Let's Play Baldur's Gate 2, and reflect on Pillars of Eternity (2)

[archangel979]

@archangel Suppose level drain took two rounds to take effect, and slapping Negative Plane Protection on the character in the time window would stop him from getting level drained. Worse or better?

for bg2 worse but would work for PoE. In bg2 you can slap it after first level drain and it will stop more of them. I would also remove penalty gained from level drain while spell lasts.

[Guest 4ward]

i’m interested when comparing BG2 vs PoE combat what impact the melee system as well as disabling outside-of-combat casting have. Is it possible to have enemies that can stun, charm, confuse etc from afar like eg. umber hulks in PoE (not even thinking of beholders here with their abilities)? If yes, how instant are my spells, can i react/counteract in time in PoE? Then what of the melee abilities of enemies compared to BG2, does the melee system allow for enemies like the vampires, greater mummies, skeletal warriors etc in PoE? What are your experiences from the fights in the PoE beta (i understand it’s just a small portion but just when taking the design/mechanics PoE vs BG2 and comparing them) ?

[PrimeJunta]

@archangel Why would it be worse?

 

-- I think it would be better. I like the back-and-forth part of attacks and counters, and immunities make that backward, forth-and-back rather than back-and-forth.

 

As I said elsewhere, I'd also remove dedicated counters altogether, and roll the "counter" effects into other spells. I.e., have every spell do something useful, and also counter something harmful. I think it would make the gameplay more interesting and dynamic, rather than just making the counters a flat resource cost.

 

@4ward There are enemy casters and adventuring parties in the BB who have similar abilities as you do, and the spiders throw webs from a distance. There's nothing in the mechanics that precludes stun/charm/confuse from afar, for sure; whether and how much of that they'll put in I obviously don't know. There's not a whole lot in the BB; there are a couple of enemy casters but they're extremely easy to neutralize so I don't think I've ever been slapped with anything worse than Slow.

 

As to melee enemies: I think persistent effects are out; even petrification is temporary, and I don't know if there's level drain. That's a shame IMO, as they make certain enemies that much scarier and something has been lost if you know you can just wait out any status effect (and waiting it out won't even take very long).

 

The main diff. between P:E and IE combat is engagement, which changes the way the encounters feel a lot. In P:E, there's a rush to initial positions, the front lines engage, and things settle down; then you have a period where you move around your non-engaged toons for maximum effect (circling to the side of the melee with your wizard to blast with Rolling Flame, flanking someone with your rogue to backstab etc) and deal with enemies doing the same (a beetle getting behind your line is Bad News). It's a much more deliberate pace; you can't just rush for a high-value target somewhere in the back without getting clobbered.

 

The grognards on this thread really really love the way movement works in the IE games. Over the past few weeks I've gone from actively disliking movement in the IE games to quite enjoying it. I still prefer the more measured and deliberate pace of P:E though, but I understand why Stun, Hiro, Sensuki and the others are so angry about it. It is a big change, and it's legitimate to expect that something that significant wouldn't be changed in a game promising "combat from IWD." (IWD2 notwithstanding -- it didn't have engagement, but it did have attacks of opportunity which had a similar effect restricting movement.) 

[Jarmo]

 

And finally, the relevance to P:E. 

 

(1) Other than adding lots more gated content, is there a way to make the game less punishing for a first-time run (or even a run 10+ years after the first run) while maintaining a similar level of replayability? If so, what would these be? 

 

(2) How should metagame knowledge be taken into account when designing a game like P:E? For example, in a game where you get to pick the order in which you do things, if you place a powerful artifact somewhere, players who know it's there will beeline for it. When is this good or bad? (I just beelined for Frost Reaver +3 and I don't think it'll make the game less fun. OTOH beelining for the Enclave in Fallout 2 will kind of make the whole game derp since the Enclave Power Armor is effectively godmode).

 

(3) How important is mechanical and narrative consistency? If a character tells you something is urgent, for example, should the game enforce it? Always? Sometimes? Not at all? Should you know how urgent? What should the consequences be?

 

1.  Random thoughts.

Some kind of optionally punishing choices, like "I'm not siding with thieves, certainly not with vampires, I'm taking them all out."

It should be clearly communicated it's going to be impossibly hard for you.

 

Mentor kind of characters that'll make things easier for you. BG2 Jaheira would have been a good choice, if maybe that uubiduubi cult of hers could have actually helped you out a bit. Someone who'd you like to have around for the first playthrough, but not the following ones.

 

2. Best to not even try. I know I get a kick out of whenever I manage to grab something good I'm not supposed to have yet.

I bit harder to get, a bit easier after that, balances out in the end.

 

3. I'd like urgency to be enforced. But I'd also like it not being present all the time. Maybe companions could add insight, like " he says it's urgent, but those trolls have been there for months, they'll keep a few weeks yet". Finding an artifact or something from some ruin, no need for it to be timed. But if someone asks me to save his family from that burning building over there, you shouldn't have time to rest a bit first, even less go for a pilgrimage to lonely mountains.

 

Annnd... another thing, regarding that favorite bone of contention, hard counters. Specifically: immunities (something you apply before you're attacked, like Negative Plane Protection vs level drain or Chaotic Commands vs confusion), or counters (something you apply after you're attacked, like countering one Charm with another).

 

My preference is for counters over immunities. I got a huge kick out of the magicfights in IWD's Severed Hand because they worked like this. Someone was Dire Charmed; Dominate them right back, or Hold Person to get them to stay put while it wears off. Immunities should IMO be largely on items, not spells, and these items should be rare.

 

So, another question to the grognard gang: which one do you prefer, immunities or counters, and why? 

 

I prefer (partial) resistances to immunities, don't really like counters.

But those should be communicated somehow in advance. Guest giver, companions, somehow.

 

- "If they're right and there are Vampires there, we'll need magic weapons"

- "garlic repels them too, and silver weapons, though not as well"

- "maybe we should wait until dawn, they might be asleep or at least weaker"

 

Stuff like that. Give me a hint before the fight.

Let the area description show wyvern droppings so I know to bugger the heck out if I'm level 1, let a companion tell me we need poison protections.

[Quantics]

I am certainly hoping that there aren't that many tight corridors in most dungeon maps in PoE. It may make for interesting combat but it makes for frustrating navigation.

 

Especially if pathfinding is in the same state as it is in the current backer beta. 

Edited January 12, 2015 by Quantics

[GordonHalfman]

Immunities in BG2 weren't perfect, but I don't find them particularly problematic either. They suffer from a general lack of opportunity cost, being cheap to cast and often having long duration with no downside. Partly this is a symptom of high level D&D, low level spells just become too plentiful after a while. 

 

But I think the expression "hard counters" lacks nuance, it could refer to different things. Like:

 

A) X is completely necessary to counter Y

B) X is completely sufficient to counter Y

C) X is completely sufficient to counter Y, but has some interesting downside or wrinkle that requires more subtle use

 

I think A is a problem, B is fine and C is better. In general in Bg2 I don't think A actually occurs. Also I feel like a point that is sometimes missed in the debate about "rock paper scissors" is that immunities are less about requiring some kind of tactical genius to counter and more about just giving encounters a different look. The game has great variety in encounter design partly because of the number of different monsters but also the number of different circumstances. Like golems for example, they have 100% magic resistance. So the usual stuff your mage does won't work. Does that mean he's useless? No, there's a half dozen things he can do but it's not the same stuff as every other encounter. 

 

Or say you have a surprise group of vampires running at you when you're not prepared. Maybe you have to break out a wand of summoning that you haven't used for ages just to get a quick wall of fodder between you and them. But the summons don't last long so you use a few potions as well to try and take them down quickly. But then you end up having to tank the last remaining vamp with a mirror image and just survive the encounter with a level 1 wizard. And then as you run back to the inn you get jumped by some thieves and your wizard has to use an invis potion because he has 6 hp. And that's cool.

 

And then next time you fight vampires you're prepared and it's much easier. And that's ok as well. Rpg's don't have to be designed with the philosophy that every encounter has to be some hand crafted thing designed to give an optimal experience that tests the players tactical muscles but not too much while also listening sympathetically to the player's ideas concerns and expectations. After playing Bg2 almost any modern Rpg just feels extremely one note by comparison largely for this reason. 

[PrimeJunta]

@GordonHalfman very good points. I think a lot of the time we have been talking past one another just because we have different ideas of what a "hard counter" actually means.

 

You're also probably right about option (A) and BG2. As Stun is fond of pointing out, there really are lots of ways to do things. You can get into situations where you need to backtrack and come back later. That's not a bad thing at all IMO (except for that ludo-narrative dissonance thing which presents most quests as not something you can just drop and find waiting for you three weeks and five levels later.)

 

I 95% agree about encounter design and challenge also, and I'm not even sure about the 5%. Signposting again. I find it fun to knowingly push somewhere I know will kill me dead if I'm not extremely resourceful. I do not find it fun to innocently blunder into something that kills me dead in no time flat. I.e., the problem isn't the encounter design; the problem is if the game neglects to communicate to me that I'm about to do something dangerous.

 

BG2 does do this kind of communication on occasion -- f.ex. the ex-worshippers guarding one of Kangaxx's sarcophagi warn you that there's something really nasty there, plus there's all the "emanates chilling aura of evil" descriptions and such. I have issues with the times it doesn't do it, like the trouble I had with the beholder cult quest.

 

I don't have a huge problem with level-gating content BTW. NetHack does this; you won't get your class quest until you're a certain level. That makes leveling up to that point an objective in and of itself. Used sparingly, that can work too. Used everywhere, it makes you feel like you're being yanked on a leash. Generally however I would prefer more subtle signposting.

[archangel979]

@primejunta: spells that give immunity are just part of the game, the go hand in hand with super powerful effects they guard against. You don't really need Death Ward if enemy Finger of Death only does damage, you memorise another healing instead.

 

As for engagement, I don't have a big problem with the mechanic in general but the way it is currently implemented in PoE is terrible. If they made it like in nwn or just made it slow movement would be so much better.

 

And beelining for enemy in the back in IE games often meant letting your mage and priest tank enemies and you do not want that since they can get hit and lose their spell.

 

And I agree with you about the gameworld not telling you about some strengths and weaknesses of creatures you are about to meet. I think NWN had those creature books that told you some common knowledge about certain creatures (like needing fire for trolls).

Edited January 12, 2015 by archangel979

[Stun]

And Stun: did you learn all this yourself from the game, or did you use resources that didn't come with it (a little/sometimes/a lot/yeah baby!)

Lots of both. You'd be surprised at what you learn and discover when you solo. Plus, back in 2000-2001 when the game was still 'hot', you could go to the Black Isle forums and engage in endlessly massive mechanics-based debates with super knowledgable people like Dan Simpson, Wesley Weimer and the guys who eventually founded the Gibberlings 3 and Baldurdash websites (ie. the modding community)

 

And you, yourself, are gonna learn quite a bit by going through this game with a 3 person party, btw. What's that saying? Necessity is the mother of invention? Yeah, that's how it is in BG2. If you lack a fighter (for example), you'll instinctively discover all the ways to turn your cleric and mage into tanks. If you lack a mage, you'll find yourself figuring out ways to turn your Fighter into a battlefield nuker etc. etc.

 

Edit: and to make this relevant to the forum: I certainly hope PoE allows for such role mutations. Because there's nothing more dull than games that don't - Games that adhere to the catastrophic MMO philosophy where all classes have strict combat roles and any deviation means Build failure/You're hopelessly underpowered because you're 'playing your class wrong'.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

@Stun You can't believe how relieved I am to hear that. Looks like looking things up and asking fellow adventurers for help isn't "cheating" then. Another preconception of mine getting into the way of fun, clearly.

 

BG 2 isn't a game. It's a way of life.

[PrimeJunta]

@primejunta: spells that give immunity are just part of the game, the go hand in hand with super powerful effects they guard against. You don't really need Death Ward if enemy Finger of Death only does damage, you memorise another healing instead.

 

What about if Finger of Death too two rounds to act, and you had one round to apply a counter before dying, after being zapped?

 

"Hit by Finger of Death? Apply Kevorkian's Arcane Defibrillator, level 3, mages only. Now for sale at well-stocked magic merchants!"

[Stun]

 

@primejunta: spells that give immunity are just part of the game, the go hand in hand with super powerful effects they guard against. You don't really need Death Ward if enemy Finger of Death only does damage, you memorise another healing instead.

 

What about if Finger of Death too two rounds to act, and you had one round to apply a counter before dying, after being zapped?

 

Then it would be like poison. It'd be a good mechanic, but I wouldn't want it to replace Save or Die.

[Stun]

BG 2 isn't a game. It's a way of life.

Yep. It's a sport. You don't "play" BG2, you practice BG2. You engage in it.

 

That's why when people start saying things like "I've played Bg2 X times", or "BG2 has replayability!" I get confused. (what are these people babbling about?) It's like going up to Michael Jordan and asking him how many times he's "replayed Basketball". One does not simply count BG2 replays. BG2 is meant to be measured with *time*.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Fair enough. Perhaps I'll come to like it too, eventually. Not convinced yet though.

 

Edit: ninjae'd, that was in reply to Save or Die.

Edited January 12, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Final Seal Guardians.

[Luckmann]

 

@primejunta: spells that give immunity are just part of the game, the go hand in hand with super powerful effects they guard against. You don't really need Death Ward if enemy Finger of Death only does damage, you memorise another healing instead.

 

What about if Finger of Death too two rounds to act, and you had one round to apply a counter before dying, after being zapped?

 

"Hit by Finger of Death? Apply Kevorkian's Arcane Defibrillator, level 3, mages only. Now for sale at well-stocked magic merchants!"

 

 

There's a counter to Finger of Death. It's called Resurrection.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Luckmann

[archangel979]

 

 

@primejunta: spells that give immunity are just part of the game, the go hand in hand with super powerful effects they guard against. You don't really need Death Ward if enemy Finger of Death only does damage, you memorise another healing instead.

What about if Finger of Death too two rounds to act, and you had one round to apply a counter before dying, after being zapped?

 

"Hit by Finger of Death? Apply Kevorkian's Arcane Defibrillator, level 3, mages only. Now for sale at well-stocked magic merchants!"

Then finger of death would never work again if you just carry one defensive spell. Like Stun said poison works like that, not everything should. Vs high level mages you could cast death ward just in case. Or you can risk it and cast something else.

[Nakia]

Just got to wondering how fast people could go through the opening dungeon?   

[Jarmo]

 

 

 

What about if Finger of Death too two rounds to act, and you had one round to apply a counter before dying, after being zapped?

 

Then it would be like poison. It'd be a good mechanic, but I wouldn't want it to replace Save or Die.

 

 

In these, I'd like something between 100% and 0% effect.

To the tune of

- full effect killing instantly, a bit like 1st level kobold hit with 20th level fireball

- almost full effect still deadly, maybe lose 25% of max health per turn, for four to six turns, in addition to being paralyzed

- almost saved, losing 25-50% of health, also getting hit with paralyze and/or slow effects

- full saved, getting no effect

 

I really dislike the Save or Reload mechanisms.

Poison was save or die in early D&D, was later fixed for better.

[Stun]

Just got to wondering how fast people could go through the opening dungeon?

I usually rush it as fast as I can, as the dungeon is actually kinda dull. There are only 2 things that matter in Chateau Irenicus:

 

1) The companions you plan to pick up

2) The Helm of Balduran

 

So I usually grab those two and then make for the surface. Alternatively, there's the "dungeon be gone" mod, which gives you all the dungeon's loot and EXP, then asks you whether you want to recruit Yoshimo, Minsc and Jaheira, then instantly teleports you to the Pramenade battle cutscene.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

I really dislike the Save or Reload mechanisms.

Poison was save or die in early D&D, was later fixed for better.

 

Flashback to 1984 or thereabouts. Our first ever AD&D session. I was voted DM. We spent an entire Sunday lovingly crafting our characters. Even carefully drew portraits to the best of our ability. Then we set out for Adventure, using some prepared module, don't even remember what. Miraculously the party survives the first encounter with goblins or something. There's a chest. The thief checks for traps. I secretly roll, like, a 3. No traps found. He opens it. "As you open it, a small needle flicks out of the lock and jabs you in the wrist. Roll a saving throw against Poison." It's another 2 or 3. "Uh... well, you're dead I guess. Wanna roll a new character?"

 

That... was not fun.

 

It is also conceivable that at least a part of my aversion for save-or-die mechanics can be traced down to that incident. Young minds are impressionable after all.

[Luckmann]

Hey, I have two stupid questions that other veterans will probably laugh at me for asking, but to be perfectly honest, having played Baldur's Gate 1/2 since release, it never ever actually came up as relevant until right now when I'm playing a elven assassin for the first time.

 

• Can you backstab with ranged weapons in BG2? Specifically, Shortbows.
• Do you get the bonus to hit while in Stealth, with ranged weapons? Specifically, Shortbows.

Because if so, I'm going to have all the fun with Poison Weapon and Arrows of Biting (and Arrows of Piercing.. and Arrows of Dispelling).

 

Damn I'm going to miss playing with the different kinds of arrows and adapting to the situation in PoE.

 

Other than that, I'm going to specialize in the use of Longswords, with a minor in Shortswords and Daggers. Longswords are versatile like no other and there's actually not going to be that many that'll use that kind of stuff out of the people I'm going to pick up.

 

 

Viconia with Crom Faeyr and a Tower Shield, Korgan with Hammers or Axes, Edwin with nothing but himself, Aerie because elves, and then Sarevok, or Imoen or both, possibly axing Aerie, we'll see. It'll be hilarious when I get Sarevok and hand him Carsomyr. ...maybe Haer'dalis? I usually hate him so much I can't take him, so maybe this once just to see how he turns out, he's usually terrible.

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by Luckmann

[Stun]

• Can you backstab with ranged weapons in BG2? Specifically, Shortbows.
• Do you get the bonus to hit while in Stealth, with ranged weapons? Specifically, Shortbows.

No and No. lol

 

And that's actually one thing I'm looking forward to PoE for. Rogues can do their Sneak attacks/Deathblows/Critical strikes with any weapon. That's really sweet when you think about it.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Stun

[500MetricTonnes]

Final Seal Guardians.

Back when I first played the game, I remember getting immensely frustrated with one of the Final Seal battles (the one involving the Marilith and Hive Mother, etc.). Since I was still rubbish at the game, relatively speaking, I finally chanced upon a solution:

 

Skull Traps. Loads and loads of Skull Traps.

 

With my mage PC and Edwin in the party and with several Project Image spells, I was able to cast around 36 Skull Traps between rests. So I laid down around 72 Skull Traps where each of the guardian spawns, so in the end there were literally hundreds of Skull Traps floating about. So I turned the key to unleash the guardians, and suddenly...FWIIIIIISSHHHHH!!! The game slows down to a crawl as all the Skull Traps start exploding, killing most of the guardians instantly. The only one to survive the initial explosion is the drow cleric Ameralis Zauviir, since she has 95% magic resistance, but the sheer volume of Skull Traps eventually did her in. I then summoned up a golem to clear away the remaining Skull Traps, after taking absolutely zero damage.

 

It just goes to show that there is a solution to everything in this game, no matter how absurd or time-consuming.

[Lillycake]

 

I really dislike the Save or Reload mechanisms.

Poison was save or die in early D&D, was later fixed for better.

 

Flashback to 1984 or thereabouts. Our first ever AD&D session. I was voted DM. We spent an entire Sunday lovingly crafting our characters. Even carefully drew portraits to the best of our ability. Then we set out for Adventure, using some prepared module, don't even remember what. Miraculously the party survives the first encounter with goblins or something. There's a chest. The thief checks for traps. I secretly roll, like, a 3. No traps found. He opens it. "As you open it, a small needle flicks out of the lock and jabs you in the wrist. Roll a saving throw against Poison." It's another 2 or 3. "Uh... well, you're dead I guess. Wanna roll a new character?"

 

That... was not fun.

 

It is also conceivable that at least a part of my aversion for save-or-die mechanics can be traced down to that incident. Young minds are impressionable after all.

 

If you get a plank of wood and set it on the floor to walk on it, it still feels like you're walking on the floor.  If you use that same plank of wood to bridge a gap that would surely kill you if you fell, the walk across it wouldn't feel like you're walking on the floor in the same way.  The plank is the same, the balance is the same, but the only difference is the thought that "if you take one step to either side you will die" and that changes the experience.

 

I think that playing a game with the intention of having a "magical journey with ups and downs" isn't truly possible unless the chance of defeat is looming around.  It's difficult for a lot of people to understand (I've seen countless arguments about how "hardcore" mode in video games is pointless by people who don't understand the concept of danger I'm talking about) and the feeling you get from overcoming obstacles and challenges is the thrill that some of us seek.

 

Baldur's Gate has a million ways to die, and a million ways to succeed.  Just like comparing the variables of mortality in real life, it's a fun way to emulate how dangerous and thrilling life might have been in those times.  If you consider the concept of dying in anyway to be unfair then that's already overlooking the intent of the game's design.