Combat - Companions vs. Adventurers

[Ivonbeton]

Is it just me or is the combat a lot more fun with a party of your own making? I know the Baldur's Gate also featured premade companions, but I felt like they were a lot more versatile and easy to work with.

 

I'm nearing the end of my first playthrough and thinking of just ditching most companions for my second one.

[MunoValente]

On replays I think adventurers on the way to go, you can try out way more classes and builds that way and if you get sick of one you can just hire another.  First time through companions are the way to go though I think, they are good basic templates and their quests provide a lot of background.  I still use them some on my replays as short term guest party members to do their quests.

[Gromnir]

Is it just me or is the combat a lot more fun with a party of your own making? I know the Baldur's Gate also featured premade companions, but I felt like they were a lot more versatile and easy to work with.

 

I'm nearing the end of my first playthrough and thinking of just ditching most companions for my second one.

baldur's gate and baldur's gate 2 also allowed you to play with a player generated party, so...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[GreyFox]

It'd be different for me if the companions were memorable but none are..they are pretty basic and they don't really compare to the companions from the old games. 

 

I hope they up their game in PE2 as far as companions are concerned but as long as they keep both options open I'm fine with it anyway.

 

NWN2 vanilla had some very annoying characters and this game's companions reminds me of those...now MOtB had great companions...very well written.

[Gromnir]

It'd be different for me if the companions were memorable but none are..they are pretty basic and they don't really compare to the companions from the old games. 

 

I hope they up their game in PE2 as far as companions are concerned but as long as they keep both options open I'm fine with it anyway.

 

NWN2 vanilla had some very annoying characters and this game's companions reminds me of those...now MOtB had great companions...very well written.

which old games do the poe companions compare unfavorably to?  surely not bg?  bg companions, with one notable exception, were a catchphrase (or two) and their character record sheet.  even ps:t had as many misses as hits... at least they were misses for Gromnir.  what made annah memorable were shenna easton' voice acting as 'posed to writing, and chrisA throwing off cliché by giving us a mary magdalene, one o' the oldest and most over-used cliches in western lit, were kinda insulting.  neither vhailor nor ignus were exactly high-water mark writing examples for black isle either.   

 

and motb? ack.  is kinda our favorite punching bag for obsidian writing.  the companions did not genuine exist beyond their hook. a womanizing playboy with mommy issues?  *chuckle* make gann a hagspawn with a ravel incarnation for mommy and the character sudden becomes kewl?  dove could literal see only in black and white?  *groan* explains shallowness o' the o' so typical religious knight who must needs eventual have a crisis o' faith... but give her wings and make Literal colorblind?  chrisA has, in a few interviews, expressed his opinion that the initial character hook, which includes visuals, is the most important aspect o' crpg character development, and motb were kinda the ultimate expression o' such a tragic perspective.

 

heck, we liked the kotor 2 companions, for the most part, but the craptacular dependence on a hook and a cliche were equal present in that game.  visas mar?  hell, they needed two blind companions in kotor 2? kreia were at least having value beyond the hook.  perhaps somebody at obsidian watched kung fu one too many times, eh? visas mar dialogue coulda' come straight outta a kung fu episode... or at least a robot chicken parody o' kung fu.

 

 

the one thing we liked most about poe companions is that obsidian took a step back from the nonsense o' iwd2's villains and the the companions from motb.  instead o' relying on an eye-catching and memorable hook, the companions were developed. yeah, we thinks the poe companions deserved greater effort, but thank goodness they were not the caricatures that we has gotten in other obsidian/black isle efforts.  eder is not our favorite crpg o' all time, but he is a believable character who does not get a satisfactory resolution.  there ain't no cheap answer for him that neatly wraps up a serious personal conflict after a half dozen dialogue encounters with the protagonist.  eder is left with as many questions at the end o' his companion quest as he had at the start.  good.  is 'bout freaking time we got such characters from obsidian.  

 

however, our biggest complaint for the poe companions is that most o' em had rather perfunctory resolutions. pallegina, aloth, kanna, etc... we had to double-check our quest log to be realizing that we had reached a conclusion.  "that's it?"  is likely not the response writers want from players at the conclusion o' a companion arc. aloth, in particular, coulda'/shoulda' had more development After his big reveal.  

 

am knowing that motb is a favorite o' many folks 'round these parts, but that game were the ultimate expression o' crpg writers depending on style over substance insofar as the companions were concerned, and any retreat from the Primacy of the Hook nonsense is a good thing.  obsidian developers is, for the most part, making the poe companions more human, regardless o' their race.  good.  now they need simple finish.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 5, 2015 by Gromnir

[Crucis]

Hey, Gromniir, there was one BG2-TOB enemy that was kinda, sorta memorable.  Talked funny.  Sorta like you, as a matter of fact.  Can't imagine what his name might have been.  

 

 

Seriously though, I find Pallegina very memorable, if for no other reason than her wonderful exotic "foreign" completely un-bland accent!

[Gromnir]

Hey, Gromniir, there was one BG2-TOB enemy that was kinda, sorta memorable.  Talked funny.  Sorta like you, as a matter of fact.  Can't imagine what his name might have been.  

 

 

Seriously though, I find Pallegina very memorable, if for no other reason than her wonderful exotic "foreign" completely un-bland accent!

we much prefer companions that is memorable for what they do as 'posed to what they are.  don't need to be a talking rainbow bear to be memorable.  the poe companions, for better or worse in the final judgement o' the fan base, were less 'bout the gimmicks than previous obsidian offerings.  am hopeful this trend continues.  sure, the hook stuff is still there with the poe companions, but frequently, less is more.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nakia]

I do not remember r the companions in BG I as being that memorable.  The ones I do remember where ones that continued in BG II.  I think it unfair to compare the companions in PoE to companions in BG II a sequel to BG I.

[KDubya]

My memory of the BG1 companions is tainted by the use of excellent NPC mods that greatly enhanced the characters. Also the use of SCS and SCSII has also tainted my memory of combat from BG1 and 2.

 

The memorable ones were Imoen, Minsc, Edwin, Jaheria, Xzar, Montaron, Viconia and Shar Teel.

 

Vanilla BG 1 and 2 were good, modded BG1 and BG2 are great. In comparison to the BG companions I find the PoE ones lacking.

[Labadal]

When I do a new run, I will use adventurers or go solo. I have seen the stories of the companions and want to try something else for next time. I haven't had a rogue or barbarian in my party, so those two adventurer slots are already set.

[Clicks]

So far I've used a mixture of both. I'm not a huge fan of the companions provided, and may even restart with a custom party. I like the idea of making a party of dwarfs, and giving them all the same culture - kind of like a LoTR adventure party.

[Fardragon]

I think that Obsidian have missed something when it comes to companions. In BG1 and 2, most of the companions have abilities which are simply unavailable to any player created characters (without using an editor). Thus giving a reason to take them even after you have heard all their conversations. Aside from the odd arctic fox and cat shapeshift which are weaker than abilities the players can choose, Obsidian NPCs don't really have any unique selling points beyond their conversations. True for other Obsidian games as well as PoE.

[Sannom]

I think that Obsidian have missed something when it comes to companions. In BG1 and 2, most of the companions have abilities which are simply unavailable to any player created characters

Aside from Edwin's necklace and Viconias's magic resistance, which BG1 and BG2 companions had (useful) special abilities that the player could never have?

[Namutree]

 

It'd be different for me if the companions were memorable but none are..they are pretty basic and they don't really compare to the companions from the old games. 

 

I hope they up their game in PE2 as far as companions are concerned but as long as they keep both options open I'm fine with it anyway.

 

NWN2 vanilla had some very annoying characters and this game's companions reminds me of those...now MOtB had great companions...very well written.

which old games do the poe companions compare unfavorably to?  surely not bg?  bg companions, with one notable exception, were a catchphrase (or two) and their character record sheet.  

 

That's not true. They show their personality in other ways. For example, all the characters will leave your party depending on your reputation. Good characters leave when you're too evil, and evil characters leave when you're too good. Some also fight each other (such as Minsc vs. Edwin) as a way of displaying their personalities.

 

 

 

I think that Obsidian have missed something when it comes to companions. In BG1 and 2, most of the companions have abilities which are simply unavailable to any player created characters

Aside from Edwin's necklace and Viconias's magic resistance, which BG1 and BG2 companions had (useful) special abilities that the player could never have?

 

Branwen has a special ability to summon spiritual hammers. Minsc was a Ranger that had a berzerk ability. Xan didn't have a special ability, but he did have exclusive access to a magic +3 sword that gave him fire resistance and +1 AC. 

[Fardragon]

 

I think that Obsidian have missed something when it comes to companions. In BG1 and 2, most of the companions have abilities which are simply unavailable to any player created characters

Aside from Edwin's necklace and Viconias's magic resistance, which BG1 and BG2 companions had (useful) special abilities that the player could never have?

 

Coran: Illegally high starting Dex

Kagan: Illegally high starting Con (giving him regeneration)

Safina: cast Charm

Eldoth: create poison arrows

Alora: lucky rabbit's foot

Dynahair: Slow Poison

Tiax: summon a ghast

Faldorn: Summon Worg

 

That's just a few I can remember off the top of my head. Sure some where next to useless and a couple didn't work in the original release, but several where quite powerful. Even Imoen had an attribute total worthy of a power gamer.

[Gromnir]

 

 

It'd be different for me if the companions were memorable but none are..they are pretty basic and they don't really compare to the companions from the old games. 

 

I hope they up their game in PE2 as far as companions are concerned but as long as they keep both options open I'm fine with it anyway.

 

NWN2 vanilla had some very annoying characters and this game's companions reminds me of those...now MOtB had great companions...very well written.

which old games do the poe companions compare unfavorably to?  surely not bg?  bg companions, with one notable exception, were a catchphrase (or two) and their character record sheet.  

 

That's not true. They show their personality in other ways. For example, all the characters will leave your party depending on your reputation. Good characters leave when you're too evil, and evil characters leave when you're too good. Some also fight each other (such as Minsc vs. Edwin) as a way of displaying their personalities.

reputation is a complete mechanical feature. does not bolster a "well-written" argument.  furthermore, it weren't 'bout personality at all nor were it logical or reasonable.  Gromnir, because his BG rep were invariably too high, would eventual need to attack an innocent bystander at some point to keeps evil or neutral members in our party.  find a house with a single occupant... insular and discreet.  then our paladin could murdalize the solitary occupant to keep edwin in party? conversely, we could always spend gold at the local temple to get rep up enough to keep neutral or goods from leaving.  had nothing to do with personality.

 

furthermore, why would an evil, selfish, backstabbing companion want evil, selfish, backstabbing companions? without a personal explanation, it makes no sense.  recall what happened to viconia after bg and before bg2? is many bad people out there in the fantasy world, and evil people is likely to be knowing just how depraved and unreliable is evil 'cause they is evil themselves.  so 'less we get an explanation, it would be making more sense for both good and evil folks to prefer the company o' good companions.  yeah, maybe the evil folks consider their goodly party mates to be suckers, but evil is gonna know that goodly companions is less likely to do terrible things to them while they sleep. we never got explanations.

 

regardless, a pure mechanical reputation slider that results in automatic abandonment at rep X is not revealing personality in any meaningful way... not to Gromnir.  is surely not showing superior writing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Namutree]

 

 

 

It'd be different for me if the companions were memorable but none are..they are pretty basic and they don't really compare to the companions from the old games. 

 

I hope they up their game in PE2 as far as companions are concerned but as long as they keep both options open I'm fine with it anyway.

 

NWN2 vanilla had some very annoying characters and this game's companions reminds me of those...now MOtB had great companions...very well written.

which old games do the poe companions compare unfavorably to?  surely not bg?  bg companions, with one notable exception, were a catchphrase (or two) and their character record sheet.  

 

That's not true. They show their personality in other ways. For example, all the characters will leave your party depending on your reputation. Good characters leave when you're too evil, and evil characters leave when you're too good. Some also fight each other (such as Minsc vs. Edwin) as a way of displaying their personalities.

reputation is a complete mechanical feature. does not bolster a "well-written" argument.  furthermore, it weren't 'bout personality at all nor were it logical or reasonable.  Gromnir, because his BG rep were invariably too high, would eventual need to attack an innocent bystander at some point to keeps evil or neutral members in our party.  find a house with a single occupant... insular and discreet.  then our paladin could murdalize the solitary occupant to keep edwin in party? conversely, we could always spend gold at the local temple to get rep up enough to keep neutral or goods from leaving.  had nothing to do with personality.

 

furthermore, why would an evil, selfish, backstabbing companion want evil, selfish, backstabbing companions? without a personal explanation, it makes no sense.  recall what happened to viconia after bg and before bg2? is many bad people out there in the fantasy world, and evil people is likely to be knowing just how depraved and unreliable is evil 'cause they is evil themselves.  so 'less we get an explanation, it would be making more sense for both good and evil folks to prefer the company o' good companions.  yeah, maybe the evil folks consider their goodly party mates to be suckers, but evil is gonna know that goodly companions is less likely to do terrible things to them while they sleep. we never got explanations.

 

Mechanical sure, but I don't how that still shows a part of their personality. The mechanic has many flaws no doubt (which you have rightly pointed out), but that's not the issue at hand. If you only knew that Adjantis leaves your party if you're too evil you would know at least that their is a limit to how much evil he will tolerate. That's a small bit of insight into who he is; not much, but a little. Whether some one is good or evil, or like to be in a good or evil party is an aspect of their personality. Compare that to the companions you can generate. They don't mind no matter how righteous or evil you are.

 

This isn't the entirety of my point though; just one part of it. My point stands that the personalities of companions in BG go beyond just a few lines and their record sheet.

 

 

 

regardless, a pure mechanical reputation slider that results in automatic abandonment at rep X is not revealing personality in any meaningful way... not to Gromnir.  is surely not showing superior writing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It's not writing and I don't know what it would or would not be superior to as I wasn't comparing it to anything.

[Gromnir]

again, the reputation meter from bg ain't any kinda boon to personality or character development.  evil companions all leave exact the same if you reach a certain reputation score.  there is no deviation based on personality. companions leave based on their alignment and your rep, and companion alignment is displayed prominent on character record sheet.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps companions we might generate is done through multi-player functionality.  for practical reasons, forcing fellow players in a mp game to leave the party 'cause o' reputation conflicts would be impractical. again, is not personality but a mindless mechanic response.  

[Namutree]

again, the reputation meter from bg ain't any kinda boon to personality or character development.  evil companions all leave exact the same if you reach a certain reputation score.  there is no deviation based on personality. companions leave based on their alignment and your rep, and companion alignment is displayed prominent on character record sheet.

It seems your missing my point. Alignment IS a part of their personality, and that isn't expressed solely on the record sheet as it affects what they do in-game. Thus there is more to their personality than just a few lines and their record sheet.

 

There is a deviation based on personality for Imoen, but she might be the exception you mentioned earlier.

[Gromnir]

...

 

but alignment Doesn't alter how the joinables behave in bg save as to when they leave.

 

change w/o change.  have evil characters turn into squirrels and scamper away if reputation hits 18.  maybe make companions blow up-- meaty chunk animation. would you continue to project personality onto the bg companions if we did not but change how the companions disappeared permanently and w/o discussion?  would be kinda ridiculous to see as a personality boosting feature if edwin spontaneous combusted when the bhaalspawn's rep hit 18, yes?  so why do you see any kinda depth 'cause edwin runs away at the same 18 threshold?

 

alignment, the bg companion alignment, is nothing more than a label that is on the character record sheet.  edwin didn't perform a single evil action while he were in our party... evar.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sannom]

This isn't the entirety of my point though; just one part of it. My point stands that the personalities of companions in BG go beyond just a few lines and their record sheet.

I think that's Gromnir's point : the alignment of the characters is part of their character sheet, and their reaction to your reputation is based entirely on that. They only react to the number, not to something in particular you did. You can't have companions who could accept some harsh measures while still having a line that they wouldn't cross, for example. It gives them a bit more of a personality, but it doesn't mean that they're well-written.

[Krajzen]

 

This isn't the entirety of my point though; just one part of it. My point stands that the personalities of companions in BG go beyond just a few lines and their record sheet.

I think that's Gromnir's point : the alignment of the characters is part of their character sheet, and their reaction to your reputation is based entirely on that. They only react to the number, not to something in particular you did. You can't have companions who could accept some harsh measures while still having a line that they wouldn't cross, for example. It gives them a bit more of a personality, but it doesn't mean that they're well-written.

 

 

In my humble opinion, D&D's trivializing the entire spectrum of morality into this retarded chart of chaotic-lawful-good-evil-neutral was one of the worst aspects - if not outright worst - aspect of a setting. A character is Lawful Good? Great, he is set in stone, no matter what happens he will be lawful good, maybe he would react differently if he was stuffed into more neutral part of a morality chart. How would German guardians of concentration camps be placed in this chart, as Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil? But they had families, friends, children, normal lives outside of insanity of holocaust, so maybe Neutral? And what is the point of artifically putting every character in this simplified chart instead of his morality being ambiguous, fluent, emerging through his words and actions?

 

There is also gigantic psychological nonsence of many fantasy worlds of purely evil people, evil armies, evil realms, evil teams etc. like it was a child's cartoon. Did human beings we consider almost universally as evil - planners of ethnic cleansings, for example - said to themselves 'I am evil and let's destroy stuff for evil's sake, come on my dark minions?' no, they said either 'it's bad but well I do that for greater good' or just plain thought about themselves as 'I am good and WE are fighting evil forces'. Not to even mention mental illness and its impact on individuals when undiagnosed.

 

All of that is an element of this horrible myth of humanity 'there are good people and bad people and well maybe I am imperfect but I am good and they are evil and the best solution is... to kill and destroy all evil, right?'

 

 

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956, Literature Nobel Prize

 

 

 

 

I hate 'moral affiliations' of D&D systems and love moral ambiguity of Pillars of Eternity (which still manages to not fall into the grey pit of cynicism). Where the hell would Durance go in D&D? As lawful good, lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil? Would he be even possible to be stuffed into this idiotic moral division? Who cares - here are his words, here are his actions, and here you are, the Watcher.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Krajzen

[Namutree]

 

There is also gigantic psychological nonsence of many fantasy worlds of purely evil people, evil armies, evil realms, evil teams etc. like it was a child's cartoon.

That's why it's fun. It's not a philosophy book; it's a friggin' game. Yes, D&D handles morality in an absurd way. Monopoly handles capitalism in an absurd way. That's the way they're supposed to be. There is nothing wrong with that.

[roller12]

premades in bg series were more powerful than playermade characters, or at least had some useful ability not possible to get otherwise. Plus the game did not equal them, so to even use custom characters one had to play/start a multiplayer game. Meanwhile here its as much effort as getting to the Inn and deciding whether 20mainstat for custom or 10mainstat for premades is better,which isnt a very difficult decision.

[Nakia]

Whether pre-made or hired adventurer depends on what is important to you.  Also now that you can drop the pre-mades to level 1 you can build them up as you like.