Jarno Mikkola
-
Posts
8,950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Mods
News
Store
Posts posted by Jarno Mikkola
-
-
That mod can be installed after SR. And there are other such spells already. Each can be installed after the other mods and there shouldn't be too many incompatibility problems(note that I am not saying if these two can).Oh and why not add Teleport to lvl 7, allowing to teleport to selected places? Like this mod http://forum.sigil.c....php?f=20&t=740 -
Here you go with the conseptually incompatible again...Btw, is there anyone still maintaining TDD?On a side note, I'd like to make an arrogant/selfish statement. I'm very willing to make everything I can to have Revisions mods work flawlessly with high quality mods such as aVENGER's ones, even when they partially overlap (e.g. adding similar items, altering similar things, etc.), but I'm not nearly as willing to do so for all existing mods (unless you or Ardanis can convince me
), especially outdated ones, or those not conceptually compatible with Revisions ones. For example even a classic mod such as Weimer's Item Upgrade isn't 100% compatible with IR, and will never be.Erhm, but you know... the Weimer's Upgrage is actually compatible with IR ... NOW that the BWP has it's hands on the stuff and made an adjustment to it... and it's only made if both mods are installed via BWP/BWS.
And yes, the TDD was last updated in November 2010... not that it needs to be updated to make it conseptually compatible with... as you can just overwrite and adjust the spells you see as the fitting once to be.
What's asked here- is that you go and take a look and see if you can make a better job than the mods makers ... not that you adjust your whole spell sellection to match theirs ... but DO NOT remove any spells.
For example, there's this one spell Daer Ragh's Aura of Cleansing, the idea of the spell is nice... but it's just 10 times too strong... as it's duration is longer than the Improves Alacrity spell, if my memory serves me at all. So if you cut the effect by 10, you might just get a spell worth to cast without every one feeling it's cheating. Yes, I am talking about turning the rounds to turns and turns to 1/10th of turns here...
Well, you can make the first 25 dmg missile make the target immune to the "area damage" of the other missiles... so the max damage reduces to 81, while the area can be filled with lesser lesser creature deaths(33 & 25) or kinda severe injuries. And make the save vs half more than fine.Mordenkainen's Force MissilesThis would pratically be Evocation's version of Flame Arrow, firing Magic Missiles instead of arrows, and each with a small blast radius. For some reason PnP dmg (the same within AD&D and 3E) seems very OP to me, as each force missile deals up to 2d4 dmg (no save) + 25 dmg to target and anyone within 5 feet (save to negate), and you get up to 7 missiles. I guess the "save to negate" instead of "save for half" is what should keep it balanced (ironically that's pretty much what I suggested to do for FA), but the 7x 2d4 (no save) alone is kinda significant, and on a failed save 174 magic damage is a disintegration spell!! o_O A 1st lvl Shield spell blocks this spell ok, but I doubt it's enough to balance it considering only mages have such counter - for everyone else this pretty much seems an Improved Disintegrate. Am I missing something?
Note that the reason for the Skeleton Warriors was to stay within the ally cap of 5. You could always make the animated skeletons not have the cap, and not increase any to greater ... while keeping their duration short.Animate Dead - Animate SkeletonsThis is truly a must. Necromancers not having a single undead minion to summon before 5th lvl spells is ridiculous imo, especially considering within Forgotten Realms setting they actually have an Undead Summoning spell at each lvl. It will match the current cleric's Animate Dead spell, summoning skeletons early on, and a couple of greater ones later on, but no Skeleton Warriors.
-
Well, you have to just name the wanted portrait file correctly, so it's used (as you overwrite the mods file in the override folder).What I want to know now is: is there a way to change Xan's portrait back to the amaurea's one I was using?and If so,how?I also would like to know if it would be possible to use a "pinked up" version of Amaurea's potrait in place of the modified vanilla one for that banter;I would love to work on it with photoshop,if I am permitted to,and I think that banter would be even more awesome with portrait consistency (of course,on my end)
-
I would say that you really shouldn't change the range of AoE.FireballWhat do you think of reducing its AoE from 30 to 20 feet as per PnP? Would that be an advantage (more controllable in case the caster is struggling to not hit his allies) or not (in case there's no vulnerable ally to worry about)?
And I would also say that as the IE feet is really not what the PnP feet is, I hardly think that it would be a good reference. Besides, do you really wish to change the explosion animation so much ?
-
Could you give a little more details on the mod, like compatibility, where the NPCs are located how many there are etc. as for example the BGT Tweaks puts a few BG1 NPCs to the BG2 game, but they are almost silent... so in that light, I am watching this.
I know you from The Chosen of Mystra forums I think, so anyways I know this is genuine... any reason for the .ace archive ?
-
The backstab is easy, you just don't put the normal thief bonuses to the first .2da file in the mod, disabling the set trap is done the same way, you just don't give the character spells to set the traps with. So yeah.1. I have finished all the requisite spells and abilities and edited the necessary tables. However, I seem to be running blind as to where I can disable the set trap ability of the thief. Do I just exclude the Set Snare ability from my 2da file? On an unrelated note, how about backstab?
Well, you can make 5 spells and make the x always require the x-1 first... and allow the HLA's to be taken only once.2. I have this certain HLA--let's call it Speed--that ups the movement rate of a character by 1 every time it is chosen. I want it to be selected five times. However, on the fifth time, I want it to also add a +1 attack per round. I tried to scour the other files from other mods and the guides online and I think my search powers are failing me. Basically, I want the table to "recognize" that I've selected Speed four times prior and that I get the +1APR perk on the fifth take. I thought about making a Speed2 HLA that requires Speed to be taken... but then the same problem arises: the recognition that I've taken Speed 4 times. Is this even possible? -
1-2-3... Did you patch the ToB with the (v2.5.)26498 patch, see the SoA patch is already included in the ToB, but the ToB needs to be patched with it's own patch.1 - install BG2 SoA2 - Patch it.
3 - install BG ToB
...
Ah, you didn't say you had ToB.
-
Ah, darn, it seems that that too requires the ToB, as the string 73245 is the "Play Shadows of Amn<TM> with the new area of Watcher's Keep Dungeon"... which is there in the SoA - ToB selection box.
-
The Core Fixes(component #0) and the Beta Core Fixes(component #3) are different thing... the Beta Core fixes need the BGII - ToB, so just install the BG2 Fixpack component 0 and TDD.I tryed to instal " TDDv.1.14...and the program told me that need "BG2 Fixpack Core Fixes".What comes to the TDD v1.03, it copies over the vanilla BGII's BGMain.exe so that it breaks the compatibility with Widescreen mod, as the .exe is not the original... the bigg would need to check that the TDD's patch doesn't brake anything, which is really idiotic to do to a mod that has a better version already available.
-
That's a know issue...Do you know what to do, in order run it in normal view?Uninstall the game, clean the game folder, reinstall the game and patch it and then install the TDD first, then the Widescreen mod.
Or use the never more up to date TDD(might require the ToB) where the GUI mod is not tied to to primary install files, and if you want to, install the GUI mod before the Widescreen mod.
...And then install the Widescreen mod.
-
-
Well, they can post in more than a few threads... but the posts will only show up when the site managers wishes them to, if they wish them to, so ...Over at BWL, registered users who don't pay 5$ to upgrade their membership are called visitors and can only register a prefix and browse a couple of other threads. -
There's already a mod that gives Minsc those classes, the NPC kitpack here at G3, but I think the Ranger class is perfect for Minsc as is.Well, I could as easily say that the entire "Minsc is a ranger" thing makes zero sense considering his background (he's a rashemi following his witch in the dajemma), his stats (a ranger with no wisdom and thus unable to cast spells?!?) and attitude (Minsc going stealth and scouting the area with circumspection?!?
). Minsc should have been either a barbarian or a berserker, especially considering the well established lore of FR.There's the hamster, and the "Full Plate" speach and rage that goes that really suit the less than the sharpest tool in the box -ranger, that Minsc surely is.
Presumptious, yes, if you go and deny his rage ability, stealth ability or the charm animal. Other than that, Minsc is unable to cast spells in the regular game, so there is no issues.hmm, would it be too presumptuous of KR to deny spellcasting to Minsc?But this is a Kit Revision mod, why aren't we talking about the KITS, but the class ?
-
As said, there is no need to do that... and how are you going to handle every ranger kit ? The original Ranger Kits are easy, but the mod kits aren't... and there's mods that add the 4th and 5th spell levels to Rangers...Alter the CLAB files of all Rangers so that, upon each Level Up, they get Remove Spell [all Druid-only spells above Level 3], with a 1-second delay. (The game will automatically try to put them back the next time they gain a level, which is why you have to do it every time.) Pureclassed Rangers/kits will be unaffected, except for a barely-noticable delay after each Level Up as the game deletes all the spells that you don't have.This is one of the failures that mods like the Divine Remix fails in... as it kinda makes the whole system a Total Conversion, and in my opinion that's what we should avoid.
-
Well, now I cannot edit the above post, and I see I made a mistake... so the "Good only" is actually:The "Good only" is actual a combo of Evil and GENeutral(which is actually the Good-Evil scales Neutral)...WRITE_BYTE ~0x001e~ ~0b00001100~
WRITE_BYTE ~0x001e~ ~0b00001010~
While the "Evil only" is:
WRITE_BYTE ~0x001e~ ~0b00001100~
Hopefully this time it's correct... But anyways.
But those tweaked druids aren't really real base druids... and thus they could actually gain different bonus spells... say you have a Neutral Evil druid... and they gain spells like: Summon Twisted Treant, Natures Wrath, Predator Instinct...The only downside is that it would interfere with tweaks which allow druids to be neutral good/evil, which I think are relatively common (and they even make sense imo). -
What ? If you set this to a .spl file:Since when we can restrict spells to "true neutrals"? There's an "evil-only" and a "good-only" flag, but there's no "neutral-only" flag afaik.COPY ~spprxxx.spl~ ~override~ //custom clerical spells spell file WRITE_BYTE ~0x001e~ ~0b0010111~
Since from here:
You get a True Neutral. The "Good only" is actual a combo of Evil and GENeutral(which is actually the Good-Evil scales Neutral)...bit 0: Exclude Chaotic priests. (BG2 & HoW)bit 1: Exclude Evil priests. (BG2 & HoW)
bit 2: Exclude Good priests. (BG2 & HoW)
bit 3: Exclude GENeutral priests. (BG2 & HoW)
bit 4: Exclude Lawful priests. (BG2 & HoW)
bit 5: Exclude LCNeutral priests. (BG2 & HoW)
bit 6: Exclude Abjurers
bit 7: Exclude Conjurers
...
WRITE_BYTE ~0x001e~ ~0b00001100~
-
And that kind of restriction is to me, stupid ... cause we can make the possible unbalanced effect go away, without the need to actually change much, yes, when you make the spells, you can restrict them based on the alignment the caster is going to have... the the base druids having only one kind, you can easily restrict the true druid specific spells to just base druids... this also allows great modification ability... if a druid kit doesn't wish to have the unbalanced spells for the ranger build, then they set the alignment restriction to exclude the True Neutral, or whatever, based on what we set them with...I think that Rangers should not be allowed both dual and multi class with other classes like paladin.Actually, Rangers are only able to choice Cleric by dual/multi class, but it's quite unbalanced because Ranger/Cleric multi class can use all of Druid's spells.
-
By the way, this:
Is not the whole of it, the sum of the numbers also defines the total maximum proficiency points the kit can have... so if you put 5 to one of the extra proffs, you can go over the maximum allocatable prof points on normal proficiencies, which makes you never be able to gain the extra level... the original game has this feature on the Fighter, Bard and Paladin & Ranger, Fighter-Mage, Fighter-Thief, Berserker, Kensai, Wizard Slayer... and Barbarian has 2 in them all.WEAPPROF.2da - This file determines the maximum number of stars that a kit or class can put in a specific weapon proficiency. Note that allowing a kit to place stars in a certain weapon will not grant them the ability to use the weapon--i.e. allowing a cleric kit a proficiency in spears--will not allow the kit to use them. The first column lists the weapons and the various columns match the clases and kits in the game. The CLUB proficiency in spells and items is also referred to as EXTRA1. The other EXTRA proficiencies do not have any function in game.I ran across this in Kwiat_W's kit mod, when he put zero to all the lines, he was able to make the kit have no assignable proficiency points, even though it was a Fighter class based kit. This feature is in the Change-class->Mage kits actually a very good thing.
-
I can also testify that the spiders themselves aren't that much more immune to their own poisons either, as they have specialized cell structures that handle the poisons, but the rest of the spider is as weak as their pray is. For example there's a male spider that usually gets poisoned within the mating ritual and gets eaten to provide the nutrients to the mother... that is if it doesn't get eaten before the mating happens. And usually the insect anatomy is actually weaker against airborne elements, as they 'breath' through their 'skin' structure, unlike mammals.I have mild realism angst about creatures being immune to an inhaled toxin just because they use an injected one, and exterminators across the world can testify that poison gas works on poisonous invertebrates.Of course I have nothing against the fact that the summoned would summon monsters that are immune to poisonous clouds... as the spiders can be magical too.
-
It's actually more likely that the dragon wouldn't need a solution for the problem, as it could use the effects for it's own benefit... of course the dragon would need to be careful when to use them and when not to... which leads to the conclusion that the flagging to make a spell useability against invisible opponents is better than fine, especially when you restrict the area of the effect a bit, and so take this into account when balancing the spells attributes.I'd say this depends on how we envision energy immunity to work. I mean, a cold weather survival suit doesn't automatically make the ground less slippery. OTOH, a creature that has adapted to cold weather, such as a white dragon, will probably have a solution to both slipperiness and coldness. Also, if we envision elemental protections more like narrow but deeper MGoI, it makes sense that they ignore the entire effect. -
How about; not doing a thing.That being said, I'm not particularly convinced of either "solutions" (making them bypass mr, or changing their school to Evocation).
Isn't this sorta of a thing better for the Mantle spells ?Regarding PfMW protecting from them, it indeed makes sense if they are conjurations (thus real projectiles). For the very same reason I made SR's Protection from Missiles protect against these two spells.As the intention behinds the spell like the Protection from Normal Missile was to prevent the mages being constantly interrupted by things that are 20/1Gold Piece cheap. As that tactic is not actually intended to kill the mage, just prolong it's process until the melee guy comes to range and rips the mage wide open.
When you balance the spells, you need to take into consideration all the parts of the game.Sorry I don't get how Edwin's absurd amount of spell slots is connected to my statement.As for example: "How about making all daggers pierce the magical protections"(PfMW, Mantle, IMantle, Absolute Immunity)... "it's not like the game gave the dagger a lot of damage output, it's a piercing weapon after all..." - as the logic fails in that you can use backstab with the daggers, in BGII.
-
Not really, see the BG2 as a game has one elemental thing, and that's Edwin, who not only has +1 to all spells per level, but a +3 with(the +2 comes from) his amulet..Conjuration spells bypassing magic resistance...
Well, the list of spells that would be buffed isn't so long to drastically alter the school's appeal, not to mention I have plans for other schools as well (e.g. Evocation will probably get quite few spells with the underused cold and electricity energy type).
Currently the complete list of offensive Conjuration spells is:
* Grease
* Glitterdust
* Melf's Acid Arrow
* Flame Arrow
* Maze
Pretty thin don't you think?
What comes to the Melf's Acid Arrow and Flame Arrows, how do you think the caster is going to launch them, so they always hit... little hint; the mages Thac0 is the worst the game offers, which means that the answer is: Magic. Resistable magic.
Well, it's not a creature, it's a mass of small creatures that the magic makes to move together.
Exactly.Think about Insect Plague as a creature, not as a spell.I would say that a part of their effects should be avoidable with magic resistance, but not as a whole... don't ask what that would mean in games effects.
-
Ouh, so no fireworks shows for you then... as that's the closest relative to this kind of magic.It doesn't make much sense indeed though.
Why not, and it's just a though.And why should it be like that? -
Well, if we were to make the spell partially party friendly a high levels, I wouldn't mind say at level 10 it's damage to be 100% party hitting, while at level 20: if it hits a party member they would only suffer 75% of the damage full damage... and at level 50: only be 25% of full damage is suffered by the party members(+ saves of course to reduce more).Am I the only one that would find "strange" a party friendly Fireball even if cast by a 21th lvl mage?
), especially outdated ones, or those not conceptually compatible with Revisions ones. For example even a classic mod such as Weimer's Item Upgrade isn't 100% compatible with IR, and will never be.
). Minsc should have been either a barbarian or a berserker, especially considering the well established lore of FR.
SR v4 (detailed list of changes - ongoing update)
in Spell Revisions
Posted · Edited by Jarno Mikkola
Magic resistance is bad because it works the x% of times, it's not -x% of the effect. This also goes for the golem issue, they are supposed to be immune to portion of the effect... but they get killed because the 1 in a million chance they are not. There's also an old mod that made use of the Disintegrate Golem as a feature... and then it went to make Golems that were immune to the said feature. Bad DesignTM.
Sorta like Dimension Door to a time dimension. I like that.
I would much rather have it's caster gain a freedom spell as a side dish, so the enemy that is imprisoned can be reattacked at a desired time without it's allies.