Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Andyr
« on: April 24, 2003, 07:10:17 AM »

Well, I've found it is. Personal preference then I suppose.....

I did play a game where I edited the characters to be level 8 to see how it'd work, but it was too easy. All you needed to do was stoneskin your entire party (which a mage or sorc can do at level 8) and wander around almost invulnerable.
Posted by: butterfly
« on: April 24, 2003, 06:51:43 AM »

Quote
The game as it plays now is balanced for about level 4 characters.
I beg your pardon.  I've been playing the conversion and have found that it isn't balanced. I didn't expect it do. If it were converted it to level 8 it would be as balanced as it is now.

qwb,
Posted by: Gospel
« on: April 24, 2003, 02:00:40 AM »

I'd like level 6... I don't really wanna have to use advanced tactics at level 4 when I'll still die using them at level 5 and stuff :D

Level 6 also means you'll have three or four+ feats and stuff, which is better than two or three+ without being four or five+, which would be a bit much :)

Sorry if my 3rd Edition lingo is rustyish, I've been playing Neverwinter Nights, you see :D

-GospelCat_NoviceBat
Posted by: Andyr
« on: April 23, 2003, 04:30:18 PM »

Quote
Who have a self-centred world wiew? Thoses who want the game to be more like BG2, or thoses who want IWG2 to be oriented for low level characters because "they don't have BG1", so BG2 should be as they want?
By the way the balancing phase has not yet begun, and starting at level 8 would mainly involve leveling a little the opponents.
It's not because people don't have BG1, it's because playing at low levels is in the opinion of most people making/testing more fun.

The game as it plays now is balanced for about level 4 characters.

If you want to do it differently, do a conversion yourself.....  :P  
Posted by: butterfly
« on: April 23, 2003, 09:15:33 AM »

There's no need for an editor to bring one up to level 8,perlevel. It can easily be done in game.

qwb,
Posted by: Trouveur
« on: April 23, 2003, 05:30:51 AM »

Who have a self-centred world wiew? Thoses who want the game to be more like BG2, or thoses who want IWG2 to be oriented for low level characters because "they don't have BG1", so BG2 should be as they want?
By the way the balancing phase has not yet begun, and starting at level 8 would mainly involve leveling a little the opponents.
Posted by: AvatarofInsolence
« on: April 23, 2003, 05:17:13 AM »

I agree with the Coyote here. An argument based on the usage of an editor is not very convincing. You guys don't seem to realize that at this point the game is balanced for lower level starting parties. Re-working it for higher level parties is going to be a considerable amount of work. For just one second, back away from your self-centered world view, and ponder wether or not your whims and desires are enough to make a guy re-do his work.
Posted by: Demosthenes
« on: April 22, 2003, 06:39:02 PM »

:ph34r:  ....level 6.....  :ph34r:  
Posted by: Trouveur
« on: April 22, 2003, 04:55:21 PM »

I said that starting at level 8 will permit to more customise the NPC. But I said too that even starting at level 8 you will gain enough level before the end to customize your character as you want.
As for Dale keeper, just create a level 1 character and then add the others levels, I don't see where is the problem...
Currently the only real reason to start at level 4 instead at level 8 is because some prefer low level character. I enjoy them too, but BG2 is not a game for low level party. It would not make sense to start BG2 level 4 after defeating Sarevok and saving the Sword Coast...
Posted by: Samuel Coyote
« on: April 22, 2003, 03:25:12 PM »

So starting at lvl 8 gives you greater ability to customize your characters, only it doesn't, unless you use an editor. Yeah, Im convinced. Besides, adding levels in Dalekeeper is easy, changing them is a bit more tricky. When you get a level, you also get other stats(hitpoints, BAB and abilities) that will have to be removed separately.  
Posted by: Trouveur
« on: April 22, 2003, 11:56:22 AM »

Remember that at worse thoses who want a multiclass character can use Dale Keeper II to change their class...
Posted by: butterfly
« on: April 22, 2003, 11:15:09 AM »

Quote
Someone posted that we could start at level 1 and be given enough experience to attain level 8 at the start of the game. With this solution, we will be able to create the caracter that we want.
It's not just giving enough experience to reach level 8. It's leveling up per level e.g. level to 2, level to 3 etc. Because the IWDII interface gives all your levels to 1 class if you level up multiple levels at the same time. Just clarifying it's not as simple as giving out one exp boost.

I agree with everything you said,though.

qwb,
Posted by: Trouveur
« on: April 22, 2003, 06:52:59 AM »

I disagree, IWG should not be considered as a stand alone product, but as a part of the complete BG saga. Low level are fun to play? Wait for BG1.
Someone posted that we could start at level 1 and be given enough experience to attain level 8 at the start of the game. With this solution, we will be able to create the caracter that we want.
As for the NPC, starting at level 8 could permit to customize them more. For exemple at level 4 Jaheira and Cernd will not have many differences. But at level 8 we could specialize Jaheira as a druid/fighter and Cernd as a shapeshifter druid. same for Keldorn and Mazzy, and I don't even speak about Imoen and Nalia the jumel sisters...
And at level 8 you will have many feats and skills to choose for leveling through the game, you will gain approximatly 8-10 levels bfore the end.
Using the IWD2 engine is the best opportunitie to permit a real continuity between BG1 ad BG2, and I think it will be regrettable to miss this just bevause some prefer low level characters (which they will be able to play in IWG1).
To my mind, each post here seems to confirm that Weimer should have start with BG1, it will have prevented this sort of discussion....
Posted by: Caswallon
« on: April 21, 2003, 05:18:02 PM »

While I certainly think that porting BG1 would be very nice, I'd also opt for a starting level as low as possible in IWG. 3rd edition class changing is much more flexible than 2nd edition dual- and multi-classing.
A character who for instance had 2 thief levels and then dual-classed to fighter didn't have much use, so it was not really missed that you couldn't create a thief(2)/fighter in BG2. For dual-classing, the starting level of BG2 was low enough.
This has changed in 3rd edition - giving your fighter character a thief level or two at some point has become meaningful but would be hampered by starting out with level 8 or so.
And, more important (at least imho): If you start at a high level, "multi-classed" characters won't be possible (that is, characters that simulate 2nd edition multiclassing by going up in two levels simultaneously). In IWD2, I had a bard/sorcerer who had equal levels in her classes for a long time; that wouldn't be possible if she had started as a level 8 bard.

Another point: While it may be that level 8 in 2nd edition and 3rd edition are roughly equal in power compared to the enemies, there are certainly differences in their charcter development until they reach that level. In 3rd edition, a lot of character development (feats, skills etc.) happens in the very first levels, while later on you just improve on what the character already knows - assigning second and third points. In 2nd edition, the first levels didn't have that importance and that influence for the development of the character.

Apart from that, I also think that the first levels are most fun. :)

So in conclusion I think that in this case, IWG should be viewed as a stand-alone game, and those gameplay issues of BG2-with-3rd-ed.-rules should have more weight than compatibility with a possible future BG1.

My 2 €-cents,
Cas
Posted by: Catalyst
« on: April 18, 2003, 04:12:15 PM »

Quote
There are far bigger breaks in consistency than starting level anyway. In SoA, there was no way to get lvl 9 spells. Why aren't we seeing any fierce arguments to make it impossible to reach lvl 17+ with arcane spellcasters? Isn't that change much more obvious than the starting level?
Finally, levels doesn't transfer well between systems. Lvl 8 in 3rd ed is not the same power as lvl 8 in AD&D. Stat bonuses, feats, multi classing and skills mean you can build a much more powerful character than in AD&D, where you were pretty much stuck with what you had from the start.
I concede that you can't obtain level 9 spells in SoA, I've been playing with ToB installed for so long I'd forgotten mages stop one level shy at the XP Cap.

However, Mages may be stuck at 17th but other classes can reach as high as 21 (IIRC). Because all classes follow the same progression in 3E, this would suggest an average ending level of about 19. Of course, this relies on the relative power of the classes at these levels being the same...

...which I believe it is. To say a 3rd Edition 8th level character is "much more powerful" than an AD&D 8th level character is a bad way to look at it IMO. The 3rd Edition character is much more customizable...but whether that translates to being more powerful is completely up to debate. A pure-class wizard in 3E follows an almost identical spell progression to the AD&D mage, and while multiclassing offers a great opportunity for fine-tuning characters...it makes them better, yes, but not necessarily more "powerful."


Butterfly, 16th level would be an appopriate end level if the overall progression was lowered accordingly. I just don't see the point (beyond the fun of extra challenge, which is subjective) when the established progression works already. SoA is not a low-level adventure. It's a mid-to-high level adventure. I would be curious to see where characters ended up if they started at 8th and all NPCs had their levels and CRs translated from BG2 data as closely as possible. If you want extra challenge, you know there will be mods that do it. Talking about vanilla IWG2, why shouldn't vanilla BG2 be good enough as a reference?