Comparing PoE to BG is unfair

[Captain Shrek]

Gromnir, are you saying that thiefs are underpowered in BG games? Just want to understand your stance. Or is your point that they are weaker than other classes? Like rangers, priests and Wizards of PoE?

[Stun]

Gromnir, are you saying that thiefs are underpowered in BG games?

No. He's saying something even more silly: He's saying that Thieves are underpowered in Baldurs Gate 2 - the one IE game that munchkinized thieves and made them game breaking.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

bizarre.  

 

stun noted that it were possible to buy bundles that included ToB.  lord knows we never disagreed that you could buy ToB in bundles.  the soooooo... yet another pointless observation from hiro?  4 in 1 collection?  well gosh, that means that they is selling you four Different titles.  heck, you included a bundle with totsc.  does that mean bg2 = bg2, tob, bg1 and totsc? to be a collection requires more than one, eh?  you funny. 

 

stun said we would be hard pressed to buy a solitary bg2 product and within a couple minutes we found many examples o' bg2 solo products.   yutz.

 

you are hopeless.  

 

and again, the attempt to bundle a definition as well as the multiple products fails to have a relevant point.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

More noise from the master of evasiveness.

 

BG2 incorporates both SoA and Tob. But we know you are stoopid to understand this even though both SoA and ToB has Baldurs Gate II on title of box. And when people say there are high level abilities in BG2, you keep on saying there isn't even though the rest of the world knows it to be true. You're the one saying ToB isn't BG2. twit

 

And speaking of definitions.

 

yutz n. An affluent, usually city-dwelling, professional in his or her 20s and 30s; a prosperous and ambitious young professional.

 

*chortle*

[Stun]

Yeah I forgot. It's not called Baldurs Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal. It's called Dragon Age: throne of Bhaal. No wait. It's called Icewind Dale: throne of Bhaal.

 

Er.... Planescape Torment: throne of Bhaal? Legend of Zelda: throne of bhaal?

[Sephie]

How I see it is BG+expansions=BG1 and BG2+expansions=BG2. 

 

Like Dragon Age Origins + expansions 

 

Mass Effect + expansions

 

Icewind Dale + expansions

 

Diablo 2 + expansion 

 

I don't think being standalone is enough for ToB to be considered a different game, it's not big enough, doesn't have enough backround, you get straight to buisness etc. 

[Connavar]

as BG was a horrible game in general. What was great about BG was its amazing art + spell FX. The rest was cringeworthy: Story, Chars and combat were awful. BG2 at least improved upon quest density. 

 

Story chars and combat were awful...? In what way? And since when simply "density"...quest or whatever...makes for Quality?

 

A good story-driven game/movie/scenario is not based on density man. It is based on the way you weave things properly. An open-exploration game is another thing, if at all ; density counts there. Just making a quest having 15 outcomes or 15 parts/acts does not qualify it as a "nice story". 

 

(I can't spoil here. But could refer to some early story examples for POE. Anyway)

 

Story was fast and thrilling in BG...you got the feeling of a past hunting you (even without having played BG I first) and a main rival hunting you at present. You had to find a way to survive (and fast on some Chapters)...and what the hell are ya talking about characters? The most critical moment of the game, a major party member was kidnapped and a whole chapter was around that (that being said she was also your sister...even if not a valueable party member).

 

BG had a wonderfully weaved story. Characters had their own agenda (they didn't just cling onto your arms for no reason; after all you where a demi-god) and they could even leave party if your leader's actions did not go in-line with their personality. You never got the feeling they where just puppets, within general game mechanic terms and common sense. You had to finish their quest fast if you wanted to move on with them.

 

Comparison isn't fair...but not for the "reasons" you refer to. Comparison generally isn't fair...but that's another story. 

 

For me BG wins over characters entirely. That's a genre preference, but still I find some POE's stuff (Sagani for example) childish.

If a thrilling element or anxiety style is your choice, it also wins in story so far for me. If world-exploration is one's choice POE wins so far.

POE combat and visual effects are way better, of course. Setting and game feel + music are toe to toe; depends.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2015 by Connavar

[Captain Shrek]

Density does not make for quality. It was just more in BG2. You are projecting your baggage on me. Stop it. 

[Gromnir]

stun is being silly, and hiro is actually worse.  our point were not that a thief is unplayable bg2.  we noted that there is no reason to play a vanilla thief in bg2.  thief is relative underpowered compared to thief combos.  the vanilla thief is a dog compared to alternatives with multi and dual. 

 

"BG2 incorporates both SoA and Tob."  see, that ain't circular.  is repetitive.  you keep saying w/o supporting.  you see as self evident.  hiro didn't do homework.  again.  load bg2 onto your pc sans mods or expansions.  is bg2 installed on your computer?  yes?  well, ok then.  and again, in the present context, the distinction is pointless.  this is same as the wacky need to distinguish d&d hard counters and insta-kills from ie hard counters.  is complete missing the forest for the trees.

 

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/yutz

 

you are gonna get the hang o' this context thing eventually.  

 

the reason stun gives for playing a vanilla thief over a multi-class or dual-class or whatever thief combo is HLA... which is awarded at 3mil exp.  1) you can't get those abilities in bg2 as you need have ToB installed.  the 7th iteration o' the d&d ie games? in a thread comparing bg to poe, having to resort to the 7th freaking incarnation o' the ie games to make a vanilla thief viable is stun undercutting himself w/o realizing. 2) you get such abilities at 3 million xp, so the multi-class thief/mage or fighter/thief gets at approximate same time anyways.  one needs actual reach a full level-up, so the vanilla thief gets a fraction faster from a practical pov, but that is hardly a compelling or rational or reasonable explanation for choosing vanilla. the non vanilla thief also gets access to the pools o' HLAs from BOTH classes, so use HLA argument works considerable against the vanilla thief... again. 3) the vanilla thief is gonna be a dog compared to the  multi/dual regardless.  beyond the access to multiple pools o' HLA as already noted, the f/t exceeds vanilla thief weapon selection, armour selection, thac0, attacks per round, hps and will still be able to max all thief skills quite easily.  the m/t does have fewer hps than a thief, but as with the f/t, she can max all thief skills w/o difficulty and gets access to spells... all the mage spells.

 

but again, this is repetitive.  is always repetitive with stun... and hiro is just being a nutter.  show us again how our links revealed that we were wrong about being able to purchase bg2 as a standalone product? 

 

is a sad commentary on the educational system.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 2, 2015 by Gromnir

[Captain Shrek]

I think I asked a pretty straightforward question: Is playing a thief underpowered in Bg/2 all by itself or just wrt other classes? If it's the former then I will admit BG/2 were worse games as they made an entire class impossible to play. My general impression is, no matter what class you play the game is totally playable just like most modern games, including PoE. 

 

Mages and other magic users are not particularly overpowered either. They require careful play and more input. The entire assertion that they are easier is blinded by player expertise and nostalgia at playing more complex classes better. 

Edited May 2, 2015 by Captain Shrek

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Check your facts.

 

Baldur's Gate (1998) was resoundingly voted RPG of the year by every award, magazine, and rating system out there at the time. It single-handedly revived the RPG genre. It was noted at the time for its excellent aesthetic, expansive adventure, and enthralling combat.  The critical path was considered fairly linear, but the game was so open-ended (for the time), that it wasn't considered a problem. The writing and story telling were also considered top-notch for their day, which included how NPCs were fleshed out with distinctive personalities and conflicts of their own. The other thing, is that it had multiplayer. This is considered a failing for the IE games, but it was a huge deal at the time, because very few other RPGs even had the capability.

 

Baldur's Gate I, pre-Tales of the Sword Coast, was a massive success. Baldur's gate 2 only expanded on that durable foundation. The entire genre has been living in the shadow of its legacy, never quite measuring up. The enhanced editions and kickstarters are self-evident of this.

[Stun]

our point were not that a thief is unplayable bg2.

Not a single person on this thread claimed otherwise, nor has anyone accused you of saying any such thing. This is a childish attempt from you to move the goal posts.... again.

 

 

we noted that there is no reason to play a vanilla thief in bg2.

Role playing; Faster leveling, Faster skill gains. More utility value than the fighter class, More powerful than the Ranger class. Nope. No reason at all. Derr....

 

 

thief is relative underpowered compared to thief combos.

Meaningless statement, and different from your repeated original claim that they were underpowered end-of-sentence.

 

  

load bg2 onto your pc sans expansions.

....and you'll get an incomplete BG2 experience. Again, Current retail versions of BG2 are LITERALLY entitled " Baldurs Gate 2 Complete". And this is NOT semantics nor is it a marketing gimmick. Shadows of Amn and Throne of Bhaal are literally a single SKU now in all digital retail outlets. Of course, you can argue that back in the year 2000, this wasn't the case, but that's irrelevant history trivia and it will get you nowhere. When there's a BG2 class comparison being debated on a message board in f*cking 2015, We're going to be discussing those classes in the context of ALL of BG2, not just chapter 1-7. But hey, don't let me stop you from wailing away like a baby because of that. Edited May 2, 2015 by Stun

[Sannom]

 

 

1) you can't get those abilities in bg2 as you need have ToB installed.

Nope, you need ToB and a mod to remove the experience cap. At least back in the day, I don't know about the EE.

 

I think I asked a pretty straightforward question: Is playing a thief underpowered in Bg/2 all by itself or just wrt other classes? If it's the former then I will admit BG/2 were worse games as they made an entire class impossible to play. My general impression is, no matter what class you play the game is totally playable just like most modern games, including PoE.

Playing a mono-classed thief in BG2 (apparently without ToB) wasn't "underpowered" so much as "what is the point?". Fighters were much better front-liners and rangers could be much better archers, and in those days, sneak attacks were extremely limited. Which made having a thief in your party necessary to open locks and take care of traps (especially the later), but given how high level we started BG2 and the increase in skill points compared to BG1, you could easily give them another class (generally mage) and not damage their efficiency as thieves. I mean, I don't think it was a coincidence that out of four companion-thieves in BG2, three of them were either multi-or-dual-classed as mages. I personally always took Jan Jansen, he had spells that Yoshimo didn't and better skills than Nalia. Plus a skull-shooting crossbow.

 

They were kind of fun as main characters, mind you, but then making a thief as your main character meant no Short Sword of Sneak Attack, and we all know +3 weapons were both rare and necessary in BG2, so...

Edited May 2, 2015 by Sannom

[Stun]

but then making a thief as your main character meant no Short Sword of Sneak Attack, and we all know +3 weapons were both rare and necessary in BG2, so...

You're right. Instead, it meant making a Beeline to the temple district after Chateau Irenicus to get Celestial Fury, which is about 5 times more powerful than the generic short sword +3 that Renal gives to Non-thieves.

 

 

sneak attacks were extremely limited

In fact, non-existent. You mean Backstabs. And Backstabs were as common as you wanted them to be. So was trap setting, btw. Edited May 2, 2015 by Stun

[Sannom]

 

but then making a thief as your main character meant no Short Sword of Sneak Attack, and we all know +3 weapons were both rare and necessary in BG2, so...

You're right. Instead, it meant making a Beeline to the temple district after Chateau Irenicus in order to get Celestial Fury, which is about 5 times more powerful than the generic short sword that Renal Gives to Non-thieves.

 

Why would you give Celestial Fury to a puny thief? Also, that sword was not generic, where have you seen another weapon in the entire game that had a Speed Factor of 0? Also, the more +3 weapons the better.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Sannom

[Stun]

Why would you give Celestial Fury to a puny thief?

Lets see.

 

1) It's the single most powerful backstabbing weapon until Staff of the Ram.

2) To bestow him with spell casting ability

3) To stun opponents so that they can't fight back when you're on the front lines

4) To do the same damage per swing as a 2-handed sword, which thieves can't use until they get UAI.

 

 

 

Also, that sword was not generic, where have you seen another weapon in the entire game that had a Speed Factor of 0?

It is Generic. It has no special properties beyond its basic +3 enchantment.

 

And tons of weapons in BG2 have a 0 speed factor. Including ALL Daggers, and Kundane and a few others. My turn. Tell me exactly the benefit of having a 0 speed factor weapon, for a class that can (and should) be initiating all combat from invisibility and/or Stealth? And when you're done, tell me the functional difference between a weapon with a 0 speed factor, and a weapon with a 1 speed factor (Celestial fury)

Edited May 2, 2015 by Stun

[Sannom]

Lets see.

 

1) It's the single most powerful backstabbing weapon until Staff of the Ram.

2) To bestow him with spell casting ability

3) To stun opponents so that they can't fight back when you're on the front lines

4) To do the same damage per swing as a 2-handed sword, which thieves can't use until they get UAI.

1) Backstabbing is rarely useful, and in the rare cases it is, Celestial Fury is definitely not needed.

As for 2), 3) and 4), all those things could better serve a fighter or ranger.

 

My turn. Tell me exactly the benefit of having a 0 speed factor weapon, for a class that can (and should) be initiating all combat from invisibility and/or Stealth? And when you're done, tell me the functional difference between a weapon with a 0 speed factor, and a weapon with a 1 speed factor (Celestial fury)

a) Couldn't tell you, I was taking you literally. And yes, that sword still isn't generic, since she's one of the rare non-dagger weapon with a speed factor of 0.

b) See above.

[majestic]

From a roleplaying or "realistic" point of view back"stabbing" with a katana is quite the hilarious idea. You'd probably end up trashing your precious blade in the process.

 

Angurvadal +4 is also accessible before the Staff of the Ram and it arguably makes for a better backstabbing weapon with the 22 STR for a turn active (yeah, yeah the strength bonus does not get multiplied but it's significant - a fighter's specialization bonus would get multiplied though, *hint hint*) and you can buy the Staff of Striking in Trademeet which will do 10-15 damage per hit making it much better for a backtab, as long as you remember to recharge it when necessary. Gold isn't really a problem in BG2 after all...

Edited May 2, 2015 by majestic

[Stun]

1) Backstabbing is rarely useful,

Quintuple melee damage....useless!

 

 

 

and in the rare cases it is, Celestial Fury is definitely not needed.

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed (including melee. *hint hint*). BG2 is a game of 10,000 solutions, where even the loopholes have loopholes. Thankfully, we're not discussing Needs.

 

 

As for 2), 3) and 4), all those things could better serve a fighter or ranger.

The beauty of fighters and rangers is that they're not weapon restricted. So when one asks "why give celestial fury to your thief?", I'll answer by saying: Because I've decided to give the Flail of the Ages, Lilacar, Crom Faeyr, The Mace of Disruption, Stone Fire, the Silver Sword, Dragon's breath, the Defender of Easthaven, etc. to my fighters and Rangers.

 

Couldn't tell you, I was taking you literally. And yes, that sword still isn't generic, since she's one of the rare non-dagger weapon with a speed factor of 0.

Which is an item description-typo, btw. It doesn't actually have a zero speed factor. And even if it did, it would be worthless for a Thief. In BG2, weapon speed factors affect initiative at the start of combat, and nothing else. And again, why would a thief care about combat-start initiative when he should be approaching all fights in stealth and/or Invisibility to guarantee a first strike anyway? Edited May 2, 2015 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

"BG2 incorporates both SoA and Tob."  see, that ain't circular.  is repetitive.  you keep saying w/o supporting.  you see as self evident.  hiro didn't do homework.  

 

BG2 does incorporate both SoA and ToB. Really Gromnir, not only you're being obtuse but you've supported this yourself by posting pictures and links supporting this very statement. Funny you say I'm being repetitive but then you admitted yourself in this thread that you're being repetitive.

 

'tis sad to see Gromnir go down the rabbit hole of madness with posting pictures and links showing BG2 incorporate both SoA and ToB and then argue against it.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sannom]

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

+3 Weapons are needed. So are 6th and above level spells for the liches. Spells which won't get past their magic resistance any ways. You need something with fire or acid damage to get rid of trolls. You need a thief to open locks and efficiently detecting and disarming traps.

 

The beauty of fighters and rangers is that they're not weapon restricted.

Fighters are the most weapon-restricted of all the classes if you want to really take advantage of their main class feature.

[luzarius]

POE got me into this genre of gaming. I never played Baldurs Gate unfortunately, but I hear it was brilliant.

 

I did not like Divinity Original Sin because the story just seemed all over the place and there was just too much reading.  The game is full of insta death scenarios as well which break immersion. 

[Namutree]

 

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

+3 Weapons are needed. 

Nope. Please explain why I would NEED +3 weapons.

 

 

 

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

So are 6th and above level spells for the liches. 

Nope. I can kill liches without using level six or higher spells. Just send in skeleton warriors (a level 3 spell for clerics) to have liches waste all their spells on; then follow up with a paladin with Carsomyr. Or just send in a very high level Monk.

 

 

 

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

You need something with fire or acid damage to get rid of trolls.

Nope. Death spells kill them too.

[scrotiemcb]

 

 

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

+3 Weapons are needed.

Nope. Please explain why I would NEED +3 weapons.

Or at least they shouldn't.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Sure, it's not Needed. That's the beauty of BG2... Nothing is needed.

+3 Weapons are needed.

Nope. Please explain why I would NEED +3 weapons.

Or at least they shouldn't.

 

I care. 

 

Sannom has insulted BG2 with false claims. This is a big deal.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Namutree

[scrotiemcb]

BG2 isn't a big deal. It was a big deal. If it was a big deal currently, we'd be playing BG2 instead of PoE.

 

I guess I should add: whether Eternity honors its pledge to pay homage to BG2 is currently a big deal.

Edited May 3, 2015 by scrotiemcb