temnix

Is the bitwise problem the reason why 318 et cetera don't detect alignment correctly? There it's also a bit_eq line, and half of the alignments are odd numbers. This has been a major pain in the ass for my spells and effects that channel through to different alignments.

Why not overwrite the relation = 8 checks with relation = 0 checks for those entries? If that's how it works. Yes, this was probably just good enough for the developers when they needed simple checks. But if I didn't put in extra obsessive testing to see if the bard kit checks worked, I would have assumed they were fine, like the wizard checks, and the mod would ship with quite a big error. Anyway, @DavidW, since you're here, can you tell me where to put the macro for adding item headers that Ardanis wrote a few years ago? I don't know where to put this macros or how to use it. I get an error if I put this code in a GLOB patch. Does it need to be added outside somewhere? DEFINE_PATCH_FUNCTION ~ADD_ITEM_HEADER~ INT_VAR type=3 required_id=0 location=3 alt_dicesize=0 target=1 target_count=0 range=0 projectile_type=0 alt_dicenumber=0 speed=0 alt_damage=0 thaco=0 dicesize=0 school=0 dicenumber=0 sectype=0 damage=0 damage_type=0 charges=0 depletion=0 flags=0 projectile=1 overhand=0 backhand=0 thrust=0 is_bow=0 is_xbow=0 is_sling=0 copy_header=0 insert_point=~-1~ STR_VAR icon=~~ RET insert_point BEGIN LPF ~FJ_SPL_ITM_REINDEX~ END hs=0x38 READ_LONG 0x64 ho READ_SHORT 0x68 hc READ_LONG 0x6a eo insert_point = (insert_point>hc || insert_point<0) ? hc : insert_point copy_header = (copy_header<0) ? 0 : copy_header PATCH_IF copy_header>hc BEGIN PATCH_WARN ~Unable to copy %copy_header%th header, %SOURCE_FILE% contains only %hc% headers!~ END ELSE BEGIN INSERT_BYTES ho+insert_point*hs hs hc+=1 eo+=hs PATCH_IF copy_header BEGIN READ_SHORT ho+(copy_header - 1)*hs+0x1e ec READ_SHORT ho+(copy_header - 1)*hs+0x20 ei READ_ASCII eo+ei*0x30 effs (ec*0x30) READ_ASCII ho+(copy_header - 1)*hs copy (hs) WRITE_ASCIIE ho+insert_point*hs ~%copy%~ (hs) END WRITE_SHORT 0x68 hc WRITE_LONG 0x6a eo READ_SHORT 0x70 ei // technically, it is a counter FOR (i=ho;i<ho+hc*hs;i+=hs) BEGIN READ_SHORT i+0x1e ec WRITE_SHORT i+0x20 ei ei+=ec END PATCH_IF copy_header BEGIN READ_SHORT ho+insert_point*hs+0x1e ec READ_SHORT ho+insert_point*hs+0x20 ei INSERT_BYTES eo+ei*0x30 ec*0x30 WRITE_ASCIIE eo+ei*0x30 ~%effs%~ (ec*0x30) END ELSE BEGIN off=ho+insert_point*hs WRITE_BYTE off type WRITE_BYTE off+0x1 required_id WRITE_BYTE off+0x2 location WRITE_BYTE off+0x3 alt_dicesize WRITE_ASCIIE off+0x4 ~%icon%~ (8) WRITE_BYTE off+0xc target WRITE_BYTE off+0xd target_count WRITE_SHORT off+0xe range WRITE_BYTE off+0x10 projectile_type WRITE_BYTE off+0x11 alt_dicenumber WRITE_BYTE off+0x12 speed WRITE_BYTE off+0x13 alt_damage WRITE_SHORT off+0x14 thaco WRITE_BYTE off+0x16 dicesize WRITE_BYTE off+0x17 school WRITE_BYTE off+0x18 dicenumber WRITE_BYTE off+0x19 sectype WRITE_SHORT off+0x1a damage WRITE_SHORT off+0x1c damage_type WRITE_SHORT off+0x22 charges WRITE_SHORT off+0x24 depletion WRITE_LONG off+0x26 flags WRITE_SHORT off+0x2a projectile WRITE_SHORT off+0x2c overhand WRITE_SHORT off+0x2e backhand WRITE_SHORT off+0x30 thrust WRITE_SHORT off+0x32 is_bow WRITE_SHORT off+0x34 is_xbow WRITE_SHORT off+0x36 is_sling END END END

You could send the party members into the screen by clicking on their portraits. Drawing a box with the mouse is more or less out for off-screen. But since it's going to be impossible to send them away from the screen by any means once they come in, the bigger problem is going to be keeping them near the main character after they are assembled. They don't follow automatically. The player will have to take care to herd them along all the time. But the idea is still viable. A toggled ability could work too, and maybe without script insertion. It could be an instantly-casting (target type 7) summoning of an invisible minion who will do ActionOverride(LastSummonerOf,LockScroll())) and set a local variable on the character, when summoned again check for the variable and, if it's set, unset it and unlock the view. He should override the actions and unset the variable for the entire party, actually, so that the view is locked on only one character.

It's not me who gets away with it, in that case. It was the developers who put the checks for kits as they are. And Beamdog didn't change those in any way. So you say a line needs to be added with, what, 0 as the relation instead of 8? All right, but I worked around it. Let the next people who wonder why yet another thing isn't working in the toolset come and learn that they need to rewrite the existing checks to make a simple condition trigger.

I think DavidW just said that it's a problem with the number references of the kits.

I remember playing Bard's Tale 3 too well. The view was always fixed on my character, going from chest to chest and fighting waves of enemies running from off screen. I don't know, but maybe Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance played this way, too. Ultima Online, too. It all feels like Diablo, not being in a universe that is going on its courses in parallel with you. Maybe like being thrown in a universe that's happening all around doing unfathomable things TO you. Anyway, I don't actually know how LockScroll works. I thought it just kept the current box from moving. If it follows the creature, good, but this action does only work from a creature script, as the guide here says. Which raises the question of where to put this script. In principle, it could be Player1's OVERRIDE, if the players are warned that this mod will be incompatible with others that insert anything there. As for cutscenes, you could patch them all to start with an unlocking and end with relocking. And include an unlock in their CutSceneBroken conditions. I would also check how all this will work with dialogues that happen off-screen, for instance, when someone accosts a party NPC off to the side somewhere. The conversation will start, but will the view jump to it, as usual?

The checks are the same for wizard and bard kits, but wizard kits' work individually and bard kits' just don't. I checked. I got around this by using 177 and then separate EFFs for the kit values.

It is possible to make the screen jump, or even glide, to a character, every so often, but not follow him around smoothly. I find the jumping rather distracting, even if it is slow. Besides, who to jump to? There are six characters in the party, and they are going to be separate every so often. Even if the "camera" could follow the party or character one, this would detract from immersion. It would take away the sense that there is a real, separate world out there through which the characters push themselves. The experience would be arcade-like.

I have used effects 318 and 326 before with wizard kits, but now it is not working with bard kits. I have a spell that checks in turn for the skald, blade and jester kits and applies subspells accordingly, but the character always draws the last card, no matter what his own kit is. Below there is a subspell for bards without kits - separated by 318 blocks for the jester, the skald and the blade, and that one works, so the engine does recognize the having of bard kits, it only applies everything to a character with any of them. I can still get the different options through by having an invisible minion do the checks, but this sucks. For that matter, even with wizard kits I haven't tried a combination where several kits would be checked for in one spell. Maybe this fails with them too.

It's too bad you don't want to turn the game upside down. When thinking of Diablo, my association is fast-paced action in real time more than anything. Well, if you are going to limit yourself to a few conveniences from there, an automatic resurrection is not bad for the lazy. There is something to consider about tweaks like this, they should be seen in the context of the whole, not in isolation. Diablo was an action game, while BG was a role-playing game, which means recreation of a world like ours but different, and a world is always segmented. I don't mean the global map but that any immersive world will have separate places, different habitats and people, tasks and types of magic here and there. Complexity is believability. When characters die and the player has to reload, for example, or carry companions to a temple, with all of the trouble that involves, the chore impresses on him the point that this place is a real place. His adventure becomes more serious in his eyes, his own occupation with the game more merited. And he learns something new along the way. He writes stories in his head about the action - how Edwin was killed at the bandit camp and had to be dragged all the way to Beregost. If you dispense with the legwork, expense and danger, puff, then it'll be a cue to treat the game not as a journey to another dimension but as something out-of-character, without the fourth wall at all - a wargame from the start. And BG is not a very good wargame, let alone an action game. The engine just isn't right for it. You could commit to an action conversion across the board, but that will require more sweeping changes. To how combat and magic work, for instance.

It took them some twenty years, but the snakes of SoA have learned to crawl straight. Put the files in override. Snake.rar

I'm interested in whether this EFF, which is used in many creature-removing spells, for cutscenes, I think, and so on, and also by the Detect Illusions skill, is ever applied to creatures whose death variable must not be set. Is it ever used to do away with, let's say, Bodhi in one chapter of Shadows of Amn, before Bodhi is created somewhere later? If it is, then this EFF file should not be configured to involve the death of the creature, because a check for a dead Bodhi may be made before the party fights her, and this may mess up quests. If this sort of thing never actually happens, I'm going to edit the EFF to cast a spell that will kill the target without a message and then remove it. This way dispelled illusionary creatures will still count as dead to quest-givers instead of just disappearing. There are almost no illusionary creatures in the games, but I'm going to make an ability where one can be "discovered" to be an illusion. With a killing EFF this creature, if it is important, can still be dispelled.

I'm not making much more of anything. This mod is easy for you or anyone to make.

The archive with the last version of this mod was confused and confusing. There was a duplicate of the mod inside. Plus the main character would get both versions of the ability, which should not happen. The archive should be downloaded again. If you have two Rest buttons in the protagonist's bar, use the proper one (short description on right click), and the extra button will go away. This is the last update.

You can try Protagonist instead of Player1. That trigger either doesn't exist or I don't know what it does in Icewind Dale, but in your case the shoe fits.

John Travolta and Kelly Preston in "The Experts" (1989) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ced9GXhAUXiD/ P. S. Clearly not respecting boundaries!

Another and crucial update for this mod. There is someone who has downloaded the other day's version already, and he needs to download this one now. The link in the main post has been refreshed. The other day's revamp was an upgrade of the original mod, made when I was only starting out in this business, and when I looked inside, I found it did some things I would never do today. They can seriously disrupt a game. I brought the mod up to snuff over the last day and a half. There is this new detail, too: characters lying down to sleep will leave the party only if there are companions in the area. This keeps solitaries from disabling the area and themselves when they drop out. The mod is now definitely only for the Enhanced Edition games.

All right, so what is the object for the join order? Well, it doesn't make any difference to me any more. I had to wound around this.

Are they? But the PartySlot objects are 1-6.

I thought there was one way with this stupid engine to tell apart the main character: he is in PartySlot1. But no! In BG2 Imoen, who is the first NPC to join the party, also counts as being in slot 1. They both do. This script, for example, puts a string over the head of Imoen: IF InPartySlot("imoen",1) THEN RESPONSE #1 DisplayStringHead(PartySlot2,234) END Without that check but with DisplayStringHead(PartySlot1,234) the string appears over the protagonist. Useless piece of junk! May the rats connect the holes and finish it up! I'm going to look for another way to have different actions in a script for the main character, but feel free to suggest something here.

The comprehensive but ever-fallible guide on this website says that effect 365 works in opposite ways with respect to disabling dialogue in different parts of the BG series with the Enhanced Edition engine: in BGEE and SoD the "Disable dialogue" parameter is Enabled with 0, Disabled with 1, in BG2EE it is Disabled with 0 and Enabled with 1. It's very strange that the same spells under the same engine would be outright incompatible. Assuming this is case, how does the Enhanced Edition trilogy handle this effect? Which version of the engine does it use, BGEE's or BG2EE's?

Updated.

subtledoctor talks long-winded rubbish. I hope the potions are interesting and useful. Now the question I have for goodberries is whether they can be made to work with the instantaneous Caster targeting so that they don't consume a round? That's the main problem with them, that each berry takes up a round. This is a very good spell for the pen-and-paper game, and there it's not a problem to throw down a handful of these at once, or making a pie, but one berry at a time it does get a little annoying. I don't know if it's possible to use more than one item in a round even with this targeting, though.

If only I uploaded this to GitHub!

What you are saying, in essence, is that the game is short-changed to begin with and ought to remain that way - or become more so. But there is only one standard and universal: the three Is of immersion, imagination and involvement. This takes different forms in different worlds, but the purpose of art is to advance those participate in it to a new level of perception, which is where the story and the technical execution come together, supporting each other. The Infinity games' designers left out elements that were not essential, like eating and drinking, very likely because they had to prioritize. There are already some elements in the first BG in particular that must have required incredible effort - the recolorable creatures and equipment, for instance. The Bioware team was not very large, and they had to set priorities. This, unfortunately, left out more than food and drink - sophisticated dialogues or a more interesting and full representation of magic from the pen-and-paper game also didn't make it in. But that is hardly a badge of merit, and if modders can fill in where role-playing is missing, they should be encouraged. You want to make a game already too simple -primitive. Say, have you considered modding the Fallouts? There are drugs there: Mentats, Buffout. They also involve picking things up, moving them around. Buying them. Finding them on chest shelves and dead enemies. Clearly those are time-consuming and should be converted to charge-like abilities.