Salk

Thanks, CamDawg. I suspected that much but I needed some confirmation If anyone does know of pertinent changes, I would be grateful for additional information.

Hello! I am in the process of working on an updated GTU for the classic BG2 game, using the BG2:EE revision's own GTU as base and reference. I would like to know if someone could point me to a detailed list of major changes between the two games that might affect the game text. For example, difference between classes. When comparing the description for the Wizard Slayer class there are substantial differences: the cumulative chance of spell failure for successfully hit target is 10% in the classic and 25% in EE and the magic resistance is reported to be 1% / level in the classic while it is 1% up to level 19 and from level 20 onwards it alternates between 1% and 5%. Thanks for your help.

I personally do not like any possibility of turning any neutral character hostile by attempting any kind of charm spell. It would only lead to reload.

I appreciate the effort of demonstrating how effective the weapon is against undead, Bartimaeus. Thanks for that. I made the mistake of assuming that Azuredge had no THAC0 bonus like in the original version but I see IR(R) made it much more powerful so I take everything I said back.

Could you make so that a Dominated creature is immune to Charm and Dire Charm then even if they use the same opcode?

In my opinion, if the defining property of a weapon is underused (and if it is triggered as rarely as critical hits or worse I would say it is) then I'd say the implementation is not very successful. Even if Azuredge is obtained early in the game, its original save modifier was -4. I agree that is too much but a nerf of 4 points seems a bit too harsh. -2 or possibly even -1 would be preferable. The effect is indeed powerful but if the chances of triggering it are very low then who would choose a weapon that has no THAC0 bonus even for fighting Undead when there are other weapons that make landing a successful hit substantially more likely? I guess the Mace of Disruption has had the same treatment when it comes to that? But in this case, there is a +2 THAC0 bonus that statistically should help hitting more often thus giving more chances to score a vorpal hit.

Bartimaeus's proposed change seems pretty much spot on to me as well.

Hello, Bartimaeus! And I guess that means I no longer need that BGT Tweak component if I install SRR...

I use one of BGT Tweaks' component called "Disable hostile reaction after charm". I consider it a must-have.

I remembered the lady's name starting with C... (Carsa is her name) I still maintain that it's perfectly in character for a panicking person, driven half insane to make first contact. Even if SCS does alter encounters in order to make them more challenging, I wouldn't wish for it to make structural changes to developers' intent unless supported by very strong arguments. There are none here other than considering that in some cases insane people do tend to avoid interacting with other people. You say that good game design trumps characterization. Well, I would argue that removing Carsa's initiative in approaching the party would be bad game design (characterization is part of game design, isn't it?). You'd sacrifice something that is not only more than acceptable but obviously what the game's developers wanted for that encounter only to make an already very challenging fight in the original game, made too hard within SCS, return to be "reasonably hard". I cannot buy the argument that "since SCS is already changing the difficulty for this encounter then it is perfectly fine for it to also alter other aspects of it because it is a mod, after all". The right thing to do for SCS, if anything, is to just remove the permahaste effect from Kahrk. It'd not be the only case where David W removed some unjustified power from an NPC in order to make the fight fair. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

I think the lady initiating dialogue is actually the correct design for this encounter. She is borderline insane and she wouldn't just stay where she is waiting for someone to approach her. From a level design point of view, I never really much bought the "since it's an optional challenge, everything goes" reasoning. Even the toughest challenge should, in my opinion, be internally consistent with the difficulty level chosen (if there is one to choose) by the player or, in lack of it, with the general game difficulty. When it comes to metagaming (something I pretty much loathe in principle), I can much more easily accept it if it is something that is sort of required through the whole game rather than once or twice for "special"/"optional" encounters. I agree with subtledoctor about Kahrk being justifiably a formidable opponent. But there should be some limits. If I want to play at a Core (or easier) difficulty level then it should be completely possible to defeat that enemy even if the party is not properly prepared for the battle.

DELETED

It seems that Drizzt's scimitars (sw1h15.itm and sw1h16.itm) can be used by Beastmaster while they shouldn't. Same problem with MISC75.ITM (Dagger of Venom).

Rather than have a condition for ToBEx you should just include it in your modification for non-EE. This is from my own Tweaks: //////////////////////// /// Include ToBEX /// /////////////////////// OUTER_SPRINT ~TOBEX_MOD_DIRECTORY~ ~stweaks~ LOAD_TRA ~stweaks/tobex_redist/tobex.tra~ INCLUDE ~stweaks/tobex_redist/tobex.tpa~ COPY ~tobex_ini/tobexcore.ini~ ~tobex_ini/tobexcore.ini~ REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~Expanded Triggers=0~ ~Expanded Triggers=1~ REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~Enable PickpocketFailed Trigger=0~ ~Enable PickpocketFailed Trigger=1~ COPY ~tobex_ini/tobextweak.ini~ ~tobex_ini/tobextweak.ini~ REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~Engine:Disable Silence On Charm=0~ ~Engine:Disable Silence On Charm=1~ BUT_ONLY

Did you make some changes to SCS's stratagems.ini settings, @Satrhan?

Chiming in about the 2E / 3E stats bonuses. My position is something in between Bartimaeus's and subtledoctor's, ultimately meaning that I am not particularly happy with either one. The 3E approach sounds much more rational to me but it's also incredibly boring. The character creation process becomes as dull as it could ever be. The 2E approach is much more creative and specialized but it seems to have several and deep logic flaws. Overall, possibly for nostalgic reason and what @yakattackcalls "craziness of the 2E stats", I have a slight general preference for the 2E. The fact that Baldur's Gate has been developed with that ruleset in mind for the vast majority just strengthen that position.

Thanks, Cahir. Yes, I can see how the difference style could be really bothersome and for some people (like you and me) break immersion. But wouldn't IR(R) replace the description of all items so that you wouldn't have a mix of the EE and IR(R) style? Unlike Bartimaeus, I don't think the EE style is bad at all. I am not sure about which one I like better but it should be one way or the other. The EE description comes without the usability text because the EE engine adds those dynamically so IR(R) would literally need to have duplicate strings for every such item. Perhaps it'd be just easier to convert to IR(R) style every item in your game that are still using the EE style. But from what I am understanding, your main gripe is just with the Revised Armor and the Weapon Changes additional components? I can very little/close to nothing about WeiDU so I cannot help you myself with that but @Mike1072 can perhaps help you with that, if he's around and it's not too complicated. If not, then in your shoes, I would not give up on IR(R) because of the style mismatch for two optional components. I would bear it, despite being annoying, or, if it really is unbearable for you, I'd not install the Revised Armor and Weapon Changes components. Cheers!

I take your word for good here, my friend. I certainly could not move any criticisms because I most assuredly know less than you do about how projectiles areas work. I was simply reporting a discrepancy I found while comparing original BG2 and EE BG2 spells text. Most of the time they match but sometimes there are a few differences here and there. Those EE values for sizes you presented above are the same for non EE too? They do not make much sense to me either but I wonder what the original AD&D values are... Cheers!

I understand what you are saying about IR(R) needing to improve in order to better support EE but I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not saying that IR(R) was favoring EE. I was just saying that IR(R) should, at least in my opinion, be built with the classic BG items in mind as base modification. That is because both classic and EE players will both share the same items. If IR(R) shifts its core balance to account for EE added items, it would end up penalizing non EE players. What can be done (but it is a big work) is to customize its changes in order to have (slightly) different item properties depending on whether IR(R) is being installed on an Enhanced Edition game. The item descriptions should not be that hard to update depending on classic or EE edition (I don't think it is silly that it bothers you - it would bother me as well). Can you give me an example of big discrepancy between IR(R) item description and EE item description? I am currently working on porting the BG2 EE game text into BG2 classic so I am seeing quite a difference between the description of original items and spells so I think I understand where you are coming from. Cheers!

My bad. I misunderstood Rasaad's belt to be an item added by a third party modification and not being introduced by EE (I have nothing against BG EE, by the way). But even so, IR does cater to both the classic and the EE players but cannot shift its core balance in favor of EE added items. It is more sensible to strike a balance considering what items both classic and EE do have rather than assume every IR player is going to obtain EE items.

Bartimaeus, could it be that the description for Hold Person and Hold Animal incorrectly reports the area of effect to be the target and enemies within 5 ft while it should be 4 ft instead? The Hold projectile shows an area of 64 which seems to be consistent with the 4 ft correction made in the EE spell description.

It may also be that the Call Lightning duration should be amended from 1 turn / 4 levels to 1 round / 4 levels (neither GTU corrects this, just like for the spells above).

I sympathize with the straight-up buffs to some items but I generally welcome the +STR items replacing the original ones. It is a good choice to avoid making unique and supposedly beneficial items be completely or almost completely useless. I also don't think including Rasaad's quest belt can support your argument when talking about IR(R). It's an external item and IR cannot strike a balance with modifications that add new items. It must work on the original Bioware assets. I'm also genuinely curious about how you managed to combine IR items to reach STR 25 on multiple characters (I assume multiple means at least 3 out of 6 party members) in BG2, let alone BG1.

Oh I understand what you meant now. But then IR changes also Varscona's +1 cold damage? I'm not home and I cannot verify this myself at the moment.

I'm not sure I understand, Bartimaeus. A +1 electrical damage is too silly of a property while a 1D4 electrical damage would be fine? In BG1 Ashideena matches Varscona in many ways: they both have a +1 elemental damage and they both are +2 weapons. I'm not familiar with the thought process that had Demivrgvs swap around war hammers' properties but I am quite sure, considering the original IR changes, that he did not have a very clear picture of the BG1 part of the game. I personally don't see a reason for not having all the original properties of Ashideena restored but I am looking forward to understanding why it cannot be so within IRR. Cheers!