GameBanshee Forums

16+ in stat equals 10% bonus to earned experience

In this thread:

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66517"](sorcerers and INT)[/url]

It is said that you only need a 10 in INT for a sorcerer. I now wonder how many people aren't aware of the fact that you gain 10% bonus XP for having a prime requisite stat of 16 or higher. I just thought I'd share. I tested this again just now, and it works. (see the other thread)

(edit: note that I actually tested this and it works. No need to reply that it doesn't, unless you somehow tested and it didn't work: then there somehow are different versions of the game: mine is completely unmodded BTW)

(edit2: It seems that everyone gets a bonus of 10%, regardless of stats)

Rav

But i thought that a sorcerers prime ability is Charisma...

No it isn't. It says so in the class description in all capital letters, that, as opposed to 3e D&D rules, Intelligence is the prime stat for sorcerers.

Also, I just tested it: Sorcerers get 10% bonus to experience gained when they have a 16 in INT. My test sorcerer had only a 10 in Charisma.

Rav

edit: spelling

Cool!

Another "hidden" thing I didnt know before!

That's not true.

The 10% bonus XP is a rule in AD&D, but it is not implemented in Baldur's Gate II.

[QUOTE=krunchyfrogg]That's not true.

The 10% bonus XP is a rule in AD&D, but it is not implemented in Baldur's Gate II.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The 10% was an AD&D thing that wasn't ever implemented, a la the mage/druid multiclass.

wait, i think its true, its the same with thieves if they have max dexterity I think.

sorcerers need both i think, keep them both above 16(char and int)

The 10% rule wasn't implemented in BG2.

fable]The 10% rule wasn't implemented in BG2.[/quote] Sigh. Yes wrote:sorcerers need both i think, keep them both above 16(char and int)

My test sorcerer had 16 INT, and only had a measly 10 Charisma. After killing the mephit (which was hard as a solo Sorcererer BTW ), the game awarded me 420 xp. My xp total however: 89462.

Rav (I hope I don't start sounding like a broken record)

I thought I'd simply supply some proof. This way, people don't even need to test it for themselves: they can see right here, on these screenshots. (Fable: IIRC you can only manage attachments in a new post - otherwise I would have edited the previous post instead).

Well, I dont see how anyone can argue with that proof. Maybe it was implemented in a patch?

[QUOTE=FireLighter]Well, I dont see how anyone can argue with that proof. Maybe it was implemented in a patch?[/QUOTE]Perhaps. I run with TOB, the official patch, the Ease-of-Use, and the bonus merchants.

Rav

Sigh. Yes, call me a liar, instead of testing it out yourself.

Who here has accused you of being a liar? Three people including myself have simply said you were wrong. It's possible the patch alters this, but the test you suggest is for a fighter, not a sorc, as you stated in your original remarks. On the other hand, the images you attach you are pretty conclusive.

[quote="fable]Who here has accused you of being a liar? Three people including myself have simply said you were wrong. It's possible the patch alters this"]Well, I'd say after me posting in the first post of this thread: "I've tested this, and am 100% certain", that any replies saying "you are wrong" must mean I am lying. I know everyone on the internet is used to hearing a lot of falsehoods, but I think asking me about my tests would have been nicer than flat out stating I am wrong.

Anyway, before I posted the images I had also tested it with a ranger with 16 con and 16 str - they get 10% bonus XP too. I've tested it with a fighter. They too, gain 10% bonus XP with 16+ in STR. And the above images show the sorcerer with 16 INT.

I am actually almost 100% positive that the patch does not alter this and it is something all copies of BG2 have in common, because the reason I posted in the other thread in the first place was because I noticed the bonus xp for having a high prime requisite stat in one of my first games of SoA. Something I recalled from long, long ago. (and I now remember I must have definitely been patchless - I was without internet access at the time).

I think for most classes it doesn't matter that you are aware of this fact. When are you going to play a Cleric with less than 16 WIS, or a thief with less than 16 DEX? You'll get the XP bonus whether you know about it or not.

Sorcerers however, have gotten the reputation that INT isn't necessary. Sure it isn't necessary; but you'll probably finish the game at a lower level than a sorcerer who did have 16 or higher INT.

Rav

Have you tested this with a group and whether or not it applies only solo?
And have you tested a pure vanilia installation (ei. only SoA from scratch with no patching at all?)

Would be interesting to see whether it was in the original game or introduced in a patch.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Have you tested this with a group and whether or not it applies only solo?. [/QUOTE]I haven't "tested" it but it works with a group/solo, single player/multiplayer.

[QUOTE=Xandax]And have you tested a pure vanilia installation (ei. only SoA from scratch with no patching at all?)[/QUOTE]Rav just posted that he was certain it worked this way prior to him patching his game so why does he need to do this test? I give a +1 to it working this way with a "vanilla" installation.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Would be interesting to see whether it was in the original game or introduced in a patch.[/QUOTE]Rav already posted the answer and now I would like to give a +1 to it being in the original BG II.

It is all well and good to ask for specifics and expect there to be a level of accuracy, but the guy is just saying what he has seen. Furthermore he has already indulged the "I'm from Missouri" crowd (by doing some pretty well documented and intensive research) to ask him to now go do more is way over the top. - Curdis !

[QUOTE=Curdis]It is all well and good to ask for specifics and expect there to be a level of accuracy, but the guy is just saying what he has seen. Furthermore he has already indulged the "I'm from Missouri" crowd (by doing some pretty well documented and intensive research) to ask him to now go do more is way over the top. - Curdis ![/QUOTE]Thanks Curdis. But yeah, I am not going to reinstall to indulge anyone's curiosity about whether the unpatched game really, really does have the same rules. The only thing I can say is: If the unpatched game didn't have the 10% bonus to XP, I wouldn't have found out in the first place, and I wouldn't have posted in the other thread.

Besides, who plays with an unpatched game anyway?

Rav

good job, with the evidence, I knew something was funky when thieves level up quicker then they should.

[QUOTE=Curdis]<snip>
It is all well and good to ask for specifics and expect there to be a level of accuracy, but the guy is just saying what he has seen. Furthermore he has already indulged the "I'm from Missouri" crowd (by doing some pretty well documented and intensive research) to ask him to now go do more is way over the top. - [/QUOTE]

Take a chill pill for a second, and cool down.
I simply asked if he had "documented"/tested it being this way in the original game or not, because certain is only as certain as memory allows.
So I was mearly interested in if he infact had tested it in a base installation, or it had been a "stealth inclusion" in a patch
A simple "no I haven't" from the guy I asked (which I've gotten now) would suffice to settle my query withouth you trying to be snide about it.
And the "I'm from Missouri" remark is really way out of line if I read it correct (which I'm very positive I do) and totally unneaseacy, both in term of the question I asked and in terms of the forum rules.
If you don't wish to debate public statements on a public forum, then you can just as well stay out of the debate, withouth presenting your biased opinion about peoples heritage.

And Xandax is just asking what you really need to know. When you say you have found something, it is not conclusive until it has been thoroughly tested, which would involve vanilla, maybe vanilla ToB, and the latest patches.

Rav]I am actually almost 100% positive that the patch does not alter this and it is something all copies of BG2 have in common wrote:long, long ago.[/b] (and I now remember I must have definitely been patchless - I was without internet access at the time).

And as you can see, Xandax is right in saying that, because he said he's sure, however he did say it was a LONG time ago. As such he could easily have gotten mixed up, but now that he has gone through we can see he didn't.

But I must say nice work Rav. I guess the main reason the rest never knew about it is because it isn't said down the bottom, and once you start gaining a bit, you don't keep track...also when you are in a party it makes it much harder to keep track.

And Rav, I can see what you are going through, it takes time to cope with something as groundbreaking as this, so people are naturally skeptical, especially after having read several times before that this and other rules 'were not implemented in BG2'.

Good work, keep it up mate .

And Curdis, better to be safe than sorry.