Are kits going to be re-balanced?

thelee

I asked this question because some kits are very unbalanced for low-level play. For example the totemic Druid is very powerful. On the other hand the Monk or Kensai might be extremely weak for low-level play (though I've never tried).

I guess I was just never one of those people who was into BGTutu. BG2 ecosystem is not really appropriate for the original Baldur's Gate.

gmazca

I'd imagine there would be some balancing tweaks. I can see a Kensai without armor starting out would be pretty difficult. The original game would have never taken into account a fighter with no armor lol. And the totemic druid is very powerful early game, but you sacrifice power in the end game (at least in shadows of amn).

etagloc

since this is an rpg, its almost always your own choice if you want to "break" the game, you can always play a more powerfull or weaker hero depending on how you want to do it.

and since many here have already played though the game more then once, im pretty sure balance isnt an issue, you already know were all the powerfull items are and you can get them almost when you want.

since this will only be my 2'nd playthough of bg1, im just gona go with the flow and roll something and stick with it.. im pretty sure i will be able to beat the game no matter what. and enjoy the story while i just wander around adventuring.

and if its your first playthough with an "op" kit im pretty sure its still gona be a challenge for you

so just enjoy it ; )

thelee

That's specious. By your definition, there's no such thing as an imbalanced game...

Heinrich

I hope so. For example, I feel that the Wizard Slayer is underpowered.

Low magic resistance and a near useless spell-disrupting ability along with limited magic item use. I would just tweak the Magic Resistance and add other abilities that can help with fighting mages without making it overpowered as well.

Lediath

etagloc said:

since this is an rpg, its almost always your own choice if you want to "break" the game, you can always play a more powerfull or weaker hero depending on how you want to do it.

try telling that to the d3 devs LOLZ

etagloc

etagloc said:

since this is an rpg, its almost always your own choice if you want to "break" the game, you can always play a more powerfull or weaker hero depending on how you want to do it.

try telling that to the d3 devs LOLZ

you calling d3 an rpg?

etagloc

thelee said:

That's specious. By your definition, there's no such thing as an imbalanced game...

this is a single player game so i dont know why it really matters that much if something is a little unbalanced

Bobby_Singer

etagloc said:

thelee said:

That's specious. By your definition, there's no such thing as an imbalanced game...

this is a single player game so i dont know why it really matters that much if something is a little unbalanced

I think its a different style of gaming. The game may be imbalanced, but for my own gameplay, I don't care. I've never thought power playing was particularly fun. I was went for they "hey, that was cool" factor, even if it put me at a disadvantage. Its like in some games (like skyrim) I will use weaker weapons or armor just because my character looks better with them than with the more powerful gear.

Tanthalas

In my opinion, I think that the stuff that is overpowered in BG1 should be tweaked (Totemic Druids are a glaring example of this), but for classes like the Kensai and Monk I don't mind them staying weak in BG1. It just means that I have to adjust my playstyle to compensate for their weakness, aka, no tanking with these classes.

jalden

I actually think the kensai works fairly well at low levels. The lack of armor makes it slightly worse against mobs than pure fighters even though it can deal out more damage. But the increased damage/thaco and kai ability make it significantly better than a pure fighter for taking out "boss" characters.

The monk is weak at low levels. They made a monk npc partner though... could mean that they will be getting some low level buff love.

thelee

Bobby_Singer said:

etagloc said:

thelee said:

That's specious. By your definition, there's no such thing as an imbalanced game...

this is a single player game so i dont know why it really matters that much if something is a little unbalanced

I think its a different style of gaming. The game may be imbalanced, but for my own gameplay, I don't care. I've never thought power playing was particularly fun. I was went for they "hey, that was cool" factor, even if it put me at a disadvantage. Its like in some games (like skyrim) I will use weaker weapons or armor just because my character looks better with them than with the more powerful gear.

does the game stay fun for you if there is a significant imbalance? i'm not talking about simple "mages are powerful at high levels, suck at low levels" imbalance that is endemic to AD&D. totemic druids' summons, for example, are immune to normal weapons and +1 weapons. they also start with - at worst - a THAC0 of 10 (equivalent to 10th level fighter) and AC of 2 (equivalent to Plate Mail +1) and 3 attacks (!!). that means at level 1 you can slaughter virtually every area you go to with no problem. that does not sound like fun to me. why would i want to play a character that faces no challenge at all?

there are other kits with problems like that - like the cleric kits whose special abilities will last for a stunningly low 1 round at start (there's a reason why Bless was tweaked to last 6 rounds flat in BG1), or the
stalker who is basically a hugely gimped fighter/thief until level 9 aka all of BG1 (no backstab bonus, no armor greater than studded leather), beastmaster who is also hugely gimped until level 8 aka all of BG1, etc.

and let's not forget the Kensai doesn't actually start getting to-hit and damage bonuses until level 3, and will be running around with ~10-14 health with worse AC than a mage with bracers and the only thing he can do is use Kai once/day.

when i think of a decent single-player experience, i tend to think that most of my basic character selection are valid choices, not "if i choose this class the game will be many many many times harder" or "if i choose this class the game will cease to be fun." the best example i can give of this is fallout 1/2, where virtually any character building decision led to a valid, balanced play experience (even if all you did was invest in charisma and chatting up people).

EDIT: the simple fact of the matter is Bioware designed kits to be played starting at level 7-9, not level 1.

Leaf_Eater

lets all agree to just make 6 half-orc barbarians in our party and steer clear of all this drama

Delvarian

Leaf_Eater said:

lets all agree to just make 6 half-orc barbarians in our party and steer clear of all this drama

The only logical choice.

lockmund

I can't agree with Thelee that the beastmaster would be weak until level 8. I believe that their most important summoning spell, (the familiar), works from lvl 1 and the bonus to stealth is also nice to get early on. Further, apart from the leather issue that's shared with all the ranger kits, you are just as good at fighting as a straight ranger. You just have to limit yourself to bows/crossbows with staffs as a backup. The Stalkers have bigger issues at low level, but I wouldn't call them weak.

Further, a lot of the classes have uneven power during their development. I've always felt that it was a bit cheap to play a common fighter in BG1 and then change to a kensai in bg2, when that kit starts to shine. Now you can "earn" the right to play a kensai or a monk in bg2. (Yes I know that tutu and bgt has been out there for years). In short, no rebalancing please. Let the totemic druids have their day in the sun.

Tanthalas

@lockmund

People mention Totemic druids because their spirit animals are immune to most enemies in the first chapters. If you let those stay, you might as well just enable the cheat keys and CTRL+Y everything.

Chippy

My ego always landed me in trouble as a Stalker - as party leader and protagonist, I always wanted to go up against certain enemies that other party members were (at certain points in the battle) better suited for, like demi-liches. Then there were the embarassing moments when low level characters would cast level 2 hold on my level 35+ character.

I was just reading the Oriental Adventures Handbook for the Kensai:

The kensai can use this power a number of times per day equal to his level. Thus a 5th-level kensai can use his ki power five times in a single day.
All kensai are immune to fear.
At 2nd level he causes one additional point of damage when using his specialty weapon. This increases
by one again at 5th, 8th, 10th, and 12th level, for a total damage bonus of + 5.
At 3rd level he gets a + 1 bonus on his dice rolls to hit. This also allows him to hit creatures that
normally can be hit only by magical + 1 weapons. Both of these bonuses increase by one when the character
reaches 5th, 8th, 10th, and 12th levels, for a total of + 5 to hit and the equivalence of a magical + 5 weapon.
At 7th level he can use two weapons simultaneously with no penalty. He also causes fear the same as a
samurai.
At 11th level the kensai can make a whirlwind attack.

-Certain other non-related details ommited. Now the above is pretty powerful, but if they can't use armour and other magical weapons (simulating loss of honour), this at least gives a straight Kensai a chance against a high level mage. Obviously it all goes out the window with use any item.

Also (maybe this deserves it's own thread) Kensai gained bonuses to initiative that allowed them to move before others in the party...

MilesBeyond

Totemic Druid and Shapeshifter both end up being in the uncomfortable position of being absurdly overpowered at the start of BG1, while being completely underwhelming by midway through BG2. They need rebalancing at both ends.

If you've ever played Tutu, you'll know one of the best parts of the game is taking a kit from the first level. Some kits get a lot of growth early on which you get automatically in SoA, so it can be fun to watch your character go through that. Monks as well. Especially Monks.

Some kits just won't be all that well balanced, and that's okay. The Cavalier, for example, is going to just be a crappier Paladin for 99% of BG1 (though when BG2 with its legions of demons and dragons come on, he'll be kicking butt).

But rebalancing them in general would be awesome. Let's see kits like the Beastmaster and the Wizard Slayer and the Jester become more viable options.

Tanthalas

@MilesBeyond

About the Cavalier, most people are of the opinion (and I agree with them) that the Cavalier is actually awesome in BG1 because it gains an immunity to fear, charm and poison, with resists to Fire and Acid at the cost of only losing ranged weapons.

Yeah, ranged weapons are great in BG1, but the fear and charm immunities are also great.

MilesBeyond

@Tanthalas Huh, forgot about those bonuses. Yeah, that's a great point, actually.

Here's how I see the balance issue:

BG is primarily a single-player game, so balance isn't a huge issue. Which is a good thing, because the game is far from it. A Swashbuckler will never be anywhere near the power of a Kensai -> Mage, for example.

But how balance should work is that every option should seem viable, and no option should be game-breaking. Right now, I look at Bards and one option is awesome (Blade), one is cool but not significantly better (Skald) and one is bloody awful (Jester). That shouldn't be the case. Make Jester more tantalizing.

So for me, singleplayer balance isn't about making everything equal, it's about making everything viable. It's about making everything interesting to play.

Tanthalas

@MilesBeyond

I've seen people say that Jester's are actually good in BG1 because its easy to stick their song on enemies. But I haven't tried it myself.

I think the same way though. I'm ok with some classes being stronger than others, but there should not be any auto-win buttons.

Cheesebelly

Avengers are also overpowered, especially when they unlock their shapes - Cast web on unlucky opponents, turn into sword spider... kill all.
Add some Improved Invisibility and Iron Skin for extra fun... because Avengers can have both by level 9 XD

On top of that, cast petrifying chromatic orbs... Avengers can do that too! And Insect Plague if you feel extreme (which is a serial killer in BG1 if I might add)

Tanthalas

@Cheesebelly

I think Avengers are still at a reasonable level of overpowered though.

MilesBeyond

The one thing we do need to remember, though, is how absolutely rubbish pure-class Druids are in BG1. Like they have nothing to recommend them. Mediocre fighting skills, and most of the really good low-level Divine magic is Cleric only. Druid spells don't really start coming into their own until maybe, what, level 5? Which you'll reach at the very end of BG1.

So, maybe having the Druid kits be a bit too strong in BG1 isn't a bad thing. Not as bad as they are now, certainly, but a boost, anyway.

AurenRavidel

I've never been a fan of the fighter kits. Two of them severely limit what you can equip and the third is kindof lackluster in comparison to some of the other warrior kits. The paladins really got all the love. All three of their kits are solid.

thelee

MilesBeyond said:

The one thing we do need to remember, though, is how absolutely rubbish pure-class Druids are in BG1. Like they have nothing to recommend them. Mediocre fighting skills, and most of the really good low-level Divine magic is Cleric only. Druid spells don't really start coming into their own until maybe, what, level 5? Which you'll reach at the very end of BG1.

So, maybe having the Druid kits be a bit too strong in BG1 isn't a bad thing. Not as bad as they are now, certainly, but a boost, anyway.

What?? Druids get the best damaging spell in the game (call lightning), the best buff (flame blade along with small sword proficiency), better THAC0 progression than priests, can use a much better weapon (frostbrand, after TOTSC nerfed the electric hammer), and are at least as good as priests for healing and summoning (though priests are better at buffing and tanking). Druids are at least as good as priests and, depending on your playstyle, much better (if you're not as much into melee and tanking). By my reckoning, Druids come into their own the moment they can cast level 2 divine spells.

It's only when they get to BG2 and get frozen at level 14 that they utterly suck. Once they hit 15 (and get a far superior high-level spell progression along with Nature's Beauty) things start to get better again.

MilesBeyond said:

BG is primarily a single-player game, so balance isn't a huge issue. Which is a good thing, because the game is far from it. A Swashbuckler will never be anywhere near the power of a Kensai -> Mage, for example.

But how balance should work is that every option should seem viable, and no option should be game-breaking. Right now, I look at Bards and one option is awesome (Blade), one is cool but not significantly better (Skald) and one is bloody awful (Jester). That shouldn't be the case. Make Jester more tantalizing.

This is what I am getting at. Some imbalance is inevitable, even in the best of games. But I'm not talking about one ability being pretty good and one being bad, I am talking about a spectrum of kits that range from virtually unplayable to can-take-on-Sarevok-from-the-prologue.

thelee

Tanthalas said:

@MilesBeyond

About the Cavalier, most people are of the opinion (and I agree with them) that the Cavalier is actually awesome in BG1 because it gains an immunity to fear, charm and poison, with resists to Fire and Acid at the cost of only losing ranged weapons.

Yeah, ranged weapons are great in BG1, but the fear and charm immunities are also great.

Yeah man, charm and fear are the bane of BG1. Every divine (and some arcane) casters I always have at least 1 resist/remove fear, and I'll even recruit Minsc just so I can have a slightly easier time trying to clear out those Sirines.

MilesBeyond

thelee said:

What?? Druids get the best damaging spell in the game (call lightning), the best buff (flame blade along with small sword proficiency), better THAC0 progression than priests, can use a much better weapon (frostbrand, after TOTSC nerfed the electric hammer), and are at least as good as priests for healing and summoning (though priests are better at buffing and tanking). Druids are at least as good as priests and, depending on your playstyle, much better (if you're not as much into melee and tanking). By my reckoning, Druids come into their own the moment they can cast level 2 divine spells.

It's only when they get to BG2 and get frozen at level 14 that they utterly suck. Once they hit 15 (and get a far superior high-level spell progression along with Nature's Beauty) things start to get better again.

Call Lightning is great but situational. How many difficult outdoor fights are there? The most challenging one I can think of are those bounty hunters outside the Cloakwood Mines, and they're not exactly terrifying. Eh, I suppose Werewolf Island could be a possibility. But the spell is overall entirely inferior to Holy Smite, which does less damage but is useful almost everywhere - plus the damage is instantaneous, instead of having to wait 60 seconds between each hit. Flame Blade can be cast by both Clerics and Druids, and it isn't affected by proficiencies. The only Druid exclusives at level two are Charm Mammal (blegh) and Goodberry (worst level 2 spell). Meanwhile, Cleric gets Draw Upon Holy Might as an exclusive, which is easily one of the best spells.

The first spell Druids get that really compete with Clerics is Call Woodland Beings. From there things get even better, with Iron Skins, Insect Plague, Fire Elemental, Creeping Doom and possibly Nature's Beauty (depending on what you're fighting). But until then, Clerics rule. And even at that point, trading off rezzing spells is harsh if you've only got one Priest.

Geldridge

I know it doesn't resolve issues for some, but for me the party-based aspect of BG smooths the edges of class/kit differences. A monk may be underpowered against anyone except the Candlekeep rats, but within an hour of play, you can be surrounded by a thief, a mage, 2 fighters and a Druid. Later battles are made more tactical by having to compensate for strengths and weaknesses across the party.

Solyaris

thelee said:

I asked this question because some kits are very unbalanced for low-level play. For example the totemic Druid is very powerful. On the other hand the Monk or Kensai might be extremely weak for low-level play (though I've never tried).

I guess I was just never one of those people who was into BGTutu. BG2 ecosystem is not really appropriate for the original Baldur's Gate.

I started as a Kensai on BGtutu, so TC makes me laugh. Kai + his passive bonuses make the kensai able to take down boss mobs with good rolls. I was soloing an ogre at level 1 with fairly simple CHARNAME + imoen kiting.

MilesBeyond

Geldridge said:

I know it doesn't resolve issues for some, but for me the party-based aspect of BG smooths the edges of class/kit differences. A monk may be underpowered against anyone except the Candlekeep rats, but within an hour of play, you can be surrounded by a thief, a mage, 2 fighters and a Druid. Later battles are made more tactical by having to compensate for strengths and weaknesses across the party.

It's a great point. Characters who need some time to develop aren't really "unbalanced." Anyone who loads their level 1 Mage up with Magic Missiles is going to struggle against just about anything, but that sure doesn't make Mages underpowered.

The issue is more, again, "Why on earth would I ever want to play as a Wizard Slayer?"