ring of danger sense - equipable by all

[Miloch]

I'm not arguing for "arbitrary" changes, but perhaps my interpretation of "fix" is broader than yours. While developer intent is great, if you know what that is, in most cases it isn't practical or even possible to ascertain (just as you've said above).

 

But if we are going to guess, let's make provisional assumption A (I mean this in the formal sense):

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

In other words, "developer intent" was to have the ring provide benefits to all classes. And by benefits, we don't mean simply freeing up an inventory slot - let's give these people some credit, folks. It should do what it says - it's supposed to let the wearer "'see' where the traps were hidden" as per the description (the original one this time ).

 

One could further surmise they simply didn't bother with it further, having deadlines to meet, and that given enough time, they would've fixed either the engine or the item.

 

So to be really true to developer intent, the best solution would be to give all classes the ability to use the Find Traps skill. Even if you had to jerryrig it with a spell or effect, it'd be the truest solution, given A above.

 

The second best solution would be to correct the ring's usability flags, description and placement to account for the limitations of the engine (perhaps fully realized only after the ring's implementation).

 

The third best solution would be to correct the description to imply it's wearable by all, but only thieves and monks can actually get any real benefit from it. While the first two solutions may be a bit awkward, this seems the most awkward one of all. And although I originally suggested changing or removing the "Usable By" section might fix this, the vanilla description still suggests it lets the wearer 'see' traps, which it doesn't, unless the wearer is a thief or monk.

 

Now, if you throw out A and substitute a different assumption such as "Developer intent was to have the ring wearable by all classes but only be truly usable by thieves and monks" then you might be left with a different set of solutions, which I can't argue for since I'd have a hard time believing it or even using it provisionally to advance a hypothesis. But even if I did and arrived at the third best solution above being the best, it'd still require further work as described than simply discarding Dorner's text update.

 

Go ahead, call me a Tweaker, you stubborn old hardliner .

[Nythrun]

I think it's a helluva lot more sensible that the ring is only usable by thieves and monks

 

More or less unanimous on this. Sensible just isn't a necessary nor sufficient condition; "equippable by" and "beneficial to" are not homeomorphic and weren't meant to be.

[CamDawg]

But if we are going to guess, let's make provisional assumption A (I mean this in the formal sense):

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

There's nothing to support this other than speculation. As it's a poor assumption, everything that follows is, I'm afraid, flawed by definition.

 

Now, if you throw out A and substitute a different assumption such as "Developer intent was to have the ring wearable by all classes but only be truly usable by thieves and monks" then you might be left with a different set of solutions, which I can't argue for since I'd have a hard time believing it or even using it provisionally to advance a hypothesis. But even if I did and arrived at the third best solution above being the best, it'd still require further work as described than simply discarding Dorner's text update.

That's the thing--it doesn't need changing at all. Other places where items have effects that only apply to a subset of possible users don't have these qualifications in their descriptions. The Night's Gift doesn't state that its HiS bonus is only for rangers or thieves, though it's wearable by other classes. Does anyone think a cleric running around with this armor can hide in shadows? Or a fighter with Dak'kon Zerth's blade can cast spells?

 

Go ahead, call me a Tweaker, you stubborn old hardliner .

Heh.

[Miloch]

There's nothing to support this other than speculation. As it's a poor assumption, everything that follows is, I'm afraid, flawed by definition.

The same might be said of any conclusions drawn from speculation (such as your own). However,

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

Shadowy evidence perhaps, unless someone can produce links (though I'm sure enough forum-grepping would turn them up) but better than none (unless you can produce some for your view).

The Night's Gift doesn't state that its HiS bonus is only for rangers or thieves, though it's wearable by other classes. Does anyone think a cleric running around with this armor can hide in shadows? Or a fighter with Dak'kon Zerth's blade can cast spells?

Both those items provide other benefits to classes who can't gain from the skill bonuses, making the usability somewhat realistic. Not so with the Ring of Danger Sense.

[Nythrun]

The same might be said of any conclusions drawn from speculation (such as your own).

 

Congruence among description, item flags, and usage in game isn't speculation - it's fact. It's also rather uncommon; between wholesale copying from PHB, sloppy cut and paste, and human error an incidence like this is either an improbability akin to an alignment of seven planets portending the apocalypse as fortold by the Mayan calendar, or it's intent.

[Miloch]

Congruence among description, item flags, and usage in game isn't speculation - it's fact.

As is discongruence amongst the same:

the vanilla description still suggests it lets the wearer 'see' traps, which it doesn't, unless the wearer is a thief or monk.

Quit scapegoating me, people! I'm not the only detractor from Official Party Line in this thread, though maybe I'm the most vocal because I don't really care if I get Stomped Down By The Evil Hardliners. Ultimately, a Fixpack or any mod should serve its target audience, so why not put it to a poll? (Oh wait, that would be democracy... nevermind.) :)

[CamDawg]

The Night's Gift doesn't state that its HiS bonus is only for rangers or thieves, though it's wearable by other classes. Does anyone think a cleric running around with this armor can hide in shadows? Or a fighter with Dak'kon Zerth's blade can cast spells?

Both those items provide other benefits to classes who can't gain from the skill bonuses, making the usability somewhat realistic. Not so with the Ring of Danger Sense.

Cloak of Elvenkind.

[Miloch]

Cloak of Elvenkind.

Yet another example of incongruence between the description and actual usability:

Wearing it makes any person able to hide in shadows with astonishing abilities.

Incorrect of course, unless your definition of "any person" = one with Stealth and/or your definition of "astonishing" = nil.

[CamDawg]

I look forward to your argument that behaving dishonorably while using Celestial Fury should invoke a luck penalty.

[cmorgan]

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than the gentle observation that we have had homeomorphic, Mayan Calendar, decent logical proofing, Mistress Developer Intent, and enough sufficiently agile, learned and reasoned rhetoric and debate that I suspect there is more than one Ivy Leaguer among us... it is pretty nice (not to mention entertaining) to have debate that assumes a high level of intelligence and education just to be able to follow the discourse.

 

Wish I could come up with an answer, but I am still picking my teeth up off of the floor from hearing that 2E rules were intended to be modified such that 3E or 3.5E non-existance of a true Thief class was to be matched. Alas, poor Horaitio...

[Miloch]

I look forward to your argument that behaving dishonorably while using Celestial Fury should invoke a luck penalty.

I think I've already commented on PPG that you don't necessarily know the wielder does not "respect the customs of Kara-Tur and of the samurai who once carried this blade into battle." Unlikely perhaps, but true. Also it says it "could" change one's luck for the worse, not that it will. So any potential incongruence between description and abilities there is arguable.

 

Whereas "Wearing it makes any person able to hide in shadows with astonishing abilities" is pretty clear. Which gives us even more evidence for:

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

I'm glad you provided the Cloak of Elvenkind, because now I can greedily pounce on it (ignoring how it burns my orcish flesh) and use it instead of the Ring of Danger Sense as poster child for my "In the Absence of Actually *Knowing* Developer Intent, Item Descriptions Should Match Their Attributes" campaign. Miloch the wanna-be Barbarian-Thief is most displeased nasty elvish cloak does not let him hide like it says. False advertising! Must destroy...

 

Any more examples? Bring 'em on. I think we'll find they're generally exceptions rather than rules we're grasping at here though.

[pro5]

Any more examples? Bring 'em on. I think we'll find they're generally exceptions rather than rules we're grasping at here though.

 

What is the point of this argument, again?

I think the mere existence of this already long thread proves that there's not enough agreement to add this as official fix into any official Fixpack.

[Miloch]

What is the point of this argument, again?

"In the Absence of Actually *Knowing* Developer Intent, Item Descriptions Should Match Their Attributes"

I think the mere existence of this already long thread proves that there's not enough agreement to add this as official fix into any official Fixpack.

Likewise, no one's advanced a convincing argument as to *not* doing it. Unless your argument is "doing nothing" always trumps "taking action" - in which case why even do a Fixpack, or any mods for that matter. And I highly doubt there's unanimous agreement as to every fix that's already in this or any other fixpack .

 

[besides, this *is* in the Tweak Pack Forum . Make it a Tweak or an OBC component for all I care... just make it available *somehow* for the non-trivial number of folks who are in favour of it.]

[CamDawg]

It's pretty clear Bioware only paid attention to stuff below the statistics line in item descriptions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be umpteen copies of unique items, bastard swords could really be used with two hands, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power wouldn't be in the Planar Sphere, etc., etc. There's also a huge difference between unfinished business--stuff planned by the devs and never implemented--and legitimate fixes--stuff implemented by the devs, but with unintended results. If they wanted the ring to actually find traps (still unsupported speculation, btw) the idea was clearly dropped before publication because there's nothing left in the item to suggest that was ever the case.

 

Adding this ability would go so far beyond the realm of a fix that I'm amazed I have to make this point.

[Kulyok]

Si non confectus, non reficiat. If only it was applied to alignment changes, as well...

 

By the way, I was meaning to ask: I know Fixpack is very well documented, and I know many fixes come after they've been confirmed by Gaider/other developers. Is it possible in the future to insert quotes/links/mentions into Fixpack documentation, of which fixes were confirmed and which were not?