Item duplication in BG/BG2

[DavidW]

There is a function called at the beginning of the code that copied over a bunch of SoD generic items, including bdamul24.

[Graion Dilach]

I'm partially conflicted because I can agree with degrading unique items to their generic counterparts, but I can't stand behind outright dropping items.

Additionally I find it very messed up that Heartseeker pops up twice in BG2 and neither time it is Catti-brie's bow (which is even a Tansheron's Bow duplicate) when canonically Catti's should be the Heartseeker...

[DavidW]

22 hours ago, jmerry said:

On the BG2EE importables: the copies out in the world are already replaced by generics if you import them - look at area scripts.

Terrific.

22 hours ago, Awachi said:

Further, as implemented by BD, uses the generic long sword +1 bam, thus increasing the suckitude.  No reason for Zeela to have it at all.

I agree, but is it really a bugfix?

11 hours ago, CamDawg said:

For the uniques which don't have a clear alternative description, we can always fudge them the way the Ring of Princes does

That's elegantly simple (I take it you agree with reusing generic alternative descriptions when we have them?)

 

21 hours ago, Sam. said:

My belief is that the Ring of Fire Resistance was purposefully and thoughtfully put in that hidden crack (before the container highlighting button was added to the engine) in the Gibberling Mountains first, and was added to the Candlekeep catacombs (perhaps without considering that the item should have been unique) well after the fact.  Moreover, that ring is one of the more defining features of that area, and I believe taking it away would significantly impact the early game, IMO in a negative manor.

That's persuasive.

21 hours ago, Sam. said:

A bit off point, but I have never personally been bothered by finding multiple copies of fairly generic but technically "unique" items in a playthrough.  With that being said, I respect that some people feel strongly to the contrary.

I feel differently, but that's not really the point; from a fixpack POV, I think what matters is there's reasonably strong evidence the duplications are unintentional.

[CamDawg]

11 hours ago, DavidW said:

That's elegantly simple (I take it you agree with reusing generic alternative descriptions when we have them?)

Yes, especially when it's a 1:1 sub in terms of functionality.

[DavidW]

22 hours ago, Graion Dilach said:

I'm partially conflicted because I can agree with degrading unique items to their generic counterparts, but I can't stand behind outright dropping items.

 

Which ones are you thinking of here?

22 hours ago, Graion Dilach said:

Additionally I find it very messed up that Heartseeker pops up twice in BG2 and neither time it is Catti-brie's bow (which is even a Tansheron's Bow duplicate) when canonically Catti's should be the Heartseeker...

I don't think that can be called a bug - maybe it's a clash between BG lore and FR lore, but there's (afaict) no in-game evidence that C-B should have that bow.

[Graion Dilach]

Rashad's Talon in Cloakwood was explicitly in my mind, because the forum posts implied to me that the item was outright deleted and not replaced with a generic counterpart (until this point I didn't even noticed that SoD included a bunch of generic +2 weaponry under the BD prefix). Don't mind it.

I do consider the Heartseeker issue as a bug, but I would just rename the items in question (sure, Catti's bow incorporate the functionality of the Quiver of Anariel but I'd not argue on that one much). Catti-brie's Tansheron clone is weird on it's own already since it uses a generic icon instead of what the actual Tansheron has.

[marchitek]

I'm a bit surprised that you want include such big change in fix pack, that, if I understand correctly, should be installed pretty much always by everybody (at least other mods can assume it is installed). IMHO this is not "bug" like e.g. some wrong trigger in one of the script blocks or some glitch in animation, its a game design problem. Other examples of such could be: "It was not intended by developers that you can separate group of monsters". Or "It was not intended by developers that you can spam fireball out of enemy visual range and enemy would do nothing about it" etc. If we will consider such things as "bugs" we can merge EEFP with SCS I guess. But that was not intention of EEFP from the beginning (if I get it correctly).

Other points that could be also relevant against including it:

• existing mods could relay that certain items (exact ITM resources) are in certain places. Those would be not compatible with fixpack what is problematic if we see it as "must have" for future installations.
• this is matter of taste which item appearances are "canon" and which should be replaced. Again, if we want everybody to install fixpack, it should contain not so arguable changes.

IMO this is good idea for mod (btw there is already similar one). But I would be careful to include this to fixpack. I really don't see reason that this change should be included in every installation of the game from now on. If this would be separate mod, I personally probably wouldn't install it (scope of the change is too big for given benefit for me).

[DavidW]

This is why it's good that this is an open project; certainly, if the consensus is that we shouldn't de-unique-ify items, I'm happy to go along with that.

That said: I think the evidence is very strong that this is a bug - i.e., something the developers did accidentally and did not intend - and not just poor game design.

• Duplicated unique items, I think invariably, have generic-sounding names (e.g. bracers of AC 6), even if this is obscured by the late-cycle name changes in the EEs, so that you have to look at the description to tell that they're unique. There is no evidence that the designers ever intentionally duplicated a unique item.
• In the great majority of cases, you can roughly see how the duplication occurred: there is some high-profile occurrence of the item as a unique item, and then the duplicates happen in expansions, new games, EE tweaks, or occasionally in filler content like generic or late-game stores.
• In BG2 in particular, generic versions of BG1-unique items are introduced and mostly used. For instance, dagg03 is BG1's 'Heart of the Golem', a unique dagger that shows up in a quest. BG2 imports that item (it imports virtually all BG1 items) but then also adds dagg15, a generic dagger +2. dagg15 occurs in 38 places in BG2; dagg03 occurs in about 3. It's much more plausible that this is just a mistake (the two daggers have the same name until the EEs) than that they intentionally duplicated a unique item.
• Several of the unique items in BG2EE are unique only because BD's bulk restoration of old names caught them. Again, I think it's pretty clear they did that by accident.
• Siege of Dragonspear goes to some effort to make non-unique copies of the unique items for its new content. That's pretty strong evidence that developer intent is not to repeat unique items, albeit (for understandable scope-management reasons) they didn't back-port those changes to original BGEE.

I do agree that there are a few places where the choice of which item to be unique gets a bit subjective, but in most of them the developer intent is fairly clear.

(I also don't think mod compatibility is a big issue. A well-coded mod should not be assuming that a given item is in a particular location, because another mod might have moved it. If your mod absolutely requires Arkanis Gath to have the Heart of the Golem, you should check explicitly and give it to him if necessary.)

[marchitek]

Thanks for detail response. I can agree this is the bug, I was rather afraid by impact of the change. But if mod compatibility is not a problem I think  my position is indeed too conservative. EE introduce many changes that influence gameplay in more drastic way then item deduplication proposed by you. So I can imagine it could be even part of official patch, why not. For nostalgia we always have vanilla games.

[jmerry]

Speaking of "Heart of the Golem", both Hentold and Marek have it in BGEE. Replace Marek's copy with a generic +2 dagger, leaving the unique version to be the one with a revenant after it?

[The_Baffled_King]

I strongly agree with replacing unique items with their generic counterparts (which is the current proposal, as I understand it). I strongly disagree with removing duplicates of unique items on the basis that they have no available alternative that is functionally identical, or at least functionally very similar.

My comments below relate only to BG:EE. I agree with all of the changes for BG:EE that I haven't commented on (including JMerry's sugestion about The Heart of the Golem +2), both in the sense that the proposals match my preference and the sense that I believe they're objectively correct.

First, I have four more duplicates to add. I kind of feel like I had a few more, but I've forgotten them. Adopting your format:

(1) Readily handled - bdbrac10 exists.

Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise, 'Legacy of the Masters' (brac10). Meilum (swordsman in Firewine Bridge) has it; so does Tazok's tent (AR1901; Container 0) and Tazok.cre

Proposal: Meilum is the iconic case. Tazok is the more important character, but his Legacy of the Masters was originally an easter egg/oversight in oBG1, while Meilum's clearly fit his "Sword Coast's most skilled swordsman" schtick. I assume the EE added the copy in AR1901 because the mihp1.itm it gives Tazok makes it hard to acquire his copy.

(2) Readily handled - bdbrac09 exists.

Gauntlets of Weapon Skill, 'Xarrnous's Second Sword Arm' (brac09). Larze (ogre in Blushing Mermaid) has it; it's also Noralee's quest item (AR1200; Container 18).

Proposal: Larze should have it. Larze and the Noralee quest are relatively similar in terms of prominence. However, named items are inherently more desirable, and so more players will benefit if the named item is treasure on an enemy rather than a macguffin given up to complete a quest. That consideration is the tie-breaker, for me.

(3) Readily handled - bdbelt12 exists.

Golden Girdle, 'Golden Girdle of Urnst' (belt02). Kirian (Waterdhavian adventurer in Mutamin's Garden) has it; so does Simmeon, a blackguard connected to Dorn.

Proposal: Kirian is the original possessor; Simmeon got it by accident.

(4) Readily handled - bdring08 exists.

Ring of Wizardry, 'Evermemory' (ring08). Sunin (mage in BG South West; in AR1111) has it; it's also in a hidden cache outside the Friendly Arm Inn (AR2300; Container 0).

Proposal: Sunin is the iconic case. Sunin is "a master mage" (his own words) in a swanky home; in oBG1, 0.0001% of people found the FAI ring without checking the internet.

On 4/18/2022 at 4:35 AM, DavidW said:

Girdle of bluntness, 'Destroyer of the Hills' (belt03). Krumm the thug has it, but so do two stores: STO1117 (generic potion store) and STO4907 (Zordral's store)

Proposal: Krumm is the iconic case

Only adding that I think that Krumm had the only copy in oBG1. I think STO1117 was restored by the EE, whereas STO4907 still exists only in the in-between realm of the game files (it's restored by Unfinished Business, I think). STO4906 actually resides in AR4907... I think the take-home is that Zordral and Bentha were added to AR4906 later on.

On 4/18/2022 at 4:35 AM, DavidW said:

Ring of Fire Resistance, 'Batalista's Passport' (ring02). Dropped in the Candlekeep catacombs, but also in the Gibberling Mountains

Proposal: the critical-path (Candlekeep) location is preferable. Highly plausible case made in the comments that the mountains location is preferable.

Sam's point that the copy in Candlekeep might have been added in error is convincing, so I would think it wins out if the imagined intent of the game designer is of paramount importance. That said, I found the comment that replacing Batalista's Passport with a Ring of Fire Resistance in the Gibberling Mountains "would significantly impact the early game" to be incredibly surprising - so much so that I wonder if it was made in the belief that there would be no magic ring in AR5500?

From a game design perspective, the critical path is better. I also think it makes sense to find famous magical items in the crypts of famous and influential named individuals and/or in fancy repositories of arcane knowledge. But, really, I don't much care. If a few people really care that a named copy is in AR5500, that's a good reason to keep it there.

On 4/18/2022 at 4:38 AM, DavidW said:

Cases I can't solve (BG1)

Sword +1, +3 vs undead, 'Harrower'. Added by BGEE. Two copies: one is wielded by Elkart (in Skie's story) and one is randomly stuffed into the belt of Zeela the amazon cleric, who can't use it. No generic alternative.

TotSC introduced a duplicate copy of Kondar (Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters - Aldeth Sashenstar's sword) in Ulgoth's Beard, and the Enhanced Edition replaced it with a generic Bastard Sword +1. I'm taking that from the BG wiki, which is not something I like to do, but it chimes with my dim recollections of playing TotSC waaaaaaay back in the day. Given the precedent set by the removal of the duplicate Kondar, I think that a copy of the Harrower should be replaced by a Long Sword +1. It may be relevant that Harrower was introduced by Beamdog in the first place, so they would merely be reversing something they themselves implement.

If a copy is removed, it would be far, far better to remove Elkart's copy. First, if the placement of the Harrower with Zeela isn't because an undead creature unaffected by non-magic weapons is nearby - namely the revenant - then I'm a tuna. Second, the drawback of removing an item that can't be fully replaced is vastly exacerbated if the removed copy belongs to an enemy generally encountered in Chapter 3, while the retained copy is only available after Chapter 4, and only under limited circumstances (either straight-up murder Elkart, or kill him before he executes an EscapeArea() - still murder, essentially).

On 4/18/2022 at 4:35 AM, DavidW said:

Helm of Glory, 'Helm of the Noble' (helm03). Carried by Jardak, but can also be stolen from the noncombatant version of Pride in Durlag's tower.

Proposal: obvs Pride's version should be unstealable.

That is totally consistent with my preferences and with presumed developer intent. However, for reasons that have very little to do with my strength of feeling on this specific change, I got to thinking about the downsides of bugfixes that straight-up remove something while not really offering anything in return. Because there is a downside. Those thoughts seemed better placed in Camdawg's "What exactly are we trying to fix?" thread, so that's where I put them.

Given that the EE essentially put Tazok's Legacy of the Masters in his tent, while neglecting to remove the copy on his person, one could also say "obvs Tazok's version should be unstealable". At the very least, I don't think the answer is quite so clear-cut, for reasons also given in the "What exactly are we trying to fix?" thread.

Edited April 29, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[Sam.]

19 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

 

On 4/17/2022 at 10:35 PM, DavidW said:

Ring of Fire Resistance, 'Batalista's Passport' (ring02). Dropped in the Candlekeep catacombs, but also in the Gibberling Mountains

Proposal: the critical-path (Candlekeep) location is preferable. Highly plausible case made in the comments that the mountains location is preferable.

Sam's point that the copy in Candlekeep might have been added in error is convincing, so I would think it wins out if the imagined intent of the game designer is of paramount importance. That said, I found the comment that replacing Batalista's Passport with a Ring of Fire Resistance in the Gibberling Mountains "would significantly impact the early game" to be incredibly surprising - so much so that I wonder if it was made in the belief that there would be no magic ring in AR5500?

Something about the original wording of the proposal led me to believe the suggestion was to "remove" the ring from the Gibberling Mountains.  The post has since been edited, so I can't be sure if my initial interpretation was warranted or in error.  Regardless, I still feel this is the correct place for the canonical item.

 

19 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Ring of Wizardry, 'Evermemory' (ring08). Sunin (mage in BG South West; in AR1111) has it; it's also in a hidden cache outside the Friendly Arm Inn (AR2300; Container 0).

Proposal: Sunin is the iconic case. Sunin is "a master mage" (his own words) in a swanky home; in oBG1, 0.0001% of people found the FAI ring without checking the internet.

The description from TotSC is:

Quote

Ring of wizardry:  'Evermemory'
Long ago, a grand wizard from Amn was rumored to have defied Mystra's limitations on the magical arts.  Legends spoke of this wizard being able to cast spells without the limitation of memorization.  In the end it was found that his powers stemmed from the several magical rings that he had made for himself.  His proclaimed "everlasting memory" was a hoax, though his rings continue to be one of the most sought after items in the Realms.'

STATISTICS:

Spells:  Doubles the amount of 1st level spells a mage can memorize
Only usable by:
Mage

I would say the description itself indicates that there are multiples of this ring and/or very similar ones (eyeing the original BG2 variant), all having the same origin.  I see no reason to swap any of these with a more generic version.  Also, I'm against messing with the original game developer's easter eggs.

[Greenhorn]

As someone who wish to use this fixpack in the future I'm firmly with Sam here. What is proposed here seems to me more like tweaking than bugfixing. Besides it is already taken care of for those who wish this so much: https://github.com/BGforgeNet/bg2-uniqueartifacts

[jastey]

I see this more as a tweak, too. I do see the motivation of "devs intention was to assign a generic item and grabbed the wrong one" but the aim of a fix pack is to fix things that are broken. Having several instances of unique items doesn't break anything, not in the sense of "can't play on properly".

I'd suggest to make this at least a separate component.

[Sam.]

2 hours ago, jastey said:

I see this more as a tweak, too. I do see the motivation of "devs intention was to assign a generic item and grabbed the wrong one" but the aim of a fix pack is to fix things that are broken. Having several instances of unique items doesn't break anything, not in the sense of "can't play on properly".

I'd suggest to make this at least a separate component.

+1