@Roller12, you do seem to have a very unique perspective on what is 'Legal' or legitimate.
But the problem most people are having here isn't what is "Legal", it is that the OP appeared to be bragging how 'Easy' Drizzt's is to beat (something that is historically one of the tougher battles in the first game). And then going on about how he removed the level cap and used abilities that are broken and spells that aren't allowed in vanilla BG to do it. Well, of course it would be easy to kill him then. You are changing the conditions of the test to make the Kobayashi Maru rescuable.
And even then, doing that is just fine. It's a game. Play it any way they want. But to Brag about it in a manner that appears to be intended to say that the game isn't tough enough and needs to be fixed, or that (more probably) the OP is in some way a "Great" player, 'Appears' to only have been done for bragging rights. Kind of like saying "I won 10 mile foot race in my Ferrari." It just appears to be a bit obnoxious on the face of it. If that wasn't their intent, maybe they might consider different wording? Just a suggestion.
@Roller12, you do seem to have a very unique perspective on what is 'Legal' or legitimate.
But the problem most people are having here isn't what is "Legal", it is that the OP appeared to be bragging how 'Easy' Drizzt's is to beat (something that is historically one of the tougher battles in the first game). And then going on about how he removed the level cap and used abilities that are broken and spells that aren't allowed in vanilla BG to do it. Well, of course it would be easy to kill him then. You are changing the conditions of the test to make the Kobayashi Maru rescuable.
It is interesting how in the first part you disagree with me that adding stuff into the game changes the balance, and in the second part your saying that adding stuff into the game changes the balance. So what shall it be?
Tbh this thread feels like a massive butthurt. Why not just say "whatever" and move on. Drizzt is beatable with anyone who has finished the Nashkel mines.
It is interesting how in the first part you disagree with me that adding stuff into the game changes the balance, and in the second part your saying that adding stuff into the game changes the balance. So what shall it be?
Saying something is legal or legitimate has no bearing on whether or not it affects game balance. He's saying that he sees no problem with adding things to the game, but if you make the game easier for yourself, you should expect that previously difficult encounters will then be not so difficult. And so it makes no sense to complain that the game is too easy.
It just appears to be a bit obnoxious on the face of it. If that wasn't their intent, maybe they might consider different wording?
What OP wrote also struck me as how you described it. However, one should keep in mind that there are many non-native English speakers on this forum (I am one). Maybe the OP was one, too. Even if not, nuances like that aren't necessarily easy to catch as you're writing it, especially if you're writing a simple forum post and not an essay homework to be turned in.
Saying something is legal or legitimate has no bearing on whether or not it affects game balance. He's saying that he sees no problem with adding things to the game, but if you make the game easier for yourself, you should expect that previously difficult encounters will then be not so difficult. And so it makes no sense to complain that the game is too easy.
Very true. Ironically this invalidates the whole bg:ee. (most of it anyway). Unless they tweak the encounters to reflect on the altered system, which i doubt Overhaul is even allowed to do.
No. The level cap still exists, and they didn't add game breaking items.
Equating the items added to BG:EE or the changes from the BG2 engine with me removing the xp cap and casting Time Stop in the final battle is ludicrous.
Artemis exists in the game but was never used. I believe he was suppose to make a cameo if you used Drizit's help against Bodhi, or maybe if you killed him, who knows.
It is this type of stuff with unfinished business that I wish Overhaul would fix, but it looks like that isn't going to happen.
There is no time stop in vanilla BG. Pretty sure it is in bg:ee. There is no shapershifter class in vanilla bg, pretty sure it is in bg:ee. There is no stoneskin in vanilla bg, pretty sure it is in bg:ee. There are no gamebreaking features in vanilla bg which can be enabled by removing the levelcap. Everything in this thread is about features added by bg:ee.
With a guy CHANGING the shapeshifter class with a mod, CHANGING the werebears summoned with a mod, and REMOVING the xp cap to get access to the 6th level druid spell that he modified to be WAY more powerful than it is suppose to be, and you aren't even suppose to get the new version.
So no, the CHANGED shapeshifter class wasn't added with BG:EE, the CHANGED werebears weren't added with BG:EE, and 6th level druid spells weren't added with BG:EE.
It is interesting how in the first part you disagree with me that adding stuff into the game changes the balance, and in the second part your saying that adding stuff into the game changes the balance. So what shall it be?
Saying something is legal or legitimate has no bearing on whether or not it affects game balance. He's saying that he sees no problem with adding things to the game, but if you make the game easier for yourself, you should expect that previously difficult encounters will then be not so difficult. And so it makes no sense to complain that the game is too easy.
Saying something is legal or legitimate has no bearing on whether or not it affects game balance. He's saying that he sees no problem with adding things to the game, but if you make the game easier for yourself, you should expect that previously difficult encounters will then be not so difficult. And so it makes no sense to complain that the game is too easy.
Very true. Ironically this invalidates the whole bg:ee. (most of it anyway). Unless they tweak the encounters to reflect on the altered system, which i doubt Overhaul is even allowed to do.
I don't think it invalidates anything. I am sure that it is possible to balance any new additions that BG:EE implements against the existing scheme and flow of the encounters. However, they didn't implement removing the level cap, nor the addition of higher level spells and abilities (that I am aware of).
And I would be VERY surprised if they included Time Stop in BG1:EE. There would be no reason to do so. And even if they did, it could only be cast as a scroll as (without the XP Cap removed), no one could cast it as part of their spell book. So one single scroll would not alter the balance of the game the way removing the XP cap does. but again, play as you want. Just don't brag that you aren't altering the difficulty when you are.
Ironically this invalidates the whole bg:ee. (most of it anyway). Unless they tweak the encounters to reflect on the altered system, which i doubt Overhaul is even allowed to do.
Artemis exists in the game but was never used. I believe he was suppose to make a cameo if you used Drizit's help against Bodhi, or maybe if you killed him, who knows.
It is this type of stuff with unfinished business that I wish Overhaul would fix, but it looks like that isn't going to happen.
I've never seen a dev come out and say why they aren't putting things back in the game that were cut. (Please feel free to weigh in here any dev). I've heard other people say because of contract limitations, but I thought that putting things in that were in the code but were missing from the final game would be considered a "fix" not changing existing content (which the contract forbids).
I'd bet that "Fixing" something is not the same as 'completing' something. To fix a spell that doesn't act as it is supposed to is far different from writing the content necessary to flesh out a quest that was never completed. Or something like that.
In some of the cases the code is done, it was just never turned on... so I could see that easily being argued either way, since it was original developers who wrote it, Overhaul would just be fixing the "mistake" of it not being turned on.
I mean, I understand it the way you are saying it also, that even makes more sense. I would just love to see a dev come out and say:
1) We can't add in incomplete things that were coded/half coded and were never turned on. 2) We can but we aren't going to. 3) We can and we might do it we might not. 4) We can and it is planned for in the future.
am not hacking am just following D&D rules and not nerfed Baldurs Gate rules...
Well, you are not following Baldurs Gate rules and wonder why something like that happens? LOL
I dont find that funny, i thought that BG followed D&D rules... it says D&D on the cover book from 1998...
Well, now you know what you thought is wrong. Now you know it follows BG rules instead - even they follow D&D as good as possible - and you can't get more than 161.000 XP, and you can't get many unimplemented D&D skills, and you can kill someone easily you should not be able to kill that way normally if you manipulate your game to get abilities for your character it should not have and the opponent is not designed to face in combat. So just more LOL.
By the way, I can't remember to have read something about Drizzt in the D&D rules. He is part of the world, not of the rules.
It is possible that his appearance in BG1 is at an earlier point in his development than the manual lists. Just a thought.
But he clearly has Twinkle and Icing Death on him as they drop when you kill him. So the fact that they don't register as magic weapons is clearly a flaw. And if that flaw were fixed, I don't think the 6th level Werebears would have lunched him quite so easily.
You are equating features added by BG:EE. With a guy...
im doing nothing of these things.
Are you in a troll tag team with the OP, or did you ignore 90% of the thread and pop in just to be contrary?
All these comments about Drizzt being unbeatable are ignoring the power of Plot. He cannot be defeated by anything ever, because in his particular book series Drizzty Sue is the main character, and as such wields Plot +5 against his enemies.
In Baldur's Gate, he carries no such plot armour, and is as such governed by his actual statistics, which aren't actually very impressive. Since even Elminster soils himself at the thought of facing you by the end of your journey, the idea of cheekily taking out a plotless Drizzt using dread sorcery, ganging up on him, or simply filling him full of holes in a battle completely slanted in your favour early on in your career isn't really a blip in your illustrious career.
You are equating features added by BG:EE. With a guy...
im doing nothing of these things.
Are you in a troll tag team with the OP, or did you ignore 90% of the thread and pop in just to be contrary?
All these comments about Drizzt being unbeatable are ignoring the power of Plot. He cannot be defeated by anything ever, because in his particular book series Drizzty Sue is the main character, and as such wields Plot +5 against his enemies.
In Baldur's Gate, he carries no such plot armour, and is as such governed by his actual statistics, which aren't actually very impressive. Since even Elminster soils himself at the thought of facing you by the end of your journey, the idea of cheekily taking out a plotless Drizzt using dread sorcery, ganging up on him, or simply filling him full of holes in a battle completely slanted in your favour early on in your career isn't really a blip in your illustrious career.
I think the point is if he is that weak when represented by D&D then perhaps whoever made his D&D version didn't make him powerful enough. Also as you pointed out he never was killed in the D&D books so in theory he must have survived Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 encounters with the Bhaalspawn.
You are equating features added by BG:EE. With a guy...
im doing nothing of these things.
Are you in a troll tag team with the OP, or did you ignore 90% of the thread and pop in just to be contrary?
All these comments about Drizzt being unbeatable are ignoring the power of Plot. He cannot be defeated by anything ever, because in his particular book series Drizzty Sue is the main character, and as such wields Plot +5 against his enemies.
In Baldur's Gate, he carries no such plot armour, and is as such governed by his actual statistics, which aren't actually very impressive. Since even Elminster soils himself at the thought of facing you by the end of your journey, the idea of cheekily taking out a plotless Drizzt using dread sorcery, ganging up on him, or simply filling him full of holes in a battle completely slanted in your favour early on in your career isn't really a blip in your illustrious career.
I think the point is if he is that weak when represented by D&D then perhaps whoever made his D&D version didn't make him powerful enough. Also as you pointed out he never was killed in the D&D books so in theory he must have survived Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 encounters with the Bhaalspawn.
Correct, I said he never died in the books. Given that these games are most definitely not said books, he has no protection whatsoever, and wherever that would conflict with his own book-related timeline it is safely assumed that he is raised accordingly at a later date and decides never, ever to mention to anyone that he, the legendary Drow Ranger, was killed by five low level meddling kids and their talking animal accomplice. Would you?
As it stands however, it wouldn't really matter if he had 25 in every stat, he's a feeble ranger with no ranged weapon. His tactical blunder is just asking to be taken advantage of.
You are equating features added by BG:EE. With a guy...
im doing nothing of these things.
Are you in a troll tag team with the OP, or did you ignore 90% of the thread and pop in just to be contrary?
All these comments about Drizzt being unbeatable are ignoring the power of Plot. He cannot be defeated by anything ever, because in his particular book series Drizzty Sue is the main character, and as such wields Plot +5 against his enemies.
In Baldur's Gate, he carries no such plot armour, and is as such governed by his actual statistics, which aren't actually very impressive. Since even Elminster soils himself at the thought of facing you by the end of your journey, the idea of cheekily taking out a plotless Drizzt using dread sorcery, ganging up on him, or simply filling him full of holes in a battle completely slanted in your favour early on in your career isn't really a blip in your illustrious career.
I think the point is if he is that weak when represented by D&D then perhaps whoever made his D&D version didn't make him powerful enough. Also as you pointed out he never was killed in the D&D books so in theory he must have survived Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 encounters with the Bhaalspawn.
Correct, I said he never died in the books. Given that these games are most definitely not said books, he has no protection whatsoever, and wherever that would conflict with his own book-related timeline it is safely assumed that he is raised accordingly at a later date and decides never, ever to mention to anyone that he, the legendary Drow Ranger, was killed by five low level meddling kids and their talking animal accomplice. Would you?
As it stands however, it wouldn't really matter if he had 25 in every stat, he's a feeble ranger with no ranged weapon. His tactical blunder is just asking to be taken advantage of.
Likely hed be too fast for your to catch in reality. His speed was supposed to be supernatural (at least according to the books). He was also very difficult to detect and very intelligent for a fighter class. The drow wanted him to be a mage at birth, but he chose to be a fighter with some help from his father.
When Ultima Online first came online, the very first day, someone figured out how to take out Lord British. It is a thing with games of this nature that the players want to try themselves against iconic characters. That is why Eleminster and Drizzts were included in the game. And tentatively made difficult to kill. Every now and again, someone comes along and claims to have killed them in some unique manner that wasn't foreseen by the developers. It's a whole thing.
Point is, he was made to be a tough battle. And in most cases he is. And when someone posts something like this thread, they are always met with laughter and sometimes derision. Usually the derision comes from the poster having used some extenuating situation above and beyond the rules to make it happen, as in this case. Sure, some of the posters get obnoxious, but in truth, the OP was posting something obnoxious as well. So long as it doesn't get out of hand, no harm done.
Comments
But the problem most people are having here isn't what is "Legal", it is that the OP appeared to be bragging how 'Easy' Drizzt's is to beat (something that is historically one of the tougher battles in the first game). And then going on about how he removed the level cap and used abilities that are broken and spells that aren't allowed in vanilla BG to do it. Well, of course it would be easy to kill him then. You are changing the conditions of the test to make the Kobayashi Maru rescuable.
And even then, doing that is just fine. It's a game. Play it any way they want. But to Brag about it in a manner that appears to be intended to say that the game isn't tough enough and needs to be fixed, or that (more probably) the OP is in some way a "Great" player, 'Appears' to only have been done for bragging rights. Kind of like saying "I won 10 mile foot race in my Ferrari." It just appears to be a bit obnoxious on the face of it. If that wasn't their intent, maybe they might consider different wording? Just a suggestion.
Tbh this thread feels like a massive butthurt. Why not just say "whatever" and move on. Drizzt is beatable with anyone who has finished the Nashkel mines.
No. The level cap still exists, and they didn't add game breaking items.
Equating the items added to BG:EE or the changes from the BG2 engine with me removing the xp cap and casting Time Stop in the final battle is ludicrous.
@Bhaaldog
http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4262
Artemis exists in the game but was never used. I believe he was suppose to make a cameo if you used Drizit's help against Bodhi, or maybe if you killed him, who knows.
It is this type of stuff with unfinished business that I wish Overhaul would fix, but it looks like that isn't going to happen.
You are equating features added by BG:EE.
With a guy CHANGING the shapeshifter class with a mod, CHANGING the werebears summoned with a mod, and REMOVING the xp cap to get access to the 6th level druid spell that he modified to be WAY more powerful than it is suppose to be, and you aren't even suppose to get the new version.
So no, the CHANGED shapeshifter class wasn't added with BG:EE, the CHANGED werebears weren't added with BG:EE, and 6th level druid spells weren't added with BG:EE.
That is ludicrous on all accounts.
This picture says it all.
And I would be VERY surprised if they included Time Stop in BG1:EE. There would be no reason to do so. And even if they did, it could only be cast as a scroll as (without the XP Cap removed), no one could cast it as part of their spell book. So one single scroll would not alter the balance of the game the way removing the XP cap does. but again, play as you want. Just don't brag that you aren't altering the difficulty when you are.
I've never seen a dev come out and say why they aren't putting things back in the game that were cut. (Please feel free to weigh in here any dev). I've heard other people say because of contract limitations, but I thought that putting things in that were in the code but were missing from the final game would be considered a "fix" not changing existing content (which the contract forbids).
In some of the cases the code is done, it was just never turned on... so I could see that easily being argued either way, since it was original developers who wrote it, Overhaul would just be fixing the "mistake" of it not being turned on.
I mean, I understand it the way you are saying it also, that even makes more sense. I would just love to see a dev come out and say:
1) We can't add in incomplete things that were coded/half coded and were never turned on.
2) We can but we aren't going to.
3) We can and we might do it we might not.
4) We can and it is planned for in the future.
Dork
/End thread
Now you know it follows BG rules instead - even they follow D&D as good as possible - and you can't get more than 161.000 XP, and you can't get many unimplemented D&D skills, and you can kill someone easily you should not be able to kill that way normally if you manipulate your game to get abilities for your character it should not have and the opponent is not designed to face in combat. So just more LOL.
By the way, I can't remember to have read something about Drizzt in the D&D rules. He is part of the world, not of the rules.
But he clearly has Twinkle and Icing Death on him as they drop when you kill him. So the fact that they don't register as magic weapons is clearly a flaw. And if that flaw were fixed, I don't think the 6th level Werebears would have lunched him quite so easily.
All these comments about Drizzt being unbeatable are ignoring the power of Plot. He cannot be defeated by anything ever, because in his particular book series Drizzty Sue is the main character, and as such wields Plot +5 against his enemies.
In Baldur's Gate, he carries no such plot armour, and is as such governed by his actual statistics, which aren't actually very impressive.
Since even Elminster soils himself at the thought of facing you by the end of your journey, the idea of cheekily taking out a plotless Drizzt using dread sorcery, ganging up on him, or simply filling him full of holes in a battle completely slanted in your favour early on in your career isn't really a blip in your illustrious career.
As it stands however, it wouldn't really matter if he had 25 in every stat, he's a feeble ranger with no ranged weapon. His tactical blunder is just asking to be taken advantage of.
When Ultima Online first came online, the very first day, someone figured out how to take out Lord British. It is a thing with games of this nature that the players want to try themselves against iconic characters. That is why Eleminster and Drizzts were included in the game. And tentatively made difficult to kill. Every now and again, someone comes along and claims to have killed them in some unique manner that wasn't foreseen by the developers. It's a whole thing.
Point is, he was made to be a tough battle. And in most cases he is. And when someone posts something like this thread, they are always met with laughter and sometimes derision. Usually the derision comes from the poster having used some extenuating situation above and beyond the rules to make it happen, as in this case. Sure, some of the posters get obnoxious, but in truth, the OP was posting something obnoxious as well. So long as it doesn't get out of hand, no harm done.