29 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaotic Clown]

While creating a few characters this week the process of rolling their attributes got me to thinking.   Do we really need to roll perfect attributes to adequately traverse the Sword Coast?

Whether it be the necessary desire of a power gamer, or the preferred whim of a casual gamer, more often than not the attributes of the protaganist character are very, very good, if not near perfect.   There is nothing wrong with this, it's our game (we exchanged cash for it) and we have the right to experience it if and how we please.   The point remains, though.   Be it re-rolling or an attribute editing program, the majority of people will not journey forth without these sought after attributes scores.   It is almost a sort of unofficial requirement to roll these set attribute scores for fear of suffering a lessar experience with the game.

While surveying the NPC's to determine who to recruit and who to show the boot (be that based on alignment, class, or attributes) it became apparent that most of these NPC's have an area where they fall short.   They have a flaw, like most of us in the real world do.   Many possess attributes that are a world away from what we often roll for our protaganist.

Khalid is a Fighter with 15 STR, 16 DEX, and 17 CON.   A protaganist Fighter would read more along the lines of 18 STR, 18 Dex, and 18 Con.   These attributes are most important to a Fighter and thus see higher scores.   The attributes that are of lessar importance to the Fighter class, but carry weight for the make-up of a personality read as such for Khalid, 12 INT, 10 WIS, 9 CHA.   The protaganist Fighter may read as, 11 INT, 7 WIS, 10 CHA.   In a lot of instances 3 WIS and 3 CHA may be seen.

Minsc (a Ranger) has 18/93 STR, 15 DEX, 15 CON, 8 INT, 6 WIS, 9 CHA.

Jaheria (a Fighter/Druid) has 15 STR, 14 DEX, 17 CON, 10 INT, 14 WIS, 15 CHA.

You can find the attributes for all NPC's with a quick internet search.   What it brought to my attention is that the attributes which are of lessar (if not none at all) importance to the class of NPC's are not "gimped" in order to bolster those which are.   There is a balance between class attributes and personality attributes.   There is an authenticity to their build, something real (as much as we're in a fictional video game) to their very being.   Rolling INT, WIS, and CHA similar to, or below that of Minsc, is counter-intuitive for a protaganist who is to lead a group of adventurers, unravel a sinister plot, and hold their own during dialogue with intelligent, wise, charismatic enemies.   Minsc if left to his own devices would easily be fooled by an intelligent foe, such as Edwin.   Minsc could even find himself in an unfortunate stand-off against good, honest folk, because he fails to understand a situation, or mistakenly takes offence to a harmless jester, such as if the protaganist declines to help Minsc rescue Dynaheir, or takes too long to do so.

I decided to roll a character with, as I dubbed them, authentic attributes, by comparing those of the NPC's that I am most familiar with and choosing for the protaganist accordingly.   More charismatic than Khalid?   Yes, so a CHA score greater than 9.   As charismatic as Imoen?   Perhaps equally so, thus a CHA score no greater than 16.   Then it was a case of elimination, checking off the NPC's which I felt the protaganist was more charismatic than, thus upping the minimum score of CHA.   I then done the same for INT and WIS.

I never play a protaganist Mage, Druid, or Cleric, thus INT and WIS never carry class importance for me.   STR, DEX, and CON, happen to matter greatly.   I followed similar suit for these attributes, by determining (for example) that Minsc should be the most physically strong of the group.   Thus a max of 18/90.   Stronger than Jaheria?   Yes, meaning a minimum of 16, and so on and so forth.

This actually brings more of a connection to the protaganist for me, because he has limitations, he is imperfect and flawed just like everyone else.   It makes besting a foe in a one on one situation more meaningful.   It results in using the party to bring down a particularly difficult hostile more necessity than flippant mouse-click.

I was wondering how many others choose to play as such?   Or, if anyone opts to play a protaganist with purposefully minimal attributes for the sole reason of a greater challenge?

I'd be interested in seeing how low important attribute scores could go before it became silly.   But also to dispel the myth (of sorts) that a Fighter with say 17 STR, or a Thief with 16 DEX, would be unable to contribute.   Maybe these characters require a few extra hits to land before falling an enemy, maybe they suffer damage a little more often.   It far from renders them useless.   If anything it adds merit to their achievements.   I'd also like to know how a character, in this case a Fighter, with min-max attributes, ie; 18/00 STR, 18 DEX, 18 CON, 3 INT, 3 WIS, 3 CHA, would cope in the pen and paper aspect of Dungeons & Dragons.   Baldur's Gate is my only experience with D&D, thus I know nothing outside of it.

[Tiglath-Pileser]

Personally, I find it hard to resist rerolling to get the best possible stats in somewhat reasonable time. It was my ritual for many years and one could say, even some kind of obsession. For example I don't think I have ever played any character without 18 charisma in BG1, but in BG2 I often made it my dump stat, because of the ring everybody knows about.

As for roleplaying perspective, you are right, of course. But I think that many people want to have the best character possible, because it will be their avatar for many gaming hours and they want him to be perfect. Those 18s in character sheet make him look like that. Some may also argue that protagonist is a child of god and therefore he should be exceptional both physically and mentally. On the other hand, D&D handbooks claim that average ability scores of a human are 10-11 in every stat. If you take that into consideration most BG npcs have exceptional stats, but it's not that strange: to survive as an adventurer one HAS to be better than average human. If he's not, he will die quickly - consider it a natural selection.

From the min-maxing or powergaming perspective advantages of having high ability scores are obvious, but there are many ways to increase stats temporarily by using spells, items and potions. Protagonist who doesn't need those is good, because there is one less character who uses up your resources. In practice, though, you get so many potions and spells that enhance ability scores (at least in vanilla game) that the difference is, in my opinion, negligible. I've seen many players having a protagonist with quite suboptimal scores and it didn't matter in the long run. I would also like to play such a character soon, as long as I'll be able to fight the force of habit I developed over many years of playing BG.

If we are talking about pen and paper DnD it depends on the edition, of course. First of all, you would have a limited number of rolls. If I recall correctly, player's handbook only allows rolling 4d6 for every attribute, picking three best rolls and declaring which attribute this particular roll will represent. You cannot add and substract freely like in BG. Of course, everything depends on your DM, but I don't think many experienced DMs would allow rerolling ad infinitum. Therefore rarely anyone would have a single ability score of 18.
A fighter in your example could not function as a normal human being, not able to comprehend the most basic concepts needed to be a part of a society. And if you tried roleplaying him differently, your DM would probably protest, just like other players. It's funny, actually, that in BG there is a spell (feeblemind?) that lowers intelligence (or wisdom?) to 3 and a person affected by it acts like a complete retard, but at the same time you can roll a character with 3 in those stats and he will be as bright and intelligent as you like. There are games that are better in that regard; for example, try playing a character with the lowest possible intelligence in Fallout 2 - you will be surprised.

Modifié par Tiglath-Pileser, 29 juillet 2012 - 05:56 .

[BelgarathMTH]

In a roleplaying game, 3 INT would be barely higher than animal (lab gorillas using sign-language probably have 3 INT). 3 WIS would mean you walk off cliffs to see how bad it hurts when you land.

3 CHA would mean you speak every thought that comes into your head without a moment's reflection, and you insult everybody you meet and make them want to kill you. You would not even be invited into an adventuring party, because good, neutral, and evil people alike would hate you.

No good dungeon master would permit that, because it would spoil the session and the campaign for all the other players. Most DM's I've ever met require a minimum of 8-10 in everything, with a few exceptions if a player can convince him or her a character with an extremely low score in one attribute might be interesting and fun.

The fact is, a lot of BG players aren't really very interested in roleplaying. They just want to enjoy the tactics and combat, and they want the maximum chance to win.

Those of us who *are* interested in roleplaying, and I am one, usually do something along the lines of what you're suggesting in the name of realism in character roleplaying. I must admit, I do sit on the character creation screen rolling and rerolling for ten or more minutes with each character, trying to get a high number of attribute points to work with. And I do always try to come up with 18 DEX, even if it's not realistic to the character, just because AC is so important, and it's so frustrating to keep getting hit every time you're attacked. I try to get a high STR even with casters, because it's frustrating to not be able to carry more than two gems and five potions without becoming encumbered. And I try to get 16 CON on every character, for the same reasons.

So I guess my bottom line lands in the middle of the issue - I try to balance realistic roleplaying with wanting to avoid what I know from experience will just be frustrating.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

I usually have a concept of my character before going to the attribute roll screen. Since I know exactly what kind of attributes I want, I don't waste any time rerolling, I employ either Ctrl 8 or Shadowkeeper.

I find roleplaying in CRPGs difficult anyway, since there are usually only 2 or 3 options available to you, and the developers usually took care to notify you of them with big flashing signs. If you want to play anything beyond the common "good guy, savior of the weak" or "evil meanie" you have to play this part outside of the game, since little IN the game will reflect your role, and in the end it usually just boils down to how exactly you are going to punish (or forgive) the wrongdoers.
I wonder, if Baldur's Gate was a PnP game, how many players would manage to forge an alliance with Sarevok, see through the schemes of Irenicus, sell Imoen to the guy and promise the siblings another soul and thus head into the Bhaalspawn wars with one of the most powerful armies conceivable. Mind you - I'm not even saying you're lacking these options - I am saying that the fact that there need to be options at all is the limitation to roleplaying.

[BelgarathMTH]

@Humanoid_Taifun : That's very insightful, HT. I think we once had a similar discussion about how the game really couldn't be roleplayed very well using only the materials available in the game.

Fortunately for me, I have an active and vivid imagination. I'm always writing dialogue for myself and the npc's and playing it out in my head, so I can usually have a pretty good roleplaying experience despite the limitations of the game. And also, I usually am mostly playing myself. I like to pretend like it's really me in the game, and what would I say and how would I react to all the danger and all the people trying to help me.

You're right that the outcome of the game can't really be altered. But I still think it's one of the best that's been created for a computer.

So, realism continues to be important to me for my characters.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 29 juillet 2012 - 07:13 .

[Chaotic Clown]

Male
Half-Elf
Fighter
Neutral Good

STR: 18/45
DEX :17
CON: 17
INT: 12 (13)
WIS: 9 (12)
CHA: 14 (15)

Brackets indicate tome increases.

They're still brilliant attributes, but a step below greatness at the same time.   I was struggling with 16 STR or the 18/45 which I opted for.   16 would have became 17 with the manual of gainful exercise, which I shall not use on my 18/45 score.   18/45 still has five tiers of better scores above it with 51-75, 76-90, 91-99, 00, and a flat 19 via the manual of gainful exercise, yet I still feel like 17 would have been suffice.   I decided to err on the side of caution, though, especially for carry weight.   Minsc can still carry 100 pounds more, as well as toting a better THAC0 and DMG bonus.   Had I opted for 16 STR, the spare two points would have went one a piece to INT and CHA.

Importantly, they're balanced attributes that place my protaganist respectfully amongst the cannon NPC party for INT, WIS, and CHA.

I rolled five times and used the highest score.   It is five for the simply reason that my rolls can be counted on one hand.   Usually I would have distributed such a score as 18/45 STR, 18 DEX, 18 CON, 10 INT, 7 WIS, 16 CHA.   So it is only a minor tweak, but it's a step in the right direction all the same.   Was it a lessar roll, CHA would have taken the hit.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

I find your approach a bit funny.
Why won't you use the actually important tomes on your character? Why will your character steal 3 points of wisdom from your divine caster? Having your character not stand out among their peers can be a meta-gaming goal, but it should not be the desire of any thinking main character. Is balance their number 1 priority (= more important than survival)? Then his alignment should be TN or LN.

[BelgarathMTH]

I think it's pretty good. I agree with HT that tomes of wisdom ought to go to a divine caster. Your fighter simply doesn't need them.

Since most roleplaying in the game really has to be personally imagined by the player, I think we have to look at how stats are going to play out practically as interpreted by the computer program.

The way I see your character sheet is this: you have given yourself a handicap of minus one to AC, minus one to hit points per level, and minus one or two to hit and damage (unless you take the tome of STR and raise to 19.) You have done this to create a bit more challenge to the game and a more realistic character.

I think that's very respectable. I have found that BG 1 is more fun with a character who has a slight handicap like the one you have created. I tried a character once with 18 in every stat, and the game got boring because he could just tear through everything like it was nothing.

So your handicap, plus having a party to protect and equip, balances the game pretty well. I think you're on the right track.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 30 juillet 2012 - 03:22 .

[Chaotic Clown]

HT - I did not roll a good enough score to place any further points into wisdom without unbalancing the core of what and who this character was to be, thus the use of the tomes of understanding.

It also makes sense to me that a character fresh out of Candlekeep would not be as wise as the individuals whom they encounter on their journey along the Sword Coast, due to their sheltered upbringing within those protective walls, as oppose to the more diverse lives of those on the other side.   The protaganist is young, naive, and vulnerable, above all else in the beginning.

I think it is fair to say that CHA and INT are determined by that stage, due to education, tutelage, friendship and social interaction.   WIS (at least a sizeable percentage of it) comes with age, first hand experience, time to broaden their perceptions or their misconceptions, and evolve their very being through trial and error.   All three areas have room for growth, but I believe WIS has the most.

The "actual important" tomes can be approached in a similar manner, it's only natural that the protaganist would become physically stronger, more hardy, and more lean, with an adventurous lifestyle.   I may opt for all of those tomes, or select a few, or pass on each of them.   It depends on what we (as the player) forecast for our protaganist, and what we have already laid out as the foundation.   My Fighter may have trained and sparred with the guards daily, thus being close to peak physical condition, albeit lacking in real first hand battle situations, ie; understanding of tactics, instinct of timing, experience to remain calm, etc, which could be classed as ones wisdom.   If INT governs learning, WIS governs understanding and execution.

I don't follow your view on alignment choice.   The idea of balance is mine (the player) in opposition to a min-max approach in the creation process.   It is in no way a goal of the created character.   I opted for Neutral Good because I see good before I see where it branches to.   Law and chaos, play second fiddle.   I face no dilemma when law and good, or chaos and good, collide.   Whether it is supporting organised society or overthrowing social structure, I go where the quest for good dictates.

Modifié par Chaotic Clown, 30 juillet 2012 - 04:43 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Chaotic Clown wrote...
HT - I did not roll a good enough score to place any further points into wisdom without unbalancing the core of what and who this character was to be, thus the use of the tomes of understanding.

So, if I understand correctly, you are going to roleplay that there really are no tomes at all, and that whomever you killed for the third tome of wisdom just happened to ****** you off?
Your idea of continuously increasing attributes is more akin to the approach of the third edition (and possibly the fourth, which I have never tried). That is not to say that you're playing the game wrong. Maybe you'd be interested in the Bigg Tweak Pack, which actually allows you to increase the attributes of your characters gradually, like you are imagining.

It also makes sense to me that a character fresh out of Candlekeep would not be as wise as the individuals whom they encounter on their journey along the Sword Coast, due to their sheltered upbringing within those protective walls, as oppose to the more diverse lives of those on the other side.   The protaganist is young, naive, and vulnerable, above all else in the beginning.

And while that makes a lot of sense, the system behind Baldur's Gate does not work quite like that. The inexperience of heroes is usually expressed by their level (THAC0, saving throws, etc).

I don't follow your view on alignment choice.   The idea of balance is mine (the player) in opposition to a min-max approach in the creation process.

But the execution is in the hands of your character, and that is what I was referring to. It is a different matter if you assume that these tomes do not actually exist and are just placeholders for your character's growing experience (though in that case it makes little sense that you'd need to jump through those hoops to acquire them - they should be connected to either your MC's experience or the time he's spent on the road (or both)).

[Chaotic Clown]

I was unaware that there was a need to kill to aquire the third tome of wisdom.   I have previously only ever picked up one tome of wisdom.   That changes things.   I would not be willing to kill (even in the fantasy world of computer games) for personal gain.

You raise a vital point that I have overlooked in regard to THAC0 and saving throws determining a characters inexperience.   That may astound you, but I am far from familar with anything D&D related outside of Baldur's Gate (and even that knowledge is thin).   I was working off the understanding that attributes determine everything, before weapons, armor, and item bonuses come into play to improve these attribute dictated values.

I was under the impression that with gaining levels (as a Fighter) it was only health points and weapon proficiences that improved.   Saving Throws and THAC0 increase with level?   That puts a slight twist on things.   My main reason for lowering (and balancing) the attribute scores was to create a character that was not quite so over-powered in relation to every other NPC, and so too experience a more gradual and continual development.

A quick Google search of "THAC0" has me holding my head in my hands!   It's safe to say I feel like a complete moron.   If this table is correct, I see that each class has a base THAC0 of 20.   Warriors gain one THAC0 per level.   Rogues gain one THAC0 every two levels.   Wizards and Priests gain one THAC0 every three levels.

I see that there is a similar table of progression for saving throws, per class, per level.

I honestly did not know this.   I really thought that each class had a varying base that was altered purely by their attribute scores, and equipable items.   Well, we learn something new each day, as the saying goes.

I'm not sure if this changes my gameplan.   Atrribute score still modify such values in the end.   But with level playing a larger roll than I previously knew, it provides food for thought.   There I was thinking lower level characters had it tough due to fragile armor, pitiful weapons (with lessar proficiences), weaker spells, and no real health points to speak of.   That all still rings true, but my Thor almighty what an oversight to make.

Although I'm feeling a tad embarrassed, it's great to achieve a better understanding of the game.   I appreciate the input and the patience, folks.   I was much expecting to be told "You're putting points into scores that do not matter!   You have hindered your ability to kill as fast, you idiot!" and the like.   It's pleasant to be surprised.

[Grond0]

It's not actually necessary to kill to get any of the tomes in the game, but I agree that it would be difficult to get the wisdom tome in Baldur's Gate without killing if you are strictly role-playing.

[Son of Imoen]

I like Chaotic Clown's approach. It's similar to mine. My idea of the protagonist, is he's someone special, but still has to be believable: a real person with strong and weak (or at the least less strong points). He will gather a party and venture forth on a quest that's his though, so he (or she) must have reasonable CHA to be believably be able to bind people to him. So it's no dumpstat for me. 18's were you need it and 3-6 points were you don't, like you see used so much, doesn't seem like a person to me (the protagonist I mean, not the player), but a cardboard figure.

Here's a few examples of characters I completed Tutu with, with their stats when leaving Candlekeep:

Faihra (multi Ranger-Cleric):   STR 18/75,  DEX 15,  CON 10,  INT 10,  WIS 17,  CHA 13

Ihrene (Conjurer):                   STR 10,       DEX 10,  CON 16,  INT 18,  WIS 18,  CHA 17

Ohrlinka (Cleric-Illusionist):      STR   9,       DEX 16,  CON 16,  INT 18,  WIS 17,  CHA 15

R'am (dual Berserker>Cleric): STR 18/88, DEX 15,  CON 16,  INT    9,  WIS 17,  CHA 14

The way I get the stats is first, create the idea in my head (or on paper), than re-roll till I have a nice set to work with (would be quicker if I used H_T's method) than put in the points. If the roll gets too high a number, I just leave the remaining points not alloted.

Modifié par Son of Imoen, 03 août 2012 - 07:56 .

[Shadow_Leech07]

Several years ago I decided to play games by randomly rolling my characters in the generation screen. I called it the "Randomization challenge". Those parties ended up getting chopped up into meaty bits in a Tactics heavy game. I used a dice back then but now I opt for microsoft excel.

In the vanilla game, I believe it is possible but because my current computer playing BG1 cannot roll six random characters I have not done this. I also quit my attempts at soloing a random character. A random fighter might be possible but it defeats the purpose of rolling a random character IMO if I'm picking the class.

I've also tried a Palindrome stat style game where all my characters have the same stat (11). Either way across you see the number 1, or the number 11...The stat of number 10 is what I consider "normal". In any case maybe this kind of rolling will suit your tastes.

Modifié par Shadow_Leech07, 03 août 2012 - 10:53 .

[Nazo]

Honestly, after all this time, my priorities are

a) high stats where I can get them
stats that make a difference in the game.

A is obvious, B is not often used. But it does crop up sometimes, the wisdom, intelligence, or charisma requirements. It spices things up a little to have surprises waiting because this time, I'm CHR 9 whereas last time was CHR 17.

[Grimwald the Wise]

Grond0 wrote...

It's not actually necessary to kill to get any of the tomes in the game, but I agree that it would be difficult to get the wisdom tome in Baldur's Gate without killing if you are strictly role-playing.

Theft is the name of the game.

Steal from one priestess and lie to the other. Of course to do that, you can't be lawful good!



My personal goal at the moment is to get good, though not perfect scores, since I am playing no-reload.

Some other time, I may do things differently.

Mods also change things. They make the game harder, but add better equipment and extra tomes.

They also cause you to re-assess the way that you play.

[Biotic_Warlock]

I got my crossbow mage with fair stats... tho i did reroll just so i could get the 15/17 to dual class with:

15 str
16 dex
14 con
17 int
12 wis
9 cha

Not sure if 14 con is any different to 10 con... but with a familar running around...


There are some npcs out there which must have rerolled themselves too!
Kagain...

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 19 août 2012 - 12:37 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

The difference between 14 con and 10 con is that from 14 it's possible to go 16 permanently. +1 point in BG1, and more points are available in BG2 and ToB (though most of them are for evil guys).

[Grond0]

You may well get Draw Upon Holy Might as a Bhaal power in BG1 as well. That would give you a nice short-term HP buff if you start at con 14.

[EvilDeity]

What does a Fighter with a STR of 17 end up with when they use a tome of strength?

[Biotic_Warlock]

EvilDeity wrote...

What does a Fighter with a STR of 17 end up with when they use a tome of strength?

I think it goes just to 18 (no bonus from percentage).

[EvilDeity]

That's disappointing.

[Incantatar]

I refuse to go lower then 8-10 in any attribute even if it doesn't change a thing. Everything else will mostly be min-maxed since i'm playing no-reload and anti-cheese exclusively and want a bit survivability with my chars. Your character is a demigod from birth, so it's not even unrealistic too have godly stats.
In p&p D&D i'm less of a powergamer. E.g. i played a thief with 9 dex for fun or a fighter with insomnia.

[Redcoat]

I remember someone once wrote a program that would continuously reroll your stats for you, and autuomatically store the highest score. So you could just set the program to run overnight, and wake up to a character with a 95+ attribute total.

Or you could just do as I do - export your character and change the attribute scores myself with Shadowkeeper to something I find appropriate to that particular character.

The problem with the BG series, as I take it, is that it does not adequately respond to certain attributes such as INT and CHA.  I cannot really call it "roleplaying" if all you're doing is assigning qualities to a character that the game does not recognise or respond to in any way. For instance, I might say, "Well, my character is silver tongued enough to sell paintings to the blind" and give him 18 CHA, but that 18 score won't give him any new dialogue options. Likewise, I might say, "My fighter is a genius" and give him 18 INT, but again, he won't get any dialogue options that reflect his high intelligence. Compare this to a game like Fallout, where a character with an Intelligence score of 1 would be unable to communicate in anything but grunts and groans.

Of course, if I were DMing a tabletop game and someone gave me a fighter with INT and CHA scores of 3, I would expect him to play that fighter as someone who is barely capable of stringing a coherent sentence together, and whenever he does speak it's something so horrendously offensive that no one can stand to be around him.

[ncknck]

There are two problems with bg attributes, and perhaps with attributes in all such games.

Progression is not linear, if an attribute is not maxed, it can basically be any number, so to make a difference you have to max it. Which leads us to the second problem, even the most creative tweaked character with average attributes is equal to a generic character with maxed attributes. Why bother making a Kensai with str 13, if a plain fighter with str 19 does the same thing. Using a tome of strength on such kensai? equally pointless. Its just annoying.

I like the approach they took in Diablo 3. Attributes are automatically distributed depending on class. So every fighter has a good starting str value and you go get creative from there.