BG: Which class?
Tony Burnett
I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat, but my
experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know about
seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in my
AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's are
just about useless.
Any thoughts?
Tony Burnett
Adam Shaikh
If what I have heard is true (upper level limit 7), then you are
rightbecause low level MU's suck big time. However, I suspect I would be
more likely to pick a ranger or paladin because they have other advantages
apart from spellcasting.
Adam
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <3587b823...@news.compuserve.com>,
tbur...@web.compuserve.com (Tony Burnett) wrote:
>
> I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat, but
> my experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
> class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
I am going to play a Lawful Good Necromancer. I just LOVE breaking Class
systems :)
Other thoughts:
An evil halfling warrior.
Dwarven cleric (are they allowed in the forgetten realms setting? I can't
remember...)
A mage with an Int of 12 and a Wis of 3, but a high Str, Dex, and Con.
A fighter who only uses daggers and staffs (the above before/after dual
classing :).
> I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
> Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know
> about seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back
> in my AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's
> are just about useless.
Something I am really hoping for in Baldur's Gate is massive replay
ability as you try to make it through the game with a different
character. Hopefully Bioware has put enough variation in the play
depending on your class and alignment that it will be interesting.
Joel Mathis
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
John Dent
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:43:51 GMT, tbur...@web.compuserve.com (Tony
Burnett) wrote:
>I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat, but my
>experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
>class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
>
>I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
>Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know about
>seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in my
>AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's are
>just about useless.
>
>Any thoughts?
>Tony Burnett
Even though BG is a relatively low level game, it seems clear from the
statements made by Bioware and others that there will be expansion
packs and sequels. So one should, IMO, choose a character that they
want to have around for a while.
With that thought in mind, I was thinking that it would be exciting to
play some type of magic-user. While I might be weak at first I'm sure
I can find some NPC muscle when I need it and the magic system was a
part of D&D that I always enjoyed.
Regards,
John
val...@geocities.com
In article <898092277.1728.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Adam Shaikh" <ad...@tdv.com> wrote:
>>I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
>>Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know about
>>seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in my
>>AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's are
>>just about useless.
>
>rightbecause low level MU's suck big time. However, I suspect I would be
>more likely to pick a ranger or paladin because they have other advantages
>apart from spellcasting.
There is an XP cap (40,000 I believe) for this episode. However, before we go
off and get fighter-happy, let's also comsider that there will be scenarios
coming out about 3-4 months apart after the BG release. These will give about
1 level of XP per expansion. SO...
A low level MU may not be the best to begin with, but they are also the only
ones with powerful spells at higher levels, which we should get to eventually.
Valdin
KEVHC
How about multi-classing?
With all of the effort that Interplay has put into the thief class, and since
there will be plenty of expansions (we hope) I would suggest a Magic User/
Thief. I think he would be Drow, just to enjoy the game engine.
KC
Warren A. Smith Jr.
>I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat, but my
>experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
>class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
Paladin, and nothing but. :)
>I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
>Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know about
>seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in my
>AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's are
>just about useless.
Yeah, except that this is only the first game in what we hope is a
long series. So, I'm going to plan for the future. As far as the
Paladin goes, though, they are just as effective as regular fighters
except they have additional abilities which are paid for by rising in
level less quickly. Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me especially
since he can still cure himself once in a while even at low level.
However, if things are different enough, I would also like to play
some other characters like a magic user or fighter/thief. I plan on
spending a lot of time with this one. :)
--
Live Long & Prosper!
Warren A. Smith Jr.
Pearl River, NY
Warren A. Smith Jr.
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:42:01 GMT, val...@geocities.com wrote:
>There is an XP cap (40,000 I believe) for this episode. However, before we go
>off and get fighter-happy, let's also comsider that there will be scenarios
>coming out about 3-4 months apart after the BG release. These will give about
>1 level of XP per expansion. SO...
Hmm, guess I haven't been following this very closely since that is
the first I've heard about the 'scenarios'. I knew there would be
follow-up modules, but these seem smaller than I was expecting. One
level isn't very much game, even in AD&D.
Tony Burnett
joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>Something I am really hoping for in Baldur's Gate is massive replay
>ability as you try to make it through the game with a different
>character. Hopefully Bioware has put enough variation in the play
>depending on your class and alignment that it will be interesting.
classes. I'm sure after a few days of playing you'd figure out which was the
"best" class.
Tony Burnett
Tony Burnett
Tony Burnett
John Dent
From what I understand there will be followup "scenarios" that will
allow only one or two levels of advancement. There will also be
"sequels" which should allow for about three, four, or possibly more
levels of advancement. This is how I understand it.
Regards,
John
Tony Burnett
>Yeah, except that this is only the first game in what we hope is a
>long series. So, I'm going to plan for the future. As far as the
>Paladin goes, though, they are just as effective as regular fighters
>except they have additional abilities which are paid for by rising in
>level less quickly. Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me especially
>since he can still cure himself once in a while even at low level.
Specialization (which a Paladin/Ranger can't do), I think a pure fighter wins
out.
Tony Burnett
Brandon Wallace
Does anyone know how the XP cap will work for multiclass?
If the cap is 40,000XP, will it be 20,000XP per class?
Or will each class get to go to 40,000XP?
What about dual class? Can you do something like:
5th level fighter, then switch to mage,
6th level mage, then switch to priest,
and get 40,000XP for your priest class (whatever level
that puts you at, 6th or 7th I think).
--
Welders do it with hot rods!
Eric
Well, if BG is true to the AD&D rules I will be playing a fighter with a
high dex so that he can weild two weapons with a minimal penalty. This was
my favorite tactic in my paper and pencil gaming days. Even if they chose
not to implement dual weapons use due to graphical constraints, the fighter
class at or below the 8th level was typically the most likely to survive.
1-4 hit points on a mage at first level would really be difficult to play...
--
^ +~+~~
"Fair winds and following seas." ^ )`.).
)``)``) .~~
-Eric ).-'.-')|)
eli...@ix.netcom.com |-).-).-'_'-/
~~~\ `o-o-o' /~~~
~~~'---.____/~~
Tony Burnett wrote in message <35881e33....@news.compuserve.com>...
Mike Upham
Brandon Wallace (bm...@houston.nacm.com) wrote:
> Does anyone know how the XP cap will work for multiclass?
> If the cap is 40,000XP, will it be 20,000XP per class?
> Or will each class get to go to 40,000XP?
The XP cap is per-character, not per-class: the total for all single-,
multi-, or dual-classed characters' XP is capped at 40,001. That means if
you're bi-classed you can have up to 20,000 XP in each class, or 13,333 XP
in each class if you're tri-classed. To do otherwise would give multi-
and dual-classed characters a huge advantage and hurt the game's balance.
Note that multi-classing is still a great deal: a single-classed fighter
can get to level 6, but a multi-classed figher/mage can get to 5/5. One
level lower, but with a LOT of extra abilities...
Also, since random encounters are relatively rare, there is approximately
a "fixed" amount of experience available in the game. If the XP caps were
per-class instead of per-character, you might run out of things to do long
before you could get to the max 40K XP in each class (for multi-/dual-
classed characters).
Note that this means you have to be careful when dual-classing. In AD&D
your character's 2nd class must EXCEED the level of his 1st class before
recovering the special abilities from the 1st class. That means that if
you decide to dual-class late in the game, you won't regain your previous
abilities until an expansion pack or sequel...
Joseph "Burnt Toast" Chang
I'd probably play a Cleric/Ranger... though I heard on the Scriptorium
(now defunct) that it wasn't going to be in the game... does anyone know
what's the deal with that?
Tony Burnett wrote in message <3587b823...@news.compuserve.com>...
>I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat,
but my
>experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
>class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
>
J. Stephen Smith
joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
> A mage with an Int of 12 and a Wis of 3, but a high Str, Dex, and Con.
> A fighter who only uses daggers and staffs (the above before/after dual
> classing :).
Actually, you need a 15 in the prime characteristic of your first class and a 17 in
the prime characteristic of your second class to dual class. i.e.: for the above
mage/fighter, 15 INT and 17 STR
--
J.S. Smith
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> don't forget to remove the 'nospam' from my address. <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Werner Arend
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Brandon Wallace wrote:
> Does anyone know how the XP cap will work for multiclass?
> If the cap is 40,000XP, will it be 20,000XP per class?
> Or will each class get to go to 40,000XP?
There *is* an XP cap? That's a bad idea. Anyway, if there is an XP cap,
then you must divide the sum by the number of your classes - so you will
only get 20.000 per class.
Probably it's different for dual-class characters, because they are
restricted to the abilities of their new class until they surpass their
former level (at least, according to the PnP rules). So would be able to
get 40.000 in each class.
Can anyone tell me anything else about this XP cap? Why did they put it in?
Werner Arend
Werner Arend
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Eric wrote:
> Well, if BG is true to the AD&D rules I will be playing a fighter with a
> high dex so that he can weild two weapons with a minimal penalty. This was
> my favorite tactic in my paper and pencil gaming days. Even if they chose
> not to implement dual weapons use due to graphical constraints, the fighter
> class at or below the 8th level was typically the most likely to survive.
> 1-4 hit points on a mage at first level would really be difficult to play...
My first choice would be to take a fighter to L4 or 5, then switch to mage.
That way, you get an average of 22-27 HP plus constitution boni of up to
+4 per level, two levels of weapon specialisation, and it doesn't take
that long to get a mage to L5-6 so you'll be able to use those abilities
again.
Werner Arend
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <35887389...@mis.net>,
"J. Stephen Smith" <smi...@mis.net> wrote:
>
> joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> > A mage with an Int of 12 and a Wis of 3, but a high Str, Dex, and Con.
> > A fighter who only uses daggers and staffs (the above before/after dual
> > classing :).
>
> Actually, you need a 15 in the prime characteristic of your first class and a
> 17 in the prime characteristic of your second class to dual class. i.e.: for
> the above mage/fighter, 15 INT and 17 STR
Thanks. I still want a fighter that only uses staffs and daggers, though.
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <6ma9ue$jon$1...@supernews.com>,
"Joseph \"Burnt Toast\" Chang" <jkc...@linkonline.net> wrote:
>
> I'd probably play a Cleric/Ranger... though I heard on the Scriptorium
> (now defunct) that it wasn't going to be in the game... does anyone know
> what's the deal with that?
As I recall, the rules say you can't have a multiclassed ranger. I mean,
that character would cover a large majority of the abilities for characters.
AD&D may be a munchkin's game, but not that much of a munchkin's game. :)
Mike Upham
Werner Arend (kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
> Probably it's different for dual-class characters, because they are
> restricted to the abilities of their new class until they surpass their
> former level (at least, according to the PnP rules). So would be able to
> get 40.000 in each class.
No, they have the same restrictions as multi-class; see my earlier post.
> Can anyone tell me anything else about this XP cap? Why did they put it in?
It's actually a *good* idea (like the "canned" campaign modules in D&D).
There's at least four reasons:
- As a character rises from a 1st-level peon to a real power in
their world, their goals/abilities/obligations change dramatically.
Campaigns written for low-, medium-, and high-level characters
should reflect this and be "tuned" for it.
- The *story* (not the art or combat mechanics) is the centerpiece
of the program; it must for limited for practical reasons. In BG,
spoken and written dialogue is a little over 200,000 words (which
is about equivalent to a 500-page novel!).
- Since random encounters are relatively rare, there is approximately
a "fixed" amount of total experience available in the game. The
average player is supposed to require about 80 hours to work through
the main plot. If you do all the subplots it will take a LOT longer.
- Coding and doing the artwork for spells, higher-level magic items,
monsters, and NPCs takes a ton of effort. By doing a trilogy (with
expansion packs in between), BioWare can deliver the 1st game well
before the turn of the century...
Tony Burnett
Werner Arend <kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>My first choice would be to take a fighter to L4 or 5, then switch to mage.
>That way, you get an average of 22-27 HP plus constitution boni of up to
>+4 per level, two levels of weapon specialisation, and it doesn't take
>that long to get a mage to L5-6 so you'll be able to use those abilities
>again.
probably be fighting "tougher" monsters. So, now you have a 1st level MU with
lots of HP, but can't do a damn thing to help the party. Except wack a dude on
the head with his staff.
It is a good idea, but since you can't use the fighter's abilities until the MU
reaches 5th level, what's the point? I guess you could just hang out in the
back and leach XP from everyone until the MU reaches 5th level.
Tony Burnett
Mike Upham
Werner Arend (kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
> Can anyone tell me anything else about this XP cap?
One more thing: BioWare's said you're going to have a pretty tough time
running into the XP cap at all. Basically, you'll have to explore every
nook and cranny, complete nearly every subplot in the game, and maybe
even get some or all of the XP bonuses for not reloading the same game
over and over... "Average" players will likely only end up at about
5th level (maybe half the possible experience).
Chris Woods
Adam Shaikh wrote:
>
> >I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat,
> but my
> >experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
> >class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
>
> >
> >I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
> >Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know
> about
> >seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in
> my
> >AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's
> are
> >just about useless.
>
> rightbecause low level MU's suck big time. However, I suspect I would be
> more likely to pick a ranger or paladin because they have other advantages
> apart from spellcasting.
>
A level 5 MU gets Fireball/Lightning both of are excellent offencive
weapondry. Don't neglect Knock, Grease, Strength, Mount, etc. MU have
many, many useful lev 2 and below spells.
Also, even Level 1 Paladins get Lay Hands and many bonuses vs evil, so
don't neglect them either.
Chris Woods who looks foreward to Balders Gate.
Doug Kramer
Actually, the only race that was able to have that combination of
Ranger/Cleric is the Half Elf. It's my personal fave and is actually
not munchkin at all. Unless you are a munchkin roleplayer.
Warren A. Smith Jr.
>
>
>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Eric wrote:
>
>> Well, if BG is true to the AD&D rules I will be playing a fighter with a
>> high dex so that he can weild two weapons with a minimal penalty. This was
>> my favorite tactic in my paper and pencil gaming days. Even if they chose
>> not to implement dual weapons use due to graphical constraints, the fighter
>> class at or below the 8th level was typically the most likely to survive.
>> 1-4 hit points on a mage at first level would really be difficult to play...
>
>My first choice would be to take a fighter to L4 or 5, then switch to mage.
>That way, you get an average of 22-27 HP plus constitution boni of up to
>+4 per level, two levels of weapon specialisation, and it doesn't take
>that long to get a mage to L5-6 so you'll be able to use those abilities
>again.
Actually, that is what I did with my magic users in the last couple
gold-box games. Started them off as rangers and immediately converted
them to magic users. It means they started off pretty week in the
magic department, but they levelled pretty quickly and had a heck of a
lot more hitpoints this way. Then, once they got above the original
ranger level, they could even wear armor when casting spells. I
believe that you could only wear the heavy armor if you were a ranger
though, not a normal fighter.
But, I'm still gonna play as a paladin. Sometimes you just have to do
what you have to do. :)
BTW, does anybody know how replayable the game is going to be. Will
it be different enough to make it worth playing as two or more
different characters, or will it pretty much be the same thing all
over again? I'm hoping to be able to play several different
characters without getting bored.
Warren A. Smith Jr.
On 17 Jun 1998 22:39:46 GMT, m...@col.hp.com (Mike Upham) wrote:
>The XP cap is per-character, not per-class: the total for all single-,
>multi-, or dual-classed characters' XP is capped at 40,001. That means if
>you're bi-classed you can have up to 20,000 XP in each class, or 13,333 XP
>in each class if you're tri-classed. To do otherwise would give multi-
>and dual-classed characters a huge advantage and hurt the game's balance.
>Note that multi-classing is still a great deal: a single-classed fighter
>can get to level 6, but a multi-classed figher/mage can get to 5/5. One
>level lower, but with a LOT of extra abilities...
I'm not familiar with AD&D2 rules. Does it have the same restrictions
that human players can only be single-class (or change class later)
and only non-humans can be multi-class, etc.? Also, in the old gold
box games, it didn't make sense to play anything other than human
characters since all the non-human characters could only advance so
far in most classes. Have these restrictions been eased or done away
with altogether?
Warren A. Smith Jr.
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:52:00 GMT, tbur...@web.compuserve.com (Tony
Burnett) wrote:
>Werner Arend <kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>>My first choice would be to take a fighter to L4 or 5, then switch to mage.
>>That way, you get an average of 22-27 HP plus constitution boni of up to
>>+4 per level, two levels of weapon specialisation, and it doesn't take
>>that long to get a mage to L5-6 so you'll be able to use those abilities
>>again.
>The problem with this thinking is that when you're a 5th level fighter, you'll
>probably be fighting "tougher" monsters. So, now you have a 1st level MU with
>lots of HP, but can't do a damn thing to help the party. Except wack a dude on
>the head with his staff.
>
>It is a good idea, but since you can't use the fighter's abilities until the MU
>reaches 5th level, what's the point? I guess you could just hang out in the
>back and leach XP from everyone until the MU reaches 5th level.
Very true. When I did this with magic characters in Pools of
Darkness, I only did one at a time (2 magic users to rangers and 1
ranger to magic user) otherwise the party would have been crippled and
unable to function. It was bad enough having one character totally
useless for a while, but man, once they passed their original level,
they kicked serious butt. :)
Mike Upham
Warren A. Smith Jr. (WSmi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> I'm not familiar with AD&D2 rules. Does it have the same restrictions
> that human players can only be single-class (or change class later)
> and only non-humans can be multi-class, etc.?
Yes.
> ...it didn't make sense to play anything other than human
> characters since all the non-human characters could only advance so
> far in most classes. Have these restrictions been eased or done away
> with altogether?
No, although if your prime requisites are high, demi-human characters can
get up to a +3 bonus on their level limit. How this will be handled in the
sequels to Baldur's Gate hasn't been decided yet. A "compromise" optional
rule in the DMG is to allow demi-humans to advance normally up to their
level caps, then at a much slower rate (depending on race). About the only
racial advantage humans have is unlimited advancement, so it would be
somewhat unbalancing to remove the level caps altogether.
Note that in BioWare's trilogy, a decent guess is that the final game will
let you get up to about 3 *million* XP (15th level Druid, 18th-level mage,
20th-level figher, 21st-level cleric, 23rd-level Thief, etc). If your
demi-human characters have high prime reqs and are multi-classed, they'll
probably never hit the level caps at all. Since the XP/level gets linear
at the high end, a bi-classed Fighter/Mage would only be able to get up to
about 14/14, and a Fighter/Mage/Thief to 12/12/14.
Ken Walters
Back in my pen and paper AD&D days I played a fighter/magic-user/thief. But for BG
I'm thinking Thief/Magic-User, Fighter/Magic-User or a Dual classed Ranger/MU.
Ken
Tony Burnett wrote:
> I realize Interplay/Bioware has told us that BG will be light on combat, but my
> experience with CRPGs is just the opposite. So, with that in mind which
> class(es) do you plan to choose for your PC?
>
> I'm thinking either Fighter (there's no real reason to choose a Ranger or
> Paladin since this is a low-level game), or a Cleric (the NPC that we know about
> seem to be light on 'Cleric'). I've never played a Thief and/or MU back in my
> AD&D days, so I'm not sure if they are "viable" options. Low level MU's are
> just about useless.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Tony Burnett
Sartori
You will not be able to weild two weapons because they are trying to keep
the game under the 16 meg ceiling for ram. Maybe in the sequel you will be
able to use two weapons. I guess using two weapons takes up more memory for
the graphics.
Eric <eli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6m9gsk$2...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
> Well, if BG is true to the AD&D rules I will be playing a fighter with a
> high dex so that he can weild two weapons with a minimal penalty. This
was
> my favorite tactic in my paper and pencil gaming days. Even if they
chose
> not to implement dual weapons use due to graphical constraints, the
fighter
> class at or below the 8th level was typically the most likely to survive.
> 1-4 hit points on a mage at first level would really be difficult to
play...
>
Joseph "Burnt Toast" Chang
Well Doug, you and I will have to find a different class to play because
someone e-mailed me saying that it has been cut out of the game a couple of
months ago and that it might be in the expansion pack or something like
that. Ray, please clear this up for me...!
Doug Kramer wrote in message <358936...@cadvision.com>...
Ryan Hamilton
>If what I have heard is true (upper level limit 7), then you are
>rightbecause low level MU's suck big time. However, I suspect I would be
>more likely to pick a ranger or paladin because they have other advantages
>apart from spellcasting.
>
>Adam
They've said that their not going to include fighting with 2 weapons because
of the extra animations involved. I wonder how, if at all, the ranger class
will be compensated for this. Without it I wouldn't want to try a ranger.
Paladin's not my thing either, just because of the moral rigidness
(rigidity?).
Ryan47
Ha. Ha ha.
Werner Arend
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, John Dent wrote:
> With that thought in mind, I was thinking that it would be exciting to
> play some type of magic-user. While I might be weak at first I'm sure
> I can find some NPC muscle when I need it and the magic system was a
> part of D&D that I always enjoyed.
Ugh - really? I agree that it would be interesting to play a mage - it
has always been my first choice in PnP roleplaying, and in CRPGs it has
always been difficult because so many interesting spells did not work
properly or at all. We'll see about BG.... But, in AD&D I always played
mages *despite* the magic system - it's one of the worst magic systems at
all, in fact it isn't even a system but just a collection of spells where
there are half a dozen spells or more that do the same thing just a
little bit different. It's big weakness is that it isn't scaleable, so
bigger versions of the same spell take up valuable spell slots. Add the
ridiculous notion that a mage somehow "forgets" about his spells after
casting, and has to lug around a big, heavy and vulnerable tome of
magic in order to reload his abilities, and the result is that type of
system that we have always thrown away first and completely in our
groups... Still, I'm curious how it will work in BG.
Werner Arend
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <01bd9b06$58f37060$ef8e...@hh2142239.direcpc.com>,
"Sartori" <sdg...@midrivers.com> wrote:
>
> You will not be able to weild two weapons because they are trying to keep
> the game under the 16 meg ceiling for ram. Maybe in the sequel you will be
> able to use two weapons. I guess using two weapons takes up more memory for
> the graphics.
Okay, I don't know if this is the official explanation or not, but that is
INCREDIBLY stupid. All it would be is another sprite! It wouldn't take up
any more or any less memory than showing a picture of a guy with a weapon in
one hand. Now, if the reason is cutting back on character animations for the
memory on the disk, that is understandable, but because of the RAM
requirement is just plain stupid.
Sartori
Okay here is the official explanation from the faq of the game:
Q: Will I be able to fight with two weapons (one in each hand)?
A: Unfortunately, no. Neither Rangers, nor any other class will be able to
fight with dual weapons. It was decided not to include this due to the
massive amount of additional graphics required.
joelm...@geocities.com wrote in article
<6mcenj$a7a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
David Ong Tat-Wee
Chris Woods <woo...@cowboy.net> wrote:
: A level 5 MU gets Fireball/Lightning both of are excellent offencive
: weapondry. Don't neglect Knock, Grease, Strength, Mount, etc. MU have
: many, many useful lev 2 and below spells.
While I agree Fireball/Lightning are good spells, I think a Lvl 5 MU
still sucks since he can only cast one Lvl 3 spell before retreating. A
Lvl 5 fighter would have sufficient hit points to hack and hack and hack
.....
Personally, I think the AD&D spell system sucks. They should just go
with spell points: why the hack would I want to memorize 9 low level
spells when I would rather cast 4 high level spells? For a Lvl 5 MU,
I'd willingly trade all my 1st/2nd Lvl spells for a few more Fireballs
and go blasting away..... :)
(ok, I'm spoilt by MM6, and perhaps opening myself to flame here :p)
: Also, even Level 1 Paladins get Lay Hands and many bonuses vs evil, so
: don't neglect them either.
Low level Paladins are, of course, much more decent to play than low
level MU. :)
--
| Regards, --> David Ong Tat-Wee
| email: on...@iscs.nus.edu.sg
| - dotw - home page: http://www.iscs.nus.edu.sg/~ongtw
| tel: 772-2973 DISCS, National Univ of Singapore
Ray@BioWare
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:26:11 GMT, joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>In article <01bd9b06$58f37060$ef8e...@hh2142239.direcpc.com>,
> "Sartori" <sdg...@midrivers.com> wrote:
>>
>> You will not be able to weild two weapons because they are trying to keep
>> the game under the 16 meg ceiling for ram. Maybe in the sequel you will be
>> able to use two weapons. I guess using two weapons takes up more memory for
>> the graphics.
>
>Okay, I don't know if this is the official explanation or not, but that is
>INCREDIBLY stupid. All it would be is another sprite! It wouldn't take up
>any more or any less memory than showing a picture of a guy with a weapon in
>one hand. Now, if the reason is cutting back on character animations for the
>memory on the disk, that is understandable, but because of the RAM
>requirement is just plain stupid.
Sorry, it isn't just plain stupid. We have to load all of those
sprites into memory Joel. Lots of sprites takes up lots of RAM.
Remember as well (to everyone reading this thread) that your party has
up to six in it (of which you create one in single player, but you can
actually make all six if you create a multiplayer game with only one
player - you). AD&D is a party based game, and so is Baldur's Gate.
ray
>Joel Mathis
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------
dr ray muzyka
cfo and joint-ceo, bioware corp.
producer, baldur's gate
www.bioware.com
www.interplay.com/bgate
------------------------
Marcin Nowak
Somebody doesn't think straight in your company, Ray. On one hand
you are implementing 24bit graphics and require 4MB graphic card to
use it, and on the other you try to keep the game under 16MB memory
usage? This decisions are a bit incompatible. You know, the 4MB
graphic card costs about the same as 64MB memory module. And we have
the swapfiles, too. (Oh drat, now I understand, it must be the real
time multiplayer that would suffer from swapping).
I do not like it when nice game features disappear due to graphics
problems, especially in RPG.
Marcin
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <01bd9b26$9bf79b00$ef8e...@hh2142239.direcpc.com>,
"Sartori" <sdg...@midrivers.com> wrote:
>
> Okay here is the official explanation from the faq of the game:
>
> Q: Will I be able to fight with two weapons (one in each hand)?
> A: Unfortunately, no. Neither Rangers, nor any other class will be able to
> fight with dual weapons. It was decided not to include this due to the
> massive amount of additional graphics required.
So it is disk space and not memory that they ran out of.
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <3589ecd...@news.v-wave.com>,
r...@bioware.com (Ray@BioWare) wrote:
>
> Sorry, it isn't just plain stupid. We have to load all of those
> sprites into memory Joel. Lots of sprites takes up lots of RAM.
>
> Remember as well (to everyone reading this thread) that your party has
> up to six in it (of which you create one in single player, but you can
> actually make all six if you create a multiplayer game with only one
> player - you). AD&D is a party based game, and so is Baldur's Gate.
Then why does a picture with two weapons take up more memory than a picture
with one or a picture of one with a shied? They should all be the same
resolution, same color depth, same number of frames, so why would the how the
picture looks change the amount of memory that the sprite takes up? Are you
loading all the graphics into memory simultaniously?
Mike Upham
I think it's TIME that they ran out of. They already have well over
100,000 frames of animations (not counting cutscenes). Since they have
unique combat animations for each race/class/weapon type, all the legal
combinations of weapons for two-weapon fighting are a killer (even if
they don't worry about getting left/right correct). I took a swag at
this once, and estimated it would take at least 30,000 _more_ frames of
animation just to do this one feature "right".
Of course there are compromises that could be made (e.g. make all two-
weapon fighters look like they're using a short sword & dagger), but so
far BioWare's been resistant to that kind of thing.
(BTW: I don't really understand the memory constraint issue either, but
I've heard this repeated by the lead programmer for the game, who seems
quite sharp. I suspect it has to do with how many combat animations they
think they must cache, and whether they have to cache more than one two-
weapon animation, but I don't know... I'll see if I can find out).
val...@geocities.com
In article <6mcenj$a7a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>Okay, I don't know if this is the official explanation or not, but that is
>INCREDIBLY stupid. All it would be is another sprite! It wouldn't take up
>any more or any less memory than showing a picture of a guy with a weapon in
>one hand. Now, if the reason is cutting back on character animations for the
>memory on the disk, that is understandable, but because of the RAM
>requirement is just plain stupid.
Actually, it makes sense. It's not stupid.
Stupid would be removing features core to the game.
I couldn't care less if you can wield two weapons or not...that's not the
POINT of the game.
This is a ROLE-PLAYING game...not a 3D action game.
If you're in it for the "numbers", look elsewhere. Quite a few of the best
games you can play are not because your characters are maxed out on
stats...that's boring...there's nothing they CAN'T do...so why bother?
Valdin
val...@geocities.com(xRemveMex)
Regards,
Valdin
val...@geocities.com
ANTISPAM : Remove the X
Eric
Ummm...how about because now you have to load both the single handed and
dual handed weapon usage pictures into memory at the same time. You're
right, it doesn't seem very efficient...but having this option in the game
is really trivial for me. I really hope people don't try to pick apart BG
with the nitty gritty details from AD&D...no CRPG will ever be able to
emulate all of them. Heck, when I played D&D years ago we ignored the
senseless rules that made the game less fun...crap like the weapon length
chart to name one example. One other thing I am noticing in this newsgroup
is the desire for multi-classed characters. This thing I never
understood...why is it that only a half-elf can play some of these
multi-class identities...what is the possible logical reasoning for this?
THERE IS NONE! I also don't understand why AD&D even has multi-class
characters...it only makes sense to those RPGer's who don't want to role
play but instead min/max their statistics and find loopholes in the system.
AD&D should have scrapped the multiclass idea and either 1) added more
classes for variety (they did this years after I stopped playing I think.
NOTE: If each class is distinct it is a worthy addition, if not it is a
waste of time to incorporate into the rules system) or 2) moved to a skill
based system where character class is meaningless (I guess this would be
GURPS). Personally, I like character classes fine...they help me visualize
a persona and I have a bit of an idea of what I am up against when I walk
into a group of guys wearing plate armor...although a skill based system is
much more realistic.
--
^ +~+~~
"Fair winds and following seas." ^ )`.).
)``)``) .~~
-Eric ).-'.-')|)
eli...@ix.netcom.com |-).-).-'_'-/
~~~\ `o-o-o' /~~~
~~~'---.____/~~
joelm...@geocities.com wrote in message
<6mddjj$hch$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Ray@BioWare
On 19 Jun 1998 10:59:05 +0200, Marcin Nowak
<mnowak@remove_it.mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
> Somebody doesn't think straight in your company, Ray. On one hand
>you are implementing 24bit graphics and require 4MB graphic card to
>use it, and on the other you try to keep the game under 16MB memory
>usage? This decisions are a bit incompatible. You know, the 4MB
>graphic card costs about the same as 64MB memory module. And we have
>the swapfiles, too. (Oh drat, now I understand, it must be the real
>time multiplayer that would suffer from swapping).
> I do not like it when nice game features disappear due to graphics
>problems, especially in RPG.
>
> Marcin
Believe me, we would implement it if it were possible. I do agree
that a weapon in each hand would be quite cool. The memory
constraints are real, and 8-bit graphics aren't really an option at
this point Marcin. The decisions aren't incompatible, and we thought
a long time on this one.
To sum up: it isn't the multiplayer that would suffer (I would tell
you if that were the problem), it's that we cannot put all of the
character graphics in main memory that would be required by having two
weapons.
We are listening (and trying to implement the features you suggest) -
I am sorry that we can't put this in. Graphics are secondary in my
books (as well as yours) to story, interface, and gameplay. Our
desire is to create a truly great RPG.
BTW - tossing numbers around doesn't make it any more feasible. Plus,
please don't insult my team. They're quite tired at this point and
are continuing to work very hard to finish the game. I have great
respect for the work they have put in to this point.
respectfully,
ray
>r...@bioware.com (Ray@BioWare) writes:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:26:11 GMT, joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>> > "Sartori" <sdg...@midrivers.com> wrote:
>> >> You will not be able to weild two weapons because they are trying to keep
>> >> the game under the 16 meg ceiling for ram. Maybe in the sequel you will be
>> >> able to use two weapons. I guess using two weapons takes up more memory for
>> >> the graphics.
>> >
>> >Okay, I don't know if this is the official explanation or not, but that is
>> >INCREDIBLY stupid. All it would be is another sprite!
>> >It wouldn't take up
>> >any more or any less memory than showing a picture of a guy with a weapon in
>> >one hand. Now, if the reason is cutting back on character animations for the
>> >memory on the disk, that is understandable, but because of the RAM
>> >requirement is just plain stupid.
>>
>> Sorry, it isn't just plain stupid. We have to load all of those
>> sprites into memory Joel. Lots of sprites takes up lots of RAM.
>> Remember as well (to everyone reading this thread) that your party has
>> up to six in it (of which you create one in single player, but you can
>> actually make all six if you create a multiplayer game with only one
>> player - you). AD&D is a party based game, and so is Baldur's Gate.
>> ray
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <6meuqp$7...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
"Eric" <eli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Ummm...how about because now you have to load both the single handed and
> dual handed weapon usage pictures into memory at the same time.
No, because if you have a double handed picture, you don't have to load a
single handed picture into memory.
Eric
How do you explain the additional memory requirements stated by Ray for
multi-weapon usage?
^ +~+~~
"Fair winds and following seas." ^ )`.).
)``)``) .~~
-Eric ).-'.-')|)
eli...@ix.netcom.com |-).-).-'_'-/
~~~\ `o-o-o' /~~~
~~~'---.____/~~
joelm...@geocities.com wrote in message
<6mg83k$lml$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Jesse LeFort
Well since this allows dual classes I will be taking an Elven fighter/mage
as my character. The combo of fighting ability and magical spells is
definitely worth the extra exp. required to gain levels.
Milamber
Marcin Nowak
Apologies to any person with hurt feelings. That was not meant to be
insulting. I just wanted to stress the point that memory usage
problem, once so important, is now fading due to our friends at
Microsoft and low memory prices. A game like BG with it's advanced
graphics should not confine itself to such low memory footprint. In
the end, people who have the hardware to appreciate the graphics, will
probably have a lot of RAM.
On the other hand, somebody in this thread calculated the you would
need some 30000 sprites to handle all the possible weapon
combinations. I am not sure the effort to prepare all this would be
justified. This argument sounds more convincing to me.
I will shut up now and not disturb your team any more. They are doing
a great job, indeed.
Marcin
nosp...@my.address
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 07:32:37 GMT, r...@bioware.com (Ray@BioWare) wrote:
>Believe me, we would implement it if it were possible.
>We are listening (and trying to implement the features you suggest)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ray for spending time
checking this newsgroup. I think the fact that you're taking time to
look at this newsgroup and read this kind of stuff (messages like what
class people plan to play) is truly excellent. Add to that the fact
that you not only read this stuff, but take time to reply and repeat
what is already in FAQ's, etc. and it's just great.
Thanks, Ray, for listening to the voices here, all of them. Chalk me
up as a silent anticipator, trusting in you guys to give me the Next
Best Thing (TM).
-Dave
Chuck Walbourn
> [snip]
> mages *despite* the magic system - it's one of the worst magic systems at
> all, in fact it isn't even a system but just a collection of spells where
> there are half a dozen spells or more that do the same thing just a little
> bit different. It's big weakness is that it isn't scaleable, so bigger
> versions of the same spell take up valuable spell slots. Add the ridiculous
> notion that a mage somehow "forgets" about his spells after casting, and
> has to lug around a big, heavy and vulnerable tome of magic in order to
> reload his abilities, and the result is that type of system that we have
> always thrown away first and completely in our groups... Still, I'm curious
> how it will work in BG.
This comment (and the one about multi-class characters only existing for
"min/maxing" and the questions about level limits, etc.) made me want to jump
in for just a second about AD&D... First of all, it is the "grand-daddy" of
paper fantasy games and it has been around for a long time. Much of the
strangeness of the system is due to its age and the fact that TSR had to try
to keep the whole thing at least somewhat coherant.
For those of you who haven't played AD&D 2nd ed., they have done a LOT of
work on both updating the system to include more modern RPG features (skills
via non-weapon profiencies, better balance, more flexibility in character
creation and "class") and cleaned up a lot of other confusing stuff. It is
still, however, D&D and much of the core of the game has remained the same.
It is human-centric due to level limits, but multi-class characters are more
survivable and have more abilities to begin with and the level limits
themselves are pretty reasonable. If anyone has looked at the old vs. new
psionic system, you'll see a world of difference in game play,
rationalization, and playibility.
I agree with TSR here in that changing everything that seems "odd" about AD&D
would change the nature of the game. There are plenty of other systems out
there to choose from if you don't like AD&D. I play other systems too, but
there is just something about AD&D that I hope never goes away.
Oh, and Ray... the game looks like it is going to be great and will
hopefully set a new standard for modern CRPGs (I'd be happy to get on my
soapbox about the other CRPGs and how I think 3D is a bad choice)... I'm
tired of playing the SSI gold-box games over and over :)
-Chuck Walbourn
Charybdis Enteprises, Inc.
http://www.charybdis.com
K Pawlowski
In article <358E8B5E...@charybdis.com>,
Chuck Walbourn <ch...@charybdis.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>> mages *despite* the magic system - it's one of the worst magic systems at
>> all, in fact it isn't even a system but just a collection of spells where
>> there are half a dozen spells or more that do the same thing just a little
>> bit different. It's big weakness is that it isn't scaleable, so bigger
>> versions of the same spell take up valuable spell slots. Add the ridiculous
>> notion that a mage somehow "forgets" about his spells after casting, and
>> has to lug around a big, heavy and vulnerable tome of magic in order to
>> reload his abilities, and the result is that type of system that we have
>> always thrown away first and completely in our groups... Still, I'm curious
>> how it will work in BG.
>
>This comment (and the one about multi-class characters only existing for
>"min/maxing" and the questions about level limits, etc.) made me want to jump
>in for just a second about AD&D... First of all, it is the "grand-daddy" of
>paper fantasy games and it has been around for a long time. Much of the
>strangeness of the system is due to its age and the fact that TSR had to try
>to keep the whole thing at least somewhat coherant.
[snip]
>themselves are pretty reasonable. If anyone has looked at the old vs. new
>psionic system, you'll see a world of difference in game play,
>rationalization, and playibility.
[snip]
I recall seeing a justification for the AD&D spell system printed along with
it in the handbooks. The game [AD&D] designers thought that a points
based system was too cumbersome and involved too much bookkeeping.
The 2nd Ed. psionic system violated that rule, and in my experience
is entirely too much bookkeeping.
Regards,
Kamil
--
-------
'It can't be software incompatibility -- the Chant of the Trodden Spiral was
designed for concentric rings..' -- The Light Fantastic , Terry Pratchett
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <89854560...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
kbpa...@novice.uwaterloo.ca (K Pawlowski) wrote:
> I recall seeing a justification for the AD&D spell system printed along with
> it in the handbooks. The game [AD&D] designers thought that a points
> based system was too cumbersome and involved too much bookkeeping.
> The 2nd Ed. psionic system violated that rule, and in my experience
> is entirely too much bookkeeping.
Well, in fairness to point based systems, the psionics rules make even less
sense than the magic system. :)
Paulius Stepanas
The thing that worries me is racial level limits. My preferred class
is an elven F/MU, but if racial level limits are enforced, you
eventually get the situation of Pools of Darkness, where it was best
to have a lot of Dual Classed Humans (boring).
Without knowing Bioware's thoughts on racial level limits, it's hard
to know whether playing a demi-human will cause problems in future
sequels.
Paulius
--
~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~ These musings from:
~|~ It's a mistake trying to cheer up camels. ~|~ Paulius G Stepanas
~|~ You may as well drop meringues into a ~|~ Melbourne, Australia.
~|~ black hole. ~|~
~|~ Terry Pratchett (Pyramids) ~|~ p.ste...@trl.oz.au
~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~
~|~ Maintainer of The Simpsons Australian Broadcast Info website: ~|~
~|~ http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/simpsons/ ~|~
Werner Arend
On 22 Jun 1998, K Pawlowski wrote:
> I recall seeing a justification for the AD&D spell system printed along with
> it in the handbooks. The game [AD&D] designers thought that a points
> based system was too cumbersome and involved too much bookkeeping.
> The 2nd Ed. psionic system violated that rule, and in my experience
> is entirely too much bookkeeping.
Have a look at the GURPS magic system. It *is* point based, but none of
the players I know ever thought that it was too much bookkeeping. Yes,
there are numbers, but they keep well below 20, with exceptions, of course.
IMO, a system where you must select 20 or so spells every game day anew
is much more cumbersome.
The reason for the AD&D magic "system" is, and ever was, it's age. Any
justification added later just obscures the point that, once created, TSR
didn't want to change something as important to the overall feel of the
game system as the magic. I see why people might think differently, but
AD&D magic, for me, was *the* reason why I stopped playing AD&D. It was
fun while it did last, but everything changes. Anyway, I do expect to
have fun with BG.
Werner Arend
Neal Harwood
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:18:22 +0200, Werner Arend
<kii...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
>
>On 22 Jun 1998, K Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> I recall seeing a justification for the AD&D spell system printed along with
>> it in the handbooks. The game [AD&D] designers thought that a points
>> based system was too cumbersome and involved too much bookkeeping.
>> The 2nd Ed. psionic system violated that rule, and in my experience
>> is entirely too much bookkeeping.
>
--- SNIP---
>The reason for the AD&D magic "system" is, and ever was, it's age. Any
>justification added later just obscures the point that, once created, TSR
>didn't want to change something as important to the overall feel of the
>game system as the magic. I see why people might think differently, but
>AD&D magic, for me, was *the* reason why I stopped playing AD&D. It was
>fun while it did last, but everything changes. Anyway, I do expect to
>have fun with BG.
>
>Werner Arend
As far as I can remember, the AD&D magic system is based almost
entirely on the works of Jack Vance, especially "Rhialto the
Marvelous", and "The Dying Earth".
Detailed descriptions of how a more powerful magi could 'cram' higher
level spells into their minds, a limit to what they could hold etc.
There was even a spell called "Prisnatic Spray" (sic)
This is also the source for Ioun stones (1st edition AD&D only?)
I even vaguely remember Jack Vance books being named as a source in
the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide
These (and others, esp "Eyes of the Overworld") are worth reading.
The sheer selfishness of most of the characters is the best
description I have ever seen for Chaotic Neutral alignment. Some of
the ways people die are pretty awful too.
Though Jack Vance will never live down calling a series of books
'Servants of the Wankh' : not in this country at least (can you guess
where I am from?) :-)
Also looking forward to BD. Ray et alia, Thanks for all the
interaction with us poor unfortunate (though in some cases plain rude)
gamers.
-------------
Neal Harwood
-------------
"Life is like a grapefruit ....
sometimes you have half of one for breakfast."
Mike Upham
Paulius Stepanas (step...@newsserver.trl.oz.au) wrote:
> The thing that worries me is racial level limits. My preferred class
> is an elven F/MU
You should be in good shape, even if they stick to the basic rules on
racial level limits. A reasonable guess at the experience cap for the
final game is about 3 million (F=20th, MU=18th, Th=23rd, etc). If your
elven F/MU has 18 INT and STR, his racial level limit is 15/18, which is
well *above* the 14/14 levels you can achieve under my estimate for the
final XP cap.
(BTW, I'd guess they'll have racial limits, but that the optional rule
for slowed advancement after hitting those limits will also be in. As
in the example above, only single-classed non-humans will really be
affected by it...).
Eric
That's another thing that never made sense with D&D...humans can achieve
higher levels than other races. Other races should just receive an
experience point penalty to offset their additional abilities. Oh well.
--
^ +~+~~
"Fair winds and following seas." ^ )`.).
)``)``) .~~
-Eric ).-'.-')|)
eli...@ix.netcom.com |-).-).-'_'-/
~~~\ `o-o-o' /~~~
~~~'---.____/~~
Paulius Stepanas wrote in message <6mneks$2...@newsserver.trl.OZ.AU>...
>The thing that worries me is racial level limits. My preferred class
phil...@phillipmcreynolds.com
Here here to what's said below. By the way, does anyone know Bioware is
publicly traded? It looks like BG is going to be quite the hit. Is there
an IPO in the future?
In article <358e66e5.326570078@wellspring>,
--
Phillip McReynolds ComponentWare - Component-based solutions for 95/NT
http://www.phillipmcreynolds.com
Troy Wickard
BG is being released by Interplay which just had an IPO ....
phil...@phillipmcreynolds.com wrote in message
<6mplpi$jqj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Ray@BioWare
Jack Vance is my favourite author - I have everything he ever wrote.
One of the very best. Actually, Servants of the Wankh is from the
Planet of Adventure series - four books. They're pretty good sci-fi.
Some of his best are indeed the Dying Earth and Cugel (Eyes of the
Overworld, Cugel's Saga), with Rhialto the Marvelous. His sci-fi is
pretty cool as well - the Demon Princes series is epic.
(had to plug my favourite author :)
ray
>Though Jack Vance will never live down calling a series of books
>'Servants of the Wankh' : not in this country at least (can you guess
>where I am from?) :-)
>
>Also looking forward to BD. Ray et alia, Thanks for all the
>interaction with us poor unfortunate (though in some cases plain rude)
>gamers.
>-------------
>Neal Harwood
>-------------
>"Life is like a grapefruit ....
> sometimes you have half of one for breakfast."
Ray@BioWare
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:46:26 GMT, phil...@phillipmcreynolds.com
wrote:
>Here here to what's said below. By the way, does anyone know Bioware is
>publicly traded? It looks like BG is going to be quite the hit. Is there
>an IPO in the future?
Not until at least three to five years from now. We want to establish
a track record of good games and animation for television and film
first.
ray
>In article <358e66e5.326570078@wellspring>,
> nosp...@my.address wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 07:32:37 GMT, r...@bioware.com (Ray@BioWare) wrote:
>>
>> >Believe me, we would implement it if it were possible.
>> >We are listening (and trying to implement the features you suggest)
>>
>> I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ray for spending time
>> checking this newsgroup. I think the fact that you're taking time to
>> look at this newsgroup and read this kind of stuff (messages like what
>> class people plan to play) is truly excellent. Add to that the fact
>> that you not only read this stuff, but take time to reply and repeat
>> what is already in FAQ's, etc. and it's just great.
>>
>> Thanks, Ray, for listening to the voices here, all of them. Chalk me
>> up as a silent anticipator, trusting in you guys to give me the Next
>> Best Thing (TM).
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>
>--
>Phillip McReynolds ComponentWare - Component-based solutions for 95/NT
>http://www.phillipmcreynolds.com
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Seth Loudermilk
The reason for this is the long lives of the other races and thier ability
to multi class. This would make a world full of overly powerful chars aka
25/25/25 fighter/mage/thieves. It wouldn't give humans a chance.
Eric wrote in message <6mpeek$p...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
joelm...@geocities.com
In article <359b9...@news.abraxis.com>,
"Seth Loudermilk" <s...@sss.com> wrote:
>
> The reason for this is the long lives of the other races and thier ability
> to multi class. This would make a world full of overly powerful chars aka
> 25/25/25 fighter/mage/thieves. It wouldn't give humans a chance.
Just another flaw in AD&D. It should penalize multiclassed characters
like that, but not single classed non-human.
Joel Mathis
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Giles C Hjort-Tyson
Argh, what if they just let you wield 2 weapons WITHOUT changeing the
animation. Sure it would look kinda stupid, but as it is i'm sure you can
cast spells while wielding a staff, it's not much worse then that. I have an
odd feeling that there wont be many thieves, one thing I loved was playing a
thief with dual shortswords, but it sounds like a thief will be a useless
class in combat, except for maybey one backstab. Fighters will at least have
weapon specialization and 2 handed weapons.. sounds like thieves are going
to be mages that can't cast spells.
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote in message <358cfe19...@news.rmci.net>...
>On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 11:57:40 GMT, joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>>In article <6meuqp$7...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>> "Eric" <eli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ummm...how about because now you have to load both the single handed and
>>> dual handed weapon usage pictures into memory at the same time.
>
>>No, because if you have a double handed picture, you don't have to load a
>>single handed picture into memory.
>
>What if the character put one weapon away suddenly?
>
>I'm pretty sure BioWare has been through this very thoroughly.
Giles C Hjort-Tyson
I think that is the whole point of the D&D magic system. It's very boring
when everyone casts the same 'best' spell such as fireball. In D&D you are
forced to decide what you will use before hand, and because of that
limitation the spells can made more powerfull without causeing unbalance. In
the game ultima online(which uses a spell point system) nobody ever uses any
spell except energy bolt, simply because it's the most efficient at dealing
damage for the mana cost. I like D&D because even as a 20th level magic user
you still use the low level spells often, and there is much more variety in
the spell lists. Also, some spells become compleatly worthless if you use a
point system. Say you poison someone, woohoo now all he has to do is cast
remove poison, big freaking deal. With a spell memorization system like in
D&D, you actually have to think , 'hmm should i take a remove poison or just
mem more cure serious wound'.
David Ong Tat-Wee wrote in message <6mch1a$7c...@id4.nus.edu.sg>...
>Personally, I think the AD&D spell system sucks. They should just go
>with spell points: why the hack would I want to memorize 9 low level
>spells when I would rather cast 4 high level spells? For a Lvl 5 MU,
>I'd willingly trade all my 1st/2nd Lvl spells for a few more Fireballs
>and go blasting away..... :)
>(ok, I'm spoilt by MM6, and perhaps opening myself to flame here :p)
>
>: Also, even Level 1 Paladins get Lay Hands and many bonuses vs evil, so
>: don't neglect them either.
>
>Low level Paladins are, of course, much more decent to play than low
>level MU. :)
>
>--
>| Regards, --> David Ong Tat-Wee
>| email: on...@iscs.nus.edu.sg
>| - dotw - home page: http://www.iscs.nus.edu.sg/~ongtw
>| tel: 772-2973 DISCS, National Univ of Singapore
Giles C Hjort-Tyson
Let me tell you, I really like the D&D magic system. In every game I have
played that uses a point system, players only ever used the 'best' spells.
For example, in ultima online nobody ever uses anything except energy bolt
to deal damage. As a mage you are forced to plan for what you will need..
this also allows the spells to have more variety. If you could pick which
spells you need whenever you want, spells like 'hold monster' would be
almost pointless.. 'hold person' does the same affect much better, with a
slight limitation on what it can target. So you can choose to either
memorize 'hold monster' and be sure you can use it, or you can memorize
'hold person' and then you have a stronger spell that MAY be compleatly
useless if the only monsters you fight are giant badgers. 'Charm person' is
another such spell. Or how about 'magic missile'. The whole point of this
spell is that it is nearly always usefull, almost nothing is immune to it
and it deals considerable damage to a single target if you are high level.
Some players complain because for example there are no 4th level spells that
have an effect simular to 'fireball', but thats a problem with the spell
lists rather then the spell system.
Another factor is healing magic. With 'cure light', 'cure critical' etc the
system works nicely, now what if you made it so each spell cost a certain
number of spell points? Either one sell will be more efficient then the
others, and people will only use that spell, or they will all be roughly the
same and the advantage of gaining in experience is more or less lost. Or
what about spells like 'cure poison'. Im d&d poison can be deadly, so a
smart cleric usually will keep this spell memorized 'just in case'. But you
change to a spell point system, and all of a sudden poison is meaningless,
any cleric can cast a cure and there is nothing to worry about. Same goes
for 'cure blindness', or 'remove paralysis' or whatever.
Werner Arend wrote in message ...
>
>On 22 Jun 1998, K Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> I recall seeing a justification for the AD&D spell system printed along
with
>> it in the handbooks. The game [AD&D] designers thought that a points
>> based system was too cumbersome and involved too much bookkeeping.
>> The 2nd Ed. psionic system violated that rule, and in my experience
>> is entirely too much bookkeeping.
>
>Have a look at the GURPS magic system. It *is* point based, but none of
>the players I know ever thought that it was too much bookkeeping. Yes,
>there are numbers, but they keep well below 20, with exceptions, of course.
>IMO, a system where you must select 20 or so spells every game day anew
>is much more cumbersome.
Giles C Hjort-Tyson
I agree compleatly about the lack of dual weapon ability. It makes thieves
pretty lame too, as normally they have high dex and can wield 2 short swords
with only a slight penalty. I seriously doubt anyone will play a thief,
unless they make it absurdly easy to backstab or if there is a decent way to
gain experience without killing things. Hmm, play a thief with 6 hp who can
attack once per round for 1d6 damage, or play a cleric with 8 hp who can
attack for 1d8 damage and also cast cure light wounds 3 times. Tough
decision.
Ryan Hamilton wrote in message <6mcl7o$snv$1...@news.iquest.net>...
>They've said that their not going to include fighting with 2 weapons
because
>of the extra animations involved. I wonder how, if at all, the ranger class
>will be compensated for this. Without it I wouldn't want to try a ranger.
>Paladin's not my thing either, just because of the moral rigidness
>(rigidity?).
>
>Ryan47
> Ha. Ha ha.
>
>
solus
Giles C Hjort-Tyson wrote in message ...
>
> Let me tell you, I really like the D&D magic system. In
> every game I have played that uses a point system,
> players only ever used the 'best' spells.
That may be a result of non-creative players, or perhaps
because the spells they use *are* the best spells. Like,
for example, the Magic Missile spell you wrote of earlier.
From my perspective, the AD&D magic system is about a
broken as the rest of the system. Don't get me wrong...
That is the primary system I game with, and I know just
about all of the core rules like the back of my hand.
But how many systems do you know that list an "invalid" to
have more hitpoints than a first level mage? Or how about
a one on one fight with a 1st level mage and a housecat?
The cat could potentially kill a wizard with one hit if the
wizard has only 2 HP (of a possible 4, 6 with 16 CON).
To make the game playable, many gamers have "house rules".
Would you really need those rules if all things were smooth
already?
I'm not saying point-based systems are the way to go with
AD&D, but I think they are a hell of a lot more sensible in
general. To balance out the game, AD&D really needs to
have the "spell slot" memorization system it has now.
> For example, in ultima online nobody ever uses anything
> except energy bolt to deal damage.
I haven't played a mage in UO, nor have I played since the
beta phase, but maybe that's a flaw with their system.
What would happen if they introduced three or four spells
that did the same damage and cost the same to cast, but had
different visual or damage effects? Fire, ice, acid, et
cetra...
You'd probably find that some mages would choose a path and
stick with it like a trade spell, others may just go with
what looks best.
Do you know *why* people always use Energy Bolt? For all
I know, there may already be a good quantity of damaging
spells similar in effect to it.
> As a mage you are forced to plan for what you will need..
> this also allows the spells to have more variety. If you
> could pick which spells you need whenever you want,
> spells like 'hold monster' would be almost pointless..
True, but the same goes for the wizard that must decide
whether or not to cast a particular spell now and spend the
rest of her spell points, or wait until later in case they
are needed.
It's obvious that mages and priests have to memorize spells
and pray for spells *ahead* of time to balance out the
character classes. Give a caster the ability to cast any
spell at any moment, and that makes them much more potent
in the game. "Rogue cannot pick the lock? I have a few
spell points left, I'll cast 'Knock'." That wouldn't
happen if the caster didn't choose to memorize the spell
hours before they happened across the locked door.
> Some players complain because for example there are no
> 4th level spells that have an effect simular to
> 'fireball', but thats a problem with the spell lists
> rather then the spell system.
Right. With this type of system, players want a huge
variety of spells to choose from. On top of that, there
are rules to allow gamers to create new spells or to
customize old ones. Keep in mind though, at least 80% of
the spells in the AD&D core rules are never used because
people tend to memorize the same stuff all the time. A
mage may have it in her spell book, but has she ever used
it on an adventure? With a point system, she could weave
magic when and how she desires. Like the traditional mage
in just about every fantasy novel.
> Another factor is healing magic. With 'cure light', 'cure
> critical' etc the system works nicely, now what if you
> made it so each spell cost a certain number of spell
> points?
If you had a *good* spell point system, there really
wouldn't be a need to have multiple healing spells, would
there? Unless it's a better magic formula that would be
easier to cast and cost less points, or something along
those lines. Group healing?
> Either one sell will be more efficient then the others,
> and people will only use that spell, or they will all be
> roughly the same and the advantage of gaining in
> experience is more or less lost.
Every spell should have a distinct purpose. If you want to
dish out an electrical storm, you cast a Lighting Bolt,
Magic Missile is for kinetic damage. If you want to force
a person to drop to the floor and laugh uncontrollably, do
it, but there shouldn't be three or four different spells
that do that same thing only better.
Poison will always be as deadly, just the importance of a
priest in the party may be reconsidered.
-----
In closing, I believe a good system would state that a
wizard or mage *knows* magic. They remember all of the
spell formulas they've researched or have been taught.
They only need the material components, energy (mana or
spell points), and desire to cast a spell.
Priests should be required to pray to their patron sometime
during the day or week (or maybe after casting a spell) to
be allowed to work "miracles" later on. The amount of mana
recieved might even be proportional to the amount of time
spent praying. Overall, the priest spells would have lower
requirements for enegy costs and material components, to
balance-out the wizard's ability to cast directly after
waking from a refreshing sleep.
I've heard that "Ars Magica" has a great spell system. Has
anyone ever played that game?
- solus
--
Michael Ryan
Game Designer and Medieval Bricklayer
617.441.6333 x235
mr...@lglass.com
==============================
Looking Glass Studios
http://www.lglass.com
Mike Upham
joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
> Just another flaw in AD&D. It should penalize multiclassed characters
> like that, but not single classed non-human.
The only racial advantages humans have are their ambition, drive, and
adaptability. In AD&D, this translates into more vocational flexibility
(e.g. able to be any type of specialist wizard, or dual-classing into
up to 4 classes) plus "unlimited" advancement (which really isn't, because
they're so short-lived). I suppose the rationale is that the longer-
lived races find other priorities in their lives once they've achieved a
certain level of mastery.
In any case, racial level limits are needed for balance; humans would be
relatively weak and uninteresting otherwise, and ALL the most powerful
characters would be 900-year-old elves.
[IMHO, your suggestion would make less sense than the rules in place; the
"problem" (longevity) is racial, and needs a racially-applied solution]
K Pawlowski
In article <ejjz3Sdp9GA.208@upnetnews05>,
Giles C Hjort-Tyson <kar...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>I agree compleatly about the lack of dual weapon ability. It makes thieves
>pretty lame too, as normally they have high dex and can wield 2 short swords
>with only a slight penalty. I seriously doubt anyone will play a thief,
>unless they make it absurdly easy to backstab or if there is a decent way to
>gain experience without killing things. Hmm, play a thief with 6 hp who can
>attack once per round for 1d6 damage, or play a cleric with 8 hp who can
>attack for 1d8 damage and also cast cure light wounds 3 times. Tough
>decision.
Do I expect too much when I presume that a thief will be able to get
into places other characters can't? That for example there might be a manor
ripe for the picking? Will a thief be able to avoid combat all together
by sneaking around the enemy, or diverting their attention etc.?
I know that some of this will get difficult as you are hauling
a party around with you.
The point is, play a thief because you like to play a conniving SOB,
because fighters mages and priests are blow-hards who work entirely too hard
for a living :), and because anyone who has to use his sword arm should
have been a fighter.
regards,
Kamil
>
>Ryan Hamilton wrote in message <6mcl7o$snv$1...@news.iquest.net>...
>
>>They've said that their not going to include fighting with 2 weapons
>because
>>of the extra animations involved. I wonder how, if at all, the ranger class
>>will be compensated for this. Without it I wouldn't want to try a ranger.
>>Paladin's not my thing either, just because of the moral rigidness
>>(rigidity?).
>>
>>Ryan47
>> Ha. Ha ha.
>>
>>
>
>
Giles C Hjort-Tyson
You have a point, but unless they use a system vastly different from the
basic AD&D system, it won't be very possible to gain any decent amount of xp
without fighting. So maybey you can sneak around avoid fighting, and streal
treasures from noble's castles, but you will be a 1st level thief the whole
time and it isn't very fun to never improve in skill. I dunno, maybe they
will be okay, it's been a while since I played real AD&D, but they sure
aren't going to be any good at combat.
K Pawlowski wrote in message <89947476...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>...
Chris Woods
Giles C Hjort-Tyson wrote:
>
> You have a point, but unless they use a system vastly different from the
> basic AD&D system, it won't be very possible to gain any decent amount of xp
> without fighting. So maybey you can sneak around avoid fighting, and streal
> treasures from noble's castles, but you will be a 1st level thief the whole
> time and it isn't very fun to never improve in skill. I dunno, maybe they
> will be okay, it's been a while since I played real AD&D, but they sure
> aren't going to be any good at combat.
>
In AD&D characters get 1 Exp per Gold Coin (or equilivant worth) they
acquire. (ie- finding a cache of 100 gold = 100 Exp.) Theives receive
2 Exp per Gold coin.
Chris Woods who eagerly awaits Baldurs Gate.
JohnnyT
>In AD&D characters get 1 Exp per Gold Coin (or equilivant worth) they
>acquire. (ie- finding a cache of 100 gold = 100 Exp.) Theives receive
>2 Exp per Gold coin.
>
Didn't the thief need to steal the gold/item before he received the
double bonus? Finding it as part of a treasure didn't count, correct?
Nostromo
>In AD&D characters get 1 Exp per Gold Coin (or equilivant worth) they
>acquire. (ie- finding a cache of 100 gold = 100 Exp.) Theives receive
>2 Exp per Gold coin.
These are optional rules, Chris. In standard 2nd Ed AD&D, parties only get
XPs for killing monsters. Optional rules allow group & story awards & the
individual-based XP that you mention...
--
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission* to do so, please replace 'spamfree' with 'labyrinth'
Paulius Stepanas
>
>The only racial advantages humans have are their ambition, drive, and
>adaptability. In AD&D, this translates into more vocational flexibility
>(e.g. able to be any type of specialist wizard, or dual-classing into
>up to 4 classes) plus "unlimited" advancement (which really isn't, because
>they're so short-lived). I suppose the rationale is that the longer-
>lived races find other priorities in their lives once they've achieved a
>certain level of mastery.
Except that there are always exceptions. It's fine to suppose that
NPCs may halt their adventuring, but PCs are special; why should they
want to?
>In any case, racial level limits are needed for balance; humans would be
>relatively weak and uninteresting otherwise, and ALL the most powerful
>characters would be 900-year-old elves.
Not true, at least not if you're actually choosing a character to
role play rather than min-maxing. As you pointed out, recent additions
to AD&D have eliminated a lot of the apparent inequities by providing
various types of specialisation to humans. In a sense, these were
always present, in the form of the paladin.
I don't see any useful reason for having racial level limits, at least
not in their current form. The various races are already reasonably
well balanced without this. Of course, discarding them completely
is not necessarily the best thing to do either.
I reckon each race should have one class in which their advancement
is Unlimited. For example, elven mages, dwarven fighters, halfling
thieves and gnome clerics (okay, maybe gnome illusionists). After all,
these are all fantasy stereotypes (except the cleric thing).