NPCs experiment. Do you like it?

Shiningted, don't even dare to yell at me again or I'll have to change the good opinion that I have about you, thinking to you as a very mean person and a kid that just cry stumping feet on the ground when something goes against his caprices. Effect, consequence: up to you.
Since you copied my answers, I ask you a new question: tell my why they don't. I don't want to listen other people's answers (thus feedback is always wellcomed), I want YOURS.
I already know that you could only answer: "just because they are different from the original AD&D ToEE module", but this is not a good reason enough to reject changes, like more suitable equipment, smarter feats accordingly with class, background and intelligence, a bit of multiclassing that is in line with NPC background and that was hardly impossible in AD&D due to rules, because it is only your personal opinion, it is not based on game functionality but only on your personal feelings and you don't represent the whole forum. Often, people tells at me "you don't think about game functionality when you make changes to protos or you critic troika's choices (mistakes, I would say)". Now that I'm thinking about it, you just try to impose your very personal tastes on my work without answering with any costructive answer and you avoid to answer some of the most important questions. You prefer to have the game "pure" instead than have some more gameplay option, more variety and some once-useless NPC really worthy of being used. And what when (if) the community will start to add new areas or new NPCs or, generally, new contnents to the game? Will you start to botch new ideas just because, in your humble opinion, they don't fit the original game spirit? Don't even dare to answer that the same is for me, because I asked for a reasoned feedback before posting something as a new standard.
We are a community and we MUST find a common point if we want to keep modding this game together. I know that I have an head that is harder more than granite but I tell you this: only stupids never change their mind. I'm not stupid, but I wont' change it unless somebody gives me some VALID ARGUMENTATION, thing that actually you are not giving.

About Elmo and Otis, I tell you this: fighters or rangers it make few difference for me. In verity, I like more Otis as a ranger, since it better works as an intruder but, making changes, I will do them in my style, so forget elmo being a pure ranger and still with his chainmail and large shield. More, since Otis always holds his bow, I would like to make him a bow-oriented ranger, but I don't know what command I have to write in the protos among the feats, so that he chooses the bow style. For 2-weapons fighting it is "feat two weapons fighting ranger", what the mirror feat for archery?

And another thing: Otis *may* be a better smith than brother smith since the skill "profession" is a class skill for every class and Otis is a 10th level character, while brother smith is a 3rd level druid. Of course, I will be always against making him the main masterwork-crafter smith since they are too useful for being assigned to a recruitable NPC and for the other reason that masterwork gear must be available from the beginning. Of course, it depends from us and from how we image that he spent his skill points while leveling up.

 

Once more, with feeling. :raving:

An instant classic. This is a public message board, 0rion79. Shiningted didn't "impose his personal taste", he merely voiced his opinion.

 

No, Morpheus. He did more than giving his opinion after that I democratically offered to relase 2 versions of the protos: one for the forum where I will only fix things without changes to NPCs and one for me, that I'll share for the ones that like it.
As soon as he keeps to answer "it is wrong just because I don't like it" he is making negative critics on the concept behind the changes, no more on them.

Since it is clear that I wasn't understood, and I want to be extremely clear to avoid further misunderstandments, I want to make you another example.
Take Elmo. Let's say that I made him a barbarian or a paladin. Even if strong and well balanced, everybody would have rightfully something to argue because:
1 - elmo DOES NOT ACT as a lawful person and can't be a paladin
2 - being a barbarian goes against the fact that he is a person that lives in a civilized city.
3 - both classes does not match his description nor his dialogues nor his actions in the game nor his role.
4 - some considerations could be: "I think that you should keep him a pure-class ranger, since he lacks the discipline to become a warrior specialized with axes, or because other class levels would slow his ranger progression too much or" ... answers could be endless.
This is a good feedback and those are good reasons to say what he should not be or what he should be, not "just because", like Shiningted kept repeating all the time. Instead, if the description says, imaging it, that Elmo is a valiant warrior, friend of nature and animals and an expert guide of the surrounding area, then it is a good reason for making him a ranger, but with modern rules he could be a multiclass NPCs that mainly levels up as ranger and has someother class level, like 4 warrior levels (neutral class) for weapon specialization with war axe, without altering the NPC background and fighting style.
More, in AD&D rangers were allowed to wear heavier armors than 3.5 rangers, that's why he holds a chainmail. 3.5 rangers don't even have proficiency with medium armors so, restoring him as a full ranger would still mean to change his starting equipment and there is no trouble at all in changing his dialogues accordingly. Even if I would leave him unmodified, with a bunch of fighter levels and then dualclassing to ranger accordingly with the levelup.tab, don't you think to a player that recruits Elmo and then has to deal with his starting equipment that becomes unuseful almost immediately when Elmo begins to level up as ranger, gaining combat style and evasion, that are made useless by the chainmail? It is all extra weight and stolen space in his backpack. Thanks to Liv, this problem is partially sloved, since the party still has to pay for elmo's items, but it is not a marginal matter that is unworthy of attention.
Thinking as Shiningted, then so many NPCs should not be able to do a lot of things or should be able to do things that they are no more allowed to do.
this Temple of Elemental Evil is an adaptation from AD&D ToEE to 3.5: consequently it is unfair and wrong to pretend to keep NPC esactly as they were before, as well not to use the new equipments and skills available now. Rules change, NPCs change too.
At last, since I asked for a feedback, I expected a real feedback, not somebody that dismissed my efforts, making only negative critics, without giving alternatives and adding as reason only his personal tastes instead than a reasoned answer. That's why I don't like what he wrote and I am instead thankfull to Cujo, Oldbook and the others that gave me their feedback even if against my efforts. Is it clear now?
And I have a good idea: Shiningted, we put a stone over it and start over: please quote the first post and commend one by one each change, telling WHY you don't like changes or why you like them and, when you don't like them, please post some alternative for a well-done and definitive job. Deal?

 

It's really quite simple - you ask if people like your changes. Someone says he doesn't. You completely fly off the handle. It's quite clear for me and everyone else that you have a problem with criticism. I suggest you quiet down the tone of your posts, because I don't want to see people flaming each other on these boards.

Shiningted told you that he didn't like some of the changes because they don't fit the NPC's character and stray too far from the original module. For me, that is a perfectly valid reason. He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are to yours.

And for the record, I think some of your changes are a good idea. Others are slightly controversial, like turning Bertram into a ranger. Maybe we could discuss this topic without insulting each other?

@Allyx: No need to add fuel to the fire! Please.

 

Oh, no... Allyx is right to say that I speak too much. It depends from my will to be clear but often it brings to too long posts, where the message may be not recived by the reader.
Dear morpheus, if you say "You completely fly off the handle. It's quite clear for me and everyone else that you have a problem with criticism.", it means that you still didn't get my message.
In other words, I'm not upseted with Shiningted because he doesn't like what I did, never mind! I respect his ideas, even if I absolutely don't share them, and that's why I offered him to choose among this protos.tab or the previous one for Drifter's CON fix his mod. It is just about HOW and WHY he did the critics and I already expressed the reasons for wich I don't like the ones of that kind, otherwise I would have had the same reaction with Cujo and OldBook, don't you think?
And yes, I would really like everybody's opinion, so that I can "accept CRITICISM, and use it CONSTRUCTIVELY, to make a better go of it next time.", but they must be cosnstructive ones, like in the samples that I did in the previous post. I asked for them from the beginnin.

In life there are objective and subjective things. Tastes are subjective; the fact that a constructive debate, where opinons are shared with respect and opposition suggests valid alternatives, is objectively better than a destructive one where opposition just refuses new proposals without argumenting.

I go to make logges, this is the last post for the next 2 weeks and half: good summer to everybody, I hope to read more about this and to try Shiningted & Cujo's mod when I'm back the 17th. Ciao to everybody!
E aggiungo anche, speriamo che il cibo non faccia schifo e che le ragazze siano all'altezza delle aspettative, hihihihih...

 

Two cents more...

It seems I missed a lot on this, and for sure I would have stated negative opinions on most (if not all) of the changes. I say mod away if you choose; offer it up for others to test if they wish; accept opinions for what they are. But don't expect me to fall in love with what was done, and gripe when I tell you what I don't like about it, especially when you've asked me what I think. I can tell you just by reading your changes that I do not like or agree with them, and have no intention of ever trying them.

Elmo is a ranger. He uses an axe. He is pretending to be something of an over-indulgent man-at-arms type (hence the weapon and armor choices) for a reason...he is spying on the party for the forces of good, and gathering information on the Temple. He's there on a mission, and doesn't need to be a rogue to do it. Same with Otis. And his follower, Murfles. And Y'Dey. And all the others. If their feats aren't perfect, so what? Tweak things a little, sure. Make them better, though, not just different. If you think your changes are better, fine...have fun and play away...

But don't expect me to play them.

PS...The groom is the guy in the barn behind the trader's establishment grooming horses. His other job is agent of evil. Please don't make him a dentist or some other BS because then Bertram might really have to start adventuring to make a living...!

 

Is it possible to change a non-recruitable npc to one that can join? Say editing the .dlg files, etc, or is it hardcoded and can't happen?

 

well every one has there price, i'll give you $1000000 to sleep with your wife. Nah just being silly, but seriously I think that some NPCs should be hireable for a masive price, 10000 gold to hire and a 5X share of the loot sort of thing, most people would tell them where to stick it, but thats life for ya.

 

I'm a bit confused about all this heated debate.
According to the original module, Elmo is supposed to be an axe-weilding ranger.
so why give a ranger from a small town an exotic dwarven weapon just because, as a ranger, he's supposed to dualwield? That doesn't make sense.
Why not just make a size_small axe, a hatchet-like weapon maybe, and make him dual weild that along with his battle axe +1? make the hatchet +1, and he could have that instead of his dagger +1.
he wants chain armour, so making it a chain shirt +1 wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

there. give the man four levels in ranger, two weapon fighting style, and bam. problem solved.

i don't know about Otis. he could either be an archery focused ranger, or a shield/longsword combo oriented fighter who can function as a backup archer (maybe 5 levels ranger, archery and 5 levels fighter, focus melee). and give him a chain shirt too.

as it is now, i think he's a bit too overpowered. of course, he also leaves your party after a while, but still.