OK I think we're mixing two things here and I admit I got sidetracked as well:

- I stated at the beginning that the game is very limited with party-composition and as an example pointed out that there's no normal Thief throughout the whole game. The counter argument was that multi/dual thief is enough, to which I said that this is an example that Thieves are useless compared to arcane spell casters. I didn't even mention combat in any of my posts. My points were and still are:
1) Party-composition limit in BG2
2) Arcane spellcasters' dominance

- The point about AD&D 2nd edition rules - I totally disagree, because those are just tables with stats. It's the designer who creates the scenarios and encounters. Somehow towards the end of IWD, or its' expansion there's no such issue with mages being so dominant. Is IWD not faithful enough towards AD&D rules?

As for the story, I'm okay with leaving it at one's preference. They did what they did, I accepted long time ago that I'm the disappointed minority. That's why I rarely say anthing about BG2.

I think we're going round in circles and I'm not sure where we're really going with this. We all have our own tastes and no-one can expect every game to be perfectly crafted just for them. Also, no game is perfect - they all have their flaws. Either we think the game is good enough overall that we can overlook the perceived flaws, or we can't. It seems you wanted BG2 to be something other than what it is. I'm sorry.

As I've said before, I don't agree with you that the lack of a pure thief companion NPC translates to 'very limited party composition'. So, we will have to agree to disagree there. If you want a pure thief, you can easily start a MP game and make one - it's a problem that is easily solved (for those that even consider it a problem).

Ok, so you think Bioware should have designed the encounters differently to have fewer spellcasters, or tone down the spellcasters? A possible issue I can see with that is that, if you do that, then the player's spellcasters might then be too dominant and be relatively unopposed, which might make the game too easy. If you somehow nerf or restrict the players spellcasters to try to balance it, then you are either modifying the rules or restricting the player more. I guess my point is that I'm not convinced there is an easy way to compensate for balance issues that are inherent in the ruleset by tailoring encounters.

Maybe there is a mod available that would give the changes you are looking for?

It's been a long time since I played IWD, so I don't remember if or why spellcasters were less dominant. Iirc, in IWD the pool of available spells at higher levels is smaller (in which case it is a less faithful representation of 2nd ed D&D than BG)?

The rules do matter. In particular, the rule system has its warts:
* At low levels, attacks miss *way* too often, and those that do damage are way too deadly. It's as if everyone, both friend and foe, were using only inaccurate instant-death attacks. It is not fun when your attacks keep missing and an enemy attack gets through and one-shots your character, all because of bad dice rolls.
* As you level up, your accuracy improves, and you do eventually get a second attack, but the damage you do on hit doesn't change. At high levels (as seen in Throne of Bhaal), attacks will hit 95% of the time. (If the game were tuned a bit differently, you'd have the reverse problem.) Hence, the main thing you get for leveling up becomes useless at this point. (At least they added HLAs with the Throne of Bhaal expansion, so at least you're getting *something*.)
* There's also the issue that armor doesn't reduce the damage you take; it only makes you harder to hit. In particular, at high levels, AC, and hence armor (except those with resistances or other special properties), becomes useless. This also leads to the strange situation where the best tanks are mages (especially Sorcerers), who can become outright immune to physical attacks until they take a certain number of hits (or for a certain amount of time, if you look at Protection from Magical Weapons). (By the way, I note that PfMW is an effect that is easy for a player who realizes what's going on to counter, but which the AI may have difficulties with.)

As for your IWD comment:
* The game (as well as the BG series) is not turn-based; as a result, it can't be faithful to the rules.
* Some rules, like racial level limits, are deliberately not implemented. A more faithful recreation would include rules like this, and only humans would be viable in Heart of Fury mode (and in BG2's Throne of Bhaal expansion). In any case, this rule (as well as 1e's limit on female strength) is widely considered to be a bad rule, so it makes sense for the game to break with the AD&D rules here.
* Bards get interesting songs in IWD (assuming Heart of Winter installed) that they don't get in the AD&D rules.
* The reason spellcasters aren't as powerful in IWD is that the spell list lacks the spells that make them so powerful in BG2. (I note that the Enhanced Edition adds most of those spells, so high level mages are considerably more powerful here; this is one reason some players might prefer the Classic Edition.) Take a look at the 9th level spells; IWD2 has only 2 of them, and neither are particularly exciting; furthermore, they're both in the same school, so specialists with Conjuration forbidden end up with no way to fill those spell slots.)
* I also note that scrolls are scarce in IWD, and there's also the fact that, for whatever reason, you *don't* get spell picks at level up.

It still requires going through multi-player, which is something I haven't been able to get to work with WINE.

Also, the issue is this:
* I would like a pure thief in the party (or perhaps something like a Cleric/Thief) so that I can play with the abilities they get (like setting traps and their HLAs).
* I do not want my main character to be a thief, as that is not my preferred archetype; I prefer to play casters with healing magic. (I'd prefer them to not be divine casters, but that's another topic.)

I could also point out that there's no normal Paladin; the one who joins has a kit that takes away the abilities I normally associate with the class. (There's other issues with the D&D handling of that class; if I were DM'ing 3.x, for example, I would mandate that Paladins use the Prestige Paladin variant, which fixes many of those issues.)

Simply reducing the spell list would make spellcasters less powerful without having to change the rules.

I note that many of the spells in the game are not in the core rulebooks, but rather were added by other books released later; not every group plays with those books. The sequencers and Chain Contingency are examples of this.

Also, the implementation of some spells isn't faithful; Project Image, for example, is more powerful that the AD&D spell. Limited Wish and Wish also don't really map to their AD&D equivalents, and are only approximations. (BG2's Wish spell feels more like the MAHAMAN spell from classic Wizardry, but without the level loss and with bad effects thrown into the mix, and with 5 choices instead of 3.) Raise Dead doesn't cause permanent Con loss (and I'm glad it doesn't, actually).

Also, note that Dimension Door isn't available in BG2, and Teleport spells aren't in either game.

I think you make a lot of good points and I agree with most of what you wrote.

I agree very much with the point about combat being too 'dicey' at low levels. I think the fact that damage per hit increases very little with levels compared with hit points is also a factor in why fighters are much better at low levels than higher ones. At low levels, all they need is one or two lucky hits and the opponent is dead; however, at higher levels everyone has way more hit points, but their attacks are still doing the same damage, so their potency decreases.

Ok. I haven't tried it with WINE in Linux (yet), but i don't know why MP would not work when SP does. If I try it I'll let you know if I have any success.

Good points as well. I recall that both Project Image and Simulacrum are more powerful than they are supposed to be in the pen & paper game (although both can easily be dispelled by True Sight). Although, I actually kind of like some of the crazy shit with the high-level spells in BG2. I find it kind of fun, stopping time and gating in crazy demons :-)

Sorry, I meant to get back to you sooner.

Look man, I don't think this argument is really going to go anywhere. You prefer BG1 and you have your reasons; I prefer BG2 and I have my reasons. We've both made our points. Maybe we should save ourselves some time, shake hands and agree to disagree?

There's one other game I've played, Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song, which allows you to do some of these shenanigans. It has a couple spells that stop time (though limited by the game's BP system; unlike in BG2, you can't just blow all your spells at once and then have nothing left), and it has Phantom Warrior, which is like Project Image except not so easily dispelled. The main reasons spellcasters don't break RS:MS, but do break BG2, is the BP system; in RS:MS, you need BP for spells and special attacks, you only start with a portion of it each battle, and you regenerate a certain amount each round. This is unlike BG2, where you get all your spells back when you rest, but you need to rest to get them back. (Incidentally, I actually played RS:MS *before* BG2, even though they were released in reverse order; on the other hand, the original Romancing SaGa (which has Phantom Warrior but no Time Stop effectes) came out in Japan first.

In any case, I think effects like BG2 Project Image are fun, especially since they allow you to make constant use of what would normally be limited use items without worrying about using them up. The various ways you can break BG2 are a lot more fun than how you would break FF7 (just do a side quest, get an overpowered summon, and use it to win battles in one cast (note that FF7 summons are just attack spells, not anything like BG series summons)) or Final Fantasy Tactics (accept a certain overpowered character's offer to join, then have him steamrolling everything; there's also Math skill, but that takes more work and can actually be fun).

Personally, I like the way JRPGs usually handle to-hit and damage rolls better than the way (A)D&D based games and many WRPGs handle them.

If we take a look at Dragon Quest, for example:
* Attacks hit by default, though targets usually have a small chance of dodging (with the occasional one being more likely to dodge). Hence, you won't have constant attacks missing, barring situations like Metal Slimes.
* As you level up, you do more damage per hit. This generally keeps pace with enemy HP. Similarly, more powerful enemies will do more damage when they hit you.
* Armor boosts your defense, and having higher defense will actually reduce the damage you take; it does not reduce your chance of being hit (barring special cases like the Cloak of Evasion).

Or we can look at Final Fantasy 5:
* Some weapons have an accuracy rating, and must pass an attack roll to hit. This, however, is actually not necessary for a lot of weapons; swords always pass this check, for example.
* Some enemies have a chance to evade an attack. Not all enemies do, however. Furthermore, some weapons actually pierce evasion.
* When an attack hits, the damage formula is something like (Attack - Defense) * M, where M is the only parameter that increases at level up. Attack is affected by your weapon, and it much higher for late game weapons (you go from 15 at best at the start to over 100 by endgame).

By contrast, in D&D 3e (2e's mechanics are equivalent, except for terminology and which direction AC goes):
* A random number is generated (or a d20 is rolled), an attack bonus is added, and the result is compared to the target's AC, to determine whether an attack hits.
* Level ups improve attack bonus, and armor improves AC; this only affects the chance of an attack hitting.
* The damage dealt by an attack does not depend on the attacker's level or the target's armor; only the chance to hit does.
* For this system to work, attacks have to miss a lot, so that there's room for improvement (in contrast to the other systems mentioned where the improvement is in the damage dealt); having frequent misses is what makes combat frustrating rather than fun.
* The system doesn't scale well to high levels; in fact, it's appallingly bad. As I mentioned, it's easy to end up at the point where all attacks have either 95% or 5% accuracy.
* For an extreme example of that last point, if using the 3e epic level rules, around level 4000 a 1% difference in level can man the difference between 5% and 95% accuracy. Compare this to something like Disgaea (to use a game where levels can actually get that high), and I note that Disgaea is not as swingy when there's a small power difference like that. (With that said, Disgaea still has balance issues at high levels; it's just that the scaling is not nearly as bad as D&D at such numerically high levels.)

There was never an argument. You claimed false information, and failed to prove when I asked.It is that simple.

In the end, how you "feel" about it doesn't change the facts. Because, simple vs complex and easy vs difficult are not the same things. Allow me to demonstrate that with a simple example.

Equation 1: x^4 + 5x^3 = 6x + 15. solve for x
Equation 2: x^2 = 2^x. Solve for x.

Which equation is more complex?

My High school students answered this "equation 2 is simple, because you can easily see that 2 satisfies the equation".
My Mechanical Engineering Doctorate students were NOT able to solve the 2nd equation. Because they knew the difference between finding "a solution" and actually solving the equation. Equation 2 is crazy hard to solve, with infinite answers, while the 1st one is a very simple 4rd order equation.

Do you see what I mean now? It is the difference between untrained eyes. Just like a picasso painting. When I look at them, my untrained eyes see a piece of garbage while panting experts worth them billions. But I do not question their judgement. Because wisdom is being able to respect which you don't know or what you can not understand.

Because I feel like it (and I *love* math), I'm going to look at the second of those two equations.

Looking at the graphs of each side of the second equation, I see that there are actually only 3 (real) solutions, not infinitely many.

At this point, there are really just 2 tasks that need to be done:
1. Finding the precise, perhaps even exact, values of these 3 solutions. (We already know one of them.) If one doesn't require mathematically exact solutions (which are probably irrational for the other two solutions), anyone with some mathematical knowledge and a bit of programming skill should be able to get an approximation as good as possible with double precision floating point.
2. Proving that these 3 solutions are the only ones. It shouldn't be hard to show that the solutions must be within a certain range (compare the derivatives, perhaps; I note that the second derivative of x^2 is 0), then we just need to show that there can't be any other solutions in the range.

So, I think problem 2 is manageable if you are fine with approximate solutions (to any desired degree of accuracy).

(It is worth noting, however, that you will likely need calculus for this problem.)

Very good. You used the graphical approach, which is actually one of the accepted solutions of the problem.

However, it only gives the "real" values; 2, 4 and -0,76~, which is practically useless in the real life applications of vibration analysis. The "real" values only works in a system with no dumper, in the sense that all systems are a combination of mass, spring and a dumper. Since all "real" applications involve a dumper (even as a friction), the imaginary values come into account. And since every system practically has infinite number of natural frequencies, it is logical to expect infinite solutions in the imaginary domain.

I, however, can not solve it. I saw the solution with imaginary results, it was 50 pages. I only quickly skimmed it, and I am not ashamed to admit that I didn't understand a single thing, except that it used a weird implementation of the Newton–Raphson method.

I was told there would be no math.