Miloch

Even just adding/adapting some of those druid-focused HLAs, shapeshifts and spells from the Geomantic Sorcerer (plus bow use ) would be a nice bumper for what I find to be a really weak class.

Probably not a bad idea. You might check out the "Natural Selection" stuff in Wounded Lion's Morrow Gate too.

Oh and a Shadow Druid mod adding a stronghold in Cloakwood in BGT/tutu

A "stronghold"? They're druids, they have a tree-house . BG1 NPC does add more druids and a quest though.

You say there is no way to link inside a post?

Not that I can think of offhand... maybe Cam knows. You could just split it into multiple posts and link to those, and split these other posts into a "comments" thread.

Wow. This is huge...

 

You might want to put a sort of "Contents" at the start of this, like

Contents

1. General

2. Triggers

etc.

I don't think you can use hyperlinks unless you split the topics into separate posts, but at least it'll give people an idea of what this contains.

 

I think you mentioned elsewhere that BG1 description BAMs have to be quartered - you can't use the unsplit BG2 description BAMs.

 

BG1 items do not have proficiencies - they show up as "Large Sword" (no proficiency) in BG2 editors. Instead, the proficiency is determined by the Item Type which in turn is related to the proficiency flags in the .cre file.

 

Also, BG1 cannot enforce minimum stat requirements on items, as Echon has noted. And kit usability flags on items are pretty much ignored I think. I mentioned some things to look out for if you are going the other way (BG1 to BG2) here.

On one of two answers, but you're both wrong about the "short sword" proficiency - it's "small sword" .

Actually, misc75 has the (correct) small sword proficiency in BG1, as do all daggers and short swords. So the bug is only for Tutu - you may want to report it in the Tutu forum.

 

Bala's Axe (ax1h07) has both identified and unidentified descriptions. Same goes for _ax1h07 in Tutu.

I'm using the Icewind Dale mxsplpal.2da, which gives them one first level spell from 6th to 9th level.

Well, that might be part of the problem too. Someone should test this in the unmodded game. [Edit: nevermind, looks like plainab did this in the Tweak thread... I doubt having TotSC would make much difference in this case.]

 

Since the unmodded game, as you say, doesn't allow paladins to cast spells anyway, I dunno if there's much we can do about it in a fixpack. Especially if it does turn out to be hardcoded.

I've actually had several offers thankyouverymuch, but they generally don't go over too well, since I have to tendency to drop-kick people who get too close to my feet.

I appreciate the idea, but it's non-bioware NPCs (which that mod can't change either)

It's not that it can't, it just doesn't presently. As for the why, read the question "Q: What about NPCs added by mods? Keto wants to be a skald!" here. Some low-level hackery with the mod's .tp2 file would probably accomplish it, or you could do it manually with an editor. But if Nythrun doesn't support it, I'm not going to step on her much-coveted-and-ethereally-massaged (by Azazello, Bursk, et al.) feet by telling you how to do it (and frankly, I can't really be arsed atm to figure it out and maybe couldn't if I tried, since Nythrun's code isn't exactly code for simple orcs to comprehend).

 

Edit: In an effort to get this back on track though, if the kit change is done via a tome, can't the tome be generalised to work on any PC/NPC who meets the kit requirements?

This is no method where a pure Tutu /BGT mod can be made working for BG1

I do some sneaky things (ok, maybe some stupid things) with REPLACE_TEXTUALLY and scripting, probably would work the same for dialogs whereby a Tutu/BGT mod will also work for BG1 (and vice versa, which is marginally easier due to supposed backward-compatibility).

 

For example, I have a "targeting" block in a script for a creature in a BG2 (Tutu/BGT) engine mod. This CRE does not like spellcasters, particularly not druids, so goes after them first. Well, in the BG2 engine, we can cover all multi-classes with the "_ALL" flag:

IF
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.DRUID_ALL])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.SORCERER])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.MAGE_ALL])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.CLERIC_ALL])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.BARD_ALL])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF])

In BG1, this fails to compile, so instead I'll COPY the script and REPLACE_TEXTUALLY so I end up with something like this.

IF
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.DRUID])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.MAGE])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.CLERIC_MAGE])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.CLERIC])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF.0.0.BARD])
 !See([GOODCUTOFF])

Yeah, it's not *exact* but it *emulates* the BG2 engine behaviour, which is good enough (for me anyway... I'm not out to make a BG1 SCS or something...).

 

Then of course, there's the Tutu underscore, which I'll just replace during compile also (I think cmorgan has described this above already):

IF
 HPPercentLT(Myself,70)
 !GlobalTimerNotExpired("tcn","LOCALS")
 HasItem("%tsu%POTN08",Myself)

(In Tutu, %tsu% becomes _ and otherwise it gets replaced with nothing.)

 

Then there are other cases where I want my CRE to use a BG2 (or even TotSC) spell that may not be available in plain BG1. Well if I'm feeling ambitious (and this is rare) I'll actually *port* the spell and all its resources to BG1. That can get hairy. If I'm feeling less than ambitious, I'll use the BG2 spell and simply REPLACE_TEXTUALLY its reference with a roughly-equivalent BG1 spell in the script when the mod install detects that platform. And if I'm feeling lazy (and yes, this is most common) I'll just use the BG1 spell to begin with in both scripts for maximum compatibility. It usually doesn't matter a whole lot for what I do, and I find it's more worthwhile to spend time on plot twists and dialogue options rather than cool eye candy like making Call Woodland Nymphs work in BG1 (eh... ok fine... I have spent a lot of time on that ).

 

And if I'm in doubt with which spells work on which platforms, I find Oogi's School at Dudleyville to be an excellent reference and far less time-consuming than looking up stuff with multiple DLTCEP/NI instances (though I do a lot of that too of course).

 

I usually don't bother with having alternate scripts or resources for BG1/Tutu/BGT where I can avoid it, hence the reason for the REPLACE_TEXTUALLY in the TP2 on a common script. It makes for duplicate editing when you want to change some little thing in the script which is otherwise platform-independent. Sometimes I can't easily avoid that as with compressed/uncompressed BAMs for spell graphics and the like, but that's fairly easy once you figure out what works (and there's some other thread floating out on that but I'm too lazy to cross-reference it at the moment ).

 

Area name differences are easy - just look up the Tutu/BGT area list in my signature and substitute "AR" for "FW" in the Tutu areas for BG1/TotSC.

 

I have more tips and maybe some TP2 examples, but most of my code is on my other laptop, which just fried another video card .

Otherwise, if you just want to complain for no reason send those coments to Miloch. That's something even a Half-Ogre can handle.

Half-orc - get it right .

 

I guess I should point out that there isn't, as yet, any Fixpack to download here. I was just offering to package what we have and put it out there if there's any immediate need for the fixes mentioned. But it not, we'll just keep clicking away at it (and by "we," I mean plainab again).

I believe we have a working fix for the Yeslick issue. This seems to crop up frequently on various forums (like here), perhaps as often as the Lothander/Marek bug for which we also have a fix. And when I say "we" I really mean "plainab" who has done the majority (if not all) of the work.

 

We have tons more open issues to sort out for the BG1 Fixpack. But what I'm proposing is to make this Yeslick fix, and maybe a few others that crop up a lot, available as a mini-mod, or a pre-alpha, or whatever you want to call it. And I'll package it and host it on my server in the absence of CamDawg or a real admin to make it "official" (which it isn't in any case, as yet). However, all bug reports and support issues will go directly to plainab .

You probably have the game running (or possibly an editor) while trying to install or uninstall.

Eh... well that actually makes sense as a paradox, perhaps even a witty one. But as to this:

The Dawg has no sense of humour. It's one of those unfortunate side-effects of being a robot.

I don't see the paradox - not that it was intended as one necessarily. Unless you interpret Dawg = dog, in which case there *are* robot dogs, so I really don't get the paradox, if there was supposed to be one. But I am rather dim, being a half-orc and all.

Well, obviously. It was a weak attempt at humour - I don't know why I even bother with it on these forums sometimes .

I rather like this one:

[StateCheck] argument [STATE_DHARMED] not found in [State.IDS]

Did the developers intend perhaps to have a "dharma" spell state?

there are syntax differences between BG1 with and without TotSC

Can you give some examples of these? It would help out for the BG1 Fixpack and other mods that should be compatible whether TotSC is present or not. I know of some spell differences and things like that, but not actual syntax differences.

It only took me 30 seconds to figure out how the %tutu_var% worked, once I understood the basic concept, so I can do it on the fly if I have to. Buy why?

Eh... why not? Not sure what you're suggesting in the rest of your post, but if you end up down the road coding (for example) a separate Gavin for BGT, and you end up with a bug (gods forbid) or want to make a change to one or the other, you're going to have the devil's own time keeping the two mods in sync. It isn't any more difficult to code this way from the start - it is in fact easier for me to do so, especially when you throw BG1-compatibility into the mix along with multiple versions of a mod for each platform (I'm still trying to figure out how to crunch the code even further for that last part).

Good stuff, Captain Morgan.

 

Wasn't there a reason to use REPLACE_TEXTUALLY [EXACT_MATCH] instead of EVALUATE_BUFFER, apart from trying to evaluate the odd % as a variable?

 

I'll admit I prefer stupidly short (but unique) variables to long, descriptive ones (particularly in scripts, where it might make a difference in runtimes, or so I've read). But I guess everyone will have there personal preference there, and it probably makes little difference, unless we're really going to have some sort of community standards.

Thanks for the reports - we'll look into them.

 

Though I'm wondering if the books are already addressed (or should be addressed) in the Tweak Pack "Sellable Items" component? Maybe Cam can answer that.

So has Andyr gone on to NWN2 modding or what? I was kind of looking forward to another Tutu NPC.

Which portrait are you trying to use? I noticed P#KI2M.bmp is off by a few pixels (110x173 - should be 110x170). I'd fix it but the last time I tried to fix a trivial dimension glitch in someone else's mod I got my arse reamed, so I'll leave it to the author and/or artist to sort out.

It's Tutu, so you have to rename them anyway like the above (replace the first letter with an underscore).

I think you'd save them in your Tutu folder as:

\override\_IVANL.bmp

\override\_IVANS.bmp

 

http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,23355.0.html

And should I send the BG1 or the EasyTutu version of the file, given that EasyTutu seems to change the file name in many cases?

 

In fact, in the case of (for instance) an amended .CRE, .STO or .SPL file, is it likely that the amended file will actually be converted correctly by EasyTutu?

Given the fact EasyTutu doesn't handle Dudley stuff as it is, probably not. We're using BG1 as a base for the fixes. Eventually Macready may include the fixes in EasyTutu core, or we'll just enable a Tutu version of the fix as well.

 

I'll PM you my e-mail where you can send the files (and hopefully some documentation on what you changed ). I'm trying to get everything folks have done together in a document of what's done and what needs to be done.

 

@devSin: No. Now go away or I will taunt you a second time... (Actually, I thought you had access already...)

Thanks, JLE, this is useful feedback.

For instance, the so-called fix that removes the "infinitely respawning flesh golems" (the fix to AR3601) is in fact a Tweak, not a Fix, and should not be part of the FixPacks.

I think we agreed that such 'exploit' fixes should be considered a separate optional component of the fixpack (it's not really a tweak either). But that should solve the problem either way.

For instance, making a couple of shops accept stolen goods: Black Lily in the Thieves Guild, of course (hell, they're THIEVES, of course they will let you sell stolen goods to them).

This would probably be more of a tweak, or perhaps appropriate in something like Thievery (something I'll probably pick up again after the fixpack, and I'd already planned the addition of more fences ).

And there is a serious need for a shopkeeper somewhere, ANY shopkeeper, that will actually buy crossbow bolts of any kind.

Another tweak, and one that would fit in well with existing tweaks to make clubs, quarterstaffs, etc. sellable.

For instance, the whole farrago in the prologue about Firebead Elvenhair and his long-lasting Protection from Evil which actually uses the cleric-spell version rather than the mage-spell version.

Is it even noticeable to the player which version he casts?

Likewise, yes, some shops are clones of each other (what you sell in one, will show up in the other), but I honestly think this does not need to be reflected in messing with the dialogue file to give them new names.

I believe this is an existing fix currently in the BG2 Tweakpack (under 'Exotic Items') we were considering moving to the BG1 fixpack (I don't know if it involves messing with dialog files, but not really a big deal in WeiDU either way).

Although a lot of it also makes sense, and it looks awkward when you've got "clerics" casting Entangle if Entangle is not to be a cleric spell.

This is an existing fix I've been working on.

The world map issues with Ulgoth's Beard in TotSC are all, well, kinda weird. Somehow the player has to be able to reach UB from SOMEWHERE. And where can you go from, that would make it accessible? Also, the world map issues with the area AR0400, north of the Baldurs Gate bridge. You enter this area from the south, and appear on the west side of the river - except the only way to make this area open up before Chapter 5 is by going north from the *east* side of the river. The fact that you can go north from the east side of the river and appear on the west side is somewhat weird...

Another known issue we're working on fixing (or discussing how to go about it at least ).

The maps of certain towns and fully civilized areas (specifically BG city, Ulgoths Beard, Beregost) should probably be entirely clear/visible to the player, like Athkatla city in BG2, rather than being entirely dark until you clear it by walking through it. Some other civilized areas (Nashkel, Gullykin, Friendly Arm Inn) still have monsters in, and should remain hidden.

This I would consider a tweak, and indeed it is included I believe in some tweak pack or other (possibly igi's iiTweak).

And there are indeed some dialog.tlk errors which need to be amended. However, the mystery of the multiple farmers in Nashkel and the Carnival called Lahl could be solved simply by editing the character .CRE files so as to point most of their names to being the existing string "Commoner" instead of even having to create a new dialogue string "Farmer".

Agreed.