Grammarsalad

Still playing with the modified identify spell. I was able to access Imoen's (and then Minsc's) inventory. When I tried casting on Jaheria, who had not yet joined my party, it showed Imoen's inventory instead. Non-allies should be protected from the spell. Anyway, very cool! Also, I see how to restrict it to certain inventory slots. As such, you could give warriors an ability to identify a weapon (and/or armor/helmets) if they can swing it around it for a bit (i.e. if they hold it in one of their weapon slots). This, of course, makes them vulnerable to cursed items, but still, pretty cool and useful. I'm going to totally add this to a kit/class revision I'm working on. They're even going to do a little attack animation when the ability is activated. Good fun! Edit: just comment out or delete all slots that you don't want them to access, e.g.: -- button {area 26 347 52 52 bam "STONSLOT" slotinfo "characters[id].equipment.personal0" action "B3Identify_IdentifySlot(characters[id].equipment.personal0)"} Basically, the only thing I know about lua is that "--" comments out a line I see how to create my own M_* file. Just replace all instances of "M_B3IDEN" with the alternate name. lol, brain getting tired

I can think of one way to do it. You could probably do something with REPLACE_TEXTUALLY that modifies your files before you compile them. Like, you would still need to create a new token, let's call it THE_HESHE. You would put <PRO_HESHE> in all the normal places, including at the beginning of sentences, etc. But, you would then copy your own files and do a REPLACE_TEXTUALLY replacing all instances of ". <PRO_HESHE>" or ". <PRO_HESHE>" with ". THE_HESHE". So, wherever your <PRO_HESHE> follows a period, it'll be replaced by the capitalized THE_HESHE. Otherwise, it'll stay lower case. Then you compile the file(s). Edit: er, making it useful for any mod would involve more. Sorry, missed that. Hmm, you could create a "workspace" in the override or the main folder, modify the text, copy it there, and then compile. I don't know all the details re compiling so I'm not sure how best to make this something like a replacement for the weidu command

Lol, so much this! I don't even play the game except to test something. Modding is just how I enjoy the game.

I just deleted a few paragraphs of blah blah blah. lol. Like, I was thinking of possible ways to bypass the limitation of not being able to select HLAs at character creation. Basically, I'm just interested in finding out what sorts of things can be done. Once I know that, the ideas will come. Like, is the class button array considered a menu that you could access with this? That's probably too good to be true. Well, I also just get excited at the possibility of doing new things.

Okay, I have two Identify related findings: 1) This does not work with SPWI110.spl. The original identify needs to be added to hidespl.2da and a new spell needs to be added. 2) the functions seems to work fine when run in two different mods on the same install. That is, I made a wiz version in one mod and installed it (over grease). Then, I made a cleric version in a second mod, and installed that (over detect evil). Both work just fine in BG2EE. I created a cleric/mage with the wiz and cleric version memorized. She cast both, and they both worked. The two quick and dirties are attached. B_Identify.zip

Yeah, it's easy peasy 123sy with the provided .tph. I did it in about ~5 mins on one of my comps (not sure which one atm). It might work fine to run it over and over again in different mods. It's worth testing. (lol, I've borked my menu so many times with no long term repercussions). Also, if necessary, we could tweak the tph to deal with multiple iterations if necessary (once we've figured out a few basics re what it actually does). Agreed. Or, maaaybe SPWI110 could just be modified to cast the subspells(?) Not sure if it'll work. I used a modified detect evil spell. I tried to modify SPWI110 and it didn't work. But, I didn't change the headers, targets etc., and moved on to detect evil. I just wanted to create a proof of concept. Edit: Nope. It doesn't work if you replace SPWI110 with an otherwise working version. You have to use a different res. So, yes to adding SPWI110 to HIDESPL.2da. My thinking was also to investigate what else we can do; what other menus can be accessed (hla menu, proficiency menu, etc.)

Subtledoctor has given me a clue--lol, it pays to look and think--so that's something to start with. Actually, @subtledoctor if you don't mind, I wouldn't mind trying to dissect the code here to see if I can figure it out in a public forum (where people can point out my dumb errors and/or make use of any 'breakthroughs' ) Edit: Responding to this: Edit2: I'll upload a quick and dirty example tomorrow if SD doesn't get to it first

Are you using EE? If so, you can create your own capitalized tokens that you would use in the appropriate places. *looking* You need to append tokentxt.2da with (e.g.) the following (edit: er, just replace "Woman" with "She" and "Man" with "He"): 2DA V1.0 * TOKEN_TEXT PROTAGONIST STAT VALUE EQUALITY STRINGT STRINGF 0 RESERVE * * * * * * 1 NP_MANWOMAN 1 35 2 0 Woman Man The entries are fairly straightforward, but here is the infos Also worth checking out:

Oh, this is sooo awesome! I just made a priest version of Identify. No big deal. @Bubb What about EET? So, when you talk about this 'pattern matching'. What sort of thing should we look for? Edit: Please feel free to talk to me like I'm five... in fact, I'd prefer it! Edit2: This sounds REALLY intriguing.... Like, could it open the HLA menu?

It should be a part of fnp at some point in the (hopefully) near future. Pecca gave me permission to incorporate SC in a few mods, including fnp.

If anybody wants to get a preview of the readme, see the first post here. Note that I'm updating it constantly, so it'll be (hopefully) more informative over time. Please let me know of any errors you happen to catch. Edit: e.g. Just added a warning about that Klatu component

I'm not sure what might be wrong, but I do have working code. Let's see... Okay, I got help from Kjeron and Argent77 with is, so it is solid: https://github.com/UnearthedArcana/B_Spells/blob/master/B_Spells/lib/fnp_new_spells.tpa#L870 Edit: I think this should also work in iwdee by now. I think the update I was waiting for has happened

Yeah, I saw. Looks great!

Glad to see this out and about!

Oh, that's cool!

Oh yeah, that looks perfect. Thanks

Is there a simple way to check if a spl makes use of a particular opcode via PATCH_IF? I have to admit that I have not even tried as I have no idea how I would do such a thing, tbh. I have code that does basically what I want it to, but it's...wasteful, so to speak. That is, is applies INNER_ACTION much more often that it needs to. I can give the code snippet in case it'll help: The problem is those darn INNER_ACTIONs...

Well, this is very cool. I've found a reason to modify rather than set values of certain effect variables. Well, I'm only doing this for savebonus, but I could see it being useful for duration, dicesize, dicenumber, or in certain cases, param1 or 2 (e.g. opcode 12). That is, right now I'm doing a thing where characters get a bonus based on dexterity to save vs. certain spells, such as fireball. Basically, I'm cloning the spell to cast different versions of itself based on the targets dexterity (i.e. giving bonuses for exceptional dex). But, certain spells--and certain mods and potential mods--already impose save bonuses or penalties for certain spells, and I want the code to be as unintrusive--as unintrusive as a modification like this could be--as possible, so I just modified alter_spell accordingly (i.e. as a new zombie function). If you're already building a more expansive ALTER_SPELL, maybe you can add a few subfunctions that, if ticked, would add/subtract the inputted value rather than set it to that value for a given field. That is, for example, there could be a set_savebonus which could default to 0. If the value of set_savebonus is 0, then savebonus acts as normal (i.e. it sets the save bonus). But, if set_savebonus is non-zero, then save bonus = the previous value +/- savebonus. Similar for other fields I'd offer my code, but it's not this sophisticated (I just hijacked savebonus). So, instead, I'm offering the suggestion.

This one is like spell_to_innate, but allows for a few more options (including changing spell types from any kind to any other kind). A lot of the text options are English only, but those can be traified to support other languages. Also, it won't replace any sphere text in spells with custom sphere names, but those could easily be added. Sample uses: This one is a lot smaller. It just adds additional prohibitions (i.e. school or alignment) to a given spell:

https://github.blog/2019-05-14-git-ransom-campaign-incident-report/

Something like this should be done for splstates in the ees

Heh, I was actually thinking of Aristotle and his discussion of fatalism and naval battles. And Jarno is, I think, teasing out the difference between what we might call ' metaphysical' vs ' epistemic' possibility, which I think is relevant to the Aristotle conversation (lol, which I won't get into because, among other things, I feel like like this conversation is detailing this thread. At the same time, it felt rude to say nothing...I'm definitely not going to get into a 'my favorite philosopher is better than your favorite philosopher' discussion except to say that Kant rules; the ancients drool. ) More on topic: @CamDawg will this ordering issue and/or auto pause issue be fixed eventually? Is it fixable?

Yeah, I'm curious where these probabilities come from. Nobody has found a way to take measurements from other possible worlds, have they? There is a(t least one) probabilistic argument for the existence of God that relies on the improbability of life. The idea is that, given that the probability of life is so low, and given that there is, in fact, life, it is more likely than not that some supernatural Being intervened to create life--and thus, it is more likely than not that such a Being exists Edit: of course, as Kant pointed out, such an argument, even if it is successful, doesn't actually get us to God. Maybe this being is just an alien Horror best described by Lovecraft. The only way to get to God is by some kind of ontological argument, and, well, that route is not promising...

I think it's fairly clear that InKal was not saying that the probability that p, given p, is something other than 1:1. If I were to flip a coin, get heads, and ask: 'what are the chances of that result?', the most appropriate answer would be '~50%'. Sure, you can point to the result and say, 'no, it's 100%' and, in a sense, you wouldn't be wrong. But, what has happened is that the question has been modified and that modified question has been answered.

Omg, dude. Just... Awesome! Any chance of getting something like this for kit descriptions? *Puppy dog eyes*