Additional Exclude Caster flags

Grammarsalad

I am interested in any externalization that will allow me to create unique spell lists for bards, sorcerers and mage specialists. I understand that a problem with this is that it is extremely difficult to restrict bards from access to mage spells and mages from possible unique bard spells. I understand that additional exclusions in offset 0x001e in the main header(I don't know the proper terminology), could help simulate this possibly treating bards something like a specialist might do the trick. There appear to be 15 unused bits which I would like to request an exclusion for the following:

Bards
Mages (but not specialists)
Wildmages
Sorcerers
And possibly additional flags for kits and multiclass.
Additionally, I would like to request the ability to use bits 0-5 as alignment exclusions for arcane casters and the ability to use alignment and school exclusions concurrently.

Alternatively or additionally, class specific hidespl.2das would be great.

Thank you

Galactygon

Half a year late but seconded!

The dword at 0x1e of .spl header has plenty of space for extra exclusion flags against bards, wizards, and sorcerers. I would also make a related request to allow alignment exclusion flags (bits0-5) and kit/class exclusion (all other bits) to be used concurrently, which is not possible in the original game.

Grammarsalad

Galactygon said:

Half a year late but seconded!

The dword at 0x1e of .spl header has plenty of space for extra exclusion flags against bards, wizards, and sorcerers. I would also make a related request to allow alignment exclusion flags (bits0-5) and kit/class exclusion (all other bits) to be used concurrently, which is not possible in the original game.

It's never too late! And I welcome the addition!

Demivrgvs

Obviously I second this as well. Unique spell list for bards would be great to have.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Grammarsalad

@subtledoctor I think the engine uses 2 flags for that (exclude cleric/paladin and druid/ranger) where they share the spell list by default. It's been about 6.2 million years since I thought about this, so I could be wrong. Looking at the spl file format in iesdp, though, it looks like it would use bits 30 and 31.

http://iesdp.gibberlings3.net/file_formats/ie_formats/spl_v1.htm#Exclusion_Flags

It looks like there are 15 free bits and there are already exclusions for the specialists.
(Mage + Wildmage)+ (Bard+3 kits) + (Sorcerer + DD) = 8 bits. That leaves 7 bits free. It would be nice--while I'm asking!--to separate druid from ranger and paladin from cleric--though check out kit revisions paladin for a very clever way to simulate this!--for an additional 2 bits. As for the additional five...multiclass? Mage/fighter; mage/thief; mage/cleric; fighter/mage/cleric; fighter/mage/thief.

Grammarsalad

Updated the OP

Grammarsalad

Bumping because it came up.

Edit: so I know if at least one mod that would benefit from this request: @subtledoctor s scales of balance. I also know that it would be helpful to tome and blood as well

billbisco

Yeup. Agreed. More flexibility = Better. This can also be well applied to Specialty Priests. We can have these kits have the ability to memorize different spells, not just add more abilities to the Special Abilities tab like we're usually forced to.