Jump to content

Wounded_Lion

Members
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wounded_Lion

  • Rank
    Dungeon Dweller

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Thanks for the info, all! Sounds like an interesting year. Individual modders come and go frequently, but the IE modding scene seems consistently strong. I won't be modding for the IE anytime soon, but I'm tossing around the idea of playing a bit of BG(2) or IWD between other things, so thanks again for the updates. I'll definitely take a look at some of these!
  2. Hi, all. A random neuron firing in my brain caused IE modding to cross my mind, and I began to wonder about the developments of the past year or so (I've been absent for a bit). Any significant, must-have updates to popular mods like Tutu, etc? Any promising new projects? I find myself curious but lack the time/enthusiasm to check 100+ mods at 10+ sites, so... if you've got a minute, bring me up to present on the IE scene.
  3. Hmm... I just noticed that you placed this thread in the Divine Remix forum after splitting it from its parent topic. I was under the impression that we were discussing the Battleguard and Branwen in general. My arguments above certainly don't apply to DR in any way. I think General Mod Discussion would be a better home for this thread. aWL
  4. You and I have very different perspectives on modding. The fact that DR has implemented a Battleguard kit does not exert any binding influence over my decision to create or not create a Battleguard kit for Branwen. As always, and as every modder should, I will do whatever I wish in whatever fashion I wish. Many of us like choice, and a mod that does something first does not necessarily do it best. See Morrow Gate for a good example of my philosophy in action. I snub PnP rules, alter BG2 game rules, and implement my own versions of concepts already included in other mods. Doing what you want with your game is the very heart of modding. I don't think there's much point to continuing to discuss this matter when such a gulf exists between our axioms. aWL As a final thought concerning the topic itself, my personal preference is that, defining Law as legislation or statutory law, Battleguards may be of any non-Lawful alignment (like Berserkers).
  5. By PnP Battleguard requirements, you might be correct (I don't know). However, BG2 does not adapt AD&D 2E rules exactly, and there is no Battleguard kit in unmodded BG2. I've seen a number of different adaptations of the Battleguard kit/prestige class, and the alignment descriptions included with BG2 are pathetically inadequate (they tend to describe only one of the various types of characters appropriate to that alignment; a good example is the description referring to all Chaotic Neutral characters as insane). Taken together, it's easy to imagine a Battleguard of almost any alignment (unless you define Law as legislation or statutory law, in which case the alignment requirement becomes Any Non-Lawful; obviously, True Neutral qualifies as Any Non-Lawful). Also, Branwen is a *very* unusual cleric of Tempus - for starters, she's a woman. aWL
  6. Cool. I've not had much time to devote to modding lately (I haven't been able to do so much as check the forums in two days), but I appreciate the help. I need to have a deeper look at LC-BA. Perhaps it can be used as a model but split into individual packages. Perhaps not. I also need to do some reading on animation "slots" as it seems from what you're saying that we're unable to add new ones (but are instead forced to reassign existing ones). I'm not promising fast action (I don't have much time at present, and the next entry in my to-do list is additional interjections for Branwen NPC), but I do need the Drider for Pai'Na NPC, and if I do it then I might as well tackle the whole lot of them, so I'll be looking into this at some point in the future. aWL
  7. Cool. I see your point about vendor-neutrality (WeiDU dominates, but I suppose some people might be using alternative methods of modding). aWL
  8. I read the documentation on the forum itself (rather than waste hours downloading 350 MB of mostly useless resources). According to the forum, creatures disappear upon death without death animations or corpses. The resource itself doesn't look to have been updated in some time, so I doubt that a fix is forthcoming. I think that you're missing my point: I'm talking about modular packages. Each package would consist of tp2 code and a folder containing the necessary resources. A modder wishing to use the Drider animation would simply insert the tp2 code into his/her own tp2 and copy the resource folder into his/her mod's main folder. The code would be such that it detects itself and doesn't reinstall if another mod has already installed the animation. Older mods could be updated to use the new packages. Modders would utilize only the packages needed for their mods (no gargantuan package download), and inter-mod conflicts would be minimized. Is it possible? I don't know because I don't have the time right now to investigate the particulars of importing animations. If it is, however, I'd say it'd be vastly superior to the LC pack. aWL
  9. I don't care whether or not you use my exact description; what I care about is the accuracy of the IESDP. I'd think that your answer would be a definite "yes" to updating the descriptions if you cared about the same (unless someone contests my findings). Why wouldn't you include the fix code? If you can better my fix (better code, etc), then by all means do so, but why not give that extra bit of help to modders using the IESDP as a reference? It'd prevent unnecessary questions on the Q&A forums. aWL
  10. Yep. I use it in Branwen NPC. You could Unlock and OpenDoor, but it's cooler to BashDoor and OpenDoor. And we're all about cool. aWL Note: To be sure, Branwen NPC includes the fix, so if the Fixpack irrationally decides not to include it, then worry not.
  11. I'll visit GemRB's website. Last time I checked (a looong time ago), it wasn't actually working to a degree that would allow for modding, so I probably need to catch myself up to current on the state of the project. Anyway, about what I posted: Does anyone contest or verify my findings? Will the description changes make the next IESDP update? aWL
  12. No, it hasn't. That package is hacky (it adds the creatures in an abnormal manner such that the new creatures don't have death animations and corpses) and huge (350 MB isn't feasible for incoporation as a resource pack). What we need is a working package for each new creature (a seperate Drider package, seperate packages for each creature type, etc). Death animations and corpses are a must-have, too. aWL EDIT: grammar
  13. I don't understand. Isn't GemRB an ongoing open source project that aims to clone (and improve upon) the Infinity Engine? If BashDoor wasn't included in GemRB for some reason (which seems odd, btw), then why can't the action be coded and added to its next release? Besides, the IESDP describes the IE, not GemRB. aWL
  14. If you do not already do so, I suggest including a fix for the broken action BashDoor: COPY_EXISTING ~ACTION.ids~ ~override~ REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~BashDoor(0:Object)~ ~BashDoor(O:Object)~ BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES See here. aWL EDIT: Code tags don't recognize leading spaces? Odd... EDIT: link
  15. This action will not force a creature to bash a door (regardless of whether or not the creature possesses sufficient strength). This description should read: This action works as intended when the above code is used (download the Branwen NPC mod and direct Minsc to talk to Branwen to verify what I say). Please include the fix code in the description (even if the G3 Fixpack incoporates a patch to this action per my suggestion at its forum; not all of us use the G3 Fixpack). The IESDP has been a useful resource to me. Thank you for your efforts in maintaining the project. aWL EDIT: typo ("IEDSP")
×
×
  • Create New...