Salk

Sorry I forgot to specify the shield: it's shld05 - thanks kreso Mad Mate... I am so glad to have you around!

There is the wrong ground icon for one of the game's shields. You need to add this: WRITE_ASCII 0x44 ~GSHLD05~ #8

So in short we must make sure that the AI get the best treatment from both ends...

There is also to consider one, in my opinion mandatory, modification introduced by ToBEx which disables the hostile reaction from charmed NPCs. Demi's points are valid, especially the breaking of unique dialogue options for charmed NPCs. Wouldn't it be possible to make the charmed NPC unable to perform hostile actions (by applying a hold effect or similar) whatsoever unless attacked?

Find familiar Really sad about that. Considering also the big amount of work done already... Oh well...

Slow - what about making Slow not counter Improved Haste? (It's a nice "buff" to IH for those players that feel I nerfed it too much) - I think I can even make IH "cancel" and override normal Haste, while making sure the opposite doesn't happen I like both these suggestions, Demi.

This makes a lot of sense to me. It is of course a bit more problematic for BG 1, but I still think it would be a good compromise. I pretty much dislike to not be able to remove 100% of the fog of war and being able to do this only using Farsight makes it more than problematic for BG1 but like everybody else said, it does make full sense so thumbs up, Demi.

I support janoha and Dakk's request in full.

A possible solution would be to make it add 50% of the ordinary damage, maintaining the 1 turn duration for the spell.

I like Ardanis' idea better than this, to say the truth.

Forgive me for suggesting something that to my own ears sound too simple to be right: but couldn't you just reduce the malus instead of the duration? Would it have "style" enough?

How can BGT compatibility be tested if Mike1072 has not yet brought in his changes, by the way? And what about 1PP v4? I join Sergio wishing good luck to all those involved in testing. Thanks Demi.

I appreciate very much both messages, Mike1072 and Ardanis. Of course if some of us can be of any help, just ask... Thanks and good luck with everything.

I must say, I am a bit worried about the lack of any activity in both this and SR's Forum. I see both Ardanis and Mike1072 posting here and there (and very happy about them being with us) but seldom here. At this point, what is the cause of this stalemate?

I'd never have thought IR v4 wouldn't be out before the end of 2013 but so it is. I am sure the first to not be happy about this huge delay about delivering a new version is Demi himself. In the latest month it seemed like version 4 might be out at any moment of any day but sadly that was not the case.

For Item Revisions Arda uploaded his final version more or less a week ago and we only needed to prepare the readme, package everything and upload it, but this time around it was Mike's turn to be uber busy with RL stuff. Keep in mind there are some other things I need to look at as well - providing a recommendation on 1PPv4 compatibility will probably require investigating the code in 1PP. Take your time, guys! Hopefully things will go smoothly enough to allow for a 2013 release. Otherwise, we wait.

Well, let's say that if slings benefit from STR bonus, I am left wondering why other hurled weapons like darts and daggers are left out. Throwing axes are perhaps more justified in having it because of the size of the weapon itself, which could do considerably more damage if thrown by a very strong person. Same thing for spears, of course. In the end, in my opinion, we should not allow for STR bonus in the case of smaller, thrown weapons like bullets (sling), darts and daggers while it'd make sense to have it for axes and spears.

Well, if it can't be done, it can't be done. I am not so sure about adding a stun effect chance though... Please guys remind me... In the vanilla BG, which ranged weapons have STR bonus?

I practically like all changes, especially the pause for reload for crossbows. About the slings: what about allowing only for half of the strenght bonus (rounded down)? In this way, the sling that allows for full bonus would still have a reason to exist and at the same time, all slings would potentially have a little extra kick. About the long sword as weapon of choice: I agree with you, Demi but in the end, in a typical game those who use long swords are usually warriors while thieves rely more on short swords and daggers. So it's fine.

Find Familiar I guess there won't be any improvement for this spell even in version 4?

Overall I like this template a bit more, but while "Completely ignore hostile illusion spells" could work for Spook, Phantasmal Killer and so on, I would not list Mirror Image as an "hostile" spell. Just that we are here nitpicking everything, does "illusionary clones" remain fine to describe "illusionary creatures" too? I fear not. Right now I don't have added Shades yet (no bams for it, and most new spells are on hold to quicken a BGEE compatible release), but sooner or later we'll have to deal with that type of "summons". It's pretty easy to bring in the necessary corrections: True Seeing When this spell is cast, the caster gains the ability to see all things as they truly are, detecting and targeting invisible creatures as well as completely ignoring illusion spells such as Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. In addition, no form of blindness may affect the caster for the duration of the spell. Note: While True Seeing does not dispel illusionary creatures or clones such as those conjured by Mislead or Simulacrum, it still highlights them clearly, revealing them as deceptions.

I like the "utilitarian" version and I understand your point, Kalindor. Still, in the "Illusions no longer hold any power over the caster, allowing him to detect and target invisible creatures" line the subject is "Illusions", and that generates confusion. About the two alternatives, only the second is really correct in my opinion but, as you said, it sounds too cumbersome. About flavor vs utilitarism, I personally tend to the latter when it comes to spells description, saving the other for items, since the lore component is stronger there. Let's see what Demi says

Kalindor's revision is nice but I suggest to cut the "Illusions no longer hold any power". This is already stated implicitly in the next "as completely ignore hostile illusion spells" part. Also I'd cut "that they are" in the end as well. Note that it's also grammatically wrong as "Illusions no longer hold any power over the caster, allowing him to detect..." pairs the verb with the wrong subject ("Illusions" instead of "spell" as intended). Tentative change: "When this spell is cast, the caster gains the ability to see all things as they truly are, detecting and targeting invisible creatures as well as completely ignoring hostile illusion spells such as Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird. In addition, no form of blindness may affect the caster for the duration of the spell. Note: True Seeing does not dispel illusionary clones such as those conjured by Mislead or Simulacrum, but instead clearly highlights them, revealing them as deceptions."

I agree that staff does not seem so ideal for rods either. But as you point out, the BG vanilla description mentions thickness and that's my biggest issue with choosing club as new weapon class (characteristically a club's thickness is usually extremely different at the grip and at the end). It's one step ahead (length) and one back (breadth). Wouldn't mace fit rods better than club?

Interesting changes. I think they need testing so it's good if you can meet a November release. What you guys decided to do with rods is pretty radical but it doesn't necessarily mean that won't work although changing the weapon class from staff to clubs does not feel so right.