Roxanne

I think nobody intends to force anything. EET lets you do things as you want. If some mod wants to connect/integrate IWD deeper with the BG main story it may require some conditions to be met before IWD makes sense. In this case the mod will tell you about that approach and you can decide to install or not install it. The In-game reason to go to IWD proposed and discussed in this thread should be understood as an option. PS - the fact that some mod (IWD is a mod in the EET context), task,or plot becomes available at a certain stage of the game is not so unusual, it is rather the norm in Baldur's Gate.

I still wait for this http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=13&do=findComment&comment=246214 to release the mod. At least NTotSC is essential. IWD contents would install like any other mod if Sandrah finds it during the own installation process. I'll most likely have to wait until everything is install-able via BWS, anyway Do you have an updated README for Sandrah yet? I'd love to check it out! IWD in EET will not conflict with any other mod available or planned for EET (the only candidate would be NEJ which recycles IWD areas and characters on large scale - NTotSC has unique areas and NPCs - there is no idea to make NEJ compatible with EET, the mod's author is a flaming enemy of EE). The readme was on SHS until their recent loss of data, here is a copy (reflecting what is available today). Sandrah NPC for EET_Readme.pdf

I still wait for this http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=13&do=findComment&comment=246214 to release the mod. At least NTotSC is essential. IWD contents would install like any other mod if Sandrah finds it during the own installation process.

I did some further tests with a new game (City Gates is NOT accessible) - incremented chapter global by and by , visited a number of areas, including mod areas that add to worldmap etc. I could not recreate the situation. So no idea what to do about this report.

Issue with worldmap When I left worldmap from BG4600 during chapter4, I realised that Athkatla City Gates area was displayed as reachable. Tested it and I could access other town areas from there. I inspected my other saves and found it was available in all chapter4 saves. Sadly I have no earlier saves, so I cannot say at which point in the game it became accessible...I am definitly sure that it was NOT available from the beginning as I did multiple checks with and without BP-BGT WM installed.

Not sure if this is EET or vanilla bug In BG4600 in the Laurel quest to kill gibberlings, the Global("Gibberdead","BG4600") is not set regardless how many gibber.cre you kill. So the mimiquest never gets finished. Also, far too few gibber spawn to reach a value of 11 in the first place. Not sure how this was intended to work but I think that gibber.bcs need somethink like IF Die() AreaCheck("BG4600") THEN RESPONSE #100 IncrementGlobal("Gibberdead","BG4600",1) END Edit - tested my proposed code and all works as intended.

In a number of discussions earlier this year this topic was elaborated. The outcome of the discussion was that (currently) EET itself would not provide this *glue* but it was up to modders to do so. See http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27783&page=2&do=findComment&comment=243963 and surrounding entries. There is also a mod developped that adds IWD specific banters and reactions to your Sword Coast company during IWD.http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27760&page=3&do=findComment&comment=246035

Is there any news on these mods (last things I found was: under construction) for EET compliance: - The Vault - Northern Tales of the Sword Coast ?

Back to topic *strongholds and Baldur.bcs triggers*. Having looked into them once more, there is a potential way for each of them to delay the stronghold quests and actions until ToB. As long as you start the related main quest during SoA you can go back at a later stage to finish it, become owner of the stronghold and do the corresponding quests in ToB (if that makes sense or not is something else, but EET would allow it). In this case you would need those baldur.bcs triggers in baldur25.bcs as well.

Those can surely go: Bodhi/Aran Jaheira Montaron Genies SpawnTanadv Habib The others depend on how you want the strongholds to work in ToB, e.g do you want to keep the occasional quests active or just have the money coming in? Do you want to return to the playhouse and druids or do you anticipate that you have done the contents during SoA?. There may also be an issue about doing the Nalia quest as late as ToB (theoratically you could do that, right?) although the original idea of the quest probably was to get money before going to Spellhold? Edit I think the others can go as well, the ToB Nalia, Cernd, Haer'Dalis etc to trigger the strongholds will not do that in ToB, i.e. you can only continue the strongholds you had but not get new ones. Some comments why each of them should be removed would be very useful considering I'm not that familiar with the content. For example why Genies code should be removed if someone didn't do Trademeet questline? (it's completely optional area in SoA). Montaron's and Xan's side quest isn't necessary to progress through the story, so not sure if it's good idea to not include it in Baldur25.bcs. No idea who is Tanadv and Habib, so can't make a decision without spending tons of time looking at game resources and analysing scripts and dialogues. In other words following format would be preferable if someone already knows context of these events: - Bodhi/Aran - not needed since these is stuff that triggers only before going to Brynnlaw - Ust Natha - part of the storyline, you can't go back there after finishing it etc. edit: but what about situation in which CHARNAME didn't get any stronghold during SoA? Notice that in EET JOIN dialogue files are automatically merged at the end so technically you could still get them during ToB unless there is some code that triggers it in Override script or some filters in vanilla scripts and dialogues that would prevent it from happening. e.g. you need Cernd to reveal the druid grove...but Cernd destroyself if you did not start the plot before ToB See Cernd.bcs and initial dialogue

Those can surely go: Bodhi/Aran Jaheira Montaron Genies SpawnTanadv Habib The others depend on how you want the strongholds to work in ToB, e.g do you want to keep the occasional quests active or just have the money coming in? Do you want to return to the playhouse and druids or do you anticipate that you have done the contents during SoA?. There may also be an issue about doing the Nalia quest as late as ToB (theoratically you could do that, right?) although the original idea of the quest probably was to get money before going to Spellhold? Edit I think the others can go as well, the ToB Nalia, Cernd, Haer'Dalis etc to trigger the strongholds will not do that in ToB, i.e. you can only continue the strongholds you had but not get new ones.

This checking can be made for vanilla contents - but what about mods? The removal/replacing/renaming of vanilla resources has been a modder's nightmare in old BGT. It should not be repeated in EET. Even if currently you find no script/dialogue which uses the references, you may not know about each mod that uses them. You can easily create bugs for others by fiddling with such resources. In the end you will create incompatibilities just to gain cosmetic adjustments.

You may want to wait with this project. The Sandrah for EET mod (to be released as soon as k4thos makes NTotSC available for EET) contains such a feature already.

Same. Also the chapter screen is missing. It does exactly what is currently in ar5500.bcs

No update pack for those with RC4 + all intermediate patches (understandable when looking at contents of RC5) Does it still make sense to report issues on RC4 + PidFix + Hotfix + some local fixes for NPC spawning issues (given that the issue is not on the RC5 list) or is it better to do a new install?

Probably IWD should be treated the same (when it becomes available).

what is the time limit for thieves guild? Is there similar functionality in other strongholds? Didn't think about that. btw. since you're already in SoA - do not go back to SoD areas. As mentioned in this post they are not ready yet for returning parties and I've just noticed that one of the links still connects them with rest of the world. Once you travel there you won't be able to go back. This will be fixed soon. It is six days - controlled via Baldur.bcs (actually up to 11, after 5 you get a reminder and have the time to return before you loose the guild) This is the only stronghold with such a function - you have to pay regular tribute to the shadow thieves to keep the guild. PS - you can see that this is disabled already for the chapters when you are in Spellhold and Underdark and thus unable to return frequently to the Docks.

I think it must be considered for EET. @k4thos - suggest to add condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1) to the two blocks in ar2000.bcs that spawn Rasaad

This makes sense. In this case, the spawning of the recruitable Rassad must be delayed after the cutscene has played, e.g. the blocks to spawn Rasaad should have additional condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1). OK - I have tested my proposal. With this global added to ar2000.bcs it seems to work as intended. Edit If you want to try, 1. Add Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1) to the two blocks in ar2000.bcs that spawn Rasaad 2. start from this save - Rasaad should not be in Trademeet when you enter.

This makes sense. In this case, the spawning of the recruitable Rassad must be delayed after the cutscene has played, e.g. the blocks to spawn Rasaad should have additional condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1).

If we continue in this direction, we will be back almost to the former BGT transition where you went back to the ducal palace to report your success and transition started by talking to Duke Belt...

I have played from your save a couple of times now in different variations and I think the bug is no bug but intent.

I have done some work and tests on this already. Currently It is a minor issue to delay this immediate moving, give the party some time after Sarevok has died and start the transition when they pick up some specific item (e.g. some document containing a hint to his followers in the SoD dungeon). Also, it gives you the chance to pick up other stuff, heal etc. (My own NPCs also have some dialogue here commenting the consequences of Sarevok's death.) Once you found the item, the (unmodded) transition script is triggered. If a specific NPC needing an artifact from one of Sarevok's companion is in the party, this delay is exceeded until the NPC has the item. The exit from the temple stays locked, so you cannot go back into BG1 at this time. Technically this is no big deal, contents-wise it made more sense to me than finding the items in a pile in the SoD dungeon. At this moment I am not sure whether this addon makes sense (i.e. improves the game) or not.

1. I do not think it is a bug but in some cases you may call it an exploit as you can grab items from a small distance (even hidden behind some object) while picking them up normally would expose you to enemy fire. However, it is up to the player to use it this way or not. 2, The sword may be considered more of a plot item than a weapon (even if you could use it). Anyway, those topics may not be EET related.