The D&D lvl 1 = close to a peasant is false, at least for 2nd edition. Level 1 is fully trained.
Back then, higher level characters were really rare. I.e. the standard army consists of Level 0 (!) fighters, with an elite squad being Level 1 and knights and/or commanders could be level 2 or 3.
IIRC, in the original Krynn modules the companions started at around level 3 and they were all experienced adventurers at that time.
And sure, I agree that this kind of review is what Larian feels they should cater to with their game. And I also accept that this way they will get some people to play their game, which wouldn't do so otherwise. I am just in doubt that it will be a game that I (and many other BG fans) will like, though at this time I am still trying to keep an open mind.
The D&D lvl 1 = close to a peasant is false, at least for 2nd edition. Level 1 is fully trained.
Back then, higher level characters were really rare. I.e. the standard army consists of Level 0 (!) fighters, with an elite squad being Level 1 and knights and/or commanders could be level 2 or 3.
IIRC, in the original Krynn modules the companions started at around level 3 and they were all experienced adventurers at that time.
And sure, I agree that this kind of review is what Larian feels they should cater to with their game. And I also accept that this way they will get some people to play their game, which wouldn't do so otherwise. I am just in doubt that it will be a game that I (and many other BG fans) will like, though at this time I am still trying to keep an open mind.
I said close to illustrate how strong your char grow up. of course an deity is far stronger than a lv 20 'charname'(and even epic level charnames) and a lv 1 'charname' is much stronger than an peasant. Yes, lv 1 has weapon proficiency and etc, i exaggerated how strong you can become to illustrate that leveling in D&D isn't just about inflate numbers that represents nothing.
Just spotted this review for BG:EE on Steam, which contains arguments that might explain the developers' decision about misses for BGIII:
"i wanted to like this game but there are some very big problems with the main one being that at the start of the game pretty much all melee attacks miss and you have to use bows. this was insane to me because that means that for the first part of the game melee is just useless and people actually defend this mechanic even though it really hurts the game and makes many play styles completely impossible."
I call bull on making certain playstyles impossible. There's no way melee is missing so much as to makes missile weapons mandatory and warriors useless at level 1. Were they using weapons that they weren't proficient in or something?
That statement is only true if you don't start as a fighter and don't quickly recruit any. You can recruit Montaron on the first real screen of the adventure, and you can recruit Jaheira and Khalid if you go to where the game instructs you quite clearly to go. Stick to the road and you won't even encounter a gibberling. You will encounter an enemy mage who is quite a potentially lethal danger but at worst if you keep pelting him with slings/arrows you should be fine. Its the only real kind of unfair part but it does underline the dangers you're in without allies at low level. If playing as a fighter with Imoen supporting you with her bow on the first screen the only threat you should avoid is a bear, and that's assuming you don't abuse kiting. I generally find it more fun not to, and honestly you should gut the mage I mentioned earlier before he can do anything.
I felt very frustrated with Dark Souls' lack of transparency on how you should progress and how its gameplay works, and its one of the numerous things I hate about it. Yet people say that's good about it. Those people are wrong, because a game giving you a bit of a helping hand at the start and at least telling you some basic things about its mechanics is good games design.
Baldur's Gate does do this at the start, and gradually introduces more complexities to the combat. It does expect you to read, and to pay attention to things like stats, but it does tell you everything you need to know, but yeah, I see people say its so player-unfriendly to begin with. Its not.
Well, constant meleeing is not a viable strategy in BG1 at least till lvl 4, and that is with good HP rolls.
l
Constant meleeing is not an good strategy IRL too. Against larger creatures or in battles. Few archers with heavy longbows defeated nobles in greater number with cavalry and heavy armor on battle of agincourt and nobunaga oda was successful on japan by his use of firearms. In a fantasy world, i think that the best weapons to use against mythical creatures is adressed by Shadiversity
Well, constant meleeing is not a viable strategy in BG1 at least till lvl 4, and that is with good HP rolls.
On the harder difficulties, maybe true, core though, no it isn't, a fighter with good strength and AC is fine against most enemies you'll face that early on from first level. You should definitely have ranged support though and the game gives you that, and once you have a full party which is at the very latest is doable by level 2 will handle any situation they're liable to run into unless they head north to Baldur's Gate right away. The game doesn't suggest doing that.
As long as you're not sending your arcane spellcaster to melee at level 1 you really shouldn't have a problem unless you're trying to fight bears solo right out of Candlekeep. Good armor is available very early in the game.
As someone who's soloed the BG games more than they've played them with parties, I think melee is a perfectly good strategy for almost anything in the game, as long as you can wear full plate (there's an ankheg plate in Nashkel you can get as soon as level 1). Meleeing is a bit more tricky with monks and kensai, at least early on.
And as a tank in BG, the Golden Girlde, the Girdle of Piercing, and the Girdle of Bluntness are your friends. I usually equip the appropriate one on my main tank whenever I face something that I know will hit really hard.
The point isn't very well diminished when one has to qualify it with things like: Play a fighter, have the correct stats and make sure you have good armor early.
WE all know how to manage the early game. Someone who hasn't played a lot of Isometric RPGs and is not familiar with 2.5e will struggle a great deal more.
I felt very frustrated with Dark Souls' lack of transparency on how you should progress and how its gameplay works, and its one of the numerous things I hate about it. Yet people say that's good about it. Those people are wrong, because a game giving you a bit of a helping hand at the start and at least telling you some basic things about its mechanics is good games design.
I wouldn't call it bad game design. It depends on what you want. What appeals to you might not appeal to others. I enjoy the relative freedom of Dark Souls, in some cases precisely because it doesn't hold my hand.
Well, constant meleeing is not a viable strategy in BG1 at least till lvl 4, and that is with good HP rolls.
On the harder difficulties, maybe true, core though, no it isn't, a fighter with good strength and AC is fine against most enemies you'll face that early on from first level. You should definitely have ranged support though and the game gives you that, and once you have a full party which is at the very latest is doable by level 2 will handle any situation they're liable to run into unless they head north to Baldur's Gate right away. The game doesn't suggest doing that.
Sort of true. If you're willing to rest spam, sure. But even at best, you're getting hit 5% of the time at about 3-4 average damage from most monsters. You simply can't tank that for very long given how many monsters there are and how few HP you have.
You're either abusing the advantage of ranged weapons or you're abusing the resting mechanic. Not saying either way is illegitimate, but those are the facts. My personal taste is ranged, since it means you clear the early and less interesting content more quickly.
The point isn't very well diminished when one has to qualify it with things like: Play a fighter, have the correct stats and make sure you have good armor early.
Oh, there was supposed to be a point to this discussion? I just thought I was responding to the claim that melee wasn't very good in the early levels.
Hmmm, OK. Well, I suppose my point is that you should be fine as long as you buy decent armor. And take some companions for support. Probably not that difficult to figure out if the player pays attention. A lot of NPCs say similar things in early BG1.
The point isn't very well diminished when one has to qualify it with things like: Play a fighter, have the correct stats and make sure you have good armor early.
I think the point is very well diminished by such qualifiers when the qualifiers are the absolute core of how the game is supposed to be played.
I would acknowledge that rolling for stats is terrible, and if there's anything in these games I could change, it would be that, but its only a problem until you roll a decent character and at least that's it, the pain is over. But then its up to you to think, oh, might want a weapon I'm trained in. I might want some decent armour. I might not want to fight a bear with a dagger and a set of burlap robes. There's a point where the player is the problem, and arguments like that are pretty indicative of that.
The point isn't very well diminished when one has to qualify it with things like: Play a fighter, have the correct stats and make sure you have good armor early.
WE all know how to manage the early game. Someone who hasn't played a lot of Isometric RPGs and is not familiar with 2.5e will struggle a great deal more.
I felt very frustrated with Dark Souls' lack of transparency on how you should progress and how its gameplay works, and its one of the numerous things I hate about it. Yet people say that's good about it. Those people are wrong, because a game giving you a bit of a helping hand at the start and at least telling you some basic things about its mechanics is good games design.
I wouldn't call it bad game design. It depends on what you want. What appeals to you might not appeal to others. I enjoy the relative freedom of Dark Souls, in some cases precisely because it doesn't hold my hand.
The first souls also *does* tell you what to do, at least in terms of area progression. It literally gives you an NPC who says what your first two "quests" are. And if you're paying attention in the early parts, it is giving you a tutorial, just bit more subtly than most games.
The only big issue, imo, is that they toss you the shield first, which kind of teaches you to block a bunch. But combat is actually more fun if you learn to dodge-roll and/or parry+riposte instead.
The first souls also *does* tell you what to do, at least in terms of area progression. It literally gives you an NPC who says what your first two "quests" are. And if you're paying attention in the early parts, it is giving you a tutorial, just bit more subtly than most games.
The only big issue, imo, is that they toss you the shield first, which kind of teaches you to block a bunch. But combat is actually more fun if you learn to dodge-roll and/or parry+riposte instead.
My problem with it is more fundamental than those points. Although really the game gives you destinations and directions, but then it quickly forks into branching paths which really, all there is to do is go down them, that isn't really a problem but I don't think the game is all that clear past the very beginning.
No my issues are more like how armour actually works in terms of impact on player speed and how it completely changes the speed and evasion frames of the roll. I found out later through experimentation and it was the different between the game being playable and unplayable for me. I do not recall the game ever commenting on this, and I wouldn't have as big an issue of that if it wasn't a pretty unique mechanic to this game. It just isn't how other games typically work. A lot of things about the game's physics bothered me, like the minotaur gave me so much trouble mainly because I never imagined that you could outright block and withstand its hits, so I never thought the shield could save me till like the 5th try, because it goes against common sense really.
I hate the game, I hate it passionately, I think it is the Anti-Fun in coded form. I will try to stop bringing it up though, its just it's so often my go to for things I hate seeing in games.
It's a shame really, because it's a fantastic, if flawed game. But it's definitely not for everyone, it's kind of avant garde. I thought 2 was even better, and is a bit easier to get into imo.
It's a shame really, because it's a fantastic, if flawed game. But it's definitely not for everyone, it's kind of avant garde. I thought 2 was even better, and is a bit easier to get into imo.
I finished 2 as well in around half the time of the first. I would say it gave me a lot less to outright hate, but that I should just accept even with further improvement its never going to be a series I'll like.
It's definitely not a subgenre of games that I'd for sure expect BG fans to like. It's quite different. But for me, it was kind of a nice blend of things like Diablo and Metroid. DS2 worked alot better imho because the build variety was better, the way in which it was non-linear was better, and the level designs themselves were better. And of course it smoothed out all the rough edges of the first as all sequels do.
But I think the series is undeniably solid. When you're influencing design elements in games that aren't even in your genre (games like Hollowknight and Shovel Knight for example), that's saying something.
DinoDin, i an a huge cRPG fan and liked Dark Souls games. And think that the DkS 2 is hated without an good reason. Sure has problems with soul memory and ADP, but has less gimmicky bosses and the best PVP/NG+. Sekiro in other hands, i have ZERO interest.
As long as you're not sending your arcane spellcaster to melee at level 1 you really shouldn't have a problem unless you're trying to fight bears solo right out of Candlekeep. Good armor is available very early in the game.
You won't have a BIG problem. But you will get hit. A xvart will hit you, a gibberling will hit you. A kobold or a bandit will hit you. Sooner or later. Then you'll need to heal wounds, either through a cleric (which would require resting), or with potions (which are costly at the start of the game). And sooner or later you'll see a critical hit from an ogrillon or an ogre, and then you will have to go to the temple, or click a reload button. Even with a barbarian, a berserker, or even with a dwarven defender, (and we have to take into account NPCs don't have min-maxed stats, they don't have plenty of HPs) I have never been able to reliably melee in BG1. Yes, I have my characters attacking in melee, but then they either start kiting, while the rest of the party is shooting, or I have to use spells like Sleep. Maybe only after my character has 50 HPs, I can start attempting to play a melee fighter without kiting.
DinoDin, i an a huge cRPG fan and liked Dark Souls games. And think that the DkS 2 is hated without an good reason. Sure has problems with soul memory and ADP, but has less gimmicky bosses and the best PVP/NG+. Sekiro in other hands, i have ZERO interest.
Forgot about the PvP, but god yes, it's amazing. And so much more fair feeling than the original. And what a clever invention, the multiplayer aspect in general.
I think the point is very well diminished by such qualifiers when the qualifiers are the absolute core of how the game is supposed to be played.
.
I don't think it's core to the game to have good armor at level one outside of candlekeep. I don't think it's ever core to the game to be a fighter.
Plenty of players might start off as a thief, have their proficiency in Dagger/shortsword but bought a Longsword or are using their staff.
That person will not succeed well at melee on their first try. They'll learn (probably to rely on ranked combat since that's a lot less dangerous) or will restart and hope to figure out a better way to melee.
As long as you're not sending your arcane spellcaster to melee at level 1 you really shouldn't have a problem unless you're trying to fight bears solo right out of Candlekeep. Good armor is available very early in the game.
You won't have a BIG problem. But you will get hit. A xvart will hit you, a gibberling will hit you. A kobold or a bandit will hit you. Sooner or later. Then you'll need to heal wounds, either through a cleric (which would require resting), or with potions (which are costly at the start of the game). And sooner or later you'll see a critical hit from an ogrillon or an ogre, and then you will have to go to the temple, or click a reload button. Even with a barbarian, a berserker, or even with a dwarven defender, (and we have to take into account NPCs don't have min-maxed stats, they don't have plenty of HPs) I have never been able to reliably melee in BG1. Yes, I have my characters attacking in melee, but then they either start kiting, while the rest of the party is shooting, or I have to use spells like Sleep. Maybe only after my character has 50 HPs, I can start attempting to play a melee fighter without kiting.
And the biggest thing is the lack of healing resources. You can't even afford to burn money with temple healing until about level 3 or so.
And you really want to save your potions for the longer dungeon crawls. I mean, you have to commit a kobold/xvart/gnoll/hobgoblin genocide in the early half of that game. That's alot of attack rolls to endure. So either you're save-scumming to bias the dice rolls, rest spamming with your handful of cleric/druid heals, or some other abuse. Optimal play for the first half of BG is pretty much using 1 tank to draw fire or aggro and making everyone else ranged. You don't even have the wealth of mage spells or wands to make your casters more than weak archers for most of the early fights.
This is sort of what I was talking about elsewhere when saying PoE delivers a more strategic combat experience. Early BG really kind of forces your hand into some form of cheesing the system. Again, I love the game and its combat, but let's be honest.
I assume you don't mean that literally the entire game and we're still talking about the beginning here, because everything else you said... that's the game . As your party gets dependably stronger you can last more fights before the need for healing or resting, and in my experience you can do this well before a character has 50 hit points. By that time you should have lots of potions so even resting isn't as necessary.
I still think what you're saying makes no sense, in that its not a flaw in the game, it's the game, and it's completely fine as it is and it works, aside from resting being too easy to do most of the time; setting some kind of limit on that that wouldn't be too punishing but would at least add some sense of risk if you keep pushing forward over going back would go a long way for the game.
But the rest of your post sounds like you're trying to rationalise that the Larian dev is right when's he's demonstrably wrong and he's demonstrably sounding like he doesn't even understand the original games which, yeah, makes me really worried over the direction of BG3. I don't this guy should even be working on it if that's his attitude, I don't think he cares a single iota of what genuine BG fans want.
But I think the series is undeniably solid. When you're influencing design elements in games that aren't even in your genre (games like Hollowknight and Shovel Knight for example), that's saying something.
Funny thing is I think I loathe Hollow Knight as well. But Shovel Knight was good. I think though Shovel Knight had far bigger (and in my mind much more positive) inspirations from classic sidescrollers than Dark Souls, but Hollow, yeah it's basically 2D Dark Souls. And I don't like it.
I don't think it's core to the game to have good armor at level one outside of candlekeep. I don't think it's ever core to the game to be a fighter.
Plenty of players might start off as a thief, have their proficiency in Dagger/shortsword but bought a Longsword or are using their staff.
I'm trying to understand the thought process here. So you're saying that everything that is by common sense, a pretty bad idea, like attack a wild bear with a dagger which you aren't trained in using, in melee because you're not a class suited to melee which the game is very clear on, is something the game should not punish you for in the slightest? I mean, yeah if the game locked you in a room with the bear and said "Win or you don't get to progress", you'd have a point, but otherwise... no. Just no.
I'm trying to understand the thought process here. So you're saying that everything that is by common sense, a pretty bad idea, like attack a wild bear with a dagger which you aren't trained in using, in melee because you're not a class suited to melee which the game is very clear on, is something the game should not punish you for in the slightest? I mean, yeah if the game locked you in a room with the bear and said "Win or you don't get to progress", you'd have a point, but otherwise... no. Just no.
I didn't say anything of the sort. All I've said is that the game doesn't do a good job of holding your hand to knew when you'll have a good chance to succeed in melee combat at the beginning of the game. I'm not even suggesting that's bad game design.
I'm saying it's understandable that a new player who doesn't have a firm grasp of the mechanics of either 2.5e or BG1 might struggle early on in melee combat, that this is a fair complaint for that person to have.
Do I want it changed? Nope. I'm just acknowledging the legitimacy of that issue. The review in question is hyperbolic, and anyone who makes a snap judgement like that after a few bad experiences isn't doing themselves any favors.
In other news, since the article mentioned that they've decided to remove the game mechanics of attack rolls missing their target from the game's combat system, I've decided to register on Larian's forum and petition them to reconsider that decision.
Maybe it's not too late, and if there's a chance my armchair-game-designer input could help make the game a more faithful sequel to BG, I'm willing to write a few strongly opinionated posts. It's what I do best, after all.
It's okay with me if they tweak the "miss" mechanics to provide the best possible experience of combat in a live action game. I realize "best possible experience" is subjective. But if a total "miss" is tweaked to occur very rarely, and otherwise use a percentage of how much force is delivered by the blow, that's fine with me.
Comments
Back then, higher level characters were really rare. I.e. the standard army consists of Level 0 (!) fighters, with an elite squad being Level 1 and knights and/or commanders could be level 2 or 3.
IIRC, in the original Krynn modules the companions started at around level 3 and they were all experienced adventurers at that time.
And sure, I agree that this kind of review is what Larian feels they should cater to with their game. And I also accept that this way they will get some people to play their game, which wouldn't do so otherwise. I am just in doubt that it will be a game that I (and many other BG fans) will like, though at this time I am still trying to keep an open mind.
I said close to illustrate how strong your char grow up. of course an deity is far stronger than a lv 20 'charname'(and even epic level charnames) and a lv 1 'charname' is much stronger than an peasant. Yes, lv 1 has weapon proficiency and etc, i exaggerated how strong you can become to illustrate that leveling in D&D isn't just about inflate numbers that represents nothing.
I call bull on making certain playstyles impossible. There's no way melee is missing so much as to makes missile weapons mandatory and warriors useless at level 1. Were they using weapons that they weren't proficient in or something?
I felt very frustrated with Dark Souls' lack of transparency on how you should progress and how its gameplay works, and its one of the numerous things I hate about it. Yet people say that's good about it. Those people are wrong, because a game giving you a bit of a helping hand at the start and at least telling you some basic things about its mechanics is good games design.
Baldur's Gate does do this at the start, and gradually introduces more complexities to the combat. It does expect you to read, and to pay attention to things like stats, but it does tell you everything you need to know, but yeah, I see people say its so player-unfriendly to begin with. Its not.
Constant meleeing is not an good strategy IRL too. Against larger creatures or in battles. Few archers with heavy longbows defeated nobles in greater number with cavalry and heavy armor on battle of agincourt and nobunaga oda was successful on japan by his use of firearms. In a fantasy world, i think that the best weapons to use against mythical creatures is adressed by Shadiversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FxChSwyJ
PS : IMO trowing weapons like Javelins needs more love on pop culture(gaming, novels, etC)
On the harder difficulties, maybe true, core though, no it isn't, a fighter with good strength and AC is fine against most enemies you'll face that early on from first level. You should definitely have ranged support though and the game gives you that, and once you have a full party which is at the very latest is doable by level 2 will handle any situation they're liable to run into unless they head north to Baldur's Gate right away. The game doesn't suggest doing that.
And as a tank in BG, the Golden Girlde, the Girdle of Piercing, and the Girdle of Bluntness are your friends. I usually equip the appropriate one on my main tank whenever I face something that I know will hit really hard.
WE all know how to manage the early game. Someone who hasn't played a lot of Isometric RPGs and is not familiar with 2.5e will struggle a great deal more.
I wouldn't call it bad game design. It depends on what you want. What appeals to you might not appeal to others. I enjoy the relative freedom of Dark Souls, in some cases precisely because it doesn't hold my hand.
Sort of true. If you're willing to rest spam, sure. But even at best, you're getting hit 5% of the time at about 3-4 average damage from most monsters. You simply can't tank that for very long given how many monsters there are and how few HP you have.
You're either abusing the advantage of ranged weapons or you're abusing the resting mechanic. Not saying either way is illegitimate, but those are the facts. My personal taste is ranged, since it means you clear the early and less interesting content more quickly.
Oh, there was supposed to be a point to this discussion? I just thought I was responding to the claim that melee wasn't very good in the early levels.
Hmmm, OK. Well, I suppose my point is that you should be fine as long as you buy decent armor. And take some companions for support. Probably not that difficult to figure out if the player pays attention. A lot of NPCs say similar things in early BG1.
I think the point is very well diminished by such qualifiers when the qualifiers are the absolute core of how the game is supposed to be played.
I would acknowledge that rolling for stats is terrible, and if there's anything in these games I could change, it would be that, but its only a problem until you roll a decent character and at least that's it, the pain is over. But then its up to you to think, oh, might want a weapon I'm trained in. I might want some decent armour. I might not want to fight a bear with a dagger and a set of burlap robes. There's a point where the player is the problem, and arguments like that are pretty indicative of that.
The first souls also *does* tell you what to do, at least in terms of area progression. It literally gives you an NPC who says what your first two "quests" are. And if you're paying attention in the early parts, it is giving you a tutorial, just bit more subtly than most games.
The only big issue, imo, is that they toss you the shield first, which kind of teaches you to block a bunch. But combat is actually more fun if you learn to dodge-roll and/or parry+riposte instead.
My problem with it is more fundamental than those points. Although really the game gives you destinations and directions, but then it quickly forks into branching paths which really, all there is to do is go down them, that isn't really a problem but I don't think the game is all that clear past the very beginning.
No my issues are more like how armour actually works in terms of impact on player speed and how it completely changes the speed and evasion frames of the roll. I found out later through experimentation and it was the different between the game being playable and unplayable for me. I do not recall the game ever commenting on this, and I wouldn't have as big an issue of that if it wasn't a pretty unique mechanic to this game. It just isn't how other games typically work. A lot of things about the game's physics bothered me, like the minotaur gave me so much trouble mainly because I never imagined that you could outright block and withstand its hits, so I never thought the shield could save me till like the 5th try, because it goes against common sense really.
I hate the game, I hate it passionately, I think it is the Anti-Fun in coded form. I will try to stop bringing it up though, its just it's so often my go to for things I hate seeing in games.
I finished 2 as well in around half the time of the first. I would say it gave me a lot less to outright hate, but that I should just accept even with further improvement its never going to be a series I'll like.
But I think the series is undeniably solid. When you're influencing design elements in games that aren't even in your genre (games like Hollowknight and Shovel Knight for example), that's saying something.
You won't have a BIG problem. But you will get hit. A xvart will hit you, a gibberling will hit you. A kobold or a bandit will hit you. Sooner or later. Then you'll need to heal wounds, either through a cleric (which would require resting), or with potions (which are costly at the start of the game). And sooner or later you'll see a critical hit from an ogrillon or an ogre, and then you will have to go to the temple, or click a reload button. Even with a barbarian, a berserker, or even with a dwarven defender, (and we have to take into account NPCs don't have min-maxed stats, they don't have plenty of HPs) I have never been able to reliably melee in BG1. Yes, I have my characters attacking in melee, but then they either start kiting, while the rest of the party is shooting, or I have to use spells like Sleep. Maybe only after my character has 50 HPs, I can start attempting to play a melee fighter without kiting.
Forgot about the PvP, but god yes, it's amazing. And so much more fair feeling than the original. And what a clever invention, the multiplayer aspect in general.
I don't think it's core to the game to have good armor at level one outside of candlekeep. I don't think it's ever core to the game to be a fighter.
Plenty of players might start off as a thief, have their proficiency in Dagger/shortsword but bought a Longsword or are using their staff.
That person will not succeed well at melee on their first try. They'll learn (probably to rely on ranked combat since that's a lot less dangerous) or will restart and hope to figure out a better way to melee.
And the biggest thing is the lack of healing resources. You can't even afford to burn money with temple healing until about level 3 or so.
And you really want to save your potions for the longer dungeon crawls. I mean, you have to commit a kobold/xvart/gnoll/hobgoblin genocide in the early half of that game. That's alot of attack rolls to endure. So either you're save-scumming to bias the dice rolls, rest spamming with your handful of cleric/druid heals, or some other abuse. Optimal play for the first half of BG is pretty much using 1 tank to draw fire or aggro and making everyone else ranged. You don't even have the wealth of mage spells or wands to make your casters more than weak archers for most of the early fights.
This is sort of what I was talking about elsewhere when saying PoE delivers a more strategic combat experience. Early BG really kind of forces your hand into some form of cheesing the system. Again, I love the game and its combat, but let's be honest.
I assume you don't mean that literally the entire game and we're still talking about the beginning here, because everything else you said... that's the game . As your party gets dependably stronger you can last more fights before the need for healing or resting, and in my experience you can do this well before a character has 50 hit points. By that time you should have lots of potions so even resting isn't as necessary.
I still think what you're saying makes no sense, in that its not a flaw in the game, it's the game, and it's completely fine as it is and it works, aside from resting being too easy to do most of the time; setting some kind of limit on that that wouldn't be too punishing but would at least add some sense of risk if you keep pushing forward over going back would go a long way for the game.
But the rest of your post sounds like you're trying to rationalise that the Larian dev is right when's he's demonstrably wrong and he's demonstrably sounding like he doesn't even understand the original games which, yeah, makes me really worried over the direction of BG3. I don't this guy should even be working on it if that's his attitude, I don't think he cares a single iota of what genuine BG fans want.
Funny thing is I think I loathe Hollow Knight as well. But Shovel Knight was good. I think though Shovel Knight had far bigger (and in my mind much more positive) inspirations from classic sidescrollers than Dark Souls, but Hollow, yeah it's basically 2D Dark Souls. And I don't like it.
I'm trying to understand the thought process here. So you're saying that everything that is by common sense, a pretty bad idea, like attack a wild bear with a dagger which you aren't trained in using, in melee because you're not a class suited to melee which the game is very clear on, is something the game should not punish you for in the slightest? I mean, yeah if the game locked you in a room with the bear and said "Win or you don't get to progress", you'd have a point, but otherwise... no. Just no.
I didn't say anything of the sort. All I've said is that the game doesn't do a good job of holding your hand to knew when you'll have a good chance to succeed in melee combat at the beginning of the game. I'm not even suggesting that's bad game design.
I'm saying it's understandable that a new player who doesn't have a firm grasp of the mechanics of either 2.5e or BG1 might struggle early on in melee combat, that this is a fair complaint for that person to have.
Do I want it changed? Nope. I'm just acknowledging the legitimacy of that issue. The review in question is hyperbolic, and anyone who makes a snap judgement like that after a few bad experiences isn't doing themselves any favors.
It's not BG3 if I can't sleep scum.
It's okay with me if they tweak the "miss" mechanics to provide the best possible experience of combat in a live action game. I realize "best possible experience" is subjective. But if a total "miss" is tweaked to occur very rarely, and otherwise use a percentage of how much force is delivered by the blow, that's fine with me.