Jarno Mikkola
-
Posts
8,949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Mods
News
Store
Posts posted by Jarno Mikkola
-
-
They should, but I can't say for sure. Know that most of the creatures have most of their stats set to 9 if it doesn't matter for them... there's monsters that have their stats taken from a monster manual like table.Quick question: do these tables affect monsters and do they get bonuses based on my tables?The SCS has also a component that checks the monsters at install time and sets their HP, AC, Thac0 etc stats if the .2da table has been radically changed ... but only in the case they get better stats.
-
Works just fine, you just need to edit the "strmod.2da" file and the "strmodex.2da" file, the first's content, yes, I modified these:@Jarno Mikkola, great tips and I tried the code you wrote. Works just fine and helps to give some advantages to my AC =), I suppose this cant work for strength due to the 18/xx percentage code?2DA V1.0 0 TO_HIT DAMAGE BEND_BARS_LIFT_GATES WEIGHT_ALLOWANCE 0 -20 -20 0 0 1 -5 -4 1 1 2 -3 -2 2 3 3 -3 -1 3 5 4 -2 -1 4 15 5 -2 -1 5 25 6 -1 0 6 40 7 -1 0 7 60 8 0 0 8 80 9 0 0 9 100 10 0 0 10 120 11 0 0 11 140 12 0 0 12 160 13 0 0 13 180 14 0 0 14 200 15 0 0 15 220 16 0 1 16 240 17 1 1 18 260 18 1 2 20 300 19 3 7 50 500 20 3 8 55 600 21 4 9 60 700 22 4 10 65 800 23 5 11 70 1000 24 6 12 75 1200 25 7 14 80 1600
And the second:
DA V1.0 0 TO_HIT DAMAGE BEND_BARS_LIFT_GATES WEIGHT_ALLOWANCE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 2 0 1 5 4 3 0 1 5 6 4 0 1 5 8 5 0 1 5 10 6 0 1 5 12 7 0 1 5 14 8 0 1 5 16 9 0 1 5 18 10 0 1 5 20 11 0 1 5 22 12 0 1 5 24 13 0 1 5 26 14 0 1 5 28 15 0 1 5 30 16 0 1 5 32 17 0 1 5 34 18 0 1 5 36 19 0 1 5 38 20 0 1 5 40 21 0 1 5 42 22 0 1 5 44 23 0 1 5 46 24 0 1 5 48 25 0 1 5 50 26 0 1 5 52 27 0 1 5 54 28 0 1 5 56 29 0 1 5 58 30 0 1 5 60 31 0 1 5 62 32 0 1 5 64 33 0 1 5 66 34 0 1 5 68 35 0 1 5 70 36 0 1 5 72 37 0 1 5 74 38 0 1 5 76 39 0 1 5 78 40 0 1 5 80 41 0 1 5 82 42 0 1 5 84 43 0 1 5 86 44 0 1 5 88 45 0 1 5 90 46 0 1 5 92 47 0 1 5 94 48 0 1 5 96 49 0 1 5 98 50 0 1 5 100 51 1 1 10 102 52 1 1 10 104 53 1 1 10 106 54 1 1 10 108 55 1 1 10 110 56 1 1 10 112 57 1 1 10 114 58 1 1 10 116 59 1 1 10 118 60 1 1 10 120 61 1 1 10 122 62 1 1 10 124 63 1 1 10 126 64 1 1 10 128 65 1 1 10 130 66 1 1 10 132 67 1 1 10 134 68 1 1 10 136 69 1 1 10 138 70 1 1 10 140 71 1 1 10 142 72 1 1 10 144 73 1 1 10 146 74 1 1 10 148 75 1 1 10 150 76 1 2 15 152 77 1 2 15 154 78 1 2 15 156 79 1 2 15 158 80 1 2 15 160 81 1 2 15 162 82 1 2 15 164 83 1 2 15 166 84 1 2 15 168 85 1 2 15 170 86 1 2 15 172 87 1 2 15 174 88 1 2 15 176 89 1 2 15 178 90 1 2 15 180 91 1 3 20 182 92 1 3 20 184 93 1 3 20 186 94 1 3 20 188 95 1 3 20 190 96 1 3 20 192 97 1 3 20 194 98 1 3 20 196 99 1 3 20 198 100 2 4 25 200
To get the originals, go here.
-
There's a mod that makes the dexterity score give the bonuses on the 3ed base, and using that with the item revisions heavy armor dexterity penalty will make you play with lighter armor, as both your thac0 and AC suffer at really heavy armors. If you fail to find the mod, you can use the following table, and make new text file, rename it as "dexmod.2da" and put it to the game folders override -folder:True Ranger feels like a striker-ish class with default 2 pips in dual welding (in my case Kivan is always using range and range is high hit rate and damage in bgee 1), I like the idea with rangers restricted to armours up to chain mails only (no splint mail or plate mail), hence high offense, medium defense (high dpr, medium AC/hit points)....
Mods installed: Kit revision, item revision, SCS, BG2 tweak pack
2DA V1.0 0 REACTION MISSILE AC 0 -20 -20 5 1 -6 -6 4 2 -4 -4 4 3 -3 -3 3 4 -2 -2 3 5 -1 -1 2 6 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 12 1 1 -1 13 1 1 -1 14 2 2 -2 15 2 2 -2 16 3 3 -3 17 3 3 -3 18 4 4 -4 19 4 4 -4 20 5 5 -5 21 5 5 -5 22 6 6 -6 23 6 6 -6 24 7 7 -7 25 7 7 -7
The advantage is that you can also edit the content and make it as you like.
-
Time to use the Shadowkeeper ... yes, it works, but you need to move the saves from your computers profile to the games folder and then return them back to play with the edited saves... a small thing.The BG1 NPCs really lack kit flavour, and it's a pain to recruit NPCs that already have wasted thieving points/proficiencies
-
Well, the title of the topic still says b19 and I can't see the b20 anywhere ... you, you...If the other changes takes too much I'll upload a b20 before going to sleep anyway,Yes, I am this eager to criticize the potential lack of the "lunumab.2da" file in the b20 Paladin XP component yet again...
-
Take this *Jumps in and starts the work just out of the joy of the kicking a drow-orc* ...As yet, it's not compatible. I suppose someone could kick my orcish butt into making it compatible, but it's made of pretty thick hide these days...Erhm, isn't it just a matter of editing the correct creatures? As the weidu.exe v236 should handle the file formats correctly and the dialog things. And of course adding in the function that's needed to define the BG1 NPCs in BGEE/BGIIEE.
-
The paladin xp level HLA table thing(modified "lunumab.2da" -file).Am I missing anything?
-
Well the cold-iron or silver -flag is actually editor based text description for the value... in BG1 it's the silver/gold/-special human-wolf killer enhancement. The Sword of Balduran and Silver Dagger are made of it as well as the +3 vs shapeshifter-bastard sword, so you should be able to kill him with them.Selaad Gan (loupgar.cre) was basically unaffected by my magical weapons with +2 enchantment (have IR installed). When I checked his equipped items, he was wearing ringloup.itm which grants him immunity to all weapons except those made of cold-iron when he switches to werewolf form (shouldn't this be silver?). -
Shouldn't the blur kinda be area of effect spell anyways ? Yes, it will power up the spell ... so what ...What you suggest will work, but will also affect attacks made against non-blurred opponents if the attacker chooses to switch targets. -
Well, how do you know what spells the character will have at the end of the install ? The answer is that you won't, so for the optimal result, you should just mention the kit exclusive additions spells just like the Stalker kit gives in the original game. Yes, just their name...
I should probably mention it yes, though I'm not sure how. Listing all new spells might seem cool but then you may start wondering why I don't list the entire spellbook of base classes too, especially considering that even the base classes now have very different spellbooks compared to vanilla (the True Ranger in particular).In addition, you might want to mention in the kit descriptions when the kit's spellbook is altered.
Out with them then, so kreso can see himself if that is so.You won't need them indeed. KR's HLAs will pretty much be an updated/expanded version of Refinements ones.
-
Erhm, but the bigger question is why kreso needs the Refinements ?
I recall that Refinements does shift usability flags between existing kits.It's about UH usability flags. Removing the UH flag from plate armor makes it usable by Berserker as well.As we could just make a compatible change to the tweak he wishes in one of the Revision mods and so forth. And of course we won't clone things, but add a optional component that does the tiny tweak...
-
Well, I'll say one thing, I look at the Item Index, so take this as out dated as that is.Dagger vs. Short Sword vs. Long Sword:Now, some of long swords penalties are "situational" (e.g. not all characters need to backstab or dual wield), and if the wielder is a warrior with high apr long sword's speed factor quickly lowers itself (from 5 to 2.5 with 2 apr, 1.67 with 3 apr - almost as fast as a thief with daggers), and thac0 against armors shouldn't be a problem (even more so if the warrior is a fighter class with weapon mastery). Conclusion: on paper the long sword is indeed inferior in terms of global stats (tons of drawbacks for just +1 dmg), making it a poor choice for a non-warrior imo, but it might still be a valid option for a warrior, is it?
... it's particular that you have a one +5 dagger and one +5 long sword.... I would say that it should be easier to make a better enhanced larger items than smaller ... now the Short sword can be an exception if it's used by a thief, but the Sword of Mask could still be a +3 and then update to +5... but still, you could cut down some of the enhancement levels with 1. It would help the better monsters be immune to the small-er weapons, to balance out the items.
Nice, approved !Ranged Weapons:
I don't think that's doable, as the item is flagged as one or two handed(x1.5) and with or without the str bonus. Well, unless you go and play in BGEE's. And I am still unsure if it's there even.About the slings: what about allowing only for half of the strenght bonus (rounded down)? In this way, the sling that allows for full bonus would still have a reason to exist and at the same time, all slings would potentially have a little extra kick. -
Those are all fine and dandy until you run into things like Elf Chain Mail(it's actually lighter than Leather), Hide armors, Scale Mail(Dragon & Splint Mails) etc things that don't actually fit in, and then the descriptions become additional bulk that means nothing when you can use the real item names.I tend to group items into few terms.Simple Weapons: weapons usable by mages - staff, dagger, sling, dart
Light Weapons: weapons usable by thieves
Heavy Weapons: weapons usable only by Warriors
Exotic Weapons: Katana, Wakizashi, Ninja-To
Light Armor: Leather, Studded Leather
Medium Armor: Chainmail, Field Mail
Heavy Armor: Plate, Full Plate
-
Well yeah. Now see, if you won't include all the files to a beta mod, you are unlikely to get a player to actually use the component.if all you're asking for is to make all classes get HLAs at level xth when the unique xp progression is installed you do have a point, it wouldn't hurt. That being said, the xp table component per se is a sort of beta within a beta, I don't even know if beta tester are still using it or not.PS: Here's the table for you:
2DA V1.0 0 FIRST_LEVEL RATE CHANGE_LEVEL NEW_RATE MAGE 18 1 99 1 FIGHTER 18 1 99 1 CLERIC 18 1 99 1 THIEF 18 1 99 1 BARD 18 1 99 1 PALADIN 18 1 99 1 DRUID 18 1 99 1 RANGER 18 1 99 1 FIGHTER_MAGE 27 1 99 1 FIGHTER_CLERIC 27 1 99 1 FIGHTER_THIEF 27 1 99 1 FIGHTER_MAGE_THIEF 35 1 99 1 MAGE_THIEF 27 1 99 1 CLERIC_MAGE 27 1 99 1 CLERIC_THIEF 27 1 99 1 FIGHTER_DRUID 27 1 99 1 FIGHTER_MAGE_CLERIC 35 1 99 1 CLERIC_RANGER 27 1 99 1 SORCERER 18 1 99 1 MONK 18 1 30 1 MULTI2FIGHTER 14 1 99 1 MULTI2MAGE 14 1 99 1 MULTI2CLERIC 14 1 99 1 MULTI2RANGER 14 1 99 1 MULTI2DRUID 14 1 99 1 MULTI2THIEF 14 1 99 1 MULTI3FIGHTER 13 1 99 1 MULTI3MAGE 13 1 99 1 MULTI3THIEF 13 1 99 1 MULTI3CLERIC 13 1 99 1 -
So the v19b is out and you again forgot to fully implement the paladin XP tables HLA changes. I am talking about changing the "lunumab.2da" -table, which you have actually included to the data/HLA folder, but it's not copied, nor does it have any particular changes in it that I see.
-
Erhm, ha. TS being over powered ... not. The only reason for it feeling to be overpowered is that the things it protects against are OP without it !True SeeingThe problem with vanilla's version of this spell (aka without a save) is that multiple TS stack. Even a single TS is almost OP imo considering it is just a 4th level spell (against melee weapons it's almost a PfMW with long duration - even more so with IR weapons not allowing ridiculously fast melee swings with most weapons), but when you start stacking multiple TS than the spell shows itself as clearly broken.
You know, rogue stealth backstab, invisibility clones... the works.
You can still take the TS + Protection from Missiles with pure simple melee fighters. Yes, your thief is a bad fighter, and your mage needs to use damage inflicting spells... Now then if he has invisibility(if there's such a thing with the continuous TS), then you are in a heep load of trouble if your own mages or clerics TS fails.
Well, if it's about the TF, then making the spell "party unfriendly"(and self hostile) will fix it, as the mage will not be able to cast it on himself as then he will get screwed for flying outside the field by the melee'ers... it's that how it worked ? And needs to work.
-
So everyone else except the mage is still effected by the mirror image ! What ?True Seeing... as well as completely ignoring illusion spells such as Mirror Image ...
Yes, I am partially pulling your leg Salk... but still.
Erhm, "removing" instead of "ignoring" ... could work.
-
What about the HLA levels with the Paladin-ified XP table ?I can't give you all the details yet, -
Or you could just add an innate release command(spell gained after successful cast) that works just like the Freedom spell.Imprisonment...
- replace permanent timing with "only" a very long duration
-
You might have to wait for a bit more, the new kit weidu function to the weidu.exe has been added this week(v235), and so just have to wait and see how it's going to be utilized... and we(the public) still have no idea how the saves are going to carry continuity from the BG:EE to the BG2:EE, and can they utilize the non EE version data... etc.Anyone there? -
Sorry, but the only thing incorrect is in your worldview, as in, it's not a bug.( I also guessed the reason - but it remains a bug and should be corrected.) -
Well dah... the same thing is with Shadowkeeper... the game actually keeps the non malus XP in the character record and then multiplies the amount with the malus figure to count the effective amount...that's odd, but you probably just have to take his xp malus into account.So the 2500xp required to level up to the second level in the usual games... is 2500/0.85 = 2941...xp... so about 2950xp, in shadowkeeper or in the console.
-
I understand your worry DavidW ... which is why we could see alternative way to make the same spells still usable(the Globes) in the same situations, but it would have different effect. Which is why the last edit had the "I am open to suggestions."
Hmm, hihihi, didn't see that, wish I had actually had(Edited to tone down excessive exasperation!) ... no you can't hurt me. And I think my idea has merit.
Yeah, it will remove the ruinous power of the Invisibility spell coupled with the PfMW being the ultimate protection against everything else than the 9th level Breach... erhm, Spell Strike(when it comes to the Abjuration school of magic). Or to Divination school as I got a 5th level protection for just that instance...PfMW with Entangle & AoE Breach?I'll explain this a little further from where I am coming from, the current system is asking the 17th level sorcerer to sacrifice the one 9th level spell slot he has to dispel spells with levels 5, 6, 7, if the combination is properly build to remove any of them, or it will ask the player to have more than 1 magic master, the combination of spells can be done with a proper prebuff script, without which the enemy mage is as good as dead as he is practically defenseless, and with it he is way too overpowered considering the player is always way too many levels behind, as the game was build to not to use those prebuffs.
Hmm, we could make the current Globe of Invulnerability to be a AC set to 0 effect and a Save throws set to 1 effect... or even -5 at high levels(30-50) for both, this way the caster is quite invulnerable for the usual killers except the critical hits etc.PS, this is why I hate spells that have saving throws that go to minuses, as 1 should be the critical miss/hit thingy.
-
OK, so I have been -not not really, but I can pretend after which there's maniacal laughter- persuaded to give up the no PfMW effects on the Mantle spells, I'll give you that, only with a good leeway with an oversite of other things. And yes, I am aware of the consequences... such as it will take various spell changes to allow this to happen. And the SCS need to be re-optimized.
- First we make the Breach spell an area of effect spell, 1 feet is all we need. And the target of course needs to be changed to area(=4, or "dead actor" according to a DLTCEP version I have).
- Second of all, we need to change the PfMW worse but still ensuring it's protection of the caster, so we allow it to cover all the enchantment levels, but this involves the movement speed factor of the caster, the spell should effectively entangle the caster where it stands, and immunity to haste spells for obvious reasons. Enemy protection rings or not, this will allow the party to run away if so is desired. Also making the Breach area of effect will allow the PfMW to be removed at leisure of the caster, as long as the mage is busy with other targets.
- Third, we make two more Breach -like spells, but with added area of effect(instead of the 1 feet; 10 feet, and 30 feet) and spell power level as the levels rise, yes, so a level 6 and a level 7 spells. Or we could mutate the present spell, but I would vote for new spells as they won't exactly match the old.
- Forth, we remove the Globes of Invulnerability spells.
- Fifth, we add in a secondary effect for haste spells that allows the character move at +2 rate at a few instances. Notice the plural(well, the Improved could be +4 too).
- Sixth, the Mantle spell protects from all the Weapons damage and effects, we also add in the Globe of Invulnerability effects to it making him immune to all spells of level 4 and below with a few exceptions, well except we allow the caster a minute movement rate, say a 3(if the normal is 9). And the Hastes secondary effect adds to that. The Invisibility spell works as normal, as well as the stone skin, armor etc.
- Seventh, The Improved Mantle(8th level spell) is similar to the previous, but it takes the Improved Globe of Invulnerability(6th level spell immunity), without the movement penalty, well except this time he is immune to Haste/slow -effects. And it's protected from the original Breach spell. So it's like the Absolute immunity, but a lesser variant.
- Eight, the Absolute immunity stays almost as is.
- Ninth, we set up the Spell Strike as an area of effect spell and it strikes multiple times the same area, say 3 times in 3 seconds.
Hmm, I am sure I forgot something.
Hmm, it could be that we should allow the PfMW to last longer... well at least longer than 3 rounds. That's with the movement penalty(unmovable fact).
Ouh, the spells effect looks exactly like the original Globe of Invulnerability... the dragons need to use their own variety, which involves a larger globe animation. Yes, that's a large thing to ask... but we should see if the 9 other points can be meant first. Yes, I am open to suggestions.
Item Randomiser BG:EE, Wands for everyone
in Item Randomiser
Posted