Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ABlake

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Londo Ruins
  • Interests
    breaking things

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 1) There are not a whole lot of Hold/Sleep-type spells. If you want to restrict it to *spells* I'd say that's about it. There may be some tough situations when there are mod-added spells/abilities. For example, Spell Revisions' Sphere of Chaos uses both Hold and Sleep opcodes (unless this spell has been changed; I still use a rather old version of SR) among others. There are also special abilities like "Improved Bodhi" Sepulchral Sleep, but if you're not including special abilities, then there's no problem. There may also be items that apply hold/sleep on hit, but if you're also not including these, then no problem. 2) Yes it's possible. I don't know if the EE offers a more elegant solution but even in the old engine you can place the hold/sleep opcode inside a nested spell, and give this spell a custom SPELL TYPE, then give the opcode "Remove Spell Type Protection" to your Subversion, so it would dispel only your custom spell type(s), which, in turn, is only applied by these specific spells. 3) Should also be possible. Once you have identified which spells should be affected, you can use "Use EFF file" opcode combined with nested spells to target Holy Liberator with a less severe version of the spell, while everyone else is subjected to the normal version. 4) Yes, you can use "Protection from Spell" opcode.
  2. Well it does, and in some cases it has to, even if you put aside everything that does not have to be changed. There are things like the proficiency system. You can't have the 8 old proficiencies anymore; there will be like 20 of them. And then there are the kits - although you can choose to ignore them. BGT also has its own list of bug fixes for original BG, so if you'd prefer to have the original bugs in your game, you're out of luck. Then there are differences like the journal and the worldmap - how they look and feel - but things like the worldmap are just cosmetic. In general though, a pure BGT installation should be quite faithful to the original BG. I don't believe the mod adds any unusual items to BG. Not just for the heck of it, at least.
  3. Pretty sure you need BG2's engine for both of these hacks. So I guess it's BGT for you (and say no to all options?).
  4. If RomanceActive = 2 and the character is in party. You can either kill the character(s) or kick them out of party before triggering the scene. They won't be taken in either case (unless some mod changes this behavior). Resurrect, or come back and pick them back up, afterward.
  5. So we're assuming that the person happened to be alone in his home, isolated, couldn't go out for a reason or another, unable to contact someone for more information, and STILL worked on the code for the game when they didn't even have access to the game? They must have not had access to the game, because otherwise they would've been able to launch it and verify the thing, like I said. You're saying if it were you, you would still work (and agree to handle the task) when you're in that kind of situation? The guy must've been in the middle of a desert or some post-apocalyptic world in an alternate timeline or something, for months, or even years. You'd think his superior would've assigned the task to someone else who was in a more suitable situation to work... That's a LOT to assume all at once. Just how hard do you think it is to get access to the game, launch it, and verify that, "NPCs DON'T HAVE ENCUMBRANCE"? And how much time do you think that'd take? Yeah, no, to me there's no excuse for the fact that no one bothered to verify this detail before deciding that a fix was needed. If you tell me, "but it's such a trivial detail, it's ok to not verify things and just go with the "safe" way", then, well, I guess we have quite different working standards. That's fine.
  6. If they were so worried about this, they could just use DestroyItem., instead of making a whole new spell just for this (seeing as the spell name contains MISC90 it's safe to assume that it was made solely for this purpose). And you'd think that it's only natural to ask yourself, "would the NPC ACTUALLY be encumbered to begin with?", and verify that FIRST, before going about implementing a "fix" that is NOT even needed. Must say I don't find this nearly as amusing as some may. smh
  7. Assuming that WAS the reason for that little spell... If they just spent a minute to test this, they'd find out that NPCs DON'T have encumbrance... He can have 3 STR and five bodies loaded on him and can still walk just fine. NotLikeThis
  8. I suppose you have a few ways of going about this: -. Dig through the mod's .tp2 file (this may be the least efficient way) - Browse through the images (I think it's safe to simply search for bmp's) inside the mod's folders, see if you can find the portraits - Install the mod or mod component, launch the game, recruit the party member(s), make a save, then use Near Infinity to open the save and check the creature files and see what portrait files they're using
  9. Hmm? It's quite straightforward - you just assign your custom portraits to the relevant creature files. - If your custom portraits have the same name as the default ones, after you drop them into override they will override the default ones, and that's it. For example, make three custom portraits with names NAERIEL.BMP, NAERIEM.BMP, and NAERIES.BMP, drop them into override, and Aerie will use these portraits ingame. If you want to know the name of the portraits used by anyone, you can track the creature files down, maybe via the area the character appears in, or via their dialog file by looking up something they say in dialog.tlk. - If you don't want to override default portraits and use custom names for your portraits, you either have to edit the creature files and assign your custom portraits to them, or edit their script and add a custom piece of code that forces them to change portrait. Heck, you can even make your own custom creature with a custom script and spawn this creature using the console and have the creature do the portrait change for you via script. I think this is way more complicated than this task needs to be, but this way you won't have to touch the original creature files or their scripts, so it's still an option. - As for the naming rule, I believe the portraits' names can't have more than 8(?) characters and have to end with L, M, or S.
  10. Looks like you're using a save that used to belong to a different installation. The "Invalid" numbers are string references - the IDs of the strings that used to be the descriptions for these weapons. In your current installation these strings no longer exist. As an example, if you used to have Item Revisions, and ported a save from that installation to one without Item Revisions, this problem will happen to existing items in that save, because Item Revisions creates and assigns new strings to items. Not sure about the missing proficiencies. Could be because of a mod that modifies the proficiency system? For these weapons, you can use the console to spawn new copies of them, and discard the old ones. Or you can use EEKeeper to add the weapons to your characters in the Inventory tab - select an inventory slot, click Change Item, then look for the weapons' name in the item list. To add the missing proficiencies back to your character, you may need to use Near Infinity.
  11. Yes, the game uses BALDUR25 once you're in ToB.
  12. You sure? That block starts something like this IF Global("drowTalk","GLOBAL",0) Global("slayer1","GLOBAL",0) PartyRested() GlobalGT("AsylumPlot","GLOBAL",43) THEN But this is vanilla code though. Why would it not be there? I don't see much reason for any mod to remove this. As they put it, if something goes wrong and you don't notice it, it's probably not that important anyway : ) Otherwise, it's standard business to play through a modded BG having to debug and fix your game along the way, heh.
  13. You could take a look into the master script BALDUR.BCS. There's a block that triggers self-talk when PartyRested() and AsylumPlot > 43, after which charname goes berserk in Slayer form. In this instance, it doesn't matter whether this variable is 1 or 2. You can see this if you go through the response triggers in PLAYER1.DLG state 7. But no you shouldn't change that cause that'll likely mess up the romance progression. As for the Slayer Change ability itself, after a quick check it seems you get the ability after a dream in which Imoen counts from 1 to 5 when you kill stuff... (So not when you go berserk in the maze? Interesting, I don't quite remember this.) There's DREAM4.DLG (dream Imoen's dialog) which triggers CUT49E.BCS, which sets Global("GivePowerSlayer","GLOBAL",1), WHICH then signals BALDUR.BCS to give you the ability. Oof.
  14. Is that so? Do you have a mod that modifies this encounter? Because in vanilla game (and in my modded game) they are not in bat form, and Bodhi should initiate dialog as soon as she sees a party member. It doesn't matter if you're invisible. You can try spawning her in that area; her cre name is PPBODHI4.
  15. In vanilla game the code is in the area script AR1514.BCS. There's a short timer after the conversation with Bodhi, and after that the transformation happens. You said Bodhi wasn't in the room with the minotaur, so this might be why the transformation never happend - it has to be triggered by the dialog with Bodhi. I always have UB and a bunch of other mods, and have never had this issue. Either because of another mod, or some freak interaction between UB and another mod.
  • Create New...