ring of danger sense - equipable by all

[Nythrun]

By that reasoning, why mention Shapeshifter

The devs never did; Dorner made it up.

 

or Kensai restrictions on armour,

The devs never did; Dorner made it up.

 

or any kit

The devs never did; Dorner made it up.

 

Seriously, why do you think devSin misses no opportunity to rain fire and brimstone on the GTU? Those special clues he added to BG1 don't exactly count as fixes in my book either

 

Wizard slayers can use ioun stones (why I don't know), manuals, tomes and a handful of other magic items.

Ioun stones are helmets, for good or ill. There are no manuals nor tomes in BG2.

 

A lot of that is inherent in BG2 I thought.

Not a whit.

 

so why not follow him (as long as we make some attempt at consistency)?

Because a collaborative project make with better tools and several years worth of better knowledge may be able to do a better job?

[Miloch]

So... are you proposing (or do you already have) an alternate game text update that ignores kit restrictions in descriptions, or has them only under certain conditions? If so, I'd like to see it, or at least what the standards are. There should be some consistency one way or another. Inasmuch as the BG2 Fixpack's current game text update does currently include them, it should follow either those guidelines or all other items should be changed to conform to new guidelines, instead of having a haphazard mishmash of differing standards for descriptions.

 

Fortunately, it's not much of an issue for BG1, which doesn't have kits. But since I also mod for Tutu, which inherently incorporates Baldurdash for good or ill, I conform my Tutu-compatible items to those standards, whether I like it or not. What you say would potentially make sense and cut out some cruft though, and I'm usually for that (even though it seems I'm in a minority here in other cases ).

[NiGHTMARE]

I always disliked including kits in the restrictions list, because obviously it won't mention new kits (which a large number of players use), thus further distinguishing them from the kits from the unmodded game.

[cmorgan]

In the perfect game, *all* rings would be equippable on anyone with a finger, toe, or nose, anyone could carry whatever weapon they wanted, and tattoo whatever runes they wanted wherever they wanted.

 

Of course, in the perfect game, there would be multiple conflicting descriptions of each item based on the skills of the identifier, people would wear magical rings that did *somehing* but they would not be sure what (until the ring was put on the right class/kit combo it would do nothing but look pretty and give a magical aura), I could make Imoen equip a Great Axe of Doom, only to have her be unable to walk or even lift the darned thing in combat, and idiots who messed with sufficiently powerful items before they were of a level ready to handle would be dominated, possessed, or shaped by the items themselves (Nazgul, anyone? Lilacor the Mind Bender? ).

 

Sorry for the sidetrack... just pointing out that in a quest to make every text exactly correct, we might miss out on the opportunities present for misinformation or roleplaying. We can't make all items open to everyone due to the game engine application of effects, but in this case I actually think there is no harm in being able to equip an item that is not relevant to a character.

[Lasivern]

Since it can only be used by Thieves and Monks, why not just make it wearable only by Thieves and Monks? It isn't like a Stalker can wear the Ring of Wizardry or a Cleric wear the Ring of Lock picks after all....

 

Since the normal situation seems to be that wearability is linked to usability, why not the same with this particular ring?

[Miloch]

Since it can only be used by Thieves and Monks, why not just make it wearable only by Thieves and Monks? It isn't like a Stalker can wear the Ring of Wizardry or a Cleric wear the Ring of Lock picks after all....

 

Since the normal situation seems to be that wearability is linked to usability, why not the same with this particular ring?

Well you see Lasivern, that would make *sense* - or at least be consistent with nearly all similar magic items. My theory is that the oldtimer hardliner fixpackers like to defy logic just out of sheer stubbornness and contrariness, which makes my own such traits pale by comparison.

 

Oh, did I mention the existing item *says* it can be used only by thieves and monks?

[Lasivern]

Well..... >lafffs< interesting answer.

 

My primary worry would be that if it is left as something anyone can wear, then you are going to have to answer the question "If I can wear this, how do I access the trap finding ability?" over and over....

 

Myself I can't think of an argument *FOR* letting anyone wear it, considering that for any non-Thief/Monk it doesn't, and can't, do anything.... Or, change all of the other items so that anyone can wear them, but only the correct class/s can benefit from doing so...

 

Since the latter suggestion is ludicrous you're back to fixing this one ring so it is only wearable by those that can use it.... No?

[CamDawg]

Well you see Lasivern, that would make *sense* - or at least be consistent with nearly all similar magic items. My theory is that the oldtimer hardliner fixpackers like to defy logic just out of sheer stubbornness and contrariness, which makes my own such traits pale by comparison.

• Its set as usable by all in the patched game.
  
• Its description indicates no restrictions in the patched game.
  
• The ToB mage character template has it equipped (please note that a mage is not a thief or a monk)
  

Developer intent trumps consistency. Always.

Oh, did I mention the existing item *says* it can be used only by thieves and monks?

Dorner's not a developer.

[Miloch]

Well you see Lasivern, that would make *sense* - or at least be consistent with nearly all similar magic items. My theory is that the oldtimer hardliner fixpackers like to defy logic just out of sheer stubbornness and contrariness, which makes my own such traits pale by comparison.

• Its set as usable by all in the patched game.
  
• Its description indicates no restrictions in the patched game.
  
• The ToB mage character template has it equipped (please note that a mage is not a thief or a monk)
  

Developer intent trumps consistency. Always.

But unless you actually *ask* the developers what they intended - and I suppose you could, if you still have that connection - any speculation there is purely conjectural. There could have been several developers involved with the setup and placement of this item, and any (or even all) of them could've made a mistake. It almost *sounds* like a good idea for all classes, unless someone (or everyone) forgot you'd need to enable a Find Traps button for those classes that don't have it, which, if I'm not mistaken, is restricted by the engine. Though I'm wondering now if you could give them the Find Traps spell instead (not saying this would be a fix, just wondering).

Dorner's not a developer.

I don't think I ever said he was, did I? I just commented on the current BG2 Fixpack's game text update and its origin. And its description says it has all the fixes from Baldurdash and more, for whatever that's worth. Though now I'm also kind of wondering why Dorner changed the description but not the usability flags themselves (maybe he did - I dunno).

[CamDawg]

But unless you actually *ask* the developers what they intended - and I suppose you could, if you still have that connection - any speculation there is purely conjectural.

It's impractical (and more than a bit silly) to ask Gaider every question about everything, which is why we base decisions based on the evidence at hand. I see the evidence and feel it's fairly clear as to intent, even though I personally don't like it. If you feel otherwise, make a case for it. The argument you present is so broad and unspecific that it could be used to support (or deny) any change (or non-change) in any fixpack--which means your argument is worthless and/or fixpacks are pointless.

 

I just commented on the current BG2 Fixpack's game text update and its origin.

Yes, there's an error in the game text update in the Fixpack. My point was to stop using it as some type of evidence of developer intent.

[Kulyok]

4. Bioware once intended the ring to provide benefits to all classes, but couldn't effectively convey them within the restraints of the engine.

 

This sounds very, very likely to me: I've heard Gaider speaking about it in DA forum, and much later, reassuring Domi that in DA, all characters will have thieving abilities, so she'll be able to play a ranger and not be forced to drag a thief along(Imoen, urgh).

[Miloch]

If you feel otherwise, make a case for it.

I've done that, but I'm not going to keep restating it, because frankly, I don't really care since BG2 isn't my preferred platform. But it will come back again - hell, I'll probably forget about it and come back here in a few years to ask about it myself when I actually start playing BG2 .

The argument you present is so broad and unspecific that it could be used to support (or deny) any change (or non-change) in any fixpack--which means your argument is worthless and/or fixpacks are pointless.

That wasn't an argument so much as a point - and the point was that *your* argument that the existing ring is designed as per "developer intent" is based on speculation, as would mine that it *isn't* be, if that was my argument.

 

I'd also agree with Kulyok and whoever she's quoting, but that would also be speculation (but likelier IMO).

 

And since I'm apparently so bad at rhetoric, I'm not going to make another argument, or repeat it, but I will quote someone else's, verbatim:

My primary worry would be that if it is left as something anyone can wear, then you are going to have to answer the question "If I can wear this, how do I access the trap finding ability?" over and over....

 

Myself I can't think of an argument *FOR* letting anyone wear it, considering that for any non-Thief/Monk it doesn't, and can't, do anything.... Or, change all of the other items so that anyone can wear them, but only the correct class/s can benefit from doing so...

 

Since the latter suggestion is ludicrous you're back to fixing this one ring so it is only wearable by those that can use it.... No?

[CamDawg]

Your point is that the ring is not like items such as Boots of Stealth, where the item is only usable by folks who can benefit from it (and the description indicates this). Yes, I get it. Drawing the conclusion that being usable by all is developer intent from the ring's description (from the devs) completely jiving with what it does and who can use it (also from the devs) and that it's assigned to someone who can not benefit from it (those pesky devs again) is, apparently, speculation on my behalf. If we should not use the item's properties and description as tools to discern developer intent, what should we use instead?

 

If we're going to ignore a matching description, usage throughout the game, and properties there's nothing stopping us from making whatever changes we *prefer* to other items, spells, creatures, etc. This is what I mean by your argument being used for or against any fix. If you want to call me an old, stubborn hardliner for guarding the Fixpack against non-fixes, arbitrary changes, and tweaks (or that I/we/it sucks because of that) feel free and go forth with my blessing. But don't try to categorize it as some illogical resistance to change, especially given that we've already changed several fixes based on good arguments.

[Salk]

You both guys have reasons to support your points. Personally I lean a bit more towards Miloch's opinion in this but one thing is certain: thanks to stimulating discussions arising between passionate people like Cam and Miloch we get the chance to improve the final product.

[CamDawg]

I think it's a helluva lot more sensible that the ring is only usable by thieves and monks and I'd personally like to see it changed.

 

But the Fixpack's mistress is developer intent.