@gorgonzola Beamdog is partially mad up of original devs, and they declared it a bug. Why does everybody act like Beamdog are just some newbies that never touched BG before?
It reminds me of an old forum thread where a user argued that the bug where a beastmaster could summon a familiar after a familiar thus increasing their HPs was the main feature of the kit.
But the development team confirmed they made a conscious decision to leave Rng/Clr casting as it was.
Therefore it ascended to being a feature, and became an optional feature with EE 2.0.
And a feature that is removed is a nerf. QED.
It was a bug. It was always a bug. Liking it does make it less of a bug. Some bugs are good, which I think this one was. Either way, you're ranting about doesn't matter, because it is easily enabled.
It was not a bug. It was never a bug. It was from original launch a deliberate feature.
You liking a bug does not make a bug any less of a bug and it seems like Pokota you do not know what a bug actually is.
Come on people. It's hardly worth arguing over the semantics here. I don't care if it was a bug. The 1st thing I did when I bought BGEE was retro the Ranger/Cleric back to the old way. I enjoyed playing R/C's back in the day and I did not enjoy playing the new one. Period. There just doesn't seem to be enough difference to me between the 'new' R/C and a F/C to justify the level disadvantage of playing a R/C (an extra couple pips in 2wf, stealth that I would never use and a bunch of useless level 1-3 spells). I prefer the flavor of the original...
It reminds me of an old forum thread where a user argued that the bug where a beastmaster could summon a familiar after a familiar thus increasing their HPs was the main feature of the kit.
I remember that one, it was awesome
If I remember it correctly, he/she was actually defending it by saying things like Beastmaster is not a strong kit, thus it's perfectly legitimate to have over 1000 HPs on that by using infinite familiars
This thread is going in that direction too now, but unfortunately C/R bug is not that game breaking to make this thread as hilarious. But keep pushing for it guys
@gorgonzola Beamdog is partially mad up of original devs, and they declared it a bug. Why does everybody act like Beamdog are just some newbies that never touched BG before?
i never assumed such thing and i am perfectly aware that some of the original devs are in Beamdog.
still i am not aware of a single original dev explicitly telling that the way the RC was able to cast in the original game was due to a bug, to a coding overlook, and the fact that Beamdog left the chance to use the old way, while usually when they fix something the chance to use the original behavior is not granted, make me think that maybe it was not a bug.
until someone links an interview or other source where an original developer states that it was indeed a bug.
even if some of the original team members are now developers of the EE the opinion of the people about how some features of the game should be to make it better can change with time, according to their present opinion, and it does not automatically mean that the changed feature was a bug.
when they changed the aoe of the improved bard song was not because originally some one typed by error a too large area while coding, was because they believed that the game would have become better the new way. it was not a bug fix, it was having a different opinion on how a certain feature has to be implemented in the game. and this is only one of the many examples i can think about.
further more, as i had already told, if it was really a bug and the RC should only be able to cast the druid spells a single class ranger of his ranger level can, the bug is far from being fixed as maybe he now can only cast the druid spells of the first 3 levels, but can still memorize so much more of them then a single class ranger.
why the people that complain about the old RC and is so happy of the EE "bug fix" seems to not have any problem with that?
coherence would imply that those people ask for a complete bug fix, when a RC can also memorize the number of druid only spells that a single class ranger can memorize, and should also not be able to use those slots to memorize cleric spells that a ranger can not use by the way.
It reminds me of an old forum thread where a user argued that the bug where a beastmaster could summon a familiar after a familiar thus increasing their HPs was the main feature of the kit.
what reading something reminds you is something that happens in the sacred space of your own mind and i can have only the deepest respect of it and of your freedom to share it with us.
still i think that there is no comparison at all between the argumentation brought here by those that think that the old way was not due to a bug and the argumentation brought in that old thread.
and bringing that silly argumentation about something that was surely the exploiting of a bug here instead of countering properly the argumentation brought here for a completely different issue is not something that i can fully appreciate, while i usually greatly appreciate your contribution to the topics.
@RAM021 and @gorgonzola I really respect you both, but I can't agree with you in this thread. And to me, the logic you're sharing sounds very similar to that old thread, sorry if you find that offending.
To me, "it was from original launch a deliberate feature" sounds exactly as the logic of that beast master person.
Beamdog has been working on the games since 2010. When developing IWD:EE, they found out that the implementation of R/C in BG2 was exploiting the engine and provided an advantage which couldn't be explained other than it's a consequence of the engine. Same as how BG2 elves' bonus affected ALL swords, including katanas.
The player, in this case, you, can totally legitimately argue that it was not a bug. But the developers saw there was no reasonable explanation why R/C should get that buff. What in their class is saying they should be getting it? That advantage was not intended. And the EE engine provided options to fix such bugs that couldn't be fixed by a not upgraded engine.
But Beamdog understood that there were many old fans who got used to the old implementation. So when the 1.3 patches were released for BG1 and BG2, they introduced an option to EASILY tweak the approach and make it as you've got used to. This is as easy as enabling the console in the game or changing FPS. And this option is still available. Yet, there are complaints in this thread about "deliberately changing to make it worse".
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended. Rangers only have access to Druid spells up to level 3. Clerics have access to Cleric spells. Therefore, a Ranger/Cleric gets access to all Cleric spells through the Cleric class, and to Druid spells up to level 3 through the Ranger class."
Yeah, nobody's forcing anyone to play with the default settings. If someone likes the old R/C, they can always change the LUA file, and it's also possible to do so on the mobile version with a simple text editor app. There's even a mod that puts that option in the in-game settings. (Also, as far as I know, changing that in the LUA still allows you to get Steam achievements, if anyone cares about something as trivial as those achievements.)
I personally prefer the old R/C since I always love any cheese over any kind of nerf, so I always change that setting in the LUA. There's no need to waste time or effort arguing whether it's a bug or not (since it neither breaks the game nor makes it unplayable), let's just all play the game as each of us like it!
@JuliusBorisov reading the link you post here i don't see anywhere stated that the old behavior was a bug.
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended" means only that the new behavior is intended by the EE developers, is not a bug itself but a change of the game behavior that they did.
reading further in that thread i see
"As for it being intended or not to be restricted by default I don't know if that has been officially established or not. Having Max HP on level up as the default setting was apparently an oversight, so its possible the cleric ranger spells was added ..." by @elminster
so is not sure if the original behavior was or not a bug, he only suppose it was so
then @mlnevese tells "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE."
and if he is right it was so not for a bug, but for an engine limitation, that is a completely different thing, while here there is people that tell that it was surely a bug, without bringing any evidence about what they say.
at least you brought to the thread some evidence, and i thank you for that, even if from that evidence seems that the old behavior was probably an intended feature, chosen because of an engine limitation, and not a bug, that is an error while coding.
i know that the players are free to chose if to play with the new behavior or the new one, and i really appreciate how this time Beamdog changed a behavior that the old players was used to have, leaving the chance to play as in the original way as usually when they fix something they don't leave the choice.
by the way i had played very rarely RC, with the old engine only, so with all the druid spells, and having to play it without them i would surely play FC, probably dual class, that imo is way stronger as can get GM and the cleric buffs make to dual at low level not an issue, if not for loosing the figher HLA.
but still dualing at 13 and DW with the +1/2 apr gauntlets the F13->C gets 4.5 attacks, 9 improved hasted, while being a very strong caster.
anyway no one answered to my question about why a RC can put all druid spells in his 1-3 level slots and why the dual one can cast lev 3 druid spells even if dual before a ranger can cast them.
it seems that the logic that a ranger should not cast spells he is not supposed to cast (at the level he is), both as level of those spells and as number of possible memorizations, is a logic that magically has to work only for the spells of lev 4 or more.
while using the logic properly a R9->C should be able to cast only 1 druid only lev 1 spell each day, as it is what his ranger level enables him to do.
Alright, you want to play this game? We'll play this game.
CITATION NEEDED.
That is not how that works either. YOU alleged it was a bug; YOU get to prove it was a bug.
Given that there is evidence to the contrary that is going to be difficult, but good luck with that!
The original devs know what their intent was.
Beamdog is made up of original devs.
Beamdog says it was a bug.
Ergo, it was a bug.
By your own requirements, I have proven you wrong. Julius represents the devs and has given their judgement. To ignore it is to admit to lacking intellectual honesty.
@RAM021 and @gorgonzola I really respect you both, but I can't agree with you in this thread. And to me, the logic you're sharing sounds very similar to that old thread, sorry if you find that offending.
To me, "it was from original launch a deliberate feature" sounds exactly as the logic of that beast master person.
Beamdog has been working on the games since 2010. When developing IWD:EE, they found out that the implementation of R/C in BG2 was exploiting the engine and provided an advantage which couldn't be explained other than it's a consequence of the engine. Same as how BG2 elves' bonus affected ALL swords, including katanas.
The player, in this case, you, can totally legitimately argue that it was not a bug. But the developers saw there was no reasonable explanation why R/C should get that buff. What in their class is saying they should be getting it? That advantage was not intended. And the EE engine provided options to fix such bugs that couldn't be fixed by a not upgraded engine.
But Beamdog understood that there were many old fans who got used to the old implementation. So when the 1.3 patches were released for BG1 and BG2, they introduced an option to EASILY tweak the approach and make it as you've got used to. This is as easy as enabling the console in the game or changing FPS. And this option is still available. Yet, there are complaints in this thread about "deliberately changing to make it worse".
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended. Rangers only have access to Druid spells up to level 3. Clerics have access to Cleric spells. Therefore, a Ranger/Cleric gets access to all Cleric spells through the Cleric class, and to Druid spells up to level 3 through the Ranger class."
Blah, blah, blah...
Sorry @JuliusBorisov but the new Ranger/Cleric is boring. There is no reason to choose it over Fighter/Cleric so to me, there was no reason to have to 'fix' it. The old one wasn't even nearly as powerful as a Fighter/Mage so I just don't buy that this was some critical bug that needed to be nerfed. You're entitled to your opinion though, so no biggie. I just don't want people to somehow think that the old Ranger/Cleric was some brokenly powerful build.
Given the relatively lackluster Druid spell selection in unmodded Baldur's Gate, Ranger/Clerics getting to cast Druid spells using the Cleric table instead of the Ranger table made them not an abysmal build (Rangers already can't grandmaster weapons and you have to actually know how to play a cleric in order to play a cleric well (something I'm still learning)). It's no wonder that this bug/engine limitation/feature is preferred over P&P rules. Icewind Dale's better selection of druid spells does make it a balance issue (since both clerics and druids have excellent late-game spells in IWD), but it's still a net improvement to a lackluster combination rather than an outright game-breaker.
I enable this feature too when I play C/R. I think it's much more fun like that. But, me liking it does not make it less of a bug. It's that ascended glitch situation you mentioned above. Single class ranger can't cast level 4 druid spells, single class cleric can't cast level 4 druid spells. Why should a cleric/ranger have ability to do so? Multiclasses have features from both classes, sometimes with limitations but never with additional features as they are already overpowered.
Having played these games for a long time I am really surprised by the perspective that full druidic casting is needed to take the ranger/cleric from "abysmal" to "lackluster." To me that thoroughly misreads the way the game actually works, even a "nerfed" ranger/cleric is among BG's stronger options and when you pile ironskins on top of that then they join fighter/mages at the absolute pinnacle of BG's power distribution.
@jsaving: I'm talking from a BG1 perspective more than anything else. I'm sure the spells aren't that bad in BG2. I don't get the higher level druid spells at BG1's level cap, and the druid spell selection there isn't that great.
Therefore, my perspective is that it goes from abysmal to lackluster.
I enable this feature too when I play C/R. I think it's much more fun like that. But, me liking it does not make it less of a bug. It's that ascended glitch situation you mentioned above. Single class ranger can't cast level 4 druid spells, single class cleric can't cast level 4 druid spells. Why should a cleric/ranger have ability to do so? Multiclasses have features from both classes, sometimes with limitations but never with additional features as they are already overpowered.
I agree with the idea that this feature was the result of an engine limitation, rather than an intended implementation of P&P rules. However, that does not mean that there is no rational argument at all for providing it - and that may be why Beamdog gave the option. Divine spells in D&D are normally provided by your chosen god and I don't see any reason in principle why a god could not decide to provide a larger selection of spells to an adherent who had already demonstrated their aptitude with that type of spell.
The argument against this is that there is an inherent level limitation which means a ranger can never use higher level spells. However, this is not a prohibition on them using the spells, but simply a statement of their normal abilities. Those level limitations can be got round - for instance a ranger could use a higher level druid spell scroll, just as a mage can cast spells from scrolls they can't yet learn. In this case I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to suggest that the dualling operates to get round the standard level limitation.
The original devs know what their intent was.
Beamdog is made up of original devs.
Beamdog says it was a bug.
Ergo, it was a bug.
can you bring any evidence of an original developer, does not matter if he is now in beemdog or not, saying anywhere that it was a bug?
from the only evidence that has been brought to this thread, the link given by @JuliusBorisov i see that @elminster is not sure if it was or not was a bug and @mlnevese tells that it was due to an engine limitation, that is a completely different thing from a bug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug
it is clear that Beamdog did not like how that feature worked and decided to change it, because with the new enhanced engine is now possible or for other reasons, but this is something completely different from fixing a bug, a coding error that makes something that should not be possible actually possible.
the beastmaster trick was surely a bug, is very likely that to put 3 PI in a CC was also a bug, as the original developers overlooked the possibility of that exploit happening, even if both was more exploits of some engine weakness then proper bugs.
but for the RC we have a person that is in the forums staff and a former member of it telling us that they are not sure if it was a bug or that it was something else, a deliberate choice due to an engine limitation.
so please if you want to continue to tell that it was a bug provide some evidence of it, just repeating it many times does not prove in any way that what you say is true.
then you are free to like the changed behavior and some other players are free to like the old way, and it is perfectly fine, but it has nothing to do with if the old RC behavior was due to a bug or not.
I personally don't have any problem with both the behaviors, in my original games i play very rarely RC and don't feel it anyway OP, i find both FC and FM way more powerful, and MC the most interesting choice, but i don't care so much to play always the most powerful build possible. In EE i did never play a RC and doing it i could do it in both the ways, i find the old one as better balanced compared to the other multi and the new one only a nerfed version of the FC, much nerfed if we are talking of dual and not multi.
and i find anyway both the versions somehow cheesy as a RC gets the druid spells way before a ranger, can cast much more of them then a ranger and in case of the dual can cast some druid spells that a ranger of his ranger level could not cast anyway, still this "legittimate cheese" does not make the RC overpowered, like casting higher level druid spells imho does not make it overpowered.
But i am talking of personal taste and opinions, that is something that has not any relation with he old behavior being a bug.
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended" from a QA person means that the old behaviour wasn't intended. If the behaviour wasn't intended, it was a bug. This is 100% true from the QA perspective, and the QA shared that opinion after the dev team had internally triaged the issue.
a new behavior can be intended because the old one is regarded as a bug, but for many other reasons, like that the developers have changed their mind with the years.
in some nations smoking weed was illegal and now is allowed, this new behavior does not means automatically that the old law was bugged, both things was intended, but in different times.
and in the same thread i read also a person telling that he is not sure if it was a bug or not and an other that states that it was a choice due to an engine limitation, that is different from being a bug.
as you have access to things that happen in the background, like what the developers team does internally, and i don't, only the link you provided was not a clue for me that the old RC behavior was a bug.
so if you tell us that, as you have access to knowledge we normal forum users ignore, you are sure that some original developer now in Beamdog has told that for sure it was a bug, a coding error or overlook, i have no reason to doubt of what you say, even if only the link you provided was not a strong enough evidence in itself.
i don't decide to ignore stuff, but i evaluate that stuff in its context, and the context was a thread where elminster was not sure if it was a bug or not, mlnevase told that it was a choice caused by an engine limitation and "This [ new behaviour ] is intended" does not automatically imply that the old one was not intended by who, maybe even the same person, implemented it 15 years before.
the fact that you tell us now "the QA shared that opinion after the dev team had internally triaged the issue" becomes a part of my evaluation as now i know it. as you provide more context my evaluation can vary, for the very reason that i never decide to deliberately ignore stuff.
by the way i am quite convinced that i never wrote in the thread that it surely was not a bug, while others have done it, i only told that who told that it was surely a bug did not provide any evidence of it, evidence that now we can have if you confirm that in that internal triage emerged for sure that the old behavior was due to a bug (and not let's say to a bad choice or an engine limitation).
@all, I don't think that two decades after the fact you get a conclusion to the witch-hunt. Please find means to consolidate.
Personally I am rather more fond of your discussions on how implementation A is better than B or whether it really does not make that much of a difference.
i would add also the implementation C obtained by self restrain from the player that is not using any druid spell of more then lev3 but also don't memorize more then the number of druid spells that a single class ranger can memorize at the ranger level you are and don't memorize also the spells he does not still know.
this means ie that a dual R9->C should not memorize more then 2 lev 1 druid spells and should never memorize lev 2 and 3 spells.
this is the purest choice for those that think that a RC should not use spells that a ranger can not use.
i really invite those that use that logic to do so, even as multi they would need 2.4M xp to cast their first lev 3 druid spell, but if they really believe that a RC should cast druid spells like a ranger do it is the way to follow
This is not as complicated as people are making it out to be. In the tabletop rules, rangers would have a very small druid spellbook that is kept strictly separate from their cleric spellbook. However the original version of the BG engine required a single divine spellbook with access to cleric and/or druid spells set to a simple "on" or "off". That meant BioWare devs had to improvise and temporarily choose a subpar implementation until such time as the engine would permit finer distinctions. The only options available to them were a) block ranger/clerics from casting druid spells using any divine spell slots, which would be a significant nerf compared to tabletop, or b) allow ranger/clerics to cast druid spells from any of their divine spell slots, which would be a significant buff compared to tabletop. Picking "b" because it was the best available temporary hotfix doesn't turn the so-called "un-nerfed" ranger into intended behavior, even though it is not a "bug" as some in this thread are defining the term.
the fact that you tell us now "the QA shared that opinion after the dev team had internally triaged the issue" becomes a part of my evaluation as now i know it. as you provide more context my evaluation can vary, for the very reason that i never decide to deliberately ignore stuff.
what you say is completely false, please read with more attention what i wrote next time.
1. i never assumed in this thread that the old behavior was surely not a bug, nowhere in my previous posts you can find such thing.
3. i told that imo it being a bug was not a certain thing, and i asked for an evidence.
4. you and the other people stating that it was certainly so was unable to provide the evidence.
5. @JuliusBorisov provided a link as evidence, quoting a post when is actually told that the EE behavior is intended by the EE devs, some of them are former devs of the original game, in the same thread an other person told "As for it being intended or not to be restricted by default I don't know if that has been officially established or not" and he was @elminster not a generic joe, and an other person stated that "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE", also he was not a generic joe.
and a choice due to an engine limitation is something different from a bug, as well as a choice of the EE developers, even if some of them are former original ones, about the EE game does not necessarily mean that the old behavior was due to a bug, as ie an engine limitation can be a reason different form a coding overlook, a bug.
so i evaluated the evidence in that thread not strong enough to be sure that the original behavior was due to a bug, a coding error, as other possibilities was still open.
6. finally @JuliusBorisov told us of the internal triage and that he is sure that it was a bug, a coding error or overlook, based on what he knows was told in that triage. this was the evidence i was asking for.
i must assume that @mlnevese is not competent, as in that thread told a different thing, and so possibly be glad that he is no more in the staff, or at least i don't see him blue any more, but as i have no reason to doubt what Julius has told i accept it as a strong enough evidence.
Comments
It was not a bug. It was never a bug. It was from original launch a deliberate feature.
You liking a bug does not make a bug any less of a bug and it seems like Pokota you do not know what a bug actually is.
CITATION NEEDED.
That is not how that works either. YOU alleged it was a bug; YOU get to prove it was a bug.
Given that there is evidence to the contrary that is going to be difficult, but good luck with that!
I remember that one, it was awesome
If I remember it correctly, he/she was actually defending it by saying things like Beastmaster is not a strong kit, thus it's perfectly legitimate to have over 1000 HPs on that by using infinite familiars
This thread is going in that direction too now, but unfortunately C/R bug is not that game breaking to make this thread as hilarious. But keep pushing for it guys
i never assumed such thing and i am perfectly aware that some of the original devs are in Beamdog.
still i am not aware of a single original dev explicitly telling that the way the RC was able to cast in the original game was due to a bug, to a coding overlook, and the fact that Beamdog left the chance to use the old way, while usually when they fix something the chance to use the original behavior is not granted, make me think that maybe it was not a bug.
until someone links an interview or other source where an original developer states that it was indeed a bug.
even if some of the original team members are now developers of the EE the opinion of the people about how some features of the game should be to make it better can change with time, according to their present opinion, and it does not automatically mean that the changed feature was a bug.
when they changed the aoe of the improved bard song was not because originally some one typed by error a too large area while coding, was because they believed that the game would have become better the new way. it was not a bug fix, it was having a different opinion on how a certain feature has to be implemented in the game. and this is only one of the many examples i can think about.
further more, as i had already told, if it was really a bug and the RC should only be able to cast the druid spells a single class ranger of his ranger level can, the bug is far from being fixed as maybe he now can only cast the druid spells of the first 3 levels, but can still memorize so much more of them then a single class ranger.
why the people that complain about the old RC and is so happy of the EE "bug fix" seems to not have any problem with that?
coherence would imply that those people ask for a complete bug fix, when a RC can also memorize the number of druid only spells that a single class ranger can memorize, and should also not be able to use those slots to memorize cleric spells that a ranger can not use by the way.
what reading something reminds you is something that happens in the sacred space of your own mind and i can have only the deepest respect of it and of your freedom to share it with us.
still i think that there is no comparison at all between the argumentation brought here by those that think that the old way was not due to a bug and the argumentation brought in that old thread.
and bringing that silly argumentation about something that was surely the exploiting of a bug here instead of countering properly the argumentation brought here for a completely different issue is not something that i can fully appreciate, while i usually greatly appreciate your contribution to the topics.
To me, "it was from original launch a deliberate feature" sounds exactly as the logic of that beast master person.
Beamdog has been working on the games since 2010. When developing IWD:EE, they found out that the implementation of R/C in BG2 was exploiting the engine and provided an advantage which couldn't be explained other than it's a consequence of the engine. Same as how BG2 elves' bonus affected ALL swords, including katanas.
The player, in this case, you, can totally legitimately argue that it was not a bug. But the developers saw there was no reasonable explanation why R/C should get that buff. What in their class is saying they should be getting it? That advantage was not intended. And the EE engine provided options to fix such bugs that couldn't be fixed by a not upgraded engine.
But Beamdog understood that there were many old fans who got used to the old implementation. So when the 1.3 patches were released for BG1 and BG2, they introduced an option to EASILY tweak the approach and make it as you've got used to. This is as easy as enabling the console in the game or changing FPS. And this option is still available. Yet, there are complaints in this thread about "deliberately changing to make it worse".
And here is the explanation of why this was considered a bug (by our former team member):
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended. Rangers only have access to Druid spells up to level 3. Clerics have access to Cleric spells. Therefore, a Ranger/Cleric gets access to all Cleric spells through the Cleric class, and to Druid spells up to level 3 through the Ranger class."
I personally prefer the old R/C since I always love any cheese over any kind of nerf, so I always change that setting in the LUA. There's no need to waste time or effort arguing whether it's a bug or not (since it neither breaks the game nor makes it unplayable), let's just all play the game as each of us like it!
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended" means only that the new behavior is intended by the EE developers, is not a bug itself but a change of the game behavior that they did.
reading further in that thread i see
"As for it being intended or not to be restricted by default I don't know if that has been officially established or not. Having Max HP on level up as the default setting was apparently an oversight, so its possible the cleric ranger spells was added ..." by @elminster
so is not sure if the original behavior was or not a bug, he only suppose it was so
then @mlnevese tells "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE."
and if he is right it was so not for a bug, but for an engine limitation, that is a completely different thing, while here there is people that tell that it was surely a bug, without bringing any evidence about what they say.
at least you brought to the thread some evidence, and i thank you for that, even if from that evidence seems that the old behavior was probably an intended feature, chosen because of an engine limitation, and not a bug, that is an error while coding.
i know that the players are free to chose if to play with the new behavior or the new one, and i really appreciate how this time Beamdog changed a behavior that the old players was used to have, leaving the chance to play as in the original way as usually when they fix something they don't leave the choice.
by the way i had played very rarely RC, with the old engine only, so with all the druid spells, and having to play it without them i would surely play FC, probably dual class, that imo is way stronger as can get GM and the cleric buffs make to dual at low level not an issue, if not for loosing the figher HLA.
but still dualing at 13 and DW with the +1/2 apr gauntlets the F13->C gets 4.5 attacks, 9 improved hasted, while being a very strong caster.
anyway no one answered to my question about why a RC can put all druid spells in his 1-3 level slots and why the dual one can cast lev 3 druid spells even if dual before a ranger can cast them.
it seems that the logic that a ranger should not cast spells he is not supposed to cast (at the level he is), both as level of those spells and as number of possible memorizations, is a logic that magically has to work only for the spells of lev 4 or more.
while using the logic properly a R9->C should be able to cast only 1 druid only lev 1 spell each day, as it is what his ranger level enables him to do.
The original devs know what their intent was.
Beamdog is made up of original devs.
Beamdog says it was a bug.
Ergo, it was a bug.
By your own requirements, I have proven you wrong. Julius represents the devs and has given their judgement. To ignore it is to admit to lacking intellectual honesty.
Blah, blah, blah...
Sorry @JuliusBorisov but the new Ranger/Cleric is boring. There is no reason to choose it over Fighter/Cleric so to me, there was no reason to have to 'fix' it. The old one wasn't even nearly as powerful as a Fighter/Mage so I just don't buy that this was some critical bug that needed to be nerfed. You're entitled to your opinion though, so no biggie. I just don't want people to somehow think that the old Ranger/Cleric was some brokenly powerful build.
Given the relatively lackluster Druid spell selection in unmodded Baldur's Gate, Ranger/Clerics getting to cast Druid spells using the Cleric table instead of the Ranger table made them not an abysmal build (Rangers already can't grandmaster weapons and you have to actually know how to play a cleric in order to play a cleric well (something I'm still learning)). It's no wonder that this bug/engine limitation/feature is preferred over P&P rules. Icewind Dale's better selection of druid spells does make it a balance issue (since both clerics and druids have excellent late-game spells in IWD), but it's still a net improvement to a lackluster combination rather than an outright game-breaker.
Therefore, my perspective is that it goes from abysmal to lackluster.
I agree with the idea that this feature was the result of an engine limitation, rather than an intended implementation of P&P rules. However, that does not mean that there is no rational argument at all for providing it - and that may be why Beamdog gave the option. Divine spells in D&D are normally provided by your chosen god and I don't see any reason in principle why a god could not decide to provide a larger selection of spells to an adherent who had already demonstrated their aptitude with that type of spell.
The argument against this is that there is an inherent level limitation which means a ranger can never use higher level spells. However, this is not a prohibition on them using the spells, but simply a statement of their normal abilities. Those level limitations can be got round - for instance a ranger could use a higher level druid spell scroll, just as a mage can cast spells from scrolls they can't yet learn. In this case I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to suggest that the dualling operates to get round the standard level limitation.
from the only evidence that has been brought to this thread, the link given by @JuliusBorisov i see that @elminster is not sure if it was or not was a bug and @mlnevese tells that it was due to an engine limitation, that is a completely different thing from a bug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug
it is clear that Beamdog did not like how that feature worked and decided to change it, because with the new enhanced engine is now possible or for other reasons, but this is something completely different from fixing a bug, a coding error that makes something that should not be possible actually possible.
the beastmaster trick was surely a bug, is very likely that to put 3 PI in a CC was also a bug, as the original developers overlooked the possibility of that exploit happening, even if both was more exploits of some engine weakness then proper bugs.
but for the RC we have a person that is in the forums staff and a former member of it telling us that they are not sure if it was a bug or that it was something else, a deliberate choice due to an engine limitation.
so please if you want to continue to tell that it was a bug provide some evidence of it, just repeating it many times does not prove in any way that what you say is true.
then you are free to like the changed behavior and some other players are free to like the old way, and it is perfectly fine, but it has nothing to do with if the old RC behavior was due to a bug or not.
I personally don't have any problem with both the behaviors, in my original games i play very rarely RC and don't feel it anyway OP, i find both FC and FM way more powerful, and MC the most interesting choice, but i don't care so much to play always the most powerful build possible. In EE i did never play a RC and doing it i could do it in both the ways, i find the old one as better balanced compared to the other multi and the new one only a nerfed version of the FC, much nerfed if we are talking of dual and not multi.
and i find anyway both the versions somehow cheesy as a RC gets the druid spells way before a ranger, can cast much more of them then a ranger and in case of the dual can cast some druid spells that a ranger of his ranger level could not cast anyway, still this "legittimate cheese" does not make the RC overpowered, like casting higher level druid spells imho does not make it overpowered.
But i am talking of personal taste and opinions, that is something that has not any relation with he old behavior being a bug.
"This [ new behaviour ] is intended" from a QA person means that the old behaviour wasn't intended. If the behaviour wasn't intended, it was a bug. This is 100% true from the QA perspective, and the QA shared that opinion after the dev team had internally triaged the issue.
in some nations smoking weed was illegal and now is allowed, this new behavior does not means automatically that the old law was bugged, both things was intended, but in different times.
and in the same thread i read also a person telling that he is not sure if it was a bug or not and an other that states that it was a choice due to an engine limitation, that is different from being a bug.
as you have access to things that happen in the background, like what the developers team does internally, and i don't, only the link you provided was not a clue for me that the old RC behavior was a bug.
so if you tell us that, as you have access to knowledge we normal forum users ignore, you are sure that some original developer now in Beamdog has told that for sure it was a bug, a coding error or overlook, i have no reason to doubt of what you say, even if only the link you provided was not a strong enough evidence in itself.
i don't decide to ignore stuff, but i evaluate that stuff in its context, and the context was a thread where elminster was not sure if it was a bug or not, mlnevase told that it was a choice caused by an engine limitation and "This [ new behaviour ] is intended" does not automatically imply that the old one was not intended by who, maybe even the same person, implemented it 15 years before.
the fact that you tell us now "the QA shared that opinion after the dev team had internally triaged the issue" becomes a part of my evaluation as now i know it. as you provide more context my evaluation can vary, for the very reason that i never decide to deliberately ignore stuff.
by the way i am quite convinced that i never wrote in the thread that it surely was not a bug, while others have done it, i only told that who told that it was surely a bug did not provide any evidence of it, evidence that now we can have if you confirm that in that internal triage emerged for sure that the old behavior was due to a bug (and not let's say to a bad choice or an engine limitation).
Personally I am rather more fond of your discussions on how implementation A is better than B or whether it really does not make that much of a difference.
this means ie that a dual R9->C should not memorize more then 2 lev 1 druid spells and should never memorize lev 2 and 3 spells.
this is the purest choice for those that think that a RC should not use spells that a ranger can not use.
i really invite those that use that logic to do so, even as multi they would need 2.4M xp to cast their first lev 3 druid spell, but if they really believe that a RC should cast druid spells like a ranger do it is the way to follow
1. i never assumed in this thread that the old behavior was surely not a bug, nowhere in my previous posts you can find such thing.
3. i told that imo it being a bug was not a certain thing, and i asked for an evidence.
4. you and the other people stating that it was certainly so was unable to provide the evidence.
5. @JuliusBorisov provided a link as evidence, quoting a post when is actually told that the EE behavior is intended by the EE devs, some of them are former devs of the original game, in the same thread an other person told "As for it being intended or not to be restricted by default I don't know if that has been officially established or not" and he was @elminster not a generic joe, and an other person stated that "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE", also he was not a generic joe.
and a choice due to an engine limitation is something different from a bug, as well as a choice of the EE developers, even if some of them are former original ones, about the EE game does not necessarily mean that the old behavior was due to a bug, as ie an engine limitation can be a reason different form a coding overlook, a bug.
so i evaluated the evidence in that thread not strong enough to be sure that the original behavior was due to a bug, a coding error, as other possibilities was still open.
6. finally @JuliusBorisov told us of the internal triage and that he is sure that it was a bug, a coding error or overlook, based on what he knows was told in that triage. this was the evidence i was asking for.
i must assume that @mlnevese is not competent, as in that thread told a different thing, and so possibly be glad that he is no more in the staff, or at least i don't see him blue any more, but as i have no reason to doubt what Julius has told i accept it as a strong enough evidence.