Salk

Hello! I do believe Andrea is right here. The hyphen in the case above is a mistake. Of course "well-spoken" can be correct but only if it precedes a subject or an object (ex. a well-spoken young woman: see here) but this does not apply to the line Andrea spoke of. In that case there should be no hyphenation. And so when it comes to the game's strings you are menioning: 21537: Wrong 21416: Right 67042: Wrong 62100: Right 79195: Right 21441: Right 36639: Right 21441: Right

I am especially grateful for the spot-on (I hope I was right to hyphenate that! ) clarification! I truly enjoyed reading through it. And my summoning was just a little tongue-in-cheek with no malicious intent at all. I remember some other topics you participated in, The_Baffled_King, and read your post about being available to help here in case someone needed to pick your brain. I suppose the string does not need any kind of change then. I still find it hard to grasp, even after the accurate background check, but I am most definitely a non native speaker who is probably biting more than he can chew. Cheers!

Perhaps, @The_Baffled_Kingcan give us his royal opinion?

Hello! There is a string which I cannot really understand: @28038 = ~I am Sir Donalus, Guardian of Helm. He also serves, who stands, waits, and watches carefully.~ Anyone can shed some light?

Just like arrows gotta pierce.

The EE version of the game changes the damage type from slashing to missile. The original game text specifically mentions slashing damage but missile makes more sense. Should we leave that alone or change to missile?

Hello! I think this component is a nice one but I believe it may be time to tweak it a little to make it even better. My suggestion: Aerie, Anomen and Viconia get a custom holy symbol of their deity whose usability is restricted to them (Aerie's Holy Symbol of Baervan, Anomen's Holy Symbol of Helm and Viconia's Holy Symbol of Shar) while the Player who plays a Cleric will get the original Holy Symbol depending on alignment. The properties would be left untouched, of course.

It seems like this weapon is missing a Str requirement. It should be 10.

This sounds like an interesting mod. There are hints in the BG2 dialog.tlk file that Valygar should have been a romanceable NPC companion. (ex. @65910 = ~What of the inevitable pain you must give to the one you love? The ranger you name "Valygar."~ [HGWRA108]) so I am glad to see work has been done in order to make it happen.

Hello! A simple question. Is it possible to add new tokens to the classic game, just like BG:EE did? I would have liked something like <CLASS> and <PRO_CLASS>, for instance...

My (quick) 2 cents: if we keep the word "unique" in one item description, I believe the Player has a legit expectation to not find any duplicate of such item. If that is not the case, the text needs amendment, unless we want to imply that the word "unique" there has a different meaning than "one of a kind". I would like for it to be an optional component though.

Hi again! Yes, of course. I will be more specific with what I intend to do. The dialogue I need to edit is BG2's amarch02.dlg. My intention is to introduce two local variables (#GDONTCOMEBACK and #GIAMCURIOUS) in order to keep track of the dialogue's different moments. This is the original .d file: After some consideration, what I would like to do is: Add a new initial state to the dialogue, introducing the first local variable (I don't think I need to modify the weight) Replace NumTimesTalkedToGT(0) in state 6 with a different one Introduce the second local variable so that the Player will be presented with a specific reply only once Increase the value of the first local variable at specific junctions Replace a specific reply in the dialogue with a new one (@329) and another specific reply with an existing one And this is my current (untested) code: <<<<<<<< .../inlined/#gamarch02.d ADD_STATE_TRIGGER ~amarch02~ 5 ~Global("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",2)~ REPLACE_STATE_TRIGGER ~amarch02~ 6 ~Global("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",1)~ ADD_TRANS_ACTION ~amarch02~ BEGIN 8 END BEGIN END ~SetGlobal("#GIAMCURIOUS","LOCALS",1)~ ADD_TRANS_TRIGGER ~amarch02~ 6 ~Global("#GIAMCURIOUS","LOCALS",0)~ DO 2 ADD_TRANS_ACTION ~amarch02~ BEGIN 0 END BEGIN END ~SetGlobal("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",1)~ ADD_TRANS_ACTION ~amarch02~ BEGIN 4 END BEGIN 0 END ~SetGlobal("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",2)~ ADD_TRANS_ACTION ~amarch02~ BEGIN 6 END BEGIN 1 END ~SetGlobal("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",2)~ ADD_TRANS_ACTION ~amarch02~ BEGIN 5 END BEGIN END ~SetGlobal("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",0) SetGlobal("#GIAMCURIOUS","LOCALS",0)~ APPEND ~amarch02~ IF ~~ THEN BEGIN ~#glastwarning~ SAY @329 /* ~Make sure you won't bother me again! This is your last warning.~ */ IF ~~ THEN THEN DO ~SetGlobal("#GDONTCOMEBACK","LOCALS",2)~ EXIT END ALTER_TRANS ~amarch02~ BEGIN 6 END BEGIN 0 END BEGIN "EPILOGUE" ~GOTO #glastwarning~ END ALTER_TRANS ~amarch02~ BEGIN 1 END BEGIN 2 END BEGIN "EPILOGUE" ~GOTO 4~ END >>>>>>>> COMPILE ~.../inlined/#gamarch02.d~ Please tell me if you see something wrong or if you have any other recommendations. Thanks! PS - I think I could save myself some trouble if I could SET_WEIGHT for the new initial state so that it is evaluated last, as opposed to first (SET_WEIGHT AMARCH02 5 #-1). Is there a way to do that?

Hello again. Apologies about using a misleading terminology. What I did mean was that l wanted the line at state 5 to be one of the initial ones in the dialogue just like lines at state 0 and 6 are.

Hello! Being rustier than ever and having forgotten what little I used to know, I am wondering if someone could help me with some basic WeiDU coding. Let's say I want to copy state 5 (highlighted in the attached image) so that it will also exist on the same level as states 0 and 6. Do I need to use APPEND even if I just want a perfect duplicate of it or is it there a better way? Thanks!

Nice and elegant solution, Cam! Thanks. And you also mentioned needing a fix for a wrong journal entry, correct?

Hello again! If I am not mistaken, there is a problem with the Soulafein dialogue (UDSOLA01) once the Player confront him with the mission of killing him (there is another, minor narrative issue but it is not as egregious). One dialogue option given to the Player is to spare his life and just ask for the cloak as proof of the task been done. He accepts and then leaves. Another option is instead to offer Soulafein to join and leave together. Soulafein is thankful for the mercy and the offer but he refuses and leaves. At the end of this dialogue branch, the Player receives his cloak without ever requesting it.

Hello! While working on my own version of the BG2 GTU, I happened to take a look at PLGIRL01.DLG. If I am not mistaken, Tyrianna's dialogue is missing checks for LastTalkedBy()'s gender at STATE 12 and STATE 15. And two additional duplicate responses (with opposite gender trigger) should be added to those states as well in order to preserve the player's choice between a rougher ("Get back upstairs, brat! I'll decide when it's safe for you to leave!") or milder reaction ("I would appreciate it if you would go back upstairs. It is for your own safety.") Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Valygar and Edwin there do sound like they have unfinished business... But I actually agree here with the Imp: it seems like this belongs to the Fixpack.

Hello! In the past, Hurricane opened a now archived topic called Unusability Woes. I found some other more items whose usability is questionable and possibly inconsistent. Gloves of Missile Snaring (brac18.itm): other than the customary Wizard Slayer and Kensai classes, these gloves cannot be worn by Clerics (single or multiclass), Mages (single class) and Druids (single or multiclass). No such usability restriction is mentioned in the description. The gloves give a simple bonus vs missile attacks. Gloves of Healing (brac20.itm): other than the customary Wizard Slayer and Kensai classes, these gloves cannot be worn by Clerics (single class), Druids (single class) and Mages (single class). No such usability restriction is mentioned in the description. These gloves heal up to 10 HP and cure poison. The usability restrictions here are odd, to say the least. Boots of Phasing (boot08.itm): they are for some unfathomable reason unusable for Mage and Avenger. Moon Dog Figurine (misc7t.itm): it seems it can be used by monks when I believe it should be usable by rangers only. Blue Dragon Plate (plat20.itm): it has redundant usability flag set for all bard's kits. Harp of Discord (misc3m.itm): it has redundant usability flag set for Wizard Slayer. Azlaer's Harp (misc3n.itm): it has redundant usability flag set for Wizard Slayer. Methild's Harp (misc3o.itm): it has redundant usability flag set for Wizard Slayer. Wong Fei's Ioun Stone (helm34.itm): It is reserved to Fighter and Monk but standard usability includes Barbarians while in this case Barbarians are excluded. I will update the above list with more items worth of our attention. Cheers!

Changing from 60 or 90 ft. to 40 ft. does not actually seem to make any difference in terms of gameplay. From what @Bartimaeusafter testing the actual max range in the BG game, it appears to be 26 feet. Having any spell description provide a farther distance for range is, in fact, misleading. The so called "visual range of the caster" information should be replaced with 25 feet (a fair approximation to the nearest multiple of 5 number) and so should every and each range changed when it exceeds 25 feet. That's what I have been doing for a new version of the BG2 GTU.

I vote for solution 2 as well. The departure from the original intent is not egregious and the gain for the item is rather negligible.

The BG2 Fixpack is only for the original game.

Congratulations on this new release, CamDawg! And thanks for all your hard work through the years.

Bartimaeus was also kind enough to test the actual max range for spells in the game. It seems that such range is 26 feet. So 4 feet shy of the 30 feet that I thought was the max range. Due to the fact that some spells (10) DO have a range of 25 feet, I opted for textually capping the range limit for spells to 25. It's not ideal because: 1) The true max range is one foot bigger 2) It sort of breaks a canon 30 ft. description that will be systematically replaced together with the inane "Visual range of the caster" that doesn't mean anything but I thought it was better than misleading the player with a much less acceptable approximation where the range would be described as 4 feet bigger than it actually is. This takes care also of the ludicrously big ranges (120 ft.+) that are found in some spell descriptions.

Will do. Thanks!