Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards

[Bryy]

I really think that what we were told in the KS was not the whole picture.

They said they are making an Infinity Engine-type game. That's what they are doing.

[Volourn]

"Put your trust in those guys that think very much like you"

 

I trust that they'll likely make a game I'll enjoy and have fun with. However, they do NOT think like that I do. if they did, they wouldn't be doing things for casual players OR 'grognards'. nor would they be making a game with the multi headed monster as an option. They also wouldn't be having  unlimited  super duper vaccaum mass teleporting inventiory into castle.

 

There are tons of things I like about this game announced so far (DWARVES!) but there are things that are mightily dissapointing.(fake halflings!).

[constantine]

"Put your trust in those guys that think very much like you"

 

I trust that they'll likely make a game I'll enjoy and have fun with. However, they do NOT think like that I do. if they did, they wouldn't be doing things for casual players OR 'grognards'. nor would they be making a game with the multi headed monster as an option. They also wouldn't be having  unlimited  super duper vaccaum mass teleporting inventiory into castle.

 

There are tons of things I like about this game announced so far (DWARVES!) but there are things that are mightily dissapointing.(fake halflings!).

 

 

Yes !! Dwarves 

 

... c'mon the Orlans look really cool (may be 'fake' gnomes instead)

 

 

As for the play exp. customization I loved it. Better have the On/Off Option rather than cakewalk 'On by Default'

Edited April 15, 2014 by constantine

[Volourn]

Owning a castle is one thing, getting the loot there should be another.

[Stun]

Ooh! A true meat and potatoes BG2 discussion. I haven't had one of those in ages!

 

Lets do it.

 

 

 

What's wrong with BG2?

 

Let's start.

 

1: Counter the Mage.  I am pretty sure I have covered this elsewhere but Tic Tac Toe isn't a great combat system, and it is exactly what 50% percent of all encounters in Baldur's Gate 2 boiled down to thanks to the constant non stop wave of mage after mage after mage after mage....  There is nothing fun about casting the same half dozen counter spells, sending my melee in, watching mage guy die in one round (cause I countered everything) 500+ times.  It isn't fun, it isn't exciting.

Your math is a wee bit off. And so is your head. I can help you with the former. 50% would suggest that half of both the bestiary and the encounters are mage battles. This of course, is beyond dishonest. Beyond grotesque hyperbole. It's a flat out deliberately false statement.

 

BG2 has mage encounters, certainly. But it also has:

 

1) Mind Flayers (and Ulithards, and Vampiric Illithids, and at least one Alhoon)

2) Muggers

3) Salamanders

4) Beholders (and Gauth and Elder Orbs)

5) Vampires

6) Skeletons (and Skeleton warriors)

7) Carrion Crawlers

8.) Elementals (earth, water, Air, fire, and the princes)

9) Dragons (Red, Silver, Green, Shadow, White, Black, Blue)

10) Umberhulks

11) Trolls (Standard, Giant, Ice and Spectral)

12) Kobolds

13) Hobgoblins

14) Golems (Clay, Stone, Flesh, Iron, Adamantite, Sand, Magic, Bone)

15) Non-spell-casting Pirates

16) Imps

17) Pit Fiends

18.) Glaberazu

19) Mephits (fire, ice, steam, wind, water, smoke)

20) Planetars

21) Divas

22) Fire Giants

23) Wraiths

24) Wights

25) Crimson Deaths

26) Wandering Horrors

27) Mummies

28) Spiders (standard, sword, wraith, phase, giant)

29) Thieves

30) Fighters

31) Panthers

32) Lions

33) Tigers

34) Shadows

35) Shadow fiends

36) Yuanti

 

 

And that's about it. No wait. Wait. Who am I kidding. It also has:

 

37) Dao

38.) Standard Genies

39) Cambions

40) Ogres

41) Wyverns

42) Invisible Stalkers

43) Aerial Servants

44) Nymphs

45) Succubi

46) Balors

47) Tieflings

48.) Myconids

49) Shambling mounds

50) Raksasha (Rahk, maharaja, etc)

51) Drow fighters

52) Drow Priestesses

53) Otiyughs

54) Mariliths

55) Werewolves (and Wolfweres, and Greater Wolfweres)

56) Shadow Wolves

57) Worgs

58) Wolves

59) Dogs (rabid and war)

60) Ankhegs

61) Duergar

62) Ochre Jellies

63) Mustard Jellies

64) Green Slimes

65) Githyanki

66) Koa-toa (priests, warriors, princes)

67) Sahuigan

68.) Minotaurs

69) Tetherian Soldiers

70) Balthaazar's Monks

71) Bears (Black, Brown, Cave)

72) Skin Dancers

73) Zombies (and zombie lords, and poison zombies)

74) Ghouls (and Ghoul Lords

75) Ghasts

76) Nishruu

77) Hakshear

 

And I'm sure I missed about 50 or 60 more. Your simple mind may have perceived that half of BG2's encounters were Mage-wars, but the actual black-and-white facts in the game illustrate otherwise.

 

 

 

 

2: D&D 2nd Edition rule system.  Why is this a problem?  Because it means there is absolutely no character ability development.  The only difference between this fighter and that fighter is one decided to go dual wield and the other went two hander.

Of course, with Fighters in BG2, you also have several kits that you didn't bother to mention, but no matter. We'll Discuss them at length, later. And while the first differences with fighters revolve around the Following weapon proficency choices, such as:

 

1) Mace

2) Hammer

3) Spear

4) Axe

5) Long Sword

6) Bastard Sword

7) Katana

8.) Scimitar/Waksashi/Ninja-to

9) Club

10) 2-handed Sword

11) Halberd

12) Flail

13) Sling

14) Short Sword

15) Dagger

16) Short Bow

17) Long Bow

 

And the weapon style Proficiency choices:

 

1) single weapon

2) Two weapon

3) Weapon and Shield

4) 2-handed weapon

 

 

^these are NOT what define a fighter in BG2. BG2 has fighter KITS: 1) Berserker 2) Kensai 3) Wizard Slayer

 

And these kits differ wildly. Kensai cannot wear armor. Wizard Slayers cannot use any magic except magic weapons, armor and some potions. Berserkers cannot master ranged weapons. Additionally, all three classes have class-specific bonuses and abilities. But this is just the tiniest drop in the OCEAN of character customization in BG2. Unlike your precious Dragon Age 2, Karkarov, BG2 does not limit players to three character classes <gag>. You can also be a Barbarian, a Thief (or its 3 kits), a Bard (or its 3 kits) a Cleric (or its 3 kits), a Druid (or Its 3 Kits). A ranger (or its 3 kits) You can be a Monk, Or a Sorcerer, Or a Mage, or a wild Mage or a Paladin (and its 3 kits.

 

That's 33 different classes, if you're keeping count. 33. Thirty-Three.

 

And even that isn't the whole story. You can Multi-class. Or Dual class to produce countless different combinations of builds.

 

^I challenge you to find a SINGLE cRPG created after 2007 that offers even 1/6th of BG2's character build options. Take all the time you need. You won't be able to find one. Yet you have the audacity to criticize what is probably BG2 single Greatest strength.

 

 

 

 

3: Save Scumming due to sucker punches and insane bouts with RNG.  I know you think that is good but most people will just say it is frustrating and just wastes time.  It isn't like there is any skill involved, you just reload and try again either bringing your hard counter or hoping to get lucky on the roll.

Get over it already. You can save scum in every cRPG for a billion various reasons. You might as well just come out and voice your dislike of the entire f*cking Genre.

 

 

 

 

4: Bad storyline flow "Rescue Imoen NOAH!!!!!!

 

Attention Josh Sawyer thralls: "Rescue Imoen!" is NOT the main storyline of BG2. 

 

 

5: Inability to create the exact party you want, apparently some people cared enough about this Obsidian addressed it in the kickstarter itself.

This is FALSE. I can create an all Monk Party of 6 in BG2, can't you? I can create a party with 5 wild mages and one Priest of Helm. Or a Party of 3 cavaliers, 1 assassin, and 2 Beast Masters. I can create a Party of 6 dual-classed Kensai-thieves. I can create a party of 3 Blades, 2 Bounty hunters and 1 Stalker. As can anyone else. What gave you the impression that Bg2 had any such silly party-creation limitations? Have you been listening to Josh again?

Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[constantine]

Nevermind, you want realism, stop getting anything you find thrown on the floor

 

I will be releaved not having to clear up room and organize stuff in my inventory every 30-60 mins.

 

 

 

(in reply to Volourn's post)

Edited April 15, 2014 by constantine

[Volourn]

"^I challenge you to find a SINGLE cRPG created after 2007 that offers even 1/6th of BG2's character build options."

 

Why is 2007 your cutoff date? What's so special about that year when BG2 was released well before that?

 

 

And, the fact that you listed weapons and weapon styles as 'evidence' is laughable. And, 33 classes? Come on, now.  BG2 does not have 33 classes. Kits are NOT classes. That's why they are called kits.

 

 *SIGH*

Edited April 15, 2014 by Volourn

[Cubiq]

 

3: Save Scumming due to sucker punches and insane bouts with RNG.  I know you think that is good but most people will just say it is frustrating and just wastes time.  It isn't like there is any skill involved, you just reload and try again either bringing your hard counter or hoping to get lucky on the roll.

Get over it already. You can save scum in every cRPG for a billion various reasons. You might as well just come out and voice your dislike of the entire f*cking Genre.

Stun i think the difference is that you don't want a game where you can savescum but a game where you have to savescum. Which i don't think is true for the whole Genre.

[Stun]

Why is 2007 your cutoff date? What's so special about that year when BG2 was released well before that?

Because Neverwinter Nights 2 was released in 2006, and comes close to offering BG2's vast build customization choices. But After 2006, no cRPGs even tries.

 

 

 

And, the fact that you listed weapons and weapon styles as 'evidence' is laughable.

Not in BG2 it isn't. Not with its loot drops. Not when your entire game can change depending on whether you're wielding Crom Faeyr, or Carsomyr, or whether you're dual-wielding the Flail of the ages and Belm, Or if you decide to build your Kensai as a grandmaster of Katanas so that you can wield Celestial Fury and totally have a different combat experience than someone who grandmasters in Long Swords and is using The Equalizer.

 

But like I said, weapon choices are NOT what defines class builds. it's only the Beginning of the definition.

 

 

And, 33 classes? Come on, now.  BG2 does not have 33 classes. Kits are NOT classes. That's why they are called kits.

Kits ARE classes, since you can begin them as a level 1 character and they stand on their own (ie they do not have a core 4 prerequisite, like 3e prestige classes do). Oh, and they're called kits because Bioware decided to call them that.

 

If you disagree then by all means, Would you call a 40th level Assassin classless?

Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

No, they're called kits because that is what theya re and BIO didn't 'decide' to name them that. 2nd Edition, which BG2 is based on, called them kits and which 3E's PrC are just a different form of them.  And, they do have a parent prerequsite lass. Can you be a mage berserker? no. You have to be a fighter.

 

The fact you actually think BIO called them kits and not classes just for giggles shows you really don't know the game or genre you are discussing.

[Monte Carlo]

Not very classy of Sawyer not to comment in this thread.

[Ffordesoon]

Not very classy of Sawyer not to comment in this thread.

Why bother? Anything - anything - he says will not matter. The argument will go on with or without him, and may get worse if he does comment. There is no point. I have seen tons of these sorts of threads, and dev comments never work as intended.

[Stun]

No, they're called kits because that is what theya re and BIO didn't 'decide' to name them that. 2nd Edition, which BG2 is based on, called them kits and which 3E's PrC are just a different form of them.  And, they do have a parent prerequsite lass. Can you be a mage berserker? no. You have to be a fighter.

First off, you CAN be a Berserker-Mage.

 

Second, there's no pre-requisite class for them. If you want to be, say, a Bounty Hunter, you do not need 4 levels in Thief (or whatever) before you're allowed to become a bounty Hunter. Instead, when you're creating your character, and you get to the CLASS option, you can click on Bounty Hunter.... and then... just be a Bounty Hunter until the end of the game. Are you Classless if you decide to do that?

 

The fact you actually think BIO called them kits and not classes just for giggles shows you really don't know the game or genre you are discussing.

Oh, I wouldn't say that Bio called them kits just for giggles. Calling them kits solves a ton of logistical and categorization issues. Most of which are completely irrelevant to this discussion that we're having, though. Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Sarex]

Why bother? Anything - anything - he says will not matter. The argument will go on with or without him, and may get worse if he does comment. There is no point. I have seen tons of these sorts of threads, and dev comments never work as intended.

 

Well I can't imagine how he intended Grognards to work...

[Stun]

 

 

No, they're called kits because that is what theya re and BIO didn't 'decide' to name them that. 2nd Edition, which BG2 is based on, called them kits and which 3E's PrC are just a different form of them.  And, they do have a parent prerequsite lass. Can you be a mage berserker? no. You have to be a fighter.

First off, you CAN be a Berserker-Mage.

 

He said Mage Berserker not Berserker Mage.

 

A distinction without a point. You can't be a Mage Monk, either. Is Monk a Kit? Nope. Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

Actually mechanically it was. Both Barbarian and Monk were Fighter kits.

Uh... No. Monk is not a fighter kit in Bg2.

 

And you can't be a Mage Paladin either.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Hormalakh]

I've got to say tht Stun is right about the kits being classes.

 

If a paladin is a class (where in reality he's a LG fighter with cleric spells and restrictions in charisma), then a kit with specific mechanics that are distinct with equal restrictions, equal bonuses to combat with maluses to "balance" are "classes" regardless of what a game wants to call them.

[Monte Carlo]

It's semantics really, I agree.

 

Sub-class sounds better than kit.

 

Barbarians and Monks were, in 2E nomenclature, classes. Barbarians were ostensibly quasi-fighters despite their D12 hit dice and Monks quasi thieves with their D6 hit dice. Again, though, it's an exercise in typically Gygaxian* syntax and an example of how higgledy-piggledy the development of the AD&D ruleset was.

 

 

* Although of course I loved Gary and all his works, quirks, hubris an' all.

[W.MacKinnon]

"Kits" in 2nd AD&D were introduced in the class handbooks. (EG: Fighters Handbook, Wizards Handbook, Barbarian's Handbook) If your more familar with D20 pathfinder they were basically Archtypes on top of a class. A Gallant was a Bard Kit(Think Tristan), A Brute was Barbarian kit with natural attacks(Tarzan). Barbarian was not a fighter kit, as the barbarian was a distinct class in AD&D 2nd. On top of that Gary Gygax didn't write most of these books. (I could break them out and actually check if it matters.)

 

Often they just were plain better then being a core class. Usually just added weapon profiencies and abilities not present in the core class, like the Fighter Mymridon. Added 2 weapon proficiences, had no negatives I believe other then having the character have to be in a military hiearchy.

 

How the infinity engine games treated them was similar to a seperate class, and the monk was a full derivative of the 3rd Edition Monk, as I don't recall there even being a monk class in 2nd edition. Unless you count the monk appearing in the original Oriental Adventures, which introduced a slew of base classes (Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Wu-jen, Bushi, and Barbarian) - and if playing in the setting only the classes in that book were expected to be used. The 2nd Edition monk appearing in the OA had a a D4 hit dice, which made them pretty crappy. The monk kit in the complete Cleric handbook was more the Friar Tuck monk then Kain from Kung-fu.

 

I was quite active playing AD&D 2nd Edition in my time, and someone saying a Mage with the Beserker kit is it's own class is funny to me. No, not it's own class.

Prestige Classes are quite different then kits, as a kit is chosen at character creation, much like an archtype in Pathfinder. A prestige class has progression of class abilities, usually a kit in 2nd was as I said, weapon proficiency or minor ability for a role-playing disadvantage, or a retardation of a core class ability. Read bounty hunter - thief kit(20pts intead of 30pts). The Infinity engine version of the bounty hunter was different then the pnp version as it had Fighters Thac0. As I recall the only kit that did that was the Swashbuckler I think, and it was a fighter kit that allowed minor rogue abilities. (Lossing armor prof. which was a big deal as max dex mod wasn't part of the rules in that edition)

[Monte Carlo]

Gary wrote Unearthed Arcana, which saw the introduction of the Barbarian.

 

Look, the lame preponderance of classes, kits and all the rest of it was (and always has been) about selling splat-books. One of the things I do agree with Sawyer about is that base classes should add efficacy in and of themselves without the need for prestige classes, kits, sub-classes or whatever other name we might call them.

[W.MacKinnon]

Amen, there Monte. Usually kits and prestige class are all about power gaming anyway. Players can't really play to the sub-class whatever in a computer game. For instance playing a bounty hunter in BG2, when if ever do you actually go collecting bounties? Flavor classes have no flavor if the story doesn't recongize it. Which is often the case when the Player's avatar is a blank slate character. The game's plot is better served with the core base classes with no fancy topping in most instances.

[Volourn]

"Not very classy of Sawyer not to comment in this thread."

 

Why? He doesn't need to do anything.

 

 

"First off, you CAN be a Berserker-Mage."

 

You cannot be a Mage Berserker. You have to be a fighter. Yiou can start as a Fighter(Berserker) than MULTI CLASS to mage. That is NOT the same thing. When you are a berserker you cannot cast spells and aren't treated as a mage. You are treated as a fighter because your kit is part of the fighter class. Why is this so complicated for you?

 

 

"Oh, I wouldn't say that Bio called them kits just for giggles. Calling them kits solves a ton of logistical and categorization issues. Most of which are completely irrelevant to this discussion that we're having, though."

 

But, that's the thing. You are being ignorant. BIO did not name them. DnD did. Kits are seperated by class. Only fighters can take the barbarian kit, only bards can take the skald kit, etc., etc. Kits are kits. Classes are classes. HUGE difference.

 

 

"I've got to say tht Stun is right about the kits being classes.

 

If a paladin is a class (where in reality he's a LG fighter with cleric spells and restrictions in charisma), then a kit with specific mechanics that are distinct with equal restrictions, equal bonuses to combat with maluses to "balance" are "classes" regardless of what a game wants to call them."

 

No. he's wrong and ignorant on how the game and how it and the rules it is based on work. You can be a paladin who decides to take a kit or not but try to take one of the paladin kits without being a paladin. I dare you. Oh yeah, you can't. Because they are kits.

 

And, sionce it needs stressing, BIO did not invent the word kit or seperate classes and kits for giggles.  That was DnD, and it was did for a good reason. Kits don't exist without classes. Anyone can take a class without a kit but in order to take a certain class you have to be a specific class. Only fighters can be berserkers. PERIOD.

[Stun]

^ FYI, if you hit the "quote" button, you can separate your words from the other person's words, instead of having to rely on quotation marks.

 

Anyway...

monk was a full derivative of the 3rd Edition Monk, as I don't recall there even being a monk class in 2nd edition. Unless you count the monk appearing in the original Oriental Adventures, which introduced a slew of base classes (Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Wu-jen, Bushi, and Barbarian) - and if playing in the setting only the classes in that book were expected to be used. The 2nd Edition monk appearing in the OA had a a D4 hit dice, which made them pretty crappy. The monk kit in the complete Cleric handbook was more the Friar Tuck monk then Kain from Kung-fu.

Side Note: Monks first appeared in the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook. Back when Quivering Palm had no saving throw and a 17th level Monk's title was Grand Master of Roses. Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Volourn]

"^ FYI, if you hit the "quote" button, you can separate your words from the other person's words, instead of having to rely on quotation marks."

 

FYI, I use quotes when I quote someone. That's the way it is supposed to be done.

[Stun]

To each his own lol