I finshed this game a long time ago so stopped posting about it. So I don't know what has been discussed and what hasn't.

But in another Kangaxx post there was no mention of (legally) getting 2 Rings of Kangaxx out of him.

Send an invisible rogue up to him before the text starts. Pick his pocket and have your rogue run like hell and move up someone who has the magical protection necessary to ignore his Imprisonments.

You'll find the rogue has a Ring of Kangaxx. After you kill him you'll get another one.

Here is another fun one. If you try to fight Drizzit, it will be tough, unless you use those charm ringlets you got in the Underdark in the Mindflayer's prison. Charm one or two of em to even up the odds.

I can't remember more of this little tricks off the top of my head. But I'm sure others have found other moments to exploit.

Anyone?

This trick is actually discussed in the 'Are you cheesy?' thread in the ToB forum right now - but it's a great trick if you don't mind bending the rules a bit :)

Oh, and you can get two Rings of the Ram by Tolgerias in the same manner...

I never thought of slapping a mind flayer circlet on Drizzit. How funny would that be... Charm him and watch him go ape$hit on all his companions. Does that ignore his magic resistance? I guess it would - mind flayers have high magic resistance too...

*sigh* I thought this Ring of Gaxx trick has been discussed COUNTLESS of times?!

My bad, Deathmage, as I said I was brand new to the boards and didn't read about it mentioned in the another Kangaxx post.

I guess if I bought the definition of the 'Are you Cheesy' would be yes.

I'll start to post there, but here is one more good one:

Going in invisible to avoid box text for as long as possible to get tactial advatage is a genreally good rule of thumb.

For example when you have to fight the trolls in your castle to be. Have your mage(s)sneak up invisibly behind the columns on the margins of the room. Move up as close as possible to the without actually having the trolls on screen. Than cast web more than once if you want to make sure you web most of the trolls.

Than go for the fireballs, which will trigger the dialogue. Than move your mages back and starting hitting the trolls with ranged weapon (fire and acid arrows etc,) As well as keep up as many fire spells as you can.

Its amazingly fun, because a straight up fight with the trolls was very difficult.

Oh and yes to Aldeth's question about the circlet ignoring Drow magic reistence.

Using fire and acid arrows on trolls all the time seems to be a waste. Aswell for the firespells. Just use regular ammo and Magic Missile or whatever until they get knocked out.

I'm not sure if the circlet idea is cheesy or creative, but it sounds neat. Can you keep Drizzt's items this way, or does Malchor Harpell still come to collect them?
Going in invisible to avoid box text for as long as possible to get tactial advatage is a genreally good rule of thumb This sounds alot like casting cloudkill into the fog of war - cheesy.

not quite....one would assume that they know they're going into a room with a ****load of trolls....

thus, common sense would have it that th emages would cast invisibility spells on themselves and the thieves would sneak in and they would get the best vantage possible before the cavalry arrives to initiate the fight.

Sounds more like common sense role-playing.

Except for one thing.

If I were role-playing that fight...I wouldn't even wait for the convo...id just start blasting away.

I'm not sure if the circlet idea is cheesy or creative, but it sounds neat. Can you keep Drizzt's items this way, or does Malchor Harpell still come to collect them?
Yeah he does. I was lucky however, there was an odd bug where Harpell appeared but never initiated dialogue.

But talk about cheesy, you win a battle and than the manifestation of the game morality comes in and takes your booty away?

If I didn't get to keep them I would have re-assigned them to my party with Shadowkeeper.

I'm not sure if the circlet idea is cheesy or creative, but it sounds neat. 'Cheesy' is used far too easily. I'm not accusing you of this Splunge, but calling the use of a found item in a totally normal manner cheesy, or anything other than 'totally acceptable' is just narrow thinking.

Using fire and acid arrows on trolls all the time seems to be a waste. Aswell for the firespells. Just use regular ammo and Magic Missile or whatever until they get knocked out. Perhpas, but it was fun :D

The circlet thing is pretty cheesy
especially if you use it to get a pet demilich or dragon :D

IMO the circlet trick is only cheesy if you use it on a non humanoid creature, dragons fx (does that actually work?!)...

To charm Drizzt using a circlet is simply a creative way to use a found item.

Kangaxx? A search shows 253 topics discussing Kangaxx in the SoA Forum. :cool:

About cheese... again. Whenever you figure out something new, stop for a moment and think about it. In this topic we have two examples:

- Getting two Ring of Kangaxx.
Do you think the game designers intended that you get this ring as a reward for killing Kangaxx or did they intend for you to steal it first and then get another copy as a reward for killing him?
The answer should be obvious to everyone with enough intelligence to play the game. :rolleyes:

- The Mind control circlets
What was the reason for putting these things in the game? Why is there more than one?
These circlets are there as the only way to escape and there are more than one so that you aren't stuck in case you mess up. This is not as clear cut as with the Ring of K.
Did the designers intend any left over circlets as a reward if you handled it smoothly? I don't think so but there is a small chance that they actually did intend that.
Did they consider how these circlets could be abused? I really doubt that.
I've abused the circlets in some of my games and they are without a doubt a "broken" (=overpowered) item.

not quite....one would assume that they know they're going into a room with a ****load of trolls....

thus, common sense would have it that th emages would cast invisibility spells on themselves and the thieves would sneak in and they would get the best vantage possible before the cavalry arrives to initiate the fight.

Sounds more like common sense role-playing.

Except for one thing.

If I were role-playing that fight...I wouldn't even wait for the convo...id just start blasting away. First of all: If you're roleplaying, how would you know there's going to be a though fight with loads of trolls in the next room? Been there before? People only live once, and it is your character's first time through the castle. Maybe not your first time, but the character's. There's now way, he can know what to expect.

It could be common sense roleplaying to send ahead some invisible scouts who detect the though trolls (meaning they should be in the fog of war). Then, the invisible party could line up in a strategical position (maybe outside FoW) and start the fight. That's common sense roleplaying.

Going out of the fog of war and then shooting area effect spells could also be roleplaying (although cowardice). But since the game is too stupid to let the characters move out of the area effect spell and attack you.

I know, I know, 'tis a SoA-topic, but as it is revealed in ToB, the prophecy of The Player Character has happened a helluva many times before, and will happen again, and again.
Maybe the player character believes in reincarnation and remembers something from past lives? Err.. that was a little far fetched, wasn't it? Um, I go now.

Earl Grey, your language is rather prejudicial that gets in the way of your opinion appearing objective.

Did the designers intend any left over circlets as a reward if you handled it smoothly? I don't think so but there is a small chance that they actually did intend that. You can't say one way or another. You're making a rather large assumption.

Did they consider how these circlets could be abused? I really doubt that. Why do you think this exactly? And why are you using the word 'abused' anyway? They are obviously placed in the game, one can acquire several extra with ease. Why are you so sure they were designed ONLY for escape? Do you always think things have very particular and singular purposes?

Maybe the programmers wanted to give people a gift for thinking beyond the story line.

You so easily deride the use of an object that easily and apporipately acquired and using them in another situation.

You really can't say that the circlets were only designed for esacpe, and the programmers didn't have the intention of having them used elsewhere.

I've abused the circlets in some of my games and they are without a doubt a "broken" (=overpowered) item. OK so you've never come across a situation where there is a power imbalance? Is reality for you just the interaction of equally balanced forces?

Please... :rolleyes:


First of all: If you're roleplaying, how would you know there's going to be a though fight with loads of trolls in the next room? Been there before? People only live once, and it is your character's first time through the castle. Maybe not your first time, but the character's. There's now way, he can know what to expect. Well actually you know that the castle has been taken over by many trolls. And since you've been fighting a few trolls in the previous room before you arrive to the big room, and you know something big is going to be in the next room, its not totally unreasonable to send in an invisible contingent of people to check it out.

I agree about the circlets being designed to be carried out and used wherever you found the need. Sure you could take a Dragon or a Demilich, but then what are you gonna do with it? All Dragons (IIRC) and the Demilich are stuck in their little rooms, what good does it do to take them? The circlets aren't that grossly overpowered, all things considered. And you don't even need them to escape, you can turn into the Slayer to open those doors. They are to be used creatively, like most items in the game.

(Text in italics are quotes from my previous post.)
(Quotes are from bigdndfan's post)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


quote: Did the designers intend any left over circlets as a reward if you handled it smoothly? I don't think so but there is a small chance that they actually did intend that.
You can't say one way or another. You're making a rather large assumption.Is it really that large an assumption?

I do leave the door open for the possibility that it was made by intent so I'm not categorical about it.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


quote: Did they consider how these circlets could be abused? I really doubt that.
Why do you think this exactly?A few reasons:
- The image/circlet neverending abuse.
- The circlets fit with the mind control theme of Mind Flayers.
- Party is trapped with no way out except the circlets.
- Time restraint in game development, so it's easy to miss or forget about things.
Again, I leave the door open for the neverending use of circlets to have been intended, but these are reasons why I think they were not or should not have been intended.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


And why are you using the word 'abused' anyway?Because abuse is the correct word.
Abuse = "improper or excessive use".


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


They are obviously placed in the game, one can acquire several extra with ease. Why are you so sure they were designed ONLY for escape? Do you always think things have very particular and singular purposes?Two things in this case:
1. Without a circlet it's game over.
2. It is easily possible to waste a cirlcet when experimenting with it's use and thus be stuck.

Why should I always think everything has a singular purpose? Because I think so in this case? :confused:


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Maybe the programmers wanted to give people a gift for thinking beyond the story line.Yes, maybe. That's why I said I'm leaving that possibility open.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


You so easily deride the use of an object that easily and apporipately acquired and using them in another situation.What? :confused:


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


You really can't say that the circlets were only designed for esacpe, and the programmers didn't have the intention of having them used elsewhere.Again, that's true, but IMO it's likely that they either didn't understand the consequences, or more likely, understood the consequences but had no time to come up with something else or a fix.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


quote: I've abused the circlets in some of my games and they are without a doubt a "broken" (=overpowered) item.
OK so you've never come across a situation where there is a power imbalance?Of course.
Something is "broken" in BG2 when it's so good that you choose to do that one thing to the exclusion of handling it in the way your character and party is designed to handle it.

I'm pretty sure that almost all players will agree that slapping a cirlet on the monsters is not the way your party is "supposed" to handle the encounters. ;)
Any first level character can do that. :)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


... Is reality for you just the interaction of equally balanced forces?Have I said that? :cool:

Earl Grey :)

While you might have offically left the door open (a crack) your words were saying "Close the Door!" You made it clear with your prejudical words about what you thought was appropiate.

By the way, one doesn't NEED the circlet to escape. The game isn't over if you don't use it. You can just turn into the Slayer and the door will open.

So there is no task specific purpose that only the circlet can bring resolution to. Therefore, leaving the circlet free to be used for any purpose. I.E. it there is no specific purpose that you necessarily have to use the circlet for.


Its been well over a year since I played the game but I belive that the circlets didn't work on every single creature. Which says to me that programmers had the future use of them in mind.

Here is the Webster dictionary definition of abuse: 'to put to a wrong or improper use'

So why is using the circlet on creatures that can be effected (when there are some that can't) be a 'wrong or improper use'?

As to the 'balance of forces' idea I was writing, I see nothing wrong with legally getting advantages when the opportunity arises. Since that is how reality (fantasy reality or whatever reality you want to talk about)is: unequal balance of forces interacting with each other.

I don't think the circlet is 'broken' because 1)it doesn't last for very long, 2) it doesn't work on everyone and 3)most importantly, opponents we come across take advantage of strengths over us, and since we are playing to survive, we should do the same. Since the circlets are easily procured and we are allowed to keep them, that says to me "Use them"

So why do you believe this:


I'm pretty sure that almost all players will agree that slapping a cirlet on the monsters is not the way your party is "supposed" to handle the encountersI totally disagree. Why should we simple-mindedly follow the obvious ways on how to play the game? What is wrong with finding legal alternatives?

Why should one accept the idea that finding a more pragmatic solution as wrong and bad or Broken???

Its not like the circlets are permanent magic items that we can use at every encounter.

Circlets are for practical purposes permanent (see image abuse)

Circlets do not enhance a character. A 1st level character can use it just as well as a 15th level.

Fine so you COULD find a way to misuse the circlets, but not if you use it as is.

couldnt we all just agree that everyone has their own opinions??

the earl has his, and bigdndfan has his

What's wrong with a little discussion?

I agree with Earl Grey. I don't think these items were intended to be a reward of some sort. First of all, because I can think of no occasion where the game would do something similar (except the Cult of the Unseeing Eye rod).
Second, these circlets, that everyone can easily acquire and use, can make very hard intended battles very easy. Why? Just charm someone and let him beat on his mates or just go berserk on him and he won't do anything back for a while.
The game intended hard battles to be hard and not to be easily won by some image that casts from that circlet.

One thing I'm puzzeled about though. This issue has been raised before and I can't imagine that the Bioware people don't know about it. So why don't they just take these items away from you? Or let them decay along with the Drow stuff, or something like that. That wouldn't seem too hard...

There are a lot of bugs that were never patched by Bioware; just look at the things fixed by the SP Fixpack (http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/index_editors3.htm). I guess Bioware went on to other things after their first (and only) patch.

There are many kinds of gamers, from power-gamer to role-players, from non-cheater to hardcore cheater. I think it is because, Bioware wants all of them to have their fun....(Non-cheater can play the way we like and cheater can also play the way they like) :)

I'm with the earl on this one. I seriously doubt the designers intended the circlets to be a reward. I believe this for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that it more or less trivializes any encounter in the game. With the use of simulacrums and / or projected images, it trivializes EVERY encounter in the game. Why would game designers bother designing DIFFERENT encounters that can all be handled in the SAME way, for the large part by almost any party / class combination.

I write software for a living. While this doesn't give me any special insight into what these particular programmers were thinking when they designed these circlets, I know that oversights like this are very common. Ask yourself, do you really think someone sat back for a moment while creating these circlets and said "yeah... if the player was clever, they could save these circlets for the dragons, liches, and other important / difficult encounters throughout the game! It would make them so VERY easy!"?

IMHO there are more circlets than you need because you might charm an Ithlid as opposed to an Ultraillthid (sp?) accidentally, or you might use them on an Ithlid who later gets killed etc. etc.

IMHO there are more circlets than you need because you might charm an Ithlid as opposed to an UltraillthidIllithids can open the doors.

Who can say whether the designers intended for us to have circlets left over after the dungeon? I have never successfully been able to open both doors with one circlet, meaning that two are needed.

BTW, the fact that you don't even need to charm creatures to open the doors lends creedence to the argument that the designers did actually intend for us to have leftover circlets.

Did they intend for the reflected image/simulacrum cheat? I doubt it. That's a bug and if it wasn't, I doubt that there would be any protection from magic scrolls in the game.