What I don't prefer seeing is combining a variety of rules from different games in a mish-mash
Why do you call it mish-mash? Is
BG2 a "mish-mash" simply because it contains numerous elements from 2nd and 3rd E too? Or were the developers "mish-mashing" when they tried to create 3rdE - and obviously used some elements from older editions? I wouldn't say so.
I agree - rules are rules. But
BG2 is a game that allows us to alter these rules, or make them even better if we can. This is the greatest feat of this game in my eyes.
and say it works fine to one/several people, while many of the others don't find it logical/clean/simple.
Are you saying that these modifications on Dragons would only work for me (and maybe for several other players)?
Simply because I overstep a few (questionable) rules? I find this strange, to stick to some written words that strictly.
Remember that you are making the false assumptions that everyone's favorite mod is either Ascension/Kelsey, and everyone plays both those mods
No, I'm not saying that everyone plays these mods. I say that the MAJORITY of players play these mods.
Since all creatures would have revised scripts and abilities (as in PnP), there would be no need to install any of those improved battle components.
Neh, I don't agree with this one. What you are suggesting is to drop the whole
BG2 system and use the classic
pnp rules for a partial TC. I don't know why, but I prefer
BG2's system to classic
pnp, and I'd never change these good-old scripts and balance to the "classics". To be honest, I'd never again play 2ndE
pnp in my life (there are dozens of better RPG systems in my eyes), while I would play
BG2 over and over again.
as one where the two work in harmony with each other, not against each other
Please point me to any rules I use that would clash and result in bad gameplay...
Edited by T.G.Maestro, 08 June 2004 - 12:01 AM.