Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been announced! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to pre-order, apply for the Head Start and check for details. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Suggested Gameplay Changes for ID:EE

2»

Comments

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 8,442
    edited September 2014
    Some were engine compromises, some were not. ADHW in PnP does damage by dessication (closest to heat aka non-magical fire damage) and it affects everyone in the AoE, friend and foe alike. Bioware made it do magic damage, which I think is wrong but I guess is a judgment call. But there was nothing stopping them from making the effect like fireball or cloudkill, affecting all living creatures. (Does ADHW affect undead btw? It really shouldn't.) They made a specific choice to deviate from PnP, to make it a better spell for spamming at high level without worrying about tactical concerns like party formation.

    Again, I think better for modders to fix this stuff than Beamdog (I'm actually working on fixes for both ST and ADHW). The point is only, you can't shut down criticism by claiming the spells as created by Bioware are somehow canon, because they are not.

    OlvynChuru
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,017
    The IWD version of Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting (I do not recall if that is the correct spelling as compared to old 2nd ed AD&D from the late 80s) does not have any effect on undead. The IWD engine gets to use opcodes 206 or 290 to include or exclude certain groups from a spell's effects in a very efficient manner; BGEE approximates this by applying the spell to everyone then an extra .eff which can make certain groups immune to the spell.

    At one time I was going to edit ADHW to exclude party members but I never got around to it. Your thieves may use evasion to escape its effects unscathed, of course. High-level thieves in IWD have a wonderful benefit and can avoid most of the damaging spells cast in their general vicinity.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 8,442

    At one time I was going to edit ADHW to exclude party members but I never got around to it. Your thieves may use evasion to escape its effects unscathed, of course. High-level thieves in IWD have a wonderful benefit and can avoid most of the damaging spells cast in their general vicinity.

    No that was my point: in BG2/EE ADHW does exclude party members; but it really should NOT.

    If it hurt party members but thieves had high-level abilities to escape the effects, that would actually open up some very interesting gameplay. Instead Bioware opted for "dur, spam the über-spell. spam it!"

  • The_New_RomanceThe_New_Romance Member Posts: 839
    edited September 2014
    I think it's still canon, in a way, because Bioware made the game. It's not AD&D canon, of course, but Baldur's Gate canon. Whatever that may mean, but I wouldn't advise on opening the floodgates. If Bioware got the spells wrong and they need improvement, then what else did they get wrong and where would you end the "improving"?

    That's why I favour mods for changes like those discussed. Everyone can have what they feel is "right" for the game.

    jackjackOlvynChuru
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,017

    No that was my point: in BG2/EE ADHW does exclude party members; but it really should NOT.

    I never did understand why there was a difference; I suppose it was simply a matter of "different implementation teams". I suppose we could always edit pwilt.pro in BGEE and remove the "not affecting allies" flag, making the BG version match the IWD version.

  • OlvynChuruOlvynChuru Member Posts: 1,508
    You've all made some great points. Thank you all for your input. I agree, the spell tweaks I suggested could just as easily be in a mod. The question is, how far could you extend that argument? Most of the changes that have been made in these enhanced editions could have been done in mods. So what is their excuse to change anything about the game?

    I'm sure there is a good answer for this. I just want to see it.

  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,017
    Modding is time-intenseive, unpaid, sometimes thankless, unintentionally unoriginal (you might have a great idea but five other modders also had the same great idea at about the same time), and limited only to things which do not change the hard-coding of the game.

  • JRRJRR Member Posts: 21

    Hi there. I'm new to this site, but I've been a fan of the IE games for almost a decade now. I want to share quite a few changes I suggest be made in the Enhanced Edition for Icewind Dale. Here we go:


    No. Just no to all of the snipped changes. Obviously you have never played D&D which IWD is supposed to be a simulation of.

  • CasadoomCasadoom Member Posts: 68
    JRR said:

    No. Just no to all of the snipped changes. Obviously you have never played D&D which IWD is supposed to be a simulation of.

    In the same line of thinking, we might as well move the level cap to level 10 to better simulate the dnd experience most people play right?

    But I understand. Beamdog does not need to implement balance changes that can be implemented via mod; especially when said changes would lead to an uproar from a large part of the community.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.