced by Beamdog in the first place, so they would merely be reversing something they themselves implement. If a copy is removed, it would be far, far better to remove Elkart's copy. First, if the placement of the Harrower with Zeela isn't because an undead creature unaffected by non-magic weapons is nearby - namely the revenant - then I'm a tuna. Second, the drawback of removing an item that can't be fully replaced is vastly exacerbated if the removed copy belongs to an enemy generally encountered in Chapter 3, while the retained copy is only available after Chapter 4, and only under limited circumstances (either straight-up murder Elkart, or kill him before he executes an EscapeArea() - still murder, essentially). That is totally consistent with my preferences and with presumed developer intent. However, for reasons that have very little to do with my strength of feeling on this specific change, I got to thinking about the downsides of bugfixes that straight-up remove something while not really offering anything in return. Because there is a downside. Those thoughts seemed better placed in Camdawg's "What exactly are we trying to fix?" thread, so that's where I put them. Given that the EE essentially put Tazok's Legacy of the Masters in his tent, while neglecting to remove the copy on his person, one could also say "obvs Tazok's version should be unstealable". At the very least, I don't think the answer is quite so clear-cut, for reasons also given in the "What exactly are we trying to fix?" thread.

Just wondering if a different standard is or should be applied for fixes that essentially remove a resource or exploit that some people might have enjoyed, in circumstances where the fix offers little or nothing in return beyond the fact that an apparent oversight has been fixed? There are definitely fixes out there which will offer little or nothing to most players whilst being received very poorly by a small number of people who are happy with the status quo. Also, when considering fixes of the kind I describe above, might it be wise for Beamdog to implement such fixes more sparingly when they relate to orginal game content thus far untouched by Beamdog (applying a more liberal standard only to problems with new EE content, or problems introduced by previous Beamdog fixes)? Obviously it's not for me to say what Beamdog should do, but, given that BG1 was released over 20 years ago, and given that BG:EE isn't far from a decade old, shouldn't the cost/benefit analysis of any changes pay due deference to the situation as-is, rather than the situation envisaged by the developers? It's similar in some ways to the concept of the Death of the Author - the starting point for the interpretation of a work is the work itself, rather than the intent of its creator. It seems to me that the standards applied to original fix packs should not apply by default to EE fixpacks, because the passage of time is a highly relevant consideration. Equally, the fact that Beamdog had an opportunity to fix the original game, and has created a new environment that players are now familiar with [Edit] is an argument against further change doesn't mean that remaining errors are not bugs, but it does mean people are more likely to feel cheated if stuff that they like is removed at this late stage. I say this on the basis that there was talk of Beamdog implementing this fixpack if the community does the work[/Edit] To be fair, I read every entry on CamDawg's list, and it seems that few things were simply removed by previous fixpacks. Moreover, in cases where things were removed, there was a clear benefit involved (for example, some people might have preferred the workings of certain spells prior to a change, but it's impossible to make a good faith argument that matching a spell to its description offers no benefit). It's just that, without more, "developer intent" seems to allow taking stuff away while offering little or nothing in return. I thought I'd post this spiel because I began writing it in response to a specific change suggested in a particular thread, but said response was really about making a wider point about the scope of the fixpack rather than commenting on the specific change. Here's the specific change in question (it's kind of trivial): Personally, I would be fine with this change. I also think it would have been objectively correct to make the change at various points, both in the first few years when oBG was being patched, and when Beamdog was fixing things for the EEs. But I also think that a change like this will go unnoticed and unappreciated by most people, but will be noticed and vehemently hated by a few people, who will quite reasonably ask "why the heck are you stopping me from doing this 20 years after the oG and 10 years after the EEs??!!". I'm gonna wrap this up by pointing to a very similar situation, where someone else has posted about how cool it was that they could steal an item the developers probably didn't intend them to steal. The item in question was Legacy of the Masters, stolen from Tazok following the bandit camp infiltration cut scene. There has always been a copy of Legacy of the Masters held by Meilum in Firewine. According to the BG wiki, Tazok, too, has also always had the Legacy of the Masters. However, the EE both attempted to make Tazok unkillable (presumably for continuity) AND added a copy of Legacy of Masters in a container in Tazok's Tent - the latter change likely intended to compensate for the former change making it difficult to get Tazok's Legacy of the Masters from him. And yet, two months ago, here is someone posting how cool it is to get a third Legacy of the Masters: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/83576/tazok-and-getting-legacy-of-the-masters-in-bandit-camp-yes-its-possible#latest Is that the kind of thing that a fixpack should stop? I've literally no interest in stealing these items. Heck, on my first play of BG after buying the EEs (before I found SCS and its AI) I was deliberately moving my party forward to force enemy groups to fight me! But fixpack are used by all sorts so, y'know, there's that to consider. If anyone feels motivated to reply, comments specifically about the Helm or the Legacy of the Masters are probably best placed in DavidW's thread about item duplication.

I thought this was intended to get rid of party NPC Imoen (IMOEN1.CRE) who appears via the GAM file when non-party NPC Imoen (IMOEN.CRE) was killed in Candlekeep? Both versions share the script name "Imoen".

Righto, bug report posted. Apologies to those who wasted a few seconds of their life looking at the thread earlier, when the bug report was mistakenly posted in a partly-written state.

[Edit] I've changed part of the title of this thread from "RASAAD.BCS and/or RASAADJ.DLG" to "Being eligible for the Rasaad romance can break his entire questline". If this bug is present in the latest patch (it is present in v2.6.5 and reproducible in just a few minutes), then I'm pretty sure any community defined as "people who play Baldur's Gate" would be far more keen to have the bug fixed than much of the minutiae discussed in relation to the EE Fixpack. I mentioned below that a Beamdog forum user had either the same or a very similar bug, and that I was waiting for them to confirm which patch they had installed. I can clarify that the Beamdog forum user did not post again, so I have no more information to add. I can clarify also that I have no intention of doing anything further with this bug. In the event that this bug was already fixed, that's great, but I suspect most people who go to the trouble of writing a 1600-word step-by-step bug report, covering every single relevant variable, script block, dialogue state and response, would probably still appreciate the acknowledgement of being told that the bug is no longer an issue. [/Edit] There is a bug with Rasaad in BG:EE v2.6.5. More importantly, it seems that either the bug remains in BG:EE v2.6.6, or BG:EE v2.6.6 contains a very similar bug. I don't have v2.6.6 installed at present to check. However, a user over on the Beamdog forums encountered a problem that is very similar, yet different, which I can't explain by reference to v2.6.5 (even after looking at their save game). It seemed that the Beamdog forum user has v2.6.6, although I'm waiting for them to clarify if this is the case. BG:EE v2.6.5 Bug Current Behaviour A Good-aligned female Player1 that recruits Rasaad and (1) kicks him out of the party after his first quest talk, but before his first romance talk; and (2) has Rasaad rejoin the party at least 7 days after his first quest talk; will find that the Dark Moon Monk ambush in AR1200 (BG South) that kicks off the action in Rasaad's quest will never trigger. Expected Behaviour A Good-aligned female Player1 that recruits Rasaad should (1) get the first quest talk 1 day after first recruitment; (2) get the first romance talk 4 days after first recruitment; (3) get the second quest talk 7 days after the first quest talk; (4) get the Dark Moon Monk ambush 2 days after the second quest talk (when in AR1200 (BG South) with Entillis Fulsom not in visual range of Rasaad). Bug Reproduction 5 script blocks in RASAAD.BCS contribute in some way to this bug. As the 5 script blocks occur one after another, I will identify only the line numbers of the start of the first block (102) and the end of the last block (163). The ordering of these blocks is relevant to the bug, so I will refer to these blocks as Blocks 1-5, with Block 1 being nearest to the top of RASAAD.BCS. Bug Fix There are a number of different ways to fix the problem. I don't know what is best practice, but I suspect adding an extra condition to a top-level dialogue state would probably be favoured as the least destructive fix. Therefore, in RASAADJ.DLG, for State 69, add the following line to the state trigger: !Global("RASAAD_ROMANCE","GLOBAL",1) Result of Bug Fix BG:EE v2.6.6 Bug I would rather chew through my own arm than laboriously reproduce the step-by-step process above. At this point, noting the similarities should suffice.

Gullykin Is Gullykin under the jurisdiction of the Grand Dukes, the jurisdiction of Amn, or neither of the two? If the answer is "neither of the two", is it under the jurisdiction of another political entity, or is it essentially an insignificant village in the middle of nowhere that is left to do its own thing? Candlekeep To what extent is Candlekeep under the jurisdiction of the Grand Dukes, if at all? If it is not under their jurisdiction, then what would it take - both in terms of the trigger required to act, and the force required - for the Grand Dukes to enforce their will on Candlekeep (assuming of course that it is even feasible for the Grand Dukes to do so)? By "enforce their will", I mean "credibly threaten Ulraunt with consequences serious enough to force him to do something he otherwise would not do" - said consequences do not necessarily have to be so serious as laying siege to Candlekeep (it depends on what Ulraunt was being asked to do), but I'm curious about whether the Grand Dukes could credibly threaten to take control of Candlekeep if they were sufficiently motivated to do so. Cloakwood To what extent is the Cloakwood under the jurisdiction of the Grand Dukes, if at all? As a related question, is there any political framework through which the remaining Orothiar dwarves (such as Yeslick) should have been able to enforce a complaint that the Iron Throne had stolen their property (the Cloakwood mine)? For me, this is the question that I'm most interested in. I get that the Iron Throne would want to keep their Cloakwood mine a secret while the iron crisis was ongoing given that they were using slave labour, and they later began to use slave labour in the form of people abducted by the Chill and Blacktalons. But I'm wondering what the position should be according to D&D lore once the existence of the mine is known in the city of Baldur's Gate - especially with Yeslick freed.

I would have thought that the usefulness of such a mod depends almost entirely on enemy AI. If there is little or no chance of an enemy switching targets then the mod doesn't seem like it would do a lot (especially if the timings mean that an enemy will generally make another attack before a party NPC can cast a healing spell). The Smarter General AI component of SCS makes non-dumb enemies de-prioritise helpless party NPCs when non-helpless party NPCs are nearby. If the changes you propose to make to party NPCs at 0 hp would cause SCS enemies to recognise that party NPC as helpless, then surely your mod will make an appreciable difference for SCS users? I also second the comments of the guest above me about the particular value of such a change at lower levels. For my part, I would be most interested in the applications of the mod for preventing game over once Charname specifically reaches 0 hp.

Good stuff, marchitek, I had the feeling you'd get where you wanted to go in time (well, except for the bit about CopyGroundPilesTo(), but it is what it is). I will probably take a good look at what you have if/when the time comes for me to try to implement what I want for protagonist deaths. I'm still firmly on the side of TPK = game over, rather than protaganist will always be resurrected, but it's a matter of playstyle preference rather than being objectively better. Also, while I'm here, I thought I'd share an idea I had which might allow you to resurrect party members with their equipment, assuming that's still something you want. The idea makes use of oppcode #236 (0xEC) Spell Effect: Image Projection, which creates an "Image" which is a copy of the targeted creature. I figured it might be possible to create some kind of script and/or effect that uses this oppcode to periodically create what is in effect a backup of non-protagonist party members. The Image has duplicates of all of the targeted creature(s) items that are flagged with DROPPABLE and not flagged with NONDROPABLE. All items on the Image are flagged with NONDROPABLE, so, without more, they are obviously useless for your purposes. However, you can use SetItemFlags() to remove the NONDROPABLE flag, which I am assuming would make the items on the Image droppable. In normal circumstances, this still wouldn't be particularly useful, because you would have to run a staggeringly long script targeting every item the copied NPC could conceivably have in its inventory. But I figure that this becomes relatively painless in the unusal circumstance you are catering for, whereby you're teleporting the party out of combat to specific locations where nothing is really happening, as you can run said script from a cutscene or a creature created solely when said script needs to be run. So, to put that all together: (1) you periodically create a backup of your party NPCs, perhaps on arrival in an area; (2) you move the backups to the resurrection temple with the PC; (3) if the NPC is still alive, then you remove the backup via DestroySelf(); (4) if the NPC is dead, you run a script to remove the NONDROPABLE flags on the items carried by the backup; (5) you remove the backup via Kill(), thus dropping whatever the dead NPC carried at the point it was "backed up". Note that I haven't tested any of this at all, and there might very well be glaring flaws that I'm overlooking. I just thought I'd throw it out there in case the idea appeals and the concept can be made to work! Hopefully if anybody reading this knows of any reason why my idea can't work, they will give you a heads-up. EDIT: I noticed you mention a planned component "Randomization and diversification of game content" - cue applause! Randomization, together with changes that give more choices on how to proceed, is in in my view better than pretty much anything else in terms of mods (well, I would say that the vastly improved AI in SCS is the literal best thing out there - although one of the reasons it's so good is the variety introduced in terms of spell selection and AI behaviour).

Another way to avoid the above is to use scripts run from invisible creatures, which end in DestroySelf() once their purpose is served. A few warnings/tips regarding cutscenes, as they are a pain: (1) Switch() does not work in a cutscene; (2) response blocks that lack a CutSceneId() at their beginning will not execute, although the rest of the cutscene will work okay; (3) you can use a generic resource for that purpose if its convenient/necessary - for example, many in SoD use CutSceneId("bdcutid") - although I assume that the resource has to exist as a .cre; (4) although a cutscene script executes only once, so a cutscene cannot make use of the new value of a variable changed within that cutscene, you can get around that by re-starting the cutscene from within itself - the IESDP has a really helpful example of that. Sure. I just took the vanilla Resurrection spell (SPPR712.SPL) and used NearInfinity to mod it, so compare against that. Note that I only really took a good look at opcodes myself recently. I am far from an expert on their use and, honestly, it's not something I want to focus on. With BKPRRP1.SPL, the orignal Effect #2 (sound and animation) is removed. Effects #2, #3, and #4 are the ones I added. They carry out the visual requirements for turning a Player1 that has been killed into a sort of ghost, although more would be needed to negate the other influences that the Player1 would have on the game. With BKPR712.SPL, Effect #27 is the one I added (the original Effect #27 is Effect #28). See how oppcode 321 targets BKPRRP1.SPL, removing the changes it made? The prefix is changed from "PR" to "BK" for convenience; for a mod I would change every spell that has the Raise Dead oppcode, adding oppcode 321 to negate BKPRRP1.SPL. Yeah, it's a shame. You can store location co-ordinates in a variable, but only for Create() Move() actions, when what you need is to jump or to teleport to the locations. BKPRRP1.SPL BKPR712.SPL

In brief, because I realize I missed your edit (sorry): Glad it works for you, too. I'm afraid there's no solving CopyGroundPiles(), at least in the sense of collecting loot that wasn't yours already. Yep. BKPRRP1.SPL was mainly for the block 2. It resurrects the protagonist invisible, with no animation, and with no foot circle, so I can play on without worry that a lack of Player1 will crash the game. I kept it for block 1 because it also removes the sound effect and animation for the resurrection spell - and its weird to hear/see it before 'waking up' at a temple. Do you mean two resurrection spells, or the two separate cutscenes? I wanted to resurrect the protagonist ASAP, and before going into an external cutscene, because having no Player1 is not normal and the game is a bit finicky. So the first resurrection was timed for as soon as the FadeToColour() has nearly finished. The second resurrection does two things: first, it provides the animation and sound effect, for aesthetic purposes; second, it heals any damage taken if the first resurrection put Player1 into a spot with a continuous damage effect (eg Ice Storm). It is possible that the safest thing to do is to wait on the resurrection until the temple. I have just tried that (Player1 in sub area; other party NPC in different area; no initial resurrection; then go LeaveAreaLUA(AR4802) > SetMasterArea(AR4802) > resurrection all in the second cutscene, BK_Cut2.bcs. It ran 15 or so times without a crash, then I got bored. Honestly, the single most important thing seems to be to move into cutscene mode ASAP. I'm afraid optimal scripting is beyond me; you're better hearing from others. One final thing: maybe the parsing in cutscenes was what tripped you up? It's different to that in other .bcs files, and also there are 2 types. StartCutScene("name") and StartCutSceneEx("name",FALSE) execute all blocks without checking conditions. StartCutSceneEx("name",TRUE) executes all blocks that evaluate to TRUE.

You're welcome. It helps to get a few pointers when you're starting out, especially because the IESDP can occasionally be wrong or incomplete. The problem I've experienced with Player1 can die flag occurs when Player1 dies in a sub area without another party NPC present. The body will not be there when another party NPC arrives. The game can continue but, once you try to resurrect the protagonist, however you try to do so, the game will crash. This happens even when moving a party NPC to the sub area where the protagonist died before casting Raise Dead from a scroll at the protagonist's portrait, and even though Exists(Player1) returns TRUE. This is the behaviour I get when Player1 dies in a sub area, in order of priority: 1. Is there a party NPC in your Sub Area (does not matter which party slot, or if another NPC is in the Master Area)? [No Action] 2. Is there a party NPC in the Master Area? [View point moves to NPC in Master Area] 3. Is there a party NPC in a DIFFERENT Sub Area [View point moves to vacamt spot in Master Area] So, when I try to instantaneously resurrect the protagonist without interrupting the game (using the second block in Baldur.bcs), I get occasional crashes if I spam CtrlY. AreaCheck() + SetMasterArea() resolves this problem 100% of the time. Yes, I don't like this method at all (also, if you die IN a temple, your stuff is gone forever!). But I thought I'd have a go at solving it, anyway. The script I've posted has worked for me (in test conditions) close to 100% of the time. Very occasionally it crashes. I don't regard that as a problem when the alternative is game over anyway! I'm unsure whether BK_Cut1.bcs would be better of worse by removing the IF True() Block at the bottom and adding its "StartCutSceneEx("BK_Cut2",TRUE)" to every one of the 600 blocks above it. Generally that kind of distinction doesn't matter but, when the game is very keen to switch area, it would be good to know. I don't know whether lines of script in blocks for which the IF condition has not been met have any effect at all on the compiler. Perhaps someone else will tell you. As far as the block itself is concerned, I should clarify that I've been testing with the non-dummy AreaChecks (ie. notFeldepost's Inn) both at the very top and very bottom of BK_Cut1.bcs. Anyway, as far a reliability is concerned, I suspect you'll find that you can't make a "Protagonist Resurrection" mod that works with 100% reliability for BG:EE - if you could, then someone would have done it already! MoveGlobalObject() does work differently - the 2 objects do not have to be in the same area. Note that if Player1 dies in a master area, and you LeaveAreaLUA() them to a sub-area to be resurrected, then you can MoveGlobalObject() them back to the master area in which they died - at the spot bookmarked by "Minsc". That is not so great in itself, because you'll also want to move back to non-master areas. But that's not why I suggested it. If you're dead set on jumping back to right where you died, then I believe this would work: 1. Add an action to the response blocks in BK_Cut1.bcs, setting a variable with a unique value for each area; 2. Once you're ready for the fate spirit to send you back, have its dialogue trigger a cutscene; 3. Apply blindness, invisibility, non-detection to Player1 [Edit: Blindness was so you don't see anything in the region of [1.1] that you teleport to in the following step, but changing the visual range stat works even better (with an action or an effect). Invisibility and non-detection were so the same was true of other creatures, if necessary. They won't do anything in a cutscene, but I'm not 100% that they can't register your presence and act differently afterwards]; 4. Player1 LeaveAreaLUA("ARXXX","",[1.1],X) back to the area they died in (as indicated by the variable in step 1); 5. MoveGlobalObject(Player1,"Minsc"); 6. DestroySelf("Minsc") 7. Remove blindness, invisibility, non-detection on Player1 8. MoveGlobalObject(Player2,"Player1") x5 for the party; [Edit: On second thoughts, doing this then moving to positional offsets (in the next step) risks having party members with selection circles stuck inside each other. Probably better to CreateCreatureObjectOffset("PlaceHolderForPlayer2",Player1,P:Offset*); MakeGlobalOverride("PlaceHolderForPlayer2"); and then MoveGlobalObject(Player2,"PlaceHolderForPlayer2"), instead of this and the next step]; 9. MoveToObjectOffset(Player1,P:Offset*) x5, so the party isn't all sat on Player1; 10. EndCutSceneMode(). 11. Round 2 - fight! It would, because my mod doesn't exist! I think I did a site search for master area, and I was already interested in protagonist resurrection, so I just thought "hmm, I wonder...". Well, if you want to give AreaCheck() a whirl, then you're basically there already without modding any other files! You may find that this won't work as you want it to work. You'll be able to mod the Raise Dead spell offered in the temple, but you also talked about detecting current XP, and deducting a rough percentage (based on thresholds) of XP. I don't think you can do that with a single store. Anyway, I'm tapping out of further lengthy replies on the stuff that I'm not looking to do myself. Good luck with it; it's a cool idea. For me, I need to see if I can get Player1 reliably resurrecting without interrupting the game (in other words, replace block 2 in my Baldur.bcs with something less likely to crash).

Hi. Protagonist resurrection is definitely awesome. I'm interested in it more as a way to change the game over condition from protagonist death to total party kill ("TPK") – on the proviso that the goal would be to resurrect the protagonist – but your idea has some appeal also. I have solutions for your "ground piles" and "return to point of death" problems. Also, as you mentioned moving the entire party only in response to the issue of being locked into party-required areas, I thought you might be interested in a few ways to account for that so your party doesn't have to teleport every time the protagonist dies? Here are snippets of some of the scripts I've been testing; they are sufficient to test and to illustrate the concepts, but they aren't complete. In Baldur.bcs: The first block is for TPKs. I didn't bother adding anything to deal with dead NPC companions at that stage. For your purposes, presumably you want to address that later. The second block is for when the protagonist dies but has at least 1 NPC companion left alive. The IF triggers are a convenient shorthand for now to show what the blocks are intended to do – and do in fact do when a simple Ctrl-Y is used – but more careful scripting will be needed. I'll return to "Minsc" later, but for now just think of him as a placeholder for a specific .cre that is a global object. BKPRRP1 is a copy of the Resurrection spell with the animation/sound removed and several alternative effects added. The purpose of these effects, and of the second block in general, is to make the protagonist a creature that is technically alive and present in the party but otherwise virtually undetectable. This is one way of getting around barriers and scripts that assume that Player1 is always in the party. This is the cutscene BK_Cut1.bcs (referenced in block 1 of Baldur.bcs): 605 IF blocks might sound like a lot but, when placed inside a cutscene, its trivial. SetMasterArea() solves your problem with the ground piles. Obviously there's no need to use SetMasterArea() on areas that are already master areas, but it's simpler to install that way, and by always using SetMasterArea() you can cover mod-added areas without needing to know their master/sub area relationships. This block also gives you fine control over which areas correspond to which temple, rather than a blanket approach based on Chapter. This is the cutscene BK_Cut2.bcs, as referenced in BK_Cut1.bcs The only thing about the above script which is not self-explanatory is that Resurrection has been modded with oppcode 321: Remove Effects By Resource, specifying BKPRRP1. This undoes the permanent hidden effects applied by my modded resurrection spell in Baldur.bcs. ActionOverride(Player1,MoveGlobalObject("Minsc",Player1)): As noted above, "Minsc" here is a placeholder for a specific .cre that is a global object. It would be an invsi-creature that you interact with only via bcs. It's purpose is to mark the point where the protagonist dies, so that you can return to that precise point via MoveGlobalObject(O:Object*,O:Target*). To answer a couple of things you mentioned earlier in the thread: - bdbaldur.bcs is the script for Siege of Dragonspear. - bdtgaze is I imagine related to the tanari (Aec'Letec) from Tales of the Sword Coast. Any variable or file name beginning "bd" or "oh" is almost certainly Beamdog or Overhaul Games. As far as feedback is concerned, I am very much not a fan of the blanket "Chapter X = Resurrection here" approach. I think you should divide up the map (in which case Gullykin can also be used). As a further possibility, and particularly if you are looking to dump the protagonist back into battle straight away, why not create an area unconnected to the World map to put the newly-resurrected party members in? Populate it with a fate spirit, and have it's dialogue give options for where the protagonist goes from there.

Thank you, Endarire. As it stands, I don't feel the need to add anything further to this thread.

Sheesh. No, thank you.

It's obviously good to want mods to be compatible, but treating universal compatibility as an essential design goal has very obvious drawbacks. Here are some: (1) Ensuring that the original content must remain in place is unusually restrictive (2) It places a premium on the value of mods that have already been written. (3) Design space that is essential for some mods can be restricted by other mods using that design space for non-essential purposes. (4) The bar to entry for modding can be raised so high that less content is created. (5) Changes that are of little value can hinder the making of changes of greater value. I did take the time to read the readme for BG1RE, install the mod, and look at Scar's BG1RE dialog, so perhaps you went a little far by suggesting my approach is "lazy".

Part of the reason to say "no thanks" is that pretty much the entirety of Scar's dialog is very likely to be out of sequence. It begins with a reference to the Nashkel mines, and then it's peppered with references to the PC's previous involvement with the Iron Throne. Another reason is the consideration I mentioned in my last post in my thread (the one about "suspicious letters"). Another reason is that I'm adding a bit extra to both the Sewer Ogre and Seven Suns quests. Another reason is that I'm swapping the Sewer Ogre and Seven Suns quest offers around (for a variety of reasons). Another reason is that I wanted to write a more 'intelligent' Scar. One that is able to tolerate such craziness as quests being done out of order (*GASP!*), and one that doesn't disappear once the PC meets Duke Eltan. There just isn't much there to keep, save for the text itself, which I'm incorporating fairly faithfully.

If that's how the BG1RE dialog is written, would the below suggestion be a simple fix? (1) I stick a top-level state in BK_SCAR.DLG matching your state that kicks off the BG1RE dialog ("At last, some time!"). This state would switch BK_SCAR.CRE's dialog to SCAR.DLG. By itself, my mod would never set the variable that allows this state to be chosen. (2) Write a tiny mod that installs after both my thingy and BG1RE which: (a) Sets a variable used in the state trigger for the extra state in BK_SCAR.DLG, allowing it to be chosen; and (b) Mods the end points of the BG1RE dialog tree so that, instead of circling back to vanilla SCAR.DLG, it resets BK_SCAR.CRE's dialog to BK_SCAR.DLG. No point in wasting your time on the details yet, but I'm totally willing to look at stuff like that when I'm a little further along.

Sorry to have to ask again, but there are two .CRE files and two .DLG files for Duke Eltan. DELTAN.CRE, which uses DELTAN.DLG, is spawned in Chapter 5 by SCARCUT.BCS when the player agrees to meet Eltan. DELTAN2.CRE, which uses DELTAN2.DLG, is spawned in Chapter 7 - first by AR0608.BCS, and then by the Harbormaster's dialog. It does sound like you're just modifying DELTAN2, but it seems best to be sure! I haven't played it (my BG time is going on what I'm making), but I have it installed and I've had a look in its files. For what its worth, I think that your switcheroo works quite nicely. All I was thinking was that it might be possible to install the 'Candlekeep as side-quest' aspect on top of what I'm making, if that was something you wanted to look at. But I should clarify that when I talked about that being 'a waste of time' at the moment, I did mean your time! After all, every mod is just vapourware until its made.

@jastey As far as I'm aware, it's DELTAN2.DLG that is modified by Endless BG1, BG1UB, and BG1RE. So, as far as Duke Eltan is concerned, it seems that we're all good there? Also, am I right in thinking that you maintain a version of NTotSC? If so, am I right in thinking that Eltan's contribution is to hand out the Northern Citadel quest, update the journal, set a variable, and reveal an area on the map? And, once he's done so, he plays no further part in the mod? I don't have BG1RE, so I read the readme and downloaded the mod (I can't say I've ever wanted to cuddle Scar, but I definitely like the idea of bringing him back). The good news is that I don't do anything with Scar that is conceptually incompatible with the Scar bonus quest, or indeed with romancing Scar. Sadly, that's as far as the good news goes, because I don't even plan to use SCAR.DLG. I might be wrong, but in principle it seemed a bad idea to use Scar as a vehicle for advancing the Chapters in a different order, and not protect Scar from changes made by other mods. Regardless, Scar's existing dialog is completely incompatible with what I'm doing. I'm writing a new dialog from scratch (albeit one incorporating most of his existing text)! Scar reacts very differently to the PC depending on when they meet, and he doesn't even offer the quests in the same order. Also, the PC can't have replies along the lines of "let's drop this side-quest, I want to talk about the Iron Throne", as they might have no idea what the Iron Throne is at that point! And there are many other compatibility issues. So I don't really know what more to say, unfortunately. I wasn't aware of your content in BG1RE before now but, even if I was, Scar (and Eltan) are crucial components in the main plot, so it's not as though I can just pick different NPCs to use

Thanks for flagging the above-mentioned mods. I double-checked a few of these things a couple of days ago, and hopefully my memory hasn't failed in the meantime. As I said, I'm not doing anything with DELTAN2.CRE or DELTAN2.DLG, and I should clarify that I'm also doing nothing to the scripts or actions that spawn Eltan in Chapter 7. So he will behave as he normally behaves, and any self-contained changes made by mods will function as they normally would. By self-contained, I mean changes that don't depend on variables set in Chapters 5-6. Note that this includes variables used by the vanilla game, some of which I'm not using. I'm not 100% sure when or if I should set these variables - as I go along, at the transition into Chapter 7, or not at all? @Lauriel Do you do anything with DELTAN.CRE or DELTAN.DLG in Transitions? And how about your planned Eltan romance - does that effect Chapter 7 Eltan only? As for Framed, I'm perfectly happy to see if some kind of cross-mod compatibility fix is possible, but that would be a waste of time until I've finished most of what I want to do.