The_Baffled_King

I agree. However, if the question was whether an "optional because of controversy" component should be included, my position might well be different. I see that the OP is about the pitfalls of optional changes as a whole. I also see that the OP explicitly says that it's "worth deciding" what is or isn't a fix. However, the OP seems to implicitly favour the idea that changes in "the optional bin" are there because they aren't really fixes - and that isn't the only reason "optional fixes" have been suggested. I don't think you've raised the issue prematurely - questions of process are usually best decided towards the beginning of a project. Also, if your concerns lead to the re-opening of debates that might have been settled by way of compromise (as Greenhorn says), it's probably best not to wait until the dust on those debates is long-settled.

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

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). 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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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 difference is astonishing! I suppose I can't say with 100% certainty that it fits my preference without seeing the in-game result - but I will definitely install it and try it out. I think it's good for modding in general that there are people out there approaching the game from different angles like this.

It's probably obvious that I think that's a good idea. Umm, can I ask if giving schools to innates is consistent specifically for creatures such as the Umber Hulk which are "normal" by the standards of Forgotten Realms? If not, I have a brief point or two to make; if so, well, I guess my earlier comments about ships having sailed apply to Umber Hulk, too. I actually think that would be a great way to treat "normal" creatures in another mod!

Thank you, and I'm sorry for taking offence when none was meant. If it was bad communication on your part, it's not important for me to establish that it was (and yes, I agree that a Like button would helpful, especially for long posts like mine) but, as there's been a miscommunication, it seems unfair not to explain the meaning I took from your post. Because you quoted only my definition of a fix, and then said that implementing fixes for the sake of developer intent was "making the game worse to many players for the sake of the dead", I thought your post was clearly implying that I suggested that all fixes must be implemented - which was sort of the opposite of what I wrote. If that was a bad interpretation on my part, then I'm sorry. In fairness to you, perhaps my interpretation would have been different if I'd only been contributing to this thread.

It's funny you should say that, because I wonder if you noticed my post on the second page of this very thread: I'll spare you from reading it; the point was this: "If following dev intent means fixing obscure mistakes, I don't think that's great, because some will regard the flaw as a feature or exploit, while the rest of us won't even notice the change. The length of time the exploit has been available makes this more important than in the BG2FP or EE release days.". I had to point out my earlier reference to Death of the Author, but otherwise I'm done replying to posts that are plainly insulting (which yours isn't), which single me out, or which take my words out of context. I stand by my definition of a fix, which you quoted from my earlier post in this page, but it was very far from all that I wrote in that post.

Don't do yourself a disservice; you did explicitly say that a ton of changes were made by BD (you didn't use the phrase "dev intent", but that's obvs fine). I was happy to ram your point home with examples; I wasn't saying that the examples were required for the OP. Totally agree, but is it dev intent? Speaking as someone familiar with detailed game systems before I played BG, but not specifically with D&D, I found the lack of detail in the rules material for BG was rather frustrating - but it seemed that dev intent was for the player to discover things as they played. I feel that the problem with Umber Hulk is that it's natural (so far as I'm aware) but there's no real analogy to our world, so the average player doesn't automatically expect that an Umber Hulk's ability won't be magical. I'll offer a counterpoint that exists in both our world and BG: poison. In our world, creatures deliver poison. This happens in BG, but there's also a clerical spell that does the same. But nobody is arguing that a wyvern's poison (or poison from the Dagger of Venom) should be made magic so that MR will function the same against Wyverns and the Poison spell. I understand that the analogy isn't perfect, in the sense that this thread is about .SPL resources, and I've given an example about effs attached to .ITMs. But, really, the resource type used to deliver the eff should not be relevant - the burning question is whether Umber Hulk is natural (by Forgotten Realms standards) or not [Edit: Well, sort of - see below]. 100% for SPIN571. Just saying (for consideration of SPIN553) that the single most frustrating thing with succubi - or anything else - will be if we fix them so they work differently between games. I figured that's more important than Kirinhale or succubi in particular, and may give clues to dev intent, so I thought I'd pontificate about it rather than checking what Kirinhale does EDIT: Well, the burning questions are really (a) do we have dev intent for Umber Hulk being natural; and (b) if so, do we have consistent dev behaviour for treating natural abilities delivered via effs on .SPLs as though they have no school, even if that's different to how the equivalent spells are treated. Really don't have the knowledge of SPLs to offer examples, though. EDIT 2: Deleted a sentence from my first edit based on me misreading CamDawg's quote "even the MM describes the effect as 'confusion, as per the spell'" as being from BG source material, rather than the D&D Monster Manual. As for the quote, in isolation, I'd only take it as confirmation that the end result of looking into an Umber Hulk's eyes is comparable to Confusion - I don't think that the MM phrasing is a counterpoint to the other MM evidence.

I think it's probably safest to begin my comment by saying this: I think that the comments I've read are perceptive, logical, sensible, and interesting in the abstract. However, if oBG was inconsistent, but Beamdog systematically fixed most innates, then that's your dev intent right there for starting with the assumption that all innates should have a school, unless there's a legitimate question whether a specific innate should be excluded from the general rule for clearly identifiable reasons. So, it seems to me that there's a "problem" with this debate: the strongest evidence in support of making these changes isn't explicitly detailed in the thread (for good reason). I will give an example of the evidence that isn't explicitly detailed: SPCL211 // Lay on Hands (paladin ability); currently NECROMANCER SPCL213 // Protection From Evil (paladin ability); currently ABJURER Given the characteristics of SPCL211 and SPCL213 - and considering also that there are innumerable other examples that DavidW has not copied into the thread, so as not to waste his time or the time of those reading the thread - the ship on some of the points that have been taken sailed a long time ago. I don't want to use NearInfinity to research Beholders, but I know how many eyes they have, so I'm guessing that they have other innates, which have schools? Equally, if DavidW has posted only a single Bhaalspawn power, I need know nothing about BG2 to know that there must be 5 more (carried over from BG1) which do have schools. This is probably a good point to mention that checking the other games might provide an answer (or reveal inconsistencies, which should maybe be considered in the round). I'm not going to offer any opinion on which school should be assigned. I agree that this is a very sensible, taking into account (as you do) that god-given powers have schools. DavidW mentions that bypassing MR is a sign that a spell is not being cast. I agree. I would add that a lack of a casting animation could be another sign. I don't know a ton about Umber Hulks, but I'm not aware of anything particularly magical or supernatural about them. Succubi are different. For dev intent on succubi, how are they handled in BG:EE (Kirinhale) or SoD (if present)? I would say that there are potentially logical flaws with giving some succubi powers a school ("SPIN553 // Charm Person (Nalmissra the succubus); currently NONE, should be ENCHANTER"), but leaving others without. If they're a spellcaster, then that's obviously fine; otherwise, we probably need to be clear on why a distinction is being drawn. From a player's perspective, "half-magical" creatures will be frustrating, so it would be good to make a clear case for specific dev intent on it OR a very persuasive case for our interpretation (in the general context of dev intent for innates). What is it that succubi are doing to charm? Are they casting a spell? Is it something that just happens when they look at someone (although, on that note, how are other abilities from creatures' eyes coded...)? I can see a difference with the succubi's kiss, on the basis that it might be something that simply happens every time one kisses a succubi - my out-of-product knowledge of succubi (sorry, just the Order of the Stick) tells me that this might be the case. So, perhaps there's a distinction between what something does and what it is. Similarly, as far as the school is concerned, it's my understanding that negative energy can be necromancy, but it isn't necromancy by definition. Note: I know that the ship on SPIN571 // Energy Drain (succubus kiss) has sailed.

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.

@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): 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. 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.

[Edit: Note that this invitation has been withdrawn as of the date of this edit, but only after I reply to Salk's tag on page 3] For lack of a better place to say this - if anyone wants an opinion on the interpretation of text for any thread on EEFP, feel free to tag me and I'll give one. Note that I use British English rather than American English; plainly the latter is used in Baldur's Gate, and I won't argue otherwise, although occasionally a nuanced difference between them will escape me.

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? 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. 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... 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: 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.

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.

The "deadly assassin" was clearly much-concerned with his image, so he owned various pairs of boots of speed in different colours and styles to allow coordination with his outfit of choice each day. I mean, sheesh, way to miss the obvious...

If I hadn't tried to be cute with my phrasing in that last post of mine, I would have said this: "I genuinely don't know what DavidW's personal preference is on this matter, because he's stuck to making arguments on the basis of his objective assessment of dev intent, so I'm curious what form a component of this type would take in SCS.". The problem with trying to estimate what is or isn't likely to be something I want to spend my time on (see: other new thread) is that it's hard to factor in ahead of time that someone might drop something as hilarious as the above on the table... Laughed, went away, laughed again when I came back. @subtledoctor Yeah, we're all good! Wasn't a problem at all.

Subtledoctor, as the previous thread was closed, just wanna say no pardon was required - all views on my opinions are fine, so long as I'm not accused of bad faith. On a lighter note, I find it hilarious that Boots of Speed happened to be the poster child for both my tangential discussion with Bartimaeus, and the discussion over whether there's any inconsistency about DavidW's approach to some of the duplicated unique items in BG2... As for the bit beneath the "snip", if it's "by means of divination magic", it's the Doylist interpretation that the devs had other priorities. If it's Lore-based identification... if either you or Bartimaeus want to read a veeeeeeery long post about Lore that includes the phrase "The Baffled King's Footwear of Awesomeness", start a non-fixpack thread elsewhere, and you'll get it at some point (I'm not going off-topic now the threads have been split to re-focus). In an abstract sense, I legit found the questions posed by Bartimaeus about Lore seriously interesting - it's the history, and the real world comparisons. Isn't the better question re. the bolded bit "what would DavidW want?"? It's a bit more difficult to be sure of a person's preference when they insist on arguing dev intent

I used to work in a public library service. I'm sure that librarians aren't funding this, as we weren't paid enough to fund anything much. That said, while I hestitate to speak for the entirety of my former profession, I think all would agree that libraries would quickly go to **** if we had to discuss the dewey decimal system every time a book needed shelving.

When I discovered the EEs in 2020, having not played Baldur's Gate for nearly 20 years, among the few things that I very specifically recalled appreciating two decades earlier was the backstories given to unique items. Finding duplicates of these items is weird, and I don't enjoy it. That said, I was not arguing for this fix on the basis of my preference - in the stickied thread "[Discussion] What exactly are we trying to fix?", on page 2, I wrote an 826-word post advocating for EEFP to keep in mind the preferences of a playstyle that is diametrically opposed to my own. If anyone suspects me of being deliberately selfish, please consider what I've just said (but don't reply; don't wanna derail this thread). I'll be honest that, from page 2 of the original thread for this fix onwards, my interest in the debate has been driven less by the fix itself, and more by what the debate might tell me about how I can expect EEFP to proceed. I have a strong opinion on what makes shared projects - by which I mean any project without an authority figure directing subordinates to work to the authority figure's specifications - proceed smoothly. In the context of EEFP, that opinion is about as unrestrictive an opinion as you might find, save for the fact that it's quite rigid on the benefits of deciding EEFP's design principles at an early stage, and trying not to re-litigate them in relation to every proposed change that lacks unanimous approval. However, I'm going to pivot away from my opinion about what makes projects proceed smoothly and highlight why it matters to me. With all things in life, before I invest my time in anything, I consider it important to estimate in advance whether that investment of time is likely to be worth my while. Sure, I get side tracked; I procrastinate; I make bad estimates; I make good estimates that just don't work out... but, if I don't have the information to even make an estimate, that's a pretty substantial red flag for me. Here's how that works with an EEFP that adheres to [design standard], which is hopefully not too controversial: if I spend time racking my memory for issues for EEFP, I need consider only [design standard]. If I think I have an issue that meets [design standard], I can safely spend time making a thread knowing that not many people will argue that [other design standard] applies. If someone starts a thread about an issue because they think it meets [design standard], I'll know that my time spent debating whether said issue really meets [design standard] can be worthwhile. If someone starts a thread about an issue that I think actually meets [other design standard], I know that won't be an issue to invest much time in. Sometimes, I will be wrong about whether an issue meets [design standard]; sometimes, I will be right, but that won't be the majority view. In the latter case, if I repeatedly disagree with the majority interpretation of [design standard], I get to change my estimate about the value of participating. Even if EEFP adopts a design standard of "majority vote on every issue; no consistency or justification required", though I will think it a bad standard, I will at least know that it's worth posting "+1" or "-1", but nothing more. At the moment, I have no idea what [design standard] is. Until I do, I'm not going to say anything further about whether any fix should be implemented, including this one.

Sure, no probs. There was nothing sophisticated about the bit you've quoted, mind, so maybe my abrupt phrasing gave the impression there was more to it that there is. I only meant that: (a) BG2 as a whole shows that non-duplication was still a consideration; and (b) some non-generic oBG1 uniques do exist as uniques in oBG2. So they didn't rip it all up and start again in terms of a design standard for uniques in oBG2, and they did bring in oBG1 uniques as uniques in oBG2 (I don't know enough about BG2 to know how many). Also, while continuity between oBG1 and oBG2 is not very flexible, it is obviously central to BG2's plot, and there is evidence that continuity in terms of items was not something that the devs considered beneath their attention - so, there are items such as Helm of Balduran that can be imported, and will appear as a non-duplicated unique item regardless. And so the placement of non-generic oBG1 uniques as uniques in oBG2 doesn't wholly disregard the in-universe logic that Charname's party had stuff on their person that ended up in Athkatla. Then, if I understand it correctly, Beamdog reinforce the standard described above with the genie in Irenicus' place, Malaaq. His dialogue already refers to having "something of yours" and, in the EEs, that something of yours is an oBG1 unique item - and, if I understand the earlier posts properly, there is scripting to ensure that the oBG1 unique item doesn't appear elsewhere if given. Or perhaps that scripting happens only if the oBG1 weapon gets imported? Sorry for the turnaround time on the reply - I haven't ever actually played BG2 (although I know what happens in broad outline), so commenting on it is really not my forte.

Before now, I hadn't read through the posts about BG2, so I hadn't seen the suggestions in line with the above for items existing in BG2 only as duplicated uniques. Bear in mind for the following that I only have access to the EEs, and I'm not familiar with BG2 in the way I am with BG1, which may lead to me missing something obvious. That said: While I wholeheartedly support your arguments that dev intent was not to have duplicates of unique items, I don't think it's reasonable to assume dev intent for all copies of The Paws of the Cheetah to be generic. I think it's more reasonable to assume intent for one copy of The Paws of the Cheetah, and all other boots of speed as generics. What confuses me is that your approach seems a little inconsistent: I understand how Dagger +2 (dagg15) is pretty strong evidence that there were not meant to be multiple copies of The Heart of the Golem +2 (dagg03) in BG2, but I don't understand how anything about Dagger +2 or the processes you describe suggests that there should be any copies of The Heart of the Golem in BG2 at all. I nevertheless agree that there should be a single copy of Heart of the Golem in BG2, because there is dev intent elsewhere for placement of single copies of oBG1 uniques in oBG2, and that is consistent with the plot of BG2 and the evident value the devs placed on unique descriptions (inferred from the time investment in them). In other words, I don't understand why some cases of duplication (such as The Heart of the Golem) are resolved by retaining a single copy of the unique BG1 item, while others (such as The Paws of the Cheetah) are resolved by retaining no copies of the unique BG1 item. If the issue is that it's difficult to infer dev intent for which copy of boots of speed should remain as The Paws of the Cheetah, then: (1) I'm still not sure how determining which The Heart of Golem to retain is any different; (2) I argue below that it doesn't matter too much by this stage; and (3) there is a systematic process that would make sense in-universe. As far as (2) is concerned, I think that dev intent is critically important at the first stage of the analysis, for determining whether there's something that could receive a fix. However, once it's determined that a fix is appropriate then, provided that we aren't being silly, and provided that we propose a fix that is clearly consistent with dev intent elsewhere, I don't think specific evidence of dev intent for the specific change is required at all. Are there 6 Paws of the Cheetah? If so, even rolling a 6-sided dice to determine which copy of The Paws of the Cheetah remains would, for me, be more consistent with dev intent than removing all of them for generics. As far as (3) is concerned, given that Charname et al acquire many items during BG1, and they are then abducted by Irenicus' forces, how about the following chain of priority for retaining uniques: (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. Something like that. However, for this and any other fix, I support all arguments for taking a simpler path that are factoring in the conservation of modders' time - particularly for modular fixes.

40% fire resistance is doubtless a very valuable trait in Vince McMahon's WWE...

Thank you for the apology! Right back at you, if it's necessary. I didn't think your post was too bad, by the way - my appetite died for other reasons. Anyway, if the area of discussion that we arrived at was relevant to the question of a "fix", I was a bit concerned that saying "well, isn't this idea of being able to tell the items apart stupid anyway?" ends up undercutting the case for a fix, when all that mattered was the dev logic that there are recognizably unique items with unique backstories. Putting that to one side, there absolutely are problems with the lore system and the idea of recognisable unique items. You make some valid points. I don't think the points are as strong as you say, mind, and I think there are a few points you're neglecting to consider (or give due weight to), but I'll come back to that in a bit. And... I think that there are far worse problems with found items. First, how come every bit of armor, footwear, and clothing you find will fit your party? How come you can later swap such items at will between your diminutive halfling and your hulking half-orc? I mean, some magic items might resize themselves, but that feature as standard stretches credulity. And why is it that someone with a Lore of 1 can differentiate between a magic item and a mundane item with 100% success, without even using the item? Odd stuff.

My point about differentiating one pair of footwear from another highlighted the fact that whilst what you and I see on our screens are identical 1cm-by-1cm icons, the characters in the in-game world will perceive differences in the physical appearance of boot01.itm and bdboot05.itm. Given that the physical appearance of an item will almost certainly play a part in lore-based identification, my analogy is relevant, up to a point. I can understand why at that stage you bring up modern mass-produced and mass-marketed footwear, but it's not the right comparison, because modern mass-market production methods did not exist in Faerun. I've lost my appetite for further discussion, so I've cut short what I had. Have a nice day.