[Discussion] details of item de-duplication

[The_Baffled_King]

Hah! Yes! Order of the Stick strip 3 WAS my evidence for dev intent accounting for the possibility that adventurers might be concerned about the colour of their magic footwear. However, as Baldur's Gate doesn't have a mechanic for dyeing magic footwear, I was concerned that the callback strip many, many, many years later (when the boots were dyed) wasn't applicable, so I settled on the "owns multiple pairs of boots of speed" explanation.

Edited May 6, 2022 by The_Baffled_King
Stupid move to page 2 making my post not make sense

[Bartimaeus]

3 hours ago, CamDawg said:

 

The Neverwinter Nights Boots of Speed description:

Quote

"You can hide, but you cannot run!" This was the calling card of a deadly Sword Coast assassin who purportedly moved with such speed that his targets couldn't respond, even if on horseback. These boots were the source of his ability, though it is also believed that he formed an elite guild wherein each member was equipped identically, thus explaining why he was not just fast, but could seemingly appear in several places at once.

Demigrvs/Mike's Item Revisions fused the two:

Quote

These enchanted boots were once the property of a deadly Sword Coast assassin who purportedly moved with such speed that his targets often didn't have the opportunity to respond, even if on horseback. Over time the assassin's fame spread, and though his name was never known, all knew to fear the words last heard by his victims: "You can hide, but you cannot run!" These boots were the source of his ability, though it is also believed that he formed an elite guild wherein each member was equipped identically, thus explaining why he was not just fast, but could seemingly appear in several places at once.

You could probably go much lighter and closer to the original. Though I really don't like the idea of a fixpack doing creative description re-writes like this for this purpose (I'm a little surprised that people would want to re-write original lore descriptions so a pair of boots can say the equivalent of "these kinds of boots" instead of "these boots" - the difference is so minute as to not be worth the bother of overwriting original descriptions)...but I guess I would find it less objectionable compared to creating new resources.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[The_Baffled_King]

Much as I'm loathe to return to non-humourous discourse...

@subtledoctor

I'm going to use your list of options as labels to help discuss theoretical options for de-duplication (not just of Paws of the Cheetah) but, on that basis, I wonder if you wouldn't mind editing it slightly, please? CamDawg's alternative could be added as option #7, and I thought perhaps your list could distinguish between us writing an entirely new description ("create", say), using descriptions already written by Beamdog ("assign the BD generic text", say), and CamDawg's alternative ("editing the oBG text", say). Maybe add resrefs?

25 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

The Neverwinter Nights Boots of Speed description:

[Snip]

You could probably go much lighter and closer to the original.

Thanks, that was interesting to read. So, this is option #7, then.

This isn't my first preference, but I'd be happy with it for Paws of the Cheetah, and subtledoctor obviously also has a preference-related concern that is specific to boots of speed.

As far as dev intent is concerned, once we decide that duplication of items with unique descriptions was not dev intent, I have a flexible standard for a fix, so I consider options #3, #5, and #7 as possibilities (subject to clarification, per my question below). We very definitely have to go much lighter and closer to the original, though, for dev intent.

2 hours ago, CamDawg said:

Since this seems to have gotten lost, I'll propose this alternative again. Changing the description of the Paws of the Cheetah

[Snip]

 

It's basically the same sleight of hand that the Ring of Princes uses--another common item with a unique-ish description:

To be certain I'm starting from the same facts, can someone please post (or PM me) the oBG1 identified name and item description (sans statistics) for ring06.itm? If we choose to resolve duplication via fudge of the item description, I'm happy to write potential edits for consideration. I'd be markedly more concise than in my posts.

As far as the aesthetics are concerned, some fudges are easier than others, but I also wanna say that too many resolutions via fudge will start to look a bit messy...

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

[Subtledoctor; final post in the thread that was closed] "Honestly, glancing at that list, it is only the Boots of Speed that seem contentious."

Despite the fact that The Paws of the Cheetah are the gift that keeps on giving (not an alternative proposal for an item name; just a figure of speech), I have to point out that I was using them as a representative example of what I saw as an inconsistency in DavidW's approach.

I've just scanned through the first few posts again, which is the first time I read the BG1 and the BG2 posts one after another, and I can see that there's even a proposal to resolve duplication of the same item in a different fashion depending on whether the item is in BG1 or BG2: Amulet of Protection +1 'The Protector' (amul14). I'm not saying that choice is right or wrong - in principle, regarding the particular item, or regarding the specific choices made - but I don't think we have a straightforward situation. This leads me to:

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

EDIT - throwing this out there. While I have argued against option #3, it seems to be the current favored/proposed solution, so let me suggest an alternate implementation.

Given that option #3 was both the preference I expressed and the dev intent interpretation I argued for, I hate to differ on this, but... I do. DavidW hasn't done anything more concrete than saying to me "I think you're right that I'm being slightly inconsistent." He might decide that the inconsistency doesn't matter (and I will say here that I don't think we have to fix every duplication in the exact same way) or, among other things, he might decide he favours option #5 as more representative of dev intent. I mean, option #5 is plainly a respectable choice, which is why I highlighted that the seeming inconsistency in interpreting dev intent was the problem, rather than option #3 being clearly favourable. As this raises what I consider an important point of principle, which ties into something mentioned in the other thread, that's where I'm going to continue to argue it.

On Allowing Mod-Related Concerns to Affect an Optional Fix

I just wanna add, if concerns about mod compatibility get this shifted to an optional fix, I think it's a bit off for mod-related concerns to also dictate the nature of the fix, if it genuinely does qualify as a fix (this last point doesn't in any way contradict what I've said in relation to how to deal with Paws of the Cheetah, specifically). Phew! Done.

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, The_Baffled_King said:

can someone please post (or PM me) the oBG1 identified name and item description (sans statistics) for ring06.itm?

I don't have oBG1 but in oBG2 the name is "Ring of Protection +1" and the description is:

Quote

Ring of Protection +1:  'Ring of the Princes'
This ring and several of its type were originally crafted to protect the sons of King Castter De'wess, though who uttered the enchantment is unknown.  History records that the rings remained within that family for at least 13 generations, though they were all apparently lost within the space of one.  Enmity between the King and the family of the creator may be to blame.

STATISTICS:

Armor Class:  +1 bonus
Saving Throws:  +1 bonus

 

1 hour ago, The_Baffled_King said:

I have to point out that I was using them as a representative example of what I saw as an inconsistency in DavidW's approach.

That's why I keep mentioning Rashad's Talon, only because it is an example of some proposed to be treated differently. Just to be clear, the inconsistency you saw is that he proposed treating something like scimitars +2 (keep one unique version and make others generic) differently from Boots of Speed (change all instances to the generic description). Correct? My initial response was to say I think there is actually some merit in treating them differently - the inconsistency is warranted. Then I got hung up on how to deal with the Boots of Speed in particular.

2 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

I just wanna add, if concerns about mod compatibility get this shifted to an optional fix, I think it's a bit off for mod-related concerns to also dictate the nature of the fix

Hard, hard disagree. This issue has been out there for 21 years, and to my knowledge neither the BG2FixPack nor anyone else has ever considered fixing it. In those intervening years a LOT of mods have been made, and a substantial number of them are now in an ossified state. As @Greenhorn mentioned, a lot of mods add even more Boots of Speed to the game, and they did and will continue to add the "unique" Paws of the Cheetah, not our proposed generic variant. (Though if my alternate implementation were adopted, this would be fixed.) For a FixPack to come in at this very late date and demand to be installed first and undercut the file structure expected by years and years of modding would be... I don't know, kind of offensive. If it is what people want, that's fine. But at the end of the day this is really just a mod, and to not even consider consequences for all the other mods in the community would be shockingly arrogant.

[The_Baffled_King]

@subtledoctor

Thanks for posting the text of oBG2 Ring of Protection +1, and cheers for the edit of your post, also.

Yes. I read what you wrote in your two posts on the final page of the previous thread about Rashad's Talon, dev intent, and potential inconsistency. I haven't expressed a view yet, but I haven't overlooked it, and I don't mean to give the impression that I'm ignoring it. I was pretty much waiting to see if there was any change in DavidW's position. Also, in case there is any confusion, let me clarify something about the meaning of what I wrote in relation to this sentence of yours (before its second edit):

16 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

EDIT - throwing this out there. While I have argued against option #3, it seems to be the current favored/proposed solution, so let me suggest an alternate implementation.

When I said "I hate to differ on this, but... I do", I was differing only on whether option #3 was the current favoured solution, on the basis that DavidW said "I think you're right that I'm being slightly inconsistent.", but had said no more since then. I felt things were up in the air. I made, and make, no comment on the alternate implementation.

9 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

But at the end of the day this is really just a mod, and to not even consider consequences for all the other mods in the community would be shockingly arrogant.

There is certainly a difference between "not even consider consequences" and "dictate the nature of". If I was wrong about the purpose of pitching this as an optional fix, then there's nothing further for me to say here. If I was right, then I suspect that any response would belong in the other thread.

[subtledoctor]

5 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

When I said "I hate to differ on this, but... I do", I was differing only on whether option #3 was the current favoured solution

I only based that on your stated preference, but rather on the fact that it was proposed for several items, and Graion Dilach showed a list of those items that is already in the FixPack github files. (Why I linked to his post.)

Edited May 7, 2022 by subtledoctor

[The_Baffled_King]

3 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I only based that on your stated preference, but rather on the fact that it was proposed for several items, and Graion Dilach showed a list of those items that is already in the FixPack github files. 

If it matters for me say that I was wrong to differ on whether there was a favoured/proposed solution at that stage, then I can do that. I haven't thought much about whether I was  - although I might have been - but I don't spend want to spend mental bandwidth on it or clog the thread. If you're satisfied that I wasn't trying to exert authority on what is discussed (not a moderator; not my place), or express a view on your "alternate implementation", but merely to say DavidW's position seemed up in the air, I hope that's enough.

I plan for my next post to be solely about the initial lists of items made by DavidW and their proposed fixes, taking into account all of the lists. As I explained before, alhough it's unfortunate that I took a piecemeal approach to commenting on the specific items and noting any potential inconsistencies, that stems from initially intending only to comment on BG1 items. Things changed when disagreements about the fix itself arose. A spoiler is that I can now say that Paws of the Cheetah stood out as the most inconsistent by far.

[The_Baffled_King]

Alright then. Long post incoming. In the third post of this thread, subtledoctor wrote a numbered list of options to consider for a mod that will or might want to make changes to address duplicated uniques. I’ll continue using the numbering from that list, but it occurs to me that there are three further options that might occasionally be useful:

Option #8: Replace a unique with a generic that’s very similar, but not functionally identical.

Option #9: Make duplicate uniques non-stealable (via the .cre resref).

Option #10: Make duplicate uniques non-droppable (via the .cre resref).

So I don’t trip myself up or confuse anyone with contradictory terminology, I'll be consistent with these examples:

Rashad’s Talon +2 (sw1h23) is a generic scimitar +2, which is unique, which is duplicated once in BG:EE (it’s in Durlag’s Tower exterior, and in Cloakwood Spiders), which was bulk-copied from BG1 to BG2, for which an example exists of it being cloned in BG2:EE (original thread; post 3). The Helm of Balduran, The Claw of Kazgaroth, The Horn of Kazgaroth, and Koveras's Ring of Protection +1 are uniques imported from oBG1 to oBG2 and found in Irenicus’ Dungeon. BG1 weapons matched to Charname’s weapon profs are also imported to the same areas. I believe the weapon import was present but not implemented in oBG2 and is currently implemented in BG2:EE. 9 of 11 of the imported weapons are uniques.

My View of the Options

I don't think we have to pick a single option and apply it to every duplicated unique. A varied approach might give better effect to dev intent than a wholly uniform approach. Where there are multiple options that represent more or less equally plausible interpretations of dev intent, that seems to be the point where we can make choices based on preference. However, I think it’s important to be consistent, both for ease of component design and to be sure that we’re adhering to dev intent. If there appears to be some inconsistency in our approach, it’s possible that there’s some flaw in our logic on dev intent. In summary: we can be inconsistent, but I think we should apply our inconsistencies in a consistent way.

Option #1: I find it unlikely that option #1 will ever be appropriate.

A dev error placing a duplicate unique with a parent resref that was not even intended to have a generic version of the unique is not impossible. But it would be hard to identify, hard to know if the devs meant to place anything at all in the slot in question, and hard to know what to replace the duplicate unique with. It also seems like the kind of thing the devs will catch early on. BG2 Unique Artifacts performs a similar function to option #1. I’m grateful it’s been mentioned, as it reinforces the notion that the devs would have been aware that some people who play CRPGs would find that the use of duplicate uniques “breaks immersion and is somewhat annoying” (from its readme).

Option #2: I’m not persuadable that option #2 is within the scope of this component.

First, I’m unaware of any evidence of dev intent to have multiple uniques that are functionally identical; second, I don’t see how to sensibly interpret dev intent for an item description we write from scratch.

Option #3: I believe that option #3 is most consistent with dev intent.

Spoiler

Option #3 does however present problems in determining dev intent for which parent resref was meant to have the unique. The acceptability of this route depends to a large extent on whether it’s permissible to hew to different standards of proof for dev intent at different stages of the process for considering a fix. I strongly believe it is. In a nutshell, it’s far more important to be sure that what we fix is a mistake than to be sure that we’ve fixed a mistake in the exact fashion the devs would have used. So long as we’re sensible, and provided that we don’t do things we think are contrary to dev intent overall, I don't think specific evidence of dev intent for placement is required at all. It seems tricky to come up with a fair analogy for this, so I won't try, but leaving mistakes unfixed because we can't be sure our fix is the best fix feels distinctly odd to me.

As far as dev intent is concerned for deciding which resref gets to retain the unique, I’d even be comfortable deciding at random. That said, I think we should try to be consistent, as it makes the whole process more straightforward. Equally, I think this is a very acceptable area to defer to individual preference, within reason, and also to consider convenience and mod compatibility. I’ve listed all the considerations I can think of for placement, not in priority order:

(1) oBG over EEs; (2) BG1 and SoA over expansions; (3) plot-critical path; (4) earliest available, on basis that early game areas were perhaps completed first and without rushing, so placement was deliberate; (5) earliest available, on basis that uniques are more exciting if found early; (6) prioritise creatures more likely to be hostile; (7) more powerful enemies over less powerful enemies; (8) quest reward; (9) avoid using as quest macguffins that can’t be kept; (10) avoid stores, on basis that oBG stores were a mess, I think; (11) avoid easter eggs, with AR5500 not an easter egg in BG:EE due to dev change on displaying containers, but AR2300 and AR2800 are; (12) non-cloned over cloned; (13) mods; (14) keep original resref associated with instances referring to it via script or .dlg actions.

I imagine there’s room for a non-prescriptive approach, based on holistic assessment of overall significance and likelihood of acquisition which doesn’t involve haggling over every item. I want to flag up uniques used a quest macguffins (ie you don’t get to keep them) as difficult to assess. They have some prominence and theres’s the wrinkle that they’ll be referred to in scripts and/or .dlg actions. On the other hand, saying “devs placed value on these descriptions” and then leaving the unique with something that takes it from the player seems off.

I can’t contribute specifics for BG2 placement, save to repeat what I said about the plot allowing us to use a system of sorts, if/when it’s desirable: (a) on the person of, or in the domain of, Irenicus and Bodhi's associates in Athkatla; (b) in stores in Athkatla; (c) on the person of, or in the domain of, creatures that can conceivably purchase items from stores in Athkatla; and (d) rinse and repeat, going progressively farther geographically from Athkatla. The placement of non-duplicate oBG1 uniques in Irenicus’ dungeon (via import or otherwise, given that default uniques appear) provides some dev support for handling placement like this, if it matters at this stage.

I think the import of uniques to BG2 is actually strong support for option #3 in general. First, despite the very limited continuity between oBG1 and oBG2 in terms of in-game actions taken by the player, the devs specifically paid attention to continuity of uniques. Second, Beamdog continue to do so with the import of SOD items (mostly uniques) into BG2:EE. Finally, the import of BG1 weapons is particularly convincing: not only do the devs go to some effort not only to provide Charname with a (usually unique) BG1 weapon in Irenicus’ dungeon matching their class and weapon profs, they also use multiple scripts in different areas to ensure the unique duplicated via import is removed. If uniques weren’t valued, they wouldn’t be placed in BG2:EE outside of Irenicus’ Dungeon; if duplicate uniques weren’t a problem, why spend effort removing them?

I should add that subtledoctor has, in the case of Boots of Speed at a minimum, highlighted that there are several different ways of handling .itm resrefs to give effect to option #3. I take no view on it, but I’m wondering if it makes sense to decide that option #3 is preferable without knowing what we intend to do with the resrefs?

Option #4: I’m not persuadable that option #4 is within the scope of this component.

Option #4 is an interesting approach if one is bothered about having a unique and multiple generic versions that are all functionally identical, but it doesn’t fit with this component.

Option #5: I believe that option #5 is respectable, and it’s convenient for blanket application.

Spoiler

I think option #5 is a safe choice in that, for each unique, it will sometimes be difficult to be sure which unique would have been retained by the devs and which would have been replaced with their generic counterpart. If we value dev intent equally highly at all stages of the process, this is very attractive. It might also be a good choice for uniques that appear in high quantities or otherwise give the impression that the devs viewed them as generic in some fashion.

However, I think it acts contrary to a foundational underlying assumption of this component, as dev intent has to include the fact that the devs placed value on the descriptions that they wrote for uniques (they clearly did; it obviously took far more time to write descriptions for uniques than to write generic descriptions). I think this component has something of a self-defeating nature, as it orients the fix to “duplicate uniques are bad” rather than “non-duplicate uniques are good”.

Option #5 seems more persuasive for uniques bulk-copied from oBG1 to oBG2. We may decide that the devs occasionally failed to notice that they were using uniques with generic-sounding names, but we can’t decide as easily that they would have used exactly one oBG1 unique (option #3) instead of none (option #5). Even so, as noted above for option #3, there is clear evidence that the devs valued placing BG1 uniques in BG2..

I think the most significant benefit offered by option #5 come if it’s chosen as a default from which we rarely deviate – it saves on the haggling over dev intent for each unique. The beneficial effects of this are somewhat lessened if we’re consistent in how we select the other options.

Option #6: Surprisingly, there’s at least one circumstance where option #6 might be best.

I can’t say I will never, ever be persuadable that option #6 will be appropriate. If it happened frequently then, obviously, I would drop support for this to be in EEFP (even as an option). One exception that springs to mind is when duplicated uniques appear in quest paths that are mutually exclusive – it’s too much to assume the devs didn’t intend that.

Option #7: I think that option #7 should be used, but used carefully, and not used often.

Spoiler

Ring of the Princes is the poster child for option #7. If the games were planned in minute detail and with perfect foresight, we might have a few more like Ring of the Princes. That’s because it’s lunacy to put in extra effort writing descriptions that imply uniqueness, with the intention of being faithful to the description in most cases, but not all cases - one would simply write different descriptions at the outset! Sadly, none of that makes it any easier to implement “the Ring of the Princes fudge” after the fact.

I see four problems with option #7: (1) a standard of dev intent means we should edit text very sparingly; (2) many uniques don’t have description text that’s well-suited to apply option #7 via sparing edit, while for others its pretty much impossible; (3) even if we generally manage option #7 to an acceptable standard, it will look weird to have a lot of different uniques edited in this way; (4) if not done well, isn’t this destroying what we like about uniques in order to make them unique?

So, I think option #7 is great in theory, but in practice difficult to do well. I also think that, unless writing the edited unique description would be simplicity itself, it will perhaps be better to have concrete examples written before we’re happy to settle on option #7 for any given unique.

Option #8: Beamdog have already done this. If it's controversial, perhaps option #8 fixes could be a sub-component?

Option #8 obviously wouldn’t be used often, but it might prove useful. It’s my understanding that there’s precedent for dev intent for dealing with some duplicated uniques that otherwise lack a generic counterpart. As far as I’m aware, TotSC introduced a duplicate of Kondar (Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters) in Ulgoth's Beard (AR1006; generic home), but BG:EE replaced the Kondar in Ulgoth’s Beard with a generic Bastard Sword +1. Functionality changes obviously might be disagreeable to people who otherwise accept the premise of this component so, if option #8 is used, I wonder if any uniques de-duplicated in this way could go into a single optional component?

Options #9 and #10: It can seriously annoy people if Options #9 or #10 are used to remove exploits; the rest of us won't even notice.

There’s plainly dev intent to stop the player from getting items they aren’t intended to have. There was a discussion on page 2 of the stickied EEFP discussion about the cons of using options #9 or #10 to remove duplicate uniques that are available via exploits; it begins with my post and ends at the bottom of the page. CamDawg’s comments at the end of the page mentions how BG2FP approached this issue, and where the line between what Beamdog might do and what EEFP should do might be. It seems fine to me!

Do we have any relevant information on the progress of the games during development?

I understand that oBG1 was finished in a rush, and I think that the area art for oBG1 was complete relatively early on. I really don’t know much else for sure but, if anyone else does, perhaps that would help us interpret dev intent regarding duplicated uniques.

NOTE: I've mostly written a post commenting on a few specific proposals. It will be up relatively shortly.

[The_Baffled_King]

And here’s a post about edge cases, uniques difficult to solve, and uniques for which option #3 was not chosen. I’m mostly, but not entirely, fine with DavidW’s proposals as representative of dev intent. I’ve still said a little about why I agree, so the extent of the agreement is clear.

The Protector +1, Ring of the Guard +2, and items of protection in general

TL;DR is that items of protection +1 have an unexceptional feel to them that fits option #5; but I don’t understand the logic behind option #5 for Ring of the Guard and suggest option #3 instead; I propose option #7 for The Protector +1; and I’ve written fudged text for it (next post).

Spoiler

From the OPs (BG1 and BG2 readily handled):

“[BG2] Ring of Protection +2, 'the guard's ring' (RING07). Given to Aran Linvail; also given as loot in various places; also held by the Hell Dragon.

Proposal: This one I think is best just made generic.

[BG2] Amulet of Protection +1, 'The Protector' (amul14). This is very widely used and clearly is supposed to be non-unique.

Proposal: make it non-unique.

[BG1] Amulet of Protection +1 'The Protector' (amul14). Carried by Nadine (questgiver), who actively gives it to you to hand to her son, and Ragefast (questgiver), who just has it as protective bling. Found loose in ar0169 (a generic home). Sold in Feldepost's Inn, the Elfsong Tavern, and Zordral's tent

Proposal: Nadine is easily the most significant/evocative.”

My comments: In my comments about option #5 I said that there might be unique items that the devs viewed "as generic in some fashion". I think that items of protection +1 are one of very few that fit the bill. This is because: (a) CoP +1 is only generic, while RoP +1 has the fudge of a unique-style description that explains why there are duplicates; (b) like generic +1 armour and +1 weapons, they're "bottom of the class" for their type; (c) their effect is very vanilla; (d) each type is more common than many, if not most, +1 items; and (e) if all three types are combined then, in BG1, I believe they're more common than any +1 item except maybe Long Sword +1.

As far as the specific proposals are concerned, not only is there a difference compared to other items, I can't see a common thread linking the treatment of the three items of protection. Doing different things with The Protector depending on the game has merit, when I think about it. However, the Ring of the Guard in BG2 gets different treatment to The Protector in BG1, the same treatment as The Protector in BG2, and different treatment to other +2 items in both games. I couldn’t see the logic behind this at all. So I wonder if you'd consider retaining Ring of the Guard as a unique (option #3) somewhere in SoA, perhaps with Aran Linvail?

Nadine is in the vexed category of “unique item used as macguffin to complete quest”, but it’s a waste of time saying more on this if option #7 is accepted for The Protector.

Bracers of Defense AC 6, 'Bracers to the Death'

TL;DR is that this felt fine as an option #5 change, for very specific reasons, but I struggle to see any more uniques for which this is desirable, though.

Spoiler

From the OPs (BG2 readily handled):

“Bracers of Defense AC 6, 'Bracers to the Death' (brac03): there are more than a dozen of these in BG2, always given as fairly generic bling.

Proposal: I think here it makes sense just to make the original one generic (its unique description is just inherited from BG1). It's easy to adapt it from the AC6 description. (Using the SoD generic version is not ideal as it has a different style of description from the AC7 and AC8 bracers in BG2.)”

My comments: I agree with all of that. It felt fine as an option #5 change when I thought about it later on. Generic Bracers AC 8, generic Bracers AC 7, and the unique Bracers to the Death in oBG1 provide an unusually clear idea of dev intent for AC bracers in oBG2. Also, the near-duplicated text of the AC 8 and AC 7 versions lets us write our own text the devs would surely be fine with. It’s an unusual one, for sure.

Boots of Speed, ‘The Paws of the Cheetah’

TL;DR is that there’s been much debate about Boots of Speed, but mostly before CamDawg reminded us of option #7. I’m still fine with that in principle instead of option #3.

Spoiler

From the OPs (BG1 and BG2 readily handled):

“[BG1] Boots of speed, 'the paws of the cheetah' (boot01). Drasus has them; so (due to a typo correction) does Lothander.

Proposal: Drasus is the iconic possessor; in oBG1 Lothander doesn't even have them.

[BG2] Boots of Speed, 'The Paws of the Cheetah' (boot01). Classic BG1 loot item. In SoA, carried by Renal and by pbhunt05', one of the bard-quest hunters. Several locations in ToB.

Proposal: I think the reasonable interpretation is that this is supposed to be generic throughout.”

My comments: Option #7 seems to have come to the fore. I’m still fine with that, depending on the text. I think Boots of Speed aren’t easily handled by option #7, but they aren’t out of the question: I file them under “let’s not do this very often, please”. My understanding is that option #7 makes no changes to the distribution of boot01.itm, which assuages concerns about mod compatibility. Just in case we end up doing anything different, I’ll briefly reiterate Argent77’s point that bdboot05.itm should not be used.

Lastly, I have an opinion that is hopefully academic in respect of Boots of Speed, if option #7 settles things. I mention it in case a similar situation comes up. I do not agree that Boots of Speed are comparable to items of protection +1 or to low-level (relative to the game) Bracers of Defense. I maintain that the better comparison is to any other duplicated unique dealt with via option #3, and I can’t see the logic for extending occasional use of option #5 outside of the limited type of cases discussed earlier in this post.

PS. In BG1, Drizzt has a special copy of The Paws of the Cheetah (bootdriz.itm). I haven’t checked BG2. Interestingly, using option #7 on boots of speed elsewhere and changing nothing about Drizzt’s footwear gives the impression that the big damn hero has the special boots formerly owned by the "deadly assassin". I like that. [EDIT] Ooops. I forgot that Drizzt's boots are non-droppable. [/EDIT]

BG1 and BG2 Edge Cases and Cases That Can't be Solved

TL;DR is that it's short enough not to have a TL;DR

Spoiler

“Sling of unerring accuracy (weird BD item that gives +2 to hit but +0 damage). Black Lily sells one, but it's also randomly upstairs in the Splurging Sturgeon.

Proposal: BL's is the primary one. Replace the other with ordinary sling +1.

Issue: the ordinary sling+1 is a mechanically different item.”

My comments: I agree with your proposal (including leaving Black Lily with the unique); I think this is an option #8 fix. For what it’s worth, I thought this belonged in your “cases I can’t solve” category, as I actually consider it more problematic than Harrower.

"Necklace of Missiles (amul01). Multiple copies and no generic version."

My comments: It was CamDawg’s suggestion to use option #7 for this. I agree with it. I’ve written fudged text for this (in the next post).

“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.”

My comments: I think this is fine as an option #8 fix, replacing a duplicate with a generic Long Sword +1. My comments about option #8 fixes in my previous post provide dev precedent for this. I think that Zeela’s copy is the only choice to keep as the unique. Aside from the immediately obvious, Zeela in my view has been given this because of the Revenant in the area, and you have to straight-up murder Elkart to get his copy - he's either not hostile at all, or he initiates combat (sort of) via dialogue then does EscapeArea().

Edited May 12, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[The_Baffled_King]

Alright. I think I've written enough for several lifetimes about BG duplicated unique items.

Here is the option #7 fudge I wrote for The One Gift Lost:

Quote

Necklace of Missiles: The One Gift Lost [Original]
The naming of this necklace originates from its only owner, Ikaida Mourneve, who quested to regain his kidnapped daughter. Not many would help the determined father, but a kind and generous mage bestowed this item on him to aid his cause. Alas, the necklace was lost when Ikaida dropped it into the Immerflow River while fending off bandits upon a suspension bridge. Fortunately, it is rumored that the item was not needed to reunite the family once again.

Necklace of Missiles: The One Gift Lost [Fudged]
The naming of necklaces such as this originates from the tale of Ikaida Mourneve, who quested to regain his kidnapped daughter. Not many would help the determined father, but a kind and generous mage bestowed one of these necklaces on him to aid his cause. Alas, the necklace was lost when Ikaida dropped it into the Immerflow River while fending off bandits upon a suspension bridge. Fortunately, it is rumored that the item was not needed to reunite the family once again.

Here is the option #7 fudge I wrote for The Protector:

Quote

Amulet of Protection +1: The Protector [Original]
The royal guard of King Pyronan, ruler of Impiltur, were given the Protector as an honorary show of status. Unfortunately, members of the guard had trouble coming to a consensus amongst themselves as to whom the amulet should go. After years of internal hostility, the item was lost and the guards replaced by less greedy individuals.

Amulet of Protection +1: The Protector [Fudged]
The royal guard of King Pyronan, ruler of Impiltur, were given these amulets as an honorary show of status. Unfortunately, members of the guard had trouble coming to a consensus amongst themselves as to whom the items should go. After years of internal hostility, the amulets were lost and the guards replaced by less greedy individuals.

If these aren't considered terrible, and there is some desire to pursue option #7 fixes for this fix / optional fix / component in another mod, then I'm happy to write a bunch more, including one for The Paws of the Cheetah.

I'm also happy to go through BG:EE to check for more duplicates, including checking .dlg and .bcs files for any mention of the .itm resrefs. I'm afraid I can't volunteer myself for BG2:EE because looking at stuff for it in that much detail will take me ages and spoil the game for me (on the basis that I've never played the game).