Is anyone concerned about Multiclass/Single Class Balance?

[JerekKruger]

Your fighter and paladin examples are way better because I could see them as class-defining (you're totally right, Charge is my favorite fighter ability and it doesn't get enough talk). But even then, that paladin that wouldn't have gotten sacred immolation is casting slicken and confusion and that warrior without charge is buffing the party in a multiclass system.

Sure, I didn't mean they were so good you'd always pick single class over multi, just that they're good enough to make both options appealing, which is how it should be.

[Mannock]

People who always play monks are gonna be pissed if monks suck compared to wizards (or vice versa).

Why?

 

(and "suck" is a relative term, so it can mean pretty much anything)

[PneumaticFire]

Although I have access to the beta, I haven't had much time to try the latest update. I may even wait until release date.

 

Are the current concerns about nerphed multiclasses, that multiclass is much less powerful or effective relative to single?

 

Or is it a case that people are complaining because they don't like that their overpowered multis were brought back into relatively even scale to singles, where singles rightfully benefit from depth in one class, and multis naturally benefit from breadth in 2 and are no longer gods of both?

Edited April 4, 2018 by PneumaticFire

[Achilles]

 

People who always play monks are gonna be pissed if monks suck compared to wizards (or vice versa).

Why?

 

(and "suck" is a relative term, so it can mean pretty much anything)

 

I can't tell whether or not this is a serious question.

[Mannock]

I can't tell whether or not this is a serious question.

It was serious.

 

So you want a game where every class have the same damage output?

[CENIC]

The game is a VERY different experience for someone trying to Triple Crown Solo than it is for someone who is playing the game on Classic with companions.

 

If you want to TCS you have to do everything by the book (and get lucky with rolls) which means there is only one way to play. Personally that sounds incredibly boring to me, but obviously a lot of people enjoy it.

 

Balancing a game around TCS players would make for an AMAZING experience for TCS players at the expense of everyone else (players like me) so I disagree with a lot of NC's points on principle.

[Yenkaz]

To answer the top question, not really.

 

Is this really extremely critical? I get the sense that multiclassing *can* be used to make some overpoweringly potent combinations, if a lot of effort is put into them, while single classes are more surefire to do well, but not necessarily have some esoteric combination of skills that make them annihilation personified.

 

Even then, as others have noted, min-maxers are more likely to pick harder difficulties where the forethought is actually needed.

 

With the sheer number of classes, balancing every combination will be utterly impossible. As long as the single classes are individually balanced, so that a normal game is challenging, but manageable for the average player, while providing for the sense of a "role" for each member of the party without each needing to be precisely as dangerous. Meanwhile, more strategic builds can be, if not 100% required, then extremely helpful on the path of the dammed for the crazy people out there and more 'fun concept' multiclasses are unlikely to be that internally disruptive to the game.

 

The worst outcome for a multiclass is that you become a slightly more gimped version of each class, but isn't that worth it if a player wants to become a muscle wizard who starts casting the all-purpose fist spell on the stupid faces of their enemies when they run out of other spells?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Yenkaz

[Gregorovitch]

 

 

 

I’m a back beta tester and I’d say 90% of the content you mentioned is wrong and misleading, they don’t move any abilities and multclass is still pretty good.

> I’m a back beta tester

 

what does that mean?

I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a.

 

 

It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with...

 

 

I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail.

 

As I explained my issue is I plan to play PotD and I need to know how far I should dip into this multi-class thing. I'm not an uber power player by any means, I am roleplayer that has come to enjoy playing on max difficulty in these games and am therefore mixing a bit of judicious min-maxing to expedite that. I don't want to find out mid-game that one or more of my builds sucks big time and have to restart.

 

To put this another way, woth PoE's very traditional and single class approach I knew where I was from long experience with cRPGs. With this I feel completely at sea and riven by indecision, fear, uncertainlty and doubt. I'm getting conflicting messages and have no means to evaluate them since this is such a new system.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gregorovitch

[Yenkaz]

 

 

 

 

I’m a back beta tester and I’d say 90% of the content you mentioned is wrong and misleading, they don’t move any abilities and multclass is still pretty good.

> I’m a back beta tester

 

what does that mean?

I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a.

 

 

It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with...

 

 

I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail.

 

As I explained my issue is I plan to play PotD and I need to know how far I should dip into this multi-class thing. I'm not an uber power player by any means, I am roleplayer that has come to enjoy playing on max difficulty in these games and am therefore mixing a bit of judicious min-maxing to expedite that. I don't want to find out mid-game that one or more of my builds sucks big time and have to restart.

 

To put this another way, woth PoE's very traditional and single class approach I knew where I was from long experience with cRPGs. With this I feel completely at sea and riven by indecision, fear, uncertainlty and doubt. I'm getting conflicting messages and have no means to evaluate them since this is such a new system.

 

 

The game isn't even released yet, how can you expect any lasting advice on builds to exist?

[SonicMage117]

 

 

 

 

I’m a back beta tester and I’d say 90% of the content you mentioned is wrong and misleading, they don’t move any abilities and multclass is still pretty good.

 

> I’m a back beta tester

what does that mean?

I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a.

 

It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with...

 

I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail.

Don't we all? I mean, "most" here are fans of IE games, still covet them as the top rpg's and best written games of all time (debatable... VERY debatable). There are a few hardcore Jrpg fans but classic IE fanbase is the oveewhelming majority here. Everyone has their likes/dislikes which somehow taints their opinion or experience in one way or another.

[Yenkaz]

 

 

 

 

 

I’m a back beta tester and I’d say 90% of the content you mentioned is wrong and misleading, they don’t move any abilities and multclass is still pretty good.

> I’m a back beta tester

what does that mean?

I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a.

 

It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with...

 

I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail.

Don't we all? I mean, "most" here are fans of IE games, still covet them as the top rpg's and best written games of all time (debatable... VERY debatable). There are a few hardcore Jrpg fans but classic IE fanbase is the oveewhelming majority here. Everyone has their likes/dislikes which somehow taints their opinion or experience in one way or another.

 

 

I really hope the writing part is nostalgia talking, I recently replayed BG2 and while SoA is *okay* (salvaged by a good villain and some good side quests and areas) the writing in ToB gets really toe-curling bad. The mixture of defensive spells and their counters (mostly breach), the inability of the UI to give much timely information and the underlying mechanics that weren't designed for a non-turnbased system and with silly balance issues (high AC is useless from mid-game)... They were awesome, they had elements worth importing, but they really wouldn't do too well if released today with modern graphics.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Yenkaz

[Wormerine]

I really hope the writing part is nostalgia talking, I recently replayed BG2 and while SoA is *okay* (salvaged by a good villain and some good side quests and areas) the writing in ToB gets really toe-curling bad. The mixture of defensive spells and their counters (mostly breach), the inability of the UI to give much timely information and the underlying mechanics that weren't designed for a non-turnbased system and with silly balance issues (high AC is useless from mid-game)... They were awesome, they had elements worth importing, but they really wouldn't do too well if released today with modern graphics.

I would say that narrative wise (mostly pacing and charm), BGs do have some advantage over PoE, but mechanically I gained new respect to Pillars after replaying BGs. Mechanics wise the biggest advantage BGs has its obfuscation. Attributes are exciting as game doesn’t explain what each attributed does. Open the manual though and the charm looses its power. Tying enemies’ resistance to enchantment level of weapons is bad bad bad. Too many spells, useful only to dispel certain others spells, which protect you from those few selected spells. Enchanting when I had no idea what’s going on, tedious once I grasped on how things work.

 

Not to say that PoE is beyond improvement.

[SonicMage117]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m a back beta tester and I’d say 90% of the content you mentioned is wrong and misleading, they don’t move any abilities and multclass is still pretty good.

 

> I’m a back beta tester

what does that mean?

I mean we play the backer beta and we all help test the game right? but I just mean I have access to backer beta and I don’t agree the comment he made about multclass a.

 

It would be nice if you disagreed by actually facing the opposing arguments with some numbers, facts etc. The guy you disagreed with was just summarizing video by Nerd Commando which was quite in-depth review of the current state of the beta. So what are you precisely disagreeing with? or rather what argument would you bring to the table to face some facts that were shown in the video. I watched that thing in full and he actually show in game, as a fact, the things you disagree with...

 

I would be delighted if you were right, Yosharian, and I also know from long experiencce that Nerd Commando has his own partuclalr slant on all things RPG, but nevertheless, what he deomostrated was concerning and I too would like to hear more detail.

Don't we all? I mean, "most" here are fans of IE games, still covet them as the top rpg's and best written games of all time (debatable... VERY debatable). There are a few hardcore Jrpg fans but classic IE fanbase is the oveewhelming majority here. Everyone has their likes/dislikes which somehow taints their opinion or experience in one way or another.

 

I really hope the writing part is nostalgia talking, I recently replayed BG2 and while SoA is *okay* (salvaged by a good villain and some good side quests and areas) the writing in ToB gets really toe-curling bad. The mixture of defensive spells and their counters (mostly breach), the inability of the UI to give much timely information and the underlying mechanics that weren't designed for a non-turnbased system and with silly balance issues (high level? AC is useless)... They were awesome, they had elements worth importing, but they really wouldn't do too well if released today with modern graphics.

It is, mainly. I used to have the mindset of "IE games have the best combat, writing and most freedom" but a few years ago, I gave indies a chance.

 

Removing the classic IE bias, indies fundementally changed the way I thought about games. Suddenly, I started playing isometric and non-isometric rpg's made by 3 to 10 people, selling for $15-$20.00 and having more depth, quality and better writing than the classics which older gamers like myself hold so high. (Don't want to name the games because don't want to start a war and/or derail the thread).

 

I think it's mainly that (much like any other cult mindset) when you grow up with something, you have a soft spot for it. It becomes somehow irreplacable, even when it doesn't deserve to be. It took me a long time to let go, but 3 years ago, I opened my mind. Since then I hadn't looked back. It was really an enlightening experience and I'm thankful for indies making such a huge splash on rpg genre representation and for the industry as a whole. Indies are my jam

[Phyriel]

The game is a VERY different experience for someone trying to Triple Crown Solo than it is for someone who is playing the game on Classic with companions.

 

If you want to TCS you have to do everything by the book (and get lucky with rolls) which means there is only one way to play. Personally that sounds incredibly boring to me, but obviously a lot of people enjoy it.

 

Balancing a game around TCS players would make for an AMAZING experience for TCS players at the expense of everyone else (players like me) so I disagree with a lot of NC's points on principle.

 

I don't get that part with balancing game around tcs players... what's supposed to balance the game for players of all kinds is difficulty slider itself. If they design a game in which on one difficulty one build is complete boredom because its borderline op and makes your game trivial but on tcs is just enough to cut through then I'd say they designed a game poorly and it has nothing to do with prioritizing tcs or casuals...

 

There are multiple design layers that can bring balance, first and the one people focus on here mostly atm is how you can build your char, but its a bit pointless doing that in a bubble, ofc you gonna end up with some obvious choices this way. You need to be placed in the world and tested against full game, while "obvious choices" build might be walk in a park in first half of the game it might end up being not versatile enough for high end where enemies debuff you to the ground and you will actually need resolve and saving throws (considered bad stat and bad talents) just to stay alive to do any job. 

 

While character building should stay free from changes that come from difficulty slider but enemies should get stronger, smarter and come in bigger numbers as you move difficulty slider higher, this is pretty much the only thing you can do in a game environment to make it challenging, sure it comes at the cost of some character building freedom, especially for TCS but its not quite as bad as you describe (thinking back to poe1 that is), it mostly means you can't derp around picking random talents without any synergy in mind but then if you want to have a freedom to do so in normal difficulty and remain viable then I don't see why game shouldn't punish you for that... lets promote being smart and creative for a bit shall we? 

 

Then final step of balancing difficulty is limitting resources, in poe1 u had health/endurance system mixed with per rest abilities and only 2 camping supplies on potd (+ some in chests, barrels etc). As much as it was just some annoying system that forced way too many loading screens for those that chose to just ignore this as intended handicap and just used all of their spells every fight and would just travel back to town to resupply every 3-4 packs of enemies... for most people it actually worked by forcing them to try to get through fights using just as much resources as it was needed to finish the dungeon/zone in one go before heading back to town. 

 

To sum it up:

-I don't think every character building choice HAVE to be equal, there is importance in having bad skills, bad choices as its the only way to actually introduce players to some meaningful learning curve... but it can't be as bad as skill A = +10000 to overpower skill B = its easier to spot a flowers on the side of the road. Bad skills actually have to tempt you somehow to pick them, even tho you don't understand why its sub optimal to pick them yet. That understanding should come though exploring the full content.

-Enemies must be tweaked to force you to think about your char building choices, I don't think easy difficulty should promote being all over the place with your char tbh (aka full freedom... derp)

-Limiting resources is extremely important and i'm concerned here with now having all spells abilities per encounter that people are just too good at finding strong synergies, op builds in general and without any limiting factors that we had keeping poe1 "sort of" in check we will end up with multiple blatantly OP ways to play the game that will be just too hard to pass but we'll kind of have to force ourselves not to play those setups as they'll make the game trivial.

 

P.S maybe its inevitable for the game like this to be trivial... thinking back to poe 1 I found it challenging only as long as I didn't understand it (go figure heh). Once I understood how the game plays I pretty much had to play solo because no matter what I did to handicap myself in party (without being too crazy on putting my party on a wheel chairs) it got just way too easy to be enjoyable (except for when I made a party of 6 druids and just played for fun with six avenging, returning storms kek)

Edited April 4, 2018 by Phyriel

[ArnoldRimmer]

NCs videos for poE1 were never great - at least for the way I play - to much min maxing which is unnecessary even for PotD. Unless you want to play exactly like NC advises you're better off not watching them. The game shouldn't been optimised for a small minority... They need to balance it for the majority of players. If someone wants to solo it, that is up to them, but you can't expect the game to be balanced

Edited April 4, 2018 by ArnoldRimmer

[Wormerine]

None of the Pillars were balanced with solo play in mind. It was stated that what games are balanced around are classic and veteran full party comps.

 

To me the fact that game is beatable with one character is indication of flaw in its design - there is too little synergy between characters. Compare it to something like recent Into the Breach which is based on simple core rules which gain complexity when interacting with each other. Games like Pillars have a lot of number, rolls, buffs, debuffs, but in the end the depth of gameplay just isn’t there. I feel like the concentration and interrupt mechanic is a step in right direction - simple system but one which has consequences.

 

But than again, what I would like to see is a game which takes core concepts of games like PoE (party based, customisable characters, real-time combat etc) but goes back to real basics and rethinks them so they make sense in computer setting- how an attack works: does it need to be a roll for a hit? What effect an attack has? How does races’ size influence combat regarding positioning, attack range, control over combat area?

 

The PnP system is an over complicated mess, with few interesting decisions to make and lots of number crunching to do. PoE did a fine job in reviving it, Deadfire does a fine job in improving upon it, but I am not sure how sustainable it is in a long run.

[Mannock]

To me the fact that game is beatable with one character is indication of flaw in its design - there is too little synergy between characters.

But does it matter? Should development resources be spent to make sure the game is not beatable with a solo character?

 

Personally, I don't think that is wise, cause it wouldn't increase the enjoyment of the game for anyone. It would irritate all those who play the game solo and those who don't play solo wouldn't know that it wasn't beatable solo, cause they wouldn't try it, and if they did know, they most likely wouldn't care. It would be completely wasted resources.

 

BG2 is by no means perfect, but it wouldn't be better if tomorrow it was patched so you were unable to beat it solo with a kensai/mage.

[Wormerine]

 

To me the fact that game is beatable with one character is indication of flaw in its design - there is too little synergy between characters.

But does it matter? Should development resources be spent to make sure the game is not beatable with a solo character?

Ha! No, by any means. I would call it a symptom rather than rather than a cause. Would prefer to see more interaction between characters, a more strategy and more engaging gameplay. I think a side effect of a better design would be that solo runs would become impossible, not that solo runs should be impossible, if that makes sense. 

 

Character creation is all about choosing strenghts and weaknesses of your characters. Than you compose party to make up for those weakneses and bank on your strenghts. That's the theory at least. If one character can carry encounters all by himself that means that something is off - how valuable each attributes are, how enemies are composed, how they exploit your weaknesses. I don't think it has to be a big issue - imbalance doesn't ruin singleplayer game, especially if such imbalance has to be discovered via lenghty experimentation (or reading online guides).

[Phyriel]

Hold on folks, I'm getting confused here. Please step back and define "balance" for me. Because what I can gather from people touching balance vs difficulty setting is that balance is a freedom to derp around doing stupid **** with their chars, playing in unthoughtful way expecting it will all work just good enough to enjoy the story? Are we seriously devolving, as rpg fans into this community that values laid back experience more than some semi-intellectual dig that these games used to provide? I mean sure its all imbalanced once you figure it out but atleast figuring it out part used to be something that provided gaming experience for months if not years (including mods) 

 

P.S there are many rpg ways to seperate solo vs party play balance... like you could implement a system in which chars develop passive perks (some being negative perks) depending on party composition and what not... like solo char becoming paranoid because it have no one to lean on and must be constantly aware of every threat, this could be reflected in negative saving throws, lower charisma whatever, it could also proc randomly to spice things up. You could have multiple of those, like say after XX hours of playing as solo char you become "self sufficient" and get +deflection. In contrary a char in party develops perks that reflect being in a party, eg, mage being constantly protected by his tanks get overconfident and get -deflection but he casts faster because he's attention is focused on spell alone, he trusts his party will protect him at all times like they always do. These are just a few, you could make tons more to reflect some class interaction like barbarian feeling weird around pious and orderly priests or paladins and vice versa. Possibilities are endless and I honestly have no idea why PoE 2 tries to focus on this feature heavy aspect of multiclassing and naval combat while they still have a pretty much untapped source of nice and rpg friendly ways to deepen their game. I liked in poe 1 that you had different passives for choosing sides, ending quests in different ways etc, I hoped they'd expand on this.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Phyriel

[theBalthazar]

I am more concerned by balanced CHOICES in trees panels. Inner each classes ...

 

With this system, it is too difficult to create perfect balancing between single and multi. But if it is viable and not too far of the optimal part, there is no true problems.

 

In on other hand, if you had a poor choice, perhaps there a  "general balance" but this become un-fun to play... So there a balance between Fun side / Amplitude of choice / Balanced side.

Edited April 4, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Achilles]

 

I can't tell whether or not this is a serious question.

It was serious.

 

So you want a game where every class have the same damage output?

Nope, because:

 

1) “damage output” is only one mechanic and

2) this isn’t about what “I want”. The argument was “people will bitch if their favorite class sucks”. Yes, “suck” is subjective. I’m not sure what that has to do with the argument though. You could point out that water is wet at it would be just about as relevant.

[JerekKruger]

Please step back and define "balance" for me.

 

I can't define balance, but I know it when I see it.

[Achilles]

 

Please step back and define "balance" for me.

I can't define balance, but I know it when I see it.

Welcome to the US Supreme Court

 

Balance = where, with the exception of minimal outliers, no one class has obvious advantages that make other classes patently stupid to take. For example, the fact that people can actually debate which class is best to TCS with means that they are fairly well balanced. If it were only possible to TSC with one class, then the game would be unbalanced.

[Gromnir]

 

Please step back and define "balance" for me.

 

I can't define balance, but I know it when I see it.

 

Gromnir or jk defining balance is largely and academic and wasteful exercise.  recognize what is obsidian balance goals for deadfire, on the other hand, is useful to those making predictions 'bout deadfire balance efforts.

 

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/161302725596/balance-in-single-player-crpgs

 

as we predicted obsidian would have difficulties balancing deadfire, particularly with the introduction o' multi-classing, is no surprise we is concerned 'bout deadfire balance-- marginal concerned, but not overly worried.  is any number o' abilities and synergies which is subject to exploitation or is seeming not working as designed.  based on past game experience, obsidian will work before and after release to address significant balance issues.  'course each new effort to balance will no doubt create new balance problems as will new content in the form o' a likely expansion.  eventual there will be a point o' diminishing returns from balance efforts which make additional changes less than cost effective.

 

is there anybody, including obsidian developers, who can predict their sought after universal viability coupled with a recognition o' economic practicalities? doubt it. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  as to the larger question o' the thread, am personal o' the opinion the talent "trees" were better before the recent beta changes.  traditional casters, other than druids, did suffer from a lack o' passives; made it seem as if customization options beyond spell choice were limited.  particular for specialist wizards, there were frequent only a couple talent/power options per level, and many such choices were slight variations o' same flavor.  however, beta 4 has introduced more passives and all too many is no-brainer options.  tanks will take weapon and shield.  a weapon-haver will almost certainly choose a weapon style talent. as such, many o' the new choices is effective non choices as one need voluntarily gimp their character by forgoing the obvious choice talents.  bad design. 

 

casters needed help with their customization options, but willful ignoring the impact o' multiclassing when discussing the talent trees would be a mistake.  talent tree for a paladin player, previous to the recent beta build release, were not only encompassing the paladin talents, but any combination o' paladin/_________.   get caught up in nomenclature o' paladin and see paladin customization as wholly insular while ignoring votary, templar or crusader options is at best myopic and likely tending towards obtuseness. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gromnir

[Achilles]

 

I really hope the writing part is nostalgia talking, I recently replayed BG2 and while SoA is *okay* (salvaged by a good villain and some good side quests and areas) the writing in ToB gets really toe-curling bad. The mixture of defensive spells and their counters (mostly breach), the inability of the UI to give much timely information and the underlying mechanics that weren't designed for a non-turnbased system and with silly balance issues (high AC is useless from mid-game)... They were awesome, they had elements worth importing, but they really wouldn't do too well if released today with modern graphics.

I would say that narrative wise (mostly pacing and charm), BGs do have some advantage over PoE, but mechanically I gained new respect to Pillars after replaying BGs. Mechanics wise the biggest advantage BGs has its obfuscation. Attributes are exciting as game doesn’t explain what each attributed does. Open the manual though and the charm looses its power. Tying enemies’ resistance to enchantment level of weapons is bad bad bad. Too many spells, useful only to dispel certain others spells, which protect you from those few selected spells. Enchanting when I had no idea what’s going on, tedious once I grasped on how things work.

 

Not to say that PoE is beyond improvement.

I discovered BG way late (2004?) and only picked it up because I heard good things. The characters were charming, but the game itself was kind of a mess and I wasnt impressed at all by the story. My 2 cents.