Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer

Spirit Shamen/Favored Soul Description

Base Class: Spirit Shaman

The spirit shaman has been described as "sorcerer version" of the druid. In addition, "...as they level, (they) get better with the weapon their deity favors." [3]

[edit] Base Class: Favored Soul

The favored soul has been described as a "sorcerer version" of the cleric. In addition, "The Spirit Shaman can turn undead and even transform themselves into an undead.

Correct me if I am wrong. But I think that these two classes are mixed up. As far as I know the Spirit Shaman has a better chance of controlling and perhaps change into an undead when the Favored Soul does not. Also the Favored Soul has the Weapon favors from their Deity don't they? Unless told otherwise I will edit these posts. 24.226.195.58 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

-Indeed, sorry about that, I reversed the descriptions of the two. dood di do do do if you work through the initial levels all becomes clear and a complecated task becomes relatively easy

Red Wizards of They

As far as I know the Red Wizards of They are an organization. The name for the Prestige class would be the Red Wizard would it not? Bognus Hecken 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I can't say 100% what they will officially call it, but in the D&D tabletop setting the class is actually called the "Red Wizard of Thay." In addition, in NwN2, the shadow thief class is actually called "Shadow Thief of Amn."

-More Information can probably be learned about the new classes and races by simply looking in the existing toolset of NWN2 [Pink Salmon]

I have the expansion, the Prestige class is in fact called Red Wizard of Thay. --MaXiMiUS 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

l —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.123.106 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Required quests

The game doesn't distinguish between main quest and side quests. I am under the impression that the whole Wood Man trip is optional. As such, I didn't write it into plot section. Can anyone else confirm this? --Voidvector 10:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I completed the main storyline today, and totaly forgot about that. However, I suspect that it may have some major influence on what endings you may get, as those i could get felt incomplete somehow, as if i missed something (like that still open quest). --195.158.180.61 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is optional. After finishing the game once, i just imported the same character for another run and simply used the sword (which i saved) to open the gate to Kelemvor's domain. I finished the game, and nothing changed. The game presumes you finished those quests, even though you just rushed to shadow Mulsantir and through the gate. If you save the theatre keys that Lienna gives you, you don't even have to come out of the shadow realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.236.254 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Races

I'm thinking we should remove the stats from the races section, it's abbreviated and seems a bit like cruft. Opinions? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

May want to also remove this from the classes section. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be done. It is more geared for game manual. --Voidvector 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

MAC Support

Is this being ported to MAC? Does anyone know? Vaughnstull (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The original NWN2 game was ported to the Mac. The expansion packs were not but there are methods of installing them on a Mac copy of NWN2. The bioware server once had instructions on how to do this, unfortunately bioware is no more and the server is no longer displaying them. It is possible to find people discussing-and even videos of people playing the expansion packs on their Mac. So it has been proven that this can be done.

The difficulty is in finding a set of instructions to follow in order to install the expansion packs from PC copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Giving this one another go?

I'll pitch in where I can; let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to help out with! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done with a Development section, so we can check that one off soon. Gameplay will be easy; it just needs to be written along the lines of Zehir and Westgate, we can cite reviews for it. Looks like you've gone and done an excellent Reception section already. For the massively bloated Plot section, we may need someone who's actually played the game (not me) to slice it up. Reviews will give us only a paragraph's worth of information at best. Any ideas? Vantine84 (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in ending description?

I haven't finished the campaign yet, but from my googling around, it seems that neither destroying the wall nor devouring Kelemvor is an option. In fact, a large number of posts and articles citing frustration at not being able to destroy the wall in the course of the game exists. Did they fix that in a patch? Anyone knows? 85.226.42.145 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The wall is not destroyed at the end of the game no matter what choices you make. It is possible to help one of the NPCs in such a fashion that she will continue chipping away at the Wall.

• • SPOILER WARNING**

Kaelyn the Dove will continue to launch raids against the Wall if the main character keeps her in his party and chooses to help fight against the Wall-with 1 important exception. The player has to work with the forces gathered against the wall accept a certain large floating lichhead that wants 2 powerful magic books. He must be denied both books and defeated by the main character in order for Kaelyn to continue raiding the wall.

Failing to fight and defeat that particular demi-lich results in him betraying Kaelyn the Dove later as described in an epilogue possibility. Undermining his efforts and fighting him allows Kaelyn to continue with her allies later. Pplr (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Article is very biased.

There's a nasty case of bias going on in this article which isn't NPOV. It's backed up by weasel words (some reviewers) and paragraphs which should go into the Critical Reception section.

I'd make these edits myself, but I worry that they'd get reversed. Essentially, this article reads more like a review than an article. 77.107.172.208 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Care to point out some specific examples? I mean it did pass the Good Article criteria, so it can't be too bad. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)