"Korgan is better and more interesting than Kagain."
That's unpopular opinion, surely not? Korgan is awesome, I usually take him at least for some time whereas Kagain I forget exists. Surprised.
The impression I've gotten from reading the board is everyone thinks Bioware should have just brought Kagain over rather than replacing him with Korgan. Here's an example; Korgan is mentioned twice in that thread as a Kagain clone and once as "not even half as entertaining" as Kagain.
(I love me some Kagain mechanically, though; he's a beastly tank and by far my most-used BG1 NPC. I just think Korgan is more interesting.)
The impression I've gotten from reading the board is everyone thinks Bioware should have just brought Kagain over rather than replacing him with Korgan. Here's an example; Korgan is mentioned twice in that thread as a Kagain clone and once as "not even half as entertaining" as Kagain.
I wonder what do people use to judge Kagain as "entertaining". Like most BG1 NPCs he has no quests and doesn't comment on anything that's happening in the game. So what is "entertaining" here - his voiced lines when you issue commands? But by that standard, the most entertaining NPC in the whole saga is Xan, with Xzar and Montaron not far behind.
Besides, Korgan has some good banter too, it's just that most of them are with good NPCs(like Mazzy) so most people will never hear them.
(Also calling Korgan a clone of Kagain is super racis yo. Are you implying all surly drunk fighter Dwarves are the same)
I usually take them both in either game. I have the impression Kagain was a sort of proto-type version 1 of Korgan, while Korgan is Kagain 2.0, more fleshed out with backstory, motivations, etc.
funny how people claim they love kagain so much. yet i remember watching an lp of bg1 with the npc project and he seemed to be the one that got the short end of the stick in terms of characterization.
the reason people like kagain so much is becuse he was the only real sane evil npc among a cast of crazies.
funny how people claim they love kagain so much. yet i remember watching an lp of bg1 with the npc project and he seemed to be the one that got the short end of the stick in terms of characterization.
the reason people like kagain so much is becuse he was the only real sane evil npc among a cast of crazies.
He's not a "sane evil NPC" so much as he's a non-evil NPC who for some inexplicable reason got miscategorized. I mean, I guess unless you're a hardcore Marxist and you believe capitalism in and of itself is evil.
Korgan I can see. He's definitely got some evil tendencies. He's also got some neutral tendencies. But Kagain? The next thing I see from him that scans as "evil" will be the first.
Unpopular opinion: despite 99% of the discussion being about how best to optimize party-of-6 run-throughs or solo run-throughs, BG2 is actually best experienced in a party of 2, 3, or if you absolutely must, 4.
After deciding what class you want to play, when choosing a race the two most important considerations are: * That you get shorty saves, and * That your paper doll not look ridiculous.
This is why Halflings are the best race in Baldur's Gate. (The NPCs obviously agree, since it joins humans and half-elves as the only races without romance restrictions.)
It might be an unpopular opinion that the character creation is all wrong: Now you choose gender, picture, race, class, abilities.
If you'd roll abilities, then choose class according to what fits, then choose race according to what races that can be, then choose gender and picture, you choose the picture after you know what you are
By and large, first you're going to choose your class, then you choose your race, then you select your race, then you select your class. I'd wager most players don't enter the character generation screen without first having an idea of the character they want to generate.
It might be an unpopular opinion that the character creation is all wrong: Now you choose gender, picture, race, class, abilities.
If you'd roll abilities, then choose class according to what fits, then choose race according to what races that can be, then choose gender and picture, you choose the picture after you know what you are
I completely agree thematically, although mechanically I'd put ability rolls behind class selection because otherwise it'd be a real pain to roll Paladins and Rangers without the class minimums to boost your totals.
And then to prevent confusion, you'd probably want to select your race before you roll, too, so racial adjustments can be applied in real-time and you can see the results, (rather than applying it several screens after your roll and adjusting your stats after you already selected them). Plus it'd be a pain to make sure you assigned your points in a way that complied with your racial minimums, and a lot of good rolls would have to be abandoned after someone screwed that up.
So to mistake-proof character generation, I'd propose: Class > Race > Attributes > Gender > Portrait. (In a perfect world, with an "expert mode" option where you roll attributes first and are responsible for complying with class/race minimums on your own.)
I don't think I'll ever do a no-reload run, simply because I've lost count of the number of times I've died to a spell that should have been disrupted by damage, but arbitrarily wasn't. It'd just be such a cheap way to end such a run.
I don't know. I like first picking gender, race and picture and based on that picture/gender/race I generate the class and the ability scores that match the picture. So I think by myself, what do I want to play as, say, a female halfling, scroll my halfling pictures, select one and then think about the class that may match the picture. And then I tune the stats to match the picture as well. A frail looking character gets low strength or constitution for instance. Etc. Putting gender and picture at the end is horrible for me. I already dislike name and voice at the end, it should be at the start somewhere.
It might be an unpopular opinion that the character creation is all wrong: Now you choose gender, picture, race, class, abilities.
If you'd roll abilities, then choose class according to what fits, then choose race according to what races that can be, then choose gender and picture, you choose the picture after you know what you are
@Zilber Hmmm, interesting. I have not seen that in a while, it's very old school D&D. Way before BG gave class minimums automatically, or even before Unearthed Arcana gave humans the class minimums as well.
It sure did make certain classes ALOT more rare than others, esp. in the days of one roll of 3d6 for each score. Heck, with that we used to jump up and do a little jig if an 18 showed up.
I took Cernd along in my most recent playthrough for a little while, and I think that while he's underdeveloped he's not as bland of a character as I originally thought. His quest is one of the more interesting for how brief and simple it is and really should've been expanded. I actually also really enjoy his voice acting, especially his battle cries.
I took Cernd along in my most recent playthrough for a little while, and I think that while he's underdeveloped he's not as bland of a character as I originally thought. His quest is one of the more interesting for how brief and simple it is and really should've been expanded. I actually also really enjoy his voice acting, especially his battle cries.
I like how he gives the best potshots to Edwin during the Nether Scroll incident. Poor Edwin, even the mild-mannered druid ridicules you.
Thieves (single class or otherwise) are the most useful and "necessarry" class in the game.
Also, Palmer peanut butter cups are better than Resses'.
Thieves are a major quality-of-life boost, but a mage or bard can cover a thief's duties, (Knock, Invisibility, protection spells and just walking through traps), better than a thief can cover an arcane caster's duties, IMO.
The problem with thieving is it's a threshold thing. You need 100 points in open locks and 100 points in find traps, and that's pretty much it. (And the Open Locks is negotiable, thanks to exceptional strength and the knock spell.)
Once those thresholds are met, thieves don't have a lot going for them. They contribute the least to combat of any class and they don't offer much in the way of positive synergies, (unlike divine casters with Chaotic Commands, arcane casters with Improved Haste, bards with their songs, etc.) They're crazy powerful if you're going nuts with traps, they have the potential to trivialize the entire game economy with pickpockets, and otherwise they're the least powerful class in the game.
So it's not even that "thief" is necessary, it's that getting five thief levels somewhere in the party is necessary. Even if it's just bringing Nalia, giving her the Ring of Danger Sense, and having her memorize a couple knocks. (I've done several playthroughs with her as my only thief without any issues.)
I don't dislike thieves. I've soloed with them without any issues. All three vanilla kits are pretty fun to play, (though kitless is boring, and I haven't tried Shadowdancer yet). They just... don't have a whole lot going for them other than traps and Use Any Item, which is most notable for the things it can do for the *other* class in a thief multi or dual.
Comments
(I love me some Kagain mechanically, though; he's a beastly tank and by far my most-used BG1 NPC. I just think Korgan is more interesting.)
Hexxat is a most lovable NPC.
74. Story <<<<<<<<< Gameplay.
Besides, Korgan has some good banter too, it's just that most of them are with good NPCs(like Mazzy) so most people will never hear them.
(Also calling Korgan a clone of Kagain is super racis yo. Are you implying all surly drunk fighter Dwarves are the same)
I wish Kagain was available in SOD.
the reason people like kagain so much is becuse he was the only real sane evil npc among a cast of crazies.
I've never used Korgan either, but then again I can count on one hand how many BG2 starts I've had.
Korgan I can see. He's definitely got some evil tendencies. He's also got some neutral tendencies. But Kagain? The next thing I see from him that scans as "evil" will be the first.
* That you get shorty saves, and
* That your paper doll not look ridiculous.
This is why Halflings are the best race in Baldur's Gate. (The NPCs obviously agree, since it joins humans and half-elves as the only races without romance restrictions.)
If you'd roll abilities, then choose class according to what fits, then choose race according to what races that can be, then choose gender and picture, you choose the picture after you know what you are
And then to prevent confusion, you'd probably want to select your race before you roll, too, so racial adjustments can be applied in real-time and you can see the results, (rather than applying it several screens after your roll and adjusting your stats after you already selected them). Plus it'd be a pain to make sure you assigned your points in a way that complied with your racial minimums, and a lot of good rolls would have to be abandoned after someone screwed that up.
So to mistake-proof character generation, I'd propose: Class > Race > Attributes > Gender > Portrait. (In a perfect world, with an "expert mode" option where you roll attributes first and are responsible for complying with class/race minimums on your own.)
So I think by myself, what do I want to play as, say, a female halfling, scroll my halfling pictures, select one and then think about the class that may match the picture. And then I tune the stats to match the picture as well. A frail looking character gets low strength or constitution for instance. Etc.
Putting gender and picture at the end is horrible for me. I already dislike name and voice at the end, it should be at the start somewhere.
Minus the plot holes, of course.
It sure did make certain classes ALOT more rare than others, esp. in the days of one roll of 3d6 for each score. Heck, with that we used to jump up and do a little jig if an 18 showed up.
I think it is good for your mental health to play BG2 on easiest possible difficulty.
Also, Palmer peanut butter cups are better than Resses'.
The problem with thieving is it's a threshold thing. You need 100 points in open locks and 100 points in find traps, and that's pretty much it. (And the Open Locks is negotiable, thanks to exceptional strength and the knock spell.)
Once those thresholds are met, thieves don't have a lot going for them. They contribute the least to combat of any class and they don't offer much in the way of positive synergies, (unlike divine casters with Chaotic Commands, arcane casters with Improved Haste, bards with their songs, etc.) They're crazy powerful if you're going nuts with traps, they have the potential to trivialize the entire game economy with pickpockets, and otherwise they're the least powerful class in the game.
So it's not even that "thief" is necessary, it's that getting five thief levels somewhere in the party is necessary. Even if it's just bringing Nalia, giving her the Ring of Danger Sense, and having her memorize a couple knocks. (I've done several playthroughs with her as my only thief without any issues.)
I don't dislike thieves. I've soloed with them without any issues. All three vanilla kits are pretty fun to play, (though kitless is boring, and I haven't tried Shadowdancer yet). They just... don't have a whole lot going for them other than traps and Use Any Item, which is most notable for the things it can do for the *other* class in a thief multi or dual.