So is EDE improved further?

Yes, and that's exactly what makes testing it so difficult, time-consuming and tricky. EDE v5 was already a very hard battle and now with the new improvements, we need to make sure that we haven't crossed the border of making it virtually impossible to win. In other words, we want to make sure that while it is now harder than EDE v5, it's still doable with the right tactics.

Just out of curiosity, how many times do you do the fight at the testing?
Also, how many different parties do you use?

It depends on the battle and the nature of improvements applied to the battle compared to the previous version of the mod and different scenarios we could imagine that might happen during the battle. For some certain battles I lost track of the number of tests we did; some other battles, on the other hand, were straightforward and didn't require many tests (for some simpler battles, one test per tester was enough). In general, IA's unique level of stability and bugfreeness isn't acquired easily. We test everything and we test at the highest level of precision and accuracy. I assure you that the result is worth the time you wait for it.

Improved but not impossible.... something tells me that I should not like the sound of that.

haha, yeah, pretty scary

and I don't even beat EDE 5. I think I'll beat EDE 6 first...


...or don't.

EDE v6 is generally harder than EDE v5, but it's not the case that every improvement applied to the battle are in enemies favor. For example, Pasha Mahmoud is also improved considerably and will prove to be a much worthier ally. Even a party led by a vagrant protagonist (who won't have Pasha Mahmoud) may still find some very delightful new elements in the battle. We are working on this.

In general, EDE v6 is designed in a way to make it virtually undoable for cheaters and cheesy players (see saros' reports of EDE in his games to see what I mean). All those cheap and unintended possibilities are successfully blocked. But an honest player who plays without cheating and/or cheap tricks will find the battle doable with some additional new features to help the party (though, yes, it will be overall harder than EDE v5).

In short, there is no need to be scared.

Hehe...I had a dream tonight...that IA6 is finally released...Black Wyrm's Lair page was all sparkly on my laptop.
and I looked at the "number of downloads" and it said "1"....I was the 2nd one to download it.
Don't know why, but in my dream I had a beard .

The "Beard" in the dream means that you had been waiting a long time for something (waited for such a long time that hair have grown on your face). The number 1 refers to your tactical reputation; you will gain your 2nd one after v6 is out.

I'll send you the bill for interpreting your dream.

@ Sikret

heh, I would never say you're a psychoanalyst......

I don't quite see the need for nerfing Cavaliers. If anything, every paladin should be immune to fear. That would be a more sensible change.

I can see why bards' arcane is a bit too good, especially since they still have thief exp rates, but I don't see why the need to nerf them even worse than they were in in vanilla. Seems excessive and unwarranted.

I don't understand the shorty bonus save nerf. Maybe it should be capped at 3 or something. 5 is a little too good, but from what I recall, the short demihumans all had many significant save bonuses evening going back as the original D&D. The reason for it is that multiclass is generally weaker than dual class, and the classes open to demhuman shorties is very, very small. Haflings have like, what, 2 whole classes they can pick?


Although not related to specifically to v6, I still don't understand the point of delaying the HLA for any class. I mean, if your whole point is to make the game harder, why not just step up the difficulty at about the point people should be getting their HLAs? Instead, it just drags out the dead period of character development, makes mixing up class/combos less desirable due to the delay, leaving people playing the same set of characters over and over because you absolutely need x, y, and z by point a.

1) Paladin's immunity to fear should be, imo, given to them by some kind of HLA, new paladin only HLA, like for exemple "prowess" or "valor" HLA which grants the paladin immunity to fear, death magic, maze, imprisonment and gives him/her regeneration in par with ranger's "contact with nature".


2) Yeah, Sikret was a little too harsh for bards.


3) Yeah, man, I hear you. Agree completly on this one! Dwarves saves are nerfed but penelty to dexterity is still present when the bastard half-orc still has 19 con and strentgh. This is unfair.

4) Did IA 6 delaying HLA's for all classes? I think that in IA 6, HLA delay apllies only for multiclass overpowerness and, as such, should be done much earlier.

No. The HLA delay was introduced only for triple-classed characters. Nothing's changed since v5 for single and dual-classed characters. The full info is available in the first post of this topic.


The reason for nerfing Cavaliers is that they were basically without any disadvantages. It ruins the balance for paladin kits. Now every paladin kit has its pros and cons, and thus could be played with in v6. The full rework for paladins is planned for v7, as is the improved paladin stronghold. We'll take a better look at all kits then and rebalance them even better. However, even now all kits are perfectly playable, as our tests have shown.

I agree about paladins, and in IA6 even custom made paladins will be "turnable" by evil clerics I think...a bit useless I guess, compared to a standard berserker/barbarian which gain all the paladin immunities (and some extra + GM for berserker). As for bards....in IA5, there's no class like the blade in the last battle (EDE). So I can see why Sikret hates them so much . I would give them 6th lvl spells, as per vanilla game too. A jack of all trades is heavily nerfed by not being able to cast some of the most important spells like pfme or imp.haste. However, this is not going to change.
Small people....ah. My beloved dwarves... What it will do is make figh-cleric multiclass (dwarven) completely opsolete (ranger/cleric looses nothing now compared to dwarf and gains all druid spells)..I don't know. I don't like the idea of every Anvil making some classes opsolete. But then again, IA6 makes swashes usable once again.yeeey . Let's just wait and see before making any conclusions.

I think Sikret mentioned once or twice that the idea is to re-make classes to be usable and balanced in the IA world It can't be done over the course of one release, since it would take ages to test it. I think it is possible that the bards will be looked upon with better scrutiny in the future.

The change applied to Cavaliers was a step towards balance (as Critto mentioned). It would make no sense to have a paladin kit with absolutely no disadvantage and so many advantages (above all, immunity to evil clerics' Turn ability). However, paladins can still be very handy in IA. With the new changes applied to improved vampires and the way they deal with the Negative Plane Protection spell, an Undead Hunter can shine in certain undead battles. Inquisitors can also be very powerful at high levels where their dispel magic is the only one which has any chance to dispel the enemy protections.

Also, as Critto mentioned, the main rework of the paladin class will be done in v7 when we add Expanded Paladin Stroghold to the game. In general, our policy is to rework every class when we reach the stage in which we are going to introduce their expanded stronghold. For v7, the paladin and druid classes will be the center of our focus.

IA has introduced the idea of evil clerics turning paladins. Making all paladins immune to fear would make them all immune to the "turn" ability. Certainly a bad idea.



Bards were not bad in the vanilla game; they were actually overpowered; so I don't see what the phrase "even worse than they were in the vanilla" might mean.

As for the reason for the nerf, you put the reason in good words in the first part of the quoted lines. Their arcane power was too good.

We have gone through the discussion about bards too many times in the past and as Kerkes mentioned, the dicussion about bards is practically over.

In the original AD&D, demi-humans had significant disadvantages which are not present in BG2.



My wild guess is that you haven't played even IA v5; otherwise you wouldn't have felt that HLA's are delayed for too long. As for v6, Critto has replied to this part. It's only the triple-class character who will gain HLA's with more delay than in v5.



I don't think that it's unfair. Drarwes also have the 19 CON; so the only advantage of half-orcs is their 19 STR compared to the +5 save bonuses the dwarves had before. I think this was absurdly unbalanced in favor of dwarves, because the 19 STR while useful at early stages of the game loses its importance at later stages when every warrior has items to increase strength; whereas, the +5 save bonuses would not lose their importance till the end of the game. Having +5 save bonus from the beginning of the game was too much. It was as if the character starts the game with a +5 protection item and would mean automatic save in many instances. The +5 is now decreased to +1 which is still useful but not overpowered.

I don't recall "evil clerics" even being able to turn good PCs in at all in AD&D. You can't turn evil with a good cleric, just the undead. I've read that you were a DM for some period of time, and I find it quite strange you think paladin's should be turnable at all let alone going out of your way to make them so. Paladins have no fear-- not of evil and not of death, not of anything, so how can they be turned? They believe 100% their god will save them no matter what horrors they face. If they lose that 100% faith, they would stop being paladin's. I think it's kind of a red herring anyway. Do you truly think that straight up a cavalier is much better than an inquisitor? that's the argument you are making. I think that's HIGHLY debatable one, to say the least.

If you go and look in your 2nd e book, I don't think you will even find paladin in there at all as a class, the paladin is already like a subclass "kit" of warrior. Basically half-fighters and half cavalier-- fear immunity, no ranged weapons, limited weapon options.




Let's look at some huge disdvantages humans also don't get: their poor eyesight(HUGE disadvantage). This would be crippling in the underdark and cavernous places, especially fighting intelligent eneimes dragons/drow/liches/illithids/etc. that would dispell any vision or use other means insure you were fighting blind. Lycanthropy and vampirism. Aging effects-- not found in the BG series, but the worst effect the undead often had was the ability to age the people they touch/hit by several years. Some demihuman s weren't immune to it, but they could deal with it much better than humans because they lived so much longer. This is also relevant for casting arcane spells, as in AD&D some of the more powerful ones would significantly age you. An elf can shrug that off, a human simply can't.

The main disadvantage to demihumans was they were level capped. Actually, humans were capped, too, at a bit later level. But the entire level system is entirely "broken" in BG2. I mean, level 15 characetrs in 2e Ad&D are unheard of rare-- demihuman or human. So neither humans nor demihumans have to face the "cap" on their abilities which they would in AD&D. They have equally averted that issue. So, in reality, most of the drawbacks of being humans and being demihumans are removed. Then we get to the whole class issue, one of the main drawbacks of demis are their limited class selections. That is a very, very real disadvantage that has serious ramifications in BG2 and I don't see how +1 to saves is going to make up that difference. I'd actually let haflings keep the +5, and gnomes/dwarves +3 max.

Speaking of multiclassing and getting back to my earlier point. Probably would be better to just reduce the amount of HLAs they can get instead of the exp penalty. If you did that, you might not have to worry so much about giving them exp penalities at all. Dual and multi class could have the same HLA experience point level that pure classes had, but for a dual a class they only get a HLA every other level, triple multi's every third level, double multis every second(like duals). HLA are a completely foreign concept 2e AD&D so you can basically butcher them up however makes them work the most balanced way. It's weird because it seems another drabck to demihumans. Because dual classes can already cheat by sitting on a bunch of exp and switching over-- you can't do that in AD&D offsetting and ignoring the only significant penalty to dual classing. I'd fix the dual class exp squating and reduce dual and multi HLA amounts, and remove the HLa delay for everyone. But it's not my mod, of course.

Meh. I just realized the exp squating thing isn't part of the AI mod or related mods. Feel free to ignore it. I can't edit casue the visitor status thing or whatever. But I just started dinking around and noticed that the DC squatting doesn't work anymore-- used to work when I played last, like many, many months ago, but must have been a rogue mod gone bad or something allowing it.

That you can't "recall" something doesn't mean that it didn't exist. The mechanics of turning paladins existed even in the vanilla BG2; they just had not implemented it in the enemy AI and that's what I have added.

No, I'm not saying that the cavalier kit was much better than the inquisitor. The inquisitor was also overpowered which is nerfed in IA. But at least, the inquisitor had a list of disadvantages (which of course, wouldn't compensate the kit's advantages), while the cavalier kit was a kit of advantages only (don't tell me that not using ranged weapons is a disadvantage compared to what they gain).



Yes, if we had only this one, we wouldn't need to worry about Multi-class overpoweredness at all. But alas, it's not implemented in BG2 (along with many other things).

Humans were not capped, actually. They could in principle proceed infinitely, but DM's would sometimes make it harder and harder to proceed beyond certain levels (optional for DM's). Demimumans were capped at quite low levels in comparison.



I don't agree. Their current options aren't that bad.

Have you played IA at all?

I'm sure they have the mechanics for a lot of things in there, doesn't mean anything. It has no place in the world of AD&D. BG2 or otherwise. A paladin actually fleeing a battle would even end up a fallen paladin in many of the incanrations of of D&D, and they are usually immune to all innate/magical fear effects/turning otherwise.



I don't think anyone would realistically argue that cavaliers are not the least hinderd by their paltry disadvantage. But I fail to see the relevance. You are subtracting an advantage. How does that make his disadvantages any worse? So you must be trying to remove an advantage to "balance" the kit as a whole. But how can you do that and then say you don't even think that the cavalier kit is clearly superior to the inquisitor?? You've kind of painted yourself into into a corner here and I don't see any way out. And even if you did get out of that corner, why compare the cavalier to the inquistor at all? You should be comparing them both to the other plate-wearing melee classes in the game, not to each other. You start by comparing them to vast array of berserker and berserker single and duals, for instance, as all the paladins can't dual class.





The core ruleset? How will they proceed infinitely when all the information ends at level 20 for them? How do you think it's realistic to even get that high a level in 2e? The highest level NPC in ALL of 2e lore is merely level 15. the charts compeltely end at 20, so you'd have to completely invent anything after that. At a bare minimum that would be "optional", the same option is available in allowing multiclass to progress beyond their level caps, too. BG2 is totally a different world than 2e as it related to levels/hit dice.

Heh, you really need to reconsider your limited information about AD&D. Evil cleric's ability to turn paladins exists in AD&D.



The same point I mentioned above! You haven't heard anything of the extended charts or the various compendium volumes, eh?

And once again (for two times in a row), you didn't answer to my question whether you have so far played Improved Anvil or not. This says enough to me.

I don't think that you will play this mod or even enjoy playing it if you do so; so, please spare us all the time of pointless arguments. Thanks.

Werid. But that's correct. Paladins are on the 2e turn tables(though not mentioned anywhere else), strangely fiends are missing.





You mean like epic rules?? The same ones that extend the progress demihumans can make in the game, too?



I thought your question was rhetorical. Why the hell would I be here if I never played the mod?? I haven't played v5 in quite awhile, and it's the only version I ever played. I found it a good mod, but balanced far too heavily on the melee-oriented side of things. Not much like AD&D like in that regard but fine otherwise.

I would like to make a request about the scaled-according-to-xp encounters (Spellhold, Shade Lord and whatnot). Could we get a readme file which matches the difficulty of the battles with your xp or level ? Cause I would really like to do all the battlles at their hardest. If it's considered too spoilerish to include in a readme file, perhaps it could be done through pm.

Thanks in advance

Bards were never overpowered, altho the Blade was a good kit, it was the bard armour introduced by IA that made the Blade overpowered together with the ring from The Four.
Nerfing paladins was totally unnecessary, you have to be stupid really to play a warrior without Grandmastery in IA lol, besides the Vagrant of course. Then again the Vagrant gets grandmastery in Axes in v6 so problem solved.
As for dwarves saving throws getting nerfed, not much of a problem really. You have Riskbreakers getting a major buff, Swashbucklers will have yet to see.

Vagrant -GM Axes
Kensai -GM Halberds Staves or TwoHandedSwords
Riskbreaker -GM LongSwords Flails
Berserker/Cleric -GM Clubs Hammer
Sorceress or Mage- evil for Robe of Eloquence
Kensage -to replace the Bard

Easy doable Shade Lord, Firkraag, Samia, Troll Mound, Tarnor, Sion, Alhoon before sailing for Spellhold with this party. In v5 that is.

You can't do all of the battles at their hardest level, because you will need to do some of them before the others to actually gain xp.

Moreover, it's true that some battles are improved with your xp, but it doesn't mean that you will necessarily find them harder if you postpone them, because your party is also more powerful with higher xp.

Spellhold is definitely harder if you go there with a higher level party. Sail for spellhold with a 15th level party if you wish. Going there with a 17th level party will improve spellhold even further, but again, a 17th level party is also more powerful than a 15th level one and the overall difficulty may be the same as going there at level 15.

The Four was a mod I created a few years ago in response to some players' request for powerful items at Sorcerer's Place forums. Serious IA players either do not install The Four or if they install it, they do it for the battles in the mod not for its items (they do the battles and leave the items on the ground). Among those four items, the druidic helmet is reasonably balanced, but the other three items were created just for fun. The mod was never meant to be a serious add-on to IA. Although I'm the creator of The Four, I never installed it on my own machine except for testing it before its release.

I think it's not the armor itself (perhaps a bit ) , but the bard's spellcasting ability that makes them so powerful - fast level ups + ease of use unnerfed spell slots (8th lvl IS overboard, really) + unnerfed THAC0 which is, well, insane. To have a bard with a THAC0 equal to a berserker is plain stupid, and with The Four, it can be even worse. I don't agree they should be capped at 5th lvl, but the way they are in IA5 is too strong.

Yeah, that's what I meant.





No, no, you're wrong. I play barbarian without grandmastery in anything and I kick serious ass in IA 5. I'm really not that stupid at all. Honest.


Jeez, what is this ***** fetishism? Take for exemple multiclassed ranger/cleric, he/she has only ** in anything but is a melee monstrosity, just like barbarian.

A bard is weak in early-mid game, very few spells, poor thac0.
Remove magic useless in early-mid game, up to lvl 20-25.
Thac0 becomes that of a fighter level in late game, with the ring and phosphorus.
APR is still a problem thou even in late game.


A Kensage is almost as good as Blade, just no Permanent Alacrity and no good reliable remove magic in late game.
Still your evil mage can make up for fast buffing prior to major fights

Except that a Kensai Bersker or Riskbreaker kicks serious ass faster than your Barbarian.
As for Ranger/Cleric vs Berserker/Cleric (dual) . More APR, more DMG, more enrage, more buffs, more restoration.

Both your kits are tanks.

The bersker has grandmastery (more attacks per round), better AC and can dual-class; while the barbarian has better rage, more HP and resistance to physical damage. Both have advantages and disadvantages compared to each other. There is no conclusive argument in favor of berserkers. Grandmastery isn't everything. But please stop this kind of arguments about classes and kits (especially) here in this topic.

About the novel content and quests.

Some of the IA v6 content is restricted to certain character kits. I was wondering what your plan was for IAv7 (it'll take a while to finish that I know) with regard to other kit-specific (or kit-restricted) quests. Some of the kit-specific quests are rather small, but do add more depth to the game and the IA kits as added to the game.
It would be nice if some of the vanilla kits could get more depth with the help of a kit-specific quest such as:
- a Bountyhunter needs to track down a few criminals for the City Council (like Neb, or rewrite the Tanner Quest to involve a bountyhunter reward like extra cash).
- a Cavalier needs to hunt or exorcise some demons (maybe an extension or alternation of the Malah quest?)
- an Diviner solving an adaptation of the Circus quest and maybe divining an alternate ending for the Buried alive quest in the Graveyard.

Something like that. What would be your take on that?

As was mentioned earlier, the IA team plans to carefully re-examine existing game classes and kits, extend the protagonist strongholds in order to enrich player's experience. The first priority for IAv7 is to perform rework on druid and paladin protagonists. As you know from the first post of this topic, there is actually a whole quest almost fully done for a druid protagonist. However, for a number of reasons, the quest won't be introduced in v6. Instead a decision was made to postpone it for v7, so we can also see to it that playing with the druid protagonist would be an exciting experience. As for paladin, Sikret has quite an interesting and somewhat epic idea for a new paladin storyline. It is not my place to reveal any details of it, however

Sure, I 've heard and read these updates on druids and paladins, and I'm certain that something nice comes out. I'm just curious if the other kits/classes get something specific as well.

Can't promise anything specific for v7 yet, but in the future - they definitely will.

I don't think I'm going too far in stating that one of the main goals of v6 - and something that we testers have invested a TON of effort in working on - is the notion that you should NOT be able to "easily" do these encounters at all. All are challenging but doable, just not 'easy'.

Some encounters that you named are now pretty flatly un-doable before Spellhold no matter what classes are in your party, assuming fair play. You will learn which ones are better left for Chapter 6. This is due to many factors, but I'll say this: v6 is going to force you to think much harder about your tactics, far more than ever before. And in some cases, no matter how good you are, you'll have to learn to recognize when you're biting off more than you can chew and know when to come back later.

There are only two days left and estimation is still March? Mistake or reality?

The site is in a financial crisis and will be closed in the near future if players and fans do not help the site. This should be everyone's priority at this moment. What's the point of releasing a mod when the site is going to be closed? I expect all IA-players to look at this problem as their own problem and upgrade to (at least) Premium membership.

It's on hard days like these that one can know who is a friend and who is not.

I wish to sincerely thank those IA players who have already responded to my request in positive and upgraded their membership to "Premium". It's most appreciated.

Those who haven't upgraded their membership fall into four distinct categories:

1- Those who browse BWL, but aren't IA players. Consequently, the abovementioned request (which was addressed to IA players) doesn't apply to them.

2- Those who are IA players and want to help the site, but they can't really afford the extra 24 dollars to upgrade their membership.

3- Those who are IA players and want to help the site, but they just need some time (perhaps a couple of weeks) to manage their budget and upgrade their membership.

4- Those who are IA players and can afford the additional 24 dollars, but deliberately ignore my request, either because they don't want to help the site survive the financial crisis or because they prefer to wait for other players to do the job for them.

The first group are out of question here. They visit BWL for the site's other mods and they don't feel that they need to take my request seriously.

The second group (those who really can't afford the additional 24 dollars) can send me a PM or e-mail and explain the situation (so that I know that they want to help but they can't).

The third group just need some time. That's fine. Their help will be most appreciated.

The fourth group should really reconsider their approach to the situation. If you are among IA players and you can help the site, do help it please; otherwise, the site will be closed and you won't eventually have IA v6 to play. Don't wait for others to do the job; if everyone waits for others, noone will do anything and we will lose the time (moreover, if you can upgrade your membership, it's not morally nice to do nothing and just wait for others to solve the problem).

I see release date March, is it a typo? If not, how long to wait? I want to start a game

See the last three posts just before yours. It's the same question and my answer to it.

I'm not sure what you mean. From my perspective sounds like the new mod is ready, but not released because the website is in financial trouble and needs more premium members. Is this your answer? I'm a bit puzzled here.

Well, the mod and the site are related to each other. There is no point in releasing the mod when its "home" is in danger of being closed.

Moreover, there is the question of how any IA player responds to my request. I explicitly wrote my expectations and request and also mentioned that it is on hard days like these that one can know who is a friend and who is not.

I don't think that anyone can demand access to IA v6 (particularly when he ignores my requests and doesn't make any attempt to prove himself to be one of my friends).