Arguments and counter-arguments:

Arguments for option 1:

(I) We don't need to remove the xp granted by writing scrolls, because erasing spells from spellbook and writing them over and over again is a cheat and if a player intends to cheat, he will eventually use the console command or an editor to add xp to his characters when he sees that re-writing scrolls doesn't work for this purpose. So, why should we bother with removing the xp when there are other ways to cheat?

(II) The xp gained by learning spells from scrolls is a very nice and handy feature early in the game to help low level parties boost their xp to some extent (not by erasing and re-writing, of course). It's not the best choice to remove this handy feature just because some cheaters may abuse it. Blocking cheats is good, but only if it won't affect legitimate players' games in any way (in this case, it does).

Arguments for option 2:

(I) Players who play the game legitimately and do not practice erasing and rewriting scrolls won't notice any significant change in their game if we remove the xp granted by writing scrolls, because the total amount of xp a legitimate player gains from writing scrolls isn't that much in the entire game. He writes each spell only once and removing the xp won't affect his game. On the other hand, this change can appropriately block the xp exploit some players use. It's true that erasing spells and writing them over and over again is a cheat and doesn't actually have any difference with using the console command or editors to add xp to characters, but some misguided players do believe that there is a difference between these methods; as long as they can do something inside the game without using console commands or editors they think that it is fine. All in all, other players who don't abuse such exploits should not worry about this suggested tweak, because it won't affect their games in any noticeable way.

(II) Moreover, why should learning a spell grant thousands of xp at all (specially when even failing to learn it can be easily overcome by trying another scroll of the same spell again and again till success - not to mention the possibility to reload the game)?

(III) Since mages have an HLA to scribe scrolls, they have also unlimited number of scrolls in the game. In the progress report for IA v6, it is mentioned that scrolls gained via the HLA won't have any market price and can't be sold for infinite gold. When we block the exploits for infinite gold why should we not block it for infinite xp these scrolls can offer?

I hope that I have been fair in offering the arguments for both options. As for myself, I am honestly 50-50 and undecided. Both sides' arguments have merits. That's why I'm asking for your opinions.

Vote and send a reply containing your vote and your reasons as well (anonymous votes will be ignored).

Also, note that if you see the results before voting, you won't be able to vote afterwards.

Thanks.

I voted for option 2. I don't see any major disadvantages without the scroll XP. But if one doesn't get XP from Scrolls I would recommend that the chance to learn the spell is actually by default 100%.
If you would get XP for Scroll-writing I think it is legitimate that you have a chance to fail to get XP

removing exp gained through scrolls then learning will make it harder for characters which dual class at the beginning of a game thats why im against removing it .
and as you said removing and learning them again is a cheat so a person who wants to do it he can do it using console and it wont make it different for them. and if you learn a scroll only once it wont have any positive side ,only negative for above example dualclassed mages.
removing exp from scrolls is almost the same as remove exp for traps and locks it is a feature of class one of advantage.
thats what i think;]

I would vote to remove the XP for learning spells.

Personally, I would prefer it if full XP is awarded for the first time the wizard writes that particular spell, and zero if he erases it and rewrites it in, but I suppose that it would be impractical to do so (as in, it would require too much code and be inefficient).

These are the key reasons I would choose the 2nd option (no XP for learning spells):
(1) The mage has the "Scribe Scroll" HLA which can be exploited for this purpose.
(2) The random encounters within the city (the 2 thieves, fighter mage and cleric) and possibly the respawning creatures (if their item drop isn't changed in IA v6) will drop scrolls which can be exploited for this purpose, and these encounters are potentially infinite in number.
(3) There are too many scrolls in IA, which might tempt people into using them for XP instead of selling them.

I voted for option 1. If someone wants to cheat, then lets him to do. He can do it anyway. Scroll XP is a nice boost for dual classed characters at start and I don't want to lose that. If there would be an option when full XP is awarded for the first time the caster writes that particular spell, and zero if he erases it and rewrites it in, I vote on that. Also I agree to make spell learning to fix 100 % if second option is voted.

I also support option 1:

(I) Cheaters will cheat anyway.

(II) Most scrolls can be sold for good gold, and since wealth management in IA actually does matter beyond the first couple of hours, that is a solid counter-incentive for those who might be tempted to exploit the XP.

(III) In early-to-mid-game (i.e. mostly before gaining HLAs) scrolls can make a real difference, particularly in the hands of a nerfed IA6 bard, I would presume; another counter-incentive to using them solely for minor XP gain.

(IV) The Scribe Scrolls HLA could easily be replaced with something more useful (say, an extra level 9 slot HLA); I think even removing it entirely would hardly affect game balance by the time choosing HLAs becomes possible.

Thanks, everyone.

Please keep introducing arguments and counter-arguments for this suggested tweak.



To be honest, the argument from dual-classing doesn't look to be convincing to me, because it's itself very questionable whether it is a fair method to rely on the easy xp of writing scrolls in your spellbook to activate your first class after dual-classing. If you have dualled your character's class, then why don't you play and gain xp through adventuring?

Actually, there is some difference between the two. The number of traps is not infinite. However, I also think that the xp gained for disarming traps is itself a bit too high and can be rebalanced as another tweak.



Yes, this is the first argument I offered in my initial post as well.

The gold exploits have already been blocked in v6. The number of sellable scrolls are no longer infinite.



There are also many scrolls noone wants to use (Color Spray, Sleep, Know Alignment, etc, etc...scrolls of spells which are not much useful) and they can't work as an counter-incentive, right?



Replacing the HLA could be a good suggestion, but it's now a bit too late for it, because I have already spent a lot of time on tweaking these HLAs to alter their results and block the gold exploits they could offer (nonetheless, I will keep this suggestion in mind and may replace or remove the scribe scrolls HLAs in the future; I'm not sure yet).

All this said, I'm still undecided and look forward to reading more arguments. Thanks again.

Still, the argument applies to non-scribed scrolls (hence, "most" of them in an average game). Or have you also made some non-scribed scrolls unsellable?



Argument II still applies to those, though; both gold gain and XP gain would be minor, but I for one would generally prefer the gold. Furthermore, I think such nigh-useless scrolls aren't created by the HLA, anyway, so there will be few, if any, scrolls that are both useless and unsellable. One counter-incentive will always apply.

I went for removing xp, but would also throw my hat in for making all spells 100% to learn. In fact this would also get rid of saving .... writing the spell .... then failing the write .... and then reloading, which in my opion is a definet cheat!

Option 1




That's why. Besides, living in a constant state of "X could do Y" paranoia could prove to be quite exhausting (I hope one can understand what I want to say with that sentence).

Don't forget to consider Argument (II) for removing the xp in my initial post as well.
What it says (in more details) is as follows:

Does copying a spell from a scroll into the spellbook really deserve thousands of xp? Is that such a hard thing to do? Does it require any sort of thinking, planning or what?

You may answer that learning the spell is a mentally difficult thing to do for a mage and that's shown by the fact that there is always a chance to fail.

This answer could have been acceptable if we were in pnp AD&D, because in pnp, if you fail the first time you can't retry learning the same spell again until you can permanently boost your intelligence. In BG2, however, the failing chance is a mere joke; the mage is still allowed to try to learn the same spell over and over again using other scrolls of the same spell (I'm not even talking about the possibility to reload here).

To put it in other words, argument (II) in the initial post can be rephrased in two different ways, once in first order language (ingame language) and once in 2nd order language (meta-game language). Let's see how:

- Why does your mage deserve thousands of xp for the mere action of copying a spell from a scroll into a spellbook? (remembering the fact that even if she fails the first time, she can easily pick another scroll and retry)

- Why should you (as the player) deserve a slight progress and a slightly easier game (because of the xp your characters gain inside the game) just for right-clicking on a scroll? (this is the formulation in meta-language because your character inside the game doesn't right-click on anything). Of course, the first formulation which uses the ingame language is better, but this second formulation is not totally pointless either.

Any counter argument?

One could look at the XP as a reward for whatever was involved in acquiring the scroll - e.g. for killing the creature who carried it before they could use the scroll, for accumulating enough money to buy the scroll, for stealing it etc.

I admit that argument would work a lot better if scrolls were harder to come by in general, i.e. if more powerful spells were not available in shops (or only at higher prices) and if only reasonably powerful creatures who could use scrolls carried them.

I wonder why you feel that you would need to change this. It's not anti-cheating because this is really a non-issue. Cheaters will simply cheat anyway and people who legitimately dual-class or level up with scrolls are surely prepared to endure more hardship in battle if the scroll XP gain had not been there.
If you remove the XP then you probably don't achieve a goal such as anti-cheating, but at the same time you make it more difficult for new IA players to get started and get into the IA gameplay, since you made it slightly more difficult for them to gain XP early-game. And Suna Seni isn't that easy if you don't know how she has been buffed, you don't have the right spells memorised but you are stuck in a place such as the government district where you cannot easily get any scrolls, XP or rest. Leveling up a bit would probably help there (if only for the increase in saving throws, thac0, health and usage of higher level spells).


Regardless, I think it's not illogical for a mage to gain XP from writing spells. You cannot expect that every spell is written on paper in the common-language. Perhaps the scroll that the mage acquire was from an ogre-mage written in ogre language (if there is such a thing) or an elven mage who used elven runes. Your Gnome illusionist surely must first interpret the words into his own language and then translate it into his own spellbook. Should he misinterpret the text he should fail. Should he understand the text, then he should gain XP for the translation. I think it's more illogical that the mage knows which "level" a spell is, but that can be attributed to his own interpretation on how difficult the spell-casting "recipe" is and he writes it down as dead-easy, mediocre, advanced and whatnot. If a mage has two spell scrolls for the same spell than he may still misinterpret both since it may be one written by elves and one written by halflings, or both written by elves but he understands little of the language. Relearning spells is a similar practice. If the original spell was in an elven language and the new spell is in another language, then some experience gain can be understood (though gameplay wise rewriting is of course rather lame).
Mages writing scrolls also learn something new to use and maybe it makes them smarter for the next time when they have to decipher spell scrolls. That's an acceptable description of experience gain to me. In comparison, thieves get experience from disarming traps and opening locks. Seems similarly logical to me. Do something, learn something, gain something.
Sorceresses gaining spells from nothing on the other hand..... It's probably due to them practicing or experimenting with magic, but how on earth would you learn a spell that is 100% unrelated to the ones you already know? The only thing I can come up with is that they copy it from foes they met or they try out stuff in their spare time. Sorceresses are more illogical to me than mages.

Another example of illogical... stuff... but this one is related to experience gain.
The party gets experience every time they kill a creature. Whether it's the 1st kobold they slay or the 101st kobold they slay, the XP gain is always the same.
That's nice for the player, but much more illogical to me than the amount of experience gained by learning a new spell. After killing 10 kobolds, do you keep learning an equal amount from killing the next 10 or the next 10 or the next 10? Maybe yes, if you use different ways to kill them... fire damage, cold damage, slashing, piercing... but not if you always do it with a fireball spell. Now that's illogical XP gain again.


As for a concrete suggestion.
Is it possible to block the ability to erase spells from the spellbook? That may solve your hesitations all-round.
Of course remove any tips related to erasing spells and add tips to say that erasing isn't possible in IA and that the player needs to think about his spell book composition.

I would prefer that solution (if it's possible at all) to removing XP gains; but it would not be preferable to leaving things as they are. There are very legitimate reasons for the ability to erase spells: in particular, some spells drastically decrease in usefulness as the game progresses, and a decent tactician keen to (legitimately) maximise his chances might well want to effect changes at various points in the game. It is very unlikely that one would want to delete a spell at one time, and then desperately need it at another, so even accidental 'abuse' (scribing the same spell twice) would be very rare.
All this applies even more forcefully for (1) mages imported from BG1, because spells which win the day in that game (Sleep, Hold Person, Web etc.) are of minor usefulness in BG2, let alone IA, and (2) mages with relatively low intelligence scores (i.e. Aerie or Jan), because both their maximum spells known per level and their chance to scribe scrolls are reduced in IA at Core difficulty or above.

Yes, as I said in my previous post, if the "failure" was genuine in BG2 (as it is in pnp), I would accept this argument. But it's not genuine (as I explained before).

It is mostly assumed that all scrolls are written in a standard magical jargon (formulas and recipes). So, if you fail to learn the spell from one scroll, you should keep failing even if you retry another scroll of the same spell. It's how it works in pnp and your mage has no chance to learn that spell till she can permanently boost her intelligence.



Do you mean that a warrior who kills an army of orcs to save a village should gain the same amount of xp he would gain for killing 4 or 5 orcs? I don't think that I agree.

There is of course a possible exceptional case: If those orcs were summoned by magic, then I would agree that killing them shouldn't give xp and the total xp should be gained only after killing the source (= the boss who has summoned them), but even in that case, none of those orcs should have xp value (even the first one who appears). This is also the justification for why summoned creatures don't have any xp value in the game.

Sikret!

For me it is very clear that you want to change it anyway. You defend only the new method (except your first post) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But then stop arguing and just make the modification! Be a punk! Use this attitude: "Never mind the bollocks here is the Sex Pistols!"

Personally I vote against this change because it is a nice addition to the game. It almost does not effect the game at all and therefore there is no real reason to change it. But because it affects the game only in a minor way, removing it will also not affect too much. We have a saying that describes the situation well: it is a storm in a spoon of water.

How could it be that there are 16 votes but in some we see only 8 (5+3)? Is it a bug in the forum engine?

If it was so, why did I start this poll in the first place? I have already applied many other changes to the game without feeling the need to start a poll. If what you said was true, I could do the same in this case as well.



When someone clicks to see the poll results without voting, the number of votes increases. For example, I didn't vote, but I clicked on the null vote option to observe the results; it added me to the total number of voters.

We had also a few (=five) anonymous voters (those who voted but didn't send any post; 3 of them had voted for the 1st option, 2 others had voted for the 2nd option) whose votes were omitted, but they were added to the total number of voters. As I said in my initial post, only votes of those who send a post will be accepted (otherwise any troll can jump in to throw a random vote, though I'm not saying that those 5 anonymous voters were necessarily trolls, but their votes were omitted because they didn't follow the poll's rule). If you compare the votes with the posts, you will see that their numbers match with the number of people (except for one person - I think, lroumen, IIRC - who didn't vote, but just sent a post).

Just joking. However I think that your initial opinion was not divided by 50-50% between the to options.

I hope that my vote was not deleted because I made my post first and wrote my post only hours later.

No, yours wasn't deleted. As I said, you can compare the number of votes with the number of people who posted to see that they match.

Posting to validate vote (my reasons aren't terribly original, broadly they're Sikret's "pro" case)

I always use Sim's DEFJAM to eliminate XP gain for learning spells and disarming traps. Guess my vote.

He would recieve XP for killing 4-5 orcs and another XP reward for completeing the quest to save the village from orcs. Quest and combat XP are different things. In fact I'd reduce XP gain for killing to minimum to avoid temptation to solve a quest peacefully, then going killing way, gaining twice as much XP as a result. Sadly there doesn't seem to be an easy way not to make a CRPG too discrete XP-wise with such limitation.


PS To elaborate my conception in general.

From roleplaying perspective it's killing orcs, disarming traps and learning spells what makes a living for adventurer in terms of XP. But at the same time it's exactly what bring metagaming aspect in.
As example - there was no XP for traps/locks in BG1, so people either disarmed them with a thief, used Knock spell, or simply rushed ahead with the beefiest tank, whichever method was more suitable. In BG2 I think most of players would bring a thief no matter what. Do you see my point yet? The XP rewards cause (and they often do it on subconsciuos level) to go powergaming way.
The situation with spells isn't that bad (as you can't learn the same spell ten times on a day), but is still worse than in BG1.
One might say that for a tactical mod the roleplaying aspect isn't that important, but I disagree.

My vote is to leave it as it is, but I'd support the modification of removing the ability to erase it. My justification for feeling this way is based on two points:

1) Not every journeyman wizard in Athkatla got to his professional stature by adventuring and killing monsters. There just aren't enough dungeons in Faerun for that. Thus, it's reasonable to assume in the Big Picture that wizards often improve their skills by means other than killing kobalds. Thus, the notion of the 'academic' approach to gaining experience is not off the mark.

2) I can't speak for all players, but I know I use scrolls to get a dual-class mage character out of his awkward stage of second-class remedial work and into the fun of enjoying both classes as soon as possible. I get enough character-building drudgery in RL that I don't really say 'oh goodie' when I run into those experiences in my gaming. The whole dual-class thing is a remnant of a game designed in 1974 and 'upgraded' in 1979 when the AD&D player's handbook came out. Sheesh, back then, you had to do TRIPLE-class to become a bard: first fighter, then dual to a Thief, then roll over into a bard!

Anyway, Sikret, you go ahead and make your mod design decisions as you see fit -- democratic, autocratic, whatever -- because I trust you to make the right choice. It's like that with my PnP GM, who once, after I spent a good fifteen minutes explaining why his interpretation of the rules was off the mark, listen patiently to me and then said, "All of the things you said make a lot of sense, and I think we're going to go ahead and do it my way anyway, OK?"

GM's prerogative. :-)

Ok, thank you very much everyone for your input. When I started this poll, my mental state was 50-50 between the two options, but reading the arguments and re-thinking and reconsidering them made some difference; so, the poll was, in general, very helpful to me.

let me summarize what we have got so far:

Arguments for option 1 (leaving it as it is):

(I) Cheaters will cheat anyway; so don't bother to block cheat.

This was mentioned in my initial post and was echoed by almost everyone who votes for option 1.

This argument alone is not convincing to me. If I was supposed to take this argument as something convincing, I shouldn't have fixed any other exploits in the game, but I have blocked lots of them. I can go even further and say that if I was thinking that this argument was convincing, I wouldn't have even fixed most of the vanilla game bugs I have fixed in IA. Let me give you an example:

If you play the game without IA, Boots of Speed can be exploited in a particular way. The boots bonus to speed could stack with the speed bonus of (Improved) Haste, resulting in a character with quadruple speed. I have fixed this bug in IA even though the statement that "cheaters can cheat anyway" is still true and a cheater who wants to have a character with quadruple speed can still use editors to give the (x4) speed to his character. Nonetheless, the fact that a cheater can cheat this way or the other didn't stop me from fixing the bug.

The same is true for every bugfix and exploit-fix in the game. Cheaters will always have ways to undo your bugfixes or exploit-fixes and to re-create those bugs and exploits in their games (the easiest method can sometimes be deleting files from the override folder), but this fact doesn't provide any valid argument for not fixing bugs or exploits.

If there are still n ways to cheat xp in the game, it can't be a wrong decision to block one of them and to leave the cheaters with n-1 ways to cheat (unless we can find other and independent reasons against blocking the exploit in a particular case; and this is what leads us to argument II below).

(II) Argument from early-game difficulty:

This is by far the strongest and most convincing argument in favor of option 1 in the poll. It goes as follows:

The xp that a legitimate player can gain by learning spells is a handy tool to add to party's power at early stages of the game. Since, most IA players find the early stages of the game difficult. Removing the xp from learning spells can make the game unnecessarily a lot harder.

The value of this argument can't be assessed by merely theoretical speculations. What I will do is this:

I will temporarily apply the suggested tweak and will ask IA's testing team (or at least, some of them) to start a new game and play from the scratch and report to me whether the lack of xp for learning spells does (or doesn't) make any significant and noticeable difference in the game's difficulty for them.

Practical test is the only way to settle this question.

None of the other arguments for option 1 look to be convincing or appealing to me. The argument from dual-classing (for example) actually works in favor of option 2, because (as I mentioned in my second post in this thread) relying on the easy xp of scrolls to activate your character's first class after dual-classing is itself a very questionable method.

Arguments for option 2 (removing the xp):

(III) Legitimate players have no reason to say "no":

This argument says the opposite of what argument (II) above says. It says that if a player doesn't really intend to abuse the xp exploit of erasing and re-writing spells from scrolls, he has no reason to worry about this tweak, because the total amount of xp a legitimate player gains via learing spells in the entire game is so small that he won't notice any change in his game.

Just like argument (II), this argument can only be assessed after I receive my testers' reports of whether they notice any significant difference for absence of the xp or not. Until then, I can't say much about this argument nor about argument (II).

(IV) LZJ's argument from unlimited scrolls from HLAs:

This one is a very strong and decisive argument. The Scribe Scroll HLA suuplies the party with an unlimited stock of scrolls which can be used for unlimited xp

(V) Argument from fake learning failure:

This is the argument I offered here.

Unlike the way it works in pnp, failing to learn a spell is a mere joke in BG2, because the mage is still allowed to retry learning the same spell over and over again. Hence, learning spell in BG2 needs no special effort or luck or whatever and consequently, it doesn't deserve any xp.

Conclusion:

As far as theoretical arguments are concerned, the arguments for option 2 seem to be stronger and more convincing to me. The only thing which stands between me and choosing option 2 as my final decision is the argument (II) in favor of option 1 mentioned earlier in this post (the one which requires empirical tests). I will postpone making the final decision to when I receive my testers' reports to see whether the lack of xp gained via learning spells does or doesn't affect their games in any noticeable and unpleasant way. The results of practical tests will tell me what to do.

Thanks again, everyone. The poll will remain open for a while, but I will unpin it in the near future.

Just to respond to this matter. Sorry for my late reply.

If your mage clears a town of 1000 orcs. I don't agree that upon killing the last orc he should obtain the same XP as for the first orc. After killing so many there is likely nothing new to learn from offin gyet another orc. XP scaling is a feature that certain games use to accommodate this irregularity. From clearing the town of orcs you can of course gain an XP bonus, but this is independant from the fact that your killing orcs, but rather for the finalisation of the feat or 'quest' if you will.
Also, if you've never seen or killed a gnoll before and a foe summons gnolls, why should you not learn from that experience and gain XP?



I do feel that it is to be admired that you want to be consistent with PnP rules, however, not every player knows every PnP rule .

To be honest, I don't see the connection between the discussion about orcs with the topic at hand. The previous time I replied to it just becaue it was an opportunity to explain the justification behind removing the xp value from summoned creatures.

But if you mean that I should decrease the xp of a monster type depending on the number of them who are already killed by the party, you should have opened a new topic for that suggestion. If I agreed with that suggestion, I could probably find a way to implement it, but I don't agree with it . It's not even how it generally works in pnp (though a DM can implement such local rules in his games).

Let's stay on-topic.

ahm...
I sell most of the scrolls...
Money!!!!
Re-writing them is useless in IA, leave it as it is IMO.

I voted to remove the xp for writing spells. I don't like the way it can be used to boost xp for a dual-class character (e.g. the main character dual-classes to mage, kicks out all the other party members temporarily, then learns lots of scrolls for free xp).

I don't like the idea of free xp, it doesn't make sense to me that the same xp one gains from defeating a tough IA enemy can be obtained by learning three or four scrolls.

xp from removing traps/opening locks is a little different IMO and should stay because the thief has spent points (which could be put somewhere else) on these skills, plus the xp awarded is far less and there is no exploit possibility.