Lets look at the classes that benefit from potion stacking to put paid to the notion that this is an "op mages more op" thing.
Potions of Heroism (HP), Potions of Power (HP, thieving), Potions of Master Thievery (thieving), potion of perception (thievery, stealth) Potions of Mind Focusing (primarily for the dex effect), (Potions of Mind focusing and genius (Mind Flayer protection) Potions of Stone Form (saves), Potions of Invulnerability (saves) absorption (crushing AC) - theses are all potions that are either warrior only, thief only, or benefit warrior and thief classes to a much greater extent than mage classes, which have their own spellcasting to provide many of these effects and/or protections that others rely on potions for. To narrow potion stacking down to "Int boost for scroll scribing" is to only look at a tiny fraction of the picture of stack-able potions.
Looking at the full range of stack-able potions, and their effects for different classes and their utility, I can only conclude that getting rid of potion stacking would be a much greater nerf to warrior and thief classes than to spellcasting classes - and - if it is considered that mages are "already op" then there can be no logical justification from that proposition to apply an additional late stage nerf to non-mage classes through removal of potion stacking.
I don't see stacking different kinds of potions, for different kinds of buffs, as much of a problem.. But using two identical potions, with identical effects which stack is an exploit regardless of class.
But the point about mages and intelligence was brought up earlier as an argument to keep it around, so i just continued down that line.
I don't see stacking different kinds of potions, for different kinds of buffs, as much of a problem.. But using two identical potions, with identical effects which stack is an exploit regardless of class.
But the point about mages and intelligence was brought up earlier as an argument to keep it around, so i just continued down that line.
But here you are advocating for nerfing warrior and thief classes, to the benefit of mage classes, which just seems to contradict your earlier position that that mages are "an already superior class" and "despite the fact that everyone knows mages are ridiculously OP compared to anything already?".
I don't feel, that at this stage of the game, a significant debuff should be applied to warrior and thief classes - If you think it should, that's ok I guess.
He is not stating that. He is stating that the change is class independent. Which class is impacted the most is not relevant.
Btw, mind flayer balancing might be better than potion stacking. Allow the drain to be 2 instead of 4 and to have it curable somehow and then it becomes more manageable with the single potion. Might be elegant to have npp to work against all star drains (and rename the spell. Hmmm maybe I'll mod these things).
Well how am I going to get my solo monk past LoB Belefiet now?
Flawed arguments, imo. Should we also revert changes to spells that fixed stacking inconsistencies present in vanilla games? What about hundreds of other spell and item fixes that also affected balance? Maybe Drizzt should stand still helpless, like he did in BG1, just so that weaker class has easier time beating the game solo on max difficulty? If something doesn't work as intended than it's a bug - so a good candidate for fixing, imo.
If for every change you need to discuss which class is more impacted then there is no end to anything. It is better to propose how to balance these classes in different manners.
To be honest I cannot think a scenario where these classes are hurting significantly by removing potion stacking. There are still many effects you can stack to benefit those classes.
Well how am I going to get my solo monk past LoB Belefiet now?
Flawed arguments, imo. Should we also revert changes to spells that fixed stacking inconsistencies present in vanilla games? What about hundreds of other spell and item fixes that also affected balance? Maybe Drizzt should stand still helpless, like he did in BG1, just so that weaker class has easier time beating the game solo on max difficulty? If something doesn't work as intended than it's a bug - so a good candidate for fixing, imo.
But this hinges on its entirly subjective classification as a bug, rather than a gameplay change.
This is going back and forth and even though I definitely want potions to not be stackable I must admit both sides have quite some valid arguments on their side.
But in the end - and that is the crucial and deciding factor imho - potion stacking is not a feature and never has been, it's an exploit and was not supposed to work like that.
If the few elite solo and no-reload players want to have a 100 % instead of a 95 % spell scribing success chance or others want a better chance at soloing Belhifet with a monk, I do understand that but then go get a mod and don't expect bugs or exploits not in your favor to not be fixed for the majority of the players.
The fundament, the base game, should always be kept as bug and exploit free as possible and therefore the only right choice is to fix all bugs and exploits, if achievable with moderate means of course!
With all respect that doesn't make any sense.
If we would go like that nothing should have been fixed, rebalanced, nerfed etc. and we would still be playing the original Baldur's Gate.
With all respect that doesn't make any sense.
If we would go like that nothing should have been fixed, rebalanced, nerfed etc. and we would still be playing the original Baldur's Gate.
But this isn't about the past, and past changes that have and haven't been made, this is about an upcoming major gameplay change, not related to a bug, and only subjectively definable as an exploit, being made now - in patch 2.6 - which I feel people are entitled to make their opinions heard about regardless of the past.
It might not seem like a big deal, since you can "mod" it, but not everyone is playing on PC - and they don't have the option to mod their game. For them especially, but in general too, this is a fundamental gameplay and balance change to the base game, not simply "patching a bug."
With all respect that doesn't make any sense.
If we would go like that nothing should have been fixed, rebalanced, nerfed etc. and we would still be playing the original Baldur's Gate.
It makes sense : don't fix what is not broken !
The need for rebalancing/nerfing is opinion (the proof : we disagree), if it was broken we would agree (a bug is a bug).
I've seen two real arguments in favor of a prohibition against potion stacking:
(1)Potion sacking is a bug/exploit and should be removed regardless of its ramifications
(2)Potion stacking is cheese that I dislike, but am nevertheless tempted to use
Regarding the first argument, I have yet to see anything that suggests the original creators regarded potion stacking as a bug or worthy of rectification. If anyone has a reference to substantiate this claim, I would be interested in learning more.
If in arguendo, potion stacking was an unintentional aspect of the game, then we should still be hesitant in the face of change. Games as they exist in the minds of the creators will inevitably differ from the final product. Some of these deviations from the envisioned game become a part of the underlying experience--they make up the title we know and love.
Bugs/exploits are not mere deviations from the envisioned product, but errors that detract from the enjoyment of the game. The proponents of the ban have yet to state how potion stacking does this. Their argument is from the abstract (i.e. that the game should change to more accurately represent some ideal form) whereas the opponents argue from the side of the practical (i.e. this is how we have always enjoyed the game). Practical arguments should be afforded far greater weight because, as I will remind the reader, only those who stack potions are affected by this change. The non-potion stackers have no stakes here,
The second argument is a more persuasive one because it addresses the practical (i.e. the player's enjoyment of the game). Thus, in considering it one must weigh the concerns of both sides as it relates to their enjoyment of the game. I would suggest a utilitarian approach: are more players negatively impacted by the temptation to stack and their subsequent stacking, or are those of us who have been stacking since the game's release? I believe the answer is clear.
Walls of text, expositions deep into philosophical territory.. and all to build a punchline for keeping a bug.
Potion stacking is not a thing in D&D, nor AD&D.
It is an oversight, it is working with unintended properties, it is by definition a bug.
It is not a gamebreaking bug, it is not even bug that causes much concern.. nor is it as some state; a significant balance change.
It is quite honestly, very trivial.. even to those who use it.
We're talking about an edge you need only because you have pushed the games content to the very limit by either playing on the highest difficulty with self-imposed rules or used mods to heavily alter the experience.
If patching the EE's to 2.6 and beyond is because they are still selling them to new players, which is really what Trent said in another thread recently, then squashing all bugs - indiscriminately of their popularity - is the only right course of action.
They've gone through the trouble of finding several ways to help Drizzt survive our every attempt at having the game kill him for us, or kill him by exploits such blocking him with party-kicked characters etc etc.. and for what? It took effort and intent to use those exploits - exploits that really, really shifts the games balance as you could at lvl 1 get some of the best items the game as to offer.
And why? Did it ruin anyones fun? Was it breaking the game? Nope.. but it was a series of exploits, that were indiscriminately fixed - with quite some effort on Beamdog's behalf actually.
Removing said bug/exploit did nothing for the games stability.. but it massively affects balance, far beyond what a few more points of intelligence does under normal circumstances.
Now we have a ready made fix for potion stacking. Another bug that should be indiscriminately fixed.
So since we now are posting walls of text on behalf of this matter, i shall end my own with two questions:
In the event Beamdog chooses to not fix a bug like this due to a vocal minority - then why keep the Drizzt fix? - I too can be a vocal minority and I say that fixing Drizzt impacts my playthroughs a lot more as it turns BG1 on it's head.. the bug wasn't hurting anyone - but they fixed it because they could.
Are we supposed to start to pick and choose which bugs (however beneficial to the player) we want to keep around? - If such is the case, i'd say Drizzt is back on the table and should be un-fixed.
The point i am making is:
All bugs that can be fixed within reasonable measures needs to be fixed.. including my favorite exploits of bugs.
So since we now are posting walls of text on behalf of this matter, i shall end my own with two questions:
In the event Beamdog chooses to not fix a bug like this due to a vocal minority - then why keep the Drizzt fix? - I too can be a vocal minority and I say that fixing Drizzt impacts my playthroughs a lot more as it turns BG1 on it's head.. the bug wasn't hurting anyone - but they fixed it because they could.
This is a pretty farcical comparison and I don't see how drawing such false equivalencies does your argument any favors, it just makes it seem like you are treating people who disagree with you dismissively.
Surely if you want to make valid comparisons to other similar game features compare it to the mage equivalent: wand recharging, since potion use, stacked or otherwise, comes at a not insignificant in game cost to the player and is persistent through BG1, SoD, BG2, ToB and IWD1.
I've a question though.
Does anybody know how many Potions of Genius and of Master Thievery exist and are they easy or fast to obtain?
For potions of Genius: as far as I recall, you can buy 4 in the temple of wisdom for 450GP each at base rep and without charisma bonuses. Then after you can buy then in Baldur's Gate. Potions of mind focusing are 750GP with the same rep/charisma and the first store you can buy them is Sorcerous Sundries. So they're a not inexpensive spend. There may be others as loot around, I can't remember where.
Potions of master thievery can be got in Baldur's Gate and from Erdane outside of Durlag's Tower, they are also available as loot there especially on dungeon floor 1. They cost 600GP with flat rep and charisma.
So since we now are posting walls of text on behalf of this matter, i shall end my own with two questions:
In the event Beamdog chooses to not fix a bug like this due to a vocal minority - then why keep the Drizzt fix? - I too can be a vocal minority and I say that fixing Drizzt impacts my playthroughs a lot more as it turns BG1 on it's head.. the bug wasn't hurting anyone - but they fixed it because they could.
This is a pretty farcical comparison and I don't see how drawing such false equivalencies does your argument any favors, it just makes it seem like you are treating people who disagree with you dismissively.
Surely if you want to make valid comparisons to other similar game features compare it to the mage equivalent: wand recharging, since potion use, stacked or otherwise, comes at a not insignificant in game cost to the player and is persistent through BG1, SoD, BG2, ToB and IWD1.
It is not farcical nor dismissive, but I can see why you want it to be..
I however find it very relevant actually. They fixed something that wasn't in any particularly dire need of fixing.. and the result is an absolutely massive change to BG1 and SoD. The very basic nature of these key points are nearly identical - But i would argue that removing the Drizzt exploits has a much more direct and tangible consequence.
As for wand recharging.. if they can fix it within reasonable use of manhours, then they should.
I always recharge wands because I can.. still think it should be fixed though, as it's clearly not intentional game design and thus a bug.
@Khyron's last posts are pretty much on point.
Thankfully Beamdog has fixed quite some bugs and exploits in the past and I hope @Galactygon's fix makes it to 2.6.
No reason to keep this and other exploits around!
I think I have made my points in defense of this not being a fix, but a significant gameplay modification, and am in danger of going round in circles for no gain, and so will rest my arguing for now!
I am in favour of Beamdog fixing any exploits that they decide to, and am personally happy that Beamdog is finally allocating some resources to improve the games after a long while. It should have been done long before, but better late than ever.
My personal opinion is, please continue supporting and fixing the games, and don’t get discouraged to make fixes/changes whenever someone becomes unhappy due to their favourite exploit not working any more
Potion stacking is not a thing in D&D, nor AD&D.
It is an oversight, it is working with unintended properties, it is by definition a bug.
It is not a gamebreaking bug, it is not even bug that causes much concern.. nor is it as some state; a significant balance change.
I cannot agree with you in this because BG is not a strict conversion of the AD&D ruleset--there are many, many things included in the series unknown to tabletop, and many tabletop rules are changed to suit the needs of a video game. Were this the only area in which the game's rules differed from 2nd Edition, it would be a fair point. As it stands, one could just as soon argue that unlimited and failproof resurrections are an oversight/bug.
Unless someone can substantiate the claim that this an oversight by the creators, I cannot give it much weight. It seems to me that it is yet another instance in which the needs of video game design differ from those of the tabletop. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, the tabletop rules are much more lenient in regards to spell scribing and thievery. It seems to me strange to invoke tabletop rules regarding potion stacking but not those that would allow players to keep scrolls that they fail to scribe.
In the event Beamdog chooses to not fix a bug like this due to a vocal minority - then why keep the Drizzt fix? - I too can be a vocal minority and I say that fixing Drizzt impacts my playthroughs a lot more as it turns BG1 on it's head.. the bug wasn't hurting anyone - but they fixed it because they could.
Are we supposed to start to pick and choose which bugs (however beneficial to the player) we want to keep around? - If such is the case, i'd say Drizzt is back on the table and should be un-fixed.
It would be well within your right to make such an argument. I don't have a strong opinion on the Drizzt situation as killing Drizzt is rarely on my radar. That said, there is a very important distinction between whether the Drizzt change should have been made and whether potion stacking should be prohibited: the players affected.
In the Drizzt situation you have two valid arguments from opposing sides: those who want Drizzt to be more difficult to kill (i.e. those who argue that the added challenge increases their enjoyment of the game) and those who want it to remain unchanged (i.e. those who argue that the early experience/items improves the game). In both instances, the arguments hinged on how the player will be affected. Beamdog weighed the choices and made their decision.
In the instant situation, only one side is affected by the proposed change. If potion stacking is removed, those of us who potion stack are negatively impacted while those who do not are unaffected. If potion stacking remains, potion stackers are content and the other side is, once again, unaffected.
The crux of my argument is this: if both sides of a dispute are affected by the proposed change, then a balancing test should be employed to determine whose enjoyment of the game is subject to greater or more substantial impact. If only one side of a dispute is affected by a proposed change, then the interests of the affected side are paramount.
The only argument put forward as to why potion stacking should be removed that also affects the player in question is the argument that potion stacking amounts to undesirable but excessively tempting cheese. I do not find this argument very persuasive, but it is the one Beamdog should consider when making its decision.
Wow, that's unexpected. It will certainly require a change of tactics and especially make no-reload runs more difficult. Among other, the toughest to me seems no guarantee to scribe a rare and important spell anymore by sacrificing two potions of genius
Just off the top of my head this would cause some changes for no-reload runs, but the biggest issue for me is that it would, at this very late stage, make Legacy of Bhaal Solo runs impossible for many additional classes due to it introducing the impossibility of defeating Belhifet.
It's like if Beamdog turned round and said they were removing Durlag's Goblet...
It's good that you saw the subject and spoke up. Players like you are the ones who would be most affected by such changes. The whole LoB+SCS Solo challenge would be impossible for many classes and kits now, also many vanilla solo no-reloads and that would take away the fun for a lot of players.
Everyone should be heard, of course, but I don't think the decision should be made based solely on the opinion of people who never even saw the point in that function, didn't use it anyway and whose gameplay won't be affected at all by the change.
"More creative" or "more challenging" is one thing, but making those solo challenges impossible for a substantial group of players who still have fun this way with a 20 years old game is something those people calling it an exploit and wanting it gone should take into consideration.
Conclusion:
Those of you who want potion stacking changed because you think it's cheating and don't use it anyway, why demand a fix that won't affect you personally but spoils the fun for many others, who would just have to stop playing their challenges, and a very frequented forum thread that is actually about the game would become a lot more quiet.
I think there are more sides than just power players who use potion stacking and people who don't use it anyway @Arvia.
Just like @Khyron and probably quite some other players I know it can be done and currently it's part of the game so I take any advantage the game grants me but it still ruins certain parts of the experience.
Hell, next time I just go for a thief, stuff him with some Potions of Master Thievery and clear out all possible merchants to destroy any economic intention and loot satisfaction this game offers.
Plus, even though the voices for and against potion stacking are currently even, note that the regular John Doe playing any of the IE games once a year or even less not necessarily takes part in this forum because he doesn't need to for a normal run but the consistently optimizing power player surely does because he needs to find the best loadout, skill distribution, and ways to beat e. g. Belhifet. The power player minority therefore has quite a bigger vocal effect but doesn't resort to the majority of players.
I see the point for power players but admittedly this is not the lions share of players out there, fact. So maybe the focus should rather be to deliver a base game that is free of bugs and exploits for the majority of players (just as Beamdog has done so far in a great way) and power players can then use a tiny mod that allows all mentioned features that are required for them to complete their challenge.
Wouldn't that be a sight.
That is not as easy in the infinity engine because they probably make an effect that makes the user immune to the potion until it ran its course or is dispelled.
That means for each potion you need a duplicate (one stacks, one not) and based on the toggle automatically replace all potions (in inventory) with the alternate version.
Comments
Potions of Heroism (HP), Potions of Power (HP, thieving), Potions of Master Thievery (thieving), potion of perception (thievery, stealth) Potions of Mind Focusing (primarily for the dex effect), (Potions of Mind focusing and genius (Mind Flayer protection) Potions of Stone Form (saves), Potions of Invulnerability (saves) absorption (crushing AC) - theses are all potions that are either warrior only, thief only, or benefit warrior and thief classes to a much greater extent than mage classes, which have their own spellcasting to provide many of these effects and/or protections that others rely on potions for. To narrow potion stacking down to "Int boost for scroll scribing" is to only look at a tiny fraction of the picture of stack-able potions.
Looking at the full range of stack-able potions, and their effects for different classes and their utility, I can only conclude that getting rid of potion stacking would be a much greater nerf to warrior and thief classes than to spellcasting classes - and - if it is considered that mages are "already op" then there can be no logical justification from that proposition to apply an additional late stage nerf to non-mage classes through removal of potion stacking.
But the point about mages and intelligence was brought up earlier as an argument to keep it around, so i just continued down that line.
I don't feel, that at this stage of the game, a significant debuff should be applied to warrior and thief classes - If you think it should, that's ok I guess.
Btw, mind flayer balancing might be better than potion stacking. Allow the drain to be 2 instead of 4 and to have it curable somehow and then it becomes more manageable with the single potion. Might be elegant to have npp to work against all star drains (and rename the spell. Hmmm maybe I'll mod these things).
Flawed arguments, imo. Should we also revert changes to spells that fixed stacking inconsistencies present in vanilla games? What about hundreds of other spell and item fixes that also affected balance? Maybe Drizzt should stand still helpless, like he did in BG1, just so that weaker class has easier time beating the game solo on max difficulty? If something doesn't work as intended than it's a bug - so a good candidate for fixing, imo.
To be honest I cannot think a scenario where these classes are hurting significantly by removing potion stacking. There are still many effects you can stack to benefit those classes.
But this hinges on its entirly subjective classification as a bug, rather than a gameplay change.
But in the end - and that is the crucial and deciding factor imho - potion stacking is not a feature and never has been, it's an exploit and was not supposed to work like that.
If the few elite solo and no-reload players want to have a 100 % instead of a 95 % spell scribing success chance or others want a better chance at soloing Belhifet with a monk, I do understand that but then go get a mod and don't expect bugs or exploits not in your favor to not be fixed for the majority of the players.
The fundament, the base game, should always be kept as bug and exploit free as possible and therefore the only right choice is to fix all bugs and exploits, if achievable with moderate means of course!
If we would go like that nothing should have been fixed, rebalanced, nerfed etc. and we would still be playing the original Baldur's Gate.
But this isn't about the past, and past changes that have and haven't been made, this is about an upcoming major gameplay change, not related to a bug, and only subjectively definable as an exploit, being made now - in patch 2.6 - which I feel people are entitled to make their opinions heard about regardless of the past.
It might not seem like a big deal, since you can "mod" it, but not everyone is playing on PC - and they don't have the option to mod their game. For them especially, but in general too, this is a fundamental gameplay and balance change to the base game, not simply "patching a bug."
---
This same issue came up in 2012... and @Avenger_teambg at the time said "I think balancing like this can be left to mods." (here: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/11945/bug-or-feature-potion-bonuses-stacking ).
I firmly believe this is a balancing issue not an exploit or a bug, and it should be left as it is.
It makes sense : don't fix what is not broken !
The need for rebalancing/nerfing is opinion (the proof : we disagree), if it was broken we would agree (a bug is a bug).
I think everybody who wanted to be heard had a chance to do so.
The patch is close.
(1)Potion sacking is a bug/exploit and should be removed regardless of its ramifications
(2)Potion stacking is cheese that I dislike, but am nevertheless tempted to use
Regarding the first argument, I have yet to see anything that suggests the original creators regarded potion stacking as a bug or worthy of rectification. If anyone has a reference to substantiate this claim, I would be interested in learning more.
If in arguendo, potion stacking was an unintentional aspect of the game, then we should still be hesitant in the face of change. Games as they exist in the minds of the creators will inevitably differ from the final product. Some of these deviations from the envisioned game become a part of the underlying experience--they make up the title we know and love.
Bugs/exploits are not mere deviations from the envisioned product, but errors that detract from the enjoyment of the game. The proponents of the ban have yet to state how potion stacking does this. Their argument is from the abstract (i.e. that the game should change to more accurately represent some ideal form) whereas the opponents argue from the side of the practical (i.e. this is how we have always enjoyed the game). Practical arguments should be afforded far greater weight because, as I will remind the reader, only those who stack potions are affected by this change. The non-potion stackers have no stakes here,
The second argument is a more persuasive one because it addresses the practical (i.e. the player's enjoyment of the game). Thus, in considering it one must weigh the concerns of both sides as it relates to their enjoyment of the game. I would suggest a utilitarian approach: are more players negatively impacted by the temptation to stack and their subsequent stacking, or are those of us who have been stacking since the game's release? I believe the answer is clear.
I've a question though.
Does anybody know how many Potions of Genius and of Master Thievery exist and are they easy or fast to obtain?
Potion stacking is not a thing in D&D, nor AD&D.
It is an oversight, it is working with unintended properties, it is by definition a bug.
It is not a gamebreaking bug, it is not even bug that causes much concern.. nor is it as some state; a significant balance change.
It is quite honestly, very trivial.. even to those who use it.
We're talking about an edge you need only because you have pushed the games content to the very limit by either playing on the highest difficulty with self-imposed rules or used mods to heavily alter the experience.
If patching the EE's to 2.6 and beyond is because they are still selling them to new players, which is really what Trent said in another thread recently, then squashing all bugs - indiscriminately of their popularity - is the only right course of action.
They've gone through the trouble of finding several ways to help Drizzt survive our every attempt at having the game kill him for us, or kill him by exploits such blocking him with party-kicked characters etc etc.. and for what? It took effort and intent to use those exploits - exploits that really, really shifts the games balance as you could at lvl 1 get some of the best items the game as to offer.
And why? Did it ruin anyones fun? Was it breaking the game? Nope.. but it was a series of exploits, that were indiscriminately fixed - with quite some effort on Beamdog's behalf actually.
Removing said bug/exploit did nothing for the games stability.. but it massively affects balance, far beyond what a few more points of intelligence does under normal circumstances.
Now we have a ready made fix for potion stacking. Another bug that should be indiscriminately fixed.
So since we now are posting walls of text on behalf of this matter, i shall end my own with two questions:
In the event Beamdog chooses to not fix a bug like this due to a vocal minority - then why keep the Drizzt fix? - I too can be a vocal minority and I say that fixing Drizzt impacts my playthroughs a lot more as it turns BG1 on it's head.. the bug wasn't hurting anyone - but they fixed it because they could.
Are we supposed to start to pick and choose which bugs (however beneficial to the player) we want to keep around? - If such is the case, i'd say Drizzt is back on the table and should be un-fixed.
The point i am making is:
All bugs that can be fixed within reasonable measures needs to be fixed.. including my favorite exploits of bugs.
This is a pretty farcical comparison and I don't see how drawing such false equivalencies does your argument any favors, it just makes it seem like you are treating people who disagree with you dismissively.
Surely if you want to make valid comparisons to other similar game features compare it to the mage equivalent: wand recharging, since potion use, stacked or otherwise, comes at a not insignificant in game cost to the player and is persistent through BG1, SoD, BG2, ToB and IWD1.
Potions of master thievery can be got in Baldur's Gate and from Erdane outside of Durlag's Tower, they are also available as loot there especially on dungeon floor 1. They cost 600GP with flat rep and charisma.
It is not farcical nor dismissive, but I can see why you want it to be..
I however find it very relevant actually. They fixed something that wasn't in any particularly dire need of fixing.. and the result is an absolutely massive change to BG1 and SoD. The very basic nature of these key points are nearly identical - But i would argue that removing the Drizzt exploits has a much more direct and tangible consequence.
As for wand recharging.. if they can fix it within reasonable use of manhours, then they should.
I always recharge wands because I can.. still think it should be fixed though, as it's clearly not intentional game design and thus a bug.
Thankfully Beamdog has fixed quite some bugs and exploits in the past and I hope @Galactygon's fix makes it to 2.6.
No reason to keep this and other exploits around!
My personal opinion is, please continue supporting and fixing the games, and don’t get discouraged to make fixes/changes whenever someone becomes unhappy due to their favourite exploit not working any more
Unless someone can substantiate the claim that this an oversight by the creators, I cannot give it much weight. It seems to me that it is yet another instance in which the needs of video game design differ from those of the tabletop. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, the tabletop rules are much more lenient in regards to spell scribing and thievery. It seems to me strange to invoke tabletop rules regarding potion stacking but not those that would allow players to keep scrolls that they fail to scribe.
It would be well within your right to make such an argument. I don't have a strong opinion on the Drizzt situation as killing Drizzt is rarely on my radar. That said, there is a very important distinction between whether the Drizzt change should have been made and whether potion stacking should be prohibited: the players affected.
In the Drizzt situation you have two valid arguments from opposing sides: those who want Drizzt to be more difficult to kill (i.e. those who argue that the added challenge increases their enjoyment of the game) and those who want it to remain unchanged (i.e. those who argue that the early experience/items improves the game). In both instances, the arguments hinged on how the player will be affected. Beamdog weighed the choices and made their decision.
In the instant situation, only one side is affected by the proposed change. If potion stacking is removed, those of us who potion stack are negatively impacted while those who do not are unaffected. If potion stacking remains, potion stackers are content and the other side is, once again, unaffected.
The crux of my argument is this: if both sides of a dispute are affected by the proposed change, then a balancing test should be employed to determine whose enjoyment of the game is subject to greater or more substantial impact. If only one side of a dispute is affected by a proposed change, then the interests of the affected side are paramount.
The only argument put forward as to why potion stacking should be removed that also affects the player in question is the argument that potion stacking amounts to undesirable but excessively tempting cheese. I do not find this argument very persuasive, but it is the one Beamdog should consider when making its decision.
It's good that you saw the subject and spoke up. Players like you are the ones who would be most affected by such changes. The whole LoB+SCS Solo challenge would be impossible for many classes and kits now, also many vanilla solo no-reloads and that would take away the fun for a lot of players.
Everyone should be heard, of course, but I don't think the decision should be made based solely on the opinion of people who never even saw the point in that function, didn't use it anyway and whose gameplay won't be affected at all by the change.
"More creative" or "more challenging" is one thing, but making those solo challenges impossible for a substantial group of players who still have fun this way with a 20 years old game is something those people calling it an exploit and wanting it gone should take into consideration.
Conclusion:
Those of you who want potion stacking changed because you think it's cheating and don't use it anyway, why demand a fix that won't affect you personally but spoils the fun for many others, who would just have to stop playing their challenges, and a very frequented forum thread that is actually about the game would become a lot more quiet.
Just like @Khyron and probably quite some other players I know it can be done and currently it's part of the game so I take any advantage the game grants me but it still ruins certain parts of the experience.
Hell, next time I just go for a thief, stuff him with some Potions of Master Thievery and clear out all possible merchants to destroy any economic intention and loot satisfaction this game offers.
Plus, even though the voices for and against potion stacking are currently even, note that the regular John Doe playing any of the IE games once a year or even less not necessarily takes part in this forum because he doesn't need to for a normal run but the consistently optimizing power player surely does because he needs to find the best loadout, skill distribution, and ways to beat e. g. Belhifet. The power player minority therefore has quite a bigger vocal effect but doesn't resort to the majority of players.
I see the point for power players but admittedly this is not the lions share of players out there, fact. So maybe the focus should rather be to deliver a base game that is free of bugs and exploits for the majority of players (just as Beamdog has done so far in a great way) and power players can then use a tiny mod that allows all mentioned features that are required for them to complete their challenge.
Wouldn't that be a sight.
Wouldn't you be more incentivised to finish the run when it becomes more challenging? Isn't that the premise of those runs to begin with?
That means for each potion you need a duplicate (one stacks, one not) and based on the toggle automatically replace all potions (in inventory) with the alternate version.