Tavern (Neverwinter Nights)
High Ylerin and you can at least meet mono in the online game NVN itself, otherwise you are here on the forum an expert on everything :) I would like to look at you in and out of where you most often play and with whom, on which shard? Persom nickname and acc pliz yours, really looking forward to!I think both games are good, but the first is still better. This is already a classic of the genre and the fact that the game is not forgotten for 6 years means something. And the second one needs to pass the test of time first. Still, in RPG modern graphics and other "eye candy" are not in the first place.
That's about the characters of the companions, here, yes, in the first part, in all add-ons they are really poor ...
Yes, the modern graph has nothing to do with it. There are many other indicators. And what they do not forget: this does not make HBH1 better than HBH2. I am happy to go through the first part as before, though addons, not basic squalor. So, I wanted to play HBN1 as an archer. What a tin. Don't Biovari love them so much?
the second test of time does not pass. compare the activity of the nvn1 community at one time and the nvn2 community now ... at least here on pg ... the difference is significant.
Unlucky13
)))))
A) The first part is a game with a sensible interface, unmatched for its time graphics and a well-thought-out system of campaigns
B) The second part is a game with a stamped plot, plagiarized characters and dialogues. poor interface.
1. both are true
2. both are false
3. true A.
4. true B.
The main company is also quite good, although it is too stretched, some plot moves are too tortured and illogical, and the ending is completely crumpled. Although, about the ending and in the second part, it was previously possible to throw a weighty stone, but an addon came out there, and in the first part only an indistinct HotU with an explanation of the end of the first part. But as far as everything was clear and verified in the first part, the second part is just as inconvenient to control. Although it may just be a matter of habit. It all resembles the ugly HoMM4 interface compared to the neat HoMM3.
And I don’t know about the “love†of Bio-creatures to archers, I prefer to wave a sword ...
Yeah, okay, okay. Do you remember the rangers there chtol? How else are you going to develop the Arcane Archer except through a warrior (in the first one this is all, in the second ranger it will do without the Arcane Archer)? And in general, there was no PRESTIGE in the first! How to explain this? Only with addons appeared (and then in the first - 5 pieces, in the second - the rest). Well at least I played all together. There are not even subraces. There are no aasimars, tieflings, elves - all the same bullshit. The preferred classes include only wizards, barbarians, rogues, and warriors. I want to play as a sorcerer-paladin. Human and half-elf are not rushing. In the second, I'll take a sun elf (or a wild one?) Or aasimar with peace of mind. Prestige was generally equated with simple classes. In the end, the classes are less than one and a half times. The chain mail shirt belongs to light armor). The bard's songs became human, and not the squalor that was in the first. That's not all.
_ _
And the interface is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowowoooooooooooo all all, I do it I'm more in the second soul. Here the feats are divided normally into groups and the F key is there and much more.
And the taste and color of all markers are different))) Especially with regard to the interface. And about subraces and prestige, well, yes ... I agree.
hack))) if in the second there would be no prestige initially it would not have been worth a damn. there would be no advance from the first. it is logical that they will be) still not full of fools in obsidian.
Sorkopal is a standard build. why don't you like him? O_O. there are subraces. Witchs wake. again, they would not exist - see the paragraph about subraces. nevertheless it is necessary to develop. AAsimars and tieflings are IMHO delusional as well as drow. does not correspond to the realities of the setting.
and the interface is a generally accepted fact))) the developers even apologized for it (unofficially, but nevertheless, and refused to change it, citing the complexity of such transformations. although I vaguely remember all this for a long time suffered from this ...)
= ---- ------- =
added .. did not play as rangers either in the first or in the second part ... but IMHO everything is more or less correct there ... bows are not ideal weapons for DND
What EXACTLY did they apologize for? I don't see anything wrong with him. The camera is generally perfect. And I see your arguments only in denial: “Yes, I don’t need it, but I can do without itâ€. Eldar here declared: "I don't need satellites, I like to run alone." It's nonsense.
_ _ _
Here it is again. "Nah archers are not needed."
I had no denial. I did not say that archers are not needed. I just noted that their elaboration in the DND is not ideal.
further denial was only about subraces. everything is correct there. I don't know how you know the world. but IMHO Tiefling and drow, and mb and aasimar (I'm not sure here) should be torn apart only when he appears in the city.
Apologized for the crooked inventory.
Shl. Give a holivar!
And fig knows them. Nishka runs. But the role-playing significance of all subraces is very great. Whoever is not there, an extra thousand development options. Just great. I WANT to be an archer. Is this my favorite style of play? Why are they so lame in the first part? Because of this, my friend abandoned it and was offended by the RPG completely (there are many archers where they smear (HBN1, Diabla, Titan quest, Gothic3)). In the second, the rangers have two styles: with two weapons (more on that later) and a bow, while the first has only two weapons. BUT and he will "please" us with a pitiful two feats only. Which an ordinary warrior will take without problems. In the second, this is a style of 4 feats (the last two are not at all in the first part). The situation is the same with the bow, only (in the first) there are two fit for the bow (point-blank shot and a rapid shot). In the second - as many as 5: Shot point-blank, aspires. shot, pl. shot, st. It strives. Shot and unique shot. 4 of them (except for the very first shot at close range) are given to the ranger for free.
role significance itself is one thing. their incorrect implementation is another matter entirely. created illiterately. okay it would be 4th edition. tieflings are allowed there. but in the third to launch half-demons into ordinary cities and so that no one would lead O_o to this ... just this is not role-playing ... If you want to be an archer, be an archer. no one forbids you ... so ... about feats - I don't know ... * went to the fires *
IT'S STRONG to be an archer. They do not prohibit. You did a favor. Now from the drow are made excellent wizards, well, or sorcerers. The Wood Elves are wonderful rangers, and I don't care if it's strange. The main thing is a strong hero, not ethics.
you contradict yourself) then the role component is important to you, then mancheviness is more important to you. if the first - do not look for imba. if the second do not hide behind the role component "for the interest of the game")))
What is a role-playing system? This is the search for imba. Manchest is all about loot and exp.
the role-playing system is a roleplaying and a complete whimpering on imbu. but just the manchest - the search for imba)
yes ... I got mad at those feats. I didn't see much benefit from them ... so ... sweeten the pill ... although it would be necessary to check them in practice ...
Why are you crazy? Sweeten. figase. A unique shot will probably cut down Akache from about three times, and with a crit, it will destroy it altogether. I'm still 4 leftists, of course, I started yesterday. I like it already. Right now, I can test the same tin from the "Game Mechanics".