They *can't* use the Druid stronghold. The Druid Grove questline is one of the few that are actually hard-wired to the class itself: you need to complete the questline and meet the challenges in order to advance in level. Since we expect the Shaman will be its own class (and know for sure it won't be a Druid kit), we can safely assume that the Shaman won't have the kind of levelling limitations that the Druid class does.
So not only would it not make sense to do, it's really just not possible because of the way the classes are set up. The more likely alternatives for the Shaman would be either the Cleric questline or the Ranger questline.
I can't test it atm, since i don't have BG2/BG2EE installed, but I'm pretty sure you can advance in druid levels while completly ignoring the druid grove. The druid class has no level limitations in BG (as it does in P&P) it just has a huge jump xp wise.
I wasn't aware that BG2 actually enforced the rule about druid leveling. I'm pretty sure that a fighter/druid who did the fighter stronghold quest wouldn't be barred from reaching level 15 as a druid when they earned the xp.
I don't see any mechanical reason that would prevent a shaman doing the Druid quest.
Setting aside that the Blackguard isn't even a Fighter kit to begin with, the problem isn't the location, it's the questline.
They could have sent Blackguard PCs to the Order of the Radiant Heart, have them wipe out everyone inside and defile the place, and then do a few evil quests for your patron (you know, that demon that's mentioned in the kit biography). But no, you need to allow a priest of Tempus to set up shop, and make sure poor Chanelle chooses love over money, and do all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense for a character that is designed to be Evil (there are Good Fighters, Neutral Fighters and Evil Fighters; there are no Good or Neutral Blackguards).
So, yeah, this isn't a legal issue. It's just another oversight.
First of all, you don't "need" to allow Bolumir to set up shop. You don't "need" to pick any of the specific options for each problem that's presented to you as the new ruler of the keep. You are given three choices, and are free to pick any of the options you like -- for whatever roleplay reasons you like, by the way. Maybe an evil Blackguard would allow the priest of Tempus in order to keep his mewling sheeples content after executing the impertinent merchant who dared presume to lecture his betters on best practices of keep ruling. (and good riddance; his replacement was much more to my liking, I've found)
If you think the Blackguard somehow doesn't benefit from keeping the people of the de'Arnise lands happy, you clearly don't know what it is to be evil, my friend. I am free to go about my business as I like, and upon my return to the CASTLE -- that that idiot girl just GAVE to me for NO REASON -- I have a box of money sitting there waiting for me to take it. Why WOULDN'T I like that deal?!? I'm evil, not insane. If it means I have to sit and play Judge Judy for a little bit, so be it; I'll throw the peasants a bone every now and then to keep them happy (because that's not Lawful Good rulership, that's SAVVY rulership), but if I'm talked to in a fashion other than I've come to expect I'll just have to make my headsman earn his keep, now won't I?
Seriously. As one Blackguard to another... chill out. It's a GOOD thing that our patron doesn't really keep a close eye on us. I mean, May His Dark Name Be Praised, and all that. But look: we get mirrored powers of the Paladin class (except more awesome), we get the pick of the best armor and weapons from our haul of loot (who's going to stop us, Minsc or his hamster?), and in the sequel we get the Fighter's Keep, also known as the Free Money and Storage House. Granted, we will have to fight for it in the end... but, for my part, this is actually a benefit. Because I like fighting. Because, hello, Blackguard. Have we met?
The Blackguard discussion reminds me of an RPGMaker game I have once played. You are the evil overlord and go around conquering stuff. in a couple of dialogues you make it pretty clear that, while you are an evil overlord wanting to conquer the entire world, everyone who is conquered is under your protection. Why? Because he *owns* them and *nobody* is going to touch his stuff. He also improves the condition of his realm and after a while most of his subject live a safe, happy live.
He rules everything and gets women, money and whatever he wants and his subject have food, safety and peace.
For me Evil was always egoistical/selfish. Everything can be done with an evil character. The good character does something because he is an altruist, wanting to improve everyones lives. The Evil character (as i play him at least) is an pragmatic utilitarist. He does what benefits him - and being popular and loved can be *very* benefical if you use it to get your goals. Good and Evil is less about the actions and more about the goals.
I wasn't aware that BG2 actually enforced the rule about druid leveling. I'm pretty sure that a fighter/druid who did the fighter stronghold quest wouldn't be barred from reaching level 15 as a druid when they earned the xp.
I don't see any mechanical reason that would prevent a shaman doing the Druid quest.
I dimly recall (my first BG2 playthrough MANY years ago was as a shapeshifter Druid) that I didn't get to progress until after I'd completed the Grove questline... but after doing a bit of investigating I see that it was just a clever use of experience capping that held me back.
There is still something mechanically that keeps you from doing the Druid quests as a Shaman: your class title changes. As a Druid, you become Great Druid on your character sheet. I don't believe they would allow this to happen to a Shaman PC.
Actually, you're not free to pick any option you like - because consistently making Evil decisions will get you kicked out of the Keep. You can metagame the system to prevent that, but even within that framework, the outcomes are heavily slanted in favor of compassion/forgiveness, which aren't necessarily natural fits for blackguards.
Sure, a smart blackguard would keep the people happy, and that would cover things like the flood or getting rid of the bandits, but you get nothing for executing Lastin, and 15K EXP if you forgive him. You don't get to visit Bolumir's shop at all if you turn the priest away. Not only do you have to get involved in some maid's personal life, you have to make sure she marries the guy she loves and pay her dowry. And executing the moneylenders still requires that you pay the peasants' debts yourself, or else you get nothing out of that whole subquest.
...So you don't get the best reward if you go evil. That is an old, common problem with BG. You are *not* forced to pick that. You can always say "I'm a Blackguard, I will do what I want!" You are free to do that, but you have to live with the consequences. The problem lies in less Gold & XP for evil murderers, not in the quests themselves, because consequences are a *good* thing.
Actually, you're not free to pick any option you like - because consistently making Evil decisions will get you kicked out of the Keep.
Definitively, you *are* free to pick the options you like. Getting kicked out (revolted upon) is just a consequence of overindulgence.
You can metagame the system to prevent that, but even within that framework, the outcomes are heavily slanted in favor of compassion/forgiveness, which aren't necessarily natural fits for blackguards.
No, but you can fake it 'till you make it. Because from where I stand, a big box of free tax money is DEFINITELY a natural fit, both for me and the demon voices in my head. (shut up in there!)
Also worth noting: metagaming the system to benefit oneself is COMPLETELY within the Wheelhouse of Evil. (which, in my version of the de'Arnise lands, is the house where my Blackguard keeps all of the large spikey wheels used in executions)
Sure, a smart blackguard would keep the people happy--
Thank you for noticing! Do go on.
and that would cover things like the flood or getting rid of the bandits, but you get nothing for executing Lastin, and 15K EXP if you forgive him.
Oh no. Where ever in this game will I make up for the loss of 15k experience after I have poor Lastin beaten and flayed?...
You don't get to visit Bolumir's shop at all if you turn the priest away.
So!? Let the damn Priest stay. Tempus is the Lord of Battles, and I like battles. Tempus isn't a "good" deity, he's Chaotic Neutral. Further, it seems to make the peasants happy. Keeping peasants happy means I just bought myself enough credit for another public flaying!
I don't understand why you think a Blackguard should have such a problem with this. Tempus is a relatively inoffensive god, as such things go; I wasn't using that room anyway; I get access to neat stuff, and allowing him to set up shop earns me goodwill from the peons that helps me hold on to my Free Money and Storage House. It's win-win.
Not only do you have to get involved in some maid's personal life, you have to make sure she marries the guy she loves and pay her dowry. And executing the moneylenders still requires that you pay the peasants' debts yourself, or else you get nothing out of that whole subquest.
Nobody said Blackguarding was easy. And by the by, I don't "have to" pay her dowry. Talk like that is like a one-way ticket to the Wheelhouse of Evil.
To the second point, executing the moneylenders is the fun part of the job, and paying the peasants' debt is both an investment in the future of the landhold AND a tradeoff for the fun of marching off the lenders to the afforementioned Wheelhouse.
Look, if you can't get all Game of Thrones about the Stronghold questline, then maybe just don't do it. But the idea that it doesn't (or can't) make sense for a Blackguard is a little ridiculous. "Mu-ha-ha, kill everything!" evil is boring, and you SHOULD be punished for it.
...So you don't get the best reward if you go evil. That is an old, common problem with BG. You are *not* forced to pick that. You can always say "I'm a Blackguard, I will do what I want!" You are free to do that, but you have to live with the consequences. The problem lies in less Gold & XP for evil murderers, not in the quests themselves, because consequences are a *good* thing.
There are plenty of ways for an evil Blackguard to make up for the gold you miss out on. Sure, it's not just GIVEN to you, but half the fun is in the taking.
I think the problem with evil comes from it being such a broad term. Every one "knows" how to be good, follow expectations and live up to the moral code that dominates your vicinity. the problem is, no one (aside from maybe the devil) sees himself as "morally evil" because that would mean that you accept a morality as right and correct and then do the exact opposite. (kind of being the "darkness that makes the light shine brighter") Everyone else sees himself as either good or at least neutralish. So, saying that D&D "evil" is mostly selfish is something I derived from the describtion texts and the only way to actually make this term work in a more objective way. Just my 5 cents, thanks for listening
I agree with you about the Dwarven Defender, but I think the institutionalised racism in Thay would prevent any academy training an elf (unless disguised). I guess a renegade Red Wizard could train an elf.
lol... let's remember our best example of a renegade Thayvian is Edwin. Do you see Edwin voluntarily giving Red Wizard lessons to anybody, elf or no?
Actually, there *are* nice thayans. not everyone there is a megalomaniac =P
(Then again, it seems many ppl working within D&D think it is absolutly neccessary for an evil person to be rude and dislikeable. If we have rude, unlikeable heroes who care mostly about the greater good, then we *should* also have friendly, polite evil characters who simply want to rule without drowning kittens. Not everything that apepars nice & friendly is done by a Paladin.. Sometimes it just made to increase rep. Why kill every oposition if you can turn them into your supporters? Good ppl are the best servants, because they wouldn't assassinate you. Also, if someone attacks my property I will punish him and not kill more of my property because they are useless. Why would I punish *myself*? oO )
I...agree and disagree with this.
First of all, in the BG saga we have Mellisan. She comes across as being lawful good, a shepherd for hunted Bhaalspawn who speaks for the people (in Saradush she led people to the gates of the keep demanding food and shelter), and did her best to have a 'good guy' kill her enemies by pretending to be on his team. She didn't turn into an 'obvious' tool until she thought that godhood was hers.
Also, in Icewind Dale, there is the Aurulite priestess, who posed as a serving maid. Nothing rude, obnoxious or obviously evil about her. Even when you catch her in her prayer cave, she just plays it off as being innocent and tries to get you to leave.
And we can't forget Saemon Havarian, can we? A thoroughly evil, despicable scoundrel if there ever was one. Who goes out of his way to try and be charming, and to befriend everyone before the sudden and inevitable betrayal.
So yeah, in D&D most villains twirl mustaches and many heroes are perfectly nice all the time. But there are shades of gray.
For me Evil was always egoistical/selfish. Everything can be done with an evil character. (...) Good and Evil is less about the actions and more about the goals.
Actually, I find myself disagreeing with that. I think good and evil is less about the goals and more about the actions. A rape e.g. is an evil action in and of itself; the goals of the rapist don't matter at all. Or, if my goal is to teach my children to be respectful to adults, this would be a commendable (= good) goal; if I try to achieve this by beating the shit out of them whenever there's the slightest indication of disrespectful behaviour, I'm an evil person regardless whether my goals are good or not.
Evil isn't always egoistical / selfish as well. In D&D terms, that would be most fitting for neutral evil characters. Chaotic evil characters can simply delight in carnage and mayhem regardless if that is the best way to accumulate wealth or not... And lawful evil - take the real world Nazis (the historical ones from 1933 - 1945), they're a prime example of lawful evil. They firmly believed that the individual has to serve the Arian community as a whole, and that everybody should go out of their way to help their fellow (Arian, of course) countryman. So the fanatical Nazis were evil, but not egoistical and selfish.
Of course, in a game like BG, it would be extremely difficult to implement evil ways other than being incredibly selfish (or mindlessly slaying everybody). Still, I wish there would be more sophisticated evil options to solve quests than are currently present...
@Erstarrung Chaotic Evil is *not* neccessarily a psycopath (the reverse is true though). Sarevok is CE and he is cunning, planning and sane. His goal is chaotic (a mass-slaughter in form of a war) and self-serving (all that death has only the reason to make him a god).
Anyways, like I said before, the term "evil" and "good" is not really impartial (is that the right word?). Good is a moral term which (defacto) just means that one follows the moral code of the viewer while evil means that one breaks the code. The only way to find "true evil" and "true good" would be through religion, through something we can not prove or disprove. So yeah, RL examples are not very ...helpful, because the nazis were honestly believing in doing something good, similiar to comunism. We may not agree with the goals, but what proof do we have that our way is the right one? We can never find out the "truth" in this world.. Also, no I don't think the goals of the Nazis were any good at all, nor do I want to excuse their actions.
Aaaanyways, long story short, I just think we need to use a different wording, because the good-evil-axis only works as long as you talk to people with the same morale code or you *will* run into trouble.
..Sorry for rambling and sorry for any confusion my bad wording may cause..
They *can't* use the Druid stronghold. The Druid Grove questline is one of the few that are actually hard-wired to the class itself: you need to complete the questline and meet the challenges in order to advance in level. Since we expect the Shaman will be its own class (and know for sure it won't be a Druid kit), we can safely assume that the Shaman won't have the kind of levelling limitations that the Druid class does.
So not only would it not make sense to do, it's really just not possible because of the way the classes are set up. The more likely alternatives for the Shaman would be either the Cleric questline or the Ranger questline.
There is no hardwiring in advancement. So, technically the druid grove could be used. The shaman is most close to the druid (spells, hit points) so, it would be the natural choice. I don't know what the decision will be, but i'm almost sure that without changing the scripts, the shaman would be assumed a druid by BG2EE. (The engine was instructed like: shaman is a new class, when in doubt think of it as a druid).
how are the relations between shamans and druids? do they dislike each other? do druids tolerate shamans in their ranks? could a shaman lead a druid grove?
So if I'm to understand correctly, we are finally getting a freaking summonerssummoner and new spells? I guess I won't be buying icedale or shadowrun Tokyo if I want to wait for this one now
@Avenger_teambg Can you confirm that there will be a way to detect shamans, but not druids, either in class.ids or kit.ids?
Edit: and druids but not shamans (shamen?)
I think it will be similar to distinguishing wizards and sorcerers.
MAGE detects single-classed mages, kits, and sorcerers MAGE_ALL detects all wizards, including mult-classes, kits, and sorcerers SORCERER detects sorcerers and kits
If you want to detect wizards but not sorcerers (including multi-classes):
IF CLASS(Object,MAGE_ALL) !CLASS(Object,SORCERER) THEN yada... yada... yada...
So, assuming DRUID_ALL picks up Shamans:
IF CLASS(Object,DRUID_ALL) !CLASS(Object,SHAMAN) THEN yada... yada... yada...
Edit: while ABG's method will work for scripting, it won't work for opcode 177, unless I am missing something.
Edit 2: sure, it will get sorcerers, but not mages, but not the reverse.
Edit 3:ie if the behavior is changed.
I am less concerned if the shaman doesn't share a clab with the druid. Please tell me it doesn't
Edit 4: because if they share a clab, and I can't differentiate them without a negative , then I cannot use 177 to give one an ability in clab, but not the other (at least druid, not shaman). I can deal, I'm sure, but it'd be harder. Or rather, the druid, but not the shaman...thinking about it, they probably don't share a clab, but I don't know until I know
Edit 5: it'd also be okay if they had different detectors in kit.ids, but I strongly suspect they will both be detected by Trueclass
The clab is different, yes. That makes it a different class It has a different class id too, there is just no SHAMAN_ALL like there is no SORCERER_ALL.
- will there be shaman enemies added to existing encounters in bg1&2? - will some lore be presented about factional conflict between shamans and druids or those groups that tolerate shamans within their ranks and those that don't etc. (a new book, new dialogue...) - maybe it would be nice to have some charname - cernd/jaheira banter about differences betweens druids and shamans; how shamans are not obsessed with balance etc. - it's ok that shamans get the druid grove but maybe the dialogue should be modified to make the druids seem aware that you're a bit different...
But, but, the sorcerer uses the mage clab, but it is a different class... ahh, there are different ways to make it a different class! The shaman is made a different class by the clab, the sorcerer by...something else
Comments
while completly ignoring the druid grove. The druid class has no level limitations in BG (as it does in P&P)
it just has a huge jump xp wise.
I don't see any mechanical reason that would prevent a shaman doing the Druid quest.
If you think the Blackguard somehow doesn't benefit from keeping the people of the de'Arnise lands happy, you clearly don't know what it is to be evil, my friend. I am free to go about my business as I like, and upon my return to the CASTLE -- that that idiot girl just GAVE to me for NO REASON -- I have a box of money sitting there waiting for me to take it. Why WOULDN'T I like that deal?!? I'm evil, not insane. If it means I have to sit and play Judge Judy for a little bit, so be it; I'll throw the peasants a bone every now and then to keep them happy (because that's not Lawful Good rulership, that's SAVVY rulership), but if I'm talked to in a fashion other than I've come to expect I'll just have to make my headsman earn his keep, now won't I?
Seriously. As one Blackguard to another... chill out. It's a GOOD thing that our patron doesn't really keep a close eye on us. I mean, May His Dark Name Be Praised, and all that. But look: we get mirrored powers of the Paladin class (except more awesome), we get the pick of the best armor and weapons from our haul of loot (who's going to stop us, Minsc or his hamster?), and in the sequel we get the Fighter's Keep, also known as the Free Money and Storage House. Granted, we will have to fight for it in the end... but, for my part, this is actually a benefit. Because I like fighting. Because, hello, Blackguard. Have we met?
You are the evil overlord and go around conquering stuff. in a couple of dialogues you make it pretty
clear that, while you are an evil overlord wanting to conquer the entire world, everyone who is conquered
is under your protection. Why? Because he *owns* them and *nobody* is going to touch his stuff.
He also improves the condition of his realm and after a while most of his subject live a safe, happy live.
He rules everything and gets women, money and whatever he wants and his subject have food, safety and
peace.
For me Evil was always egoistical/selfish. Everything can be done with an evil character.
The good character does something because he is an altruist, wanting to improve everyones lives.
The Evil character (as i play him at least) is an pragmatic utilitarist. He does what benefits him - and
being popular and loved can be *very* benefical if you use it to get your goals.
Good and Evil is less about the actions and more about the goals.
There is still something mechanically that keeps you from doing the Druid quests as a Shaman: your class title changes. As a Druid, you become Great Druid on your character sheet. I don't believe they would allow this to happen to a Shaman PC.
Sure, a smart blackguard would keep the people happy, and that would cover things like the flood or getting rid of the bandits, but you get nothing for executing Lastin, and 15K EXP if you forgive him. You don't get to visit Bolumir's shop at all if you turn the priest away. Not only do you have to get involved in some maid's personal life, you have to make sure she marries the guy she loves and pay her dowry. And executing the moneylenders still requires that you pay the peasants' debts yourself, or else you get nothing out of that whole subquest.
That is an old, common problem with BG. You are *not* forced to pick that. You can always say
"I'm a Blackguard, I will do what I want!" You are free to do that, but you have to live with the
consequences. The problem lies in less Gold & XP for evil murderers, not in the quests themselves,
because consequences are a *good* thing.
Also worth noting: metagaming the system to benefit oneself is COMPLETELY within the Wheelhouse of Evil. (which, in my version of the de'Arnise lands, is the house where my Blackguard keeps all of the large spikey wheels used in executions) Thank you for noticing! Do go on. Oh no. Where ever in this game will I make up for the loss of 15k experience after I have poor Lastin beaten and flayed?... So!? Let the damn Priest stay. Tempus is the Lord of Battles, and I like battles. Tempus isn't a "good" deity, he's Chaotic Neutral. Further, it seems to make the peasants happy. Keeping peasants happy means I just bought myself enough credit for another public flaying!
I don't understand why you think a Blackguard should have such a problem with this. Tempus is a relatively inoffensive god, as such things go; I wasn't using that room anyway; I get access to neat stuff, and allowing him to set up shop earns me goodwill from the peons that helps me hold on to my Free Money and Storage House. It's win-win. Nobody said Blackguarding was easy. And by the by, I don't "have to" pay her dowry. Talk like that is like a one-way ticket to the Wheelhouse of Evil.
To the second point, executing the moneylenders is the fun part of the job, and paying the peasants' debt is both an investment in the future of the landhold AND a tradeoff for the fun of marching off the lenders to the afforementioned Wheelhouse.
Look, if you can't get all Game of Thrones about the Stronghold questline, then maybe just don't do it. But the idea that it doesn't (or can't) make sense for a Blackguard is a little ridiculous. "Mu-ha-ha, kill everything!" evil is boring, and you SHOULD be punished for it.
Sounds about right to me.
Every one "knows" how to be good, follow expectations and live up to the moral code that dominates
your vicinity.
the problem is, no one (aside from maybe the devil) sees himself as "morally evil" because that would mean
that you accept a morality as right and correct and then do the exact opposite.
(kind of being the "darkness that makes the light shine brighter")
Everyone else sees himself as either good or at least neutralish.
So, saying that D&D "evil" is mostly selfish is something I derived from the describtion texts and the only
way to actually make this term work in a more objective way.
Just my 5 cents, thanks for listening
First of all, in the BG saga we have Mellisan. She comes across as being lawful good, a shepherd for hunted Bhaalspawn who speaks for the people (in Saradush she led people to the gates of the keep demanding food and shelter), and did her best to have a 'good guy' kill her enemies by pretending to be on his team. She didn't turn into an 'obvious' tool until she thought that godhood was hers.
Also, in Icewind Dale, there is the Aurulite priestess, who posed as a serving maid. Nothing rude, obnoxious or obviously evil about her. Even when you catch her in her prayer cave, she just plays it off as being innocent and tries to get you to leave.
And we can't forget Saemon Havarian, can we? A thoroughly evil, despicable scoundrel if there ever was one. Who goes out of his way to try and be charming, and to befriend everyone before the sudden and inevitable betrayal.
So yeah, in D&D most villains twirl mustaches and many heroes are perfectly nice all the time. But there are shades of gray.
Evil isn't always egoistical / selfish as well. In D&D terms, that would be most fitting for neutral evil characters. Chaotic evil characters can simply delight in carnage and mayhem regardless if that is the best way to accumulate wealth or not... And lawful evil - take the real world Nazis (the historical ones from 1933 - 1945), they're a prime example of lawful evil. They firmly believed that the individual has to serve the Arian community as a whole, and that everybody should go out of their way to help their fellow (Arian, of course) countryman. So the fanatical Nazis were evil, but not egoistical and selfish.
Of course, in a game like BG, it would be extremely difficult to implement evil ways other than being incredibly selfish (or mindlessly slaying everybody). Still, I wish there would be more sophisticated evil options to solve quests than are currently present...
Chaotic Evil is *not* neccessarily a psycopath (the reverse is true though). Sarevok is CE and he is cunning,
planning and sane. His goal is chaotic (a mass-slaughter in form of a war) and self-serving (all that death
has only the reason to make him a god).
Anyways, like I said before, the term "evil" and "good" is not really impartial (is that the right word?).
Good is a moral term which (defacto) just means that one follows the moral code of the viewer while
evil means that one breaks the code.
The only way to find "true evil" and "true good" would be through religion, through something we can
not prove or disprove.
So yeah, RL examples are not very ...helpful, because the nazis were honestly believing in doing something
good, similiar to comunism. We may not agree with the goals, but what proof do we have that our way is
the right one? We can never find out the "truth" in this world..
Also, no I don't think the goals of the Nazis were any good at all, nor do I want to excuse their actions.
Aaaanyways, long story short, I just think we need to use a different wording, because the good-evil-axis
only works as long as you talk to people with the same morale code or you *will* run into trouble.
..Sorry for rambling and sorry for any confusion my bad wording may cause..
(The engine was instructed like: shaman is a new class, when in doubt think of it as a druid).
Can you confirm that there will be a way to detect shamans, but not druids, either in class.ids or kit.ids?
Edit: and druids but not shamans (shamen?)
MAGE detects single-classed mages, kits, and sorcerers
MAGE_ALL detects all wizards, including mult-classes, kits, and sorcerers
SORCERER detects sorcerers and kits
If you want to detect wizards but not sorcerers (including multi-classes): So, assuming DRUID_ALL picks up Shamans:
Actually MAGE does not detect sorcerers. The documentation is wrong.. At least in bgee. I reported this a while ago, but IESDP is...slow to update.
To my knowledge @AstroBryGuy is correct.
This is my report:
http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=26853&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1
It has been a while, but I can probably find the files and upload them. Btw, I really hope that this behavior does not change.
Edit: while ABG's method will work for scripting, it won't work for opcode 177, unless I am missing something.
Edit 2: sure, it will get sorcerers, but not mages, but not the reverse.
Edit 3:ie if the behavior is changed.
I am less concerned if the shaman doesn't share a clab with the druid. Please tell me it doesn't
Edit 4: because if they share a clab, and I can't differentiate them without a negative , then I cannot use 177 to give one an ability in clab, but not the other (at least druid, not shaman). I can deal, I'm sure, but it'd be harder. Or rather, the druid, but not the shaman...thinking about it, they probably don't share a clab, but I don't know until I know
Edit 5: it'd also be okay if they had different detectors in kit.ids, but I strongly suspect they will both be detected by Trueclass
Edit 6: I did not test MAGE_ALL
- will some lore be presented about factional conflict between shamans and druids or those groups that tolerate shamans within their ranks and those that don't etc. (a new book, new dialogue...)
- maybe it would be nice to have some charname - cernd/jaheira banter about differences betweens druids and shamans; how shamans are not obsessed with balance etc.
- it's ok that shamans get the druid grove but maybe the dialogue should be modified to make the druids seem aware that you're a bit different...
Since you can't pass back from SoD into BG, she won't be in that either.