Black Raven Monastery Question

Remove all ads!

Doesnt matter. Killing the monks is pointless. It grants XPs and a levelup, which will reduce XPs from the golem fight on the next map. Killing the duergar is even more pointless as, mild spoiler, youll have to fight them anyway pretty soon. I always leave them be and let the nature do its thing.

 

You won't get the Hell Bolter if you don't kill them while they are still in the river caves.

 

Unpickpocketable?

 

Yea I went ahead and killed them in the caves b/c i didn't my first time thru the game. Was a fun battle and the hell bolter doesn't hurt

 

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasons I've ever heard - trying to AVOID getting more exp?

Of course the dynamic exp calculation will see that your kill exp is reduced by gaining a new level but since you're going to gain that level anyway, why not take it now with quest exp instead of "wasting" perfectly good kill exp later on that would take you a bit towards the NEXT level-up?

Since you get at least some quest exp for completing the duergar's mission and none otherwise, I can't see how it could possibly lead into a tie with total exp in the end. Any exp you get now is exp you don't need to gain later on. The only thing the dynamic exp does is narrows the gap* but it certainly doesn't reverse it.

* = Yes, all the way down into total insignifigance, but hey, don't expect wonders from a few thousand exp against the three quarters of a million (give or take some, assuming 6 person party) you gain during the rest of the game?

 

Sir Rechet
Killing location's population is not exactly avoiding exp. I understand there are people who kill everything on sight, but this is certainly not the default way to solve things, thus i definitely disagree with the term "avoiding".

Second, the more levels the party is behind, the more absolute(=extra) exp is gained, covering all the quest and all the "perfectly good" kills. A lvl1 killing a CR 30 creature will gain like what, 10mln exp? instantly getting to lvl30. Here i just proved how killing less is more. A couple of monks dont play any role here, or as a matter of fact anything we do in normal difficulty. Realistically the only exp that matters is the one which is bringing the party to lvl30, as it will not suffer from the feedback penalty, since there is no more levels to get and it doesnt matter anymore how much exp the party is not getting. The "quest to lvl30" is the only time it is worth to squat levels, kill anything, read both exp books(on a char with the slowest exp progression).

So your argument is flawed in a sense that you regard the whole game as a "quest to lvl30", where it only needs to be a small portion of it. And the rest can be played in any possible way, with any possible class, completely irrelevant.

 

Roller123, I understand what you're saying here, and I do agree that the game is not necessarily just a race to level 30. And I should say that I'm not one to use aggressive powergaming tactics. However, I think that I can make a case for mild level-squatting, or perhaps I should just call it mild delaying of leveling-up.

Ignoring any issues caused by ECL races, in IWD2 all characters should attain the next level's XP threshold at roughly the same time. Note that I say "roughly" because for whatever reason, the closer to the #1 slot in the 1 thru 6 lineup the character is, the slightly higher its XP total will be. What I've often done is to hold off on leveling up the first or second character when I know that the other characters are very, very close to reaching their next level XP threshold. Does this make a difference in the long run? Perhaps not, but I often do it regardless.

I should note that if I have a really tough battle coming up and I know that I can't get those few extra XP before that battle, I'll often just level up those characters that can, just to get ready for the battle... particularly if leveling up will get me some critical spells.

Another reason that I sometimes somewhat delay leveling up a little is for mild role playing reasons. I won't level up in the middle of a battle. And I often prefer to clean up the current area (assuming that there isn't a mega-nasty battle waiting to be fought in this area) before leveling up.

 

Well, I read your statement as if you were advocating leaving the monks alive, which means you would abstain from doing the duergar's quest. Yes, there's several reasons for doing so - roleplaying any sort of a good themed party would be one - but I'm just pointing out that in terms of exp it is in your best interest to do the quest.

 

Havent i just proved otherwise. Ill try again
-lvl1 char is killing a a hypothetical CR 30 creature and gaining 11059200 exp

-lvl1 char is killing a "monk" creature and gaining 1000 exp and a level.
-lvl2 char is killing a hypothetical CR 30 creature and gaining 7372800 exp

So by doing the monk quest our char gained 1000 and lost 3686400 exp, for a net of -3685400 exp points. Surely you see the reversed gain. Best in terms of exp would be killing everything and never level. Just getting exp's is purely a penalty, see above, and as soon as the char levels, that penalty kicks in, the only time it doesnt is lvl30. Im not advocating to go through HOF as lvl1, but saying that "kill everything" is in fact not the best way to get max possible exp in IWD2. In a sense, avoiding to kill monks is another form of level squatting, levels are delayed expgain increased.

 

Then what's the point of getting experience?

 

Oh, I see. You're thinking about the absolute extremes you can reach by level-squatting. Overdoing it WILL lead into some stupid ass situations like the one you described, but level-squatting in general and "what leads to more experience" aren't really all that compatible questions. Any other consideration can always be trumped by doing more level-squatting, so the point becomes moot. I'm thinking from the perspective of NOT doing any level-squatting which is, no matter how you slice it, at least cheesy and according to many outright cheating to begin with.

The more you get exp at a certain point, the higher your level will be and thus you start fighting an uphill battle from that point on. HOWEVER, you're always going to be ahead in the exp curve compared to the player that "doesn't care" and just wings it haphazardly. Which, according to many*, is reason enough to worry about such things.

* = I guess the correct term here would be 'powergamers', yours truly included.

 

I concede that extreme level squatting is cheesy (e.g. squatting 20 levels at a time to avoid multiclassing penalties, which I am shamelessly doing in my current game). I'm not sure that mild level-squatting is so cheesy, though, e.g. not taking a level-up right before fighting the iron golems in the monastery basement. IWD2 chooses to grant you more exp for "challenging" fights, which "challenge" is defined as your level(s) relative to the monster level. If you level-squat, then the fight remains challenging, and so your characters learn more from the right. Somehow.

To phrase the argument another way, level-squatting is only exactly as cheesy as the notion that I can learn how to be a better pickpocket by watching my buddy bombard goblins with fireballs. It's a logical consequence of the D&D experience system--intrinsically cheesy.

-Max

 

Anyway, to answer the original question, because of dynamic xp, doing extra work to milk as much xp as possible from the monastery is pointless. Just get the items and move on.

 

Although going on a killing spree in a computer game is a much more healthy way to get out of a temper than going out and punching someone!

 

You'll have to define what you mean by 'pointless' here. It'll get you a wee bit ahead in the exp curve for sure, so I can't see a reason for not doing it -- other than deciding you aren't willing to jump through that many hoops for such a minor advantage that'll further get diminished by the dynamic exp calculation later on.

In a "yeah, it could be better but not enough for me to be bothered" kind of way.

 

Please take a look at the above example, again. At no time does it mention level squatting, powergaming, etc. It is extremely simple. Playing w/o killing results in more exp, not less. This is true for all games with dynamic exp system, Iwd2 no exception. This was different in BG1/2, and more fun imho. Stupid anti-munchkin measures. >D. Why do you think depopulating areas leads to more exp actually?

 

Well, you're level-squatting *by definition* as soon as you don't take the level-up you have the experience points for. Therefore you can't use it as an argument when comparing different methods of gaining experience.

The only way you'd have a point is if you actually could meet an extremely high Challenge Rating monster while you're still very low level yourself. As you get the kill exp in one chunk, you COULD, theoretically, end up shortcutting several levels at once and thus avoiding the diminishing kill exp for this one particular kill. But this is neither happening in the actual game nor really relevant when discussing "how to gain most exp", except for the 'what if' scenarios you've brought up.

 

Sir Rechet

True, but as the char doesnt kill anything he doesnt get any exp and therefore no levelup.

Im bringing up CR30 because, in addition to provide the most clear picture of how killing less is more, thats the monster the char has to kill to get the most in terms of exp(your quote) without cheese, so depopulating areas is useless. In terms of not strictly exp, depopulating areas violates common sense, so is again not beneficial. Im having difficulty to imagine that "average Joe" who does not go for maximum exp, but does want to eliminate monks for maximum exp. This does not even make sense.

 

But that's exactly my point.

IF you could actually find an early monster with an extremely high CR value (say, at least in the twenties to get into the exp range that would score multiple levels for a party), then yes, you'd be better off by avoiding killing anyone until you get there. In any other case, you'll get a kill, get the exp for it and be on your way towards the next level and in doing so, gaining more exp than the guy that didn't kill anyone.

It's not like you can powergame yourself several levels ahead where you "should" be during the various parts of the game (without level-squatting techniques at least), but killing more is always beneficial to your exp, both right at the moment and later on.

You seem to fall into the common misconception that getting less exp for kills would, in and of itself, be a bad thing. Think of it as a trophy of your previous accomplishments -- you've already gained the exp for the level you're at, while the party that gets more exp per kill hasn't yet attained your level of expertise. They're just a bunch of noobs compared to your excellence, if you will.

Edit: Dynamic exp does a fine job at keeping the game balance REASONABLE. For example, in BG2 it's quite possible to use some sort of an exp loophole (such as kick everyone out of your party, and learn-erase-relearn every single spell scroll you can get your hands on in the early game by, say, stealing) and end up several levels above where you're supposed to be at that point, effectively removing any challenge. Instead of having the game try to counterbalance this unforeseen boost of exp somehow, it actually throws even MORE monsters at you since you're now much higher level and thus your exp acquisition rate goes up. In dynamic exp system, such trickery only leads to short term benefits.

 

Roller123, if you look carefully at your argument you will find that you are not arguing A.) "Playing w/o killing results in more exp, not less." Rather your logic implies B.) "Playing w/o getting exp results in more exp, not less." The iron golems don't care whether your exp came from killing monsters or doing the duergar quest or returning the ring to the cook in the monastery or running FedEx quests in Targos, they just care how much XP you have.

You're of course cognizant that the statement "Playing w/o getting exp results in more exp, not less" is nonsensical in the general case. In the specific case of the iron golems, instead of trying to make a dubious generalization why not run the specific numbers? In 90% of all cases, the quest award from killing the monks isn't going to push your average level up, so it will have no effect on the amount of XP you gain from the golems.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding your argument and that you're arguing against killing the monks not to "maximize XP" but to "minimize hassle" (in the sure knowledge that the dynamic levelling system will even things out in the end anyway). If so I would agree with you. Many quests are ultimately not worth doing unless you need the power-up immediately to survive (e.g. the prologue)--I play this game to kill things, not to play FedEx errand-boy.

-Max

Edit: changed irritating over-capitalization, clarified final paragraph.