Mod News Icewind Dale Complete Remake Mod Released for NWN2

[VentilatorOfDoom]

You ignore a fighter's fighter-specific attribute distribution, equipment choice and HP.

As opposed to casters, who don't have specific attribute distribution, equipment choices and so on.

You ignore the additional attacks that go hand in hand with the better BAB. You also tend to ignore the first 6-10 levels long before the casters get spells that (if not dispelled) can put them on par with fighters. You ignore casters running out of spells and turning into dead weight.

The additional attacks were a far better reason in 2E where casters never got more than 1 attack. Otoh you would just dual-class after gaining all those attacks at lvl13. What's the difference in a game like NWN2 between a fighter lvl30 and a pal 2/Sorc 8/EK 10/Swiftblade 10 ? Let's see, the fighter has 30 BAB and 6 attacks, whereas the sorcerer has... 26BAB and 6 attacks. :shock: And then there's the tiny little difference that he's a level 23 caster on top of it, which I presume makes him "dead weight" as soon as he's out of spells. Makes sense.

You ignore anti-magical areas.

Given that all cRPGs I ever played were literally full of those areas, this is a serious issue.

You ignore that a caster who tries to be a fighter isn't doing his job.

Why yes, how dare he?

You ignore that fighter-types do not have to worry about casting-levels and can thus multi-class pretty freely.

Quite a feat. Being able to freely multiclass into other shitty fighter-type classes with no worries, resulting in more surpreme "I click on enemies and watch my character full-attack each round" kinda fun.

Sure, a pure fighter might be easily disabled and not be as good a meat-shield as a caster with the right buffs. But the fighter does not require to stay a pure fighter in order to do fighter stuff.

It works both ways.

He came up with one caster build that would probably have beaten my warrior build in a direct confrontation. But that abused two broken spells. Everything else pretty much just required waiting the casters out. Given that max level casters are supposed to be stronger and I'm not really a munchkin power-gamer, that didn't seem too shabby... *shrug*

It didn't rely on 2 broken spells. Even without those spells a fighter doesn't stand a chance against a caster in 1 on 1 combat. That's why PvP is dominated by caster builds. What are you going to do against a cleric casting Word of Faith (stun for casterlevel /2 rounds, no save) , eh? Nothing. Last time we had the discussion on the Codex "My fighter can defeat your wizard" we ended with the fighter using his whole army and equipping an amulett of total magic immunity.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

Is there IWD-to-IWD2 conversation mod à la BG Tutu/Trilogy?

A project called Icewind Gate to port BGII into IWD2 was attempted, but never completed.

I read on the Bioware boards of a Delta version that was supposedly better than the beta version.

 

[Jasede]

VoD:
You're arguing against imaginary windmills. The guy's point was that the dead-weight"ness" of Fighters in IWD 2 is indicative of Fighters being dead weight in 3.5 rules in general. You are agreeing that wizards are better (which is true and was never even debated). We are arguing that yes, wizards ARE better at everything at higher levels BUT Fighters are still important and useful in P&P due to anti-magic zones, spells running dry, very limited reseting and so on in a P&P session.

We are arguing different things so what you are stating has nothing to do with the argument at hand:
If Fighters are dead weight in IWD 2, does that mean we can say they are dead weight in 3.5 rules in general? My answer is a resounding no.

But, as you correctly described, in a CRPG, they are easily outclassed due to constant resting, easy encounters that don't dispel intelligently and so on. So while you are correct you were still arguing the wrong thing, rendering your points moot.
But the argument wasn't about Fighters vs Wizards in a CRPG setting, it was about if you can use Fighters vs Wizards being weak in a 3.5 rule game as a mean of extrapolating that Fighters are dead weight in 3.5 P&P rules in general.

 

[Grunker]

They are also outclassed in PnP. Unless the GM specifically engineers his campaign against casters (which would kindda prove the point, don't you think?)

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

VoD:
You're arguing against imaginary windmills. The guy's point was that the dead-weight"ness" of Fighters in IWD 2 is indicative of Fighters being dead weight in 3.5 rules in general. You are agreeing that wizards are better (which is true and was never even debated). We are arguing that yes, wizards ARE better at everything at higher levels BUT Fighters are still important and useful in P&P due to anti-magic zones, spells running dry, very limited reseting and so on in a P&P session.

First, I replied to Shannow's post and the post didn't refer exclusively to IWD2. Second, I'm not arguing that Wizards are "better". DnD is a party based game and the classes were never balanced against each other.

We are arguing different things so what you are stating has nothing to do with the argument at hand:
If Fighters are dead weight in IWD 2, does that mean we can say they are dead weight in 3.5 rules in general? My answer is a resounding no.

Some would probably disagree and refer to supplements like Tome of Battle, which was released just for the purpose of beefing up the nerfed melee classes in 3.5 ed.

 

[Jasede]

They are also outclassed in PnP. Unless the GM specifically engineers his campaign against casters (which would kindda prove the point, don't you think?)

But how? Please explain. What if they run out of spells? What if the adventure happens to take them into an anti-magical zone? What if the wizard, gasp, loses his spellbook? We already agreed they aren't as powerful - they don't have to be. The point is that Fighters still have a role to fill and make a fine addition to the party in P&P.

I was never arguing that Wizards aren't at least twice or three times as powerful. I was merely saying that there are times where you just need to have a Fighter and even if he may be far less mighty, he can still contribute and even shine in certain circumstances.

And then there are always the early levels, in which they are at their peak.

 

[Malpercio]

I'm intrigued, but NWN2 engine is just awful. It's not even just a graphic problem, it's the camera/interface too. Now BG1, that i would replay with a more modern engine.

Anyway, did someone try this? How's the difficulty? Do party members stay dead if they are killed?

 

[circ]

Tags: Neverwinter Nights 2

Are you tired of popping the moles in today's shooters cRPGs?
Then you could try this complete remake of Icewind Dale in the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine.

Yes, even Icewind Dale is getting better with every year going by.

Tired of my life? Not so tired that I'd want to commit cerebral suicide by trying to play anything in one of the worst engines ever made.

 

[circ]

In fact I think it's one of the first 3D RPGs that looked as good as the 2D stuff in the late 90s/early 2000s.

0/10

 

[Cynic]

There was a guy who was recreating the TOEE engine, he had some good tech demos done as well where he had improved some animations etc., I'm not sure where it's at though I think the guy was some nazi name was Darkstorm

 

[Quetzacoatl]

There was a guy who was recreating the TOEE engine, he had some good tech demos done as well where he had improved some animations etc., I'm not sure where it's at though I think the guy was some nazi name was Darkstorm

http://www.co8.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=53
Looks abandoned to me.

 

[Cynic]

He made commits to the repository in July last year so I wouldn't call it totally abandoned https://gitorious.org/~shartte

 

[Quetzacoatl]

He made commits to the repository in July last year so I wouldn't call it totally abandoned https://gitorious.org/~shartte

Fuck you, now you got my hopes up. I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[Cynic]

Join us in misery, it's the only way.

 

[PorkaMorka]

The additional attacks were a far better reason in 2E where casters never got more than 1 attack. Otoh you would just dual-class after gaining all those attacks at lvl13. What's the difference in a game like NWN2 between a fighter lvl30 and a pal 2/Sorc 8/EK 10/Swiftblade 10 ? Let's see, the fighter has 30 BAB and 6 attacks, whereas the sorcerer has... 26BAB and 6 attacks. :shock: And then there's the tiny little difference that he's a level 23 caster on top of it, which I presume makes him "dead weight" as soon as he's out of spells. Makes sense.

Thanks for reminding us about the multiple attacks thing.

So in 2E, fighters got multiple attacks when nobody else did (and multiple attacks were at the full chance to hit), got percentile strength when nobody else did AND got extra hit points for 17 and 18 constitution when nobody else did.

Plus, in 2nd edition, divine casters were forced to memorize healing spells if they wanted to heal. Memorizing healing spells meant less power spells.

But in third edition every single one of these restrictions on casters was removed. Percentile strength was eliminated and a fighter's 18 strength was made equal to a cleric's 18 strength. A fighter's 18 constitution was made equal to a cleric's 18 constitution. A cleric could get multiple attacks just like a fighter, although they'd come a bit slower, they'd actually be more effective due to plentiful buffs to help with the low BAB for attacks beyond the first.

And a cleric no longer had to memorize a single freaking heal spell, he could memorize nothing but power spells.

There is really no doubt that in the high stats, core rules focused, low creativity environment of a CRPG, warrior class characters had a lot more to offer in 2E than in the 3E, especially in games where they can't even use half of 3E's feats and tactical options due to real time with pause bullshit.

Heck, in the majority of the 2nd edition non blob CRPGs, the party of choice for power gamers included multiple warrior characters.

 

[Grunker]

Wow Porka.

Just wow.

Your logic is so flat-out retarded I wonder if you are trolling?

For one thing, you mention all these changes to the casters, but make no mention of the fact that fighters now get a shit-ton of feats. Mind you, fighters are insanely underpowered but they are in 2E too. What I'm saying is you suffer so much from tunnel-vision that you make a whole post talking about small changes to the casters, saying how fighters lost fucking percentile strength (WOW WHAT A NERF), and not even for a second do you stop to wonder that Trip-monkey or Leap-attacker are infinitely more useful than any 2E fighter ever.

With supplements, Book of Nine Swords make melee fighters work for the first time in D&D history.

Jesus.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Wow Porka.

Just wow.

Your logic is so flat-out retarded I wonder if you are trolling?.

I dunno, I think you are bringing some of our previous debates into this one, causing us to talk at cross purposes. It's partially my fault for being a bit careless about which topics I engaged you on so far this thread.

My original point in this thread was that in a real time with pause game, 3rd edition doesn't function very well, because the detailed tactical options are left out and certain balance problems become magnified.

So your discussion of a bunch of feats which are most excluded from the real time games is not that relevant. Fighters in third edition get extra feats as one of the their core class abilities. But it is widely agreed that this isn't quite enough to bring them up to par. That means things will be much worse in a real time CRPG where most of those feats aren't implemented anyway. (Especially when the feats aren't implemented but most of the buffs are.)

Sure, the damage feats are usually implemented, but we both agree they're not enough (and fighters already got this kind of thing in 2E via weapon specialization).

What I'm saying is you suffer so much from tunnel-vision that you make a whole post talking about small changes to the casters, saying how fighters lost fucking percentile strength (WOW WHAT A NERF), and not even for a second do you stop to wonder that Trip-monkey or Leap-attacker are infinitely more useful than any 2E fighter ever.

In a real time CRPGs? Or only in P&P? (NWN2 doesn't even have trip as a concept).

Percentile strength, bonus hit points for high constitution and multiple attacks may not be game changers but unlike feats they were always implemented in CRPGs. Percentile strength wasn't that minor either. Clerics were stuck with 18 strength, with a measly +1 to hit and +2 to damage, but warriors could potentially go as high as +3 to hit and +6 to damage, from the very beginning.

It is also worth remembering how much better the fighter's multiple attacks were in 2nd edition, full chance to hit and the highly problematic "full attack action" concept didn't exist yet.

Weapon and armor restrictions for casters were also more significant, especially in a core rules (CRPG) environment. (no 100s of specialty priests to pick from).

Perhaps these things are of minor importance in P&P where creative spellcasting rules the day but in a CRPG where everything is about numbers, they generally provided plenty of incentive to bring several warrior class characters in the 2E games.

And spontaneous casting? Utterly game changing in a system where selecting your spells ahead of time used to be a major balancing factor. (which forced you to mostly just memorize healing spells).

So yeah, I stand by my comments, although I don't think they were worth anywhere near this much typing.

 

[Grunker]

It is also worth remembering how much better the fighter's multiple attacks were in 2nd edition, full chance to hit and the highly problematic "full attack action" concept didn't exist yet.

At the point you've got even 1½ attacks I have a spell that blocks - not reduces damage from, BLOCKS - 8 attacks. So have fun having to roll to-hit with attacks that will never deal more 15-20 damage (you don't even have the option to power attack) while I launch sure-fire hits against you for 40 damage a pop. You give me a shout when you're through 7 of my skins so I can cast it again. Maybe a mirror image if you by some miracle have been able to tank your way through two skins?

they generally provided plenty of incentive to bring several warrior class characters in the 2E games.

NWN fighters can power attack and knock-down. Baldur's Gate fighters can just swing-a-ling. Also, to chew through defensive spells the fighters can deal damage or at least get the lucky crit. Baldur's Gate fighters can stand helpless by while the wizard laughs in their face.

And I repeat: Even if I was somehow incorrect, the difference is so marginal, so small, that any point is moot. Fighters in D&D are pathetic. Always have been.

 

[Jasede]

I feel like you are ignoring the (good) points I raised.

 

[Grunker]

Jasede: Sorry. I actually replied yesterday on my way to the cinema but the reply apparantly didn't "go through."

Running out of spells: Post level 10, this is not going to happen unless you specifically impart a forced 'no-rest' into the adventure. At all other times, the party's fighters will be more than happy to pause and rest - their wizard's rest is their bigger chance of survival. I.e. they won't run out of spells unless you impart no-rest on them (again, proving my point). Let's say that all your campaigns have extremely long treks with no-rest zones; then my point still stands. You are imparting a conditional modifiers specifically to balance wizards and fighters, thus proving how unbalanced they are. I'd argue you're a bad DM if you do this, it's a rare person who plays D&D to be completely useless half of the time. But, as with many of your arguments, this hinges on DM-styles. We can only discuss RAW, maybe in a stretch pre-written adventures. In both those cases, casters rock the fuck out of fighters. Even in your no-rest zones casters can use very reasonable supplements (the complete books) to gain reserve-feats, thus having endless pizazz.

Anti-magical zones: I might ask: "What if the adventure happens to take them into a grease-filled area where movement is impossible?" "Rooms of anti-this-class" are plausible against all classes, it has nothing to do with power-level. In fact, they happen more often against fighters, because all environmental impairment EXCEPT total anti-magic impair fighters more than wizards. It's also extremely conditional: In a complete anti-magic campaign, your players won't have fun playing casters. I'm playing in a campaign called The Weave Trilogy at the minute, and it actually imparts very big penalties to casters in the form of dead magic zones and penalties to caster levels in many zones. Guess what? Casters still rock fighters.

Closing point: I'm responding to you as if only Wizards and Sorcerers existed by the way. Clerics can act as pseudo-fighters even with no spells, a Druid will top a fighter any day and has a pet that is probably almost as good as the party's fighter on top. The bottom line is that through 14 years of playing experience in a huge variety of different styles of campaigns, D&D fighting-types are problematic. Book of Nine Swords and Pathfinder are the first attempts to rectify this properly. The first fails because it falls into the "fighters-are-like-casters" a bit too much, but it's better than nothing. The second fails because casters are still better, albeit they scale much better now (two-weapon-fighting dual-wielding shields fighter that bull rushes on each hit is a hilarious build that continues to be good until levels 14-15 or so).

 

[Jasede]

Well, it sounds like you have more experience than me in this matter so I will have to defer to you. Personally I'd still feel uncomfortable without at least one bulky dude "just in case" certain situations arise. Not to mention that, of course, you definitely do need Fighter-types in those problematic levels 1-6 or so.

...well, unless you allow for creative summoning, I suppose.

 

[Spectacle]

Conclusion: fighters in both 2nd and 3.5 ed suck, play D&D 4th ed.

 

[Grunker]

Well, it sounds like you have more experience than me in this matter so I will have to defer to you. Personally I'd still feel uncomfortable without at least one bulky dude "just in case" certain situations arise. Not to mention that, of course, you definitely do need Fighter-types in those problematic levels 1-6 or so.

...well, unless you allow for creative summoning, I suppose.

Bulky type? What's wrong with a druid? . And I think we can agree that it's shitty design that someone needs to play a character from 1-6 that they can then throw into the trash.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make isn't so much "you're wrong!" it's that the 2E vs. 3E fighter-debate is a matter of: "WHICH FIGHTER-DESIGN IS WORST? THE EXTRMELY HORRIBLE ONE OR THE EXTREMELY HORRIBLE ONE?" . I.e. let's agree that as much as we love D&D, and as much as we can criticize broken supplements and 4E, at least they tried to fix this problem.

 

[Jasede]

I've never played P&P before, actually. I imagine everyone wants to be the wizard!

 

[Grunker]

Nah. With all supplements lots of non-casters are viable. It's just that most of those builds use caster-like mechanics.