mercurier

In my game the party lost 2 reputation when Dorn joined but regained only 1 when he leaved. Could this behavior caused by component "#4051 // Decrease the rate at which reputation improves -> Reputation increases at about 1/2 the normal rate: 34.3"?

@Bartimaeus I found a very impressive walkthrough using EET+SCS+SR+IR here: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/75857/ir-sr-scs-no-reload-attempt-no-999-or-so I would recommend you read this post: IMO the walkthrough itself is already enjoyable; the bugs and tweaks it mentioned are also worth considering. Examples: Failed placement of Evermemory ring and Ankheg armor in EET+IR due to using BGT area codes.

1. Yes I agree that externalizing wand effect would make save vs. wand useless, but I don’t think it will bring out significant drawback. If you take wands as devices that store spells (aka a condensed pile of non-copyable scrolls), then externalizing will be the natural approach to make those spells behave properly in terms of saving throws, magic protection, etc. Saving against wand of fire/cloudkilll/Paralyzation with the same ST type looks weird to me as these effects apparently requires different character traits to save against. 2. Sorry if I didn’t state it clearly. The caster level of wand is actually borrowed from 3e where a wand can have different versions as if the hosted spell is casted by different caster levels. It is not the level of the character who use it, which won’t impact the effectiveness of wands. For example, regular wand of fire do 6d6 damage, which is equivalent of a level 6 mage casting fireball (lv3 spell). A more potent (and expensive) version could do 10d6, mimicking a level 10 mage’s casting. IMO the CL attribute is easier to interpret than “enchantment level of wand”, as by knowing CL you will know exactly what effect to expect if you are familiar with the spell it hosts.

1. Externalize wand effect to spells Demi proposed some wand tweaks 11 years ago, with both pros and cons: Recently SCS has externalized Wand of Spellstrike's effect so the major con is no more. So I think it's probably a good time to necro this design. In addition to the benefits mentioned above, externalizing enables more sensible saving throw types vs. different wands if combined with SR (e.g. save vs. breath for Wand of Fire, save vs. spell for Wand of Paralyzation, etc.). It will be even more interesting if further combined with revised saving throw tables (available in some mods), which will be leveraged by both PC and SCS to adjust saving throws of party members and classed critters, making choosing which wand to use against whom more of a tactical move. 2. Standardize wand price Using the formula given in 3.5e, wand price = spell level * caster level * 750. So the Wand of Fire would cost 3 * 6 * 750 = 13500 before shop markup. A quick glance got me feel that applying this tweak would raise wand price by 20%~50%, which would, IMHO, balance wand recharging a little bit (though I am personally against it). On the other hand it will slightly boost the fortune of players who don't use wands and just sell them out right. Anyway, it's more of a cosmetic change. 3. Wands variants of higher caster levels Wand of Fire at caster level 10 that does 10d6? Yes! Might be achieved through a macro (and an 2DA for possible CLs for each wand) that adds variants to stores that sell wands already. What do you think?

Adding some new thoughts here: Removing thac0 and damages bonuses from ammo, can render regular +1/2/3 ones mostly useless, however we can add other effects to “justify” their enchantment level, e.g. keen, elemental burst, sundering, weakening, etc. This could offer ranged builds more choices between damage output, debugging, and crowd control.

Thanks subtledoctor, I feel your current implementation should be working fine. I was posting because the readme only covered a portion of your implementation, which worried me a little bit.

Hi all, Do you know if it is possible to enable backstabing against helpless opponents regardless of the attacker's stealth state?

Hi subtletdoctor, The feat system looks really interesting to me. To my impression, fighters are getting combat advantages that were not accessible in vanilla game, and rogues can be built more combat-oriented even at low levels. While it is great fun doing so, I am concerned that non-joinable NPCs (i.e. mobs) will fall behind. Is it possible for MnG to grant them appropriate feats as SCS does for proficiencies? Here are some suggestions: - Grant feats per class, kit, and level - While generic rogues may want to select a mixture of adventure and combat feats, "professional" rogues, for example, those from a large organization and trained purely for assassination (sometimes with the word "assassin" in their names) may want to max-out their murdering skills - If active feats involve complicated AI tuning, how about restricting the feat pool for NPCs to passive feats and pseudo-active feats that grant permanent on-hit effects?

Thanks for bringing this up. The component responsible for this tweak looks mostly valid for EE(T). The tweak can be further improved by moving the script block for summoning the "helper creature" from baldur25.bcs to the avatar morphing script in TA. I'd say this will be good addition to TA provided that Cam and TheBigg are both comfortable with it.

I would like to see a tweak that enables adjusting difficulty in map/creature scripts WITHOUT interfering with the GUI difficulty slider bar. It could be something like this: COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.bcs~ ~override~ DECOMPILE_BCS_TO_BAF REPLACE_EVALUATE ~DifficultyLT\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~GLT("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ REPLACE_EVALUATE ~DifficultyGT\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~GGT("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ REPLACE_EVALUATE ~Difficulty\([0-9]\)~ BEGIN SET level = MATCH1 END ~G("MCRScriptDifficultySlider",%level%)~ COMPILE_BAF_TO_BCS BUT_ONLY Then difficulty in scripts can be controlled through the console. More noob-friendly access might be implemented as well.

Totally agree. It was a chore that I just cannot stop doing... Can you please share your code so that I and other guys can use it right away?

Spot a potential glitch: Delay High Level Abilities Looks like this component does not consider the choice about vanilla/cleric's exp table for druid. So a druid (single or multi-class) with vanilla exp table will actually get fist HLA at level 21 would require 3.9M exp, which is too much.

Not want to be rude, but I am personally against about the current implementation of the poisonous dagger, because: 1. Tactical-wise, If the purpose was to bring more tactical challenge by beefing up kobolds, the undroppable version should do it well. Making it droppable empowers players with increased combat power and/or monetary gain, therefore reducing the tactical challenge. 2. RP-wise, I think a permanent enchantment like secondary damage is not trivial task, and the kobold tribe has to mass-produce it, which looks unrealistic to me. The "normal dagger plus applied venom" rationale looks more natural and achievable. 3. Undroppable items are indeed immersion-breaking, because it is just a shortcut for implementing a combat ability (in this case, it mimics Assassin's poison weapon skill. We can surely use an alternate but more complex approach, say, create a SPL that do the trick, and set their script to use the trick, yet I am not sure if it really worth all the hassle.

Good to know! Will be on my mod list for my next playthrough @Bartimaeus, I think subtledoctor had made the point for me. In IR/IRR's framework, we need either +4 arrows or some longbows that conjure +4 arrows to make this launcher type complete. This is exactly why I am starting this topic. And I am not sure the proposed designed is OP: Manabow +4 with +2 arrow will have 4+2+1d6 = 9.5 damage on average, an easily available option at the end of SoA. The proposed Taralash will be 4d4=10 (5d4=12.5) damage on average, slightly higher, but still does not bypass PFMW or stoneskin due to its blunt damage type. It will be more effective against armored mobs as AC and resistance against blunt is usually worse than that against missile. The on hit effect can be tuned by adjusting the save penalty, as most ToB mobs have already good saves. With this design implemented, the net effect would be that Longbows, usable by warriors, generally hit harder; other launcher types have more utility, and are usable by more classes.

This. I suppose it is the same story as the special flame arrow added to Kobolds by SCS. In my last game experience the party was getting rich really fast by just selling these daggers... IMO the poison should be coming from some venom applied by kobolds, which vaporize soon after battle. Not sure if it is possible to have kobolds still use the poisonous dagger but drop the normal version.

Hi K4thos, Do you think it would be worthwhile to add the tweak stated in the title to complement the XP-related tweaks? It might be the only thing left... Could be offering options like no change, 50% XP, 10% XP, and no XP at all. Occasionally random treasure looted/pickpocketed from mobs in BG1 may contain high level scrolls, which is unrealistic at all. Not sure if this has already been fixed in EE; if not we can minimize its impact through this tweak.

Actually v5 has already added the option to eliminate store depreciation, and the sell/buy markup tweak is already in the backlog, which I really appreciate. In my own version of mini mod that tweaks store stuff, there is actually a further 50% discount for fence buying markup to improve balance and a little RP, e.g. if legal store buy at 30%, then fence buy at 15%. I view stuff like these being both ease-of-use tweak and economy tweak: I will never bother finding the best seller/buyer for dumping my trash or replenishing consumables; the game economy can also be further formalized together with other money-related tweaks from Tweak Anthology and SCS.

Hi Guys, I would like to share some of my recent thoughts in making Longbow proficiency more useful in ToB. The key of the design is to grant a ToB longbow ammo-free feature, with other secondary effects matching its background. The reason is obvious: in current IR® all other launcher types (shortbow, xbow, and sling) have an artifact or two that can shoot without ammo, so it is strange for the longbow family not having one. And IMO it is exactly the sparcity of +3 and +4 arrows makes longbow less useful than other launcher types in ToB. So here is my proposed implementation: Taralash +4 (+5) Instead of shooting physical arrows, this magical bow creates high-intensity, precisely-directed ultrasonic wave beams that, damage the target's inner structure while leaving its soft surface (like furs) intact, making it a dream weapon for a hunter. A living target will sometimes be disoriented due to the sonic impact on its brain. Combat statistics: THAC0: +4 (+5) Damage: ultrasonic wave beam that does 4D4 (5D4) blunt damage (per the Sound Burst spell in SR) Enchantment level is 4 (5) in demtermining what it can hit. Combat ability: (very similar to its crippling ability in IRR) Disorienting: 15% (25%) chance to slow (SR's variant) target for a half turn, ineffective against non-living. Note: This bow is used by the ranger from the war party in final seal level of WK. It is already a tough fight, and I think the proposed new version will make it slightly tougher (Yay!) The +1 APR from IR's design was removed because that would be too powerful IMO, and Demi himself was somehow uncomfortable in abusing Tugan's signature ability. The Disorienting effect might allow for a save vs polymorph with some penalty to balance it. I have not played ToB for a long time so the exact penalty is open to suggestion.

I apologize if I didn't state it clearly. The design of compositie bows is that they offer strength bonus exactly equals to their strength requirement, i.e. a composite bow that requires 18 strength always offer extra +2 damage even if the character has 25 strength. Actually the character with 25 strength needs to restrain his strength so that he does not break the bow shaft. In this system any magical composite bow can be designed with balanced enchantment, secondary effects, and bonus from strength, while Strong Arm can be balanced as a non-magical and oversized item. Sling of Seeking, however, is exempt from this rule by making unlimited strength bonus as its unique feature. For the launcher and ammo dichotomy, imo ranged attacker should not be superior to melee attacker in terms of damage output, as the former is in a much saver position in the battlefield, otherwise I think it is really unfair for the front liners. If enchantment in launcher and ammo are to be granting thac0 and damage bonus, respectively, then ranged weapons will be on par with melee weapons in terms of benefits from enchantment. And if we let bows granting 3/2 apr instead of 2, archers (generic ones, not referring to the archer kit) will be slightly inferior to dual-wielding warriors in terms of damage output, reaching the design goal stated in the beginning of this paragraph. Again, I believe that not every family of weapon should have the same damage potential. Longbows, being the most training demanding ranged weaponry, usable solely by warrior classes, deserve the highest damage potential; Slings have almost no restriction in classses therefore should have the least damage potential so that spellcasters will not do their side job too well. After all, it's a trade off between power and popularity. Similar concept is already in the melee weapon system.

I fully agree with your opinion about bows in BG1. Shortbows in BG1 provide some battlefield control and supplementary ranged firepower from non-warrior classes, meanwhile longbows focus on providing massive ranged firepower. This mechanism is broken in SOA as Tugan outshines most longbows in terms of firepower, with Gesen to kick casters and demilich's ass. IR buffed Strong Arm to improve the longbow line, yet IRR seems to have nerfed it again. Demi once described the logic about bow damage bonus as the following: Shortbow: no bonus Longbow: +1 damage Composite bow: bonus damage per the strength table So Strong Arm should have bonus damage from echantment (+2), longbow (+1), and 19 strength requirement (+7). IMHO to properly nerf it, we can just remove its enchantment at all, which should fit its background well. If still feeling too strong, consider adding the oversized property that adds -2 thac0 penalty. Edit: more thoughts about launcher-ammo weapon's enchantment level: Whether launcher's enchantment level should give damage bonus is another topic. I am not sure how IRR handles this right now -- my feeling is that it should be ammo's enchantment level that gives damage bonus; launcher's should provide thac0 bonus only.

Hello Bartimaeus, It is astonishing to see so many fixes and improvements done since my last visit several months ago. I am also glad to know that two of the three bugs I reported earlier had been taken care of. Great job! As for the third issue, how about granting the wearer an on-hit ability that cumulatively lower the target's morale by X for Y rounds, save allowed? IMO that fits its name perfectly. X and Y would better be relatively significant otherwise the target would just die before its morale breaks, rendering the helm useless. Since I will definitely use this mod for my next EET play, I wish you could consider adding the following two topics into your backlog: 1. Recently there is a major update for BG2EE and the engine, i.e. the 2.5 patch, which changed a lot things that I cannot fully understand. Will IRR take them into consideration? 2. I always wanted to play an archer with (composite) longbows for the entire trilogy yet longbows are too underrepresented in SOA, driving most player towards shortbows or xbows. To my understanding, the launcher-ammo weapon system was designed like: slings: least class restriction, least power shortbows: less class restriction, higher APR and damage xbows: same class restriction, trading APR and speed for higher ammo damage and powerful ammo secondary effects longbows: more class restriction, even higher damage and THAC0 than shortbows The issue is that magical longbows in SOA are completely out-shined by magical shortbows. To possibly fix this, I would propose: Overhaul the Mana Bow so that it could fire, let's say, unlimited rift shards that do pure magical damage with +4 enchantment in determining what it can hit, with a x% chance of dealing additional y magical damage -- much like a ranged lesser version of black blade of disaster, making it on par with Gesen. Considering that it is available in late SOA, this weapon should not be too OP. Nerf Tugan to have APR bonus of 1/2 instead of 2, or apply a -2 THAC0 penalty (per the rapid short feat in 3e) -- otherwise it beats most longbows in SOA in terms of DPS. What do you think?

Jarno, thanks for sharing. Looks like we are going to gather all the required code pieces soon The reason I'm posting these ideas here is that I consider them too trivial for a standalone mod for releasing. If I make a "private" mod, then it will be somewhat tricky to make the BWP installer "recognize" it and use it during automatic megamod installations. According to my experience, for BWP16 there are three files to be customized. And such customization needs to be repeated (possibly in a different manner) for each BWP update. If Tweak Anthology would kindly implement these proposals, such issue can be fixed for good.

Hello, I would like to suggest a few tweaks for store pricing: 1. Disable stealing at fences This prevents the steal-and-sell exploit with a natural (at least to me) logic: shouldn't the fence be extremely careful when dealing with people who sell stolen stuff? 2. Set depreciation to zero for all stores I wish to relief myself from this stupid chore: (before getting bag of holding) filling a character's inventory with 16 identical items and sell them in one transaction to avoid depreciation. And unfortunately, this trick only work once for a given item and a given store. The extra money gained through this tweak can be partially balanced by the tweak below. It only takes 3 lines: COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ~^.+\.sto$~ ~override~ WRITE_SHORT 0x001c 0x0000 BUT_ONLY 3. Standardize buying markup for all stores Most stores in BG2 have buying markup around 25. Ribald's special stash (RIBALD3.STO) has an exceptional high buying markup of 55, which "compels" me to sell everything to him when possible. With this tweak players like me no longer need to bother choosing which store to dump their trash. For balance purpose, I'd suggest 25 for all regular stores, 15 for all fences, and unchanged values for special stores like Officer Vai. Customizable values during installation are welcome! And another tweak inspired by this tweak. Buying markup of special stores like Officer Vai are standardized to 25 as well, but value of special items like winter wolf pelts, bandit scalps, wyvern heads, etc. are tuned up accordingly so that all merchants buy them at proper prices. In this way players can always sell these valuable trophies regardless progress of the game/plot.

A few bugs found in IR4b10: Deep Guardian's plate (PLAT13) It has undocumented immunities against fear, panic, hold, paralysis, and charm. Staff of command (STAF09) The aura of command ability can sometimes provoke neutral NPCs into hostile (e.g. Adalon the silver dragon). The aura of despair ability from Doom Plate (PALT12) has similar problem, but is less likely to be seen due to its small 10' AOE. Helm of despair (HELM02) Well, actually not a bug, but its name, appearance and original wear (The demon knight in Underdark) suggests a "dark" ability, yet currently it grants a blessing effect... kind of strange to me.

In my install the script is modified by SCS, and indeed targets the players. Should I use a custom script, or should SCS patch it in a different way? Both? In vanilla game summoned phase spiders always teleport to PC regardless summoned by whom, and SCS seems only to regulate such behavior. Since PSPIDER.BCS is used by both SPIDPHAS.CRE and SPIDPHSU.CRE, I think a new script for the latter would be nice, and I guess SCS would not patch the new "unknown" script.