Debating Buying Need Advice

Lord Plothos · Post by **Lord Plothos** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:38 pm

It's not that patch 3 blocks mods, but rather that the mods are all written to work with the files as they are in patch 2. Patch three changes some stuff around and then the modded stuff looks for files in the wrong place or reads the wrong section of a file or some such and you've got problems.
Temple.zip is a completely unobjectionable mod that fixes the single thing 3 does, plus some others that 3 left out, so everybody is perfectly happy to ignore the fact that 3 was ever released. There's just no reason to use it, and it'll cause problems with any mods you want to use.

As for traps, unmodded (Liv changed this, as I understand it), in ToEE the only thing that is ever trapped is a locked chest. Thus, just search whenever you encounter a chest that shows the padlock icon when you hover over it. It'll say "found something" above you and something like "spotted a trap" in green over the chest. Use disable device to disarm it (failure by less than 5 (?) will not set it off, but will not disable it; failure by 5 or more will set it off; success will make all hunky-dorey).

PS: I read today a thread by Livonya in which she refers to "balancing" her mod, by which she means making it so difficult that you should EXPECT to have characters dying FREQUENTLY. She seems to think playing any other way is cheating yourself of the true ToEE experience. I'm definitely staying away. Sounds aggravating. Myself, I play games to have fun, not get dallied on the strings of some modder who sees fit to stack the deck against me. I guess I'm weird that way.

Others seem to like her work so far.

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:16 pm

Thanks again and Easy Death !?!

Got it in regards to 3.0, I'll download Temple.zip.

Making death more frequent is disconcerting to me as well. I have several concerns here:
1. If death is more common and SHOULD BE EXPECTED, I believe (IMHO) that it makes death less meaningful and something that gamers will not care about if it happens. Makes death seem like nothing more than the flu. "I died, no big deal. Just raise dead and let's go again." This attitude seems more in line with a FPS type of video/arcade game where you get whacked several times until you learn the combination of clicks that gets you passed an encounter. "I died, hit reset and go again." I personally don't care for FPS's. Dead is something to be avoided, not expected. It really cheapens death to me.

2. This seems (again to me) to skew the reason for playing D&D. To me, the joy of playing both Pen & Paper and computer RPG D&D is to create a character (or characters) that will be able to successfully accomplish a heroic quest (or quests). Hopefully, without dying, but if that happens the means are there to come back and redeem the situation. But to think of Raise Dead as a standard everyday spell like a heal just doesn't seem right.

3. This will result in fewer people using elven characters. Unless 3.5 changes the rules concerning elven characteristics, Elves can ONLY be brought back by a Resurrection Spell. Raise dead will NOT work on them. No one will want to pay for Resurrections on a regular basis. Even with level cap removed, it will take a 13th (or 14th) level cleric to cast Resurrection. So it will be a long time before the party can cast it's own. Easy fix, don't use Elves.

4. Isn't difficulty level a choice anyway in the game? In ToEE's case, Ironman setting?

Who ever said death should be more frequent in D&D in the first place? In playing pen & paper D&D I have had many characters over the years, some have died, some have not. NONE of them, despite being in numerous campaigns, died more than once. My favorite character (an elven fighter/mage) was in a group of 7 characters and 2 regular NPC's. Of that group, 5 PCs and 1 NPC died (once apiece only) over the course of several major campaigns. The deaths were usually because of doing something risky or outright dumb. My character made it through without dying, he faced dragons on three occasions (an ancient green that accounted for 3 of the 6 deaths above), a very powerful arch lich, and many other equally deadly foes. Several times I thought that this would be it for my character. My point is that by playing smart and resourcefully, a PC can be challanged without rigging the game toward death.

Sorry this is so long. Guess the idea bugs me too.

Lord Plothos · Post by **Lord Plothos** » Tue May 03, 2005 2:33 pm

Well, I personally could not agree more. " could try, but would not be successful." -- Russ (the other Ross).

Seriously, the whole raise dead thing is supposed to be (to my mind) a safeguard against building a character to epic proportions and then losing him through a few unlucky rolls or a even a moment of poor judgment. It was never intended to be a common thing and "no big deal". For one thing, that's why there's a substantial experience penalty involved (and it's not larger only because too much will cause large party imbalances if one character dies and the others do not). You need to have death as a real, live threat, or else the game loses it's punch (you NEED to feel threatened by the ancient dragons), but it also loses something if it becomes commonplace. It becomes, as you say, like a reset button. "So we didn't kill the dragon this time. We'll try again later. Ho hum."

But I guess there is a real discrepancy between video gamers and pnp gamers here. Many video gamers seem to feel the harder the better, period, and if you die a lot and still manage to wind up winning in the end that means you've REALLY accomplished something. I have two gripes with this line of thought: 1) I don't play a computer game to ACCOMPLISH anything, and if you think you have there's something wrong. 2) A game with absurdly hard encounters in which you accept that you'll die a lot, deal with it, and muddle through to the end, covered in scars is no less impressive, to me, than making your way through the easier game without ever dying: the latter just seems more heroic, while the former just sounds like you have a higher tollerance for pointless and contrived aggravation.

Of course, that's just my two cents. I hold nothing against those who play this way. I'm expressing my own view, not putting forth one I think anybody should adopt.

Philos · Post by **Philos** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:53 pm

Exactly!!

Totally agree. You said:
"You need to have death as a real, live threat, or else the game loses it's punch (you NEED to feel threatened by the ancient dragons), but it also loses something if it becomes commonplace."
That is precisely what was running through my mind when I was writing my last reply.

I too strongly suspect a leaning toward the video game mindset you mentioned in this mod. I will NOT be using it.

In that dragon encounter I spoke of, our party had 6 of the 7 PC's, and both NPC's, we were of pretty good level (can't remember what at the moment), and had survived some pretty hairy scrapes, so we knew we were no wimps. BUT when that dragon appeared we all thought the same thing, to quote Han Solo: "I have a bad feeling about this." Besides the 3 deaths, 3 more were unconscious (in negatives) and only 2 still standing (my PC and an NPC). We had a great DM who always challanged us to be resourceful. That fear of Death made it the fun, exciting encounter it was. Afterall, that one still stands out in my mind years later.