I'm not 100% sure, but I think all the resources for several more levels will be there in BGEE. The only thing that I think will be problematic is when you reach HLA's. Those aren't in the game.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think all the resources for several more levels will be there in BGEE. The only thing that I think will be problematic is when you reach HLA's. Those aren't in the game.
Where they removed? I thought BG:EE uses ToB code.
But even with the Totsc XP cap BG1 is still easy enough with level 9 mages.
Meanwhile Clerics can only reach level 8, and thieves and druids can reach level 10. If it is possible to raise the XP cap on a per class basis, couldn't they just raise the cap so that every pure class can reach level 10?
I haven't read the entire thread, but for me this is one of the first encouraging things I've heard. The reasons are that a) we know they are testing things like this and b) I definitely agree with keeping the original XP cap for balance reasons.
If it is possible to raise the XP cap on a per class basis, couldn't they just raise the cap so that every pure class can reach level 10?
I wouldn't advise a solution like that. Not only does it introduce several problems with dual-classing, its also pretty weird that Rangers and Paladins could get to 600k experience but Druids get capped at 125k.
The problem with rising cap from is 161k is that the next class to gain level is druid at 200k which grants level 6 (!!!) spells. That might seriously break the balance.
yea, as I said, Druid XP progression is just stupid. Superfast levelling up to level 12, and then it takes 2.7 million more XP just for another 3 levels.
Id change druid level 11 to 300,000 XP, and level 12 to 500,000.
@Mungri The different xp values and lack of balance among classes is part of the charm of the AD&D ruleset, and something you can get away with in a single player game. Warriors start strong, wizards finish strong (as one might imagine in a fantasy world). And there are a good deal more quirks like with the druid xp requirements you mention.
When I spoke of game balance I was referring to the balance of game difficulty. I want the battles to retain the same challenge of the original. You could say redo the fights and make them harder to go along with the new xp cap, but then where do you stop? Pretty soon you won't be playing the game you remember.
I will remove the xp cap... But I will not farm xp... or give myself extra xp... I am planning on being a Thief / Wildmage as it is... Or maybe just a wildmage... No maybe a fighter / thief / wildmage... Oh I don't know... But I could have a non-legit character from the start... Possibly... Definitely a wildmage of some description...
But I know that a point will come when xp will dwindle to nowt anyway because there are not enough monsters... And doesn't the xp lower for certain creatures as you get higher anyway? Meaning you will just cruise along at a certain level and not go any higher as the gaps between levels gets too big to get any higher... Unless you spawn a few red dragons in, for fun and giggles.
yea, as I said, Druid XP progression is just stupid. Superfast levelling up to level 12, and then it takes 2.7 million more XP just for another 3 levels..
Druids were capped low in BG2 because 2nd Edition Druids were very powerful at higher levels.
The worldwide organization of the druids allows for the existence of only a limited number of 12th- or higher-level druids, assigning them special titles, servants, and responsibilities. Druids who gain enough experience to reach 12th level can advance only if they find a vacancy within the Order’s ranks or wrest a position from another druid through the challenge. (See Chapter 3: The Druidic Order.) Only one 15th-level druid exists in any campaign world: the Grand Druid, chief of all druids in the world.
Grand Druid requires 3.5 Million experience. At that point you begin advancing as a Heirophant Druid which is it's own XP table. After passing level 15, Druids start plane walking at will.
I still would have preferred that they raised it a bit to reflect the additional XP from the additional content. I've never removed the XP cap before, as I've never felt the need for it, but I probably will this time.
Could it means that when not using any mods, not farming and playing with full party we will reach maximum xp some time before the end or is this previous xp cap sufficient to allow for a new content? Why didn’t they just scale xp received in original content to tackle this problem?
Could it means that when not using any mods, not farming and playing with full party we will reach maximum xp some time before the end or is this previous xp cap sufficient to allow for a new content? Why didn’t they just scale xp received in original content to tackle this problem?
In the original TotSC I think the 161k cap allowed you to reach the cap without farming with a full party slightly before or slightly after starting the final chapter. So I guess it depends on how how XP is available from the new content.
I think my preferred solution would be for them to scale back rewards a little so you don't hit the cap long before the end of the game. On the other hand I don't want the cap raised because I don't want the late game to get too easy.
One of the main reasons I don't like BG1 as much as BG2 is because the maximum level that can be attained in BG1 is significantly lower than the minimum level I enjoy playing on.
The result is that if I want to play BG1 I usually either import a character into Tutu from BG2 who is already a high enough level to actually be fun to use or I head straight to Durlag's Tower with my weak BG1 characters and try to increase their levels as quickly as possible so that I can at least somewhat enjoy the rest of the game.
In my opinion, the XP cap makes sense in a RP purposes, if you are a level 9 fighter in BG1 and you keep killing gibberlings over and over again until you go up to level 25, it doesn't make any sense, you are not a level 25 fighter, you are a level 25 gibberling slaugterer, there is no challenge or "experience gaining" to keep fighting the same mobs over and over again
I think that the only reason for an XP cap is that mods or abuses (respawning flesh golems) allows you to create an invincible character. Still, I'd rather no cap and no exploits, since the encounters (aside from random resting fights) are limited and give a set total XP.
I don't think you can ever become truly "invincible" in Baldur's Gate. I once wanted to roleplay the god of murder after finishing Throne of Bhaal and choosing the 'become a god' option. I imported my party into Tutu and assumed that I would be unstoppable, especially since my characters had just finished their 3rd BG2 playthroughs and all had 200+ HP. However, two traps in Durlag's Tower were still able to kill me (one did infinite damage by continuosly throwing daggers until I died and the other did 200+ damage at one time) and the demon in Ulgoth's Beard came pretty close (because it somehow spawned a dozen copies of itself and they swarmed my PC whom I had arrogantly sent in alone).
The current XP cap unfairly punishes certain classes (fighters, clerics) for no reason that I can tell.
I've always thought AD&D xp system was inherently stupid. I get if you want each class to level up different, but make it consistent. Clerics level up faster than mages until, wait! level 8 to 9! Mages can get there with BG1's cap while clerics can't? But clerics get to 7 faster than anyone short of a druid or thief. And why do druids, who are essentially equal to clerics, level up so freakin' fast then totally stall for what feels like forever? (Before anyone tells me, I already know. I just think it's stupid.)
Fighters, clerics, paladins and rangers should at least be able to hit level 9. The problem is you can't raise the XP cap without giving a severe great advantage to druids (they'd gain 6th level spells).
My vote: Merge druids and clerics into the same XP table, and rework it so its consistent. There is no freakin' reason clerics should level up quicker than mages til 7, then suddenly be behind in levels until they both hit 13, and then be ahead of mages yet again.
And if anyone flips their lid at messing with AD&D core rules, bugger off. I'm okay with my games being unbalanced to a degree, but at least give me rules that make logical sense.
edit: Argh, I wasted my 999th post on this? CRAP. CRAP CRAP CRAP.
XP cap is a good thing in BG1. If you reach a too high level the game becomes too easy, there's no more challenge and that's boring.
I disagree, I hate games that try to scale up or cap levels to keep from getting too boring. The whole point to an RPG is to level your character up to be able to handle tougher challenges. The payoff is that after you put all of that effort in, and you can handle anything the game can throw at you easily. If it gets boring, then re-roll a new character or move on to a new game.
When I was playing Oblivion, I remember getting to a point where the monsters I would encounter in the Dungeons were getting too tough for me, so I pulled out, went back to the Imperial City and spent days developing my skills (fighting in the arena, sneaking behind guards, casting spells) and was able to return to the dungeon and handle it. It finally got to the point where I could handle any dungeon fairly easily, at that point I went ahead and finished the story, then rolled up another character. I wound up not getting very far though before getting distracted by other games. Some day I may go back and finish up with that character...
@Mungri Druids are a challenge to play correctly, they are exceedingly powerful if you know what you're doing so stop acting like they are "teh suck." They're awesome. Okay.
XP cap is a good thing in BG1. If you reach a too high level the game becomes too easy, there's no more challenge and that's boring.
I disagree, I hate games that try to scale up or cap levels to keep from getting too boring. The whole point to an RPG is to level your character up to be able to handle tougher challenges. The payoff is that after you put all of that effort in, and you can handle anything the game can throw at you easily. If it gets boring, then re-roll a new character or move on to a new game.
When I was playing Oblivion, I remember getting to a point where the monsters I would encounter in the Dungeons were getting too tough for me, so I pulled out, went back to the Imperial City and spent days developing my skills (fighting in the arena, sneaking behind guards, casting spells) and was able to return to the dungeon and handle it. It finally got to the point where I could handle any dungeon fairly easily, at that point I went ahead and finished the story, then rolled up another character. I wound up not getting very far though before getting distracted by other games. Some day I may go back and finish up with that character...
I really liked Oblivion for the same reason, because I could keep increasing my character's power and eventually get really powerful. I kept playing Oblivion until I ran out of quests and then slaughtered armies of guards in the Imperial City and Bruma and went to re-spawning dungeons to keep going. I really would have liked to import my character into the beginning so I could play the quests over, but unfortunately unlike Baldur's Gate, Oblivion does not have that feature. I haven't really played Oblivion since then because it took two real time years to get my character to the level of power he had achieved and I don't want to start over again with nothing.
This is essentially the same way I feel about Baldur's Gate. I have used the same PC for my last five playthroughs of BG2, six if you count once through Tutu. For the last four playthroughs I have used level 9 mage spells and level 7 cleric spells in almost every battle as a matter of course. I am accustomed to using them now and base much of my strategies around them. To me it seems really pointless and boring to go back to really weak low level spells. It's like it completely defeats the purpose of the earlier playthroughs, so I did all that work for nothing.
Comments
I'm not 100% sure, but I think all the resources for several more levels will be there in BGEE. The only thing that I think will be problematic is when you reach HLA's. Those aren't in the game.
Meanwhile Clerics can only reach level 8, and thieves and druids can reach level 10. If it is possible to raise the XP cap on a per class basis, couldn't they just raise the cap so that every pure class can reach level 10?
Its not that they were removed, its just that they weren't imported into BGEE. I wouldn't advise a solution like that. Not only does it introduce several problems with dual-classing, its also pretty weird that Rangers and Paladins could get to 600k experience but Druids get capped at 125k.
Id change druid level 11 to 300,000 XP, and level 12 to 500,000.
When I spoke of game balance I was referring to the balance of game difficulty. I want the battles to retain the same challenge of the original. You could say redo the fights and make them harder to go along with the new xp cap, but then where do you stop? Pretty soon you won't be playing the game you remember.
But I know that a point will come when xp will dwindle to nowt anyway because there are not enough monsters... And doesn't the xp lower for certain creatures as you get higher anyway? Meaning you will just cruise along at a certain level and not go any higher as the gaps between levels gets too big to get any higher... Unless you spawn a few red dragons in, for fun and giggles.
Why didn’t they just scale xp received in original content to tackle this problem?
The result is that if I want to play BG1 I usually either import a character into Tutu from BG2 who is already a high enough level to actually be fun to use or I head straight to Durlag's Tower with my weak BG1 characters and try to increase their levels as quickly as possible so that I can at least somewhat enjoy the rest of the game.
There's always mods that remedy this.
I've always thought AD&D xp system was inherently stupid. I get if you want each class to level up different, but make it consistent. Clerics level up faster than mages until, wait! level 8 to 9! Mages can get there with BG1's cap while clerics can't? But clerics get to 7 faster than anyone short of a druid or thief. And why do druids, who are essentially equal to clerics, level up so freakin' fast then totally stall for what feels like forever? (Before anyone tells me, I already know. I just think it's stupid.)
Fighters, clerics, paladins and rangers should at least be able to hit level 9. The problem is you can't raise the XP cap without giving a severe great advantage to druids (they'd gain 6th level spells).
My vote: Merge druids and clerics into the same XP table, and rework it so its consistent. There is no freakin' reason clerics should level up quicker than mages til 7, then suddenly be behind in levels until they both hit 13, and then be ahead of mages yet again.
And if anyone flips their lid at messing with AD&D core rules, bugger off. I'm okay with my games being unbalanced to a degree, but at least give me rules that make logical sense.
edit: Argh, I wasted my 999th post on this? CRAP. CRAP CRAP CRAP.
When I was playing Oblivion, I remember getting to a point where the monsters I would encounter in the Dungeons were getting too tough for me, so I pulled out, went back to the Imperial City and spent days developing my skills (fighting in the arena, sneaking behind guards, casting spells) and was able to return to the dungeon and handle it. It finally got to the point where I could handle any dungeon fairly easily, at that point I went ahead and finished the story, then rolled up another character. I wound up not getting very far though before getting distracted by other games. Some day I may go back and finish up with that character...
This is essentially the same way I feel about Baldur's Gate. I have used the same PC for my last five playthroughs of BG2, six if you count once through Tutu. For the last four playthroughs I have used level 9 mage spells and level 7 cleric spells in almost every battle as a matter of course. I am accustomed to using them now and base much of my strategies around them. To me it seems really pointless and boring to go back to really weak low level spells. It's like it completely defeats the purpose of the earlier playthroughs, so I did all that work for nothing.