78 replies to this topic

[Demivrgvs]

I don't know how Mike would prefer to handle this matter (e.g. including a similar patching code or not) but PnP Free Action should be able to patch mod-added items that may need it (because that's the only purpose of installing such mod when IR and SR are already installed, isn't it?) without interfering with IR/SR imo.

I think PnP Free Action shouldn't touch neither items nor spells of IR/SR, if such mods are detected. Not only we already provide correct descripions, but there're also some differences between our work (e.g. Free Action doesn't "cure" from any effect, it only protects from then).

PnP Free Action:
1) Items and spells that grant movement bonuses display the Haste icon correctly (or Improved Haste if relevant).
2) Items and spells that apply movement penalties display the Slow icon correctly.
3) Items and spells changed so that Haste and Slow icons do not cancel each other. The game engine allows you to be slowed and hasted at the same time. If one state wears off first, you are left with the remaining state, and therefore, that icon should remain as long as it is in effect.

1) & 2) aren't correct imo, because movement bonuses/penalties are one thing, and haste/slow are a completely different one.
3) Next version of SR will finally fix this issue, and haste/slow will cancel each other correctly (via custom secondary type).


P.S

Potion of Freedom's description for IR v3 (not released yet).

When consumed, this potion confers upon the drinker effects like those of the spell Free Action. The drinker becomes completely immune to any effects which hinder action or movement, whether magical in origin or not. The duration of the effect is 5 turns, and cannot be dispelled.

Usable By:
 All

[Miloch]

PnP Free Action should be able to patch mod-added items that may need it (because that's the only purpose of installing such mod when IR and SR are already installed, isn't it?) without interfering with IR/SR imo.

I think PnP Free Action shouldn't touch neither items nor spells of IR/SR, if such mods are detected. Not only we already provide correct descripions, but there're also some differences between our work (e.g. Free Action doesn't "cure" from any effect, it only protects from then).

Maybe this is the bottom line. Free Action does "cure" ("negates and prevents" in the Player's Handbook) certain effects in PnP. Someone might want to install PnP Free Action even on top of IR/SR, because they want Free Action per PnP rules (as closely as we can render them in the engine). You may want to impose what you think is "correct" on everything in everyone's game, but there should be compatibility and choice in the matter.

1) & 2) aren't correct imo, because movement bonuses/penalties are one thing, and haste/slow are a completely different one.

If you want to hack the engine and add more portrait icons, be my guest (pretty much impossible otherwise). As it is, there's some discretion here. If it applies a movement bonus approaching what haste does, then yes, it is the same, or very nearly so for all practical purposes. Likewise with slow/negative bonuses.

3) Next version of SR will finally fix this issue, and haste/slow will cancel each other correctly (via custom secondary type).

That's great, because it matches PnP, but right now the engine doesn't do that, so any descriptions claiming it does (or failing to mention it) are incorrect.

Apart from that, the differences in descriptions are largely aesthetic. Though I have to wonder about some of them. I don't need a detailed rundown of all of them, but the pertinent query is: were they changed to match more closely PnP guidelines or what the engine can/cannot do, or were they changed by someone's opinion of what should be "correct"? If it's the former, the two mods are conceptually compatible. If it's the latter then they're probably not.

As for the aesthetic changes, I've had this conversation with Salk in various fora. I don't agree with overhauling the standard item/spell description format of everything in the game just for sheerly "aesthetic" reasons. Standardisation is one thing, but putting the spell school on another line just because you want it there or that's how it appears in the game books makes no sense. And the big reason for not doing this is it makes mods that follow the standard look completely out of place. You can't really expect all mods to follow your standard rather than the game's. And you can argue that a lot of mods don't follow any standard, but you know, a lot do, even more so with things like textpack updates, and it tends to be the game's standard. As for the Baldurdashy "Not usable by: Wizard Slayer" when we know by definition he can't use things like magic rings, or the redundant "Usable by: All" in absence of any restrictions, a lot of people object to that too and don't install the Game Text Update for that very reason. I suppose the "smart" thing to do would be provide 2 or 3 different descriptions based on what folks have installed, but that would double or triple the work of the translators (or nearly so anyhow).

Anyway, I have it on my to-do list to look at this mod (again) with SR/IR and probably DR too (sigh) as well as update translations etc. It could well be I will provide an option to skip updates to vanilla items if SR/IR is installed, which is probably more than SR/IR is willing to offer, but I like compatibility . But it doesn't sound like a quick update, so it's not my top priority right now (I've been putting most of my time into this little venture).

[Demivrgvs]

As always we and Miloch end up "fighting".

PnP Free Action should be able to patch mod-added items that may need it (because that's the only purpose of installing such mod when IR and SR are already installed, isn't it?) without interfering with IR/SR imo.

I think PnP Free Action shouldn't touch neither items nor spells of IR/SR, if such mods are detected. Not only we already provide correct descripions, but there're also some differences between our work (e.g. Free Action doesn't "cure" from any effect, it only protects from then).

Maybe this is the bottom line. Free Action does "cure" ("negates and prevents" in the Player's Handbook) certain effects in PnP. Someone might want to install PnP Free Action even on top of IR/SR, because they want Free Action per PnP rules (as closely as we can render them in the engine). You may want to impose what you think is "correct" on everything in everyone's game, but there should be compatibility and choice in the matter.

Fine with me, and despite your claims I think most players know that both I and Mike do work to help compatibility.

Anyway, having Free Action "cure" the effects is impossible. Can you cure Otiluke's Resilient Sphere? No. Can you cure a character who's fall unconscious because of Grease? No (but this is something SR-related). Can you cure Slow? No (SR v4 will, but we couldn't). Thus, instead of having a sub-optimal solution where half the effects aren't cured I opted for a solution where the spell effectively does what it claims to do.

1) & 2) aren't correct imo, because movement bonuses/penalties are one thing, and haste/slow are a completely different one.

If you want to hack the engine and add more portrait icons, be my guest (pretty much impossible otherwise). As it is, there's some discretion here. If it applies a movement bonus approaching what haste does, then yes, it is the same, or very nearly so for all practical purposes. Likewise with slow/negative bonuses.

This is quite incorrect. Haste/Slow doubles/halves regeneration rate and poison damage or any repeating effect; not to mention that Haste adds one attack per round and Slow halves the target's attack rate.

If for you having double regeneration rate and +1 apr is the same of having faster walking speed you're welcome, but for me Boots of Speed don't grant Haste, and thus they will never show a portrait icon of something they don't provide.

Anyway, I have it on my to-do list to look at this mod (again) with SR/IR and probably DR too (sigh) as well as update translations etc. It could well be I will provide an option to skip updates to vanilla items if SR/IR is installed, which is probably more than SR/IR is willing to offer, but I like compatibility

Yeah, I'm an evil overlord, I'm not willing to help. Thanks though, that will do.

P.S I haven't even heard Mike, perhaps he can handle everything on his own.

Edited by Demivrgvs, 23 December 2009 - 08:08 AM.

[Miloch]

Anyway, having Free Action "cure" the effects is impossible.

No it isn't. I said it cures certain effects, as per PnP. Who said anything about curing Otiluke's etc.? Doesn't say that in the description or the PnP resources. Speaking of which, you didn't answer my main question about that.

Boots of Speed don't grant Haste, and thus they will never show a portrait icon of something they don't provide.

Underlining isn't necessary - you're not providing a hyperlink . Bold or italics work just fine. And like I said, feel free to add more portrait icons. As it is, several effects share the same icon, and haste and movement bonuses sharing the same one is a lot better than others that share one ("nauseated" is not necessarily "diseased" for example).

Yeah, I'm an evil overlord, I'm not willing to help.

If you were, you'd offer the same thing no? That is, offer an option to skip modding the same resources if PnP Free Action is already installed (or to use IR/SR changes if the user so chooses). But no, you wouldn't do that, would you...

[Demivrgvs]

Anyway, having Free Action "cure" the effects is impossible.

No it isn't. I said it cures certain effects, as per PnP. Who said anything about curing Otiluke's etc.? Doesn't say that in the description or the PnP resources. Speaking of which, you didn't answer my main question about that.

Well, PnP says "any effects which hinder action or movement, whether magical in origin or not", thus Grease and the Resilient Sphere (which is a sort of Hold Monster, or "improved" Web where instead of webs you have a force shield) do seem to be part of it.

Then having FA prevents all effects but cure only some of them (without any reason) doesn't make sense to me. If for you a sub-optimal implementation is cooler because it's more similar to PnP fine with me, I'm generally for PnP too, but I'll never put PnP before optimal implementaion and gameplay.

And does PnP mention 'immunity to stun'? I don't think it does but you decided to opt for it. Speaking of which, I don't know how you implemented it, but a plain "immunity to stun" would surely be wrong. Mind Flayer's psionic blasts cause stun but they are mental attacks which affect the mind, similarly to Feeblemind. Does your Free Action grant immunity to Feeblemind too? (if you handled this right instead, kudos)

Boots of Speed don't grant Haste, and thus they will never show a portrait icon of something they don't provide.

And like I said, feel free to add more portrait icons. As it is, several effects share the same icon, and haste and movement bonuses sharing the same one is a lot better than others that share one ("nauseated" is not necessarily "diseased" for example).

Good philosophy: if vanilla does something sub-optimal let's continue to do so.

Yeah, I'm an evil overlord, I'm not willing to help.

If you were, you'd offer the same thing no? That is, offer an option to skip modding the same resources if PnP Free Action is already installed (or to use IR/SR changes if the user so chooses). But no, you wouldn't do that, would you...

Well, Revisions readme files describe how to skip any item/spell you don't like to be changed, and it's uber-easy to do. Other than that, if I and Mike will find a better solution to help compatibility we'll work on it, rest assured.

I cannot have SR skip to modding Free Action, because due to changes applied to many spells (e.g. Grease) I do have to make sure it works as intended.

P.S while PnP Free Action has to handle 3 spells SR has to handle 300+ spells, I can't make 300+ separate components! Not to mention that players who want to skip 1-2 spells would take a week to install SR.

P.P.S I'll underline whenever I feel to do so.

Edited by Demivrgvs, 23 December 2009 - 09:22 AM.

[Miloch]

...

You really are an argumentative, ranty person you know .

Well, PnP says "any effects which hinder action or movement, whether magical in origin or not", thus Grease and the Resilient Sphere (which is a sort of Hold Monster, or "improved" Web where instead of webs you have a force shield) do seem to be part of it.

Then having FA prevents all effects but cure only some of them (without any reason) doesn't make sense to me. If for you a sub-optimal implementation is cooler because it's more similar to PnP fine with me, I'm generally for PnP too, but I'll never put PnP before optimal implementaion and gameplay.

And does PnP mention 'immunity to stun'? I don't think it does but you decided to opt for it.

You have just contradicted yourself in a short space, by arguing that Free Action should block any effects which hinder movement, but not stun, which does limit movement.

And it would also seem you're using 3rd or 4th edition rules or something, since the 2e handbook doesn't say anything like what you've quoted. It is not nearly as monolithic, and mentions only certain things. And BG2 is almost entirely 2nd edition rules, despite what you might want to do to make it 3rd edition somehow. Want a 3rd edition engine? Use NWN or something. But I guess it doesn't matter since you're not adhering to PnP as you've said, but what you're described as "optimal implementation" which is vague at best. Your description of what that involves seems like rather an "all or nothing" approach to me, which is not optimal in my opinion. I've already described what's suboptimal about overhauling the format of descriptions.

Maybe I'll look at this again after the holidays, but the unpleasantness that seems to be associated with it pushes it even further down my priority list . Bug fixes or simple translation updates would be one thing, but this seems to be a compatibility option for a specific mod (or two mods by the same authors) which will involve reengineering the existing code somewhat. (Though it'd probably take less time than having to read and respond to threads like this and maybe even be more pleasant... .) It is not my goal to fight and quibble over such trivial things, and I doubt it was Leomar's goal to spark such debate (he was trying to resolve conflicts rather, I'm sure). Anyway, I'd love to banter further, but I've festivities to attend and whatnot. Merry Christmas .

[Demivrgvs]

You really are an argumentative, ranty person you know .

Don't you find strange though that you're the only person to make me act like that? I never had any similar "problem" anywhere with anyone! Well, except perhaps one time with Sikret at Improved Anvil forums.

You have just contradicted yourself in a short space, by arguing that Free Action should block any effects which hinder movement, but not stun, which does limit movement.

If you're not able to see the difference between a Web spell and a Psionic Blast it's not my problem. I'm fine with it blocking stun if you wish, but I'm not fine with it blocking a feeblemind-like attack.


Merry Christmas

Edited by Demivrgvs, 23 December 2009 - 10:12 AM.

[Chevalier]

What you two are discussing is similar to discussing politics. Just what does Free Action mean? Could a godly cast spell over power a little ring? No, if it was the One Ring or some other artifact, other wise I would say Yes. Does stun stop you or does it stop you wanting to move? I guess it might depend on the nature of the stun? To the body or mind? Would a ring of Free Action limit movement while wearing shackles? What would the DM say?

[Shaitan]

That depends on the DM

[Salk]

Hey, arguments between Demi and Miloch (two of my fav modders ever) produced always good results so I welcome any of them, because I know that they are civilized enough people to know where to set the bar, without ever going beyond it.

Merry Xmas to both of them!

[Miloch]

Hey, arguments between Demi and Miloch (two of my fav modders ever) produced always good results so I welcome any of them, because I know that they are civilized enough people to know where to set the bar, without ever going beyond it.

I'm not so sure about that...

You really are an argumentative, ranty person you know .

Don't you find strange though that you're the only person to make me act like that? I never had any similar "problem" anywhere with anyone! Well, except perhaps one time with Sikret at Improved Anvil forums.

This struck me as odd at first, because you two should get along like a house on fire. But then it hit me. There's no way two overwriting, monolithic modders whose DMing idea is "My World and Welcome To It (Or Get Out)" are going to be able to exist in the same game world, so obviously they're going to butt heads.

But, an overwriting, monolithic modder and a flexible modder who doesn't overwrite just might be able to exist in the same world, which is why I tolerate you :pat pat:.

(How's that for setting the bar, Salk? )

I'm fine with it blocking stun if you wish, but I'm not fine with it blocking a feeblemind-like attack.

How magnanimous of you . It does not block feeblemind. To be honest, I'm not married to the idea of it protecting against stun either, and I don't recall exactly why it does, but I think it came down to a technical thing. There was also quite a bit of discussion in both BG1/BG2 fixpack fora (see the bottom of this page for one summary) and I think the majority (at the time anyway) came down saying Free Action should block stun, regardless of what one of the Bioware devs may have said at one time. Like it says there, it may just be a consistency thing, though I may have also tried to give the best interpretation on 2e PnP that I could within the engine constraints.

[Miloch]

Back by popular demand!

*crickets chirping*

Yeah, whatever .

Anyway, I have it on my to-do list to look at this mod (again) with SR/IR and probably DR too (sigh) as well as update translations etc. It could well be I will provide an option to skip updates to vanilla items if SR/IR is installed, which is probably more than SR/IR is willing to offer, but I like compatibility .

Well I've gotten around to looking at this again (I guess) but there really isn't as much to look at as I'd've thought. And I'm wondering why the above suggestion would even be necessary. If you want to patch mod-added items but want SR's vanilla stuff (and descriptions) then install SR after PnP-FA. SR overwrites everything anyway, including the descriptions. If you want PnP-FA's versions, install that after SR.

"But why would you want to install a spell-patching mod after SR? " Several reasons offhand, but one of course is that PnP-FA is in languages besides English, so you might want what descriptions we provide in your own language. Also you might want to patch things to fix bugs or you may want PnP-introduced stuff that SR doesn't offer (though as I've said, there are in fact very few differences here). So attempting to look for SR and/or IR doesn't even seem necessary unless someone can make some argument for it. What I *could* do is make PnP-FA's description-updating component optional. Easy enough, anyway. Slightly harder, but still doable, is I could make the descriptions patch certain things that SR changes. Offhand I don't know what these would be specifically, but maybe duration or something is different for some things.

I don't get much useful commentary when I throw stuff like this out there, so I'll probably just end up doing what I think makes sense. Or more likely, I'll forget about it entirely and wander off to something else...

Also, for the record, both IR's Ring of Free Action and SR's Free Action spell already protect against stun, so I don't know what all the fuss was about there. Unless someone's arguing for removing this from all mods concerned, and quite possibly, the unmodded game (though the game as is frequent, is not always consistent with this). Like I said, I don't really care either way. I suppose I could also provide options to do either and think of some witty way of including protection from stun in, or not in, the description updates by means of a variable or something, but... *yawn*.

[aVENGER]

Just dropping in to say that this mod has become a permanent part of all of my installs ever since it first came out.

Awesome work, Miloch.

[Miloch]

Just dropping in to say that this mod has become a permanent part of all of my installs ever since it first came out.

Thanks for the support, mate . I guess I'll assume from the "crickets chirping" from everyone else that making the descriptions a separate component will suffice. In that case, I'll need just one extra string translated into German and Italian:

@25 = ~Update spell and item descriptions~

If anyone else wants to translate this, the DOS/WeiDU strings are @1-7,13-21 and @25. Here is the full .tra for convenience.
 setup.tra   5.48K   325 downloads

[Setharnas]

@25 = ~Beschreibungen der Zaubersprüche und Gegenstände aktualisieren~

I'd be happy to do the translation, I just don't have a clue about the German spell names (Free Action) - never have played AD&D in anything else but English...

Edited by Setharnas, 05 February 2010 - 01:03 PM.

[Miloch]

I'd be happy to do the translation, I just don't have a clue about the German spell names

The rest of the strings are already translated into German .

[Chevalier]

I too use this mod often.

[Leomar]

@25 = ~Update spell and item descriptions~

@25 = ~Aktualisiere Zauber- und Gegenstandsbeschreibungen~

Greetings Leomar

[Setharnas]

@25 = ~Update spell and item descriptions~

@25 = ~Beschreibungen der Zaubersprüche und Gegenstände aktualisieren~

@25 = ~Aktualisiere Zauber- und Gegenstandsbeschreibungen~

To differentiate a little: I would describe my translation as slightly more neutral in a grammatical sense. Leomar on the other hand is, without question, much more familiar with BG translations to German and probably more "in style", so you might well prefer his version.

[Miloch]

Leomar on the other hand is, without question, much more familiar with BG translations to German and probably more "in style", so you might well prefer his version.

I think he did the rest of the translation, so I'll use his. Also, we can't have umlauts or other accent marks in actual component names or it ends up as garbled text in the WeiDU.log. For other text, they are fine, though if in a DOS/WeiDU prompt, they need to be substituted with other characters so they display properly.