Pop

Other people's AI must be a lot smarter than mine For example, in the later parts of the game I had come across a lich and a bunch of vampires. They wiped me out a few times, cause of the lich's fear aura, but eventually I just ran a guy out, and about half of the vampires took the bait, running to my character into the next room, but the rest of the undead just sat there. I was able to kick the vamps' ass, rest up and prepare, and then wipe up the rest. Divide and conquer It's wierd, I've certainly experienced the swarming tendencies of the enemy AI, but I haven't seen them run to fight when the fighting wasn't in their direct field of vision. I think the difference might have been, especially in the earlier fights against duergar and such, that the enemies are programmed to seek you out when you enter a certain radius, and other enemies are programmed to fight only when you directly come across them. My big stupid battle was that was tough. Better the second time around, though. Oh yeah, that whole level blew <_< the description said "effortless", too! :angry: I think the trick was to cast light on my people, and the fights seemed to go better.

Therein lies the rub. I get the sense that resting is way more powerful and useful than it should be (if they hadn't made it automatic full-heal and added a random encounter or two, it would have been much more balanced) but the only maps you can't rest in are a few, small basement-type areas with no more than 2 or 3 battles. Making, say, the orc caves a place where you couldn't rest would have just made it a pain in the ass. Most people would just leave the area to rest. The problem with NWN2 is that it has these big dungeons, and making rest impossible is unfeasible, even if it would be preferrable. However, it's not something that can't be fixed. I remember NWN1 having many of the same issues (except that, uh, you actually died sometimes) but they amended the system for the expansions and balanced it out a bit. I have no doubt they'll do the same here.

NWN2 remedies this problem by having the enemies in rooms two and three come charging out towards you when they hear the fighting going on in room one. If you can't get out of combat, your character doesn't get back up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> O rly? In my experience it depends on whether or not there's a door impeding the enemies' field of vision. I'm not sure if the enemies are capable of opening doors, but I don't think I've ever seen one actually do it. And that's not all to say that NWN2 is a cakewalk. There are plenty of fights in which your entire party will get wiped out, especially when fighting demons. In the later parts of the game, when you can get a rod of resurrection and your clerics can cast mass-heal, though, you're tough to beat.

Fun? Yes. Challenging? Less so than it perhaps should be. Shouldn't death in games be more than a mere inconvenience? I prefer something like BG had. For example, you have 3 consecutive rooms with enemies in them. If one of your fighters dies in BG in that first room, you're at a significant disadvantage in the next two. If you don't have a raise dead spell + plenty of healing or a resurrection spell on hand, you're in for a steep challenge. You'll have to high-tail it back to a temple. In NWN2, provided you get far enough away from the people in the next room, death is no problem even if you don't have the spells to remedy it. Poison and disease become bigger issues than death. Doesn't that seem a little off?

Pretty doubtful. The Hollows was basically intended to be an "intro to Crossroad Keep". As such, it was very complicated, though simpler than CK. People don't seem to have that much difficulty operating CK and Act 1 is already pretty long. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can never have too much cool stuff. But I understand. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see how they could realistically patch that in. They'd have to change a whole lot of stuff in Acts 2 & 3 to accomodate it, if they were going to even acknowledge that it had been added in. At this point I'd be satisfied if it was well-used in some mods.

Has anybody else done quests and not been able to get rid of the quest items? I ended the game with Tor's holy symbol I don't know if that's an oversight, or maybe it's a bug, or what. Because some quest items disappear when the quest is over, but some don't.

Got something against Kenya? I assure you, I've seen worse looped animations in my time. *Edit - Case in point. Epileptics beware.

Space is Fun

I HATE THAT SONG. Plaid - Quick emix Black Dog - Stratus Bauhaus - King Volcano

But aren't Democrats actually Libertarians? From where I'm standing they seem to be economically right wing, and socially left wing. As opposed to republicans who appear to be right wing on both counts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. Democrats tend to be liberal on both economic (as in, regulation) and social issues, whereas libertarians are conservative on economic issues and usually pretty liberal on social issues. They're small-government types, "rugged individualists" who preach civil liberty and states' rights, and a classical libertarian will say that the government shouldn't enforce economic control (they tend to promote "Invisible Hand" non-regulatory capitalism, and it's where they tend to lose a lot of their credibility) as a Republican might, but they'll also say that the government shouldn't restrict an individual from buying and using drugs, as a Democrat might. So generally, the libertarian view is that the right to be married is not something that should be restricted by the federal government. The fact that they line up with the Dems here is happenstance, as they're at it for different reasons. Dems want gay marriage to be legal. Libertarians don't want gay marriage to be illegal.

There's no 'policy' of the Republican party, at least the way you seem to be implying. It's more like a set of opinions or beliefs that or more commonly associated with members of said party. It's not as if though that someone who's a Republican is compelled to vote Republican. As for you example of gay marriage, a person can be supportive of gay marriage but still vote Republican. For example the candidate the person's voting for my be in support of gay marriage as well, despite being a Republican. It also depends on why the person's voting for that candidate. The candidate might be against gay marriage, but a person might vote for that person because he or she thinks that candidate would be best suited to govern a city/state/nation than the other candidate. The voter might disagree with the person on some issues, but still believe him or her to be a better choice than the democratic candidate. It's not as if gay marriage is the only deciding issue in said election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In that case I don't see the point of belonging to a political party in the US. A political party, by the definition has a certain political agenda that it adheres to, more or less faithfully, and that agenda is what sets congressmen votes in Congress. And that's why it's important for a political party to get an absolute majority in Congress (or any other form of assembly). So that it can pass any bills regardless of the opposition's agenda. This means that a lesbian woman who votes Republican is effectively screwing itself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A lesbian is a "she" not an "it" But yes, you're essentially correct. The official view of the Republican party is that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The dissension within the party on the matter of gay marriage comes with whether or not the constitution should be amended to say that explicitly. Paleoconservatives and libertarians, while not being huge on gay rights, are huge on keeping the constitution as static as possible. It's the reason why the issue was killed in the Republican Congress and left to the states.

this is the same as saying that everyone should vote party line. if a voter truly thinks for himself, he'll vote based on who he thinks is the best candidate for the job overall, regardless of a few stray ideals. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nonsense. If a voter thinks for himself, but likes his politics pragmatic rather than idealistic (as well he should), he'll vote for candidates based on their party. If you're looking at independents, then yes, look at their ideals, so you can best align them with a party and vote accordingly. Democrats and Republican candidates don't join their caucusses for the recognition their titles give them, they join because those parties have platforms and theses they are willing to uphold through their legislation. A Democrat/Republican wouldn't be a Democrat/Republican if he wasn't committed to at least basic Democrat/Republican values, and voters would do well to remember that, and take into account exactly what being a Democrat/Republican entails, rather than what a Democrat/Republican promises on the campaign trail.

Well, there aren't that many houses around you can loot in NWN2. Things in containers about town, however, have always been fair game in RPGs. It would have made a lot more sense had they instituted a law/chaos penalty for looting houses you're purging of baddies, ala SoU, but I guess it just wasn't an issue in this game.

thirsty damn NPCs, aren't they? i'm betting they get hit for 2 HP and down a cure critical to heal it. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. Khelgar had over 150 HP, so he'd take 70 damage and then start quaffing potions as he was taking hits, thus ensuring he stayed around 100/150 HP and continually using the potions.

Basically what happens is, Aldanon gets kidnapped and brought to this Keep, which you liberate from the clutches of evil and save the day, and then they give you it to fix up and man. Nasher's actions still run contrary to the LN alignment, though. A LN character wouldn't break the law, even in order to save the law, because the law is valuable in and of itself.

I don't know about that, Not very LN if you ask me.

Then your answer is no. The implication was that an archconservative would **** up civil liberties. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks. Just making sure! Just don't forget that a Dem controlled senate could always have the possibility of electing an archliberal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They have the possibility to elect one if one is put before them, but that's not going to happen. What we're likely going to see more of are moderate conservative judges in the mold of Roberts, less staunch conservatives in the Alito / Thomas / Scalia mold. But there's no way Bush is ever going to farther left than O'Connor.

Really? Do tell more. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All the more I will tell is that you should experiment more... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bollocks. Tell us more :ph34r: *Edit - The "edit" button is your friend, Joseph Bulock ^_^

Then your answer is no. The implication was that an archconservative would **** up civil liberties.

Are you implying that it's impossible for an archliberal to **** up our civil liberties? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Senate confirms or rejects, they don't nominate, and Bush wouldn't nominate an archliberal. So it really doesn't matter in this case.

There's no way in a cold hell that Congress is going to investigate the executive branch thoroughly. They might go after Cheney's energy deals, but even that's risky. Much as it would energize their base, investigative actions into things that happened over 4 years ago would alienate a lot of voters, and politicians are in the businesses of politics first and governance second, and going after the White House wouldn't do anything for either.

Happens to me all the time. You just have to make a character you really like before you can pull it through. Take some time and create the character in your head before you play the game. Have a character concept, take it a bit beyond the RPing of the game. For example, if you want to have, say, a tiefling priest, you could create him such that he purpose in life is to fight and banish demons of his bloodline, so you make him a lawful neutral-aligned priest with the Protection and War domains, and give him fire resistance and will save bonuses, and shoot him towards warpriesting. Given the nature of the things he fights, he's never willing to compromise, and is always impatient, and acts as such. I find fleshing a character out like that that, instead of playing the character on the fly, helps to make one get "attached" to a character more easily It doesn't always work, since your planning doesn't really come out in the game very often, but it helps sometimes.

Now it's official Dem control of the Senate is worth it if only because now an archconservative won't be elected to the Supreme Court, and thus our civil liberties will not be ****ed with in some backwards attempt at "constructionist" jurisprudence.

When I played the game as a drow, the spell-like abilities were secondary to the spell resistance. With the second safeguard of improved evasion that monks have, I never took more than 5% of my HP in damage from any spell, if the spell even touched me.

I found it odd that Nasher is portrayed as LG in this game, whereas in NWN1 he was more portrayed as an **** LN, especially in light of the executions he performed. I was really hoping to see that guy again