Joy Divison wrote...
Seagloom - I followed what you wrote.
If you think cloudkill and ice storm are remotely similar, you are confirming how little you know about D&D. It's more than getting a spell name wrong, you are demonstrating you do not understand the basic differences between the spells. That's not an ad hominem attack..
I understand the minutia of which spells use X save or are counters to X defenses. Such as how Cloudkill can be instant death to lower HD enemies. I'm simplifying my description of them to explain why I think they're mechanically the same. Some do slightly more damage, last longer, inflict status effects, lower saves, whatever. But at a basic level, you use them in similar ways. Once you know how a DoT works, you use all DoTs in the same fashion. You might choose one DoT over another for its specific effects, but I personally don't see that decision as being deep.
Joy Divison wrote...
One of the first lines in many BG FAQs or walkthroughs are "save often" because the game is often challenging, characters can get killed easily and from any encounter, and it will take time to learn the convoluted mechanics to effectively coordinate a party. Not in your experience though...because most enemies/encounters are trash and no threat that your mage "stood around watching the grass grow" There are also debates about what are the best spells to take and notes on what spells players will need to survive/fight effectively/get through dungeon X. Yet you are telling me most of the spells are the same and many are so worthless that mages specialize (which is not why they specialize...they specialize because they want more spells). And you keep telling me your mages spam spells when a 6th level wizard, a fairly high level character that would have completed more than half the original game, has a total of 8 spells: 4 first level, 2 second level, and 2 third level. 8 spells a day and they "spam". Right....
A FAQ is one person's opinion not an objective truth. It's true, saving often is a good policy with all the die rolling randomness meaning things can go wrong if you're unlucky. That's not the same thing as saving because I think there's a high chance of failure if I think I have the right defense going. On a side note, I tend to be lazy about saving and rely a lot on autosaving as a result. That has bitten me in the ass from time to time, due to randomness... but apparently not often enough to break me of the habit.
Anyway...
My mage stands around watching the grass grow because once they cast the spells I need them to, there isn't much else they can contribute to the battle. I sometimes made them throw darts or use a Magic Missile wand, but their contribution was neglible at that point. I couldn't really cast a spell like Fireball in most situations without hurting my front line. And spells like Hold Person weren't universally applicable so I saw it as risky to always burn a slot on it. Monster Summoning is the one spell I might have memorized, but by the time I was in situations where I wanted cannon fodder there were already summoning wands.
Granted the way I play these days, I don't load up on Haste and such. I play much more nuanced. For example, these days I'd throw Protection From Fire on my front line then go crazy with Fireball.
However, back then I was totally new; and frankly, my even simpler tactics worked. I don't consider myself some l33t super player. I just think the game's reputed challenge is overblown based on anecdotal experience.
And no my mages don't spam spells. Hence the watching the grass grow comment. I'd save them for fights that looked like trouble. Like when an invisible laughing ogre mage rushes to talk to me, that's when I start casting. My mage doesn't do anything when fighting random kobolds in Firewine. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned firing with bows, then switching to melee as enemies closed. That's pretty much what I did for trash fights, and it practically always worked.
And yeah, I know mages specialize for more spells. I guess I wasn't clear there. My point is some spells are so niche and worthless, you don't lose anything by dropping them. It's better to get an extra slot so you can cast one more Haste or whatever, than keep access to a niche spell. A spell with an extremely limited application, or no worthwhile application means it may as well not exist. I see this as an issue because people often bring up BG's long spell list as a sign of complexity.
My argument is the last isn't that vast when it's filled with rehashed spells; slightly tweaked in design to account for an increase in power. And other spells that provide similar, but weaker effects than alternatives or have limited function.
Joy Divison wrote...
At 3rd level mages will want/need these spells: haste, hold person, fireball, dispel magic. That's 4 very good spells. You get two. They also probably like to have dire charm, slow, and monster summoning. But according to you these apparently have no functional difference or are so limited use that they are useless that mages won't ever bother to memorize them. That's just wrong.
I usually have clerics handle Dispel Magic. They level faster. In BG2 there's also other options like Keldorn's Inquisitor abilities. I also used to rest a lot back in the day. Pretty much after every real fight. Slow, Dire Charm, and Monster Summoning can all be useful, but they aren't absolutely necessary. That's my point. I didn't slot them back then because I didn't know enough to feel comfortable with anything seemingly complex. I wanted simple spells that worked reliably. Plus I tended to focus on my character; who in my first complete and totally legit playthrough of the series was a paladin. I basically setup mages and clerics to buff him and my other warriors. They were glorified backup singers. And that was enough for pretty much the whole of both games.
It was especially silly in BG2 when I got Carsomyr, red dragon plate, and the cloak of mirroring. My paladin was practically invincible to anything that didn't hit hard in melee; like adamantite golems.
Again, I don't consider myself some super l33t player. So if I can win that way on core difficulty, the game probably isn't as hard as some folks claim.
Joy Divison wrote...
BG is *not* easy once you understand the mechanics. It's *easier* when you specifically tailor your gameplay to pick up the best items at the earliest time, google mustard jellies and know exactly what effects them, wait until your high enough level that you don't get killed on the first volley of arrows from kobold commanders in the Nashkel mines, and know that behind door X is a lich so you cast the proper preparatory spells beforehand. It's still not easy because even your character with 18s will still get one-shotted by a "trash" random encounter, sometimes ogres make their saving throw against your sleep/entangle spell, and even if you are as good as you claim to be, Khalid sucks and people will reload when he gets himself killed because they like him or just don't want their party members dying. BG's difficulty is not based on ignorance - the games mechanics make it easy for the party members to killed permanently. Knowledge helps to mitigate this, but it is a fundamental part of the game.
I can agree it's all metagaming and there's an element of randomness. That's why I don't find BG challenging in what I consider a conventional sense. It's more like a puzzle game. Once you solved the puzzle, it isn't hard beyond the random element of dice. I guess I don't see bad luck as real challenge.
I can also agree there's save scumming involved if you don't want to lose any party members early on. So I'll concede it's actually challenging early on. However, once you get over level 3 or so, that becomes less of an issue. Sure, the occasional unlucky crit happens and someone dies or you get slaughtered in a random encounter travelling between areas. But in terms of scripted fights and dungeon encounters, I don't think it's very difficult once you know what to expect. And preparing for those expectations doesn't require a strategy worthy of Sun Tzu IMO. Basically any strategy that entailed improving damage and attack rate after setting up a defense did the job.
You can argue reloading after an NPC is gibbed is cheating, and that by not doing so, the game hits its natural challenge curve. I can't disagree with that...
On the other hand, save scumming is considered so much a part of these games there's even a warning message in BG2 specifically recommending the player quicksave often. It's even mocked in ToB.
It's a challenge without a lasting consequence. I can say it has a lasting consequence for a player who never reloads, and I think that's be fair. But realistically, almost everyone reloads. It renders the entire death mechanic a tedious inconvenience rather than a real obstacle. And since there is so much randomness involved, it's as likely misfortune as player error at fault. If a player does everything right, but still loses due to a bad dice roll, does it really count as a loss? Technically, yes. In my mind, I'm not so sure. Which again, is why I'm not comfortable calling bad luck a challenge.
In that sense, I see the free revives and heals in games like DAO don't functionally change much. Only difference is the game freshens your group up instead of leaving it to the player to do it manually. Whee... tangent.
Anyway, look... I'm not interested in "winning" here. I can see the merit in your argument and you've swayed my opinion a little, but we're just not going to agree so I think this is the last I'll write on the subject.
Edit: Okay, I've edited this a bajillion times for clarity and spelling errors. Think I'm finally done now.
Modifié par Seagloom, 30 novembre 2013 - 09:59 .
Retour en haut
