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....
i perfectly understand it, but as i told before many times a choice due to an engine limitation is not a bug, is something different.
i also told that if that was a reason good enough to call it a bug or to ask for a change the EE way is still bugged, as both the number and the level of the druid spells a RC can cast does not match that at all, he can cast certain levels of spells earlier (i have to test it, i am not 100% sure) and he can cast more of them each day then if having a separate druid spell book (tested).
so if the original and EE behaviors are due to bugs, imo an engine limitation is something else, the bug has been changed, but not fixed, is still there in EE
EDIT: i have tested it and a RC can not cast druid spells that his level of cleric does not allow him to cast, but still can use all his memorization slots for druid only spells, that is something that a separate ranger spellbook would not allow, as well he can fill the levels 1-3 with cleric only spells so using the "ranger slots" for something that following that logic he should not be allowed to use.
Pretty funny that people ask for dev confirmation that it was a bug. They get dev confirmation, and they completely ignore it. Somehow I don't "we" are the ones who don't know what we are talking about here...
What is funny is that people unable to read and understand what the other people actually write continue to tell over and over that someone is ignoring something that that person not only is not ignoring, but has already wrote more then one time that he is not ignoring .
now who is the one that ignores stuff?
the one that asked for an evidence and as he got it admitted that his evaluation had changed and was satisfied of that evidence or the one that continues to ignore that fact and repeats over and over the same, not true, thing?
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.
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.
this is probably due to the fact that english is not my native language and i mostly learned it traveling around the world as in the high school i had a very bad teacher and i learned almost nothing of it.
also in my RL i have no opportunity to talk in that language as well was not required to do it in the kind of work i do.
so if i have to explain like a buffing procedure works i have no problem, but i strive to write about more complex things.
i apologize, i try to do my best, but i am aware that many times i am so prolix, as i can not find the way to express what i think in a concise and proper way. also the way my mind works does not help, years ago i did a IQ test that did not gave a total result, but 3 different ones evaluating the intelligence to deal with spatial/geometrical stuff, and there i ranked very high, mathematical stuff, and there i ranked high, but not at the level of the first aspect, and stuff related to the language and how to use and manipulate it, and there the result was that i was only a little more intelligent of an average ape
still i think that if someone writes "i ask for an evidence" and then "this was the evidence i was asking for" even with my not proper way to express my thinking and opinion in english no doubt can be left if someone actually reads with attention what i write.
and surely no one has to do it, but who want to comment about what i write it reiterating many times the same concept "you are deliberately ignoring something", even after i answered that i am not doing it, probably should.
as i like the situations where people can maybe have different opinions, but respect to the opinions of the others, a anyone can be enriched by the discussion, but i hate the situations where a discussion becomes a personal fight i feel now a little sad when i think at this thread, at the effort i did put to explain my opinion about the topic given my limitations in using the language and the result.
i really hope that @ThacoBell reads with more attention my posts and forgives my language limits that make difficult to understand it, so he can realize that it was only a misunderstanding, as i appreciate his contribution to the forums and i hope that what happens in this thread leaves no negative aftermath in our future interactions.
EDIT: i really appreciate that you @Pokota cared to read again my posts and to understand what i meant to tell in them, thank you, it means a lot to me.
"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
Probably was an ordinary Joe at that point. If the comment was made before April 20, 2015 (ish) then I was an ordinary joe. That was before I joined Beamdog.
If the comment was made after that then I guess I felt the need to comment on it for some reason? I don't recall its been years.
@elminster as I joined the forums later, august 2015, i did not knew it, my whole forums experience is to see you in a blue background
Also I don't exactly know who in the forums administration and in the Beamdog development team was actually in the original game development team and I would say that only they or someone that have personally discussed with them of the issue can know for sure if something implemented in that game incarnation was intended, maybe even intended because there was an engine limitation, or a bug, a coding overlooking or error that was exploited by players.
That told i repeat that what @JuliusBorisov told, but only after his last post, is for me a good enough evidence, without me ever telling before that it was surely not a bug i accept it as a proven bug, i was asking for an evidence and i had it.
even if not by the ones that at first was swearing that it was a bug, without being able to prove it in any way.
@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."
You do not have to agree with us, but you link to someone that seems to be a translator and then quote him out of context. Claiming this as “evidence” is a little far fetched.
The fact of the matter remains that the original BG1 engine was limited and could not differentiate. The Ranger/Cleric spells were a deliberate design decision and thus intended behaviour. It was by definition not a bug.
Whether it was ‘fixable’ in the BG2 engine or only with the EE engine is of little consequence to the original decision.
While we are glad Beamdog picked up 15 years after the fact, changing something now does not retroactively make the original a bug. Beamdog also changed many other things, including Grandmastery – was that a bug too? How about Cleric alignments and rewards? No? And neither was original R/C casting.
Not understanding these differences makes you sound like the Beast Master.
@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."
You do not have to agree with us, but you link to someone that seems to be a translator and then quote him out of context. Claiming this as “evidence” is a little far fetched.
The fact of the matter remains that the original BG1 engine was limited and could not differentiate. The Ranger/Cleric spells were a deliberate design decision and thus intended behaviour. It was by definition not a bug.
Whether it was ‘fixable’ in the BG2 engine or only with the EE engine is of little consequence to the original decision.
While we are glad Beamdog picked up 15 years after the fact, changing something now does not retroactively make the original a bug. Beamdog also changed many other things, including Grandmastery – was that a bug too? How about Cleric alignments and rewards? No? And neither was original R/C casting.
Not understanding these differences makes you sound like the Beast Master.
Re-posting, since you ignored it the first time.
"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."
You talk about "original devs" but keep ignoring that Beamdog was FOUNDED by original devs. Moving the goalposts does not make your argument look better.
question: @mlnevese was an original developer?
i don't know the answer, but if it is so, if he is aware of what happened when the original game was created, what he tells in the thread linked by Julius can not be ignored, and he was very clear about the reason why the RC behaved that way: "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE".
so even if i ignore what happened or happens behind the scenes and i also ignore who of the old development team is now in Beamdog, who is not and who is now in Beamdog without having been part of the original team i see only 2 possible options.
1. @mlnevese is wrong, as a decision taken for an engine limitation is surely not a bug, to have a bug we must have some coding error or overlook that makes the game behave in a different way from the intended one. so it is indeed a bug, the developers completely overlooked the fact that a ranger can never cast some levels of spells when they coded how the casting of the RC works.
2. @mlnevese is not wrong, the real reason why in the original the RC behaved that way was for a decision, maybe taken because of the engine limitation, then it is not a bug, whatever thing Julius may say about.
as @RAM021 in his last post is referring to what @mlnevese told is the reason why the game behavior has been changed and he brought also examples of other game behaviors changed in EE, in spite of the fact that the original development team and the EE one have some people in common, but not all the people by the way, like GM, i fail to see how what he tells is admitting to lacking intellectual honesty.
That quote was not out of context. That quote was from a thread about the subject we're discussing. And they are not "a translator". At that time, they were a QA member.
But I'll stop discussing it with you. Have a good day.
Comments
i also told that if that was a reason good enough to call it a bug or to ask for a change the EE way is still bugged, as both the number and the level of the druid spells a RC can cast does not match that at all, he can cast certain levels of spells earlier (i have to test it, i am not 100% sure) and he can cast more of them each day then if having a separate druid spell book (tested).
so if the original and EE behaviors are due to bugs, imo an engine limitation is something else, the bug has been changed, but not fixed, is still there in EE
EDIT: i have tested it and a RC can not cast druid spells that his level of cleric does not allow him to cast, but still can use all his memorization slots for druid only spells, that is something that a separate ranger spellbook would not allow, as well he can fill the levels 1-3 with cleric only spells so using the "ranger slots" for something that following that logic he should not be allowed to use.
now who is the one that ignores stuff?
the one that asked for an evidence and as he got it admitted that his evaluation had changed and was satisfied of that evidence or the one that continues to ignore that fact and repeats over and over the same, not true, thing?
also in my RL i have no opportunity to talk in that language as well was not required to do it in the kind of work i do.
so if i have to explain like a buffing procedure works i have no problem, but i strive to write about more complex things.
i apologize, i try to do my best, but i am aware that many times i am so prolix, as i can not find the way to express what i think in a concise and proper way. also the way my mind works does not help, years ago i did a IQ test that did not gave a total result, but 3 different ones evaluating the intelligence to deal with spatial/geometrical stuff, and there i ranked very high, mathematical stuff, and there i ranked high, but not at the level of the first aspect, and stuff related to the language and how to use and manipulate it, and there the result was that i was only a little more intelligent of an average ape
still i think that if someone writes "i ask for an evidence" and then "this was the evidence i was asking for" even with my not proper way to express my thinking and opinion in english no doubt can be left if someone actually reads with attention what i write.
and surely no one has to do it, but who want to comment about what i write it reiterating many times the same concept "you are deliberately ignoring something", even after i answered that i am not doing it, probably should.
as i like the situations where people can maybe have different opinions, but respect to the opinions of the others, a anyone can be enriched by the discussion, but i hate the situations where a discussion becomes a personal fight i feel now a little sad when i think at this thread, at the effort i did put to explain my opinion about the topic given my limitations in using the language and the result.
i really hope that @ThacoBell reads with more attention my posts and forgives my language limits that make difficult to understand it, so he can realize that it was only a misunderstanding, as i appreciate his contribution to the forums and i hope that what happens in this thread leaves no negative aftermath in our future interactions.
EDIT: i really appreciate that you @Pokota cared to read again my posts and to understand what i meant to tell in them, thank you, it means a lot to me.
Probably was an ordinary Joe at that point. If the comment was made before April 20, 2015 (ish) then I was an ordinary joe. That was before I joined Beamdog.
If the comment was made after that then I guess I felt the need to comment on it for some reason? I don't recall its been years.
Frankly, I don't really care about it anymore.
Also I don't exactly know who in the forums administration and in the Beamdog development team was actually in the original game development team and I would say that only they or someone that have personally discussed with them of the issue can know for sure if something implemented in that game incarnation was intended, maybe even intended because there was an engine limitation, or a bug, a coding overlooking or error that was exploited by players.
That told i repeat that what @JuliusBorisov told, but only after his last post, is for me a good enough evidence, without me ever telling before that it was surely not a bug i accept it as a proven bug, i was asking for an evidence and i had it.
even if not by the ones that at first was swearing that it was a bug, without being able to prove it in any way.
The fact of the matter remains that the original BG1 engine was limited and could not differentiate. The Ranger/Cleric spells were a deliberate design decision and thus intended behaviour. It was by definition not a bug.
Whether it was ‘fixable’ in the BG2 engine or only with the EE engine is of little consequence to the original decision.
While we are glad Beamdog picked up 15 years after the fact, changing something now does not retroactively make the original a bug. Beamdog also changed many other things, including Grandmastery – was that a bug too? How about Cleric alignments and rewards? No? And neither was original R/C casting.
Not understanding these differences makes you sound like the Beast Master.
Re-posting, since you ignored it the first time.
"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."
You talk about "original devs" but keep ignoring that Beamdog was FOUNDED by original devs. Moving the goalposts does not make your argument look better.
i don't know the answer, but if it is so, if he is aware of what happened when the original game was created, what he tells in the thread linked by Julius can not be ignored, and he was very clear about the reason why the RC behaved that way: "The original cleric/ranger problem was an engine limitation, finally removed in the EE".
so even if i ignore what happened or happens behind the scenes and i also ignore who of the old development team is now in Beamdog, who is not and who is now in Beamdog without having been part of the original team i see only 2 possible options.
1. @mlnevese is wrong, as a decision taken for an engine limitation is surely not a bug, to have a bug we must have some coding error or overlook that makes the game behave in a different way from the intended one. so it is indeed a bug, the developers completely overlooked the fact that a ranger can never cast some levels of spells when they coded how the casting of the RC works.
2. @mlnevese is not wrong, the real reason why in the original the RC behaved that way was for a decision, maybe taken because of the engine limitation, then it is not a bug, whatever thing Julius may say about.
as @RAM021 in his last post is referring to what @mlnevese told is the reason why the game behavior has been changed and he brought also examples of other game behaviors changed in EE, in spite of the fact that the original development team and the EE one have some people in common, but not all the people by the way, like GM, i fail to see how what he tells is admitting to lacking intellectual honesty.
But I'll stop discussing it with you. Have a good day.