Okay I'm back. First 'sir' I came across came from Garrick the bard. It made me recollect the other times it was in battles before. When I 'commanded' him to do something when game paused due to finding an enemy: "Yes, sir? With joy, sir!"
Unfortunately, I can't change voiced lines. @Nathan knows about this particular case though.
Any more?
Not so far, it's hard to take notice when I'm focused on keeping characters alive and clicking on buttons. I do try to read when I think I hear it. So far it's only Garrick. I may have been mistaken with Imoen.
Okay, finally got something with Imoen talking speech but not what I remembered. She says, "Yer a queer fellow." to character when asked to do something. For myself (at age 67) I'd prefer hearing 'Yer a queer fem." or 'woman'.
The literal meaning of "fellow" is simply a companion or associate, especially in a work context. The implication of masculinity is merely a colloquial misinterpretation, albeit a common one, probably deriving from a time when women weren't expected to work outside the home and therefore didn't usually have work companions. In a hypothetical culture which is medieval yet has sex equality, as in Faerun, it seems natural that "fellow" should be applicable equally to males and females.
When I've played female Charnames, it hasn't struck me as odd that Imoen addresses me as a fellow, since the party is a fellowship of adventurers; adventuring is our line of work, and calling a work colleague one's "fellow" is a natural and correct usage of the word.
Talking to Tralithan (in the Iron Throne tower in Chapter 7), he comments that Sarevok probably "assassinated Duke Eltan so he could step in". No, he didn't: Duke Eltan is still alive (albeit barely). It's Duke Entar Silvershield who has been assassinated, so presumably the text ought to refer to the latter.
The literal meaning of "fellow" is simply a companion or associate, especially in a work context. The implication of masculinity is merely a colloquial misinterpretation, albeit a common one, probably deriving from a time when women weren't expected to work outside the home and therefore didn't usually have work companions. In a hypothetical culture which is medieval yet has sex equality, as in Faerun, it seems natural that "fellow" should be applicable equally to males and females.
When I've played female Charnames, it hasn't struck me as odd that Imoen addresses me as a fellow, since the party is a fellowship of adventurers; adventuring is our line of work, and calling a work colleague one's "fellow" is a natural and correct usage of the word.
Okay, I was one of those people who grew up when women were expected to be wifes/mothers and if in the work force only secretaries, nurses or teachers. Love the 50's educational system..NOT! The arguments I had with my high school councilor with what subjects to take (wanted science classes) ended up taking typing, shorthand and managed to get biology. So naturally 'fellow' rings male to me I'll ignore it from now on.
I think this qualifies as a text error. There appear to be many discrepancies in the bonus vs weapon type listed on the armor item descriptions. I will show you 4 suits of armor to illustrate but I suspect there are many more issues with other ones.
As you can see these bonuses appear to be all over the place even for the same type of armor. But that is only half the story. The listed bonuses are often inaccurate too. The plate of the dark lists the correct bonuses but the ordinary full plate does not as it gives the same bonuses as the plate of the dark according to the character sheet(+4 to slashing + 3 to piercing). The ankheg plate actually gives +3 to slashing and +1 to piercing instead of what is listed. The practical defense is an odd one though. The +3 to slashing bonus is actually accurate because that is the only bonus it gives but shouldn't it give some piercing coverage too? I suggest you check all the armors for accuracy and other bugs because I only showed you what I had at hand. If 3 out of 4 of these armors have issues then odds are that a lot of other armors have issues too...
It's a continuing ambiguity, @Tresset, because it's possible to (mis-)read these adjustments (and those on shields, etc.) as either a bonus/malus to be applied to the initial figure or as the final result after applying the bonus/malus. In the case of armors, the parenthetical figures are always the absolute figure (i.e. final result), but for shields it's (usually?) the relative figure (i.e. to be applied). More consistency in terminology would be helpful, and a format which makes it more obvious whether an adjustment is absolute or relative would also be helpful.
Then at least it's now been made consistent within shields and within armor, which is an improvement over when different shields were described using different conventions.
But wouldn't it be less confusing (especially for new players) if armor and shields used the same convention, and if the wording of descriptions made more explicit which it is? A player can eventually figure out that ", ..." means apply adjustments and "(...)" means set values, but nowhere are we told that this is so. And for some weapons, I think it's still the case that ", ..." means set values, which adds to the potential for confusion.
When you first travel South in the game you encounter a Flaming Fist Mercenary who accosts you and accuses you of being bandits. Despite being alone he speaks like there are other mercenaries there. he even says something like 'come on boys!' when he attacks after you choose the option to surender.
When you first travel South in the game you encounter a Flaming Fist Mercenary who accosts you and accuses you of being bandits. Despite being alone he speaks like there are other mercenaries there. he even says something like 'come on boys!' when he attacks after you choose the option to surender.
Perhaps adding extra guards would be the way to go.
The game can tell, but most of the time, I inserted the <SIRMAAM> token instead of the <PRO_SIRMAAM> token; this means that the form of address will depend on the actual character speaking rather than the protagonist always. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a line where Imoen says that; do you have more specific quotes?
Ha, this reminds me... This is 100% uncorrectable because its old NPC dialogue, but a similar thing happens with Shar-Teel. Even if CHARNAME is a female, she'll hit you with the same banter as if you were a male. For example, when being dismissed she'll say, "Damn it, you lose one well-fought dual to an oafish lout of a man and you get attached. I almost hate to say it but you've earned my respect." A shame but I guess the amount of development to give her banter for each gender would have been too much for the original devs.
Ha, this reminds me... This is 100% uncorrectable because its old NPC dialogue, but a similar thing happens with Shar-Teel. Even if CHARNAME is a female, she'll hit you with the same banter as if you were a male. For example, when being dismissed she'll say, "Damn it, you lose one well-fought dual to an oafish lout of a man and you get attached. I almost hate to say it but you've earned my respect." A shame but I guess the amount of development to give her banter for each gender would have been too much for the original devs.
Er ... maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the point about Shar-Teel that she'll only join in the first place if you defeat her with a male character, regardless of Charname's sex? So indeed, she has always lost to "an oafish lout of a man" (or at least a male, albeit not necessarily human), even when Charname is female. Even when Charname is male, he's often not the same male as defeated Shar-Teel in the "well-fought duel". So I'm not sure what you want Shar-Teel to say instead, although I agree that there's some ambiguity about who (or what) she has become "attached" to.
Her second line (in particular). She's very grudging about giving her respect, and even if Charname is male but another guy defeated her, she's probably had plenty of time to observe Charname's combat prowess and reluctantly acknowledge his abilities in a similar way.
If Charname is female, why would she mention the man (who may no longer be with the party) or "hate to say" that you've earned her respect?
Hmm, okay, I think I see where you're coming from, @Jalily.
However, I've always seen Shar-Teel as being rather fanatical about her independence and contemptuous of other people ("If it bleeds, I can kill it!"), to the point that she prefers to be a loner and depend upon no-one at all (although especially not a male). Therefore I reckon her respect for anyone is given pretty grudgingly, regardless of sex: she particularly detests males, but she isn't generally impressed by females either. (I've occasionally met people fitting this description in real-life.)
So she mentions the duel because it's a continuing subject of amazement to her that she could lose to a male, and she associates that with the later development that Charname has won her respect because she's surprised at herself over that too. Thus her first line is a plausible preamble to explain her surprise at the entire situation which has led to her confession of reluctant respect.
I agree that it might fit Shar-Teel if she expressed her surprise at her realisation of respect in a more emphatic way to a male Charname than to a female Charname, but I think broadly the same sentiment fits her character in both cases. No?
When meeting Kolssed just after Gorion's death, one of Charname's dialogue options is "You saw two people in the wood? I was told to meet some friends at the Friendly Arm Inn. Perhaps they and the ones you met are one in the same."
"... one in the same" ought to be "... one and the same".
Text error at the ducal coronation towards the end of the game: [Spoilers] Charname & party crash Sarevok's coronation, and are attacked by dopplegangers. After the fight, Charname gives documents to Belt......
Belt: It was lucky that such brave people as yourselves intervened on our behalf. Is there anything that I can do for you in return?
Charname: 1. Take a look at these documents we have. Sarevok is the one who tried to kill you, had Entar killed, and nearly killed Eltan. 2. Sarevok's the one who set you up to be killed. You have to kill him, now!
Seems choice 1 should read "...had Scar killed". Maybe Sarevok had something to do with Entar Silvershield's death/disappearance (?) but he certainly was behind Scar's assassination.
When meeting Kolssed just after Gorion's death, one of Charname's dialogue options is "You saw two people in the wood? I was told to meet some friends at the Friendly Arm Inn. Perhaps they and the ones you met are one in the same."
"... one in the same" ought to be "... one and the same".
Dorn in the Friendly Arm Inn say "Listen carefully, elf. If you con...". The race in the text seems to be static. Even if I select a human, halfling, or whatever type of creature to speak with Dorn, he says "elf".
I trust you not an inch farther that I can throw you, and do not think I am not tempted to try! (StrRef: 3295)
that -> than
ELMIN1.DLG:
I am not so stupid as to listen to stangers in the middle of nowhere, no matter how infirm they appear to be! (StrRef: 17493)
stangers -> strangers
ELMIN3.DLG:
Thou dost posses a... gifted nature, and I am sure that thou wilt make good use of it. (StrRef: 19450)
posses -> possess
Like all wizards, he speaks in wizards. (StrRef: 27039)
in wizards -> in riddles
ENTAR.DLG:
Most of us are rather concerned over some of the Iron Thrones actions, but they have promised to supply us with iron, a resource that has been very rare as of late. (StrRef: 6136)
Iron Thrones -> Iron Throne's
FAMIL2.DLG:
Up 'til now its all been you you you. (StrRef: 31561)
its -> it's
FTOBE9.DLG:
Sorry if I seem a touch flustered, but I just don't want anyone upsetting my husband anymore that he already is. (StrRef: 8130)
that -> than
FTOWBAZ.DLG:
I was merely wondering if everything was all right here in the city. (StrRef: 9843)
city. -> city?
GALKEN.DLG:
Still, I'll be here beggin' for more time if you change you're mind. (StrRef: 21771)
you're -> your
GATEWA.DLG:
The libraries are yours to use for the duration of our stay. (StrRef: 113)
our -> your
GATEWA2.DLG:
The libraries are yours to use for the duration of our stay. (StrRef: 16805)
our -> your
GERVIS.DLG:
If you must fight than so must I... (StrRef: 15338)
than -> then
GRAEL.DLG:
You may survive eleswhere if you survive here, and if you die you will have been spared the waiting and worrying. (StrRef: 23391)
eleswhere -> elsewhere
HAFFG2.DLG:
It would be most exiting for him. (StrRef: 7843)
exiting -> exciting
HALFG6.DLG:
Just because I'm a touch weathered now, doesn't mean I didn't put the boots to you equal a hundred times over. (StrRef: 7901)
you -> your
HOBGO5.DLG:
There, I've told you want ya wanted to hear. (StrRef: 5109)
want -> what
HURGAN.DLG:
Is there a point to your this story, old dwarf? (StrRef: 21254)
your or this
IGNATI.DLG:
All right, all right (StrRef: 17100)
all right -> all right.
IRON9.DLG:
YES , no sound coming form this mouth. (StrRef: 14384)
form -> from
JHASSO.DLG:
Do you think you'd be up to investigate what's wrong with Duke Eltan. (StrRef: 1787)
Eltan. -> Eltan?
What is it exactly that you want us to do. (StrRef: 1795)
do. -> do?
We'll look into it, do you have anything more for us. (StrRef: 1796)
us. -> us?
JORIN.DLG:
If so, I will respect you abilities and wish you luck. (StrRef: 21564)
you abilities -> your abilities
KAGAIP.DLG:
We'll you don't have to. (StrRef: 15807)
We'll -> Well
KAISH.DLG:
His accent is not unlike yours (StrRef: 21146)
yours -> yours.
KRYLA.DLG:
They kill poor Jondal. (StrRef: 21833)
kill -> killed
MENDA3.DLG:
I'll take the payment from your corpse? (StrRef: 20933)
corpse? -> corpse!
MINEC3.DLG:
Why would you asking me that question? (StrRef: 4388)
asking -> be asking
MINSCJ.DLG:
Well, except when boo and I were discussing whether the size of a half-orc's tusks was any indication of— (StrRef: 30524)
Seems choice 1 should read "...had Scar killed". Maybe Sarevok had something to do with Entar Silvershield's death/disappearance (?) but he certainly was behind Scar's assassination.
One of the pieces of evidence is a note to Slythe, one of the assassins who killed Entar and created a Grand Duke opening for Sarevok. So while not mentioning Scar is an omission, I don't think this is a mistake.
Comments
Any more?
The literal meaning of "fellow" is simply a companion or associate, especially in a work context. The implication of masculinity is merely a colloquial misinterpretation, albeit a common one, probably deriving from a time when women weren't expected to work outside the home and therefore didn't usually have work companions. In a hypothetical culture which is medieval yet has sex equality, as in Faerun, it seems natural that "fellow" should be applicable equally to males and females.
When I've played female Charnames, it hasn't struck me as odd that Imoen addresses me as a fellow, since the party is a fellowship of adventurers; adventuring is our line of work, and calling a work colleague one's "fellow" is a natural and correct usage of the word.
As you can see these bonuses appear to be all over the place even for the same type of armor. But that is only half the story. The listed bonuses are often inaccurate too. The plate of the dark lists the correct bonuses but the ordinary full plate does not as it gives the same bonuses as the plate of the dark according to the character sheet(+4 to slashing + 3 to piercing). The ankheg plate actually gives +3 to slashing and +1 to piercing instead of what is listed. The practical defense is an odd one though. The +3 to slashing bonus is actually accurate because that is the only bonus it gives but shouldn't it give some piercing coverage too? I suggest you check all the armors for accuracy and other bugs because I only showed you what I had at hand. If 3 out of 4 of these armors have issues then odds are that a lot of other armors have issues too...
But wouldn't it be less confusing (especially for new players) if armor and shields used the same convention, and if the wording of descriptions made more explicit which it is? A player can eventually figure out that ", ..." means apply adjustments and "(...)" means set values, but nowhere are we told that this is so. And for some weapons, I think it's still the case that ", ..." means set values, which adds to the potential for confusion.
Perdue refers to a female character as a male. "Dumb arse lout doesnt even know 'is monsters." or some such.
If Charname is female, why would she mention the man (who may no longer be with the party) or "hate to say" that you've earned her respect?
However, I've always seen Shar-Teel as being rather fanatical about her independence and contemptuous of other people ("If it bleeds, I can kill it!"), to the point that she prefers to be a loner and depend upon no-one at all (although especially not a male). Therefore I reckon her respect for anyone is given pretty grudgingly, regardless of sex: she particularly detests males, but she isn't generally impressed by females either. (I've occasionally met people fitting this description in real-life.)
So she mentions the duel because it's a continuing subject of amazement to her that she could lose to a male, and she associates that with the later development that Charname has won her respect because she's surprised at herself over that too. Thus her first line is a plausible preamble to explain her surprise at the entire situation which has led to her confession of reluctant respect.
I agree that it might fit Shar-Teel if she expressed her surprise at her realisation of respect in a more emphatic way to a male Charname than to a female Charname, but I think broadly the same sentiment fits her character in both cases. No?
"... one in the same" ought to be "... one and the same".
[Spoilers] Charname & party crash Sarevok's coronation, and are attacked by dopplegangers. After the fight, Charname gives documents to Belt......
Belt:
It was lucky that such brave people as yourselves intervened on our behalf. Is there anything that I can do for you in return?
Charname:
1. Take a look at these documents we have. Sarevok is the one who tried to kill you, had Entar killed, and nearly killed Eltan.
2. Sarevok's the one who set you up to be killed. You have to kill him, now!
Seems choice 1 should read "...had Scar killed". Maybe Sarevok had something to do with Entar Silvershield's death/disappearance (?) but he certainly was behind Scar's assassination.
http://grammarist.com/mondegreens/
ELDOTD.DLG:
I trust you not an inch farther that I can throw you, and do not think I am not tempted to try!
(StrRef: 3295)
that -> than
ELMIN1.DLG:
I am not so stupid as to listen to stangers in the middle of nowhere, no matter how infirm they appear to be!
(StrRef: 17493)
stangers -> strangers
ELMIN3.DLG:
Thou dost posses a... gifted nature, and I am sure that thou wilt make good use of it.
(StrRef: 19450)
posses -> possess
Like all wizards, he speaks in wizards.
(StrRef: 27039)
in wizards -> in riddles
ENTAR.DLG:
Most of us are rather concerned over some of the Iron Thrones actions, but they have promised to supply us with iron, a resource that has been very rare as of late.
(StrRef: 6136)
Iron Thrones -> Iron Throne's
FAMIL2.DLG:
Up 'til now its all been you you you.
(StrRef: 31561)
its -> it's
FTOBE9.DLG:
Sorry if I seem a touch flustered, but I just don't want anyone upsetting my husband anymore that he already is.
(StrRef: 8130)
that -> than
FTOWBAZ.DLG:
I was merely wondering if everything was all right here in the city.
(StrRef: 9843)
city. -> city?
GALKEN.DLG:
Still, I'll be here beggin' for more time if you change you're mind.
(StrRef: 21771)
you're -> your
GATEWA.DLG:
The libraries are yours to use for the duration of our stay.
(StrRef: 113)
our -> your
GATEWA2.DLG:
The libraries are yours to use for the duration of our stay.
(StrRef: 16805)
our -> your
GERVIS.DLG:
If you must fight than so must I...
(StrRef: 15338)
than -> then
GRAEL.DLG:
You may survive eleswhere if you survive here, and if you die you will have been spared the waiting and worrying.
(StrRef: 23391)
eleswhere -> elsewhere
HAFFG2.DLG:
It would be most exiting for him.
(StrRef: 7843)
exiting -> exciting
HALFG6.DLG:
Just because I'm a touch weathered now, doesn't mean I didn't put the boots to you equal a hundred times over.
(StrRef: 7901)
you -> your
HOBGO5.DLG:
There, I've told you want ya wanted to hear.
(StrRef: 5109)
want -> what
HURGAN.DLG:
Is there a point to your this story, old dwarf?
(StrRef: 21254)
your or this
IGNATI.DLG:
All right, all right
(StrRef: 17100)
all right -> all right.
IRON9.DLG:
YES , no sound coming form this mouth.
(StrRef: 14384)
form -> from
JHASSO.DLG:
Do you think you'd be up to investigate what's wrong with Duke Eltan.
(StrRef: 1787)
Eltan. -> Eltan?
What is it exactly that you want us to do.
(StrRef: 1795)
do. -> do?
We'll look into it, do you have anything more for us.
(StrRef: 1796)
us. -> us?
JORIN.DLG:
If so, I will respect you abilities and wish you luck.
(StrRef: 21564)
you abilities -> your abilities
KAGAIP.DLG:
We'll you don't have to.
(StrRef: 15807)
We'll -> Well
KAISH.DLG:
His accent is not unlike yours
(StrRef: 21146)
yours -> yours.
KRYLA.DLG:
They kill poor Jondal.
(StrRef: 21833)
kill -> killed
MENDA3.DLG:
I'll take the payment from your corpse?
(StrRef: 20933)
corpse? -> corpse!
MINEC3.DLG:
Why would you asking me that question?
(StrRef: 4388)
asking -> be asking
MINSCJ.DLG:
Well, except when boo and I were discussing whether the size of a half-orc's tusks was any indication of—
(StrRef: 30524)
boo -> Boo
Thanks, @hook71! Everything else has been fixed.
Leather Armor Armor, 'nuff said.