Party composition is not a minor detail. On the contrary, it's of vital importance for a game centered around combat. The fact threads bemoaning the lack of melee-oriented party members pop-up regularly points a legitimate problem, it's not "complaining about every minor detail."
And the fact most of the replies boil down to "lol play story mode you noob" does not help matters.
I wasn't talking about the OP, just used this thread to get this off my chest.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
That you keep saying this doesn't make it true. The overwhelming majority of game time is spent fighting and this is the end of it.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
That you keep saying this doesn't make it true. The overwhelming majority of game time is spent fighting and this is the end of it.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
That you keep saying this doesn't make it true. The overwhelming majority of game time is spent fighting and this is the end of it.
And that you keep saying it is centred around combat doesn't make that true either.
If your approach is as a combat game in which strategic team composition is paramount, then you can play SoD in IWD mode and build your own party.
If you want to experience the NPC's story, then you build your party around the characters you find most interesting, and adjust your strategy to fit them. If you find that makes the game too difficult, then you can reduce the difficulty. Nothing wrong with doing that, that's why difficulty settings exist.
If your approach is as a combat game in which strategic team composition is paramount, then you can play SoD in IWD mode and build your own party.
If you want to experience the NPC's story, then you build your party around the characters you find most interesting, and adjust your strategy to fit them.
I agree with this actually! But ideally the devs' job is to ensure both approaches can be fullfilled at the same time and ultimately the distribution of NPC classes is at odds with the encounter design. It's not a deal breaker, and "ideally" is a really long shot in game development, but it's something worth pointing out instead of sweeping it under the rug and singing lalala.
(SoD is actually superior to the originals as far as dungeon/encounter design is concerned.)
Party composition is not a minor detail. On the contrary, it's of vital importance for a game centered around combat. The fact threads bemoaning the lack of melee-oriented party members pop-up regularly points a legitimate problem, it's not "complaining about every minor detail."
And the fact most of the replies boil down to "lol play story mode you noob" does not help matters.
In all fairness, I have seen all of one post like that in this thread.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
That you keep saying this doesn't make it true. The overwhelming majority of game time is spent fighting and this is the end of it.
Party composition is not a minor detail. On the contrary, it's of vital importance for a game centered around combat. The fact threads bemoaning the lack of melee-oriented party members pop-up regularly points a legitimate problem, it's not "complaining about every minor detail."
And the fact most of the replies boil down to "lol play story mode you noob" does not help matters.
In all fairness, I have seen all of one post like that in this thread.
I think the idea was that "lol play story mode you noob" is a common sentiment in general, not that it dominated this particular thread. This thread only has one example, but I've seen others elsewhere.
As already pointed out, Baldur's Gate is NOT a game centred around combat. Diablo is a game centred around combat, Baldur's Gate is a game centred around STORY.
That you keep saying this doesn't make it true. The overwhelming majority of game time is spent fighting and this is the end of it.
And why is that? To advance the story!
Diablo is a higher level of combat centered game, it's a hack n' slash game genre.
Baldur's Gate is combat focused but has a very deep storyline as well, as you can select any random answer while you play with few consequences to game progression.
Planescape: Torment is an perfect example of story focused game. Try to random answer there or not pay attention to the story to see.
Diablo is a higher level of combat centered game, it's a hack n' slash game genre.
Baldur's Gate is combat focused but has a very deep storyline as well, as you can select any random answer while you play with few consequences to game progression.
Planescape: Torment is an perfect example of story focused game. Try to random answer there or not pay attention to the story to see.
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.
No, it shouldn't be equally viable. Hate it or not, the powerful entities in the Forgotten Realms are all high level spellcasters. Mages rule this world, wanting to beat them through sheer muscle just doesn't fit the setting. BG1 works without Mages, because it's a low level campaign. It's subject to everyone's POV if this makes it a better game. Personally, I strongly object aginst this suggestion. The combat in BG1 is very simplistic compared to BG2. Assign targets to your fighters, wait until the job's done. Other than quaffing healing potions, all you do is to wait. Some people may like that, others may find it pretty boring.
Fact is, you do NOT need a "tank" in D&D, if you use other tools (spells, shields, summons, traps, etc., etc.).
Here's another fact: Mages are the superior tanks anyway. Mirror Image, Protection from Normal Missiles, Stoneskin and off you go.I'm not sure you understand what a tank is...
The fact that a mage can take hits better than a fighter or paladin supports my entire point. D&D is not a MMO (with the exception of DDO, which isn't even a typical MMO), where tank, healer, & dps is a thing. You don't have that in D&D. You have a party. People need to stop using and applying the mindset of MMOs to D&D-based games like the BG series.
The fact that a mage can take hits better than a fighter or paladin supports my entire point. D&D is not a MMO (with the exception of DDO, which isn't even a typical MMO), where tank, healer, & dps is a thing. You don't have that in D&D. You have a party. People need to stop using and applying the mindset of MMOs to D&D-based games like the BG series.
I don't understand the point.
Nobody has been arguing about using the MMO trifecta of tank/dps/healer in Baldur's Gate, the entire discussion has been about the tank role only. Pretending that the tank role doesn't exist or isn't useful in Baldur's Gate is just wrong. From kobolds to mindflayers to high level mages to dragons, sending a character protected accordingly up ahead to draw the enemy's fire while the rest of the party stay back and do their thing from a safe distance is an effective strategy - and in many cases, the best strategy. If this is not tanking I don't know what is.
The fact that a mage can fill the tank role better than a fighter doesn't invalidate the role in the slightest, it just means the mage is better at it than the fighter (which is another discussion entirely).
Nobody has been arguing about using the MMO trifecta of tank/dps/healer in Baldur's Gate, the entire discussion has been about the tank role only. Pretending that the tank role doesn't exist or isn't useful in Baldur's Gate is just wrong.
No, that IS the point. In D&D (including Baldur's Gate), there is no MMO trifecta of tank/dps/healer. And there is no equivalent either. You literally do NOT need a fighter and/or paladin in D&D (the two classes people keep trying to wrongfully label "tank") - including Baldur's Gate - if your mage has the right spells. Does that mean you shouldn't use a fighter and/or paladin? No. Does that mean there isn't a desire for a "good aligned fighter and/or paladin" (not tank) early on in Baldur's Gate? No. But people need to realize that such isn't needed.
The fact that a mage can fill the tank role better than a fighter doesn't invalidate the role in the slightest, it just means the mage is better at it than the fighter (which is another discussion entirely).
"Meat shield" is not (and never was) a D&D concept. It's a MMO concept that people keep trying to shoehorn into D&D. Paladins and fighters cannot taunt monsters, which is one of the basic requirements of a tank.
I'm pretty sure that limiting the concepts of tank, healer, crowd control, damage dealer, summoner etc. to MMORPG is like Bethesda suing the Minecraft developer over the use of "scrolls" word in a title. Because I can't really understand how taunting monsters has anything to do with the ability to take a hit and not pass out?
PS I haven't played any MMO, so I can't say for sure, but afaiu, what you describe is a MMO-specific variation of a tank, which combines defense with crowd control. It has little to do with the real tank, both the MBT irl and games' term, which is about high survivability with decent firepower - something you can throw into the fray and expect to return back alive. And that applies well to DnD fighter class.
Because I can't really understand how taunting monsters has anything to do with the ability to take a hit and not pass out?
In PnP D&D, a character whose only ability was to "take hits" would be useless in most situations, since any intelligent foes would simply ignore such a party member. You might argue that Baldur's Gate does have a taunt, in that the AI is pretty stupid and it is quite easy to trick it into focusing on low vulnerability targets.
Early MMOs decided to reward teaming by forcing parties to include certain roles in order to progress, and many players became stuck in this mentality (I have played MMOs where you did not need a tank or healer, but other players still refused to move unless the party included one of each).
D&D certainly allows you to create characters who are very good at not dying (not necessarily fighters), but they are far from required, and (in PnP at least) arguably of little use unless they can do other things as well.
Because I can't really understand how taunting monsters has anything to do with the ability to take a hit and not pass out?
It's fairly simple. Because, in all versions of D&D, AC is more useful than hit points. And classes you wouldn't expect have the best AC in PnP can, if you do it right. For example, in 5E, multiclassing as a mage can help a lot, because of spells like Shield. In Baldur's Gate, with Stoneskin, Mage Armor, Mirror Image, etc., etc.; suffice to say mages, with the right preparation, take hits much better than fighters. The ability to wear heavy armor and have a lot of hit points pales in comparison to the ability to never get hit at all. This explains why half the job of the fighter in BG2 is to distract the enemy mages while your mage strips their magical protection.
This is likely why PnP D&D (and the majority of PC-based D&D games) use(s) vancian magic. Without vancian magic, no one would bother with fighters or rogues. Hell, even warlocks are limited severely, despite being able to cast a lot more often.
D&D certainly allows you to create characters who are very good at not dying (not necessarily fighters), but they are far from required, and (in PnP at least) arguably of little use unless they can do other things as well.
Of course, pure fighters can be fun characters, but PnP D&D strongly suggests you select more than just combat stats for a reason. Background, backstory, etc. are all very important aspects of Roleplay. Why? Because being He-man gets old quick. It's the other things which should add value to the party. Combat value is only one aspect of a character, and the ability to take hits doesn't do crap.
Big picture: D&D is about choices. It's not about things like, "Do we have a fighter to be our tank?". What if your fighter wants to be the reckless damage dealer?! If you understand what choices your party is making, you can compliment that.
Odd discussion. You can absolutely make "tanks" in baldur's gate(how can there even be opinions on this?). I pretty much always run with at least one character that has a strong focus on defence that will always run in first and getting the attention of enemies. Is it needed? No. But after trying pure offence parties with no "tank" having a tank sure makes things easier. In MMOs you don't need a tank. Tanks only makes everything so much easier.
And just for clarification. The definition of "tank"(in the holy trinity context) has as far as I know always been "the one who takes the hits for his/her group". If there is a way to channel damage towards one party member and ways to make sure that party member can take it then tanks definitely can exist in baldur's gate.
Comments
And I agree with you.
but in reality.
iwd=combat minimal story
bg saga=a mix of story and combat
pst=story with pointless combat.
@Raduziel Oh okay my bad then.
If your approach is as a combat game in which strategic team composition is paramount, then you can play SoD in IWD mode and build your own party.
If you want to experience the NPC's story, then you build your party around the characters you find most interesting, and adjust your strategy to fit them. If you find that makes the game too difficult, then you can reduce the difficulty. Nothing wrong with doing that, that's why difficulty settings exist.
Or you can mix it up.
(SoD is actually superior to the originals as far as dungeon/encounter design is concerned.)
Baldur's Gate is combat focused but has a very deep storyline as well, as you can select any random answer while you play with few consequences to game progression.
Planescape: Torment is an perfect example of story focused game. Try to random answer there or not pay attention to the story to see.
BG1 works without Mages, because it's a low level campaign. It's subject to everyone's POV if this makes it a better game.
Personally, I strongly object aginst this suggestion. The combat in BG1 is very simplistic compared to BG2. Assign targets to your fighters, wait until the job's done. Other than quaffing healing potions, all you do is to wait. Some people may like that, others may find it pretty boring.
Here's another fact: Mages are the superior tanks anyway. Mirror Image, Protection from Normal Missiles, Stoneskin and off you go.
The fact that a mage can take hits better than a fighter or paladin supports my entire point. D&D is not a MMO (with the exception of DDO, which isn't even a typical MMO), where tank, healer, & dps is a thing. You don't have that in D&D. You have a party. People need to stop using and applying the mindset of MMOs to D&D-based games like the BG series.
Nobody has been arguing about using the MMO trifecta of tank/dps/healer in Baldur's Gate, the entire discussion has been about the tank role only. Pretending that the tank role doesn't exist or isn't useful in Baldur's Gate is just wrong. From kobolds to mindflayers to high level mages to dragons, sending a character protected accordingly up ahead to draw the enemy's fire while the rest of the party stay back and do their thing from a safe distance is an effective strategy - and in many cases, the best strategy. If this is not tanking I don't know what is.
The fact that a mage can fill the tank role better than a fighter doesn't invalidate the role in the slightest, it just means the mage is better at it than the fighter (which is another discussion entirely).
Does that mean you shouldn't use a fighter and/or paladin? No. Does that mean there isn't a desire for a "good aligned fighter and/or paladin" (not tank) early on in Baldur's Gate? No. But people need to realize that such isn't needed. "Meat shield" is not (and never was) a D&D concept. It's a MMO concept that people keep trying to shoehorn into D&D. Paladins and fighters cannot taunt monsters, which is one of the basic requirements of a tank.
PS I haven't played any MMO, so I can't say for sure, but afaiu, what you describe is a MMO-specific variation of a tank, which combines defense with crowd control. It has little to do with the real tank, both the MBT irl and games' term, which is about high survivability with decent firepower - something you can throw into the fray and expect to return back alive. And that applies well to DnD fighter class.
Early MMOs decided to reward teaming by forcing parties to include certain roles in order to progress, and many players became stuck in this mentality (I have played MMOs where you did not need a tank or healer, but other players still refused to move unless the party included one of each).
D&D certainly allows you to create characters who are very good at not dying (not necessarily fighters), but they are far from required, and (in PnP at least) arguably of little use unless they can do other things as well.
This is likely why PnP D&D (and the majority of PC-based D&D games) use(s) vancian magic. Without vancian magic, no one would bother with fighters or rogues. Hell, even warlocks are limited severely, despite being able to cast a lot more often. Of course, pure fighters can be fun characters, but PnP D&D strongly suggests you select more than just combat stats for a reason. Background, backstory, etc. are all very important aspects of Roleplay. Why? Because being He-man gets old quick. It's the other things which should add value to the party. Combat value is only one aspect of a character, and the ability to take hits doesn't do crap.
Big picture: D&D is about choices. It's not about things like, "Do we have a fighter to be our tank?". What if your fighter wants to be the reckless damage dealer?! If you understand what choices your party is making, you can compliment that.
And just for clarification. The definition of "tank"(in the holy trinity context) has as far as I know always been "the one who takes the hits for his/her group". If there is a way to channel damage towards one party member and ways to make sure that party member can take it then tanks definitely can exist in baldur's gate.