Page 1 of 1

Ground yora root and ground fraer root

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:38 am
by Barius
One cannot refer to these herbs by name (yora, fraer) if trying to use the inferior/average/potent/ground keywords.

Code: Select all

get potent root from pouch
You remove some potent ground fraer root from the brown leather belt-pouch you are wearing.
ENAvd>
put root in pouch
You put some potent ground fraer root in the brown leather belt-pouch that you are wearing.
ENAvd>
get yora root from pouch
You remove some potent ground yora root from the brown leather belt-pouch you are wearing.
ENAvd>
put yora root in pouch
You put some potent ground yora root in the brown leather belt-pouch that you are wearing.
ENAvd>
get fraer root from pouch
You remove some potent ground fraer root from the brown leather belt-pouch you are wearing.
ENAvd>
put root in pouch
You put some potent ground fraer root in the brown leather belt-pouch that you are wearing.
ENAvd>
get potent fraer root from pouch
Get what?
ENAvd>
get potent yora root from pouch
Get what?
ENAvd>
This makes herb tasks for guilds an unholy pain in the ass as it's difficult to manipulate these herbs without being able to specify the type.

I have bugged this in-game but I thought I would put it here to make sure it's remembered.

Re: Ground yora root and ground fraer root

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:47 am
by Rithiel
get average yora root
You remove some average ground yora root from the messenger bag you are wearing.

I didn't change anything.

Re: Ground yora root and ground fraer root

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:49 am
by Barius
You're right, get works fine if you don't specify a container. Try specifying a container to get from, however.

Re: Ground yora root and ground fraer root

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:51 am
by Rithiel
I did, and I realize that there is still a bug, however seeing as it does work to specify the quality of the herb, it's not a huge priority to fix right now.

Re: Ground yora root and ground fraer root

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:54 am
by Barius
Understood. It just felt like you were dismissing it as a bug instead of pointing out what did work while noting the bug itself. Thanks for clearing it up.