besides one banter in tob with anomen i don't really find jan that funny.
The turnip thing does get pretty old after awhile, but he does make up for it by being competent. To be honest, though, it felt like the rest of the party was tired of the turnip crap too, which is why they left him in Athkatla on my previous play through.
I have something to say that I am sure would be unpopular. I have never really liked the isometric style of games. I got BG and IWD, among others, because I was into the Forgotten Realms setting at the time. I also have PS:T. I do play them once in awhile.
I was also never that much into point & click styled games either...
Backstabbing is poorly integrated in the IE - and in PNP in general.
The thing is that every weapon gets the same damage multiplier - based only on the wielder skill.
The way I see it, a knife/dagger or club would be better suited for sneaking up on folks and hitting the exact soft spot in the targets armor/defence. A six foot wooden staff would be my least preferred weapon in that comparison.
The implementation of the backstab multiplier should therefore differentiate between weapon by size. The smallest and most easily handled should have the highest multiplier - and the longest and most unruly the lowest.
That way the dagger and club proficiency would be more popular amongst the rogues. As they should be...
Backstabbing is poorly integrated in the IE - and in PNP in general.
I LOVE the way sneak attack is implemented in Pathfinder Kingmaker.
Your rogue just has to be engaged in melee alongside another party member attacking the same target. That's it. No being in stealth, no being behind the enemy, it just works. And it makes rogues so much better in that game, and feels more like "working as intended." The enemy is distracted by fighting two people at once, and the rogue knows exactly how to take advantage of that. And also as intended, the rogue is up front in melee being squishy, which is risky for them. Big damage, might die. Risk/reward.
You don't have to go out of your way to select a special ability or anything, it just happens.
Backstabbing is poorly integrated in the IE - and in PNP in general.
I LOVE the way sneak attack is implemented in Pathfinder Kingmaker.
Your rogue just has to be engaged in melee alongside another party member attacking the same target. That's it. No being in stealth, no being behind the enemy, it just works. And it makes rogues so much better in that game, and feels more like "working as intended." The enemy is distracted by fighting two people at once, and the rogue knows exactly how to take advantage of that. And also as intended, the rogue is up front in melee being squishy, which is risky for them. Big damage, might die. Risk/reward.
You don't have to go out of your way to select a special ability or anything, it just happens.
Funnily enough that is exactly the thing that bugs me about the whole concept of 'sneak attacks'. It gives rogues an advantage for no good reason. Two trained fighters should be just as capable of taking advantage of the fact that they are fighting a single opponent. Manoeuvring to put your opponent at a disadvantage is surely what training to be a fighter is all about. I can understand making a sneak attack on an enemy who is not expecting and who is unaware of your presence but it makes no sense if you are already engaged in combat with your opponent.
I have something to say that I am sure would be unpopular. I have never really liked the isometric style of games. I got BG and IWD, among others, because I was into the Forgotten Realms setting at the time. I also have PS:T. I do play them once in awhile.
I was also never that much into point & click styled games either...
alot of crpgs combat is just not that great. this is why i prefer to cheat so i can enjoy the story and not have to deal with combat. weather it's with story mode in the ee or recently with cheat engine so i can max out my stats..
Unpopular opinion: You shouldn't be able to attack characters in a melee using missile weapons - or at least if you do there should be a significant chance that you hit someone on your own side. The present system where you can rain arrows and slingshot into a melee without having to worry about the fact that members of your own party are in the firing line is really quite daft.
Unpopular opinion: You shouldn't be able to attack characters in a melee using missile weapons - or at least if you do there should be a significant chance that you hit someone on your own side. The present system where you can rain arrows and slingshot into a melee without having to worry about the fact that members of your own party are in the firing line is really quite daft.
Warhammer Fantasy and 40k have this as a rule. You can't fire on an enemy unit that's in melee with one of your units. Well, unless you're Skaven, but that's just to further paint them as extra-scumbags.
However, that's workable in a wargame where you have a whole army with ground troops, cavalry, artillery and flying units at your command, less so in an RPG where you control only a small group of individuals. It would create a massive power imbalance between melee and missile specialists in favour of the former and unnecessarily ristrict viable player character builds in service to "realism". That's how you wind up with ideas like the ones that informed the early films of the DCEU.
I don’t like Irenicus. Warner is great but otherwise I am not a fan. Sarevok works in the shadows behind the might of a secret society, manipulating those he cannot beat head on. Irenicus can single handedly chunk the best of the cowled wizards without breaking a sweat before taking over a magic asylum and launching an assault on an elven city with dragons in tow (although he apparently can’t suppress a shadow thief invasion with the back up of his minions). His moustache twirling explanations about what he is doing before leaving you to “certain death” are reminiscent of James Bond / Austin Powers. And the good guy corrupted to the dark side trope is well overused and I found it, frankly, quite boring and his love for the elven princess seemed unconvincing.
I don’t like Irenicus. Warner is great but otherwise I am not a fan. Sarevok works in the shadows behind the might of a secret society, manipulating those he cannot beat head on. Irenicus can single handedly chunk the best of the cowled wizards without breaking a sweat before taking over a magic asylum and launching an assault on an elven city with dragons in tow (although he apparently can’t suppress a shadow thief invasion with the back up of his minions). His moustache twirling explanations about what he is doing before leaving you to “certain death” are reminiscent of James Bond / Austin Powers. And the good guy corrupted to the dark side trope is well overused and I found it, frankly, quite boring and his love for the elven princess seemed unconvincing.
I dunno, I think your characterization of Irenicus isn't quite fair. He DOES chunk several cowled wizards, but realizes that they aren't going to give up. Even he will eventually run out of spells, so a capitulation was going to be necessary - and it gave him leverage over a now freed PC. All in all, I would say he turned that confrontation to his advantage quite nicely.
Second, the Shadow Thieves are actually after Bohdi, they just don't realize it. If Mr. I hadn't let her tag along, it's quite possible that the ST wouldn't have cared about him at all. After all, it's not like they care about a few missing people or mysterious corpses showing up in the sewers. Chalk that one up to loyalty.
As for the villainous monologue, keep in mind that he actually does get what he wants from the PC. Again, had Bodhi just killed you instead of stuffing you in the maze, he would have succeeded. Now, THAT was a pretty obvious mistake, but an understandable one. Up until then, Bodhi had been pretty reliable. I will admit that the monologuing prior to that was kind of dumb - sorta. It builds him up to be something he turned out to not be - a mentor. Early on, it seems like he wants you to learn for your sake, when in reality he wants to test you. That's actually pretty interesting writing IMHO.
Lastly, I'm not sure Jonaleth was a good guy even before his fall. Good guys don't typically try to kill entire nations to make themselves gods. Irenicus was going down an evil path long before getting kicked to the curb by Ellisime. There is a ridiculous trope involved, but not the one you are thinking. It's the "princesses like bad boys" trope.
Really, the only unimaginably stupid thing Irenicus consistently does is continue trusting Bodhi with critical matters - like a certain critical plot device. Obviously if he hadn't done that, PC and party would be dead several times over, and the elven city would have been toast, but you need a hole in the plot somewhere. It's also possible that he gave her said critical plot device before discovering that she really shouldn't be trusted with it.
Even that trope isn't played overly much, as there is no evidence that she really loved him as much as he imagined. I read her dialogue more as feeling pity for what he once was; not that she "spared" his life out of love. Which would make no sense, considering the elves consider the punishment he received worse than death.
the problem is if you just look at Irenicus at face value he is just an evil mage that wants to become a god. he is very generic on paper but the way he is written and warner's voice for him brings him up a notch.
the problem is if you just look at Irenicus at face value he is just an evil mage that wants to become a god. he is very generic on paper but the way he is written and warner's voice for him brings him up a notch.
I can't really agree with this "Irenicus is generic" assessment when we have the Five and Amelyssan on hand for the reference. He's no Sarevok but much better than them.
the problem is if you just look at Irenicus at face value he is just an evil mage that wants to become a god. he is very generic on paper but the way he is written and warner's voice for him brings him up a notch.
By itself, no. However, Irenicus is a guy who was stripped of everything but his underwear, and STILL went on to nearly become a god despite that setback. There is no way to come away from SoA thinking that he was "just another evil mage". In many ways, he makes the bad guys in ToB look practically bush league. (Admittedly a low bar, as Draconis makes his own father look bush league)
As for the final villain in ToB, yeah, I pegged her the very first time my party met her. That was actually a bit disappointing, as I had pretty much put the pieces together the same day they arrived in Saradush. Needless to say, I was entirely unsurprised by that "twist" ending.
Saemon? I actually kind of enjoyed loathing that guy. They really got a lot of mileage out of his being a self-serving scuzzball. He was given an insane amount of plot armor, yes, but he definitely made things interesting.
... his love for the elven princess seemed unconvincing.
About that - the love is way in the past. I might get confused because of countless mods I am using, but I still believe in vanilla game the whole thing about his "love" is that it's last strong emotion he remembers and trying to recreate (unsuccessfully), for the sake of feeling something. He remembers it to give him happiness, but now, as dryads put it "he is empty inside and that void can not be filled in".
In short, there is no love, just the distant memory about it.
I am also one of the people who don't like Irenicus that much. Yes, he is very cool and charismatic, and has that story about revenge, but still he is pretty much "generic powerdrunk villain". Even if you look at Sarevok - it is easier to understand why he became the man we met in BG1 (influence of the taint, his foster father was not the best role model, to say the least). Irenicus? All we know about his original motivation is that he wanted power, that's all.
Plus I don't like it that his story has no connection to main plot of the Saga. I am aware that many people like this fact, but I find it disappointing that huge part of BG2 is a "filler" in a way and offers a story which could easily be just a big side quest. For example, Irenicus could have been inspired ny Time of Troubles - he saw the fall of old gods and rise of new ones, and decided that he desreves such ascension too. Something like that could explain his motivation better and make closer to story about legacy of fallen Bhaal.
Speaking of side quests. I enjoy short confrontation with Firkraag much more than entire confrontation with Irenicus - its build up, its tie to the events of the previous game. But of course, all above is just my personal opinion and impressions.
But yes, compared to main villain of ToB, Irenicus is a perfect bad guy. She is way more disappointing, especially since she is the final antagonist of the entire Saga!
As for Saemon - his invincibility can be pretty annoying, but hey, no one said Charname should be the only one protected by plot armor lol!
some seem to my not understand my point. i'm not saying he is a generic evil mag. i was saying if you just take the bare components of his character he does fit the typical evil mage character we see in alot of rpgs
but Irenicus is not like that he does have depth. there is alot more to him then that even if again at face value thats all he seems
if anything he is a very arrogant person and sees everyone as beneath him. once he has your soul you are just trash to him to discard and go about his plans. he does not care about you once he has your soul he assumed you were gonna die in that maze weather it was by bodi or due to lack of soul who knows.
I dunno, maybe the unpopular opinion is that I actually liked (from a writing/character standpoint) both Sarevok AND Irenicus. They both have a sense of depth and dimension even if, in the end, they both are highly flawed. They are memorable because their characters were filled in.
I dunno, even noting how small Irenicus was in the end added to the total picture we had of him, just as reading notes from Sarevok to his father where he lied about killing your party gave you a sense of who he was.
Mellisan, on the other hand... Maybe it's because I had her number early on, maybe it's because they hammer the prophecy like nuts in ToB, and maybe it's because you don't actually have that many conversations with her or really learn much about her, but she just never felt fleshed out.
Only Caelar Argent had less background going into the end-game, and then only by a small bit. Which is probably why ToB felt like a throw-together tag-along to SoA - a way to say "here's your flipping ending fanbois"
I actually kind of like how as the game progresses, you see more and more just how pathetic and petty Irenicus actually is.
yeah if anything he is just as much a deconstruction as the rest of the bg characters. he is a sad pathetic broken man due to wanting god hood that he pushed everything away to achieve it.
[quote="Maurvir;c-1106798"
Mellisan, on the other hand... Maybe it's because I had her number early on, maybe it's because they hammer the prophecy like nuts in ToB, and maybe it's because you don't actually have that many conversations with her or really learn much about her, but she just never felt fleshed out.
Only Caelar Argent had less background going into the end-game, and then only by a small bit. Which is probably why ToB felt like a throw-together tag-along to SoA - a way to say "here's your flipping ending fanbois"[/quote]
alot of Mellisans issues are due to tob being rushed. had they had more time she could have been atlest on par with caelar in term of characterization.
with caelar they tried to make her alittle more morally grey but then only to reveal how much of a hypocrite she actually is. i thought it was done well.
I don't disagree about ToB. I enjoyed it, I still play through it, and I do consider it to provide a definitive ending. Had it been handled better, that could have actually been one heck of a twist ending.
There was definitely room for a third and final full game after SoA. I'm actually not sure why they rushed it and made the last chapter an expansion instead. Is it known why it happened that way?
Comments
I know the banter you're talking about and I don't think there is any way someone couldn't find that funny.
The turnip thing does get pretty old after awhile, but he does make up for it by being competent. To be honest, though, it felt like the rest of the party was tired of the turnip crap too, which is why they left him in Athkatla on my previous play through.
I was also never that much into point & click styled games either...
The thing is that every weapon gets the same damage multiplier - based only on the wielder skill.
The way I see it, a knife/dagger or club would be better suited for sneaking up on folks and hitting the exact soft spot in the targets armor/defence. A six foot wooden staff would be my least preferred weapon in that comparison.
The implementation of the backstab multiplier should therefore differentiate between weapon by size. The smallest and most easily handled should have the highest multiplier - and the longest and most unruly the lowest.
That way the dagger and club proficiency would be more popular amongst the rogues. As they should be...
I LOVE the way sneak attack is implemented in Pathfinder Kingmaker.
Your rogue just has to be engaged in melee alongside another party member attacking the same target. That's it. No being in stealth, no being behind the enemy, it just works. And it makes rogues so much better in that game, and feels more like "working as intended." The enemy is distracted by fighting two people at once, and the rogue knows exactly how to take advantage of that. And also as intended, the rogue is up front in melee being squishy, which is risky for them. Big damage, might die. Risk/reward.
You don't have to go out of your way to select a special ability or anything, it just happens.
Funnily enough that is exactly the thing that bugs me about the whole concept of 'sneak attacks'. It gives rogues an advantage for no good reason. Two trained fighters should be just as capable of taking advantage of the fact that they are fighting a single opponent. Manoeuvring to put your opponent at a disadvantage is surely what training to be a fighter is all about. I can understand making a sneak attack on an enemy who is not expecting and who is unaware of your presence but it makes no sense if you are already engaged in combat with your opponent.
Certainly unpop[ular with me. Others may differ.
Warhammer Fantasy and 40k have this as a rule. You can't fire on an enemy unit that's in melee with one of your units. Well, unless you're Skaven, but that's just to further paint them as extra-scumbags.
However, that's workable in a wargame where you have a whole army with ground troops, cavalry, artillery and flying units at your command, less so in an RPG where you control only a small group of individuals. It would create a massive power imbalance between melee and missile specialists in favour of the former and unnecessarily ristrict viable player character builds in service to "realism". That's how you wind up with ideas like the ones that informed the early films of the DCEU.
I think you get -8 to hit and your opponent gets +4 to hit you if you use a missile weapon when you are in melee range.
I dunno, I think your characterization of Irenicus isn't quite fair. He DOES chunk several cowled wizards, but realizes that they aren't going to give up. Even he will eventually run out of spells, so a capitulation was going to be necessary - and it gave him leverage over a now freed PC. All in all, I would say he turned that confrontation to his advantage quite nicely.
Second, the Shadow Thieves are actually after Bohdi, they just don't realize it. If Mr. I hadn't let her tag along, it's quite possible that the ST wouldn't have cared about him at all. After all, it's not like they care about a few missing people or mysterious corpses showing up in the sewers. Chalk that one up to loyalty.
As for the villainous monologue, keep in mind that he actually does get what he wants from the PC. Again, had Bodhi just killed you instead of stuffing you in the maze, he would have succeeded. Now, THAT was a pretty obvious mistake, but an understandable one. Up until then, Bodhi had been pretty reliable. I will admit that the monologuing prior to that was kind of dumb - sorta. It builds him up to be something he turned out to not be - a mentor. Early on, it seems like he wants you to learn for your sake, when in reality he wants to test you. That's actually pretty interesting writing IMHO.
Lastly, I'm not sure Jonaleth was a good guy even before his fall. Good guys don't typically try to kill entire nations to make themselves gods. Irenicus was going down an evil path long before getting kicked to the curb by Ellisime. There is a ridiculous trope involved, but not the one you are thinking. It's the "princesses like bad boys" trope.
Really, the only unimaginably stupid thing Irenicus consistently does is continue trusting Bodhi with critical matters - like a certain critical plot device. Obviously if he hadn't done that, PC and party would be dead several times over, and the elven city would have been toast, but you need a hole in the plot somewhere. It's also possible that he gave her said critical plot device before discovering that she really shouldn't be trusted with it.
I can't really agree with this "Irenicus is generic" assessment when we have the Five and Amelyssan on hand for the reference. He's no Sarevok but much better than them.
I also never liked Saemon and the level of plot armour he is given
I agree that Irenicus is superior to the villain of ToB, who I recognised instantly and who could have been unmasked by Scooby Doo
By itself, no. However, Irenicus is a guy who was stripped of everything but his underwear, and STILL went on to nearly become a god despite that setback. There is no way to come away from SoA thinking that he was "just another evil mage". In many ways, he makes the bad guys in ToB look practically bush league. (Admittedly a low bar, as Draconis makes his own father look bush league)
As for the final villain in ToB, yeah, I pegged her the very first time my party met her. That was actually a bit disappointing, as I had pretty much put the pieces together the same day they arrived in Saradush. Needless to say, I was entirely unsurprised by that "twist" ending.
Saemon? I actually kind of enjoyed loathing that guy. They really got a lot of mileage out of his being a self-serving scuzzball. He was given an insane amount of plot armor, yes, but he definitely made things interesting.
About that - the love is way in the past. I might get confused because of countless mods I am using, but I still believe in vanilla game the whole thing about his "love" is that it's last strong emotion he remembers and trying to recreate (unsuccessfully), for the sake of feeling something. He remembers it to give him happiness, but now, as dryads put it "he is empty inside and that void can not be filled in".
In short, there is no love, just the distant memory about it.
Plus I don't like it that his story has no connection to main plot of the Saga. I am aware that many people like this fact, but I find it disappointing that huge part of BG2 is a "filler" in a way and offers a story which could easily be just a big side quest. For example, Irenicus could have been inspired ny Time of Troubles - he saw the fall of old gods and rise of new ones, and decided that he desreves such ascension too. Something like that could explain his motivation better and make closer to story about legacy of fallen Bhaal.
Speaking of side quests. I enjoy short confrontation with Firkraag much more than entire confrontation with Irenicus - its build up, its tie to the events of the previous game. But of course, all above is just my personal opinion and impressions.
But yes, compared to main villain of ToB, Irenicus is a perfect bad guy. She is way more disappointing, especially since she is the final antagonist of the entire Saga!
As for Saemon - his invincibility can be pretty annoying, but hey, no one said Charname should be the only one protected by plot armor lol!
but Irenicus is not like that he does have depth. there is alot more to him then that even if again at face value thats all he seems
if anything he is a very arrogant person and sees everyone as beneath him. once he has your soul you are just trash to him to discard and go about his plans. he does not care about you once he has your soul he assumed you were gonna die in that maze weather it was by bodi or due to lack of soul who knows.
I dunno, even noting how small Irenicus was in the end added to the total picture we had of him, just as reading notes from Sarevok to his father where he lied about killing your party gave you a sense of who he was.
Mellisan, on the other hand... Maybe it's because I had her number early on, maybe it's because they hammer the prophecy like nuts in ToB, and maybe it's because you don't actually have that many conversations with her or really learn much about her, but she just never felt fleshed out.
Only Caelar Argent had less background going into the end-game, and then only by a small bit. Which is probably why ToB felt like a throw-together tag-along to SoA - a way to say "here's your flipping ending fanbois"
yeah if anything he is just as much a deconstruction as the rest of the bg characters. he is a sad pathetic broken man due to wanting god hood that he pushed everything away to achieve it.
[quote="Maurvir;c-1106798"
Mellisan, on the other hand... Maybe it's because I had her number early on, maybe it's because they hammer the prophecy like nuts in ToB, and maybe it's because you don't actually have that many conversations with her or really learn much about her, but she just never felt fleshed out.
Only Caelar Argent had less background going into the end-game, and then only by a small bit. Which is probably why ToB felt like a throw-together tag-along to SoA - a way to say "here's your flipping ending fanbois"[/quote]
alot of Mellisans issues are due to tob being rushed. had they had more time she could have been atlest on par with caelar in term of characterization.
with caelar they tried to make her alittle more morally grey but then only to reveal how much of a hypocrite she actually is. i thought it was done well.