Game Balance ...

[weimer]

While my attention is still on "correctness" issues like the Haer'Dalis-talks-too-much, Mind-Flayer-Capture-Is-Broken and No-Valen-Ever bugs, it will shortly be time to turn to "game balance" issues.

If you have been hiding yourself or your ideas in a corner waiting for the time to strike, that time is now.

I will put out the full instructions in a bit, but it is worth noting in advance that I would like all claims of the form "Battle X is too difficult with Party P, therefore you should adjust the conversion in some way" to be backed up with a saved game right before Battle X. Send such games to me or post them here (will they fit? who knows? if not, I'll make some directory off the iwg2 page to hold them so that everyone can try them out).

More "philosophical" claims of the form "Imoen should not be a specialist mage" or "Everyone should start at level 5, not level 4" need merely be backed up by vigorous handwaving.

I'll declare open season on such threads in a day or two.  

[Andyr]

Are these discussions to include threads about possible animation replacements too?

[weimer]

I'm not sure what you mean by "animation replacement". If you think I should try to import Bodhi's animation instead of using the sinuous girl, that's fine, and you're welcome to say so now. Ditto for the Githyanki. However, they're not there now because I can't get them to work, not because I'm being perverse. Animations are, in general, hard-coded.  

[Hitman]

i think main character animations are crucial.  i can't stand irenicus looking like a NORMAL mage, heh.  good luck in the process!

[Andyr]

I'm not sure what you mean by "animation replacement". If you think I should try to import Bodhi's animation instead of using the sinuous girl, that's fine, and you're welcome to say so now. Ditto for the Githyanki. However, they're not there now because I can't get them to work, not because I'm being perverse. Animations are, in general, hard-coded.

I meant general things like that, yes, though not just for Irenicus and Bodhi.

If I understand correctly the problem is that IWD2 will not accept some of the extra animations from BG2? This may be a stupid question, but couldn't the animations from BG2 be extracted (aren't they stored in .BIFs? There are some .BIF extraction programs floating around) and renamed so they override some useless IWD2 animation?

E.g., Bodhi's current animation is a Yuan-ti sorceress. Could you extract her BG2 animation, call it whatever IWD2 calls the Yuan-ti sorceress, and put it in Override, as there are no Yuan-ti sorceresses in BG2 so Bodhi would still be unique?

Also, could the BG2 lich animation be used if possible, since I reckon it's much cooler than the IWD2 one.

If this is not possible, I have a few other suggestions. Gibberlings look like svirfneblin from (IWD1) at the moment, they only appear in a few places so why not replace them with goblins/kobolds?

Vampires look like Wights, could they be given human avatars (mage? mix of males and females) in black with pale skin and dark hair?

Also, there is a Ghoul animation but currently Ghasts look like Shadows. Could Ghasts be made to look like ghouls (or perhaps use the Wight animation instead)?

One other small point- the moose in Waukeen's Promenade looks like a cow.....    

[Riklaunim]

I’ve write some about balancing there: obsolete link removed . Summarizing the discussion we have few balancing ideas:

--items for mages like amulet of metaspell influence give +int. For sorcerers and bards they are useless, as a mage I’ve didn’t use this scrap too. They ware designed for all spell casters. Solution: they should give some feats like “penetration” or increase DC of spell, second idea – they give bonus spells, increase damage/range/duration of a spell

-Belts of strength and Crom F.: they are very powerful and they unbalance the game because the strength bonus increase damage and to hit bonus quite high. For all o those items: decrease strength bonus by –2 and for those with highest bonuses give Dexterity cap (for storm giant strength max dex +0 and then +1 for the first one lower… and so on) – idea from a belt in TDD. OR: Eliminate the belts of giant strength and give two types of belts. +4 and +6. As for Crom...+8 is plenty.

-elven and drow chain mail has quite high Spell Failure(like in 3ed) but in BG2 those items ware specially designed for mages… I think that decreasing SF is a good idea.

- Powerful mages – they aren’t any powerful mages like those in BG 2. Liches cast spell after spell, witch takes them a lot of time, so they are dead very soon (no spell sequencer). Solution: Special spells witch very short casting time for those “very powerful” (liches and others).

-Some weapons like tuinguian bow in Copper Coronet does not give extra attacks, they are normall magical weapons. They should have some extra abilities.

-Beholders: they abilities should not bypass magic resistance as it is in real D&D. For beholders target must make a save with DC 18, for gauth DC 14 (type of a save depends from the “spell”). 

[butterfly]

why do characters start at level 4,wouldn't level 8 be more logical.

qwb,

[Andyr]

why do characters start at level 4,wouldn't level 8 be more logical.

qwb,

The change from 2E to 3E throws off the balance of the game a bit, but I think it's balanced for starting about level 4 or 5 now, as opposed to level 8 as it was. Level 8 would make it too easy I think, and you'd hit massively high levels quickly.....
 

[Andyr]

I’ve write some about balancing there: obsolete link removed . Summarizing the discussion we have few balancing ideas:

-Belts of strength and Crom F.: they are very powerful and they unbalance the game because the strength bonus increase damage and to hit bonus quite high. For all o those items: decrease strength bonus by –2 and for those with highest bonuses give Dexterity cap (for storm giant strength max dex +0 and then +1 for the first one lower… and so on) – idea from a belt in TDD. OR: Eliminate the belts of giant strength and give two types of belts. +4 and +6. As for Crom...+8 is plenty.

-elven and drow chain mail has quite high Spell Failure(like in 3ed) but in BG2 those items ware specially designed for mages… I think that decreasing SF is a good idea.

- Powerful mages – they aren’t any powerful mages like those in BG 2. Liches cast spell after spell, witch takes them a lot of time, so they are dead very soon (no spell sequencer). Solution: Special spells witch very short casting time for those “very powerful” (liches and others).

-Beholders: they abilities should not bypass magic resistance as it is in real D&D. For beholders target must make a save with DC 18, for gauth DC 14 (type of a save depends from the “spell”).

Agreed on the belts of strength- there are more than enough of these. +10 strength with a double handed weapon means +10 to hit and +15 damage. You could make some monster characters easily, these should be toned down.

I agree with the elven chain point. Perhaps count them as leather armour for spell failure (10%)- this is low and removed entirely by taking Armoured Arcana twice. Does the chain require an armour proficiency though?

I think that mages are still fairly powerful (with their massive hordes of summons etc), as long as they have some people to defend them. Perhaps liches could have 4 bone golems spawn with them or something, and get a few more levels? In BG2 they were really tough, as you'd expect a lich to be.

Beholders are fairly lethal. Though I'm not sure if they should be toned down, as there's not that many of them, and it's fun to have a challenging fight every now and then.....

[butterfly]

why do characters start at level 4,wouldn't level 8 be more logical.

qwb,

The change from 2E to 3E throws off the balance of the game a bit, but I think it's balanced for starting about level 4 or 5 now, as opposed to level 8 as it was. Level 8 would make it too easy I think, and you'd hit massively high levels quickly.....

I disagree i think one should balance for level 8. This about the power level in wich normal BG II begins. Maybe that now when it's not yet balanced a 4th level character is apropriate. In whole i think an 8-16 level range would be optimal for 6-characther parties. (note i haven't played iwgii, but i have played bgii and iwdii).

qwb

[Andyr]

Doing the testing, starting at level 4 seems fine. Some battles are challenging but none are too hard. Irenicus' dungeon is about the right level for this (though actually I'm an advocate of starting at level 5, but I'm sure many threads will appear about that).

In 3E characters get really powerful as soon as they hit about level 9 (3rd free feat feat plus most casters are on 5th level spells), which would happen early on. Starting lower means the game's not a walkover.

Although BG2 works starting at level 8, I don't think IWG2 should. You'd have to rebalance the whole game. It works as it is now. Starting BG2 at level 8 gets you to level 20 near the end, and level 40 in ToB. That is insanely powerful. If ToB were to be converted, I wouldn't want to see 40th level characters- 30th level (cap in IWD2) are too powerful anyway, and in PnP beyond 20 is considered epic.....

[Catalyst]

Although BG2 works starting at level 8, I don't think IWG2 should. You'd have to rebalance the whole game. It works as it is now. Starting BG2 at level 8 gets you to level 20 near the end, and level 40 in ToB. That is insanely powerful. If ToB were to be converted, I wouldn't want to see 40th level characters- 30th level (cap in IWD2) are too powerful anyway, and in PnP beyond 20 is considered epic.....

Actually, in SoA characters started at level 8 and could reach 18-21 (depending on class) at the XP Cap. It could then be argued that following the IWD2 playthrough, where characters reach level 20 at the end, the levels should keep apace in both rulesets. My first inclination was to agree that levels should be lower for 3E, but actually they seem to be almost in step...at least as far as Shadows of Amn is concerned. There are bound to be arguments for or against this, but the bottom line is that 3E also tends to balance itself out due to Challenge Ratings. If the characters are too powerful for an area, they won't benefit from it much, and the opposite is also true. If characters do *not* reach these levels, you'd never get to cast 9th level spells (for example) in BG2.

Unfortunately balancing by XP total (rather than levels) doesn't work because all classes follow the same XP table in 3E.

As for 30th level being too powerful, I would say the same for 40th level in ToB 2nd Edition. If instead of going from 20th to 40th, players went from 20th to 30th, I think it would work out quite well.

[Guest]

Although BG2 works starting at level 8, I don't think IWG2 should. You'd have to rebalance the whole game. It works as it is now. Starting BG2 at level 8 gets you to level 20 near the end, and level 40 in ToB. That is insanely powerful. If ToB were to be converted, I wouldn't want to see 40th level characters- 30th level (cap in IWD2) are too powerful anyway, and in PnP beyond 20 is considered epic.....

Actually, in SoA characters started at level 8 and could reach 18-21 (depending on class) at the XP Cap. It could then be argued that following the IWD2 playthrough, where characters reach level 20 at the end, the levels should keep apace in both rulesets. My first inclinanation was to agree that levels should be lower for 3E, but actually they seem to be almost in step...at least as far as Shadows of Amn is concerned. There are bound to be arguments for or against this, but the bottom line is that 3E also tends to balance itself out due to Challenge Ratings. If the characters are too powerful for an area, they won't benefit from it much, and the opposite is also true. If characters do *not* reach these levels, you'd never get to cast 9th level spells (for example) in BG2.

Unfortunately balancing by XP total (rather than levels) doesn't work because all classes follow the same XP table in 3E.

As for 30th level being too powerful, I would say the same for 40th level in ToB 2nd Edition. If instead of going from 20th to 40th, players went from 20th to 30th, I think it would work out quite well.

Also thinking of the future, if BGI ever gets converted i'll wanna play trough the entire series, wich would be "hard" if BGII started at level 4/5. BGII was a mid-level game and if you want to be true to that, i think that 8-16(8-18 if you really want 9th level spells) level range mimics that of BGII best. So i would like an 1-8 level range for BG, an 8-16 level range for BGII and a 16-24 level range for Tob.


qwb,

[AvatarofInsolence]

Personally, I think an 8th level party based on 3E rules would be a bit overpowered to start with. Tweaking the whole game's difficulty also seems a bit extreme just for the sake of continuity. Also, 8th level puts you a bit beyond useful multi-classing if you intend to do it. Fact is, unless IWG2 lets you input any changes for each individual level, some multiclassing options will be unavailable. Are you familiar with the 3E ruleset? Several classes get some pretty powerful abilities around 7th and 8th level. An 8th level fighter will have 8 (9 if human) feats-to start with! The amount of re-balancing would be pretty drastic IMO if you were to start that high in levels.

[Riklaunim]

My starting levels proposition:
-For fighters, paladins, rangers, barbarians (or combined with each other): 4 level
-Rest: 5 – 6

Combinations:
1) 2lv of a fighter like class + 3 levels of cleric / bard / mage etc (4 for mages and sorcerers is good to)
2) fighter 2 / mage 2 / rogue 2 – my solo character
 

[butterfly]

Personally, I think an 8th level party based on 3E rules would be a bit overpowered to start with. Tweaking the whole game's difficulty also seems a bit extreme just for the sake of continuity. Also, 8th level puts you a bit beyond useful multi-classing if you intend to do it. Fact is, unless IWG2 lets you input any changes for each individual level, some multiclassing options will be unavailable. Are you familiar with the 3E ruleset? Several classes get some pretty powerful abilities around 7th and 8th level. An 8th level fighter will have 8 (9 if human) feats-to start with! The amount of re-balancing would be pretty drastic IMO if you were to start that high in levels.

As for multiclassing, i assume that it wouldn't be hard to implement a level-up system that would take you from level 1 to 8 step by step,you could do that just before you entered IWG.

As for being overpowered, thats  what's balancing is all about, you're going toget to level 8 on the way anyway. Also your opponents will have the same amount of feats and spells and will generally have the same power. Your character wouldn't be powerfull, he would be merely diverse.

I was under the impression that no balancing had been done yet? And that the only thing that was done was converting the creatures through some general conversion rules? So how can you talk about rebalancing.

I'm really against the whole start at level 5 thing. Think about those poor svirneblin(don't say: we'll start them at level 5 too).

And yes im familiar with 3E rules.

qwb,
 

[Andyr]

I agree with AvatarOfInsolence.

It would be a shame to have the cap of a possible BG1 conversion to be at level 4/5. But BG2 didn't start you at the BG1 experience cap (not with ToTSC anyway), and I doubt any BG1 conversion would either.

In IWD2 you started at level 1 and finished at level 16ish (note ish). The enemies you face in the start of BG2 are not much tougher, if at all, than those fought in Chapter 1 of IWD2. A level 3/4 party can quite happily hack it, think about how easty it would be if you were level 8!

While IWG2 is a conversion of BG2, it doesn't mean it should have to be faithful to it to the letter.

[Guest]

I agree with AvatarOfInsolence.

It would be a shame to have the cap of a possible BG1 conversion to be at level 4/5. But BG2 didn't start you at the BG1 experience cap (not with ToTSC anyway), and I doubt any BG1 conversion would either.

In IWD2 you started at level 1 and finished at level 16ish (note ish). The enemies you face in the start of BG2 are not much tougher, if at all, than those fought in Chapter 1 of IWD2. A level 3/4 party can quite happily hack it, think about how easty it would be if you were level 8!

While IWG2 is a conversion of BG2, it doesn't mean it should have to be faithful to it to the letter.

Can i inquire after the stats of the first creature you encounter(imp?, quasit?) in IWG?


I don't think that the creatures you encounter in the begining of BGII (not IWGII) are of the same relative powerlevel as the begining goblins of IWD en IWDII. Or am I wrong and are all the goblins in normal BGII level 1 and 2.

How can you talk about level 8 being ovepowered in the begining of IWDII if you never have balanced it for level 8.

qwb,  

[butterfly]

By the way i do not advocate copying to the letter but to the spirit. BGII was a mid-to-high level campaign and thus it makes sense that you convert it begining from level 8.

And BGII started you with the levelcap of BGI with TOSTC if you imported a tostc char.

qwb,

[Guest]

this brings up another point, I think.  will all characters be at the same level when you recruit them? will they automatically adjust their levels to be of comparative level to your party or have static levels?  plus, this could be a chance to "fix" some of the inconsistancies from the games.  shouldn't jaheira be a level or two higher than the npc, considering she should have had some levels traveling with the harpers before meeting the bhaalspawn.  or would her levels just have evened out while adventuring in BGI. maybe she could have more initial experience than other characters but not be a level higher. (this applies to many characters like Keldorn and Mazzy who should have a minimum level of levels to be believable in the context of the game)

[Grog]

And BGII started you with the levelcap of BGI with TOSTC if you imported a tostc char.

 

The BG1 XP cap was 89k.  In 3E that would put your character at almost level 14! (you'd be 2000 XP short).  And the TSotSC cap was even higher.  So you can't reasonably convert by using the same starting XP value.

In 3E with level 20 being Epic, that puts "high level" being roughly 15-19 (as 20+ is another category).  Therefore levels 6-14 would be "mid-level"  However, with 3E CRs, you're not going to be walking out of the first dungeon with as much XP in IWGII, as compaired to regular bg2, if you "start" with four characters at level 8.  Of course the XP award goes down if you have more than one PC.

 

[butterfly]

And BGII started you with the levelcap of BGI with TOSTC if you imported a tostc char.

 

The BG1 XP cap was 89k.  In 3E that would put your character at almost level 14! (you'd be 2000 XP short).  And the TSotSC cap was even higher.  So you can't reasonably convert by using the same starting XP value.

In 3E with level 20 being Epic, that puts "high level" being roughly 15-19 (as 20+ is another category).  Therefore levels 6-14 would be "mid-level"  However, with 3E CRs, you're not going to be walking out of the first dungeon with as much XP in IWGII, as compaired to regular bg2, if you "start" with four characters at level 8.  Of course the XP award goes down if you have more than one PC.

I apologize, but WTF are you doing ,your mixing 2E and 3E if there were no tomorrow, you can't compare 2E experience with 3E exp.:huh:

One i said level cap.
Two read in context.

Qwb,  

[Riklaunim]

Weimer wrote somewhere on his site that IWG 2 will be a bigger challenge. Players will seek easy XP on the beginning to survive normal encounters. As I have noticed on Menkar Pebblecrusher band:
They are challenging in BG 2 (unless you are w/m/z who killed Improved Illych solo ) in IWD 2 they are even more challenging…. For 4-5 lv characters nearly impossible to defeat without intensive spell casting and good strategy. If we had 7-8 lv than it would be one of those boring fights .

 I like challenges!

[Catalyst]

In 3E with level 20 being Epic, that puts "high level" being roughly 15-19 (as 20+ is another category).  Therefore levels 6-14 would be "mid-level"  However, with 3E CRs, you're not going to be walking out of the first dungeon with as much XP in IWGII, as compaired to regular bg2, if you "start" with four characters at level 8.

Epic Rules do not apply until after level 20 in 3E. Keep in mind also, the 2nd Edition rules were meant to take characters to level 20 as a maximum as well--BG2 eschews that for the sake of computer gaming.

My argument is that for levels 1 to 20, the relative power of the characters across rulesets, and the progression of most SoA characters vs. IWD2 characters are very in line with each other. IWD2 starts you at 1, but you didn't have BG1 to worry about and starting at 8 means progression would be slower. Keeping them approximately the same where possible should also aid future implementation of IWG1 and ToB conversions.

Riklaunim, in your comments about the challenge of the Mencar Pebblecrusher band...keeping the protagonist's party the same level as BG2 means almost all NPCs in SoA can simply convert to the same 3E levels as well, as a base point. For those interested in extra challenge, you can always find a way to enable Heart of Fury mode...

[Guest]

Weimer wrote somewhere on his site that IWG 2 will be a bigger challenge. Players will seek easy XP on the beginning to survive normal encounters. As I have noticed on Menkar Pebblecrusher band:
They are challenging in BG 2 (unless you are w/m/z who killed Improved Illych solo ) in IWD 2 they are even more challenging…. For 4-5 lv characters nearly impossible to defeat without intensive spell casting and good strategy. If we had 7-8 lv than it would be one of those boring fights .

 I like challenges!

I'm all for a bigger challenge(as long as it stays out of the realm of cheese).

How can you know that that battle could not be challenging on level 8 if you never fought it balanced at level 8.

Are you saying that you can't have challenging encounter at level 8 without pulling dragons out of the closet. I believe that IWG is balanceble for level 8 tell me why you don't think so.

qwb,


PS Catylist, I personaly believe that HOF doesn't add challenge only tedium.