Regarding the game play (EDITED MAY 15, 2008), you'll see Options

[Bereth Darkides]

I have rewrote this 5 times because I am non too happy with the extreme game balance problem.
Is there anyway to tone down the power and or numbers of the nuclear skeleton warriors I am facing (at 9th-10th lvl) that does not include playing outside of core rules!

HOLY FAK!

You see I really hate having to cheat.

(PS,,, Vlad what were you thinking)?


(EDITED TODAY GO TO PAGE 3)

This post has been edited by Bereth Darkides: May 15 2008, 07:35 PM

[ClefairyTorii]

I personally played AD&D 2nd edition for many years and have read dozens of the books. That being said, most of the books, barring the Player's Handbook are meant as guides and tools. They are by no means set in stone. They are just there so DMs (such as Vlad) don't have to waste so much time.

Why can't a Troll defeat a Baatezu? I personally don't use the Summon Fiend scroll or whatever, but seeing as Vlad is the DM, he basically controls what happens. Maybe every time a fiend is summoned, it is a lowly Spinagon. The main point is, there really is no reason why a Troll wouldn't be a bad ass. Maybe these are higher evolved trolls. Maybe these trolls have the blood of the Troll God, "Trollz0r the Pwnz0r" coursing through their veins. Maybe they are ROBOT TROLLS! I know this sounds stupid, but it could be true because thats how AD&D is. If I ever said to my DM (PnP), "Hey, I'm level 10, I SHOULD BE DOMINATING THESE TROLLS FOR FREE" He'd say "The door is over there!". The whole reason you don't copy the Monstrous Compendiums word for word is so your players can't just memorize stats and know what to expect.

If anything, the only thing out of place in my eyes is the experience values. Considering the strength of the monsters, higher experience would typically be rewarded. However, if Vlad did that, then everyone would level too fast... thus by keeping the current values, he balanced the game. So yeah, I'd say the game is balanced pretty well. I'd hate to have to SK my levels down once I get back to CI.

As Baronius said, all that matters is if people like the mod. Well, I can't speak for others, but I personally had a blast playing NEJ, and I can't wait for Lower Dorn's Deep and the rest of the mod.

[Bereth Darkides]

I personally played AD&D 2nd edition for many years and have read dozens of the books. That being said, most of the books, barring the Player's Handbook are meant as guides and tools. They are by no means set in stone. They are just there so DMs (such as Vlad) don't have to waste so much time.

Why can't a Troll defeat a Baatezu? I personally don't use the Summon Fiend scroll or whatever, but seeing as Vlad is the DM, he basically controls what happens. Maybe every time a fiend is summoned, it is a lowly Spinagon. The main point is, there really is no reason why a Troll wouldn't be a bad ass. Maybe these are higher evolved trolls. Maybe these trolls have the blood of the Troll God, "Trollz0r the Pwnz0r" coursing through their veins. Maybe they are ROBOT TROLLS! I know this sounds stupid, but it could be true because thats how AD&D is. If I ever said to my DM (PnP), "Hey, I'm level 10, I SHOULD BE DOMINATING THESE TROLLS FOR FREE" He'd say "The door is over there!". The whole reason you don't copy the Monstrous Compendiums word for word is so your players can't just memorize stats and know what to expect.

If anything, the only thing out of place in my eyes is the experience values. Considering the strength of the monsters, higher experience would typically be rewarded. However, if Vlad did that, then everyone would level too fast... thus by keeping the current values, he balanced the game. So yeah, I'd say the game is balanced pretty well. I'd hate to have to SK my levels down once I get back to CI.

As Baronius said, all that matters is if people like the mod. Well, I can't speak for others, but I personally had a blast playing NEJ, and I can't wait for Lower Dorn's Deep and the rest of the mod.

Yes they are interchangeable but the true ability of keeping a balanced game within scope of practical playability is not to be done by taking away a PC actual ability or in the rendering of him as useless. For example, a spell works like this (*), so it should always remain like this (*), but it isn't cool to take away a spells ability because you just want to thus making the spell work like this (^). There are reasons why spells have powers at certain levels (ie lesser vs greater) and it all works into the game balance. You wouldn't for example create the "WISH" spell with the same power and ability and then call it a third level spell now would you? So, why would you implace an unbalanced creature against another who in all respects could not (with it's own abilities in respect) hope to defeat the said creature unless a "TRICK" was needed. Again, this is what is being done. It translates into a non compatible or non-conformant AD&D experience. If you have the background and have had the experience then you would also recognize the need for the balance.

Make no mistake, AD&D 2nd edition was a SOLID system, and VERY balanced. It was the most played game in history and for good reason. Serious players got to know the system so well, that if any unbalanced inconsistencies arose they would recognize and question the DM. Then the PC would scramble to figure it out.

As for your question

Why can't a Troll defeat a Baatezu?

1st)Trolls only have or are considered to be able to hit +1 required to hit creatures (all works into game balance)
2nd) Trolls would be instantly enthralled and then controlled. Mere appearance of this creature would cause the troll to bolt (ie no chance to win) or serve it!
3rd)Even lesser Baetazu are +2 required to hit
4th) Same applies to the Taran'ri (Baetazu's natural enemy)
5th) Can you recreate a new creature? Sure you can, but you need to keep it in respect of the ecology of the creature. ie. there will probably be only one of them due to the intellect of a troll (almost mindless creatures often controll by beholders and other undead creatures like Liches), but they are completely territorial and despise being controlled (Nalia's dungeon should be your clue, ie. there was only one).

Bioware had access to someone who could guide them in delivering the implementations. Are you saying the modders here don't need one when the creators of the game insisted upon it? Keep in mind were now talking about the original game everyone loved so much!

You wouldn't let a +1 sword strike the dragons found (existing) in the game now would you? Why would this be? Because it would diminish the dragons power and level now wouldn't it, thus "The Balance" and it's need? It's the exact same reason why a troll could not hope to win against the Baetazu.

Same thing goes for Liches etc. etc etc.

Yous say things weren't written in stone! I say, (and so did the writers of the said books) it was suggested they were meant to be completely understood before alterations were made thus you could balance your own alterations, thus creating a system of continued balance. There were far more pieces of material created for AD&D 2nd Edition than any other game system ever made, and it was done so by implementations of the above standards!

After a while, creating creatures and items become natural, thus once you grasp the system your creations make more sense and keeps to the existing system. It all works smoothly. It also lets you know what can be and cannot be done in the mind of the player. You have to be higher than 9th level just to face an adult dragon to even speak to it otherwise you'll just bolt at it's mere sight!

PS.... same goes for Thaco's BTW.

This post has been edited by Bereth Darkides: May 21 2008, 01:43 PM

[DavidW]

You wouldn't let a +1 sword strike the dragons found (existing) in the game now would you? Why would this be? Because it would diminish the dragons power and level now wouldn't it, thus "The Balance" and it's need? It's the exact same reason why a troll could not hope to win against the Baetazu.

+1 swords work just fine against every dragon in the (unmodded) game. So do normal swords, in fact.

In general I think you might be surprised at just how many liberties the designers of BG2 took with the AD&D ruleset, if you look "under the hood" of the game. But amusingly, this isn't one of them: 2nd edition dragons don't have weapon immunities either.

[Bereth Darkides]

+1 swords work just fine against every dragon in the (unmodded) game. So do normal swords, in fact.

In general I think you might be surprised at just how many liberties the designers of BG2 took with the AD&D ruleset, if you look "under the hood" of the game. But amusingly, this isn't one of them: 2nd edition dragons don't have weapon immunities either.

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!

[Valiant]

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!

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