The OP's troubles gave me an idea of a No-Pause Challenge! I think I'm gonna pass though, it'd be just pure madness
I've tried it and I think that the No-Pause Challenge is one of the hardest to do. If you do try it then my tip would be that mages and clerics are much less useful.
I did one a couple of years back, it's actually not as hard as you would think if you got a party for it.
I ran
Inquisitor Barbarian Berserker
Send in the Barbarian and Berserker, the only thing you have to focus on them is their rage. Then dispel magic with your Inquisitor and beat them into a bloody pulp.
I wouldn't want to do one of those challenges with any caster, but with a beat-em-up team it wasn't as hard as you would think.
@SionIV If he's struggling with party management in combat, surely 3 x caster and a thief isn't the way to go? Especially with the recommendation to buff then equip armour.
I'd try something like Fighter/Thief ranged, Berzerker or Barbarian, Inquisitor, Cleric / Mage. 3 of those you can point and click for most situations, and then you manage one caster for all your magical needs. the rage and uber-dispel from from you melee pals will help cover harder fights and specific situations.
@SionIV If he's struggling with party management in combat, surely 3 x caster and a thief isn't the way to go? Especially with the recommendation to buff then equip armour.
I'd try something like Fighter/Thief ranged, Berzerker or Barbarian, Inquisitor, Cleric / Mage. 3 of those you can point and click for most situations, and then you manage one caster for all your magical needs. the rage and uber-dispel from from you melee pals will help cover harder fights and specific situations.
Oh i wasn't telling him to run that team, as i don't think anyone should run that team who isn't experienced with the game. I was showing that a 4 man team can be very powerful and adapt to every situation the game throws at you. That team would be something i would play with myself.
I would agree with you on your team, i would probably tell him to use something like.
Inquisitor Berserker Fighter/Thief Cleric/Mage
The Inquisitor and Berserker can be frontline beat sticks while the Fighter/thief is an archer. The Cleric/Mage is there to introduce him to different spells, but isn't needed to complete the game so it's more there to show options. The Inquisitors dispel magic is enough to win the game by itself.
I destroyed sarevok in my last playthrough. Literally the only thing I really had to worry about in that battle was the traps in the center of the room which can't be disarmed, and microing my melee away when they got low in health. Haste+cleric buffs turned my party into a wrecking crew.
@DKnight: Baldur's Gate IS a turn based game: The real time approach of the game is just fictional, as it is based on AD&D ruleset, which is a turn game. All actions in the game are calculated in sequence, the autopause at every turn is the real way to play it, if one has to say it, as it is the nearest approach to its PnP ruleset. When you disable autopause you simply let the game manage turns in a fast way (meaning that you may lost some turns due to the impossibility to follow all the action at that speed), but they're still turns. This explains, for example, why when you cast two spells in sequence, the second one needs some seconds to be casted, or why you see more attack movements than dice rolls (all those action movements are only esthetics). To conclude: you can play BG with real turns without problems, just active autopause at every turn and you're done, you can control everything.
Auto-pause sounds like it wouldn't make a difference, but it is huge in slowing down the pace of big scale battles. I am more of a manual Pauser, but I do have auto pause set up for a few things.
@DKnight as many others in the thread said just go to your options/gameplay and set autopause on for end of turn, enemy sighted, etc.
Baldur's Gate is actually a turn based game that defaults to a no pause combat system. But the options to make it fully turn based are all present in the game.
I'd go out on a limb and suggest that the OP doesn't want to have to manually pause the game and they may either not want or not realize that the game can be set to auto-pause on any number of levels and for a variety of reasons.
I remember when I saw the Demo at GenCon before BG1 came out. I remember not liking the way the game played because it was "Real time". And since It was a demo, I didn't get to monkey around with the settings to find what eventually turned out to be my preferred play method.
But hey, if they got all the way to Saravok with the method that they did settle on, kudos. Just a note on that front though, in BG2 there are combats where there is a lot more going on. And Spell casting can really add up to be important to strategy. Just saying, if they enjoy the game enough, maybe in BG2:EE they will start playing around with Auto-pause.
Use spacebar till it's broken. As such, I believe the game is properly referred to as a pseudo-real time game. In fact, I find pseudo-real time easier than a turn-based game, say ToEE, since you can abuse spacebar. But to tell you the truth, Sarevok battle is difficult even for some experienced players.
Use spacebar till it's broken. As such, I believe the game is properly referred to as a pseudo-real time game. In fact, I find pseudo-real time easier than a turn-based game, say ToEE, since you can abuse spacebar. But to tell you the truth, Sarevok battle is difficult even for some experienced players.
I prefer actual turn based to pseudo turn based real time. ToEE allows me, nay forces me, to adhere to stick to the turn based structure. It also allows me to fully plan out each turn and how it will go from my party perspective. I've tried the auto-pause on end of turn. it still doesn't give me initiative order or the ability to 'hold' until something else happens. Plus the level of micro-management control such that even the 5 foot step could be implemented just gives me a happy to play.
Not saying I don't love BG. Just saying that I am THAT guy who will take 20 minutes planning one round of combat.
You can solo Sarevok with any class in the game. Even a normal bard could do it if you know how to play. With the right preparations even GARRICK could solo Sarevok.
You can solo Sarevok with any class in the game. Even a normal bard could do it if you know how to play. With the right preparations even GARRICK could solo Sarevok.
Noooooo!! Say it isn't so. You just cracked the foundation of my entire world. GARRICK can do something?
@the_spyder I get what you mean. Turn-based sure has its appeal, esp for pnp players. My preference is maybe because I'm just better at pseudo-real time than turn-based. I always get hit with the latter since everyone would get a share of their turn; but with the former, it's as if you could exploit the system with spacebar abuse and at times you won't even get hit. I'm not saying I don't like ToEE though. In fact, I love the game because of is mechanics, almost as much as I love BG mechanics.
I never said it was just me, I said I have me and Rasaad. Fallout 1-melee fighter and easy,.
1. You need to have 6 party members. It's almost impossible for even the most experienced players running less then 4-man groups to not get stuck on some spots and die for hours at a time. You might have to share out experience, but trust me, the more, the better. Also, some classes are better then others for BG1. Thieves are probably in the top 3 as a whole, not just because of them being a necessity for traps/locks. In late-SOA and TOB they aren't worth anything until they get the "Use Any Item" special ability which then they're DECENT in combat if you throw them a carsomyr or ravager.
2. Just pause often. Figure out which one of your character does best against what kind of enemy. For instance make ranged target casters, make low survivability melee (thieves/bards/etc) target their ranged, casters i usually use to remove magic protections from other casters and bombard anything with low survivability with magic missle, and use your melee to keep their melee off of you.
LOL. I kind of feel for the OP precisely because I know how chaotic things can get trying to control 6 characters and with all of their skills etc...
I do enjoy NWN2 multi-player. That is loads of fun playing a single character, but in a party setting. Of course, just forget about tactics at that point; it turns into pretty much a free-for-all unless you have a tight group of players who know how to work together. Still loads of fun.
For me personally, BG1 is a better game because it is an all around more robust story and party and adventure (all the way up to TOB, where it falls down in my opinion). ToEE comes in a close second because of the turn based mechanics. If someone put BG into the ToEE engine, I would never play anything else. Until the next ToEE game came out...
And if you want to take it a step farther, figure out your party before you even play. Get a good variation of kinds of characters and figure out which are better for what.
For instance if you need a caster then you've got Dynaheir, a decent caster, but only int 17 and is the worst mage specialization in the game. Then there's Xan, he's the best "buffer" for mages. He's all about making everyone strong and not blowing crap up himself, and he has the best (in my opinion) weapon in the game. +3 shortsword with +1 AC and 50% fire resistance, too bad he only has 7 CON huh? Quayle, again, 17 INT (can no one give a caster that last point?) but he's a cleric/illusionist. He makes for an alright buff-reliant tank (11 CON, 16 DEX), but overall you need a cleric AND a mage to be casting at the same time, you don't want to try to do all of your buffs with just 1 person, takes too long, you'll lose all suprise fights. Then Xzar (he's one of the first NPC's you run into for a reason), AGAIN 17 INT!!! AUGH!!!! other then that, 16 DEX, 10 CON, barely worse then quayle from stats, but he IS a pure mage.
Then edwin, 18 INT (FINALLY!!!), 16 CON (hell ya!), and his well-known overpowered amulet. It gives him +2 to memorization on spells of every level and makes him cast 1/9 quicker.THEN! THERE'S BAELOTH!!! 19 INT (best of npc's), but 14 CON. Along with a ring that gives +2 2nd level spells, +1 3rd&4th levels, and the 19 INT it makes him and edwin about on par with eachother. You want a dude that's obsessed with red or a dude that tried to kill you in your party?
And before you answer that...
(SPOILER ALERT!!!)
How many of you took Sarevok into your party as well? :P Make allies of your strongest enemies to make yourself the strongest.
Uhm... Baldur's Gate isn't really real time..!!!?? why don't you just hit the space button?
The whole game is real time. Its not a turn based game. You can't call the game turn based when it operates in real time. It has everything in battle based on luck.
The underlying mechanism is turn based. Just turn on auto-pause and hit space bar before every command you give. Basically in every battle which is not cannon fodder you will have the game paused more than not. The variety in effects on different party members is its charm and figuring out how to deal with enemies in creative ways is the fun of it. You are not supposed to win battles against difficult enemies by storming into head-to-head battle, it is normal to get ganked in the first few tries and then find a way to overcome it.
One way to see and learn about the turn-based underpinnings of BG is to check all the "feedback" boxes in your options screen, and then read everything that prints in the little window at the bottom. I think that a lot of people don't realize that what they see on the main game screen isn't really what's happening behind the scenes.
What the computer is doing to give you the results that are animated is to render graphicallly what it says down in that window at the bottom. It will show you every dice roll that is made, in exactly what order. If you study your combat transcript carefully, you will see that every toon on the board is in fact taking turns with actions.
Combat rounds are divided into 10 "segments". The order in which actions occur are determined by the fine details of the rules such as spell casting times, weapon speeds, and number of attacks per round for the melee toons.
Absent special magic items, spellcasters may only start one spell per full combat round. If you ever click for a caster to start a spell, and they just stand there doing nothing, it's because they can't legally start casting until a new round begins, having already performed an action on the current round. It works similarly with potions, which may only be drank once per round.
Sometimes we say, with characters who need to switch what they are doing in the middle of a round, that "the aura wasn't clear", for example "I needed to drink a healing potion immediately, but my aura wasn't clear, so I died before I could drink the potion."
The BG engine does an amazing job of computerizing the experience of combat in a tabletop game of D&D, which is turn-based. I think that some of the misunderstandings that arise are because a lot of people who play Baldur's Gate have never actually had the experience of playing D&D, in person, with friends.
@belgarathmth has it right, though 'aura wasn't clear' is a new one on me. I just wanted to add that while actions like attacking, or using items, or casting spells can only be done once per round, you can move as much as you like. So if your character is low on health, and you need to stay alive a little bit longer to get into the next round to quaff a potion, run away!
@Amberion, that "aura" jargon gets used a lot on the Bioware no-reload boards. Maybe it's an insider term that just those people made up to use with each other, and I didn't realize it.
If you look at the battle log in BG2 (if my memory serves me well), you can sometimes see the words: Irenicus: Aura cleansed, meaning he can start casting another spell straight away, not having to wait for his next round, so it is actually an in-game term.
As for the OP's problems, I recognize the same feeling of overwhelmedness. I don't have it in BG, because of manual pause (and I have an auto-pause on target gone, so no time is wasted for me if I need to give characters a new command if their enemy turned dead or invisible). But I do have that sense of overwhelmedness in real-time strategy games, where there's the horror of having to fight off enemies while at the same time having to take care of your economy, see which resources got depleted, which buildings need to be repaired and which troops have to be cued and gathered when they're done. I like Age of Empires II - Age of Kings, but I really suck at it once battles become more frequent.
Comments
I ran
Inquisitor
Barbarian
Berserker
Send in the Barbarian and Berserker, the only thing you have to focus on them is their rage. Then dispel magic with your Inquisitor and beat them into a bloody pulp.
I wouldn't want to do one of those challenges with any caster, but with a beat-em-up team it wasn't as hard as you would think.
I'd try something like Fighter/Thief ranged, Berzerker or Barbarian, Inquisitor, Cleric / Mage. 3 of those you can point and click for most situations, and then you manage one caster for all your magical needs. the rage and uber-dispel from from you melee pals will help cover harder fights and specific situations.
I would agree with you on your team, i would probably tell him to use something like.
Inquisitor
Berserker
Fighter/Thief
Cleric/Mage
The Inquisitor and Berserker can be frontline beat sticks while the Fighter/thief is an archer. The Cleric/Mage is there to introduce him to different spells, but isn't needed to complete the game so it's more there to show options. The Inquisitors dispel magic is enough to win the game by itself.
To conclude: you can play BG with real turns without problems, just active autopause at every turn and you're done, you can control everything.
Baldur's Gate is actually a turn based game that defaults to a no pause combat system. But the options to make it fully turn based are all present in the game.
I remember when I saw the Demo at GenCon before BG1 came out. I remember not liking the way the game played because it was "Real time". And since It was a demo, I didn't get to monkey around with the settings to find what eventually turned out to be my preferred play method.
But hey, if they got all the way to Saravok with the method that they did settle on, kudos. Just a note on that front though, in BG2 there are combats where there is a lot more going on. And Spell casting can really add up to be important to strategy. Just saying, if they enjoy the game enough, maybe in BG2:EE they will start playing around with Auto-pause.
the easiest way is just kite + bows or summons + bows it(summons) doesn't work that great in bgee probably
i think stalker and archer would destroy easily sarevok also other rangers would do as good job as other fighters
As has been said before, just because it's easy for some people (who likely have lots of experience) doesn't mean it's easy in general.
Not saying I don't love BG. Just saying that I am THAT guy who will take 20 minutes planning one round of combat.
Edit for coherence.
but it is not
in some fights i paralyzed him with wand and killed with cleric and thief
I get what you mean. Turn-based sure has its appeal, esp for pnp players. My preference is maybe because I'm just better at pseudo-real time than turn-based. I always get hit with the latter since everyone would get a share of their turn; but with the former, it's as if you could exploit the system with spacebar abuse and at times you won't even get hit. I'm not saying I don't like ToEE though. In fact, I love the game because of is mechanics, almost as much as I love BG mechanics.
2. Just pause often. Figure out which one of your character does best against what kind of enemy. For instance make ranged target casters, make low survivability melee (thieves/bards/etc) target their ranged, casters i usually use to remove magic protections from other casters and bombard anything with low survivability with magic missle, and use your melee to keep their melee off of you.
I do enjoy NWN2 multi-player. That is loads of fun playing a single character, but in a party setting. Of course, just forget about tactics at that point; it turns into pretty much a free-for-all unless you have a tight group of players who know how to work together. Still loads of fun.
For me personally, BG1 is a better game because it is an all around more robust story and party and adventure (all the way up to TOB, where it falls down in my opinion). ToEE comes in a close second because of the turn based mechanics. If someone put BG into the ToEE engine, I would never play anything else. Until the next ToEE game came out...
For instance if you need a caster then you've got Dynaheir, a decent caster, but only int 17 and is the worst mage specialization in the game. Then there's Xan, he's the best "buffer" for mages. He's all about making everyone strong and not blowing crap up himself, and he has the best (in my opinion) weapon in the game. +3 shortsword with +1 AC and 50% fire resistance, too bad he only has 7 CON huh? Quayle, again, 17 INT (can no one give a caster that last point?) but he's a cleric/illusionist. He makes for an alright buff-reliant tank (11 CON, 16 DEX), but overall you need a cleric AND a mage to be casting at the same time, you don't want to try to do all of your buffs with just 1 person, takes too long, you'll lose all suprise fights. Then Xzar (he's one of the first NPC's you run into for a reason), AGAIN 17 INT!!! AUGH!!!! other then that, 16 DEX, 10 CON, barely worse then quayle from stats, but he IS a pure mage.
Then edwin, 18 INT (FINALLY!!!), 16 CON (hell ya!), and his well-known overpowered amulet. It gives him +2 to memorization on spells of every level and makes him cast 1/9 quicker.THEN! THERE'S BAELOTH!!! 19 INT (best of npc's), but 14 CON. Along with a ring that gives +2 2nd level spells, +1 3rd&4th levels, and the 19 INT it makes him and edwin about on par with eachother. You want a dude that's obsessed with red or a dude that tried to kill you in your party?
And before you answer that...
(SPOILER ALERT!!!)
How many of you took Sarevok into your party as well? :P
Make allies of your strongest enemies to make yourself the strongest.
just haste and go with fighters / slings from mages
only really hardcore enemies will survive
Use the spoiler tags instead. [-spoiler]Spoiler Text[-/spoiler] , just remove the two - within the brackets.
What the computer is doing to give you the results that are animated is to render graphicallly what it says down in that window at the bottom. It will show you every dice roll that is made, in exactly what order. If you study your combat transcript carefully, you will see that every toon on the board is in fact taking turns with actions.
Combat rounds are divided into 10 "segments". The order in which actions occur are determined by the fine details of the rules such as spell casting times, weapon speeds, and number of attacks per round for the melee toons.
Absent special magic items, spellcasters may only start one spell per full combat round. If you ever click for a caster to start a spell, and they just stand there doing nothing, it's because they can't legally start casting until a new round begins, having already performed an action on the current round. It works similarly with potions, which may only be drank once per round.
Sometimes we say, with characters who need to switch what they are doing in the middle of a round, that "the aura wasn't clear", for example "I needed to drink a healing potion immediately, but my aura wasn't clear, so I died before I could drink the potion."
The BG engine does an amazing job of computerizing the experience of combat in a tabletop game of D&D, which is turn-based. I think that some of the misunderstandings that arise are because a lot of people who play Baldur's Gate have never actually had the experience of playing D&D, in person, with friends.
As for the OP's problems, I recognize the same feeling of overwhelmedness. I don't have it in BG, because of manual pause (and I have an auto-pause on target gone, so no time is wasted for me if I need to give characters a new command if their enemy turned dead or invisible). But I do have that sense of overwhelmedness in real-time strategy games, where there's the horror of having to fight off enemies while at the same time having to take care of your economy, see which resources got depleted, which buildings need to be repaired and which troops have to be cued and gathered when they're done. I like Age of Empires II - Age of Kings, but I really suck at it once battles become more frequent.