Why are Bhaalsons so "powerful"?
Henry Shevlin
your main character is. Hmm. I won't deny that my kensai was very strong, an
excellent melee fighter, but no *way* could he have done much on his own. He
had the survivability of an ice sculpture in the Abyss, and was very
susceptible to magic.
Keldorn on the other hand was essentially L33T-A$$-M4$T3R +5 who could have
taken Firkraag down with a prod from Carsomyr. But Nalia was the toughest -
she really was power incarnate. Compared to the rest of the party, my PC was
pathetic. Why did everyone go on about how I had much untapped power, then?
What is this secret gift that I know nothing about? The pocket plane is
useful, granted, but to be frank it's not exactly my idea of raw power. It's
more just like the eldritch equivalent of a camper van, somewhere to sleep
and store your stuff when you're on the move.
I suppose that all PCs do have one unique ability, namely quicksaving and
quickloading until they win, but I doubt the game means that. Doesn't anyone
else think that the whole difficulty of the later game should have been
REALLY souped up, with your PC receiving utterly godlike powers? I'd heard
that they intended to give him/her some nice abilities, but nothing truly
godlike. How about some things like "invoke Abyssal Rage", that summoned 4 x
Nabassu? That kind of thing.
Henry
Bob Tokyo
"Henry Shevlin" <Henry....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9o2lqs$101$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
become a god" isn't enough of an answer? ;-) Fair enough. But some counter
points;
Pumping up the PC to truly "godlike" levels of power would require raising
the (already absurd) power levels of opponents to compensate, completely
re-working the AI, restricting high level abilities to the PC only, or using
huge masses of enemies and risking even more engine slow down on older
machines. In any of those situations, the NPCs would become much less
useful, becoming more or less a Greek chorus and cheering section for the
PC. If that's OK with you, cool, but the designers may have thought that
most players would not want NPCs to be that outclassed by the PC.
Another problem is in the need to let the player develop his PCs and NPCs as
he chooses. If you took any number of alternative development paths
(soloing most of Chapters 2-6, or dual classing your Kensai to Cleric or
Mage, or making different item and weapon choices, or...) you could have
ended up with a PC who was more powerful than his companions, probably more
powerful than any single enemy in the game. You went for a "strong party"
approach, not a "strong protagonist" approach.
Next time, play a Berserker-Mage teamed with Jan Jansen. By the end of the
game, you'll rule. ;-)
Morgion
> pathetic. Why did everyone go on about how I had much untapped power,
then?
I guess you'd have to have been there..........
Barbarian X
"Morgion" <fl...@mail.tele.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:3ba5a6ad$0$23968$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Hehe
My PC is a kickass Godson ;)
/S
Derville
"Henry Shevlin" <Henry....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9o2lqs$101$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> your main character is. Hmm. I won't deny that my kensai was very strong,
an
> excellent melee fighter, but no *way* could he have done much on his own.
He
> had the survivability of an ice sculpture in the Abyss, and was very
> susceptible to magic.
Well, to play Bhaal's advocate here, what do you expect from a Kensai? He's
a slicer and dicer, and that's about his limit. No spells. No miniature
giant space hamsters. No shields, even.
> Keldorn on the other hand was essentially L33T-A$$-M4$T3R +5 who could
have
> taken Firkraag down with a prod from Carsomyr.
But doesn't that say more about the power of the Inquisitor kit later in the
game, as compared to the Kensai? The Inquisitor has a few more skills for
all round survivability - he can dispel with the very best (deals with
mages) and he can remove most all illusions thrown his way. The fact he
gets a fancy Paladin only weapon is a nice bonus, but a Kensai can wield a
+4 Two handed sword in BG2, as well as most all the +5 weapons out there,
which evens the playing field in that respect.
> But Nalia was the toughest -
> she really was power incarnate.
I'm tempted to save this quote for posterity ;-). But again, you're saying
that an umpteenth level spellslinger has more going for her than a straight
meathead warrior. Doesn't surprise me at all - essentially, Fighters hit
the wall once they max out their chosen weapon proficiency and their
fighting style. Magic users keep improving as they access new spells, so
you'd expect their power progression curve to keep climbing at higher
levels, while the grunt warriors have levelled off a long time ago.
>Compared to the rest of the party, my PC was
> pathetic. Why did everyone go on about how I had much untapped power,
then?
> What is this secret gift that I know nothing about? The pocket plane is
> useful, granted, but to be frank it's not exactly my idea of raw power.
It's
> more just like the eldritch equivalent of a camper van, somewhere to sleep
> and store your stuff when you're on the move.
Well, it has to be a class independent set of abilities you get as a
Bhaalspawn, so that limits what they could offer, but I think that an
on-demand teleport facility isn't that bad a deal. It beats the daylights
out of a VW camper van, that's for sure. Unless you want more physical
power (which is still hard-capped at 25 for your stats, and umpteen million
for your XP), there aren't too many options open for advancement.
> I suppose that all PCs do have one unique ability, namely quicksaving and
> quickloading until they win, but I doubt the game means that. Doesn't
anyone
> else think that the whole difficulty of the later game should have been
> REALLY souped up, with your PC receiving utterly godlike powers? I'd heard
> that they intended to give him/her some nice abilities, but nothing truly
> godlike. How about some things like "invoke Abyssal Rage", that summoned 4
x
> Nabassu? That kind of thing.
What would 4 Nabassu do for your average ToB party? The levels you can
reach in that game, you'd only want that sort of hired help if you were due
to fight at 4 o'clock, and you had to go for a meeting with your stockbroker
and needed someone to fill in for you. In BG2, people were whacking drakes
with no more than a Cure Light Wounds spell, so I can only imagine what
things would be like if every Tom, Dick and Harry could whistle for
extra-planar support whenever he felt like it.
And hey, I still think plain BG2 is way too overpowered, and BG1 to a
certain extent as well, so cutting back on the uber-abilities is never a bad
idea, IMHO. Just have to struggle on with mere +5 weapons coming out of
every orifice ;-).
--
Phil on his new pooter; cursing Word, enjoying BG2 at more than 1fps
(remove "your.inhibitions" to reply)
Mark
Henry Shevlin <Henry....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Keldorn on the other hand was essentially L33T-A$$-M4$T3R +5 who could have
> taken Firkraag down with a prod from Carsomyr. But Nalia was the toughest -
> she really was power incarnate. Compared to the rest of the party, my PC was
> pathetic. Why did everyone go on about how I had much untapped power,
Note the word "untapped" ;-)
--
__ __ _
| \/ |__ _ _ _| | __ "The point is, I am now a perfectly safe penguin!"
| |\/| / _` | '_| |/ /
|_| |_\__,_|_| |_|\_\ ICQ: 101381341
D. Vrabel
>
> ...essentially L33T-A$$-M4$T3R +5 who could have...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
leet-ass-master?
You've lost me. What does this mean?
David Vrabel
Barbarian X
"D. Vrabel" <dv...@cam.ac.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:3BA7AACA...@cam.ac.uk...
It means that he plays counter strike too much ;)
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> So "It's just part of the storyline, besides, your character can
> actually become a god" isn't enough of an answer? ;-) Fair enough.
> But some counter points;
To be a believable part, though, it *should* somehow be reflected in
the game. This is one of my pet peeves with ToB, so please bear with
me. ;)
> Pumping up the PC to truly "godlike" levels of power would require
> raising the (already absurd) power levels of opponents to
> compensate,
I'm not so sure about that. Apart from the other points you mentioned,
here are some other ideas that I've mentioned before when this topic
came up:
- More quests that cannot be solved by bashing everyone's head in, or
quests that offer alternative solutions. Generally speaking, a greater
focus on story vs. combat would be nice.
- *Decrease* the absurd power level of opponents, which would lead to
slower advancement and less of a "need" to position a lich, elder orb
or dragon behind every corner to challenge the party.
- Fewer uberitems. There's something wrong if the streets are paved
with +3 gear that you can't even be bothered to pick up. Also, a more
balanced spread of good items would be nice. Compare long swords to
bastard swords in SoA, or *any* ranged weapon to long bows.
- More duels, possibly ones involving NPCs, too, if you're concerned
with them being overshadowed by the PC.
> completely re-working the AI,
I'm all for better AI, especially when spellcasters are concerned.
> restricting high level abilities to the PC only,
How about more *balanced* high-level abilities? :) Some are ridiculous
in that they are either over- or underpowered.
> or using huge masses of enemies and risking even more engine slow
> down on older machines.
Mass combat against weaker foes would be a lot more "realistic" than
pitting the party against hordes of equally or even more powerful
enemies, though. Also, I'm a "proud" owner of one of those older
machines, and strictly IME hordes don't bring the game to its knees
nearly as badly as magical fireworks do. The two battles against
Irenicus in Chapter 7 were by *far* the worst (give orders, unpause,
*immediately* pause again, wait a couple seconds for the screen to
unfreeze and catch up with what has happened, repeat).
> In any of those situations, the NPCs would become much less
> useful, becoming more or less a Greek chorus and cheering section
> for the PC.
With better AI and more mass combat, I'd say NPCs would become more
useful, not less. :) Besides, the PC *is* the star of the game, the
child of a god, etc. etc. -- she *should* be stronger than a
comparable (class- and level-wise) NPC.
> If that's OK with you, cool, but the designers may have thought
> that most players would not want NPCs to be that outclassed by the
> PC.
Giving the PC a handful of nice powers per day (I'm not advocating
anything *nearly* as grotesque as what that cheeseball Balthazar has)
wouldn't be that bad. At least you should regain your BG1 powers after
SoA, possibly with upgrades (CLW -> CCW or even Heal, for example ...
it's not like you aren't swimming in healing potions anyway, so it
won't make much of a difference).
> Another problem is in the need to let the player develop his PCs
> and NPCs as he chooses.
True. A single-class thief or a bard won't be nearly as much as a
powerhouse as a kensai/mage or a ranger/cleric. There's nothing wrong
with some combos making the game easier or harder IMO.
What'd have liked to see are a few battles being modified according to
the PC's (and probably the NPCs') *class(es)*, not just the party's
overall experience. A duel against a powerful and well-equipped
"colleague" would have been interesting, especially if it's one of the
Five. Illesera, maybe?
Yes, some of these musings, especially class-dependant battles and
greater focus on story, would only really have been possible in a
full-length BG3. And *that* is why I both love and hate ToB at the
same time: it's good, but it could have been so much better, so much
more. <sigh>
--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
(nightfi...@web.de)
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"That which does not kill me had better run pretty damn fast."
Westley Weimer
> Bob Tokyo scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> - More quests that cannot be solved by bashing everyone's head in, or
> quests that offer alternative solutions. Generally speaking, a greater
> focus on story vs. combat would be nice.
I think this would be great. However, what would such quests look like? I'm
wary of more riddles (cf. the Kalah djinni or the Imp stick-picking-game in
Watcher's Keep). Or perhaps riddles where the right answer is only
available if you have the right stats (cf. PS:T or when Solaufein asks you
if you know what a Devourer is [morons say "otyugh", smart ones say
"illithid", etc.]).
> - *Decrease* the absurd power level of opponents, which would lead to
> slower advancement and less of a "need" to position a lich, elder orb
> or dragon behind every corner to challenge the party.
I quite agree with this. If the enemies used half-decent tactics (and
forcing the party to "talk" to a blue enemy that then throws up a sequencer
is *not* a good tactic) this would not be such a big deal. For example,
the archer ambush in the Windspear hills is very nice. The plate-mail
wearing orcs are not that tough -- but since you cannot get to them and
they can shoot your spellcasters, you have to be on the ball. That ambush
should *not* have featured secret doors to allow you to melee the archers
(what sort of real portcullis room would do that? it should have had a
bunch of traps instead ...). The murderers in the asylum are another nice
example. Standard thieves (or fighter-thieves) that start out invisible to
you (just as you often start out invisible to the enemies) nicely turns
things around. No super spells required to make that a fun combat.
> - Fewer uberitems. There's something wrong if the streets are paved
> with +3 gear that you can't even be bothered to pick up. Also, a more
> balanced spread of good items would be nice. Compare long swords to
> bastard swords in SoA, or *any* ranged weapon to long bows.
Hai, hai! As much as I hate equality for its own sake, I think that each
weapon prof should have had X +3 items, Y +2 items and Z +1 items, each of
which had vaguely interesting special powers. Hopefully X approaches 1.
> - More duels, possibly ones involving NPCs, too, if you're concerned
> with them being overshadowed by the PC.
The Solaufein romance features just such an NPC duel! :-)
>> completely re-working the AI,
> I'm all for better AI, especially when spellcasters are concerned.
They should hire Gebhard to script the enemy fights.
> How about more *balanced* high-level abilities? :) Some are ridiculous
> in that they are either over- or underpowered.
Right. Whirlwind vs. Alchemy, anyone?
> Mass combat against weaker foes would be a lot more "realistic" than
> pitting the party against hordes of equally or even more powerful
> enemies, though.
Right. However, weenie hordes should use half-decent tactics. Shoot arrows
from across a river. Have a single low-level spellcaster that buffs the
shock troops with haste and/or invis 10' radius. Basically, have the weenie
hordes use the same tactics *you* used when you where 8th level (or
below!).
Remember that loser bounty-hunter girl who tries to take you down at the
beginning of ToB? How would your party have tried to ambush a party with
another bhallspawn in it that was just lying around? Would you have done a
better job? Yes? Why not script the game to use those tactics, then?
> Irenicus in Chapter 7 were by *far* the worst (give orders, unpause,
> *immediately* pause again, wait a couple seconds for the screen to
> unfreeze and catch up with what has happened, repeat).
Does "auto-pause at the end of every round and spell-cast" work for you?
> Giving the PC a handful of nice powers per day (I'm not advocating
> anything *nearly* as grotesque as what that cheeseball Balthazar has)
> wouldn't be that bad. At least you should regain your BG1 powers after
> SoA, possibly with upgrades (CLW -> CCW or even Heal, for example ...
> it's not like you aren't swimming in healing potions anyway, so it
> won't make much of a difference).
Right. David Gaider's "restored bhallspawn powers" patch actually does this
(mass curing power, etc.).
> True. A single-class thief or a bard won't be nearly as much as a
> powerhouse as a kensai/mage or a ranger/cleric. There's nothing wrong
> with some combos making the game easier or harder IMO.
So desu yo.
> What'd have liked to see are a few battles being modified according to
> the PC's (and probably the NPCs') *class(es)*, not just the party's
> overall experience. A duel against a powerful and well-equipped
> "colleague" would have been interesting, especially if it's one of the
> Five. Illesera, maybe?
Right, that's the name I was looking for. When the game does difficulty
levels it almost always checks against the XP level of the protagonist
(because that's easy to do in BG scripts). This is lossy -- a level 11
thief is not (in general) more powerful than a level 9 inquisitor, even
though they have the same XP.
> Yes, some of these musings, especially class-dependant battles and
> greater focus on story, would only really have been possible in a
> full-length BG3.
I agree. For example (stupid idea, but you get the idea), perhaps bards
could pretend to be wandering minstrels and sneak into the monk keep in ToB
that way. Having each class make it easier or harder to get through certain
quests would have been nice for replay value.
> And *that* is why I both love and hate ToB at the same time: it's good,
> but it could have been so much better, so much more. <sigh>
We feel your pain.
- Wes
Ben Frankish
D. Vrabel <dv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3BA7AACA...@cam.ac.uk...
He's a 84D4$$. An 4R53 K|(K3R. An 0083R-1337 D0U813 '4RD 845T4RD.
Urk. I can feel points flaking off of my IQ...
He's quite handy in a fight.
--
Ben
"Death is nature's way of telling you to save more often..."
Sudaker
with Holy Strength and jump for 19 to 25 strength..
Not bad, considering this is at 6th level. I wonder what will happen when he
hits 30?
Henry Shevlin
Hacker slang.
Barbarian X
> And for all who don't know, L33T = Elite ;)
> Hacker slang.
>
Yes i know, and no it's not. No serious hacker would type like that.
That is brat slang.
/S
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> Sarah Jaernecke <nightfi...@web.de> wrote:
>> - More quests that cannot be solved by bashing everyone's head in,
>> or quests that offer alternative solutions. Generally speaking, a
>> greater focus on story vs. combat would be nice.
>
> I think this would be great. However, what would such quests look
> like? I'm wary of more riddles (cf. the Kalah djinni or the Imp
> stick-picking-game in Watcher's Keep).
Me too, admittedly. The occasional riddle is nice, but I prefer word
games (like the ones in Spellhold) to number games.
Maybe a character with high CHA would needed to convince someone to
reveal a secret, or a high INT/WIS character could be given additional
clues or background information ... that kind of thing. There are some
such instances in SoA/ToB, but only relatively few.
Also, if there was a greater focus on the story, it would IMO not
matter so much if the PC and/or the entire party would be "too
powerful".
> Or perhaps riddles where the right answer is only available if you
> have the right stats (cf. PS:T or when Solaufein asks you if you
> know what a Devourer is [morons say "otyugh", smart ones say
> "illithid", etc.]).
That's an example, yes ... generally speaking, I really wish INT, WIS
and CHA had more of an effect on the game, especially with regard to
conversations and riddles. It's not like the *player* has to, say,
have STR 22+ to open the doors to Yaga Shura's bedroom -- but someone
who is good with numbers could correctly answer the prince/princess
riddle even when playing an INT/WIS 3 half-orc, while an INT 18 mage
played by a less mathematically-gifted person is just out of luck
(okay, so you can always guess and reload, buit it's still a bit
annoying).
>> - *Decrease* the absurd power level of opponents, which would lead
>> to slower advancement and less of a "need" to position a lich,
>> elder orb or dragon behind every corner to challenge the party.
>
> I quite agree with this. If the enemies used half-decent tactics
> (and forcing the party to "talk" to a blue enemy that then throws
> up a sequencer is *not* a good tactic)
It does make you a little paranoid, eh? Though I suppose paranoia is
not such a bad idea for a Bhaalspawn.
> this would not be such a big deal. For example, the archer ambush
> in the Windspear hills is very nice. The plate-mail wearing orcs
> are not that tough -- but since you cannot get to them and they can
> shoot your spellcasters, you have to be on the ball. [...] The
> murderers in the asylum are another nice example. Standard
> thieves (or fighter-thieves) that start out invisible to you (just
> as you often start out invisible to the enemies) nicely turns
> things around. No super spells required to make that a fun combat.
True. I'd like to add, though, that battles against lower-level foes
are *also* nice because they give mages a chance to shine by whipping
out those "super spells" that too many higher-level foes are resistant
or immune to.
>> - Fewer uberitems. There's something wrong if the streets are
>> paved with +3 gear that you can't even be bothered to pick up.
>> Also, a more balanced spread of good items would be nice. Compare
>> long swords to bastard swords in SoA, or *any* ranged weapon to
>> long bows.
>
> Hai, hai! As much as I hate equality for its own sake, I think that
> each weapon prof should have had X +3 items, Y +2 items and Z +1
> items, each of which had vaguely interesting special powers.
> Hopefully X approaches 1.
Instead of piling so many new superitems on the party, I'd also rather
have Cespenar upgrade more of the existing ones.
>> - More duels, possibly ones involving NPCs, too, if you're
>> concerned with them being overshadowed by the PC.
>
> The Solaufein romance features just such an NPC duel! :-)
Heh. Him being a guy, he's not in the running for me. ;) But it's
always cool to see fans adding to a game.
>> Mass combat against weaker foes would be a lot more "realistic"
>> than pitting the party against hordes of equally or even more
>> powerful enemies, though.
>
> Right. However, weenie hordes should use half-decent tactics. Shoot
> arrows from across a river. Have a single low-level spellcaster
> that buffs the shock troops with haste and/or invis 10' radius.
> Basically, have the weenie hordes use the same tactics *you* used
> when you where 8th level (or below!).
You'd have to take care not to make them *too* clever, though, or more
casual players might well get frustrated and give up. :) Maybe there
could be an AI switch to increase difficulty, instead of just racking
up enemy health and damage.
>> Irenicus in Chapter 7 were by *far* the worst (give orders,
>> unpause, *immediately* pause again, wait a couple seconds for the
>> screen to unfreeze and catch up with what has happened, repeat).
>
> Does "auto-pause at the end of every round and spell-cast" work for
> you?
Normally, I only switch those on when I'm using Time Stop and/or
Improved Alacrity because I don't like the game interrupting the
action for me .. especially when I'm going wild taking screenshots. ;)
In the first rounds of the two battles with the crazed ex-elf,
however, these options wouldn't have done me much good because there's
no point in pausing when the damage is already done. "Autopause when
an enemy starts casting a spell" would have been a lot more useful.
>> Giving the PC a handful of nice powers per day (I'm not advocating
>> anything *nearly* as grotesque as what that cheeseball Balthazar
>> has) wouldn't be that bad. At least you should regain your BG1
>> powers after SoA, possibly with upgrades (CLW -> CCW or even Heal,
>> for example ... it's not like you aren't swimming in healing
>> potions anyway, so it won't make much of a difference).
>
> Right. David Gaider's "restored bhallspawn powers" patch actually
> does this (mass curing power, etc.).
I love Mass Healing. :) The others aren't too impressive IMO. Why do
only evil characters get direct offensive powers, anyway?
>> True. A single-class thief or a bard won't be nearly as much as a
>> powerhouse as a kensai/mage or a ranger/cleric. There's nothing
>> wrong with some combos making the game easier or harder IMO.
>
> So desu yo.
Huh?
>> And *that* is why I both love and hate ToB at the same time: it's
>> good, but it could have been so much better, so much more. <sigh>
>
> We feel your pain.
Pass me the kleenex, Blackrazor and a scroll of Time Travel, then
we'll go back in time and make 'em do ToB the *right* way. >;)
--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
(nightfi...@web.de)
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"I am always right. Except when I'm left, or bluffing."
Bob Tokyo
"Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
news:qimpqtsuohbr9h2gg...@4ax.com...
<Snip>
> > The Solaufein romance features just such an NPC duel! :-)
>
> Heh. Him being a guy, he's not in the running for me. ;) But it's
> always cool to see fans adding to a game.
So you can role-play an Elf, but not a Breeder? We're just too alien for
you?
;-)
> > Right. However, weenie hordes should use half-decent tactics. Shoot
> > arrows from across a river. Have a single low-level spellcaster
> > that buffs the shock troops with haste and/or invis 10' radius.
> > Basically, have the weenie hordes use the same tactics *you* used
> > when you where 8th level (or below!).
>
> You'd have to take care not to make them *too* clever, though, or more
> casual players might well get frustrated and give up. :) Maybe there
> could be an AI switch to increase difficulty, instead of just racking
> up enemy health and damage.
A great suggestion. I'd be very interested in (and frustrated by) a fight
with just one tenth level enemy mage who scouted with Wizard Eye, then hit
the party with two Webs and an Ice Storm from beyond the fog of war.
<Snip>
> > Right. David Gaider's "restored bhallspawn powers" patch actually
> > does this (mass curing power, etc.).
>
> I love Mass Healing. :) The others aren't too impressive IMO. Why do
> only evil characters get direct offensive powers, anyway?
Offensive magic is "Evil", defensive magic is "Good". First rule of heroic
fantasy and college age American Wiccans.
> >> True. A single-class thief or a bard won't be nearly as much as a
> >> powerhouse as a kensai/mage or a ranger/cleric. There's nothing
> >> wrong with some combos making the game easier or harder IMO.
> >
> > So desu yo.
>
> Huh?
Yes, that is the case <mid-level politeness> <masculine emphatic ending> in
Japanese.
Be reading you.
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> news:qimpqtsuohbr9h2gg...@4ax.com...
>>> The Solaufein romance features just such an NPC duel! :-)
>>
>> Heh. Him being a guy, he's not in the running for me. ;) But it's
>> always cool to see fans adding to a game.
>
> So you can role-play an Elf, but not a Breeder? We're just too
> alien for you?
> ;-)
Right. :P
Seriously, some people want to and can roleplay characters of either
gender and any sexuality, but I like sticking to what I know. If I
played a het, it'd be a *guy* because then I could legitimately
romance one of the ladies (and because I think some of the StarCraft
characters would provide material for a neat custom soundset).
>> You'd have to take care not to make them *too* clever, though, or
>> more casual players might well get frustrated and give up. :)
>> Maybe there could be an AI switch to increase difficulty, instead
>> of just racking up enemy health and damage.
>
> A great suggestion. I'd be very interested in (and frustrated by)
> a fight with just one tenth level enemy mage who scouted with
> Wizard Eye, then hit the party with two Webs and an Ice Storm from
> beyond the fog of war.
Heh. Just as long as it doesn't get out of hand and *everyone* uses
that kind of tricks ... sometimes (?) I just enjoy a nice round of
slaughtering hapless foes.
>> I love Mass Healing. :) The others aren't too impressive IMO. Why
>> do only evil characters get direct offensive powers, anyway?
>
> Offensive magic is "Evil", defensive magic is "Good". First rule
> of heroic fantasy and college age American Wiccans.
Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate but
don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword through
something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a fireball.
IMO, a Good-aligned character would believe that killing should be
avoided if possible, especially for strictly personal gain, but when
you *do* kill, do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. A successful
Finger of Death, for example, is likely a good deal *less* painful to
the victim than chopping him down in melee would be.
>>> So desu yo.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Yes, that is the case <mid-level politeness> <masculine emphatic
> ending> in Japanese.
Ah, thanks.
--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
(nightfi...@web.de)
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"Do not be led astray onto the path of virtue."
Bob Tokyo
> Bob Tokyo scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
>
> > "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> > news:qimpqtsuohbr9h2gg...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> The Solaufein romance features just such an NPC duel! :-)
> >>
> >> Heh. Him being a guy, he's not in the running for me. ;) But it's
> >> always cool to see fans adding to a game.
> >
> > So you can role-play an Elf, but not a Breeder? We're just too
> > alien for you?
> > ;-)
>
> Right. :P
>
> Seriously, some people want to and can roleplay characters of either
> gender and any sexuality, but I like sticking to what I know. If I
> played a het, it'd be a *guy* because then I could legitimately
> romance one of the ladies (and because I think some of the StarCraft
> characters would provide material for a neat custom soundset).
Understood. Odd question maybe, but have you tried using Shadowkeeper to
change a male character into a female? Use a female name in creation, then
change the appearance? That way, you could run through the romances.
I've got a Sorcerer shadowkeepered into a rabbit... ;-)
<snip>
> >> I love Mass Healing. :) The others aren't too impressive IMO. Why
> >> do only evil characters get direct offensive powers, anyway?
> >
> > Offensive magic is "Evil", defensive magic is "Good". First rule
> > of heroic fantasy and college age American Wiccans.
>
> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate but
> don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword through
> something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a fireball.
Well, if you really wanted to play "Good" with D&D's weird modern morality
in a medieval setting, you'd need to play a character who never, ever took
any offensive action whatsoever, and simply tried to sweetly explain to the
nice Vampires that eating children might just possibly be considered not
quite so nice. Of course, you wouldn't accomplish much... ;-)
Derville
"Sudaker" <sud...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010921134641...@mb-fu.aol.com...
Probably crash the game, with that version f Draw Upon Holy Might. DUHM
raises Strength, Dexterity and Constitution for 1 point per 3 levels of the
caster, so a 6th level caster will have his abilities raised by 2. So,
either your Paladin went from 19 to 21 Strength, or he was born with 23
natural Strength to reach 25 post-DUHM.
Bob Macfie
Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
>
> Bob Tokyo scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
>
> > "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> > news:qimpqtsuohbr9h2gg...@4ax.com...
> >> You'd have to take care not to make them *too* clever, though, or
> >> more casual players might well get frustrated and give up. :)
> >> Maybe there could be an AI switch to increase difficulty, instead
> >> of just racking up enemy health and damage.
> > A great suggestion. I'd be very interested in (and frustrated by)
> > a fight with just one tenth level enemy mage who scouted with
> > Wizard Eye, then hit the party with two Webs and an Ice Storm from
> > beyond the fog of war.
>
> Heh. Just as long as it doesn't get out of hand and *everyone* uses
> that kind of tricks ... sometimes (?) I just enjoy a nice round of
> slaughtering hapless foes.
I enjoyed that sometimes too, especially when Doug had the
sounds for Shao Kahn from MK installed. It amused me to use
Vampiric Touch on an ally and hear "You weak, pathetic
fool."
> >> I love Mass Healing. :) The others aren't too impressive IMO. Why
> >> do only evil characters get direct offensive powers, anyway?
> > Offensive magic is "Evil", defensive magic is "Good". First rule
> > of heroic fantasy and college age American Wiccans.
> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate
> but don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword through
> something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a fireball.
Well, consider it this way - these powers aren't so much
part of you as they are a gift from your father, who is
likely to tempt you into a more suitable pattern of
behaviour by offering you more "useful" gifts if you turned
to evil.
And it seems to have worked. ;p
Oddly enough, this NG is the first place I've seen people
complain about how weak the "good" powers are - most of the
people I met didn't like the "evil" ones. Larloch's Minor
Drain is less versatile than Cure Light Wounds (the former
only affects the caster and a victim, the latter can benefit
any party member). The more characters I had with access to
Slow Poison when I hit Cloakwood, the better, while the only
time I could make good use of Ghoul Touch was to paralyze
members of the Flaming Fist while I ran for a sewer entrance
(so I didn't have to kill them to get them off my back). And
as for DuHM, I found I had the choice of using it before
combat or before retiring for the night as a healing spell
(especially for characters with high Con scores already).
Admittedly, I did prefer Vampiric Touch, using it with the
same degree of flexibility (nothing like leeching off
Korgain when you need healing badly), but I found them quite
balanced with each other.
> IMO, a Good-aligned character would believe that killing should be
> avoided if possible, especially for strictly personal gain, but when
> you *do* kill, do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. A
> successful Finger of Death, for example, is likely a good deal
> *less* painful to the victim than chopping him down in melee would
> be.
Depends on what you feel using dark necromancy does to the
soul of the caster, really. Xzar may not have started out
nuts, after all. :)
Bob Macfie
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> news:cogrqt8u0ekil7vf4...@4ax.com...
>> Seriously, some people want to and can roleplay characters of
>> either gender and any sexuality, but I like sticking to what I
>> know. If I played a het, it'd be a *guy* because then I could
>> legitimately romance one of the ladies (and because I think some
>> of the StarCraft characters would provide material for a neat
>> custom soundset).
>
> Understood. Odd question maybe, but have you tried using
> Shadowkeeper to change a male character into a female? Use a
> female name in creation, then change the appearance?
Wouldn't that also result in "her" being referred to as "he"?
> That way, you could run through the romances.
I once tried simple setting the globals for starting the Jaheira
romance with the console, and it worked. She's the only one of the
three who I find somewhat appealing ... besides, it'd be really odd to
listen to Vicky insulting my non-existant "manhood", never mind
getting Aerie pregant. >:) With a boy, no less ... where'd the kid get
the Y chromosome from?
> I've got a Sorcerer shadowkeepered into a rabbit... ;-)
No?! >:D
Great, now I want to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail for some
unfathomable reason. ;)
>> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
>> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate
>> but don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword
>> through something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a
>> fireball.
>
> Well, if you really wanted to play "Good" with D&D's weird modern
> morality in a medieval setting, you'd need to play a character who
> never, ever took any offensive action whatsoever, and simply tried
> to sweetly explain to the nice Vampires that eating children might
> just possibly be considered not quite so nice. Of course, you
> wouldn't accomplish much... ;-)
Well, Good is supposed to "respect life", but that doesn't mean you
have to let others walk all over you. Not that there *aren't* problems
with the alignment system, even though 3E irons out some of 'em ...
--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
(nightfi...@web.de)
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone somewhere is
having fun."
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
>> Heh. Just as long as it doesn't get out of hand and *everyone*
>> uses that kind of tricks ... sometimes (?) I just enjoy a nice
>> round of slaughtering hapless foes.
>
> I enjoyed that sometimes too, especially when Doug had the
> sounds for Shao Kahn from MK installed. It amused me to use
> Vampiric Touch on an ally and hear "You weak, pathetic
> fool."
Wow, who were the masochists in your party that put up with that
treatment? ;)
>> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
>> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate
>> but don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword
>> through something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a
>> fireball.
>
> Well, consider it this way - these powers aren't so much
> part of you as they are a gift from your father, who is
> likely to tempt you into a more suitable pattern of
> behaviour by offering you more "useful" gifts if you turned
> to evil.
That's one way of looking at it, aye. I myself tend to think only of
the Slayer change as a *direct* gift from dad. :) It would have been
nice to have some interaction with Bhaal, if only as a voice in your
head. The PC arguing with her father at odd times would certainly
freak out her companions, especially the goody-goody ones.
> And it seems to have worked. ;p
"Lead me not into temptation - I can find the way myself." >;)
> Oddly enough, this NG is the first place I've seen people
> complain about how weak the "good" powers are -
Whoa, I'm definitely not saying *that*. Okay, CLW doesn't do much in
BG2 but it was very nice in BG1. And while I've never used Slow Poison
at all, DUHM is by *far* the best -- as in, most useful -- power.
In ToB, the evil powers (Hand of Murder and Dark Taint) just sound so
... neat. Fitting. I like playing as a Good character, but I also love
constant reminders of what my character *is*.
> most of the people I met didn't like the "evil" ones.
I've never played Evil, but I know that I've never even considered
memorizing the corresponding spells. What good is a touch-attack spell
when your wizard can't hit the broad side of a barn?
> And as for DuHM, I found I had the choice of using it before
> combat or before retiring for the night as a healing spell
> (especially for characters with high Con scores already).
Yes, it can act like a weaker Restoration spell. :) Love that power.
> Admittedly, I did prefer Vampiric Touch, using it with the
> same degree of flexibility (nothing like leeching off
> Korgain when you need healing badly), but I found them quite
> balanced with each other.
Is it true that the Bhaalspawn version of VT has unlimited range? Now
*that* is what I call an "appropriate" power for a Child of Murder. ;)
>> IMO, a Good-aligned character would believe that killing should be
>> avoided if possible, especially for strictly personal gain, but
>> when you *do* kill, do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. A
>> successful Finger of Death, for example, is likely a good deal
>> *less* painful to the victim than chopping him down in melee would
>> be.
>
> Depends on what you feel using dark necromancy does to the
> soul of the caster, really.
Granted, FoD is not the best example. :) But AFAIK, Good-aligned
characters are no more restricted from casting harmful necromantic
spells than Evil characters are banned from casting "nice" necromantic
magic (healing). It's true that necromancy and negative energy in
general is often regarded as corrupting, though.
> Xzar may not have started out nuts, after all. :)
Heh, that freak was the only Evil NPC I actually like until our dear
brother came along. Come to think of it ... listening to Sarevok and
Minsc is funny enough, but I wonder how big brother would interact
with Xzar.
--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
(nightfi...@web.de)
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm tempted to save this quote for posterity ;-). But again, you're saying
>that an umpteenth level spellslinger has more going for her than a straight
>meathead warrior. Doesn't surprise me at all - essentially, Fighters hit
>the wall once they max out their chosen weapon proficiency and their
>fighting style. Magic users keep improving as they access new spells, so
>you'd expect their power progression curve to keep climbing at higher
>levels, while the grunt warriors have levelled off a long time ago.
>
This is really commensurate with the development of both fighters and
mages. In Bg, a level 1 mage is almost useless. 1 spell slot. 1
attack per round. THAC0 20. No wands. 4 hp. A fighter is far more
useful early in the game. Better THAC0, armor, 2.5 attacks per round
with a bow, more hp. In a way, it seems like fighters "level" more
quickly. The mage trades early utility in favor of greater power
later in the game (especially when you have the gold to have fully
charged wands in quick slots, freeing up spell slots).
As an aside, I wished that darts would be an interesting ranged weapon
alternative for fighters, instead of the default long bow. A good
thac0 with rof of say 4 to 6, would be fun, except for the inventory
nightmare. My last sorc used darts for most of the game. I
eventually got tired of having only 1 quick weapon slot for them
(other: staff of magi), and half his inventory taken up with darts.
What is sorely needed is a girdle that would act much like a quiver.
My thoughts apply equally to throwing daggers.
kromm
Bob Tokyo
> Bob Tokyo scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
>
> > "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> > news:cogrqt8u0ekil7vf4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Seriously, some people want to and can roleplay characters of
> >> either gender and any sexuality, but I like sticking to what I
> >> know. If I played a het, it'd be a *guy* because then I could
> >> legitimately romance one of the ladies (and because I think some
> >> of the StarCraft characters would provide material for a neat
> >> custom soundset).
> >
> > Understood. Odd question maybe, but have you tried using
> > Shadowkeeper to change a male character into a female? Use a
> > female name in creation, then change the appearance?
>
> Wouldn't that also result in "her" being referred to as "he"?
Probably yes, unless you spent hours with Teambg.com tools fixing it.
> > That way, you could run through the romances.
>
> I once tried simple setting the globals for starting the Jaheira
> romance with the console, and it worked.
Very cool! I'm going to try this with Anomen. And the rabbit.
> She's the only one of the
> three who I find somewhat appealing ... besides, it'd be really odd to
> listen to Vicky insulting my non-existant "manhood", never mind
> getting Aerie pregant. >:) With a boy, no less ... where'd the kid get
> the Y chromosome from?
Aeire is from a six limbed species that lives for thousands of years and yet
can go from pregnancy to full term in about a week. I can't bring myself to
worry about her ability to produce a Y chromosome. ;-)
> > I've got a Sorcerer shadowkeepered into a rabbit... ;-)
>
> No?! >:D
>
> Great, now I want to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail for some
> unfathomable reason. ;)
That would have been a Monk.
> >> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
> >> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that incapacitate
> >> but don't kill the enemy. If it's not Evil to stick a sword
> >> through something's guts, then it's not Evil to hit 'em with a
> >> fireball.
> >
> > Well, if you really wanted to play "Good" with D&D's weird modern
> > morality in a medieval setting, you'd need to play a character who
> > never, ever took any offensive action whatsoever, and simply tried
> > to sweetly explain to the nice Vampires that eating children might
> > just possibly be considered not quite so nice. Of course, you
> > wouldn't accomplish much... ;-)
>
> Well, Good is supposed to "respect life", but that doesn't mean you
> have to let others walk all over you. Not that there *aren't* problems
> with the alignment system, even though 3E irons out some of 'em ...
>
To be fair to the alignment system, even good fantasy literature treats Good
and Evil as real and concrete. You have Gods, Devils, Angels, the works as
real beings who reward their followers and punish their enemies. The
alignment system is useful for keeping track of where your character stands
in this conflict, and as a role playing aid. Most of the problems come up
because real people, and their real actions, are almost never simple and
easy to classify, and most people in the real world have very little trouble
seeing themselves, and their actions, as "Good".
kromm
<nightfi...@web.de> wrote:
>I've never played Evil, but I know that I've never even considered
>memorizing the corresponding spells. What good is a touch-attack spell
>when your wizard can't hit the broad side of a barn?
>
Same goes for slay living, cause critical wounds, and harm on the
priest side. Theoritically, most useful spells. Seems almost made
for fighter/mages or fighter/clerics that have better thac0's and
higher rof's.
However, vamp touch does not require a to hit roll. The drawback is
that the mage doesn't begin the cast until standing next to the
target, which is generally not a problem with stoneskin.
kromm
Mark Blunden
> Bob Tokyo scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
>
> > "Sarah Jaernecke" <nightfi...@web.de> wrote in message
> > news:cogrqt8u0ekil7vf4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Seriously, some people want to and can roleplay characters of
> >> either gender and any sexuality, but I like sticking to what I
> >> know. If I played a het, it'd be a *guy* because then I could
> >> legitimately romance one of the ladies (and because I think some
> >> of the StarCraft characters would provide material for a neat
> >> custom soundset).
> >
> > Understood. Odd question maybe, but have you tried using
> > Shadowkeeper to change a male character into a female? Use a
> > female name in creation, then change the appearance?
>
> Wouldn't that also result in "her" being referred to as "he"?
Apparently not. The game fixes your character's valid romance options at the
start, but in each conversation they use definable pronouns that depend on
your character's current gender.
--
Mark.
mar...@08002go.com
* Right now, I need aphorisms like I need holes in my heads
Bob Macfie
Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
>
> Bob Macfie scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of
> alt.games.baldurs-gate:
>
> > Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
>
> >> Heh. Just as long as it doesn't get out of hand and *everyone*
> >> uses that kind of tricks ... sometimes (?) I just enjoy a nice
> >> round of slaughtering hapless foes.
> >
> > I enjoyed that sometimes too, especially when Doug had the
> > sounds for Shao Kahn from MK installed. It amused me to use
> > Vampiric Touch on an ally and hear "You weak, pathetic
> > fool."
>
> Wow, who were the masochists in your party that put up with that
> treatment? ;)
::voice like low rumbling thunder:: Those who knew the
consequences of disobedience.
Hey, it's not like I didn't heal them up immediately, if I
was going to keep them in the group - I just liked being
able to bulk up in a big way before some fights.
And if I'd been truly evil, I'd have played it like a
cutthroat used car dealership, where I'd hire every new
character I met, and give the axe very literally to the one
who wasn't "meeting quota." ;p
Hmmm... that gives me an idea... ^^;
> >> Bah, I say. To be consistent, you'd have to give all the "good"
> >> warrior-types blackjacks, nets and other weapons that
> >> incapacitate but don't kill the enemy.
I once pummeled Noober into unconsciousness with my
character's bare fists - no XP at all, but very satisfying.
:)
>>> If it's not Evil to stick a sword through something's guts, then
>>> it's not Evil to hit 'em with a fireball.
> > Well, consider it this way - these powers aren't so much
> > part of you as they are a gift from your father, who is
> > likely to tempt you into a more suitable pattern of
> > behaviour by offering you more "useful" gifts if you turned
> > to evil.
> That's one way of looking at it, aye. I myself tend to think only of
> the Slayer change as a *direct* gift from dad. :)
You mean you don't think the voices you heard every time
you got a new one were conversations with pa?
> It would have been nice to have some interaction with Bhaal, if only
> as a voice in your head.
We obviously have different definitions of "nice." ;p A
conversation with Bhaal should be - Let me put it this way,
a friend of mine responded to a stranger asking him, "What
would you do upon meeting God?" with "Before or after I wet
my pants?"
I think that should sum it up. :)
> The PC arguing with her father at odd times would certainly
> freak out her companions, especially the goody-goody ones.
It'd freak me out, even if I was the one in the
conversation. Perhaps ESPECIALLY if I was the one in the
conversation. ^^;
> > And it seems to have worked. ;p
> "Lead me not into temptation - I can find the way myself." >;)
Ah, but some of us aren't afraid to ask for directions. ;p
> > Oddly enough, this NG is the first place I've seen people
> > complain about how weak the "good" powers are -
> Whoa, I'm definitely not saying *that*.
Point taken. :)
> Okay, CLW doesn't do much in BG2 but it was very nice in BG1. And
> while I've never used Slow Poison at all, DUHM is by *far* the best
> -- as in, most useful -- power.
As long as you remembered to use it BEFORE battle. I found
that I'd always become a target - a MUCH EASIER TARGET, it
seemed, because no one ever missed a shot at me at that time
- when I'd activate that power. I think it was the one that
took longest to cast.
> In ToB, the evil powers (Hand of Murder and Dark Taint) just sound
> so ... neat.
I seem to have missed those descriptions. ^^; Ah, well,
better than Fluffy Pummelling, I guess. Though listening to
the monks shout "Lunar Stance!" and "Shadowless Kick!" was
pretty freaky - anime rejects? ^_^
> Fitting. I like playing as a Good character, but I also love
> constant reminders of what my character *is*.
But what would the name of the good powers be? I strongly
suspect that the one Bhaal ended up giving you was supposed
to merely be the Monkey's Paw to break you once and for all,
so he could concentrate on more... appropriate candidates.
Heh. It could also be that he screwed up your power so much
that you would become reluctant to use it at all, possibly
because there was some link between its use and another's
acension.
(Hmmm, perhaps "ascension" isn't the right word here.)
As for alignments, I consider the whole thing one big
acting experience, and that after the adventure is
concluded, "Minsc" goes out to use his season opera tickets
while his clothes are shampooed before the next session,
"Imoen" and "Irenicus" "reestablish that close bond" they
had during the first half of the game, "Aerie" gets rip
roaring drunk (again), "Viconia" campaigns against spouse
abuse, and "Jaheira" returns to the comedy circuit. :)
> > most of the people I met didn't like the "evil" ones.
>
> I've never played Evil, but I know that I've never even considered
> memorizing the corresponding spells. What good is a touch-attack
> spell when your wizard can't hit the broad side of a barn?
Xzar never missed with it. As Kromm pointed out, the game
never seemed to require the user to make a to hit roll with
it.
The other thing is that the game does seem to factor in the
fact that most touch spells ignore armor, in my experience.
It may be a different story with monsters other than
humanoids in the game, though.
> > And as for DuHM, I found I had the choice of using it before
> > combat or before retiring for the night as a healing spell
> > (especially for characters with high Con scores already).
> Yes, it can act like a weaker Restoration spell. :) Love that power.
Very diverse. If things were really bad, I'd sometimes
cheat a bit with it and cast it before moving to another
screen. That kept the Con bonus in place for however long it
take to get where you were going - or until the ambush. :)
> > Admittedly, I did prefer Vampiric Touch, using it with the
> > same degree of flexibility (nothing like leeching off
> > Korgain when you need healing badly), but I found them quite
> > balanced with each other.
>
> Is it true that the Bhaalspawn version of VT has unlimited range?
I'm not sure. I got the impression that I had to close in,
but it didn't seem like I had to actually "roll to hit"
anything. It seemed faster than the spell, though.
One "glitch" I have spotted with VT - it can be used even
against creatures immune to it (most undead, for example).
The creature will be immune to the damage, but you still get
the HP. This, of course, is just wrong. ;p
> Now *that* is what I call an "appropriate" power for a Child of
> Murder. ;)
It certainly would be. Better than a backstab, I'd say. ;)
> >> IMO, a Good-aligned character would believe that killing should
> >> be avoided if possible, especially for strictly personal gain,
> >> but when you *do* kill, do it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
> >> A successful Finger of Death, for example, is likely a good deal
> >> *less* painful to the victim than chopping him down in melee
> >> would be.
> > Depends on what you feel using dark necromancy does to the
> > soul of the caster, really.
>
> Granted, FoD is not the best example. :) But AFAIK, Good-aligned
> characters are no more restricted from casting harmful necromantic
> spells than Evil characters are banned from casting "nice"
> necromantic magic (healing).
True. It was implied by some of the spells in 2nd Ed, but
the current game seems to have erased most of that. (For
example, Death Spell and Finger of Death once put characters
beyond any hope of resurrection, as did Destruction, the
reverse of Resurrection.) Of course, none of this applies to
BG, really. ^^;
> It's true that necromancy and negative energy in
> general is often regarded as corrupting, though.
> > Xzar may not have started out nuts, after all. :)
>
> Heh, that freak was the only Evil NPC I actually like until our dear
> brother came along. Come to think of it ... listening to Sarevok and
> Minsc is funny enough, but I wonder how big brother would interact
> with Xzar.
I really wish I'd been able to find out. Something tells me
he might be a little more tolerant of hamsters after a few
days with Xzar. I, too, had a soft spot for the Zhent.
Bob Macfie
Talen
wrote:
>
> As for alignments, I consider the whole thing one big
>acting experience, and that after the adventure is
>concluded, "Minsc" goes out to use his season opera tickets
>while his clothes are shampooed before the next session,
>"Imoen" and "Irenicus" "reestablish that close bond" they
>had during the first half of the game, "Aerie" gets rip
>roaring drunk (again), "Viconia" campaigns against spouse
>abuse, and "Jaheira" returns to the comedy circuit. :)
Simply on an amusing side front, Bob, if you'll recall Edwina, I'm
dead-set certain her VA is in fact also the dub voice for Dilandu from
Escaflowne.
Just a note of irony.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Those that bury the living must be buried by our righteous
fury! Woe betide those who would flout justice! So says Minsc,
though 'betide' was Boo's word."
- Minsc, attributing properly, unlike me
The Gurus love you
WAM: 161 BBB: 265
Sarah Jaernecke
alt.games.baldurs-gate:
> Sarah Jaernecke wrote:
>> Wow, who were the masochists in your party that put up with that
>> treatment? ;)
>
> ::voice like low rumbling thunder:: Those who knew the
> consequences of disobedience.
That's the spirit!
> Hey, it's not like I didn't heal them up immediately, if I
> was going to keep them in the group - I just liked being
> able to bulk up in a big way before some fights.
<ponders giving Evil a try after all>
> And if I'd been truly evil, I'd have played it like a
> cutthroat used car dealership, where I'd hire every new
> character I met, and give the axe very literally to the one
> who wasn't "meeting quota." ;p
>
> Hmmm... that gives me an idea... ^^;
<Bhaal>
That's my boy!
</Bhaal>
>> That's one way of looking at it, aye. I myself tend to think only
>> of the Slayer change as a *direct* gift from dad. :)
>
> You mean you don't think the voices you heard every time
> you got a new one were conversations with pa?
The dreams? Sure, and I really loved 'em. :) Especially the one with
the statue. But I thought the PC unlocked those abilities herself.
>> It would have been nice to have some interaction with Bhaal, if
>> only as a voice in your head.
>
> We obviously have different definitions of "nice." ;p
Nice for me, not for my character. >:) Sure, it'd freak *her* out, but
*I* would love it. Didn't you enjoy the interaction with Demogorgon?
The way he communicated both with words and with images that were
simply seared into the PC's mind?
> A conversation with Bhaal should be - Let me put it this way,
> a friend of mine responded to a stranger asking him, "What
> would you do upon meeting God?" with "Before or after I wet
> my pants?"
>
> I think that should sum it up. :)
LOL!
But Bhaal is dead, and the PC's father, so I think she'd be able to
handle it ... eventually. ;) And I'd *really* like to see daddy do
*something* -- and if it's just trying to mess with his strongest
kid's mind. In BG1, there were the dreams at least, but by ToB, he's
really made to look impotent (no silly remarks now) as well as
incompetent.
>> The PC arguing with her father at odd times would certainly
>> freak out her companions, especially the goody-goody ones.
>
> It'd freak me out, even if I was the one in the
> conversation. Perhaps ESPECIALLY if I was the one in the
> conversation. ^^;
That's the point. >:)
>> "Lead me not into temptation - I can find the way myself." >;)
>
> Ah, but some of us aren't afraid to ask for directions. ;p
What's wrong with taking a few wrong turns if they lead to more
mayhem? :P
>> In ToB, the evil powers (Hand of Murder and Dark Taint) just sound
>> so ... neat.
>
> I seem to have missed those descriptions. ^^;
Hand of Murder: "When this power is called upon by the Bhaalspawn,
they immediately do extra damage with each hit to their target with
any melee weapon they wish (whether it be fist or sword), their dark
energies travelling through their weapon and assaulting their
victim... and absorb that damage as healing to themselves."
Dark Taint: "Through this spell, the Bhaalspawn can expel the taint of
their evil sire onto a victim, poisoning those who fail their save vs.
death. The effects depend upon the caster's level [...]"
Grr. Maybe I *really* should play a character who is Daddy's Girl.
Problem is, I can't stand any of the Evil NPCs in Shadows of Amn ...
and I'd feel really bad about *not* converting Sarevok. Of the
Neutrals, I like only Jaheira (who wouldn't put up with a really evil
bastard for long) and Yoshimo. *Maybe* I could put up with Haer'Dalis,
too.
> Ah, well, better than Fluffy Pummelling, I guess. Though listening
> to the monks shout "Lunar Stance!" and "Shadowless Kick!" was
> pretty freaky - anime rejects? ^_^
Don't remind me. I can't stand that self-righteous cheeseball git
Balthazar.
BTW, to those who haven't heard of it, David Gaider is working on
another patch -- this one will allow you to reason with Balthazar (if
your reputation is high enough, I suppose) and it will also spice up
the final battles (better AI for the enemies, different enemies,
shutting down the pools gives the PC special abilities). I can't wait.
He also said he'll make sure that Imoen's and Sarevok's conversations
with the PC occur at certain points in the game if they haven't
already. :)
>> Fitting. I like playing as a Good character, but I also love
>> constant reminders of what my character *is*.
>
> But what would the name of the good powers be? I strongly
> suspect that the one Bhaal ended up giving you was supposed
> to merely be the Monkey's Paw to break you once and for all,
> so he could concentrate on more... appropriate candidates.
Hey hey hey! The PC *is* the most appropriate candidate! >:)
What upsets me about ToB is that the situation simply degrades into a
race for godhood. What happened to BG's concept of Bhaal resurrecting
himself through his Children, most likely by temporarily possessing
the most powerful one once he (Bhaal) had regained enough strength to
do so? I do *not* buy Melissan's role in the story -- it seems like a
rushed afterthought to me.
In BG1's dialog.tlk file is an unused (unfortunately) scenario in
which the PC is drawn into a dreamscape by Bhaal -- Gorion makes a
brief appearance, too -- to prepare the PC for just that, the father's
"Return" (quote: "You must release your will, that your body may
become the conduit for your father's rebirth!"). This would happen
shortly before confronting Sarevok, I suppose. I'd have loved to see
that scenario in the game, and have the idea explored further in SoA
and ToB.
>> I've never played Evil, but I know that I've never even considered
>> memorizing the corresponding spells. What good is a touch-attack
>> spell when your wizard can't hit the broad side of a barn?
>
> Xzar never missed with it. As Kromm pointed out, the game
> never seemed to require the user to make a to hit roll with
> it.
Odd, but nice to know.
> The other thing is that the game does seem to factor in the
> fact that most touch spells ignore armor, in my experience.
> It may be a different story with monsters other than
> humanoids in the game, though.
According to the rules (IIRC, that is) a touch attack is made against
AC 10 minus the target's Dex bonus, if any. Natural armor won't help.
> One "glitch" I have spotted with VT - it can be used even
> against creatures immune to it (most undead, for example).
> The creature will be immune to the damage, but you still get
> the HP. This, of course, is just wrong. ;p
With the help, I mean the blood, of a god, I suppose anything's
possible.
>> Heh, that freak was the only Evil NPC I actually like until our
>> dear brother came along. Come to think of it ... listening to
>> Sarevok and Minsc is funny enough, but I wonder how big brother
>> would interact with Xzar.
>
> I really wish I'd been able to find out. Something tells me
> he might be a little more tolerant of hamsters after a few
> days with Xzar. I, too, had a soft spot for the Zhent.
After a few days with Xzar, Sarevok would be *convinced* that he's
still in Hell, or Xzar would be deader than a doornail, or both. ;)
Derville
"kromm" <kr...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
news:3baf6238...@news.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:53:43 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I'm tempted to save this quote for posterity ;-). But again, you're
saying
> >that an umpteenth level spellslinger has more going for her than a
straight
> >meathead warrior. Doesn't surprise me at all - essentially, Fighters hit
> >the wall once they max out their chosen weapon proficiency and their
> >fighting style. Magic users keep improving as they access new spells, so
> >you'd expect their power progression curve to keep climbing at higher
> >levels, while the grunt warriors have levelled off a long time ago.
>
> This is really commensurate with the development of both fighters and
> mages. In Bg, a level 1 mage is almost useless. 1 spell slot. 1
> attack per round. THAC0 20. No wands. 4 hp. A fighter is far more
> useful early in the game. Better THAC0, armor, 2.5 attacks per round
> with a bow, more hp. In a way, it seems like fighters "level" more
> quickly. The mage trades early utility in favor of greater power
> later in the game (especially when you have the gold to have fully
> charged wands in quick slots, freeing up spell slots).
The issue is that anyone can pick up a sword, if they're of a warrior
vocation, and once you know how to swing it, there's only so much further
you can take that ability (hence weapon proficiencies max out at 5 pips).
Spells are looked as longer term projects, almost telling the character that
he must be a higher level for his brain to develop sufficiently to
understand the higher level spells (as seen also by spell failure chances
when casting a spell above the caster's natural level). The thing which I
don't like is that ToB has apparently put a cap on spell progression, which
to me takes away a lot of the power of a 40th level Mage (not that it then
makes them weak, exactly, just less powerful than if they had been learning
spells as normal all the way up to 40th level). As an aside, I wonder if it
wouldn't be fairer on meathead Fighters to remove the 5 pip restriction on
weapons - they'd then have to choose between being an absolute demon with
one weapon, or being pretty darn good with two or three weapons instead.
> As an aside, I wished that darts would be an interesting ranged weapon
> alternative for fighters, instead of the default long bow. A good
> thac0 with rof of say 4 to 6, would be fun, except for the inventory
> nightmare.
You could try that cloak which gives a limited supply of +5 Darts, but there
is that massive problem with ammo. I don't see Darts as being a warrior's
weapon, as they look too small and, well, silly in the hands of a beefy
warrior. Rocks, on the other hand, are a different tale - they're free to
collect, you can hurl bigger rocks as your Strength increases, and a
critical hit would squash children and small animals instantly!
> My last sorc used darts for most of the game. I
> eventually got tired of having only 1 quick weapon slot for them
> (other: staff of magi), and half his inventory taken up with darts.
> What is sorely needed is a girdle that would act much like a quiver.
> My thoughts apply equally to throwing daggers.
Hmmm, possibly. The other choice is a returning Dart, which then only takes
up one slot. This is why my Sorc used the Firetooth Dagger - top notch
damage, and it is a returning weapon. Darts could see a trade off in terms
of RoF (say 2 attacks per round, as the Darts take their time flying back to
the wielder's hand), with this balanced by the fact that they'll never need
to be replenished. In fact, other than the omnipresent danger of Jim Bowen
appearing without warning, I think that a never-ending Dart supply would be
a pretty decent idea (although scoring 101 or more should still be done with
six darts, rather than using your unlimited supply ;-)).
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The issue is that anyone can pick up a sword, if they're of a warrior
>vocation, and once you know how to swing it, there's only so much further
>you can take that ability (hence weapon proficiencies max out at 5 pips).
>Spells are looked as longer term projects, almost telling the character that
>he must be a higher level for his brain to develop sufficiently to
>understand the higher level spells (as seen also by spell failure chances
>when casting a spell above the caster's natural level). The thing which I
>don't like is that ToB has apparently put a cap on spell progression, which
>to me takes away a lot of the power of a 40th level Mage (not that it then
>makes them weak, exactly, just less powerful than if they had been learning
>spells as normal all the way up to 40th level). As an aside, I wonder if it
>wouldn't be fairer on meathead Fighters to remove the 5 pip restriction on
>weapons - they'd then have to choose between being an absolute demon with
>one weapon, or being pretty darn good with two or three weapons instead.
>
I think the "meatheads" are poweful enough. A level 20 fighter
already has effectively, a +20 bonus to hit by virtue of his base
THAC0 dropping by 1 per level. On top of that, another +4 or 5 bonus
is given by weapon enchantment. Another +2 is given by prof points.
Easily acquired Str boosting items offer an additional +3 to +7 to hit
bonus. In summary, a fighter could have as much as a +34 to hit.
Then there's the rof (on melees). 1/2 rof bonus is given for
specialization, lvl 7, and lvl 13. Optional dual wielding will give
an extra attack per round.
We won't mention the superior saving throws vs spells a fighter gets
with typically low wis and int compared to a mage who has intimate
knowledge of magic.
This discussion is based on that ranger you rolled up in BG1, and the
2 points placed in long sword. In the course of the ranger's
adventures, his THAC0 will go from 19 to -10. His rof will go from
1.5 to 3 or 4.
Meanwhile, many of the mages lvl 1 spells becomes near useless (eg.
sleep, color spray, identify, chrome orb due to low saving throws of
vics). Lvl 1 slots quickly max at 5. There are very few wizardly
items that give the same "quality" of bonuses enjoyed by fighters.
For eg, what would a wizard equivalent of Crom Faeyr be? Robe of
Vecna is a start but still falls short, imo. Would the 2 be more
comparable if the Robe granted double lvl 1 to 3 spell slots? Would
that compare to an (assumed) 15 str fighter, boosted to str 25,
receiving +7 to hit and +14 damage, plus the hammer's inate
properties, all the while still enjoying an rof of say, 2.5?
I guess my point is that fighters really improve over time and there
are alot of fighter goodies to be had. Wizard power and their goodies
don't really compete with a fighter's never tiring sword arm.
>You could try that cloak which gives a limited supply of +5 Darts, but there
>is that massive problem with ammo. I don't see Darts as being a warrior's
>weapon, as they look too small and, well, silly in the hands of a beefy
>warrior. Rocks, on the other hand, are a different tale - they're free to
>collect, you can hurl bigger rocks as your Strength increases, and a
>critical hit would squash children and small animals instantly!
>
True. I was just seeking weapon alternative for fun's sake.
The cloak of the stars is good, but it only give 1.5 rounds of ammo
once per day.
>> My last sorc used darts for most of the game. I
>> eventually got tired of having only 1 quick weapon slot for them
>> (other: staff of magi), and half his inventory taken up with darts.
>> What is sorely needed is a girdle that would act much like a quiver.
>> My thoughts apply equally to throwing daggers.
>
>Hmmm, possibly. The other choice is a returning Dart, which then only takes
>up one slot. This is why my Sorc used the Firetooth Dagger - top notch
>damage, and it is a returning weapon. Darts could see a trade off in terms
>of RoF (say 2 attacks per round, as the Darts take their time flying back to
>the wielder's hand), with this balanced by the fact that they'll never need
>to be replenished. In fact, other than the omnipresent danger of Jim Bowen
>appearing without warning, I think that a never-ending Dart supply would be
>a pretty decent idea (although scoring 101 or more should still be done with
>six darts, rather than using your unlimited supply ;-)).
I agree. In a role playing sense, daggers could be seen as the
quintessential thief weapon--small and easily concealable; soundlessly
thrown in the dark. My girdle idea is, I guess, meant to replace the
returning thrown weapons. IMO, the returning weapons were introduced
to give gamers inventory relief.
kromm
Derville
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:07:33 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >The issue is that anyone can pick up a sword, if they're of a warrior
> >vocation, and once you know how to swing it, there's only so much further
> >you can take that ability (hence weapon proficiencies max out at 5 pips).
> >Spells are looked as longer term projects, almost telling the character
that
> >he must be a higher level for his brain to develop sufficiently to
> >understand the higher level spells (as seen also by spell failure chances
> >when casting a spell above the caster's natural level).
> >
> already has effectively, a +20 bonus to hit by virtue of his base
> THAC0 dropping by 1 per level. On top of that, another +4 or 5 bonus
> is given by weapon enchantment. Another +2 is given by prof points.
> Easily acquired Str boosting items offer an additional +3 to +7 to hit
> bonus. In summary, a fighter could have as much as a +34 to hit.
Yeah, but a 20th level Mage has spells which can completely nullify the
warrior's attacks (albeit for a short time only), which buys enough time for
the Mage to administer a thorough going-over on said meathead, so it's all
swings and roundabouts. Also, consider that a 5th level Mage can hit
Kangaxx in BG2 by casting Melf's Meteors, yet our poor warrior has to go out
and win a decent weapon to hurt this type of enemy, which requires either
buying it (after he's killed loads of enemies to loot their bodies for
cash), or going after the person who currently wields the more powerful
weapon, and being forced to use his inferior Smite-O-Matic (TM) to get his
hands on a newer and better piece of equipment. So while our warrior can
get some top bonuses, he still has to work a lot harder than your average
Mage to get access to these odds and ends. IMHO, anyway.
> This discussion is based on that ranger you rolled up in BG1, and the
> 2 points placed in long sword. In the course of the ranger's
> adventures, his THAC0 will go from 19 to -10. His rof will go from
> 1.5 to 3 or 4.
While a Mage can still only ever cast one spell per round. The problem is
that it's apples and oranges here, as Fighter and Mage are the antithesis of
one another.
> Meanwhile, many of the mages lvl 1 spells becomes near useless (eg.
> sleep, color spray, identify, chrome orb due to low saving throws of
> vics). Lvl 1 slots quickly max at 5. There are very few wizardly
> items that give the same "quality" of bonuses enjoyed by fighters.
Melf's Meteors hits as a +5 weapon. Mantle protects from +3 weapons, IIRC,
while Improved Mantle blocks +4 attacks. These are not trivial bonuses, and
even lowly spells like Invisibility offer a +4 THAC0 bonus when attacking,
so some of these low level spells should not be underestimated. Give me a
bit of time, and I can throw 5 Prot from Evils on myself, which ought to
stack, and thus give me a -10AC bonus, which will buy me time against most
warriors - at least long enough to scarper out of range of his weapon, at
any rate.
> For eg, what would a wizard equivalent of Crom Faeyr be? Robe of
> Vecna is a start but still falls short, imo.
Wrong way around, IMHO. Robe of Vecna = -4 to casting time. We're talking
about Fireballs being cast as quickly as Magic Missiles, summons appearing
before you know what's going on, and general hell breaking loose. It also
gives the Mage more time to run away, as he's nt standing waving his arms as
long as normal. Yes, CF is a very powerful weapon, but the Mage knows he
can defeat it with a Mantle (IIRC, CF is still only classed as a +3 weapon),
and can then fall back and start his own offensive at long range, where
hammers cannot reach him.
> Would the 2 be more
> comparable if the Robe granted double lvl 1 to 3 spell slots? Would
> that compare to an (assumed) 15 str fighter, boosted to str 25,
> receiving +7 to hit and +14 damage, plus the hammer's inate
> properties, all the while still enjoying an rof of say, 2.5?
Tell you what; you take CF and I'll take that improved Robe you're offering
there. How would you see yourself going about winning a fight against me in
this situation?
> I guess my point is that fighters really improve over time and there
> are alot of fighter goodies to be had. Wizard power and their goodies
> don't really compete with a fighter's never tiring sword arm.
Fighters get better if you can find them better kit, and to be honest, a lot
of the best equipment in BG2 is available in chapters 2-3 (Carsomyr,
Celestial Fury, Lilarcor, Flail of Ages, Fortress Shield, Staff of Magi,
Ring of Gaxx etc), so your average Fighter will be well equipped when you
leave for Spellhold. Mages, unless you scum chapters 2 and 3 for XP, will
likely be nowhere near reaching the highest possible spell levels, so their
characters have a lot more developing to do. The Fighter will continue to
pound away at anything with a red circle, but he's not going to really make
any great leaps forward in terms of abilities, while our Mage knows that
he's got the delights of 6th, 7th and 8th level spellcasting abilities to
look forward to. And if ToB hadn't put a cap on Mage spell progression, I
shudder to think how the Forgotten Realms would have looked today.
> >Hmmm, possibly. The other choice is a returning Dart, which then only
takes
> >up one slot. This is why my Sorc used the Firetooth Dagger - top notch
> >damage, and it is a returning weapon. Darts could see a trade off in
terms
> >of RoF (say 2 attacks per round, as the Darts take their time flying back
to
> >the wielder's hand), with this balanced by the fact that they'll never
need
> >to be replenished. In fact, other than the omnipresent danger of Jim
Bowen
> >appearing without warning, I think that a never-ending Dart supply would
be
> >a pretty decent idea (although scoring 101 or more should still be done
with
> >six darts, rather than using your unlimited supply ;-)).
>
> I agree. In a role playing sense, daggers could be seen as the
> quintessential thief weapon--small and easily concealable; soundlessly
> thrown in the dark. My girdle idea is, I guess, meant to replace the
> returning thrown weapons. IMO, the returning weapons were introduced
> to give gamers inventory relief.
As they should - the BG inventory system is still a mucky and tough to
manage beast, so anything to gve the gamer a break is warmly welcomed by
myself. I agree with you about Daggers, especially Throwing Dags (even
better if they're poisoned), and possibly Punch Daggers (based entirely upon
Annah's star turn in Torment ;-)). But the Thief lives by stealthy weapons,
so I'd like to see a game where this is played up a bit. Thief: The Dark
Project had the greatest weapon ever in the form of the blackjack (great for
working out your frustrations), yet BG2 had opportunities for things like
hand crossbows (easily concealed), or a blackjack/cosh (working on the same
principle as bare fists for knocking enemies out cold). As a lover of
light-fingered characters, I really feel for the way that Thieves don't
really get the same specialised equipment that other characters may have
access to.
Mufasa
"Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ovn1s$7u3$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Thats only because BG2(and pretty much every CRPG on the market) doesn't use
components. I doubt you'd be flinging Time Stops around like they were
nothing if you had to use some next to impossible to acquire component each
time you use it. Hard to find components were always the equalizer of the
super powerful mage spells in PnP D&D, but without them high level mages are
just silly.
T.J....@durham.ac.uk
> Thats only because BG2(and pretty much every CRPG on the market) doesn't use
> components. I doubt you'd be flinging Time Stops around like they were
> nothing if you had to use some next to impossible to acquire component each
> time you use it. Hard to find components were always the equalizer of the
> super powerful mage spells in PnP D&D, but without them high level mages are
> just silly.
I've always found spell components to be nothing more than annoying. For
*certain* spells (permanent or very long duration things like Symbol or
Create *Undead, for example) fair enough, you can see why you need
something to stop them going completely over the top; for instant spells
it's not really worth it (can't cast Darkness; not enough little bits of
fluff... eugh).
Tom
--
I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Yeah, but a 20th level Mage has spells which can completely nullify the
>warrior's attacks (albeit for a short time only), which buys enough time for
>the Mage to administer a thorough going-over on said meathead, so it's all
>swings and roundabouts. Also, consider that a 5th level Mage can hit
>Kangaxx in BG2 by casting Melf's Meteors, yet our poor warrior has to go out
>and win a decent weapon to hurt this type of enemy, which requires either
>buying it (after he's killed loads of enemies to loot their bodies for
>cash), or going after the person who currently wields the more powerful
>weapon, and being forced to use his inferior Smite-O-Matic (TM) to get his
>hands on a newer and better piece of equipment. So while our warrior can
>get some top bonuses, he still has to work a lot harder than your average
>Mage to get access to these odds and ends. IMHO, anyway.
>
Yes, it's true that the equipment makes the fighter while the mind
makes the mage. I'm not convinced that the warrior must work harder
to get all this fine equipment. After all, it could have been the
mage--with invis and sunfires--that cleared the room so the fighter
may safely pick up the equipment. ;)
As for Kangaxx, he is rather an absurd encounter. Any lich that casts
"Immunity to Bhaalspawn's Party", must be countered with a similar
amount of cheese--protec from magic, oil of speed, staff of rynn.
I think that, fighter equipment in general, basically litters dungeon
floors; entire passageways are blocked by useless and discarded +2
weapons and enchanted plate. Ok, I'm overdoing it ;) At any rate, it
doesn't take long to get the enchanted weapons. Only in Chateau
Irenicus would Jaheira even begin to consider casting the
near-forgotten spell Shillelagh. Not far into Ch2 do you stop
collecting +1 and 2 weapons to sell, unless you insist on being a
chipmunk, or you buy lvl 9 scrolls 50 days game time b4 a mage could
even cast one.
>While a Mage can still only ever cast one spell per round. The problem is
>that it's apples and oranges here, as Fighter and Mage are the antithesis of
>one another.
>
Yeah, it's a tough comparison. I guess I was trying to say that the
ranger's level 1 abilities continue to improve throughout his career.
The mage's levl 1 abilities do stop at some point. Of course, the
mage begins developing other abilities.
>Melf's Meteors hits as a +5 weapon. Mantle protects from +3 weapons, IIRC,
>while Improved Mantle blocks +4 attacks. These are not trivial bonuses, and
>even lowly spells like Invisibility offer a +4 THAC0 bonus when attacking,
>so some of these low level spells should not be underestimated. Give me a
>bit of time, and I can throw 5 Prot from Evils on myself, which ought to
>stack, and thus give me a -10AC bonus, which will buy me time against most
>warriors - at least long enough to scarper out of range of his weapon, at
>any rate.
>
Actually, I think alot more spells would be useful if you played a
smaller party, where each member's abilities become more important.
With 3 tank typess up front, mages don't really need mantle. Melf's
is no good because the vic won't live long enough to receive the extra
damage.
>Wrong way around, IMHO. Robe of Vecna = -4 to casting time. We're talking
>about Fireballs being cast as quickly as Magic Missiles, summons appearing
>before you know what's going on, and general hell breaking loose. It also
>gives the Mage more time to run away, as he's nt standing waving his arms as
>long as normal. Yes, CF is a very powerful weapon, but the Mage knows he
>can defeat it with a Mantle (IIRC, CF is still only classed as a +3 weapon),
>and can then fall back and start his own offensive at long range, where
>hammers cannot reach him.
>
>> Would the 2 be more
>> comparable if the Robe granted double lvl 1 to 3 spell slots? Would
>> that compare to an (assumed) 15 str fighter, boosted to str 25,
>> receiving +7 to hit and +14 damage, plus the hammer's inate
>> properties, all the while still enjoying an rof of say, 2.5?
>
>Tell you what; you take CF and I'll take that improved Robe you're offering
>there. How would you see yourself going about winning a fight against me in
>this situation?
>
I agree that a fighter cannot take on a mage (at high levels of
course). Mages are more powerful. Greater Malison and Ray of
Enfeeblement could humiliate a fighter, otherwise a mage can do a
massive amount of damage in a few rounds with spells that do not allow
negating saving throws.
My argument was that there is so much equipment for a fighter to
choose from. I know that a mage's primary equipment is scrolls and
there is enough to go around. However, there is not really enough of
other magely equipment to outfit a few mages should you so desire.
You see, I like the equipment improvement aspect of the game. Trading
in the long sword for the +2 staff and so on. Mages don't have this
quite the same. Eg. Staff of the Magi. There is no real lesser
version of this. The mage goes from a basic +2 staff to the Magi.
The mage trades in his Knave's Robe for Vecna.
>Fighters get better if you can find them better kit, and to be honest, a lot
>of the best equipment in BG2 is available in chapters 2-3 (Carsomyr,
>Celestial Fury, Lilarcor, Flail of Ages, Fortress Shield, Staff of Magi,
>Ring of Gaxx etc), so your average Fighter will be well equipped when you
>leave for Spellhold. Mages, unless you scum chapters 2 and 3 for XP, will
>likely be nowhere near reaching the highest possible spell levels, so their
>characters have a lot more developing to do. The Fighter will continue to
>pound away at anything with a red circle, but he's not going to really make
>any great leaps forward in terms of abilities, while our Mage knows that
>he's got the delights of 6th, 7th and 8th level spellcasting abilities to
>look forward to. And if ToB hadn't put a cap on Mage spell progression, I
>shudder to think how the Forgotten Realms would have looked today.
>
You hit the nail on the head here. It is reflective of how the
developers fashioned the game. The fighters look forward to finding
new equipment and being faced with choices on what to use. Mages look
forward to levelling up. But mages don't really make any choices
(beyond memorizing).
RE: cap on spell progression. I can see why the did it. It can be
difficult to balance a game if mages could cast as much as cleric's
do. A mage can put down a dragon in a few rounds. Ugghh!
>As they should - the BG inventory system is still a mucky and tough to
>manage beast, so anything to gve the gamer a break is warmly welcomed by
>myself. I agree with you about Daggers, especially Throwing Dags (even
>better if they're poisoned), and possibly Punch Daggers (based entirely upon
>Annah's star turn in Torment ;-)). But the Thief lives by stealthy weapons,
>so I'd like to see a game where this is played up a bit. Thief: The Dark
>Project had the greatest weapon ever in the form of the blackjack (great for
>working out your frustrations), yet BG2 had opportunities for things like
>hand crossbows (easily concealed), or a blackjack/cosh (working on the same
>principle as bare fists for knocking enemies out cold). As a lover of
>light-fingered characters, I really feel for the way that Thieves don't
>really get the same specialised equipment that other characters may have
>access to.
I agree. My thieves usually wind up with hand me downs from the
warriors. Jaheira no longer needs the Staff of Rynn, so Imoen gets
it. Sure that's great, but it's not really my first choice of weapon
for a thief or a mage. It doesn't really seem to fit.
As for poison, darts of wounding and such are good theif weapons.
However, usually the warriors simply kill the target b4 the poison has
any real effect.
kromm
Derville
"Mufasa" <muf...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:coKs7.20700$w7.40...@news02.optonline.net...
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9ovn1s$7u3$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
Well, using components would complicate things a great deal, especially
given BG2's already stretched inventory system (unless they had a "component
bag" to keep odds and ends in). Plus, although I'm no expert, it's my guess
that this would lead to a load of skills also being brought in, such as
Herbalism for collecting shrubs and grasses for certain spells and so on.
Then again, it would also impact substantially on the combat element if a
Mage had to run away because he didn't have the right components for an
Invisibility spell. If anything, BG2's approach of giving you hundreds of
spells and forcing you to pick four or five per level works in its own way,
because you can argue that you never quite have enough spell slots to cover
all possible eventualities (if only enemies used a wider range of spells,
beyond Time Stop, Gate, Chain Contingency etc, this might make things a lot
more interesting).
Derville
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:21:41 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but a 20th level Mage has spells which can completely nullify the
> >warrior's attacks (albeit for a short time only), which buys enough time
for
> >the Mage to administer a thorough going-over on said meathead, so it's
all
> >swings and roundabouts. Also, consider that a 5th level Mage can hit
> >Kangaxx in BG2 by casting Melf's Meteors, yet our poor warrior has to go
out
> >and win a decent weapon to hurt this type of enemy, which requires either
> >buying it (after he's killed loads of enemies to loot their bodies for
> >cash), or going after the person who currently wields the more powerful
> >weapon, and being forced to use his inferior Smite-O-Matic (TM) to get
his
> >hands on a newer and better piece of equipment. So while our warrior can
> >get some top bonuses, he still has to work a lot harder than your average
> >Mage to get access to these odds and ends. IMHO, anyway.
> >
> Yes, it's true that the equipment makes the fighter while the mind
> makes the mage. I'm not convinced that the warrior must work harder
> to get all this fine equipment. After all, it could have been the
> mage--with invis and sunfires--that cleared the room so the fighter
> may safely pick up the equipment. ;)
If our 18 Int Mage thinks for just one second that his 3 Wis Fighter friend
might turn on him, don't you think he might put a Skull Trap near the
treasure before letting his warrior friend pick it up? ;-)
> As for Kangaxx, he is rather an absurd encounter. Any lich that casts
> "Immunity to Bhaalspawn's Party", must be countered with a similar
> amount of cheese--protec from magic, oil of speed, staff of rynn.
Agreed, to an extent. From what I've heard, your average demi-lich is a
pretty two-dimensional chap - he can use demi-lich howl and he can imprison,
but that's about it. So in that respect, Kangaxx sticks to the standard
mould of demi-lich characters. It doesn't make him any less silly, but at
least it explains why he is made the way he is.
> I think that, fighter equipment in general, basically litters dungeon
> floors; entire passageways are blocked by useless and discarded +2
> weapons and enchanted plate. Ok, I'm overdoing it ;) At any rate, it
> doesn't take long to get the enchanted weapons. Only in Chateau
> Irenicus would Jaheira even begin to consider casting the
> near-forgotten spell Shillelagh. Not far into Ch2 do you stop
> collecting +1 and 2 weapons to sell, unless you insist on being a
> chipmunk, or you buy lvl 9 scrolls 50 days game time b4 a mage could
> even cast one.
True, there are just too many magical weapons littered around in BG2. The
fact you can pick up Staves of the Magi, Katanas of Foe-Whacking and sundry
other mythical items in the second chapter of the game just exaggerates the
imbalance (Celestial Fury has its place, but is that place really meant to
be in chapter 2?). Of course, there are still horrendous oversights - woe
betide the person specialising in Barstool Swords, or Morning Stars, as
he'll have quite a struggle on his hands for a lot of the game.
> >While a Mage can still only ever cast one spell per round. The problem
is
> >that it's apples and oranges here, as Fighter and Mage are the antithesis
of
> >one another.
>
> Yeah, it's a tough comparison. I guess I was trying to say that the
> ranger's level 1 abilities continue to improve throughout his career.
> The mage's levl 1 abilities do stop at some point. Of course, the
> mage begins developing other abilities.
This is the thing, I guess. A straight Fighter starts with skills XYZ, and
he basically keeps those skills for the whole game. He can improve them,
but short of divine intervention, that's about the limit of his gameplan.
Mages start with only X, but during the game they can get access to Y, Z,
and then a whole lot of other letters of the alphabet as well. The trade
off is initial power opposed to long term skill progression and development,
which is why the balance always swings far more in favour of a 20th level
Mage vs Fighter battle than a 1st level Mage vs Fighter battle.
> >Melf's Meteors hits as a +5 weapon. Mantle protects from +3 weapons,
IIRC,
> >while Improved Mantle blocks +4 attacks. These are not trivial bonuses,
and
> >even lowly spells like Invisibility offer a +4 THAC0 bonus when
attacking,
> >so some of these low level spells should not be underestimated.
>
> Actually, I think alot more spells would be useful if you played a
> smaller party, where each member's abilities become more important.
> With 3 tank typess up front, mages don't really need mantle. Melf's
> is no good because the vic won't live long enough to receive the extra
> damage.
Maybe you're right. In that scenario, though, I invariably find that the
most important skill of all my Mages is spell-staggering (one Mage casts a
spell at the enemy; two seconds later, another Mage casts; two seconds after
that it's the turn of Mage 3, and then the cycle starts again. By taking
advantage of the 6 second round in BG2, you can really give your opponent
hell by stopping him ever putting up effective defences). It must be said,
though, that the standard Mage response to fewer tanks in the party is
simply to use more summons instead (the concept of a buffer between the Mage
and his enemy is pretty fundamental, given that a lot of powerful spells
have casting times approaching a full round), so even a smaller party will
probably rely upon the same basic tactics as a full 6 man group.
> >Tell you what; you take CF and I'll take that improved Robe you're
offering
> >there. How would you see yourself going about winning a fight against me
in
> >this situation?
>
> I agree that a fighter cannot take on a mage (at high levels of
> course). Mages are more powerful. Greater Malison and Ray of
> Enfeeblement could humiliate a fighter, otherwise a mage can do a
> massive amount of damage in a few rounds with spells that do not allow
> negating saving throws.
>
> My argument was that there is so much equipment for a fighter to
> choose from. I know that a mage's primary equipment is scrolls and
> there is enough to go around. However, there is not really enough of
> other magely equipment to outfit a few mages should you so desire.
> You see, I like the equipment improvement aspect of the game. Trading
> in the long sword for the +2 staff and so on. Mages don't have this
> quite the same. Eg. Staff of the Magi. There is no real lesser
> version of this. The mage goes from a basic +2 staff to the Magi.
> The mage trades in his Knave's Robe for Vecna.
Well, there's the various lesser robes and staves on offer, but the big
attraction for a Mage is that if he can't find a nice robe, he can cast
Spirit Armour on himself and gain a nice AC that way. If his weapons suck,
he can cast Mordy's Sword for an extra sword arm, or potentially Black Blade
of Disaster. The fact that Fighters are drowning in +1 and +2 weapons is
irrelevant when the simple fact is that anything less than +3 is really a
bit of a liability in BG2. For most weapons (2-handed swords probably
excepted), finding a +3 is about the best of its kind on offer, so it pretty
much stands to reason that the SotM should be a one of a kind item (the fact
that it's so darn powerful just makes it stand out even more than other
items of comparable enchantment). But even without the SotM, we have Staves
of Air/Fire/etc, which give you elementals on demand; the 1d6+9 Staff of
Striking (backstabs have never been easier!); Staff of the Woodlands for any
tree-huggers out there, and the list goes on. In the case of Staves, this
is one weapon where ultimate power really is traded off in a very
interesting manner against variety of enchantment and special powers.
> >The Fighter will continue to
> >pound away at anything with a red circle, but he's not going to really
make
> >any great leaps forward in terms of abilities, while our Mage knows that
> >he's got the delights of 6th, 7th and 8th level spellcasting abilities to
> >look forward to. And if ToB hadn't put a cap on Mage spell progression,
I
> >shudder to think how the Forgotten Realms would have looked today.
>
> You hit the nail on the head here. It is reflective of how the
> developers fashioned the game. The fighters look forward to finding
> new equipment and being faced with choices on what to use. Mages look
> forward to levelling up. But mages don't really make any choices
> (beyond memorizing).
It's the fact that Mages have such a big choice of spells to memorise which
makes them so much more interesting in terms of how you develop them.
Assuming a somewhat-mortal Int score (so you can't learn one of every spell
in Christendom), you can try and be a summoner, or an elementalist, or a
charmer, and so on. And of course we have speciality magic schools (I guess
a broad equivalent of Fighters and weapon proficiencies), which force Mages
to eschew certain spells in favour of specialisation in other forms of
magic.
> RE: cap on spell progression. I can see why the did it. It can be
> difficult to balance a game if mages could cast as much as cleric's
> do. A mage can put down a dragon in a few rounds. Ugghh!
Well, a Thief can drop a drake in one round, if he abuses the traps feature;
a Fighter can fake-talk on a drake to kill it before the thing ever turns
red; Mages can pull more tricks than enough to beat enemies, and so on.
There's so far that you can go by using AD&D rules, but the other problem
which must be factored in is that you can go so much farther if you know
where to look for holes in the enemy AI. Personally, I'd still rather see
this situation addressed, rather than just throwing new abilities the
player's way and then expecting him to take on all manner of munchkin
opponents, but that's just me.
> >As a lover of
> >light-fingered characters, I really feel for the way that Thieves don't
> >really get the same specialised equipment that other characters may have
> >access to.
>
> I agree. My thieves usually wind up with hand me downs from the
> warriors. Jaheira no longer needs the Staff of Rynn, so Imoen gets
> it. Sure that's great, but it's not really my first choice of weapon
> for a thief or a mage. It doesn't really seem to fit.
>
> As for poison, darts of wounding and such are good theif weapons.
> However, usually the warriors simply kill the target b4 the poison has
> any real effect.
Very true. BG1 was a great game for a Thief, with loads of locks to open,
traps to disarm, and more opportunities for backstabbing than enough (back
in the days when one backstab was enough to kill 99% of enemies). In BG2 it
seems as though the brute force of the Fighter has taken away the need for
backstabs, while the other Thiefly skills have been overlooked somewhat (not
always a bad thing; I'd have screamed if BG2 had had any Durlag's Tower
inspired areas). Yet I suppose it's a great irony that the single most
lethal attack in the game is the one open to Thief classes only (traps -
they bypass spell protections, bypass magic resistance, and do pretty high
damage to boot).
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>True, there are just too many magical weapons littered around in BG2. The
>fact you can pick up Staves of the Magi, Katanas of Foe-Whacking and sundry
>other mythical items in the second chapter of the game just exaggerates the
>imbalance (Celestial Fury has its place, but is that place really meant to
>be in chapter 2?). Of course, there are still horrendous oversights - woe
>betide the person specialising in Barstool Swords, or Morning Stars, as
>he'll have quite a struggle on his hands for a lot of the game.
>
Yes, a more even distribution of "quality" named weapons that were
mysteriously lost and now are simply laying in some unnamed crypt
would be welcome. This takes us somewhat back to our earlier
discussion about weapon alternatives.
As for weapon placement in Ch2, it is rather difficult to have a
sort-of linear equipment improvement "schedule" in a series of non
linear quests. Although I suppose some of the real goodies could have
just been staggered in Ch 3 - 5. More accurately, this is more of an
issue of replayability. The first time you stumble through Ch 2, you
don't know where anything is, and thus equipment appears quite random.
A typical first time SoA player will likely find Lilicor early and
then, with Nalia's time constraints, acquire the Flail of Ages and the
other assorted goodies in the Keep. However, a 2nd time through might
have a bardic pc promptly rescue Hear'Dalis, in order to receive the
elven chain mail, and thus forever solve the spell casting vs ac
question.
This is what I liked about Bg. Certain areas (and their related
goodies) did not become available until the plot has sufficiently
advanced or you have successfully explored your way to a particular
area. Eg, working you way toward that fireball scroll in the Firewine
Dungeon.
>> Actually, I think alot more spells would be useful if you played a
>> smaller party, where each member's abilities become more important.
>> With 3 tank typess up front, mages don't really need mantle. Melf's
>> is no good because the vic won't live long enough to receive the extra
>> damage.
>
>Maybe you're right. In that scenario, though, I invariably find that the
>most important skill of all my Mages is spell-staggering (one Mage casts a
>spell at the enemy; two seconds later, another Mage casts; two seconds after
>that it's the turn of Mage 3, and then the cycle starts again. By taking
>advantage of the 6 second round in BG2, you can really give your opponent
>hell by stopping him ever putting up effective defences). It must be said,
>though, that the standard Mage response to fewer tanks in the party is
>simply to use more summons instead (the concept of a buffer between the Mage
>and his enemy is pretty fundamental, given that a lot of powerful spells
>have casting times approaching a full round), so even a smaller party will
>probably rely upon the same basic tactics as a full 6 man group.
>
True. I think this may depend on playing style and the (given) spells
available to a mage at a given time. You don't have to summon a short
duration monster army (with their generally lousy THAC0's) unless you
wish. A mage could use his melee defence spells and weather his
opponent's attacks (mirror image, protec from normal weapons, etc).
The Spell Trigger does not have to be loaded with fire arrows. An
alternative assortment of mirror image, improved invis, and polymorph
self, could prove interesting.
>Well, there's the various lesser robes and staves on offer, but the big
>attraction for a Mage is that if he can't find a nice robe, he can cast
>Spirit Armour on himself and gain a nice AC that way. If his weapons suck,
>he can cast Mordy's Sword for an extra sword arm, or potentially Black Blade
>of Disaster. The fact that Fighters are drowning in +1 and +2 weapons is
>irrelevant when the simple fact is that anything less than +3 is really a
>bit of a liability in BG2. For most weapons (2-handed swords probably
>excepted), finding a +3 is about the best of its kind on offer, so it pretty
>much stands to reason that the SotM should be a one of a kind item (the fact
>that it's so darn powerful just makes it stand out even more than other
>items of comparable enchantment). But even without the SotM, we have Staves
>of Air/Fire/etc, which give you elementals on demand; the 1d6+9 Staff of
>Striking (backstabs have never been easier!); Staff of the Woodlands for any
>tree-huggers out there, and the list goes on. In the case of Staves, this
>is one weapon where ultimate power really is traded off in a very
>interesting manner against variety of enchantment and special powers.
>
Actually you're right. I have forotten about the wide variety of
staves. My last game had a sorc that fetched the SoTM as soon as it
feasible to do so, and then proceeded to purchase the Robe of Vecna at
the first opportunity. Thus, at later stages when I acquired the
elemental staves, I promptly sold them.
The diluge of +1 and 2's is simply a more interesting way to give the
party gold as opposed to mearly pillaging laden chests of the precious
metal. It also give the bard a reason to use his lore ability.
>It's the fact that Mages have such a big choice of spells to memorise which
>makes them so much more interesting in terms of how you develop them.
>Assuming a somewhat-mortal Int score (so you can't learn one of every spell
>in Christendom), you can try and be a summoner, or an elementalist, or a
>charmer, and so on. And of course we have speciality magic schools (I guess
>a broad equivalent of Fighters and weapon proficiencies), which force Mages
>to eschew certain spells in favour of specialisation in other forms of
>magic.
>
In theory, you are quite correct. However, I think we may often see
these spell choices being exercised in a reactionary way. That is,
"peek around the corner", die, reload, reconfigure spells, rest, kill
monster.
Re: specialist mages. Aren't there supposed to be more restrictions
on specialists beyond having an opposing school? For eg, there is no
way an illusionist can have all slots filled with mm's? I'm not sure,
but I though around half of all spells memorized has to be in the
chosen school.
>> RE: cap on spell progression. I can see why the did it. It can be
>> difficult to balance a game if mages could cast as much as cleric's
>> do. A mage can put down a dragon in a few rounds. Ugghh!
>
>Well, a Thief can drop a drake in one round, if he abuses the traps feature;
>a Fighter can fake-talk on a drake to kill it before the thing ever turns
>red; Mages can pull more tricks than enough to beat enemies, and so on.
>There's so far that you can go by using AD&D rules, but the other problem
>which must be factored in is that you can go so much farther if you know
>where to look for holes in the enemy AI. Personally, I'd still rather see
>this situation addressed, rather than just throwing new abilities the
>player's way and then expecting him to take on all manner of munchkin
>opponents, but that's just me.
>
The thief and fighter tactics you mentioned are not, imho, really
legit. Legit in the sense of not being munchkinesque.
Exploiting AI deficiencies is the unfortunate result of becoming a
veteran of Infinity games, munchkinism notwithstanding. As your skill
and spell knowledge improves, you become a more potent opponent. When
you begin casting mage and priest spells, in tandem if you will, to
acheive some specific and perhaps subtle result (ie not blasting the
opponents with 120 points of invocation damage), the AI is thoroughly
"whooped". The counter, imo, is not FORCEcast certain spells like
volcalize, or completly rely upon triggers and contingenices. I would
prefer to encounter mages that target my party with greater malison,
and have a druid cast Nature's Beauty.
Another observation: I don't recall ever encountering any multi or
dual class opponents. Wouldn't mind seeing a recently silenced mage
let loose arrows of biting/piercing from his composite long bow.
>> As for poison, darts of wounding and such are good theif weapons.
>> However, usually the warriors simply kill the target b4 the poison has
>> any real effect.
>
>Very true. BG1 was a great game for a Thief, with loads of locks to open,
>traps to disarm, and more opportunities for backstabbing than enough (back
>in the days when one backstab was enough to kill 99% of enemies). In BG2 it
>seems as though the brute force of the Fighter has taken away the need for
>backstabs, while the other Thiefly skills have been overlooked somewhat (not
>always a bad thing; I'd have screamed if BG2 had had any Durlag's Tower
>inspired areas). Yet I suppose it's a great irony that the single most
>lethal attack in the game is the one open to Thief classes only (traps -
>they bypass spell protections, bypass magic resistance, and do pretty high
>damage to boot).
I have actually never experimented with traps. Strange. An oversight
on my part. I must take steps to rectify this.
The thief has become somewhat less important in bg2. The sheer wealth
of the party in bg2 lessens the thief's role as a revenue generator.
The is also less oppurtunity to ransack entire cities by going door to
door. I think the frequency of traps is about relatively the same in
both games. However the bg1 traps are far more lethal by virtue of
everyone having low hps and particularly awful saving throws.
Consider: What is an insta-death trap to a bg2 fighter who is allowed
a saving throw when his save vs spell is 2, compared to that shocking
lightning trap in the narrow confines of the Firewine Dungeon?
kromm
Derville
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:16:01 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >True, there are just too many magical weapons littered around in BG2.
The
> >fact you can pick up Staves of the Magi, Katanas of Foe-Whacking and
sundry
> >other mythical items in the second chapter of the game just exaggerates
the
> >imbalance (Celestial Fury has its place, but is that place really meant
to
> >be in chapter 2?). Of course, there are still horrendous oversights -
woe
> >betide the person specialising in Barstool Swords, or Morning Stars, as
> >he'll have quite a struggle on his hands for a lot of the game.
>
> sort-of linear equipment improvement "schedule" in a series of non
> linear quests. Although I suppose some of the real goodies could have
> just been staggered in Ch 3 - 5. More accurately, this is more of an
> issue of replayability. The first time you stumble through Ch 2, you
> don't know where anything is, and thus equipment appears quite random.
Well, the problem is that compared to what's on offer in chapter 2/3, what
you can find in chapters 4-6 doesn't really match up. We can get a +5 Holy
Avenger in chapter 2; we can find a +4 Two-handed sword in chapter 4 (IIRC,
there's one in the Spellhold gauntlet). The question could well be phrased
as: where's our incentive to keep going if we already have more +5 weapons
than we can possibly carry? If a player does everything in chapter 3, he
can have the Holy Avenger, SotM, Staff of Rhyn +4, Flail of Ages, Celestial
Fury, Lilarcor, Azuredge/Stonefire/Frostreaver, and so on. You can't really
improve on these weapons all that much, so the only progression comes from
what the player gains in terms of THAC0 etc as he levels up, which makes for
a less than exciting time, IMHO.
> A typical first time SoA player will likely find Lilicor early and
> then, with Nalia's time constraints, acquire the Flail of Ages and the
> other assorted goodies in the Keep. However, a 2nd time through might
> have a bardic pc promptly rescue Hear'Dalis, in order to receive the
> elven chain mail, and thus forever solve the spell casting vs ac
> question.
>
> This is what I liked about Bg. Certain areas (and their related
> goodies) did not become available until the plot has sufficiently
> advanced or you have successfully explored your way to a particular
> area. Eg, working you way toward that fireball scroll in the Firewine
> Dungeon.
BG2 still does a similar thing, since you can't go straight off to Spellhold
(and indeed, you wouldn't want to without some XP under your belt), or go
straight to the Underdark. So, why in the Nine Hells couldn't some of the
more potent weaponry be held over until these later points in the game? I
ask myself. Aside from anything else, it would have allowed the game to be
far more tightly structured (if the designer knows that a +5 weapon is in
chapter 5, he can then introduce enemies who need +5 weapons to hurt them,
i.e. Kangaxx etc), and have a more logical progression in terms of offensive
power of the player's merry troupe.
> > It must be said,
> >though, that the standard Mage response to fewer tanks in the party is
> >simply to use more summons instead (the concept of a buffer between the
Mage
> >and his enemy is pretty fundamental, given that a lot of powerful spells
> >have casting times approaching a full round), so even a smaller party
will
> >probably rely upon the same basic tactics as a full 6 man group.
>
> True. I think this may depend on playing style and the (given) spells
> available to a mage at a given time. You don't have to summon a short
> duration monster army (with their generally lousy THAC0's) unless you
> wish. A mage could use his melee defence spells and weather his
> opponent's attacks (mirror image, protec from normal weapons, etc).
> The Spell Trigger does not have to be loaded with fire arrows. An
> alternative assortment of mirror image, improved invis, and polymorph
> self, could prove interesting.
Perhaps if Mage specialist schools were worked differently, this might be
more important (for example, let's say a Mage can specialise in four of the
eight schools, gaining the chance to elarn one extra spell from each school,
but he is then barred from casting anything from the other spell schools),
to encourage people to explore a more limited spell selection in greater
depth. The other thing is that because a Mage is always limited to one
spell/round (Sequencers etc ignored for the moment), he can always be said
to be at more of a disadvantage than a warrior, who gets multiple attacks
per round, and can even change weapon mid-round to take advantage of
creatures with different weaknesses/immunities. It's an impossible one to
call, in part due to the sheer number of spells available (and that's before
we play a Cleric/Mage ;-)), but to look at what gets posted on the NG as a
whole here, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people stick to whatever
tactic/spell combo works best for their playing style, and are often loath
to change from that routine, simply because they have a mini system which
they know works especially well against the BG2 enemy AI.
> > But even without the SotM, we have Staves
> >of Air/Fire/etc, which give you elementals on demand; the 1d6+9 Staff of
> >Striking (backstabs have never been easier!); Staff of the Woodlands for
any
> >tree-huggers out there, and the list goes on. In the case of Staves,
this
> >is one weapon where ultimate power really is traded off in a very
> >interesting manner against variety of enchantment and special powers.
>
> Actually you're right. I have forotten about the wide variety of
> staves. My last game had a sorc that fetched the SoTM as soon as it
> feasible to do so, and then proceeded to purchase the Robe of Vecna at
> the first opportunity. Thus, at later stages when I acquired the
> elemental staves, I promptly sold them.
>
> The diluge of +1 and 2's is simply a more interesting way to give the
> party gold as opposed to mearly pillaging laden chests of the precious
> metal. It also give the bard a reason to use his lore ability.
I don't know. If a +2 weapon has a nice ability (Namarra IIRC casts Silence
on demand, which is a nice ability to have in a tight corner), then I'm
inclined to keep it - the MoD +2 is the best example of this, trading off
ultimate enchantment against specialisation when attacking certain foes. If
these things were merely there as a new way of giving money to the group,
then I have to scream out from the nearest rooftop: "Why can't I stack these
*%@#$$!!!! things?!?".
> >Assuming a somewhat-mortal Int score (so you can't learn one of every
spell
> >in Christendom), you can try and be a summoner, or an elementalist, or a
> >charmer, and so on. And of course we have speciality magic schools (I
guess
> >a broad equivalent of Fighters and weapon proficiencies), which force
Mages
> >to eschew certain spells in favour of specialisation in other forms of
> >magic.
>
> In theory, you are quite correct. However, I think we may often see
> these spell choices being exercised in a reactionary way. That is,
> "peek around the corner", die, reload, reconfigure spells, rest, kill
> monster.
Power Word:Reload is a top spell, isn't it ;-). But yes, you're right, and
with some of the silly fights in BG2 (Kangaxx being the best example),
there's often no choice other than to adopt this approach. And hey, even I
get tired of pretending I'm involved in 1984, by casting three dozen
protective spells on myself before I leave my inn every morning, so I would
sometimes prefer to see Mages given more slack to concentrate on slinging
those high power spells, rather than being glorified buffers and
defence-strippers.
> Re: specialist mages. Aren't there supposed to be more restrictions
> on specialists beyond having an opposing school? For eg, there is no
> way an illusionist can have all slots filled with mm's? I'm not sure,
> but I though around half of all spells memorized has to be in the
> chosen school.
NAFAIK, as far as the BG games go, anyway. I think the system is that
specialists get one extra spell slot per level over a plain Mage, and in
return for that they are barred from learning spells from their opposition
school (although they can cast opposition school spells from scrolls).
Regarding spellcasting, the only modifier to whether a spell will be
successfully cast from a scroll is the caster's level - IIRC, there's about
a 10% penalty to casting chance for every level the caster is below the
level of the spell in question.
> >Well, a Thief can drop a drake in one round, if he abuses the traps
feature;
> >a Fighter can fake-talk on a drake to kill it before the thing ever turns
> >red; Mages can pull more tricks than enough to beat enemies, and so on.
> >There's so far that you can go by using AD&D rules, but the other problem
> >which must be factored in is that you can go so much farther if you know
> >where to look for holes in the enemy AI. Personally, I'd still rather
see
> >this situation addressed, rather than just throwing new abilities the
> >player's way and then expecting him to take on all manner of munchkin
> >opponents, but that's just me.
> >
> The thief and fighter tactics you mentioned are not, imho, really
> legit. Legit in the sense of not being munchkinesque.
Exploiting game holes is just taking advantage of programming. I don't know
if munchkin is the correct term, because I still associate munchkins with
the guys who might still get toasted, but they get toasted wearing two rings
of Gaxx and carrying a SotM in chapter 2. Perhaps exploitation is a state
of mind, while munchkinism is a state of being.
> Exploiting AI deficiencies is the unfortunate result of becoming a
> veteran of Infinity games, munchkinism notwithstanding.
Woo-hoo! "Derville: Infinity Vet". Sounds great to me!
> As your skill
> and spell knowledge improves, you become a more potent opponent. When
> you begin casting mage and priest spells, in tandem if you will, to
> acheive some specific and perhaps subtle result (ie not blasting the
> opponents with 120 points of invocation damage), the AI is thoroughly
> "whooped".
True. Summons are an excellent example of this - the AI will always cast
their most powerful spells first, and doesn't check to see if it's toasting
a Bhaalspawn or a charmed kobold, so if you can out-think the rules
governing enemy reactions, you're almost guaranteed to beat them in battle.
> The counter, imo, is not FORCEcast certain spells like
> volcalize, or completly rely upon triggers and contingenices. I would
> prefer to encounter mages that target my party with greater malison,
> and have a druid cast Nature's Beauty.
I've been hammering this drum for ages now: the enemy who casts GM +
Emotion, to knock my team out unconscious, will win a gold star from mefor
sheer inventiveness. At the moment the enemy Mages are the only guys who
cast the really powerful attack spells (how often do you cast Death Fog?
Abi-Dalzim's? Gate? Probably never, because it's a bit risky, and you
don't have that many spells of 8-9th level to throw around), so it's up to
the human to dodge those spells and then get his counter-attacks in. If the
AI were to realise that subtlety is sometimes more effective than out and
out blasting, then life would be a whole lot more challenging for your
average Little Bhaal Lost.
> Another observation: I don't recall ever encountering any multi or
> dual class opponents. Wouldn't mind seeing a recently silenced mage
> let loose arrows of biting/piercing from his composite long bow.
Hmmmm, I don't know, that might be a bit unfair (guy in Mage robe whips out
a sword and cuts you to ribbons). Drow come as close as anyone (they have
Clerics who fight and cast spells), which I can live with because their
distinctive appearance marks them out as being different from your average
Elf. Then again, I wonder if the game wouldn't then ruin the effect by
saying "Drow Fighter/Mage" when you put the cursor over his figure to get
his current hitpoint status. It's an idea, although I'd personally rather
see custom creatures who have multiple abilities, rather than go down the
road of fighting dual- or multi-classed opponents.
> >I suppose it's a great irony that the single most
> >lethal attack in the game is the one open to Thief classes only (traps -
> >they bypass spell protections, bypass magic resistance, and do pretty
high
> >damage to boot).
>
> I have actually never experimented with traps. Strange. An oversight
> on my part. I must take steps to rectify this.
Beware the Dark Side! Traps lead to easy wins, easy wins lead to
confidence, confidence leads to, erm, more easy wins, which, errr, lead
to..... Aw shoot, I never did like Yoda anyway.
> The thief has become somewhat less important in bg2. The sheer wealth
> of the party in bg2 lessens the thief's role as a revenue generator.
Also, the Thieve's Guild brings in less money than an honest bookie's, which
screws this class over even more.
> The is also less oppurtunity to ransack entire cities by going door to
> door. I think the frequency of traps is about relatively the same in
> both games. However the bg1 traps are far more lethal by virtue of
> everyone having low hps and particularly awful saving throws.
Also, I think the average BG1 trap (especially Durlag's Tower) was of a more
lethal variety than BG2. BG1 went in for lightning traps, while BG2 settles
mainly with Magic Missiles instead. It seems that the drop in lethality
from BG1 to 2 is more than just the added hitpoints of the characters - I
now feel safe running a Sorceror in the lead of my group through a dungeon,
because I just don't find the volume of lethal traps I used to discover in
BG1.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"kromm" <kr...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
>news:3bb993e0...@news.rdc1.on.home.com...
>Well, the problem is that compared to what's on offer in chapter 2/3, what
>you can find in chapters 4-6 doesn't really match up. We can get a +5 Holy
>Avenger in chapter 2; we can find a +4 Two-handed sword in chapter 4 (IIRC,
>there's one in the Spellhold gauntlet). The question could well be phrased
>as: where's our incentive to keep going if we already have more +5 weapons
>than we can possibly carry? If a player does everything in chapter 3, he
>can have the Holy Avenger, SotM, Staff of Rhyn +4, Flail of Ages, Celestial
>Fury, Lilarcor, Azuredge/Stonefire/Frostreaver, and so on. You can't really
>improve on these weapons all that much, so the only progression comes from
>what the player gains in terms of THAC0 etc as he levels up, which makes for
>a less than exciting time, IMHO.
>
Yes, I quite agree with your commentary. Ch2 should still have a nice
assortment of weapons, but they should be +1 and maybe +2 with special
abilities. Eg Staff of Flagellation +1, 5% chance of causing nausea
on target, -1 charisma on user.
They went too far too fast. My first game I rescued Imoen asap. I
had a bit of a time in ch 4 and 5. Second game, I did all Ch 2 first.
Ch 4 and 5 were much easier with all the goodies.
>BG2 still does a similar thing, since you can't go straight off to Spellhold
>(and indeed, you wouldn't want to without some XP under your belt), or go
>straight to the Underdark. So, why in the Nine Hells couldn't some of the
>more potent weaponry be held over until these later points in the game? I
>ask myself. Aside from anything else, it would have allowed the game to be
>far more tightly structured (if the designer knows that a +5 weapon is in
>chapter 5, he can then introduce enemies who need +5 weapons to hurt them,
>i.e. Kangaxx etc), and have a more logical progression in terms of offensive
>power of the player's merry troupe.
>
Actually, what always dissapointed me was the "long trip" to and from
Spellhold. I would have much preferred not to be marooned on Brynlaw.
I always loved BG for being able to follow the main plot and take a
side trip whenever I wanted.
>Perhaps if Mage specialist schools were worked differently, this might be
>more important (for example, let's say a Mage can specialise in four of the
>eight schools, gaining the chance to elarn one extra spell from each school,
>but he is then barred from casting anything from the other spell schools),
>to encourage people to explore a more limited spell selection in greater
>depth. The other thing is that because a Mage is always limited to one
>spell/round (Sequencers etc ignored for the moment), he can always be said
>to be at more of a disadvantage than a warrior, who gets multiple attacks
>per round, and can even change weapon mid-round to take advantage of
>creatures with different weaknesses/immunities. It's an impossible one to
>call, in part due to the sheer number of spells available (and that's before
>we play a Cleric/Mage ;-)), but to look at what gets posted on the NG as a
>whole here, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people stick to whatever
>tactic/spell combo works best for their playing style, and are often loath
>to change from that routine, simply because they have a mini system which
>they know works especially well against the BG2 enemy AI.
>
There is a wide variety of tactics available to handle situations.
It's not really the designers' fault when users lack imagination.
Posts like Cernd is useless makes me cringe. No he's not. He's quite
useful really.
>Power Word:Reload is a top spell, isn't it ;-). But yes, you're right, and
>with some of the silly fights in BG2 (Kangaxx being the best example),
>there's often no choice other than to adopt this approach. And hey, even I
>get tired of pretending I'm involved in 1984, by casting three dozen
>protective spells on myself before I leave my inn every morning, so I would
>sometimes prefer to see Mages given more slack to concentrate on slinging
>those high power spells, rather than being glorified buffers and
>defence-strippers.
>
I don't use alot of buffers. I tend to cast them in battle.
>NAFAIK, as far as the BG games go, anyway. I think the system is that
>specialists get one extra spell slot per level over a plain Mage, and in
>return for that they are barred from learning spells from their opposition
>school (although they can cast opposition school spells from scrolls).
>Regarding spellcasting, the only modifier to whether a spell will be
>successfully cast from a scroll is the caster's level - IIRC, there's about
>a 10% penalty to casting chance for every level the caster is below the
>level of the spell in question.
>
I was thinking pnp, but I am not sure of such penalties. In the bg
series there are penalties for casting scrolls.
>Exploiting game holes is just taking advantage of programming. I don't know
>if munchkin is the correct term, because I still associate munchkins with
>the guys who might still get toasted, but they get toasted wearing two rings
>of Gaxx and carrying a SotM in chapter 2. Perhaps exploitation is a state
>of mind, while munchkinism is a state of being.
>
lol. I have always associated munchkinism with being in a general
state of cheese. Munchkin is an extremely broad term for me. It
includes the silly such as: dualing to a mage only when you have a
huge selection of scrolls to scribe and you booted everyone from your
party with the sole intention of a quick dual class (why not just use
Shadowkeeper and create a dual class char or better yet, keep all
party members and dual class the real way?), power gaming in general,
rolling stats for hours, arranging stats to look like 18, 18, 18, 3, 3
,6, sending Khalid into battle in the buff, poohing bards and druids
when the pc is a kensai/mage (power chars), always playing a paladin
and warriors because they're easier to use than other classes,
attacking blue monsters, etc.
IMHO, you interpretation of munchkinism is plain incompetance and
uselessness. Although an inexperienced player should not really be
accused of munckinism because he gets his butt kicked. I have
followed some threads by newbies venting their frustration with bg2.
BG2 does kinda assume you have played bg1 and thus, should not have
any real difficulty checking out of Chateau Irenicus.
To backtrack: Noone should have 2 rings of gaxx. PP a lich just
doesn't seem right.
>True. Summons are an excellent example of this - the AI will always cast
>their most powerful spells first, and doesn't check to see if it's toasting
>a Bhaalspawn or a charmed kobold, so if you can out-think the rules
>governing enemy reactions, you're almost guaranteed to beat them in battle.
>
I wouldn't call that poor AI. It's a really obvious oversight on the
developer's part. The player's party should be the target of spells
in most circumstances.
As for casting high levels first, it's just common sense. Enemy mage
will only last about 3 or 4 rounds at best.
>I've been hammering this drum for ages now: the enemy who casts GM +
>Emotion, to knock my team out unconscious, will win a gold star from mefor
>sheer inventiveness. At the moment the enemy Mages are the only guys who
>cast the really powerful attack spells (how often do you cast Death Fog?
>Abi-Dalzim's? Gate? Probably never, because it's a bit risky, and you
>don't have that many spells of 8-9th level to throw around), so it's up to
>the human to dodge those spells and then get his counter-attacks in. If the
>AI were to realise that subtlety is sometimes more effective than out and
>out blasting, then life would be a whole lot more challenging for your
>average Little Bhaal Lost.
>
Yes, there are so many spells to choose from that a mage need not rely
upon 8's and 9's to hurt your party. A high level mage casting melf's
is trouble enough. A non suicidal casting of cloudkill could be
problematic for your own spell slingers. Web anyone? How about
Korgan with boots of speed, running towards the mage, only to be
spooked? Slow, Enfeeblement, grease, chrome orb.
>> Another observation: I don't recall ever encountering any multi or
>> dual class opponents. Wouldn't mind seeing a recently silenced mage
>> let loose arrows of biting/piercing from his composite long bow.
>
>Hmmmm, I don't know, that might be a bit unfair (guy in Mage robe whips out
>a sword and cuts you to ribbons). Drow come as close as anyone (they have
>Clerics who fight and cast spells), which I can live with because their
>distinctive appearance marks them out as being different from your average
>Elf. Then again, I wonder if the game wouldn't then ruin the effect by
>saying "Drow Fighter/Mage" when you put the cursor over his figure to get
>his current hitpoint status. It's an idea, although I'd personally rather
>see custom creatures who have multiple abilities, rather than go down the
>road of fighting dual- or multi-classed opponents.
>
I wasn't really thinking of "mystery" opponents in the sense of not
knowing the class of your opponent as shown by their model. My idea
was giving opponents more abilities along the lines of your party.
Eg: The druids in the grove. They are all saddled with leather
armor, have 1 attack per round, and a bad thac0. Dual or multi class
druids would have been more challenging.
>> I have actually never experimented with traps. Strange. An oversight
>> on my part. I must take steps to rectify this.
>
>Beware the Dark Side! Traps lead to easy wins, easy wins lead to
>confidence, confidence leads to, erm, more easy wins, which, errr, lead
>to..... Aw shoot, I never did like Yoda anyway.
>
lol. I have read a few posts on trap use (abuse). I'll try it and
see how I like it. I guess it's a little like project image on a
sorceror (my last game). Effectively you may have 30 MM to cast per
day. And that's only the level 1 spells. A 30-course Dragon's Breath
barb-b-que anyone? Of course we need our veggies too; provided by
Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, naturally. Yesssshh! Inevitably, I ran
out of cheese to go with my festival, and had to stop using Project
Image.
>> The thief has become somewhat less important in bg2. The sheer wealth
>> of the party in bg2 lessens the thief's role as a revenue generator.
>
>Also, the Thieve's Guild brings in less money than an honest bookie's, which
>screws this class over even more.
>
Yeah, I had my Guild in my Swashbuckler game. I wasn't overly
impressed. I was basically a mafia boss. Don kromm, if you will. My
swashbuckler, with his absurdly high pp ability, could make more money
in 1 hour game time, than my guild could in a week. Should I even
begin my rant about having to travel the breadth of Amn just because I
have to make my tribute payment to the Shadow Thieves? My party is in
a dank, dark dungeon, trying to piece together the rituals of
Amauntor, take the challenge, and complete the holy symbol, when...Ohh
my!! Look at the time. C'mon fellas, my bhaalspawn instincts says we
should go to the guildhouse.
>Also, I think the average BG1 trap (especially Durlag's Tower) was of a more
>lethal variety than BG2. BG1 went in for lightning traps, while BG2 settles
>mainly with Magic Missiles instead. It seems that the drop in lethality
>from BG1 to 2 is more than just the added hitpoints of the characters - I
>now feel safe running a Sorceror in the lead of my group through a dungeon,
>because I just don't find the volume of lethal traps I used to discover in
>BG1.
Heh, I'm in for a bit of a bonus here. I actually never been to
Durlog's Tower b4. When I bought TOSC, I started a new game as an
invoker. I completed all the Ulgoth's Beard quests (werewolf island,
and that magic trap island) except for Durlog. Then PST:Torment was
bought, which kept me busy until SOA was released, which kept me busy
until TOB was released.
Now, the bonus is that I have started a new BG:TOSC game with a
cleric/ranger (planning to take him through the entire series). There
is one problem though, when kromm reached Ch5 and beheld the wonders
of the City of Baldur's Gate, Marshall received his $15 rebate coupons
from his TOB purchase at EB. Arcanum was purchased for $45 Cdn. Now
there are 2 kromms, 1 a NG cleric/ranger, the other an elf with an
extreme personality. I shall endeavor to finish the cleric/ranger
first, as I have only played TOB once so far.
kromm
Talen
wrote:
>There is a wide variety of tactics available to handle situations.
>It's not really the designers' fault when users lack imagination.
>Posts like Cernd is useless makes me cringe. No he's not. He's quite
>useful really.
I have to agree. Anyone with a base armour class of -11, 3 attacks per
round, and a set of +3 weapons, any time, any day - plus ironskins, if
you wanna - can't be useless.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Speaking of decent music, when does Tool's new album come
out?"
"Um, I used to know, when it was under the fake name, but
I forgot now."
"You mean A Perfect Circle?"
"I should hit you with something sharp."
- Gasmask and Genepool
Derville
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:06:16 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >BG2 still does a similar thing, since you can't go straight off to
Spellhold
> >(and indeed, you wouldn't want to without some XP under your belt), or go
> >straight to the Underdark.
> >
> Spellhold. I would have much preferred not to be marooned on Brynlaw.
> I always loved BG for being able to follow the main plot and take a
> side trip whenever I wanted.
Definitely. I'm a lover of BG's wilderness maps, so not having the same
opportunity to wander aimlessly did affect me in BG2. Despite the claims
that the world was so big, it did feel a lot more congested to me than the
massive rolling plains of its predecessor.
> > It's an impossible one to
> >call, in part due to the sheer number of spells available (and that's
before
> >we play a Cleric/Mage ;-)), but to look at what gets posted on the NG as
a
> >whole here, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people stick to
whatever
> >tactic/spell combo works best for their playing style, and are often
loath
> >to change from that routine, simply because they have a mini system which
> >they know works especially well against the BG2 enemy AI.
>
> There is a wide variety of tactics available to handle situations.
> It's not really the designers' fault when users lack imagination.
> Posts like Cernd is useless makes me cringe. No he's not. He's quite
> useful really.
Well, he's got an interesting personality, but beyond that... I can't help
myself - I judge NPC's on stats, first and foremost, and Cernd doesn't
measure up well. He's got the Wisdom, but he's hamstrung by (a) rubbish
other stats (b) being a Druid, with all their racial encumbrances (c) having
a less than impressive special power (polymorph aggressive cocker spaniel,
for all the use a weirdwoof is a lot of the time), and so on. Yes, by level
14 he is powerful, but we're talking about a game where you have to stuff up
pretty badly to get a level 14 character who *isn't* powerful in his own
right.
Anyway, back to the main issue: you're right, it's not easy to design a game
to deal with people who use the same tactic over and over. Making monsters
immune to some well known tactics (Kuo-Toas, for example, were a pain for
me, because they could see invisible characters) can be interesting,
although care must be taken not to make them into munchkin enemies. Past
discussions on this topic have pften centred around the idea of randomising
monsters and their AI scripts, which is probably the most effective way of
altering the situation, but then leads into my dislike of randomly generated
gameplay. I swear, it's impossible to win this one ;-).
> >Exploiting game holes is just taking advantage of programming. I don't
know
> >if munchkin is the correct term, because I still associate munchkins with
> >the guys who might still get toasted, but they get toasted wearing two
rings
> >of Gaxx and carrying a SotM in chapter 2. Perhaps exploitation is a
state
> >of mind, while munchkinism is a state of being.
>
> lol. I have always associated munchkinism with being in a general
> state of cheese. Munchkin is an extremely broad term for me. It
> includes the silly such as: dualing to a mage only when you have a
> huge selection of scrolls to scribe and you booted everyone from your
> party with the sole intention of a quick dual class (why not just use
> Shadowkeeper and create a dual class char or better yet, keep all
> party members and dual class the real way?), power gaming in general,
> rolling stats for hours, arranging stats to look like 18, 18, 18, 3, 3
> ,6,
A *real* munchkin would never admit to having 6 points in Charisma ;-).
> sending Khalid into battle in the buff, poohing bards and druids
> when the pc is a kensai/mage (power chars), always playing a paladin
> and warriors because they're easier to use than other classes,
> attacking blue monsters, etc.
Some of these things (letting Khalid buy the farm) are what I'd consider
valid tactics to get rid of an annoying NPC; others (playing warriors) just
make for an easier game overall if the player works best using those
character types. I think of a munchkin as a
Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Monk/Paladin/Ranger (so he can use any item, cast
any spell, use every special ability under the sun etc) who wanders around
in a permanent state of near-nvulnerability, due to a heady mixture of
dozens of protective spells and the desire to remain ensconced firmly inside
the Big Metal Unit at all times.
> >True. Summons are an excellent example of this - the AI will always cast
> >their most powerful spells first, and doesn't check to see if it's
toasting
> >a Bhaalspawn or a charmed kobold, so if you can out-think the rules
> >governing enemy reactions, you're almost guaranteed to beat them in
battle.
>
> I wouldn't call that poor AI. It's a really obvious oversight on the
> developer's part. The player's party should be the target of spells
> in most circumstances.
There's a fine line between developer's oversight and poor AI, IMHO. But,
because the game is, as you point out, Player's Team vs Rest Of The World,
then there will always be a noticeable imbalance between how a player might
react and how a computer AI will act, with one knowing he's got thousands of
backup minions to call upon if the proverbial hits the fan.
> > At the moment the enemy Mages are the only guys who
> >cast the really powerful attack spells (how often do you cast Death Fog?
> >Abi-Dalzim's? Gate? Probably never, because it's a bit risky, and you
> >don't have that many spells of 8-9th level to throw around), so it's up
to
> >the human to dodge those spells and then get his counter-attacks in. If
the
> >AI were to realise that subtlety is sometimes more effective than out and
> >out blasting, then life would be a whole lot more challenging for your
> >average Little Bhaal Lost.
>
> Yes, there are so many spells to choose from that a mage need not rely
> upon 8's and 9's to hurt your party. A high level mage casting melf's
> is trouble enough. A non suicidal casting of cloudkill could be
> problematic for your own spell slingers. Web anyone? How about
> Korgan with boots of speed, running towards the mage, only to be
> spooked? Slow, Enfeeblement, grease, chrome orb.
It would certainly make a pleasant change from enemies casting the same half
dozen high level spells they rely on at the moment. There's two problems
here - firstly, the fact that the enemy casts a limited number of spells,
and secondly the fact that those spells tend to be very high level ones.
Don't ask me how, but I never felt truly outgunned by enemy magic users in
Torment, even at higher levels - my theory is that the lack of defensive
spells in that game took away the need for the game of "cancel the enemy
spell protections", and allowed everyone to really go into a fight with all
spells a-slinging.
> >Hmmmm, I don't know, that might be a bit unfair (guy in Mage robe whips
out
> >a sword and cuts you to ribbons). Drow come as close as anyone (they
have
> >Clerics who fight and cast spells), which I can live with because their
> >distinctive appearance marks them out as being different from your
average
> >Elf.
>
> I wasn't really thinking of "mystery" opponents in the sense of not
> knowing the class of your opponent as shown by their model. My idea
> was giving opponents more abilities along the lines of your party.
> Eg: The druids in the grove. They are all saddled with leather
> armor, have 1 attack per round, and a bad thac0. Dual or multi class
> druids would have been more challenging.
Or even making one of those guys a beefed-up Druid might make things more
interesting (looks the same, but has more hitpoints, or a demon THAC0). But
even without that, a group of Druids working together can be a formidable
unit (several Ironskinned warriors with Shillelaghs, perhaps shapeshifting
or summoning toemic animals), so it all comes back to how the enemy uses the
spells and abilities at its disposal.
> >Also, the Thieve's Guild brings in less money than an honest bookie's,
which
> >screws this class over even more.
>
> Yeah, I had my Guild in my Swashbuckler game. I wasn't overly
> impressed. I was basically a mafia boss. Don kromm, if you will.
If only I could make the Shadow Thieves an offer they couldn't refuse...
> My
> swashbuckler, with his absurdly high pp ability, could make more money
> in 1 hour game time, than my guild could in a week. Should I even
> begin my rant about having to travel the breadth of Amn just because I
> have to make my tribute payment to the Shadow Thieves?
Oh, and did I mention that the Guild is bugged, so if you miss your payment
by one hour (as I did once), then you lose the Guild, and cannot buy it back
(although the game is happy to take your cash, it just won't give you back
your Guild)?
> My party is in
> a dank, dark dungeon, trying to piece together the rituals of
> Amauntor, take the challenge, and complete the holy symbol, when...Ohh
> my!! Look at the time. C'mon fellas, my bhaalspawn instincts says we
> should go to the guildhouse.
I can only imagine what Nalia would say about this. "How are we helping our
bank balance by wandering around here?".
> >Also, I think the average BG1 trap (especially Durlag's Tower) was of a
more
> >lethal variety than BG2. BG1 went in for lightning traps, while BG2
settles
> >mainly with Magic Missiles instead.
>
> Heh, I'm in for a bit of a bonus here. I actually never been to
> Durlog's Tower b4. When I bought TOSC, I started a new game as an
> invoker. I completed all the Ulgoth's Beard quests (werewolf island,
> and that magic trap island) except for Durlog. Then PST:Torment was
> bought, which kept me busy until SOA was released, which kept me busy
> until TOB was released.
Word of advice: make sure you have a Thief with over 100% find traps before
tackling DT. A few Potions of Miracle Working tend to come in handy as well
;-).
> Now, the bonus is that I have started a new BG:TOSC game with a
> cleric/ranger (planning to take him through the entire series). There
> is one problem though, when kromm reached Ch5 and beheld the wonders
> of the City of Baldur's Gate, Marshall received his $15 rebate coupons
> from his TOB purchase at EB. Arcanum was purchased for $45 Cdn. Now
> there are 2 kromms, 1 a NG cleric/ranger, the other an elf with an
> extreme personality. I shall endeavor to finish the cleric/ranger
> first, as I have only played TOB once so far.
Hmmmm, Arcanum. I've been put off that by a mixed initial response, and not
all that easy a ride from certain reviewers (although it was only PC
Doormat, who are notorious for knowing absolutely nothing). How's it
looking, then? I must admit to being very keen to see the steampunk setting
in action, but it seems the interface has come in for some criticism, as
well as some of the play balance (ranged weapons being underpowered,
gunfighters especially not getting anything like an easy ride). Care to
give us a quick review of the game so far, and whether it's worth buying at
the moment?
Marvael
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"kromm" <kr...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
>news:3bc083e4...@news.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:06:16 -0700, "Derville"
>> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >BG2 still does a similar thing, since you can't go straight off to
>Spellhold
>> >(and indeed, you wouldn't want to without some XP under your belt), or go
>> >straight to the Underdark.
>> >
>> Actually, what always dissapointed me was the "long trip" to and from
>> Spellhold. I would have much preferred not to be marooned on Brynlaw.
>> I always loved BG for being able to follow the main plot and take a
>> side trip whenever I wanted.
>
>Definitely. I'm a lover of BG's wilderness maps, so not having the same
>opportunity to wander aimlessly did affect me in BG2. Despite the claims
>that the world was so big, it did feel a lot more congested to me than the
>massive rolling plains of its predecessor.
I have the exact same feeling. BG2's world is just as big as BG1's,
maybe even bigger, measured in things you can do. Bet the many
forest area's and the slow walking speed did make it feel VERY big.
Because of the fast walking speed and very few open places, BG2's
maps seem very small sometimes. Even the forest at the Temple Ruins
is very dense, and you can't walk everywhere there.
I heard a lot of complaints about the slow waking speed and the
forested area's in BG1 (I don't have a problem with neither of
them). Now the designers made BG2 with very few forest area's, and a
faster walking speed, and now we are hearing complaints about that.
It's hard to please everybody with the same game.
Marvael
--
A C programmers' only certainty:
A computer never does what you intend it to do.
It always does what you tell it to do.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Definitely. I'm a lover of BG's wilderness maps, so not having the same
>opportunity to wander aimlessly did affect me in BG2. Despite the claims
>that the world was so big, it did feel a lot more congested to me than the
>massive rolling plains of its predecessor.
>
Yes, I think combining both would have been nice. The wild empty
plains of BG, and then discover the "congestive action" of BG2. A
couple of wilderness maps on the way to the Umar Hills would have been
choice. This kind of necessary travel really adds to the depth of the
game world; knowing your destination, yet first having to reach the
far end of a couple of maps to get there.
>Well, he's got an interesting personality, but beyond that... I can't help
>myself - I judge NPC's on stats, first and foremost, and Cernd doesn't
>measure up well. He's got the Wisdom, but he's hamstrung by (a) rubbish
>other stats (b) being a Druid, with all their racial encumbrances (c) having
>a less than impressive special power (polymorph aggressive cocker spaniel,
>for all the use a weirdwoof is a lot of the time), and so on. Yes, by level
>14 he is powerful, but we're talking about a game where you have to stuff up
>pretty badly to get a level 14 character who *isn't* powerful in his own
>right.
>
I always liked him. Throw out a couple of poisons, maybe an insect
plague, shapechange and attack some foes. Then again, I like Garrick,
so what do I know? ;)
>Anyway, back to the main issue: you're right, it's not easy to design a game
>to deal with people who use the same tactic over and over. Making monsters
>immune to some well known tactics (Kuo-Toas, for example, were a pain for
>me, because they could see invisible characters) can be interesting,
>although care must be taken not to make them into munchkin enemies. Past
>discussions on this topic have pften centred around the idea of randomising
>monsters and their AI scripts, which is probably the most effective way of
>altering the situation, but then leads into my dislike of randomly generated
>gameplay. I swear, it's impossible to win this one ;-).
>
I don't think that random monsters will fit too well in the bg series.
I can't picture zombies doing Mulahey's work in the Nashkel Mine. How
about orcs standing at the gates of Ust Natha, having a "quiet smoke".
Game immersion will be dispelled due to a lack of a monster
continuity. This is best saved for the Diablo genre of fantasy.
I am all for more complex ai scripts. The more complex the better.
Upping the dificulty should really enhance the ai, not give them more
hps. Random scripts is a necessity or at least a random element in
the same script.
>A *real* munchkin would never admit to having 6 points in Charisma ;-).
The munchkin is mearly trying to keep his char balanced. :)
>Some of these things (letting Khalid buy the farm) are what I'd consider
>valid tactics to get rid of an annoying NPC; others (playing warriors) just
>make for an easier game overall if the player works best using those
>character types. I think of a munchkin as a
>Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Monk/Paladin/Ranger (so he can use any item, cast
>any spell, use every special ability under the sun etc) who wanders around
>in a permanent state of near-nvulnerability, due to a heady mixture of
>dozens of protective spells and the desire to remain ensconced firmly inside
>the Big Metal Unit at all times.
I would have to agree that your example of a multi-class
F/M/T/C/Mo/P/R char is somewhat munchkinesque. ;) Of course, for such
a herioc char, 25 in all stats is mandatory.
>There's a fine line between developer's oversight and poor AI, IMHO. But,
>because the game is, as you point out, Player's Team vs Rest Of The World,
>then there will always be a noticeable imbalance between how a player might
>react and how a computer AI will act, with one knowing he's got thousands of
>backup minions to call upon if the proverbial hits the fan.
I agree that if the monsters were handled by a human player, say a
rather sadistic dm, the poor bhaaspawn is history, unless the ai
mishandles its resources. There is no, I dare say, realistic way for
a level 20 party to triumph over level 20 adversaries, on a consistent
and relatively painless basis, w/o resting every 2 hours. However,
again I shall reiterate that skill level should determine how the AI
will handle its resources. ehh, is it just me, or is that last
sentence a bit awkward?
>It would certainly make a pleasant change from enemies casting the same half
>dozen high level spells they rely on at the moment. There's two problems
>here - firstly, the fact that the enemy casts a limited number of spells,
>and secondly the fact that those spells tend to be very high level ones.
>Don't ask me how, but I never felt truly outgunned by enemy magic users in
>Torment, even at higher levels - my theory is that the lack of defensive
>spells in that game took away the need for the game of "cancel the enemy
>spell protections", and allowed everyone to really go into a fight with all
>spells a-slinging.
>
I agree. My first torment game was played primarily, and especially
in the later stages, as a mage. You could hurt them and vice versa.
Additionally, there was no real ranged firepower in PST to disrupt
casting, Nordom notwithstanding. The mages *were* the ranged
firepower. It must be said that the spell selection was much smaller
in PST. IMO, there were too many defensive spells in bg2, and this
took away some of the fun in spell slinging battles.
Of course the single biggest thing in PST when dealing with spell
casters and high level spells is, TNO could die. In fact, TNO
practically starts the game with the ability to raise dead. IIRC,
there were no inventory micromanagement issues with death either. eg.
When Annah died and subsequently raised, wasn't all her inventory
still on her? There was no need to requip her.
>Or even making one of those guys a beefed-up Druid might make things more
>interesting (looks the same, but has more hitpoints, or a demon THAC0). But
>even without that, a group of Druids working together can be a formidable
>unit (several Ironskinned warriors with Shillelaghs, perhaps shapeshifting
>or summoning toemic animals), so it all comes back to how the enemy uses the
>spells and abilities at its disposal.
Ahhh yes. If only those fools would actually cast the spells you
mention. Casting entangle on warriors that can switch to ranged
weaponry is moot, unless of course, the druids plan to retreat, which
of course, they have no intention.
As an aside, the shapchange ability is very powerful. Well, it could
be if not for all the enchanted weapons laying about. In my current
bg game, Jaheira is druid level 7. She would shapechange if not for
the fact that she sports ankheg armor and a +3 quarterstaff. I guess
this is a minor revision of our item discussion. Really now, ankheg
armor should be prohibitively expensive for a level 7 multi class
druid, and at best she should have no more than a +1 staff.
>Oh, and did I mention that the Guild is bugged, so if you miss your payment
>by one hour (as I did once), then you lose the Guild, and cannot buy it back
>(although the game is happy to take your cash, it just won't give you back
>your Guild)?
harrumph! Wonder what happens to the Guild when your happy-go-lucky
cabal vacations in Brynnlaw?
>I can only imagine what Nalia would say about this. "How are we helping our
>bank balance by wandering around here?".
hehehe.
>Word of advice: make sure you have a Thief with over 100% find traps before
>tackling DT. A few Potions of Miracle Working tend to come in handy as well
>;-).
I've read in various posts about the need for good find traps ability.
I must point out that most of the thieves in bg have lousy find traps
abilities. Coran, Alora, and Tiax all have 20%. I forget Skie's
rating. Right now my party consists of: cleric/ranger, Jaheira,
Khalid, Coran, and Garrick. Coran's find traps is at 60 and he's not
going to level anytime soon. I'm not too worried about it at the
moment though. Kromm and Jaheira can memorize find traps for DT.
This will work fine as these 2 are always in the front. I may yet
drop Coran in favor of Eldoth and Skie. There's supposed to be some
good dialogue between Garrick, El, and Skie.
As an aside, my rep is 20 and my charisma is 22 (with cloak and such).
Eldoth and other evils give me their "breaking" dialogues, but they
never leave the party. EG: With El and Skie in my party, Eldoth
said, "Goodbye, hope to never see you again." But he stays.
>Hmmmm, Arcanum. I've been put off that by a mixed initial response, and not
>all that easy a ride from certain reviewers (although it was only PC
>Doormat, who are notorious for knowing absolutely nothing). How's it
>looking, then? I must admit to being very keen to see the steampunk setting
>in action, but it seems the interface has come in for some criticism, as
>well as some of the play balance (ranged weapons being underpowered,
>gunfighters especially not getting anything like an easy ride). Care to
>give us a quick review of the game so far, and whether it's worth buying at
>the moment?
I like to visit sites like gamespot that provides readers' reviews as
well as their own in-house commentary. I read the highest and lowest
rating reviews and look for common demoninators. Is there a common
complaint? A common praise. A read several reviews and then come to
a conclusion.
The common complaint was graphics. A few were stuck on the 640X480
res. My personal opinion is that these people probably had 21"
monitors and can't stand 640 by 480, or the just expect TOB artwork.
I have d/l the demo. The graphics are not polished, but they're not
horrid either.
The common praise was gameplay. Apparently there is 6 or more
possible endings. It is very non-linear. Even quests may be handled
in different ways. Char developed is very detailed. The praisers
also mentioned that graphics are secondary to gameplay, and they
wouldn't change a thing if it threatened any of the game play
features.
My thoughts: I've only played for about 3 or 4 hours. Basically I
created my char and nearly cleared the first "map". Combat is very
Falloutish with a real time option. So far, I like it.
Already I get the feeling that I can develop my char any way that I
want. There are no classes and alignment. Alignment is measured by
your actions. I am playing an elf with the intention of making him a
mage. Note that he doesn't start as a mage, I have to develop him as
such.
Basically I upped his intel and willpower a bit at creation. When he
levelled, he received a "char point". That can be spent ANYWHERE. It
can be spent on char stats like Str, dex, beauty, pesuasion, and
willpower. It can be spent on skills like gambling, haggling, melee,
ranged, and others. I spent my point on Summon Insects. A spell that
cuts the speed of opponents in half. So now he is a fledling mage,
that can cast one spell.
Will he continue to specialize in magic? I don't know. Maybe I'll
give him some thief abilities and fighting prowess. Magic and tech
seem to be exclusive, so a gun-toting spell slinger is unlikely.
I'm usually the kind of person that knows whether or not he will like
the game within the first 10 minutes. A friend showed me BG, and I
bought the game the next day. I like Arcanum so far, and for $45 Cdn,
it is worth the price.
I think if you like Fallout, you will like Arcanum. Again, the single
biggest complaint I read was the graphics. If that concerns you, d/l
the demo or the screenshots and decide. Again, the single biggest
praise was gameplay. Like PST, intel determines dialogue options.
Persuasion determines how many npc will follow you (leadership
ability). Consitution and fatigue determine how many spells you can
cast. Beauty effects npc initial reaction. And on , and on.
kromm
Derville
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:57:41 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Definitely. I'm a lover of BG's wilderness maps, so not having the same
> >opportunity to wander aimlessly did affect me in BG2. Despite the claims
> >that the world was so big, it did feel a lot more congested to me than
the
> >massive rolling plains of its predecessor.
>
> Yes, I think combining both would have been nice. The wild empty
> plains of BG, and then discover the "congestive action" of BG2. A
> couple of wilderness maps on the way to the Umar Hills would have been
> choice. This kind of necessary travel really adds to the depth of the
> game world; knowing your destination, yet first having to reach the
> far end of a couple of maps to get there.
Yup, especially seeing as BG2 still manages to retain the most annoying
comment from BG1: "You have been waylaid by enemies and must defend
yourselves". Now, (1) I don't take orders from someone I can't see, (2) I
want the chance to talk these people down, or perhaps to make them join up
with me, (3) I've been waylaid travelling between city segments in Athkatla
(wtf? Do they hide behind shop signs as I move near the edge of a screen?),
and (4) it just gets annoying after a while to face either huge numbers of
tough foes (BG1) or huge numbers of mildly annoying but time consuming foes
(BG2). Not that I feel passionately about this issue you understand ;-).
> >Well, he's got an interesting personality, but beyond that... I can't
help
> >myself - I judge NPC's on stats, first and foremost, and Cernd doesn't
> >measure up well. He's got the Wisdom, but he's hamstrung by (a) rubbish
> >other stats (b) being a Druid, with all their racial encumbrances (c)
having
> >a less than impressive special power (polymorph aggressive cocker
spaniel,
> >for all the use a weirdwoof is a lot of the time), and so on.
>
> I always liked him. Throw out a couple of poisons, maybe an insect
> plague, shapechange and attack some foes. Then again, I like Garrick,
> so what do I know? ;)
Ah well, liking Bards used to be a capital offence around these parts ;-).
Oddly enough, Cernd did have a fairly interesting quest (Cernd Jnr), and his
personality was nowhere near as abrasive as some - for starters, he didn't
worry about how we were helping the less fortunate by trudging through a
dungeon. I guess we've just got different tastes in NPC's - although it's
worth commenting that I find it a bit odd that BG2 uses a reduced NPC
complement of 16, yet manages to include two Druid characters within that
number, and with the best will in the world, that has to be at least two
Druids too many ;-).
> > Past
> >discussions on this topic have often centred around the idea of
randomising
> >monsters and their AI scripts, which is probably the most effective way
of
> >altering the situation, but then leads into my dislike of randomly
generated
> >gameplay. I swear, it's impossible to win this one ;-).
>
> I don't think that random monsters will fit too well in the bg series.
> I can't picture zombies doing Mulahey's work in the Nashkel Mine. How
> about orcs standing at the gates of Ust Natha, having a "quiet smoke".
> Game immersion will be dispelled due to a lack of a monster
> continuity. This is best saved for the Diablo genre of fantasy.
>
> I am all for more complex ai scripts. The more complex the better.
> Upping the dificulty should really enhance the ai, not give them more
> hps. Random scripts is a necessity or at least a random element in
> the same script.
Oh, I agree, better AI would still be my preferred route. But, to look at
the bigger picture, Interplay are well and truly in Queer Street, if rumours
are to be believed, so I can't see how they can afford to fund the time and
effort needed to come up with a brand new, all-singing all-dancing set of AI
routines (which may well necessitate a pretty major overhaul of the Infinity
Engine itself). On a more basic level, what would be an excellent step in
the right direction IMO is to see Interplay have a meeting of minds with the
BG community, some of whom probably know as much about the scripting
language as the game designers do. I've not tried them (can't trust AI
after BG1 ;-)), but there's a lot of favourable comment about some of the
custom scripts written by gamers, and I wouldn't mind seeing these people be
given the chance to further develop their routines, and perhaps even code AI
scripts to apply to bad guys. At only a few Kb each, it's a very real
possibility to make several dozen individual AI scripts and still keep total
file overheads at a fairly respectable level.
> >A *real* munchkin would never admit to having 6 points in Charisma ;-).
>
> The munchkin is mearly trying to keep his char balanced. :)
Well, why didn't you say so? You obviously mean he's got 6 Charisma, and 24
Strength, in order to appear well balanced ;-).
> > I think of a munchkin as a
> >Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Monk/Paladin/Ranger (so he can use any item,
cast
> >any spell, use every special ability under the sun etc) who wanders
around
> >in a permanent state of near-nvulnerability, due to a heady mixture of
> >dozens of protective spells and the desire to remain ensconced firmly
inside
> >the Big Metal Unit at all times.
>
> I would have to agree that your example of a multi-class
> F/M/T/C/Mo/P/R char is somewhat munchkinesque. ;) Of course, for such
> a herioc char, 25 in all stats is mandatory.
25 should be the bare minimu, I'd have thought ;-).
> >There's a fine line between developer's oversight and poor AI, IMHO.
But,
> >because the game is, as you point out, Player's Team vs Rest Of The
World,
> >then there will always be a noticeable imbalance between how a player
might
> >react and how a computer AI will act, with one knowing he's got thousands
of
> >backup minions to call upon if the proverbial hits the fan.
>
> I agree that if the monsters were handled by a human player, say a
> rather sadistic dm, the poor bhaalspawn is history, unless the ai
> mishandles its resources. There is no, I dare say, realistic way for
> a level 20 party to triumph over level 20 adversaries, on a consistent
> and relatively painless basis, w/o resting every 2 hours. However,
> again I shall reiterate that skill level should determine how the AI
> will handle its resources. ehh, is it just me, or is that last
> sentence a bit awkward?
Yeah, it is a bit wakward, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying
;-). It's a valid point you make about the law of averages getting
involved, though; there needs to be some sort of delimiter to set your
average Bhaalspawn group up above your average enemy of equivalent level.
Some would argue that this additional factor is the human's ability to think
up new tactics to beat his enemies, but then we come back to the issue of
how clever to make the AI in response to the human's ever-increasing
ingenuity. Unless we alter things so that if the Bhaalspawn has to face a
higher level enemy, he faces a small number of them (dragons are a good
example here - you only ever fight one at a time), but if he's facing lower
level enemies, then the numbers can be scaled up (armies of delinquent
kobolds).
> >Don't ask me how, but I never felt truly outgunned by enemy magic users
in
> >Torment, even at higher levels - my theory is that the lack of defensive
> >spells in that game took away the need for the game of "cancel the enemy
> >spell protections", and allowed everyone to really go into a fight with
all
> >spells a-slinging.
>
> I agree. My first torment game was played primarily, and especially
> in the later stages, as a mage. You could hurt them and vice versa.
> Additionally, there was no real ranged firepower in PST to disrupt
> casting, Nordom notwithstanding. The mages *were* the ranged
> firepower. It must be said that the spell selection was much smaller
> in PST. IMO, there were too many defensive spells in bg2, and this
> took away some of the fun in spell slinging battles.
I'm still grumpy about the fact that Tasha's Unbearable Derisive Laughter
never made it to BG2 :-(. On the other hand, I did get a truly massive kick
out of some of the Torment spell animations (Celestial Host was especially
amazing, although I liked the demonic hand appearing when you cast Abyssal
Fury).
> Of course the single biggest thing in PST when dealing with spell
> casters and high level spells is, TNO could die. In fact, TNO
> practically starts the game with the ability to raise dead. IIRC,
> there were no inventory micromanagement issues with death either. eg.
> When Annah died and subsequently raised, wasn't all her inventory
> still on her? There was no need to requip her.
Nope, that wasn't the case. Annah got killed in the Modron Maze one time,
and she lost her inventory when I accidentally reset the maze's difficulty
level. Only character-specific items (Dak's Blade, Vhailor's Armour/Final
Judgement etc) will remain after death and resurrection. However, seeing as
TNO alone could raise three people every day, it did make the fear of the
permanence of death a much less important issue, which in turn gave me a lot
more freedom as a player to stick my nose into other people' affairs and
generally explore as much as I could.
> >Or even making one of those guys a beefed-up Druid might make things more
> >interesting (looks the same, but has more hitpoints, or a demon THAC0).
But
> >even without that, a group of Druids working together can be a formidable
> >unit (several Ironskinned warriors with Shillelaghs, perhaps
shapeshifting
> >or summoning totemic animals), so it all comes back to how the enemy uses
the
> >spells and abilities at its disposal.
>
> As an aside, the shapchange ability is very powerful. Well, it could
> be if not for all the enchanted weapons laying about. In my current
> bg game, Jaheira is druid level 7. She would shapechange if not for
> the fact that she sports ankheg armor and a +3 quarterstaff. I guess
> this is a minor revision of our item discussion. Really now, ankheg
> armor should be prohibitively expensive for a level 7 multi class
> druid, and at best she should have no more than a +1 staff.
I think this is a pretty good indicator of how over-powered the BG games
are, in comparison to PnP. As you say, shapeshifting into a massive bear
should be a pretty impressive feat, but in BG, to dothis means you sacrifice
offensive power, end up with a poorer AC, and basically are a weaker
character after the shapechange than you were immediately before it. The
fact that everyone knows where to find the free ankheg armour in Nashkel
doesn't help matters, though ;-).
> >Oh, and did I mention that the Guild is bugged, so if you miss your
payment
> >by one hour (as I did once), then you lose the Guild, and cannot buy it
back
> >(although the game is happy to take your cash, it just won't give you
back
> >your Guild)?
>
> harrumph! Wonder what happens to the Guild when your happy-go-lucky
> cabal vacations in Brynnlaw?
I'm not sure, but I think that periodic stronghold payments are suspended
when you're away from the mainland (obviously they hire an administrator to
take care of business for you while you're away - which is slightly odd,
since I thought this journey to Spellhold was meant to be a secret).
> >Word of advice: make sure you have a Thief with over 100% find traps
before
> >tackling DT. A few Potions of Miracle Working tend to come in handy as
well
> >;-).
>
> I've read in various posts about the need for good find traps ability.
> I must point out that most of the thieves in bg have lousy find traps
> abilities. Coran, Alora, and Tiax all have 20%.
Alora only 20%? I've only had her in my group once, but I thought she
started off with a higher score than that. The best bet is still Imoen, if
only because you can control her development from the very start. Actually,
though, Montaron wouldn't be a bad choice - as a Halfling, he gets some nice
bonuses to thieving skills, and you meet him early enough to control where
he puts his skill points. It's only the multi-class element which hurts
him, but seeing as people manage well enough with Coran as a Thief, I reckon
that Monty sometimes gets a raw deal.
> I forget Skie's
> rating. Right now my party consists of: cleric/ranger, Jaheira,
> Khalid, Coran, and Garrick. Coran's find traps is at 60 and he's not
> going to level anytime soon. I'm not too worried about it at the
> moment though. Kromm and Jaheira can memorize find traps for DT.
> This will work fine as these 2 are always in the front. I may yet
> drop Coran in favor of Eldoth and Skie. There's supposed to be some
> good dialogue between Garrick, El, and Skie.
Drop Coran? Sacrilege! The menage-a-trois between Garrick, Eldoth and Skie
might provide decent entertainment, but it won't give you any decent
firepower or must-have abilities. If you can get Coran's Find Traps up to
80% or so and stockpile as many potions of perception as you can find, you
might be able to get through DT (even cleaning the upper, relatively less
dangerous, levels of the Tower can bring in enough XP for a lot of people to
level up at least once).
> >Hmmmm, Arcanum. I've been put off that by a mixed initial response, and
not
> >all that easy a ride from certain reviewers (although it was only PC
> >Doormat, who are notorious for knowing absolutely nothing). How's it
> >looking, then? I must admit to being very keen to see the steampunk
setting
> >in action, but it seems the interface has come in for some criticism, as
> >well as some of the play balance (ranged weapons being underpowered,
> >gunfighters especially not getting anything like an easy ride). Care to
> >give us a quick review of the game so far, and whether it's worth buying
at
> >the moment?
>
> I like to visit sites like gamespot that provides readers' reviews as
> well as their own in-house commentary. I read the highest and lowest
> rating reviews and look for common demoninators. Is there a common
> complaint? A common praise. A read several reviews and then come to
> a conclusion.
I'd love to trust these reader reviews, but it's all too easy for a person
with an axe to grind to come along and muck things up, really doing his best
to scupper the whole point of having reader reviews in the first place. If
it were up to me, I'd keep all people well away from the Internet - they do
nothing but make a mess of it ;-).
> The common complaint was graphics. A few were stuck on the 640X480
> res. My personal opinion is that these people probably had 21"
> monitors and can't stand 640 by 480, or the just expect TOB artwork.
> I have d/l the demo. The graphics are not polished, but they're not
> horrid either.
640x480 only? I was hoping I could banish those days forever. Hmmm, I must
admit that switching to 800x600 for BG2 takes some getting used to, so
perhaps my years of playing the BG series at 640x480 might be good
preparation for Arcanum. Oh, according to that other home of half-baked
rumour, csipg.rpg, there were also numerous complaints about Arcanum's
interface - it was meant to be both unwieldy to operate, and took up too
much screen space when in use. Any comment on this aspect?
> The common praise was gameplay. Apparently there is 6 or more
> possible endings. It is very non-linear. Even quests may be handled
> in different ways. Char developed is very detailed. The praisers
> also mentioned that graphics are secondary to gameplay, and they
> wouldn't change a thing if it threatened any of the game play
> features.
There seemed to be a lot of work put into character backgrounds, although I
didn't hear enough to make any sort of judgement as to how fleshed out the
game world as a whole actually was. I'm still a sucker for non-linearity,
as far as it exists in CRPG's, so this all sounds very heartening, I must
admit.
> Already I get the feeling that I can develop my char any way that I
> want. There are no classes and alignment. Alignment is measured by
> your actions. I am playing an elf with the intention of making him a
> mage. Note that he doesn't start as a mage, I have to develop him as
> such.
This was an area which was commented upon with a fair degree of negativity:
character balance. Allegedly, gunslingers have a tougher time of things,
and technologists in general have a hard time of things than
magically-inclined characters. I know that Usenet comments are 99% lies and
1% misinformation, but even so you have to put some stock in what's written,
if only because I refuse to believe that so many spite-driven loonies
actually have access to computers at any one time ;-).
> Will he continue to specialize in magic? I don't know. Maybe I'll
> give him some thief abilities and fighting prowess. Magic and tech
> seem to be exclusive, so a gun-toting spell slinger is unlikely.
Yup, that was one of the things which I was very intrigued about in
Arcanum's setup. It could be argued that it's a bad thing to cut off
certain character paths (or it may merely be an incentive to replay the
game), but in a way, I find it fairly intriguing.
> I'm usually the kind of person that knows whether or not he will like
> the game within the first 10 minutes. A friend showed me BG, and I
> bought the game the next day. I like Arcanum so far, and for $45 Cdn,
> it is worth the price.
Well, I like to take a few days to see how a game plays, even more so with
RPG's (imagine if all of BG2 was the same as Irenicus' dungeon - ick!).
Probably the only game in which my initial reaction has been well and truly
borne out has been Deus Ex. I bought it, and it wouldn't work. I took it
back for a replacement, and that doesn't work. Sometimes, I need to trust
that little voice in my head which says "give up Phil!".
> I think if you like Fallout, you will like Arcanum.
That's what a lot of people have said, and to be honest, if Arcanum is half
the game the Fallouts were, then it'll be a pretty good game indeed. My
worry is that it may be a game in the style of Fallout, but just ends up as
a pale imitator. Things like the graphics issue all point to a lack of time
to finish the game, and a general lack of commitment on the part of the men
in suits to allocate the funds for more/better graphic artists, and so on.
> Again, the single
> biggest complaint I read was the graphics. If that concerns you, d/l
> the demo or the screenshots and decide.
It'll have to be the screenshots - on a 56K modem, I don't really want to
pay to d/l a massive game demo. But, thanks for the information - you've
certainly given me some food for thought. Now, if only I had some money
lying around. I guess it's either Arcanum or a medical law textbook right
now, and I guess my education will have to come first. Drat :-(.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Yup, especially seeing as BG2 still manages to retain the most annoying
>comment from BG1: "You have been waylaid by enemies and must defend
>yourselves". Now, (1) I don't take orders from someone I can't see, (2) I
>want the chance to talk these people down, or perhaps to make them join up
>with me, (3) I've been waylaid travelling between city segments in Athkatla
>(wtf? Do they hide behind shop signs as I move near the edge of a screen?),
>and (4) it just gets annoying after a while to face either huge numbers of
>tough foes (BG1) or huge numbers of mildly annoying but time consuming foes
>(BG2). Not that I feel passionately about this issue you understand ;-).
>
To be fair, I have encountered muggers in the docks. These are really
comical encounters. The worst encounters in bg1 are the Cloakwood
travel, but at least there is good exp to be had. But it is annoying
to get half way to the mines, only to head back to the FAI to raise
the dead. The most ridiculous is you and Imoen at level 1 being
killed on the way to Beregost by 10 bandits. C'mon! The gibberiling
almost killed Imy on the first map. I had to use grease to escape the
wrath of his canine partner.
>Ah well, liking Bards used to be a capital offence around these parts ;-).
>Oddly enough, Cernd did have a fairly interesting quest (Cernd Jnr), and his
>personality was nowhere near as abrasive as some - for starters, he didn't
>worry about how we were helping the less fortunate by trudging through a
>dungeon. I guess we've just got different tastes in NPC's - although it's
>worth commenting that I find it a bit odd that BG2 uses a reduced NPC
>complement of 16, yet manages to include two Druid characters within that
>number, and with the best will in the world, that has to be at least two
>Druids too many ;-).
>
Ohh, come on now! Recall from Cernd's biography, that it only took
him a week of sitting in the rain b4 realizing that it's OK to
appreciate nature while taking shelter. ;) I guess that, as a result
of this quasi-aquatic experience, his wisdom was finally increased to
18, permitting Cernd to appreciate the simple virtue of a lean-to or a
tent during inclement weather.
Re: NPC selection. In an odd way this is consistent with the sheer
number of rogues and especially thieves in BG. 2 bards. 4 single
class theives: Imy, Safana, Skie, Alora. 3 multi-class theives:
Monty, Coran, Tiax. Let's not forget Shar-Teel, who can be dualed to
a theif at your convenience. I always thought there were too many
theives in BG.
>Oh, I agree, better AI would still be my preferred route. But, to look at
>the bigger picture, Interplay are well and truly in Queer Street, if rumours
>are to be believed, so I can't see how they can afford to fund the time and
>effort needed to come up with a brand new, all-singing all-dancing set of AI
>routines (which may well necessitate a pretty major overhaul of the Infinity
>Engine itself). On a more basic level, what would be an excellent step in
>the right direction IMO is to see Interplay have a meeting of minds with the
>BG community, some of whom probably know as much about the scripting
>language as the game designers do. I've not tried them (can't trust AI
>after BG1 ;-)), but there's a lot of favourable comment about some of the
>custom scripts written by gamers, and I wouldn't mind seeing these people be
>given the chance to further develop their routines, and perhaps even code AI
>scripts to apply to bad guys. At only a few Kb each, it's a very real
>possibility to make several dozen individual AI scripts and still keep total
>file overheads at a fairly respectable level.
>
Who actually is responsible for the scripts? AKAIK, Interplay is
mearly the publisher. They have always been the distributor for
games. Bioware is responsible for all the programming, right? Black
Isle, by and large, did the art work and story.
>> >A *real* munchkin would never admit to having 6 points in Charisma ;-).
>>
>> The munchkin is mearly trying to keep his char balanced. :)
>
>Well, why didn't you say so? You obviously mean he's got 6 Charisma, and 24
>Strength, in order to appear well balanced ;-).
>
My apologies, I must have misspoke. ;)
>> I would have to agree that your example of a multi-class
>> F/M/T/C/Mo/P/R char is somewhat munchkinesque. ;) Of course, for such
>> a herioc char, 25 in all stats is mandatory.
>
>25 should be the bare minimu, I'd have thought ;-).
>
Yes, you are quite correct. The stats barely need mentioning. We may
safely presume. ;)
>Yeah, it is a bit wakward, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying
>;-). It's a valid point you make about the law of averages getting
>involved, though; there needs to be some sort of delimiter to set your
>average Bhaalspawn group up above your average enemy of equivalent level.
>Some would argue that this additional factor is the human's ability to think
>up new tactics to beat his enemies, but then we come back to the issue of
>how clever to make the AI in response to the human's ever-increasing
>ingenuity.
I think the most important facet of AI is actually being more
resourceful, not necessarily lethal. Our discussion began around the
inanities of Kangaxx, munchkin opponents, and spell trigger abuse.
Enemy mages could easily be made more lethal. Eg: Encounter 5 mages
with stoneskin and mirror image, casting abi dalzim's, chain
lightning, and using wands of fire (will any mage of yours survive 3
fireballs w/o buffs?). On a more simpler level, we could have enemy
parties target us they way we generally target them; one at a time,
with the spell casters generally being the first to go. This should
ensure that at least 2 of your party will be killed in any party vs
party encounter. The question we must now ask is this, bearing in
mind that the pc may not die: At what point does this stop being fun,
and becomes annoying?
>Unless we alter things so that if the Bhaalspawn has to face a
>higher level enemy, he faces a small number of them (dragons are a good
>example here - you only ever fight one at a time), but if he's facing lower
>level enemies, then the numbers can be scaled up (armies of delinquent
>kobolds).
>
This is the standard response to challenging the player. I think the
other standard is the exp value of the monster. Taking this
opportunity to refer to our prior discussion on mages: a 65 exp wolf
is a very serious matter for a lvl 1 mage while a, say, 30,000 exp
dragon is a serious matter for a lvl 27 mage.
>
>I'm still grumpy about the fact that Tasha's Unbearable Derisive Laughter
>never made it to BG2 :-(. On the other hand, I did get a truly massive kick
>out of some of the Torment spell animations (Celestial Host was especially
>amazing, although I liked the demonic hand appearing when you cast Abyssal
>Fury).
>
I always wondered about the animation for the Celestial Cannon, if
that is the correct name for the spell. How did TNO ever aim that
thing? I guess it would have been too much if the animation showed
TNO operating levers on the gun?
I remember the first time FFG cast call Lightning for me. I just
bought a Soundblaster Live card, connected it to my dolby component
stereo and had the volume cranked. Needless to say, I jumped.
>> As an aside, the shapchange ability is very powerful. Well, it could
>> be if not for all the enchanted weapons laying about. In my current
>> bg game, Jaheira is druid level 7. She would shapechange if not for
>> the fact that she sports ankheg armor and a +3 quarterstaff. I guess
>> this is a minor revision of our item discussion. Really now, ankheg
>> armor should be prohibitively expensive for a level 7 multi class
>> druid, and at best she should have no more than a +1 staff.
>
>I think this is a pretty good indicator of how over-powered the BG games
>are, in comparison to PnP. As you say, shapeshifting into a massive bear
>should be a pretty impressive feat, but in BG, to dothis means you sacrifice
>offensive power, end up with a poorer AC, and basically are a weaker
>character after the shapechange than you were immediately before it. The
>fact that everyone knows where to find the free ankheg armour in Nashkel
>doesn't help matters, though ;-).
>
Not only that, but gold is thrown about the Sword Coast. Yes, the
first thing I did when in Nashkell was to begin the pixel hunt.
However it was not long after that, I commissioned Theorum to make a
second suit. Now that I am on the subject of gold, I wish to contrast
the fact that only the wealthy can afford royal rooms (as stated in
the description). Considering the general state of finances of the
party, a low level party can always afford the finest in accomodations
and liquors. If there is any finacial difficulty, it is generally
alleviated with the death of Silke (she carries about 900 gp).
Obviously, within a few days of adventuring, the party has wealth that
is commensurate with the funds that are made available to those
granted station by right of birth. Unfortunetly, privelege "by right
of adventure", undermines certain special abilities including pp and
open locks. Swiping a zircom gem, for example, would permit the
theif's party a nice evening in a fine inn. Add a flamedance ring,
and it then becomes a night of debauchery.
>I'm not sure, but I think that periodic stronghold payments are suspended
>when you're away from the mainland (obviously they hire an administrator to
>take care of business for you while you're away - which is slightly odd,
>since I thought this journey to Spellhold was meant to be a secret).
>
Maybe it is assumed that the player will get tired of the guild and
relenquish control of it to the Shadow Theives. BTW, if you have the
guild, then you have sided with the Theives and they are the ones that
arranged your conveyance to Brynnlaw.
>Alora only 20%? I've only had her in my group once, but I thought she
>started off with a higher score than that. The best bet is still Imoen, if
>only because you can control her development from the very start. Actually,
>though, Montaron wouldn't be a bad choice - as a Halfling, he gets some nice
>bonuses to thieving skills, and you meet him early enough to control where
>he puts his skill points. It's only the multi-class element which hurts
>him, but seeing as people manage well enough with Coran as a Thief, I reckon
>that Monty sometimes gets a raw deal.
>
Re: Alora, Tiax, Coran. All had 20% when I picked them up. I was
most dissapointed with such a wide selection of theives and their
points are all spent in the same manner. My 2nd beef is that their
levels are so low compared to party. Kromm has around 110,000 exp.
For much of the game, I used only a 4 humaniod party. First time
meetings with new npcs reveal that they only have 20,000 exp.
Montaron is an excellent theif. IMHO, multi class chars really shine
in BG because the levels they can attain are not far off single class.
Eg: Khalid and kromm (cleric/ranger). Khalid is at level 7, while
kromm is at 7/6. Khalid has slightly more exp than kromm. With the
tosc exp cap, Khalid will max at 8 and kromm will max at 7/7. So
kromm sacrifices one level of ranger in exchange for 7 levels of
cleric. As Gorion said in my bio, a little bit of everything makes
for a better soup.
As for Monty getting a raw deal, it may be due to his partnership
requirements. He and Xzar are a package deal, and many players will
not separate duos. It could also be due to the evil, no vile, nature
of these two. Even a neutral pc may have difficulty justifying the
presence of these two in role playing sense.
>Drop Coran? Sacrilege! The menage-a-trois between Garrick, Eldoth and Skie
>might provide decent entertainment, but it won't give you any decent
>firepower or must-have abilities. If you can get Coran's Find Traps up to
>80% or so and stockpile as many potions of perception as you can find, you
>might be able to get through DT (even cleaning the upper, relatively less
>dangerous, levels of the Tower can bring in enough XP for a lot of people to
>level up at least once).
>
I plan to use many potions to enhance Coran, thus saving lvl 2 priest
spell slots. I'm not worried about any firepower issues of my party.
hmmm..didn't someone once say that success leads to overconfidence
which leads to more success which leads to...? ;) Seriously though,
my 4 being party easily handled everything up to and including the
Cloakwood mines (with Imoen b4 Coran). Dropping Coran in favor of
Eldoth and Skie will roughly give me the same firepower as b4.
>I'd love to trust these reader reviews, but it's all too easy for a person
>with an axe to grind to come along and muck things up, really doing his best
>to scupper the whole point of having reader reviews in the first place. If
>it were up to me, I'd keep all people well away from the Internet - they do
>nothing but make a mess of it ;-).
>
Well, I only use the reasonable (whatever that means :) reviews. I
can't stand Gamespy because they apper to plug every product while
other sites confuse critical writing with sarcasm.
>640x480 only? I was hoping I could banish those days forever. Hmmm, I must
>admit that switching to 800x600 for BG2 takes some getting used to, so
>perhaps my years of playing the BG series at 640x480 might be good
>preparation for Arcanum. Oh, according to that other home of half-baked
>rumour, csipg.rpg, there were also numerous complaints about Arcanum's
>interface - it was meant to be both unwieldy to operate, and took up too
>much screen space when in use. Any comment on this aspect?
>
I used 800X600 in bg2 for a while, then went back to 640. To properly
counter the higher res, we need to be able to adjust the height of the
isometric "camera", if you will. In other words, I loved the res,
couldn't stand the size of the chars.
Re: Interface. So far I do not think the interface is cumbersome.
Like anything else, a learning curve is involved and the quick key
card helps me along. I can cast and cancel my spell with ease,
conveniently review any npc stats (gotta talk to them first), and
peruse inventory. The interface does take up about a 1/3 of the
screen. However, the patch appears to allow you to hide the interface
using the key F10. This is according to the readme.txt of the patch.
I have not yet tried it (damm BG adventure ;)
>
>There seemed to be a lot of work put into character backgrounds, although I
>didn't hear enough to make any sort of judgement as to how fleshed out the
>game world as a whole actually was. I'm still a sucker for non-linearity,
>as far as it exists in CRPG's, so this all sounds very heartening, I must
>admit.
>
As I said b4, I have only played about 4 to 6 hours and am still on
the first map. I really can't comment on the depth of the game world
except to repeat their sales pitch, "If you don't use the travel
command, it will take you 30 hours real time to walk your party across
Arcanum."
I must say that the journal is nicely done. It appears to keep track
of many events in the game. You can also initiate dialogue with your
followers to ask them what they think we should do next.
>> Already I get the feeling that I can develop my char any way that I
>> want. There are no classes and alignment. Alignment is measured by
>> your actions. I am playing an elf with the intention of making him a
>> mage. Note that he doesn't start as a mage, I have to develop him as
>> such.
>
>This was an area which was commented upon with a fair degree of negativity:
>character balance. Allegedly, gunslingers have a tougher time of things,
>and technologists in general have a hard time of things than
>magically-inclined characters. I know that Usenet comments are 99% lies and
>1% misinformation, but even so you have to put some stock in what's written,
>if only because I refuse to believe that so many spite-driven loonies
>actually have access to computers at any one time ;-).
>
hehehe. I think we should remember the game world and the concept
behind it. Elves are inantely magickal and have been known to exist
for over 300,000 years, iirc; casting spells all the while. Magick is
nothing new. Tech has only recently developed in the last 100 years.
The game world heavily borrows from late 18 century England (steam
engine is a new invention). Flintlock pistols/rifles are available,
but they are prone to critical failures. Consider that when gunpowder
was first used by European armies, long bows, crossbows were still
more effective and longer ranged than early muskets. You will not
find a Quake 2 style chain gun. ;) I beleive that Troika Games may be
trying to emulate this.
I can only surmise that the 2 schools-tech and magick-are intended to
be role playing decisions, not power gaming.
>Well, I like to take a few days to see how a game plays, even more so with
>RPG's (imagine if all of BG2 was the same as Irenicus' dungeon - ick!).
>Probably the only game in which my initial reaction has been well and truly
>borne out has been Deus Ex. I bought it, and it wouldn't work. I took it
>back for a replacement, and that doesn't work. Sometimes, I need to trust
>that little voice in my head which says "give up Phil!".
>
My friend showed me his Ch 4 game. He let me walk his party around,
pointed out the char record, inventory, and walk me through a battle.
I liked every second of the demo.
>
>That's what a lot of people have said, and to be honest, if Arcanum is half
>the game the Fallouts were, then it'll be a pretty good game indeed. My
>worry is that it may be a game in the style of Fallout, but just ends up as
>a pale imitator. Things like the graphics issue all point to a lack of time
>to finish the game, and a general lack of commitment on the part of the men
>in suits to allocate the funds for more/better graphic artists, and so on.
>
These points cannot be argued. I don't get a Fallout feeling yet.
The introduction of races and magick and tech does pull it into
fantasy and out of post-apocaliptic societal recovery.
>It'll have to be the screenshots - on a 56K modem, I don't really want to
>pay to d/l a massive game demo. But, thanks for the information - you've
>certainly given me some food for thought. Now, if only I had some money
>lying around. I guess it's either Arcanum or a medical law textbook right
>now, and I guess my education will have to come first. Drat :-(.
Work first, play later. I have never agreed with the way Europeans
are treated with 'net access. Paying for every byte d/l is not fair.
In Canada, we have always had flat rate fees, usually around $20 per
month unlimited usage, $40 for T1, DSL. Ohh some isp's did have a cap
of 200 hours a month or so on dial up.
kromm
Jonathan Ellis
kromm wrote in message <3bc74ce8...@news.rdc1.on.home.com>...
>As for Monty getting a raw deal, it may be due to his partnership
>requirements. He and Xzar are a package deal, and many players will
>not separate duos. It could also be due to the evil, no vile, nature
>of these two. Even a neutral pc may have difficulty justifying the
>presence of these two in role playing sense.
Montaron *could* be a decent thief, but his Dex is comparatively
low compared to Imoen (whereas Coran and Alora are in fact superior, and
Skie is at least equal.) That's 10% less on every thieving skill, all
the way up from the start: plus he's easier to hit, by a factor of 2
points on AC (equals another 10 percentage points, on a 1d20 which is
used as the hit roll.) As against that, his ability as a fighter makes
him a superior backstabber as compared to anyone else except Coran, as
he can actually specialise in a weapon. But if I wanted an evil
fighter/thief, frankly I'd rather dual-class Shar-Teel any day.
>>The menage-a-trois between Garrick, Eldoth and Skie
>>might provide decent entertainment,
...for those characters that want *two* bards in one party, and a
single-classed thief who can't do anything else. I daresay it's
possible...
By the way: (1) Can you convince Skie to join the party if you have
Garrick but not Eldoth, (2) or indeed if you yourself are a Bard, and
(3) given that Skie seems to have a thing about Bards, how does she
react if the player himself is a Bard?
Jonathan.
kromm
<jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Montaron *could* be a decent thief, but his Dex is comparatively
>low compared to Imoen (whereas Coran and Alora are in fact superior, and
>Skie is at least equal.) That's 10% less on every thieving skill, all
>the way up from the start: plus he's easier to hit, by a factor of 2
>points on AC (equals another 10 percentage points, on a 1d20 which is
>used as the hit roll.) As against that, his ability as a fighter makes
>him a superior backstabber as compared to anyone else except Coran, as
>he can actually specialise in a weapon. But if I wanted an evil
>fighter/thief, frankly I'd rather dual-class Shar-Teel any day.
>
I don't recall off-hand what Monty's dex is, but I think it's 16.
However, we must not forget that he also receives the halfling racial
adjustments, which effectively serves to partially offset the lower
dex. I think it can be argued that any single stat generally can be
countered with an item. In this case, the bracers that bestow 18 dex
on the wearer.
Of course, the make or break of Monty's deal is Xzar. And this could
go either way. :)
>>>The menage-a-trois between Garrick, Eldoth and Skie
>>>might provide decent entertainment,
>
> ...for those characters that want *two* bards in one party, and a
>single-classed thief who can't do anything else. I daresay it's
>possible...
>
Anything is possible. I wonder of both bard songs will stack?
> By the way: (1) Can you convince Skie to join the party if you have
>Garrick but not Eldoth, (2) or indeed if you yourself are a Bard, and
>(3) given that Skie seems to have a thing about Bards, how does she
>react if the player himself is a Bard?
>
AFAIK, Skie will only join the group when Eldoth is in. Otherwise,
Skie will think you're theives coming to kill her, and will attack.
As for Skie's personality: I think she's supposed to be a 16 year old
girl infatuated with musicians. I think Bioware is having some sublte
fun with that particular segment of the population.
kromm
Talen
wrote:
>
>>Hmmmm, Arcanum. I've been put off that by a mixed initial response, and not
>>all that easy a ride from certain reviewers (although it was only PC
>>Doormat, who are notorious for knowing absolutely nothing). How's it
>>looking, then? I must admit to being very keen to see the steampunk setting
>>in action, but it seems the interface has come in for some criticism, as
>>well as some of the play balance (ranged weapons being underpowered,
>>gunfighters especially not getting anything like an easy ride). Care to
>>give us a quick review of the game so far, and whether it's worth buying at
>>the moment?
>
>I like to visit sites like gamespot that provides readers' reviews as
>well as their own in-house commentary. I read the highest and lowest
>rating reviews and look for common demoninators. Is there a common
>complaint? A common praise. A read several reviews and then come to
>a conclusion.
The biggest complaint about Arcanum should be that it is.
SO.
FRICKING.
_HARD_.
Go on, admit it - the saving facilities are a dog.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.karl-malden.nose
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
Derville
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:57:59 -0700, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> To be fair, I have encountered muggers in the docks. These are really
> comical encounters. The worst encounters in bg1 are the Cloakwood
> travel, but at least there is good exp to be had. But it is annoying
> to get half way to the mines, only to head back to the FAI to raise
> the dead. The most ridiculous is you and Imoen at level 1 being
> killed on the way to Beregost by 10 bandits. C'mon! The gibberiling
> almost killed Imy on the first map. I had to use grease to escape the
> wrath of his canine partner.
I think BG1 got the balance slightly wrong (three wyverns and another three
or four ettercaps in a CW ambush is pushing it a bit for a 4th level party
of five) in terms of difficulty, and most definitely in terms of numbers.
If truth be told, one of the biggest problems for me was that the maps were
so small, there was nowhere to fall back to (read: run away ;-)), to buff up
or to hide and stealth up my thiefly characters. But BG2 went the other
way, with some ridiculously easy encounters, which at times came close to
being insulting.
> Ohh, come on now! Recall from Cernd's biography, that it only took
> him a week of sitting in the rain b4 realizing that it's OK to
> appreciate nature while taking shelter. ;) I guess that, as a result
> of this quasi-aquatic experience, his wisdom was finally increased to
> 18, permitting Cernd to appreciate the simple virtue of a lean-to or a
> tent during inclement weather.
And we pick on Minsc for being a bit stupid? ;-)
> Re: NPC selection. In an odd way this is consistent with the sheer
> number of rogues and especially thieves in BG. 2 bards. 4 single
> class theives: Imy, Safana, Skie, Alora. 3 multi-class theives:
> Monty, Coran, Tiax. Let's not forget Shar-Teel, who can be dualed to
> a theif at your convenience. I always thought there were too many
> theives in BG.
You can never have too many Thieves, IMO. I love 'em, personally, which is
why I was less than impressed with BG2's Thief selection, especially when we
also get two Druids taking up NPC slots, and more Bards than are strictly
necessary ;-).
> Who actually is responsible for the scripts? AKAIK, Interplay is
> mearly the publisher. They have always been the distributor for
> games. Bioware is responsible for all the programming, right? Black
> Isle, by and large, did the art work and story.
Well, I'd reckon Bioware do all the AI programming, but Interplay will have
overall control on the purse strings, because if they don't get the
distribution agreements, then nobody at Bioware gets paid. In that respect,
I'd expect Interplay to be involved in licensing other people to come in and
get involved, if only to formally authorise the additional expense (if any)
and possible legal implications of Bioware seeking to bring in new talent.
> > It's a valid point you make about the law of averages getting
> >involved, though; there needs to be some sort of delimiter to set your
> >average Bhaalspawn group up above your average enemy of equivalent level.
> >Some would argue that this additional factor is the human's ability to
think
> >up new tactics to beat his enemies, but then we come back to the issue of
> >how clever to make the AI in response to the human's ever-increasing
> >ingenuity.
>
> I think the most important facet of AI is actually being more
> resourceful, not necessarily lethal. Our discussion began around the
> inanities of Kangaxx, munchkin opponents, and spell trigger abuse.
> Enemy mages could easily be made more lethal. Eg: Encounter 5 mages
> with stoneskin and mirror image, casting abi dalzim's, chain
> lightning, and using wands of fire (will any mage of yours survive 3
> fireballs w/o buffs?).
Well, that'd make life simple. The game would go back, no questions asked.
And I'm sure that people will have taken BG1 and 2 back to the shops
precisely because they see it as too unfair. In a way, there is a problem
here, because a game should try and appeal to a wide cross-section of people
in order to be commercially successful. Although I, for example, can muddle
through the BG games, I suck royally at most FPS games, and generally
struggle to come close to finishing them. It doesn't stop me appreciating
the odd gem (Thief! As if you couldn't have guessed that one ;-)), but it
does mean that my boredom/frustration thresholds for some games will be
higher than for others. But that's all by the by.
> On a more simpler level, we could have enemy
> parties target us they way we generally target them; one at a time,
> with the spell casters generally being the first to go. This should
> ensure that at least 2 of your party will be killed in any party vs
> party encounter. The question we must now ask is this, bearing in
> mind that the pc may not die: At what point does this stop being fun,
> and becomes annoying?
Well on the one hand, it would be nice to see enemies be clever enough to
realise that using their only Abi-Dalzim's on a summoned ferret isn't the
smartest use of resources, but if we have the already frightening numerical
advantage of enemies in BG2 then being trained to go for our team in a
specific order, then it could get a lot more hairy. For starters, you'd see
far fewer people play magic users, because the enemy would always
concentrate on killing them first. OTOH, if this is implemented as a strict
AI routine, then it could still be worked around by making your Mage leg it,
then wailing on the enemy as they chase after the guy who shows up top of
their threat list. So, it would need a bit of modifying, but it's a step in
the right direction. If we look to some RTS games, thenwhat I'd want is the
equivalent of an aggressive patrolling script - your players chase enemy
troops so far if they encounter them (set the exact distance according to
your preferences), but then return to their predetermined route/AI routine.
> This is the standard response to challenging the player. I think the
> other standard is the exp value of the monster. Taking this
> opportunity to refer to our prior discussion on mages: a 65 exp wolf
> is a very serious matter for a lvl 1 mage while a, say, 30,000 exp
> dragon is a serious matter for a lvl 27 mage.
Actually, I'd say the wolf is the tougher challenge, because 1st level Mages
are so incredibly puny on their own. The Mage is an object lesson in
exponential power increases with level, as he continues to gain access to
ever more powerful spells, while continuing to learn even more of the lower
level spells, which makes him become ever more versatile as he becomes ever
more powerful in terms of ultimate spellcasting level. This is partly where
BG2 comes unstuck - IMHO, by 17th+ level, around 85% of all enemies should
be running scared at the mention of your name. Yet we're still expected to
fight off everything from kobolds to itinerant muggers, all the way up to
drakes and liches. Yes, it keeps a bit of variety in the game, but it can
be annoying to have my planning for my next dragonslaying episode
interrupted by a wandering troupe of kobold peanut sellers.
> >I'm still grumpy about the fact that Tasha's Unbearable Derisive Laughter
> >never made it to BG2 :-(. On the other hand, I did get a truly massive
kick
> >out of some of the Torment spell animations (Celestial Host was
especially
> >amazing, although I liked the demonic hand appearing when you cast
Abyssal
> >Fury).
>
> I always wondered about the animation for the Celestial Cannon, if
> that is the correct name for the spell. How did TNO ever aim that
> thing? I guess it would have been too much if the animation showed
> TNO operating levers on the gun?
Mechanus' Cannon? I got that spell, but never used it, although it was used
against me once in the Modron Maze. When I remember to install Torment on
my computer, I'll have a look at the animatons in Infinty Explorer, because
I can't remember the Mechanus' Cannon anims right now.
> Not only that, but gold is thrown about the Sword Coast. Yes, the
> first thing I did when in Nashkell was to begin the pixel hunt.
> However it was not long after that, I commissioned Theorum to make a
> second suit. Now that I am on the subject of gold, I wish to contrast
> the fact that only the wealthy can afford royal rooms (as stated in
> the description).
Well, I never leave Beregost with less than 5000 gold, and that's before
doing the Bassilus quest, which shows you that (a) I'm a pack rat who sells
everything his enemies drop, (b) I'm a pixel-hunter, and (c) I love to have
lots of Thieves in my group ;-). Despite all this, I'm still too
tight-fisted to ever stay in anything more epxensive than peasant
accommodation, although I do like to get everyone roaring drunk and then go
outside to pick a fight or two with any passing townsfolk ;-).
> Swiping a zircom gem, for example, would permit the
> theif's party a nice evening in a fine inn. Add a flamedance ring,
> and it then becomes a night of debauchery.
Luckily, there is a severe problem with rampant deflation on the Sword
Coast, which prevents people making too much of a killing. BG2 certainly
tightened this up, but managed to end up looking silly thanks to the
enchantments of items in the game (the best price I ever got offered for
Carsomyr was 5000GP. WTF? A measly 5000 for the most powerful sword in the
land?). But again, even if you never sell a single diamond, the fact is
that you're always drowning in gemstones and magical odds and ends which you
can sell for a small fortune. This is what made places like Cloakwood
difficult - I had to keep running back to Beregost to sell off the items I
accumulated as I passed through the forest ;-).
> >Alora only 20%? I've only had her in my group once, but I thought she
> >started off with a higher score than that. The best bet is still Imoen,
if
> >only because you can control her development from the very start.
Actually,
> >though, Montaron wouldn't be a bad choice - as a Halfling, he gets some
nice
> >bonuses to thieving skills, and you meet him early enough to control
where
> >he puts his skill points.
> >
> Re: Alora, Tiax, Coran. All had 20% when I picked them up. I was
> most dissapointed with such a wide selection of theives and their
> points are all spent in the same manner. My 2nd beef is that their
> levels are so low compared to party. Kromm has around 110,000 exp.
> For much of the game, I used only a 4 humaniod party. First time
> meetings with new npcs reveal that they only have 20,000 exp.
I think that although NPC's will broadly follow the XP level of your group,
there is a limit coded in, to prevent you soloing and then picking up Coran
when he's got 150,000XP or so. Not that I can remember the BG1 thieving
proficiencies these days, but I thought that Alora was quite a well balanced
character last time I had her in my group. Immy is still probably the most
well balanced (even when she first joins, she's got a good spread of
thieving points across all disciplines), but there has always been moaning
about Coran's distribution of points. It's a similar thing with weapon
proficiencies - Shar Teel starts with ** in Large and Small Swords, but if
you wait too long, she'll put another pip into something like Missile
Weapons, which is probably not the greatest of choices.
> As for Monty getting a raw deal, it may be due to his partnership
> requirements. He and Xzar are a package deal, and many players will
> not separate duos. It could also be due to the evil, no vile, nature
> of these two. Even a neutral pc may have difficulty justifying the
> presence of these two in role playing sense.
I always liked Xzar, although he never really lasted all that long in my
groups. He had the most fabulous attitude, and although Necromancers don't
generally get a good press, I found his spell selections to be fairly
decent. Larloch's, for exmaple, is often underestimated as a first level
spell when dealing with one tough enemy, as it can make the difference
between life and death in such fights as the initial assassins you meet.
> I plan to use many potions to enhance Coran, thus saving lvl 2 priest
> spell slots. I'm not worried about any firepower issues of my party.
> hmmm..didn't someone once say that success leads to overconfidence
> which leads to more success which leads to...? ;) Seriously though,
> my 4 being party easily handled everything up to and including the
> Cloakwood mines (with Imoen b4 Coran). Dropping Coran in favor of
> Eldoth and Skie will roughly give me the same firepower as b4.
No it won't. Have you seen Coran's stats? 3 pips in Bows, 20 Dex = machine
gun, pure and simple. Neither Eldoth nor Skie will ever hurl the volume of
accurate missiles at enemies, and they're also a much weaker duo in melee.
Eldoth's spells don't make up for his poor stats, Evil alignment and
generally weak character make-up. Skie, I can't comment on, as I've never
kept Eldoth long enough to get her in my group, but she's just another
Thief, and won't give you anything new to play with. Personally, I'd keep
Coran and stick with splitting my XP among fewer party members, which will
lead to a more powerful team than subbing him out for Eldoth and Skie.
> >640x480 only? I was hoping I could banish those days forever. Hmmm, I
must
> >admit that switching to 800x600 for BG2 takes some getting used to, so
> >perhaps my years of playing the BG series at 640x480 might be good
> >preparation for Arcanum. Oh, according to that other home of half-baked
> >rumour, csipg.rpg, there were also numerous complaints about Arcanum's
> >interface - it was meant to be both unwieldy to operate, and took up too
> >much screen space when in use. Any comment on this aspect?
> >
> I used 800X600 in bg2 for a while, then went back to 640. To properly
> counter the higher res, we need to be able to adjust the height of the
> isometric "camera", if you will. In other words, I loved the res,
> couldn't stand the size of the chars.
Agreed. I like to take my specs off when at the computer, but with BG2 I
thought I needed a white cane and a Labrador when I saw the 800x600
resolution ;-).
> Re: Interface. So far I do not think the interface is cumbersome.
> Like anything else, a learning curve is involved and the quick key
> card helps me along. I can cast and cancel my spell with ease,
> conveniently review any npc stats (gotta talk to them first), and
> peruse inventory. The interface does take up about a 1/3 of the
> screen. However, the patch appears to allow you to hide the interface
> using the key F10. This is according to the readme.txt of the patch.
> I have not yet tried it (damm BG adventure ;)
NPC's were commented on, although from what I've heard, they seem no more
annoying than their Fallout counterparts (not that Fallout NPC's weren't
annoying, but at least you could learn to live with their flaws). I think
part of this is the section of the market who play on 25" monitors, and
groan about anything which forces them to change from their 30000x24500
screen resolution. As long as the graphics are at an equivalent standard to
BG1/Torment, then I think I can settle for that sort of quality.
> I must say that the journal is nicely done. It appears to keep track
> of many events in the game. You can also initiate dialogue with your
> followers to ask them what they think we should do next.
Hopefully it's a bit more useful than asking Morte what to do in Torment
;-). But a good game journal is a feature all BG players would hanker
after, given the number of cries of frustration heard at how often BG gets
journal threads all mangled up.
> hehehe. I think we should remember the game world and the concept
> behind it. Elves are inantely magickal and have been known to exist
> for over 300,000 years, iirc; casting spells all the while. Magick is
> nothing new. Tech has only recently developed in the last 100 years.
> The game world heavily borrows from late 18 century England (steam
> engine is a new invention).
Yeah, this steampunk atmosphere was one of the big attractions for me.
Reading the advance literature, it does seem as though this background was
one of the major undertakings behind Arcanum. Compared to, say, Torn
(before it got pulled), the Arcanum world seems far more fleshed out and
just generally an interesting departure from your traditional elves and
swords style of Tolkien-esque RPG.
> Flintlock pistols/rifles are available,
> but they are prone to critical failures. Consider that when gunpowder
> was first used by European armies, long bows, crossbows were still
> more effective and longer ranged than early muskets. You will not
> find a Quake 2 style chain gun. ;) I beleive that Troika Games may be
> trying to emulate this.
Although I've heard some people comment on the power of some guns (I think
there's one more powerful than an elephant rifle, which attracted some
interest from sniper wannabes), I see them as hopefully a balanced
counterpart for the speed of spellcasting (if you like, a souped-up Magic
Missile). There might be a problem in working out exactly what the
opposition for a gun is meant to be - are they competition for spells, or
just for other missile launchers such as bows?
> >That's what a lot of people have said, and to be honest, if Arcanum is
half
> >the game the Fallouts were, then it'll be a pretty good game indeed. My
> >worry is that it may be a game in the style of Fallout, but just ends up
as
> >a pale imitator.
> >
> These points cannot be argued. I don't get a Fallout feeling yet.
> The introduction of races and magick and tech does pull it into
> fantasy and out of post-apocaliptic societal recovery.
Well, thanks for the insider view. I'm still not convinced that it's worth
£30 at the moment, but chances are that it will drop in price around
Christmas time, so I might look to pick it up then, if I've got a bit of
spare cash lying around. If truth be known, after BG1, Torment, Fallout 2
and BG2, I think I'm a bit RPG'ed out, and I can see my free time
disappearing rapidly in the next few months. I thought we students were
meant to live the life of riley, not be stuck with our heads in a book at
all hours of the day and night!
> Work first, play later. I have never agreed with the way Europeans
> are treated with 'net access. Paying for every byte d/l is not fair.
That makes two of us ;-). Broadband access is criminally slow in being
introduced, and you'd still have to pay in the region of £40/month, on top
of installation fees of nearly £200. Needless to say, that is not a cheap
offer, and AFAIK BT will still not guarantee any residential phone line to
deliver more than 26000bps, which is a bit of a worry if they're trying to
sell people connections at 512000bps. But hey, you're lucky in Canada - if
you had to look to British Telecom as your knight in shining armour for
broadband access, then you'd be ready to jump off the nearest tall building
in sheer frustration.
> In Canada, we have always had flat rate fees, usually around $20 per
> month unlimited usage, $40 for T1, DSL. Ohh some isp's did have a cap
> of 200 hours a month or so on dial up.
Hehe, my internet usage is probably less than 8 hours per month, which is
limited partly by the fact that I'm very conscious of time being money when
dialling in. I'm not sure what the exchange rate is at the moment, but in
the UK it's generally £15/month for unmetered off peak internet calls on a
dial-up connection, while broadband, as I said, will cost anything up to
£40/month. The particularly insidious side issue over here is that
companies like NTL and Telewest will try to sell you broadband at a
discount - but only if you sign up with them for cable TV, and agree to use
their cable to provide your normal telephone line as well. Well, they can't
get me - it'll be years before anyone ever lays cable out where I live!
Cutting off noses to spite faces springs to mind here...
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Re: NPC selection. In an odd way this is consistent with the sheer
>> number of rogues and especially thieves in BG. 2 bards. 4 single
>> class theives: Imy, Safana, Skie, Alora. 3 multi-class theives:
>> Monty, Coran, Tiax. Let's not forget Shar-Teel, who can be dualed to
>> a theif at your convenience. I always thought there were too many
>> theives in BG.
>
>You can never have too many Thieves, IMO. I love 'em, personally, which is
>why I was less than impressed with BG2's Thief selection, especially when we
>also get two Druids taking up NPC slots, and more Bards than are strictly
>necessary ;-).
I might hazard, as it just came to me last night, that the reason for
the shitty selection of thieves is to effectively 'force' you to use
Yoshimo for the earlier half of the game.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"We don't need _your_ kind of god around here."
- Joseph Sutedja
Derville
"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:g7bjstojsb8924dc3...@4ax.com...
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >You can never have too many Thieves, IMO. I love 'em, personally, which
is
> >why I was less than impressed with BG2's Thief selection, especially when
we
> >also get two Druids taking up NPC slots, and more Bards than are strictly
> >necessary ;-).
>
> I might hazard, as it just came to me last night, that the reason for
> the shitty selection of thieves is to effectively 'force' you to use
> Yoshimo for the earlier half of the game.
Oops! I guess I missed that bit of psychology when I took on Jan as my
thiefly character. While any non-Thief wold be mad to drop Yoshi as soon as
he arrives on the scene, once in Athkatla I find that there's not much to
pick between him and Jan in the thieving stakes. I'm just a sucker for
Gnomish multi-class Illusionists, whichwas what swung my decision on who to
take along. Although it is a bit odd that when walking in a city dominated
by the Shadow Thieves, not one of them says "psst! Hey, Guv, got room for
one more in that group, mate?". It aso destroys the concept of setting a
Thief to catch a Shadow Thief if you decide to help out Bodhi's Bloodsucking
Brotherhood.
Bob Macfie
kromm wrote:
>
> Re: NPC selection. In an odd way this is consistent with the sheer
> number of rogues and especially thieves in BG. 2 bards. 4 single
> class thieves: Imy, Safana, Skie, Alora. 3 multi-class thieves:
> Monty, Coran, Tiax. Let's not forget Shar-Teel, who can be dualed
> to a thief at your convenience. I always thought there were too
> many thieves in BG.
Compared to what class? There are, as you say, 2 bards, 4
thieves, and 3 multi-class thieves - a total of 9 rogues.
For priests, there is one druid (Faldorn), one cleric
(Branwen), a multi-class druid (need I say her name? ;p),
and 3 multi-classed clerics (Yeslick, Tiax, and Quayle) - a
total of 6. (There's also the fact that some people have
dual-classed Xzar to cleric after increasing his Wisdom.
Hey, if Tiax can be a cleric, why not? ;p)
There are only five wizards - Dynaheir, Edwin, Quayle, Xan,
and Xzar. (And Imoen is often dual classed to mage by
people.) As for warriors, we have 2 rangers (Minsc and
Kivan), a paladin (Ajantis), 3 fighters (Kagain, Khalid, and
Shar-Teel), and 4 multi-classed fighters (Coran, Jaheira,
Montaron, and Yeslick), for a total of 10.
So there are more fighters than thieves, with a third more
thieves than clerics, and twice as many fighters than
wizards. That's not too bad, and allows players considerable
variety, especially since there are enough members of each
class that you can play AN ENTIRE PARTY comprising of six
members (including yourself) of one class (there has to be
some cheating to do this, of course, since some characters
are part of a team).
In BG2, the breakdown is six warriors (Anomen, Jaheira,
Keldorn, Korgan, Minsc, and, eventually, Sarevok - with
Yoshimo as another possible option), five priests (Aerie,
Anomen, Cernd, Jaheira, and Viconia), five wizards (Aerie,
Edwin, Imoen, Jan, and Nalia), and five rogues (Haer'dalis,
Imoen, Jan, Nalia, and Yoshimo).
However, it's hard to count Nalia or Imoen as thieves,
really, since they stopped being thieves at such low levels.
Both can be pumped with potions or magic items to more
effective level, but this shouldn't be necessary.
I can manage a party with only Nalia as my thief, but it
requires so much tweaking for so little return. Worse yet,
it's harder to enhance the ability to Remove Traps than it
is to find them.
When you get right down to it, there are only two thieves -
and only one of those can be used in ToB. ToB IS playable
without a thief, but it can be a royal pain. (The Master
Wraith Room, anyone?)
I guess my point is that I felt I had good, diverse choices
for most of my classes, except for the thieves.
> I always wondered about the animation for the Celestial Cannon, if
> that is the correct name for the spell. How did TNO ever aim that
> thing? I guess it would have been too much if the animation showed
> TNO operating levers on the gun?
I think you're referring to the Mechanus Cannon, which
directs the modrons to fire the Wave Motion Gun - I mean,
Mechanus Cannon - into a portal. You simply determine where
that portal opens.
The most powerful of the spells seemed to be Bladestorm,
since it had no damage cap on the d8 hp of damage per level.
But Cloudkill was the best worm killer. (Funny that it
killed nothing else.) I'm trying to remember what I used
against Greater Shadows all the time, though - as they
ignored Bladestorm and cold-based spells.
And was it my imagination, or were you only allowed to cast
Celestial Host once a day?
> Montaron is an excellent thief. IMHO, multi class chars really
> shine in BG because the levels they can attain are not far off
> single class. Eg: Khalid and kromm (cleric/ranger). Khalid is at
> level 7, while kromm is at 7/6. Khalid has slightly more exp than
> kromm. With the tosc exp cap, Khalid will max at 8 and kromm will
> max at 7/7. So kromm sacrifices one level of ranger in exchange for
> 7 levels of cleric. As Gorion said in my bio, a little bit of
> everything makes for a better soup.
This is going to be the adjustment that may surprise the
most players when NWN comes out, since under those rules if
you chose to divide your levels evenly between cleric and
thief, you'd be 4th level in each class when Khalid reaches
8th level.
> As for Monty getting a raw deal, it may be due to his partnership
> requirements. He and Xzar are a package deal, and many players will
> not separate duos. It could also be due to the evil, no vile,
> nature of these two. Even a neutral pc may have difficulty
> justifying the presence of these two in role playing sense.
Never had a problem with keeping them around. Keeping them
ALIVE, on the other hand... ;p
Bob Macfie
Derville
"Bob Macfie" <bma...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BCE2B66...@home.com...
> kromm wrote:
> >
> > Re: NPC selection. In an odd way this is consistent with the sheer
> > number of rogues and especially thieves in BG. 2 bards. 4 single
> > class thieves: Imy, Safana, Skie, Alora. 3 multi-class thieves:
> > Monty, Coran, Tiax. Let's not forget Shar-Teel, who can be dualed
> > to a thief at your convenience. I always thought there were too
> > many thieves in BG.
>
> Compared to what class? There are, as you say, 2 bards, 4
> thieves, and 3 multi-class thieves - a total of 9 rogues.
> For priests, there is one druid (Faldorn), one cleric
> (Branwen), a multi-class druid (need I say her name? ;p),
> and 3 multi-classed clerics (Yeslick, Tiax, and Quayle) - a
> total of 6. (There's also the fact that some people have
> dual-classed Xzar to cleric after increasing his Wisdom.
> Hey, if Tiax can be a cleric, why not? ;p)
I'll add here that you did include possible dual-class options in that list,
which does distort things wildly, if taken to extremes. Safana can become
an Enchantress (naturally ;-)), Dynaheir could become a Cleric, and I'm sure
there's another couple of weird and wonderful dual-class combo's possible,
but which are so crazily stupid that nobody has been mad enough to try them
yet.
> I guess my point is that I felt I had good, diverse choices
> for most of my classes, except for the thieves.
Definitely agreed. In the end, I decided to go with multi-player teams and
roll my own Thieves, if I wasn't using Jan (who is IMHO the most capable all
round Thief in BG2). The other sticking point for me was that looking at
the BG2 dramatis personae, I couldn't help feel that the odd NPC could have
been dropped (Senor Tree-Hugger, Hairy Dallas, Nalia etc) and been replaced
with a top notch Thief, or even a Grade A quality Cleric (although Viconia
is a tough nut, her alignment conflicts put a strain on a group, and I
refuse to put my faith in Annie, 12 Wisdom score and all).
> The most powerful of the spells seemed to be Bladestorm,
> since it had no damage cap on the d8 hp of damage per level.
> But Cloudkill was the best worm killer. (Funny that it
> killed nothing else.) I'm trying to remember what I used
> against Greater Shadows all the time, though - as they
> ignored Bladestorm and cold-based spells.
Funny that, I never had much luck on worms with Cloudkill. It worked a
treat on the guards in Curst prison, though. I think spells like Meteor
Storm Bombardment (?) worked on Greater Shadows, although I preferred the
time-honoured tactic of running away at top speed ;-).
> And was it my imagination, or were you only allowed to cast
> Celestial Host once a day?
Not sure, although you'd be lucky to get multiple 9th level spell slots. I
only managed to access those spells in the endgame, after talking with
Curly, Larry and Moe.
Jonathan Ellis
Derville wrote in message <9qpmi9$1n6$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>I'll add here that you did include possible dual-class options in that
list,
>which does distort things wildly, if taken to extremes. Safana can
become
>an Enchantress (naturally ;-)), Dynaheir could become a Cleric, and I'm
sure
>there's another couple of weird and wonderful dual-class combo's
possible,
>but which are so crazily stupid that nobody has been mad enough to try
them
>yet.
I *have* tried one that you didn't mention: Branwen, with the tome
of dexterity, can become a pretty good Thief. All she loses is the
ability to backstab...
By the way, I don't agree with dualling Dynaheir or indeed Xzar to
cleric. The trouble, in both cases, is that neither will have the hit
points for the class they're supposed to be, and will be significantly
weakened as a result: in cases of dual-classes involving types with
radically different hit points (1d4 for mage-types, 1d8 for
priest-types), it's obviously better to do the "stronger" class first.
If the difference is only slight (e.g. mage to thief 1d4 to 1d6, thief
to cleric 1d6 to 1d8, or cleric to fighter 1d8 to 1d10), then it's
possible to get away with it. But I wouldn't recommend it with 1d4 to
1d8 (mage to cleric), 1d6 to 1d10 (thief to fighter), or 1d4 to 1d10
(mage to fighter): better to dual-class the other way.
>The other sticking point for me was that looking at
>the BG2 dramatis personae, I couldn't help feel that the odd NPC could
have
>been dropped (Senor Tree-Hugger, Hairy Dallas, Nalia etc) and been
replaced
>with a top notch Thief, or even a Grade A quality Cleric (although
Viconia
>is a tough nut, her alignment conflicts put a strain on a group, and I
>refuse to put my faith in Annie, 12 Wisdom score and all).
Viconia *can* be converted to chaotic good as part of the "romance"
plots, thus ending the alignment conflicts. The only trouble is you
can't rely on having her and Keldorn in the same group. (I don't know if
Keldorn and Viconia will fight after she changes alignment.)
BTW, Viconia only had wisdom 15 in BG1. In fact, *all* the priests
are a little hard done by, compared to mages, as none of them are higher
than 16 in their spellcasting stat, whereas all the mages have 17 or, in
Edwin's case, 18. (Mind you, there are *two* tomes of Wisdom in the
game, or three if you include the one in Durlag's Tower. I still feel
that Viconia should have had something like 17 wisdom, rather than 15:
let her be the cleric equivalent of Edwin - the best at what she does,
but very one-dimensional, and evil.)
Jonathan.
Derville
"Jonathan Ellis" <jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qpoe2$rav$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Derville wrote in message <9qpmi9$1n6$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> >I'll add here that you did include possible dual-class options in that
> list,
> >which does distort things wildly, if taken to extremes. Safana can
> become
> >an Enchantress (naturally ;-)), Dynaheir could become a Cleric, and I'm
> sure
> >there's another couple of weird and wonderful dual-class combo's
> possible,
> >but which are so crazily stupid that nobody has been mad enough to try
> them
> >yet.
> I *have* tried one that you didn't mention: Branwen, with the tome
> of dexterity, can become a pretty good Thief. All she loses is the
> ability to backstab...
Can't she backstab with a Club, and also a Staff? I recall using the Staff
of Striking to cause GBH on a couple of enemies, and that should be a legal
weapon for a Cleric/Thief.
> >The other sticking point for me was that looking at
> >the BG2 dramatis personae, I couldn't help feel that the odd NPC could
> have
> >been dropped (Senor Tree-Hugger, Hairy Dallas, Nalia etc) and been
> replaced
> >with a top notch Thief, or even a Grade A quality Cleric (although
> Viconia
> >is a tough nut, her alignment conflicts put a strain on a group, and I
> >refuse to put my faith in Annie, 12 Wisdom score and all).
>
> Viconia *can* be converted to chaotic good as part of the "romance"
> plots, thus ending the alignment conflicts. The only trouble is you
> can't rely on having her and Keldorn in the same group. (I don't know if
> Keldorn and Viconia will fight after she changes alignment.)
Even so, this conversion is a ToB-only thing, right? Which poses two
problems: (1) not everyone has ToB, and, more importantly, (2) you've got to
get through the romance plot with Viconia and run on into the ToB scripts
before you can actually alter her, and that's a long time to keep Keldorn
lying on the sidelines waiting to join your team.
> BTW, Viconia only had wisdom 15 in BG1. In fact, *all* the priests
> are a little hard done by, compared to mages, as none of them are higher
> than 16 in their spellcasting stat, whereas all the mages have 17 or, in
> Edwin's case, 18. (Mind you, there are *two* tomes of Wisdom in the
> game, or three if you include the one in Durlag's Tower. I still feel
> that Viconia should have had something like 17 wisdom, rather than 15:
> let her be the cleric equivalent of Edwin - the best at what she does,
> but very one-dimensional, and evil.)
Viconia could have been more useful in BG1 if magic resistance worked
properly (as it stood, she had 50% resistance to both enemy and friendly
spells), as she did have an excellent Dex (good for throwing bullets from
the back rows) as a secondary stat. The fact that BG1 is knee-deep in tomes
of Wisdom is enough to make most any Cleric into a decent spellcaster
(perhaps not Quayle, though ;-)). One thing BG1 Viconia didlack, IMHO, was
a really vicious set of soundbites - while Edwin had a delightfully evil
attitude, Viccy's lapses back into Drow mutterings made her sound like some
sort of homesick teenager, rather than as if she were putting curses of
voodoo dolls shaped in the fashion of Khalid's vital statistics.
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I guess my point is that I felt I had good, diverse choices
>> for most of my classes, except for the thieves.
>
>Definitely agreed. In the end, I decided to go with multi-player teams and
>roll my own Thieves, if I wasn't using Jan (who is IMHO the most capable all
>round Thief in BG2). The other sticking point for me was that looking at
>the BG2 dramatis personae, I couldn't help feel that the odd NPC could have
>been dropped (Senor Tree-Hugger, Hairy Dallas, Nalia etc) and been replaced
>with a top notch Thief, or even a Grade A quality Cleric (although Viconia
>is a tough nut, her alignment conflicts put a strain on a group, and I
>refuse to put my faith in Annie, 12 Wisdom score and all).
<sigh>
It's called game balance.
The game actually promotes an absence of true munchkinism, because two
of the best anti-undead troopers - Keldorn and Viconia - are mutually
exclusive. Much like the best mages and one of the best warriors -
Edwin and Minsc.
You can say they could drop them, but this is the infamous 'Aerie
sucks' lines. It's stupid. I've had a party consisting of Aerie,
Imoen, my female Paladin, and Anomen, and quite frankly, it was like
running opposition through a paper shredder. Why? Because I used the
characters properly.
Haer'Dalis is almost invaluable, in my mind, if only because of the
insane _versatility_ he brings to the group (hells, when he gets Use
Any Item and Improved Bardsong, the entire concept of bardom goes to
hell) and his actual _intelligence_. Give him Arbane's Shortsword and
fling on a Defensive Spin, and he gets a massive reduction to his AC
and gets to run around like a crackmonkey notwithstanding. He can
serve as a backup mage and even a thief of some skill.
Nalia shouldn't be played as a thief - she should be played as a Mage
with some weak thief skills. Mislead combined with her mild backstab
can make her quite dangerous there.
Cernd is an absolute and utter monster if you take the time to level
him up _once_ from where you get him. A naturally regenerative, AC-10,
low-THAC0, massive health fighter, who can be BOOSTED with items like
the rings of protection and cloaks, and can cast spells in the
downtime of combat is quite frankly one of the most monstrous things
the game has. With his ability, later, to summon Elemental Princes,
he's actually more than a bit broken. His unique items - a
regeneration booster, a Saving Throw bonus, and an AC bonus - only
compound this. With a single Blur or so thrown at him, I could
probably get Cernd's AC down to -20 or so _by the time I have him in
the party_. He's a frontline troper par excellance like that.
I mean, geeze. You can make _any_ character suck if you dislike them
enough. Before my current game, Jaheira was reguarded as a bit of a
dud, in my mind, because I just couldn't get a grip on how she works.
Right now, she's pulling in alongside my own character, despite him
having ten greater whirlwinds on her in ability.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after
all, has to make sense."
- Mark Twain
Talen
But of course. Anyway, it just struck me. Besides, I seriously suspect
Jan is like Haer'Dalis - a former Bioware Staffmember's PC.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after
all, has to make sense."
- Mark Twain
Derville
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The other sticking point for me was that looking at
> >the BG2 dramatis personae, I couldn't help feel that the odd NPC could
have
> >been dropped (Senor Tree-Hugger, Hairy Dallas, Nalia etc) and been
replaced
> >with a top notch Thief, or even a Grade A quality Cleric (although
Viconia
> >is a tough nut, her alignment conflicts put a strain on a group, and I
> >refuse to put my faith in Annie, 12 Wisdom score and all).
>
> <sigh>
>
> It's called game balance.
>
> The game actually promotes an absence of true munchkinism, because two
> of the best anti-undead troopers - Keldorn and Viconia - are mutually
> exclusive. Much like the best mages and one of the best warriors -
> Edwin and Minsc.
Promotes an absense of munchkinism? We are talking about the game where I
can get my hands on +3 weapons in the sewers, where shopkeepers merrily flog
+4 Staves to any old adventuring group, or where a Paladin could go through
90% of the game with a +5 Holy Avenger? When they drew up the item list for
BG2, believe me, munchkinism set out her fair stall and hammered her tent
pegs into the ground.
> You can say they could drop them, but this is the infamous 'Aerie
> sucks' lines. It's stupid. I've had a party consisting of Aerie,
> Imoen, my female Paladin, and Anomen, and quite frankly, it was like
> running opposition through a paper shredder. Why? Because I used the
> characters properly.
"Properly" is relative. I know that I can get through BG2 with mosy any
party, but I still have a list of NPC's who I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot
pole. The simple reason is that *comparatively*, some don't cut the mustard
when compared to other characters. I don't like Nalia because she's a
rotten Thief compared to Imoen; I don't like Jaheira because I don't like
the Druidic spell selection, and thus will take a Cleric ahead of her; I
don't like Mazzy because I think other characters make better use of their
weapon proficiencies.
Suggesting that some characters are weaker than others is not the same as
saying that "XYZ sucks", and my point above was that I would have preferred
to see some of those characters who I don't use being subbed out in favour
of a character who I would be far more inclined to make good use of. I make
good use of Thieves, certainly better use than I do of Bards, so I'd like to
see Haer'Dalis take a long walk off a short pier, and Coran come in to
replace him. Does that make Hairy rubbish? No, not per se, but it tells
the world that in my groups, he'll never be as useful for me as a thiefly
type character.
> Haer'Dalis is almost invaluable, in my mind, if only because of the
> insane _versatility_ he brings to the group (hells, when he gets Use
> Any Item and Improved Bardsong, the entire concept of bardom goes to
> hell) and his actual _intelligence_. Give him Arbane's Shortsword and
> fling on a Defensive Spin, and he gets a massive reduction to his AC
> and gets to run around like a crackmonkey notwithstanding. He can
> serve as a backup mage and even a thief of some skill.
Looking at plain BG2 (no ToB), Haer'Dalis only gets one thieving skill, and
that is arguably the least used of all the abilities on offer to rogues, in
the form of pickpocketing. As a Mage, he's limited to 6th level spells
(although he does have some interesting uses, especially with spells which
improve based on the character's level), which is an issue with Bards (and
also multi-classed Mages, it must be added). I could go on, but the short
and simple reply is that for me, all Bards are jacks of all trades but
masters of none, and that's not the sort of character I want to play. Give
me a group of specialists, and I'll use their specialist skills in
specialist situations. Give me a generalist, and I'll mope around with him
and try to stay away from situations which seem to call for specialist
abilities, because I don't think he will cut the mustard.
> Cernd is an absolute and utter monster if you take the time to level
> him up _once_ from where you get him. A naturally regenerative, AC-10,
AC-10????? In a word: how?
> low-THAC0,
In another word: how?
> I mean, geeze. You can make _any_ character suck if you dislike them
> enough. Before my current game, Jaheira was reguarded as a bit of a
> dud, in my mind, because I just couldn't get a grip on how she works.
> Right now, she's pulling in alongside my own character, despite him
> having ten greater whirlwinds on her in ability.
Bingo. I don't like certain characters (Jaheira being an excellent
example), and as a result I decide not to use her. I don't care if she
sucks or if she's the greatest killing machine since bubonic plague, the
simple fact is that she strikes me as the single reason why the Deafness
spell was invented. But hey, there's 16 NPC's in BG2, so I can afford to
give two-fingered salutes to half a dozen, then use a couple as fodder for
dragons, and still have enough left over to get through the game. It's
horses for courses, plain and simple. I don't like what some characters
serve up, so I leave them well alone. As a result, I've got less experience
of using them to their full measure, but since I run, hack, slash and kill
most things with the group I have, at the end of the day, I don't let it
worry me too much.
Talen
Items, yes, but justifiably so. And you can still lose. I don't agree
with how they did it, but TRUE Munchkinism - a party with the best
Mage, the best Cleric, the best Thief, and three mulch machines - is
rather hard to attain, at least for very long.
<snip>
>
>> Cernd is an absolute and utter monster if you take the time to level
>> him up _once_ from where you get him. A naturally regenerative, AC-10,
>
>AC-10????? In a word: how?
Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native armour class.
>> low-THAC0,
>
>In another word: how?
Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native THAC0.
I mean, he's a specialist class - 'Shapeshifter' - didn't that tip you
off? ^^;
<snip>
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Well, if you compare the heights of Goku and Vejita,
countering with Piccolo and Kuririn as the extremes of
the spectrum, then base it upon the human's base power
level of 5 as displayed thoroughly by the "average"
farmer, blah blah blah, blah blah...yadda yadda, blah
blah he is actually 2,738 feet and 9 inches tall.
"Piccok....Talen. This is Talen"
- Piccokuh, who's cool enough to get away with it.
Derville
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Promotes an absense of munchkinism? We are talking about the game where
I
> >can get my hands on +3 weapons in the sewers, where shopkeepers merrily
flog
> >+4 Staves to any old adventuring group, or where a Paladin could go
through
> >90% of the game with a +5 Holy Avenger? When they drew up the item list
for
> >BG2, believe me, munchkinism set out her fair stall and hammered her tent
> >pegs into the ground.
>
> Items, yes, but justifiably so. And you can still lose. I don't agree
> with how they did it, but TRUE Munchkinism - a party with the best
> Mage, the best Cleric, the best Thief, and three mulch machines - is
> rather hard to attain, at least for very long.
But with items which grant you bonus spells, AC bonuses and so on, I'd
counter that by saying you don't need to find an Edwin to have an unbalanced
group. Give any halfways decent rolled up Mage things like rings of
wizardry and Staves of the Magi, and you'll have a Grade A Munchkin before
you know what's going on. In fact, given the fact that I see some classes
where picking a "best" all-rounder can be tough (i.e. Clerics - Viconia wins
on pure spellcasting power, but fitting her into a party takes some doing,
due to strong anti-Drow feeling in Amn), but even so you can still take any
one of the Clerics on offer and turn them into pretty heinous deliverers of
destruction. Except Aerie ;-).
> <snip>
> >> Cernd is an absolute and utter monster if you take the time to level
> >> him up _once_ from where you get him. A naturally regenerative, AC-10,
> >
> >AC-10????? In a word: how?
>
> Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native armour class.
I could have sworn that wasn't the case for me. AC-3 or so, but I certainly
don't recall it being -10.
> >> low-THAC0,
> >
> >In another word: how?
>
> Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native THAC0.
>
> I mean, he's a specialist class - 'Shapeshifter' - didn't that tip you
> off? ^^;
No way - now I'm sure his THAC0 as a Greater Weirdwoof was about 10 or 12,
which was why I gave up on him (I cheated him up to 13th level to see what
his GW form was like in terms of stats, and it did not rock at all). Even
when shapeshifted, he still needs more performance-enhancing items than a
Chinese swimming squad to become capable of hitting anything at all by about
chapter 5 of BG2. Unless he has been severely tarted up in ToB, I'm 99%
certain that his BG2 GW form just doesn't cut the mustard as a front line
attacking force.
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:irkattokdu916ov22...@4ax.com...
>> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
>> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >Promotes an absense of munchkinism? We are talking about the game where
>I
>> >can get my hands on +3 weapons in the sewers, where shopkeepers merrily
>flog
>> >+4 Staves to any old adventuring group, or where a Paladin could go
>through
>> >90% of the game with a +5 Holy Avenger? When they drew up the item list
>for
>> >BG2, believe me, munchkinism set out her fair stall and hammered her tent
>> >pegs into the ground.
>>
>> Items, yes, but justifiably so. And you can still lose. I don't agree
>> with how they did it, but TRUE Munchkinism - a party with the best
>> Mage, the best Cleric, the best Thief, and three mulch machines - is
>> rather hard to attain, at least for very long.
>
>But with items which grant you bonus spells, AC bonuses and so on, I'd
>counter that by saying you don't need to find an Edwin to have an unbalanced
>group.
Then we have very different definitions of munchkin.
A Munchkin takes every rule and bends it to its absolute utter extreme
for the best possible combination they can make, doing things like
Faketalking, setting hundreds and hundreds of traps, repeatedly
stealing and selling items from and to the same shopekeeper, all in
the interest of simply making their character the biggest wrecking
machine possible. Go read gamefaq's team composition ideas sometime.
>Give any halfways decent rolled up Mage things like rings of
>wizardry and Staves of the Magi, and you'll have a Grade A Munchkin before
>you know what's going on.
No, you would have a _POWERFUL_ Mage. Edwin gains two spell slots he
_shouldn't_.
>In fact, given the fact that I see some classes
>where picking a "best" all-rounder can be tough (i.e. Clerics - Viconia wins
>on pure spellcasting power, but fitting her into a party takes some doing,
>due to strong anti-Drow feeling in Amn),
THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.
Viconia is easily the best Cleric for pure spellcasting. And also one
of the best for combat (her very high dex making her good with
slings). To discourage pure power parties, however, she's incompatible
with the best non-PC paladin in the game (a Paladin with unique items
to power him up, no less).
The warrior with the highest native strength - Minsc - is incompatible
with the mage with the highest intelligence - Edwin.
>but even so you can still take any
>one of the Clerics on offer and turn them into pretty heinous deliverers of
>destruction. Except Aerie ;-).
Now I _know_ you're just pulling my chain.
>> <snip>
>> >> Cernd is an absolute and utter monster if you take the time to level
>> >> him up _once_ from where you get him. A naturally regenerative, AC-10,
>> >
>> >AC-10????? In a word: how?
>>
>> Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native armour class.
>
>I could have sworn that wasn't the case for me. AC-3 or so, but I certainly
>don't recall it being -10.
-10, -12 if you put on the ring of protection. I got it down to -20
with the Gaxx Rings and a Blur Spell, IIRC.
>> >> low-THAC0,
>> >
>> >In another word: how?
>>
>> Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native THAC0.
>>
>> I mean, he's a specialist class - 'Shapeshifter' - didn't that tip you
>> off? ^^;
>
>No way - now I'm sure his THAC0 as a Greater Weirdwoof was about 10 or 12,
>which was why I gave up on him (I cheated him up to 13th level to see what
>his GW form was like in terms of stats, and it did not rock at all).
...
I'd love to know what DOES rock by your standards.
>Even
>when shapeshifted, he still needs more performance-enhancing items than a
>Chinese swimming squad to become capable of hitting anything at all by about
>chapter 5 of BG2.
You seem to hold the opinion that it's actually game-wise illegal to
send characters in when not completely butt-naked. If this is the
case, how the hell do you put up with the sight of Korgan's fuzzy butt
whenever you want to avoid imprisonment?
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
WE RECIEVED IT ON NEW YEARS. IT WAS RAPED IN GOLD AND HAD
BONNET. SINCE WE HAVE THE DOOM 2, I WILL NOT CLOSE THIS
GROUP. DOOM 2 IS US. GIVE US NO MORE UNTIL WE OF THE ASK.
- King Shocker, AFD again. Those whacky Italians.
Derville
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >But with items which grant you bonus spells, AC bonuses and so on, I'd
> >counter that by saying you don't need to find an Edwin to have an
unbalanced
> >group.
>
> Then we have very different definitions of munchkin.
>
> A Munchkin takes every rule and bends it to its absolute utter extreme
> for the best possible combination they can make, doing things like
> Faketalking, setting hundreds and hundreds of traps, repeatedly
> stealing and selling items from and to the same shopekeeper, all in
> the interest of simply making their character the biggest wrecking
> machine possible. Go read gamefaq's team composition ideas sometime.
OK, so my munchkin comes close to my definition of a powergamer, but there
still is a difference between the two. A munchkin is someone who just looks
plain wrong - he's over-equipped, over-armoured, and packs more spells than
you could cast in one human lifetime. I'm trying to think how I'd tell the
two apart, now. I guess a munchkin is the guy who inists on questionable
tactics (Cloudkilling from behind the fog of war), while the powergamer
takes every spell and item he has, and tries to use them as often as
possible (i.e. casting every protective spell in the book before fighting
Firkraag, and making sure to use Dragonslayer equipment, etc). Now while
both of these guys will have powerful items, in general I'd expect the
powergamer to be a more 'legit' player - rule out 2 rings of Gaxx, for
starters, or any other combination which is blatantly out of place (i.e.
being level 18 when you leave Irenicu's dungeon). I admit, it's not easy to
draw the distinction, but the items in BG2 certainly don't help me in my
efforts to separate these two player types.
> >Give any halfways decent rolled up Mage things like rings of
> >wizardry and Staves of the Magi, and you'll have a Grade A Munchkin
before
> >you know what's going on.
>
> No, you would have a _POWERFUL_ Mage. Edwin gains two spell slots he
> _shouldn't_.
Edwin's a cheat, of course. But if we take out all the illegal NPC's, then
the BG cast lists get trimmed severely. Out goes Anomen, out goes Minsc,
it's goodbye to Mazzy and her special powers too. But even then, if we look
at a maxed out BG2 Mage, you have a guy who can cast everything up to 8th
level spells from memory, can become invisible at will etc etc. Now, when
these are all added up, I make that pretty close to munchkin status. He's
basically at the stage where he can't help himself but let rip with some of
the most lethal spells in the AD&D world. It doesn't match your definition
of munchkin, but for the way I play, I find guys like this are more of a
chore to play than anything else, because they have too much power to be
useable in any real sense, within my playing style.
> >In fact, given the fact that I see some classes
> >where picking a "best" all-rounder can be tough (i.e. Clerics - Viconia
wins
> >on pure spellcasting power, but fitting her into a party takes some
doing,
> >due to strong anti-Drow feeling in Amn),
>
> THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.
>
> Viconia is easily the best Cleric for pure spellcasting. And also one
> of the best for combat (her very high dex making her good with
> slings). To discourage pure power parties, however, she's incompatible
> with the best non-PC paladin in the game (a Paladin with unique items
> to power him up, no less).
>
> The warrior with the highest native strength - Minsc - is incompatible
> with the mage with the highest intelligence - Edwin.
Yet the best Cleric, Mage and warrior in BG2 are all perfectly compatible
with one another's alignment (Vic, Edwin and Korgan). If I were making a
power group, I'd take those three, along with Jan (Chaotic Neutral) and then
perm any other non-Good NPC to fill the remaining space. I used Viconia as
an example, because a lot of people still play Good-aligned groups, and try
to fit the odd Evil NPC into their team. Viconia's a bit extreme, because
she's been hard coded to come into conflict with others, but her problems
really only arise if someone were to stick with their favourite NPC's, and
those happened to bring in a conflict. In pure powergaming, people like
Viccy have so much spellcasting power that I'd dump Keldorn like a shot to
have her in my group (if it came to the worst, I'd play a Paladin myself).
> >but even so you can still take any
> >one of the Clerics on offer and turn them into pretty heinous deliverers
of
> >destruction. Except Aerie ;-).
>
> Now I _know_ you're just pulling my chain.
I guess so. Ever seen Power Word:Sore Feet in action? ;-)
> >> <snip>
> >> Shapeshift to Greater Werewolf. That's his native armour class.
> >
> >I could have sworn that wasn't the case for me. AC-3 or so, but I
certainly
> >don't recall it being -10.
>
> -10, -12 if you put on the ring of protection. I got it down to -20
> with the Gaxx Rings and a Blur Spell, IIRC.
Is this with ToB installed? It could ruin my hopes of being a tax lawyer if
I keep forgetting to put noughts in where they belong (OTOH, that could make
me a *very good* tax lawyer), and this is only with AC's from 10 to -10.
> >No way - now I'm sure his THAC0 as a Greater Weirdwoof was about 10 or
12,
> >which was why I gave up on him (I cheated him up to 13th level to see
what
> >his GW form was like in terms of stats, and it did not rock at all).
> ...
>
> I'd love to know what DOES rock by your standards.
Hmmmm, it depends on the class. For a Druid, I don't expect much, because
they still get a raw deal in terms of a lot of items. For a critter which
has caused so much trouble to so many BG2 players, I'd expect the Greater
Weirdwoof to show a THAC0 which suggests it might have been capable of
harming my party, in the same way as the computer controlled GW's all manage
to hurt my group when they attack.
> >Even
> >when shapeshifted, he still needs more performance-enhancing items than a
> >Chinese swimming squad to become capable of hitting anything at all by
about
> >chapter 5 of BG2.
>
> You seem to hold the opinion that it's actually game-wise illegal to
> send characters in when not completely butt-naked. If this is the
> case, how the hell do you put up with the sight of Korgan's fuzzy butt
> whenever you want to avoid imprisonment?
Illegal? Nope. So darn stupid that you should be whacked with the Stupid
Stick and sent to do penance in Stupidsville Correctional Facility? Oh yes.
Frankly, I can't think of a single credible argument to support the idea
that characters should be used in any capacity other than pumped up to be as
effective as possible. Roleplaying, perhaps, but even then you find the
game often forces your hand so that unless you are pretty well defended,
you're likely to be toast in a matter of seconds. Still, it's what works
for me, and I'm way too lazy to change the way I play right now.
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:2t8ott4sdkghidr43...@4ax.com...
>
>> A Munchkin takes every rule and bends it to its absolute utter extreme
>> for the best possible combination they can make, doing things like
>> Faketalking, setting hundreds and hundreds of traps, repeatedly
>> stealing and selling items from and to the same shopekeeper, all in
>> the interest of simply making their character the biggest wrecking
>> machine possible. Go read gamefaq's team composition ideas sometime.
>
>OK, so my munchkin comes close to my definition of a powergamer, but there
>still is a difference between the two. A munchkin is someone who just looks
>plain wrong - he's over-equipped, over-armoured, and packs more spells than
>you could cast in one human lifetime. I'm trying to think how I'd tell the
>two apart, now. I guess a munchkin is the guy who inists on questionable
>tactics (Cloudkilling from behind the fog of war), while the powergamer
>takes every spell and item he has, and tries to use them as often as
>possible (i.e. casting every protective spell in the book before fighting
>Firkraag, and making sure to use Dragonslayer equipment, etc). Now while
>both of these guys will have powerful items, in general I'd expect the
>powergamer to be a more 'legit' player - rule out 2 rings of Gaxx, for
>starters, or any other combination which is blatantly out of place (i.e.
>being level 18 when you leave Irenicu's dungeon). I admit, it's not easy to
>draw the distinction, but the items in BG2 certainly don't help me in my
>efforts to separate these two player types.
Well, that's where I disagree with you, really; any character who's
level 18 or so, at least in my perceptions of it, EARNED that. It may
have been done by murdering over a hundred thousand Kobolds, but that
indicates, if nothing else, years of patience experience.
I wouldn't play like that, simply because I haven't the patience. ;p
>> >Give any halfways decent rolled up Mage things like rings of
>> >wizardry and Staves of the Magi, and you'll have a Grade A Munchkin
>before
>> >you know what's going on.
>>
>> No, you would have a _POWERFUL_ Mage. Edwin gains two spell slots he
>> _shouldn't_.
>
>Edwin's a cheat, of course. But if we take out all the illegal NPC's, then
>the BG cast lists get trimmed severely. Out goes Anomen, out goes Minsc,
This one I didn't know about - what's Minsc's failing? The lowered
stats aren't impossible by any stretch of the imagination. I've
encountered D&D modules where stats can be boosted and lowered, and a
DM who lets a character survive, say, a killing blow to an unprotected
head is well within his means to give the character a sever wisdom and
intelligence reduction.
>it's goodbye to Mazzy and her special powers too.
Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
admit, but still legal.
There has to be some leeway, in my mind, and in two of these three
cases, the 'illegality' is explained. Minsc's stats and Mazzy's powers
especially.
>But even then, if we look
>at a maxed out BG2 Mage, you have a guy who can cast everything up to 8th
>level spells from memory, can become invisible at will etc etc. Now, when
>these are all added up, I make that pretty close to munchkin status. He's
>basically at the stage where he can't help himself but let rip with some of
>the most lethal spells in the AD&D world. It doesn't match your definition
>of munchkin, but for the way I play, I find guys like this are more of a
>chore to play than anything else, because they have too much power to be
>useable in any real sense, within my playing style.
But of course. That's just the way things are in ANY power set. A
level 18 mage SHOULD be that desperately powerful. It's like how
astonished I was at the ease with which I dispatched Demogorgon, until
I realised Ferrous was a level 30/24 thief/fighter (wielding Carsomyr
and using three Greater Whirlwinds). Of COURSE you're powerful.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.
>>
>> Viconia is easily the best Cleric for pure spellcasting. And also one
>> of the best for combat (her very high dex making her good with
>> slings). To discourage pure power parties, however, she's incompatible
>> with the best non-PC paladin in the game (a Paladin with unique items
>> to power him up, no less).
>>
>> The warrior with the highest native strength - Minsc - is incompatible
>> with the mage with the highest intelligence - Edwin.
>
>Yet the best Cleric, Mage and warrior in BG2 are all perfectly compatible
>with one another's alignment (Vic, Edwin and Korgan).
To be honest, I think this was to give evil characters a leg up, given
their actual NPC range sucks ass. ;p
<snip>
>> >but even so you can still take any
>> >one of the Clerics on offer and turn them into pretty heinous deliverers
>of
>> >destruction. Except Aerie ;-).
>>
>> Now I _know_ you're just pulling my chain.
>
>I guess so. Ever seen Power Word:Sore Feet in action? ;-)
And now you've lost me. ;p
>> >I could have sworn that wasn't the case for me. AC-3 or so, but I
>certainly
>> >don't recall it being -10.
>>
>> -10, -12 if you put on the ring of protection. I got it down to -20
>> with the Gaxx Rings and a Blur Spell, IIRC.
>
>Is this with ToB installed? It could ruin my hopes of being a tax lawyer if
>I keep forgetting to put noughts in where they belong (OTOH, that could make
>me a *very good* tax lawyer), and this is only with AC's from 10 to -10.
Yes, I had ToB at the time. I've also mucked around with my own druids
and consistantly gotten that kind of power from a GWerewolf.
>> I'd love to know what DOES rock by your standards.
>
>Hmmmm, it depends on the class. For a Druid, I don't expect much, because
>they still get a raw deal in terms of a lot of items. For a critter which
>has caused so much trouble to so many BG2 players, I'd expect the Greater
>Weirdwoof to show a THAC0 which suggests it might have been capable of
>harming my party, in the same way as the computer controlled GW's all manage
>to hurt my group when they attack.
Well, get any Druid up to level 15. You'll eat your words. ^_^
>> You seem to hold the opinion that it's actually game-wise illegal to
>> send characters in when not completely butt-naked. If this is the
>> case, how the hell do you put up with the sight of Korgan's fuzzy butt
>> whenever you want to avoid imprisonment?
>
>Illegal? Nope. So darn stupid that you should be whacked with the Stupid
>Stick and sent to do penance in Stupidsville Correctional Facility? Oh yes.
>Frankly, I can't think of a single credible argument to support the idea
>that characters should be used in any capacity other than pumped up to be as
>effective as possible. Roleplaying, perhaps, but even then you find the
>game often forces your hand so that unless you are pretty well defended,
>you're likely to be toast in a matter of seconds. Still, it's what works
>for me, and I'm way too lazy to change the way I play right now.
<shrugs> I killed Demogorgon because my character simply wouldn't let
the attitude it displayed slide (it comes from being a drunkard). In
many cases, Ferrous' personality leant itself to a bit of nasty
roleplaying, if only because he was the sort of guy who WOULD set a
trap near a fairly predictable locale for an opponent. Spike traps
were nasty. ^_^
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Writing is a profession in which you have to keep proving
your talent to people who have none."
- Jules Renard
Kish
> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
> admit, but still legal.
A prestige class? Mazzy? Which one?
--
Kish
ICQ# 28085879
AIM Kish K M
Talen
wrote:
>Talen wrote:
>
>
>> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
>> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
>> admit, but still legal.
>
>A prestige class? Mazzy? Which one?
Lightbringers, I'm told. Halfling-only, but nonetheless, basically, a
short Paladin.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
<gilmae> i'm going to fucking do it now, i'm gonna fucking
crack him just to prove you wrong
Hong Ooi
<tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>It has been brought to my attention that Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Talen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
>>> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
>>> admit, but still legal.
>>
>>A prestige class? Mazzy? Which one?
>
>Lightbringers, I'm told. Halfling-only, but nonetheless, basically, a
>short Paladin.
No need for that. Halfling paladins can and do exist.
--
Hong Ooi | "I'm ready to go to Hell, but the Jaheira
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | romance seems to have stopped."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- MM
Canberra, Australia |
Marvael
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:26:48 +1100, Talen
><tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>It has been brought to my attention that Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Talen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
>>>> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
>>>> admit, but still legal.
>>>
>>>A prestige class? Mazzy? Which one?
>>
>>Lightbringers, I'm told. Halfling-only, but nonetheless, basically, a
>>short Paladin.
>
>No need for that. Halfling paladins can and do exist.
In 3E, halflings can be paladins, yes.
But you roll your stats before you choose class. When you roll stats
that are not up to par of those required to be a paladin, you can
become a lightbringer. I don't know much about 3E, but this is what
I think. I envision Mazzy like someone who wants to be a paladin and
just can't be. Because of that, she became the next best. If Talen
is right, maybe then Anomen's 10 wisdom is legal for dualling in 3E
also? (So, Anomen and Mazzy are legal 3E characters?)
Mark Blunden
news:ncuvtt0jd6bc9cpht...@4ax.com...
> If Talen is right, maybe then Anomen's 10 wisdom is legal for dualling in
> 3E also? (So, Anomen and Mazzy are legal 3E characters?)
There are no dualling requirements in 3E. If your charater meets the basic
requirements for a class, you can choose to level-up in that class next time
you level-up.
--
Mark.
mar...@btinternet.com
* Hey, what does this button do?
Hong Ooi
>
>In 3E, halflings can be paladins, yes.
>But you roll your stats before you choose class. When you roll stats
>that are not up to par of those required to be a paladin, you can
>become a lightbringer. I don't know much about 3E, but this is what
>I think. I envision Mazzy like someone who wants to be a paladin and
>just can't be.
In 3E, there are no rule-specific reasons why someone who wants to be X
can't be X; in particular, there are no stat-based restrictions on what
classes they can take. They may not be very _effective_ at being X, but
they can still try. The DM is (as always) free to limit class combos that
don't seem logical or reasonable in the context of the campaign.
>Because of that, she became the next best. If Talen
>is right, maybe then Anomen's 10 wisdom is legal for dualling in 3E
>also? (So, Anomen and Mazzy are legal 3E characters?)
Annie would be a prime example of the above; with his 10 Wis, he wouldn't
beable to cast any cleric spells at all in 3E (except orisons, which are
0-level spells).
Kish
> In 3E, halflings can be paladins, yes.
> But you roll your stats before you choose class. When you roll stats
> that are not up to par of those required to be a paladin, you can
> become a lightbringer. I don't know much about 3E, but this is what
> I think.
No such thing as "stats that are not up to par of those required to be a
paladin." No such thing as "stats required to be a paladin," or any
other non-prestige class. In 3E.
> I envision Mazzy like someone who wants to be a paladin and
> just can't be. Because of that, she became the next best. If Talen
> is right, maybe then Anomen's 10 wisdom is legal for dualling in 3E
> also?
No stat requirements for dualling in 3E, but dual-classing (which is the
same thing as multiclassing, just with only two classes) is completely
different from both BG2 and 2E. Anomen and Mazzy are not legal 3E
characters.
None of the characters are, really. Baldur's Gate 2 doesn't function by
AD&D 2ed or D&D 3ed rules. It only functions by BG2 rules, and it's
silly to complain about it not being something it's not trying to be.
Talen
<ma...@wish.net.nospam> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:54:43 +1100, Hong Ooi
><hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:26:48 +1100, Talen
>><tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>It has been brought to my attention that Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Talen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
>>>>> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
>>>>> admit, but still legal.
>>>>
>>>>A prestige class? Mazzy? Which one?
>>>
>>>Lightbringers, I'm told. Halfling-only, but nonetheless, basically, a
>>>short Paladin.
>>
>>No need for that. Halfling paladins can and do exist.
>
>In 3E, halflings can be paladins, yes.
>But you roll your stats before you choose class. When you roll stats
>that are not up to par of those required to be a paladin, you can
>become a lightbringer. I don't know much about 3E, but this is what
>I think. I envision Mazzy like someone who wants to be a paladin and
>just can't be. Because of that, she became the next best. If Talen
>is right, maybe then Anomen's 10 wisdom is legal for dualling in 3E
>also? (So, Anomen and Mazzy are legal 3E characters?)
There is no 3E dual-classing; instead, there's multiclassing, which
yes, Anomen could do, he's just putting all his levels into Cleric,
and none into Fighter. I have a sorceror with only 12 dex, who's a
sorceror/rogue now.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Demographic is a word that means 'You are only money to us'."
- µ
Mike Schneider
GIANT penises.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Talen
(Mike Schneider) wrote:
>
>GIANT penises.
Er...
This is actually quite ironic, for in my very first gaming session of
D&D, when I created Weyr, I gave him ridiculously mediocre stats - 12,
12, 11, 12, 12, 14. After the group munchkin (who has since left)
laughed at me, I heard that I had to roll for his 'talent', to see how
big his penis was.
Being a complete novice at this, I took the proferred percentile dice,
rolled, and managed to roll a 94.
Since then the usual wang-measurement contests have been rather moot.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.plushies
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
Derville
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Now while
> >both of these guys will have powerful items, in general I'd expect the
> >powergamer to be a more 'legit' player - rule out 2 rings of Gaxx, for
> >starters, or any other combination which is blatantly out of place (i.e.
> >being level 18 when you leave Irenicu's dungeon). I admit, it's not easy
to
> >draw the distinction, but the items in BG2 certainly don't help me in my
> >efforts to separate these two player types.
>
> Well, that's where I disagree with you, really; any character who's
> level 18 or so, at least in my perceptions of it, EARNED that. It may
> have been done by murdering over a hundred thousand Kobolds, but that
> indicates, if nothing else, years of patience experience.
>
> I wouldn't play like that, simply because I haven't the patience. ;p
But I do have the CLUAConsole, so life isn't all bad ;-). Actually, I'm not
sure if there is an infinite XP source in Irenicus' dungeon, so chances are
you'd have to cheat to get that much XP before hitting the streets of
Athkatla. Still, although the character may have earned the XP in as much
as he's killed umpteen thousand kobolds, he can still be a munchkin in my
books if he killed them all by fake-talking to make sure he never got hit by
the enemy (and thus never had to heal himself during those long hours of
slaughter), or some other such iffy set of tactics. Still makes him a right
twit to do all this instead of loading up Shadowkeeper instead ;-).
> >Edwin's a cheat, of course. But if we take out all the illegal NPC's,
then
> >the BG cast lists get trimmed severely. Out goes Anomen, out goes Minsc,
>
> This one I didn't know about - what's Minsc's failing? The lowered
> stats aren't impossible by any stretch of the imagination. I've
> encountered D&D modules where stats can be boosted and lowered, and a
> DM who lets a character survive, say, a killing blow to an unprotected
> head is well within his means to give the character a sever wisdom and
> intelligence reduction.
Minsc has illegal Wisdom for a Ranger (8?), same way as Annie has illegal
Wisdom for a dual-class (12, which can be upped to 16 tops). I know the
game justifies it (and to be honest, I do agree with it), but it's still
such a low score that he's not even borderline, which does make it tougher
to deal with. I suppose you could argue things like Edwin's cheat in the
player's favour compensates for Minsc's cheat which goes against the player
(over-compensates, more accurately), and I think I'd have to, otherwise I'd
be barred from ever using Coran if I replay BG1.
> >it's goodbye to Mazzy and her special powers too.
>
> Not per se. There are a lot of 'illegal' stuff by _core_ rules, yes,
> but at least in 3rd ed, Mazzy is 100% legal. A prestige class, I'll
> admit, but still legal.
>
> There has to be some leeway, in my mind, and in two of these three
> cases, the 'illegality' is explained. Minsc's stats and Mazzy's powers
> especially.
OK, agreed, as I explained above. It's prima facie illegal, but at least
the game explains it. Edwin and Anomen, OTOH, do not have their illegal
scores explained, which does suggest some inconsistency in the game design.
> >But even then, if we look
> >at a maxed out BG2 Mage, you have a guy who can cast everything up to 8th
> >level spells from memory, can become invisible at will etc etc. Now,
when
> >these are all added up, I make that pretty close to munchkin status.
He's
> >basically at the stage where he can't help himself but let rip with some
of
> >the most lethal spells in the AD&D world. It doesn't match your
definition
> >of munchkin, but for the way I play, I find guys like this are more of a
> >chore to play than anything else, because they have too much power to be
> >useable in any real sense, within my playing style.
>
> But of course. That's just the way things are in ANY power set. A
> level 18 mage SHOULD be that desperately powerful. It's like how
> astonished I was at the ease with which I dispatched Demogorgon, until
> I realised Ferrous was a level 30/24 thief/fighter (wielding Carsomyr
> and using three Greater Whirlwinds). Of COURSE you're powerful.
I should mention that being level 18 is part of my problem with liking BG2
in general ;-). As the game shows, it's impossible to create a balanced
challenge for a group, even more so in a game so oriented towards combat as
BG2 is. This is why I group a lot of high level abilities with munchkinism,
because to an extent I see them as 'selling out' the things I liked about
BG1, and (somewhat less so) the things I liked about the early parts of BG2.
I found it quite hard to adapt to the BG2 mindset of high level
weapons/spells/enemies, and this habit still dies hard chez moi.
> >Yet the best Cleric, Mage and warrior in BG2 are all perfectly compatible
> >with one another's alignment (Vic, Edwin and Korgan).
>
> To be honest, I think this was to give evil characters a leg up, given
> their actual NPC range sucks ass. ;p
After BG1, the limited NPC selection in BG2 was a bit of a let-down for me,
especially since so much of the extra dialogue given to characters was
little more than moaning (Nalia got an entire soundset of moans, for
starters...). If this "The Darkest Day" add-on gave a few extra NPC's, it
might be interesting to install. Sadly, at 200-odd meg, I doubt my phone
bill could stretch that far in this lifetime.
> >> >but even so you can still take any
> >> >one of the Clerics on offer and turn them into pretty heinous
deliverers
> >of
> >> >destruction. Except Aerie ;-).
> >>
> >> Now I _know_ you're just pulling my chain.
> >
> >I guess so. Ever seen Power Word:Sore Feet in action? ;-)
>
> And now you've lost me. ;p
It's a 9th level spell, causing all people to make a saving throw at -4 or
suffer Aerie's moans about the condition of her calloused tootsies. Very
similar to Abi-Dalzim's Horrific Whining, or Tasha's Unbearable Derisive
Moaning ;-).
> >> -10, -12 if you put on the ring of protection. I got it down to -20
> >> with the Gaxx Rings and a Blur Spell, IIRC.
> >
> >Is this with ToB installed? It could ruin my hopes of being a tax lawyer
if
> >I keep forgetting to put noughts in where they belong (OTOH, that could
make
> >me a *very good* tax lawyer), and this is only with AC's from 10 to -10.
>
> Yes, I had ToB at the time. I've also mucked around with my own druids
> and consistantly gotten that kind of power from a GWerewolf.
Maybe ToB pumps up the GW. Of course, after sitting in a lecture hall going
through the finer points of double entry book-keeping (a vital skill for
solicitors - wtf?), I admit my memory may have been a bit warped when I was
trying to think what the GW stats were.
> >> I'd love to know what DOES rock by your standards.
> >
> >Hmmmm, it depends on the class. For a Druid, I don't expect much,
because
> >they still get a raw deal in terms of a lot of items. For a critter
which
> >has caused so much trouble to so many BG2 players, I'd expect the Greater
> >Weirdwoof to show a THAC0 which suggests it might have been capable of
> >harming my party, in the same way as the computer controlled GW's all
manage
> >to hurt my group when they attack.
>
> Well, get any Druid up to level 15. You'll eat your words. ^_^
Hmmmm - if I were to remove the BG2 XP-cap and take a Druid up to 15th
level, do you know what I'd end up with? I might try it, just to see if
normal BG2 has implemented any of the high level abilities, just so I can
have a look at what a 15th level Druid actually does. I've got to admit,
though, that from what I've read of their high level abilities in PnP, the
BG2 Druids are either (a) pretty useless as party members, or (b) altered
considerably from their PnP counterparts, in order to be effective team
members at higher levels.
> >Frankly, I can't think of a single credible argument to support the idea
> >that characters should be used in any capacity other than pumped up to be
as
> >effective as possible. Roleplaying, perhaps, but even then you find the
> >game often forces your hand so that unless you are pretty well defended,
> >you're likely to be toast in a matter of seconds. Still, it's what works
> >for me, and I'm way too lazy to change the way I play right now.
>
> <shrugs> I killed Demogorgon because my character simply wouldn't let
> the attitude it displayed slide (it comes from being a drunkard). In
> many cases, Ferrous' personality leant itself to a bit of nasty
> roleplaying, if only because he was the sort of guy who WOULD set a
> trap near a fairly predictable locale for an opponent. Spike traps
> were nasty. ^_^
I never really think about roleplaying anymore, mainly because BG2 often
still boils down to picking between pretty much polarised choices. You can
initiate attack with other people, try to run away, or do something else
(pay them money, give them information to appease them, etc), and it does
get a wee bit tough to try and think beyond those boundaries. Especially if
you're as tired as I am these days. Well, who thought it was wise to make a
student work 9am-6pm twice a week?
--
Phil on his new pooter; cursing university timetables, enjoying BG2 when
he's not too tired
(remove "your.inhibitions" to reply)
Talen
It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> This one I didn't know about - what's Minsc's failing? The lowered
>> stats aren't impossible by any stretch of the imagination. I've
>> encountered D&D modules where stats can be boosted and lowered, and a
>> DM who lets a character survive, say, a killing blow to an unprotected
>> head is well within his means to give the character a sever wisdom and
>> intelligence reduction.
>
>Minsc has illegal Wisdom for a Ranger (8?),
Yes, I know. But unless Minsc is level 1 when you meet him for the
first time, he's not actually illegal per se; for example, in one of
the games I DM, one character has actually been rendered blind by
seeing a god. In another game, a character's STR stat has been knocked
down to 4.
The 'DM' is well within his rights to screw up characters after their
creation. Say, Minsc was played by a character who tried to fight a
dozen gnolls on their own, and the DM, rather than be a bastard about
it, decided to allow him to survive, but at sever penalties for doing
something stupid - in this case, permanent head trauma. In another
module I know, a Ravenloft one, every character can get a boost to one
physical stat.
>same way as Annie has illegal
>Wisdom for a dual-class (12, which can be upped to 16 tops).
That, I can't argue. If the game were 3rd ed, I'd have allowed it.
Just wouldn't have liked it. I do have to say that Anomen really
doesn't deserve a +6 to wisdom for just becoming a knight. Maybe if he
gained a wisdom point after every romance dialogue that was done
'properly' I'd swallow it.
>> There has to be some leeway, in my mind, and in two of these three
>> cases, the 'illegality' is explained. Minsc's stats and Mazzy's powers
>> especially.
>
>OK, agreed, as I explained above. It's prima facie illegal, but at least
>the game explains it. Edwin and Anomen, OTOH, do not have their illegal
>scores explained, which does suggest some inconsistency in the game design.
Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
>> To be honest, I think this was to give evil characters a leg up, given
>> their actual NPC range sucks ass. ;p
>
>After BG1, the limited NPC selection in BG2 was a bit of a let-down for me,
>especially since so much of the extra dialogue given to characters was
>little more than moaning (Nalia got an entire soundset of moans, for
>starters...). If this "The Darkest Day" add-on gave a few extra NPC's, it
>might be interesting to install. Sadly, at 200-odd meg, I doubt my phone
>bill could stretch that far in this lifetime.
You could try ordering it on CD, like they're offering...
>> Well, get any Druid up to level 15. You'll eat your words. ^_^
>
>Hmmmm - if I were to remove the BG2 XP-cap and take a Druid up to 15th
>level, do you know what I'd end up with? I might try it, just to see if
>normal BG2 has implemented any of the high level abilities, just so I can
>have a look at what a 15th level Druid actually does. I've got to admit,
>though, that from what I've read of their high level abilities in PnP, the
>BG2 Druids are either (a) pretty useless as party members, or (b) altered
>considerably from their PnP counterparts, in order to be effective team
>members at higher levels.
Okay, the Druid Special abilities are similar to the Cleric ones,
except for three extras; they can (as an innate ability) shapeshift to
a Greater Earth or Greater Fire elemental and they can summon the
Elemental Princes _as a rule_.
However, a 14th level Druid is just tough. A 15th level druid is, by
2nd ed rules, a Hierophant. Even Jahiera, with her shitty wisdom, gets
about 9 7th level spells, and a big fat bonus in the Thac0 and saving
throw departments.
And by the way, a Greater Earth Elemental using Greater Whirlwind
looks like a gravel-driven mulcher. ^_^
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"And the piano it sounds like a piano, and the microphone
smells like a microphone, and they sit at my bar and put bread
in my jar and it gets soggy and sinks to the bottom."
- Paul McDermott, impersonating Billy Joel
will
becoming a ranger. It happened during his trip out of Rashemon with
Dynaheir. Therefore it is completely possible for him to be a Ranger and
have the low wisdom.
As I've stated b4 I've never played PnP D&D but i did have a thief
character in GURPS (I know, totally different rules) who had a hand
chopped of in a fight. He was still a pretty good theif, he just had to
make his pickpocket throws with a penalty. I thought this was a small
price to pay because I really got into this character and his
personality.
--
JG1_Rock
Rockhound
If Superman was invulnerable. Why did he always duck when someone threw
a gun at him?
Marvael
>I only want to comment on minsc. He recieved his head wound after
>becoming a ranger. It happened during his trip out of Rashemon with
>Dynaheir. Therefore it is completely possible for him to be a Ranger and
>have the low wisdom.
Yes. The 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook clearly says that a character
only has to meet the minimal stats at creation. What happens after
that, is of no effect to the class. IIRC, in BG1, Dynaheir even says
something like this: "Minsc is a fearsome warrior, but after he
received a blow to the head, he isn't the wisest anymore." That is
just before you take her into her group.
>As I've stated b4 I've never played PnP D&D but i did have a thief
>character in GURPS (I know, totally different rules) who had a hand
>chopped of in a fight. He was still a pretty good theif, he just had to
>make his pickpocket throws with a penalty. I thought this was a small
>price to pay because I really got into this character and his
>personality.
That's what roleplaying is all about. Getting into character. In BG1
and 2, this isn't entirely possible... if you would like, you could
roleplay Keldorn, or Jaheira, and leave your own protagonist as if
he was just an NPC. In NWN, where you are alone, you CAN roleyplay
your character, basically because you have to. (IMHO(
[snip very long quote]
Bob Macfie
Talen wrote:
>
> Mucho snipping ahead.
Much more now. :)
> I do have to say that Anomen really doesn't deserve a +6 to wisdom
> for just becoming a knight.
Er, +4 actually. I get him to go from 12 to 16.
> Maybe if he gained a wisdom point after every romance dialogue that
> was done 'properly' I'd swallow it.
Once again, Talen, I recommend Planescape: Torment to you.
^_^
> >> There has to be some leeway, in my mind, and in two of these
> >> three cases, the 'illegality' is explained. Minsc's stats and
> >> Mazzy's powers especially.
> >OK, agreed, as I explained above. It's prima facie illegal, but at
> >least the game explains it. Edwin and Anomen, OTOH, do not have
> >their illegal scores explained, which does suggest some
> > inconsistency in the game design.
> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
No, it's not. I don't know why everyone insists it's a bug,
when the reason for his enhanced power has been sitting
right under his chin for both games now.
Have you ever wondered WHY you can't switch his necklace
for one of the magic items you find? THAT is the source of
his power boost. In effect, it is a non-removable,
high-powered, Ring of Wizardry.
He won't tell you that, because he wouldn't trust you with
that knowledge. And I assume it will work for no one else
because it's been attuned only to members of his family.
This might even explain why he doesn't lose his bonus spells
when he dies, unlike other wizards.
You can't find it because it appears like a worthless
trinket to those not of the Odeisseron (sp?) family. (And he
might be related to a guy who struck me as one of the most
powerful 7th lvl wizards in Faerun, if the rules had been
done right. Homen Odeisseron could have been a specialist in
4 separate schools, under 2nd Ed rules!)
As for Minsc, he actually has a 14 Wisdom - it's just that
8 points of it are in Minsc and 6 in Boo. Think about it -
that little furry friend in his inventory is what allows him
to gain levels and spells as a ranger. I'm not sure it's
tied into the game somehow, but the idea works for me. ^_^
The right way to test it would be to create a ranger and
have him use a Cursed Scroll of Foolishness and see if he
can still cast spells after that.
> Okay, the Druid Special abilities are similar to the Cleric ones,
> except for three extras; they can (as an innate ability) shapeshift
> to a Greater Earth or Greater Fire elemental and they can summon the
> Elemental Princes _as a rule_.
All they need to do is take Greater Elemental Summoning
first for that last spell. But the Elemental Princes are
very handy in a fight. A planetar may be superior due to
spell diversity, but the princes cause pretty hefty damage,
and are not without a few tricks of their own. (Though I do
find casting Earthquake unnerving.)
> However, a 14th level Druid is just tough. A 15th level druid is, by
> 2nd ed rules, a Hierophant. Even Jahiera, with her shitty wisdom,
> gets about 9 7th level spells, and a big fat bonus in the Thac0 and
> saving throw departments.
I think it's more like six 7th level spells. And I always
took Mass Raise Dead as the first high level ability for
Cernd, since his major drawback next to Jaheira and the
clerics was his inability to raise party members before that
point.
Even so, having a choice of six 7th level druid spells is
no small bonus.
(I have no idea why, but now I'm thinking of Cernd as the
father of Street Fighter's Dan Hibiki - also seen as a
rather hopeless cause. I blame you for this, Talen. ;p)
> And by the way, a Greater Earth Elemental using Greater Whirlwind
> looks like a gravel-driven mulcher. ^_^
A recipe for victory.
1. Take one dragon.
2. Transform to earth elemental shape.
3. Activate Greater Whirlwind attack.
4. Place dragon within the path of the granite blender.
5. Puree.
6. Hire someone else to clean the walls of the cave. ;p
Bob Macfie
Derville
> Mucho snipping ahead.
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Minsc has illegal Wisdom for a Ranger (8?),
>
> Yes, I know. But unless Minsc is level 1 when you meet him for the
> first time, he's not actually illegal per se; for example, in one of
> the games I DM, one character has actually been rendered blind by
> seeing a god. In another game, a character's STR stat has been knocked
> down to 4.
>
> The 'DM' is well within his rights to screw up characters after their
> creation. Say, Minsc was played by a character who tried to fight a
> dozen gnolls on their own, and the DM, rather than be a bastard about
> it, decided to allow him to survive, but at sever penalties for doing
> something stupid - in this case, permanent head trauma. In another
> module I know, a Ravenloft one, every character can get a boost to one
> physical stat.
But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on the
fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these situations?
One of the things the BG games really need on the box is to get a marker pen
and just below the bit which says "Officially licensed AD&D product" pencil
in "but we muddled a few rules, just for the heck of it".
> >same way as Annie has illegal
> >Wisdom for a dual-class (12, which can be upped to 16 tops).
>
> That, I can't argue. If the game were 3rd ed, I'd have allowed it.
> Just wouldn't have liked it. I do have to say that Anomen really
> doesn't deserve a +6 to wisdom for just becoming a knight. Maybe if he
> gained a wisdom point after every romance dialogue that was done
> 'properly' I'd swallow it.
It certainly feels weird to let Anomen get a massive Wisdom bonus if he
falls in love with a Chaotic Evil Necromancer ;-). But I don't see why he
needed such a low Wisdom to start off with. OK, he's meant to be a bit
headstrong and not all that easy to get on with, but as a Clerical subclass,
it still feels wrong to give him such a low score, game balance or no. I
guess we're in agreement on this one, which means it's now a dead cert that
Anomen will get a cameo in NWN as the wise old village elder who is full of
useless information, and is only too keen to share it with passing
adventurers.
> >> There has to be some leeway, in my mind, and in two of these three
> >> cases, the 'illegality' is explained. Minsc's stats and Mazzy's powers
> >> especially.
> >
> >OK, agreed, as I explained above. It's prima facie illegal, but at least
> >the game explains it. Edwin and Anomen, OTOH, do not have their illegal
> >scores explained, which does suggest some inconsistency in the game
design.
>
> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
Edwin does get bonus spells from his amulet, which accounts for one spell
per level. The other one is just from being a specialist, so the game does
in fact rationalise his behaviour (I forgot about his amulet when I laid
into him before). It still doesn't sotp it being a bit of a swiz for anyone
who thinks they've rolled up the greatest Mage ever to sail the seven seas,
and IMHO such items do push the boundary towards illegality, or well into
the realms of munchkinism at the very least.
> >After BG1, the limited NPC selection in BG2 was a bit of a let-down for
me,
> >especially since so much of the extra dialogue given to characters was
> >little more than moaning (Nalia got an entire soundset of moans, for
> >starters...). If this "The Darkest Day" add-on gave a few extra NPC's,
it
> >might be interesting to install. Sadly, at 200-odd meg, I doubt my phone
> >bill could stretch that far in this lifetime.
>
> You could try ordering it on CD, like they're offering...
Who's doing this? FilePlanet, no doubt. The TeamBG website has been taken
off the airwaves, since their ISP allegedly went belly-up, but FilePlanet
are the main site I know of who operate this ability to let people specify
custom CD's. Sadly, I'm still boycotting their site at the moment, so my
nose will have to remain firmly cut off in order to spite my face.
> >Hmmmm - if I were to remove the BG2 XP-cap and take a Druid up to 15th
> >level, do you know what I'd end up with? I might try it, just to see if
> >normal BG2 has implemented any of the high level abilities, just so I can
> >have a look at what a 15th level Druid actually does.
>
> Okay, the Druid Special abilities are similar to the Cleric ones,
> except for three extras; they can (as an innate ability) shapeshift to
> a Greater Earth or Greater Fire elemental and they can summon the
> Elemental Princes _as a rule_.
Are their Elemental forms tougher than the standard ones you fight in BG2?
IIRC, the Elemental summoning areas in the Underdark used plain Jane
Elementals (not your Greater variety), but they were really a pushover for a
couple of good sword arms. Hopefully Greater Elementals will get some nice
spells as well *imagines Earth Elementals with innate Earthquake spell when
they walk...*
> However, a 14th level Druid is just tough. A 15th level druid is, by
> 2nd ed rules, a Hierophant. Even Jahiera, with her shitty wisdom, gets
> about 9 7th level spells, and a big fat bonus in the Thac0 and saving
> throw departments.
This was one of the things which made me dubious about high level Druids.
They really change so much that they start to look like a totally new class
(the fact that their XP gets reset in PnP when they hit 15th level further
reflects this). However, I'm not sure as to how gaining a Druid level
should give Jaheira any real THAC0 bonuses (although she needs them far more
than a proper warrior ever does). In fact, far be it from me to suggest
that some of the BG2 Druid rules were put in deliberately to make Jaheira a
somewhat useable NPC, but she does seem to gain an awful lot in the game as
a whole, compared to the rough ride her tree hugging ilk could so easily
have been given.
> And by the way, a Greater Earth Elemental using Greater Whirlwind
> looks like a gravel-driven mulcher. ^_^
Thanks for the mental image there ;-). What with Guy Fawkes' Night coming
up, I am only left with images of Catherine wheels to use when imagining how
a Greater Fire Elemental looks with Greater Whirlwind in operation.
--
Gert-Jan Spoel
news:9s0tv7$7up$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
:
: But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on
the
: fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these
situations?
: One of the things the BG games really need on the box is to get a marker
pen
: and just below the bit which says "Officially licensed AD&D product"
pencil
: in "but we muddled a few rules, just for the heck of it".
The first rule is that all are just guidelines. If you want to follow them,
or explain them in one way or another it's up to you. Therefor they are not
muddleing a few rules, the following the first rule ;)
--
Gert-Jan
When God passed out heads, I thought He said beds, and I asked for a big
soft one.
Talen
wrote:
>
>
>Talen wrote:
>>
>> Mucho snipping ahead.
>
> Much more now. :)
Ditto voce.
>> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
>
> No, it's not.
Actually, it is. Edwin, butt naked, cheated to be in a state of
nothingness, still, on every level up, gains extra spells he
shouldn't.
It's not that the artifact can't conveniently explain it - it's that
the artifact should actually do that instead. Instead of just having
the extra spells appear ex nihilo.
> (I have no idea why, but now I'm thinking of Cernd as the
>father of Street Fighter's Dan Hibiki - also seen as a
>rather hopeless cause. I blame you for this, Talen. ;p)
Dan Hibiki's OYAAAJIIIII was a really good figter, wasn't he? ^^;
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.anything.but.tuna
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The 'DM' is well within his rights to screw up characters after their
>> creation. Say, Minsc was played by a character who tried to fight a
>> dozen gnolls on their own, and the DM, rather than be a bastard about
>> it, decided to allow him to survive, but at sever penalties for doing
>> something stupid - in this case, permanent head trauma. In another
>> module I know, a Ravenloft one, every character can get a boost to one
>> physical stat.
>
>But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on the
>fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these situations?
Since it was an official Ravenloft Module, I'm going to hazard that it
was standard AD&D. Hell, it was even 2nd ed.
>One of the things the BG games really need on the box is to get a marker pen
>and just below the bit which says "Officially licensed AD&D product" pencil
>in "but we muddled a few rules, just for the heck of it".
The first rule is to only use the rules you want.
>> >might be interesting to install. Sadly, at 200-odd meg, I doubt my phone
>> >bill could stretch that far in this lifetime.
>>
>> You could try ordering it on CD, like they're offering...
>
>Who's doing this? FilePlanet, no doubt. The TeamBG website has been taken
>off the airwaves, since their ISP allegedly went belly-up, but FilePlanet
>are the main site I know of who operate this ability to let people specify
>custom CD's. Sadly, I'm still boycotting their site at the moment, so my
>nose will have to remain firmly cut off in order to spite my face.
TeamBg's site's back up, with multiple download sites for TDD.
>> Okay, the Druid Special abilities are similar to the Cleric ones,
>> except for three extras; they can (as an innate ability) shapeshift to
>> a Greater Earth or Greater Fire elemental and they can summon the
>> Elemental Princes _as a rule_.
>
>Are their Elemental forms tougher than the standard ones you fight in BG2?
I'm pretty sure of it.
>IIRC, the Elemental summoning areas in the Underdark used plain Jane
>Elementals (not your Greater variety),
Nah, they were greaters.
>but they were really a pushover for a
>couple of good sword arms. Hopefully Greater Elementals will get some nice
>spells as well *imagines Earth Elementals with innate Earthquake spell when
>they walk...*
Thing is, while they were Greater elementals, they were about level
10, level 14 Greater elementals, whereas a pure-class druid gets
about a level 17+ Greater Elemental.
--
Talen
Current Tyrannical Despot of the "We Love Talen" fanclub
Several Sandwiches Short of A Picnic,
Clue-Stick Wielder Extraordinaire,
Current August Leader of WAM,
And also known as Grammar Jesus
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"Come, we must press on against the tide of naughtiness. Mind
your step."
- Minsc
Kish
> >> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Actually, it is. Edwin, butt naked, cheated to be in a state of
> nothingness,
I don't know how you do the underline thing. Just imagine underlining
under the word "cheated," hmm?
You can hardly blame the game for not registering that he's in a state
he's not meant to be in.
Kish
>
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >IIRC, the Elemental summoning areas in the Underdark used plain Jane
> >Elementals (not your Greater variety),
>
> Nah, they were greaters.
The elementals you have to fight while helping the mage search the
portals (one of each) are greaters. The infinitely respawning
elementals who appear if you walk up to the portals without the mage are
standard.
Derville
"Gert-Jan Spoel" <it.is.me.gertjan.s...@spam.block.org>
wrote in message news:7bTE7.254913$Jy2.14...@news.quicknet.nl...
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:9s0tv7$7up$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> :
> : But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on
> the
> : fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these
> situations?
> : One of the things the BG games really need on the box is to get a marker
> pen
> : and just below the bit which says "Officially licensed AD&D product"
> pencil
> : in "but we muddled a few rules, just for the heck of it".
> :
> The first rule is that all are just guidelines. If you want to follow
them,
> or explain them in one way or another it's up to you. Therefor they are
not
> muddleing a few rules, the following the first rule ;)
The only other group I see who regularly take the primary rule as being to
discard all other written down rules are football referees, so you can
understand why I see this as being A Bad Thing ;-). And hey, if the game s
meant to be 'official' AD&D, doesn't that imply that it will play hard and
fast to the rules as laid down in the literature? Then again, if I'm going
to have a pop at BG2 for this, by rights I ought to lay into Torment
something awful as well, because that game takes AD&D, puts it in a blender
and churns out a rather interesting concoction, which just happens to work
extremely well in that particular setting. Oh well, back to the land of
boring rules and unhelpful precedents.... I really shouldn't mix law with
computer games :-(.
Gert-Jan Spoel
:
:
: The only other group I see who regularly take the primary rule as being to
: discard all other written down rules are football referees, so you can
: understand why I see this as being A Bad Thing ;-).
Football == A bad thing.
So why bother if referees make it worse ;D
--
Gert-Jan
When God passed out brains, I thought he said trains, and I missed mine.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Derville. I just wanted to take this oppurtunity to apologize for
not continuing our most engaging and enjoyable discussion. I recently
moved to another town and have been suffering in the absence of an isp
subsription during the interim. Alas, my cable modem is no longer and
now I am "enjoying" 56K.
>> A Munchkin takes every rule and bends it to its absolute utter extreme
>> for the best possible combination they can make, doing things like
>> Faketalking, setting hundreds and hundreds of traps, repeatedly
>> stealing and selling items from and to the same shopekeeper, all in
>> the interest of simply making their character the biggest wrecking
>> machine possible. Go read gamefaq's team composition ideas sometime.
>
>OK, so my munchkin comes close to my definition of a powergamer, but there
>still is a difference between the two. A munchkin is someone who just looks
>plain wrong - he's over-equipped, over-armoured, and packs more spells than
>you could cast in one human lifetime. I'm trying to think how I'd tell the
>two apart, now. I guess a munchkin is the guy who inists on questionable
>tactics (Cloudkilling from behind the fog of war), while the powergamer
>takes every spell and item he has, and tries to use them as often as
>possible (i.e. casting every protective spell in the book before fighting
>Firkraag, and making sure to use Dragonslayer equipment, etc). Now while
>both of these guys will have powerful items, in general I'd expect the
>powergamer to be a more 'legit' player - rule out 2 rings of Gaxx, for
>starters, or any other combination which is blatantly out of place (i.e.
>being level 18 when you leave Irenicu's dungeon). I admit, it's not easy to
>draw the distinction, but the items in BG2 certainly don't help me in my
>efforts to separate these two player types.
>
I would put forth the proposition that munckinism and power gaming
eventually overlap. One facet of power gaming is min-maxing. Eg:
The obligatory 3 int and 19 str half-orc. But, iirc did we not agree
that this sort of fell in the realm of munchkin? Now, we must take
pains to distinguish these two states of mind/being from cheating.
Ctrl-Y is neither powergaming nor munckinism.
I would agree with your assesment that powergamers will tend to be
more legit. This legitmacy will definitely pull them into the area of
min/maxing. The abosulte insistence of buffing, resting after casting
2 mm's, are examples. A fitting axiom might be: "To be ready for all
things at all times."
Once again revisiting the items of BG2 ;) If I were to classify them,
I would say definite power gaming. Flail of Ages, Elven Court Bow,
and the Frostreaver are made available to a level 8 party at no cost.
The fact that they can be acquired a mere three days after killing a
goblin for his (desparately needed) plain axe in the Chateau Irenicus,
is power gaming. The fact that the said forsaken inventory of the
Keep is "defended" by 1000-2000 exp trolls and golems that can be
conveniently engaged one at a time, is becoming munckinesque.
>Edwin's a cheat, of course. But if we take out all the illegal NPC's, then
>the BG cast lists get trimmed severely. Out goes Anomen, out goes Minsc,
>it's goodbye to Mazzy and her special powers too. But even then, if we look
>at a maxed out BG2 Mage, you have a guy who can cast everything up to 8th
>level spells from memory, can become invisible at will etc etc. Now, when
>these are all added up, I make that pretty close to munchkin status. He's
>basically at the stage where he can't help himself but let rip with some of
>the most lethal spells in the AD&D world. It doesn't match your definition
>of munchkin, but for the way I play, I find guys like this are more of a
>chore to play than anything else, because they have too much power to be
>useable in any real sense, within my playing style.
>
With an uber char like Edwin, it might be better to use him in a less
than 6 member party, say 3 or 4.
>> You seem to hold the opinion that it's actually game-wise illegal to
>> send characters in when not completely butt-naked. If this is the
>> case, how the hell do you put up with the sight of Korgan's fuzzy butt
>> whenever you want to avoid imprisonment?
>
>Illegal? Nope. So darn stupid that you should be whacked with the Stupid
>Stick and sent to do penance in Stupidsville Correctional Facility? Oh yes.
>Frankly, I can't think of a single credible argument to support the idea
>that characters should be used in any capacity other than pumped up to be as
>effective as possible. Roleplaying, perhaps, but even then you find the
>game often forces your hand so that unless you are pretty well defended,
>you're likely to be toast in a matter of seconds. Still, it's what works
>for me, and I'm way too lazy to change the way I play right now.
I agree the game forces your hand often. During my "ng free" 3 week
period, I had plenty of time to finish that BG game with that
cleric/ranger I was yapping about. My party consited of c/r, Jaheira,
Khalid, Imoen (theif only), Xan, and Garrick. My assortment was
purely roleplaying based and I paid for it in Durlog's Tower. The
traps were not the problem with Imy's 105 score. I just got my butt
kicked in many of the (contrived) battles. The chess board got on my
nerves in a way I did not think possible--nothing like that rook
choosing Xan as his target.
While I'm on the subject, my hapless troupe could not handle
Acc'Latec. My party's saving throws were just awful vs the hold
spells. The Candlekeep vanguard did not have the firepower to drop
the acolytes fast enough.
Now if I exchanged Xan and Garrick, for Minsc and Dynaheir, Khalid for
Shar-Teel, and dualed Imoen at level 7.....
kromm
Derville
> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on
the
> >fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these
situations?
>
> Since it was an official Ravenloft Module, I'm going to hazard that it
> was standard AD&D. Hell, it was even 2nd ed.
OK, I'm showing my AD&D ignorance here, but: what is Ravenloft all about?
Is it the same type of swords and sorcery as Forgotten Realms, or is it
subject to its own special controlling forces? Other than the FR, I've only
got experience of Planescape (thanks to Torment), so I'm likely to be
woollier than a sheep in January when it comes to knowing how different
modules might operate.
> >One of the things the BG games really need on the box is to get a marker
pen
> >and just below the bit which says "Officially licensed AD&D product"
pencil
> >in "but we muddled a few rules, just for the heck of it".
>
> The first rule is to only use the rules you want.
This doesn't fit in well with my ickle brain, sadly. I'm a stickler for
having rules in place, and then sticking to them as far as possible.
Playing fast and loose is tolerable if the rules are such that you can't
have a decent game without doing so, but I figured that keeping to
bog-standard AD&D (especially since BG is officially licensed stuff, and
therefore might have wanted to appeal to the broadest cross-section
possible, by not fiddling with the standard rules too much) wouldn't have
been such a bad move.
> >> You could try ordering it on CD, like they're offering...
> >
> >Who's doing this? FilePlanet, no doubt. The TeamBG website has been
taken
> >off the airwaves, since their ISP allegedly went belly-up, but FilePlanet
> >are the main site I know of who operate this ability to let people
specify
> >custom CD's. Sadly, I'm still boycotting their site at the moment, so my
> >nose will have to remain firmly cut off in order to spite my face.
>
> TeamBg's site's back up, with multiple download sites for TDD.
Ahh right, thanks. I last check the TeamBG site a week or two ago, when it
was down and out. I suppose if shipping to the UK is reasonable, that might
be an option. I'll go have a look when I next think on.
> >IIRC, the Elemental summoning areas in the Underdark used plain Jane
> >Elementals (not your Greater variety),
>
> Nah, they were greaters.
What's the main differences between standard and greater critters anyway?
Other than one being bigger than the other (and we men all know that size
doesn't matter, it's how you use it that counts), I don't know if one has
more special abilites than the other, or hits noticeably harder, or
whatever. Probably like these 'special edition' boxes people keep trying to
sell, which are just an old product tarted up and put in a fancy new case.
Speaking of which, has anyone bought the Star Wars Episode 1 DVD?
> >but they were really a pushover for a
> >couple of good sword arms. Hopefully Greater Elementals will get some
nice
> >spells as well *imagines Earth Elementals with innate Earthquake spell
when
> >they walk...*
>
> Thing is, while they were Greater elementals, they were about level
> 10, level 14 Greater elementals, whereas a pure-class druid gets
> about a level 17+ Greater Elemental.
I don;t know if these guys would use Druid THAC0 or Elemental THAC0, but
Druids have the same THAC0 chart as Clerics, so by level 17 they'd have a
base THAC0 of 7-10, or thereabouts (can't find my manual right now).
Assuming Elementals have warrior THAC0, that'd be a THAC0 of 3, which still
doesn;t sound good. Given that what I've read of ToB suggests you need a
negative THAC0 to consistently hit most of the baddies there, I'd have to
guess that a Greater Elemental is hitting with mammoth THAC0 bonuses when he
swings, which ought to help tip matters more in his favour. I just hope
they get multiple attacks per round as well - by the end of BG2 I had a Monk
with 4 or 4.5 attacks per round, with a THAC0 of something like -7 or so.
I'd like to think a shapeshifted Druid could go toe to toe with that, but
unless they also have mythical AC values, there wouldn;t be much should be
able to withstand the burning glare of my stern-faced Bonsai Black Belt.
Bob Macfie
Talen wrote:
>
> It has been brought to my attention that Bob Macfie <bma...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Talen wrote:
> >>
> >> Mucho snipping ahead.
> >
> > Much more now. :)
>
> Ditto voce.
>
> >> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Actually, it is. Edwin, butt naked, cheated to be in a state of
> nothingness, still, on every level up, gains extra spells he
> shouldn't.
Except that you can no more remove his amulet than you can
remove Minsc from Boo.
Boo from Minsc, I mean. ^_^;
> It's not that the artifact can't conveniently explain it - it's that
> the artifact should actually do that instead. Instead of just having
> the extra spells appear ex nihilo.
Who's got proof it doesn't? Like I said, Edwin is not very
forthcoming about his true powers. "A good magician never
reveals his secrets," right?
> > (I have no idea why, but now I'm thinking of Cernd as the
> >father of Street Fighter's Dan Hibiki - also seen as a
> >rather hopeless cause. I blame you for this, Talen. ;p)
>
> Dan Hibiki's OYAAAJIIIII was a really good figter, wasn't he? ^^;
Well, that's what Dan claimed. I'm sure everyone else just
said, "Yeah, yeah, he was the best," just to get Dan to shut
up about it. ;p
Bob Macfie
Jonathan Ellis
Bob Macfie wrote in message <3BE84433...@home.com>...
>
>
>Talen wrote:
>>
>> It has been brought to my attention that Bob Macfie
<bma...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Talen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mucho snipping ahead.
>> >
>> > Much more now. :)
>>
>> Ditto voce.
>>
>> >> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>>
>> Actually, it is. Edwin, butt naked, cheated to be in a state of
>> nothingness, still, on every level up, gains extra spells he
>> shouldn't.
>
> Except that you can no more remove his amulet than you can
>remove Minsc from Boo.
You can... if you cheat. I believe that Bob's point was that, even
then, Edwin gets his extra spells.
However, if that's the case, it's hardly surprising that cheating
doesn't take account of the player being in a state he was never meant
to be in in the first place (i.e. Edwin in his without-his-amulet
state.)
One could easily justify it by saying that the mere *existence* of
the amulet gives him the extra spells, whether he is wearing it or not,
and that he wears it purely out of vanity.
I wonder: if you cheat Edwin's amulet to be worn by someone else,
will that someone else get the extra spells?
Jonathan.
Gert-Jan Spoel
:
:
: OK, I'm showing my AD&D ignorance here, but: what is Ravenloft all about?
: Is it the same type of swords and sorcery as Forgotten Realms, or is it
: subject to its own special controlling forces? Other than the FR, I've
only
: got experience of Planescape (thanks to Torment), so I'm likely to be
: woollier than a sheep in January when it comes to knowing how different
: modules might operate.
:
Ravenloft = Dracula in AD&D coating.
--
Gert-Jan
There are only two things which you can get from Microsoft without a fee;
Internet Explorer and errors.
Boris Yakobowski
> nothingness, still, on every level up, gains extra spells he
> shouldn't.
>
> It's not that the artifact can't conveniently explain it - it's that
> the artifact should actually do that instead. Instead of just having
> the extra spells appear ex nihilo.
>
That's true, but remenber that Edwin is a red Wizard of Thay. Even though he
has only one speciality school, he gains two additional spells. Below is a
post taken from rec.games.frp.dnd :
|> So, for example, you could make a sort-of Transmuter/Evoker specialist.
|
|I'm not familiar with that S&M (I've glanced at it a few times in the
|store but never read the part you're talking about), but
|transmuter/invokers
|can exist anyway. YES! In Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, it tells us
|that Thayvian wizards (i.e. the Red Wizards of Thay) really have two
|specialty schools, except the zulkirs, who drop one of the specialties.
|I don't remember what their major hindrance was for this double-
|specialization, but I actually don't think it was that substantial. And,
|yes, they got to memorize two additional spells per spell level- one
|for one school and one in the other. So there are surely transmuter/
|invokers among the Red Wizards, which is what makes them so scary.
|
|Evan
Mark Blunden
news:9s9gim$mvp$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Bob Macfie wrote in message <3BE84433...@home.com>...
> >
> >
> >Talen wrote:
> >>
> >> It has been brought to my attention that Bob Macfie
> <bma...@home.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Talen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Mucho snipping ahead.
> >> >
> >> > Much more now. :)
> >>
> >> Ditto voce.
> >>
> >> >> Ed's illegal score isn't explained. It's a bug.
> >> >
> >> > No, it's not.
> >>
> >> Actually, it is. Edwin, butt naked, cheated to be in a state of
> >> nothingness, still, on every level up, gains extra spells he
> >> shouldn't.
> >
> > Except that you can no more remove his amulet than you can
> >remove Minsc from Boo.
>
> You can... if you cheat. I believe that Bob's point was that, even
> then, Edwin gets his extra spells.
> However, if that's the case, it's hardly surprising that cheating
> doesn't take account of the player being in a state he was never meant
> to be in in the first place (i.e. Edwin in his without-his-amulet
> state.)
Indeed. Saying "hey, the game's flawed because it didn't take into account
this impossible situation" is just a little bit picky.
> One could easily justify it by saying that the mere *existence* of
> the amulet gives him the extra spells, whether he is wearing it or not,
> and that he wears it purely out of vanity.
Maybe it boosts his power over the long term - months or years - and without
it, his powers will eventually fade back to normal, but not within the
game's timeframe.
--
Mark.
mar...@btinternet.com
* What our ancestors would really be thinking if they were alive today, is:
"Why is it so dark in here?"
Derville
"Gert-Jan Spoel" <it.is.me.gertjan.s...@spam.block.org>
wrote in message news:m6EF7.267990$Jy2.16...@news.quicknet.nl...
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:9s6ojc$tjj$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> :
> : The only other group I see who regularly take the primary rule as being
to
> : discard all other written down rules are football referees, so you can
> : understand why I see this as being A Bad Thing ;-).
>
> Football == A bad thing.
>
> So why bother if referees make it worse ;D
Sounds like somebody's upset that the Dutch aren't going to the World Cup
this time round ;-). Besides, since we're now fourth in the table, football
is officially A Good Thing right now. Even if we're now bound to lose two
games on the trot to make up for winning two in a row.
Derville
"kromm" <kr...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
news:3be8828b...@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:07:50 -0800, "Derville"
> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Derville. I just wanted to take this oppurtunity to apologize for
> not continuing our most engaging and enjoyable discussion. I recently
> moved to another town and have been suffering in the absence of an isp
> subsription during the interim. Alas, my cable modem is no longer and
> now I am "enjoying" 56K.
56K is great, isn't it? Our government promises us all broadband by 2005,
which is nice. Someone should really tell them that by then technology will
probably be such that current ADSL lines are made to look like the
equivalent of paper cups and string :-(.
> > I guess a munchkin is the guy who inists on questionable
> >tactics (Cloudkilling from behind the fog of war), while the powergamer
> >takes every spell and item he has, and tries to use them as often as
> >possible (i.e. casting every protective spell in the book before fighting
> >Firkraag, and making sure to use Dragonslayer equipment, etc). Now while
> >both of these guys will have powerful items, in general I'd expect the
> >powergamer to be a more 'legit' player - rule out 2 rings of Gaxx, for
> >starters, or any other combination which is blatantly out of place (i.e.
> >being level 18 when you leave Irenicu's dungeon). I admit, it's not easy
to
> >draw the distinction, but the items in BG2 certainly don't help me in my
> >efforts to separate these two player types.
> >
> I would put forth the proposition that munckinism and power gaming
> eventually overlap. One facet of power gaming is min-maxing. Eg:
> The obligatory 3 int and 19 str half-orc. But, iirc did we not agree
> that this sort of fell in the realm of munchkin? Now, we must take
> pains to distinguish these two states of mind/being from cheating.
> Ctrl-Y is neither powergaming nor munckinism.
Agreed, Ctrl-Y is cheating, which is outside munchkins and powergamers'
scope of operation. But min-maxing, to an extent, is more powergaming than
munchkin (assuming someone at least has either enough Int to survive
tangling with Mind Flayers, or is stocked up with Potions of Genius, that
sort of thing). It's borderline, but I'd suggest a powergamer is a bit more
intelligent in his distribution of stats. He might settle for 18/01
Strength (while true munchkins would only ever take 18/00 or above), knowing
he can rectify this with items during the game, and so on.
> I would agree with your assesment that powergamers will tend to be
> more legit. This legitmacy will definitely pull them into the area of
> min/maxing. The abosulte insistence of buffing, resting after casting
> 2 mm's, are examples. A fitting axiom might be: "To be ready for all
> things at all times."
Agreed. The munchkin would probably just use his wand of Cloudkill from
beyond the fog of war, and ahppily kill roomfuls of people with it before
going off to collect the treasure they dropped and move on to the next map.
I guess this makes the powergamer one overtly paranoid character, while the
munchkin sticks to what he knows works best.
> Once again revisiting the items of BG2 ;) If I were to classify them,
> I would say definite power gaming. Flail of Ages, Elven Court Bow,
> and the Frostreaver are made available to a level 8 party at no cost.
> The fact that they can be acquired a mere three days after killing a
> goblin for his (desparately needed) plain axe in the Chateau Irenicus,
> is power gaming. The fact that the said forsaken inventory of the
> Keep is "defended" by 1000-2000 exp trolls and golems that can be
> conveniently engaged one at a time, is becoming munckinesque.
Flail of Ages is a nice powergaming weapon, because it's the sort of thing
which makes you sing for your supper. If you want it, you have to take on
the Keep quests and take out a lot of monsters. Assuming this is one's
first run through, the golem room is one example of where the difference
between powergamer and munchkin would show up in terms of fighting styles -
the former would buff up like mad and engage the enemy with the most lethal
weapons available for each golem type, while the latter would trap all
golems behind the biggest baddie, and then proceed to Cloudkill them in
complete safety. Things like Celestial Fury, SotM etc are becoming more
munchkin, because they have power which is just so amazingly deadly as to be
almost untrue. Invisibility on demand and full-time Prot from Evil is
pushing the boundary of what can legitimately be classified as necessary in
a properly balanced game.
> >Edwin's a cheat, of course. But if we take out all the illegal NPC's,
then
> >the BG cast lists get trimmed severely. Out goes Anomen, out goes Minsc,
> >it's goodbye to Mazzy and her special powers too.
>
> With an uber char like Edwin, it might be better to use him in a less
> than 6 member party, say 3 or 4.
I was thinking no more than 2, actually ;-). The way I see the BG2 dramatis
personae, it does seem to be saying that if you play Evil, you don't need a
full group. As mentioned elsewhere, the best Mage, Cleric and warrior in
BG2 are all Evilly aligned, while Yoshi and Jan can happily exist in that
dynamic as Thieves. Maybe I'm misreading it, but that's how I think they
made up for short-changing Evil alignments in terms of sheer numbers of
NPC's available.
> >Frankly, I can't think of a single credible argument to support the idea
> >that characters should be used in any capacity other than pumped up to be
as
> >effective as possible. Roleplaying, perhaps, but even then you find the
> >game often forces your hand so that unless you are pretty well defended,
> >you're likely to be toast in a matter of seconds. Still, it's what works
> >for me, and I'm way too lazy to change the way I play right now.
>
> I agree the game forces your hand often. During my "ng free" 3 week
> period, I had plenty of time to finish that BG game with that
> cleric/ranger I was yapping about.
They rock, don't they? Just wait until you see one in BG2 - one of my
favourite combo's, so therefore he has to be 100% powergamer, but nothing
like a munchkin ;-).
> My party consited of c/r, Jaheira,
> Khalid, Imoen (theif only), Xan, and Garrick. My assortment was
> purely roleplaying based and I paid for it in Durlog's Tower. The
> traps were not the problem with Imy's 105 score. I just got my butt
> kicked in many of the (contrived) battles. The chess board got on my
> nerves in a way I did not think possible--nothing like that rook
> choosing Xan as his target.
With that team, you could well have been hammered in a lot of fights which
demand a lot of up-front power in terms of melee characters. There's enough
guile to get through most of the rest of the maps, but since there is such a
mammoth amount of combat in the BG games, having at least three top notch
grunts up front is always a massive boost to a team. Even more so if you
use Garrick as a singer only in fights, which effectively puts you a man
down for all combats (mind you, BG2 Skalds do help to even this up later
on - you might lose one man, but everyone else hits four levels harder when
he's a-singing).
> While I'm on the subject, my hapless troupe could not handle
> Acc'Latec. My party's saving throws were just awful vs the hold
> spells. The Candlekeep vanguard did not have the firepower to drop
> the acolytes fast enough.
I never did fight Aec'Letec, seeing as I dropped out of DT when it got silly
in terms of traps and enemies. However, Aec is the sort of fight where
tactics are important (knowing how to avoid being turned into a ghoul etc),
but you still need to back it up with brute force and firepower. BG2 is
like this a lot of the time - you need to be aware of protective spells, and
spells to disable enemies' defences, but once you have the enemy in a
vulnerable position, you have to be prepared to wade in and battle them hand
to hand (spells still don't inflict damage anything like as quickly as a
Hasted Monk, sad to say).
Gert-Jan Spoel
:
: Sounds like somebody's upset that the Dutch aren't going to the World Cup
: this time round ;-). Besides, since we're now fourth in the table,
football
: is officially A Good Thing right now. Even if we're now bound to lose two
: games on the trot to make up for winning two in a row.
Nope. I really consider it a bad thing, especially if 'we' are going. The
only advantage of soccer is that public places like movie-theatres or
restaurants are more accessible because all those a... are watching telly if
'we' are playing.
--
Gert-Jan
Life is too short to argue, so I'm always right.
Derville
"Gert-Jan Spoel" <it.is.me.gertjan.s...@spam.block.org>
wrote in message news:7RXF7.276008$Jy2.16...@news.quicknet.nl...
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:9s9c1b$ifv$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> :
> : OK, I'm showing my AD&D ignorance here, but: what is Ravenloft all
about?
> : Is it the same type of swords and sorcery as Forgotten Realms, or is it
> : subject to its own special controlling forces? Other than the FR, I've
> only
> : got experience of Planescape (thanks to Torment), so I'm likely to be
> : woollier than a sheep in January when it comes to knowing how different
> : modules might operate.
> :
> Ravenloft = Dracula in AD&D coating.
Hundreds of Bodhis? Now there's an interesting thought...
> --
> Gert-Jan
>
> There are only two things which you can get from Microsoft without a fee;
> Internet Explorer and errors.
Well, I think the temporary insanity comes free with all new releases of
Windoze. The cure involves a CD-shaped suppository known as a Service Pack.
It doesn't do anything to the software, but I defy you to care about your
computer when you've got that thing jammed in an orifice which is three
sizes too small.
kromm
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Agreed, Ctrl-Y is cheating, which is outside munchkins and powergamers'
>scope of operation. But min-maxing, to an extent, is more powergaming than
>munchkin (assuming someone at least has either enough Int to survive
>tangling with Mind Flayers, or is stocked up with Potions of Genius, that
>sort of thing). It's borderline, but I'd suggest a powergamer is a bit more
>intelligent in his distribution of stats. He might settle for 18/01
>Strength (while true munchkins would only ever take 18/00 or above), knowing
>he can rectify this with items during the game, and so on.
>
Perhaps what we really are discussing is a sort of "game theory"
evolution. Now please bear with me (or at least keep a lifesaver at
the ready in case I go over my head). 8) Here is my argument: All
power gamers start as munchkins and later, evolve into powergamers.
Munckinism, as you describe, incorporates a hedonistic amount of head
cheese. Rolling for hours to get the 18/75+ str is munchkinesque when
the girdle of hill giant strength is available. It could be inferred
that the munckin is then inexperienced. A power gamer, otoh, will
except lesser str knowing full well that the aforementioned girdle can
be easily purchased with monies earned after the completion of the
Slavers and D'Ernise Keep quests.
The munckin-turned-powergamer has refined or evolved his strategy.
The pg may actually lower his str to 15 in order to distribute points
elsewhere (perhaps to ensure max's in con and dex and a high enough
wis to receive some sort of magic def bonus). The pg does this
knowing full well that he may alleviate his low str by many different
means: equipment, potions (the pg knows as well that he can afford to
buy as many as he wants), spells, or the rolling up of his char may be
influenced by what npcs he intends to recruit (Minsc will be my
strongman, so I'll focus on dex and long bows).
As the pg's evolution continues, he will become more subtle (and
versatile). True powergaming will be acheived, not by the rolling up
of the pc, but by the party arrangement. Subtlety is acheived when
the pg recognizes bards and druids as powerful contributors or
supporting members of the party.
I used the last sentence because I have read many threads of a pg
nature, that tends to compare a class's *power* in relations to others
on a one-on-one or player vs player basis. Such evalutation criteria
will of course lead to a sour opinion of many classes, especially
bards and druids. Such power gaming evaluation also tends to
over-rate the human dual class char (w/o adjusting for the absence of
any natural resistances and proficiencies), and under-rate the
multi-class demi-human (although this may change with TOB;
multi-classes receive preferred treatment with special abilities.
iirc, they receive 2 specials at 3 mill exp).
On human dual class: I sometimes see them as simple game rule
workarounds (and somewhat munckinesque). Eg: Rolling up a fighter
and dualing at level 3 to a druid. Possible run on sentence
warning!...Just to get around the (druid) armor and shield
limitations, specialize in a couple weapons for the extra 1/2 attack,
and get a few "free" prof points.
>> I would agree with your assesment that powergamers will tend to be
>> more legit. This legitmacy will definitely pull them into the area of
>> min/maxing. The abosulte insistence of buffing, resting after casting
>> 2 mm's, are examples. A fitting axiom might be: "To be ready for all
>> things at all times."
>
>Agreed. The munchkin would probably just use his wand of Cloudkill from
>beyond the fog of war, and ahppily kill roomfuls of people with it before
>going off to collect the treasure they dropped and move on to the next map.
>I guess this makes the powergamer one overtly paranoid character, while the
>munchkin sticks to what he knows works best.
>
Such cloudkill tactics are the lowest commom denominator and reek of
player inexperience (or pehaps exhaustion if he's finishing a 12 hour
game mararthon). It could be argued, I guess, that the pg has a right
to be paranoid. Afterall, just about everything in the game world
*is* out to get him. What we question is what degree of paranoia
(read powergaming) is "acceptable".
>Flail of Ages is a nice powergaming weapon, because it's the sort of thing
>which makes you sing for your supper. If you want it, you have to take on
>the Keep quests and take out a lot of monsters. Assuming this is one's
>first run through, the golem room is one example of where the difference
>between powergamer and munchkin would show up in terms of fighting styles -
>the former would buff up like mad and engage the enemy with the most lethal
>weapons available for each golem type, while the latter would trap all
>golems behind the biggest baddie, and then proceed to Cloudkill them in
>complete safety. Things like Celestial Fury, SotM etc are becoming more
>munchkin, because they have power which is just so amazingly deadly as to be
>almost untrue. Invisibility on demand and full-time Prot from Evil is
>pushing the boundary of what can legitimately be classified as necessary in
>a properly balanced game.
>
The last two items do go too far. They are best used in solo or near
solo games. The invis on demand made my sorc just a silly elf.
A munchkin is characterised by the sort of game workarounds you
mention. At any rate, why would anyone construct a golem of such size
that it cannot properly defend against intruders?
>> With an uber char like Edwin, it might be better to use him in a less
>> than 6 member party, say 3 or 4.
>
>I was thinking no more than 2, actually ;-). The way I see the BG2 dramatis
>personae, it does seem to be saying that if you play Evil, you don't need a
>full group. As mentioned elsewhere, the best Mage, Cleric and warrior in
>BG2 are all Evilly aligned, while Yoshi and Jan can happily exist in that
>dynamic as Thieves. Maybe I'm misreading it, but that's how I think they
>made up for short-changing Evil alignments in terms of sheer numbers of
>NPC's available.
>
Could be right. Edwin is the mage of mages, a specialist whos
opposition school is no great loss, unlike enchanters and invokers.
Viconia: 65% magic resis. Korgan: the best fighter in SOA, natural
prof in axes iirc, natural resis to posion, berserking makes him
immune to most enchantments. Roll up an evil pc of your choice and
your're set.
>> I agree the game forces your hand often. During my "ng free" 3 week
>> period, I had plenty of time to finish that BG game with that
>> cleric/ranger I was yapping about.
>
>They rock, don't they? Just wait until you see one in BG2 - one of my
>favourite combo's, so therefore he has to be 100% powergamer, but nothing
>like a munchkin ;-).
>
Yes, the half elf cleric/ranger is most excellent! Very very
versatile. I imported him into SOA. Naturally he read all the stat
increasing tomes in BG. I had Garrick pp the priestess of Umberlee
for the Geas removal scroll so kromm could read the Tome of
Understanding. His stats are: 17 str, 16-17 dex, 15 con, 9 int, 21
wisdom (I know, shameless powergaming ;), 19 cha. As an aside, with
the helm of glory and Algernon's Cloak, kromm's cha was 22 for most of
BG. Nobody panicked in battle.
Now, in SOA kromm finally is able to cast level 5 spells which means
ironskins, of course. Priests have many more spells in SOA
>> My party consited of c/r, Jaheira,
>> Khalid, Imoen (theif only), Xan, and Garrick. My assortment was
>> purely roleplaying based and I paid for it in Durlog's Tower. The
>> traps were not the problem with Imy's 105 score. I just got my butt
>> kicked in many of the (contrived) battles. The chess board got on my
>> nerves in a way I did not think possible--nothing like that rook
>> choosing Xan as his target.
>
>With that team, you could well have been hammered in a lot of fights which
>demand a lot of up-front power in terms of melee characters. There's enough
>guile to get through most of the rest of the maps, but since there is such a
>mammoth amount of combat in the BG games, having at least three top notch
>grunts up front is always a massive boost to a team. Even more so if you
>use Garrick as a singer only in fights, which effectively puts you a man
>down for all combats (mind you, BG2 Skalds do help to even this up later
>on - you might lose one man, but everyone else hits four levels harder when
>he's a-singing).
>
I only had problems with this arrangement in Durlog's Tower itself.
Up to CH 5 I only had a 4 man team with no mage (kromm, Khalid,
Jaheira, Imoen/Coran). The first 3 effectively reached the exp cap by
Ch 5, at which time I picked up Garrick and Xan. The game was a
cakewalk. Mages just aren't that important in BG, imho.
>I never did fight Aec'Letec, seeing as I dropped out of DT when it got silly
>in terms of traps and enemies. However, Aec is the sort of fight where
>tactics are important (knowing how to avoid being turned into a ghoul etc),
>but you still need to back it up with brute force and firepower. BG2 is
>like this a lot of the time - you need to be aware of protective spells, and
>spells to disable enemies' defences, but once you have the enemy in a
>vulnerable position, you have to be prepared to wade in and battle them hand
>to hand (spells still don't inflict damage anything like as quickly as a
>Hasted Monk, sad to say).
Actually, I did not like Durlog's Tower. You are right. It is just
silly. Even if my party was a little more fleshed out, my opinon of
the Tower would not change. The way eneimies just "appeared" did not
challenge me as much as it annoyed me. The traps simply made progress
ridiculously slow. In terms of real time, the traps made the Tower
last twice as long as it should have. They tried to fit too much into
too small a space, pathfinding (yeecchh).
IMO, the exp cap for TOSC should be around 250,000 or maybe 300.
There were many 4000 plus monsters in the Tower, with the average
being in the 1000 to 2000 range. The 2 demons were 15,000 and 16,000
exp. My party was at the cap b4 travelling to Durlog's. Ummm....
As for Aec'Letec, I was in my last hour of a 10 hour marathon. It was
3am and I was tired. My tactics were horrible. The repeated beatings
I took in the Tower caused kromm and Jaheira to memorize as many
healing spells as possible. I did not reconfigure them in Ulgoth's
Beard. I became accustomed to not using Xan and Garrick's magic
because most of the denizens of the Tower either ignored magic, or
automatically saved.
kromm
Talen
<ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Talen" <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:tntbut4eudpkbecbp...@4ax.com...
>> It has been brought to my attention that "Derville"
>> <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >But is this a case of the DM, if you like, making up new house rules on
>the
>> >fly, or is he in fact operating the standard AD&D rules in these
>situations?
>>
>> Since it was an official Ravenloft Module, I'm going to hazard that it
>> was standard AD&D. Hell, it was even 2nd ed.
>
>OK, I'm showing my AD&D ignorance here, but: what is Ravenloft all about?
Basically, it's Dracula meets AD&D.
>Is it the same type of swords and sorcery as Forgotten Realms, or is it
>subject to its own special controlling forces?
Yes, indeed, it is - Dark Lords and whatnot.
>Other than the FR, I've only
>got experience of Planescape (thanks to Torment), so I'm likely to be
>woollier than a sheep in January when it comes to knowing how different
>modules might operate.
Well, basically, it's a fair bit more gothic and supposedly a lot more
hopeless. You don't play a Paladin in Ravenloft. You play a target in
armour.
>> >IIRC, the Elemental summoning areas in the Underdark used plain Jane
>> >Elementals (not your Greater variety),
>>
>> Nah, they were greaters.
>
>What's the main differences between standard and greater critters anyway?
>Other than one being bigger than the other (and we men all know that size
>doesn't matter, it's how you use it that counts), I don't know if one has
>more special abilites than the other, or hits noticeably harder, or
>whatever. Probably like these 'special edition' boxes people keep trying to
>sell, which are just an old product tarted up and put in a fancy new case.
<fires up Shadowkeeper>
Stats are all the same. (19 STR, and the rest are 9). 1 Attack per
round. Both are level 10. Base AC of 2. Greater has 128 HP compared to
96. 4000 more XP for kill. Both are level 10. Both are wielding a
weapon called 'skull'. Saving throws are 7, 9, 8, 8, 10 for normal,
and 4, 6, 5, 4, 7. No proficiencies or resistances.
Well, that fucking sucks.
>Speaking of which, has anyone bought the Star Wars Episode 1 DVD?
A mate of mine has, and he's thrilled to bits with it. The fanboy.
>> Thing is, while they were Greater elementals, they were about level
>> 10, level 14 Greater elementals, whereas a pure-class druid gets
>> about a level 17+ Greater Elemental.
>
>I don;t know if these guys would use Druid THAC0 or Elemental THAC0, but
>Druids have the same THAC0 chart as Clerics, so by level 17 they'd have a
>base THAC0 of 7-10, or thereabouts (can't find my manual right now).
>Assuming Elementals have warrior THAC0, that'd be a THAC0 of 3, which still
>doesn;t sound good.
Well, I can't GET info on Skull, so it's all unknown to me.
Ah well, TESTING TIME!
>Given that what I've read of ToB suggests you need a
>negative THAC0 to consistently hit most of the baddies there,
It's less of that and more that THEY have such low THAC0s. Most of
what you encounter have titanic CON scores and very rarely do you meet
pure-class mages (Liches are more common, for example), and even rarer
are thieves. So everything has big fat hit die, and according to game
creation rules, always rolls the maximum plus con bonus. THAT, and the
game munchkins them out, HP wise, anyway. Did you know a butt naked
Fire Giant's AC is almost -1?!
SOMETHING TWELVE FEET TALL AND SIX FEET WIDE IS HARDER TO HIT THAN A
RAT?!
> I'd have to
>guess that a Greater Elemental is hitting with mammoth THAC0 bonuses when he
>swings, which ought to help tip matters more in his favour.
Well, I'm going to run a test, so...
>I just hope
>they get multiple attacks per round as well - by the end of BG2 I had a Monk
>with 4 or 4.5 attacks per round, with a THAC0 of something like -7 or so.
Yes, but 2nd Ed Monks were broken. They still are, in fact, it's just
that they've been made to take a backseat to Fighters (monks just get
great Saving Throws). Paladins are really gypped, since any Paladin
with ANY stat lower than about 14 is in a bit of trouble as far as
BEING a Paladin is concerned. If Inquisitors still existed, they'd be
a bit better off (they could afford to let their Intelligence and
Charisma slack off a tad), but that's about it.
>I'd like to think a shapeshifted Druid could go toe to toe with that, but
>unless they also have mythical AC values, there wouldn;t be much should be
>able to withstand the burning glare of my stern-faced Bonsai Black Belt.
Like I said. I'm going to go check.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
<Soccer> Guys, don't half ass it with a semi-colon, use a full
blown colon.
- #afd
The Gurus love you