Talking about BG2 and PnP spell tables at the same time is funny since all of them differ wildly from PnP.
Why don't bards get lvl7 and 8 arcane spells? Would you ask for it from Beamdog?
Why aren't spell components included?
Why don't paladin get their right spell progression and specific spells?
Why do Clerics have access to so many spells from different domains?
There are so many differences with PnP that the only way to see BG2 is to have house rules in mind and then almost anything goes. Some kits and classes (e.g.Monk and Sorcerer) are from 3rd edition.
Anyone who claims RC is broken hasn't played with it in a full party if your argument if balance. Hell, take a look at fighter/mage and fighter/thief variations. Even Bards (specifically blade) and sorcerers are stronger overall. Shouldn't they be nerfed according to you?
Even illegal proficiencies/stupid implementations (Haer'dalis and Edwin) are considered features.
My suggestions do include giving Bards arcane spells up to level 8 as per IWDee.
As other posters have pointed out the power of the RC compared to the classes mention above isn't important as power disparity between arcanes and other classes is an important feature of 2e. Rather, the power disparity between RC and FC (and variants) is what is important.
With this fix there is a greater incentive to play a greater variety of class and race options and that is a good thing.
Furthermore, while RC isn't very attractive right now if the Druid spells and ranger spell progression is ported from IWDee then it will still be a very powerful option.
That's an "if", RC right now has been replaced by yet another fighter variant (FC). So much for variety *yawn*.
RC does NOT compete with druid unless again, fighter/druid inferior to FC bar the overrated ironskin.
Talking about BG2 and PnP spell tables at the same time is funny since all of them differ wildly from PnP.
Why don't bards get lvl7 and 8 arcane spells? Would you ask for it from Beamdog?
Why aren't spell components included?
Why don't paladin get their right spell progression and specific spells?
Why do Clerics have access to so many spells from different domains?
There are so many differences with PnP that the only way to see BG2 is to have house rules in mind and then almost anything goes. Some kits and classes (e.g.Monk and Sorcerer) are from 3rd edition.
Anyone who claims RC is broken hasn't played with it in a full party if your argument if balance. Hell, take a look at fighter/mage and fighter/thief variations. Even Bards (specifically blade) and sorcerers are stronger overall. Shouldn't they be nerfed according to you?
Even illegal proficiencies/stupid implementations (Haer'dalis and Edwin) are considered features.
My suggestions do include giving Bards arcane spells up to level 8 as per IWDee.
As other posters have pointed out the power of the RC compared to the classes mention above isn't important as power disparity between arcanes and other classes is an important feature of 2e. Rather, the power disparity between RC and FC (and variants) is what is important.
With this fix there is a greater incentive to play a greater variety of class and race options and that is a good thing.
Furthermore, while RC isn't very attractive right now if the Druid spells and ranger spell progression is ported from IWDee then it will still be a very powerful option.
That's an "if", RC right now has been replaced by yet another fighter variant (FC). So much for variety *yawn*.
RC does NOT compete with druid unless again, fighter/druid inferior to FC bar the overrated ironskin.
That is variety as you can now choose a great variety of races for your FC.
My suggestions are intended to be implemented collectively.
Edit: multi FD, FC and RC are all competitive at the moment. If FC has an edge then the updated spells and tables from IWDee would certainly remedy that.
Porting Icewind Dale spells over to BG2EE also really wouldn't improve the Ranger -> Cleric or Cleric/Ranger. Using the Icewind Dale progression tables you wouldn't get access to level 3 druid spells (on top of getting cleric spells) if you dual classed from a ranger to a cleric until a total of I think 2.325 million xp (2.4 million in the case of multi-classes). You couldn't access level 4 druid spells until level 15 (3.9 million million xp for duals or 4.2 million for a multi class). Access to level 5 druid spells wouldn't come until level 22 (you'd need 7.575 million xp for a dual class and it would be impossible to achieve for a multi-classes given the 8 million cap).
RC is useless now. Actually there was much more competition between RC and FC before. Before you traded iron skin for faster leveling. Insect plague cast time is 9, and you have to cast it in the middle of battle or lose even more time waiting for true sight. It also tries to do too much at the same time but is very spell slot starved.
Now you don't get anything with ranger while fighter levels faster.
F/D is bad. Really bad. It lacks buffs for combat prowess and levels (Druids level very slowly in SoA/ToB) for casting.
RC is useless now. Actually there was much more competition between RC and FC before. Before you traded iron skin for faster leveling. Insect plague cast time is 9, and you have to cast it in the middle of battle or lose even more time waiting for true sight. It also tries to do too much at the same time but is very spell slot starved.
Now you don't get anything with ranger while fighter levels faster.
F/D is bad. Really bad. It lacks buffs for combat prowess and levels (Druids level very slowly in SoA/ToB) for casting.
Jaheira also somehow gets raise dead.
Before there was little incentive to play anything other than a RC. Now any choice can work well.
RC still offers a lot. 2 free pips means you can use Stupifier and Ashideena in BG and then be ready to use FoA in BG2. This simple fact gives the build a huge edge. I can certainly say that my FMC feels quite gimp having to offhand FoA. Then there's slings ...
I also don't see how the leveling speed of fighter could make a meaningful difference.
So there are incentives to play RC still or you can go with FC and additional racial perks.
I'm pretty sure that FC is supposed to be a more common multiclass choice anyway.
Anyway, you can exaggerate and downplay as many perks and disadvantages as you like but the evidence is strong that this is a bug squashed and nothing more. Modify the ini file if you really want to cheat.
Right - these changes makes that so. But before, you got all sorts of druid spells before you were supposed to. The changes in IWDEE and the 1.3 patch make the class work correctly, fixing the bug. Before, I dualled a ranger to cleric at level 4, and I was getting druid spells when I hit cleric level 5 - even though, as a ranger, I didn't have any spells at all! That, my friend, was a huge, six-legged, antennaed, walk-up-walls buzz-in-your-ear BUG.
Sure you could argue its a fix but without a properly implemented sphere system nothing in the game from a divine spell standpoint is set in stone. Including clerics with a background as a ranger having the potential to gain access to all (or nearly all given Greater Elemental Summoning) cleric and druid spells.
Even if you view this as a fix but its a poor one at that. For one thing as fixes go its surprisingly absent from the carefully constructed and approved listing of fixes that was to come in this patch. But besides that its a severe nerf to the combo when a precision fix (making all druid spells only accessible when you hit level 8 - provided you have the cleric level to cast them) would have been a better approach and would have remained consistent with the documentation for the game. Its just a bad move given that access to these spells has been standard behaviour for the series for 16 years and that there are no NPC's that have this combo (so the only implications of it are for player characters who are already going to be overpowered compared to most NPC's). Plus frankly in the past when people in the community have been asked about this specific fix the response has been less than receptive.
Just so there is no confusion, something labeled WAI by the developers of the day CANNOT by definition be an exploit or a "huge, six-legged, antennaed, walk-up-walls buzz-in-your-ear" bug.
Nerfing BG R/C was a flagrant violation of Beamdog's own statement of not modifying the original behaviour of the games. While we are in favour of unifying the EE experience, without also porting over IWD Ranger Spell progression and IWD Druid Spells this was simply not needed
Just so there is no confusion, something labeled WAI by the developers of the day CANNOT by definition be an exploit or a "huge, six-legged, antennaed, walk-up-walls buzz-in-your-ear" bug.
Nerfing BG R/C was a flagrant violation of Beamdog's own statement of not modifying the original behaviour of the games. While we are in favour of unifying the EE experience, without also porting over IWD Ranger Spell progression and IWD Druid Spells this was simply not needed
I will continue to politely disagree, though, that giving non-druids access to druid-only spells was WAI. I think it's pretty clear that Bioware was constrained by the way they made the engine, and they were nowhere near as interested in improving it via patches as Beamdog are. Since Beamdog has figured out how to fix that particular engine bug, I think the class is *now* WAI.
You can disagree all you want; does not stop you from being wrong.
BioWare said it was WAI at the time in BG1 and even after Black Isle (15 years before Beamdog) solved the engine issue, BioWare deliberately chose NOT to incorporate the change into BG2.
Now we are big believers that the IEee games should be unified, but Beamdog has been steadfast in resisting this request and consistently stated that they were only 'enhancing' the games and not changing them... and yet here again we have another underhanded undocumented change that simply was neither needed nor inline with the original intent. There are far more important things that need 'fixing' and numerous other options that should be unified first.
The option to change it is great and shows good unification potential; however, the kicker is that just like the max HP change, it was shadily implemented contrary to the original functionality.
Not surprisingly you are again mistaken. It was solved and they admitted that they chose not to change it. I suppose you could believe they were lying, but that aside, their official stance at the time proves you wrong.
Funny enough, Beamdog has used that exact line as a reason for not pursuing other suggestions; which is why we are not merely suggesting it, but it explicitly stating it as has been brought up previously in this thread.
The only thing clear about this change (and indeed many of the other stealth 'fixes') is that people on both sides of the debate are opposed to it. Since in this very thread the Devs have admitted mistakes were made and that there is scope for future correcting of various issues it is important to lodge ones vote on what matters.
Your constant attempts to obfuscate the issue(s) will ultimately be unsuccessful; ad hominem is the refuge for those that have no answers.
There won't be any further updates to the game before the holidays; we won't have time to make changes and test them. But these things are on the radar for our next update, which (fingers crossed) won't take a full year to release.
It was solved and they admitted that they chose not to change it. I suppose you could believe they were lying, but that aside, their official stance at the time proves you wrong.
Link? Cite? Context? Can you provide anything to back this up, to convince anyone reading this thread that statement is true, and not just the online ranting of a disgruntled videogame player?
If you want to accuse us (or BioWare) of lying just have the intestinal fortitude to come out and say it. It was on their official forums back in the day and has been discussed elsewhere on these forums as well. If you want to provide any evidence that otherwise actually refutes the statement, feel free; if not, then just accept that you are wrong in this instance and take solace that you are correct about Grandmastery.
The only thing clear about this change (and indeed many of the other stealth 'fixes') is that people on both sides of the debate are opposed to it.
Umm, do you not see that this statement literally makes no sense?
Okay, I'm not going to beat my head against a wall any longer. Good luck with your crusade.
A self-inflicted concussion would explain your attitude and lack of comprehension. No worries, we are not opposed to assisting you. People that are both for and against original BG R/C functionality disagree that it should have been changed; same for max HP rolls among other examples that were introduced into BG2 and presumably will be introduced into BG1 with SoD.
In not just this thread people have expressed disappointment with the deliberate change of old game mechanics. No one is upset about the options being present, but rather about the arbitrary alteration.
Suffering a traumatic brain injury can be life threating. We urge you to seek proper medicate attention and wish you a full and speedy recovery.
Okay, That's gone on about five yards beyond far enough.
Discussing what you agree or disagree with in regard to the game implementation or bug fixes (or balance changes, or new features, or your favorite color of popsicle, or anything else for that matter) is all fine, but personal attacks and direct insults are absolutely not okay.
I don't care who started this little squabble, but I'm finishing it here. Thread closed.
Comments
RC does NOT compete with druid unless again, fighter/druid inferior to FC bar the overrated ironskin.
My suggestions are intended to be implemented collectively.
Edit: multi FD, FC and RC are all competitive at the moment. If FC has an edge then the updated spells and tables from IWDee would certainly remedy that.
Before you traded iron skin for faster leveling. Insect plague cast time is 9, and you have to cast it in the middle of battle or lose even more time waiting for true sight. It also tries to do too much at the same time but is very spell slot starved.
Now you don't get anything with ranger while fighter levels faster.
F/D is bad. Really bad. It lacks buffs for combat prowess and levels (Druids level very slowly in SoA/ToB) for casting.
Jaheira also somehow gets raise dead.
RC still offers a lot. 2 free pips means you can use Stupifier and Ashideena in BG and then be ready to use FoA in BG2. This simple fact gives the build a huge edge. I can certainly say that my FMC feels quite gimp having to offhand FoA. Then there's slings ...
I also don't see how the leveling speed of fighter could make a meaningful difference.
So there are incentives to play RC still or you can go with FC and additional racial perks.
I'm pretty sure that FC is supposed to be a more common multiclass choice anyway.
Anyway, you can exaggerate and downplay as many perks and disadvantages as you like but the evidence is strong that this is a bug squashed and nothing more. Modify the ini file if you really want to cheat.
Even if you view this as a fix but its a poor one at that. For one thing as fixes go its surprisingly absent from the carefully constructed and approved listing of fixes that was to come in this patch. But besides that its a severe nerf to the combo when a precision fix (making all druid spells only accessible when you hit level 8 - provided you have the cleric level to cast them) would have been a better approach and would have remained consistent with the documentation for the game. Its just a bad move given that access to these spells has been standard behaviour for the series for 16 years and that there are no NPC's that have this combo (so the only implications of it are for player characters who are already going to be overpowered compared to most NPC's). Plus frankly in the past when people in the community have been asked about this specific fix the response has been less than receptive.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3231/opinion-of-cleric-rangers/p1
Nerfing BG R/C was a flagrant violation of Beamdog's own statement of not modifying the original behaviour of the games. While we are in favour of unifying the EE experience, without also porting over IWD Ranger Spell progression and IWD Druid Spells this was simply not needed
BioWare said it was WAI at the time in BG1 and even after Black Isle (15 years before Beamdog) solved the engine issue, BioWare deliberately chose NOT to incorporate the change into BG2.
Now we are big believers that the IEee games should be unified, but Beamdog has been steadfast in resisting this request and consistently stated that they were only 'enhancing' the games and not changing them... and yet here again we have another underhanded undocumented change that simply was neither needed nor inline with the original intent. There are far more important things that need 'fixing' and numerous other options that should be unified first.
The option to change it is great and shows good unification potential; however, the kicker is that just like the max HP change, it was shadily implemented contrary to the original functionality.
Funny enough, Beamdog has used that exact line as a reason for not pursuing other suggestions; which is why we are not merely suggesting it, but it explicitly stating it as has been brought up previously in this thread.
The only thing clear about this change (and indeed many of the other stealth 'fixes') is that people on both sides of the debate are opposed to it. Since in this very thread the Devs have admitted mistakes were made and that there is scope for future correcting of various issues it is important to lodge ones vote on what matters.
Your constant attempts to obfuscate the issue(s) will ultimately be unsuccessful; ad hominem is the refuge for those that have no answers.
In not just this thread people have expressed disappointment with the deliberate change of old game mechanics. No one is upset about the options being present, but rather about the arbitrary alteration.
Suffering a traumatic brain injury can be life threating. We urge you to seek proper medicate attention and wish you a full and speedy recovery.
Discussing what you agree or disagree with in regard to the game implementation or bug fixes (or balance changes, or new features, or your favorite color of popsicle, or anything else for that matter) is all fine, but personal attacks and direct insults are absolutely not okay.
I don't care who started this little squabble, but I'm finishing it here. Thread closed.