This script has had a major rework to utilize the new script commands in version 1.60+. Included is an .erf file with the script set (yl_nostack.erf), a small mod demonstrating the script set (yl_stackable.mod), and a readme file. The .erf and .mod are flagged SOU only. I have also included a zipped file which contains all of the .nss source files. These can be opened with any text editor and then copied and pasted into the toolset to work in classic NWN or HotU only. Please see the readme for further information.
I am pretty sure this will work with 1.62 (I think I tested it with that patch). I haven't tested it with HotU; however, the patch 1.62 changed all of the caps for the previous versions as well. As far as I know the 28 stat cap is a hard cap. If it is not, it will not affect the script since there is nothing in it to take care of that cap. Things just don't work as planned near the cap.
Also, was the Ability Score cap raised? I see in yout readme that scores over 28 aren't read/registered. With the addition of HotU and the epic Great (Ability Score) feats, someone that starts a half-orc with a 20 strength (18 base, +2 racial modifier) and only uses his ability score modifiers at every 4 levels would have a 30 strength at level 40, and the adding the Great (Ability Score) feat could reach a base of 40 if they took it 10 times. This sounds extreme, but it is possible.
Is this compatible with 1.62? I'd like a way from keeping players to stack up on ability score bonuses and this seems great, but I'm patched up to 1.62.
Posted by Clarion de Laffalot ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2004-03-21 11:33:00
Man, you don't have any idea how I've searched for some script like this!
Doh!
Meraxes, you are correct. I goofed. The functions should be as you state in your second message. I will correct the instructions. If you put those functions (the proper function calls :) ) into the module, the script set should work fine.
I apologize for the inconvinence.
Thanks for the catch.
Aha! I think you might have a typo in your instructions..
You said to use:
"GetLastPCItemEquippedBy()"
"GetLastPCItemUnequippedBy()"
But I THINK you meant to say to use:
GetPCItemLastEquippedBy(), which is used for
// Use this to get the player character who last equipped an item in OnPlayerEquipItem..
and GetPCItemLastUnequippedBy()
// Use this to get the player character who last unequipped an item in OnPlayerUnEquipItem..
Both of which return a player object... Is this correct?
This is odd..
I just tried adding this to my world, but have a strange problem..
I do not seem to have two of your functions in my world... it's possible I have overwritten one of bioware's standard includes that now adds this but I can't seem to figure out which one..
Where would I find the following functions (required by your script)
"GetLastPCItemEquippedBy()"
and the corresponding
"GetLastPCItemUnequippedBy()"
Torias
Currently, the only things that this script set takes into consideration are ability enhancements (STR, INT, etc.) from items and spells (potions being a form of spells). One ring and one amulet of +2 INT when both are worn should not give a +4 to INT as they do with the Aurora engine. Rather, they should only give a +2 INT. This script set fixes those types of issues. Specific class abilities and feats that may cause ability enhancement haven't been looked at. The Aurora engine does a good job of not stacking armor class bonuses but fails in the stacking of ability enhancements.
Hope this answers your question.
YL
Posted by Torias. ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2004-01-03 09:06:00
Given any thought to allowing some things to stack when they should be allowed to?
most notable is that barbarian rage and Dwarven Defender defencive stance bonuses should stack with magical bonuses, since they are different types.
Got slightly destracted, I'll probably put it up sometime this weekend if I can solve some bugs (started working on Keen Edge, and the (greater) Magic Weapon spells to bring them in-line with the D&D guide, few bugs to iron out those, but 4 spells fixed seems a bit more like a script than a few lines of code changed, might throw in improved invisibility which is currently about as good as normal invisibility.
For now it's 3am, and I should be in bed *grins*, any pointers to other broken spells would be handy though :)
NoMercy
Thanks for the heads up. I will take a look at the Divine Power spell. You are correct that there are no handles for this spell as I was unaware of how it worked.
The caster's strength should be taken to 18 which would be a +* where * is 18-Current Strength.
Once I get it done I will send it your way for testing and post here for all.
Fantastic, just what I've been looking for, only thing I havn't seen is any hooks to Divine Power, the cleric spell which boosts the casters strength to 18, alas this is trivially exploited by casting/equiping items afterwards.
It should, I believe act as a minimum, say with 14 strength you cast divine power, you get 18 strength, equiping a +6 belt of strength should take you to 20 str, the default system I believe would take you to 24, not actually tested your scripts out yet, but I couln't see any hooks into divine power.
Seperately from this, I'm just about to upload a fix for Divine Power granting way to many extra attacks, I've definately counted 7 attacks with a single handed weapon with the current divine power *shudders*
I have updated this script set using the new script commands in version 1.60+ and all I can say is WOW!!! These new commands are awesome. Makes this script set much more efficient, more user friendly, and less noticable to the player.
Please download the file (the code window is merely the readme).
Enjoy.
YellowLab
Posted by YellowLab ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-11-20 11:58:00
Once HotU comes out I will update / optimize this code with the new OnEquip / OnUnequip handles.
YL
Posted by YellowLab ( ..xxx.xxx ) at 2003-07-30 21:38:00
I hope my first comment in the description isn't scaring people away. I don't really know how CPU intensive they are. There are minimal cycles through equipped items, for this type of script there has to be. I haven't dealt much with multiplayer to know exactly how intense it is.
If someone could do some more definitive testing I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
YL
You must be Logged In to post comments in this section.