Community Patch discussion and development thread

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

               What I would like to see is a good organized document about what you have changed. I have been leery of using your CP because it seems like you have gone well past just fixing bugs to incorporating preferences.

I would also like to see it to be more modular instead of just one big file, say by breaking it out into things like creature fixes, spell fixes, item fixes, etc.

For example, your discussion about whether traps should have the Stolen flag checked. Traps are marked stolen for a reason and changing that will have unintended consequences.

I saw for example that you changed the alignment of the Skeleton Mage. You did know that in v3.0 of D&D skeletons are in fact neutral in alignment? Now the rest of the skeleton templates have NE for the alignment so your change is consistent with that (as well as v3.5), but you should document it. I cannot tell from your documentation if you also change the alignments of about 2 dozen creatures to fix them to correct values. {Examples would be almost all of the Drow templates have a LE alignment instead of CE, the Duergar have CG instead of LE, the male Fire Giant is not LE, etc.} I also cannot tell if you fixed things like the Satyr's gender should be male instead of female.

So without you documenting your fixes in an organized manner instead of the haphazard fashion you currently are using is a hindrance for those of us who might consider looking into this.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WaterRabbit, 19 avril 2013 - 07:24 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

WaterRabbit wrote...

What I would like to see is a good organized document about what you have changed. I have been leery of using your CP because it seems like you have gone well past just fixing bugs to incorporating preferences.

The documentation which is in my signature should contain all informations about the 1.70 version. I was writing that really many hours and it was a big challenge as english is not my native language. And then I hear, my english is poor, documentation fragmented and scattered... what can I say, I can't do better than that. I know that only I have exact knowledge of what has been changed but this documentation what I produced should be enough to rewrite it into better form. If you know how it should look like you can help. But Im alone on that.

Im atm in the process of writing the complete documentation into the 1.71 version so I take any ideas you give me, but Im not sure I can implement them all. As of it now the documentation for this project become for me much bigger task than I expected and takes a lot of time and nerves. Its lot worse than doing all those changes in first place.

I would also like to see it to be more modular instead of just one big file, say by breaking it out into things like creature fixes, spell fixes, item fixes, etc.

this will not happen as long as I still be part of the NWN community. Until I leave, I do not approve any modularity its against the basic principles of patch. If you don't approve my goal you can still rip parts of CP for your own PW. If you dont like specific changes that I have done we can discuss it, Ive been answering complaints of many peoples already and they accepted my reasons why I did that - or I changed or reconsidered that.

For example, your discussion about whether traps should have the Stolen flag checked. Traps are marked stolen for a reason and changing that will have unintended consequences.

yes, it was only idea that I had to drop because of that. Its a shame that I cannot implement anything that somewhat seriously changes current behavior (I had to remove many AI changes because "our casters cast differently now") but in this case there is actually no gain of that feature so no reason to push it into CP.

I saw for example that you changed the alignment of the Skeleton Mage. You did know that in v3.0 of D&D skeletons are in fact neutral in alignment? Now the rest of the skeleton templates have NE for the alignment so your change is consistent with that (as well as v3.5), but you should document it.

I did not know that because I was unable to find 3.0 rules for skeleton monster. I found the inconsistency between mage and other skeletons and thought this is error, the 3.5 rules mention NE for all of them so I did it. But even if the default alignment is correct per 3.0 rules, I still intent to keep it as it make no sense. In the readme I specified the source for that change as 3.5, so I might change the wording to avoid words as "bugged" or "fix" and make it "changed" okay?

I cannot tell from your documentation if you also change the alignments of about 2 dozen creatures to fix them to correct values. {Examples would be almost all of the Drow templates have a LE alignment instead of CE, the Duergar have CG instead of LE, the male Fire Giant is not LE, etc.} I also cannot tell if you fixed things like the Satyr's gender should be male instead of female.

no I ve done only what I mentioned in readme, the skeleton alignment change applies only for skeleton mage, other skeletons were NE already. I did that based on game experiences when I was surprised that smite evil doesnt work on skeleton mage. I didnt checked each creature one by one and compared by the 3.5 rules. The other 3.5 changes comes from NWN Enhanced from Pstemarie which allowed me to incorporate them. I ve seen it as a good idea that harms nothing. If you tell me that there there is a reason why spectre in NWN is as it is and that it isn't good change I can revert it, no problem.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 19 avril 2013 - 10:44 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...
I was writing that really many hours and it was a big
challenge as english is not my native language. And then I hear, my english is
poor, documentation fragmented and scattered... what can I say, I can't do
better than that. I know that only I have exact knowledge of what has been
changed but this documentation what I produced should be enough to rewrite it
into better form.

I am not concerned that your English is poor, what I am
concerned about is that your documentation is incomplete. I am also concerned that you do not
explain why you have made some of the changes you have as they do not seem to
be bugs.

An example of good documentation practices:

<-- Creatures -->

Skeleton Mage (nw_skelmage): Changed alignment to Neutral
Evil (Bug), Added Improved Initiative to match MM creature.

<-- Items -->

Keen and Holy Avenger properties enabled for the Magic Staff
Base Item (Non-Canon Preference Change) [Why, as neither of these properties
are allowed on staves in either D&D v3.0 or v3.5?]

All non-epic spells can be placed into wand in toolset now.
(Non-Canon Preference Change) [This is not allowed in D&D, so why did you
think this needed to be changed?.]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

this will not happen as long as I still be part of the NWN
community. Until I leave, I do not approve any modularity its against the basic
principles of patch. If you don't approve my goal you can still rip parts of CP
for your own PW.

 All of your features should be in a different HAK as they
are not bug fixes, they are optional changes that go against the idea of a
community patch. Your project then becomes more like SkyRe instead of something
like the Unofficial Skyrim Patch.

Some of your changes I like such as the Variable Names which
disable class choices on level up. However, these are not bugs bug they are
features and should be at the option of the builder to include or not.

A modular organization of your material also makes it easier
to maintain as new 'bugs' are discovered. Also, no one is going to take the
time to rip out parts of your work. They will just fix the few things that are
bugging them in particular.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I did not know that because I was unable to find 3.0 rules
for skeleton monster. I found the inconsistency between mage and other
skeletons and thought this is error, the 3.5 rules mention NE for all of them
so I did it.

If you did not know why do you then state this as fact in
your documentation? Such things call into question your other design decisions.
Also since NWN is a v3.0 game, you should be careful about incorporating v3.5
data. I agree that the alignment change for the skeleton is a good change,
but...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I ve done only what I mentioned in readme, the skeleton
alignment change applies only for skeleton mage, other skeletons were NE
already. I did that based on game experiences when I was surprised that smite
evil doesnt work on skeleton mage. I didnt checked each creature one by one and
compared by the 3.5 rules. The other 3.5 changes comes from NWN Enhanced from Pstemarie
which allowed me to incorporate them. I ve seen it as a good idea that harms
nothing. If you tell me that there there is a reason why spectre in NWN is as
it is and that it isn't good change I can revert it, no problem.

There are about 81 bugs in the creature temples that deal
with alignment, gender, and race that I can find just casually glancing at
them. So if you are going to change the skeleton mage and specter, why not also
change the alignment of  the Drow,
Druegar, Mummies, Wraith Spider, and so forth. I can send you a list, but I
assumed that you were working off a list of bugs found in the game.

The alignment of the Spectre is LE in v3.0, so this is an
actual bug fix. But if you are going to add Blind-Fight and Improved Initiative
to the Specter, why didn't you add Improved Initiative to the Skeleton as well?
You can find the information for this on page 165 of the v3.0 Monster Manual.
By your reasoning shouldn't you also add Blind-Fight and Improved Initiative to
the Wraith and change its alignment to LE (which is as listed in the v3.0 Monster
Manual)?

So what this boils down to is this really a Community Patch
(and how complete is it really) or should it be called NWN ShadDo0ow Pack? I
would hate to see all of your hard work to fix bugs basically be ignored
because it is perceived as mostly a feature pack instead of a patch. You could
go a long way towards dispelling this notion by documentation and
modularization. As it stands, it is difficult to judge how radical a change it
will make to the game.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WaterRabbit, 20 avril 2013 - 02:39 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

WaterRabbit wrote...
what I am concerned about is that your documentation is incomplete.

the documentation for the initial 1.70 should be absolutely complete. At least in a sense of a actual changed done. I dont think I miss a single one, and I don't think you can prove me wrong. If you are talking about further 1.71 development, thats a different story and its in a beta phase so this shouldnt be a big issue specifically when I was writing a strict version notes on these forums.

I am also concerned that you do not explain why you have made some of the changes you have as they do not seem to be bugs.

seriously I dont think I am obligated to do that. I have various reasons. Time constraits perhaps the most important for me, then almost everything is as of now in the NWN Wiki where I written it myself mostly. Take a look at a long list of issues, bugs and weird behavior below each spell. And those are only visible problems and invisible - that happens between scripts such as wrong ID in signal event arent written there. Same as VFX issues - missing VFXes, duplicated VFXes etc. And then there is a reason of security. I could definitely tell all the word how to make all those exploits I claim to fix. But how would you treat me and this project after that? Seriously.

Keen and Holy Avenger properties enabled for the Magic Staff
Base Item (Non-Canon Preference Change) [Why, as neither of these properties
are allowed on staves in either D&D v3.0 or v3.5?]

All non-epic spells can be placed into wand in toolset now.
(Non-Canon Preference Change) [This is not allowed in D&D, so why did you
think this needed to be changed?.]

It is not needed but at the same time there is no reason not to do it. Tell me, what this extra feature for builders changes? CP doesnt force anyone to use it. Same goes for adjustable traps, spell-related override features, same for the variable names for class disabling you mentioned. Tell me one reason why this shouldnt be included in CP, imo it fits the theme, and there is no harm done to those not intend to ever use those features. Absolutely dont agree they would go against the community patch idea, where you get that?

If you did not know why do you then state this as fact in
your documentation? Such things call into question your other design decisions.
Also since NWN is a v3.0 game, you should be careful about incorporating v3.5
data. I agree that the alignment change for the skeleton is a good change,
but...
...

I see, Ive written:

Skeleton mage - alignment changed from true neutral to neutral evil (all other skeletons are evil, also both 3.0&3.5 rules list this)

[/i]I dont remember, I have the 3.0 material but cannot find skeleton right now, can you point me the 3.0 source for skeleton mage then? I would like to be sure I checked it before I stated that, but Im not now its more than year ago.

For the other two "3.5" changes. I said that already the spectre and wraith improvements were taken from the NWN Enhanced project with a permission from Pstemarie. I havent specifically seek monster blueprints and converting them into 3.5 - thats not practicable as it would change balance seriously the 50%-100% immunitieis and so on. Thats the reason why I didnt included other monster blueprints from NWNEnhanced mainly. I dont remember if there were drows with different alignment, the question you gave me might be also taken to former NWNEhanced members. I simply took what I found useable and not significant enought to make disagreement. Keep in mind that this project started as a collection of a fixes from vault.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

                To continue on some other points:

ShaDoOoW wrote...I did not know that because I was unable to find 3.0 rules for skeleton monster.

BTW, the SRD for D&D 3.0 is online and can be found through a simple Google search.The SRD can be found at http://www.opengamin...on.org/srd.html

There are also online sources for items not released in the SRD such as items in the Splatbooks and Epic Level Handbook.

ShaDoOoW wrote...As of it now the documentation for this project become for me much bigger task than I expected and takes a lot of time and nerves. Its lot worse than doing all those changes in first place.

Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along. Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from being overlooked.

ShaDoOoW wrote...this will not happen as long as I still be part of the NWN community. Until I leave, I do not approve any modularity its against the basic principles of patch.

You may not have intended it, but this statement reeks of arrogance. It would be better if you explained why modularity is against the basic principles of the patch. From the perspective of someone that programs for a living this point of view violates good programming practices, so it would be interesting to understand why.

I have read through the documentation in your signature and it looks to me as if the vast majority of the changes you have made are personal design choices and enhancements. It looks like less than 25% of this project is actual bug fixes. It is clear that many of the design changes you have made show a lack of understanding between the D&D v3.0 ruleset and the D&D v3.5 ruleset. I would strongly recommend that you pull up a copy of the SRD 3.0 and check your changes against it.

As an example, in your FAQ you claim that Devastating Critical does not need the Weapon Focus feat, which in fact Weapon Focus has always been a requirement for this feat.

I would refer you to this online source: http://dndtools.eu/f...critical--597/.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WaterRabbit, 20 avril 2013 - 03:26 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               @WaterRabbit You wrote

Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along. Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from being overlooked.

I believe you to be in error here. Good programming practice is to write the documentation before you write a single line of code so that you know precisely what you are supposed to be making and not go off on a tangent. First you write the manual, then you write the design documentation. Finally you write the self-documenting code. And yes I have left out loads of steps that are not germane to this discussion.

TR
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

WaterRabbit wrote...

BTW, the SRD for D&D 3.0 is online and can be found through a simple Google search.The SRD can be found at http://www.opengamin...on.org/srd.html

There are also online sources for items not released in the SRD such as items in the Splatbooks and Epic Level Handbook.

ok thanks I found it, I have offline copy of this already but somehow I missed the skeleton in monsters-S, now I found it and seems we both were wrong in 3.0 all skeletons are neutral. Thus you were wrong, the mage is no exception and I was wrong claiming my "change" is also per 3.0 rules. At any rate I believe my change is good. There were only two options how to change it, either way to change mage to NE or all other skeletons to neutral. We would be doing this coversation even if I did opposite, dont you say its not true. And if not you then someone else. The NE makes more sense to me and 3.5 is patch for 3.0. Heck the 3.0 is abadoned, the NWN might still use it but PnP players hardly stick to it anymore. Furthermore this project goal wasn't to update NWN to 3.5 rules. The 3.5 rules were used only in case there was a bug, or weird behavior that I wanted to change. More on this topic below.

ShaDoOoW wrote...As of it now the documentation for this project become for me much bigger task than I expected and takes a lot of time and nerves. Its lot worse than doing all those changes in first place.

Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along. Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from being overlooked.

Again. I did that, its written in the strict format here in this topic as a list of changes done in current release. However Im rewritting it into more detailed format and now I also have to specifiy which change is in initial 1.70 and which is from 1.71 and incorporate it together into right categories. Since a lot of content in 1.71 I had to totally rework some parts of documentation and now I am working on a better spell-related documentation which was released only as a txt file till now. Since the spells contains majority of bug fixes and improvements its a long way home.

ShaDoOoW wrote...this will not happen as long as I still be part of the NWN community. Until I leave, I do not approve any modularity its against the basic principles of patch.

You may not have intended it, but this statement reeks of arrogance. It would be better if you explained why modularity is against the basic principles of the patch. From the perspective of someone that programs for a living this point of view violates good programming practices, so it would be interesting to understand why.

Good programming practice? Wow, nice argument, can't counter it. Can you proof it however? It is open source and it is open to any modification you make. What is now allowed is a redistributing a parts of a content on a vault. I see nothing here that would go against programming practice, but well, I learned programming thanks to NWN and I dont havy any school for that so maybe you're right. But please bring some explanations for things you write first. You blame me for not explaining why I did what I did and then you came in here and do the same, saying this is wrong but not explaining why. Think about it.

Now to the question: Because I wanted to make a new standard. Not to create a several packages of fixes and let anyone to choose what is right but to make a real patch. I dont remember since when Bioware gave us choice to update only certain things from patch. In most cases builder could redo them - this is true for a CP, you can redo them, modify them disable them whatever. Its not about content at all its about the idea. If you dont approve the idea of centralized package that acts like a patch then we have nothing to talk about. Now - we can agree or disagree on the actual content but we will never agree - I mean we two maybe do, but there is around 10 other NWN experienced builders which will not. But again, its not about content, there is more than a thousand changes, what are the odds that someone like them all? How many builders liked the 1.69? Some builders doesn't updated the somatic components on bard spells some doesn't like the way how the creature space work (which can be done nothing about btw). And so on. I realized I cannot gratify peoples like The Krit. They will always know better. The problem is that they doesnt event want to help. They do not care about this project in any other way than wish to be refused globally. This seems to not happen, and Im doing it now (1.71) for those who want to use it. One other reason why I dont approve modularity is what Ive seen in Jagged Alliance 2. The community was given source, community organized and produced community patch it was wonderful, many new features improvements possibilities. But with further developement there was more and more options, more and more switches and unlimited way to alter anything. Nobody knows whats a standard anymore, everyone plays a different game. I do now wish this to happen in NWN. And my recent thoughts to start with NWN2 convinced me Im doing a right thing. Look at it this way. You are new to this game, you dont know any of the issues any of the limits you want a stable base. You heard on wiki there are many bugged things. Now you can spend around year to know them and fix them myself or to look for fixes on vault, or you can take a CP and then modify anything that comes with it and doesnt suit you. For me, the absence of something like a CP is a biggest con of the NWN2. I do not wish to spend another year to learning the game.

I have read through the documentation in your signature and it looks to me as if the vast majority of the changes you have made are personal design choices and enhancements. It looks like less than 25% of this project is actual bug fixes. It is clear that many of the design changes you have made show a lack of understanding between the D&D v3.0 ruleset and the D&D v3.5 ruleset. I would strongly recommend that you pull up a copy of the SRD 3.0 and check your changes against it.

First at all this project has not declared to change nwn into 3.5 or 3.0 ruleset. The DnD ruleset is used only when there is a discrepacy, bug or unlogical behavior that I felt needs to be changed. Then I used DnD ruleset - because if I werent you would blame me for that - (and because I actually believe in 3.5 rightness). Now what is bug or not depends on a definition. I found a bug to be anything that is not logical. Even if its how Bioware intented it to work. Some other guys defining a bug differently. You seem to be one of them. I believe that having two concepts of how metamagic work is a bug. Therefore I united it  And I choose the later decision from bioware that came with HotU expansion that is empower only dice. Similar with other most critized and my own made up feature of changing the order of spell mantle.
Now why I did that.
First at all, the spell mantle is a made up concept by the Bioware, probably meant to replace spell deflection. It is a good idea though the metamagic inside is weird and do not match any other spell like that (and thats why lesser empowered versions are normally better then higher - but that doesnt apply in CP because of metamagic unification btw). Anyway, ingame these spells are very limited easy to penetrate and generally weak. The fact that spell mantle is determined first before SR and spel immunity is imo most crucial. Because of this, even if you are rakshasa immune to any 8< spell levels, a sorcerer only need Flame Arrow spell (another made up which doesnt work but nevermind) to completely strip that from you. Also, a cleric can cat battletide and move front, back and front again and each time he decreases 5levels from you spell mantle. Not to mention the exploit where he can strip 9levels instead of five but nevermind. Now my change as illogical it may look strenghten spell mantles and forces casters to prepare also dispell/breach spells instead of Flame Arrow or other exploitation tactics. Thus balancing a bit wizards vs sorcerers. I take the argument of the Krit that spell mantle is a barrier in front of other defenses and I do not claim this to be fix for anything. But I encourage anyone to try this in environment and then tell me game experiences. The mantle now also ignore AOE spells which gives them more strength but also improves spell mantle as it wont go away after two rounds in evards. And it goes with DnD rules if we assume the Spell Deflection be the source for spell mantle spells. Either way due to complaints I added a module switch to revert this feature.

Anyway - if you want to continue with a discussion about changes Ive done I think a PM would be better, this looks like a flame war or spam now, although probably none of us meant to. I was answering question like this privately already and mostly I proved my point. If I didnt I removed/reverted that feature or modified it to avoid problems in past. Unfortunately you came too late. I am not willing to remove extra features you consider to be wrong. If you were there before two years when I was developing the initial CP it might happen differently. But now its too late for such changes even if I would agreed you are right about it.

As an example, in your FAQ you claim that Devastating Critical does not need the Weapon Focus feat, which in fact Weapon Focus has always been a requirement for this feat.

I would refer you to this online source: http://dndtools.eu/f...critical--597/.

Quote from documentation par Frequently Misinterpreted/Misunderstood Features/Fixes:

Why Patch 1.70 made Devastating Critical feat easier to attain?
 It didn't. The Patch simply corrected the description to match the
game behavior, devastating critical never needed Weapon focus feat,
although it has been written in the earlier patches in the feat's ingame
description.

So now you proved you are great expert on a DnD rules but you don't know NWN well.

Devastating critical in NWN never needed weapon focus. CP only removed that information from description as it is not correct.

Why you ask? Because I had not other choice. I could add the weapon focus into prerequisities but then hell would happen and I would be blamed by many those who doesnt blame me now. Why - because if I added weapon focus, it could ruin many pre-existing characters which were built without it (DD/RDD build is a good example of that). CP cannot change anything that would made already existing character invalid. (now it is true, I did similar change with Planar Turning feat which WM gets like a epic bonus feat but the chance that anyone ever used it is small enough to risk the wrath of the players.)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               Btw if you like I can send you link to incomplete current documentation for 1.71 which Im working on. Its not complete yet so Im not publicing it but if you want to help me, suggest how to change it go here: http://gt.neverwinte...ow/full171.html

It would be nice if someone unbiased such as you tried to rewrite the official documentation from me in some way on NWN Wiki. The current info is not accurate, incomplete, missing and resorted by The Krit's way of seeing things.

EDIT: one more point ot this topic:

Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along.
Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from
being overlooked.

Its hard to find it here now in this spam but if you download the latest betaversion from project page inside there is a strict documentation containing all these posts I written here in a format similar to the Bioware official patch notes. Its very brief documentation without reasoning but all the changes since 1.70 initial should be listed here and Im working the deailed documentation from this.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 20 avril 2013 - 09:26 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

               

Tarot Redhand wrote...

@WaterRabbit You wrote

Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along. Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from being overlooked.

I believe you to be in error here. Good programming practice is to write the documentation before you write a single line of code so that you know precisely what you are supposed to be making and not go off on a tangent. First you write the manual, then you write the design documentation. Finally you write the self-documenting code. And yes I have left out loads of steps that are not germane to this discussion.

TR

You are being pedantic. You are trying to draw an inference about design in general, when I was just concerned about a very narrow aspect of it, which seemed even that minimal documentation was not being practiced.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               Not at all. It is the writing of things as you go along (your description, not mine) that produces horrendously bad manuals, etc. and then you described it as good practice... I could not in all honesty let that pass. To document inside your code in that manner is good, as is the practice of making as many comments, as possible, to a greater or lesser degree, redundant by making your code self documenting. But you did not say that. You made a broad, sweeping generalisation with implications that went far beyond the scope of your argument.

TR
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Thus you were wrong, the mage is no exception

I would refer you to my initial post.

WaterRabbit wrote...
You did know that in v3.0 of D&D skeletons are in fact neutral in alignment?

There is no specific entry for a Skeleton Mage in the v3.0 SRD. At least do me the courtesy of reading my post a second time before you tell me that I am wrong.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Again. I did that, its written in the strict format here in this topic as a list of changes done in current release. <snip>

Good, I was left with a different impression based upon your comments.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Good programming practice? Wow, nice argument, can't counter it. Can you proof it however?  <snip> I see nothing here that would go against programming practice, but well, I learned programming thanks to NWN and I dont havy any school for that so maybe you're right. But please bring some explanations for things you write first. You blame me for not explaining why I did what I did and then you came in here and do the same, saying this is wrong but not explaining why.

I find it funny that you ask this question since in your own post you actually make the argument for it. Instead of taking my word for it, maybe you should just take a programming class. Or just take a look at how Project Q implements their work.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Jagged Alliance 2 discussion

Let us start out with first, you are not Bioware. Second, you are confusing a patch with an update. Third, just because the JA2 did things one way doesn't mean anything. I would again refer you to the TES community in which Unofficial Patches are the norm and do not cause the problems you may have observed in the JA2 community. Fourth, you make the argument for modularity, "I realized I cannot gratify peoples like The Krit." Yes you could by releasing you work into three HAKs: A bug fix HAK, a Enhancement HAK, and a House Rules HAK. Frankly I would prefer to see even more modularity, something akin to how Project Q does things.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
First at all this project has not declared to change nwn into 3.5 or 3.0 ruleset. <snip>

NWN is based upon the v3.0 rule set. NWN2 is based upon the v3.5 rule set. If you make your decision based upon the v3.5 rule set you are introducing bugs not squashing them.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
First at all, the spell mantle is a made up concept by the Bioware, probably meant to replace spell deflection. <snip>

<facepalm>
There are so many errors here.

Spell Mantle is specific to NWN. That is correct. Spell Mantle is also not a very useful spell for a PC character.
Spell Deflection is a Baldur's Gate spell and based upon 2e rules at that.
Spell Turning would be the spell that more closely resembles the argument you are trying to make.
You are trying to reprogram spell interactions based upon a contrived edge case. A cleric yo-yoing a Wizard with Battletide is wasting his time. Because Battletide has such a large radius he is playing into a Wizard's strengths.
Flame Arrow is not a made up spell, but a standard 3rd Level Wizard spell in 3e. A single casting of Flame Arrow will not take down a Lesser Spell Mantle (even if a 1 is rolled on the d4). On average it would take 3 castings, which would be a waste of time for the Sorcerer.
Why is a Rakshasa wasting spells casting a Spell Mantle exactly? This is another contrived case.
Spell Immunity is, by definition, unbeatable Spell Resistance. (Though perhaps not by implementation.)

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Devastating critical in NWN never needed weapon focus. CP only removed that information from description as it is not correct.
Why you ask? Because I had not other choice. I could add the weapon focus into prerequisities <snip>

<Sigh> I did not explain this well. It would have been better and less controversial if you had written:
"Because of how Feats are implemented in NWN a feat may only have two prerequisite feats. In D&D, both Devastating Critical and Overwhelming Critical have a three feat requirement, so one of them, Weapon Focus in this case, was not implemented. I have changed the description of the feat to make this more clear."
--------------------------------
However, this is all moot at this point. You inclusion of your own House Rules (which I posted two examples earlier which you chose not to address) means that your work has little value to me. It is also clear that your are also not interested in creating a comprehensive patch, perhaps because you have spent so much time creating house rules.

If you have paid any attention at all to the D&D community, you would understand why House Rules create such an uproar. The problem is that not all of your House Rules (however well thought out) are not applicable to every game a designer wishes to create and may conflict with the House Rules of that designer. If you wish to release a community patch which has only bug fixes (or one with some degree of modularity), then I could get behind it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WaterRabbit]

               

Tarot Redhand wrote...

Not at all. It is the writing of things as you go along (your description, not mine)

You are misquoting me and this is the crux of the issue.

WaterRabbit wrote...
Good programming and design practices are to document as you go along. Not only does it make the work more manageable, it prevents items from being overlooked.

There is in fact a difference between writing and documenting.

Tarot Redhand wrote...
that produces horrendously bad manuals, etc. and then you described it as good practice... I could not in all honesty let that pass. To document inside your code in that manner is good, as is the practice of making as many comments, as possible, to a greater or lesser degree, redundant by making your code self documenting. But you did not say that. You made a broad, sweeping generalisation with implications that went far beyond the scope of your argument.

TR

You inferred that my statement was broad, it was not.

The fact you chose to start out with "I believe you are in error here". Makes your statement not only pedantic but confrontational. Instead, you could have started out with, "I would also add" or "I would consider good programming practices to be".

If you had we would also have been in 100% agreement and not had this back and forth.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

WaterRabbit wrote...

At least do me the courtesy of reading my post a second time before you tell me that I am wrong.

right sorry, i had misread it at first sorry about that

I find it funny that you ask this question since in your own post you actually make the argument for it. Instead of taking my word for it, maybe you should just take a programming class. Or just take a look at how Project Q implements their work.

actually I have some classes. Two years at high school. One year at IT college. But no titul - thats what I meant. Maybe things changed or maybe we in europe learn different things, but no I still dont know what you mean or what has programming to do with this project. Could you be more specific? More about Q? I of course know how they do things, Ive downloaded their work but I dont know what you refer to, hak sorting?

Let us start out with first, you are not Bioware.

Yes, you hit the nail.on the head. Thats the crucial argument of all dislikers of this project, althought noone said it loudly yet. Question is if you think it is a fair argument. Bioware left and I started a project that anyone from community could contribute and shape it. Where were you all then?[/quote]

Second, you are confusing a patch with an update.

thats possible, I have no clue whats the difference, could you enlighten me? And please do not point me to the wikipedia or some link, tell exactly. I want to hear that from you.

Third, just because the JA2 did things one way doesn't mean anything. I would again refer you to the TES community in which Unofficial Patches are the norm and do not cause the problems you may have observed in the JA2 community.

Could take your own argument, because TES did things one way doesnt mean anything, but again could you be more specific? I have no interest of learning how TES members made their unofficial patches. You seem to know that so speak freely.

Fourth, you make the argument for modularity, "I realized I cannot
gratify peoples like The Krit." Yes you could by releasing you work into
three HAKs: A bug fix HAK, a Enhancement HAK, and a House Rules HAK.
Frankly I would prefer to see even more modularity, something akin to
how Project Q does things.

you realise that this project doesnt use hak packs but bif files? the modularity with BIF files is impossible technically and using haks would made several issues with compatibility. Using core data files were the only way this project could act like it to be an official patch and be compatible with anything (in the sense not breaking anything, just like official always patches worked).

ShaDoOoW wrote...
First at all, the spell mantle is a made up concept by the Bioware, probably meant to replace spell deflection. <snip>

<facepalm>
There are so many errors here.

Spell Mantle is specific to NWN. That is correct. Spell Mantle is also not a very useful spell for a PC character.
Spell Deflection is a Baldur's Gate spell and based upon 2e rules at that.
Spell Turning would be the spell that more closely resembles the argument you are trying to make.
You are trying to reprogram spell interactions based upon a contrived edge case. A cleric yo-yoing a Wizard with Battletide is wasting his time. Because Battletide has such a large radius he is playing into a Wizard's strengths.
Flame Arrow is not a made up spell, but a standard 3rd Level Wizard spell in 3e. A single casting of Flame Arrow will not take down a Lesser Spell Mantle (even if a 1 is rolled on the d4). On average it would take 3 castings, which would be a waste of time for the Sorcerer.
Why is a Rakshasa wasting spells casting a Spell Mantle exactly? This is another contrived case.
Spell Immunity is, by definition, unbeatable Spell Resistance. (Though perhaps not by implementation.)

Facepalm returned, after reading this what you written I am under impression you never played NWN actually. I would like to know where are you from - which PW you are admin of, or if you are player which NWN servers you ever played at.
and, yes I meant Spell Turning, I simply didnt bothered to check SRD to be extra sure, I supposed you wont take any chance to prove me wrong or to prove your dominancy
and, yes Flame Arrow by the name is real spell in SRD, but the implementation is made up by Bioware

Fortunately for peoples like you, and I mentioned it already, there is a module switch you can set to revert this Spell Mantle feature into default behavior. I had similar discussion with someone else and I accepted the arguments why this is not a fix but a balance change. Yes it is a balance change and because of that there is a way to disable it. I still believe it is better, but if you arent willing to try it you cant say otherwise.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Devastating critical in NWN never needed weapon focus. CP only removed that information from description as it is not correct.
Why you ask? Because I had not other choice. I could add the weapon focus into prerequisities <snip>

<Sigh> I did not explain this well. It would have been better and less controversial if you had written:
"Because of how Feats are implemented in NWN a feat may only have two prerequisite feats. In D&D, both Devastating Critical and Overwhelming Critical have a three feat requirement, so one of them, Weapon Focus in this case, was not implemented. I have changed the description of the feat to make this more clear."

How is this controversial? i found this problem only for those who has no knowledge of NWN. See, I was already accused Im doing devastating easier to attain. Your complaint is no different. Same with another dozen issues. Ignorancy rules the word. Peoples obviously do not know how this works, but they know I am wrong and I did a stupidity changing that. Almost everything is now (also, thanks to me) at NWN Wiki. You can read that devastating critical do not need weapon focus, you can read that the prerequisities for epic spell - to cast lvl 9 spells is ignored and replaced by 21lvl of caster class.

--------------------------------
However, this is all moot at this point. You inclusion of your own House Rules (which I posted two examples earlier which you chose not to address) means that your work has little value to me. It is also clear that your are also not interested in creating a comprehensive patch, perhaps because you have spent so much time creating house rules.

If you have paid any attention at all to the D&D community, you would understand why House Rules create such an uproar. The problem is that not all of your House Rules (however well thought out) are not applicable to every game a designer wishes to create and may conflict with the House Rules of that designer. If you wish to release a community patch which has only bug fixes (or one with some degree of modularity), then I could get behind it.

I become tired. You are not a first who claims my project is "only stupid House Rules" package. It also seems like you came here with already shaped opinion.
I dont see those two examples you speak about, you mean the dev crit or what?

Please name the features you consider to be House Rule specifically in a list. I will tell you my arguments why I think they are not. But if you are already decided, dont bother.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Frith5]

               My goodness, man. For something that 'has little value' to you, you are spending quite a bit of time complaining about it. This project is strictly optional. If you don't like the documentation, help him fix it, don't use it, or whatever. This seems a bit like trolling...

JFK
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ShadowM]

               +1 what Frith5 said. Either get in and help on this personal project that the owner is not getting paid to make, make your own, don't use it.