I will say that I HATED the IWD2 system. I felt that you simply didn't have enough points. If you wanted to be a good fighter, you had to be an idiot. If you wanted to use magic, you had to be a dweeb. If you wanted to be a bard you had to have the wisdom of a toddler.
One thing to remember is that IWD2 ran on 3rd ed D&D and in that, really high stats are mostly optional for martial classes. In 2e, 18 str in almost required for fighters, cause the bonuses start at 16 and then it's only +1 dmg. In 3e 16 str is already +3 attack and +3 dmg. Same for Dex, with the addition that for figher/paladin/cleric anything over 14 is mostly wasted cause armors have maximum dex modifiers. The only classes that really need a minimum stat to function are casters and even then, if you start with 15 in core spellcasting stat you can get 19 by lvl16 because you get 1 point every 4 levels.
I've played many warriors who started with no strength bonus at all, its really not "required". And there's lots of magic items available that boost strength either temporarily or permanently. The best character I ever played was a Paladin with a 14 strength. It just takes a little more creativity to make an average strength fighter work.
Personally I'm not much of a powergamer, but I don't see the appeal in taking a stat roll the way it is without rearranging the stats the way you want. I mean, I'm pretty sure that the point of Dungeons and Dragons is to play the character you want to play, not the character the RNG wants you to play.
The appeal of stat rolling is that it's organic. It lets you play something more realistic. The appeal of point-buy is that it's controlled. It lets you play what you want. I'm overall in favor of point-buy. In practice, I find rolling somewhat pointless when you have unlimited rerolls and can shift points around freely, as in BG. I also don't like most rolling schemes in pnp, because while I like the organic nature of the rolls, I dislike the idea of a character being screwed over (or made ridiculously overpowered) because of a couple rolls at the beginning of the campaign. I do like random stat allocation at the beginning of games where you have a large amount of non-random stat progression later on, as it seems to more accurately reflect reality (you're born with strengths and weaknesses, but you make of them what you will) and tends to be less inclined to screw you over. I also like random stat allocations of the "roll 10 times and choose the best" variety, because they trend much more strongly towards not screwing people over and they more accurately reflect that not everyone who might become an adventurer actually does.
You could always use an alternate system of stat generation such as 6 + 3d4; this will give you a range of 9 to 18 with the "average" stat being 13.5. This may sound like overkill or pure powergaming but 6 stats at 13.5 each is only a total of 81, which many people would consider to be on the low side. The most restrictive classes are ranger or paladin (if considering the stats needed to qualify) but either class can be attained for point totals of 72 or 69, respectively, by allowing each stat to be a minimum of 9 so having a point total of 81 isn't so bad. Yes, many people like to max their stats but not everyone can be an Alias (from Curse of the Azure Bonds), whose official stats were all 17s.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if it was only a matter of leaving five or ten points unused for some characters. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that at the other end of the spectrum; the computer won't let me say "this character has seven points fewer than allowed, but THIS character has nine points more than allowed"...
The thing that makes the poor or average character fun, is that I've also played the strong character and know the difference.
This is actually what appeals to me as well, and exactly why I want the option to have a very strong character as well as more average characters.
The IWD Fighter needed to make a total roll of 84 and get incredibly lucky on his Strength percentile to have the same to-hit bonus, and that's no mean feat. On average, you'd probably have to re-roll a good six times to see a stat block like that. The only advantage the IWD Fighter has going for him is greater damage, but again that required quite a bit of luck.
@Schneidend I've never had a problem getting a stat roll better than 84 if I'm being honest with you. The thing is comparing Paladins to Fighters in IWDII
Supposedly they are both supposed to be equally competent at melee (or at least close). The fighter gets more feats (incredibly useful) while the paladin gets abilities and spells to make up for his lack of feats. The difference is that the paladin needs to lose some strength, constitution or dexterity to even be able to use his "special abilities". So the thing that supposedly puts them on equal footing actually doesn't, since you will need to put a bare minimum of 8 points into Charisma and Wisdom to get your paladin to that point. That means that *half* of the 16 points given to you are used to put you on "equal grounds" to a fighter. This hurts the balance of the game in my opinion, and makes using paladins quite underwhelming when compared to barbarians or fighters.
I'm not even going to go into rangers.
It would be a little better if you were given more points based on your class or whatever, but that's still not as flexible as you can be in Baldur's Gate. Sometimes I like to roll random, other times I ctrl-8 and work my way down. More freedom is just fine with me.
This is really missing one gigantic change from PnP to BG. In 2E PnP, a paladin PC generally has to stick their highest score into Charisma, because the odds of rolling two 17-18s is very low - not to mention that you need to use a second score of 13+ for Wisdom. A paladin is *supposed* to have lower STR, DEX, and CON than a fighter. BG greatly reduces that effect, giving paladins better initial rolls than fighters on average (since WIS and CHA are forced above the minimums). The only restriction is that Paladins only have INT as a "dump stat" for min/max-ers rather than INT, WIS, and CHA like fighters.
I liked the random rolls of old-style games like Bard's Tale, but I really think calling BG1/BG2/IWD a "random rolls" system in inaccurate. It's a 1:1 point-buy with a random number of initial points and an initial allocation of the points. it would be the exact same system if they started you off with straight 10s and a random number of additional points to add of 15-48 (adjusted for class/race minimums, if appropriate).
I'm completely okay with a lot of modified/random systems, with minimum rolls or something to boost points a little (6+3d4, 6+2d6, 6d6 keep the high three. All work fine for me). But the point is to keep things from the overly balanced tyrany of point shifting. To me, that's just so inorganic, or unnatural, or whatever term you prefer it just crushes my interest. I don't even see the point in discussing a character at that point, they're just all the same.
But I do think it's important in any generation system that the player has some control over the creation of their character. I have quite often looked at a character's stats after they rolled and asked the player if they just wanted to start over. Saddling a player with a character they don't want is never the point. The point is a little bit of organic variation at the very start.
Maybe they're all the same in 2E, a system where, without heaps of optional rules, every character of the same class pretty much IS the same, with the only major factor of difference being weapon choice(s). In 3E and up, two Fighters with the same stat layout could have completely different feats and skills that can thoroughly alter the way they play at the table.
Although, with kits and weapon style proficiencies, BGEE isn't bad in this regard, either. You'd be hard-pressed to call a Paladin who intends to wield Carsomyr or a Stalker who focuses on clubs "the same," even with identical stats.
I forgot to mention one more thing I hate about IWD2: that every warrior is automatically proficient in every weapon (other than the bastard swords, which for some reason are more exotic than scimitars, throwing hammers and darts)
I forgot to mention one more thing I hate about IWD2: that every warrior is automatically proficient in every weapon (other than the bastard swords, which for some reason are more exotic than scimitars, throwing hammers and darts)
Well, being competent with longswords but nearly stabbing yourself with a dagger never made sense, anyway.
Also, in PnP, bastard swords are exotic weapons when wielded in one hand, because they're big and unwieldly. If you just swing it like a greatsword with both hands it's a martial weapon. Unfortunately, IE makes it super difficult to replicate this little nuance.
It's just not the same if all the variation is chosen. I like to see some of it be things the player has to work with, not necessarily of their choosing. It's the idea that not every character will start with equal gifts, and the challenge that comes from trying to get the most out of a character that isn't initially engineered to the player's specs.
And 2E still has plenty of potential for choosing and building the character too, especially with kits and both weapon and non-weapon proficiency rules in use.
And ultimately none of this stuff is really important. I have no doubt a game that pleases many of us can be created either way. It only effects if I will play it or not. And it's not like I "need" another game.
Comments
In 2e, 18 str in almost required for fighters, cause the bonuses start at 16 and then it's only +1 dmg.
In 3e 16 str is already +3 attack and +3 dmg. Same for Dex, with the addition that for figher/paladin/cleric anything over 14 is mostly wasted cause armors have maximum dex modifiers. The only classes that really need a minimum stat to function are casters and even then, if you start with 15 in core spellcasting stat you can get 19 by lvl16 because you get 1 point every 4 levels.
It just takes a little more creativity to make an average strength fighter work.
I liked the random rolls of old-style games like Bard's Tale, but I really think calling BG1/BG2/IWD a "random rolls" system in inaccurate. It's a 1:1 point-buy with a random number of initial points and an initial allocation of the points. it would be the exact same system if they started you off with straight 10s and a random number of additional points to add of 15-48 (adjusted for class/race minimums, if appropriate).
But I do think it's important in any generation system that the player has some control over the creation of their character. I have quite often looked at a character's stats after they rolled and asked the player if they just wanted to start over. Saddling a player with a character they don't want is never the point. The point is a little bit of organic variation at the very start.
Although, with kits and weapon style proficiencies, BGEE isn't bad in this regard, either. You'd be hard-pressed to call a Paladin who intends to wield Carsomyr or a Stalker who focuses on clubs "the same," even with identical stats.
Also, in PnP, bastard swords are exotic weapons when wielded in one hand, because they're big and unwieldly. If you just swing it like a greatsword with both hands it's a martial weapon. Unfortunately, IE makes it super difficult to replicate this little nuance.
It's the idea that not every character will start with equal gifts, and the challenge that comes from trying to get the most out of a character that isn't initially engineered to the player's specs.
And 2E still has plenty of potential for choosing and building the character too, especially with kits and both weapon and non-weapon proficiency rules in use.
And ultimately none of this stuff is really important. I have no doubt a game that pleases many of us can be created either way. It only effects if I will play it or not. And it's not like I "need" another game.