CamDawg

G3A is a mod for BG2EE.

More likely the installation will error out.

In the tp2, the mod references these entries (likely in a SAY) and the install will throw an error if the entries have been deleted. What you need to do is edit the tp2 to point to the existing strings, e.g. changing a line from SAY @25 to SAY #123. (123 is a placeholder, you'll need to find the actual string number in the game via something like NI.)

Yes, still no on C_E_Rs. We're first in stack on a known platform, the patch list is known. I generally write a REGEXP to look for issues, then pare it down to a file list for a normal C_E.

Heh. Alas, it's simply cd_no_pickpocket

It definitely needs fixing. It came up so often in BG2 Fixpack that I wrote a macro for it.

Yes, it runs 0-99. If I may suggest a slight alteration:

• 0-19: -1 INT
• 0-39: -1 INT
• 0-59: -1 INT
• 0-79 -1 INT
• 0-99: -1 INT

This preserves the same 1d5 INT loss while avoiding the autopause bug.

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Is EEex going to be a fundamental part of the FixPack?

No.

Depends on what you're specifically looking for. Op100 will cause the targeted creatures to flat out ignore you and pretend like you don't exist.

You could block the petrification projectile, but the projectile is also used by other creatures so you might be extending protection beyond what you're looking for.

Alternatively, all of the basilisk attacks are done via ~five weapons (lesser have claw and gaze, greater also have a poison bite). Adding protections against those items through op 318/324 would do it. For the originals, you could route those items through a spell and use 206. The drawback here is if another mod adds basilisks with alternative weapons.

If the choice is between spending time working on my mods or cruising the wiki for mistakes, the former is going to win every time. That's not a slight on the wiki--you can insert pretty much anything in the latter half of that statement with the same result.

This should work. Double-check where you're inserting the 101 in the Enrage effect order stack. Note that Enrage's last opcode is a 206 vs. itself, so anything after that gets blocked.

ADD_CRE_EFFECT only supports v1 cre files (BG. BG2). It's done manually since the component also works for IWD and IWD2. And before you ask, the underlying creature validity check has the same fail condition.

So yes, Tweaks relies on non-borked files from other mods.

On 7/12/2023 at 12:06 AM, Endarire said:

I tested things and the official version of Cliffette's mods worked better on EET in this case anyway.

And yet, these links are still active.

5 hours ago, polytope said:

G3tweaks

Le sigh.

18 hours ago, polytope said:

Edit: @CamDawg does the current stand-alone IWDification have this issue on classic games?

No, IWDIfication is good to go on all of these.

At present you should be using IWDification as your source of IWD spells (EEs or otherwise). SCS is using the same code that was in IWDifcation RC2, so everything fixed in the five versions (changelog) since is still a bug in the SCS version of these spells. The good news is that since IWDification and SCS share the library for these spells, all of IWDification's fixes will get rolled into the next SCS.

A few other notes: ghast1 is used by the ghasts from Monster Summoning IV; cdiwdtr1 is used by the troll summons in Shades. These, and everything else flagged in argent's list, is also fixed in IWDification.

I would guess none of these tokens work because the main character hasn't been generated yet. They/them/their would be OK for the pronouns; substitutions for man/woman would have to be case-by--case.

NumDead is basically a variable check, so it's fine.

The relevant points have been covered. I think the main thing is add the spell stacking protection, and (if it's feasible without an EFF/subspell) gate the expiry sound behind state: invisible.

15 hours ago, polytope said:

Or just revert the damage bonuses to #179 and reorder from greatest to least, so there won't be a problem with ceil rounding of small but separate damage increments when striking something that has physical resistance.

The move from op179 to on-hit 177s was to prevent one weapon's damage bonuses from applying to the other weapon in a dual-wield situation. There was no solution for the 178s.

I'm not saying we shouldn't explore this avenue, just that we need to balance any proposed solution using 179s against this (admittedly small) regression.

On 10/15/2022 at 9:18 PM, Endarire said:

I applied the EET auto converter to Fonick due to the aforementioned EET compat bug.  Enjoy!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QoZQLaennFzggymLEtOyyB0aKlwRlWZG/view?usp=sharing

I also applied the EET auto converter to Every Mod and Dog because I was suspicious.  Enjoy!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hq8kkhroW47NrF2w4K-J_WrAo0ZDs1lA/view?usp=sharing

Here's the EET auto converter result for Keyring.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gWHl_STre17WTSs-fIqyz5BoWbvo5uZn/view?usp=sharing

Do not host unofficial versions of G3 mods.

58 minutes ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Really ?

Yes.

I'm just going to pop in and say two things: 1) The Burning Earth should cover enemies accurately but b) without massively redefining identifiers.

3 hours ago, jmerry said:

My reading on "multiple bonuses could apply" creatures is that the higher value should be used, if feasible.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

(By the way, only winter wolves qualify as "cold-using creatures"? That might work for BGEE, but the weapon's in BG2EE as well.)

This is probably something that needs its own topic. 'Regenerating' and 'cold-using' are very broad--ice/blizzard/snow trolls qualify under both, and I'm sure we can come up with a longer list of 'cold-users' like frost salamanders or ice mephits.

Right, so let me preface this with the fact that this string was changed back in 2013, and the BD team has had numerous opportunities to change it back, or to something else. We've got a pretty clear indication that the change in intentional, and working as intended.

There is one string that's available, so let's look at a few scenarios:

1. The target has no items
2. The target has a ring that can be pickpocketed, but you lack the necessary skill
3. The target has a ring that can be pickpocketed, but it's flagged unstealable

Neither 'target has no items' or "target has no items that can be stolen by a cut-purse of your skill" is 100% accurate for all three cases.The former works for #1 and is wrong for the other two; the latter is wrong for #1, accurate in case #2, and kinda, sorta, if-you-squint-just-right appropriate for #3.

Absent the ability to alter the engine to differentiate case #1 from #2 and #3 (which is beyond what we can do in EEFP) there's not a change to be made.¹

¹ OK, we could technically go the full rules lawyer: "Target has no items, or target has no items that can be stolen by a cut-purse of your skill. The content of this string is confidential and intended for the character attempting the pickpocket. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the pickpocketer. If you received this message by mistake, please file a bug report and join the Cult of the Eyeless to prevent future viewings."

Yes, but IIRC TakeItemReplace doesn't equip the new item so you'd still need to add a few equip actions.

On the EEs, yes. You can check if both items are equipped, and then use TransformItem to swap the old item(s) to the new, cursed item(s). You can also do it on the originals, but you'll need a lot more commands to remove the old item, add the new one, and then equip it.