Baudolino05

Yeah, not really. That's a ridiculous statement. The games get easy when you have metagame knowledge, but doing a blind solo play through of either game is going to be a challenge (unless you consider reloading to be a valid battle tactic). If you started BG1 as a solo mage you would have gotten eaten by wolves or killed by a mob of gibberlings before you got to the FA INN and, if you managed to run fast enough and (by luck) in the right direction and get to the FA INN, good luck against the first assassin. Your extensive knowledge of D&D would have let you realize just how screwed you were in your last moments in Faerun (unless fortune favored you with some *very* lucky dice rolls). A cleric would certainly have done better against the gibberlings. In BG2, if you go through the wrong door at the wrong time you will die. Your knowledge of D&D doesn't protect you from that. Oh, and... Look. I don't wanna act like THE MEN. The first time I played BG I and II I already have years of experience with AD&D, and this gave me a BIG edge with these games. Having said that, can you honestly tell me that - rare circumstances aside - BG2 is not a cakewalk if you: 1) have at least 3 casters in your party; Yeah, about that. You can't have three casters in your party when you solo the game. So, why don't we just agree that you were exaggerating in your earlier post, ok? Of course you need methagame knowledge to solo-play all I.E. games, and of course you're gonna die during your solo-play. But these are games supposed to be played with a full party of six characters, not with a single PC! The very fact that you can solo-play them (BTW, multi-classes are preferable during solo-plays, and IWD2 is the esiest game of the pack to soloplay, if you wanna try) should tell you how easy can become a "normal" playthrough for players that simply know how AD&D works (the basis of the combat, which spells are the bests, which classes are preferable, etc). Basically stuff that any DM out there knows... In BG2 I'd rank clerics below Kensai or Paladins. They only get 1 attack per round and their weapon choices are too limited. Their spell choices lack the *fire power* that make Sorcerers and mages so great. I'd rank Druids slightly above Clerics due to mage killing spells like Insect plague, and defensive spells like Iron skins but again, a decently built Berserker or Inquisitor will have an easier time in BG2. Again: you haven't ever casted a buff chian before entering a battle in a I.E. game, have you? Have a try. Thy may change your opinion about clerics. PS: kensai are overpowerd too in their own way. One of the best build to solo-play BG2 is a multiclass kensai-mage

Not shocking, just incoherent. Are you saying that the vast majority of players are not supposed to kill all hostile enemies when they see them? Or are you saying that in the vast majority of RPGs, hostile enemies you encounter are optional? Yes, That's precisely what I'm saying. And you should probably get with the program, because PoE is being developed in "my strange universe". Josh Sawyer has stated that the toughest encounters WILL be optional. Alright. The Level cap for BG2 is 2,950,000. With the Throne of Bhaal Expansion, it is 8,000,000. This translates, for clerics, to 20th Level and 40th Level respectively. As for how long it takes a cleric, in a party of 6, to reach 14th level: I'd say about 30 f*cking hours... or more. Now, I don't know about you, but for me, that's too long to be without Daystar. Or the staff of the Magi. Animate dead? First off, Skeletons aren't magic resistant (didn't you say magic resistant summons?). Second, What can a lone Skeleton Warrior do to a lich....besides NOTHING AT ALL? Then you have made an erroneous claim. Beast Masters (a druid kit) are among the weakest classes in AD&D, and they most definitely are the most worthlessly underpowered class in BG2. 1) I am sayng that a game with a 95% of easy encounters and 5% of (sometimes even optional) hard encouters is still a DAMN easy game. When you finally put your hands on a game that consistenly challange you, you will understand that simple concept. Or at least I hope so. 2) JS also said that PoE is going to be a game with a consistent challange. So, there is still hope, at least for the highest difficulty levels... 3) Ok, if assorbing lich's spells (due to is 90% spell resistence) while the lich in question is invulnerable to your attack is nothing, ok, you are right: skeleton warriors are useless against liches :asd:... 4) Woao, you found the very kit that spoils my logic. And what about the other druid's, wizard's, cleric's and sorcerer's builds:asd:? BTW, I'm not even 100% sure that the best master is worse than the Bard or the Thief.

It's *lich*, and I would think the answer to that is obvious: FOR THE CHALLENGE (not to mention the fact that the City Gates lich drops Daystar and a wand of cloudkill, and a ring of invisibility) What do you mean by "not supposed to beat"? BG2 is a minimally chapter-gated open world game. Where are you getting these make-believe developer intentions from? Your head? Your ass? No one can cast Sunray until they reach 14th level, or until they get a hold of Daystar (which you have to kill a lich for) So basically what you're saying here is that many of BG2's encounters are flat out HARD until you're pretty darn far into the game. Yes. That's true. That's also NOT AT ALL what you were saying just a couple of pages ago. Summons? Wait. Wait one stinkin minute. You haven't actually PLAYED BG2 have you. There is no lich in BG2 that doesn't immediatly cast death spell the second he sees an enemy summon. And Death spell insta kills all summons, regardless of their magic resistance. ^^Standard definition of Cake walk right there! I have. 78 times. I was trying to make it easy on you, since mages are the most powerful class in BG2. At least that was your claim 3 pages ago, when you were ranting about how unbalanced the classes are in the IE games. a) I just said that, like I the vast majority RPGs out there, you are not supposed to kill every single mob the first time you meet him. SHOCKING, ehn? Of course, if in your strange universe a game is challenging when provides you optional (temporary) overpowered mobs, you are right. BG2 is DAMN hard :asd. b) Yeah, Sunray is a level 7 spell. Remind me what's the level cap in BG2 and how much time does it take to reach level 14th.. c) Try with Animate Dead, come back here and tell me who's the one that doesn't know what is taking about. And BTW, they don't instant cast ****. You can even use low level summons as moving targets to attract Lich's attacks. LOL. d) Actually, I CLEARLY said that all casters are overpowered in AD&D. You know? When I talk about buffs and defenses usually I talk about clerics, not wizards.

LOL <sigh> You are a disgustingly dishonest debater. And you have *twice* admitted, without even realizing it, that *even you* see BG2 as an unusually (even unfairly) difficult game for first playthrough gamers. And I'm going to prove it. Ok, The standard character level upon completion of Irenicus' dungeon is 8th level (9th if you imported from BG1, 10th if you imported and you soloed the dungeon). Lets use the last one. Suppose you're a 10th level Wizard (or sorcerer). You gather equal level companions. Lets say, 2 more mages ( say.. Edwin and Nalia or Jan) The rest of your party is totally up to you. But they are 10th level. Now, lets say you rush to the tavern at the city gates to take on the Lich there. (liches are quite common in BG2. They're everywhere. So don't even try to peddle that moronic "rare occasion" nonsense on us again) Do tell me how you're going to defeat it, considering that Liches in Bg2 are immune all spells 6th level or lower, and no one in your party possesses spells beyond 5th level. Oh, and do make sure you can do it in 20 rounds or less. After all, BG2 is a Cakewalk. Shouldn't take that long to easily dispose of a generic LICH in BG2. The podium is yours, my chain-buffing BG2 God. Sorry, dude, but the only thing you've proved is that you still don't know how to play BG2 and probably you didn't even know AD&D before playing a random I.E. game . 1) Why should I bother to fight a lych at level 10, considering that I DON'T NEED to at the point of the game (usually when people say underlivelled, they talk about this kind of situations. You know? When you meet an encounter that you are not supposed to beat at your actual level, but you can always try) 2) Cast sunray against a Lich and then come back and tell me how hard was your fight. LOL ... 3) Even without that spell, Lich are easy to trick with resistant to magic summons. They are simply annoying because they force you to wait until their protections expires and during this period they can cast lots of offensive spells (but you know, you can give them a safe target or you can use these strange things called protective spells). 4) The only thing I've admitted, which incidentaly is the only thing you don't get, is that BG2 is hard only if you don't understand its system; a fairly common occurrence considering how inconsistent is AD&D as a ruleset. How many solo-play you need to get that :asd:? PS: caster doesn't mean necessarily wizard/sorcerer. Try a cleric once in a while. He/she may surprise you :asd:... PPS: you made a point, though. I misspelled lich :asd:...

Like what? Assuming that you did the 3 things I listed in my previous post, what battle challenged you? Here are some: The battle with the demi liche. The battle with the liche whose tomb is behind a secret door in an inn. Some of the battles in the underdark against the mind flayers. Those are probably not the only ones, but the ones that stick out in my mind. I did win all of those battles, but first I had to find a place to rest, memorize spells which could help my party specifically with those situations, drink helpful potions et. Liches are a challenge only if you fight them under-leveled. Maybe they are little-bit annoying while they are under protection against normal and magical weapons, but nothing that a good cleric can't handle with ease. Mind-Flayers ARE annoying in a standard D&D fare. You just need a good protection against their attacks, to avoid intelligence drain. Rare circumstances? I just listed virtually half the boss battles in chapter 2/3. And Golems are Common. Kangaxx guards the ring of Gaxx and The Twisted Rune guard the Staff of the magi. And the Kayardi/Entu/Mogadish encounter is not even optional if one of your casters wishes to acquire the Mage stronghold. Moreover, you're lying to yourself and everyone here if you claim that any of them are cakewalks, especially when they're done straight out of Irenicus' dungeon on a first playthrough....which the game allows. This is what BG2's combat picture is about. You can't just brush these things off as "exceptions" or "rare circumstances". They define BG2. I don't *think* they're a threat. They are OBJECTIVELY a threat. Even to players on their 600th playthrough. They're a threat by definition. Durlag's tower, for example, has at least 2 traps that are total party insta-kills with no saving throw and a disarm requirement of 90. Also, there are dozens of lightning bolt traps placed in narrow, indoor areas. They also equate to instant kills for those not protected from electricity, due to the way Bioware has decided to implement the ricochet effect with lightning bolt. And BG2? BG2 has the spectrum. There are Imprisonment traps. (No saving throw and no MR resistance checks for those.) There are finger of death traps, disintegrate traps. Level drain traps. (Yaga Shura's temple has 2 level drain traps that cannot be disarmed) You can....LIE, again, and claim that, on your first playthrough, you managed find & disarm, or avoid, or resist them all with cakewalk ease. But you'd be doing just that: Lying....to a crowd of people who know better. Aah! and here come the caveats. Cakewalk, my ass. The game provides us a legit challenge from the outset. So lets (via meta gaming) hold off on doing those challenges until we're powerful enough, then lets come here and complain that the game is a cakewalk. I beg your pardon, sir, but isn't that the cost of using spell casters? That they're very ordinary early on, and only come to true power later? Well there you go. BG2 is not a cakewalk. You have to pay your dues to achieve such combat dominance. Straw man. Sorry, Stun, but I can't help but laugh at some of the things you wrote. I don't mean to offend, but I'm under the impression that after you countless playtroughs you still haven't learn how to take advantage of buff/defense chains, which is something that any AD&D player learns after a couple of campaigns. So, let's cut the crap: if you really think that Baldur's Gate 2 is a challenging game, live in peace with this conviction. The next-time I solo-play it I'll think to you... Friendly suggestion: have a try with Knights of the chalice, if you really wanna see a D&D game that CONSISTENTLY challenges you (despite its inherent lack of class balance and the abundance of dragons)

Aside from Kangaxx, The Twisted Rune, and the various dragons? (kinda hard to spam spells early when you've been wing buffeted) Ok, how about....The Kayardi, Mogadish and co. Battle in the Planar Sphere. That battle challenged me immensely on my first BG2 playthough. So I have a question. How exactly did you "cakewalk" yourself to a victory in that one on your first playthough? (well, besides having one hand on your mouse and the other hand feverishly flipping through the strategy guide?) Did your Vast D&D knowledge tip you off that one of those halflings would have an unlimited range psyonic attack that only 1 spell in the entire game can defend against? And that another would be an 18th level arch mage? (Halfling arch mages. were those common in your pen and paper campaigns?) Lets talk about the first time you did BG1's Durlag's tower. Did your decades of D&D rule set experience help your casters spot and disarm every single trap in that dungeon? And if not, then how can you call something a cakewalk when it catches you unaware and wipes half your party out in a split second? Well, I'd say any high level Golem mob battle won't be a cakewalk on the first playthough of BG2, if you're using a party of mostly casters who spam spells as fast as they can. I'd also point to the dead magic zones in Watchers keep. And I'd remind you that BG2 took great liberties with the implementation of its spell effects. Knowing D&D will not automatically tip you off to just how useful any given spell is or isn't in bg2. Again, only metagaming will. Rare circumstances aside. And traps, seriously? Do you really think traps are a threat in I.E. games? I'll pass on dragons, that - assuming you have a decent level and can properly buff yourself - are cakewalks in ALL D&D games. Maybe I'm strange, but if I have 5 challenging battles in a game with hundreds of battles, I still considering it cakewalk. Same goes if I died once in a battle because I enter it unprepared and then crush the enemies that killed me with ease.

Like what? Assuming that you did the 3 things I listed in my previous post, what battle challenged you?

Look. I don't wanna act like THE MEN. The first time I played BG I and II I already have years of experience with AD&D, and this gave me a BIG edge with these games. Having said that, can you honestly tell me that - rare circumstances aside - BG2 is not a cakewalk if you: 1) have at least 3 casters in your party; 2) Cast as many buff as you can before entering in a big battle 3) Cast your best spells as fast as you can? Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion. Lets go back to discussing Balance. Why is that, exactly? It's a single player party based game, remember? If your Thief isn't as powerful as your mage then what does it matter? You can have both in your party. Or double of both. Or none of either one. You can also form unlimited tactics and game plans around such un-even party makeup. You can have one be the support for the other. You can Challenge yourself to beat the game using nothing but under-powered characters. Or you can powergame by making a full party of nothing but the over-powered class. Balance does nothing in a single player, party-based game but LIMIT the player's freedom to do the above. Balance is important for ALL kinds of games. Only through balance players can get a fair challenge during all their playthroughs. Let's say that a particular game allows players to build blatantly overpowered parties, like D&D games do, and you build your party that way, because of your deep understanding of the system or simply because you are lucky. What do you earn? A couple of hours of fun during your planning phase and dozens of hours of unchallenging (= boring) combats during the rest of your game. Great trade-off, umh? And with an underpowered party? Probably a frustrating experience, and certainly something that an additional difficulty level could do better. A decently balanced game (of course, perfect balance is out of reach in RPGs. It's damn hard to achieve even in games with no character development), with enough difficulty options, can provide a fair challenge to any kind of party/player. A blatantly unbalanced game simply can't... It's worth pointing out the difference in games that let you build parties and games that do not. There's the potential for far greater imbalance when you create your own party rather than choose from developer created characters. In Baldur's Gate you may have a very strong character, but that could be as little as 1/6th of your total fighting force. Honestly, I think that's where PE is going to shine. There will be less focus on building good characters, and more focus on building good parties. I imagine there will be insane builds with three chanters and two paladins who all have different effects that stack on rogue. Or four barbarians who pump out the AoE damage, etc. In a way that's more appropriate for a party based game. That's a fair point. IWD games, in fact, are even more exploitable than BG games.

Balance is important for ALL kinds of games. Only through balance players can get a fair challenge during all their playthroughs. [/size] Let's say that a particular game allows players to build blatantly overpowered parties, like D&D games do, and you build your party that way, because of your deep understanding of the system or simply because you are lucky. What do you earn? A couple of hours of fun during your planning phase and dozens of hours of unchallenging (= boring) combats during the rest of your game. Great trade-off, umh? And with an underpowered party? Probably a frustrating experience, and certainly something that an additional difficulty level could do better. [/size] A decently balanced game (of course, perfect balance is out of reach in RPGs. It's damn hard to achieve even in games with no character development), with enough difficulty options, can provide a fair challenge to any kind of party/player. A blatantly unbalanced game simply can't... [/size] Let me guess: this is where you're going to come here and claim that Baldur's Gate 2 was a disappointingly easy cakewalk the first time you played it. Yeah, let me save you some time: Bullsh*t. You know as well as everyone else here that Class/Party Builds are not the only factor that determines difficulty. They're not even the main factor. Encounter design is. Gear design and placement are also factors, as are enemy AI and pacing. And then after all that, there's the meta knowledge that comes from Replaying the game several times. Sarex beat me to it: The IE games did not suffer from the flaw of being too easy, and documented historical fact proves that (Bioware explicitly made Throne of Bhaal easy because of the mass of fan complaints that the main game was too difficult.) Perhaps here in 2014, their combat suffers from the extreme meta knowledge gained from people replaying them for the 875th time....or more. But that's a commentary about how much the masses LOVED those games, not about how the lack of balance ruined them. But that simply wasn't the case with the Infinity Engine games... There were strong builds yes, but they never made the combat "unchallenging". Maybe are bull****s in your parallel universe, Stun :D. Baldur's Gate I and II are such a cakewalk if you know and understand AD&D, that you can easily solo-play both games, with or without a preliminary playthrough. You just need to understand their system, which - I concede that - is not the easiest thing on Earth, considering how unnecessarily complex is AD&D. But do you really think that the obscurity of their system is a pro because it prevents everyone to understand how easy these games are? Sorry but this make me laugh... It's true that the masses've loved BG2 (the masses also love Skyrim, so...), but personally I was about to give up in the Underdark during my first playthrough. TOO many boring combats for my taste.

Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion. Lets go back to discussing Balance. Why is that, exactly? It's a single player party based game, remember? If your Thief isn't as powerful as your mage then what does it matter? You can have both in your party. Or double of both. Or none of either one. You can also form unlimited tactics and game plans around such un-even party makeup. You can have one be the support for the other. You can Challenge yourself to beat the game using nothing but under-powered characters. Or you can powergame by making a full party of nothing but the over-powered class. Balance does nothing in a single player, party-based game but LIMIT the player's freedom to do the above. Balance is important for ALL kinds of games. Only through balance players can get a fair challenge during all their playthroughs. Let's say that a particular game allows players to build blatantly overpowered parties, like D&D games do, and you build your party that way, because of your deep understanding of the system or simply because you are lucky. What do you earn? A couple of hours of fun during your planning phase and dozens of hours of unchallenging (= boring) combats during the rest of your game. Great trade-off, umh? And with an underpowered party? Probably a frustrating experience, and certainly something that an additional difficulty level could do better. A decently balanced game (of course, perfect balance is out of reach in RPGs. It's damn hard to achieve even in games with no character development), with enough difficulty options, can provide a fair challenge to any kind of party/player. A blatantly unbalanced game simply can't...

False. This balance discussion hasn't changed or deviated one iota since that post of yours. You can't even claim that you were simply going on an off-topic tangent since, after your balance rant, you were asked for superior examples. Perhaps you could honestly answer the question posed to you now. You claimed the IE games were imbalanced messes. Can you name me a game you liked that had balanced combat? A true or false question about an opinion lol. D&D is imbalanced by design because the classes are not supposed to be equal. Lore dictates that some professions be more powerful than others.....you know, like it is in real life. I wouldn't call that a mess. Then again, I'm not a jrpg fan. True. But that's pointless to this discussion because the only reason you gave for their 'superiority' is that they were turn based. Which doesn't mean anything. Turn based doesn't suddenly make a combat system balanced. Ok, maybe IT IS really hard to get . I was SPECIFICALLY asked to provide examples of games with better combats and better adaptations of P&P rulesets, NOT better balance than I.E. games, and - surprise! - it is exactly what I did . As a matter of fact I quoted more than a game with unbalanced rules. And TOEE, in particular, IS as unbalanced as the next D&D CRPGs, but it still has a WAY better combat system than any I.E. game ever made. No kiting, initiative that matters, spells and talents that work as they are supposed to, (almost) all the tactical options of the 3.5 edition (readied actions, full attack, attack of opportunity, etc.), and so on so forth... Balance isn't the only relevant factor for a good combat system. Given 2 equally (un)balanced games, one can still be way better than the other. And the games I quoted have all better combat systems that I.E. games's, even when they share the same terrible ruleset. Is that clear, know? PS: frankly I don't give a **** about real life and lore in games that are first and foremost about combats. If PoE were an RPG where you can play from the beginning till the end as a smart thief, avoiding combats or talking your way out of trouble, I wouldn't care about balance. But I HAVE to care about balance in a Baldur's Gate-like game. Otherwise I will get tons of boring, unavoidable combats.

How's the contrary preferable? Does anyone really miss the "your wizard sucks at the beginning of the campaign and after few levels automatically kicks asses better than any other class" thing of the oldest D&D editions? [/size] As long as classes have specific strengths and weaknesses the overall balance HAS to be maintained, level after level, from the beginning to the end of the campaign. At least in a game that is about party-based "tactical-challenging combats". If PoE were a White Wolf like RPGs, I wouldn't mind about overall balance, but it's not the case...[/size] ^True or False: In ToEE, mages are standard D&D fare. They start off sucking and later become the most powerful class.True or false: In ToEE, Rogues are imbalanced in combat. They're like fighters but weaker. True or false: You cited old D&D ruleset imbalance as the reason why you didn't like the IE games' combat. Yet you praised ToEE's combat even though the old D&D rule set imbalance is just as glaringly prominent in it as it is in every single infinity engine game. Hypocrite. True or false: I was discussing of a complete different topic in the post you quoted. True of false: all D&D CRPGs are unbalanced mess and even in my dreams I wouldn't dare to state the opposite. True or false: I quoted 3 games with better combat systems than I.E. games DESPITE the mess of a ruleset they share with I.E. games. Why? BECAUSE I WAS TALKING ABOUT GOOD AND BAD ADAPTATIONS OF P&P RULESETS, not about how flawed is a ruleset in the first place. Bottom line: I quoted TOEE (and also Pool of Radiance and Knights of the chalice) as a good adaptation of a bad ruleset, which is still better than a clumsy adaptation of the same bad ruleset (I.E. games). Is really that hard to get?

ToEE IS turn based though. Maybe that's the real reason why you think its combat is better? if so, then fair enough. But we were discussing balance - which doesn't have anything to do with whether a game is TB or RTwP. I was discussing about adaptations of turn based rulesets to videogames, and TOEE is hands down a better adaptation than BG and IWD. I've also quoted Pool of Radiance (AD&D) and Knights of the Challice (D&D OGL) as CRPGs with better combat systems than I.E. games. These 3 games, of course, retain all the inherent flaws of D&D, which in my book are MANY (and multi-classing is on my top priority list), but at least they don't get things worse with a clumsy adaptation of a turn based ruleset to a real time environment. PS: don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that TB games are inherently better than RTwP games. I'm saying that you can't make a great RTwP combat system using TB rules as raw materials.

How's the contrary preferable? I can give you about 10 reasons why the contrary is preferable. But this morning I only have time for one. Here goes. I don't like my single player combat rulesets to be mechanically, soullessly, and rigidly Balanced. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not some undeviating, soulless, 'Balanced. At. All. Costs.", mathematical formula. BG1, BG2, and Icewind Dale positively oozed of the former. And that's why they're still great to play 14+ years later. While crap games like Dungeon Siege 1, and Dragon Age 2 suffered from droves of the latter and thus aren't worth the box they came in. I don't mean to offend, but to me BG1, BG2, IWD1 and IWD2 weren't that great to play even 16-14 years ago (good? Yes. Great? Not by accident) if we are talking about combat. Part of this is because of that unbalanced mess that was AD&D (with the 3rd edition things got better, but not that better), part because every adaptation of a turn based ruleset to a real time environment is average at best. Sawyer and co. are trying to fix both issues, with my blessing, for what it counts. PS: leaving alone the fact that I can't see how on earth balance = soulless in a game which is mainly about tactical combats. If they were inferior could you please list the sorts of games they are inferior to? Also what is the evidence that every adaption of a turn based ruleset to a real time environment is average at best? You just said BG1, BG2, IWD1, and IWD2 were good...then you turn around and say they were average at best? Which is it? I guess I see the important point of balance in a MMORPG but I do not see why it is a necessary thing in a single player game so long as each class is useful on a strategic or tactical level. Pool of Radiance, ToEE, Knights of Chalice, Blackguards, even Tactics Ogre and a bunch of other JRPGs have better combat systems than I.E. games, not counting X-Com, Jagged Alliance and Silent Strom, that are superior in any possible way when it comes to combats. As for the "promotion" from average to good, it is due to the interesting encounter design (especially in IWD2). The systems per sé were average in all these games, and It's not just a personal idea: Sawyer in person thinks the same.. . Having said that, I've never talked of balance in a MMO sense. Actually I find theme park MMOs pretty boring, especially in the way they handle combat. The kind of balance I was talking about, is balance in party prospective. It's safe to say, for instance, that thieves and bards where almost useless in the old I.E. games, and on the other hands casters were CLEARY overpowered. As long as we don't have this kind of extremes in PoE, I'm fine with the class design of this game. PS: oh, and if you want some other exemples of average adaptations of turn based rulesets to real time environments take Drakensang or Vampire: Redemption. In the first case you can even compare it to a recent turn based counterpart (which not surprisingly is 10 times better combat-wise).

How's the contrary preferable? I can give you about 10 reasons why the contrary is preferable. But this morning I only have time for one. Here goes. I don't like my single player combat rulesets to be mechanically, soullessly, and rigidly Balanced. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not some undeviating, soulless, 'Balanced. At. All. Costs.", mathematical formula. BG1, BG2, and Icewind Dale positively oozed of the former. And that's why they're still great to play 14+ years later. While crap games like Dungeon Siege 1, and Dragon Age 2 suffered from droves of the latter and thus aren't worth the box they came in. I don't mean to offend, but to me BG1, BG2, IWD1 and IWD2 weren't that great to play even 16-14 years ago (good? Yes. Great? Not by accident) if we are talking about combat. Part of this is because of that unbalanced mess that was AD&D (with the 3rd edition things got better, but not that better), part because every adaptation of a turn based ruleset to a real time environment is average at best. Sawyer and co. are trying to fix both issues, with my blessing, for what it counts. PS: leaving alone the fact that I can't see how on earth balance = soulless in a game which is mainly about tactical combats.