Baldur's Gate 2 > PoE 2 Deadfire

[anameforobsidian]

One problem PE II suffers from right now is that the new affliction system was supposed to provide a really fun interplay of affliction and counter affliction, but I rarely see enemies use afflictions except as an aura.  Combat gets really interesting when it happens (like the vampire hoard fight).  Auras on the other hand are really, really good in this game, because I don't think there are any protection from affliction spells and abilities.

 

Right now the system has the ability to have a counterspell game better than BG II, but only if one of the DLC teams steps up.  Given that my current impression is that this round of DLC is Obsidian trying out different people in different roles to see who will take the series helm next, I don't know if that will happen.

[Gfted1]

High-level class ability (BG).

[ThacoBell]

 

 

But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was.

 

Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too.

 

That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same.

Uh right.  You actually played Eternity at some point?  You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all?  Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard.  But Eternity, way more wizard focused.  Yeah.

 

Its actually not difficult at all. Its not uncommon for me to avoid taking a wizard altogether. Why? DRUIDS. I have never seen a wizard able to defend against Insect Plague. No save, splits to multiple enemies, no protections block it, shuts down spellcasting altogether. MUCH easier than any wizard duel. Alternatively, an Inquisiter Paladin, or Wizard Slayer fighter, or Bard (That high level dispel magic). Hilariously wizards/sorcerors are only like, the 5th best class to beat another wizard.

[TheisEjsing]

This is a silly discussion. PoE is in no way more wizard centric then BG II. It's not even comparable. Wizards are strong in PoE, as they should be, and you can run through BG II without any. But to draw such a conclusion is really weird to me. Especially after years of rage about weak wizards in PoE from grognards all over the internet. 

[Gfted1]

^I thought the party line was "the wizards in BG get to do everything, melee needs abilities too"? Hence all the crossover between classes in PoE.

[illathid]

 

 

But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was.

 

Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too.

 

That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same.

Uh right.  You actually played Eternity at some point?  You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all?  Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard.  But Eternity, way more wizard focused.  Yeah.

 

 

 

This is a silly discussion. PoE is in no way more wizard centric then BG II. It's not even comparable. Wizards are strong in PoE, as they should be, and you can run through BG II without any. But to draw such a conclusion is really weird to me. Especially after years of rage about weak wizards in PoE from grognards all over the internet. 

 

 

To be fair, I believe Shadenaut is saying that PoE is more wizard focus because it made all classes play like wizards do in BG2. Fighters cast knockdown, basically.

 

I don't agree with this sentiment, but we should at least argue against what he's actually claiming. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by illathid

[TheisEjsing]

I didn't read it like that. But fair enough, that's another discussion then. One I also think is silly, but one I don't care enough about to be a part of. ^_^

[illathid]

I didn't read it like that. But fair enough, that's another discussion then. One I also think is silly, but one I don't care enough about to be a part of. ^_^

 

I could very well be wrong too.

 

Maybe Shadenaut will help remove the fog of confusion from this discussion. 

[Verde]

 

 

 

But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was.

 

Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too.

 

That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same.

Uh right. You actually played Eternity at some point? You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all? Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard. But Eternity, way more wizard focused. Yeah.

Its actually not difficult at all. Its not uncommon for me to avoid taking a wizard altogether. Why? DRUIDS. I have never seen a wizard able to defend against Insect Plague. No save, splits to multiple enemies, no protections block it, shuts down spellcasting altogether. MUCH easier than any wizard duel. Alternatively, an Inquisiter Paladin, or Wizard Slayer fighter, or Bard (That high level dispel magic). Hilariously wizards/sorcerors are only like, the 5th best class to beat another wizard.

What you wrote was so hard to read and get through for multiple reasons...but let me just say this-

 

In no way whatsoever, do you face so many druids in BG2 that excluding a wizard in your party is an optimized or reasonable decision. It's just being a contrarian, esp when you bring up Wizard Slayers, easily considered the worst class in the game. Wizards DO in fact have counters to Insect Plague sound as reflection. Next you're going to tell us Staff of the Magi or Staff of the Ram are overrated.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Verde

[Big-Ben]

BG1 was boring imho with the hilarious wolf in the beginning that was harder than anything else in the game once you leveled. Starting at lvl 1 was BRUTAL.

 

I too loved playing as a wizard being one shotted by a single magic missile from some schlub with a wand. It kicked so much ass.

[try2handing]

 

Its actually not difficult at all. Its not uncommon for me to avoid taking a wizard altogether. Why? DRUIDS. I have never seen a wizard able to defend against Insect Plague. No save, splits to multiple enemies, no protections block it, shuts down spellcasting altogether. MUCH easier than any wizard duel. Alternatively, an Inquisiter Paladin, or Wizard Slayer fighter, or Bard (That high level dispel magic). Hilariously wizards/sorcerors are only like, the 5th best class to beat another wizard.

This is why BG2 needs to be played with Spell Revisions and Item Revisions. Some stuff are outright ridiculous in the vanilla game. Insect Plague, Kachiko's Wakizashi, Cloak of Mirroring, Project Image, PW Blind, Horrid Wilting, Carsomyr,... oof.

[kanisatha]

This is a silly discussion. PoE is in no way more wizard centric then BG II. It's not even comparable. Wizards are strong in PoE, as they should be, and you can run through BG II without any. But to draw such a conclusion is really weird to me. Especially after years of rage about weak wizards in PoE from grognards all over the internet. 

My sentiments exactly. For years now the one thing that's been the foundation of any discussion about BG2 has been that it's a wizard-centric game, and many uber-fans of BG2 have oft stated that the main reason they love BG2 so much is precisely because it is so extremely wizard-centric. So, yeah, people are of course free to argue otherwise, but I have no interest in engaging with any such arguments because to me that feels like arguing with someone who claims the sun orbits the earth.

[cokane]

This "wizard-centric" discussion is really missing some key point. First off, the base classes of 2nd edition DnD are: fighter, thief, cleric, and mage. So, of course, developers at the time built a game that expected you to have at least one representative in the party. As I said earlier, you can easily beat the game, even on your first playthrough with just one wizard in the party. Heck, you can even do it with only using one of the dual or multi wizards. Technically, you need a thief to overcome specific obstacles just as much as a wizard. Is the game thief-centric? Lastly, I've never felt more than two mages in BG2 was an optimal party composition, so I still don't see this. In fact, I've always felt having two divine casters was nearly as important as the two mages.

 

Now, Pillars was built specifically so that you don't have to have any particular class in the game. Though I'd argue this has resulted in a lot of classes playing much similar to each other, more so in Deadfire than in the original. I'd also add that priest was pretty much a requirement on high difficulty runs of the original Pillars, just as much as at least one mage felt necessary in BG2.

[xzar_monty]

<dang. can't delete post. ignore>

Edited August 7, 2018 by xzar_monty

[ThacoBell]

 

 

 

 

But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was.

 

Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too.

 

That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same.

Uh right. You actually played Eternity at some point? You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all? Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard. But Eternity, way more wizard focused. Yeah.

Its actually not difficult at all. Its not uncommon for me to avoid taking a wizard altogether. Why? DRUIDS. I have never seen a wizard able to defend against Insect Plague. No save, splits to multiple enemies, no protections block it, shuts down spellcasting altogether. MUCH easier than any wizard duel. Alternatively, an Inquisiter Paladin, or Wizard Slayer fighter, or Bard (That high level dispel magic). Hilariously wizards/sorcerors are only like, the 5th best class to beat another wizard.

What you wrote was so hard to read and get through for multiple reasons...but let me just say this-

 

In no way whatsoever, do you face so many druids in BG2 that excluding a wizard in your party is an optimized or reasonable decision. It's just being a contrarian, esp when you bring up Wizard Slayers, easily considered the worst class in the game. Wizards DO in fact have counters to Insect Plague sound as reflection. Next you're going to tell us Staff of the Magi or Staff of the Ram are overrated.

 

I didn't say anything about "fighting" druids. I said druids are BETTER at killing wizards than wizards are, so I rarely use wizards and I always have at least one druids. Did you play the game modded? (SCS or Spell Revisions perhaps?) Because I've never seen Insect Plague be reflected.  Also, when did I mention items? You might to actually try and debate with claims I actually made, rather make ones up wholesale.

[Harpagornis]

Druids are pretty powerful in BG able to beat the whole saga solo + no reload + SCS + Ascension + LoB. We even managed to get deep into ToB with a naked Totemic Druid (even no potions or scrolls allowed) using the rules mentioned before. Powerword: Summons!   

[try2handing]

I didn't say anything about "fighting" druids. I said druids are BETTER at killing wizards than wizards are, so I rarely use wizards and I always have at least one druids. Did you play the game modded? (SCS or Spell Revisions perhaps?) Because I've never seen Insect Plague be reflected.  Also, when did I mention items? You might to actually try and debate with claims I actually made, rather make ones up wholesale.

 

Insect Plague type spells should not be subject to reflection. In terms of mechanics, they are like fireball - an aoe that won't center on a single target even if you actually click on it.

 

You fight wizards with wizards if you want a badass duel with counters after counters, with you and the enemy taking turn countering each other round after round. For me this is a source of great joy in BG2 combat. The fun is not in "to kill enemies", but in the HOW. There was one time I did a 2v2 duel with Edwin and Aerie against 2 liches. Now THAT was some good fun. Or, I could've just backstabbed them both the moment they spawned, instantly killing them. But that would be lame as hell. Shame most players these days don't bother with the whole "style" thing.

Edited August 7, 2018 by try2handing

[ThacoBell]

 

I didn't say anything about "fighting" druids. I said druids are BETTER at killing wizards than wizards are, so I rarely use wizards and I always have at least one druids. Did you play the game modded? (SCS or Spell Revisions perhaps?) Because I've never seen Insect Plague be reflected.  Also, when did I mention items? You might to actually try and debate with claims I actually made, rather make ones up wholesale.

 

Insect Plague type spells should not be subject to reflection. In terms of mechanics, they are like fireball - an aoe that won't center on a single target even if you actually click on it.

 

You fight wizards with wizards if you want a badass duel with counters after counters, with you and the enemy taking turn countering each other round after round. For me this is a source of great joy in BG2 combat. The fun is not in "to kill enemies", but in the HOW. There was one time I did a 2v2 duel with Edwin and Aerie against 2 liches. Now THAT was some good fun. Or, I could've just backstabbed them both the moment they spawned, instantly killing them. But that would be lame as hell. Shame most players these days don't bother with the whole "style" thing.

 

They aren't subject to reflection. The player either misremembered or used a modded set up.

[Manveru123]

The problem with most Wizard vs Wizard duels was that at some point it turned to "who casts Time Stop first?". And the answer was always "me" because Robe of Vecna =)

[try2handing]

The problem with most Wizard vs Wizard duels was that at some point it turned to "who casts Time Stop first?". And the answer was always "me" because Robe of Vecna =)

 

That has never been my problem because, 1) I stopped playing vanilla game after 1st playthrough, and 2) I adjust my spell usage so that it never boils down to who casts Time Stop first, so that there are OTHER things going on aside from Time Stop, so that I get FUN out of it.

 

If everything a player does is doing everything just to cast Time Stop first, and he gets fun out of that, hey good for him. If he doesn't get any fun out of that, he's playing the game wrong, and it's a shame that he wouldn't bother to try and find ways to make things fun and exciting, since the game actually allows him to do that.

 

If it's your 1st playthrough, you might play simply to win. From the 2nd playthrough onward, you play the game mostly to have fun.

Edited August 8, 2018 by try2handing

[xzar_monty]

The problem with most Wizard vs Wizard duels was that at some point it turned to "who casts Time Stop first?". And the answer was always "me" because Robe of Vecna =)

 

Nope. I never, ever use or used Time Stop. There's just no need. Most 9th level spells are pretty useless, I would say. In fact, I have never even cast most of them. The ones I use are Spell Trap, Spellstrike and... that's it.

[try2handing]

 

The problem with most Wizard vs Wizard duels was that at some point it turned to "who casts Time Stop first?". And the answer was always "me" because Robe of Vecna =)

 

Nope. I never, ever use or used Time Stop. There's just no need. Most 9th level spells are pretty useless, I would say. In fact, I have never even cast most of them. The ones I use are Spell Trap, Spellstrike and... that's it.

 

Chain Contingency is good for creating fun combos. Black Blade of Disaster / Shapechange + backstab or Mind Flayer form's brain eating is good for the lol's, once in a while. And the occasional Gate or Wish for the added risk factor. I mean, the game is as fun as you choose to make it.

Edited August 8, 2018 by try2handing

[xzar_monty]

Absolutely! I just don't find those spells meaningful. But it's Power Word Kill that sucks more than anything else in the 9th level repertoire. I mean, if someone has only 50 hp left, they're already dead. Thus, the spell is useless. 4 and 9 are the spell levels that don't provide much for the wizard in BG2, in terms of quantity.

[try2handing]

I mean, if someone has only 50 hp left, they're already dead. Thus, the spell is useless.

Perhaps, provided he can't quaff another potion of superior healing or pop a Spell Trigger with Mislead + Immunity Divination + Spell Deflection (or something along those lines) before you can actually finish him off. Next thing you know, it takes you another 3 minutes, 2 dead party members, 12 potions of extra healing, to finally get the guy's hp to 0.

Edited August 8, 2018 by try2handing

[Gfted1]

The problem with most Wizard vs Wizard duels was that at some point it turned to "who casts Time Stop first?". And the answer was always "me" because Robe of Vecna =)

 

This post sent me off on a journey of rereading about Vecna and his Robe, Eye, and Hand.