Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About critto

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, I guess it proves my suspicions. Thanks for the replies.
  2. Hi everyone. Say, I want to have an item that is restricted to rangers (single, multi- and dual-class). I can't do it by adding two equipping effects #319, one with the values of CLERIC_RANGER (18) / CLASS.IDS (5), power of 1 and the other one with the values of RANGER (12) / CLASS.IDS (5), power of 1.This becomes too restrictive due to how 319 works (as far as I understood it) and none of the ranger-type classes can wear it. Of course, putting either one of those two 319 effects works properly, but either for single or multi/dual class characters. Why does RANGER_ALL not work at all
  3. Hope no one will mind if I dig up my own old thread. Does anybody know if Beamdog has ever fixed the bug #27834 filed a few years ago based on research in this thread? Apparently, they've gotten rid of their old redmine-based ticketing system, so I'm not sure where to look it up now.
  4. Alright, this at least makes sense. I think I tested this before, but I must have done something wrong. I removed DestroyAllEquipment() and now I see that new characters are equipped with the items from 25STWEAP.2DA. Yes it does look like a bug, maybe an engine bug? Strange that no one has noticed it before, especially during the development of EET. From what have I found on the forums, there was some work performed on this subject during development of the mod.
  5. Hi. No, not really, thanks for pointing out. I do now. This only shows that the problem (if it could be called that) has been there for some time now. Unfortunately, there are no clues what causes this behaviour.
  6. Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it only covers the things I already know and doesn't really explain the rest > Varscona is chosen if you don't have any of the weapons in the list on your imported save/char Why this item exactly? Is it hard-coded? > My guess is that you got three copies because you imported three characters. Yes, that is pretty logical to assume. Still doesn't explain why the three copies when we call TakeItemListPartyNum only once and pass it 1 as the argument for the amount of items to be selected.
  7. Hello. I'm struggling to understand how it works. So there's this snippet everyone probably knows by heart: IF Global("TakeImportItems","AR0602",0) // Irenicus's Dungeon 1st Floor THEN RESPONSE #100 ... ActionOverride("Table3",TakeItemListPartyNum("IMPORT02",1)) ActionOverride("DuegarClanChief",TakeItemListPartyNum("IMPORT01",1)) ActionOverride("Shelf1",TakeItemListPartyNum("IMPORT03",1)) ... END Shortened for brevity. I create a new game, use "create party" option to import a few chars from character files (Lessa, Abdel, i.e. the ones shipped with BG2, not the actual chars fro
  8. What Jacek wants is to lower saving throws against a specific spell school when spells of that school are cast by a specific character/kit (e.g., conjuration spells when cast by a conjurer). Solution proposed by subtledoctor is definitely easier and more straightforward, but the penalty to saving throws would apply no matter which character casts a spell from the relevant spell school. If I understood correctly, Temnix proposes how to actually restrict this to a particular character/sub-set of characters via spell states. I haven't exactly figured out yet which opcodes are suggested to us
  9. Interesting. I haven't thought about this scenario at all. So many gotchas. Yes. I did some searching on the forum for the exclusion flag and figured that might be an issue. It's a shame, this is a much cleaner solution, overall. Yeah, I finally found those earlier when I was checking out different spells in NI. These aren't listed in IEDSP, so I was clueless at first. Just to be clear, there's no correlation between the exclusion flags and the type of spell? I.e. if the type is set to divine and the exclusion flag is checked for the Jester kit, this would still work? The g
  10. Yes, about divine spells, exactly. Yes, I figured that they are added upon every level-up. This is sort of makes sense. I used the DPLAYER3 script trigger and activated it on demand by turning the party AI on and off, so there's obviously more lag between the events. It didn't occur to me to delay the application of effect. While reading the old threads I got the idea that the 172 opcode is kind of permanent no matter what kind of timing mode you choose. I resorted to adding an ability to every level in CLAB too, but I'll have to play around with the delay as well. It mig
  11. I tried to apply the same AP_* ability I use in CLAB but via a script block upon hitting XP threshold. The spell gets removed from the spell book correctly. So something is definitely wrong with the order of application when it happens automatically via CLAB during the level up.
  12. So, this have been discussed in the past before, like here, for instance. I'm running into the same problem. Situation: I want to remove a normal spell from spell book for specific kits/classes. I prep an ability that applies a permanent 172 opcode with the necessary spell and put it into a CLAB 2da as "AP_*" at the appropriate level. Everything works initially during character creation. The spell is gone. After a level up, it keeps coming back. I've tried adding the AP_* ability at every level up, and it gets applied (judging by the debug Display String opcode I've added to it) but the s
  13. I'll just chime in and say that sometimes a space symbol is not just a space symbol, especially at the end of the line. You might get a lot of headache trying to figure this out, since the files could've been saved under different operating systems and have various hidden line termination symbols applied, etc. To match any space symbol this snippet could be used: [ %TAB%%LNL%%MNL%%WNL%]+ This matches a group consisting of one or more spaces, tab characters or linux/mac/windows new line symbols. Enjoy.
  14. Well, it works. A bit hacky, though. You can't simply put a #273 opcode inside the spell itself, because it dispels its own projectile. I've had to wrap it into a #148 opcode (cast spell at point) in order to achieve a workable solution.
  15. Yep, looks like I missed the second part of your post. AND the footnote in the description of the #273 opcode, despite having read it numerous times. I'll give it a go and see what happens.
  • Create New...