You are right, chapter one and two are probably the most dfficult. This is partly due to the rules of the DnD game, where the characters are weak the first levels, specially wizards and sorcerers. It is probably also due to BG being one of the very first computer RPGs that saw day light -nowboby knew how to do.
It might be interesting to note that, in PnP (Advanced), a beginning Wizard can end up being hands down the most powerful of any character and by a significant margin. Here's how it goes.
Level 1 wizard of CN or CE alignment. A 16 CON and rolling max HP (a total of 6). But that's not the end of it. Cast Find Familiar and get a "Special" result (a roll of an EXACT 15 on 1-20) means that the Familiar is a Quasit. "If" the Quasit also has MAX hit points (3D6 = 18), that makes 24 HP. However, that's not the end of it. One of the other advantages that Quasits bestow on their "Master" is +1 level. So, that adds an additional 6 hit points and more spells. And to add insult to injury, Quasits also bestow regeneration so long as they are within range. Your newly rolled Wizard now has twice as many spells (bringing the total to 4 if they specialized), and 30 HP and regeneration AND a companion that can take down a Kobold or three with ease.
Also, BG was by no means one of the first. The Gold Box games came out YEARS before. And there was a completely different version of Neverwinter Nights on AOL that came out after them. Not to mention the early versions of Ultima which were significantly before. I want to say that Daggerfall was before that, and Arena as well, so that's the Elder Scrolls for you. And Wizardry also came out significantly before. In fact, there were a bunch more than that, I just don't remember them all despite having played most of them.
I played BG and BG2 for the first time a few years ago, not when it came out. I had no idea about ADnD or other Infinity Engine games and run through BG2 and ToB with Ascension on.
If I could beat the game on my first "official" run with Ascension and on Core rules, so can everybody else.
Really, read the manuals, be careful, play smart, save often. Any other complaints are just silly to me.
As other have said, people have been spoiled by newer games. I didn't complain on forums when I was getting massacred, I got angry and kept going and got better.
And that's the nature of DnD. At low levels you are the weakest, especially mages, on high levels the strongest.
Yeah its sort of the intended balance of things; you start as a fragile, inexperienced rookie. But you grow in power and capability as you gain experience and better equipment. That is the designed intent of the game.
I think that's a bit uncharitable. There are a TON of rules in D&D and that complexity can really be hard on players who aren't as into that as we are. I feel their pain in that there are definite degrees of difficulty depending on what strategies you choose and how you go advance. It can seem like the "Only" way to go to spam certain strategies. And before you find those strategies, it can seem very tough indeed.
But the strength of the game in my mind is the almost infinite diversity afforded by the customization. I don't fault anyone who balks at the challenge. I just hope they stick with it until they uncover the richness of the game.
@the_spyder Thing is, I was a total noob in ADnD, as well. My first time in BG1 was with a Monk (EasyTutu) and it still took me some time to figure out what THAC0 is. I only played NwN1 before that, but that's a different kind of game, easier and with no party-based gameplay.
Imagine that for a moment: I finished BG1 with a Monk and no previous experience on Core rules.
Not saying this to brag, I'm saying that if you are careful and persist, it is possible. You just need to adapt to the game, the game shouldn't adapt to you.
My second run was with a Cavalier from BG1, finally got into BG2 and then ToB with Ascension.
So I pretty much I dived in deep waters and learned to swim. And others can do it as well.
@Archaos - I get what you are saying. All I was saying is that there are varying degrees of interest in learning the rules sets. You obviously have the desire and tenacity to persevere. Not everyone does.
I myself am not what I would consider a 'Great player'. I played PnP for almost a decade back when I was young and have played BG countless times since launch. Yet still, I don't consider myself fully conversant in all of the BG rules and strategies. I simply don't have the inclination to memorize (as for example) what counter spells remove what magical protections. I do whatever works and gravitate towards the biggest bang for the smallest effort, but generally don't do a heck of a lot of research to get to that point.
All I am saying is that different people go to a game like BG for different reasons. Not everyone is as thorough or detail oriented or as strategic as everyone else. Just because you beat the game on Core with Ascension installed (something that after 15 years of playing I don't think I could do), that only means that you cared enough to get that involved. Not everyone does.
It is probably also due to BG being one of the very first computer RPGs that saw day light -nowboby knew how to do.
By the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! Have you never heard of Wizardry, Ultima, The Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, or the SSI Gold Box series (just to name a few I thought of in less than 10 seconds)?
*sigh*
OMG Bard's Tale! Time to dust off the c64...lol
Remmeber Telengard?! Wow, not really an RPG but fun.
@atcDave yep, you can play the original Bards Tale trilogy as an add-on to the port of the PS2 (I think) remake. Man, those games are freaking tough. I have tried several times and can't even make it more than a few screens in. I get slaughtered every single time!
@atcDave yep, you can play the original Bards Tale trilogy as an add-on to the port of the PS2 (I think) remake. Man, those games are freaking tough. I have tried several times and can't even make it more than a few screens in. I get slaughtered every single time!
Try Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna. I never finished that one.
Let us go waaaaay back to Rogue days...and before that, text-based adventures ala Raaka-Tu for the TRS-80...
Yeah baby!
Yup, I'm old school - hey, I can remember of a time BEFORE Computers and Video Games! We played PnP because we had to!
Well...it was fun! Still is.
As for difficulty of the BG series...nah. It is all about the learning curve. Once one knows how to "break" the game, everything is easy, regardless of level, or whether or not one is playing BG, or BG2, with or without SCS, etc.
True, a lot has to do with the scripted AI - it really does not change to adapt to what an individual player does. Thus, do X and rinse and repeat, yadda yadda yadda.
Also, items play a rather large role in the BG series. Without item X, things are difficult, with item X, a cakewalk. This is really because early versions of D&D often had this "either/or" type of symmetry. Either you had protection vs X or you often died. Add to that the party system (needing all four of the foundation of adventuring to succeed) and things could get quite complicated for someone first trying out the D&D system.
Basically, it goes like this :
Fighter - strong at first, gets weaker as it goes. Middle advancement XP-wise.
Cleric - sort of a cross between a Fighter and a Mage, but lacks much of both. In early editions of D&D, needed due to the Healing and Buff spells. Later editions the CoDzillas ruled the scene (Cleric or Druid). Slower advancement, but not as slow as Magic User.
Rogue - weak, but much needed to find Traps and Open Locks and to do scouting. Later more powerful due to Backstab damage, etc. Rogues advanced in early editions of D&D the fastest.
Magic User - very weak at first, but gets overwhelmingly powerful later in just about every edition of D&D. Had the slowest advancement XP-wise.
Those four classes make up the Party foundation for adventuring in the D&D system. Trying to adventure without one of the Four pretty much made things difficult from the getgo. Trying to adventure with just one (or, in the case of BG, two) is paramount to suicide!
HOWEVER :
They sort of realized this in BG - the beginning "level" is really just fed-ex quests in Candlekeep. One can even avoid all combat (don't go in those buildings where combat is). After exiting Candlekeep, keep to the ROAD until one comes to some needed additions to the Party system. Granted, perhaps one does not find Xzar and Monty very palatable (accordingly) but they fit into just about any party, really, at least until FAI (Friendly Arms Inn). True, the Cleric is missing, but that is possible to survive that until FAI, I think.
At FAI, one can pretty much make a basic Party of Four foundation (one has 6 members to choose from!).
Charname - Class X Imoen - Thief Xvar - Magic User Monty - Fighter/Thief Jaheira - Fighter/Druid Khalid - Ranger
As a result, one can now face the dangers of the Sword Coast with all the necessary tools from the Party foundation (all four elements are at hand).
Now, BG adds in an additional element that is not really found in the D&D couterpart - and that is the superiority of ranged combat. It basically "breaks" BG, regardless of level. With good Archers and ranged spells, one can basically kill anything before it can get close enough to do anything about it (and whatever survives the ranged damage to close to melee is rarely a real threat!). Thankfully, BG2 changes this, but for BG, this is a game-breaker. One doesn't ever have to worry about bows, slings, or darts, etc breaking, either.
Coming back to this, one may ask - but the Magic User does not have Fireball yet!
Well, sure, but Grease and Web (1st and 2nd level) are your AoE of choice (Sleep at 1st as well!). These are your "fireball" type AoE spells that will allow your Archers to basically pick off those pesky early level opponents with ease.
So I see it like this - for those who were introduced to D&D before the BG game series, things were easy, natural (though ranged combat was perceived rather soon as game-breaking) and intuitive.
For those who were introduced to D&D through the BG series, I would say that the learning curve was very steep - so yeah, I can imagine someone like that (and the OP) having a rough go at first (and then discovering the ranged combat advantage and then using it to win, win, win!).
I have yet to witness a RPG where the AI actually learns and reacts to the Player itself. I think if someone actually scripts such an AI, it will radically change RPGs IMHO. Still waiting for such a game.
Questron 1 & 2, Legacy of the Ancients, Shard of Spring, Demon's Winter, Wizard's Crown! Lots of fun old games on my C-64.
my c64 was soo buggy, but eventually I got Legacy of the Ancients to work and I played it all the way through. SO FUN. Very found memories of that game.
Great memories of Telengard! Ultima and Phantasie are other early favorites of mine.
I believe Bard's Tale is available in iOS. I sure would like to see those others show up too!
You can absolutely play Bards Tale on Android Phones if you are so inclined. I've got KOTOR for my Iphone as well. Great fun.
WAY back in the day there was this green wire frame dungeon game. It was endlessly randomly generated. You could go down levels all the way to 100 or more and the deeper you went the more difficult the encounters (rephrased for obvious reasons). I remember that you could have random encounters with elves that would heal you up. It was loads of fun. Not sure how "Role Play" friendly it was, but I enjoyed.
I really enjoyed the early Ultima games. They were AWESOME I remember. I think I still have the disks.
I remember Zork! That was back when we'd have a half dozen guys crowded around the computer together, shouting directions at the guy with the keyboard.... Does that count as a multi-player game?
YES OF COURSE your character gets way better and more powerful in later stages of the game. This does not inherently mean a game gets easier too. Why don't bad guys get better faster?
My problem is not that the game was difficult, my problem is that the game was ONLY difficult at the start and ONLY because I didn't know what to do.
So basically the only reason I thought this game was hard was becuase I went the wrong way and got 1-hit by an enemy I wasn't ready for.
This does not test your ability to problem solve, carry out actions or build a party. It ONLY tests how well you know the game.
I would much prefer a game that is STILL DIFFICULT when doing things right and playing well.
Otherwise, it is just a grind of smashing ez enemies in the right order, without really thinking at all about the fights themselves.
As far as getting one hit killed by stuff that you had no hope of defeating at low levels when you go somewhere you weren't intended to be, that happens in most games. At least that is my experience. And if that Isn't the case, I often think that the game is coddling you. I hated that in Oblivion, the world leveled up with you. That was just a joke.
Sure, the difficulty starts out tough. But it isn't ONLY because you are low level, it is because you don't have the knowledge of the game that you later get. For those of us who have played the game several times, getting through levels 1-3 in a hurry is simplicity itself. Even if you don't know where to go or how to find specific items, if you know the rules and choose the right spells and class and abilities, it can still be pretty much a cake walk without knowing the specifics of the game.
Your contention that the game becomes easy towards the end, you have to be clearer here. Did you farm a LOT of experience at some point? Did you rest after every combat and then spam spells that are known to be powerful? Did you happen to have the most powerful NPCs? Did you read walkthroughs that told you where certain enemies were and how to defeat them? That might help us assess the true issue, because any of these CAN make the game unnecessarily easy.
Also, how did you handle Balduran Island? Was that a cake walk? How did you handle Aec'letec? Was he easy? What about Durlag's Tower?
There is difficulty in the game, and if you progress on to BG2:EE you will find quite a bit more of it. Some of the dragons and wizard battles will tax you. And if you still don't find the challenge, play with SCS installed and then come back.
YES OF COURSE your character gets way better and more powerful in later stages of the game. This does not inherently mean a game gets easier too. Why don't bad guys get better faster?
My problem is not that the game was difficult, my problem is that the game was ONLY difficult at the start and ONLY because I didn't know what to do.
So basically the only reason I thought this game was hard was becuase I went the wrong way and got 1-hit by an enemy I wasn't ready for.
This does not test your ability to problem solve, carry out actions or build a party. It ONLY tests how well you know the game.
I would much prefer a game that is STILL DIFFICULT when doing things right and playing well.
Otherwise, it is just a grind of smashing ez enemies in the right order, without really thinking at all about the fights themselves.
I don't want to come out and sound like an ass, but the game was made 15+ years ago. The AI is simple, the graphics will be meh, the difficulty will swing like a teeter-toter, the tutorials will be lacking, and the game manuals will be prized possessions. Even with the EE's, Beamdog could only change so much.
So basically the only reason I thought this game was hard was becuase I went the wrong way and got 1-hit by an enemy I wasn't ready for.
This does not test your ability to problem solve, carry out actions or build a party. It ONLY tests how well you know the game.
I would much prefer a game that is STILL DIFFICULT when doing things right and playing well.
Otherwise, it is just a grind of smashing ez enemies in the right order, without really thinking at all about the fights themselves.
Wrong. If you're not ready for an enemy, you use different tactics, run away and come to kill him next time with more levels and better items.
And it does test your ability to problem solve. You use AoEs to slow them down or trap them, use bows and keep your distance, use summons. If all else fails, run.
It's not Diablo where you can kill everything in sight. And there's no grinding required in BG1.
In 3.5E PnP with my druid, we came across two dire bears at level 6. We were three people. So what I did, is summon an animal to distract them and run for our lives.
How did you handle Aec'letec? Was he easy? What about Durlag's Tower?
There is difficulty in the game, and if you progress on to BG2:EE you will find quite a bit more of it.
durlags tower was annoying because of traps and trying to click on the right switches on my phone but I only found the dawrves kind of hard. I just summoned a bunch of stuff near them before starting the fight, then only 2 fought me at a time.
Aec'letec made me re load once as he casted that strong spell. But for real like a couple fireballs to clear the peoples then just run at him..
Powerful NPC's? I had: fighter/cleric misnc kahalid xzar misc's mage lady imoen
So I find your explanations a bit hard to credit. It is my experience that Aec'letec is widely considered to be one of the toughest opponents in the original game, FAR tougher than Saravok himself. For you, sans any experience with D&D, and on a PHONE no less, to have only had one single reload in that combat is, if not impossible, certainly a very unusual circumstances. The same with Durlag's tower. Taking out the Death Knight is TOUGH under the best of circumstances for most players.
Far be it from me to doubt the veracity of your statements, merely let me say that they are unusual in the extreme.
Never the less, let me again state that you may wish to check out BG2 and see how you fair. If you still find no challenge, you may wish to (on a PC platform) seek out SCS which significantly improves the AI and throws in some changes to the spells and such that usually provide challenges to even veteran players.
I would also recommend against resting after each and every combat and see how that works for you. And if you can avoid it, I'd strongly recommend at least one run through without using walkthroughs. You haven't indicated if you do either of these, but I put it out there that "If you do", you may wish to try without just to see what your experiences are like. Then let us know if you have the same feeling, particularly against some of the Dragons and a certain "Prisoner".
This was the game that launched western RPGs into the stratosphere. Puzzles, strategy and tactics, and difficult battles were a second thought when the game was being produced.
They were turning a first person enter command line turned base style game into a 2d top down real time experience.
You have been blessed to play games that came after BG that took its frame work and added their own elements to up he difficulty, character building and strategy involved.
Also note that the EE introduced kits, spells and items that made the game easier than the original.
Finally, the game is as challenging as you make it. Limiting your resting to once a dungeon or area can significantly change the tactics you employ.
Comments
Level 1 wizard of CN or CE alignment. A 16 CON and rolling max HP (a total of 6). But that's not the end of it. Cast Find Familiar and get a "Special" result (a roll of an EXACT 15 on 1-20) means that the Familiar is a Quasit. "If" the Quasit also has MAX hit points (3D6 = 18), that makes 24 HP. However, that's not the end of it. One of the other advantages that Quasits bestow on their "Master" is +1 level. So, that adds an additional 6 hit points and more spells. And to add insult to injury, Quasits also bestow regeneration so long as they are within range. Your newly rolled Wizard now has twice as many spells (bringing the total to 4 if they specialized), and 30 HP and regeneration AND a companion that can take down a Kobold or three with ease.
Also, BG was by no means one of the first. The Gold Box games came out YEARS before. And there was a completely different version of Neverwinter Nights on AOL that came out after them. Not to mention the early versions of Ultima which were significantly before. I want to say that Daggerfall was before that, and Arena as well, so that's the Elder Scrolls for you. And Wizardry also came out significantly before. In fact, there were a bunch more than that, I just don't remember them all despite having played most of them.
I played BG and BG2 for the first time a few years ago, not when it came out. I had no idea about ADnD or other Infinity Engine games and run through BG2 and ToB with Ascension on.
If I could beat the game on my first "official" run with Ascension and on Core rules, so can everybody else.
Really, read the manuals, be careful, play smart, save often.
Any other complaints are just silly to me.
As other have said, people have been spoiled by newer games. I didn't complain on forums when I was getting massacred, I got angry and kept going and got better.
And that's the nature of DnD. At low levels you are the weakest, especially mages, on high levels the strongest.
But the strength of the game in my mind is the almost infinite diversity afforded by the customization. I don't fault anyone who balks at the challenge. I just hope they stick with it until they uncover the richness of the game.
Thing is, I was a total noob in ADnD, as well. My first time in BG1 was with a Monk (EasyTutu) and it still took me some time to figure out what THAC0 is.
I only played NwN1 before that, but that's a different kind of game, easier and with no party-based gameplay.
Imagine that for a moment: I finished BG1 with a Monk and no previous experience on Core rules.
Not saying this to brag, I'm saying that if you are careful and persist, it is possible. You just need to adapt to the game, the game shouldn't adapt to you.
My second run was with a Cavalier from BG1, finally got into BG2 and then ToB with Ascension.
So I pretty much I dived in deep waters and learned to swim. And others can do it as well.
I myself am not what I would consider a 'Great player'. I played PnP for almost a decade back when I was young and have played BG countless times since launch. Yet still, I don't consider myself fully conversant in all of the BG rules and strategies. I simply don't have the inclination to memorize (as for example) what counter spells remove what magical protections. I do whatever works and gravitate towards the biggest bang for the smallest effort, but generally don't do a heck of a lot of research to get to that point.
All I am saying is that different people go to a game like BG for different reasons. Not everyone is as thorough or detail oriented or as strategic as everyone else. Just because you beat the game on Core with Ascension installed (something that after 15 years of playing I don't think I could do), that only means that you cared enough to get that involved. Not everyone does.
Remmeber Telengard?! Wow, not really an RPG but fun.
I believe Bard's Tale is available in iOS. I sure would like to see those others show up too!
Yeah baby!
Yup, I'm old school - hey, I can remember of a time BEFORE Computers and Video Games! We played PnP because we had to!
Well...it was fun! Still is.
As for difficulty of the BG series...nah. It is all about the learning curve. Once one knows how to "break" the game, everything is easy, regardless of level, or whether or not one is playing BG, or BG2, with or without SCS, etc.
True, a lot has to do with the scripted AI - it really does not change to adapt to what an individual player does. Thus, do X and rinse and repeat, yadda yadda yadda.
Also, items play a rather large role in the BG series. Without item X, things are difficult, with item X, a cakewalk. This is really because early versions of D&D often had this "either/or" type of symmetry. Either you had protection vs X or you often died. Add to that the party system (needing all four of the foundation of adventuring to succeed) and things could get quite complicated for someone first trying out the D&D system.
Basically, it goes like this :
Fighter - strong at first, gets weaker as it goes. Middle advancement XP-wise.
Cleric - sort of a cross between a Fighter and a Mage, but lacks much of both. In early editions of D&D, needed due to the Healing and Buff spells. Later editions the CoDzillas ruled the scene (Cleric or Druid). Slower advancement, but not as slow as Magic User.
Rogue - weak, but much needed to find Traps and Open Locks and to do scouting. Later more powerful due to Backstab damage, etc. Rogues advanced in early editions of D&D the fastest.
Magic User - very weak at first, but gets overwhelmingly powerful later in just about every edition of D&D. Had the slowest advancement XP-wise.
Those four classes make up the Party foundation for adventuring in the D&D system. Trying to adventure without one of the Four pretty much made things difficult from the getgo. Trying to adventure with just one (or, in the case of BG, two) is paramount to suicide!
HOWEVER :
They sort of realized this in BG - the beginning "level" is really just fed-ex quests in Candlekeep. One can even avoid all combat (don't go in those buildings where combat is). After exiting Candlekeep, keep to the ROAD until one comes to some needed additions to the Party system. Granted, perhaps one does not find Xzar and Monty very palatable (accordingly) but they fit into just about any party, really, at least until FAI (Friendly Arms Inn). True, the Cleric is missing, but that is possible to survive that until FAI, I think.
At FAI, one can pretty much make a basic Party of Four foundation (one has 6 members to choose from!).
Charname - Class X
Imoen - Thief
Xvar - Magic User
Monty - Fighter/Thief
Jaheira - Fighter/Druid
Khalid - Ranger
As a result, one can now face the dangers of the Sword Coast with all the necessary tools from the Party foundation (all four elements are at hand).
Now, BG adds in an additional element that is not really found in the D&D couterpart - and that is the superiority of ranged combat. It basically "breaks" BG, regardless of level. With good Archers and ranged spells, one can basically kill anything before it can get close enough to do anything about it (and whatever survives the ranged damage to close to melee is rarely a real threat!). Thankfully, BG2 changes this, but for BG, this is a game-breaker. One doesn't ever have to worry about bows, slings, or darts, etc breaking, either.
Coming back to this, one may ask - but the Magic User does not have Fireball yet!
Well, sure, but Grease and Web (1st and 2nd level) are your AoE of choice (Sleep at 1st as well!). These are your "fireball" type AoE spells that will allow your Archers to basically pick off those pesky early level opponents with ease.
So I see it like this - for those who were introduced to D&D before the BG game series, things were easy, natural (though ranged combat was perceived rather soon as game-breaking) and intuitive.
For those who were introduced to D&D through the BG series, I would say that the learning curve was very steep - so yeah, I can imagine someone like that (and the OP) having a rough go at first (and then discovering the ranged combat advantage and then using it to win, win, win!).
I have yet to witness a RPG where the AI actually learns and reacts to the Player itself. I think if someone actually scripts such an AI, it will radically change RPGs IMHO. Still waiting for such a game.
Also, haven't heard about a ra...ranger called Khalid yet...
WAY back in the day there was this green wire frame dungeon game. It was endlessly randomly generated. You could go down levels all the way to 100 or more and the deeper you went the more difficult the encounters (rephrased for obvious reasons). I remember that you could have random encounters with elves that would heal you up. It was loads of fun. Not sure how "Role Play" friendly it was, but I enjoyed.
I really enjoyed the early Ultima games. They were AWESOME I remember. I think I still have the disks.
Does Zork count as an RPG? I don't know.
YES OF COURSE your character gets way better and more powerful in later stages of the game. This does not inherently mean a game gets easier too. Why don't bad guys get better faster?
My problem is not that the game was difficult, my problem is that the game was ONLY difficult at the start and ONLY because I didn't know what to do.
So basically the only reason I thought this game was hard was becuase I went the wrong way and got 1-hit by an enemy I wasn't ready for.
This does not test your ability to problem solve, carry out actions or build a party. It ONLY tests how well you know the game.
I would much prefer a game that is STILL DIFFICULT when doing things right and playing well.
Otherwise, it is just a grind of smashing ez enemies in the right order, without really thinking at all about the fights themselves.
Sure, the difficulty starts out tough. But it isn't ONLY because you are low level, it is because you don't have the knowledge of the game that you later get. For those of us who have played the game several times, getting through levels 1-3 in a hurry is simplicity itself. Even if you don't know where to go or how to find specific items, if you know the rules and choose the right spells and class and abilities, it can still be pretty much a cake walk without knowing the specifics of the game.
Your contention that the game becomes easy towards the end, you have to be clearer here. Did you farm a LOT of experience at some point? Did you rest after every combat and then spam spells that are known to be powerful? Did you happen to have the most powerful NPCs? Did you read walkthroughs that told you where certain enemies were and how to defeat them? That might help us assess the true issue, because any of these CAN make the game unnecessarily easy.
Also, how did you handle Balduran Island? Was that a cake walk? How did you handle Aec'letec? Was he easy? What about Durlag's Tower?
There is difficulty in the game, and if you progress on to BG2:EE you will find quite a bit more of it. Some of the dragons and wizard battles will tax you. And if you still don't find the challenge, play with SCS installed and then come back.
And it does test your ability to problem solve. You use AoEs to slow them down or trap them, use bows and keep your distance, use summons. If all else fails, run.
It's not Diablo where you can kill everything in sight. And there's no grinding required in BG1.
In 3.5E PnP with my druid, we came across two dire bears at level 6. We were three people.
So what I did, is summon an animal to distract them and run for our lives.
Aec'letec made me re load once as he casted that strong spell. But for real like a couple fireballs to clear the peoples then just run at him..
Powerful NPC's? I had:
fighter/cleric
misnc
kahalid
xzar
misc's mage lady
imoen
Far be it from me to doubt the veracity of your statements, merely let me say that they are unusual in the extreme.
Never the less, let me again state that you may wish to check out BG2 and see how you fair. If you still find no challenge, you may wish to (on a PC platform) seek out SCS which significantly improves the AI and throws in some changes to the spells and such that usually provide challenges to even veteran players.
I would also recommend against resting after each and every combat and see how that works for you. And if you can avoid it, I'd strongly recommend at least one run through without using walkthroughs. You haven't indicated if you do either of these, but I put it out there that "If you do", you may wish to try without just to see what your experiences are like. Then let us know if you have the same feeling, particularly against some of the Dragons and a certain "Prisoner".
They were turning a first person enter command line turned base style game into a 2d top down real time experience.
You have been blessed to play games that came after BG that took its frame work and added their own elements to up he difficulty, character building and strategy involved.
Also note that the EE introduced kits, spells and items that made the game easier than the original.
Finally, the game is as challenging as you make it. Limiting your resting to once a dungeon or area can significantly change the tactics you employ.