BG:TOSC: Do *NOT* waste money on "ring of invisibility"
Peter Seebach
Rings of invisibility have *never* had charges. It's part of what makes
them such cool toys...
*sigh*. I *really* hope BG2 gets more of the "basic" rules right, the little
quirks like this are a real pain.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Ryan J Franklin
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>Some kook decided to give the ring of invisibility *charges*.
>
>Rings of invisibility have *never* had charges. It's part of what makes
>them such cool toys...
Unfortunately, as anyone who took Gatekeeper or a similar character editor
and played around with the game could tell you, the ring of invisibility
was _devastatingly_ effective in Baldur's Gate back before it had charges.
Not that it isn't devastatingly effective in a pencil-and-paper game, but
at least there you might have a clever GM who can rein it in a bit.
One could argue that they should've left the ring out entirely, then,
rather than...um...compromise the basic integrity of the AD&D ruleset (I
admit that I can't type that without laughing) by turning it into a
charged item. And maybe they should've. On the other hand, it gives you
the equivalent of a stack of potions of invisibility that doesn't take up
a quick item slot, so it's not like it's an awful item. Just underpowered
if you remembered what it was like _before_ TotSC (and you could only get
it by editing the character's inventory, not just buying it).
If it bugs you terribly, feel free to use a character editor to put the
ring back into your inventory every time it runs out of charges.
--
or pretend it doesn't exist in the first place
fran...@u.arizona.edu
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Some kook decided to give the ring of invisibility *charges*.
>
>Rings of invisibility have *never* had charges. It's part of what makes
>them such cool toys...
>
>*sigh*. I *really* hope BG2 gets more of the "basic" rules right, the little
>quirks like this are a real pain.
Heh. What was that about spam and Interplay again? Looks like someone
failed a Will roll...
Anyway, the reason they did it was because it supposedly totally
unbalanced the game. It's pretty unbalancing anyway with a human DM, but
the computer just makes it worse. You could try selling it back to the
shopkeeper, and then buying it back again -- just like with wands.
--
Hong Ooi | I attacked your behaviour ... "you are BEING a jerk".
ho...@zip.com.au | An ad hominem attack would be if I said "you ARE a jerk".
Sydney, Australia | -- f.
Peter Seebach
Ryan J Franklin <fran...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>a quick item slot, so it's not like it's an awful item. Just underpowered
>if you remembered what it was like _before_ TotSC (and you could only get
>it by editing the character's inventory, not just buying it).
Or compared to the AD&D rules. :)
Peter Seebach
Hong Ooi <ho...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 23:38:11 GMT, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
>wrote:
>>quirks like this are a real pain.
>Heh. What was that about spam and Interplay again? Looks like someone
>failed a Will roll...
Nah. I spent a few hours writing up an RBL nomination for Interplay/DR. So,
I did my research on it - and it turns out, DR spammed me. Interplay was a
victim of DR's policies. The deal is, if you do Interplay's registration,
they have a little opt-in box to ask to be on the list. DR auto-registers you
and "opts you in".
I got added to the list on Feb 24, about 3 months after my order. I fussed.
I got told I was being taken off the list. I got another mailing on March 5 -
and fussed *really* loudly this time.
About March 31/April 1, I got a couple of things:
1. *two* separate "remove" confirmations.
2. A clear statement from DR that they add people to mailing lists
automatically.
I also found out that, around this time, our friend Meghan (who left recently,
I guess) went and personally looked, and I was marked as "doesn't want email"
in the Interplay database.
On May 12, I got the TOSC ad. So, I started writing up an RBL nomination.
(For those curious: http://maps.vix.com/rbl/. It's an anti-spam tool.)
During my research phase, I discovered that at least two other vendors
(Aladdin, the Mac compression utility people, and PowerQuest) who claim to
run "opt-in" lists had been reported to have spammed people - who had bought
their products from DR.
I traded some email with a contact at Interplay, and managed to get myself
over to their webmaster. He's convinced me that Interplay's policies are
clean. With all this evidence, I think DR's going to be getting fixed.
>Anyway, the reason they did it was because it supposedly totally
>unbalanced the game. It's pretty unbalancing anyway with a human DM, but
>the computer just makes it worse. You could try selling it back to the
>shopkeeper, and then buying it back again -- just like with wands.
Nah. I just went in and added 'f0' to the byte after the '01' for remaining
charges. In about 60k uses, I'll do it again.