This is going to sound trivial, but...(BG2 spoiler)
The Ring of Wizardry that drops off Nadinal in the Harper Hold has the same description text (and item number) as the Ring of Wizardry that you can have made if you are a mage in charge of the Planar Sphere. This also is true of the original BG2 and was hoping it might be a different ring this time around. I noticed it earned the name "Reaching Ring" (without quotes in EE description, with apostrophes in original) on hover this time, presumably because of the ultimate cost to make it. However, the one Nadinal has was not "originally commissioned by spellcaster CHARNAME" and should be a separately described/named item with the same effect.
This is just one of those things that bugged me when I first saw it ages ago and was hoping to see if it got caught and fixed in EE.
Instead of reproducing a save that had gotten to the right point in both Harper Hold and Planar Sphere (I honestly really just wanted to keep grinding out the file I have going, first time in BG2EE hnngh), I did some searching in Near Infinity for the DLG with Morul, also known affectionately as MGAPPR02. At State 109/123, he regrets the deaths of Larz and Nara in the making of the ring as he gives it to you, item RING08. This is the Ring of Wizardry that mentions being commissioned at great cost, and is the correct one.
However, JAGA3.cre, the mage Nadinal in the fight with Galvarey, offers up a RING08 as well, hence the issue with the descriptive text.
My suggested solution is a simple one. Duplicate RING08 and create a new item, like WIZRING or something, change the description, add another Disallow flag for the original RING08 to prevent imbalance (the existing Disallow flag self-targets and wouldn't work I'm assuming), and give it to JAGA3.
The best part? The description from the first Ring of Wizardry in BG1 supplies a perfect sub-in. Just change the nickname of the ring, since 'Evermemory' is taken by the Level 1 Spell Doubler. My recommendation as a literature dork is a Proust reference - 'Remembrance of Things Cast,' though I'm sure shorter and catchier names could be found
For reference, here is the BG1 ring description:
"Long ago, a grand wizard from Amn was rumored to have defied Mystra's limitations on the magical arts. Legends spoke of this wizard being able to cast spells without the limitation of memorization. In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magical rings that he had made for himself. His proclaimed "everlasting memory" was a hoax, though his rings continue to be one of the most sought after items in the realms."
I've had Dorn more or less my entire file, but I wanted to drop him just long enough to do some more concentrated XP gain with scrolls, so I was like "I'll tell folks to stand still out of party, do some relearning of scrolls, and have 'em re-join."
I do reform party, kick out Dorn, and he comes at me with four dialogue options:
"You want me to leave? You're making a grave mistake, CHARNAME"
1. "Never mind. Stay" - He stays 2. "Perhaps. I think the greater mistake would be allowing you to remain." He says "Mark my words..." followed by "You're a fool..." and disappears. 3. "It wouldn't be the first." - "You're a fool..." and disappears. 4. My mistake to make, half-orc. Begone." - "You're a fool..." and disappears.
It would appear that he reappears at the Order building where you first pick him up, BUT this isn't indicated in any way, as opposed to Hexxat saying "If you need me, you know where to find me."
I think the issue at hand is that all three of your options are pretty dismissive, whereas most NPCs have an option that is polite and/or hints at re-recruitment. The lack of a polite response, in tandem with his lack of informing you where he'll be, makes it seem like he might be gone forever (and with whatever loot you gave him).
My suggestion would be to change one of the three options to one saying "It is only temporary, there are things I need to take care of" or some other answer, which would segue into the "Where you wanna meet?" question, leading to either a) The Order or b) him staying where he stands.
This is going to sound trivial, but...(BG2 spoiler)
The Ring of Wizardry that drops off Nadinal in the Harper Hold has the same description text (and item number) as the Ring of Wizardry that you can have made if you are a mage in charge of the Planar Sphere. This also is true of the original BG2 and was hoping it might be a different ring this time around. I noticed it earned the name "Reaching Ring" (without quotes in EE description, with apostrophes in original) on hover this time, presumably because of the ultimate cost to make it. However, the one Nadinal has was not "originally commissioned by spellcaster CHARNAME" and should be a separately described/named item with the same effect.
This is just one of those things that bugged me when I first saw it ages ago and was hoping to see if it got caught and fixed in EE.
I'm having a serious problem with NPC voices since patch 1.2.2030. When I install Czech language, for example, Irenicus in the dungeon yells Kalah's 'yeeeaahhh' instead of saying 'Aaah, the child of Bhaal has awoken' . When I click on Imoen, instead of typical 'Yep' I hear her complaining about her dying, or that she needs a potion of healing. She doesn't, this happens right at the beginning of BG2EE, in Irenicus dungeon. I was told by one of Czech translators that he struggled with the same issue in the past, when previous patches were released. Patch can effect strings and strings can effect sound. How can this be fixxed please? I don't want to play BG2 in English. Also I am not the only Czech player having the same problem. :-(
Ill tag @Dee about your issue there effiny. It sounds like its more of a sound file issue than a text issue and I'm not in the position where I can report it internally.
Ill tag @Dee about your issue there effiny. It sounds like its more of a sound file issue than a text issue and I'm not in the position where I can report it internally.
Aha! Thanks a lot, Elminster! :-) I saw BG2EE bug section, i overlooked that, sorry. :-)
@Effiny it might also be as effective for you to contact a beta tester that speaks czech to report this internally (I don't hang around the czech area of the forum and can't read/understand the language so I'm not sure who that would be). I imagine something like this is probably fairly extensive in scope, so having someone who can identify and report problem areas would be good.
@Effiny it might also be as effective for you to contact a beta tester that speaks czech to report this internally (I don't hang around the czech area of the forum and can't read/understand the language so I'm not sure who that would be). I imagine something like this is probably fairly extensive in scope, so having someone who can identify and report problem areas would be good.
Yep, that's a great idea. :-) Thank you, Elminster, you are very kind.
I hope this is the right place. I'll just copy and paste the issue.
I have been playing ToB on the BG2EE and have noticed a problem in the dialogue. Szass Tam approached me during Neera's quest and initiated dialogue. The first time around I though something was off and reloaded to test a different option. The second time I took 'print screens' of the options to share here with the developers.
Here is the shot of the first part of the interaction:
I chose option four this time around, and received the following:
However, at no point in the exchange did Szass ever even imply that he wanted Vicross dead!
Inspired by this thread, I took a look at the spell description of the Haste spell (string #12193) and compared it to vanilla BG2. In BGII:EE, the description of the spell is missing the information that Haste increases the level of fatigue. This is simply one particular sentence that was present in BG2 but is missing now in BGII:EE. Hence, string #12193 should be expanded as follows (additional sentence in green taken from BG2):
When this spell is cast, all creatures affected function at double their normal movement rate, gain a -2 initiative bonus, and receive an extra attack per round. Thus, a creature moving at 6 and attacking once per round would move at 12 and attack twice per round. At the instant the spell is completed, it affects all allied creatures in a 30-ft. radius centered on a point selected by the caster (thus, creatures leaving the area are still subject to the spell's effect; those entering the area after the casting is completed are not). Note that affected creatures expend as much energy during this spell as they would normally in a whole day, significantly raising their fatigue level. This spell is not cumulative with itself or with other similar magic. Spellcasting and spell effects are not affected. Note that this spell negates the effects of a Slow spell.
Protection From Fire (level 3 mage spell) says creatures take 50% of the fire damage they would otherwise...
Umm...nope. They take no fire damage.
Protection from Fire (level 3 priest spell) says it gives complete invulnerability to fire but then goes on to say it grants 80% immunity to fire damage against burning hands etc. Again...its 100% immunity.
Talking about the descritions (texts) ?.. Well.. not sure why noone mentionned that near november/december/january (or was it already mentionned? - at least that was always there in the 1.2s^), but... dealing with the potions. The 'combat' like potions (turn base durations) have all a bugged and false description in the EE (1&2) : the EE give durations in (fantasists) hours, when it is TURN based durations actually, usually 4 or 5 turns at max (ex oil of speed, free action potions, etc).
The actual script lengths are correct and unmodified compared to the original BGs though (real exact durations in turns).. only the EEs descritions( in hours) are buggy. The durations were perfectly correct in the originals games. Not sure why those desciptions were modified..and/or not spotted before.. one of the first things i found weird in the EE actually.. and even before i finished to feel the real need to reload my original games ISOs to compare exactly the scripts/descrptions (bugs or not).. for that and..many other things ^.
I am uncertain if this is right or not but in the banter between Imoen and Rasaad this response comes up:
Charname: Imoen's always had trouble grasping the idea that the grass on the other side of the fence is invariably a brighter shade of green. (StrRef: 98770)
And that response is followed by:
Imoen: That's just what the people on the other side of the fence want you to believe. They want to hog all the nice grass for themselves. (StrRef: 98773)
If I am not mistaken, shouldn't Charname's response actually say:
Imoen's always had trouble grasping the idea that the grass on the other side of the fence is not invariably a brighter shade of green.
As reported in the Game Text Error thread for BG:EE, the Seeking Sword does have a +4 THAC0 bonus, yet the description of the ability says it doesn't. This is true for BG2:EE as well.
The affected strings in BG2:EE are: @25222, @100377.
The text needs to be modified as follows:
The sword is considered a +4 weapon for purposes of determining what it can hit (but this bonus does not apply to damage), and it deals out 2d4 damage to any target it hits.
Paralytic bolts say they need a save vs paralysis to avoid their stunning (which is mentioned as being 5 rounds long). In reality its a save vs spell and its 6 rounds.
Kuo Toa bolts say their stun lasts for 4 rounds. In reality they last for 20 seconds. Also I don't know if kuoarch20.cre is actually a creature file that is ever used in the game. But the Kuo-toa bolts they drop (Kuobolt3.itm) don't cause a stun effect at all. Rather it looks like they cause some kind of web/holding effect and its a save vs death for only 12 seconds. These particular bolts are also counted as +3 weapons.
Breath Fireball ability (from the Fire Salamander Avenger form) says it does 2d6 piercing damage and 2d6 fire damage but this isn't correct. It only does 2d6 fire damage. This is Spin160.spl.
Comments
This is just one of those things that bugged me when I first saw it ages ago and was hoping to see if it got caught and fixed in EE.
However, JAGA3.cre, the mage Nadinal in the fight with Galvarey, offers up a RING08 as well, hence the issue with the descriptive text.
My suggested solution is a simple one. Duplicate RING08 and create a new item, like WIZRING or something, change the description, add another Disallow flag for the original RING08 to prevent imbalance (the existing Disallow flag self-targets and wouldn't work I'm assuming), and give it to JAGA3.
The best part? The description from the first Ring of Wizardry in BG1 supplies a perfect sub-in. Just change the nickname of the ring, since 'Evermemory' is taken by the Level 1 Spell Doubler. My recommendation as a literature dork is a Proust reference - 'Remembrance of Things Cast,' though I'm sure shorter and catchier names could be found
For reference, here is the BG1 ring description:
"Long ago, a grand wizard from Amn was rumored to have defied Mystra's limitations on the magical arts. Legends spoke of this wizard being able to cast spells without the limitation of memorization. In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magical rings that he had made for himself. His proclaimed "everlasting memory" was a hoax, though his rings continue to be one of the most sought after items in the realms."
I do reform party, kick out Dorn, and he comes at me with four dialogue options:
"You want me to leave? You're making a grave mistake, CHARNAME"
1. "Never mind. Stay" - He stays
2. "Perhaps. I think the greater mistake would be allowing you to remain." He says "Mark my words..." followed by "You're a fool..." and disappears.
3. "It wouldn't be the first." - "You're a fool..." and disappears.
4. My mistake to make, half-orc. Begone." - "You're a fool..." and disappears.
It would appear that he reappears at the Order building where you first pick him up, BUT this isn't indicated in any way, as opposed to Hexxat saying "If you need me, you know where to find me."
I think the issue at hand is that all three of your options are pretty dismissive, whereas most NPCs have an option that is polite and/or hints at re-recruitment. The lack of a polite response, in tandem with his lack of informing you where he'll be, makes it seem like he might be gone forever (and with whatever loot you gave him).
My suggestion would be to change one of the three options to one saying "It is only temporary, there are things I need to take care of" or some other answer, which would segue into the "Where you wanna meet?" question, leading to either a) The Order or b) him staying where he stands.
I hope this is the right place. I'll just copy and paste the issue.
I have been playing ToB on the BG2EE and have noticed a problem in the dialogue.
Szass Tam approached me during Neera's quest and initiated dialogue. The first time around I though something was off and reloaded to test a different option. The second time I took 'print screens' of the options to share here with the developers.
Here is the shot of the first part of the interaction:
I chose option four this time around, and received the following:
However, at no point in the exchange did Szass ever even imply that he wanted Vicross dead!
When this spell is cast, all creatures affected function at double their normal movement rate, gain a -2 initiative bonus, and receive an extra attack per round. Thus, a creature moving at 6 and attacking once per round would move at 12 and attack twice per round. At the instant the spell is completed, it affects all allied creatures in a 30-ft. radius centered on a point selected by the caster (thus, creatures leaving the area are still subject to the spell's effect; those entering the area after the casting is completed are not). Note that affected creatures expend as much energy during this spell as they would normally in a whole day, significantly raising their fatigue level. This spell is not cumulative with itself or with other similar magic. Spellcasting and spell effects are not affected. Note that this spell negates the effects of a Slow spell.
Umm...nope. They take no fire damage.
Protection from Fire (level 3 priest spell) says it gives complete invulnerability to fire but then goes on to say it grants 80% immunity to fire damage against burning hands etc. Again...its 100% immunity.
Dorn says to Tad: "Are you sure this small cave in the lair will be safe?"
Tad says: "It should be safe, my Lady..."
Dorn says: "That's not very reassuring...."
Tad says: "Good luck, my Lord!"
Well.. not sure why noone mentionned that near november/december/january (or was it already mentionned? - at least that was always there in the 1.2s^), but...
dealing with the potions. The 'combat' like potions (turn base durations) have all a bugged and false description in the EE (1&2) : the EE give durations in (fantasists) hours, when it is TURN based durations actually, usually 4 or 5 turns at max (ex oil of speed, free action potions, etc).
The actual script lengths are correct and unmodified compared to the original BGs though (real exact durations in turns).. only the EEs descritions( in hours) are buggy. The durations were perfectly correct in the originals games. Not sure why those desciptions were modified..and/or not spotted before.. one of the first things i found weird in the EE actually.. and even before i finished to feel the real need to reload my original games ISOs to compare exactly the scripts/descrptions (bugs or not).. for that and..many other things ^.
just my 2 cents (on that). &cheers again..
Charname: Imoen's always had trouble grasping the idea that the grass on the other side of the fence is invariably a brighter shade of green.
(StrRef: 98770)
And that response is followed by:
Imoen: That's just what the people on the other side of the fence want you to believe. They want to hog all the nice grass for themselves.
(StrRef: 98773)
If I am not mistaken, shouldn't Charname's response actually say:
Imoen's always had trouble grasping the idea that the grass on the other side of the fence is not invariably a brighter shade of green.
Seeking Sword does have a +4 THAC0 bonus
As reported in the Game Text Error thread for BG:EE, the Seeking Sword does have a +4 THAC0 bonus, yet the description of the ability says it doesn't. This is true for BG2:EE as well.The affected strings in BG2:EE are: @25222, @100377.
The text needs to be modified as follows:
The sword is considered a +4 weapon for purposes of determining what it can hit (but this bonus does not apply to damage), and it deals out 2d4 damage to any target it hits.
Kuo Toa bolts say their stun lasts for 4 rounds. In reality they last for 20 seconds. Also I don't know if kuoarch20.cre is actually a creature file that is ever used in the game. But the Kuo-toa bolts they drop (Kuobolt3.itm) don't cause a stun effect at all. Rather it looks like they cause some kind of web/holding effect and its a save vs death for only 12 seconds. These particular bolts are also counted as +3 weapons.
(StrRef: 57482)
This kind of thing happens a lot when you are typing with two different ways to say the same thing floating through your head.