Personally I like a few higher 'defining' stats for my character, and which stats are based in RP reasons rather than min/maxing. For example I like my Swashbucklers to have a high Charisma and a below average wisdom. Charming with little common sense.
That said, balance isn't important in a single player game. Go for what makes you happy. However I don't have any empathy for people who completely overdo the min/maxing and metagaming for the best gear and then complain that a game is too easy.
Algernon's cloak is really the only thing on the list that's OP. Shield of Balduran perhaps (ridiculously OP vs beholders, but pretty meh vs anything else), and cloak of mirroring. Those are about the only 3 items i can think of that are just ridiculously powerful.
Carsomyr is an ok weapon (would be better if Holy Swords were implemented properly, just saying), but not great (FoA and CF (if you have better luck then I) are FAR more powerful (and the resistance stacking is an engine exploit rather then proper mechanics), hell there's a bunch of weapons that are stronger at the end of the day. And the robe of V is only OP if you're epic level (you know, that point where Mages are physical gods regardless even if they're buck naked).....it doesn't give you any extra spells per day, nor does it allow you to break the 1 cast per round. The only reason it might be construed as OP is not having rest limits in place, but that makes ALL magic overpowered by removing one of the major checks it should have.
Carsomyr is basically a sword that say "If you're a Wizard and I hit you, you die". Talk about OP It's the same with the Inquisitor dispell magic ability at twice the level.
I much prefer the rebalancing that was done in SCS (Carsomyr : The dispell effect allows a save vs spell, Inquisitor dispell magic at their caster level rather than twice their caster level, Robe of Vecna is moved at the end of the Watcher's Keep)
You think that the robe of vecna power is not that huge, but you fail to notice that it lets a wizard cast any spell from level 1-4 instantly, and this is a HUGE overwhelming power, even without improved alacrity.
Makes these abilities much more in line with the other abilities. Oh, and yeah, the Shield of Balduran is an absurd item. Thank god, there's a clever way for SCS's beholders to handle it (Telekinesis !)
I typically go with a roll in the 80-90 range: not superhuman, but not a commoner either. I will not drop any score below 8, and then only for RP reasons.
Do you think it harms game balance to have an astonishingly powerful PC?
A half orc with 19 STR, DEX and CON (are there any others?) trivializes most combat. I don't think anyone will deny that. The real questions are whether such a PC can be viewed as realistic or not, and whether you like to play a real humanoid or a superhumanoid.
You could say that the PC is just one person out of six, even argument that good stats give you more leeway towards choosing (numerically) inferior NPC's... but players that maximize the PC, will probably also select the numerically best NPC's instead of the ones that might be more liked by their PC's personality.
do you ever "roleplay" the character according to low stats?
Yes. Currently I happen to play a chaotic neutral F/M, with low wisdom (8). She's young and hopelessly infatuated with her knight in shining armor (Ajantis). From time to time, I select the answers that seem more in line with her rash, youthful nature. It's fun to imagine how this aggravates Ajantis (and will ultimately alienate him from her).
do you feel that ... a couple maximum ability scores... and ... two 'high normal'... ... isn't ... 'gimped'?
TWO maximum ability scores? Like Usain Bolt's legs with Albert Einstein's brain? Or Nelson Mandela's wisdom with Michael Phelp's arms? If I feel that's 'gimped'?
Do you seek some sort of ideal balance in your PC's stats for the best possible balance of difficulty?
Yes. I'll avoid all-maximum physical stats, but don't think an all-10 PC is particularly fun, either. I'll go with what I view as realistic for the class. 14-16 in the main stat. Never more than 1 maximum (18-19) stat.
I do metagame stats, so I don't end up with a mage who can't cast 9th level spells, or a fighter who can't wear plate mail.
Now, it is indeed your world... but BG isn't just a single player game. When the games originally came out, I would often host an 'open' game on GameSpy, clearly stating in the description that PC's with über stats would not be allowed in. I don't think a 'realistic' PC ever joined. Still, I'd let in those with maximum physical stats. Only those who imported an all-25 character would be asked to present an alt, or find a more suitable game. Where's the challenge? You might as well CTRL-Y everything in sight.
Normally I wouldn't even reply to an age old debate such as this, but perhaps the above story will help people to understand how others try to preserve some challenge in this game.
I would like to offer a different perspective on the matter about overpowered PCs and game balance.
First, yes, I optimize my characters in the areas that they should excel. For example, my Cavalier on the my first playthrough had 18/50-something STR, 10-11 DEX, 18 CON, 11 INT, 13 WIS and 18 CHA.
The explanation is, that he is a Bhaalspawn. Yes, that simple. You are a child of a god. You should have exceptional abilities. Your power shouldn't come from items or luck, only. It should come from you, plain and simple.
If I am to play a normal PC, then remove the gameover screen on PC character death. If you want me to be special, then I should feel special. Neither average or gimped.
Or do what Planescape: Torment did and you solve everything. You could be average at some things or exceptional at something and crap at something else.
Also, Sarevok says hi. He has 18/00, 17 DEX, 18 CON, 17 INT, 10? WIS and 15 CHA, I believe. And he is far more special than that. He has Deathbringer Assault and Magic Resistance. Though the former not in BG1 (not sure about BGEE in the final battle) and the latter not in ToB. Yeah, the PC becomes the Slayer somewhere in BG2. That's more of an accident than any inborn power. And even that has serious consquences.
If I can defeat Sarevok and his gang, it shouldn't be because of items or luck. Yeah, tactics are really important but having your melee aggro Sarevok and do circles while the others are shooting him full of arrows (my playthrough with a Monk) is not tactics, it's stupid and unheroic. Even if you play with an evil party. It's un-villain-y.
Secondly, in short, I believe that balance is important. Why bother to choose a class or race if something else does it better? I get it, one reason is to challnge yourself, then other because you want to.
But an example here would be a vanilla Fighter vs Berserker. Or vanilla Paladin vs Cavalier etc. The vanilla versions do nothing better than those kits. The Kensai is more balanced. You increase damage and drop armor.
A game where it's full of Berserker or Cavalier examples is badly designed. You want more Kensai (though not Kensai/Mages) examples, not vanilla Fighter examples.
I generally think that the BG games and ADnD did balance good. For example you had ways to dispel or disrupt a mage, without needing another mage, at least in BG1. (dispelling arrows, Inquisitor, Carsormyr, or just a hit while he casts). Though, I would prefer some OP spells and stupid rules, to go. But I am talking about game-balance in RPGs in general, here.
And one last thing, I despise MMOs and PvP specifically. I prefer to RP on NwN2 hardcore servers these days or play single-player RPGs, especially the Infinity Engine games.
A powergaming character is no longer a roleplayer when his stats don't really represent what he is - a thief with 18 strength 3 wisdom is probably a big thug with little sense in his head- if you roleplay the opposite then you're just taking advantage of the rules. (which you're free to do, it's your game after all)
In a single-player world, in a commercial game, the important questions are:
1. Are there broken, unplayable bad choices? Ie, is it impossible to complete the game because you chose half-elf? Can a bard never get past (eg) the Nashkel Mines? 2. Is it interesting and challenging enough to sell well? Will people get frustrated because the game is TOO easy?
Everything within that range should be peachy, I feel. I don't consider it a balance issue if the exploit is, "Dude! If you adventure for 36 hours and get the Uber Weapon, plus you have to choose this class and kit, and hit this level, and with this certain other gear, use this tactic and it makes the Drizzt fight totally easy!" That's not a balance issue. The power wasn't free; it took time to earn. (If they wanted Drizzt unbeatable, they could do that easily.)
When you get into multi-player games and PVP, then balance matters more. Nobody wants to feel like the sidekick whose only job is to mule gear around for the hero.
I don't buy the interpretation that a Bhaalspawn must have above-average ability scores. Niether does the game, for that matter: it alludes to countless Bhaalspawn who live ordinary, undistinguished lives before getting highlandered by another Bhaalspawn who knows what they are. Judging from they way the people at Candlekeep treat you, and the dialog options you are given, the game also seems to assume that you start out fairly undistinguished in ability, and certainly immature and naive.
For me, playing a character with well-beyond average abilities is unappealing for the same reason that Superman is the least interesting superhero: everything he has and is he gained by accident of birth; he doesn't have to try to succeed, and when he fails, it is due to his colossal naivety. Batman is more interesting because he has to use guile and cleverness and cannot simply rely on being invulnerable to bullets and nuclear weapons, but even he is so powerful that he is rarely seriously challenged. Aquaman, on the other hand, kind of has to earn his successes. At the Hall of Justice, being Aquaman is probably a humbling experience, but succeeding in spite of being Aquaman must bring him a sense of accomplishment that Batman and Superman will never understand.
@PlasticGolem I see your point, and I agree, but I think it's a nobler goal to make sure there are no Aquamen in your Hall of Justice, rather than keeping out all the Supermen. In a perfect world, everybody would be a Batman, but sometimes I enjoy trying on the old blue and red spandex for a while to let off steam. Aquaman is a joke, I don't play heroic fantasy roleplaying games to be a joke.
I think this discussion is too focused on some concept of absolute effectiveness, as if there was some divinely-inspired stone tablet that set forth the last word on game balance power levels. I don't think anybody will seriously contest that a game is not fun when you're over- or under-powered, that much is obvious. But there are lots of criteria to consider before you can make such a claim. I am one of those types who enjoys exploring the game, mechanically. I enjoy experimenting with different types of characters, and choosing exactly what sorts of challenges I want to face.
I like to use character editors, because they allow me the control to tailor my play experience exactly how I see fit. If I want to play through Baldur's Gate as a vampire, I can make that happen. If I want to play a Neutral-Evil Dwarven Paladin with 25 Intelligence and 8 Charisma, nobody is going to tell me I can't. If I decide that inventory management and item identification aren't to my taste, I will mod them out. That's what's awesome about single-player games, you only have to worry about your own idea of fun.
Sometimes it's fun to play a character that is outrageously overpowered in one facet, but totally helpless in another. Like soloing a Pure Class Fighter, for example. You have to accept that there will be certain things you simply won't have the tools to handle in conventional ways, and find new solutions. As the wise Mark Rosewater always says, "Restrictions breed creativity."
I like to force myself out of my comfort zone, even if it means making sub-optimal choices. But forcing myself to play a character with lousy stats isn't fun for me, it's just annoying. It's the same reason I don't do hardcore or low-level challenge runs, I prefer to test my limits and find creative ways to work around my weaknesses, and that requires both experimentation (reloads) and options (levels). I know how to beat the game quickly and efficiently with a perfectly optimized character, so just going through the motions of doing so doesn't seem worthwhile. I want to try NEW things, and sometimes that means "cheating."
I think a lot of it comes down to player ability / experience also. Ive played these games a bunch, and find it boring with a super character. They're fun at first though. But I also feel that, since this is only psuedo-D&D simulation, using a character editor to make adjustments is fair play.
As for roleplaying, I got into that way more in MMORPG's than Infinity Engine games. But even the MMO is a shadow of a real RPG.
I prefer having powerful stats. CHARNAME is a Bhaalspawn, and while yes, there are many inferior Bhaalspawn, presumably CHARNAME is the one that wins. CHARNAME should be exceptional. Honestly, if your CHARNAME has inferior stats, they should die to Sarevok, who is not only higher level, but have vastly better stats. If Sarevok and his assistants was played by a competent GM, then there is no way a group of 7th-9th level characters could present a challenge to him, let alone defeat him. But since they are controlled by a computer, they have far more limitations.
I don't buy the interpretation that a Bhaalspawn must have above-average ability scores. Niether does the game, for that matter: it alludes to countless Bhaalspawn who live ordinary, undistinguished lives before getting highlandered by another Bhaalspawn who knows what they are. Judging from they way the people at Candlekeep treat you, and the dialog options you are given, the game also seems to assume that you start out fairly undistinguished in ability, and certainly immature and naive.
I disagree. Just like any work of fiction depicting a powerful hero, saying it's "unrealistic" just because the vast majority of people are average Joe's is a bit silly.
Knowing what we know, CHARNAME goes from being a level 1 whatever and eventually ascends to godhood(if CHARNAME so wishes anyway). Something I would find very unlikely from your average Joe. Sure, if you wanted to argue that CHARNAME is destined to die on the way to Nashkel at the paws of a black bear, I can understand saying CHARNAME not having extreme stats. But just like we can assume that writers of fiction choose to focus on the characters that go on to do very interesting things(either if that's a just a complex relationship as opposed to saving the world or some such), I think we can safely assume that the two games follow a character that can't simply be described by the world "normal".
After all, it wouldn't be much of a game if it focused on a Bhaalspawn who ended up as a farmer and got killed by Gromnir. In fact, I'd say your point about what the game alludes to is that while there were indeed Bhaalspawn that were terribly ordinary, CHARNAME certainly isn't one of them.
Think this topic need spoiler tags about now. More and more plot details emerging which, while relevant for some points of view, doesn't actually have much to do with the original post.
I agree that talking of "balance" as if it were cosmic law is to rather miss the point. Why?
Because not everybody derives pleasure from completing the game. Not everybody derives pleasure from achieving max XP, or the highest possible gold, or by killing Drizzt. Not everybody is an Achiever.
Some people like to test the game mechanics. They want to explore the combinations. They want to pry at the rules until they break. A perfectly balanced game, where all choices are equal, leaves nothing for those players. A good range of choices, and different interlocking combinations, gives Explorers replay value.
Competitive balance in an almost exclusively single player game is a topic unworthy of serious discussion, particularly in a single player game centred upon the player's choices.
Think this topic need spoiler tags about now. More and more plot details emerging which, while relevant for some points of view, doesn't actually have much to do with the original post.
Knowing what we know, CHARNAME goes from being a level 1 whatever and eventually ascends to godhood(if CHARNAME so wishes anyway). Something I would find very unlikely from your average Joe. Sure, if you wanted to argue that CHARNAME is destined to die on the way to Nashkel at the paws of a black bear, I can understand saying CHARNAME not having extreme stats....
It is, of course, not my place to tell you how to enjoy the game, but if Baldur's Gate were to be turned into a movie or novel that wasn't terrible, the protagonist would probably follow the standard hero's journey arc, meaning he or she would in fact start out as a pretty average person overall, with a hidden talent or ability that is, over the course of the story, discovered and developed to turn the character into a great hero by the end. Think Luke Skywalker, who is interesting and likeable (in spite of his whininess) because of what he develops into. If Luke Skywalker was introduced as tall, muscular, savvy, charismatic, and adept with the ladies, he'd be an uninteresting character to watch. It's the same reason why a rags-to-riches story is more compelling than a riches-to-even-greater-riches story.
Games are not movies, of course, and some people really like the fantasy of playing a superhero whose success is more or less a birthright. I can see the appeal in doing that for short periods (and you get chances to do that in the game even with a below-average character) but I find it gets stale pretty quickly.
Comments
That said, balance isn't important in a single player game. Go for what makes you happy. However I don't have any empathy for people who completely overdo the min/maxing and metagaming for the best gear and then complain that a game is too easy.
Talk about OP
It's the same with the Inquisitor dispell magic ability at twice the level.
I much prefer the rebalancing that was done in SCS (Carsomyr : The dispell effect allows a save vs spell, Inquisitor dispell magic at their caster level rather than twice their caster level, Robe of Vecna is moved at the end of the Watcher's Keep)
You think that the robe of vecna power is not that huge, but you fail to notice that it lets a wizard cast any spell from level 1-4 instantly, and this is a HUGE overwhelming power, even without improved alacrity.
Makes these abilities much more in line with the other abilities.
Oh, and yeah, the Shield of Balduran is an absurd item. Thank god, there's a clever way for SCS's beholders to handle it (Telekinesis !)
"How many times do you press that re-roll button :-0" (and how many times have you visited the Shadow Keeper thread
You could say that the PC is just one person out of six, even argument that good stats give you more leeway towards choosing (numerically) inferior NPC's... but players that maximize the PC, will probably also select the numerically best NPC's instead of the ones that might be more liked by their PC's personality. Yes. Currently I happen to play a chaotic neutral F/M, with low wisdom (8). She's young and hopelessly infatuated with her knight in shining armor (Ajantis). From time to time, I select the answers that seem more in line with her rash, youthful nature. It's fun to imagine how this aggravates Ajantis (and will ultimately alienate him from her). TWO maximum ability scores? Like Usain Bolt's legs with Albert Einstein's brain? Or Nelson Mandela's wisdom with Michael Phelp's arms? If I feel that's 'gimped'?
I do metagame stats, so I don't end up with a mage who can't cast 9th level spells, or a fighter who can't wear plate mail.
Now, it is indeed your world... but BG isn't just a single player game. When the games originally came out, I would often host an 'open' game on GameSpy, clearly stating in the description that PC's with über stats would not be allowed in. I don't think a 'realistic' PC ever joined. Still, I'd let in those with maximum physical stats. Only those who imported an all-25 character would be asked to present an alt, or find a more suitable game. Where's the challenge? You might as well CTRL-Y everything in sight.
Normally I wouldn't even reply to an age old debate such as this, but perhaps the above story will help people to understand how others try to preserve some challenge in this game.
First, yes, I optimize my characters in the areas that they should excel. For example, my Cavalier on the my first playthrough had 18/50-something STR, 10-11 DEX, 18 CON, 11 INT, 13 WIS and 18 CHA.
The explanation is, that he is a Bhaalspawn. Yes, that simple. You are a child of a god. You should have exceptional abilities. Your power shouldn't come from items or luck, only. It should come from you, plain and simple.
If I am to play a normal PC, then remove the gameover screen on PC character death. If you want me to be special, then I should feel special. Neither average or gimped.
Or do what Planescape: Torment did and you solve everything. You could be average at some things or exceptional at something and crap at something else.
Also, Sarevok says hi. He has 18/00, 17 DEX, 18 CON, 17 INT, 10? WIS and 15 CHA, I believe. And he is far more special than that. He has Deathbringer Assault and Magic Resistance. Though the former not in BG1 (not sure about BGEE in the final battle) and the latter not in ToB.
Yeah, the PC becomes the Slayer somewhere in BG2. That's more of an accident than any inborn power. And even that has serious consquences.
If I can defeat Sarevok and his gang, it shouldn't be because of items or luck. Yeah, tactics are really important but having your melee aggro Sarevok and do circles while the others are shooting him full of arrows (my playthrough with a Monk) is not tactics, it's stupid and unheroic. Even if you play with an evil party. It's un-villain-y.
Secondly, in short, I believe that balance is important. Why bother to choose a class or race if something else does it better? I get it, one reason is to challnge yourself, then other because you want to.
But an example here would be a vanilla Fighter vs Berserker. Or vanilla Paladin vs Cavalier etc.
The vanilla versions do nothing better than those kits.
The Kensai is more balanced. You increase damage and drop armor.
A game where it's full of Berserker or Cavalier examples is badly designed. You want more Kensai (though not Kensai/Mages) examples, not vanilla Fighter examples.
I generally think that the BG games and ADnD did balance good. For example you had ways to dispel or disrupt a mage, without needing another mage, at least in BG1. (dispelling arrows, Inquisitor, Carsormyr, or just a hit while he casts).
Though, I would prefer some OP spells and stupid rules, to go. But I am talking about game-balance in RPGs in general, here.
And one last thing, I despise MMOs and PvP specifically. I prefer to RP on NwN2 hardcore servers these days or play single-player RPGs, especially the Infinity Engine games.
1. Are there broken, unplayable bad choices? Ie, is it impossible to complete the game because you chose half-elf? Can a bard never get past (eg) the Nashkel Mines?
2. Is it interesting and challenging enough to sell well? Will people get frustrated because the game is TOO easy?
Everything within that range should be peachy, I feel. I don't consider it a balance issue if the exploit is, "Dude! If you adventure for 36 hours and get the Uber Weapon, plus you have to choose this class and kit, and hit this level, and with this certain other gear, use this tactic and it makes the Drizzt fight totally easy!" That's not a balance issue. The power wasn't free; it took time to earn. (If they wanted Drizzt unbeatable, they could do that easily.)
When you get into multi-player games and PVP, then balance matters more. Nobody wants to feel like the sidekick whose only job is to mule gear around for the hero.
For me, playing a character with well-beyond average abilities is unappealing for the same reason that Superman is the least interesting superhero: everything he has and is he gained by accident of birth; he doesn't have to try to succeed, and when he fails, it is due to his colossal naivety. Batman is more interesting because he has to use guile and cleverness and cannot simply rely on being invulnerable to bullets and nuclear weapons, but even he is so powerful that he is rarely seriously challenged. Aquaman, on the other hand, kind of has to earn his successes. At the Hall of Justice, being Aquaman is probably a humbling experience, but succeeding in spite of being Aquaman must bring him a sense of accomplishment that Batman and Superman will never understand.
I like to use character editors, because they allow me the control to tailor my play experience exactly how I see fit. If I want to play through Baldur's Gate as a vampire, I can make that happen. If I want to play a Neutral-Evil Dwarven Paladin with 25 Intelligence and 8 Charisma, nobody is going to tell me I can't. If I decide that inventory management and item identification aren't to my taste, I will mod them out. That's what's awesome about single-player games, you only have to worry about your own idea of fun.
Sometimes it's fun to play a character that is outrageously overpowered in one facet, but totally helpless in another. Like soloing a Pure Class Fighter, for example. You have to accept that there will be certain things you simply won't have the tools to handle in conventional ways, and find new solutions. As the wise Mark Rosewater always says, "Restrictions breed creativity."
I like to force myself out of my comfort zone, even if it means making sub-optimal choices. But forcing myself to play a character with lousy stats isn't fun for me, it's just annoying. It's the same reason I don't do hardcore or low-level challenge runs, I prefer to test my limits and find creative ways to work around my weaknesses, and that requires both experimentation (reloads) and options (levels). I know how to beat the game quickly and efficiently with a perfectly optimized character, so just going through the motions of doing so doesn't seem worthwhile. I want to try NEW things, and sometimes that means "cheating."
But I also feel that, since this is only psuedo-D&D simulation, using a character editor to make adjustments is fair play.
As for roleplaying, I got into that way more in MMORPG's than Infinity Engine games. But even the MMO is a shadow of a real RPG.
Heck, they probably shouldn't get past Daveorn.
Knowing what we know, CHARNAME goes from being a level 1 whatever and eventually ascends to godhood(if CHARNAME so wishes anyway). Something I would find very unlikely from your average Joe. Sure, if you wanted to argue that CHARNAME is destined to die on the way to Nashkel at the paws of a black bear, I can understand saying CHARNAME not having extreme stats. But just like we can assume that writers of fiction choose to focus on the characters that go on to do very interesting things(either if that's a just a complex relationship as opposed to saving the world or some such), I think we can safely assume that the two games follow a character that can't simply be described by the world "normal".
After all, it wouldn't be much of a game if it focused on a Bhaalspawn who ended up as a farmer and got killed by Gromnir. In fact, I'd say your point about what the game alludes to is that while there were indeed Bhaalspawn that were terribly ordinary, CHARNAME certainly isn't one of them.
Because not everybody derives pleasure from completing the game. Not everybody derives pleasure from achieving max XP, or the highest possible gold, or by killing Drizzt. Not everybody is an Achiever.
Some people like to test the game mechanics. They want to explore the combinations. They want to pry at the rules until they break. A perfectly balanced game, where all choices are equal, leaves nothing for those players. A good range of choices, and different interlocking combinations, gives Explorers replay value.
Games are not movies, of course, and some people really like the fantasy of playing a superhero whose success is more or less a birthright. I can see the appeal in doing that for short periods (and you get chances to do that in the game even with a below-average character) but I find it gets stale pretty quickly.