While I understand where powergamers come from, I think BG just doesn't work like that. After you're proficient enough with the rules to min/max every part member for the highest functionality, you can "beat" the game pretty easily anyway.
I myself have gotten a lot of joy from making the most of crappy characters.
@SandmanCCL I don't know why you think I have an emotional attachment to Alora. I hardly ever use her unless Imoen dies and I need a new thief. I just don't think she's "trash". My party usually ends up being the bog-standard Party BG2 assumes- CHARNAME, Imoen, Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc and Dynaheir. I've tried every character at least once, and while I'll admit the evil characters, no matter how "kickass" everyone seems to think they are as (insert class here), I am not particularly impressed by them.
My thoughts on Quayle stem purely from the fact, according to the manual and AD&D rules, you need at least 13 Wisdom to not suffer divine spell failure chance. I couldn't care less if he gained bonus spells from high wisdom. Jahiera doesn't get bonus spells from wisdom and I like her just fine.
Now that I know that particular AD&D rule was not implemented in the Infinity Engine (despite the freakin' manual claiming it was), my beef with Quayle is settled. I will likely use him next playthrough simply because he's one of the few NPCs I've never really bothered with. Cleric/Mages are pretty fun. Aerie is easily my favorite caster in BG2 from a meta-gaming standpoint.
That's part of my argument as to why Shar-Teel is a better unit than Alora. I was only comparing her to Alora out of a class similarity argument. Shar-Teel is on of my favorite NPCs and I usually leave her as a raw fighter who focuses on bows because Montaron is more than enough to handle the thieving needs of my evil-aligned parties.
You seem particularly troubled by my usage of the word "trash," so I don't think it was that much of a stretch to conclude you were offended somehow. It seems to me even you feel like her only value from a gameplay perspective comes out of, "Well, everyone else is dead. Guess you'll do."
@Moomintroll: D&D is by nature a strategy RPG. Strategic gameplay wins battles. And when you've beaten the entire saga as many times as I have, the RP elements stop meaning much. I don't derive much pleasure from watching the same interactions with the same NPCs every time. It's all about trying something different than last time and that usually boils down to trying different tactics, different characters. I want there to be a reason to pick the character other than "She exists" because if what she adds doesn't change the strategic paradigms of battle, why bother?
Even if I made an all-thieves party, she's not needed! There's already 6 other thieves in the game, not including the 3 NPCs you can dual-class into thief! That's more than a 3rd of the game's total NPCs!
@Jorkan: Sadly, that's a limitation we have to accept, since there's no way around it. It's the result of legal constraints to which the Beamdog team are bound - they've skirted around the problem by creating new characters (Dorn, Neera and Rasaad) who will have new banters with existing characters, but that's as far as they can go. For more content, I'm afraid the best we can hope for is a quick update to the BG1NPC mod so that it's compatible with the EE.
@sandmanCCL Giving Qyale more wis = giving him more spells and he already has enough, just checked again even with wis10 he gets a bonus spell after using wis tomes, so actually has more spells than Edwin even capped.
>. You don't get -5 AC from dexterity til you hit 21 and only Coran is capable of that without spells. didnt i just post a pic where Alora has 21 dex?
NExUS1g over at bioware forums has done the research. 400 points in stealth abilities are needed to be able to hide everywhere. In general the thief skill screen is highly confusing, even though they are referenced as percentages, these are actually flat values, going far beyond 100, so every point in stealth is extremely valuable for anyone who likes to scout or backstab. (and solo drizzt heh)
@sandmanCCL Giving Qyale more wis = giving him more spells and he already has enough, just checked again even with wis10 he gets a bonus spell so actually has more spells than Edwin even capped.
Oh darn, he'd gain a single solitary extra level 1 cleric spell. GAME IS RUINED. It's unbalanced now, guys! That extra minor healing he can cast a day, boy. I tell you what. That totally makes him broken.
I have no idea where you're saying he gets an extra bonus spell for having 10 wisdom. Do you mean he gains an extra ARCANE spell per day from being an Illusionist? Just trying to figure out what you're talking about when you say "even with wis10 he gets a bonus spell."
>. You don't get -5 AC from dexterity til you hit 21 and only Coran is capable of that without spells. didnt i just post a pic where Alora has 21 dex?
You're really going to use your tome of dexterity AND equip her with Kiel's Buckler just for 21 dexterity? Seriously? She's only going to have that 21 dex with the shield equipped and ready, btw, meaning no bows for you. My response was to LadyRhian anyway and she said nothing about 21 dex. It seemed like she was working off the idea 19 dexterity gave more -AC than 18 did, which is not true. Maybe she was arguing the 21 dexterity thing too and I didn't realize it.
I play through BG1 assuming I'm going to import to BG2. Pretty sure a huge portion of other people feel this way. Going with this assumption: Dexterity is arguably the most important stat in the game, making that the most important tome in the game. Unless you are intentionally going with 8 dexterity to use it as a dump stat because you know you're going to roll with the Gauntlets of Dexterity, chances are really high you'll end up using it on yourself unless you're trying to prove a point to a guy you dislike on an internet forum somewhere.
If you are a dwarf, you're going to use that tome on yourself. If you are a halfling or elf, you are going to use that tome on yourself because why have Alora with 21 dexterity when you can do that yourself?
If you're any other race that caps at 18, alright. MAYBE I can see you justifying giving that tome to another character. Now it's time to checklist: -Is Coran in the group? He takes priority over Alora because he'd also have 21 dexterity and without needing a shield so it benefits his ranged prowess, and he is deadlier in melee anyway because fighter thac0 and the possibility of two pips in a melee weapon instead of just 1.
-Am I a paladin or ranger? Better use that on myself to counter-act the eventual -1 Dex penalty you suffer in Hell at the end of Shadows of Amn if I want to keep my class abilities. (Hell, this applies to any good- or neutral-aligned person who cares enough about RP to maintain their alignment.) Saying I could just use the Machine of Lum the Mad to do so means you'd rather dump the tome on a character who isn't with you for the majority of the saga instead of using the MoLtM on Minsc, Jahiera, Aerie, Jan, Haer'Dalis, Korgan or even Saraevok. Each of whom manage to get an extra -1 AC from the bonus dex.
-Do I care about my character's ranged combat abilities? It'd surely be better at 20 than it would be at 19.
-Do I value having 21 dexterity on Alora over adding a dexterity to the following NPCs, all of which get their AC lowered by doing so? (Asterisked characters are people I value the tome of Dex on moreso than Alora for usability purposes.)
Khalid* Minsc* Kivan* Coran* Jahiera Garrick Safana Branwen (note: also allows Branwen to dual-class to thief if I want) Xan* Faldorn Quayle Xzar (same as Branwen) Montaron* Shar-Teel* Viconia* (she can hit 21 Dex, same as Alora) Tiax
TO RECAP: In order to justify using the tome of dexterity to get Alora to 21 Dex, I need to 1) not be a dwarf, elf or halfling, 2) not care about the long-term success of my character by importing into BG2, 3) not have used dexterity as a dump stat, 4) not be using Coran, 5) be evil, and 6) be melee oriented and 7) decide it's more valuable to boost her to 21 Dex than it is to gain an extra -1 AC on tank characters or better archers.
I am at a total and complete loss if you STILL think Alora is better than everyone else. Better than Skie, maybe. I'll buy that one, sure. Why not.
@sandmanCCL, umm, I assume you're enjoying yourself, right, my friend? Sometimes I also get kind of invigorated and aroused by a lively debate of the merits and ins and outs of various D&D issues and trivia.
I do hope you're being motivated by the spirit of fun here in your debating with everybody, and not getting angry or anything. The devs are legally restricted from changing anything for the original characters, so this whole discussion is kind of academic.
I hope for myself that the Shadowkeeper dude is still out there somewhere and watching this, and that SK will be either useable at release of BG:EE or soon after.
With SK, you will be able to do anything with stats or classes of NPC's instantly and at your pleasure. You can basically create your own game, that makes sense to you personally.
@Moomintroll: D&D is by nature a strategy RPG. Strategic gameplay wins battles. And when you've beaten the entire saga as many times as I have, the RP elements stop meaning much. I don't derive much pleasure from watching the same interactions with the same NPCs every time. It's all about trying something different than last time and that usually boils down to trying different tactics, different characters. I want there to be a reason to pick the character other than "She exists" because if what she adds doesn't change the strategic paradigms of battle, why bother?
I have to say I disagree with that. The RP elements for me is why I bother playing the game at all. Firstly it wouldn't matter how many times you've already played BG1, new dialogue is still going to be new to you. And even when you finish BGEE 100 times, RP dialogue, when written properly, give you weighted and diverse options so that you're not mindlessly choosing the same decisions over and over. You said you enjoy the novelty of mixing up your characters, well for me at least, the dialogue is what makes that such an important decision, because you're effectively choosing who you'd like to see develop. Id even go as far as to pick an NPC with lame stats if they've got interesting things to say.
Then again, we probably just like different things in our games? I dont mean to put words in your mouth, but maybe at this point you just see a character like Minsc as a list of stats and a class, while im more inclined to see a Neutral Good who will probably end up killing Edwin if you put them both in the same party?
@belgarathmth: I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk! I love this debate. I'm getting a lot out of it. I'm solidifying my opinion of Alora (honestly there's things about why I dislike her I didn't even realize!) and learned something really important about Quayle that turns him from the turd sandwich I thought he was into a very capable NPC among the best casters in the game.
I'm actually editing the cast of characters at my wiki right now for the first time since I originally wrote it back in 2007. I've learned a ton about the game since then and have had my opinions shaped greatly over the last couple of days.
^If you're interested in reading it. I like to pretend it's handy, even if no one else does.
@CrazedSlayer: More power to you! The first few times I played BG, I felt the same way. It's part of why I fell in love with it for sure.
But yeah, totally. Minsc is just a list of stats and abilities for me. He's one of my favorite NPCs from a personality standpoint in the history of video games. Doesn't mean I think that's that great from a playstyle perspective, but at least he serves a functional role different from all the other meaty beefy warriors in the game. For me, I need a reason to PLAY the person other than just personal tastes for characterization and such.
When I say D&D is a strategy RPG, I'm talking pure mechanics of combat. The way the combat works influenced Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea... all of that sort of stuff. It happens to be my favorite genre.
Back on topic: I agree that it is a shame that some things cannot be added. Mostly, I would have liked more inter-party story development. Imagine if all your party members had their relationships developed like Misc and Aerie or more. Overdoing it would make it a soap opera, yes, but some characters seriously lack interaction with other party members.
@sandmanCCL, I followed the link and read your guide. Very well written, thorough, and well-done, although it does contain a lot of editorial opinion.
on-topic: There's a straight-up answer to the question in the thread title: Because the legal deal with Bioware, Hasbro, and WotC contains a clause/stipulation that no original content be changed. It also contains a "non-disclosure until approval" clause, such that Beamdog cannot go into much detail about the issue, and anything else in this thread is pure speculation.
Might as well make it interesting and keep the discussion going by expanding a bit and exploring a few tangents.
@SandmanCCL Actually, it's more than just the AC Bonus. A 19 Dex also gives bonuses to thief abilities (sorry, lost this thread and just found it again.) It's an extra 5% to each ability that BG uses, for a 25% bonus to all 5. That's 25 extra points you don't have to buy or pay for when you go up levels. So her thieving abilities will be a little higher than Imoen, just because of her 19 Dex. She also gets +1 to her Ranged THAC0 (compared to Imoen) and reacts just a little bit faster (+3 Reaction Bonus vs +2- this adjusts who goes first in combat).
Yes, I was wrong about the AC Bonus. But since thieves get 30 points to put into skills per level (after first, when you get 60), this means Alora acts as if she is functionally one level above Imoen for the same amount of experience points. Plus, she gets an extra 40 points just for being a halfling, meaning that when you factor in everything, she is actually 2 levels better than Imoen in her skills at the same amount of experience points. The only drawback is that, getting her later means you can't guide her development as much as you can Imoen's. But that 19 Dex and being a halfling? Adds a lot.
If by adds a lot, you mean "she'll have 110% ranks in stealth and 75% in pickpocket but can't disarm the traps underneath Candlekeep because the game doesn't allot any points to her for the important things like find trap and open lock," then yeah.
Meanwhile Imoen is only rank 4 thief, can do all the important things thieves can do, and can chuck fireballs. Guess she can't stealth and pick pocket, but I'm totally fine without that. At least my party isn't dying to lightning traps.
I guess Alora is better with a bow, so I can't take that away from her.
If by adds a lot, you mean "she'll have 110% ranks in stealth and 75% in pickpocket but can't disarm the traps underneath Candlekeep because the game doesn't allot any points to her for the important things like find trap and open lock," then yeah.
@Permidion_Stark Funny, I just was thinking the same thing. The first time I played BG2 I left Keldorn with his family after his personal quest even though my party was hurting without him because my neutral good character believed it was best for him.
Personally, min/maxing makes my head hurt. Never bothered in video games, never bothered in pnp. I just enjoy having fun, and in my book that means not sweating the small stuff.
(Please note that my 'small stuff' comment is not intended to discriminate against Montaron, Tiax, Quayle, Alora, Mazzy, Jan or any other diminutive NPCs who all have their strong points no matter what metagaming theorycrafting says)
Guys, you could really be doing better to actually understand the debate at hand before throwing out random taunts.
There are many things to enjoy about D&D. You can enjoy the sheer roleplaying aspect of it, or you can enjoy, as it is called, metagaming.
And then there are those that enjoy both, such as myself.
Either way, just try to respect what other people enjoy. From what I've seen, sandmanCCL enjoys roleplaying but takes great joy in metagaming and observing all the different statistics and all that. As such, he is defending in this thread that there are a few NPCs who seem rather redundant. He is not bashing on the characters you love and enjoy. Is he being blunt and brutally honest? Yes, but he's not trying to rain on your parade. He is just making the point that from a practical standpoint some NPCs could use some buffing. It's not like he's trying to say "remove these NPCs, they're redundant." As he said, he likes Garrick but wants to be encouraged by the game to actually pick him up for some reason.
I'm not trying to be sandmanCCL's butt-buddy here but I'm getting sick of all the people acting like he's trying to ruin all your fun just by being observant and practically-oriented. There are people getting bent out of shape and butthurt all over this thread for no good reason, please stop.
Hey, it takes all kinds. There's a guy in my PnP game that always manages to bail out our role-playing butts with his optimized build and tactical knowledge. Just... don't let him talk to the NPCs afterwards.
Well... sandmanCCL's argument is that there are numerically inferior characters that he doesn't take because he likes to comp-stomp. Well, There are characters that I don't take because their personality grates on my nerves. Those characters that annoy me personally because of their "Inferior" appeal to me and the party dynamic I want to create are simply excluded from my party on that basis.
I don't want those characters "Re-Balanced" to be more enticing to me for party inclusion. The stats, depicted personalities, character portraits, and all the other values that contribute to the identity of the NPC are part of their package. If they want to add a golden God NPC later that has 40s in all stats and has instant death eyebeams to the game to appeal to those that seek party power Go for it, but The BG Cast is depicted as they are intended, I would prefer that they not change that. If you can't handle the low stats and party power yield of a character, then don't take them, as I don't take characters that irritate me.
My argument, concisely, is "Don't Alter, Add" and that's my preference and opinion.
Because that's what's being asked for here: "40s in all stats and instant death eyebeams". *eyeroll*
The concern that sandmanCCL and many others have is that--and this is true of any video game or RPG, not just Baldur's Gate--you need to bear in mind the balance of the game's design when you create the characters. You wouldn't put a +1 dagger in a dangerously locked chest at the end of Throne of Bhaal, and you wouldn't give Cloud the "Ultima" weapon as an extra item when he jumps off the train in the beginning of Final Fantasy VII. The equipment needs to get more exciting as the game progresses, so that the player continues to evolve his character's build. This includes--and here's where I'm getting to my point, because I realize that it's kind of a stretchy argument--leaving behind weapons that have interesting or useful abilities, in favor of weapons that deal more damage.
In a party-based RPG where there are many different NPCs and many different party configurations, you kind of have to look at the characters as different pieces of equipment, at least from a design perspective. You pick up Garrick pretty early on, so his mediocrity is more or less understandable. You get Edwin right before Nashkel, when the going is about to get really tough and you might want some heavy fire-power in your arsenal. When you're done with Nashkel, you get Xan: the first NPC with a unique piece of equipment, a Moonblade. And here is where the game starts to falter. And it's not a numbers thing; if it were a numbers thing, you wouldn't be hearing calls for Xan to be redesigned as a fighter (or Kensai, as he was originally built for PnP).
You see, Xan has this really interesting weapon, with a totally awesome graphic (blue flames? Heck yes!), but because his Constitution is 7 and he's a mage, you will never be in a position to say, "It's time to bring out the big guns; Xan, go fight melee!"
And it's kind of downhill from there. There are some NPCs, which have already been named several times, that might be acceptable if you found them early on, and brought them into your party when you're still fighting kobolds and xvarts; early enough to appreciate their personalities, and to grow attached to them in the same way that I grow attached to Jaheira and Khalid.
But because they show up in the later parts of the game, the player's expectation is different. Not because they want everybody to be totally awesome gods of stupendity. Not because the game is too hard. But because the player has already gone through the trials and tribulations of fighting through mobs and mobs of enemies, saving the sword coast (twice!) from an iron shortage that threatens everyone with the shadow of war from Amn, and at a point in the game where you have every right to be concerned about your ability to take down Sarevok and all of his powerful high-level cronies, you meet:
A pick-pocket with no trapfinding. A cleric with no wisdom. A single-class druid (to be fair, that's not Faldorn's fault; it's her class's fault).
Their personalities are fine. And actually, Faldorn has that nice summoning ability that makes her a bit of an asset as well. Alora's lucky rabbit's foot can be useful, but it doesn't do enough to excuse an array of thieving skills that don't match your party's actual needs at that point in the game.
A game should never make you regret choosing a character based on their stats despite their personality. Unfortunately, with some of the late-game NPCs in Baldur's Gate, that's precisely what ends up happening.
Interestingly, Baldur's Gate 2 doesn't have this problem. To begin with, every NPC except the ones who start in the dungeon with you has unique equipment with interesting abilities. Every NPC also seems to have been tailored to that NPC's part of the story, which means that not only does each NPC's build make sense in terms of RP, but each NPC is also a sensible choice for your party for that character's part in the game.
The only example, in fact, of an NPC in BG2 that doesn't give you anything for your trouble is Imoen. And I love Imoen. I love her to death. But after all I went through to get to her, and all that stuff Irenicus said about unlocking her power... To see NONE of that apparent in Imoen seems like lazy game design.
In a party-based RPG where there are many different NPCs and many different party configurations, you kind of have to look at the characters as different pieces of equipment...
I'm afraid I must disagree in this respect. You CAN view the NPCs as a power algorithm, or you can view them as a group of characters you assemble for camaraderie. That's a play-style choice, not a necessity. You can solo this game, a party can be viewed as extraneous due to that. You choose your party based on your desires for your gameplay experience. Unlike a PnP session where your annoying friend who is still your friend will stay in the party despite being a bad fit personality wise with the rest of the party, or the underpowered character built for RP only who is your friend in real life, you can exercise authority over your party in BG with impunity, picking and choosing NPCs to fill out your party at your discretion, or not at your option.
...early enough to appreciate their personalities, and to grow attached to them in the same way that I grow attached to Jaheira and Khalid.
I chose to be understaffed rather than have Jaheira, despite the loss of Khalid, because of her personality. That was My Choice. Just like it's the players choice to solo, or choose one character over another. I respect your choice to not incorporate those NPCs due to the lack of utility they provide to the party's combat ability. But I've played and played with characters far worse in combat and base stats than they.
Not everyone in a D&D setting has maximized stats appropriate to their class, or even good stats period. Role playing a mediocre intelligence wizard with stats that would better fit a fighter is a role playing challenge, makes for an interesting character, an interesting story. But his utility to the party is very limited in a straight up fight compared to a wizard that maxes his int and has a high dex.
What I'm getting around to, albeit slowly, is that those characters were inspired and created as they were for a reason, as a character, everything in the package. If you Don't like the package, don't bring them along. If you like part of the package but not others, it's your judgement call whether to include them in your party, whether their faults in your mind outweigh their benefits as you see them.
There's no need to mess with the characters that are present. If you want something that isn't present in the game as it was, request a new character that fulfills your desire, rather than ask to change a character that was created in correspondence to an artist's, one that we all respect because we're buying the game again mind you, vision and intent.
That's how I feel about it.
And I am sorry about the God Character comment if it offended you.
@Aosaw: erm, have you used Imoen through Throne of Bhaal? She actually develops Bhaalspawn powers. Roll with her and Sarevok in the same party, make sure you force her to give up part of her soul to revive him. Make sure you take your real-world time while going through TOB because I believe all the conversations and choices n stuff regarding those powers for her are play-time based, similar to the romances through Shadows of Amn.
But, yeah. She gets mad powerful. I distinctly recall gaining a free Cure Serious Wounds with her among other spells.
Also, EVERY npc in BG2 has something unique about them, except Korgan, Aerie (sort of) and Imoen through Shadows of Amn. Jaheira gets access to a spell called "Harper's Call" which allows her to revive people, something druids normally cannot do. Minsc gets a berserk ability. Anomen doesn't have the stats to legally dual-class the way he is, plus he's got that family shield. Keldorn has a unique sword and armor. Valygar also has his own unique armor. Edwin gets extra spells, Jan has his crazy gear, Mazzy has paladin-like abilities despite being a regular fighter, Haer'Dalis gets extra ranks in short sword over the legal limit for Bards. Aerie is a class/race combination not available to player-made characters (though Avariel in AD&D can legally mage/cleric so she's not illegal from those regards).
Who'd I forget... Viconia has magic resistance being a Drow and all, and Sarevok has a chance to straight up do 200+ damage from Deathbringer Assault. Cernd has that nifty cloak which still benefits him while shapeshifted so he's technically better in Werewolf form than any player-made Shapeshifter druid could be. Nalia has a baller ring.
I don't *think* there is anything truly unique about Korgan other than being a baller-ass berzerker. I'll have to double check to make sure he doesn't get any special abilities I don't know about at a future date.
There are plenty of reasons to use Tiax, btw. First off, he's not a cleric. He's a cleric/thief. He's got great stats and by the time he joins, the low wisdom doesn't really matter because you should have enough level 1 and 2 spells just from levels to get by. He doesn't particularly shine at either class but he's capable, and cleric/thieves are inherently pretty goofy and decent classes. His unique ability to summon a Ghast is among the most powerful abilities in all of BG1.
Also, Faldorn being a single-class druid is a STRENGTH and not a weakness. She's the only NPC divine spellcaster who can reach level 5 spells, and is tied with Yeslick for best wisdom among NPCs. And her Summon Dread Wolf skill is pretty cool.
Alora doesn't really stand out. The thing that makes her unique doesn't even function properly. Skie is also pretty lackluster for the same reason, except she doesn't even have unique gear.
The god comment didn't offend me; it just struck me as being wildly inaccurate to what my position is.
I think the disconnect is that you're considering it from the player's perspective, dealing with what's already there and accepting it, which is a valid point of view. But I'm looking at it from the perspective of how the game was designed, and how to make that design work better in the future.
A low-Intelligence Wizard can't cast spells. It's not just a roleplaying challenge, it's a mechanical hindrance, and one that, in a video game, is unwelcome. You don't design a character to be bad at its job when you're building that character into the story. Some players will accept the character's weaknesses, but most players will say, "Well this character sucks, I'm not using him."
Telling the truth, I'm not necessarily in favor of tinkering with the NPCs for the game itself. They come into the game so late anyway that I probably will never use them--and that's more my take from a story perspective. But I am in favor of acknowledging that, hey, these characters are kind of lame, and maybe next time they should have some more interesting abilities/equipment/both.
@sandmanCCL I wasn't talking about Tiax as a cleric, actually; I was talking about Quayle.
I wasn't aware of Imoen's ability-gaining-ness, although it's still a little disappointing that she doesn't get anything when you rescue her.
@Aosaw You get her back in the party after establishing a connection to her for a game and a half. That's reward enough for me.
I understand your view, but I'm afraid I can't share it for myself.
I'm opposed to meddling with the old characters, and I'm a fan of adding characters that fit the wants of the community. If the community wants more powerful characters, it's not only in the best interests of the developers to listen and act on it, and adding characters is within the scope of their contract, where modification of old characters is not. It seems like the best solution to me.
They just said, in the latest Q&A, that it's not really a matter of contract, as much of a matter of "respecting the art" of the original game. For example, it's not that they can't ADD more dialogue, but they don't want to radically change the dialogue options we had in BG.
As a side note, they also said that improving the stats of a character might seem a good idea at first, but then again some characters are memorable ESPECIALLY because they have certain flaws (and given my nickname, I tend to agree). They gave the example of Khalid, who's quite mediocre all around, but it fits his "insecure" behaviour. But it fits in terms of gameplay, too: powerwalking through the game with a über party is not the same than struggling and sweating through every fight and rejoyce when you obtain your well-earned victory.
The only REAL changes I'd like them to make would be all those that give a sense of continuation from the first to the second game, for those who want to carry over their BG:EE save file to BG2:EE.
This would include: 1) Carrying over the "character sheet" of the party members (not just the protagonist): their stats, classes, feats and everything YOU gave them during the first game. Imoen can be given a "personal power", like many BG2 characters, if she absolutely NEEDS to be using magic, for plot reasons. Or she could just, you know, use it una tantum, just in the cinematic, because it was a moment of great stress and she grew up with a wizard, after all. Either way works fine. 2) Add a more specific dialogue for when you encounter BG:EE characters, that references the last time you encountered that specific NPC in YOUR BG:EE playthrough, and in what terms (and occasion, and place) you parted ways. Those who start the game from BG2:EE would get to use the old, lame "LONG TIME NO SEE" / "WHO ARE YOU?" / "DIDN'T YOU DIE?" triple option, instead. 3) Show what happened to YOUR party between the end of BG:EE and the beginning of BG2:EE, with a short, stand-alone DLC adventure that you can import your characters into (just like those they're already making for BG:EE).
Comments
I myself have gotten a lot of joy from making the most of crappy characters.
My thoughts on Quayle stem purely from the fact, according to the manual and AD&D rules, you need at least 13 Wisdom to not suffer divine spell failure chance. I couldn't care less if he gained bonus spells from high wisdom. Jahiera doesn't get bonus spells from wisdom and I like her just fine.
Now that I know that particular AD&D rule was not implemented in the Infinity Engine (despite the freakin' manual claiming it was), my beef with Quayle is settled. I will likely use him next playthrough simply because he's one of the few NPCs I've never really bothered with. Cleric/Mages are pretty fun. Aerie is easily my favorite caster in BG2 from a meta-gaming standpoint.
@shawne:
That's part of my argument as to why Shar-Teel is a better unit than Alora.
@LadyRhian:
You seem particularly troubled by my usage of the word "trash," so I don't think it was that much of a stretch to conclude you were offended somehow. It seems to me even you feel like her only value from a gameplay perspective comes out of, "Well, everyone else is dead. Guess you'll do."
I'm worried about the no additions to the story
Even if I made an all-thieves party, she's not needed! There's already 6 other thieves in the game, not including the 3 NPCs you can dual-class into thief! That's more than a 3rd of the game's total NPCs!
Giving Qyale more wis = giving him more spells and he already has enough, just checked again even with wis10 he gets a bonus spell after using wis tomes, so actually has more spells than Edwin even capped.
>. You don't get -5 AC from dexterity til you hit 21 and only Coran is capable of that without spells.
didnt i just post a pic where Alora has 21 dex?
http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur's_Gate:_Races_and_Stats#Wisdom
I have no idea where you're saying he gets an extra bonus spell for having 10 wisdom. Do you mean he gains an extra ARCANE spell per day from being an Illusionist? Just trying to figure out what you're talking about when you say "even with wis10 he gets a bonus spell."
You're really going to use your tome of dexterity AND equip her with Kiel's Buckler just for 21 dexterity? Seriously? She's only going to have that 21 dex with the shield equipped and ready, btw, meaning no bows for you. My response was to LadyRhian anyway and she said nothing about 21 dex. It seemed like she was working off the idea 19 dexterity gave more -AC than 18 did, which is not true. Maybe she was arguing the 21 dexterity thing too and I didn't realize it.
I play through BG1 assuming I'm going to import to BG2. Pretty sure a huge portion of other people feel this way. Going with this assumption:
Dexterity is arguably the most important stat in the game, making that the most important tome in the game. Unless you are intentionally going with 8 dexterity to use it as a dump stat because you know you're going to roll with the Gauntlets of Dexterity, chances are really high you'll end up using it on yourself unless you're trying to prove a point to a guy you dislike on an internet forum somewhere.
If you are a dwarf, you're going to use that tome on yourself.
If you are a halfling or elf, you are going to use that tome on yourself because why have Alora with 21 dexterity when you can do that yourself?
If you're any other race that caps at 18, alright. MAYBE I can see you justifying giving that tome to another character. Now it's time to checklist:
-Is Coran in the group? He takes priority over Alora because he'd also have 21 dexterity and without needing a shield so it benefits his ranged prowess, and he is deadlier in melee anyway because fighter thac0 and the possibility of two pips in a melee weapon instead of just 1.
-Am I a paladin or ranger? Better use that on myself to counter-act the eventual -1 Dex penalty you suffer in Hell at the end of Shadows of Amn if I want to keep my class abilities. (Hell, this applies to any good- or neutral-aligned person who cares enough about RP to maintain their alignment.) Saying I could just use the Machine of Lum the Mad to do so means you'd rather dump the tome on a character who isn't with you for the majority of the saga instead of using the MoLtM on Minsc, Jahiera, Aerie, Jan, Haer'Dalis, Korgan or even Saraevok. Each of whom manage to get an extra -1 AC from the bonus dex.
-Do I care about my character's ranged combat abilities? It'd surely be better at 20 than it would be at 19.
-Do I value having 21 dexterity on Alora over adding a dexterity to the following NPCs, all of which get their AC lowered by doing so? (Asterisked characters are people I value the tome of Dex on moreso than Alora for usability purposes.)
Khalid*
Minsc*
Kivan*
Coran*
Jahiera
Garrick
Safana
Branwen (note: also allows Branwen to dual-class to thief if I want)
Xan*
Faldorn
Quayle
Xzar (same as Branwen)
Montaron*
Shar-Teel*
Viconia* (she can hit 21 Dex, same as Alora)
Tiax
TO RECAP:
In order to justify using the tome of dexterity to get Alora to 21 Dex, I need to 1) not be a dwarf, elf or halfling, 2) not care about the long-term success of my character by importing into BG2, 3) not have used dexterity as a dump stat, 4) not be using Coran, 5) be evil, and 6) be melee oriented and 7) decide it's more valuable to boost her to 21 Dex than it is to gain an extra -1 AC on tank characters or better archers.
I am at a total and complete loss if you STILL think Alora is better than everyone else. Better than Skie, maybe. I'll buy that one, sure. Why not.
I do hope you're being motivated by the spirit of fun here in your debating with everybody, and not getting angry or anything. The devs are legally restricted from changing anything for the original characters, so this whole discussion is kind of academic.
I hope for myself that the Shadowkeeper dude is still out there somewhere and watching this, and that SK will be either useable at release of BG:EE or soon after.
With SK, you will be able to do anything with stats or classes of NPC's instantly and at your pleasure. You can basically create your own game, that makes sense to you personally.
Then again, we probably just like different things in our games?
I'm actually editing the cast of characters at my wiki right now for the first time since I originally wrote it back in 2007. I've learned a ton about the game since then and have had my opinions shaped greatly over the last couple of days.
http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur's_Gate:_NPC_Rundown
^If you're interested in reading it. I like to pretend it's handy, even if no one else does.
@CrazedSlayer: More power to you! The first few times I played BG, I felt the same way. It's part of why I fell in love with it for sure.
But yeah, totally. Minsc is just a list of stats and abilities for me. He's one of my favorite NPCs from a personality standpoint in the history of video games. Doesn't mean I think that's that great from a playstyle perspective, but at least he serves a functional role different from all the other meaty beefy warriors in the game. For me, I need a reason to PLAY the person other than just personal tastes for characterization and such.
When I say D&D is a strategy RPG, I'm talking pure mechanics of combat. The way the combat works influenced Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea... all of that sort of stuff. It happens to be my favorite genre.
I agree that it is a shame that some things cannot be added. Mostly, I would have liked more inter-party story development. Imagine if all your party members had their relationships developed like Misc and Aerie or more. Overdoing it would make it a soap opera, yes, but some characters seriously lack interaction with other party members.
on-topic: There's a straight-up answer to the question in the thread title: Because the legal deal with Bioware, Hasbro, and WotC contains a clause/stipulation that no original content be changed. It also contains a "non-disclosure until approval" clause, such that Beamdog cannot go into much detail about the issue, and anything else in this thread is pure speculation.
Might as well make it interesting and keep the discussion going by expanding a bit and exploring a few tangents.
Yes, I was wrong about the AC Bonus. But since thieves get 30 points to put into skills per level (after first, when you get 60), this means Alora acts as if she is functionally one level above Imoen for the same amount of experience points. Plus, she gets an extra 40 points just for being a halfling, meaning that when you factor in everything, she is actually 2 levels better than Imoen in her skills at the same amount of experience points. The only drawback is that, getting her later means you can't guide her development as much as you can Imoen's. But that 19 Dex and being a halfling? Adds a lot.
Meanwhile Imoen is only rank 4 thief, can do all the important things thieves can do, and can chuck fireballs. Guess she can't stealth and pick pocket, but I'm totally fine without that. At least my party isn't dying to lightning traps.
I guess Alora is better with a bow, so I can't take that away from her.
Personally, min/maxing makes my head hurt. Never bothered in video games, never bothered in pnp. I just enjoy having fun, and in my book that means not sweating the small stuff.
(Please note that my 'small stuff' comment is not intended to discriminate against Montaron, Tiax, Quayle, Alora, Mazzy, Jan or any other diminutive NPCs who all have their strong points no matter what metagaming theorycrafting says)
There are many things to enjoy about D&D. You can enjoy the sheer roleplaying aspect of it, or you can enjoy, as it is called, metagaming.
And then there are those that enjoy both, such as myself.
Either way, just try to respect what other people enjoy. From what I've seen, sandmanCCL enjoys roleplaying but takes great joy in metagaming and observing all the different statistics and all that. As such, he is defending in this thread that there are a few NPCs who seem rather redundant. He is not bashing on the characters you love and enjoy. Is he being blunt and brutally honest? Yes, but he's not trying to rain on your parade. He is just making the point that from a practical standpoint some NPCs could use some buffing. It's not like he's trying to say "remove these NPCs, they're redundant." As he said, he likes Garrick but wants to be encouraged by the game to actually pick him up for some reason.
I'm not trying to be sandmanCCL's butt-buddy here but I'm getting sick of all the people acting like he's trying to ruin all your fun just by being observant and practically-oriented. There are people getting bent out of shape and butthurt all over this thread for no good reason, please stop.
I don't want those characters "Re-Balanced" to be more enticing to me for party inclusion. The stats, depicted personalities, character portraits, and all the other values that contribute to the identity of the NPC are part of their package. If they want to add a golden God NPC later that has 40s in all stats and has instant death eyebeams to the game to appeal to those that seek party power Go for it, but The BG Cast is depicted as they are intended, I would prefer that they not change that. If you can't handle the low stats and party power yield of a character, then don't take them, as I don't take characters that irritate me.
My argument, concisely, is "Don't Alter, Add" and that's my preference and opinion.
The concern that sandmanCCL and many others have is that--and this is true of any video game or RPG, not just Baldur's Gate--you need to bear in mind the balance of the game's design when you create the characters. You wouldn't put a +1 dagger in a dangerously locked chest at the end of Throne of Bhaal, and you wouldn't give Cloud the "Ultima" weapon as an extra item when he jumps off the train in the beginning of Final Fantasy VII. The equipment needs to get more exciting as the game progresses, so that the player continues to evolve his character's build. This includes--and here's where I'm getting to my point, because I realize that it's kind of a stretchy argument--leaving behind weapons that have interesting or useful abilities, in favor of weapons that deal more damage.
In a party-based RPG where there are many different NPCs and many different party configurations, you kind of have to look at the characters as different pieces of equipment, at least from a design perspective. You pick up Garrick pretty early on, so his mediocrity is more or less understandable. You get Edwin right before Nashkel, when the going is about to get really tough and you might want some heavy fire-power in your arsenal. When you're done with Nashkel, you get Xan: the first NPC with a unique piece of equipment, a Moonblade. And here is where the game starts to falter. And it's not a numbers thing; if it were a numbers thing, you wouldn't be hearing calls for Xan to be redesigned as a fighter (or Kensai, as he was originally built for PnP).
You see, Xan has this really interesting weapon, with a totally awesome graphic (blue flames? Heck yes!), but because his Constitution is 7 and he's a mage, you will never be in a position to say, "It's time to bring out the big guns; Xan, go fight melee!"
And it's kind of downhill from there. There are some NPCs, which have already been named several times, that might be acceptable if you found them early on, and brought them into your party when you're still fighting kobolds and xvarts; early enough to appreciate their personalities, and to grow attached to them in the same way that I grow attached to Jaheira and Khalid.
But because they show up in the later parts of the game, the player's expectation is different. Not because they want everybody to be totally awesome gods of stupendity. Not because the game is too hard. But because the player has already gone through the trials and tribulations of fighting through mobs and mobs of enemies, saving the sword coast (twice!) from an iron shortage that threatens everyone with the shadow of war from Amn, and at a point in the game where you have every right to be concerned about your ability to take down Sarevok and all of his powerful high-level cronies, you meet:
A pick-pocket with no trapfinding.
A cleric with no wisdom.
A single-class druid (to be fair, that's not Faldorn's fault; it's her class's fault).
Their personalities are fine. And actually, Faldorn has that nice summoning ability that makes her a bit of an asset as well. Alora's lucky rabbit's foot can be useful, but it doesn't do enough to excuse an array of thieving skills that don't match your party's actual needs at that point in the game.
A game should never make you regret choosing a character based on their stats despite their personality. Unfortunately, with some of the late-game NPCs in Baldur's Gate, that's precisely what ends up happening.
Interestingly, Baldur's Gate 2 doesn't have this problem. To begin with, every NPC except the ones who start in the dungeon with you has unique equipment with interesting abilities. Every NPC also seems to have been tailored to that NPC's part of the story, which means that not only does each NPC's build make sense in terms of RP, but each NPC is also a sensible choice for your party for that character's part in the game.
The only example, in fact, of an NPC in BG2 that doesn't give you anything for your trouble is Imoen. And I love Imoen. I love her to death. But after all I went through to get to her, and all that stuff Irenicus said about unlocking her power... To see NONE of that apparent in Imoen seems like lazy game design.
Not everyone in a D&D setting has maximized stats appropriate to their class, or even good stats period. Role playing a mediocre intelligence wizard with stats that would better fit a fighter is a role playing challenge, makes for an interesting character, an interesting story. But his utility to the party is very limited in a straight up fight compared to a wizard that maxes his int and has a high dex.
What I'm getting around to, albeit slowly, is that those characters were inspired and created as they were for a reason, as a character, everything in the package. If you Don't like the package, don't bring them along. If you like part of the package but not others, it's your judgement call whether to include them in your party, whether their faults in your mind outweigh their benefits as you see them.
There's no need to mess with the characters that are present. If you want something that isn't present in the game as it was, request a new character that fulfills your desire, rather than ask to change a character that was created in correspondence to an artist's, one that we all respect because we're buying the game again mind you, vision and intent.
That's how I feel about it.
And I am sorry about the God Character comment if it offended you.
But, yeah. She gets mad powerful. I distinctly recall gaining a free Cure Serious Wounds with her among other spells.
Also, EVERY npc in BG2 has something unique about them, except Korgan, Aerie (sort of) and Imoen through Shadows of Amn. Jaheira gets access to a spell called "Harper's Call" which allows her to revive people, something druids normally cannot do. Minsc gets a berserk ability. Anomen doesn't have the stats to legally dual-class the way he is, plus he's got that family shield. Keldorn has a unique sword and armor. Valygar also has his own unique armor. Edwin gets extra spells, Jan has his crazy gear, Mazzy has paladin-like abilities despite being a regular fighter, Haer'Dalis gets extra ranks in short sword over the legal limit for Bards. Aerie is a class/race combination not available to player-made characters (though Avariel in AD&D can legally mage/cleric so she's not illegal from those regards).
Who'd I forget... Viconia has magic resistance being a Drow and all, and Sarevok has a chance to straight up do 200+ damage from Deathbringer Assault. Cernd has that nifty cloak which still benefits him while shapeshifted so he's technically better in Werewolf form than any player-made Shapeshifter druid could be. Nalia has a baller ring.
I don't *think* there is anything truly unique about Korgan other than being a baller-ass berzerker. I'll have to double check to make sure he doesn't get any special abilities I don't know about at a future date.
There are plenty of reasons to use Tiax, btw. First off, he's not a cleric. He's a cleric/thief. He's got great stats and by the time he joins, the low wisdom doesn't really matter because you should have enough level 1 and 2 spells just from levels to get by. He doesn't particularly shine at either class but he's capable, and cleric/thieves are inherently pretty goofy and decent classes. His unique ability to summon a Ghast is among the most powerful abilities in all of BG1.
Also, Faldorn being a single-class druid is a STRENGTH and not a weakness. She's the only NPC divine spellcaster who can reach level 5 spells, and is tied with Yeslick for best wisdom among NPCs. And her Summon Dread Wolf skill is pretty cool.
Alora doesn't really stand out. The thing that makes her unique doesn't even function properly. Skie is also pretty lackluster for the same reason, except she doesn't even have unique gear.
I think the disconnect is that you're considering it from the player's perspective, dealing with what's already there and accepting it, which is a valid point of view. But I'm looking at it from the perspective of how the game was designed, and how to make that design work better in the future.
A low-Intelligence Wizard can't cast spells. It's not just a roleplaying challenge, it's a mechanical hindrance, and one that, in a video game, is unwelcome. You don't design a character to be bad at its job when you're building that character into the story. Some players will accept the character's weaknesses, but most players will say, "Well this character sucks, I'm not using him."
Telling the truth, I'm not necessarily in favor of tinkering with the NPCs for the game itself. They come into the game so late anyway that I probably will never use them--and that's more my take from a story perspective. But I am in favor of acknowledging that, hey, these characters are kind of lame, and maybe next time they should have some more interesting abilities/equipment/both.
@sandmanCCL I wasn't talking about Tiax as a cleric, actually; I was talking about Quayle.
I wasn't aware of Imoen's ability-gaining-ness, although it's still a little disappointing that she doesn't get anything when you rescue her.
I understand your view, but I'm afraid I can't share it for myself.
I'm opposed to meddling with the old characters, and I'm a fan of adding characters that fit the wants of the community. If the community wants more powerful characters, it's not only in the best interests of the developers to listen and act on it, and adding characters is within the scope of their contract, where modification of old characters is not. It seems like the best solution to me.
As a side note, they also said that improving the stats of a character might seem a good idea at first, but then again some characters are memorable ESPECIALLY because they have certain flaws (and given my nickname, I tend to agree). They gave the example of Khalid, who's quite mediocre all around, but it fits his "insecure" behaviour. But it fits in terms of gameplay, too: powerwalking through the game with a über party is not the same than struggling and sweating through every fight and rejoyce when you obtain your well-earned victory.
The only REAL changes I'd like them to make would be all those that give a sense of continuation from the first to the second game, for those who want to carry over their BG:EE save file to BG2:EE.
This would include:
1) Carrying over the "character sheet" of the party members (not just the protagonist): their stats, classes, feats and everything YOU gave them during the first game. Imoen can be given a "personal power", like many BG2 characters, if she absolutely NEEDS to be using magic, for plot reasons. Or she could just, you know, use it una tantum, just in the cinematic, because it was a moment of great stress and she grew up with a wizard, after all. Either way works fine.
2) Add a more specific dialogue for when you encounter BG:EE characters, that references the last time you encountered that specific NPC in YOUR BG:EE playthrough, and in what terms (and occasion, and place) you parted ways. Those who start the game from BG2:EE would get to use the old, lame "LONG TIME NO SEE" / "WHO ARE YOU?" / "DIDN'T YOU DIE?" triple option, instead.
3) Show what happened to YOUR party between the end of BG:EE and the beginning of BG2:EE, with a short, stand-alone DLC adventure that you can import your characters into (just like those they're already making for BG:EE).