Cahir

That's fine, I kinda want to try Raduziel's DoF this time. Do you expect problems here, too? Thanks for confirming it's working on IWDEE, though, that's great news!

Doc, does component 2000: NPC stat/prof/kit choices work with IWDEE? Lately I've been thinking to play IWDEE with all the NPC mods available installed. It would be great to be able to fiddle with their kits.

Usability text is not a problem, I can remove it from the description. As for converting all items to IR(R) style that's a subpar solution for me, simply because I like EE-style better. IR, style is just slightly refined vanilla style. Revised Armors and Weapons are using complex regexp functions to scan all mod-added items and patch their descriptions to IR(R) style, adding all changes that come with those components. What I would love to see is to update those functions to also patch items to match EE style, so we could have both styles depending of which game we are playing. I reached Mike1072 already. He is busy in RL and I'm not sure when or if he would find time tk take care of this. I can probably skip Revised Armors and Items and try some similar tweaks from other mods (like Scales of Balance), but to be truth, I like IR version the best.

@SalkHere is an example of original IR description and mine EE-style update. The most significant differences can be seen on armours. As I already wrote, updating descriptions is easy. Updating Revised Armors and Revised Weapons components, unfortunately not (for me anyway). @Bartimaeusthanks for honest reply. I guess, I need to either deal with immersion breaking descriptions, don't install Revised Armors and Revised Items components, or completely skip IR(R) in favour of other mods (i.e combo of Weimar's Item Upgrade and BG2EE to SoD Item Upgrade). For the record, I agree that BGEE items are poorly done. BG2EE and (especially SoD items) not so much, I think these are done quite nicely, actually. If I decide to install a mod to remove some EE content from the game, BGEE items would be my only choice (I saw @Andrea C.has done something like that recently).

I'm not at my PC now, but I can send you examples later tonight. As I've said updating descriptions is easy (even if time-consuming). The problem is to updste the code of Armor and Item revision components, that patch all modded items according to IR changes. Those components rely on using a regexp (in a complex way) and I'm not able to update them in a satysfying way.

But this is the point, besides providing EE compatibility it doesn't favor EE's at all. Maybe IRR does some more groundwork on a technical level to play better with EE's, but that's it. EE items, and especially BGEE ones, need IR updates badly. Unfortunately in majority of those cases it would need to be a complete rewrite, just loosely inspired by item overall theme. But setting those items aside... I can live without them. What is a showstopper to me (as silly as it sounds) is that both IR and IRR does not offer also EE style item descriptions. Having a mix of vanilla(ish) and EE style descriptions in one game is immersion breaking for me. I tried to fix that by myself, I really did, but all I can do is to update descriptions. I'm not skilled enough to update those regexp dependant components that patch all mod added items.

Including Rasaad's belt in the discussion is as good argument as any. Whether you like EE's or not, it's now the part of the core game experience. Besides, last time I heard IR(R) was not restricted classic versions. Has this changed and I failed to notice?

If there are engine limitations, that's fine by me, to leave both Aasimar and Tieflings as a human subrace. I've fixed the plural Aasimar, you're right, I suppose.

Ok, I have made an attempt to update the descriptions and add some of the subraces I mentioned in my previous post. Feel free to use/implement whatever you like or tweak whatever you dislike.

What a cool mod, I was looking for something like that for ages. I have a couple of improvement and add-ons suggestions: Improvements suggestions: Each listed race ability should start with dash. Currently, the descriptions scream "mod added". Even if you pick a subrace, the Character Generation screen does not reflect that (the race is still displayed without a subrace i.e Elf, Dwarf, etc). Not sure if this is possible to change, or it's hardcoded. In the Record tab (in game) the race is displayed, i.e as "Elf (Drow)" or "Dwarf (Gold Dwarf)". It would be visually more appealing to display only the subrace (if selected), like: Gold Dwarf, Wild Elf, Drow, Strongheart Halfling, etc. Aasimars and tieflings should really be separate races rather than Human subraces (unless this is hardcoded, and you cannot add new races). It would be perfect if you could create a new race called Planetouched and put Aasimars and Tieflings as subraces there. Addon suggestions: New elf subraces: Moon Elves, Sun Elves, Wood Elves, Aquatic Elves, Avariel New dwarf subraces: Shield Dwarves, Wild Dwarves, Arctic Dwarves, Urdunnir Dwarves New halfling subrace: Lightfoot Halfling New half-elf subraces: Half-drow, Half-aquatic elves New human subraces (this would be mostly fluff, no ability bonuses): Calishite, Chondathan, Damaran, Iluskan, Mulan, Rashemi, Tethyrian (those are the major human ethnic groups in Faerun)

@Gwendolyne@Austin do you plan to update also Saradas Magic (for BGEE)? : http://www.shsforums.net/topic/58027-saradas-magic-v-11/?hl=saradas+magic

@morpheus562Have you reported those issues in a sister thread at Beamdog's? I feel you have a better chance @Daeros_Trollkillerwill see this.

Hi Subtledoctor, I've been wondering, since the patch 2.7 is apparently in the works, I was thinking if Beamdog could fix the issue with the Concentration check that you have mentioned in Scales of Balance readme. Could you please elaborate it more if possible? Or maybe provide a reproducible step by step case, if that's not too much to ask? I'll tag @Galactygon, since he is visiting the forum. Maybe this could be added as to-do list for patch 2.7?

Don't be so impatient. K4thos already stated that since there are only under 20 mods left to be taken care for EET compatibility, he would do it himself. But these things takes time. These updates can be easily done or complicated depending on the mod complexity. Besides both K4thos and moderators knows exactly what needs to be done, rushing them won't help, if only the effect will be opposite.

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant IWD1. Is it possible to separate IWD1 from IWD2, so that players that cannot or don't want to use EEex could play IWD1 part of IWD-in-EET and skip IWD2 part?

For the record, the fact that Lava's preferred way to play BG Saga is to play each game separately, doesn't mean he is opposed to the idea of making his mods EET compatible. It just means that coding EET compatibility is not his priority. But there are folks out there who are more than happy to contribute a necessary chunk of code for him that makes EET compatibility a reality (and it was done in the past). I don't feel opening such poll makes sense at all. Maintaining EET compatible with each and every patch version is not feasible. The only thing that bothers me is that the core mod is so heavily dependent on EEex. Don't make me wrong, all new capabilities that EEex has brought to the table are fantastic, but it brings a problem that EET development is often hindered for many months because of EEex development (and this is hindered by new patch released by Beamdog). I think that the Core mod should be EEex independent, and all EEex related features should be optional. This would also allow using core EET content by players that use OS currently not supported by EEex (like Mac OS). I don't know how EEex stuff is implemented in EET exactly, so not sure how feasible this approach might be.

I think he meant if version 13 of EET works both with patch 2.5 and 2.6. In case it does, he can install it whatever the patched version he is using. In case v13 works only with patch 2.6 he needs to downolad RC12 to be able to use EET with patch 2.5, as you said.

First of all, it's great to see you're back, K4thos! Man, I've been waiting for you for ages Second, with the all respect for tipun's work, I do believe that your version will be better integrated with the whole EET (given that you're the author of it), which is my (and many others) current IE gaming platform. Besides, you have put so much work to get this done already, it would be shame to see it wasted. Also, in case you will release it, please do update it to patch 2.6. Honestly, I see no point for not updating the game from 2.5 to 2.6, so it would defeat the purpose if one can play it being on patch 2.5 and could not play it being on patch 2.6. Especially now, after we finished translating SoD, and Polish translation is already included in 2.6, Polish players could experience the whole saga plus IWDEE in one single adventure in Polish. As for the IWD2, I always treated is as a bonus (contrary to IWD1 content), so I would not mind more delay if it means well-polished experience later. But I do want it to be consistent (mechanically wise) with other games, so 3E mechanics would need to go in this case. And here I see definitely room for IWD2-in-EET and IWD2EE project (developed by semiticgoddes, Olvyn Churu and Bubb). On will be integrated with EET, 2E style adventure, second will be greatly enhanced original experience, for all who prefers 3E over 2E.

Haven't tried it yet, but I guess it's natively compatible with EET, so you should be safe to install it after EET_Core as any other EET compatible yet. Following entry from 2.0 changelog kind of back my assumption:

That was actually a good post Very thoughtful and sensible. You may be of course right, @jastey, it's just there was a lot of teasing of IWD-in-EET in the past and I got maybe a little too excited.

That's the whole point. We haven't heard anything from him for a long time. He could just drop to let us know he is doing a longer break, or he is stopping the development for whatever reason. Or anything. Seeing he is actively working on a completely different project on his GH, makes me worried he just doesn't care anymore about EET. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I just kinda lost hope. And EET is the only way I want to finish my journey with BG saga

Did anyone try to contact K4thos, if he plans to continue developing EET or not? I was rather sure he is just waiting for patch 2.6 to happen, but now I'm more and more convinced he is not interested in IE modding anymore. The fix for 2.6.6 is still lingering in the forums and this is rather serious issue to fix directly in the main build

Since basically the last thing Daeros did before 2.0.0 release was testing his mod on patch 2.6.6, I'd say it's pretty much 2.6 compatible.

Expanding the idea, there can also be a hardcore version of this component. If there is no one in your party with enough Lore (let's say 20), those items can be hidden so well, that can be unavailable to the party. It's simply not there. It can be available again after one of the party members reach a specific Lore threshold. A combat log message can appear informing that there are stories of a powerful artefact hidden in X area, and it could be wise to visit it again.

While I agree that adding more RP to the BG series would be welcoming, I'm also in the camp that reading the same book a couple of times to gain some bonus (or even opening the book a couple of times) could be tedious. UNLESS there would be a way to limit the book description while reading it for the first time to only a fragment and revealing following parts with each consecutive reading until the full book can be read (adding a bonus to Lore in the result as a reward). But I imagine this would be a nightmare to code (probably a couple of copies of the same book needs to be made which may not be feasible at all). If this could be implemented I would add it as an option, so the player could choose if he wants passive bonuses or prefers to seeking it actively. While the concept of having a high Lore resulting in a way to be more effective vs various spells seems interesting, I fear it may overcomplicate things. I imagine that mage with high Lore may be versed to counter the spells of enemy spellcaster easily, in a different manner, depending on the spell used, but having for example different bonuses vs different spells IS overcomplicating things. BUT it could be interesting to find a universal bonus, that could be fitting during the fight with ANY enemy spellcaster. But I'm not yet convinced about this topic, to be honest. As an addition to the second part of an idea from my previous post, the high Lore value could result with the description in the combat log, revealing what kind of monsters may roam specific areas. Apart from the obvious benefit of alerting the player that there may be specific danger in the area (which for example could result in casting appropriate defensive spells), this could also add a gameplay bonus vs this specific creature type, but ONLY in this particular area, where those creatures were previously detected via high Lore. This would be a small bonus, that may depend on the type of detected creature (bonus that is the most effective in the fight with this specific creature, like +1-2% of magic resistance vs liches, +1 AC vs missiles vs kobolds, +1 save bonus vs petrification vs basilisks, etc).