IWD2 - wizard spells greyed out
Tom Tweedy
scribed them from the scrolls okay and memorised them, and my Wizard is
now 11th level with 18 intelligence... what am I doing wrong?
Tom
Amarande
"Tom Tweedy" <t...@lancedal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$Fj45OA4...@lancedal.demon.co.uk...
> Can anyone explain why my 6th level Wizard spells are greyed out? I've
> scribed them from the scrolls okay and memorised them, and my Wizard is
> now 11th level with 18 intelligence... what am I doing wrong?
Have you rested since you memorized the spells? Memorizing spells in the
memorization screen only *selects* spells to be memorized, you must still
rest afterwards to actually get the spells.
Tom Tweedy
<nos...@lunasanguine.com> writes
[Grin] hundreds of times since I first scribed them. I can SEE them in
my spell book [6th level spells] but they are still greyed out.
Tom
Bill Seurer
>>>Can anyone explain why my 6th level Wizard spells are greyed out? I've
>>>scribed them from the scrolls okay and memorised them, and my Wizard is
>>>now 11th level with 18 intelligence... what am I doing wrong?
Do you really have an 18 INT or is it being raised by something?
imp
> Do you really have an 18 INT or is it being raised by something?
It shouldn't matter, and he only needs 16 INT anyway.
imp
>:)
Tom Tweedy
<Bi...@seurer.net> writes
done wrong here? :-(
Tom
Tom Tweedy
om> writes
You're kidding! So 14 int is the reason then? *Sob*
Tom
Bill Seurer
> Oops, no... 14 int, 18 wisdom! I have a sudden sinking feeling... have I
> done wrong here? :-(
Yes. Your INT needs to be 10+ the spell level in order to cast spells
of that level. Why the heck did you raise your WIS so high for a mage?
Jack's Hand
Bill Seurer wrote:
I made a similar mistake. I thought that WIS was required for
successful copying of a spell into the mage book. Didn't realize the
INT requirement for casting. Serves me right for being a casual RPGer
rather than a hardcore D&Der, I suppose.
imp
> You're kidding! So 14 int is the reason then? *Sob*
Yes. But you shouldn't have had any 5th level spells either, in that case.
Wizards = INT
Clerics = WIS
Sorcerers/Bards = CHA
Don't people read manuals these days? Or inline advice when creating
characters?
imp
>:)
Tom Tweedy
<Bi...@seurer.net> writes
Tom
Tom Tweedy
Yeah, I wouldn't mind, but I've been computer RPGing since the old Apple
II computers and Wizardry 1...
Tom
E. Deirdre Brooks
Apparently not.
I didn't read the IWD II or NWN manuals very closely, but then I
actually write 3e-type (d20) materials, so it's too much like work. :)
--
E. D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "By this time tomorrow, we can be doing BODY
SHOTS off HOOKERS in some MEXICAN HELLHOLE." -- Penny Arcade
Jack's Hand
S.H.H wrote:
> Or maybe you should have read the manual? ;)
Totally. Call it a bad habit or impatience. I just set up my first
surround sound system today, and it sounded like crap. My subwoofer
sounded like someone was inside, trying to get out, while I was playing
the Independence Day scene where DC and NY get trashed. Finally read
the manual to fine tune everything, and now it sounds SWEET!!!
Take home point being: RTFM.
Thanks.
> Hopefully a editor will come out, and you can fix your mistakes, or
> just multiclass to something that needs high wisdom.
Tom Tweedy
maps.ntlworld.com> writes
No. *Sob*
Tom 'the now utterly miserable' Tweedy
imp
> >Don't people read manuals these days? Or inline advice when creating
> >characters?
>
> No. *Sob*
>
> Tom 'the now utterly miserable' Tweedy
Well, let's hope for a character editor. I really would like to change my
Paladin's order from Helm to Ilmater.
imp
>:)
Lucian Wischik
>Don't people read manuals these days? Or inline advice when creating
>characters?
I think it's basically a design flaw in D&D -- decisions that you have to
make at the start, when you're not yet informed about what's needed, but
you have to make the decision and it has serious repercussions later on.
This is fine for a tabletop game where everyone knows the rules and has
played through many previous games. But in a computer game, where you're
approaching it fresh and you don't have much idea about how things work,
and you don't intend to replay, and you don't have a friendly
knowledgeable DM, then it's almost a game-killer.
I think it's better in computer games when you develop your character
gradually throughout the game, and you only need to make decisions after
you've already had a within-game taster of the various consequences. Like
PST did, and Deus Ex.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
imp
> I think it's basically a design flaw in D&D -- decisions that you have to
> make at the start, when you're not yet informed about what's needed, but
> you have to make the decision and it has serious repercussions later on.
But you are informed about what's needed, it's in the manual. Not only
that, it's on screen when you're spending your points!
> This is fine for a tabletop game where everyone knows the rules and has
> played through many previous games. But in a computer game, where you're
> approaching it fresh and you don't have much idea about how things work,
> and you don't intend to replay, and you don't have a friendly
> knowledgeable DM, then it's almost a game-killer.
Only if you plough straight into a game without bothering to read the
manual, which is a stupid thing to do in an RPG.
imp
>:)
Lucian Wischik
>Lucian Wischik wrote:
>> I think it's basically a design flaw in D&D -- decisions that you have to
>> make at the start, when you're not yet informed about what's needed, but
>> you have to make the decision and it has serious repercussions later on.
>But you are informed about what's needed, it's in the manual. Not only
>that, it's on screen when you're spending your points!
True. But just reading a manual doesn't give me any idea at all:
* The rules are abstract. I only really understand through example.
* The rules are distant. I am not yet experiencing the situations
they describe, and so it's harder to understand them.
* The rules are single. I need to experience something several
times before I understand it.
I don't think I'm unique in this. I believe that most people, like me,
learn through concrete and relevant and repeated examples. These are
provided by the game itself. They're not provided by the manual or by the
tooltips.
>Only if you plough straight into a game without bothering to read the
>manual, which is a stupid thing to do in an RPG.
It's not a stupid thing to do in all RPGs. For instance, in Project:EGO
you don't have to read the manual. Nor in BAK. Nor in BG2. Nor in RPGs
from Spiderweb Software. Nor in Dungeon Siege. Indeed,
not-reading-the-manual seems stupid only
for D&D.
Moreover, not-reading-the-manual is a sensible thing to do in a computer
game. And if the computer game doesn't forgive this, then it's
badly-designed in this respect. Therefore: D&D is an inherently flawed
in this respect for computer games, a flaw not shared by other RPG
systems.
John Busch
Bill Seurer
> It's not a stupid thing to do in all RPGs. For instance, in Project:EGO
> you don't have to read the manual. Nor in BAK. Nor in BG2.
Oh baloney. If you made a wizard in BG2 and took a 5 IQ and were
totally screwed would you complain? IQ was just as important in AD&D
2nd as it is in D&D 3rd.
Face it, you screwed up. Quit whining, look through the manual, and
start over.
E. Deirdre Brooks
It's coming. :)
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> It's not a stupid thing to do in all RPGs. For instance, in Project:EGO
> you don't have to read the manual. Nor in BAK. Nor in BG2. Nor in RPGs
> from Spiderweb Software. Nor in Dungeon Siege. Indeed,
> not-reading-the-manual seems stupid only
> for D&D.
This is likely because people are coming into IWD with the
not-unreasonable assumption that it will work like the older IE games,
when it is in fact quite different. Unfortunately, this is because
people are accustomed to not reading things like manuals or tooltips.
Still, you really should pay attention to what the game tells you when
you're making critical selections.
> Moreover, not-reading-the-manual is a sensible thing to do in a computer
> game. And if the computer game doesn't forgive this, then it's
> badly-designed in this respect. Therefore: D&D is an inherently flawed
> in this respect for computer games, a flaw not shared by other RPG
> systems.
Personally, I disagree. If the (thick) manual should be disposable, why
include one at all?
imp
> True. But just reading a manual doesn't give me any idea at all:
> * The rules are abstract. I only really understand through example.
> * The rules are distant. I am not yet experiencing the situations
> they describe, and so it's harder to understand them.
> * The rules are single. I need to experience something several
> times before I understand it.
I don't get you. What's difficult to understand about wizards using INT,
sorcerers using CHA, and the formula given for being able to cast spells?
> I don't think I'm unique in this. I believe that most people, like me,
> learn through concrete and relevant and repeated examples. These are
> provided by the game itself. They're not provided by the manual or by the
> tooltips.
Example characters *are* provided. But I could see how someone who had played
all three previous IE games (exc PST) and got used to the AD&D ruleset might
not bother to check the manual for IWD2, not realizing that D&D has changed.
> It's not a stupid thing to do in all RPGs. For instance, in Project:EGO
> you don't have to read the manual. Nor in BAK. Nor in BG2. Nor in RPGs
> from Spiderweb Software. Nor in Dungeon Siege. Indeed,
> not-reading-the-manual seems stupid only
> for D&D.
Of all the above, I have played BG2 and Dungeon Siege, (which is RPG-Lite if
anything), and I still read the manuals. Hence I didn't need to ask a lot of
the stupid questions about the user interface that inevitably crop up on here
after any new game release. BG2 did require it, as it added the Sorcerer and
Monk, not to mention the different character class kits.
I think not reading the manual seems stupid for any RPG, not to mention other
types of games.
> Moreover, not-reading-the-manual is a sensible thing to do in a computer
> game. And if the computer game doesn't forgive this, then it's
> badly-designed in this respect.
Bullshit. If it didn't come with a manual you might have a case.
> Therefore: D&D is an inherently flawed
> in this respect for computer games, a flaw not shared by other RPG
> systems.
I disagree.
>:)
Lucian Wischik
>Lucian Wischik wrote:
>> It's not a stupid thing to do in all RPGs. For instance, in Project:EGO
>> you don't have to read the manual. Nor in BAK. Nor in BG2.
>Oh baloney. If you made a wizard in BG2 and took a 5 IQ and were
>totally screwed would you complain?
Yeah, I forgot about that. So not-reading was stupid in BG2 (but still not
in BAK or Project:EGO or PST). So this strengthens my point that
not-reading is stupid just for D&D.
>Face it, you screwed up. Quit whining, look through the manual, and
>start over.
I didn't screw up... I don't even have the game yet. But in all these
games I normally go for plain vanilla human fighters, since there seems
least possibility for screwup this way.
Lucian Wischik
>Lucian wrote:
>> Moreover, not-reading-the-manual is a sensible thing to do in a computer
>> game. And if the computer game doesn't forgive this, then it's
>> badly-designed in this respect.
>include one at all?
Well, I think your reasoning is correct: there is no need to include a
manual!
(but you seem to be arguing the reverse. You start from the assumption
that a manual should be included, and then deduce the sort of game that
would require a manual... ?)
The manuals I liked best were the value-added sorts. They didn't explain
the gameplay, since that was easy enough. Instead they gave stories or
historical background. The outstanding manuals in this respect were
* Elite novella
* Exile novella
* Ancient Art of War (I seem to remember but it was a long time ago)
* Railroad Tycoon
TwinIon
news:VA.000003ee.01a935c2@impy:
While I agree there are always fools who will not read the manual, the onus
is on the software designer to make sure users of their software will not
shoot themselves at the foot.
I don't think it is that difficult to add a check after the character
creation and pop up a warning message that says something like "Your
sorceror's charisma is less than 10. That means she cannot cast any spells.
Are you sure you want to proceed?" Now, if the player click yes and
continue, then he has only himself to blame.
imp
> While I agree there are always fools who will not read the manual, the onus
> is on the software designer to make sure users of their software will not
> shoot themselves at the foot.
How have they shot themselves in the foot? You've already bought their
product, neh?
> I don't think it is that difficult to add a check after the character
> creation and pop up a warning message that says something like "Your
> sorceror's charisma is less than 10. That means she cannot cast any spells.
> Are you sure you want to proceed?" Now, if the player click yes and
> continue, then he has only himself to blame.
You could probably build an ever-increasingly redundant cycle of checks and
balances into a game until it was impossible to play, but I suspect most game
designers rely on the intelligence of their consumers. Manuals are included
for a reason. Inline hints are included for a reason. If someone can't be
arsed to read them, is that the designer's fault? No.
But don't worry, maybe one day all games will be downloaded straight into your
brain and you'll already know everything you need to - and hey, you won't even
need to think any more either!
imp
>:)
NFLed
every step of the way and also games (like IWD2 when it
comes to developing your character) which do not.
imp
> Well, a 14 INT would normally seem high in most games, and a player
> may think he's created a gifted character.
As a wizard?? What do you consider to be most games? The Might & Magic series
ties stats to spell points and lets you pump them to extreme levels, for
instance. If you don't put enough points into the right stat for a
spellcaster, you end up not being able to cast the most powerful spells by
lacking enough spell points to do so, which is just a variation on the D&D
system.
> Then later on find out
> that some spells are unavailable because he forgot to shoot for
> super-genius. AD&D rules severely encourage people to get maximum
> values for the primary stats.
I'm not sure severely is the right adverb, but if you want to be the best at
anything, it's surely common sense.
imp
>:)
imp
> OK, consider pen-and-paper games and role playing. In GURPS and some
> other games, different ranges of stats are given descriptions (ie,
> 10-14 are above average, 15-16 are exceptional, 17-18 are genius, 19+
> are godlike, etc). So someone that may want to play a smart wizard,
> but not necessarily a genius, would stay away from the extreme (and
> then pump points into spell skills instead).
I haven't seen a GURPS CRPG. All the CRPGs I've played require you to become the
smartest, fastest, etc.
> A *power gamer* might go for the extreme though. But a normal role
> player may not always want to be "the best at anything". You don't
> even need to be the best in computer games either - note that you
> could have a blast in Fallout with only above average stats. A game
> that requires you to maximize a primary stat in order to be effective
> would seem to be oriented towards power gamers.
There's nothing wrong with powergaming, it's just as valid a style of play as
anyone else's. But that aside, see above. If you buy a D&D-based CRPG and somehow
don't expect it to follow D&D rules, which state that the most powerful magics
are only available to those with genius intelligence and above, you wouldn't
expect to become a great archmage with only 14 INT, would you?
You say that a wizard in GURPS could have access to all spells without being a
genius, but then note he would have to spend most of his points on spell skills
instead, which is just a different slant on the same thing - both require
knowledge of the system and to be any good at any one thing you have to tailor
your character the right way.
You should not expect a character with mediocre abilities to be anything more
than mediocre - whilst it is true that in tabletop games your mediocre abilities
can be secondary to the story, CRPGs don't normally reflect that, they follow the
*heroic* fantasy path. IWD2 is about saving the world again and is clearly
tailored to provide a challenge for non-mediocre heroes.
If you find the gaming system to be at fault, why would you buy a game based on
it?
imp
>:)
Tom Tweedy
om> writes
>Lucian Wischik wrote:
>> True. But just reading a manual doesn't give me any idea at all:
>> * The rules are abstract. I only really understand through example.
>> * The rules are distant. I am not yet experiencing the situations
>> they describe, and so it's harder to understand them.
>> * The rules are single. I need to experience something several
>> times before I understand it.
>
>I don't get you. What's difficult to understand about wizards using INT,
>sorcerers using CHA, and the formula given for being able to cast spells?
Most RPGs use Wisdom for Wizards and Intelligence for Clerics - I just
never looked at the manual in this game, I just assumed it would be the
same.
Tom
Tom Tweedy
writes
>imp <imp...@partmaps.ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> I don't get you. What's difficult to understand about wizards using INT,
>> sorcerers using CHA, and the formula given for being able to cast spells?
>
>that some spells are unavailable because he forgot to shoot for
>super-genius. AD&D rules severely encourage people to get maximum
>values for the primary stats.
That's right. And it's like the 2nd level in the Dragons Eye in the
Alchemy Lab - it needs a character with at least 15 alchemy?!!
Ridiculous. Hope this quest is not a game killer.
Tom
imp
> That's right. And it's like the 2nd level in the Dragons Eye in the
> Alchemy Lab - it needs a character with at least 15 alchemy?!!
> Ridiculous. Hope this quest is not a game killer.
I haven't got there yet, but I hope so, as none of my current party have
alchemy. But a score of 15 isn't ridiculous for that stage in the game. A
wizard should have 15 alchemy by 12th level. (I don't have a wizard, however,
coz I find sorcerers much more practical on the pooter.)
imp
>:)
imp
> Most RPGs use Wisdom for Wizards and Intelligence for Clerics - I just
> never looked at the manual in this game, I just assumed it would be the
> same.
I must say I've never come across that. Which other RPGs do it that way? Are
we talking CRPGs or pen and paper?
imp
>:)
Hong Ooi
wrote:
Yikes! You mean skills are actually USED in this game?
Darn, and all I wanted to do was flip out and kill people.
Hong "totally sweet" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "I go either way."
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | -- SW
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Bill Seurer
> Most RPGs use Wisdom for Wizards and Intelligence for Clerics - I just
> never looked at the manual in this game, I just assumed it would be the
> same.
Name two.
Bill Seurer
> Ridiculous. Hope this quest is not a game killer.
There are several ways to make the potion.
Knight37
whispered:
I'd like to know which ones you're thinking of. I can't think of any, and
I've looked at a ton of RPGs.
--
Knight37
I don't want to remember nothing. Nothing. You understand? And I want to be
rich. You know, someone important, like an actor.
-- Cypher, "The Matrix"
Knight37
whispered:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:37:30 +0100, imp
> <imp...@partmaps.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom Tweedy wrote:
>>> That's right. And it's like the 2nd level in the Dragons Eye in the
>>> Alchemy Lab - it needs a character with at least 15 alchemy?!!
>>> Ridiculous. Hope this quest is not a game killer.
>>
>>I haven't got there yet, but I hope so, as none of my current party
>>have alchemy. But a score of 15 isn't ridiculous for that stage in the
>>game. A wizard should have 15 alchemy by 12th level. (I don't have a
>>wizard, however, coz I find sorcerers much more practical on the
>>pooter.)
>
> Yikes! You mean skills are actually USED in this game?
>
> Darn, and all I wanted to do was flip out and kill people.
>
>
> Hong "totally sweet" Ooi
Are you a mammal? Got frisbee?
--
Knight37
You don't like your job, you don't strike! You go in every day and do it
really half-assed. That's the American way.
-- Homer Simpson
Tom Tweedy
om> writes
Maybe my memory is going through old age... I thought Wizardry 1-8 had
it that way. Might and Magic 1-8, Ultima 1-7 and BG 1 and 2. If I'm
wrong again, drat, I'm just getting old and lazy, and should rely on my
memory. What? Eh? Now where was...
Tom
Ross Ridge
>OK, consider pen-and-paper games and role playing. In GURPS and some
>other games, different ranges of stats are given descriptions (ie,
>10-14 are above average, 15-16 are exceptional, 17-18 are genius, 19+
>are godlike, etc). So someone that may want to play a smart wizard,
>but not necessarily a genius, would stay away from the extreme (and
>then pump points into spell skills instead).
>
As I understand it, GURPS power gamers all have 16 intelligence.
Anything more is a waste of points, best spent on raising skills.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Neosaurus
>the
>smartest, fastest, etc.
Fallout was originally GURPS-based... but even Fallout encourages you to pick a
certain method of play (fighter/sneaker/talker) and stick to that, rather than
being a complete dillettante.
--
Sean Curtin
Bill Seurer
> But 14 INT in AD&D is *not* mediocre. It is only mediocre in
> powergaming circles. In roleplaying circles, the person is
> exceptionally smart.
A 14 INT in AD&D has zero game effect except for mages determining which
spells they can know. Yes, INT is super important for mages in AD&D and
14 is quite low. They aren't going to know many spells and have trouble
learning new ones.
A 14 INT for a D&D 3E character is pretty good. It gives lots of
bonuses to different skills and such. Even for mages it allows access
to up to 4th level spells which for a face-to-face campaign is going to
happen pretty far along in the game by which time you'll have had the
chance to raise your INT twice.
In "roleplaying circles" stats don't matter much. No one is going to
play an AD&D 13 INT person much differently from a 14 INT person from a
15 INT person.
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> Because the majority of CRPG games feel they must have an AD&D stamp
> of approval on them? But I'm not talking about me; I'm talking about
> why a generic player should read a manual in AD&D computer games even
> though other games don't require careful scrutiny of the rules.
What are these mythical other games? I can't think of any that don't
require you to look *something* up at some point due to lack of
explanation within the game itself. When I was learning Morrowind, I
referred to the (short) manual quite often.
If the manual is extraneous, why bother with one at all?
Whatever happened to RTFM?
imp
> The topic was about a mythical player who didn't know D&D rules, but
> had some experience at other RPG's or CRPG's. Ie, someone who went
> through Fallout with no stat higher than 15 and naively assumes all
> games might work that way. And Fallout is about a *heroic* character,
> who can be heroic without powergaming.
And being required to have a genius level intelligence in order to cast 9th level
spells isn't powergaming either. The key point in your paragraph above is *naively*, I
think - it would be very naive of anybody to assume that all games work the same,
which is why it is common sense to *read the manual*.
> But 14 INT in AD&D is *not* mediocre. It is only mediocre in
> powergaming circles. In roleplaying circles, the person is
> exceptionally smart.
Among *wizards* 14 INT is mediocre. A powergaming wizard would also have every other
stat at 18 or above...
> Because the majority of CRPG games feel they must have an AD&D stamp
> of approval on them?
Do they? I don't think they do, but I for one am glad of the amount of D&D CRPGs we
have had, being a D&D gamer myself.
> But I'm not talking about me; I'm talking about
> why a generic player should read a manual in AD&D computer games even
> though other games don't require careful scrutiny of the rules.
And as I keep responding, other games *do* require careful scrutiny of the rules, in
my opinion.
imp
>:)
imp
> Maybe my memory is going through old age... I thought Wizardry 1-8 had
> it that way. Might and Magic 1-8, Ultima 1-7 and BG 1 and 2. If I'm
> wrong again, drat, I'm just getting old and lazy, and should rely on my
> memory. What? Eh? Now where was...
Your memory is definitely going!
imp
>:)
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> > Among *wizards* 14 INT is mediocre. A powergaming wizard would also have every other
> > stat at 18 or above...
>
> since INT is not the same as intelligence, it's just a stat that is
> used almost exclusively for spell casting as opposed to be a base for
> skills. (OK, in PS:T it's used for multiple purposes)
No, it's the same as Intelligence. It's just used for a few things in
game mechanics terms (number of proficiencies, languages, chances to
learn spells, max number of spells per level).
> I used to play a ton myself too. But I'd like a lot more variety in
> computer games, sorry. AD&D just doesn't always work well in a
> computer setting. I like to play wizards, and they're just pitifully
> underpowered and useless in AD&D until they've gotten a lot of
> levels. A first level fighter can remain useful all day long, whereas
> a first level wizard has to run and hide once the one and only spell
> is cast. Even when they have higher levels, I find that in AD&D CRPGs
> my wizard characters refrain from using spells because there might be
> a more powerful enemy around to corner so why waste my few spells on
> mere orcs. Compare to Dungeon Master, Arcanum, Ultimas, and so forth,
> where wizards are useful all along the level curve/
I don't know. I found spell-casting rather pointless in Arcanum until
higher levels, at least unless I found collapsing to be a fun gameplay
feature.
> But many require less careful scrutiny because there are fewer
> unintuitive surprises. I've played and ran tons of AD&D games, so I
> know the rules pretty well, but I still find myself surprised
> sometimes when a CRPG follows the rules more strictly or has different
> "house rules". AD&D rules are just chock full of special tables and
> special rules (ie, different advancement tables for different classes,
> penalties and bonuses for all stats, etc), which inherently makes for
> larger CRPG manuals. I was never surprised at the rules in Fallout,
> and you don't have to scrutinize the manual for that game (probably
> because non-optimized characters can still rock the game).
IWD2 has one advancement table for all classes, all stats have the same
bonuses and penalties for the same numbers.
Really, RTFM. That's been an acronym for a long time for a reason.
imp
> > Among *wizards* 14 INT is mediocre. A powergaming wizard would also have every other
> > stat at 18 or above...
>
Isn't that what we were talking about? Didn't I reply to you saying "But 14 INT in AD&D
is *not* mediocre."?
> But it sort of makes sense there,
> since INT is not the same as intelligence, it's just a stat that is
> used almost exclusively for spell casting as opposed to be a base for
> skills. (OK, in PS:T it's used for multiple purposes)
Even in 2nd edition there were things like languages and extra non-weapon proficiencies
based on INT, not just wizard spellcasting.
> I used to play a ton myself too. But I'd like a lot more variety in
> computer games, sorry.
That's fine, just stop buying the D&D-based games, nobody's forcing you. It's not like
there aren't any others about!
> AD&D just doesn't always work well in a
> computer setting.
I think the turn-based gold box games worked best.
> I like to play wizards, and they're just pitifully
> underpowered and useless in AD&D until they've gotten a lot of
> levels.
A good simulation of the table-top rules then.
> A first level fighter can remain useful all day long, whereas
> a first level wizard has to run and hide once the one and only spell
> is cast. Even when they have higher levels, I find that in AD&D CRPGs
> my wizard characters refrain from using spells because there might be
> a more powerful enemy around to corner so why waste my few spells on
> mere orcs. Compare to Dungeon Master, Arcanum, Ultimas, and so forth,
> where wizards are useful all along the level curve/
A D&D-based CRPG should reflect D&D, don't you think?
> But many require less careful scrutiny because there are fewer
> unintuitive surprises. I've played and ran tons of AD&D games, so I
> know the rules pretty well, but I still find myself surprised
> sometimes when a CRPG follows the rules more strictly or has different
> "house rules". AD&D rules are just chock full of special tables and
> special rules (ie, different advancement tables for different classes,
> penalties and bonuses for all stats, etc), which inherently makes for
> larger CRPG manuals. I was never surprised at the rules in Fallout,
> and you don't have to scrutinize the manual for that game (probably
> because non-optimized characters can still rock the game).
I read the Fallout 2 manual front to back in order to understand the system and all the
options. It was common sense to do so.
I don't put furniture together either without reading the instructions first.
imp
>:)