@JumboWheat01 I think instead at the very precious time of my life, that will never come back, wasted rolling a virtual dice to get some virtual stats instead of actually playing the game or doing something other more useful/creative/funny. As I realized what I was REALLY missing I started to routinely use the most powerful button when creating a character, the link to EEkeeper If I want to roll let's say 10 or 20 times I do it and take my time, I don't loose good rolls for being not careful, in a minute or 2 the work is done. But if I want a certain number (that has not to be over 100, just the good roll that on average you can get in 15-30 min) I eekeeper it and start to play.
The idea of not dying until negative 10 hit points has been around since 1st edition AD&D, even if it wasn't official, because my high school group in 1982 had that house ruled in. We were unconscious at 0, dead at -10, and could usually be rescued later after encounters went wrong. It would have been really frustrating to play otherwise, because our DM liked numbers heavy low level encounters, for example, 12 hobgoblins and a worg for a party of levels 1-3. I still remember falling to that worg bite, 34 years later.
It would have annoyed me to lose my character over that.
I imagine the negative hp is actually included in bg via a different concept. Get to 0 and you can be revived. Go below -20 hp (number check?) and you are chucked i.e. permanently dead.... unless you turn off gore.
I am also a bit miffed by the fact that the BG2 developers chose to bring back Tiax ... only to have him killed instead of making him a joinable NPC! Grrrr...
I don't like how what constitutes an "animal" in DnD is for the most part limited to real-life animals, or large versions of them. I think that carrion crawlers, ankhegs, wyverns and tarrasques should be considered animals.
Knowing where your enemy is not is as vital as knowing as where he is.
That's not true, unless there are multiple enemies or the number of possible places to look is two or less. Let's say you want to find someone and there are ten possible places where they might be, but they are only in one of those places (I'm not going to go into quantum physics here). If you look in one of those places and they're not there, you now know one place where they are not. On the other hand, if you look in one of those places and they are there, you now know nine places where they are not.
If you don't know where your enemy is not, you could end up fighting with people who could otherwise be friends.
That's what Kresselack was trying to express. Given his history as a conqueror, he probably made precisely that mistake, losing an ally in his search for his enemy.
In the U.S. back in World War II, we were afraid Japanese Americans were actually sleeper agents. We put them in internment camps and confiscated their property. In the end, there wasn't a single spy among them. The government has since apologized and reimbursed the victims, but if we had known where the enemy was not, the internment camps would never have happened.
The same principle applies elsewhere in international affairs. For the U.S. at least, alienating potential friends was especially costly during the Cold War, when we sided with anti-communists but alienated anti-colonialists, the more numerous and popular group, in the process. The results were mixed--we had success stories like our relationship with South Korea, and failures like in Vietnam.
China more recently has suffered the same problem, accidentally making foes out of its otherwise placid neighbors by moving aggressively in the South China Sea, because China thought those countries were American puppets out to get them. They, too, alienated people because they didn't know where their enemies were not.
It's actually very common for folks to look for enemies everywhere, find enemies everywhere, and in the end, make enemies everywhere.
With all of Beamdog's periodic patches, I feel like I can't count on any of my prior knowledge about what equipment can do to be valid anymore. For example, I just found out that Helmet of Charm Protection doesn't work against Dominate any more, which basically makes it worthless as far as I'm concerned. If I didn't have a Cleric on this particular runthrough, I would seriously be tearing my hair out for alternatives against Vampires.
@Abi_Dalzim: This sounds more like a bug than an intended patch change!
Looking at the helm's file in BG2 in Near Infinity, it says it still blocks opcode 5, which is the active opcode in all Domination spells, including the vampire version, SPIN883. Since charm and domination have always used the exact same opcode (immunity to charm and immunity to domination have always meant the same thing before), there are only two ways for a Helm of Charm Protection to block charm but not domination:
1. The helm grants immunity to the Charm Person and Dire Charm spells, but not to opcode 5. 2. The helm grants immunity to opcode 5, but the Domination spell uses the never-used opcode 241 instead (which would mean Chaotic Commands might not block it either!).
The only other explanation I can think of is that you were wearing the Helm of Infravision instead of the Helm of Charm Protection, since they use a nearly identical icon. Could you attach your HELM06.itm and SPIN883.spl files so I could take a look at them?
I don't know how exactly to do that, but I can say for sure that it's the Helm of Charm Protection and not Infravision, since my Cleric is still wearing it. It must have been some weird one-off fluke, because I don't remember this happening before or after.
Use EEkeeper, select in the items window the helm and chose to extract it, keeping note of his name that probably will be like ITMxxx. Do the same with the spell in the spell window, it will be something like SPWyyy. Than go to the override folder and you will find them. Copy them, or cut them, and paste them into your post.
One thing that bothers me is that, on these forums, the "Agree" button uses a smiley face and the "Like" button uses a thumbs up. It should be the other way around.
And also is possible only to chose one reaction button, you can not say that you like with something and find it insightful. And is perfectly possible to find insightful something but don't like it at all. The whole thing is more "rank geared" where each of the 3 add a flat 1 modifier to your this week rank or your total in the profile, and each one work separately to get badges. I would like it as a way to better understand what people think of what you say, maybe with also a negative outcome, I didn't like, I disagree, maybe negative outcome ineffective on the rank and badges, to prevent "attack tactics" against a person we have something against. Less "competitional" ( I am cool because I have lots of reactions stuff) and more useful to add a substitute of not verbal reactions that people can have when you talk to them. So I would prefer the chance to give more than a reaction to the same post (with a flat +1 added to the "rank counters" in case of multiple reactions), and eventually negative choices (with no effect on rank and badges).
EDIT I suppose that such thing, even if wanted by the majority of forumites or by the forum administrators, is any way impossible in the vanilla engine.
I wouldn't separate Insightful, Agree, and Like. If it's Insightful, you probably agree with it, and if you agree with it, you probably like it.
I don't think it would matter whether or not Disagree/Dislike counted against badges or rank. As long as the icon was visible under a comment, people would use it as an attack form.
For truly bad comments, we always have the Flag option to mark trolling, spamming, flaming, and other unacceptable content.
Indeed. Blizzard's Battle.net forums have a like an dislike function, and for a while there, the total score was actually shown, and we discovered that there were some people who simply down-voted because they could.
About the negative reactions you have convinced me. About the chance to give reactions of different type on the same post I am still not convinced, because often we are dealing with opinions, not Truths. I can find the points that you bring to your opinion insightful, and still not agree with you because I have still a different opinion, based on points as insightful as yours. Like when the discussion is about if the CRPG spells have to replicate the PnP game or not. Imo not, but I find insightful some points that I did read about, that was on the yes side of the opinion.
I agree that it would be nice to have more choices. For instance, I may use insightful if someone makes a post that makes me think, even if I don’t entirely agree with them. On the other hand I may also use it if I think they make an excellent point that I do agree with.
I love humor and if something cracks me up I’ll use insightful for that as well.
Agree only works for me if I agree with pretty much everything they say.
I wouldn't separate Insightful, Agree, and Like. If it's Insightful, you probably agree with it, and if you agree with it, you probably like it.
I don't think it would matter whether or not Disagree/Dislike counted against badges or rank. As long as the icon was visible under a comment, people would use it as an attack form.
For truly bad comments, we always have the Flag option to mark trolling, spamming, flaming, and other unacceptable content.
I would argue with you for the insightful. I've used it for peoples posts that very intensely disagree with, because it either showed me something I didn't think of, or taught something about the person.
Likes in my case are for when a post makes me feel particularly giddy, or when I am already particularly giddy when I read it. Agree is for when I feel the same as the poster, and insightful is used only when I am either impressed or got slapped in the face with some knowledge.
Comments
If I want to roll let's say 10 or 20 times I do it and take my time, I don't loose good rolls for being not careful, in a minute or 2 the work is done. But if I want a certain number (that has not to be over 100, just the good roll that on average you can get in 15-30 min) I eekeeper it and start to play.
It would have annoyed me to lose my character over that.
was it some trend back in the days to completely rely on randomness? very fun.
I mean, come on! Tiax Rules!
If you don't know where your enemy is not, you could end up fighting with people who could otherwise be friends.
That's what Kresselack was trying to express. Given his history as a conqueror, he probably made precisely that mistake, losing an ally in his search for his enemy.
In the U.S. back in World War II, we were afraid Japanese Americans were actually sleeper agents. We put them in internment camps and confiscated their property. In the end, there wasn't a single spy among them. The government has since apologized and reimbursed the victims, but if we had known where the enemy was not, the internment camps would never have happened.
The same principle applies elsewhere in international affairs. For the U.S. at least, alienating potential friends was especially costly during the Cold War, when we sided with anti-communists but alienated anti-colonialists, the more numerous and popular group, in the process. The results were mixed--we had success stories like our relationship with South Korea, and failures like in Vietnam.
China more recently has suffered the same problem, accidentally making foes out of its otherwise placid neighbors by moving aggressively in the South China Sea, because China thought those countries were American puppets out to get them. They, too, alienated people because they didn't know where their enemies were not.
It's actually very common for folks to look for enemies everywhere, find enemies everywhere, and in the end, make enemies everywhere.
I kept the sword through all SoA and was VERY disappointed.
Looking at the helm's file in BG2 in Near Infinity, it says it still blocks opcode 5, which is the active opcode in all Domination spells, including the vampire version, SPIN883. Since charm and domination have always used the exact same opcode (immunity to charm and immunity to domination have always meant the same thing before), there are only two ways for a Helm of Charm Protection to block charm but not domination:
1. The helm grants immunity to the Charm Person and Dire Charm spells, but not to opcode 5.
2. The helm grants immunity to opcode 5, but the Domination spell uses the never-used opcode 241 instead (which would mean Chaotic Commands might not block it either!).
The only other explanation I can think of is that you were wearing the Helm of Infravision instead of the Helm of Charm Protection, since they use a nearly identical icon. Could you attach your HELM06.itm and SPIN883.spl files so I could take a look at them?
Do the same with the spell in the spell window, it will be something like SPWyyy.
Than go to the override folder and you will find them.
Copy them, or cut them, and paste them into your post.
The whole thing is more "rank geared" where each of the 3 add a flat 1 modifier to your this week rank or your total in the profile, and each one work separately to get badges.
I would like it as a way to better understand what people think of what you say, maybe with also a negative outcome, I didn't like, I disagree, maybe negative outcome ineffective on the rank and badges, to prevent "attack tactics" against a person we have something against.
Less "competitional" ( I am cool because I have lots of reactions stuff) and more useful to add a substitute of not verbal reactions that people can have when you talk to them.
So I would prefer the chance to give more than a reaction to the same post (with a flat +1 added to the "rank counters" in case of multiple reactions), and eventually negative choices (with no effect on rank and badges).
EDIT I suppose that such thing, even if wanted by the majority of forumites or by the forum administrators, is any way impossible in the vanilla engine.
I don't think it would matter whether or not Disagree/Dislike counted against badges or rank. As long as the icon was visible under a comment, people would use it as an attack form.
For truly bad comments, we always have the Flag option to mark trolling, spamming, flaming, and other unacceptable content.
People would abuse that function.
About the chance to give reactions of different type on the same post I am still not convinced, because often we are dealing with opinions, not Truths. I can find the points that you bring to your opinion insightful, and still not agree with you because I have still a different opinion, based on points as insightful as yours. Like when the discussion is about if the CRPG spells have to replicate the PnP game or not. Imo not, but I find insightful some points that I did read about, that was on the yes side of the opinion.
I love humor and if something cracks me up I’ll use insightful for that as well.
Agree only works for me if I agree with pretty much everything they say.