lynx

I think it is, since it's not part of the old charsets. Some other animations in ia trip against this, but it's also already tracked.

Since that animation ID doesn't conflict with any other, please open a pull request, adding the line before the next bigger ID. One step less for everyone forever.

Crap, the current lore within gemrb is that iwd2 kit IDs equal to their usability, but this says no.

Fixed (may need a hard refresh on your side though). The generator released 4.0.0 with breaking changes and Travis just rolled it out. But github is not ready yet.

Like https://gibberlings3.github.io/iesdp/opcodes/bg1tots.htm ? Crap, seems the ruby update broke it. It was needed for the generator, let's see ...

Thanks, I've added the itm stuff. However I think the order is wrong, since it doesn't match other data. Are you sure this is what you meant? https://gibberlings3.github.io/iesdp/file_formats/ie_formats/itm_v2.0.htm#Kit_Usability

Thanks, appears to be some old conversion error. Fixed in all copies.

You said you wanted to import it. If that's not duplication then I don't know if we're speaking the same language.

You didn't post any sensible offset for that. Do you mean the (marked unused) usability at 0x29? IOW decimal 41, not 0x41?

Are you sure you're referring to the usability stored in the header? https://gibberlings3.github.io/iesdp/file_formats/ie_formats/itm_v2.0.htm#Header_Usability If you check out for example Cera Sumat the Famous, you can see that it nicely restricts all classes except for paladins. So I doubt the previous authors made such a blunder. If you are searching kit usabilities in general, since the tables are useless, you can grab them from gemrb: https://github.com/gemrb/gemrb/blob/master/gemrb/unhardcoded/iwd2/classes.2da I don't know anything about the spl exclusion field though.

Here is the full list for iwd2: https://gibberlings3.github.io/iesdp/files/ids/iwd2/soundoff.htm For bg2 I'm not sure it's also in an ids file (soundoff and sndslot list npc sounds).

I get the usual "We could not locate the item you are trying to view. ". The email url actually uses & and it needs to be resolved to use. Now if you don't look at the HTML part of the email ... so at least I see the problem now. The text part does not need to escape the &, while the HTML one does. It's a multipart message after all.

Emails for private messages use wrong URLs or the backend is broken. Example: should actually be: It otherwise just sends you to a message "404" page.

If you read this thread you will see that there is not much support for such an idea. The update bottleneck has been solved, so info can be added to IESDP much more easily nowadays. Duplicating the information is bad for the same reasons described in this recent mischievous thread:

*angry DLTCEP noises*

Jarno, come on, subclasses don't exist, they are kits. Specialist mage marking didn't change between the two games, but yes, the new kits follow a different numbering style, where usability is separate. For some reason they didn't want to move everything to the new system (grrr). And both update the kit stat, so whatver.

First, gemrb doesn't work on EEs, so it's good your config points to the classic. Despite the comments telling you otherwise, you set the resolution too high for bg1. Or did you install the widescreen mod with that resolution too? Check for GemRB.log in your game path. If you can't find it at all, run gemrb from a console (DOS window or whatever it's called in win10) to see the messages and actual error.

No they're not, just look at the kit stat.

G3 mods are available via github too, so it'd be moot anyway.

it works by default in bg1, but you only have mage kits there.

That started from the lack of maintenance and updates, bus factor of 1 sort of thing. But we do get a free wiki with github now, so it'd be easier if anyone was so inclined. I'm not convinced it makes sense though, since new pages can be added to IESDP itself. It has a bunch already accessible only indirectly already. Effect stuff already has designated places, so it doesn't make sense there at all.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Ah, I don't have that handy. I believe NI lists the effects in order, since anything else would be quite silly. So I'd check if any mods modified the spell (though in my experience weidu --change-log is not reliable).

Those things belong in the opcode descriptions though. To me the detail you mention seems pretty obvious, since it is an effect that applies an effect, so the same barriers apply. All the resistances, saves, immunities, bouncing and other protections are checked then.

Downtime is unlikely with github and everyone with a checkout or build will have a backup. Since it's already stale, I've updated your post, so it's not one more thing to keep updated. But thanks anyway!