Can't be done without cheating. You can't have Jaheira without Khalid, and you can't have Minsc without Dynaheir and vice versa

Take them both and kill the one you don't want. Or send the unloved one bear hunting solo while naked or something.

As I said, it can't be done without cheating.

*shrug* Have the unloved ones heroically sacrifice themselves covering your retreat from a large group of bow wielding bandits.

Anyway, I DID suggest replacing Jaheira with Dynaheir, specifically pointing out fixing the pairings as part of it. If someone is already picking out final party members while ignoring the pairs, then I doubt they care much about the method of removing the pair restriction.

Unless you mean that even removing the corpse causes the survivor to leave the party? If so, I was unaware of that.

I simply mean that doing what you suggest is gaming the system, thereby cheating.

First, you need to ditch 3, since Minsc and Dynaheir are also pairs.

Suggestion 1 AKA Cannon Party: F/M(you), Imoen, Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc and Dynaheir.

Dynaheir is a mage that you save.
You, Khalid, Jaheira and Minsc can all act like a tank. I use Jaheira and Minsc as tanks in my playthroughs. I give Minsc the DEX 18 belt (was it gloves?) and he turns into a killing machine wearing full plate with at least 40% kill rate. Minsc CAN wear a full plate, he just can't hide into shadows in doing so which is not a big deal. With 18 Dex and wielding a Composite crossbow, Minsc will make sure most enemies won't even reach you. And when they do, he can switch to his 2H sword and with is exceptional strength, he can quickly slice them into pieces. Even undead fear him since he can dual wield maces, quickly turning skeletons into piles of bones.


Suggestion 2: F/M (you), Imoen, Minsc, Dynaheir, Ajantis and Branwen.

Just with Imoen and Minsc, you can overcome anything in this game really. For Imoen, I only put points into locks and traps. Minsc take off his armour and scout if needed and I never found any good use of pickpockets or other stuff.

Ah. I suspected you were using a larger definition of cheating than I was.

Since (threat of) party deaths are an inherent part of game play, especially in the first few levels, I don't consider getting characters killed to be cheating. Gaming the system somewhat just to get specific party members, sure, but not even in a way that couldn't happen outside normal game play (Khalid being an obvious frontline contender, and last night my Xan probably wouldn't have survived some rando bandits if he weren't already level 7 and Auto-Pause for Enemy Sighted). Heck, you only need to go adventuring and just be only slightly careless to get Khalid and/or Dynaheir killed.
Whoops, my mistake. Agreed about HiS for Minsc.

Metagaming, by definition, is a form of cheating.

You got a really weird point of view there sir! But I like that old-school attitude. Kinda reminds me of my old days of gaming where enjoying the game was the only agenda!

Nope but the story in BG2 will look utterly stupid because of SoD. SoD adds a ton of plot holes via its amateurish writing.

Gaming police?

Surely metagaming is just a further level of gaming — on top of the existing game?

You are freely encouraged to play the game as you like, of course, with any extra criteria that suits you; but to scold another for playing the game in a different way is a little childish, methinks.

What if a developer adds extra levels of gaming into the game, for just such experiences for those who go looking for them? You would miss out, simply by declaring the extra interpretations as "illegal", which is a pretty bizarre concept. To be clear, it's not editing the game code, it's a method of playing the game within the rules that the game has. You are outlawing innovation (that you find distasteful, obviously) which is anti-intellectual nonsense.

/2¢

You are wrong in every aspect and point of view.

"Cheats" are game codes. Would you say that using them are not cheating because they are codded into the game?

You are talking about freedom of speech and than calling that person "childish" because he states a fact. Metagaming is considered cheating everywhere. Ask Vegas police if you do not believe me.

He certainly did not scold on the other person, s/he was just giving an information. But you did do that, on the contrary to your own point.

I never read anywhere that metagaming or cheating was illegal in that post except yours.

S/he is not outlawing innovation. On the contrary encouraging it. But you do not.

You remind me that other guy who used to troll here. S/he also often contradicted him/herself. I always find it amusing when people blame others for things which they are doing themselves. Self fulfilling prophecy? Nah. Nietzsche was right. The world will keep spinning.

Obviously, he will.
the only way to resurrect a character is keep it in the party and get to the miracle-workers.

That's a bold statement.
Cheats are an interesting point. (Though the general concept of cheating is not the same as the specific case of using a programmed cheat: fallacy of the single cause.)

Yes, they are programmed into the game, but it is also true that, normally* people do not use them. (I rarely do.)

But what you are proposing is that only the "official" game rules (those that exist without the cheats, in this case) are the ONLY rules. For a game. If I want to, say, skip a boring part of a game by using a cheat-code, you may well call me a cheater. If I am not competing with anyone, though, the concept is pointless. (The cheat avoids boredom.)

Certainly the option is open to all gamers to adapt their play to incorporate extra restrictions, like a speed run, for instance.

What about a walk-through guide?
Since that doesn't require any coded short-cuts in the game, just someone to have played it first and calculated the best route through the adventure.
Freedom of speech is not the ability to make a comment without a response.
Another assertion. Let's quote him:
"Metagaming, by definition, is a form of cheating" is a declarative statement — and an accusation — both indicating that metagaming (i.e., gaming with the game mechanics) is cheating. Hence, scolding ("to find fault noisily").
My point of order was with the statement that, s/he claimed meta-gaming was by definition cheating.
So all I have to do to falsify this assertion is provide a single contrary case. Do you think I can?

Firstly, let's get the definition: Look two paragraphs above this statement, to your own third paragraph:
Talk about contradicting oneself … Perhaps you might like to explain if you are against metagaming, or for it, because I can't tell.
I'm not sure how I would be outlawing innovation by defending metagaming. Perhaps you might like to expand on that?

To be clear, I actually metagame a lot.

For example, I look for clues when playing a game. Let's use, say, KotOR 2, since I recently re-played it. I was looking for the clues the developers left for character creation, which led me to increase the rank of the security skill in order to obtain the maximum returns from loot (if you bash a locked receptacle, the contents are lost and replaced with generic components).

Or, in Shadowrun: Dragonfall, where there are fixed requirements to trigger conversations, like a minimum intelligence of the third rank for a conversation with an NPC in the second mission. (Unusually for this game, it is a hidden requirement, meaning that the conversation choice is hidden if you do not have the prerequisite.) That tells me that they encourage me to spend three valuable karma points to give my character average intelligence. That process is metagaming — tuning in to the conversation with the developer through the game.

Metagaming is interpreting the existing property gaming in new ways. Hence my comment:
And further, my point was meant to alert others to be wary of hubris. You may be very good at a game and complete it easily, but miss a lot of the content that is specifically for those who are not able to complete it quickly. And that content might be even better than the game containing it.

________
* Terms and conditions apply.