(BG1) Missing race/ class categories

Bhryaen

This is a small group of leftovers from @Balquo's Creature Corrections thread here:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/1283/creature-corrections-0824

OBSERVED:
Outstanding missing categories included:

-INVISIBLE_STALKER
STALKE.CRE

-STATUE
ACHEN.CRE
CAILAN.CRE
FAIZAH.CRE
RANCE.CRE
VAIL.CRE

-XVART
DESTUS.CRE
XVART.CRE
XVART02.CRE
XVART03.CRE
XVART2.CRE
XVART_A.CRE
XVART_B.CRE
XVART_C.CRE
XVARTH.CRE
XVARTSU.CRE
IXVART.CRE

EXPECTED:
Add the new race and class categories and change the CRE files to adopt them.

Avenger_teambg

xvart are actually 0x70 (kobold) race and 0x7c (kobold_xvart) class. Why are they needed to be changed?

Bhryaen

Xvart = !Kobold

Miloch

@Bhryaen - as @Avenger_teambg says, class 0x7c is exclusively for xvarts, as class 0x7a is for kobolds (0x7b for tasloi). All use the 0x70 kobold race but they can be distinguished by class.

A good example of how this is implemented (correctly) in the original game is to look at Larry, Darryl and Darryl(2).

Edit: Incidentally, did anyone else find this not only a bit fourth-wall breaking but containing an unnecessary modernism?

"Hey, Darryl, come quick! These folks want us to sign an ee-lek-tronik autograph for 'em.... (scribble scribble scribble)" (string 18475)

He's not signing an "electronic" autograph after all, but a paper one (which you supposedly can sell but I never got more than 1gp for it).

The fourth-wall reference is from here btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhart

Avenger_teambg

Yes, as Miloch said, xvart, tasloi and kobold all get the same race, but different class for those who want to go racist

Bhryaen

@Miloch @Avenger_teambg
This means that a ranger's Racial Enemy choice of Kobold actually means Kobold, Xvart, and Tasloi... Actually I didn't recognize Tasloi need a new race as well. But, no- or at least checking with NI I do not see a designation for Xvart in either Race or Class. Instead under class you get Kobold, Kobold_Tasloi, and Kobold_Xvart. Why would Tasloi and Xvart be linked that way? Why not just make them unique?

[EDIT] I definitely think the autograph should be meaningful in some other way than a 1gp gag, but I don't mind it as a metagamed spoof... Not that anyone ever recognizes the derivation of the spoof, however...

Miloch

@Bhryaen - I will have to defer to @Avenger_teambg on the racial enemy question. It might be the case, which would be fine with me. Might actually make selecting such a racial enemy useful, heh (usually you can one-hit any of the buggers, except maybe Nexlit... particularly my modded Nexlit ). In any case, your OP says race/class flags. I wasn't aware there was a "new" race for xvarts. I don't see such a race in my build and the xvarts I looked at in the latest build had the right class.

There is a post somewhere (by @Balquo I think) where he recommends adding some of the missing IDS entries (for statue etc.) and that may still need to be addressed.

As for the autograph, the fourth-wall thing is one matter, but my main objection was the "electronic" reference, if for no other reason than it isn't even an electronic autograph but a paper one. If it isn't going to change in the vanilla game (valid enough I suppose) then maybe BG1 NPC should do something about it. What do you think, @cmorgan?

Avenger_teambg

I strongly oppose introducing a new race, it doesn't exist yet.
1. Racial enemy is probably the worst thing, this would nerf that selection.
2. From the class names it is clear what was the original intention.
3. This would open up a precedent for other race splits, which is not really useful and would take up precious slots from really innovative new races.

Bhryaen

@Miloch
Yes, exactly- this is a split from a larger thread called Creature Corrections from Balquo (just put it into Fixed). He had a list of corrections which required race categories that didn't exist, so he offered them to be included- one of which was XVART. Alas, only a few of them didn't make it in (the three in the OP), and since I didn't want to delay releasing the thread to the Fixed forum any longer, I offered to just make this thread to cover the extras. Balquo agreed, so...

Probably better to just make another BG1-D request thread for the autograph to keep the discussion in one place. I'm not so bothered with the oddity of it, but I do see your point. I guess on that one I'm ambivalent, at least until a better bit of dialog is devised to be presented to the GTU thread. Better would be to integrate the new wording with whatever is to be done to make the autograph more special or interesting. Like if it should be presented to Nexlit the Xvart, then the new dialog lines might change from:

Hey, Darryl, come quick! These folks want us to sign an ee-lek-tronik autograph for 'em... *scribble scribble scribble*

to

Hey, Darryl, come quick! These folks want us to sign our autographs for 'em. *scribble scribble scribble* Just look for our biggest fan club in the west hills!

A very hastily composed idea, but you get the gist...

Bhryaen

Avenger_teambg said:

I strongly oppose introducing a new race, it doesn't exist yet.
1. Racial enemy is probably the worst thing, this would nerf that selection.
2. From the class names it is clear what was the original intention.
3. This would open up a precedent for other race splits, which is not really useful and would take up precious slots from really innovative new races.

1. Well, it's also nerfing when you change a spell so it affects only, say, animals rather than humanoids, but if the spell is Charm Animal, kind of not an unjustifiable nerf... I don't expect- and I doubt any other player expects- that when they select Kobold in the Ranger Racial Enemy slot that it applies also to xvarts and tasloi. The description is all about kobolds, and it's not as if kobolds and tasloi are also blue.
2. From the class names it appears to me they just fudged it, maybe making their lives easier at the time. I have no indication of exactly what was intended. However, it was @Balquo who had proposed it, and I assume he had good reason to.
3. I don't know how many precious slots are still available for new races, so I don't know how rare a resource they are that they'd be wasted by letting xvarts be their own race. There also doesn't seem to be any clamor for new races, just this one. Plus I can see plenty of good things to do with xvarts and kobolds that simply haven't been done. Xvarts and tasloi are a fairly underdeveloped part of the BG saga.

Miloch

@Bhryaen - since @Balquo got his changes directly from the BG1 Fixpack (and I wrote the creature corrections) I'm pretty sure we didn't add XVART as a race. The issue with those xvarts listed above is that they had no class or race assigned (forget which, possibly both). They do now, so those at least are fixed. The others might still be outstanding, or as I said, might just need either RACE.IDS or CLASS.IDS amended.

Regarding Larry et al., I would just consider "ee-lek-tronik" a typo. It is an incorrect reference since there is nothing electronic about the autograph. Also I don't much like the idea of changing game dialogue too much (except to correct typos or resolve other unresolvable issues). On the other hand, a mod like BG1 NPC has carte blanche to do just that.

Edit: I will go through the 0914 creatures with Creature Lister and see if they missed anything, and also the .ids files. That is at least one thing I can do without being able to launch the game.

Balquo

@Miloch I saw from a thread from bg1fixpack on G3 that you mentioned the creature corrections is still incomplete.

I only suggested to make Xvart a separate race as I thought that made sense. I did not realise they are part of the tasloi/kobold family.

Miloch

@Balquo - @Avenger_teambg's reasons for not making a separate race are valid. Race is a byte field so it only has 256 possible entries and if xvarts can be distinguished on the basis of their class, that is fine as far as scripting and other purposes.

There were other creature corrections I was working on but that work is on a computer back home I don't have access to right now. As I recall, it had largely to do with undead and golem immunities. I will look over the BGEE list and see if there is anything to be done.

cmorgan

I'll take a look - this might be some sort of TweakPack idea, too. I am afraid that only folks my age will have any chance of getting the gag, but I do know that folks get very antsy when vanilla content is changed, so it probably has to be an optional component. SixofSpade's Diary Corrections made it in as a three option choice - 1. vanilla, 2. logical corrected dates, 3. SoS's Rewrite that incorporates the story as indicated in the game as well as the dates.

Most folks just install #3. But the folks that don't like it are... vehement in their opposition.

Miloch

I doubt though that such a minor thing would make it into Tweaks unless part of a larger "remove fourth-wall-breaking references" component... that someone would have to write, obviously. Honestly, I think it would be fine with just a deletion of "ee-lek-tronik." It makes no sense with the original game dialogue, with the Newhart show, nor with the game or the item you receive.

AndreaColombo

I'll flag @Dave to ask whether it is fine to remove that word from the line, then. However, I believe the whole breaking the fourth wall thing is very much intended with Larry, Darryl and Darryl. I mean, when you ask for an autograph, they take for granted that it is you (the player) asking for it because you're a Newhart fan- CHARNAME obviously has no idea what Newhart is, since it never existed in the game's world. Hence, you (the player) are asking for an autograph that is "electronic" because it's just a bunch of pixels in the game's interface, rather than a physical autograph on paper. It's potentially a fifth wall breakage.

Dave

@AndreaColombo You're right; it's obviously an intentional joke. We'll leave it alone.

Balquo

So we leave Xvarts alone then? So we just need STATUE and INVISIBLE_STALKER into the IDS. I saw this thread here from @Camdawq http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2401/bg2-bgee-bug-duplicate-racial-entries#latest
He they updated 114 NYMPH compared to our 114 FAIRY. NYMPH is probably correct.

@Bhryaen Maybe we should merge that thread and we can add the additional races/classes into Camdawq's code? And if @Miloch finds anything else then we can add that too.

Miloch

AndreaColombo said:

It's potentially a fifth wall breakage.

...ugh

@Balquo - see my comment in that post. The xvarts are set properly (there was at least one, Destus, who was not, but he is now). We should rename the 2nd SHADOW to STATUE as indicated there, and I suppose we may as well add ETTIN for downstream compatibility with BG2(EE)(Fixpack). No need to add NYMPH (and I reversed our addition from my latest Fixpack edit for reasons mentioned in the other post). Not sure where INVISIBLE_STALKER comes from but it is too restrictive for a new race flag (if that's what it is). An invisible stalker is a type of air elemental according to 2nd ed. so we should add those instead if they're not already there (they're in BGEE but not BG1... I flagged the stalker as MIST or something originally, which is suboptimal... will correct).

145 ELEMENTAL (in race.ids)
186 ELEMENTAL_AIR (in class.ids)

Balquo

@Miloch That sounds good.
The majority of these have been already added minus the ones already mentioned.

APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x1000 WYVERN_BIG~ UNLESS ~^0x1000~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x1100 TANARRI~ UNLESS ~^0x1100~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x2300 DEATH_KNIGHT~ UNLESS ~^0x2300~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x6405 DOOM_GUARD~ UNLESS ~^0x6405~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7904 GRAY_OOZE~ UNLESS ~^0x7904~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7D00 ZOMBIE~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Dd]00~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7E00 WEREWOLF~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ee]00~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7E01 WEREWOLF_GREATER~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ee]01~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0xD400 BIRD_INSIDE~ UNLESS ~^0x[Dd]400~

APPEND ~class.ids~ ~171 SPECTRE~ UNLESS ~^171~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~174 MIST~ UNLESS ~^174~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~175 CAT~ UNLESS ~^175~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~182 GOLEM_IRON~ UNLESS ~^182~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~183 GOLEM_FLESH~ UNLESS ~^183~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~184 GOLEM_STONE~ UNLESS ~^184~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~185 GOLEM_CLAY~ UNLESS ~^185~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~189 SPIDER_CENTEOL~ UNLESS ~^189~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~198 ZOMBIE_NORMAL~ UNLESS ~^198~
APPEND ~class.ids~ ~199 FOOD_CREATURE~ UNLESS ~^199~

APPEND ~race.ids~ ~114 FAIRY~ UNLESS ~^114~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~133 SPECTRE~ UNLESS ~^133~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~136 MIST~ UNLESS ~^136~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~137 CAT~ UNLESS ~^137~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~144 GOLEM~ UNLESS ~^144~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~148 ZOMBIE~ UNLESS ~^148~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~149 STATUE~ UNLESS ~^149~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~151 RABBIT~ UNLESS ~^151~

I'm assuming this is all ok as it came from the BG1fixpack.

Miloch

@Balquo - all except race 114 as I mentioned (and which I took out a while ago... you must have an older version). As BG1EE seems to have all the BG2 entries, most of those are moot anyway (BG2 is where they came from, except 114 which is not in BG2 either... 120 FAIRY is already there though).

Miloch

And actually, there are a few missing IDS entries in BGEE:

//These are from BG2 but are not in BGEE (needed for spell summons and new creatures)

APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7F3B SOLAR~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Bb]~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7F3C ANTISOLAR~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Cc]~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0x7F3E FIRE_GIANT~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Ee]~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0xE090 MARILITH~ UNLESS ~^0x[Ee]090~
APPEND ~animate.ids~ ~0xE0F1 GLABREZU~ UNLESS ~^0x[Ee]0[Ff]1~

APPEND ~anisnd.ids~ ~0x7F3B MSOL     CGAMEANIMATIONTYPE_SOLAR~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Bb]~
APPEND ~anisnd.ids~ ~0x7F3C MASL     CGAMEANIMATIONTYPE_ANTI-SOLAR~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Cc]~
APPEND ~anisnd.ids~ ~0x7F3E MFIG     CGAMEANIMATIONTYPE_FIRE_GIANT~ UNLESS ~^0x7[Ff]3[Ee]~
APPEND ~anisnd.ids~ ~0xE090 MTAN     CGAMEANIMATIONTYPE_MARILITH~ UNLESS ~^0x[Ee]090~
APPEND ~anisnd.ids~ ~0xE0F1 MGLA     CGAMEANIMATIONTYPE_GLABREZU~ UNLESS ~^0x[Ee]0[Ff]1~

APPEND ~race.ids~ ~156 SOLAR~ UNLESS ~^156~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~157 ANTISOLAR~ UNLESS ~^157~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~158 PLANATAR~ UNLESS ~^158~
APPEND ~race.ids~ ~159 DARKPLANATAR~ UNLESS ~^159~

Needed for CREs: devagood, plangood, devaevil, planevil, planwish, bpgiafir, demosum1, demosum3.

For that matter, I see no reason not to just add all the animate, anisnd, race and class IDS entries from BG2 (with the Fixpack included). Probably would save trouble down the road.

Also bpgiafir.cre (Hogarl) should be set to race 142 GIANT instead of DWARF (unless he is somehow just a dwarf who looks and fights like a fire giant).

A minor nitpicky thing, but I think the devas and planetars should all be given class CLERIC instead of NO_CLASS. It would mainly figure in scripting - if an opponent wishes to target hostile priests, they would also want to target summoned devas etc., since they cast priest spells. Not sure if anyone will (or should) be able to get to that level of summoning in BG1, but still, won't hurt.

Avenger_teambg

Hogarl is a dwarf giant, or a giant dwarf
Yes, if the devas got priest spells, probably they need to be set to cleric class.
On the other hand, maybe the casting level fix i suggested elsewhere is also effective for clerics?
@SethDavis can you deny or confirm?

SethDavis

@Avenger_teambg - Not sure which fix you're referring to. If it was the one that came up when FLAMING_FIST mages were treated as level 1 then nope, that didn't involve priest spells. Though in double checking if it did or not I fixed it so now it does

but that wouldn't fix the script targeting anyway, so I'll change their class.

SethDavis

@Bhryaen's comment that the autograph should be good for something - Maybe we can work it into a conversation with Sarevok. If you give it to him he'll join your party!

added @Miloch's appends and changed the deva and planetar classes, even though I have no idea what those are

AndreaColombo

@SethDavis - You mean the deva and the planetar?

Avenger_teambg

@Sethdavis yes, i meant that. I thought there was a fix that would treat any caster as 'mage' when a mage casting level is determined, and the class is not a player class.

SethDavis

@Avenger_teambg - Ah, it's not quite like that. It only treats them as a mage if they don't have a class/multiclass that is valid for party members. Now the cleric level check will do the same thing, but treat them as clerics.

@AndreaColombo - Yeah, sorry for being a bit unclear. The appends and class changes made sense, just haven't run across those races in anything I've read yet.

Avenger_teambg

@SethDavis when i wrote 'class is not a player class' it should be the same as 'class/multiclass that is valid for party members'. And yeah, what you say is what i meant for clerics

SethDavis

@Avenger_teambg - O_O I don't know how I did it, but I ignored everything after you said determined. sorry bout that lol

Avenger_teambg

Probably because my english is not perfect. At least here i didn't have a wrong guess about how the engine works and what should be done.