The problem I have is that things like LOB don't discriminate - they make everything harder, when honestly, I hate this notion that every encounter needs to be a life or death struggle, or extraordinarily challenging, or whatever. Hell, I don't think every "boss fight" needs to be that hard. Like, Maevar, say - he's not some world-conquering demon, he's an arrogant pickpocket who's in way over his head. He shouldn't be tougher than Vanilla Sarevok, and I think it's silly to mod him to the point where he is.
Part of the problem is enemies' tendency to melee to the end. If Mae'var tried to escape at some point- like Bernard Risling- then that might be a different kind of challenge. Other foes might even evade fighting altogether- like Saemon.
The problem I have is that things like LOB don't discriminate - they make everything harder, when honestly, I hate this notion that every encounter needs to be a life or death struggle, or extraordinarily challenging, or whatever. Hell, I don't think every "boss fight" needs to be that hard. Like, Maevar, say - he's not some world-conquering demon, he's an arrogant pickpocket who's in way over his head. He shouldn't be tougher than Vanilla Sarevok, and I think it's silly to mod him to the point where he is.
Part of the problem is enemies' tendency to melee to the end. If Mae'var tried to escape at some point- like Bernard Risling- then that might be a different kind of challenge. Other foes might even evade fighting altogether- like Saemon.
Reminded me of the fight in the Den of Seven Valleys, where it's just so damn hard to stop the guy with a sandthief's ring from fleeing. I really liked that guy.
From a powergaming perspective, there is no reason to have fewer than six characters in a party unless you're going temporarily solo.
People say that you should go with 5 party members instead of 6 to get higher levels. But that only gets you 15-20% more XP, and since it usually takes twice as much XP (100% more) to gain each new level, you're losing a whole character in exchange for being, at most, one level higher. 90% of the time, you will be exactly the same level as a party of 6. And 100% of the time, you'll have 15% less HP, 15% less spells, 15% less attacks per round, and 15% less aura than a full party of 6.
Going solo is only worth it to reach certain specific milestones early or to recruit higher-level NPCs. Outside of the 3 million XP mark, solo characters are always weaker than a full party. The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
The more convincing argument for smaller parties, IMO, is that you start losing important item-based immunities on characters. It's much easier to protect one person against Davaeorn, say, than an entire party. You need a single PfM scroll for the former, and a heck of a lot of potions or green scrolls for the latter. And if those defenses fail due to item scarcity, you're suddenly a 5-man team that shared experience 6 ways. Vanilla Draconis suffers a lot from this: protecting one character 100% from acid damage? Easy. Protecting 6 becomes a bit more touch and go.
My own unpopular opinion, I guess: the value of Ironskins isn't all that great, since it's pretty easy to dispel due to a sucky caster level in mid-SoA to late ToB, almost non-renewable with the stupid long casting time, can never be used with Ilbratha's Mirror Images anyways... It's good against Backstabs, I guess, but so is True Seeing.
semiticgod said:From a powergaming perspective, there is no reason to have fewer than six characters in a party unless you're going temporarily solo.
People say that you should go with 5 party members instead of 6 to get higher levels. But that only gets you 15-20% more XP, and since it usually takes twice as much XP (100% more) to gain each new level, you're losing a whole character in exchange for being, at most, one level higher. 90% of the time, you will be exactly the same level as a party of 6. And 100% of the time, you'll have 15% less HP, 15% less spells, 15% less attacks per round, and 15% less aura than a full party of 6.
Going solo is only worth it to reach certain specific milestones early or to recruit higher-level NPCs. Outside of the 3 million XP mark, solo characters are always weaker than a full party. The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
I agree with you regarding 5 party members, but I have found that 4 in the party is optimal. It is easier to micromanage, easier to have enough potions for buffing etc. and there is enough good armour etc. to furnish the entire party with good equipment. Of course if you are modded, that might not be an issue.
Yeah, honestly, from my perspective, having more party members often means having more people I need to protect from attacks/status effects, and I don't like the additional management that's involved. It also becomes harder to make sure that I can have the whole Party warded with Chaotic Commands/Death Ward or Negative Energy Protection, which I find mandatory at certain times.
In Icewind Dale, there are gigantic hordes of enemies that hit pretty hard. In that game, I'll suck it up and get all hands on deck, and the fact that I make that calculation means that objectively, I probably agree that more is stronger. That said, in Baldur's Gate I usually prefer a party that works smoothly rather than one at maximum power.
The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
While I personally prefer parties too, the solo character can: Be at least six times less likely to botch a saving throw. Take a sixth as much damage, such as from an AOE, or indeed no damage at all with things like the shield of reflection). Deal six times as much damage as they normally would, by virtue of all the melee attackers focus firing the solo mage with the fire shields, and may well indeed get you sextuple the spell and item usages per day if those extra levels get you into any of the various spell cycling shenanigans (or just Project Image).
Soloing as it was implemented is basically cheating, and the game should reduce or remove the Exp given to overleveled characters to at least mitigate the massive advantage soloing gives.
You can always keep less protected npcs in the background only popping in when they need to do their trick. I never buff more than half the party, only the ones that need to be either the aggressor or the distractor. There are only few places where the entire party is in harms way upon spawning and even there you could argue to let the extras die rather than protect them. In essence those encounters will be a small party with cannon fodder that drops gear on death. The main issue would be resurrection.
I remember having a game of BG1&BG2 with all the compatible xp granting mods installed and running the whole path from Candlekeep to Throne of Bhaal. Without XP cap.
By the end I had a dual-classed Ranger 26/ Cleric 64. And it was not a solo run.
That guy had no use of becoming a god. He was already chunking everything dual-wielding Crom Faeyr and Storm Star +5.
How's this for an unpopular opinion: I have no problem with turn based combat and it's not a deal breaker/ game ruiner for me. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Turn based combat, if done right, can add incredible depth and tactics to a game. A good example of that IMO is the Shadowrun trilogy (Returns, Dragonfall, Hong Kong)
Pantalion said: semiticgod said:The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
While I personally prefer parties too, the solo character can: Be at least six times less likely to botch a saving throw. Take a sixth as much damage, such as from an AOE, or indeed no damage at all with things like the shield of reflection). Deal six times as much damage as they normally would, by virtue of all the melee attackers focus firing the solo mage with the fire shields, and may well indeed get you sextuple the spell and item usages per day if those extra levels get you into any of the various spell cycling shenanigans (or just Project Image).
Soloing as it was implemented is basically cheating, and the game should reduce or remove the Exp given.
The experience cap does stop soloists from being uber-powerful. However some over-ride that with mods. That is their choice.
Soloing as it was implemented is basically cheating, and the game should reduce or remove the Exp given to overleveled characters to at least mitigate the massive advantage soloing gives.
It wouldn't be so bad if the SoA xp cap was still in place in the EEs. Having to go through BG2 solo with a level 19 fighter wouldn't feel like cheating. I actually identified a very common trend among solo players : they're having fun through BG1, SoD (if they do it) and early BG2, but, once they hit the Underdark, they seem to care less about their run, because nothing is putting up enough of a challenge. They're only going through the motions of playing the game and starts to get bored. It simple how to explain it : SoA was not meant to be played with HLAs.
I know it was a necessity to remove the xp cap for players who want to go through the whole Watcher's Keep in SoA, but it's still the thing I dislike the most about the EEs. That choice has the real consequence of throwing a good portion of the balance out of the window. And it's not like the BG saga is the most balance game in the first place. Keeping the xp cap should at least be an option in the Gameplay section. Going through BG2 with a level 19 fighter or a level 23 thief wouldn't be as much of a walk in the park, that's for sure.
I agree. Is a problem of balance (as always). Originally, SoA had a very big issue. Before ToB was released it was quite possible to hit the cap while still 3 quarters into the game. If you did all the quests in Chapter 2-3, went to get Immy from Spellhold and then did the Underdark, you would hit the cap by the time came to confront Bodhi in her sanctum.
But, you are wrong about one thing. Back then there was also no Watcher's Keep. It was introduced by ToB.
EE further added things, without any regard to keeping the balance. As such, it became even easier to solo a character and reach the cap.
Keeping the xp cap should at least be an option in the Gameplay section. Going through BG2 with a level 19 fighter or a level 23 thief wouldn't be as much of a walk in the park, that's for sure.
@Redrake I know WK was not in the original BG2. What I meant is : it's the introduction of WK in SoA that forced Beamdog to remove the xp cap. I can see why they did it, but I disagree with the decision.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
Keeping the xp cap should at least be an option in the Gameplay section. Going through BG2 with a level 19 fighter or a level 23 thief wouldn't be as much of a walk in the park, that's for sure.
@JuliusBorisov once again thanks - allways vigilant and helpfull
@Arctodus I respect your view, and agree that many would agree. But I would prefer that the xp cap could be removed/manipulated.
I find the XP cap tedious and annoying. If I get the XP, I have earned it - a completionist solo run is a bore once you hit the cap (and playing on an iPhone makes my options limited mod-wise).
So I would suggest more XP cap options in the game - or better options for modding the tablets/phones.. This would suit most - the game may be the same, but we enjoy it in different ways
@Redrake I know WK was not in the original BG2. What I meant is : it's the introduction of WK in SoA that forced Beamdog to remove the xp cap. I can see why they did it, but I disagree with the decision.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
Then it's not the cap that is at fault. It's allowing access to a huge, xp/item rich dungeon crawl to a game that was never designed to contain it. Of course they made the same mistake with Durlag's in BG.
I would much prefer them removing an XP cap and sticking to the original game design. How many actually playthrough TOB because it's so redundant as the best thing, WK, is in SOA? Lot's here say they don't.
The experience cap does stop soloists from being uber-powerful. However some over-ride that with mods. That is their choice.
The cap doesn't particularly change anything about solo characters being powerful. The main power of soloing is that they will reach that cap long, long before anyone else, have far less trouble as a higher level character dealing with the threats designed for lower level parties, and will be able to accumulate the necessary gear to make them even better earlier and more easily than a full party.
The cap also means that the solo character can simply bypass trash mobs, taking out only the targets with useful gear or plot relevance in a way that would be impractical or expensive for most full parties who still need the extra experience to gain levels.
Even fighters who can't wreck the action economy of the game can benefit from soloing. A level 8 capped fighter in BG1 has a THAC0 of 7 with a +2 Sword, 18 Str and High Mastery with 2 APR. Against an AC of 6 they have a 5% chance of missing. A level 5 Fighter has 12 THAC0 or so and 3/2 APR. Against the humble Hobgoblin, the solo fighter will probably kill two per round, while two level 5 Fighters at 3/2 APR each will probably kill slightly less than 1 per round between them, assuming they both have +2 Swords, 18 Strength yada yada. It's simply easier for a single high level character to take out low level threats than multiple characters to take out an equal level threat.
@Redrake I know WK was not in the original BG2. What I meant is : it's the introduction of WK in SoA that forced Beamdog to remove the xp cap. I can see why they did it, but I disagree with the decision.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
Then it's not the cap that is at fault. It's allowing access to a huge, xp/item rich dungeon crawl to a game that was never designed to contain it. Of course they made the same mistake with Durlag's in BG.
I would much prefer them removing an XP cap and sticking to the original game design. How many actually playthrough TOB because it's so redundant as the best thing, WK, is in SOA? Lot's here say they don't.
I'm sorry, but you both failed to understand my point.
It was possible to hit the original cap if you only had SoA installed.
In other words, even without WK and ToB. 3/4 into the game you would hit the cap if you tried to solve all quests and especially if you imported a character from BG1 (due to existing at the time Tales of the Sword Coast add-on it added extra xp, which led to a character superior in level to one created directly in SoA).
@Redrake I know WK was not in the original BG2. What I meant is : it's the introduction of WK in SoA that forced Beamdog to remove the xp cap. I can see why they did it, but I disagree with the decision.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
Then it's not the cap that is at fault. It's allowing access to a huge, xp/item rich dungeon crawl to a game that was never designed to contain it. Of course they made the same mistake with Durlag's in BG.
I would much prefer them removing an XP cap and sticking to the original game design. How many actually playthrough TOB because it's so redundant as the best thing, WK, is in SOA? Lot's here say they don't.
OOH OOH, ME ME! I always finish my series run with ToB. Such a satisfying/epic ending.
*edit* Lets make this an official unpopular opinion. ToB is just as good as the rest of the series and a properly satisfying ending.
I definitely agree. I never ever finished ToB game with any character unless I took him/her through whole BG1 and SoA. I might've tried some times playing a character created in BG2, but I never finished with one in ToB. The latest character I used (not EE, I have yet to play BG2 EE) was my so-called Hammeriad. A kensai dualed to cleric at level 18. Dualwielding hammers only was impossibly overpowered when it came to chunking. Of course, Kensai/Cleric and AC do not belong in the same sentence, but what a wanton agent of destruction he was...
How's this for an unpopular opinion: I have no problem with turn based combat and it's not a deal breaker/ game ruiner for me. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Turn based combat, if done right, can add incredible depth and tactics to a game. A good example of that IMO is the Shadowrun trilogy (Returns, Dragonfall, Hong Kong)
If done wrong though... *shivers*
Problem is when turn based combat makes trivial battles longer than they should - in Pool of Radiance:ruins of myth drannor you'd spend at least 5 minutes fighting six Zombies- on a good day!
@Redrake I know WK was not in the original BG2. What I meant is : it's the introduction of WK in SoA that forced Beamdog to remove the xp cap. I can see why they did it, but I disagree with the decision.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
You were always able to go to Watcher's Keep from SoA once ToB was installed. There was even a little pop-up screen the first time you started the game with the expansion installed that said "You may now access Watcher's Keep from your Shadows of Amn map at any time. Check the box to never see this message again."
Beamdog and the EE'S didn't add that. It was in the expansion when it was released.
You were always able to go to Watcher's Keep from SoA once ToB was installed. There was even a little pop-up screen the first time you started the game with the expansion installed that said "You may now access Watcher's Keep from your Shadows of Amn map at any time. Check the box to never see this message again."
Beamdog and the EE'S didn't add that. It was in the expansion when it was released.
Something I didn't know... When I was younger, I didn't had ToB on my install, only SoA. I played ToB for the first time in the EEs. How was the xp cap dealt with in SoA with ToB installed ? Was it already removed ?
Comments
Of course, I was playing with a dwarf fighter/cleric PC back then.
but yeah, rations would be better
People say that you should go with 5 party members instead of 6 to get higher levels. But that only gets you 15-20% more XP, and since it usually takes twice as much XP (100% more) to gain each new level, you're losing a whole character in exchange for being, at most, one level higher. 90% of the time, you will be exactly the same level as a party of 6. And 100% of the time, you'll have 15% less HP, 15% less spells, 15% less attacks per round, and 15% less aura than a full party of 6.
Going solo is only worth it to reach certain specific milestones early or to recruit higher-level NPCs. Outside of the 3 million XP mark, solo characters are always weaker than a full party. The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
My own unpopular opinion, I guess: the value of Ironskins isn't all that great, since it's pretty easy to dispel due to a sucky caster level in mid-SoA to late ToB, almost non-renewable with the stupid long casting time, can never be used with Ilbratha's Mirror Images anyways... It's good against Backstabs, I guess, but so is True Seeing.
People say that you should go with 5 party members instead of 6 to get higher levels. But that only gets you 15-20% more XP, and since it usually takes twice as much XP (100% more) to gain each new level, you're losing a whole character in exchange for being, at most, one level higher. 90% of the time, you will be exactly the same level as a party of 6. And 100% of the time, you'll have 15% less HP, 15% less spells, 15% less attacks per round, and 15% less aura than a full party of 6.
Going solo is only worth it to reach certain specific milestones early or to recruit higher-level NPCs. Outside of the 3 million XP mark, solo characters are always weaker than a full party. The solo character will be maybe 5 levels higher, but having an extra 5 levels doesn't give you sextuple the hit points, sextuple the attacks per round, sextuple the spell slots, or sextuple the spell or item usages per day.
I agree with you regarding 5 party members, but I have found that 4 in the party is optimal. It is easier to micromanage, easier to have enough potions for buffing etc. and there is enough good armour etc. to furnish the entire party with good equipment. Of course if you are modded, that might not be an issue.
In Icewind Dale, there are gigantic hordes of enemies that hit pretty hard. In that game, I'll suck it up and get all hands on deck, and the fact that I make that calculation means that objectively, I probably agree that more is stronger. That said, in Baldur's Gate I usually prefer a party that works smoothly rather than one at maximum power.
Be at least six times less likely to botch a saving throw.
Take a sixth as much damage, such as from an AOE, or indeed no damage at all with things like the shield of reflection).
Deal six times as much damage as they normally would, by virtue of all the melee attackers focus firing the solo mage with the fire shields, and may well indeed get you sextuple the spell and item usages per day if those extra levels get you into any of the various spell cycling shenanigans (or just Project Image).
Soloing as it was implemented is basically cheating, and the game should reduce or remove the Exp given to overleveled characters to at least mitigate the massive advantage soloing gives.
There are only few places where the entire party is in harms way upon spawning and even there you could argue to let the extras die rather than protect them. In essence those encounters will be a small party with cannon fodder that drops gear on death. The main issue would be resurrection.
By the end I had a dual-classed Ranger 26/ Cleric 64. And it was not a solo run.
That guy had no use of becoming a god. He was already chunking everything dual-wielding Crom Faeyr and Storm Star +5.
I have no problem with turn based combat and it's not a deal breaker/ game ruiner for me. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
A good example of that IMO is the Shadowrun trilogy (Returns, Dragonfall, Hong Kong)
If done wrong though... *shivers*
While I personally prefer parties too, the solo character can:
Be at least six times less likely to botch a saving throw.
Take a sixth as much damage, such as from an AOE, or indeed no damage at all with things like the shield of reflection).
Deal six times as much damage as they normally would, by virtue of all the melee attackers focus firing the solo mage with the fire shields, and may well indeed get you sextuple the spell and item usages per day if those extra levels get you into any of the various spell cycling shenanigans (or just Project Image).
Soloing as it was implemented is basically cheating, and the game should reduce or remove the Exp given.
The experience cap does stop soloists from being uber-powerful. However some over-ride that with mods. That is their choice.
I know it was a necessity to remove the xp cap for players who want to go through the whole Watcher's Keep in SoA, but it's still the thing I dislike the most about the EEs. That choice has the real consequence of throwing a good portion of the balance out of the window. And it's not like the BG saga is the most balance game in the first place. Keeping the xp cap should at least be an option in the Gameplay section. Going through BG2 with a level 19 fighter or a level 23 thief wouldn't be as much of a walk in the park, that's for sure.
I agree. Is a problem of balance (as always). Originally, SoA had a very big issue. Before ToB was released it was quite possible to hit the cap while still 3 quarters into the game. If you did all the quests in Chapter 2-3, went to get Immy from Spellhold and then did the Underdark, you would hit the cap by the time came to confront Bodhi in her sanctum.
But, you are wrong about one thing. Back then there was also no Watcher's Keep. It was introduced by ToB.
EE further added things, without any regard to keeping the balance. As such, it became even easier to solo a character and reach the cap.
Also, if the cap was there, they could have added as much sidequests as they wanted, it wouldn't matter, because you then would hit the cap earlier, but without going over it. The sense of growth of your character would disapear for a bit, but I think it would be for the better balance wise. I still think it should be an option in the Gameplay section. Then you would have the choice to play with it or not.
@Arctodus I respect your view, and agree that many would agree. But I would prefer that the xp cap could be removed/manipulated.
I find the XP cap tedious and annoying. If I get the XP, I have earned it - a completionist solo run is a bore once you hit the cap (and playing on an iPhone makes my options limited mod-wise).
So I would suggest more XP cap options in the game - or better options for modding the tablets/phones.. This would suit most - the game may be the same, but we enjoy it in different ways
It's allowing access to a huge, xp/item rich dungeon crawl to a game that was never designed to contain it.
Of course they made the same mistake with Durlag's in BG.
I would much prefer them removing an XP cap and sticking to the original game design.
How many actually playthrough TOB because it's so redundant as the best thing, WK, is in SOA?
Lot's here say they don't.
The cap also means that the solo character can simply bypass trash mobs, taking out only the targets with useful gear or plot relevance in a way that would be impractical or expensive for most full parties who still need the extra experience to gain levels.
Even fighters who can't wreck the action economy of the game can benefit from soloing. A level 8 capped fighter in BG1 has a THAC0 of 7 with a +2 Sword, 18 Str and High Mastery with 2 APR. Against an AC of 6 they have a 5% chance of missing. A level 5 Fighter has 12 THAC0 or so and 3/2 APR. Against the humble Hobgoblin, the solo fighter will probably kill two per round, while two level 5 Fighters at 3/2 APR each will probably kill slightly less than 1 per round between them, assuming they both have +2 Swords, 18 Strength yada yada. It's simply easier for a single high level character to take out low level threats than multiple characters to take out an equal level threat.
It was possible to hit the original cap if you only had SoA installed.
In other words, even without WK and ToB. 3/4 into the game you would hit the cap if you tried to solve all quests and especially if you imported a character from BG1 (due to existing at the time Tales of the Sword Coast add-on it added extra xp, which led to a character superior in level to one created directly in SoA).
*edit* Lets make this an official unpopular opinion. ToB is just as good as the rest of the series and a properly satisfying ending.
I definitely agree. I never ever finished ToB game with any character unless I took him/her through whole BG1 and SoA. I might've tried some times playing a character created in BG2, but I never finished with one in ToB.
The latest character I used (not EE, I have yet to play BG2 EE) was my so-called Hammeriad. A kensai dualed to cleric at level 18. Dualwielding hammers only was impossibly overpowered when it came to chunking. Of course, Kensai/Cleric and AC do not belong in the same sentence, but what a wanton agent of destruction he was...
Beamdog and the EE'S didn't add that. It was in the expansion when it was released.