Update #81: The Front Line: Fighters and Barbarians

[rjshae]

Does it really matter which class most closely resembles a vessel for holding fluids?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

As I said with the Rogue. You have up to 20 possible builds in 4th ed and only one of them is great. So I'll take that great build. Everything else I wouldn't touch. It's now become the default as I take out that build all the time. It's really only one choice for me unless I want a lower character. Given the choice of the two, I'll end up picking the better character.

 

And I don't see many paths for some people to take when someone posts a min-maxed character on the forums. I'll probably just take note of their build when it comes time to take out a particular class. The Fighter class will be one of the last classes I'll take out. Checks fighter builds on forums, sees a min-maxed OP build. cool, looks great. Will take out and see how good this build is. Easy peasy, too easy.

 

And it will probably be the same with new players to the game. What's the best Fighter build? Points to thread. They're now playing the min-maxed OP build. It's now become the default for new players who don't want to do all the hard work of figuring it out themselves.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Baudolino05]

 

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. 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Stun]

^Bullsh*t. You were discussing this:

 

 

 

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

 

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 also standard D&D fare. 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.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Stun

[Baudolino05]

^Bullsh*t. You were discussing this[/size]:

 

 

 

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

 

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?

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Stun]

True or false: I was discussing of a complete different topic in the post you quoted.

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?

 

True of false: all D&D CRPGs are unbalanced mess and even in my dreams I wouldn't dare to say the contrary.[/size]

A false on the first claim, True on the second. 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. As for the second claim....I'll take your word for it. I'm not a dream interpreter

 

 

 

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. [/size]

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. Edited July 1, 2014 by Stun

[Baudolino05]

 

True or false: I was discussing of a complete different topic in the post you quoted.

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?

 

True of false: all D&D CRPGs are unbalanced mess and even in my dreams I wouldn't dare to say the contrary.[/size]

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 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. [/size]

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. 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Stun]

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 .

Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion.

 

Lets go back to discussing Balance.

 

But I HAVE to care about balance in a Baldur's Gate-like game.

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.

[Baudolino05]

 

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 .

Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion.

 

Lets go back to discussing Balance.

 

But I HAVE to care about balance in a Baldur's Gate-like game.

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... 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Sarex]

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... 

 

But that simply wasn't the case with the Infinity Engine games... There were strong builds yes, but they never made the combat "unchallenging".

[Stun]

 

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. [/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.

[Karkarov]

And it will probably be the same with new players to the game. What's the best Fighter build? Points to thread. They're now playing the min-maxed OP build. It's now become the default for new players who don't want to do all the hard work of figuring it out themselves.

Well you make two big assumptions there Hiro.

 

1: You are assuming the build people like the most is actually the best build.  My gaming experience has taught me that it doesn't actually always play out that way.

2: You are assuming there actually will be a legitimate OP build that is clearly better than the others.

 

While you say this game "looks like 4th ed" I will also mention 4th edition isn't what created those rules either.  4th edition is modeled on MMO's.  Specifically Trinity MMO's like World of Warcraft or Everquest.  While it is true many MMO's do have a clear "best" build in a certain class for DPS... that rarely stays true for the Tanking or Healing Classes. 

 

Dark Souls provides a great example of what I consider to be good balance.  Lots of people will tell you Magic is totally overpowered in those games.  Yet I play a character who literally has no magic.  There are areas I would sit back and snipe with a bow and never go to melee.  Yet I could link you videos of players I know who charge right into melee in those situations and make it look easy.  Someone might say tactic X is the best most OP way to beat a boss, but I could tell you about tactic Y that will work just as well and if done right is not any harder.

 

It is a great game because there are multiple ways of playing it, nothing is over powered in "every" situation, and even when something seems so OP it is obvious to use someone else will take a different approach that looks just as equally OP but is totally different in execution. 

 

It is an action based game so you can't draw direct parallels, but it is what RPG's should strive for when it comes to challenge and balance.  Dark Souls is really never "easy" but with the right plan it is also not necessarily that "hard" either.  The trick is no matter how good one approach looks there is always another method that someone else will use that is actually just as good.  So when I tell you in Dark Souls I think melee with ranged back up is really powerful what I am really saying is... for me personally melee with ranged bow attacks in certain situations is the best way to play.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Karkarov

[anameforobsidian]

 

 

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 .

Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion.

 

Lets go back to discussing Balance.

 

But I HAVE to care about balance in a Baldur's Gate-like game.

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.

[Baudolino05]

 

 

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. [/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.

 

 

 

 

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... 

 

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.  

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Sarex]

Then we bow to you, oh gamer of such mighty prowess. For us lowly mortals gamers BG2 was sufficiently hard (and I came from IWD2 as my first IE game) and you will alas have to suffer through with the easy games that offer no challenge.

[Baudolino05]

Then we bow to you, oh gamer of such mighty prowess. For us lowly mortals gamers BG2 was sufficiently hard (and I came from IWD2 as my first IE game) and you will alas have to suffer through with the easy games that offer no challenge.

 

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?   

 

 

 

 

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 .

Fine, I'll drop that aspect of the discussion.

 

Lets go back to discussing Balance.

 

But I HAVE to care about balance in a Baldur's Gate-like game.

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. 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Baudolino05

[forgottenlor]

I'd been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons since I was 13 (in 1986) and had also played many of the D&D gold box games (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and others) as well as Wizardry and Bard's Tale games, and I certainly found that Baldur's Gate 2 had some very challenging battes, and I never played the game with less than a party of six.

Edited July 1, 2014 by forgottenlor

[Sarex]

I'd been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons since I was 13 (in 1986) and had also played many of the D&D gold box games (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and others) as well as Wizardry and Bard's Tale games, and I certainly found that Baldur's Gate 2 had some very challenging battes, and I never played the game with less than a party of six.

 

Filthy peasant, bow before Lord Baudolino05. Your poor gamer skills aren't worth the filth from our Lord boots.

[Lephys]

And it will probably be the same with new players to the game. What's the best Fighter build? Points to thread. They're now playing the min-maxed OP build. It's now become the default for new players who don't want to do all the hard work of figuring it out themselves.

Yeah, but how do you define "best"? How many other Fighters are in your party? How many characters are in your party, total?

 

How do you even know something's the best build if you don't try out others to verify? You don't, really. You just know what you're using is working with how you're using it.

 

Nothing against people who challenge themselves to find the optimal party setup and/or speedrun the game, but that's not really a challenge set forth by the game itself. The game is made to be played and enjoyed. In fact, I'd say the very nature of the game is to see what you can do with limited tools.

 

That's kind of the whole point of the entire "eliminate crap builds/options" sentiment: you get a box of tools, and they're all good for SOMEthing. Can you pick one and figure out how to make do with it, regardless of whether or not it's the maximum allowed by the limitation?

 

The game is constructed specifically to allow you to not really worry about the perfect build. Got low hitpoints? That's not necessarily bad, as long as you use them right. Got low armor? That's not necessarily bad. Low attack speed? Not necessarily bad.

 

If people want to figure out what the maximum DPS is out of all weapon/class/build combos, then more power to them. But, the game doesn't really require any of that. Nor do you really gain much concrete benefit from doing so.

 

It's like those games in which someone says "This build is terrible," or "this character sucks," then some other person comes along posting Youtube videos of them rocking the whole game with that character/build. Is it really objectively worse, or is it statistically unpopular to have to compensate, actively, for its shortcomings? "You can only take like 2 hits with this build, and you're dead. It's so much worse than other builds." Maybe someone is really good at making sure that character doesn't ever get hit twice. The build doesn't suck for them.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Yeah, but how do you define "best"?

 

How do you even know something's the best build if you don't try out others to verify? You don't, really.

 

If Fighter A does X damage and has Y health and Fighter B has 2xX damage and 2xY health and everything about Fighter B is better on paper. And other people have confirmed by testing it themselves. I don't need to try out both to confirm Fighter B is better when it's already shown on paper and tested by other gamers. That's just common sense. And when you have a community that predominately agrees that one particular build is OP and is one of the best builds in the game, then it's probably a good chance it is OP and one of the best builds in the game.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

I agree that there's a good chance. Doesn't change the fact that you don't really know until you try it. Thus, you play with that build, and it works great. You don't know it's the best. You just know it's good.

 

Anywho, if Fighter A does X damage when? What's his armor penetration? How does he handle magic? How much synergy is there with the other members of your party?

 

A couple of numbers being big hardly makes something "the best build."

 

I'm just saying... in this game, it probably won't be so simple.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Well you make two big assumptions there Hiro.

 

1: You are assuming the build people like the most is actually the best build.  My gaming experience has taught me that it doesn't actually always play out that way.

2: You are assuming there actually will be a legitimate OP build that is clearly better than the others.

 

While you say this game "looks like 4th ed" I will also mention 4th edition isn't what created those rules either.  4th edition is modeled on MMO's.  Specifically Trinity MMO's like World of Warcraft or Everquest.  While it is true many MMO's do have a clear "best" build in a certain class for DPS... that rarely stays true for the Tanking or Healing Classes. 

 

 

1: No. I'm assuming there will be average builds, good builds, and a very small number of (or even one) excellent builds. My gaming experience in both video games and pnp has shown me this is usually the case.

2: Well we know some builds will be better than others. Josh Sawyer has confirmed a high INT Wizard is better than a high Might Muscle Wizard. Whether that is OP, is something we don't know. However, history has shown there are usually a small amount of OP builds in games of this nature. eg. the IE games, MMOs, D&D, 4th ed which PoE is taking a lot from.

 

MMO's are not a good example as they are constantly tweaked, usually with the nerf bat. Someone finds a legitimate OP build, makes a youtube video, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and not long after it gets nerfed. It's very rare a rules system like D&D gets hit with the nerf bat. And PoE is a single player game so I don't  see patches being released to balance the game because someone found an OP build. I only remember one nerf with a low level daily power with the Rogue in 4th ed pnp and I simply swapped it with another powerful daily power. And it's the same with Tanks and Healers. There are optimised Tanks and Healers in 4th ed as well. There are average builds, good builds, and a very small number of excellent builds.

 

And I'm not going to comment on Dark Souls as I've never played that game.

[Baudolino05]

I'd been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons since I was 13 (in 1986) and had also played many of the D&D gold box games (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, and others) as well as Wizardry and Bard's Tale games, and I certainly found that Baldur's Gate 2 had some very challenging battes, and I never played the game with less than a party of six.

 

 

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

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I agree that there's a good chance. Doesn't change the fact that you don't really know until you try it. Thus, you play with that build, and it works great. You don't know it's the best. You just know it's good.

 

Anywho, if Fighter A does X damage when? What's his armor penetration? How does he handle magic? How much synergy is there with the other members of your party?

 

A couple of numbers being big hardly makes something "the best build."

 

I'm just saying... in this game, it probably won't be so simple.

 

LMAO.

 

So I need to try out worse builds to find out if this great build that the community and what's on paper is better? Lephys logic at work. I don't need to play it. Why would I waste my time going through all the steps of creating with what turns out to be a lesser character (on paper) and then playing the game to find out that, Yes this isn't as good as the build that's been posted on the forum, what's on paper, and the community agrees is one of the best. I wouldn't waste my time to try and prove them wrong. But you can spend your time trying to do that.

 

I can't wait for these builds to be posted and tested when everyone is playing the game and many months later a small amount of OP builds are found to be some of the best. We'll see if there are OP builds. I'll bet there are.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Valmy]

Personally I found lots of battles in BG1 and BG2 and both IWDs challenging the first time I played through the game.  Once I knew what was coming everything was a cakewalk.  But we are talking about me remembering details of specific battles from over ten years ago.