PrimeJunta

I didn't like DA:O for a number of reasons. Some of the more important ones: Companion approval + romance as minigame. Cooldown-based magic system. -> Spammy. (Some of the spell synergies were cool though.) Aggro-based mechanics. Lazy, lazy approach to "tactics." Hitpoint bloat and filler combat. This is one area in which most of the IE games are SOOOO much better -- challenging without just resorting to piling on mountains of HP. Cheesy set-piece encounters, especially the random ones where you materialize in a constricted map surrounded by traps and bandits. Lots and lots of hurlocks, genlocks, hurlock emissaries, MORE genlocks, and you know what, hurlocks. Generally shallow writing that just mindlessly regurgitates tropes rather than doing something original or even something interesting with said tropes. It did have some redeeming qualities -- the origin stories were good, especially the dwarf noble one, there were genuine choices and consequences, some of the setpieces were genuinely challenging, e.g. keeping everybody alive in Redcliff was not a doddle and was fun, the world was big and varied and there was a lot to explore, and things were, generally speaking, well anchored in the world's lore, which was also well-developed and coherent even if not terribly original. Still, for me it's squarely in the "forgettable" category.

LOL

@morhilane A core issue IMO is that (1) accuracy is so crucial and (2) it's linked to a stat. If they removed accuracy from the stat system and made it so you can only affect it via buffs and items, I believe a part of the problem would be solved. As I've said (too many times), I don't consider the swinginess of spell damage a problem, because spells are subject to the same attack resolution mechanism as melee (accuracy vs defense), and you have the possibility both to choose which defense you're attacking and debuff defenses you want to attack. Lots of spells and specials set up specifically for this. It is different than IE with its reliable fireballs, but it is not worse. You just have to play it differently. If you want your fireballs to bite, make your targets stand still first. Just like using Greater Malison to lower a target's resistance when casting a spell.

Mmm... no, that's not really what I'm comparing. I'm comparing the way various characters have been written. Lord Harond, for example, has entirely understandable motivations for what he's doing. So does the character behind the whole thing. Each of them is written with a distinct voice and personality. You may -- probably do, if you have in any way conventional morality -- find what they're doing abhorrent, but you can still understand why they're doing it. Compare this to Kalas in Aerie's tent, for example, or Irenicus. One is your standard clichéd power-hungry evil villain with an awesome voice actor, the other is your standard batspit crazy villain with a silly voice actor. No depth at all to them.

It doesn't matter. The simple fact is that complaints like yours will get ignored for basic psychological reasons. If you actually want to make a difference, learn to frame your criticisms in a way that is more likely to get heard. (I've had a good many of my suggestions appear in the BB as well, by the way. Don't know if they actually were originally from me, or if we just thought on parallel lines. Also, I dig engagement. )

If you can't follow my conversation with Sensuki, that's your problem, not mine. Anyway, I'm done derailing this thread.

The only time I used kiting in my IWD playthrough was for the end boss. I simply didn't have the melee oomph to win in a fair fight, and of course the (really stupidly contrived) setup is such that both offensive magic and buffs are... severely limited. I did not like the end boss fight. It amounted to a bunch of sucker punches, so I didn't feel bad about cheesing (=kiting) right back.

@Madscientist What, where? Which tutorial? I never saw one. You mean the Irenicus dungeon? That doesn't actually teach you anything, it just throws a series of challenges at you and does some plot exposition. PS:T -- That's exactly what I mean: it's all about discovery, and by far the most interesting things happen in dialog and when finding new locations on the map. Yet it has DnD mechanics and dungeon-crawler combat, which it does rather badly also, and because of these mechanics you get stuff like ability-gated content. I.e., if you make the wrong build -- a thief, for example -- you'll find the game unreasonable hard and be locked out of a lot of story. (I loved the equipment in PS:T by the way. It was wild and weird, and the limitations of it -- no missile weapons except Nordom, no swords except Trias -- made it all the more brilliant.)

Jeebugs, Archangel. Paraphrasing: Me: "This is like when I complained about swingy damage and you [sensuki] pointed out that I need a fighter with low THAC0." Sensuki: "You were complaining about missing, not swingy damage." Me: "Missing means your damage range will be 0 to max. If that's not swingy, I don't know what is." Archangel: "Stop lying, most AoE damage spells in the IE games do half damage on a save."

You know why that is, @archangel? It's because humans have these psychological mechanisms called "ego defenses." They keep us sane. If we let everything anyone ever says to us get to us, we would commit suicide in, like, 30 minutes flat (15 if you're on a gaming forum). One of the most common ego defenses is simply to flat-out reject -- ignore, not process -- things that would hurt you. That is why complaints like yours get ignored. They're phrased in such a way that it's way, way easier for the dev/designer to dismiss it as the whiny ramblings of an isolated, entitled malcontent. The actual effect of your feedback is (1) to lower morale in the dev team and (2) to make them ignore you and what you're saying. In other words: if it gets noticed at all, it will make the game worse, not better. Compare this to, what, say, Sensuki has been doing. He shares most of your criciticisms of P:E. He, however, has worked hard to make his feedback as helpful as possible, and as emotionally neutral as possible. As a result, he has an open communication line with the devs, and a lot -- really, a LOT -- of his suggestions have made it into the game. Not as much as he or, no doubt, you would like, but nevertheless a lot, and the game is undoubtedly the better for it.

Having just finished IWD, and, with Sensuki's able advice, finally learned how to combat properly in the IE games, I fired up my first-ever IE game acquaintance, Baldur's Gate 2. It's been many years since I last played it, and I'm pretty hazy about the details. I remember almost quitting in early Chapter 2 because it seemed like wherever I turned I got mercilessly murdered, being incredibly frustrated with some of the encounters, overwhelmed with quests in the tavern in the slums, and delighted at the sheer range and quantity and variety of things it was throwing at me, what felt like for ever and ever until the thing ended. I played it through twice back then, and partway through a few other times. But it's been a long time, and I really don't remember much about it, other than cheesing the Firkraag fight by lobbing a Feeblemind at him and reloading until it bit. I've also been playing a lot of BB392 lately, so I will be reflecting on how playing BG2 feels relative to it. Unlike the IWD thread, I won't just be discussing combat and mechanics here, but rather the whole experience. I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow Let's Play because it would get way too wordy. Instead, I'll make notes of my impressions, comparing to what I remember from my previous playthroughs years back, and P:E where applicable. With that preamble, onward, to Adventure. Rolling with an Inquisitor this time. My previous playthroughs were as a caster of some sort, I don't quite remember which, and a kensai/mage because I heard that's a really powerful combo (as indeed it was). First, the writing. Gack. It. Is. Cheesy! The thing starts up with a joke about a hamster up a ... differently abled berserker's butt. Jaheira's and Minsc's dialog is grating and dumb, respectively, although Yoshimo's a bro. And Aerie, whom I recruited a bit later, is so squeaky that I can barely stand it. Then, as devices to drive the plot forward, I'm offered a choice between "really wanting to save Imoen" and "really wanting to punch Irenicus in the groin." Not very imaginative. So far, the writing has been just frankly bad, like something a 15-year-old DM would come up with. (Speaking from experience here, I used to be a 15-year-old DM.) This is one area where P:E is clearly on an entirely different level. There, we have characters and factions with understandable motivations; not someone who's muhahaha evil because he wants to rule the world, but someone who does some frankly pretty awful stuff out of justifiable rage. I seriously can't wait to see how the real thing is going to be -- good writing always was near the top of my list of things I want to see in a game. Second, content density. Josh in particular has gotten a quite a lot of flack over saying that he doesn't like the content density in BG2, Chapter 2 in particular. Which is where I am. Which is actually kinda funny because Irenicus's dungeon -- ostensibly Chapter 1 -- felt more like a prologue, really. But I digress. I haven't visited much of Athkatla yet, but at least the Copper Coronet has way too much content density. The minute I'm in through the door, it feels like a dozen people want to fight me/recruit me to defend a keep/recruit me to clear out monsters (**** you Firkraag!)/recruit me to raid a tomb/another tomb/other stuff. That's just too much. The game really would have been improved if they had spread out all that content somewhat. It felt overwhelming, confusing, and... yes, it breaks mah immershun. So at least when it comes to the Copper Coronet, I'm with Josh -- there is such a thing as too much content density. Nothing too important by way of encounters yet at this point. The slaver base was a good fight, but compared to the stuff in IWD it was easy-peasy. I think I dropped a Confusion on the group and then Dire Charmed the slaver captain and had him murder his crew, just because I could and I'm a mean hmm-hmm Lawful Good inquisitor who really doesn't like slavers. This, however, is because now I know how the system works. My first attempts at BG2 were incredibly frustrating. I was murdered by the golems in Irenicus's dungeon because I didn't know you needed blunt weapons to fight them. I was murdered by the beasties in Aerie's tent because I didn't know you needed magic weapons to fight them (and had sold all of mine because I didn't have proficiencies for them). A bit later I was murdered by beholders, vampires, and Baron Firkraag. (**** you, Baron Firkraag! I'm coming for you this time!) I don't think the solution is to dumb things down. However, a game like this really needs not only a good manual (which BG2 had), but a good tutorial -- an extended (and skippable) prologue that introduces you to the mechanics, basic gotchas ("some monsters are immune to some types of damage, or need magic weapons with a minimum + something to hit"), and basic tactics ("it's often best to rush in with your best fighter to murder the enemy caster, as they are juicy and nutricious.") This is one area where I think there has been genuine progress, and games have been better for it. The sewer and Copper Coronet maps were annoying; narrow corridors hard to path through, with angles that didn't really make much sense. The slaver base one was cool, and I really dig the variety. Every map is different, which is great. However, the degree of polish in the maps is noticeably lower than in IWD or the P:E backer beta. Also, the Lilarcor puzzle. Other than being completely contrived like most of these things are (srsly, Excalibur in a city sewer?), it was a pretty okay puzzle. Apparently Iggy the Inquisitor is a bit of a racist as he murdered some inoffensive kobolds and a carrion crawler without too many qualms. If he has any, I'm sure some fervent prayer will sort it right out. And that's about where I am at this point. Nalia wants me to go clear out her stronghold REALLY RIGHT NOW NOW NOW but has apparently been perfectly happy to tag along dealing with the slavers so far, so I think I'll go do that next. (Does this thing have timed companion quests like BG1 BTW? Don't remember. Those really bit me in the behind before. Could barely keep anyone in the party.) So, at this point... coming back to this feels like harkening back to a simpler, more innocent time, where you enter a 10 x 10 foot room with an orc guarding a chest. After IWD, the gameplay is enjoyable from the get-go; on my first encounters with it years ago however it was horrid. The Copper Coronet throws way too much content at you at once. And... yeah, it's fun, and I can't wait to continue.

Will do, starting a thread now. I got Lilarcor yesterday. Woo!

Dispel Magic works against Stoneskin. Clerics get that too. That is true. Playing without a cleric would be hard. Even more important is the healing ability; relying on potions + resting only would make it very slow going, and/or you'd have to be really good at avoiding damage in the encounters. Druids have fabulous spells but most of them have counterparts in the priest or wizard list. True. There's also an inverse difficulty curve: a sub-optimal party is okay at low levels, but runs into a brick wall at higher ones. Very true. My first IE game was BG2, and I really, really, really struggled with it. Even basic things like "why isn't my weapon doing any damage?" is not obvious at all when you're a newbie. Rather than dumb it down (a lot) though, I think it would be better to have an extended and skippable prologue that introduced you to the mechanics and basic tactics. Again, I had been playing these wrong -- in some crucial ways -- for years, without ever realizing it, and I don't think I'm all that atypical, nor dumber than the average gamer. Ayup, not much room for this in IWD. Even the rather amusing end narration refers to your party as "the forces of Good" even if you were all vilest Chaotic Evils. BG2 is somewhat better in this respect, but even there, a lot of the time the alignment-related choice boils down to "accept the quest or not." The same is true for most games, natch, MotB being a notable and important exception. Apples, oranges. IWD is a pure dungeon crawl and doesn't pretend it's anything else. It's very good at it. PS:T's main problem is IMO that it's actually a story game about discovery, but pretends to be a dungeon crawl. So you get just bad things like lots of content being gated by your ability scores.

OK, that explains it. Similar problem though. In any case that's how I beat him, didn't find it all that hard, just tedious. I'm sure that with foreknowledge I could now make a party that's better at it. Pay more attention to archers, and make an even more murderous fighter. The kits in IWD:EE are LOL by the way. I started an HoW game too, importing two of my party (Trotsky and Rosy, my favorite fighter/clerics), but added an Inquisitor, Sorcerer, and Kensai. The Kensai has fairly ridiculous THAC0 and damage. Pretty sure I could have beat Belhifet faster with him + a tank with maxed-out AC and lots of potions. Add a dedicated archer and it would've gone even more quickly.

If you believe a complaint like that is going to contribute to a better game, you're mistaken. In fact it's more likely to do the opposite.

I love you too, archangel. We were discussing missing in melee combat there though. :kiss kiss:

The grazes do so little damage I don't think they affect the pacing much at all. Grazes for status effects (very short duration) can be useful though. I agree about the number ranges for "everything" -- DR and DR bypass in particular -- but I think we're dealing with a personal preference here ("I'd rather have a zero than a consolation prize"), not something that's objectively wrong with the base system. But yes, still needs a loooot of tuning.

Missing means your damage range is 0 to maximum. If that's not swingy, I don't know what it is.' Would you feel better about it if those grazes were actually 0's?

^ This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of unhelpful complaining.

But but but. You're still comparing apples to oranges. In the IE games, those grazes would have been misses/saves, i.e. no damage at all. (Edit: Okay, fine, half damage on those spells where save = half damage.) AD&D uses a completely different resolution mechanism for spells and weapon damage. P:E uses a unified resolution mechanism for all attacks. This is a side effect. The P:E mechanism is arguably better because it's (1) way more transparent, and (2) requires more thought to use, i.e. pick your attack based on the defense you want to attack, and use different spells and attacks in combination to work around defenses. In other words, you're sounding a whole lot like somebody who was complaining about swingy damage in IWD before you gently pointed out that he needs a fighter with really good THAC0. :points at self:

But but you can also work around the damage swinginess. Most of the time if your AoE didn't bite, it's because you were attacking Deflection and your Accuracy wasn't high enough. So attack Will instead. There are scads of spells there that attack Will (or some other defense) to do damage and debuff Deflection. Then hit them with something that attacks Deflection. Just like working around status condition immunities, see?

Won't comment on BG2 as it's been many years since I last played it and I only started a playthrough now, but I did use those quite a lot in IWD just now. Individual uses against less powerful targets in mob fights, and several at once on a resistant boss. I found them extremely effective, even against enemies with magic resistance or high saves. With several casters in the party, I had a bunch of them memorized; in a boss fight where I was figuring I'd rest afterwards anyway I simply hit the boss with all of them at once. This worked great if the enemy's chance to avoid the effect was, say, around 50%, and acceptably a good way beyond that. Expending two to four spells to get a boss out of a fight is not a prohibitive cost IMO. In fact, I think I only used Fireball, like, once, and I might as well not have. Used magic for status effects, buffs, and counters, melee and arrows for damage. Was a lot of fun that way. Holy Smite was awesome not so much because of the damage but because it blinded everybody for a round. Made all the difference e.g. with Yxonomei and that Corrupted Temple fight. Also used it to great effect to suppress various massed evil archers for the time it took to get to them.

But but but, lots of IE spells were exactly like that. Especially the really powerful single-target ones like Rigid Thinking, Feeblemind, Dire Charm etc. Why is consistent damage so much more important than consistent status effects? Even I didn't reload just if a Rigid Thinking didn't bite.

Not diminishing returns; a cap. Once you've killed enough critters of a particular type, you know everything there is to know about killing them and don't get any more XP for them. Also, no XP for killing people (=not beasts or monsters).

If you had fun then that's great. I find playstyles that require meticulous micro-management tedious. As to cheesy, it is IMO because it's exploiting a problem in the AI (units not alerting each other when going aggro). Like kiting.