Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Get rid of spell writing failure.

13

Comments

  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,171
    One thing I've noticed is that when you fail to learn a spell you often fail many times in a row, even if you reload the game and try again.

    riyahhassett
  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418
    edited January 2013

    Wanderon said:

    Maybe if the mechanics worked a bit better people wouldn't have such an issue with them - my 19 int gnome failed to write 3 of 4 scrolls in a row yesterday and since BG:EE came out only 2 of the dozen times I had a party try to help Melicamp were successful - I reloaded the spell failure incident (which was a small test just to see how often he would fail) and went back to normal for scribing.

    I almost always play on either personal no reload rules or minimal reload rules (only for PC death) so I have always accepted the Melicamp failures (costing 2000 exp each) but that doesn't mean they don't annoy me.

    I guess I don't understand this comment. You personally choose to play with no/minimal reloads, yet are unhappy about the consequences of same. It's the luck of the dice. Sometimes you get Double Sixes. Sometimes you get snake eyes. If you are playing the game such that you are living with the consequences, don't complain about them when they don't turn out against you.

    BTW, with this outlook, I would recommend against playing the new Xcom game. You think the rolls are borked here.. They are REALLY borked with that game. but don't try and tell folks that. they will say that you are instance blind. LOL.

    Anyway, it's all good.

    Just because I choose to make my game more difficult and less cheesy doesn't mean I can't be annoyed or complain when the success of failure of dice rolls that should be essentially 50/50 or better in these two cases ( a mage with 19 int should have a higher chance at success than one with 12 when scribing scrolls) are turning out to be much less than that - enough so that I adjust my play style when it comes to scribing scrolls becuase there just aren't enough scrolls of many types in BG to be able to afford just throwing them away and doing without in a no reload campaign.

    I have never said the mechanic should be eliminated - I just think it should work better than it appears to be working - 2 out of 12 for success in Melicamps quest which is worth 2000 experience is just bullshit Should there be a chance of failure - of course there should - but it should probably be 60/40 or 75/25 in favor of success and not the other way around.

    FYI according to my original BG manual success for scribing scrolls with 19 int is 95%... I rest my case...

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    Wanderon said:

    Wanderon said:

    Maybe if the mechanics worked a bit better people wouldn't have such an issue with them - my 19 int gnome failed to write 3 of 4 scrolls in a row yesterday and since BG:EE came out only 2 of the dozen times I had a party try to help Melicamp were successful - I reloaded the spell failure incident (which was a small test just to see how often he would fail) and went back to normal for scribing.

    I almost always play on either personal no reload rules or minimal reload rules (only for PC death) so I have always accepted the Melicamp failures (costing 2000 exp each) but that doesn't mean they don't annoy me.

    I guess I don't understand this comment. You personally choose to play with no/minimal reloads, yet are unhappy about the consequences of same. It's the luck of the dice. Sometimes you get Double Sixes. Sometimes you get snake eyes. If you are playing the game such that you are living with the consequences, don't complain about them when they don't turn out against you.

    BTW, with this outlook, I would recommend against playing the new Xcom game. You think the rolls are borked here.. They are REALLY borked with that game. but don't try and tell folks that. they will say that you are instance blind. LOL.

    Anyway, it's all good.

    Just because I choose to make my game more difficult and less cheesy doesn't mean I can't be annoyed or complain when the success of failure of dice rolls that should be essentially 50/50 or better in these two cases ( a mage with 19 int should have a higher chance at success than one with 12 when scribing scrolls) are turning out to be much less than that - enough so that I adjust my play style when it comes to scribing scrolls becuase there just aren't enough scrolls of many types in BG to be able to afford just throwing them away and doing without in a no reload campaign.

    I have never said the mechanic should be eliminated - I just think it should work better than it appears to be working - 2 out of 12 for success in Melicamps quest which is worth 2000 experience is just bullshit Should there be a chance of failure - of course there should - but it should probably be 60/40 or 75/25 in favor of success and not the other way around.

    FYI according to my original BG manual success for scribing scrolls with 19 int is 95%... I rest my case...
    Sometimes you just get terrible luck. I too was under the impression that spells failed to copy way more often then they should, but that was based off anecdotal evidence (like failing a few times in a row despite a supposed 85% chance of success). Someone in the thread I linked a few posts back actually did an experiment with a ton of trials, and the success rate actually came out very close to what it was supposed to be (ie less than 1% off). A lot of it probably comes from the fact that you don't remember all the times you succeed, but all the times you fail (especially 2 or more in a row) tend to stick out in your memory.

  • LiggLigg Member Posts: 187
    edited January 2013
    @Wanderon Just a note about the calculations being possibly bugged. If you change the intmod.2da file so the write success is 100% you will still get a spell writing failure quite often.
    And it is not related to the spell levels being higher than casting ability.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Wanderon said:


    Just because I choose to make my game more difficult and less cheesy doesn't mean I can't be annoyed or complain when the success of failure of dice rolls that should be essentially 50/50 or better in these two cases ( a mage with 19 int should have a higher chance at success than one with 12 when scribing scrolls) are turning out to be much less than that - enough so that I adjust my play style when it comes to scribing scrolls becuase there just aren't enough scrolls of many types in BG to be able to afford just throwing them away and doing without in a no reload campaign.

    I have never said the mechanic should be eliminated - I just think it should work better than it appears to be working - 2 out of 12 for success in Melicamps quest which is worth 2000 experience is just bullshit Should there be a chance of failure - of course there should - but it should probably be 60/40 or 75/25 in favor of success and not the other way around.

    FYI according to my original BG manual success for scribing scrolls with 19 int is 95%... I rest my case...

    So artificially limiting yourself in the game is fine. Being annoyed by the results is fine. Complaining about it seems a bit childish to me... No offense intended, but it's like stuffing your face with twinkies for months and then complaining that you are fat (not that you are actually that because how would I know?). You made your bed. The mechanic doesn't work the way you want? You only have yourself to blame.

    As for Melicamp, you do realize that the attempt is to circumnavigate the magics of what amounts to an artifact, right? It Should be difficult. And considering how foolish Melicamp was to attempt what he did, he pretty much deserves his fate. Even what's his name in HighHedge says that it is VERY risky. That is WHY you get such a high XP (for where it is in the game) reward for success.

    But seriously, no offense intended.

  • HowieHowie Member Posts: 136

    Originally in PnP Int affected the max spell level you could learn, I bet people would care about Int then, LOL!

    Depends on optional rules, it could also affect how many pages each spell takes up in your tiny 100-page spellbook. Stupid mages need to take more notes to remember how to spell :P

  • Oxford_GuyOxford_Guy Member Posts: 3,729

    TJ_Hooker said:

    Also, apparently you get an extra 10% chance of failure for every level the spell you're trying to copy is above the highest level you can currently cast. I also think I remember reading somewhere that specialist mages get a bonus to copying from their favoured school, and a penalty when copying from any other. Not sure if these are implemented though.

    This actually makes sense to me. If you can't cast the spell, it makes sense that it should be complex enough such that it would be harder even to simply scribe it. And specialists did Specialize in the school of magic, so they should have a superior knowledge of the base concepts.

    I wonder if this actually factors in to people's perceptions of failure rates?
    If true, I would fully support of both these things (i.e. trying to scribe a scroll of a higher level than you can cast being more difficult and scribing scrols from your school of specialism being a little easier).

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438

    Wanderon said:


    Just because I choose to make my game more difficult and less cheesy doesn't mean I can't be annoyed or complain when the success of failure of dice rolls that should be essentially 50/50 or better in these two cases ( a mage with 19 int should have a higher chance at success than one with 12 when scribing scrolls) are turning out to be much less than that - enough so that I adjust my play style when it comes to scribing scrolls becuase there just aren't enough scrolls of many types in BG to be able to afford just throwing them away and doing without in a no reload campaign.

    I have never said the mechanic should be eliminated - I just think it should work better than it appears to be working - 2 out of 12 for success in Melicamps quest which is worth 2000 experience is just bullshit Should there be a chance of failure - of course there should - but it should probably be 60/40 or 75/25 in favor of success and not the other way around.

    FYI according to my original BG manual success for scribing scrolls with 19 int is 95%... I rest my case...

    So artificially limiting yourself in the game is fine. Being annoyed by the results is fine. Complaining about it seems a bit childish to me... No offense intended, but it's like stuffing your face with twinkies for months and then complaining that you are fat (not that you are actually that because how would I know?). You made your bed. The mechanic doesn't work the way you want? You only have yourself to blame.

    As for Melicamp, you do realize that the attempt is to circumnavigate the magics of what amounts to an artifact, right? It Should be difficult. And considering how foolish Melicamp was to attempt what he did, he pretty much deserves his fate. Even what's his name in HighHedge says that it is VERY risky. That is WHY you get such a high XP (for where it is in the game) reward for success.

    But seriously, no offense intended.

    I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of the mechanic not doing what he wants, it's a matter of the mechanic not doing what it says it's doing (potentially). So in your twinkies example it'd be like if the twinkie label said that they contained no calories and no fat, so you ate a bunch, and you ended up getting fat because the label was wrong. Pretty legitimate complaint if you ask me.

  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98

    To make matters worse, Magic-Users couldn't just select what spell they wanted to learn on level up. They were at the mercy of what their "Masters" chose to teach them. A lot of times this meant that they had junk spells and had to actually go out and find the really good ones. Starting out with Magic Missile or Sleep was often not an option.

    Exactly. Except that there really aren't too many junk spells -- just uncreative players and/or DMs who don't understand how to use magic. Actually, sleep and magic missile aren't really all that good. They have their uses: magic missile is good to have for the time when you absolutely have to make a hit, and sleep is a good escape spell, though not if you or your companions are within the AoE, but they aren't ver versatile. Charm person is the 1st level magic-user spell par excellence, but lots of other spells are highly versatile if used creatively. Spells like enlarge/reduce, light, push, spider climb and unseen servant are all extremely versatile in the hands of a creative player. They aren't much use in combat per se, but in the versions of D&D we're talking about, doing a lot of fighting is pretty suicidal anyway, and the real strength of magic-users is in helping to get the gold without having to fight the fight. Unfortunately, most players seem to fall into the trap of thinking that mages = artillery and clerics = healers, when the best and most useful spells for both classes lie elsewhere.

    In a CRPG, where magic is mostly only good for fighting, mages do end up becoming artillery and/or disablers and clerics end up being buffers and healers (though they have good offensive spells that, used properly, prevent more damage than the same number of healing spells will cure) but that wasn't the way it worked in original PnP.

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    For most of BG1, sleep is not a good spell, it is an amazing spell. The save penalty, party-friendly, AOE, duration, etc. are all fantastic.

    PnP is much more balanced because of the versatility and creativity that just isn't possible in a video game of this type. Even a spell like enlarge or reduce or push, etc. can be great in combat if combined with some preparation and creative thinking (reduce something covering a pit with spikes so the opponent falls into the trap, etc.).

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    TJ_Hooker said:


    I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of the mechanic not doing what he wants, it's a matter of the mechanic not doing what it says it's doing (potentially). So in your twinkies example it'd be like if the twinkie label said that they contained no calories and no fat, so you ate a bunch, and you ended up getting fat because the label was wrong. Pretty legitimate complaint if you ask me.

    I take your point. But only so far. it is a published fact that there is a percent chance of failure, even for a 19 INT. If, as surmised, there is also an additional differential for level of spell and for level above casting ability, I see no proof that the functionality isn't working as intended. And therefore, not quite as you paint.

    Keeping aside the Melicamp example, I'd like to see someone take a quantifiable look at it, taking into consideration all of the applicable rules. Then I would say "Ok it isn't working as intended" or "It is doing what was intended." If it isn't an actual broken mechanic, then I think he is on his own complaining about it. But yeah, if it is broken then I fully retract my statement.

  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98
    AHF said:

    PnP is much more balanced because of the versatility and creativity that just isn't possible in a video game of this type. Even a spell like enlarge or reduce or push, etc. can be great in combat if combined with some preparation and creative thinking (reduce something covering a pit with spikes so the opponent falls into the trap, etc.).

    Or reduce an enemy's already form-fitting plate armour (bonus points for helmet) to crush them to death; enlarge a door to hold it shut (or shatter it, depending on how large it gets). Push can be used to trigger a trap, push something explosive into a fire, tip a vial of something ...

    There are a lot of spells with obvious combat use, but they aren't normally useful outside of combat. Also, casting a spell like fireball in PnP does a lot more than just damage anyone in the AoE: it will set fire to pretty much anything flammable, which may include the thing you're fighting for. Plus, the 40' diameter sphere is the total volume, so if you cast it in a 30 x 30 x 10' room, expect the blast to extend for hundreds of feet down every corridor as well.

    The "non-combat" spells are useful because they have a variety of uses, including some that are capable of causing plenty of death and mayhem. I don't blame Baldur's Gate for not implementing those spells, as it is a technically difficult challenge (though the Nethack developers have done a good job of thinking through the possible effects of different spells) but knowing where the rules originally came from can help understand why some of the things that seem nonsensical are the way they are.

  • ZarakinthishZarakinthish Member Posts: 214
    All this talk about creative use of spells reminds me of a PnP session with my online namesake (a Neutral Evil Grey Elf Mage). Our party had escaped from a cell and we were fighting our way out from captivity. I cast Grease and then set a torch to the floor and set the entire area of effect on fire, winning that encounter quite handily.

  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418

    TJ_Hooker said:


    I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of the mechanic not doing what he wants, it's a matter of the mechanic not doing what it says it's doing (potentially). So in your twinkies example it'd be like if the twinkie label said that they contained no calories and no fat, so you ate a bunch, and you ended up getting fat because the label was wrong. Pretty legitimate complaint if you ask me.

    I take your point. But only so far. it is a published fact that there is a percent chance of failure, even for a 19 INT. If, as surmised, there is also an additional differential for level of spell and for level above casting ability, I see no proof that the functionality isn't working as intended. And therefore, not quite as you paint.

    Keeping aside the Melicamp example, I'd like to see someone take a quantifiable look at it, taking into consideration all of the applicable rules. Then I would say "Ok it isn't working as intended" or "It is doing what was intended." If it isn't an actual broken mechanic, then I think he is on his own complaining about it. But yeah, if it is broken then I fully retract my statement.
    So it's childish/wrong for me to complain about something I PERCEIVE as being poorly implemented and/or poorly described? I'm supposed to just STFU and take what's been given to me because you think thats what I should do?

    Are you even aware that much of the BG manual was copy pasted from D&D manuals whether those rules were actually implemented or not to save the time and effort it would take to actually write a manual based on how the game does work? (And it appears the BG:EE manual is also a copy paste with many of the same mistakes as the original - but conviently place in PDF form)

    And that BG:EE has been tweaked as Overhaul see's fit as part of their enhancements again in many cases with little or no documentation offered explaining whats been tweaked and how?

    With those as a baseline I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that if you play the game and certain dice rolls or situations seem like they are not doing what one might surmise they should do that perhaps theres something besides simple bad luck involved and this is in fact the actual place where one might discuss those things - and in this case someone even provided me with a prestarted topic on the subject.

    I've been playing this game since before ToTSC was even released so I might just notice when things are not working as they previously did so unless you have some actual proof that my suspicions are totally unfounded keep your suck it up attitude to yourself.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @wanderon. First of all, no offense was intended. You are entitled to your opinion. No one is telling you to STFU. That is all YOU.

    I too have been playing since before ToSC came out. In fact, I played the Demo at Gen Con WAY back before BG1 was released. I have played a number of times and almost every time as a Mage. I don't share your opinion that the mechanic is broken. However I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Prove that I am and I said I was 100% prepared to retract my statement. But you apparently don't want to prove it. You want to complain about it.

    Your comment about how much of the manual came from cutting and pasting has nothing to do with the argument at hand. the mechanic in question is actually manifest in the game UI (you can actually see that INT leads to a chance of scribing failure in the Character screen). This isn't speculation on a potentially wrong manual. Granted, it is not clear if there are additional variables which impact the mechanic but I bet there are people who know. I'd say ask them. In the mean time the supposition is plausible enough (to me) to account for the variations you are seeing. Again, prove me wrong, or don't. It makes no difference to me.

    But at the end of the day, regardless if it is broken or not, you of all people should know, from your many play throughs, that it isn't working as you would like. YOU restrict your game play to that style, knowing that this aspect is problematic. Therefore you have only yourself to blame.

    And absolutely nothing in the world says that you can't have a caveat wherein, for that mechanic alone will you reload. At the end of the day it is the simplest solution in the world and no one need know but you.

    And if it is broken and you can quantify it? I bet you could post it on the tech forum and get some idea if it could be fixed. Posting here, while you are perfectly within your rights to do so, really serves nothing but to complain. At least in my opinion. But please feel free to continue to do so. It's a free board.

  • WanderonWanderon Member Posts: 1,418
    @the_spyder - My comment about the manual was to affirm the fact that the way the mechanics have been described in such documents is as often wrong or incomplete as it is correct due to the manner in which the documents have been prepared.

    If you are going to complain that something seems amiss ones first option might be to go to the source that explains how it SHOULD work. If the documention is shoddy that option is less likely to inspire any faith in the veracity of what you find there.

    Add in the mostly undocumented EE tweaks and my point is simply that there IS no decent documentation on how it SHOULD work but common sense tells me that when 3 of 4 scribes fail with what is supposed to be a 95% chance of succeeding and out of 12 different groups I have attempted to save Melicamp with since installing BGEE only TWO succeeded that there might just be something beside bad luck going on.

    So I came to a forum thread that someone had started on a topic that was related to some of the annoyances I have encountered with dice rolls and posted my observations - for which I was called childish and told that it was all my fault anyway -

    The good news is the forums have provided me with an ignore button -

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @ Wandron. since you feel the need to ignore, more power to you. Pout away.

    You keep on mentioning Melicamp. In what way is this related to Spell memorization? Please help me understand. As stated before, reversing this effect is not a function of studying any spell (that I am aware of). But reversing the effect of a cursed artifact. But still having no impact on INT based %chance to memorize spells. Unless I am missing something.

    As for documentation on EE, yep. them's the breaks. But again, posting in the user General information forum probably won't get you satisfaction. We are all happy to hear your thoughts though. And I personally love watching reruns of Don Quixote rides again.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    He's noting that Melicamp and spell writing use similar functions (being tied to a random number generator), so if the one is poorly designed then the other will be as well.

    Let's try to drop the acid tones as well, folks; there's every possibility that the people noting this problem have a legitimate concern, just as there's every possibility that the RNG is working as intended.

    Personally, I think it has more to do with the way it's working, which could be resulting in strings of similar results (which shouldn't be the case on a broader scale), in which case it could be better polished to yield more properly "random" results. However, it might just be that some users are experiencing a run of bad luck.

    Neither of these possibilities is reason to belittle each other; neither point of view is inherently wrong or right, so a little more respect for each other's opinions is in order.

  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited January 2013
    @the_spyder Both spell learning succes and Melicamp quest success depend on chance, which computers simulate with random number generation (RNG). He mentions them both together because odd behaviour in both could point to a problem with how the game handles RNG.
    Edit: looks like Aosaw beat me to this

    @Wanderon I'm not trying to pick sides, but I think the_spyder is right in questioning whether or not there's an issue with spell learning. In this case, the burden of proof would fall on you to prove that there is a problem, not on him to prove that there isn't. And the couple of pieces of anecdotal evidence you've provided don't actually 'prove' anything.

  • agrisagris Member Posts: 571
    edited January 2013
    Yep, I think a lot of people forget about the +10% per spell level above your casting ability thing. I actually didn't know about it back when I first played back in the 90s, but just saw it re-reading the manual a couple of days ago. Also, there is a chance at spell casting failure from scrolls mentioned too. Is that feature implemented? I haven't had it happen in my game yet.

    TJ_Hooker
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,171
    I could believe in a run of bad luck if there weren't so many people noticing the repetition of failures to learn a spell in a row. Really what are the odds of failing to learn a level 1 spell when you're a 5th level mage with 95% chance to learn a spell 5 times in a row?

    Next time it happens I'll try to restart the game to see if it gets a new random seed. If restarting avoids the "bad luck" runs of failure we will have some indirect evidence that the random number generator may be at fault.

    Dee
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2013
    Anecdotally, I have seen many more inexplicable runs with the spell learning than with Mellincamp.

    As mlnevese posits, the odds of failing a 5% check 5 times in a row is only.00003125% (i.e,. it will happen to roughly 3 out of every ten million times). The odds of succeeding 2 or fewer times in 12 attempts with Melicamp is a much more reasonable 1.9% (i.e., it will happen to roughly 2 out of every 100 times). [This assumes a 50% rate of success. If the chance of succeeding with Melicamp is lower, then the odds go up that this scenario plays out.]

    Post edited by AHF on
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Aosaw said:

    He's noting that Melicamp and spell writing use similar functions (being tied to a random number generator), so if the one is poorly designed then the other will be as well.

    To Hit is also a random number generator, as is damage and hide in shadows and in fact a whole host of other functions in the game. And so if random number generation is borked, it is more wide spread than simply spell memorization. But if that is his conclusion, then there is a much bigger issue. I'd hope that such a thing would be more obvious and more people would be up in arms about it. But stranger things have happened.

    So where I was confused in trying to correlate spell memorization to the Melicamp situation was in that the Melicamp situation is not supposed to be a high chance of success. The Wizard in High Hedge indicates that it is a VERY risky process. he further indicates that the gauntlets that Melicamp played around with were cursed Artifacts. And that killing him and then reincarnating him was the only possible solution. Reincarnation classically comes with a System Shock roll based on Constitution, and would be more in the line of a D20 roll rather than percentile and thus "Possibly" a different random generator entirely. This would account for the "High" relative reward based on no personal risk to the player. It is supposed to be hard to do. And it also explains why I don't think that any disparity that may or may not exist in the spell scribing functions is unlikely to have any relation to that quest.

    But I agree that acid tones are not needed here. Which is why I have been trying to help by suggesting that (a) investigate the phenomenon further to provide supporting facts and (b) post those facts in the tech issues forum where someone on the tech team is reasonably likely to see that there is an issue. Posting here is not likely to get anything other than discussion and debate.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    @the_spyder
    Actually, Melicamp's death/success is based on a charisma check when you first meet him. If you make the charisma check, he lives; if you fail, he dies.

    At any rate, I've logged it for myself to bring up the next time I talk to the team. If it is borked, it will need to be fixed.

    (As a side note, I have noticed strings of bad rolls in attack and damage rolls, not just spell writing. Which suggests that it's more widespread, and just only noticeable in the instances where it has irrevocable consequences.)

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    I have seen the odds for Melicamp listed at 50%. That corresponds to what I have seen anecdotally through many playthroughs of BGT and through several runs with BG:EE (but I don't have a large enough sample size on BG:EE). I used that assumption for the odds listed above.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Aosaw. Really? Wow. Did not know that. And it hardly makes any sense considering the entire back story you get when you get to High Hedge. but hey...

    And yeah, if we can get some concrete facts on how the number generator is causing problems, posting it in the tech forum makes a lot of sense. Certainly it is much more likely to help out than debating it in the General forum.

  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2013
    Aosaw said:

    @the_spyder
    Actually, Melicamp's death/success is based on a charisma check when you first meet him. If you make the charisma check, he lives; if you fail, he dies.

    This can't be correct since you can save right before you hand over the skull and you get different results if you reload and hand the skull over it multiple times. If it was based on a charisma check when you first meet him, then you would get the same result every time.

    TJ_Hooker
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    AHF said:

    Aosaw said:

    @the_spyder
    Actually, Melicamp's death/success is based on a charisma check when you first meet him. If you make the charisma check, he lives; if you fail, he dies.

    This can't be correct since you can save right before you hand over the skull and you get different results if you reload and hand the skull over it multiple times. If it was based on a charisma check when you first meet him, then you would get the same result every time.

    This was my thought as well, and my experience (I did the same thing with the skull). But... I think the bigger issue is IF there is a problem with random number generation in the game.

    I'd personally collect stats, but I am playing Classic thru Tutu. Not BG:EE. So, if there is a problem caused by the update, I wouldn't be able to verify.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Really? I thought I read that it was based on a charisma check. That'll teach me to trust what I read on the...wait a minute, these forums are on it too...

    ;)

  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285
    I've checked the spell file (Antichickenator -SPWI989.SPL) as far as I can guess it involves d6 die roll...

Sign In or Register to comment.