Larian Studios Forums Divine Divinity (English) Suggestions Charms charms, more charms

This is a little Diabloish, but there should be a larger variety of Charms. The chief one on my list is Durability. For instance, it seems fated that that really good magic item you have that you Saved and Loaded for until it had the right combo for you also has a lousy durability.

Also, this might be copyright infringment, but a certain combo of Charms gives you a specific object or one with specific qualities.

Last, but not least, pre-charmed items. For example, there is a point in Vetistis where you get a ring from someone that has been handed down from generation to generation, and yet it has no charms in it. Don't you think there would be at least ONE charm in it?

Yeh, 'specially seeing as though you can't take the charms out once they are inserted!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

I agree with the durability thing, since a lot of items seem to have 2 total durability, but as for the ring being handed down....I think you're just thinking too much, and that's not good for anyone. Perhaps no one in their family invested in the charm skill when they were wandering around, saving the world with the ring on like we would do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

C'est la vie, mate. Re-load if you get that. You can always repair an item so why do you need a durability charm? It seems to me like a waste of charm slots.


Uh? You put a green charm and a gold charm in a hammer and it becomes a kitchen knife? I don't understand how I could work.


Nope. I do not. And it's Verdistis. Don't you think that if the owner knew what kind of a ring it was he wouldn't give it to you? Well, I wouldn't give stuff like that away even if someone saved my life.

Thinking might overheat your brain <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Let me answer that question with my own theory (there are many sorts of strange habits, and mine is to make up extra stories and explanations on basis of games, books etc.)
First of all Velrat hasn't specified how many generations were the owners of this ring. So let us suppose that the ring had eight owners who guarded it well. The skill of charming is hard to obtain (as the description states) as few blacksmiths know it. It would be a gigantic stroke of luck if any of the former owners knew that skill.
Charms cost a huge (for most inhabitants of Rivelion) amount of money so inserting any charm would be very costly.
Inserting a charm into an item makes only sense if it will be of any use to you - why should a simple folk insert a charm boosting (for instance) poison résistance, if he (or she0 wouldn't have much contact with any dangers requiring that resistance.

And as for the idea of more different charms - the only one that would (at this point and with such statistics) make sense is a direct damage modifier for weapons and an armor rating modifier for armor.

Consider this: every magical item you pick up is charmed. Item bonuses come from somewhere.

Increased Offense and Defense is the result of light weight material or well oiled parts.

Increased Damage, Armour and Durability is due to excellent workmanship.

Magical Damages and Skill bonuses are powerful enchantments.

Increased Resistances and Attributes are the result of magical charms.

Charm Slots are increased Resistances and Attributes that haven't been applied yet.

Everything can make sense in real-world terms if you think about it.

Let's assume that one of his grand, grand, grand fothers was a snake catcher, thats the reason for having the ring with poison res. (hmm, at second thought those, who catch snakes have natural resistance to poison), but, he was a beginner snake catcher. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />
And as for charm, hmm he found it at the old burned house deep in the swamps.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Does this make sense?

I think we can all agree with egin here...there's no doubt that's true. Anyways if we want to be so picky and ask where they would get a charm for the ring, first where did they originally get the ring itself? And why are we still talking about something so trivial? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" /> Good stuff <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

In fact I see it as a very interesting logical discussion, although it is too late to be a suggestion for <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" />
A ring is supposed to be made by a jeweller, either for no one in particular when the jeweller is very rich and makes his art for selling it later, or when the jeweller is a very skilled man who only makes artefacts by commission. It is the second type who is more interesting as a maker of an item that could be charmed.

This means that the first owner must commission a ring with a very special gemstone to be known as the “Charmine Stone” Which should be of a dull colour (grey) at first. However, the stone is not charged by any price whatsoever. The owner wears the ring all her /his life and the stone is charmed through the experience of the owner and from being very close to the owner’s blood. In simple words, the ring would include a stone that learns the characteristics of the owner and become permanently embedded in the magical ring such that if anyone wears it after she/ he inherit the skills and resistances of the previous owners collectively.

We are discussion these things here for fun mainly but it could be a very good idea for DD II also.

Thank you.

Interesting. It's a bit like the Living Weapon or even Dax off Star Trek: DS9. What can a ring learn from it's wearer? Would there be any point in getting a virgin Charming Ring, or is it really only useful if you are given one that has been passed down for generations?

Hi HEF,
The concept of charming is much simpler than expected, let us assume that the stone in the ring can absorb poison. Then, if the owner was an alchemist who prepares poison and his hands are in contact with poison, the stone has very good chances to absorb that poison. When the avatar acquires that ring and wear it, the ring should give a fractional penalty on manna because the avatar is being constantly poisoned at a very low rate.
When sever poisoning situations occur, the hero’s resistance should be obviously higher than if he was not constantly poisoned (The Rasputin effect).

Another ring may “learn” by absorbing excessive concentrations of a “hormone” that is adrenaline-stimulant but it does not release the hormone unless a bridge of sweat and adrenalin comes into contact, therefore it augments the power of the wearer during panic or battle situations.

... and so on ...

So the more you do something, the more benefit you receive from it? More damage makes more Resistance; more action makes even more action; more mana flow makes more mana regeneration. Is this right?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Indeed, this is the whole idea behind human experience and learning curves.
The human technology advances are logarithmic in not linear.
That is why human technological advances in the last 300 years exceed all advances in the previous history.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

Where did you get all that info? That's weird wild shtuff... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Well, it seems that quite accidentally I and Egin have triggered a discussion.

Egin, yes that does make sense though the story is based on a number of assumptions that are rather improbable though not impossible (finding the charm in an abandoned house, the occupation of one of Velrats ancestors etc.)

DAD, your idea of rings with inserted Charmine Stones is interesting, yet in my opinion such rings should be VERY rare, as the "learning ring" is a complex item and requires much skill and knowledge to craft.

And as for the rest of you gentlemen I bow, applaud, and will listen to anything else you have to say, it is quite interesting.

But, but gentlemen. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> had a lvl up system, not a skills improvement systems like Morrowind. In this system, where the more you practise the more you learn that skill the idea of bringing the Ring of Absorbing or the Ring of learning makes perfect sence imo.

But, even in Divinity or Riftrunner, Ring of learning for example could act as a tag skill. It will double amount of learning points you can distribute to poison res. (but, for poison res. only)

Keep in mind, possible cheating with this. Lets say, everyone will look for this ring to use it during lvl up only.
Hehe, to avoid this, the ring should stick to wearer finger and become an integral part permanently.
(Remember the weird story with finger with the ring in PST, where character had to cut his own finger off to be able to attach the finger with magic ring he found).

And about those charmine rings, it could have that short story written in description of the ring after you identify it. This will not happend often as this kind of unique-charmed rings are extremely rare.

But, I don't like finding charmed rings with charms. I will be more than happy seeing unique, rare, set, socketed (without any charms in) and magic items only <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Just ideas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Btw, I am just wondering. Why in any RPG, the character is able to equip just 2 rings? There is one neck for the necklace, two hands for gauntlets, two legs (no spiders) for boots/leggings. And only two rings for 10 fingers, why is that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" />
Maybe it would be difficult to show it on paper doll? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

Egin,


Which is also a bit surprising as there is no good anatomical reason to wear only one necklace per neck - many people wear more.



Well, not all human fingers are good for wearing rings - I wouldn't advise wearing a ring on your thumb... But nevertheless six rings would still make sense to me.



They do not show jewelry any way in the paper doll system as far as I know. So what's the difference between not showing two rings and four rings? I guess it's just one of those rules that have been adapted long ago and they are here to stay for even longer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hmm, I think you right. Can't think of any other reason. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Like......um, Mr. T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

can you see your hero running down the path with a hundred collected chains around his/her neck <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Get outa my way foo! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />