@Outrang , I hear you on the problems caused by Jaheira and Khalid leaving the party in the early game for SoD. I learned the hard way after the first time to make sure to put all my best tanking equipment on Minsc before SoD starts, because they left with my ankheg armor, my best shields, and some of my best weapons. Nothing available at the early merchants in SoD, during the pre-J&K portion of the game, which is a pretty sizable chunk of it, came even close to what I lost when they abandoned me.
@semiticgod also encountered the problem in his no-reload run after he lost both Minsc and Rasaad to chunking. He was playing a magic heavy party, and he immediately noticed the lack of recruitable tanks, and commented on it. He did power on through and succeed at his no-reload, though.
Anyway, I mostly agree with you. I've learned, though, that there's little sense banging your head against a wall trying to make people around this forum see the flaws in SoD, some of which are pretty big in my opinion.
I actually mostly like SoD so far. I'm only on my first playthrough and am about 1/2 done with Chapter 10. I've actually enjoyed it more than I did PoE so far which I felt had a fairly terrible combat system and the plot got on my nerves. This doesn't mean it's perfect or that devs can't take suggestions into consideration for future games.
You might could amend this whole suggestion on my part as a plea to devs to "please not assume what kind of character I'm playing and try to balance accordingly." BG2 had a similar problem as well early game in that the people you find in Irenicus' dungeon barring Yoshimo and also the first few extra party members you were likely to meet (Aerie, Anomen, Nalia, exception Korgan) are all good or good leaning. You were just sort of out of luck if you wanted to role an evil character.
As @BelgarathMTH said, I did a no-reload run of SOD and encountered this problem. Even with all the right equipment on Minsc, he would get hit very often, and many SOD enemies hit very hard. We ran low on potions very early in the game. Like @Outrang, I found that Minsc could die in four or five hits when dealing with moderately strong enemies. In fact, when Minsc got chunked, he had only taken six hits! And that was with a strong potion to help him out.
He was taking over 20 damage per hit from four enemies at once. He had less than 80 HP. You can say the early game isn't that hard, but this is just simple math. A 73-HP tank will get chunked if takes over 100 damage, as Minsc did.
How'd they get past his AC?
Well, AC and potions don't mean much if an enemy archer stuns you on hit.
There are lots of enemies with abilities like that in SOD. Tanking in SOD requires good saving throws as well as low AC and high HP, and none of the SOD tanks have particularly strong saves.
Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Relying on potions is also somewhat problematic because you are penny pinching and trying to outfit 3 or 4 new people who come with "eh" equipment. I spent a *lot* of gold in SOD, much more than I usually do, precisely because most of my best gear was off in lala land. I did have potions carried over from BG, but not really potions of defense because I didn't need them in BG. I just sold them.
I don't think the Beamdog made any assumptions about the class of the protagonist. I think they just made the NPCs that interested them, irrespective of how they would fit into a team.
It's not really a problem though, it's just a part of the difficulty of the game, unless the game becomes significantly easier (i.e. too easy) if the protagonist of a tanky persuasion. I haven't tried it, but I don't think it would be - as already pointed out, the ruleset doesn't allow for true MMO-style tanks in any case.
I don't think the Beamdog made any assumptions about the class of the protagonist. I think they just made the NPCs that interested them, irrespective of how they would fit into a team.
It's not really a problem though, it's just a part of the difficulty of the game, unless the game becomes significantly easier (i.e. too easy) if the protagonist of a tanky persuasion. I haven't tried it, but I don't think it would be - as already pointed out, the ruleset doesn't allow for true MMO-style tanks in any case.
If this is indeed what they did, it's a beyond bizarre attitude to have when creating a game that is designed around effective team building.
Also, I think quibbling over the pure definition of the term tank is tangential to what I'm saying. Your party needs to include guys who aren't super squishy and who make sense for your alignment - call that whatever you like.
I did use mages for CC but you are limited here in several respects. 1) Spells that will hit your melee guys (Minsc here) are already of limited use unless you want to use that invisibility/CC, rest, repeat method I mentioned earlier, which is beyond monotonous. 2) As BelgarathMTH said, there are fights in SoD where it's possible for Minsc to go down within the first 5ish seconds. So congratulations, that was enough time to get off 1 fear spell or 1 confusion spell or whatever. Now everybody who made their saving throws will proceed to shred your squishy backranks. 3) You only have so many spells before you have to rest. If Minsc is on the ropes, you can bet I'm throwing all the spells I can at enemies. This means I exhaust my spells faster and have to rest faster. The end result is rest spamming. Carrying around tons of scrolls is limited by both merchants' stock and the penny pinching issue that also applies to potions.
*Three post obsessive limit* And I think I've mostly made my point on this issue anyway and at this point the thread is just going around in circles.
I mean, if you are just gonna try and face smash every group of enemies, I can you having a hard time. But thats why Baldur's Gate encourages different tactics.
I think another issue is that I'm not a fan of most of the EE NPCs, which makes me hesitant to use them in a playthrough. At least the create party option exists, but I also need to just get over it and use them, I think.
I don't think the Beamdog made any assumptions about the class of the protagonist. I think they just made the NPCs that interested them, irrespective of how they would fit into a team.
It's not really a problem though, it's just a part of the difficulty of the game, unless the game becomes significantly easier (i.e. too easy) if the protagonist of a tanky persuasion. I haven't tried it, but I don't think it would be - as already pointed out, the ruleset doesn't allow for true MMO-style tanks in any case.
If this is indeed what they did, it's a beyond bizarre attitude to have when creating a game that is designed around effective team building.
Not really, the focus of SoD was always on the story, so they created NPCs that fit the story.
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
But can you complete the game with a no-wizards party? Shouldn't that extreme also be equally viable? This has been my big complaint about BG2 from the beginning, and it extends to SoD as well. Combat is heavily oriented towards wizard spellcasting, and I personally hate wizard spellcasting in all of the IE games. I like playing melee-archer parties, and the game should be just as viable for me. This is why I will always vote for BG as a better game than BG2. So I agree with @Outrang and @semiticgod; players who prefer fighter-types over wizards get screwed in this game.
BG2 story is very magic-oriented (spellhold, irenicus the evil wizard etc...) so you get a lot of clues that magic will be (practically) required to beat the game. so that extreme should not be viable since not every extreme degree of freedom can be viable in any game and this limitation, or should i say, focus on magic is justified by the story and feel of the game.
also, a team of 6 wizard slayers is a no-wizards party
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
But can you complete the game with a no-wizards party?
You can complete SoD with an no-anything party.
not having a thief is an inconvenience, but a minor one. You certainly don't need wizards, or tanks, or clerics.
BG2 is certainly hard without wizards, but that is a quirk of being a high level campaign combined with the exponential power growth of wizards that is so much a feature of D&D.
they made every effort to make warriors as powerful as magic users by putting suspiciously powerful weapons in the game and including amazing kit abilities that carry negligible drawbacks. they made sure that warrior NPC's have the best kits. also, mages have nerfed spell tables.
D&D doesn't really conform to the role trinity, at least not until 4th edition, so there aren't any good aligned "tanks" because the role doesn't exist.
And they ditched that in 5E, because it was dumb.
Fact is, you do NOT need a "tank" in D&D, if you use other tools (spells, shields, summons, traps, etc., etc.).
I mean, if you are just gonna try and face smash every group of enemies, I can you having a hard time. But thats why Baldur's Gate encourages different tactics.
I know this. But killing a random pack of orogs shouldn't really require vast amounts of tactics. This is my point. If every single fight becomes deeply tactical, you *must* use special abilities and spells constantly with the end result of rest spamming as you exhaust those abilities faster. And really, they aren't truly tactical fights. It's just an increase issue. A random mob in BG1 usually consists of 6ish enemies. In SoD it's frequently closer to 10ish.
I really don't want to have to rest after every other fight with a group of random trash. In BG1 and BG2 I could routinely clear a whole map without needing to rest. I could stumble upon an unexpected boss or high level enemy or challenging scenario and not have to immediately reload to prep because all my best spells and abilities were exhausted on rubbish enemies. This game feels more like Icewind Dale in this respect with the caveat that I'm prepared for it in Icewind Dale because I built my own party and hardish dungeon crawling is literally the whole point.
I don't think I should be able to beat every single enemy's face in with my fist. I also don't think I should need defensive harmony, haste, and some complicated combination of special abilities, special formations, and potions to win every fight either.
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
But can you complete the game with a no-wizards party?
"Can complete" and "can have fun while completing" are not at all the same thing. I got through alright. The tedium just decreased my enjoyment by 30 odd percent.
If the solution is "don't play a mage" and/or "force yourself to take around evil people in your good-aligned party" and/or "make sure to build Minsc as a sword and shield guy" it's really undermining the "roleplaying" part of roleplaying.
also, a team of 6 wizard slayers is a no-wizards party
Yes I know. I was merely raising, in question form, the point that I am highly skeptical (and not inclined to test it for myself) that such a party is viable.
also, a team of 6 wizard slayers is a no-wizards party
Yes I know. I was merely raising, in question form, the point that I am highly skeptical (and not inclined to test it for myself) that such a party is viable.
Sorry, misquote. I was really addressing Fardragon's statement "You can complete SoD with an no-anything party."
@Outrang What do you consider excessive resting? I rest when my party is fatigued, and when it gets dark. I don't understand your problem, there is no reason to waste all your abilities on every fight, they are not that hard. Kiting and drawing enemies when your reserves get low is not difficult or tactically intensive either. Oh and you dont need to "build" Minsc as a tank. He comes with 2 pips in mace out of the gate, so buy him a shield. There is your good aligned tank.
Just on the topic of no-reload and solo runs, isn't that a bit of a ''luxury'' or self imposed challenge, when you're bored and want more out of the game.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is there a suggestion that SoD should have been designed with that in mind? I don't particularly agree with that mindset, not that I'm accusing anyone of directly saying that.
I don't expect no-reloads and would really resent if I didn't have the option to reload. But trial by reload isn't really a particularly fun way to play either. My complaint is rather the opposite of that in fact. My specific expectation is that I should still be in good enough shape after fighting 1 or 2 trash encounters to fight a moderately challenging enemy without needing a rest and/or reload. I should not be so worn out by hobgoblins and kobolds that I can't fight through some ogres.
I've already explained that Minsc is *not* default Minsc in my game. Apparently he is for most people because they either leveled and equipped him along tank lines, didn't import him, or didn't use him so the game auto levels him. He only has 1 pip in mace in my game so he does not just come out the gate in this specific way apparently.
And I would say that for most maps, I really shouldn't need to rest more than once except in explicitly challenging areas (Durlag's tower as an example).
What is equipping along tank lines to you? All it takes is some plate mail and a large shield. Both easily available before you ever leave Baldur's Gate.
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
But can you complete the game with a no-wizards party?
"Can complete" and "can have fun while completing" are not at all the same thing. I got through alright. The tedium just decreased my enjoyment by 30 odd percent.
If the solution is "don't play a mage" and/or "force yourself to take around evil people in your good-aligned party" and/or "make sure to build Minsc as a sword and shield guy" it's really undermining the "roleplaying" part of roleplaying.
I don't believe I ever suggested "don't play a mage" or "give Minsc a shield", since I completed SoD myself with a PC Bard and Minsc with his trusty 2H sword, and didn't think it was remotely difficult.
I would say "don't play a mage" if you prefer to hammer enemies into the ground rather than confound them with spells, but that is just common sense.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the companions' role distribution isn't that well thought-out in SoD. For me the most blatant example is that out of the 8 companions you'd consider for an evil PC (that is, the neutral and evil companions), 3 of them are full mages. Sixteen companions should have been more than enough so that, no matter your character's class or alignment, you should be able to build a balanced party around them while still leaving room for a few wild cards or gimmicky companions who don't really fit any role.
Not really, the focus of SoD was always on the story, so they created NPCs that fit the story.
Personality and class are two different things. Taking Corwyn as an example, she could have been a weapon + shield Fighter with no change in her personality and character arc. Then on the other side, for Glint it's quite clear his class combination was chosen to fill a gap in the available roster for the good party.
What is equipping along tank lines to you? All it takes is some plate mail and a large shield. Both easily available before you ever leave Baldur's Gate.
I want a lot more AC than that on a tank: Ring or Cloak of Protection +2, Large Shield +2, Cloak or Helmet of Balduran, the various items that increase AC against a particular type of attacks (missile, slashing, etc), high Dexterity (using the gloves if needed).
I want a lot more AC than that on a tank: Ring or Cloak of Protection +2, Large Shield +2, Cloak or Helmet of Balduran, the various items that increase AC against a particular type of attacks (missile, slashing, etc), high Dexterity (using the gloves if needed).
Sure, if you want a cheesy faceroll that doesn't involve turning on your brain. Why not play in story mode?
I'm skeptical of the notion of "cheese" to begin with, but I'm pretty sure using AC-boosting items for their intended purpose is not cheesy.
I keep seeing people bringing up story mode and various other "why don't you just" questions to denigrate people. You're trying to beat the game using an effective tactic? Why not just play story mode if you don't want to try a REAL challenge?
And no, I'm not misusing the word "denigrate" here. It is denigrating to call into question another person's playstyle and then equate it with zero-difficulty story mode.
Comments
You might could amend this whole suggestion on my part as a plea to devs to "please not assume what kind of character I'm playing and try to balance accordingly." BG2 had a similar problem as well early game in that the people you find in Irenicus' dungeon barring Yoshimo and also the first few extra party members you were likely to meet (Aerie, Anomen, Nalia, exception Korgan) are all good or good leaning. You were just sort of out of luck if you wanted to role an evil character.
It's not really a problem though, it's just a part of the difficulty of the game, unless the game becomes significantly easier (i.e. too easy) if the protagonist of a tanky persuasion. I haven't tried it, but I don't think it would be - as already pointed out, the ruleset doesn't allow for true MMO-style tanks in any case.
Also, I think quibbling over the pure definition of the term tank is tangential to what I'm saying. Your party needs to include guys who aren't super squishy and who make sense for your alignment - call that whatever you like.
@thedamages
I did use mages for CC but you are limited here in several respects. 1) Spells that will hit your melee guys (Minsc here) are already of limited use unless you want to use that invisibility/CC, rest, repeat method I mentioned earlier, which is beyond monotonous. 2) As BelgarathMTH said, there are fights in SoD where it's possible for Minsc to go down within the first 5ish seconds. So congratulations, that was enough time to get off 1 fear spell or 1 confusion spell or whatever. Now everybody who made their saving throws will proceed to shred your squishy backranks. 3) You only have so many spells before you have to rest. If Minsc is on the ropes, you can bet I'm throwing all the spells I can at enemies. This means I exhaust my spells faster and have to rest faster. The end result is rest spamming. Carrying around tons of scrolls is limited by both merchants' stock and the penny pinching issue that also applies to potions.
*Three post obsessive limit* And I think I've mostly made my point on this issue anyway and at this point the thread is just going around in circles.
Almost everything went down to my Enchanter's Hold Person/Monster, Confusion/Chaos, Feeblemind and Emotion.
It's not so difficult that you couldn't complete the game with a team of 6 wizard slayers. A "balanced" party simply isn't needed.
It causes you to adapt your tactics to whatever team you have available. If tank-and-spank isn't working try something else.
also, a team of 6 wizard slayers is a no-wizards party
not having a thief is an inconvenience, but a minor one. You certainly don't need wizards, or tanks, or clerics.
BG2 is certainly hard without wizards, but that is a quirk of being a high level campaign combined with the exponential power growth of wizards that is so much a feature of D&D.
Fact is, you do NOT need a "tank" in D&D, if you use other tools (spells, shields, summons, traps, etc., etc.).
I really don't want to have to rest after every other fight with a group of random trash. In BG1 and BG2 I could routinely clear a whole map without needing to rest. I could stumble upon an unexpected boss or high level enemy or challenging scenario and not have to immediately reload to prep because all my best spells and abilities were exhausted on rubbish enemies. This game feels more like Icewind Dale in this respect with the caveat that I'm prepared for it in Icewind Dale because I built my own party and hardish dungeon crawling is literally the whole point.
I don't think I should be able to beat every single enemy's face in with my fist. I also don't think I should need defensive harmony, haste, and some complicated combination of special abilities, special formations, and potions to win every fight either.
If the solution is "don't play a mage" and/or "force yourself to take around evil people in your good-aligned party" and/or "make sure to build Minsc as a sword and shield guy" it's really undermining the "roleplaying" part of roleplaying.
Oh and you dont need to "build" Minsc as a tank. He comes with 2 pips in mace out of the gate, so buy him a shield. There is your good aligned tank.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is there a suggestion that SoD should have been designed with that in mind? I don't particularly agree with that mindset, not that I'm accusing anyone of directly saying that.
@thedamages
I've already explained that Minsc is *not* default Minsc in my game. Apparently he is for most people because they either leveled and equipped him along tank lines, didn't import him, or didn't use him so the game auto levels him. He only has 1 pip in mace in my game so he does not just come out the gate in this specific way apparently.
And I would say that for most maps, I really shouldn't need to rest more than once except in explicitly challenging areas (Durlag's tower as an example).
I am just failing at quoting people today.
I would say "don't play a mage" if you prefer to hammer enemies into the ground rather than confound them with spells, but that is just common sense.
I keep seeing people bringing up story mode and various other "why don't you just" questions to denigrate people. You're trying to beat the game using an effective tactic? Why not just play story mode if you don't want to try a REAL challenge?
And no, I'm not misusing the word "denigrate" here. It is denigrating to call into question another person's playstyle and then equate it with zero-difficulty story mode.
@Fardragon, leave @sibakruom alone.