@redline You don't see much difference between following the rules and breaking them? You should probably train yourself to see the distinction
I'd say it's a spirit-vs-letter type of thing. A lot of D&D assumes that there is a DM in place to keep players reined in; the system can be pretty easily gamed if players are given total free rein over the rules, without regard for story justifications, etc. (take a look at NWN power builds to see this kind of behavior run amok). With that in mind, power gaming breaks the rules in the same way that Ctrl-8 or EEkeeper does - albeit rules that don't actually exist in the game engine, just the source material.
The magic of single player, though, is that one's play style and opinions thereof are utterly meaningless and impacts no one. Including mine, so have fun however you want!
@redline What's weirder to me is just how much power-gaming seems to obsess over Throne of Bhaal. Dual classing at level 13 or even later, dismissing the Skald because they'll eventually get Enhanced Bard Song as a HLA, dismissing the Archer because there aren't any +4 arrows to hit the Ravager with, it's all optimization dedicated to crushing what's already the easiest part of the saga, at the expense of the hard parts. I really don't get it.
@semiticgod I mean game rules. How anyone can say this game has no rules is nonsensical to me. Perhaps you can offer some kind of argument to support that?
EDIT: I shouldn't have to but here is one rule: dwarves cannot be mages. Another: half orcs cannot be mages. Ergo, this game has rules.
@FinneousPJ: I just don't see the point in obeying "the rules" in a single-player game. PnP has rules to make sure multiple players have something to agree on. There's a moral imperative to be consistent. But in BG2, there is no such rule book to govern player behavior because the player's behavior doesn't hurt anybody. All that's there is the code, and there is no obligation not to use external editors.
If somebody Keepers a dwarven mage, what does it matter to you? Why does a distinction need to be made?
@semiticgod Whether you see the point or not is irrelevant to your claim of the game having no rules. I am saying it does have rules. Can you please offer a counterargument?
I personally wouldn't say that there aren't rules, just that the rules don't particularly matter. It's a single player game. It's story driven. House rules are just as meaningful/meaningless as hard coded ones, because in the end, absolutely no one else is affected by what rules you choose to follow or ignore. If someone wants to become an unkillable god by cheesing within the game's hardcoded parameters, groovy. But if someone wants the same effect by turning on Story Mode, or by giving themselves a wand of Summon Cow from the console, that's equally groovy. I see games like BG as being about personal enjoyment, nothing more, so powergaming just seems strange to me, since I don't particularly enjoy being forced to build one very specific character to make the game easier.
@FinneousPJ: You're arguing something does exist; I say it does not. The burden of proof is on you, not me. That's the standard order in argumentation--it is, after all, impossible to prove something does not exist.
But!
You already have offered proof.
First, you brought up the existence of D&D rule books. When I said they didn't apply since they're for a different game, you brought up the in-game rules, like the inability of a dwarf to be a mage. Those certainly are part of the same game.
I think we mean different things when we say "rules."
I meant rules on what the player is legitimately allowed to do. Since I think the player is the only authority in a single-player game, anything is legitimate (they're the DM).
I think you meant what the player is capable of doing without altering the game. I accept that meaning for speed runs, competitions, and multiplayer games (who wouldn't accept that?), since there are multiple players and therefore we need a standardized rule set.
@redline What's weirder to me is just how much power-gaming seems to obsess over Throne of Bhaal. Dual classing at level 13 or even later, dismissing the Skald because they'll eventually get Enhanced Bard Song as a HLA, dismissing the Archer because there aren't any +4 arrows to hit the Ravager with, it's all optimization dedicated to crushing what's already the easiest part of the saga, at the expense of the hard parts. I really don't get it.
I also have a hard time finding logic in it. I choose because a class because of how much fun I'll have with it throughout the whole game (sometimes more and sometimes less) , not because they'll get huge advantages in the last chapter or so.
@semiticgod So you're going to argue there are no rules based on your personal definition of rules. That's wrong, my friend. There are rules. I have already offered proof which you haven't disproven.
@redline What's weirder to me is just how much power-gaming seems to obsess over Throne of Bhaal. Dual classing at level 13 or even later, dismissing the Skald because they'll eventually get Enhanced Bard Song as a HLA, dismissing the Archer because there aren't any +4 arrows to hit the Ravager with, it's all optimization dedicated to crushing what's already the easiest part of the saga, at the expense of the hard parts. I really don't get it.
It's not really about crushing the easiest part of the saga, though - it's about the challenge of building something that will be a masterpiece upon completion and about working with that goal in mind. In the end, I know I'm not going to beat the game or not because I'm dealing 1D8+15 instead of 1d6+13 damage, I know I'll not need 9 attacks per round instead of 8, but I enjoy trying to optimize it - I enjoy going for the best character I possibly can. I know I can beat the game no matter what, so I don't worry about beating the game - I worry about beating the challenge I've created for myself which is to have the best possible party/character within the parameters I give myself to work with in each particular run.
Most of the time, I build my characters with Throne of Bhaal in mind (I give them proficiency points for weapons I know I'll find later, for example, or I select my sorcerer spells for what I know I'll find in ToB, or I make a party that I know will be able to beat any challenge in ToB) but I don't even play to ToB with that party, I get tired before then and restart. But I still have fun trying to attach each late-game item to each person as I'm leveling them up, even if I never actually get said item - optimizing this is part of the fun for me. Playing a Skald is not fun for me because I know I'll be sort of obsolete later on, so it makes me not want to get there - even if I never actually get there, if I restart before HLAs no matter what, it will make me feel like I'm not aiming towards anything, I have no reason to evolve - thinking of the late game gives me a goal (though I love Archers). Not saying this is the "right" approach, of course, but hopefully I explained some of it
There are dwarven mages in vanilla BG2, so the game breaks its own rules anyways. Aerie has an illegal multiclass too, not to mention half the human enemies are multi-classed.
There are dwarven mages in vanilla BG2, so the game breaks its own rules anyways. Aerie has an illegal multiclass too, not to mention half the human enemies are multi-classed.
Just a correction: Avariel are allowed to be cleric-mages.
There are dwarven mages in vanilla BG2, so the game breaks its own rules anyways. Aerie has an illegal multiclass too, not to mention half the human enemies are multi-classed.
Just a correction: Avariel are allowed to be cleric-mages.
Aerie's not an Avariel. She doesn't even have wings!
There are dwarven mages in vanilla BG2, so the game breaks its own rules anyways. Aerie has an illegal multiclass too, not to mention half the human enemies are multi-classed.
Just a correction: Avariel are allowed to be cleric-mages.
Aerie's not an Avariel. She doesn't even have wings!
She has stumps you need to praise and caress so she doesn't lose her last vestiges of self-worth. What a catch! w=b
Many Baldur's Gate players delude themselves in thinking that a "super multi-class" character is better than a single-class character for the run of the game. But it's not. The first 3 levels of a multi-class character is painfull... And a single-class character rushing for Lv. 2, Lv. 3 and Lv. 4 will be much more efficient. Also, after Lv. 10, the multi-class character will not be just 1 level behind the single-class character... While you have a multiclass of Lv. 12/13, a single-class will be Lv. 17, 18 or 19, with much better Thac0, HPs and saves. The dual-class is even more painfull than a multi-class character...
So... Even if the final product of a builded multi-class or dual-class is more powerful, a single-class character will be much more efficient through the most part of the run. And you can probably finish the game in much less time, always being strong.
@Vitor I wouldn't call any class "better" than any other. The number of options and tactics available to the player make every class equally viable. The only thing that makes classes "better" is how you want to play or what classes better fit your playstyle.
There is such a thing as a "better" class. Though those tend to change depending on the levels you're at.
In the beginning of BG1, the Archer is probably the best class. Ranged rules supreme in BG1, especially in the beginning with an Elf Archer.
But at the very end, the Sorcerer is probably the best class in the game. They need no casting stat, they need no scrolls and they can win through sheer brute force and attrition.
Even if they're dispelled in a 1v1 battle, they can use Time Stop again, cast their wards again and attack again or use Wish again to heal or anything again and again.
Of course, that makes them the hardest class to play, since you need to pick the right spells with no mistakes. You don't get to repick your spells like the Mage.
But if you have everything you need and know how to use them, a Sorcerer can probably win against anything.
Many solo speedruns on Insane, are done with Sorcerers for a reason.
Unless you don't want to play a melee fighter who doesn't have casing ability. Archers and Sorcerers are pretty abysmal then.
What people want to play, is different from what classes are objectively more powerful at certain points in the game, than others.
Just because I wanted to play a Monk in BG1, back then, doesn't mean that Monk was the best class when compared to the others.
In BG1, staying safely at range with low max HP while being very accurate, doing lots of damage and using the various magic arrows, makes Archers one of the best, if not the best, classes objectively speaking.
In ToB, when you have HLA extra spells, with high level spells, the ability to get them for free without scrolls or needing a high stat and the ability to spam them, makes Sorcerers objectively better than most other classes, second only to the Mage perhaps in terms of power, versatility and self-reliance.
Comments
The magic of single player, though, is that one's play style and opinions thereof are utterly meaningless and impacts no one. Including mine, so have fun however you want!
BG2 does not use any PnP rule set. The only rule book is the code.
EDIT: I shouldn't have to but here is one rule: dwarves cannot be mages. Another: half orcs cannot be mages. Ergo, this game has rules.
If somebody Keepers a dwarven mage, what does it matter to you? Why does a distinction need to be made?
But!
You already have offered proof.
First, you brought up the existence of D&D rule books. When I said they didn't apply since they're for a different game, you brought up the in-game rules, like the inability of a dwarf to be a mage. Those certainly are part of the same game.
I think we mean different things when we say "rules."
I meant rules on what the player is legitimately allowed to do. Since I think the player is the only authority in a single-player game, anything is legitimate (they're the DM).
I think you meant what the player is capable of doing without altering the game. I accept that meaning for speed runs, competitions, and multiplayer games (who wouldn't accept that?), since there are multiple players and therefore we need a standardized rule set.
I'll just drop it instead.
Most of the time, I build my characters with Throne of Bhaal in mind (I give them proficiency points for weapons I know I'll find later, for example, or I select my sorcerer spells for what I know I'll find in ToB, or I make a party that I know will be able to beat any challenge in ToB) but I don't even play to ToB with that party, I get tired before then and restart. But I still have fun trying to attach each late-game item to each person as I'm leveling them up, even if I never actually get said item - optimizing this is part of the fun for me. Playing a Skald is not fun for me because I know I'll be sort of obsolete later on, so it makes me not want to get there - even if I never actually get there, if I restart before HLAs no matter what, it will make me feel like I'm not aiming towards anything, I have no reason to evolve - thinking of the late game gives me a goal (though I love Archers). Not saying this is the "right" approach, of course, but hopefully I explained some of it
Poor sod can't figure out who he really is.
I will show myself out, k bye
Many Baldur's Gate players delude themselves in thinking that a "super multi-class" character is better than a single-class character for the run of the game. But it's not. The first 3 levels of a multi-class character is painfull... And a single-class character rushing for Lv. 2, Lv. 3 and Lv. 4 will be much more efficient. Also, after Lv. 10, the multi-class character will not be just 1 level behind the single-class character... While you have a multiclass of Lv. 12/13, a single-class will be Lv. 17, 18 or 19, with much better Thac0, HPs and saves. The dual-class is even more painfull than a multi-class character...
So... Even if the final product of a builded multi-class or dual-class is more powerful, a single-class character will be much more efficient through the most part of the run. And you can probably finish the game in much less time, always being strong.
There is such a thing as a "better" class. Though those tend to change depending on the levels you're at.
In the beginning of BG1, the Archer is probably the best class. Ranged rules supreme in BG1, especially in the beginning with an Elf Archer.
But at the very end, the Sorcerer is probably the best class in the game.
They need no casting stat, they need no scrolls and they can win through sheer brute force and attrition.
Even if they're dispelled in a 1v1 battle, they can use Time Stop again, cast their wards again and attack again or use Wish again to heal or anything again and again.
Of course, that makes them the hardest class to play, since you need to pick the right spells with no mistakes. You don't get to repick your spells like the Mage.
But if you have everything you need and know how to use them, a Sorcerer can probably win against anything.
Many solo speedruns on Insane, are done with Sorcerers for a reason.
Just because I wanted to play a Monk in BG1, back then, doesn't mean that Monk was the best class when compared to the others.
In BG1, staying safely at range with low max HP while being very accurate, doing lots of damage and using the various magic arrows, makes Archers one of the best, if not the best, classes objectively speaking.
In ToB, when you have HLA extra spells, with high level spells, the ability to get them for free without scrolls or needing a high stat and the ability to spam them, makes Sorcerers objectively better than most other classes, second only to the Mage perhaps in terms of power, versatility and self-reliance.
That's how the game is. It's not balanced.