To get back to Baldur's Gate for a minute, the Chromatic Demon offers a fun opportunity to use different kinds of attack spells that I, at least, would normally never bother with, like Death Fog or the like, but honestly, I usually find it more efficient to simply beat him to death with fighters, 99% damage resistance be damned.
I agree, should each fighter cause 1 damage per attack (with lots of atttacks per round) the demon might lose at least 10 hp per round .
I agree, should each fighter cause 1 damage per attack (with lots of atttacks per round) the demon might lose at least 10 hp per round .
Really, that would be the only practical way to deal with him if he weren't such a pathetic offensive threat on his own. The times that I kite him while wearing him down with Cone of Cold, Chromatic Orb, Aganazzar's Scorcher, and Lightning Bolts aren't strategy, they're an expression of mockery.
I believe that the realism concerns about short-duration spells are mitigated with the introduction of contingency at higher levels. SCS is sensible enough to allow you to opt-out from the prebuff AI and let enemy NPCs rely solely on the "enemy sighted" trigger.
Only on paper. I finally bought BG2 in its EE edition along with SoD, and started a fresh run about 10 days ago. Installed SCS and went for smarter Mages w/o prebuffing. Turns out that the game doesn't care and throws Mages with half a dozen (previously cast) buffs at me anyway.
Unpopular opinion: There should be an RPG in which the "monstrous" races - Orcs, Goblins, Ogres etc. - are the playable ones with open alignment boxes while the "normal" races - humans, elves, dwarves - are the enemy races with pigeon-holed alignments. It would make for a refreshing twist on the fantasy genre and possibly some interesting and insightful social commentary if handled right. But sadly it will never happen because in any given fantasy game, on the tabletop or video game, It seems 65+% of the players see the fantasy available and spring for playable humans. Ugh.
Probably to such extend, it has been done on the NwN2 Sigil (Planescape setting) Persistent World server.
Pretty much a ton of monster races have been opened and adjusted for PCs so you can make a goblin or ogre or orc or troll or slaad or whatever and play and RP as one.
The problem there is the customization. The models are pretty much set for most monster races so there's not much customization involved.
Another case off the top of my head is simply... World of Warcraft. It has Orcs, Trolls, Goblins and Undead as playable races.
Another one from PnP, are the "We Be Goblins!" Pathfinder RPG adventure modules that let you play as goblins.
Technically, you can play as almost any race in PnP DnD but not many campaigns are designed for them and not many DMs want to do it.
It might be a sci-fi game with lasers and machine guns and I would still make a character that is unarmored and punches and kicks stuff left and right through sheer training and skill.
There is a certain satisfaction to punching monsters and doing just as good as the person in full plate, shield and sword.
And if there's a mystical/magical/mental/scientific/whatever power that makes them believable to exist in that world (like in DnD) then that makes it even better.
It's extra satisfying when people want DnD to be "Medieval Simulator But Fantasy" and you can point at the Core books and say "magical/psionic Ki energy, next topic."
4 NWN/NWN 2 Unpopular Opinions and 2 general ones.
The original campaigns of Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 are not as bad as people say they are. They may draw on clichés and not break much new ground, but they're perfectly enjoyable all the same. The fact that the race you pick actually has a small impact on the story sometimes in the sequel is much appreciated, and something I wish had been featured more prominently in both NWN and its sequel and Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale did a good job of this as well, in my opinion. Not saying they didn't have flaws - in the first game, the inability to directly control party members is maddening and the AI is really bone-headed, in the second the non-evil ending is nothing short of infuriating - but it's still a net-positive for me.
Related to the above, I can't get into (enjoy) Mask of the Betrayer at all. Like, at ALL. And that's not just Hype Aversion talking, (TVTropes, look it up, sorry for the time you'll lose) although it is certainly part of the problem. I've tried to get into it, but its intro is so slow burning, it's ridiculous. I once asked about its appeal on the BioWare forums and got back a number of parroted responses about its "epic" story and how it was superior to the original in every way. Even TVTropes is in on the act. I... really don't see it. Nothing I saw in the first half hour made me want to keep playing before I decided I'd had enough and simply quit. And before anyone says anything about me judging the game too early, I know a bunch of other things about the game too, such as the plot involving the Wall of the Faithless, interacting with the god Kelemvor, your new companions and which ones you can romance (thanks for nothing, Chris Avellone) and a host of other things. I still fail to see what exactly justifies TVTropes claiming the original campaign is the prologue to Mask of the Betrayer. Could someone please explain it to me without resorting to parroted buzzwords that make me black-out on sight?
Speaking of companions, I like Qara far more than Sand. Sand focuses on buffing and is made for crafting, but Qara is an arcane powerhouse, and I guess one appeals to me far more than the other. When it comes to the wizards vs. sorcerers debate, I am totally pro-sorcerer, which gives me a subconscious reason to root for her over him as well. People complain she destroys loot chests, but imo this is exactly what micromanagement for - if you choose to make her cast non-AoE spells or do so strategically, you can avoid the problem. And if her reason for betraying you to the King of Shadows is stupid, that just means Sand's is even worse - I mean, for all his vaunted Intelligence, that low Wisdom score is really showing when he says Garius and co. are the "lesser" of two evils between them and Qara. Finally, they both have sarcasm and attitude problems, but Qara says things I actually find funny. Sand doesn't. Also, I think the people who hate Qara and like Sand do so for hypocritical reasons.
NWN 2's original campaign as a finished product may not be much to write home about, but there are great things that went unimplemented on the cutting room floor. I read that Qara's sidequest could be resolved either by her learning to show restraint or simply overloading the animus elemental by using more of her power than it could contain, just for starters.
Now, for another one about the original. Despite its generally terrible graphics I think it had some very good parry animations. For reference, I don't recall any parry animations in DA:O.
As for the other two...
Humans in any fantasy or sci-fi gaming medium (tabletop, video or otherwise) are vastly overrated, and the reasons people use them far more than any other race range from understandable to nonsensical. I don't care if humans get favoured class: any, an extra feat and +2 bonus skill points in D&D 3.5 edition, nor do I care if the Imperial Guard from Warhammer 40k being average Joes makes them more "relatable" (not sure how that can be) or whatever arbitrary reason can be called upon to explain it. As far as I'm concerned, other races are nearly always more interesting to me in both lore and gameplay terms. In D&D alone, elves and dwarves have the Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender prestige classes, not to mention half-orcs making better offensive warriors and halflings better thieves. My favourite army in Warhammer 40k is the Tau Empire; my favourite in Warhammer Fantasy is the Ogre Kingdoms. I get that there are sometimes good reasons to play a human character or faction, but I've never understood why so many people leap for them or tell you they're the best choice so consistently.
On the subject... for once, just once, I'd like BioWare or Beamdog to give us a romance option who is not a human or elf. BG: Tales of the Sword Coast? Humans. Siege of Dragonspear? Humans, and a gnome. BGII? Two elves, a half-elf and a human, with a half-elven tiefling and another human on the cutting room floor. The EEs brought us two humans (one a vampire), a half-elf and a half-orc. Dragon Age: Origins? Three humans and an elf. Dragon Age II? Even split between elves and humans until another human came along. But Dragon Age: Inquisition was the worst to date - five humans, two elves and one Qunari. And that's not even getting into the fact dwarves, gnomes and halflings were locked out of romance in BGII. My God, it's not for lack of shorty characters we'd like to see romanced - Varric, Sigrun for me, Mazzy, and who knows, maybe Korgan! All I know is I'm sick and tired of not seeing the opportunity to romance a short character (particularly as a short character) and if I had a choice on who got romance arcs in NWN 2, I would have picked Khelgar over Bishop, Neeshka or any of the others.
Whew... this post is several days in the making, you know.
Humans in any fantasy or sci-fi gaming medium (tabletop, video or otherwise) are vastly overrated, and the reasons people use them far more than any other race range from understandable to nonsensical. I don't care if humans get favoured class: any, an extra feat and +2 bonus skill points in D&D 3.5 edition, nor do I care if the Imperial Guard from Warhammer 40k being average Joes makes them more "relatable" (not sure how that can be) or whatever arbitrary reason can be called upon to explain it. As far as I'm concerned, other races are nearly always more interesting to me in both lore and gameplay terms. In D&D alone, elves and dwarves have the Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender prestige classes, not to mention half-orcs making better offensive warriors and halflings better thieves.
As you stated in DnD 3.5E, Humans are probably THE best Core race exactly because of that Feat and +1 extra skill points.
Sure, some races make better this or that class or build or whatever. But Humans are the ones that are great options for any class.
A Half-Orc makes a better Barbarian than the Human but a terrible Wizard or Rogue. A Dwarf might make a better Cleric or Fighter than the human but make terrible Bards/Paladins/Sorcerers. A Hafling is a better mage (yes, actually) or Rogue but they make bad Fighters and Clerics.
And well, when it comes to Human-only Prestige Classes, Humans (at least in NwN2) have the Red Wizard of Thay, as a exclusive one.
Basically you cannot go wrong with a Human. And yes, a human is more relatable by definition of being a human. The psychology of dwarves, halflings and especially elves is far different than humans.
You cannot relate to someone that lives for hundreds of years to a human and needs a hundred years at least to become an adult. You can only approximate it.
To give an example, old elves are supposed to have the life experience of whole generations of humans combined. Roleplaying them as humans with pointy ears and long names is just lazy, personally.
Humans in DnD are popular because what they get fits to any class and is easy to RP and get in character, at least for PnP.
Protection from Magical Weapons probably would have made a lot more sense in terms of its power/vs spell level if it had been initially made to only provide protection to +1 weapons (and maybe instead called it Lesser Mantle).
4 NWN/NWN 2 Unpopular Opinions and 2 general ones.
On the subject... for once, just once, I'd like BioWare or Beamdog to give us a romance option who is not a human or elf. BG: Tales of the Sword Coast? Humans. Siege of Dragonspear? Humans, and a gnome. BGII? Two elves, a half-elf and a human, with a half-elven tiefling and another human on the cutting room floor. The EEs brought us two humans (one a vampire), a half-elf and a half-orc. Dragon Age: Origins? Three humans and an elf. Dragon Age II? Even split between elves and humans until another human came along. But Dragon Age: Inquisition was the worst to date - five humans, two elves and one Qunari. And that's not even getting into the fact dwarves, gnomes and halflings were locked out of romance in BGII. My God, it's not for lack of shorty characters we'd like to see romanced - Varric, Sigrun for me, Mazzy, and who knows, maybe Korgan! All I know is I'm sick and tired of not seeing the opportunity to romance a short character (particularly as a short character) and if I had a choice on who got romance arcs in NWN 2, I would have picked Khelgar over Bishop, Neeshka or any of the others.
This is precisely why RPG developers shouldn't bother implementing romances. It adds nothing to the plot; it's just shallow fanservice that ends up pitting fans against each other over who gets what.
The exact instant you announce that certain party members are romance options, people will begin moaning, complaining, and whinging endlessly that the character they're interested in isn't the right gender, the right orientation, or the right race, and that certain players have more options than others and it's just not fair, damn it! Of course, developers want to please everyone, so you end up with the ludicrous situation where your entire party consists of people who are young, single, and available. No characters who are older, who are married, who are celibate, or who have no interest in relationships. Nothing except shallow "love interests" who might as well have their character type stamped on their forehead - this one's the "nice guy with a tragic past," this one's the "dangerous but alluring bad boy," this one's the "sweet, innocent girl," this one's the "haughty, stuck-up woman," and so on.
Worse, you end up with situations where you can't learn anything about a character because nearly all of their dialogue is locked behind their romance. Is your character unwilling (or unable) to romance Viconia? Well, I guess you won't be learning anything about her backstory, then.
I know this might sound like blasphemy to some, but I just find it hard to play BG1. I've tried sooo many trilogy runs, but I often can't bring myself to finish BG1. I usually port over the character or just start directly in BG2.
I've finished it several times before so I know it's good...BG1 just seems kinda slow to me. But I'd be open to others changing my mind.
It would have been better in the case of BG1 if Skie had been captured by the bandits and found in the bandit camp. Then (if you had her in your party when you encounter Eldoth) Eldoth would propose that you use her as a means of extorting money from her father.
I don't know if this is unpopular: Greater command can be cast on the cleric himself without breaking the sanctuary spell. This works so great in the temple district sewers that I feel guilty.
I liked megaman a lot. Is that unpopular? I don't know, it has to do with Capcom.
Megaman 4 was the best one in the series, NOT megaman 2. Hated that game. Woodman? Crashman? Seriously??
Give me Skullman and Pharaohman any day of the week. Even Dustman and Toadman were better than...I shudder from fear just writing the name...Bubbleman...
Comments
These boards need a :cheese: emoticon!
(Derived from https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/44104/who-is-more-adorable-gnomes-or-halflings/p1 )
Unpopular opinion: There should be an RPG in which the "monstrous" races - Orcs, Goblins, Ogres etc. - are the playable ones with open alignment boxes while the "normal" races - humans, elves, dwarves - are the enemy races with pigeon-holed alignments. It would make for a refreshing twist on the fantasy genre and possibly some interesting and insightful social commentary if handled right. But sadly it will never happen because in any given fantasy game, on the tabletop or video game, It seems 65+% of the players see the fantasy available and spring for playable humans. Ugh.
Probably to such extend, it has been done on the NwN2 Sigil (Planescape setting) Persistent World server.
Pretty much a ton of monster races have been opened and adjusted for PCs so you can make a goblin or ogre or orc or troll or slaad or whatever and play and RP as one.
The problem there is the customization. The models are pretty much set for most monster races so there's not much customization involved.
Another case off the top of my head is simply... World of Warcraft. It has Orcs, Trolls, Goblins and Undead as playable races.
Another one from PnP, are the "We Be Goblins!" Pathfinder RPG adventure modules that let you play as goblins.
Technically, you can play as almost any race in PnP DnD but not many campaigns are designed for them and not many DMs want to do it.
I LOVE Monks. In any game.
It might be a sci-fi game with lasers and machine guns and I would still make a character that is unarmored and punches and kicks stuff left and right through sheer training and skill.
There is a certain satisfaction to punching monsters and doing just as good as the person in full plate, shield and sword.
And if there's a mystical/magical/mental/scientific/whatever power that makes them believable to exist in that world (like in DnD) then that makes it even better.
It's extra satisfying when people want DnD to be "Medieval Simulator But Fantasy" and you can point at the Core books and say "magical/psionic Ki energy, next topic."
- The original campaigns of Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 are not as bad as people say they are. They may draw on clichés and not break much new ground, but they're perfectly enjoyable all the same. The fact that the race you pick actually has a small impact on the story sometimes in the sequel is much appreciated, and something I wish had been featured more prominently in both NWN and its sequel and Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale did a good job of this as well, in my opinion. Not saying they didn't have flaws - in the first game, the inability to directly control party members is maddening and the AI is really bone-headed, in the second the non-evil ending is nothing short of infuriating - but it's still a net-positive for me.
- Related to the above, I can't get into (enjoy) Mask of the Betrayer at all. Like, at ALL. And that's not just Hype Aversion talking, (TVTropes, look it up, sorry for the time you'll lose) although it is certainly part of the problem. I've tried to get into it, but its intro is so slow burning, it's ridiculous. I once asked about its appeal on the BioWare forums and got back a number of parroted responses about its "epic" story and how it was superior to the original in every way. Even TVTropes is in on the act. I... really don't see it. Nothing I saw in the first half hour made me want to keep playing before I decided I'd had enough and simply quit. And before anyone says anything about me judging the game too early, I know a bunch of other things about the game too, such as the plot involving the Wall of the Faithless, interacting with the god Kelemvor, your new companions and which ones you can romance (thanks for nothing, Chris Avellone) and a host of other things. I still fail to see what exactly justifies TVTropes claiming the original campaign is the prologue to Mask of the Betrayer. Could someone please explain it to me without resorting to parroted buzzwords that make me black-out on sight?
- Speaking of companions, I like Qara far more than Sand. Sand focuses on buffing and is made for crafting, but Qara is an arcane powerhouse, and I guess one appeals to me far more than the other. When it comes to the wizards vs. sorcerers debate, I am totally pro-sorcerer, which gives me a subconscious reason to root for her over him as well. People complain she destroys loot chests, but imo this is exactly what micromanagement for - if you choose to make her cast non-AoE spells or do so strategically, you can avoid the problem. And if her reason for betraying you to the King of Shadows is stupid, that just means Sand's is even worse - I mean, for all his vaunted Intelligence, that low Wisdom score is really showing when he says Garius and co. are the "lesser" of two evils between them and Qara. Finally, they both have sarcasm and attitude problems, but Qara says things I actually find funny. Sand doesn't. Also, I think the people who hate Qara and like Sand do so for hypocritical reasons.
- NWN 2's original campaign as a finished product may not be much to write home about, but there are great things that went unimplemented on the cutting room floor. I read that Qara's sidequest could be resolved either by her learning to show restraint or simply overloading the animus elemental by using more of her power than it could contain, just for starters.
- Now, for another one about the original. Despite its generally terrible graphics I think it had some very good parry animations. For reference, I don't recall any parry animations in DA:O.
As for the other two...- Humans in any fantasy or sci-fi gaming medium (tabletop, video or otherwise) are vastly overrated, and the reasons people use them far more than any other race range from understandable to nonsensical. I don't care if humans get favoured class: any, an extra feat and +2 bonus skill points in D&D 3.5 edition, nor do I care if the Imperial Guard from Warhammer 40k being average Joes makes them more "relatable" (not sure how that can be) or whatever arbitrary reason can be called upon to explain it. As far as I'm concerned, other races are nearly always more interesting to me in both lore and gameplay terms. In D&D alone, elves and dwarves have the Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender prestige classes, not to mention half-orcs making better offensive warriors and halflings better thieves. My favourite army in Warhammer 40k is the Tau Empire; my favourite in Warhammer Fantasy is the Ogre Kingdoms. I get that there are sometimes good reasons to play a human character or faction, but I've never understood why so many people leap for them or tell you they're the best choice so consistently.
- On the subject... for once, just once, I'd like BioWare or Beamdog to give us a romance option who is not a human or elf. BG: Tales of the Sword Coast? Humans. Siege of Dragonspear? Humans, and a gnome. BGII? Two elves, a half-elf and a human, with a half-elven tiefling and another human on the cutting room floor. The EEs brought us two humans (one a vampire), a half-elf and a half-orc. Dragon Age: Origins? Three humans and an elf. Dragon Age II? Even split between elves and humans until another human came along. But Dragon Age: Inquisition was the worst to date - five humans, two elves and one Qunari. And that's not even getting into the fact dwarves, gnomes and halflings were locked out of romance in BGII. My God, it's not for lack of shorty characters we'd like to see romanced - Varric, Sigrun for me, Mazzy, and who knows, maybe Korgan! All I know is I'm sick and tired of not seeing the opportunity to romance a short character (particularly as a short character) and if I had a choice on who got romance arcs in NWN 2, I would have picked Khelgar over Bishop, Neeshka or any of the others.
Whew... this post is several days in the making, you know.Sure, some races make better this or that class or build or whatever. But Humans are the ones that are great options for any class.
A Half-Orc makes a better Barbarian than the Human but a terrible Wizard or Rogue.
A Dwarf might make a better Cleric or Fighter than the human but make terrible Bards/Paladins/Sorcerers.
A Hafling is a better mage (yes, actually) or Rogue but they make bad Fighters and Clerics.
And well, when it comes to Human-only Prestige Classes, Humans (at least in NwN2) have the Red Wizard of Thay, as a exclusive one.
Basically you cannot go wrong with a Human. And yes, a human is more relatable by definition of being a human.
The psychology of dwarves, halflings and especially elves is far different than humans.
You cannot relate to someone that lives for hundreds of years to a human and needs a hundred years at least to become an adult. You can only approximate it.
To give an example, old elves are supposed to have the life experience of whole generations of humans combined.
Roleplaying them as humans with pointy ears and long names is just lazy, personally.
Humans in DnD are popular because what they get fits to any class and is easy to RP and get in character, at least for PnP.
The exact instant you announce that certain party members are romance options, people will begin moaning, complaining, and whinging endlessly that the character they're interested in isn't the right gender, the right orientation, or the right race, and that certain players have more options than others and it's just not fair, damn it! Of course, developers want to please everyone, so you end up with the ludicrous situation where your entire party consists of people who are young, single, and available. No characters who are older, who are married, who are celibate, or who have no interest in relationships. Nothing except shallow "love interests" who might as well have their character type stamped on their forehead - this one's the "nice guy with a tragic past," this one's the "dangerous but alluring bad boy," this one's the "sweet, innocent girl," this one's the "haughty, stuck-up woman," and so on.
Worse, you end up with situations where you can't learn anything about a character because nearly all of their dialogue is locked behind their romance. Is your character unwilling (or unable) to romance Viconia? Well, I guess you won't be learning anything about her backstory, then.
I've finished it several times before so I know it's good...BG1 just seems kinda slow to me. But I'd be open to others changing my mind.
- Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas
- Daggerfall and Morrowind (later TES have this awful level scaling)
- Every Might and Magic game
Greater command can be cast on the cleric himself without breaking the sanctuary spell.
This works so great in the temple district sewers that I feel guilty.
Megaman 4 was the best one in the series, NOT megaman 2. Hated that game. Woodman? Crashman? Seriously??
Give me Skullman and Pharaohman any day of the week. Even Dustman and Toadman were better than...I shudder from fear just writing the name...Bubbleman...