169 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Godeshus wrote...

I really don't think you understand the point of a roll playing game...

Reset.

Daggerfall is possibly my favorite RPG of all time. I've invested numerous hours into it when I was younger and I still play it frequently to this day, role-playing as numerous characters and personas. While I still haven't played it as much as the Doom series it's definitely running in second place.

Now if you'd played Daggerfall you'd know it has a crapton of exploits, loopholes, and other broken combos/mechanics. Do I still love the game to death? Yes. Does this excuse the imbalance? Not at all, it just means that Bethesda has to be a bit more careful the next time.

Things are different these days. With more and more gamers having access to the internet, developers now have the chance to further perfect their game after release. They have the chance to fix outstanding bugs, a second chance to give a minor rebalance for extended depth and replayabilitiy, and more oppurtunuties to make changes taht they weren't quite sure about yet,

That's what we're hoping for Bioware to do. They have a chance to fix their own game themselves.. A developer releasing a hotfix is completely and wildly different than a random player making the same hotfix. I find it incredibly hard looking for reasons why balance is bad for a game sans the fact that it has the potential to conflict with the lore.

[throttlesays]

Players should not have to accept playing vastly underpowered characters if they want to make any other choice than x, whatever x is (mages, in this case). It doesn't matter that it's a single-player game, and most single-player games do not have these grotesque imbalances. The game's difficulty is basically reduced by one level for each mage you have in your party, and many players have reported finding the game very difficult on easy or normal with a mostly melee party until they ran 2-3 mages instead and were able to breeze through nightmare. This is the bad kind of imbalance, and it compromises the gameplay enjoyment of many players, as is clearly evident in the amount of discussions on this subject. People don't want to feel that they have to either fill their party with mages or accept an often frustratingly difficult game. It's also pretty clear that non-mage mechanics were not given very much attention during development - just look how nearly useless things like stealth and lockpicking are, or how melee characters struggle to use more than three abilities per battle. It's not just a matter of mages being overpowered but the fact that the game is seemingly designed to be played with mostly mages while everything else feels like little more than an afterthought. The undisputedly best party is a tank and three mages, and melees have no redeeming qualities at all. Maybe if the game had been designed so that mages had super powerful spells that could only be used a few times per fight while melees could chain their special attacks together and make interesting combinations, but it's the other way around, except that the melee (and archery) abilities are not only much less usable in terms of resources but also significantly worse.

Besides all that, the lore excuse is pretty weak. Or, that is to say, it's valid but the lore itself is thin. If mages are so unbelievably powerful that warriors and archers don't stand a chance, why aren't they ruling the world instead of being confined to a single tower or hunted down and killed? It's unrealistic and illogical, and it's obvious to any rational person that BioWare wanted to convey the image of mages being really powerful but did not create a game world that reflected this fact. It just isn't believable, and it's further proof that quality roleplay was a lesser consideration in the design of Dragon Age.

Modifié par throttlesays, 30 novembre 2009 - 10:58 .

[FedericoV]

I agree with Godeshus.

I stopped to use more than one mage at a time. I do not use lyrium potions except against boss mages. I reload if someone dies. Game balance looks perfect and brilliant since I've decided to play that way and magic do not look so overpowered anymore. I suppose that is the way the game was meant to be played.

But it's an RPG, everyone has different tastes and different opinions about what is a challenge, it's all about choices, so it's right to have other options avaible to each kind of game style. It's only a matter of finding your style and stick with it. It doesn't need to be an "hardcore" game for everyone but since everyone can change the "slider" (I mean, how you play the game) as he likes, I do not see the point.

Having said that the only correction I would like to see is about 4th tier talents in the warrior three (most should be pumped: the only real good one is War Cry and it's a no brain) and more talents in the basic warrior three (maybe a line for damage and speed) so you could choose something usefull even if you go beyond level 21, like the other classes.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 novembre 2009 - 11:04 .

[Godeshus]

Pocketgb: I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. All I'm trying to say is that the game can be enjoyed without having the most powerful fighter, the best rogue, the quickest archer, and most powerful mage, and then hope that the game will tailor itself to those characteristics.



I broke my first playthrough in DA because it was so difficult based on character choices. All my characters sucked, including my mages, and the game became impossible. I didn't rage quit though (not saying you did, but from the rants I've seen on this forum, some did). I applied myself to learning the game and started over, trying different talents, spells, etc. At first I hated it, but the more I thought about it, the more I really started to like the idea that, much like in life, Choices you make will make you a really crappy person that goes nowhere, and other choices you make will put you on a high road to corporate success. I like the idea that the game can, from one end, be entirely gimped, then from another end, be a breezy walktrough. To me, this adds a lot of versatility to the game, and it forces you to make really difficult choices at times. I don't consider this to be a broken aspect of the game, but rather an opportunity to learn and understand its depths.

[Maria Caliban]

Matthew Young CT wrote...
I get the feeling most people here just abuse potions though. They're the really broken thing. Take away infinite mana and things get rather trickier.

Your mage is low on mana, so they take a potion = abuse?

[Pocketgb]

Godeshus wrote...

Pocketgb: I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. All I'm trying to say is that the game can be enjoyed without having the most powerful fighter, the best rogue, the quickest archer, and most powerful mage, and then hope that the game will tailor itself to those characteristics.

I know. How else am I enjoying it as we speak?

Aside from that we're talking about entirely different things.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 novembre 2009 - 11:14 .

[AsheraII]

I think the thing some like to call "class disballance" is actually an awesome feature of this game. It increases replayabillity.

Yes, running a morri+wynne group is a walk in the park on some modes. BUT, if you don't like that, then there's still the challenge of making (for example) an all-rogue group, or trying to beat the game with only 1 mage.



So what if someone brags he/she completed the game in 5 hours without dying because mages are so "OP"? That's their problem, replying you did it in 12 hours with only a rogue PC and no group earns more braggingpoints in my book, since it means you actually did something challenging. Them playing with mages doesn't interfere with my own gameplay at all, it just tells me they probably stop playing within a month for some other game, simply because they can not handle a challenge at all.

[throttlesays]

And out of sheer amusement...

As I've also said mages have the counter of being easy to kill.
 And they are.

No, they're not. Mages are marginally more vulnerable than a damage-oriented warrior or rogue, but only when considering the raw numbers. When you factor in all the spells, a mage survives things that even a fully tank-built warrior could never hope to do. Certainly, if you place a mage in the middle of a crowd of enemies and have him do nothing, he will die faster. With the use of just two or three spells, he would probably wipe them all out whereas the melee character might get one enemy to 50% health before dying.

Because not ONE of those spells you've described, even
the dreaded 'cone of cold' always works 100% of the time.

Nor do melee attacks, and they're less powerful than spells even when they do work. In fact, Cone of Cold still freezes enemies who are otherwise immune to cold. How about that.

All it takes
is one heavy tank to make a saving throw and a few slashes of a sword
later your mage is shish ka bob.

If by a few you mean six or seven, maybe. Mages don't die in two hits from anything short of dragons and similar enemies. When you factor in the healing and the fact that the heavy tank is soon frozen, paralyzed, or just burnt to a crisp, that argument is barely applicable.

Mages do NOT have as many hitpoints
as warriors.

Warriors start with 100 health, mages start with 85. Warriors gain 6 per level, mages gain 4. Not exactly a staggering difference when considering the fact that constitution gives the same to both, and mages actually have more stat freedom as they have only two other stats that matter at all. My blood mage has 10% less health than his party's tank.

They also do not have as good an armor class.

Short of actual tanks, a mage with a couple of sustained buffs is not much worse off than any given warrior or rogue. Mage-specific items are also itemized entirely differently, and you don't see warrior armor with such things as +10% chance to dodge.

And
although they have spells that increase armor and defense, a mage who
concentrates on not being hittable won't have very many offensive
spells will he?

Considering the fact that most sustainables have an upkeep cost of about 50 and higher-level mages easily have 300+ mana, it's not exactly a great toll to keep up a couple of buffs. You'll still be able to cast more spells than a two-handed warrior can use special attacks. And they'll be more powerful. Oh, and then there's the whole endless supply of mana potions.

By the same token, a mage who concentrates on being a
fearsome god of Death Dealing is skimping on personal protection.

See above - although it is interesting to note that the most powerful melee characters you can make in this game is, well, you know, an arcane warrior. Do I need to remind you which class gets this specialization?

Modifié par throttlesays, 30 novembre 2009 - 11:29 .

[Pocketgb]

AsheraII wrote...

I think the thing some like to call "class disballance" is actually an awesome feature of this game. It increases replayabillity.
Yes, running a morri+wynne group is a walk in the park on some modes. BUT, if you don't like that, then there's still the challenge of making (for example) an all-rogue group, or trying to beat the game with only 1 mage.

So what if someone brags he/she completed the game in 5 hours without dying because mages are so "OP"? That's their problem, replying you did it in 12 hours with only a rogue PC and no group earns more braggingpoints in my book, since it means you actually did something challenging. Them playing with mages doesn't interfere with my own gameplay at all, it just tells me they probably stop playing within a month for some other game, simply because they can not handle a challenge at all.

I'd rather have replayability through numerous options of similar viability.

[Sibelius1]

Imbalance aside, there has been very little discussion on the OP's second point, which happens to be a very good one in my opinion.

There are many people playing this game at or close to minimum specs and the ability to turn of shadows independently of say reducing texture quality would be a huge improvement to the current low med high very high system that is currently in place. 

Deatiled graphical optimisation is a standard feature in the vast majority of modern titles, the fact that the settings cannot be modified in the ini is just as mysterious as Bioware's decision to leave out optiisation altogether.

Has there been any dev comment on this?

[throttlesays]

I'd rather have replayability through numerous options of similar viability.

As would any reasonable and rationally-thinking person, but it's pretty obvious that most who fit that description are not the ones who inexplicably defend the idea that one class should be gamebreakingly powerful at the expense of others. The imbalance actually hurts replayability, because with as much emphasis as there is on mages, you are restricted in your storyline choices since there are only two mage companions in the game and you can lose them through your roleplay choices. Good luck enjoying the game if your main character is a warrior and you've chased off Morrigan and Wynne.

[Godeshus]

throttlesays wrote...

I'd rather have replayability through numerous options of similar viability.

As would any reasonable and rationally-thinking person, but it's pretty obvious that most who fit that description are not the ones who inexplicably defend the idea that one class should be gamebreakingly powerful at the expense of others. The imbalance actually hurts replayability, because with as much emphasis as there is on mages, you are restricted in your storyline choices since there are only two mage companions in the game and you can lose them through your roleplay choices. Good luck enjoying the game if your main character is a warrior and you've chased off Morrigan and Wynne.

I've seen quite a few posts where people mention solo runs on nightmare with either rogue or warrior. Haven't tried it myself, but clearly these classes cannot be broken if the possibility exists. On Nightmare, no less.

Modifié par Godeshus, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:02 .

[Matthew Young CT]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Matthew Young CT wrote...
I get the feeling most people here just abuse potions though. They're the really broken thing. Take away infinite mana and things get rather trickier.

Your mage is low on mana, so they take a potion = abuse?

Nah, buying 99 lyrium dust for next to nothing is the abusing part.

I'm curious how many people who think mages are so superduperdoubleplusawesome think they are still such with no potions?

Also curious why so many people who don't have the game have opinions on it.

OK the last sentence is sarcasm.

[Godeshus]

throttlesays wrote...

And out of sheer amusement...

As I've also said mages have the counter of being easy to kill.
 And they are.

No, they're not. Mages are marginally more vulnerable than a damage-oriented warrior or rogue, but only when considering the raw numbers. When you factor in all the spells, a mage survives things that even a fully tank-built warrior could never hope to do. Certainly, if you place a mage in the middle of a crowd of enemies and have him do nothing, he will die faster. With the use of just two or three spells, he would probably wipe them all out whereas the melee character might get one enemy to 50% health before dying.

Because not ONE of those spells you've described, even
the dreaded 'cone of cold' always works 100% of the time.

Nor do melee attacks, and they're less powerful than spells even when they do work. In fact, Cone of Cold still freezes enemies who are otherwise immune to cold. How about that.

All it takes
is one heavy tank to make a saving throw and a few slashes of a sword
later your mage is shish ka bob.

If by a few you mean six or seven, maybe. Mages don't die in two hits from anything short of dragons and similar enemies. When you factor in the healing and the fact that the heavy tank is soon frozen, paralyzed, or just burnt to a crisp, that argument is barely applicable.

Mages do NOT have as many hitpoints
as warriors.

Warriors start with 100 health, mages start with 85. Warriors gain 6 per level, mages gain 4. Not exactly a staggering difference when considering the fact that constitution gives the same to both, and mages actually have more stat freedom as they have only two other stats that matter at all. My blood mage has 10% less health than his party's tank.

They also do not have as good an armor class.

Short of actual tanks, a mage with a couple of sustained buffs is not much worse off than any given warrior or rogue. Mage-specific items are also itemized entirely differently, and you don't see warrior armor with such things as +10% chance to dodge.

And
although they have spells that increase armor and defense, a mage who
concentrates on not being hittable won't have very many offensive
spells will he?

Considering the fact that most sustainables have an upkeep cost of about 50 and higher-level mages easily have 300+ mana, it's not exactly a great toll to keep up a couple of buffs. You'll still be able to cast more spells than a two-handed warrior can use special attacks. And they'll be more powerful. Oh, and then there's the whole endless supply of mana potions.

By the same token, a mage who concentrates on being a
fearsome god of Death Dealing is skimping on personal protection.

See above - although it is interesting to note that the most powerful melee characters you can make in this game is, well, you know, an arcane warrior. Do I need to remind you which class gets this specialization?

Most of this is true. Mages in Previous D&D cRPG were even more powerful than mages in DA, though.  I think what people have beef with is that they can't blast through the game diablo style with their warrior that has 5000hp, which never takes a single hit from high dex. I say tough cookies. It's the mage's turn to finally get the spotlight if that's how you want to play the game. 

[F-C]

look, people who suck at building melee crying about mages.

this is new and unique.

Modifié par F-C, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:07 .

[throttlesays]

I've seen quite a few posts where people mention solo runs on nightmare with either rogue or warrior. Haven't tried it myself, but clearly these classes cannot be broken if the possibility exists. On Nightmare, no less.

There's no way a warrior can do it, it's a factual impossibility. Rogues can do it in theory by abusing combat stealth - attack once, stealth, wait around, attack, stealth and so on. This barely qualifies as playing the game, though, and it would probably take something like 120 hours unless you skip loads of content. The only class that can solo the game in anything that remotely resembles the conventional way is, you guessed it, mages.

Most of this is true. Mages in Previous
D&D cRPG were even more powerful than mages in DA, though.

I would disagree with that. If you take a game like Baldur's Gate or its endless knock-offs, mages are restricted by such things as being actually vulnerable to attacks or having a limited number of spells per day. The low survivability is what games have traditionally used to balance the offensive power of mages in games, but it isn't really present in DA:O because threats are so easily negated by any number of spells that render enemies unable to carry out the threat or just flat out kill them in a hurry. Part of the issue is that mages do everything better than rogues and warriors except for tanking, and even this is only because arcane warriors can't really hold aggro consistently.

I think
what people have beef with is that they can't blast through the game
diablo style with their warrior that has 5000hp, which never takes a
single hit from high dex. I say tough cookies. It's the mage's turn to
finally get the spotlight if that's how you want to play the game.

No, what people have beef with is that they can choose to playe mages or extremely gimped warriors and rogues. The difference is simply too big. For many players, once you've played a mage it becomes hard to enjoy the other classes because you know they're strictly worse. Can you be succesful with a rogue or a warrior? Sure. Can they deal a lot of damage or be built to take a beating? Certainly. But to deny that mages are so vastly superior as to break any common notions of balance would be ignorant. If warriors and rogues got as many abilities as mages and could do more than just hit or shoot stuff, it wouldn't be so bad that mages do everything better, but it's double the pain when your melee character is significantly weaker and has fewer toys to play with.

Modifié par throttlesays, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:20 .

[robertthebard]

aymanhaq wrote...

First of the all is the mage issue. Either nerf mages or buff the other two classes. This can be done via buffing the gear they use or, the classes themselves, or a combination. Point is it needs to be done. Ive been doing research on this and apparently alot of other users agree.
Secondly the limited graphics options available. This hits PC versions hard. Users should be able to customize the graphics as much as possible to maximize framerates while not killing too much detail. Using bars that dumbs down a third of the game is ridiculous. How difficult would it be to make those options available? I figured that Bioware would learn from their mistake with NWN2. This game is excellent, but im actually shelving it for now. Until these issues get fixed (particularly the first one).
Anyone who agrees/disagrees please comment. Hopefully issues listed in this thread will eventually get patched.

Devs please get these patches to fix these two issues out.

All that research, and yet you post this gem?  See bolded part.  I guess if you'd done some research, you'd know that BioWare had nothing to do with NWN2.  However, feel free to rant more about getting owned by mages in a single player game.  I find it entertaining that you can do some much research, come up with such erroneous information, and still be expected to be taken seriously.  As usual, this is one of the major problems with any game, people that don't know how to play crying about nerfing something so they can deal with it.

[Godeshus]

F-C I haven't seen that gif in a while. Love the sig.



And yes, you are entirely correct.

[Godeshus]

throttlesays wrote...

I've seen quite a few posts where people mention solo runs on nightmare with either rogue or warrior. Haven't tried it myself, but clearly these classes cannot be broken if the possibility exists. On Nightmare, no less.

There's no way a warrior can do it, it's a factual impossibility. Rogues can do it in theory by abusing combat stealth - attack once, stealth, wait around, attack, stealth and so on. This barely qualifies as playing the game, though, and it would probably take something like 120 hours unless you skip loads of content. The only class that can solo the game in anything that remotely resembles the conventional way is, you guessed it, mages.

List the facts please. Or is anything that you don't understand a "factual impossibility"?

Modifié par Godeshus, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:13 .

[Jonfon_ire]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Matthew Young CT wrote...
I get the feeling most people here just abuse potions though. They're the really broken thing. Take away infinite mana and things get rather trickier.

Your mage is low on mana, so they take a potion = abuse?

Nah, buying 99 lyrium dust for next to nothing is the abusing part.

I'm curious how many people who think mages are so superduperdoubleplusawesome think they are still such with no potions?

Also curious why so many people who don't have the game have opinions on it.

OK the last sentence is sarcasm.

That's the issue for me. Not that a Mage can call down a hideous combo of spells and blow something apart, but that they can then quaff a potion and do it again and again and again (sustained battles should really tax a mage and be where meleers can shine IMO)

With Baldurs Gate 2 your Wizard was limited by a fairly low #casts per day (annoyingly so). Sorcerers can moer and were also arguably broken (although a lot of that was to do with Animate Dead and Superior Invis being hopelessly broken in that game too).

The current potion set-up sorta breaks that limit that Mages should have. Maybe I should have a look at making a tweak mod which greatly increases the cooldown of Lyrium (sp?) potions and maybe changes them from being instant affect to an over time one. That means powers like Death Syphon and Rejuvenation would be more useful in combat as well than they are currently.

Modifié par Jonfon_ire, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:20 .

[Matthew Young CT]

Yes, potions need an almighty smack from the nerf stick before looking at most other possible issues with mages.



Personally I find my DW rogue kills stuff much more effectively than my mage. But I didn't use pots I didn't find, and you don't find many lyrium pots.

[deathwing200]

Wolfva2 wrote...

"OH HO!  Someone has a different opinion of me!  He must be ignorrant, for only *I* am smart enough to know all!" 

Your opinion isn't different. It is wrong.

Here, I'll demonstrate the difference between an opinion that cannot be wrong vs one that can:

1) Mona Lisa is a bad painting (= opinion that cannot be right or wrong)
2) Earth is flat (=incorrect opinion)

See?

  Mages are powerful.  I've said so before, in this thread.  BUT: As I've also said mages have the counter of being easy to kill.  And they are.

And I'll repeat: Mages are NOT easy to kill because:

1) They have many CC spells
2) They fight at range
3) They have defensive buffs
4) They have LoS ignoring spells
5) They have AoE CC

  Because not ONE of those spells you've described, even the dreaded 'cone of cold' always works 100% of the time.  All it takes is one heavy tank to make a saving throw and a few slashes of a sword later your mage is shish ka bob. 

Yeah, if you stand there like a tool and let your mage be hacked to bits. Look, I solo'd this game on hard with mage. I am now soloing it on Nightmare. I know what I am doing. Just because YOU think something doesn't work, does not make it so. For the record, if cone resists, you paralyze or crushing prison or force field or... well just look at the spells you have and use your head.

Mages do NOT have as many hitpoints as warriors.

They don't need to, since they don't melee.

And although they have spells that increase armor and defense, a mage who concentrates on not being hittable won't have very many offensive spells will he?  By the same token, a mage who concentrates on being a fearsome god of Death Dealing is skimping on personal protection.

...? Rock armor is needed for stonefist (=required spell). Arcane Shield is needed for mastery+arcane t4 spellpower bonus. That's the only two protections you need - I usually skip armor in 90% of the fights. 

Another thing, you keep talking about one on one situations.  But there are very few of those in this game.  For instance, let's take one of the street ambushes in Denerim where you're facing 20+ guardsmen spread out.  How do you think a solo mage will handle that?   Blizzard would work, or sleep, but by the time you get it off you'll have about a half dozen meleers on you.  So, you cast cone of cold, but if you're surrounded you'll only get 2, 3 folks.  What next, paralyse?  Single person, unless you're of such a high level you have an AE paralyse in which case you'd probably be long past this point of the game, but I digress.  Ok, you cast paralyse on the remainder.  Maybe that'll even get the additional meleers who lagged behind the first half dozen.  You still have a bunch of archers to take care of, and they've been shooting you full of holes.  You'll also be running a little low on mana, which sucks because now those guys in the cone of cold are defrosting.  Of course, that is if there isn't any mob who succeeded in saving against your spells and has been hitting you with his sword this whole time.  One mage, by himself, is going to be dead shortly in that scenario.  Which is why we're NOT alone; we have 3 party members who will try and keep people OFF the mage so the mage can do his job of rapid killing.  

I solo'd those encounters with a mage on hard and easily.  If you weren't bad, you'd realize that these sorts of encounters are free XP to a mage. Just to humor you, I'll tell you what to do:

1) Throw Blizzard on the ground BEFORE the dialogue initiates
2) Initiate the dialogue, bandits go hostile
3) Bandits are frozen/knocked down from Blizzard as soon as they go hostile
4) You cast mass paralysis
5) You kill everything and collect XP
7) (Optional) If you're getting low on health/mana, you drink one of your 99x potion stacks.

Modifié par deathwing200, 30 novembre 2009 - 12:26 .

[robertthebard]

throttlesays wrote...

I've seen quite a few posts where people mention solo runs on nightmare with either rogue or warrior. Haven't tried it myself, but clearly these classes cannot be broken if the possibility exists. On Nightmare, no less.

There's no way a warrior can do it, it's a factual impossibility. Rogues can do it in theory by abusing combat stealth - attack once, stealth, wait around, attack, stealth and so on. This barely qualifies as playing the game, though, and it would probably take something like 120 hours unless you skip loads of content. The only class that can solo the game in anything that remotely resembles the conventional way is, you guessed it, mages.

Most of this is true. Mages in Previous
D&D cRPG were even more powerful than mages in DA, though.

I would disagree with that. If you take a game like Baldur's Gate or its endless knock-offs, mages are restricted by such things as being actually vulnerable to attacks or having a limited number of spells per day. The low survivability is what games have traditionally used to balance the offensive power of mages in games, but it isn't really present in DA:O because threats are so easily negated by any number of spells that render enemies unable to carry out the threat or just flat out kill them in a hurry. Part of the issue is that mages do everything better than rogues and warriors except for tanking, and even this is only because arcane warriors can't really hold aggro consistently.

I think
what people have beef with is that they can't blast through the game
diablo style with their warrior that has 5000hp, which never takes a
single hit from high dex. I say tough cookies. It's the mage's turn to
finally get the spotlight if that's how you want to play the game.

No, what people have beef with is that they can choose to playe mages or extremely gimped warriors and rogues. The difference is simply too big. For many players, once you've played a mage it becomes hard to enjoy the other classes because you know they're strictly worse. Can you be succesful with a rogue or a warrior? Sure. Can they deal a lot of damage or be built to take a beating? Certainly. But to deny that mages are so vastly superior as to break any common notions of balance would be ignorant. If warriors and rogues got as many abilities as mages and could do more than just hit or shoot stuff, it wouldn't be so bad that mages do everything better, but it's double the pain when your melee character is significantly weaker and has fewer toys to play with.

Ahahahahhahhhahahahahahahahhahaha, *cough* hahahaha...Yeah, until you get to Zevran's ambush, and get your can't take a few hits ass owned by the ranged assassins.  I guess replayability means reloading the same encounter for 12 hours trying to find a way to get a squishy through it?

[deathwing200]

robertthebard wrote...


Ahahahahhahhhahahahahahahahhahaha, *cough* hahahaha...Yeah, until you get to Zevran's ambush, and get your can't take a few hits ass owned by the ranged assassins.  I guess replayability means reloading the same encounter for 12 hours trying to find a way to get a squishy through it?

Except zevran ambush is easily soloable if mage has mass paralysis. Try playing the game instead of being theorycrafting forum hero, yeah?

[throttlesays]

List the facts please. Or is anything that you don't understand a "factual impossibility"?

The game mechanics and the warrior abilities do not make it possible. It should be blatantly obvious why. Unless there's some obscure bug or exploitable mechanic that can consistently be used to overcome such encounters as the 8-shrieks-on-a-bridge or high dragons, you can't solo tank-and-spank through the game in nightmare. Certain fights could be soloed, but not the whole game. I don't know what kind of crazy imagination would make anyone think otherwise, but if you must have scientific proof, you could either try it yourself or look for believable reports of anyone having done it (hint: there aren't any).