GrinningReaper659

I'm generally of the mind that the devs should be given a wide berth of artistic license due to the ambiguity of 'spiritual successor,' but some specific promises were made in the pitch. They said in the KS pitch that "Project Eternity will..." "...take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate" -- I'm pretty confident on this front, we haven't seen the companions yet but the exploration is acceptably fun (though small, busy maps do stand out as less fun to explore than those of Baldur's Gate imo). "...add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale" -- I'd say it's pretty fair to state that this isn't the case at the moment. The fact that people find the current combat fun does not fulfill this promise, because they promised "the fun, intense combat ... of Icewind Dale." This is much more specific than just promising fun, intense combat. Those saying that it's okay that the combat feels more like DA combat or NWN2 combat are missing the point that while it may be fun for you, it's not acceptable in that it doesn't fulfill this specific promise. I'm not quite as upset about this as some others seem to be, but the closer the combat gets to the combat of the IE games (see: the fun, intense combat of Icewind Dale), the happier I'll be. If the engagemnt system's support of static combat takes away that overall IE combat feel from the game, a great number of backers are going to be disappointed, and justifiably so. I haven't played the beta since after the first update so I'm not personally sure how the combat feels right now; but from what I'm reading here, those upset with it say it doesn't feel like the IE games at all and that's not okay, and those that like it say that it doesn't feel like the IE games at all and that is okay. Well, if this is the case, it's a problem because it contradicts a promise that was made. "...and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment." -- No problems here.

And how would you complete that analogy? He either beats the game (wins/defeats the forum, which is impossible), or he runs out of quarters (ideas) while trying; the latter being the only real possibility and the point of the forum. EDIT: 'realy' --> 'real'

So, has there been any word on whether or not the "backed by" type stuff concerning backer NPCs is going to stay in? I'd love an official word from the devs on this one. That type of stuff is entirely too intrusive and immersion breaking and would certainly make a lot of people look negatively at future crowdfunding projects. We all appreciate each others' contributions to getting this thing made, great, but let's make the game well now that it is being made. Backer designed NPCs standing out is not a good thing.

Accusations that those against per-kill XP are hippies, are incorrectly thinking that PoE won't be about killing stuff, and of course my favorite: that anyone against per-kill XP didn't play or enjoy the IE games. Give me a break, I see that this argument hasn't evolved much and that you pro per-kill XPers are slandering your opponents by knowingly misrepresenting them. I'm not going to regurgitate all the legitimate reasons for not wanting per-kill XP, but those of you that have been around for all the combat XP threads (you know who you are) know them already, so stop intentionally misrepresenting those who don't support per-kill XP. I imagine that many of those that oppose per-kill XP have quieted down a bit because they're willing to accept the bestiary compromise if necessary. Also, many of the pro kill-XP crowd have seemingly quieted down for this same reason.

Everyone keeps saying that if you can snap her neck, then surely you can just knock her out instead just as easily, but I'm not so sure about that. It seems like it would take a considerably precise application of force to render her unconscious without killing her -- not to mention the fact that she may very well regain consciousness during your fight with the cultist leader and leave anyway, or die during the fight if you use too much force... I mean, what is your fighter doing here that makes it so easy? Is he knocking her in the head with a blunt weapon, giving her a solid upercut? Either way, there's plenty of room for error on either side of unconsciousness. I'd say that just knocking her out for the duration of your battle shouldn't be open to everyone even if it were an option, and even then should involve some risk that she'll regain consciousness or die.

This is the most important bit, across all gaming genres. In fact, animations are much more important than graphics and more significant because there is a clear ceiling for it. Poor animations just destroy any enthusiasm for a game, most people feel it but can't pinpoint it. Anyone that says graphics don't matter are trying to do one of three things: 1) Properly express what they really are trying to say, which usually is "don't waste resources on shiny baubles" 2) More focused on gaining street cred than having an actual discussion (Witcher fans are the absolute WORST at this) 3) #1 and #2 Sometimes #1 is a bit more specific, such as "don't even waste resources on graphics (even things more important than shiny baubles) until these more important areas of design have been satisfied..." it's often about priorities. Are you suggesting with #2 that people claiming to not care much about graphics are simply trying to impress others? How is it impressive or deserving of street cred to not care about graphics? Are people that claim to enjoy reading books all just trying to impress others while internally wishing they were watching movies instead? I don't get this point. Also, there is something to be said for the potential value of intentionally limiting graphics. I suppose there are those that see all media which lacks complete visual representation as a product of technological or other limitations, but I'd say that my first read of The fellowship of The Ring would not have been improved by a picture on every page to show me what every character and setting looked like. I don't see films as a form of media which is superior to books, and reading (even specifically reading written descriptions of environments or the body language of a character) has a hopefully lasting place in crpgs. I can't stand when a game drags me into a cinematic view every time I enter dialogue (NWN2) and I much prefer for a game to have a description of what it is trying to convey rather than attempting to immitate a movie and dragging me into a closeup first person or over-the-shoulder view every time some NPC wants to say something to me. I like the blend of graphical and written representation found in the PoE Beta, I think that they are generally striking a good harmony between the two: by which I mean that the world and characters are represented solidly with the graphics, while details of body language and other things not conveyed graphically are described in text. I don't think of those text descriptions as a limitation and I don't believe that the natural progression of computer games will involve graphics advancing to the point that such descriptions become unnecessary and are done away with, I think that they have a place regardless of how good the graphics get. So I'd say that it's often about people genuinely not caring about expensive graphics as much as they care about the writing, reactivity, consequences of choices, combat mechanics, etc., which is pretty much what you were getting at with your #1 I think, just thought I'd expand on the thought a bit.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position. I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this. Without any rewards other than loot - and let us be honest, most of the battles won't yield rewarding loot, but just money in all its wonderful dungeoneering form - normal battles will become tedious. If PoE is anything like the BG series, and currently it looks like it, than there will be plenty of battles to fight with most of them dropping random stuff you'll most likely sell. A non-combat-xp system stimulates a player to always avoid combat where possible, something I find as annoying as others might find combat-xp. The thing is, if players want to go out of their way to get extra xp, by wasting their time and going to the farthest corner of the map in search of three wolves, just for some 45+xp, just let them do that. Why are people so hell-bent on trying to enforce a certain playstyle on others? If you don't like to do that, just don't do it. And before someone says I want to enforce my playstyle, too: No, the thing is it makes no difference for people who don't go out of their way to kill everything to get combat xp, as they're not farming, but just experiencing the game. Combat xp is a logical, calculated and balanced part of the game (or should be). You might hate farming, but this is not a multiplayer, this is not a competition. If people want to farm, let them. Nobody is forcing you to farm. But by taking away combat-xp you are most definitely forcing other players to play the game how you want and this just sucks. By the way, the you is the general you and not a specific person in this case. But in my opinion, this is the biggest problem these days: Envy. People hate that others are faster, more efficient or stronger than them. People hate that there are munchkins out there who could beat the game faster than they will, because they're minmaxing and gaming the system. People hate that there are scumsavers, minmaxers, walkthrough-users and whatnots. And because they hate that there might be someone whose characters are a bit stronger than theirs, because he wasted the time to get some extra kills, they want to "balance" a singleplayer game and enforce a cetrain gaming style. Oh I still remember when there were people who would clamour about the possibility to save-scum. How they raged that ironman was only an option. I don't know if I find it sad or amusing that people are this way. I was pretty surprised to come back here and see people so personally affected by the way other people play their SP game...I wonder how they react to real life situations..... They had save game editors for the IE games, console for NWN and likely will for this but people are worried about giving out 10 exp for killing some wolves....lol...amusing is where I sit atm so I guess that answers that. @wickermoon & GreyFox That's really interesting stuff there, could you go ahead and direct me to all of these quotes of people saying that the reason that they don't want per-kill XP in the game is because they're angry or envious that some other player they'll never meet is gonna rack up 10 more XP than them? Oh, that's not what people have been saying at all? Hmm, it looks like you've just constructed some sort of straw man and dressed him up like your opponents, and then proceeded to beat him with sticks while laughing about how you're vanquishing your enemies. I'm sorry for the heavy sarcasm here but you guys have to be kidding with this. Nobody cares about how much XP you have or how you play your game. It's amazing that this argument suggesting that mechanics and balance of a single player game are irrelevant because nobody's competing can still be put forth. Guess what, if the game has kill-XP, it affects everyone's game, not just yours. My game will be undeniably altered as well. If every enemy has 1 hp and my party members each have 200 hp and do at least 1 point of damage with every hit, guess what, my game has been ruined thanks to the devs not balancing it correctly. It has nothing to do with you getting through the game too easily or getting too much XP, the design decisions of a game affect the game and everyone who plays it. This same ridiculous argument could be made against the kill-XP side by me just saying that you're all trying to control how I play, but I'm not gonna go there. The truth is, we're both arguing to have the system implemented which we think will give us the most enjoyment. Nobody's envious of how you play your game or how I play mine, trust me. It does force the player a certain way, because it railroads him in to doing quest if he wants any character progression. So really, what you're saying is that the game is railroading you away from a specific form of gaining a bunch of extra levels outside of the main quest line. So, you want extra levels that won't be given on the main questline to keep ahead of the challenge curve and you want to get them without completing sidequests? That seems incredibly specific and that's ultimately a design choice for the devs. I just don't see how this is detrimental to you. You can do the main quests and progress throughout the story and, if desired, you can go off and complete sidequests for extra level progression. All of that aside, Quest-XP suggests that the player should do quests, and perhaps that the player should be exploring in order to complete quests. Quest-XP plus per-kill XP suggests to the player how to explore and how to complete quests. I'm not seeing how Quest-XP only is doing more railroading.

@Mayama I tend to assume people aren't being willfully misleading like that generally, but maybe I'm naïve ha. Yes, though, most should know by now (certainly anyone following the beta threads) that there is a bug which is preventing XP from being awarded in many cases. Either way my statement on the matter stands I suppose. If he was complaining about an oversight or bug which will almost certainly be fixed then there is no problem. If he was complaining about a limitation then my argument concerning the lesser of two evils in terms of limitations should be referred to.

@PrimeHydra I'm not going to reiterate any of my arguments regarding XP here, but I'll gladly answer your questions. I have completed Baldur's Gate 1 and Baldur's Gate 2 (both original releases and EEs) many times over the years, including recently. I have played Icewind Dale extensively, but not nearly as much as the BG games. I haven't played ID2 although it is on my to-do list. I played PS:T as well, but again, not nearly as extensively as the BG games. To your question: no this means of progression did not feel bad. I quite enjoy tactical combat and engaging in tactical and strategic combat in video games is no doubt a not insignificant factor contributing to my love of them. After RPGs, my most played genre would be strategy games. I love many games with combat as the primary focus and means of progression and I love good, challenging combat in games. I don't think that kill XP is the only way to do things (nor necessarily the best) and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument falls apart as the quest-XP system is the one that is in place now, like it or not. Because of this, it's on the guys that want per-kill XP to prove that it should be in and is better than quest-XP. That's how I see it anyway. Your side of the argument requires a big change, keeping quest-XP of course doesn't. My excitement for this game stemmed from a love of those games as well. I think my expectations were different than yours, though. As to the bandit quest, I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying. If you resolved it one way and get XP and in another way and didn't, then that's a flaw in the program and should be corrected. If you didn't get XP because you did something without first activating its associated quest, then you're pointing out an important to note limitation of Quest-XP Only systems. I see quest-only XP and per-kill XP as two sides of the same coin, both are very limiting. I think that quest XP can be less limiting to player freedom if done right, however, than a system that uses Quest XP with per-kill XP as well. The latter suggests to the player how to explore and complete quests, the former only suggests that quests should be done (and potentially that exploring should be done in order to find quests, still not as limiting as the per-kill XP suggestions IMO). I'm all for a comprehensive objective-based XP system, but as that's not gonna happen I don't agree that per-kill XP needs to be added in. I've got to say, I haven't missed per-kill XP for a moment while playing the beta. Maybe it's because I'm an obsessive completionist or something, but I enjoyed the combat and know that I will certainly end up killing as many wolves and beetles in this game without per-kill XP as I would if it were included; I just don't care that the game isn't giving me some sort of special reward every time I do it. Nope, I played them (all but ID2 anyway, as mentioned above) and did not find them too combat-heavy, ID1 included. No, I'm not looking for nor was I expecting a sequel to PS:T in PoE, I was expecting a modernized conglomerate of what made all the IE games great, as envisioned by the guys at Obsidian. You can have a combat-rich successor, and as for the rewards, I guess I'm just an oddball in that the form of reward doesn't bother me. Progression is the reward, I don't engage in combat for the XP, it's a part of the progression of the story and my character(s) within that story so I'm doing it with or without the XP. I've played some BG1 lately too, and I agree that it's quite fun; I wouldn't agree that PoE isn't fun if you were suggesting that. PoE doesn't need to be BG series sequel and you shouldn't have expected it to be. Spiritual Successor is a term used for a reason, it gives a wide berth for artistic license of those creating the successor. This is necessary to bring the games up to modern times, combine great elements of multiple games, and also design what Obsidian thinks is a great RPG in general. Call it fine print if you will, but the way I see it is that your expectations were overly specific to your desires. There's plenty about the design of PoE that I'm unhappy with, but I did not sign up as a backer with the expectation that I would get to choose which elements were in and which were out. Apart from those things specifically stated as being in during the campaign (I believe isometric view and RTwP were among them), I didn't expect anything specific but rather hoped for the game to be enjoyable for me. I truly am sorry if it isn't for you and hopefully it will be by release, but I don't see that change coming in the form of per-kill XP if I'm being honest. It doesn't seem likely they'll be adding it. The beta proved to me that I can enjoy the combat of an IE style game without the "dopamine injection" on each kill. By the way, I don't mean to use the term "dopamine-injection" derogatively and I don't see it as a bad thing, it's just a phrase that someone used on the subject which stuck and is a quick and convenient way of saying what I mean to say (which has now been negated lol). I think that with bugfixes and refinement this Quest XP system will be superior to 'itself' + 'per-kill XP.' It's not ideal in my opinion, but I think that it's better than what you're proposing. My extensive arguments for this can be found in the many XP threads.

Well, at the moment that I submitted my vote (for comedy's sake, mind you), the Quest XP Only option has over 50% of the vote. There you have it folks: definitive proof that all backers of PoE despise combat XP and will forever hold the name Obsidian in contempt if they so much as see a hint of combat XP in this game. Checkmate you non-stealthy, diplomat-hating, murderous b*stards!! /sarcasm Seriously, can we stop pretending that these polls mean anything even remotely representative or useful?

@Longknife I strongly disagree with a lot of the points you've made here. I liked your post despite some objections because of the excellent points you made about the risk not really being worth including romance, and I of course agree that romance should never be included if the writer doesn't want to write it. Also, just to be clear, I have no interest in romances being in PoE. If they're done well as a part of a story, then great, but tacking them on to appease fans is always a bad idea. Your incredulity as to how someone could possibly be interested in romancing a series of pixels is completely misplaced. It's no different than saying that it's ridiculous to have meaningful friendships written involving party-joinable NPCs in a game. I mean, what kind of a weirdo would want to simulate befriending, battling, or romancing a series of pixels? Well, generally, people that enjoy experiencing games (specifically story-driven games) want exactly that. Stories often involve personal relationships, and games are a different form of experiencing a story. Drawing the line at romance doesn't really make much sense. To say that it might be best to avoid it because it is so often done poorly, while friendships are so often done well, is much more reasonable. I've got no love for the cringe-worthy moments of sexuality and romance in games, but examples of poorly written video game romances shouldn't serve as a rule that romance can't be a part of a meaningful story, which brings us to your point about romances in critically acclaimed fiction. Your challenge to provide examples of critically acclaimed works which have romance as their central focus is flawed in that it doesn't actually prove anything regarding including romance in a game. At best it would suggest that games shouldn't have romance as the central focus, which as far as I can tell none of the romance proponents here are arguing for. The Baldur's Gate games were a story about the children of the Lord of Murder and that which resulted from their attempts to ascend to godhood; the PC getting hot and heavy with Aerie was simply a possible part of that story. So, every single critically acclaimed work of fiction that has a romance as a part of its story serves to support the inclusion of romance in games by this same logic. Also, there actually are a good number of critically acclaimed works of fiction that are almost undeniably centered around romance. With many stories, one could go back and forth on whether or not romance was "central" to the story. In the case of the films Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, however, I don't see how any reasonable critic could claim that romance isn't central to the story. Anyway, like I said before, I am firmly planted on the side of not including romances in video games unless they're an inherent part of the writer's story. Even in the cases of writers wanting to include them, I would advise caution in that we have seen them done more poorly than other types of relationships time and time again. I just thought I should point out what I see as a few mistakes in your arguments, though I wholeheartedly agree with your stance.

Not sure that I love the arrangement, but it is preferable to the way it's set up now. I'll say again what I said before in the 'general suggestions' thread: please just separate these three HUD elements and allow us to rearrange them, at least along the bottom of the screen; even better if they could be flipped vertically and moved around the border. I'm not sure how much effort this would take, but it seems like it would be the best way to please all parties if possible.

Well, after progressing as far as I can in the beta, each member of my party is up to level 6 and has 17350 XP. I regrettably didn't pay enough attention to tell you when each bit of XP dropped. My party leveled up after confronting the nobleman in the inn (after resolving the situation with the cultists), so at least some of it was earned there. I may or may not go back through the beta before they push an update, if I do I'll keep track of where all the XP drops and report it here.

I'm fairly certain that in BG games summon insects caused 50% spell failure chance on one target and insect plague (lvl 5 version) caused 100% spell failure on multiple targets, while they both caused one point of damage every 2 seconds. So I think that their spell failure rate was built into the spell separately from an interrupt issue as they did damage at the same rate but had different spell failure percentages. Can't say for sure that I can recall the effectiveness of Summon Insects, but I know for sure that Insect Plague shut down any chance of casting a spell while in effect. Just confirmed this in BG2:EE -- as per the spells' descriptions, they behave as I just described, not sure how the interrupt mechanic works exactly outside of these spells but it seems independent of the rate of damage in the case of these two druid spells.

Yeah, nothing happened for me either, even when I was wielding the adra spear (I also tried having it in inventory but not equipped), had the soul vessel in inventory, and had the floor symbols lighting up properly; walked up and down stairs and attempted to interact with urn all to no effect.

@bigsun123 Just a couple of things here: One of your main points here is that ~27% of people being dissatisfied is a significant amount, I completely agree. I don't think the number is exactly accurate, but I do agree that that is a significant percentage of dissatisfied players and should be addressed. However, when you suggest that they should add kill XP in because 27% want it, while 73% don't want it, that makes no sense. It's not that they can't take the feedback/ideas of backers to heart, but the argument that a mechanic should be changed because of the request of 27% of backers (and against the request of 73% of backers) doesn't make sense. If it turns out that as many as 27% are actually dissatisfied, then the problem should be addressed in order to find a balance, not to say "Well I guess we have to bow to the wishes of these 27% of people and disregard everyone else." If a significant number of people have an issue, and the developers decide to take that feedback to heart and make a change, then a balance should be struck. I don't see how you go from something along the lines of "27% of people want kill XP and 73% of people don't" to "The developer's have a responsibility to include kill XP." As for your question concerning how the design elements of a game affect my playing that game, they necessarily do, they're elements of a game that I'm playing. If I didn't like the stash and you said "well you don't have to use the stash," that argument wouldn't make any sense. Of course I don't have to use the stash, but the game is designed and balanced around the idea that I will use it, so my game will be dramatically affected if I don't. I don't understand how people who understand that a game is a series of rules and systems that frame a story and which all inherently affect the end-user's experience suddenly forget this when a designer decides to not include something they want real bad. About your last comment, I totally agree that feedback is important and those that want per-kill XP should absolutely be saying so and explaining why. I just don't agree with some of the supporting arguments in favor of it, nor would I agree with people using them in favor of my side of the argument. So I hope people continue to voice their opinions and explain why they hold that opinion.

No it wasn't. I guess whether or not it was a big deal was determined by how you played it. There was so much gold floating around in BG that it hardly seems reasonable to make multiple trips to and from town for long swords and leather armor, but I'm sure plenty of people did. I personally enjoyed having to make meaningful decisions on what to keep and what to leave while making my way through areas such as Durlag's tower. So actually, for places like that, I can definitely see why people made treks back and forth for all those items that weren't just long swords and leather armor. I'm not sure that the encumbrance system of the BG games is the ideal system in my mind, but it did lead to some fun decisions in my games, which is all that really matters to me. For those that felt compelled to trek back and forth for every scrap, I can see your side and how that would be incredibly tiresome. Now we have a system that has our adventuring party capable of collecting literal metric tons of found objects, there's no reason any party will ever leave behind a single item, and the game is balanced around that expectation. I'm not sure that I prefer it, but I don't really dislike the current system enough to be too upset. Stash needs organization and a larger window, that's for sure.

I don't know if everyone does or not, but it seems to me that the people that wouldn't want these features simply wouldn't use them, as long as the game provided other options that were rewarding and fun. Based on the poll of what people think here it seems like a large number of people that care enough to respond think differently. I agree that we can't really speak for the majority of those that don't respond, but the developers can't really base any decision off them either. I hope they do. "Based on the poll of what people think here it seems like a large number of people that care enough to respond think differently. I agree that we can't really speak for the majority of those that don't respond, but the developers can't really base any decision off them either." EDIT: Not sure what you meant by your first line of "I'll avoid the kill xp thing here" as you then went on to link a poll that you say is an argument in support of kill XP, but... this is exactly my point. I argue that there's no reason to think that a majority of players want kill XP, and you link a poll that proves my point, please explain to me further how you think that that poll could possibly be an argument in support of kill XP. First of all, that poll is not representative, it simply does not have a large enough sample size yet, not to mention the fact that there are other polls with results skewing in other directions. On top of all that, the poll you linked has only 26.07% of voters voting for kill XP. There are five options in the poll, and as of now 73.93% of the people that participated in that poll say that they do not want kill XP, and so by your ideas of representation and by the poll that you provided, kill XP support is held by a clear minority of backers. I, however, maintain that the poll isn't representative and that the questions skew the results in the direction of my side of the argument, as other XP polls' questions skew the results for the other side. EDIT: By the way, even if you include the second to last option in that poll as being in support of kill XP (although it clearly says objective-XP), then even those two options combined have a 43.58% support, still a minority. As for the "those that don't want it don't have to use it" argument, I think that that has been more than thoroughly debunked more than enough times. I mean, "Why don't I have an option to fly and shoot lasers from my eyes and teleport straight to the final boss?" Well, likely because that's not how the designers designed the game. Everybody else not being forced to do those things doesn't give me some right to demand them from the designers. Yes it's a bit hyperbolic, but my earlier example of being able to levitate above my enemies and attack them while remaining untouchable, in my opinion, wasn't any more powerful than kiting allowing players to destroy their enemies while remaining untouchable. It doesn't matter if every player has to use it or not, it's a poor design choice as determined by the designers.

I usually start out with normal or one above normal and adjust according to how challenging the setting is to me. I've never done a true ironman playthrough of any game; however, when I started self-limiting rests and reloads to only be allowed at inns in BG1 it changed the game dramatically for the better in my opinion. It made resource management challenging in a fun way, and it also made the RP element more fulfilling for me as I only ever saved at inns and only reloaded on main character death. Never going back to change a slightly sub-optimal decision (or a party-altering tragedy such as losing a party member) makes a huge difference and really made me feel more involved in the story. When Viconia got chunked in our battle against Aec'Letec (Before heading into Baldur's Gate), that was something that had a real influence on the narrative of the playthrough as she was gone for good. So while I doubt I'll ever have the patience to attempt a true ironman run of a long RPG, I've received a lot of enjoyment mileage out of self-limiting reloads.

[Description of the issue] This issue is specifically that the Vithrak corpse in the ruins doesn't disappear and the items it contains are there for looting multiple times, but it may be related to a larger issue with the Vithrak encounter which I will explain in "Other remarks / Comments." [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load linked savegame. 2) Open inventory and verify that Main Character (Character #2) and BB Rogue (Character #4) each carry the "Soul Vessel" item due to issues both with this entire encounter repeating and the items in Vithrak's corpse reappearing after being looted. Close Inventory. 3) Click on the container on ground (Vithrak's corpse) nearby. 4) Loot all to BB Fighter (Character #1). 5) Open inventory and note that BB Fighter now carries both the looted items from the container, the Soul Vessel and the Vithrak brain. Also note that both Soul Vessel items previously in inventory have disappeared. [Expected behavior] Items in Vithrak's corpse should loot properly and not reappear after area transitions and/or saving and loading. [Other remarks / Comments] So my issues with this area may or may not stem from the following occurring in my first encounter: Upon entering the room in scouting mode, I got a little ways into the room and then clicked to initiate dialogue with the Vithrak. Before BB Fighter could reach him to initiate dialogue, it auto initiated. I chose the peaceful resolution of letting him go, but then as the dialogue window closed BB Fighter finished walking up to him and dialogue initiated again as if it hadn't happened already. I once again chose the peaceful options and allowed him to leave. Upon later discovering that I needed a soul vessel to complete the ritual involving the glowing runes, and being unable to "enter the water" to get a soul vessel as per the direction of a talking stone (I assumed that this involved the scripted event right next to the entrance that I was unable to complete), I returned to the Vithrak's lair to scout about for a soul vessel. To my surprise, he was still there and the original encounter began again. I thought that perhaps the game simply hadn't registered the resolution the first time so I once again allowed him to leave. Upon going back up to the gorge and back down again, the Vithrak remained. This time I attacked and once he was dead I took the soul vessel but was still unable to complete the ritual in the ritual room. I later loaded the game up, returned, and had to kill him a second time. Since then he has not reappeared, but as noted here his corpse remains with vessel and brain despite having been looted twice already. I know that this is all pretty convoluted and I wish I had kept more saves along the way to help recreate all of these issues but I didn't. I hope that this was at least somewhat helpful. [Files] http://www.upload.ee/files/4223522/65c1d25b068a407398ad8ac9957d0892_LleaRhemen_8521664.savegame.html DxDiag Attached DxDiag.txt

[Description of the issue] Upon reentering the ruins beneath Stormwall Gorge, a loud crashing audio sound plays and the stone head asks you to approach and speak despite the player no longer being able to interact with it. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load linked savegame. 2) Move party to ruin exit and transition to Stormwall Gorge. 3) Transition back into the ruins. 4) Note loud crashing sound. 5) Note the following in log from stone head: "Approach and speak your will" and "Approach and make yourself known to me." 6) Note that you can not interact with the stone head. [Expected behavior] The stone head should not ask you to speak with it upon returning to the ruin. I also think that the loud audio sound playing each time you enter may be in error, though I'm not completely sure about that. [Files] http://www.upload.ee/files/4223517/quicksave.savegame.html DxDiag Attached DxDiag.txt

[Description of the issue] In the Ruins beneath Stormwall Gorge, although the symbols in the question rooms are still illuminated, the corresponding floor symbols in the ritual room no longer illuminate when stepped upon. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load linked savegame 2) Verify that the wall symbols in the question rooms are illuminated. 3) Move characters on top of the corresponding floor symbols in the ritual room, note that they do not illuminate. [Expected behavior] The floor runes should illuminate when stepped upon. [Other remarks / Comments] I should note that they did illuminate at one point and that after a few area transitions and save/loads they stopped doing so. I should also point out that the adra-cored spear disappeared from my inventory at some point, though I'm not sure if that has any effect on the runes lighting up. Even when I did have the spear, the soul vessel, and the runes were illuminating correctly, I could not get the ritual to work. walking my Main Character with the spear and soul vessel in his inventory up the steps onto the dais did not result in a change and didn't allow him to put the weapon into the urn when he walked back down (as I believe is supposed to happen?) [Files] http://www.upload.ee/files/4223517/quicksave.savegame.html DxDiag Attached DxDiag.txt

[Description of the issue] Loot screen displays the number of available spaces believed by the game to be correct although the inventory screen shows more available spaces. Despite appearing empty in inventory screen and loot screen, attempting to fill these empty-looking spaces with items results in strange outcomes. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load linked savegame. 2) Open inventory and note that Main Character (character #2) and BB Wizard (character #5) appear to have 6 and 8 available inventory slots respectively. 3) Click on nearby container on ground (spider corpse) and note that although the spaces are still visually represented as empty in the loot screen, the number corresponding to the available spaces for the main character and BB Wizard are listed as 2 and 7 respectively. 4) Open inventory and add move 2 items to Main Character's inventory and 7 items to BB Wizard's inventory. 5) Close inventory. 6) Click on nearby container again and note that the number of available spaces for these characters have changed from '2' to 'FULL' for main character and from '7' to 'FULL' for BB Wizard. 7) Open inventory and attempt to move items to any of the Main Character's 4 visually empty slots, items will be redirected to inventory of BB Fighter (Character #1). Attempt to move items to BB Wizard's 1 visually empty slot and the items will disappear. [Expected behavior] Visually available inventory slots should be available, items shouldn't disappear. [Files] http://www.upload.ee/files/4223517/quicksave.savegame.html DxDiag Attached DxDiag.txt

[Description of the issue] Upon selecting BB Wizard a bugged display pops up which does not include access to his spells, etc. [DETAILED list of steps to reproduce the issue AND what to look for] 1) Load linked savegame 2) Open inventory 3) Equip BB Wizard with grimoire (Note: UI is already displayed incorrectly before this step, it doesn't change upon equipping the grimoire, steps 2-4 can technically be skipped but I wanted to note that having the grimoire equipped makes no difference) 4) Return to main game screen 5) Select BB Wizard 6) Clearly bugged UI pops up offering access to only his weapon and a quick access item [Expected behavior] Selecting BB Wizard should cause correctly displayed UI to pop up allowing access to all weapon sets, quick items, spells, and abilities. [Other remarks / Comments] The incorrectly displayed box will change. For example, if after the above steps you select BB Fighter and then select BB Wizard again, the display box will still offer only access to those two things but will be stretched horizontally to show more blank space. [Files] http://www.upload.ee/files/4223513/65c1d25b068a407398ad8ac9957d0892_StormwallGorge_8362853.savegame.html DxDiag Attached DxDiag.txt

Okay, will do. Thanks.