khelban12

Maybe my game lagging on GemRB is the known issue with actor speed I think.

http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28172&do=findComment&comment=246276

 

Is there way to implement what khelban said? How would I go about it?

I do not know gemrb's code like Lynx so i can't tell for sure but i don't think this has to do with your lag. The test i did with extspeed.2da had nothing to do with lag. gemrb uses the picture frame count as walking speed so some monsters (especially when infinity animations were used) were more fast or more slow than they should.

I have a similar setup to yours (no sos, ctb, rot, planarsphere, npc mods, revisedbattles, kit mods, etc but i use all the major mods you use) and do not have your lag. I don't know if that makes a difference but my last mod is lolfixer that supposedly fixes many things.

My setup is on linux and my gemrb version is commit 6f1b497a5a0bda41319a7baaa88a92d881393742 (2018-05-23) so a bit older than latest git.

I wanted to suggest it for a long time but i didn't because it will put considerably more burden on Bartimaeus.

It would be nice if you forked the original repo and then commit your changes describing the change so they can be pulled upstream by Demi or Mike. This way we won't have two separate projects.

khelban12, be my guinea pig, please.

 

Attached is a revised effect batch macro; replace bg2fixpack/lib/bg2fp_effect_batches.tpa with the attached one and reinstall. This should remove the majority of these warnings. I'm sure we'll still have a few here and there from CLONE_EFFECT usage, but we can track those down individually.

In case it makes any difference, i forgot to mention that i run gemrb from linux and install every mod using the linux weinstall (242 at this point).

Yes, with the revised batch file applied, gemrb shows no warnings (at least in Irenicus's dungeon. i haven't managed to test any further areas).

408 files have different checksums (160 ITM, 191 CRE, 77 SPL). I checked them with iediff and the differences in item and spell files are all on parameter2 and resource (resource has bogus entries like h?@^E and stuff). For CRE files iediff says they are the same but if i hexdump them they have some differences where the new creature have a value of zero so i suppose it is the same fix but for effects inside creatures that iediff doesn't find because it checks only the cre header.

Let me do a playthrough with it and check it more thoroughly if you want but it seems to work perfectly.

I don't know if it is a bug but there is a minor inconvenience that i have for a long time and i keep forgetting to report.

When i run the game through GemRB, i get tons of repeating "invalid opcode" errors. For example the following log is for the starting dungeon alone.

Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 106 (Aataqah)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 106 (Cambion)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 106 (Jailkeep Golem)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 106 (Lesser Clay Golem)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 24 (Imoen)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 24 (Rielev)!
Actor/ERROR: Invalid modifier type passed to NewStat: 24 (Sewage Golem)!

// turns fear immunity into full immunity
DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO ~cd_immunity_fear_arrays~ BEGIN
  DEFINE_ASSOCIATIVE_ARRAY cd_immunity_batches_key BEGIN // these three go last so they don't block their own extras effects
    101,  "-10",  23, "same",  "-10",  "-10", "last" => 1 // immunity to reset morale 
->    101,  "-10",  24, "same",  "-10",  "-10", "last" => 1 // immunity to horror
->    101,  "-10", 106, "same",  "-10",  "-10", "last" => 1 // immunity to morale break modifier
END
  DEFINE_ASSOCIATIVE_ARRAY cd_immunity_batches_extras BEGIN
->     23, "-10", "-10", "same", 1, 0, "first" => 1 // reset morale

As you see in the above picture, minhp1 has 106 as parameter2 which, while irrelevant for this opcode, gemrb sees it as an error. The same happens with imoenhp1 and 24 parameter. Probably with many other items too.

If i change the second "-10" to 0 in the above line, then 0 is used as parameter2 and gemrb works correctly (but other batch line may have the same problem).

Is this a fixpack bug or should gemrb change to ignore parameter values for opcodes that do not use them ?

Thank you for your time.

Greetings and congratulations to the team for the 0.8.5 release.

There is a bug that i see for some time now but as always i forget to report a bug until i see a release announcement

In the "Menkar Pebblecrusher" fight there is a thief NPC named Brennan Risling (sevpat05) who, if hurt sufficiently, leaves the area. So, in order for you to kill him, you have to hit him hard and kill him quickly before his script triggers.

sevpat05.bcs contains the following code:

IF
	HPPercentLT(Myself,50)
	Global("Hurt","LOCALS",0)
	See([PC])
THEN
	RESPONSE #100
		Wait(2)
		StartDialogueNoSet([PC])
END

Trigger:
HPPercentLT(Myself,50)
Global("Hurt","LOCALS",0)
Action:
SetGlobal("Hurt","LOCALS",1)
EscapeArea()

1)

Steps to reproduce:

* Create a character (preferably a hard-hitting character like a fighter, paladin, archer ranger, etc)

* Escape Irenicus's Dungeon and in Waukeen's Promenade go to the upper floor of "Den of the Seven Vales" (AR0712 if you want to jump there)

* Trigger the fight

* Kill everyone else with ctrl+y and fight Brennan

Observed result:

Brennan dies and then his script triggers and he "escapearea"s so his loot is gone. Even killing him in one blow with the killsw01 or with ctrl+shift+y results in the script triggering.

Can anyone else reproduce this or is it a bug in my installation ?

2) If there is a bug in my installation, of course disregard my post. If not, can this be fixed ?

I found the HPPercentLT function in core/GameScript/Triggers.cpp. As always i blindly tried to find how to make it ignore dead people and found some code in another function.

diff --git a/gemrb/core/GameScript/Triggers.cpp b/gemrb/core/GameScript/Triggers.cpp
index 18345428f..5329ce4fe 100644
--- a/gemrb/core/GameScript/Triggers.cpp
+++ b/gemrb/core/GameScript/Triggers.cpp
@@ -2007,6 +2007,11 @@ int GameScript::HPPercentLT(Scriptable* Sender, Trigger* parameters)
 	if (!scr) {
 		return 0;
 	}
+	Actor *act = (Actor *) scr;
+	//don't allow dead, don't allow maze and similar effects
+	if (!act->ValidTarget(GA_NO_DEAD) || act->GetStat(IE_AVATARREMOVAL) != 0) {
+		return 0;
+	}
 	if (GetHPPercent( scr ) < parameters->int0Parameter) {
 		return 1;
 	}

If i modify HPPercentLT as shown above, then it works and doesn't trigger for dead Brennan but something else weird happens. If i don't kill him fast enough, then the script triggers, he says the dialog but does not escape and you continue fighting him until you kill him. So this isn't the correct solution.

Thank you for your time.

Idea : make the card game against Aesgareth fair (I mean something close to randomness).

In 3rd round, he always draws the card "Wheel" and win...

I know it isn't exactly what you want, but in case you are not aware of it, this mod has a "Always win against Aesgareth" component.

 

In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords.

Tell me that again when you meat an enemy that's AC is 20 better against slashing weapons than blunt. And you are wrong. Or just regular golems that are immune to your regular slashing weapons ... well, they were.

 

I thought 10 times to change that part and articulate it better because i knew someone would isolate it and take advantage that both the weapons i mentioned are blunt and so mention something like "skeletons" (or golems that you did)

My point still stands though. Why would you form a warrior to have 4 attacks with clubs when you can have 4 attacks with two-handed swords (or long swords, etc) that will have more damage ? By modding we replace one imbalance we don't like with another (bigger or smaller) that we like.

SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round.

on apr=1: sf=10 means you attack at the boundary of round 1 and round 2, sf=5 means you attack in the middle of round 1 and sf=0 means you attack at the very start of round 1, right? i mean that's the common wisdom

so how is it true that "SF 7 does not mean it's supposed to take 7/10 of a combat round"? the idea is that it's true in a apr=1 situation. so the logic of the proposed tweak is based on the question: why wouldn't it also be true with more than 1 apr? why should the attack be compressed to squeeze in more attacks?

+1

I thought that this was exactly what the Speed Factor meant (and the same for casting speed for spells but this is irrelevant here). I may be wrong of course and the engine works differently but that was what i observed by using 1APR classes like thieves. Isn't this also why every thief guide suggests "speed weapons" so you can backstab early in the round ?

It's just that because of >1 APR have to be squeezed in the 6 seconds, it pretty much becomes irrelevant for a character with many attacks.

Again, that's not SF is supposed to mean. It's only supposed to be only for initiative calculations and not an actual reflection of attack duration, and subtledoctor notes many ways these all get incorrectly conflated and mashed together. The original point that a high SF means a weapon is too slow for multiple APR is not accurate.

 

A combat round in PnP is a full minute. A 1 APR fighter doesn't swing his sword and then stand idle for the rest of the minute. That one attack represents only one opportunity in a full minute of slashing, thrusting, parrying, moving, feinting, etc. (This is why I actually prefer the cosmetic animations, but I digress.) APR is meant to be a reflection of skill and experience, not a mundane physical restriction--even if that's how it manifests in game.

Edit: Yes, in PnP the Weapon Speed behave differently and is added to initiative. I was only talking about how it behaves in game.

With regards to Jarno's post and that it will be ridiculous to go from 5APR to 1APR, yes this isn't a component that everyone will like. It will seriously nerf (to a point of being unusable) slow weapons and will favour quick weapons. In the vanilla game you have no reason (at least from a powergaming point of view) to use clubs, maces, etc when you can use long swords and two-handed swords. Or there are many people that use swords of small enchantment that have beneficial secondary effects instead of swords with larger enchantment. I read "balance" all the time in mod descriptions but in truth it is almost impossible to balance the game because "balancing" nerfs something and overpowers something else. With every component we install we exchange a certain imbalance that we don't like with a imbalance we like.

All these of course, only if it was easily coded. I would then argue, as Fouinto said, that since it is optional then even if it is completely silly and useless, what is the problem ? Just don't install it. But since it is very difficult to implement then i agree that it isn't worth for CamDawg and other modders to devote an enormous amount of time just to humor me.

And there's the problem: compatibility fixes, bug fixes, and design tweaks have all been jumbled together because it was originally just for me. So how do you propose that I fix this, exactly? I can't really think of any good solutions...

One solution is to fork the github repository and then split your changes into distinct branches. For example, one branch for typos and corrections like the capitalization changes you have, one branch for 1pp removal, one branch for bug fixes in original IR items and descriptions, etc. This way, Demi and Mike can easily merge the branches they want and keep the controversial branches unmerged. It will be a large and tedious task though.

If you decide to try this path, you can also use Lynx's excellent IE parser tools as git filters so git diff can show readable text differences between the binary item files which makes working with them a bit easier.

But I don't think it's possible to cap APR in that way, I don't think APR is a readable stat.

Not to mention that weapon speeds might be inconsistent, and subject to change by mods.

And how do you handle dual-wielding?

Unless I'm missing something it would be an absolute nightmare to implement, and after all that work most players would just cry "nerf!" and not appreciate it.

I would like to suggest two component proposals (i already mentioned one of them in the other thread). Over the years, i have read them being mentioned on several fora so i guess they are not possible because the engine does not permit it(in ee maybe they are possible):

1) For "light" weapons like daggers, clubs, short swords, etc, use dexterity for THAC0 and Damage IF it would give a greater bonus than strength.

2) Limit the number of attacks based on the Weapon's Speed Factor. A combat round is split into 10 segments. When a weapon has a SF of 7, supposedly you need a time of 7/10 of a round in order to swing it because it is heavy. How is it possible to swing it 4 times in that time ? I would love to limit the APR based on the weapon's SF. That way, you need a weapon with a SF <= 5 in order to have 2 APR, a SF <= 3 to have 3APR, etc.

 

Isn't Grand Mastery supposed to give one full bonus attack from being proficient (or half an attack over specialization-high mastery) ?

 

The original BG2 wspatck table has -1 for levels < 7, 1 for 7 <= level < 13, -2 for level >= 13. So we get half an attack bonus over being just proficient which is correct up until high mastery.

 

If i haven't misunderstood, GM should give half an attack over that. So the "true GM" table should become 1, -2, 2 (So the character would get a total of 2, 2.5, 3 attacks respectively depending on his level) but instead the table installed by the mod has -2, 2, -3 and thus it gives half an attack more that it should give.

What you describe in the 1st part is how BG2, BGEE, and BG2EE do indeed work. What you describe in the 2nd part is how IWD and IWDEE work.

 

The "true" grandmastery component should rather be titled "true according to one guy who happened to make s mod and call it 'true.'"

 

Thank you for answering. I didn't know about this discrepancy between BG2 and IWD.

I, of course, do not know what steps the original modder took, but from what i read in IESDP, BG1 provides the version with the 1/2 attack more, so i guess it wasn't an error by the original modder. He just copied the BG1 version which was the de facto "correct" one. Maybe i was wrong wanting to change wspatck. Maybe wspatck is correct and it is the "GM table" that is shown here and there on fora and sites that is wrong ?

Now, that we write about APR, there is a thing that i always wanted to be implemented in BG2 but i do not know if the engine doesn't permit it. Is it possible to limit APR based on the weapon's SF ? I find ridiculous that in a combat round which is split in 10 segments, you can get 4 APR with a two-handed sword that has a SF of 9 or something. I would love it if you needed a SF <=5 in order to get 2 APR, a SF <=3 to get 3 APR and so on.

I've lost the code long ago, though it's possible to remake.

Sorry to hear that.

Inspired by your post, i had coded my own version. It works for me but it is a very basic/stupid implementation with many quirks. It is not fit for general use but in case anyone is interested, it is the following:

EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)tar.*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(as\|ck\|cl\|con\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(corb\|dc\|fb\|fr\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(fs\|hp\|lb\|mm\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(ms\|pm\|sc\|si\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(werewo\|gw\|mis\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(spid\|spike\|st\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~\(c\|g\)t\(ts\|web\).*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP_REGEXP ~gt[0-9].*\.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP ~gdarts.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP ~gslime.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP ~gspear.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~
EXTEND_TOP ~gvent.bcs~ ~baf/traps.baf~

IF OnCreation()
THEN
  RESPONSE #100
    StartTimer (101, 1)
    Continue()
END

IF
  LOS([GOODCUTOFF],15)
  TimerExpired(101)
THEN
  RESPONSE #100
    DisplayString(Myself,16488)
    StartTimer (101, 18)
    Continue()
END

IF
      Disarmed([ANYONE])
    THEN
      RESPONSE #100
        SetGlobal("vt#disarmed", "LOCALS", 1)
        Continue()
    END
IF
      LOS([GOODCUTOFF],15)
      !Global("vt#disarmed", "LOCALS", 1)
      !GlobalTimerNotExpired("vt#traptimer", "LOCALS")
    THEN
      RESPONSE #100
         DisplayString(Myself,16488)
         SetGlobalTimer("vt#traptimer", "LOCALS", 12)
         Continue()
    END

Obviously i have misunderstood something about this, but there is something that has bugged me for years. Maybe i have asked about it before and i do not remember.

Isn't Grand Mastery supposed to give one full bonus attack from being proficient (or half an attack over specialization-high mastery) ?

The original BG2 wspatck table has -1 for levels < 7, 1 for 7 <= level < 13, -2 for level >= 13. So we get half an attack bonus over being just proficient which is correct up until high mastery.

If i haven't misunderstood, GM should give half an attack over that. So the "true GM" table should become 1, -2, 2 (So the character would get a total of 2, 2.5, 3 attacks respectively depending on his level) but instead the table installed by the mod has -2, 2, -3 and thus it gives half an attack more that it should give.

What am i understanding wrongly ? Thank you.

Seing Ardanis at the announcement topic reminded me of his Trap Detection mod.

If i understood the situation correctly, it was going to be included in Demi's Kit Revisions mod but i think KR has stalled.

If he is ok with it of course, wouldn't it be a nice tweak to have in the anthology ?

The premise of the mod is that trap mechanics are crap in BG2. In other RPGs, thieves can always detect traps even when hidden (in some implementations they walk at half speed when detecting traps). In BG2, you can either walk hidden to scout ahead looking for enemies with the danger of triggering a trap, or detect traps and being seen by enemies. The only way to perform both is find traps while being invisible by a potion (or a cleric cast sanctuary on you).

Greetings.

I noticed that in my current playthrough i can rest in the "slaver stockade" building in the Slums whereas i think that i was not supposed to be able to rest there. I tracked it down to the "Disable non-hostile spawns" component that i have installed (i do not have its previous component "rest everywhere" installed of course)

From what i understood, the file lib/rest_spawns.tpa has a code that enables bit7 for byte 0x48 that controls resting because component 3190 "rest everywhere" needs it but lacks a "if" clause to only set it when 3190 is installed ?

I am sorry if i misunderstood the description and it works as it is supposed to. Also take notice that i haven't upgraded to v2 and still use v1 but from a quick diff with v2, the relevant code is the same so the behavior should be the same with v2 too.

Thank you for your time.

 

"Victor's Improved Races"

That's the one I use!

 

But dwarves don't get 18 DEX.

 

Are you sure about this ? The mod's Readme mentions "-Dwarves can now have 20 CON, but their CHR is limited to 16."

Both dwarves and half-orcs on that table are hugely more powerful than humans.

 

A Dwarf with CON 20 should at least have DEX 16 to balance it out. Their bonus to both saves vs. death and saves vs. spell is outstanding and has to be taken into account imo.

 

Half-orcs with STR 20, DEX 17, and CON 20 are insane! I could be persuaded to go with 19, 17, 19 despite Jarno's weak argument, but that would still make them the de-facto superior pick for any warrior class.

 

Keep in mind I'll also revise ability scores a bit to make each +1 matter. For example right now the difference between DEX 19 and 20 is pretty much non-existent. I'll try to post them later tonight.

Yes, both are quite strong and with practically no disadvantage. I guess he didn't have balance in his mind like you but wanted to implement 3.5 edition (If we read here, the standard 3.5 races of Hill Dwarves, High Elves, Lightfoot Halflings are exactly the same as his. Gnomes and Half-orcs are similar but not the same)

Your version is more balanced. Losing 3 points may seem much from a power point of view as Jarno said but it seems logical (at least to me). Half-orcs are a bit bulky (hence +1 str -1 dex) and due to their orc half they would be a bit less intelligent (-1 int) and people would perceive them as ugly (-2 chr)

Logical changes as always.

For comparison, "Victor's Improved Races" component does the following changes:

RACE      STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
Human:    18  18  18  18  18  18
Elf:      18  20  16  18  18  18
Half-Elf: 18  19  17  18  18  18
Dwarf:    18  18  20  18  18  16
Halfling: 16  20  18  18  18  18
Gnome:    18  18  18  20  16  18
Half-orc: 20  17  20  15  18  17

 

How long is the longest line of spawngrp.2da in eet?

SPAWNGRP.2DA

 

Mods affecting SPAWNGRP.2DA:

(None)

 

Oh, much simpler than bgt then, thanks.

The file uploaded by Roxanne is exactly the same as my bgt/backup/0/spawngrp.2da (so i guess vanilla bg2 one ?).

BGT contains this include file that adds many entries to spawngrp.2da.

Doesn't EET do a similar modification ?

Edit: EET contains this code that does something with the file EET/temp/array/SPAWNGRP.2DA but i couldn't find a "temp" directory.

Right now, my 1ppv4 after Item Revisions solution seems to be working mostly just as well, though, with only perhaps a few issues that I'd need to manually fix. Loving having 1pp's helmets and shields finally working with IR v4...who knew you just needed to totally ignore IR's install instructions?

~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #101 // 1ppv4: Core paperdolls: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #103 // 1ppv4: Extended palette entries -> Full install (recommended): v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #105 // 1ppv4: Avatar fixes: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #106 // 1ppv4: Female Dwarves -> Separate Avatars for Female Dwarves - Baldur's Gate II: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #111 // 1ppv4: Thieves Galore -> BGII - Unique Thief Avatars: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #200 // 1ppv4: Core content patches: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #201 // 1ppv4: Consistent spell and scroll icons: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #207 // 1ppv4: Wizards' Staves (core): v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #208 // 1ppv4: Additional Helmet Animations (core): v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #400 // 1ppv4: Core updates and item patches: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #0 // Item Revisions by Demivrgvs: V4 Beta 9
.......
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #113 // 1ppv4: Smart Avatar & Armour Switching: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #210 // 1ppv4: Increased paperdoll object variety (core): v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #300 // 1ppv4: Fixed animations for solars and elementals: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
~1PP/1PP.TP2~ #0 #301 // 1ppv4: Miscellaneous content fixes: v4.1.0 BWP Fix
......
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #1030 // Store Revisions: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #1040 // Revised Armor -> With Movement Speed Penalties: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #3 // Allow Spellcasting in Armor -> With Casting Speed Penalties for Arcane Casters: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #9 // Allow Thieving Skills in Armor -> Stealth is Penalized by Armor: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #10 // Revised Shield Bonuses: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #17 // Weapon Changes: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #11 // Dual Wielding Changes for Light and Heavy Weapons: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #18 // Revised Backstabbing -> Thief-only Weapons: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #1200 // Revised Critical Hit Aversion: V4 Beta 9
~ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2~ #0 #15 // PnP Equipment for Druids -> Druids Only: V4 Beta 9

I'll get back to you about the 1PP stuff, but I don't recommend installing 1PP after IR

It probably is a stupid idea but if item_rev is changed not to copy any items (and only copy the relevant bams if 1pp is not already installed) but patch the items to create the necessary effects, would this problem with 1pp go away ?

It's a insignificant nitpick but now that there is development, i thought i should ask about it.

          38        39        40        41       ... 51
THIEF     6160000   6380000   6700000   6920000  ... -1
BARD      6160000   6380000   6700000   6920000  ... -1

I would like to ask your opinion about the range of throwing weapons like darts and daggers. The "weapon changes" component changes their range from the default 20 to 15. git log says it was added a bit before Beta 6 (commit c2c189e644).

Searching the forum, i found many posts talking about buffing darts, throwing daggers, etc by adding thac0, changing the dice to 1D4, etc but i couldn't find any discussion about the range (actually there was a thread from the V2->V3 era about the range but it was about lowering all weapons including bows/xbows).

I understand that from a physics point of view, darts and daggers cannot fly as far as arrows / bolts but isn't 15 a bit small ? Every time my thief tried to use darts to attack someone, he got too close and was seen by the whole swarm of enemies that were near that one and everyone came after me. I had to resort to using a crossbow to attack once from distance and lure the enemy and then change to darts (but with 15 range i might as well change to dagger and backstab).

Does anyone think throwing daggers/darts should have a larger range or they are fine and i just suck at tactics ?

Thank you.

When installing on the enhanced editions only the true class ranger gets d8 hit dice, the rest keep the d10. Looking at HPCLASS.2DA it seems every kit has been assigned its own "hp class", as opposed to the original game where it was set by the base class. I assume they did this purely to accommodate the dwarven defender and dragon disciple kits (and mod kits too I guess?).

On BG2EE v1, 3.2064 linux version, i get the following hpclass.2da

2DA                  V1.0
HPWAR
                    TABLE      
FIGHTER             HPWAR      
BERSERKER           HPWAR      
WIZARD_SLAYER       HPWAR      
KENSAI              HPWAR      
DWARVEN_DEFENDER    HPBARB     
RANGER              HPWAR      
ARCHER              HPWAR      
STALKER             HPWAR      
BEAST_MASTER        HPWAR      
PALADIN             HPWAR      
CAVALIER            HPWAR      
INQUISITOR          HPWAR      
UNDEAD_HUNTER       HPWAR      
BLACKGUARD          HPWAR      
CLERIC              HPPRS      
TALOS               HPPRS      
HELM                HPPRS      
LATHANDER           HPPRS      
DRUID               HPPRS      
TOTEMIC_DRUID       HPPRS      
SHAPESHIFTER        HPPRS      
BEAST_FRIEND        HPPRS      
MAGE                HPWIZ      
ABJURER             HPWIZ      
CONJURER            HPWIZ      
DIVINER             HPWIZ      
ENCHANTER           HPWIZ      
ILLUSIONIST         HPWIZ      
INVOKER             HPWIZ      
NECROMANCER         HPWIZ      
TRANSMUTER          HPWIZ      
WILDMAGE            HPWIZ      
THIEF               HPROG      
ASSASIN             HPROG      
BOUNTY_HUNTER       HPROG      
SWASHBUCKLER        HPROG      
SHADOWDANCER        HPROG      
BARD                HPROG      
BLADE               HPROG      
JESTER              HPROG      
SKALD               HPROG      
SORCERER            HPWIZ      
DRAGON_DISCIPLE     HPDD       
MONK                HPMONK     
DARK_MOON           HPMONK     
SUN_SOUL            HPMONK     
BARBARIAN           HPBARB     
FIGHTER_MAGE        HPFM       
FIGHTER_CLERIC      HPFC       
FIGHTER_THIEF       HPFT       
FIGHTER_MAGE_THIEF  HPFMT      
MAGE_THIEF          HPMT       
CLERIC_MAGE         HPCM       
CLERIC_THIEF        HPCT       
FIGHTER_DRUID       HPFC       
FIGHTER_MAGE_CLERIC HPFM       
CLERIC_RANGER       HPFC       

It indeed contains all the kits but if i understand correctly, they point to the same table as the base class. I may be wrong though.

Ah, i looked the KR code and i get it now. It modifies RANGER to use HPRNG table but the kits are not modified and use HPWAR. You are right, please disregard my post.

If a character (say someone like Korgan) doesn't have 18 DEX to begin with, he's better of wearing plate if allowed. If you need ranged THAC0 and similar, you're better of with leather.

I wouldn't really compare benefits of Enkidu/Bladesinger with Skin of the Forest. While Skin has great AC, that's all there is to it - in many cases, you'll want extra saves, immunities, resistances - SotF has none of these. AC1 isn't why you want Bladesinger on your fighter/mage - it's that precious -1 to casting time. Likewise, SotF only adds 5% to physical resistance; making it a poor choice for late-game.

SotF's base AC value is its only good feature, it has no other special feature. It is extremely good for high DEX characters yes but not so much for low DEX ones. For example a character with 15 DEX would have better AC using Deep Guardian's Plate. You need to consider those medium/heavy armors you mention also grant 10-20% physical dmg reduction instead of just 5% and they have additional special abilities (e.g. Shadow Dragonhide's immunity to level drain). It's less noticeable but also note that in most cases those armors have better AC modifiers vs all weapon types (except vs. blunt), and if you wish, you can cast Barkskin to further improve those armors AC.

 

Right now this is a really really good light armor, but if I lower SotF to AC 2 or 3 and suddenly there would be absolutely no reason to keep it for more than 5 minutes imo.

Plate is much better once you can cast dex increasing spells like draw upon holy might (cleric/paladin). plate reduces dex to 16 from 18 (which light armor doesnt do)and then you nincrease it back up to 18 with duhm which gives you those 2 ac back on top of plate's high base ac. If you cast barkskin + DUHM on a plate user you re getting some ~-7 ac easily without much of equipment. And i personnaly dont use the movement reduction on armors fix. Armors are already restricted by class.

I guess i oversimplified the matter and didn't see all parameters. Almost all my playthroughs are solo (so i can't cast barkskin or other spells on top of the heavy armors) and my last playthroughs were as an Archer and Assassin with high dex, so i guess i judged the armors based on these characters and that is why i couldn't find any reason to justify the disadvantages of the heavier armors. I missed the bigger picture of the physical resistance and other benefits of the other armors. Thank you for your insight. I understand it now.

Why would they be OP?

Special Arrows

I'm sympathetic to the whole "can't hit a fire elemental with an Ice Arrow" complain, but that's an issue of the game combat system (aka AD&D rules), not IR's fault. I never liked the "immune to +x enchantment lvl" thing, and that's probably something I would have handled within Creature Revisions if only I ever had the time for it.

 

On a side note...few players suggested to differentiate elemental ammos a bit more (e.g. Ice could do less dmg but slow target) and I'm tempted to go for it.

With +3 you can hit any creature in the game (except 2 demi-liches and 1 boss). I just thought +4 should be "epic stuff" not your barely rare arrow type.

Just FYI, I'm pretty sure the "IWO" component of my mod (might & guile) makes that work, it's designed be installed on top of IR.

Thank you all for your replies.

Hello.

I have some minor feedback about some items:

a) Armor "Skin of the Forest +3" (item leat14. i think it replaces the "The Night's Gift" that you get from the umar hills mayor) has a base AC of 5 but grants Barkskin so it gives an AC of 1. Does anyone else think the -4AC benefit of barkskin is too much ?

This is the same AC as "Mithral Chain Mail +4", "Bladesinger Chain +4", "Shadow Dragonhide +5" and others that require more trouble to be acquired. With the components that give heavier armors dexterity, movement, thieving penalties installed then the difference is even greater and it outclasses (at least from an AC point) a lot armors. For example, due to the dexterity penalties, a character with 18DEX has -3AC wearing it and also has -3AC wearing the "Deep Guardian's Plate" (base AC of -1) and has -4AC with "Enkidu's Plate" (base AC of -3)

b) The enchantment level of Acid/Fire/Ice arrows are changed from vanilla 0 to 2/1/1 respectively. This is very nice but do you think it would be better if Fire/Ice arrows were also changed to +2 enchantment or they would be overpowered ?

Last time i played an archer and found a Fire Elemental, i thought the most logical ammunition to use is an Ice Arrow but i couldn't hurt it because it was immune to weapons of less than 2 enchantment. Wouldn't it be logical to be able to use these Fire/Ice arrows on enemies of the opposite element ?

c) Why are Arrows of Piercing changed to 3 enchantment and not 4 ?

I do not have anything against this. It is a great change because it solves the problem with long bows and enchantment 3 is enough for pretty much any enemy. I just ask out of curiosity because the original description mentioned +4 to THAC0 so an enchantment of 4 would be the obvious choice.

Thank you for your time.