User talk:Rydiak

Hello there

General Kenobi ... I've been expecting you! (welcome to the wiki!) :) Willowisp (talk)

Hi, I see you have changed some weapon pages to move Tenacity to Special Weapon Actions. The reason they are not there is because you don't actually need proficiency to gain Tenacity. Nattern (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2024 (CET)

• Hi, thank you for the response! I agree that Tenacity does not fit under special weapon actions and your reasoning for it, I merely wanted to inform you as to why they were put there originally which was because it didn't need proficiency. However, I checked the files and did a test in-game, and Tenacity now only works if you have proficiency with the weapon and therefore it should definitely be listed unded Weapon actions. If you see any other equipment that has it listed under Special weapon actions feel free to move it, and thank you for bringin this to my attention. Nattern (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2024 (CET)

you really tested it?

• | bugs = Joining battle in Turn-based mode disables Extra Attack of the first turn.

  It's a bug since patch 6, and I checked that it's not only my own problem by communities.

  And I checked it just before writing. Dk128r (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2024 (CET)

  I tested it in the BG3 Toolkit, which lets you sit in Turn-Based Mode and then spawn enemies at will. During the first turn of combat I was able to both proc and use Extra Attack without issue. Perhaps could you explain the situation you experienced better? Rydiak (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (CET)

  I believe you but It's unbelievable.

  I checked it in vanilla hounor mode of temporary english version right now.

  Can you test it again? If you check it again and it works, I'll agree with you. Dk128r (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2024 (CET)

  I just tested it in-game by placing a character in Turn-Based Mode and running them up to an enemy. I was then able to shoot the enemy with a bow, and it procced Extra Attack (and even Improved Extra Attack). I also tested it in-game by using a character to begin combat (and turn-based mode) with an attack, and it too procced Extra Attack.

  So I am unable to reproduce any bugs you have experienced with Extra Attack unless you provide an explanation of the conditions in which you encountered any. Rydiak (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (CET)

  I just checked My another save file which is honour rulset custom mode and I checked same condition.

  But it might be a problem of my computer.

  You can change my words. But you have to check it. Because I check it.

  All of my words are experience that I really saw.

  I also do not want any lies in any wiki. Dk128r (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2024 (CET)

I want you to check this one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BG3Builds/comments/169nirw/psa_initiating_combat_in_turn_based_mode/

This is what I was talking about, And I realized it still exists.

It might be happening from time to time.

It's been a year since this post was written.

And I do not plan something untrue for 1 year. Dk128r (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (CET)

I'll try to test this later, but that is basically saying you get a free round of combat as opposed to saying that Extra Attack is not working. Regardless, a bug like this should not be referenced on the Extra Attack page even if it is still valid. Rydiak (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (CET)

I'll do as you choose.

But I think wiki have more information is better. Dk128r (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (CET)

Yea definitely, and info like that should be placed on the Turn-based_mode page since it would be a bug with Turn-based mode. I'll test it later and let you know what my findings are. Rydiak (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2024 (CET)

Alright, I tested it by hiding Laezel, waiting 6 seconds (1 "turn" in real time so as to not consume an action when turn-based mode was activated), and then placing her in turn-based mode. I then used a ranged attack to attack an enemy and begin combat. Laezel entered combat mode, was placed in order by initiative, and was able to make use of the rest of her remaining Extra Attacks (she was a level 12 Fighter, so she had two remaining attacks due to Improved Extra Attack) when it was her "turn" again (finishing her first turn). And then on her next turn (combat round 2) she still attacked fine with Extra Attack. So whatever bug they referred to in those posts from a year ago was most likely fixed, and I have been unable to replicate it. If you can replicate it please detail your method and I will test it. Rydiak (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2024 (CET)

List of bugged items

Hi, I saw you're in the process of greatly improving the items pages in terms of info on bugs. Are you aware of this page: https://bg3.wiki/wiki/List_of_bugged_equipment? Maybe this could and should be updated (or removed)? Hawkeye (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2025 (CET)

Great idea! I'll update that page. I'm keeping track on my personal page so it will be easy. Rydiak (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2025 (CET)

Many thanks! Hawkeye (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2025 (CET)

Some Questions

Hi Rydiak, I saw that you moved my notes about the bug in Tides of Chaos (passive feature) into the verify template. Thanks for catching that! I have a couple of questions that I'm wondering if you can help me with.

The first is about the verify template. When I hover over it I only see the first 4 or 5 words of the explanation. Do you know if that is expected or if it's an issue with my browser? I think it's useful for people to have details of why I'm saying it needs verification so that it's easier to check on their end. I can move it to the discussion page but that seems less convenient than the pop-up. On a similar note, is there a formal process for verifying a bug? Should I upload a video somewhere of it triggering on an out-of-combat roll?

Second, do you have any thoughts on how you decide whether a change is "minor" or not? I think that you can set to only be notified about non-minor changes when you watch a page and as far as I know that's the only consequence of marking it. I generally mark non-informational changes as minor (for example, changing the way something is worded for clarity or turning text into a link) but not informational changes (for example, adding an entry into a section or correcting a bonus that displays the wrong number). But there are some non-informational changes that I don't mark as minor, like if I'm significantly reorganizing a section in a page.

Thanks for reading! Summer Child (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2025 (CET)

I'm not the expert when it comes to how verify is supposed to work, but it is a nice tag for when a potential bug or unintended interaction is dubious or hard to reproduce. It's nice that you included the explanation, but yea I see that the wiki truncates it to a certain length. Either way, it is visible in the source for those who are so inclined to research it. When verifying a bug it helps to get as much information as possible to explain the interaction so that way it can potentially be fixed by Larian or a mod.

I tend to mark edits as "minor" when I am just fixing formatting or punctuation, or making a small edit to a line or two of text. I think that not marking edits as 'minor' for anything larger is good practice, though I'm sure we all make mistakes when following this sort of guideline. It doesn't currently seem like it is that big of a deal though as any edits can be easily reviewed.

Thanks for asking! Rydiak (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (CET)