anameforobsidian

I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now. But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent: Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee, rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years, a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example), a clumsy spellbook system, wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless, a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points), a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders), plot invincible enemies you run into at night, a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2, an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese, vastly superior and inferior strongholds, etc. Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions. Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad. It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment. And roll or die saves are a terrible idea. They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring. There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in. It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.

I'm surprised Sensuki is against it considering that it's very close to what BG/2 did for two-handed style.

I think people are: A. Drastically overestimating the appeal of IE wizards. IE wizards are far more fun when you don't use them to their full potential. Sword Coast Stratagems makes Baldur's Gate 2 pretty unfun about halfway through. Eventually the tactic is: Send your front line character with the highest saves and MR to fight them by themselves for five to thirty minutes. Have them drink a potion every five or so minutes. Wait for their protections to run out. Kill them in 1-10 hits. B. Drastically overestimating the appeal of unbalanced class based games. What, you mean that my bard is deadweight compared to the alternatives? Why even have a bard? What, druids are like clerics with several of their most useful spells taken away? C. Forgetting that the role you're playing isn't that of god / rulebreaker. Do some work and look for glitches / gross imbalances if you want to break the game, don't let mages easy mode it for you. D. Forgetting about how much being outside the sweet spot and rest-spamming sucked. E. Forgetting how much hard counters suck. Wait, there are basiliks outside of Durlag's tower? Looks like its a reload. Hard counters make the fights either more luck based (you roll past the hard counter), or they take tactics out of the fight (what you do in the fight doesn't matter, only how you prepared for it and how you roll). F. Forgetting how much hard saves suck. Some people complain about being oneshotted by enemies in the Beta, but Abu-dhalzim's Horrid Wilting could one-shot parties who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Congratulations, it's reload and run away or hope for a save. G. Forgetting how much Baldur's Gate 2 fudged the class dynamics to make them work. Minsc has insanely high strength and a free Beserker rage. The PC gets several of the best spells for warrior priests, it made Inquisitors far more attractive. Paladins get the Caromyser (and full plate -2 early) to make up for being **** at melee compared to fighters. Jan gets free exploding ammo to make up for being bad in combat, etc. Enemy wizards were generally much higher than the party and did not use the full range of their abilities, because the full range of their abilities sucked. H. Just plain complaining because wizards don't have all the powers. Too bad. Wizards have all the powers types weren't the only backers.

Thanks!

Does anyone know who's in charge of devtracker / if there's any way to add devs? Several of them, especially Justin Bell, aren't tracked by it.

It really bafles me whether it was from the very beginning, back at the Kickstarter Campaign, when the 'round-free' combat was decided. I know it was supposed to be RTwP, as in the IE games, but of course those games *did* have inv. combat rounds. It feels like combat tries to simulate ARPG style, when this is clearly intended for controlling a single character, not a party. The result (IMO) is unnecessary chaos. Why do so many agree that this flawed system stays ? Because RT systems with rounds lead to a lot of wasted time / standing around unless you're a hasted fighter.

The transition from daily to encounter to at will implicitly means spells scale by level. Using nine fireballs in an encounter is way more powerful than nine acid arrows or chromatic orbs.

If your character's about to die, maybe there were bad mistakes leading up to that point. Also, there's way more that you can manage a dying frontline instead of micro in the IE games: Casting web (or even grease) on your frontline fighters with a ring of free action, drinking a potion of invisibility, vhailor's helm / other multiple image items, items that cause transformations with high ac / immunities or regeneration (cloak of the sewers), hold person, emergency hide in shadows, using a scroll that increases your DR, contingency anything really, casting chaotic commands / fear / other mindbending / sunray spell to cause the enemy to scatter, emergency hide in shadows attempt, casting beserk for those emergency hitpoints, drinking the healing potion while a cleric moves in with a more serious heal, melee abilities that raise DR like certain spins, quick magic missile to try to kill the enemy before the next attack, and most importantly, avoiding letting your character get that low in the first place and avoiding fights when you don't have the resources to beat them. Microing may be your favorite tactic, but it's far from the only one, or even the best. The rest of the decisions require that you anticipate rather than solely react, which has the potential to make the game more interesting. That definitive IE feel hardly relies on running in circles. Even if it did, an engagement system does not theoretically mean that you can't micro, it just means that it has a cost imposed on it just like every other decision. I can't speak for the current implementation of it, because I don't have beta access, but the theoretical problems with an engagement system are vastly overstated in this thread.

All of these questions are answered in kickstarter updates or on the blog.

I very strongly disagree with the idea that the only kind of tactical movement is one where everyone runs in circles like unfettered idiots. For one thing, manipulating enemy AI is not the same thing as engaging in intentional positioning. A smart enemy would either break off pursuit, or break out a ranged weapon and start attacking from afar. It also shows an extreme lack of verisimilitude. Armies that fled the battlefield in a disorderly fashion frequently got cut down by enemies for a very good reason, it's easy to shoot or stab someone in the back. The WC3 video didn't show great feats of intelligence or skill; we wouldn't praise the intelligence of someone that stood in front of a panicked rhinoceros in any situation that remotely mirrored the real world. Then, the fact that a choice is unpalatable does not mean that it is less interesting or intelligent. To hear fans of the Witcher talk, only choices that are unpalatable are intelligent. In the Infinity Engine games kiting the most powerful melee opponent is always the right choice until you're reasonably sure of winning. Sure it requires skill, but skill is not the same thing as intelligence. Choosing to run through risking penalties, run around, or engage an enemy is more interesting than constantly running around them. Sure the AI or mob speed might be off, but that's not the same thing as an inherent problem with Finally, I think there's a significant danger of groupthink on the forum. It's always the same ten to twenty people talking about the same ten issues, and eventually the group reaches a consensus that may or may not be shared by other players. Of course, I can't speak to the actual quality of the beta, but eventually you have to wonder whether the issues raised in the backer forums are representative of problems in the game or individual issues.

Eh. I would have agreed with you before I did my sword coast stratagems playthrough. It works really well for BG1, but mage fights that take 5 to 10 minutes of real time because mages' entire spellbooks are protections are not fun. Nor is being needled to death with melf's minute meteors.

One thing I like about 4e is that they kept component costs for rituals (longer out of combat spells), but got rid of them for combat abilities.

I didn't say that incredibly dense was the most preferable, I don't think it is. However, there's a difference between exploring say the lighthouse, coming into content that you can approach different ways every few screens, and having 3/4 of Ulcaster be useless and hard to traverse or a full half of the mines outdoors. Sometimes their commitment to scale led to vast wastes of space (zombie farms being the worst offender). Also, cartooney was just because I thought you were complaining about a distortion of scale.

To respond to the initial post, detail and density are more valuable than raw size. To quote random sources from the internet, Oblivion is almost double the size of Skyrim, and Just Cause 2 crushes most other games in size. That doesn't mean that extra space is useful or valuable. Give me Gothic's tiny but intricately designed land any day over Oblivion's mindless sprawl. That's not saying that size is inherently bad, but it's not inherently good either. Density of content is far more important. I just finished replaying BG1 this morning, and I was struck by a waste of space in many of the wilderness areas. Some are fun, but quite a few (especially the ones around Ulcaster), are just empty. To respond to Hiro, What does it matter if the scale is off and the graphics get every so slightly cartooney because of it? BG1's huge scale led them to include a lot of empty areas or really pointless content? In the post above you use Nashkel, but a full half of Nashkel is pointless (and the terrain feature makes it an extra waste of time to explore. Would the game really be worse off without Noober, pixel-hunt Ankheg plate, and two fields? Also, while BG may be more vertical, I can't get past the ugly black marble they used in the enhanced edition. And BG1's trees are ****ing great. They do use great choice with color scheme and environment in general. I would have liked to see some hardwood forests in the game though, and/or some denser forests. Even cloakwood is a bunch of tree patches.

I like the AoE dispel, because it creates some very tough tactical decisions. I'm playing BG1 as an inquisitor (thanks tutu), and dispel is useful, but you have to weigh its affects on your enemies vs. it's affects on your party. Is it really worth wiping haste out of your frontliners to get rid of that stoneskin when you know there's another contigency prepared anyways? That said, I'm not really into the whole rock, paper, scissors thing.

That's totally a different viewpoint. No one has ever said something similar on this forum or any others.

I suggest you read the wiki. Many, many of these spells have PE equivalents. Furthermore, has it ever occurred to you that maybe clerics were a little over-powered in D&D games? Maybe all their abilities needed to be spread out to other classes. Draw Upon Holy Might - +1 to str, dex, con per 3 levels, stacks with item bonuses (capped at 25)! Holy Power - grants base thac0 to equal to that of a fighter, sets strength to 18/00, stacks with draw upon holy might if cast first!! Well, why have a fighter? Seriously. Zone of Sweet Air - **** cloudkill Great, now I have to have priest or casting paladin in every party if they use cloud magic (which was frequent). Sanctuary - level 1 invisibility spell that doesn't break when casting non-combat spells Great! Why learn invisibility? Lesser Restoration/Negative Plane Protection - removes/immunity level drain Thank god there's no level drain in this game. What a tedious mechanic.

They use real world biology/ideology/human nature to create POE. There is no real world equivalent of Orlans, Elves, Dwaves, Aumaua, or Godlike. Attempting to use real world logic to ascribe characteristics to these fantasy creatures is foolish. I meant to say as a reference. Human: Caucasian Elves: Asian (intelligent, feminine look, long life span) Dwarves: Scottish (accent) Aumaua: African-american (muscular, rougher skin) Trolls (warcraft): Jamaican (accent) yeeaaahh, it's really foolish for game companies to use real world biology as a reference to create fantasy creature...small minded peeps... You just referenced racist (really, surprisingly and stupidly racist) pseudo-science, not biology. Also, I'll just leave this here:

I think you're ignoring an awful lot when you discount the minor quests, many of which take half an hour to an hour if you haven't done them before. Also there's the: Strongholds, Companion Quests, Hidden Dungeons (like the slavers next to the Copper Coronet) Large Sewers, secret rooms with monstrous fights and so on and so forth. I tried to do the same thing with my players in a D&D campaign, and they got pissed and wanted more direction.

I'd prefer it as a mod. The temptation to spend a half year rolling an ubermensch is too strong.

I absolutely agree about the naming conventions. I tend to think that some of the D&D classes (especially rangers) are unnatural chimeras because their names lack specificity. Fighter - Guard Rogue - Scout / Highwayman / Bandit / Guerilla / Ambusher / Skirmisher (to focus on their roles as unfair fighters) Ranger - Huntsman / Woodsman / Master of the Hound / Archer / Explorer (This focuses on the man of the wilds / hunter aspect and not whatever the **** Drizzt is) Paladin - Zealot (This is really more because D&D / medieval romanticism has given people unrealistic views on the virtue of knights, who were surprisingly murderous) Monk - Flagellant (just for funsies, I think the idea of the kung fu monk is a bit too dominant)

Eh, a lot of these prestige classes seem a little high level for PE. Remember that it's aiming at about a BG1. Also should be in the other thread.

This was my experience as well. I ran 4th edition about a year before switching to Pathfinder. Noone complained about the combat mechanics. Rather it was people complaining that there was no more straightforward and simple class, like the fighter. There was no more super complex class like the mage. Everything was more or less the same. Skills and their use seemed more watered down. Balance is fine and good, but not at the cost of character and atmosphere. I DM a 4E campaign and ran three others. The point that there are no more super simple classes is true. The idea that all the classes are the same is completely and totally false. Even two of the basic healing classes, Shaman and Cleric, play dramatically differently. Clerics focus on straight up heals and some direct damage. They have some pretty significant bonuses to single target healing, especially in early game. Shamans have a spirit companion that's the bases of all their buffs; they teleport all over the battlefield, base all the buffs off proximity to the spirit companion, heal as areas of effect, and do significant buffs with a focus on teleportation. Let's see, then there's wild magic sorcerers; who have 80 million special additions to their spells based on the die roll, the stage of the moon, and whether you see the same color blue that I see. Even in the same class, illusionists play entirely differently from evoker types. Psionicists make a ton of temporary traps and automatic attackers over the board, oh and they have a power that lets them summon "any" non-magical item for a day with weight limits. My DMs never let me psionicists, because it was too easy to break the game. The constant, constant, constant bitching about 4E classes being the same normally comes down to the same garbage criticisms: People never tried the circuitous and relatively hidden, but surprisingly usable dual-classing rules. People want quadratic mages or ubermensch clerics back. Why even have classes then? PnP Skyrim would work just as well. People only played it for a little bit, or not at all. People want to look through 500 sourcebooks so they can make their own version of pun-pun. Yeah there's plenty of areas 4E falls down, but class variety isn't one of them. I was playing with a group mixing very experienced players with a bunch of newcomers. The newcomers found the classes a bit overwhelming in the beginning. No class in 4E compares with the simplicity of a 3.5E Fighter or Barbarian. The experienced players complained that they were limited on what they could do outside of combat. For example, however useless spells like animal messanger, major image, or augury might seem for a CRPG, they could be used very creatively outside of combat. Things like these disappearing were upsetting people. And sorry, no 4E class plays like the 3.5 E wizard who has a bevvy of spells in his spellbook and must decide what would be useful to learn in advance for a situation. We played for a year, so your attempts to put my group into one of your "people who" category just isn't correct. Gosh, if only there were similar abilities to animal messenger, major image, or augury in 4E. If only there were some way for wizards to prepare their spells in advance from a pool larger than what they could use.

No. I'm not a big fan of ESP-based AI. The enemy shouldn't know how much stamina a character has. Good point Stun. How does the enemy know who has low stamina? Because someone with low stamina would be panting, sweating, exhaling heavily, bleeding etc. Exhaustion and fear leave signs that are detectable for virtually every sense. This was my experience as well. I ran 4th edition about a year before switching to Pathfinder. Noone complained about the combat mechanics. Rather it was people complaining that there was no more straightforward and simple class, like the fighter. There was no more super complex class like the mage. Everything was more or less the same. Skills and their use seemed more watered down. Balance is fine and good, but not at the cost of character and atmosphere. I DM a 4E campaign and ran three others. The point that there are no more super simple classes is true. The idea that all the classes are the same is completely and totally false. Even two of the basic healing classes, Shaman and Cleric, play dramatically differently. Clerics focus on straight up heals and some direct damage. They have some pretty significant bonuses to single target healing, especially in early game. Shamans have a spirit companion that's the bases of all their buffs; they teleport all over the battlefield, base all the buffs off proximity to the spirit companion, heal as areas of effect, and do significant buffs with a focus on teleportation. Let's see, then there's wild magic sorcerers; who have 80 million special additions to their spells based on the die roll, the stage of the moon, and whether you see the same color blue that I see. Even in the same class, illusionists play entirely differently from evoker types. Psionicists make a ton of temporary traps and automatic attackers over the board, oh and they have a power that lets them summon "any" non-magical item for a day with weight limits. My DMs never let me psionicists, because it was too easy to break the game. The constant, constant, constant bitching about 4E classes being the same normally comes down to the same garbage criticisms: People never tried the circuitous and relatively hidden, but surprisingly usable dual-classing rules. People want quadratic mages or ubermensch clerics back. Why even have classes then? PnP Skyrim would work just as well. People only played it for a little bit, or not at all. People want to look through 500 sourcebooks so they can make their own version of pun-pun. Yeah there's plenty of areas 4E falls down, but class variety isn't one of them.

That's a very good point. I personally find encounter XP a better system than combat xp or quest xp.