Mike1072

On 6/17/2020 at 11:06 AM, crackwise said:

1) According to the documentation here: http://gibberlings3.github.io/SpellRevisions/spells/arcane/ Spell Deflection is level 5,  and there is a Greater Spell Deflection in level 7.

However, according to the documentation here: https://gibberlings3.github.io/Documentation/readmes/readme-spell_rev_descriptions.html#arcane3 there is only Spell Deflection in level 6 and no Greater. I assume the first link is the most current version. (Note that very important information for Non-Detection and True Sight etc. seems to be missing in the first link though. The second link has that very important information, which I was able to discover today)

Your second link is the original spell description documentation for the mod, which is now quite outdated.

It's superceded by the current documentation, your first link, where the descriptions match what's included in SRv4b18.

On 6/21/2020 at 2:19 PM, Bartimaeus said:

https://www.gibberlings3.net/notifications/options/

Under "Messenger", it says toggling for "I receive a message" has been disabled by administrator. I'm not sure why, since I've also received emails in the past for PMs - it would make sense to not have it enabled by default, but being able to enable it manually would be nice.

Thanks, I updated the flags which should allow members to change any of these options now.  (Not sure how they got like that to start with.)

On 6/21/2020 at 2:33 PM, Azazello said:

I'll piggyback on this thread and report that the 'View Signatures' option in not sticky-- keeps reverting to disabled. (Few days ago I had temporarily turned them off from the 'x' when submitting a post.)

I haven't used this feature much, so I'm not sure how it works, but I don't think there are any associated settings I can tweak.  I can see that there is another place to globally toggle signatures: https://www.gibberlings3.net/settings/signature/

Thanks for the information.  That is worrying.  I haven't received any similar reports before.

The site has been using HTTPS since we migrated to cloud hosting at the end of 2018 and we've been keeping up to date with the latest forum software updates, so I expect our current security measures are adequate, but I would definitely like to investigate this issue further.

Would you mind forwarding me the information from your antivirus app that mentions our site?  You can reach me via email at mike1072@gmail.com or gibberlings3@gmail.com.

For anyone concerned about data breaches, I recommend periodically checking haveibeenpwned.com to see if any of your accounts have been compromised.  You can take a look at the article on Wikipedia for additional information about the site.

If you are a modder and have questions about mod-making, please try the Modding Q&A forum.

If you are a modder looking to share your knowledge with others, please post your tutorials in the Modding How-Tos and Tutorials forum.

Please use this forum to discuss mods, mod ideas, and any questions you have about finding, installing, or playing mods.

6 hours ago, Nimloth of Thay said:

I stand by my request to delete my account.

Granted.  Feel free to return if you change your mind.

I'm sorry to hear you didn't enjoy your time here.

We're not as active as some of the larger communities which may help explain why you didn't receive a response to your topic.  The question could also have been outside the expertise of the people who did see it.

There aren't a lot of modders actively looking for new projects (the modders who are still active are often busy with existing projects), but there are people available to give advice and assistance if you want to pursue creating something yourself.

If you still want me to remove your login, I'll do so.

Sure - can I ask why you want to delete it?

Sure - can I ask why you want to delete it?

8 hours ago, Nezgal said:

Ok, I see. Then I might just disable some of IR's revisions on a case by case basis for them to make sense with the upgrades. I'll look into that

The easiest way is to edit items.2da in IR's folder before installing the mod.  If you look at the columns for the different platforms (BG2, BGT, TUTU, BGEE, BG2EE, EET), you'll see they contain a 1 or 0, which corresponds to whether the item should be installed on that platform.  To prevent an item from being changed, find the row for that item, then change the value in your platform's column from a 1 to a 0.  (For BG2EE, you have to change both the BG2EE and BG2 columns; that's a bug.)

8 hours ago, Nezgal said:

As for SoD2BGEE, I'll do some testing and I'll report here if global changes work or not.

I can save you some trouble - they've not yet been added to IR's lists, but the categorizations have been proposed.

There's no incompatibility between the global changes and those mods that I'm aware of.  (Though IR may require an update to include the categorizations for the SoDtoBG2EE items.)

However, there is a conceptual incompatibility with these types of mods if they don't take special measures to account for IR's main component.  Because the upgraded versions are separate items with designs based on the vanilla items rather than the IR items, applying an upgrade will get rid of any changes from IR's main component.  In some cases, this may not make much of a difference, while in others, the name, lore, and abilities of the item could change quite a bit.

Putting aside the idea of making the game easier or harder, I think it's valid to discuss whether this behaviour changes the vanilla experience in a good way or a bad way.

Going beyond just IR and including conversions like Tutu, BGT, and the Enhanced Editions, plenty of features were ported from BG2 into BG1, and they change the balance and feel of the game, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.

There weren't any equippable items that provided regeneration in the original BG1, as far as I recall.  I can remember playthroughs where I stocked up on Cure Light Wounds memorizations, not necessarily for combat use, but because it would let me heal up between encounters.  Adding an equippable item with regeneration has a significant impact on the feel of the game.  By passing it around, you can heal the party fully without using any spells, consumables, or resting (which costs gold or has a chance of encountering monsters).  It makes the world feel a little less dangerous, which I don't like.

I would be in favour of removing the regeneration in BG1.  In BG2, regeneration items are much more common, and I don't think this item would be out-of-place.

3 hours ago, Endarire said:

@Mike1072
(Un)Holy Word Spells
The simplest way to handle the cumulative effects of word spells is just to list everything on each entry.  For example, if used on a creature with 5 HD less than the caster's caster level, the subject is assumedly Deafened for 1 turn (10 rounds), Blinded for 5 rounds, and Stunned for 1 round.

Indeed, this would be the easiest to understand, but as Bartimaeus mentions, it might not look that nice in-game.

3 hours ago, Endarire said:

The animal summoning series shouldn't use the term "level of Druid casting the spell" since non-Druids can cast it.  (The caster's caster level is truly what determines the effects of these summons.)  The same goes for other summoning spells, like Call Woodland Beings.

Shapechange:
This spell text says "wizard" but non-Wizards can cast it too!

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

"Druid"/"Wizard"/"Cleric"/Whatever: These are used as generic catch-alls for arcane, divine, and natural spellcasters, not necessarily strictly indicative of their class. The only time it would be truly inappropriate is if "cleric" or "druid" is used for a spell that's usable by both clerics and druids.

We occasionally used "priest" when referring to a generic divine caster like a cleric/paladin/druid/ranger[/shaman] and "wizard" when referring to a generic arcane caster like a mage/sorcerer/bard.

Ideally, the specific class names should only be used when those are the only class able to use the spell (e.g. shaman spells, high-level cleric-only spells), but I'm not sure how well we follow this rule.  I suspect that "cleric", "druid", and "mage" might be common.

3 hours ago, Endarire said:

Protection from Energy and Protection from the Elements
Going by the documentation alone, the level 7 version seem to do the same thing, but the level 7 version (protection from the elements) casts faster and lasts longer (5 rounds per level instead of 2 rounds per level).  This seems wrong.

Protection from Energy protects from magic damage in addition to elemental damage.

3 hours ago, Endarire said:

Animal Summoning I:
Bats have 1 hit die each.  (Dice is the plural for die.)

Nitpicking:
I know I've been picky about certain "minor" terms, but I want things to be accurate.  Not everyone who's playing with this mod entirely knows that certain descriptive terms are functionally interchangeable.

As a fellow nitpicker, I appreciate and encourage all such reports.

8 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I assume you mean "equal to or greater?" The deafness works on enemies of a higher level, right?

You're right, the deafness affects all enemies regardless of level. The description should be corrected.

The SR effects and description were modelled on the 3rd edition Holy Word, where deafness does not affect enemies above the caster's level.  I'm guessing it was changed in SR to make the spell not suck so much.

7 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

This is how I rewrote Un/Holy Word in SRR so it made sense and also none of the lines spilled to a second line:

Target's Hit Dice - Effects of Holy Word
 All enemies - Deafness for 1 turn
 Less than caster - Blindness for 5 rounds
 5 less than caster - Stun for 1 round
 10 less than caster - Death

I think I also experimented with signs (<, >, =), but it looked terrible which is why I tried to devise a different format.

I started with a similar format (why use lot word when few word do trick?) but eventually settled on mine after struggling with trying to more effectively convey that the effects are cumulative.  I'm not sure that either description makes that easy to follow, but the problem might just be that the behaviour itself is out-of-place among other spells in the game.

17 hours ago, Endarire said:

@Mike1072
Clarify unholy word and holy word targeting in your next release.

If you're referring to alignment, I don't think that part of the description is ambiguous.  It specifies enemies.

I did notice some other wording in the description I wanted to update to make the effects clearer.  Here's a preview.

Quote

Uttering a Holy Word channels magic of tremendous power. Nearby enemies suffer the following effects, dependent on their level:

Target's Hit Dice -- Effects of Holy Word
Equal to caster level -- Deafness for 1 turn
Less than caster level -- Blindness for 5 rounds
Less than caster level by at least 5 -- Stun for 1 round
Less than caster level by at least 10 -- Death

The effects are cumulative and concurrent.

Difficulty set to easy?

I received the following report via email and I'm reposting it here to reach a wider audience:

Quote

Hi, I'm playing the classic vanilla version of Baldur's Gate 2 & ToB, with the official patch installed, and then the G3 Fixpack.
I also have some of the G3 Tweaks but only the True Grandmastery and the Reduced De'Arnise keep times tweaks installed.

I noticed none of my characters are rolling random damage. Whatever target they hit, they always do the exact same damage every hit. If i switch targets, damage will change slightly, but always be the new value for each hit.
So for example, my paladin attacks target 1 and does 24 damage per hit ten times in a row.
My paladin switches to target 2 (same creature type) and only does 20 damage per hit ten times in a row. If I switch back to target 1 she continues to hit for 24 as she was previously on target 1.

I know the original game with the official patch never behaved this way, but I just don't know what the problem it.

If you have heard of this before, and know how to resolve it, I woule be very appreciative.

Thanks!

Anyone have any ideas?

4 hours ago, Endarire said:

@Mike1072
Holy word and unholy word:  Does this apply only to enemies?  What happens to LN/TN/CN creatures?

They apply only to enemies and do not take alignment into consideration.

4 hours ago, Endarire said:

These spells also have a typo of "effec" instead of "effect."

Thanks, fixed locally.

I think SR should go before F&P and T&B, but @subtledoctor, @Grammarsalad, and @Aquadrizzt would know best.

I don't have much experience with DSotSC, but installing it early is probably a good idea due to its age.

9 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

If it uses ADD_SPELL too much, then you could run out of space for new spells; then SR and/or FnP will not install. 

I have no idea what the chance of that happening actually is. 

It doesn't add too many spells — check out this list.  (Which reminds me, I should reply to that topic w/ SR's spells now that it's finally using ADD_SPELL.)

4 hours ago, DavidW said:

Any reason not to just include the scripts as BAF files and compile them at install time?

I don't think there was any particular reason they were stored as .bcs files.  Demi probably got them in that format or created them in NI and copied them out of the override once they were working.  They could easily be decompiled into .baf files using NI or WeiDU.

6 hours ago, Sam. said:

My solution is to add

*.bcs text eol=lf
*.bs text eol=lf

to the .gitattributes file.

In my most recent .gitattributes (not yet published as best practices), I have .bcs files set as binary.  Diffs for the format aren't super useful, because it isn't really human readable, and I prefer that git not try to merge changes to them as though they were text.  I expect setting them as binary prevents the line endings being changed when pushed to GitHub.

Single-issue commits vs. multi-issue commits:

The biggest benefits to single-issue commits are that they reduce the chance that changes slip through the cracks without being documented and they make it easier to figure out why a particular file or line of code was changed when looking back on it later.

It's the preferred way to do things, but can be a real pain in the butt to reverse engineer when you haven't done it that way in the first place.  When determining how far to take this, I'd recommend weighing the time investment required against the potential time savings in the future.  Focusing on the goal of good and accurate documentation is more important than adhering to a strict methodology.

Many single-issue pull requests vs. one multi-issue pull request:

One larger multi-issue pull request is fine in most cases. The benefit of smaller single-issue pull requests is that they are easier to manage when there are conflicts or when the maintainer wants to approve some of the changes but not others.  I'll happily approve a bunch of bugfixes and there haven't been any other commits recently that would conflict with your changes, so throw them in a single PR to make both our lives easier.

Nicely spotted, but:

Quote

Spell descriptions last updated for SRv4b18 

Any typos fixed after v4b18's release won't show up in the online documentation until after v4b19 is completed and the documentation is refreshed to match.

If you are viewing My Attachments (from the menu that appears when clicking your user name in the top right), you should see a link to the post the attachment is attached to.  By following the link and editing the post, you can delete the attachment.  It's not very user-friendly if you need to delete many attachments.

8 hours ago, pochesun said:

Can anyone help me with this: i got Ir Revision installed and has Halberds doing only piercing damage (thats a default option for instalation as i understand). How can i change it to do both piercing and slashing damage? As i am digging it i should modify some .tpa file (presumably weapons_change.tpa but i cant find the line i should change (and more important i am not sure what i shoudl change there)

This option is now in item_rev/settings.ini.  Change the value to 1 and then install the Weapon Changes component.

Yes, SCS is aware of SR and takes advantage of some of its changes.

But from the other perspective, both SR and IR were designed with SCS compatibility in mind.

2 hours ago, Cahir said:

I'll play with swapping those line and putting a modified code for the second issue. That's eqactly what I needed. You may consider putting this change in original package too. IMO, it looks better to have it like this:

Armor Class Bonus: 2

Special: +2 vs. Missile Weapons

THAC0: - 2 Penalty

 

than like this:

Armor Class Bonus: 2

THAC0: - 2 Penalty

Special: +2 vs. Missile Weapons

Agreed.  It was only done the other way because that was a simpler regexp.  (And I was quite concerned about being able to detect newlines properly.)

2 hours ago, Cahir said:

Also did you consider to prepare  Item_descriptions_EE.tra version too, tailored for EE games as it is often done by other mods (current Weimar's Item Upgrade version comes to mind)? I know it's probably a bit time consuming, but it would help to maintain consistency with other item packs installed along IR, that follow EE description formatting. I would just leave special abilities names, though (like "bane Weapon", "Acidic" etc.), since it's something that distinguishes IR from other item packs, and frankly adds more favor to item descriptions. I can PM you my edited version if you interested in getting this done. 

I'm unlikely to spend significant efforts maintaining a version of the mod that works on both the original games and enhanced editions much longer.  It takes too much time, makes the mod much more complicated, and restricts the mod to only include things that work on both platforms.  If an EE-specific version was created someday, the description formatting would likely be changed to blend in more with the EE style.

1 hour ago, Cahir said:

@Mike1072also while were at it. What would it take to have mod related items to be included in Shield changes and Armor changes components patching routine? Is adding them to this  file and this file sufficient or this would require other changes of code?

If you include them in there with the appropriate value for their shield or armor type, you shouldn't need to do anything else.

12 minutes ago, Cahir said:

Now to get it absolutely perfect for my tastes I would like to tweak couple more things. If you could tell me what needs to be change, I'd be eternally grateful.

1. I'd like to change:

Quote

Special: No Missile Weapon Protection

to

Quote

– No protection against missile attacks

That can probably be done by changing @100313 in description_updates.tra.

12 minutes ago, Cahir said:

2. This would probably be more tricky. I would like to have additional line that adds bonus AC vs. missiles for Large shields to be added to general AC bonus line, to looks more like in EE games (examples below) instead of what is looking now at the screen above:

That's getting more complicated and may be better suited to a new topic in Modding Q&A.  Essentially you'd want to use a REPLACE_TEXTUALLY on the description, finding a line that starts with "– Armor Class:" followed by a line starting with "Special:" and replace the newline in between them.  It would involve a regexp similar to the one in my previous post.