I beg your pardon, your not just a little wrong, your 1000% wrong. Tell you what, why don't you walk up to mr Shadow dragon and try scratching his scales with that +1 sword of yours..(yes I mean in the game,, hey use shadowkeeper and give it a go. I'll start laughing now and you can tell me after you get frustrated how many times you died before you figured out how very wrong you were).

WAAYY too funny. You might kill him with laughter!

Dragons immunties are based on there age. Great wyrms are +5 required to hit and can do enormous damage in a large area of effect.

Anytime you want me to quote the books in questions bud you just say so. You haven't the foggiest idea what your talking about, either that or this was one of the best jokes on this board like,,,,,,,, ever!

He's vulnerable to +1 and even normal weapons. He just casts Protection From Magic Weapons to start the battle. Oh, and (IWD1/ future NeJ spoiler)
SPOILER!


 weapons_Vs_dragons.JPG ( 13.47k ) Number of downloads: 38


This post has been edited by The Bigg: May 23 2008, 07:02 PM

Bereth, I still don't understand how the scenario with the vampire you gave even comes close to anything in the BG video game. Not one vampire was that involved in such a scenario to kill. Yes of course in a Pen and Paper play those scenarios are likely and more mentally challenging. BG 1 or 2 had no such tactic or strategy so I don't see the relationship at the time you gave it and every time you refer to it. Regardless of whether I answered it or not, there is no relation.

Your point about Liches and their phylacteries or whatever is another example of stuff that never appeared in BG 1 or 2 or if so, please site an example from the vanilla BG games. Where is that balance? Balance is shifted in the player(s) favor to have a better chance at winning and completing the game ina video game setting.

Beholders guarding dragons hoards or both together you say in D&D. Interesting scenario and your knowledge of the D&D setting 2nd ed. is profound, so kudos to that. Please site the example in BG1 or 2 where this takes place. I know, Windspear Hills with the Director crammed in that little hole before Samia? How balanced was that? By the rules? yes I would say so. Balanced? absolutley not. Or where are the beholders together with dragons in the vanilla game?

You have already proved to us that the BG games are based on the rules of D&D and favor the player. Not every mod or modder wants to create awesome scenarios like you describe where it takes an hour to do one battle. That is the preference of the modder and you must accept that. Saying that they are way off by the rules is an opinion and they might not care about that so much.

We still love you Bereth!

This post has been edited by Hoppy: May 23 2008, 07:55 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Shadow Dragon must be dying of laughter then because The Bigg just tickled him with a normal dagger. Tickle, tickle. tickle!

SPOILER!

Well, not in the version of 2nd edition I own, but life is far too short to go around arguing about what's in an RPG ruleset, so I'm quite prepared to concede that there were multiple printings/errata or some relevant extra sourcebook or whatever.

DavidW,

That's the smartest thing I have read on any of the BG boards in a long while!

Hear Hear!!!

The sun and moon will still be there every day and night regardless of RPG rule books. So turn that frown upside down!

This post has been edited by Hoppy: May 24 2008, 01:21 PM

That´s another reason to put it all together, just like Sir-Kill asked before, I guess. Btw, if you can´t glue it together, I can make a simple webpage, just send me notes, let´s say in .txt form... It can´t be easier...

This post has been edited by Valiant: May 25 2008, 07:10 AM

1) I see no reason why a Troll couldn't have +2, or whatever the DM wished. Again, the books are not meant to be followed word for word because certain players memorize stats and it ruins the game because they already "know" what should be what. Trolls could be intelligent, they could have +2 hands, they could have flamethrowers, it all depends on the DM and the game they are playing.

2 & 3) However, if we want to be rules lawyers, Lesser Baatezu do not have these properties. Barbazu, Abishai, Eriynes, Spinagons for example, all have either no magical weapon requirements or +1. This is according to the Planescape: Monstrous Compendium Appendix. One might say that BG2 is mainly "Forgotten Realms" but there were many Planescape references in the game and Planescape would have the most in-depth info on the Lower Planar creatures.

4) Didn't bother to read the stats for Tanar'ri.

5) As explained in #1, I see no reason why a Troll couldn't be an intelligent force to be reckoned with in a particular setting. An ancient tribe of intelligent Trolls that finally decided to expand their territories is not an "unrealistic" campaign setting imo.

In the end, it sounds like you are a rules lawyer. This is probably due to the fact that you probably did alot of DM work also. That being said I'm positive you understand why a DM would change the properties of the creatures. This whole thread is a perfect example of why Vlad made the game the way it is. When you zoned into Dragon's Eye you saw the Lizard Men and immediately thought, "Time to whoop some Lizard Man ass" since you "know" how strong a lizard man should be. Well, Vlad threw you a curve ball and guess what... they aren't push overs. That imo is a perfect example of good DMing. Surprising the players while still keeping the game playable. (Which it is)

You could argue endlessly on why Lizard Men and Trolls "shouldn't" be as strong as they are. However you could also argue why they should. This is because in AD&D 2ndEd, the DM can do whatever he or she wants.

Be carefull now, do not get confused between 3rd edition rules and 2nd edition rules. They are ntohing like each other. You miss the point about the Trolls. Balance is the point. I even said sure upgrade the troll if you wish but instead EVERY troll ahs been upgaraded, and this is not balanced. I have three fighters in my party for instance, but they are USELESS agains't these creatures that have been given vast improvements. In reality the DM for example has rendered my fighters as useless attackes who stand there to take the punishment but can hardly deliver any themselves!

What is happening is you guys are confusing DM discretion and complete game alteration.

The scenarios I have given are totaly implementable within the games scope. I am suggesting that these changes can be done with the games tools and boundaries. I am going to be picking up my Monsterous Manual this weekend, so I will scan it for your specifications as for the page. Do not try to tell me there is no + required to hit on dragons, don't even go there!. In the core game this was set (even if it was implented only by immunity to weapons within the games scope). You are cunfusing what is in the game vs the actual core rules.
Even vampires in the game now are +1 required to hit. Give it a go you will see.

Your right though, the DM "can" do whatever he/she wants. But in reply you also have to take into consideration if the DM wants that bunch of players to EVER want to play with him again.


You see, if you tried to pull your aproach to your game, you will only play it once with those players! What is the point of having a system if your not going to use it,, at all! Your choosing to only consider your own point of view and are utterly refusing to see my point!


The changes do not make any sense are are irratic in there construct. "Every battle" is not supposed to be as rediculously difficult as Vlad has made it. I'm sorry but your wrong about it being fun. It's not. Nor do well over 200 000 major fans of this game that refuse to even try yet another overbalanced game by anyone. This only appeals to a select few of the vast amount of fans.

This doesn't make sense, and you are thinking only in that it is a video game, and what you are saying is that D&D rules don't matter at all.

As far as your + required to hit points above, prove it! You can't ! Rather, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are VERY wrong. Extremely wrong in fact and I haven't the foggiest clue what system you are talking about. I think you misread what you were reading! Go back and read it again!

using 'CAPPS' and '!!!' is considered shouting therefor rude please calm down and stop saying that people are 'very wrong' where a simple 'I believe you are wrong' would work just fine

Sure, some dragons cast protection spells, as TheBigg pointed out. But I don't think any actually cast spells that make them immune to normal weapons (certainly the shadow dragon doesn't; it's immune to magical weapons but not to normal ones).




It varies, actually. The weakest ones are affected by normal weapons (Ulvaryl in the starting dungeon, for instance); the strongest need +3 weapons to hit. (As I recall, the 2nd edition rule is a flat +2).

I'm not trying to make any particularly deep point here. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a game that adheres strictly to the 2nd edition AD&D core rules. But BG2 isn't such a game. It takes the 2nd edition rules as a starting point and then feels pretty free to muck with them for the sake of overall balance and gameplay. Which, come to think of it, is what I normally do when I do PnP roleplaying games.

Actually, I think there are two points being mixed up here:

(i) strict adherence to the letter of the AD&D ruleset.
(ii) adherence to the flavour of the FR setting.

And really, I think your point is stronger with respect to (ii) than to (i). Replacing all the trolls with by-the-book, totally-legal 25th level wizards wouldn't exactly help, after all.

As explained earlier, the system is in place as a guide for the DM. It is stated in numerous AD&D 2ndEd books, time and time again, that everything is at the discretion of the DM. Again, nothing is set in stone. The Monster Manuals help tremendously when helping create a campaign and, if the DM so chooses, can copy the monster in the book word for word so he/she can concentrate on other factors, such as storyline. However, if the DM wants to alter the stats of a monster, it is well within the system of the game (AD&D 2ndEd) to accommodate to those changes.

What if a DM wanted to run a "Planet of the Apes" style campaign, where Trolls are the dominate race on the planet and humans are the slaves/savages? Is this idea complete blasphemy? Is AD&D not meant to have a campaign such as this?

It not that anyone here doesn't understand your point. I'm sure everyone here does know what you are saying. I personally can understand why you might think Trolls shouldn't be as strong as they are because the books do have their stats listed and numbered. However, this topic is being beat to the ground because you are basically saying that Vlad "shouldn't" have made his campaign they way it is. You bring up numerous PnP AD&D 2ndEd issues to back up your arguments, yet you leave out the number one thing that literally defines AD&D. AD&D is not meant to be followed word for word. AD&D is extremely customizable and flexible, and all the books all the modules are not meant to restrict the DM from doing whatever he or she wants.

No offense to you, as I'm sure if we ever met in person we'd get along great due to similar interests. However, it sounds to me that you are the one refusing to see everyone else's points.

(Face in hands, shaking my head no)

It is very obvious a lot of you cannot think beyong the fact that this entire core game is based on the core rules of AD&D second edition rules. I'll say it again, Core Rules, and even the configuration options in both BG and SOA and ToB all have this setting.

Many of you wouldn't know what "Balance" meant if it walked up to you and kicked you in the nuts, because it takes YEARS (oh my I yelled, sorry), to learn through direct experience. It's not a matter of opinion as many of you think, it's a matter of fact. Think about it this way.

Balance itself insinuates a common groung, a system of regularity, based on an expected thing. There are stronger vs stronger and weaker vs weaker. This is the meaning of balance found within AD&D. The Guide books do not say "hey after reading this book thoroughly, just go ahead and do what you want anyway! It instead states that it STRONGLY recomends a good understanding of the system in order to make alterations that make sense for playability and enjoyment for all.

What you don't realize is that DM's like myself who have been doing this for 25 years long before Baldurs Gate ever came around, have created thousands upon thousands of creatures add-ons etc etc etc. all integrated within the entire scheme. This is how I got my material published back in the 80's at age 16, because of my understanding of this balance and my creations.

The creatures in "this" game are not balanced and are irratically altered but much stronger than your party, (if you do not cheat like me and try to play an honest game, because Balance goes Both Ways).

This is also why Bioware incorporated AD&D into the game. This why they had advisors guiding them. This is why Baldurs Gate was one of the most successful games in history.

Some of you are utterly ignoring these facts and have no idea of what I am talking about. Some of you have misread the points of DM discretion and there meaning. This is nothing new of course. A lot of first time players think they are experts after reading it once through, or even skiming through it.

Some of you may be wondering why I am being what seems like a stickler for the rules. I can simply ask you in reply, why are you so afraid of the rules? Do you think it will be predictable? Do you think it will be too easy ( I have already given you perfect examples of difficulty) and if you think being able to kill a Litch without any preparation at all is easy, then you go right ahead and try!

Point is, many of you don't care for balance, many gamers cheat anyway. Ironic how a game can be so horrible but keep you coming back for more year after year isn't it!

The Dragon hit by norm weapons BTW (noted above) was a glitch in the original game. I just looked up the old fix notes from the beta release. Vampires still have their +1 required to hit while Bhodi is higher! (No spell casting there).

This can be better! This is the Big point!

I have been reading this thread since you first made it with something that I can only describe as a growing sense of horror and as a result feel I have to say something.

The facts are that Vlad has made a fun, enjoyable and popular modification yet you are attacking it simply because it does not directly correlate with a pen and paper rule set, something which strikes me as ridiculous. The point you continually fail to grasp is that such correlation is irrelevant, the modification does not have to use strict AD&D rules and creatures to be of high quality.

The job of the modder is to produce the most enjoyable game possible and if he is able to do so by making up his own creatures or changing the rules as layed down in some AD&D manual then who cares? Not me and certainly not most players, adherence to the AD&D canon is no virtue in itself.

Maybe you have played so much AD&D that you consider anything that offends against its canon as some sort of heresy but no one else does. If this is all so important to you and you truly belive you could do better by sticking to strict AD&D rules then theres no one stopping you, go and make your own mod as hoppy has suggested previously.

Sorry to be confrontational but the whole "I am Bereth Darkides god of AD&D and you must bow to my superior wisdom" thing is becoming just rude and boring.

This post has been edited by Clown: May 29 2008, 05:33 PM

Well, guys, I think this debate is slowly taking the wrong direction. It should be moved to some general modding forum section, although it began as a criticism and suggestion to Vlad´s mod. It will become endless, as all of you have your own right. Bereth will still stick to his AD&D rules, someone else will defend NEJ mod instead... endless.

Personally I do not think Bereth is trying to propagate himself what big AD&D boss he is, no, he has some points I must admit. But the rest of you has yours as well, considering the mod creator in the name of fun and gameplay can make a mod the way he want. I wonder why don´t you boys finally settle down in this for good, if there´s no progress...

Bereth, I wrote you before, and Sir-Kill wrote before me, the best way for mod creators will be if you send me an AD&D notes, creature vs party of 6 comparations, or something like that. Evidently you have enough time to write such textfile. I can transform it into a webpage with no problems. Thus the modders will be able to take a look into it and make their mods more AD&D.

This post has been edited by Valiant: May 29 2008, 07:58 PM

Sounds like a plan then. Let me know the details.

You forgot to say......"At All"! lol

Hey I never said "VLAD, you suck". In fact I have praised him above all other modders so far. The stability of his mods are the absolute best without question. But even Vlad's mod can be improved upon. What I'm saying is, I know how. It is coming as a surprise to some of you that this can be done in core rules. 1 other point your forgetting is,,, it will take less time to create if a modder was to stick to the core creatures for the most part.
He can create some new ones yes, but they would be what they would be! Anyone know what a "Tarasque" is? How about a "Living Wall"?
My fellow gamers, if vlad were to imput my idea's into a game I would promiss that you would be verklempt with excitement for hours.

You may think it rediculous, but I certainly don't. I understand "completely" what you are saying. What I am doing is going beyond the way you are think sort of a few steps ahead in a way of speaking. I have been there,, done that,, in the end,,, it doesn't last!

The main reason why so many mods have been created isn't just to propogate more game play, it has been mostly to improve it, yes? So, though you might enjoy it, I can say from my years of experience, I will count 10 who don't for every one that does. This is the part you refuse to accept. Why you think it couldn't be better "Using" core rules, shows that you don't actualy know the core rules or the endless (ENDLESS) possibilities a Modder can create within this games scope, without taking any onesingle thing away from your character in order to make it more challenging or difficult.

I don't think you think it can be done. I think a lot of you think your could figure any scenario out for yourself with the limited exposure to Baldur's Gate that you have had. Do you not think I could challenge you

I could take 10, 5th level monsters, put them in the right scenario, and kill 80% of your party at 15th level before you knew what happened and before the last two fellas might have figured it out.Not one of these creatures would be altered in any way.
You haven't even scratched the surface of knowledge this game is capable of! There is no need to deviate from the core rules and trust me when I say, if you think this game is fun now, my ideas would make your mouth water and get you wet in the netherworld areas and keep you bigging for more!


How 'bout a scenario that could permanently kill your character if you willingly attempted it! Ya, one time chance! How many of you would have the brass cahonas to try that? Let me put it to you another way. I once dm'd a game called "the Castle of Amputee" many years ago. The winner of the gold was the person who left the castle with the most body parts left. and I did it with CORE RULES!

lol....true story dudes. It was funnier than hell!

The possibilities are endless!