In BG, lets say you have a +5 magic sword with 1d8+5 (or 6-13), but you also have Str 18/76 so you get another +4 (10-18), and you are a Kenasai for +2, and you are Specialised +2, and often get the strength spell, sometimes might even be buffed with multiple spells. No problem, if you are an experienced D&D player. But i would actually prefer to see the final numbers like in D:OS (you deal 14-22 damage, minus DR) instead.
To hit is about the same in BG, but you only see the likelyhood of hitting after the fact in the combat log, while in D:OS you get to see it before that (even shows your flanking modifiers). And D20+class+proficiency+magic bonus+bless+other vs AC isn't really transparent, i would prefer a percentage instead (and it is a percentage in BG, only with 5% steps). For any non-P&P-Player, its actually quite intransparent.
Hm, that's actually a good point. If taken all the buffs and supporting stats into account every system is way less transparent. It just happens to me that I'm one of these guys who don't have a "natural access" to the world or probabilities (though I studied maths on university...) and I always found that a system based on dice throwing and integer values is better understandable that one based on percentages, probabilities and decimal numbers. I agree that some systems in BG2 are a percentage value as well (seems like you cannot avoid that in a system based on probablities after all).
I guess that my critique of the system in D:OS is maybe at least partly based on its actual presentation or transparency. With a better explanation (in tutorial and/or manual) it could possibly improved by a significant margin. I want to know, for example, what it means if my sword has a damage of "70-177" and what that means for the "attacking value" of my warrior. To me that isn't clear or obvious enough so far.
Well, normally i used mirror image and stone skin, in the computer game spells/day were never a limitation, unlike P&P
. Pure Mages should be protected anyway, not just due to interrupts but especially due to their health and armor.
[...]
Poor slow BG2 Mages with their Time Stop/Improved Alacrity casting feast, Chain Contingency etc^^. But i agree, during the mid levels, casting time adds a tactical element with a dungeon master / good AI present (=not in BG2 unless you intentionally break formation).
I agree that in late/end game in BG2 most people used a certain combination or sequence of spells for their mages (with additional buffing before the combat encounter even triggered). But nevertheless I had the feeling that casting times added depth to the system. And there were indeed situations in which you could be interrupted, even in end game. Firkraag for example could insta-kill almost everyone in your party, with its fire exlosions definitely interrupting mages. The point was that they were interrupted by every damage they took (even if it was just one point). With stone skin and mirror and stuff they were no defenseless in a way that everyone could kill them instantly but in a way that enemies could indeed make your mage way less effective by interrupting your spells.
At low levels i agree, but you also had a similar problem with the limited number of spells in BG1 (below lvl 10). But a dedicated mage with some levels in D:OS really never needs to resort to the basic damage spell.
Well, I had two mages in my D:OS playthrough of the beta, both on level 10 at the end. My fire/earth mage could only use his better fire skills once every three turns (I think fireball even once every five turns). So basically every second round the mage had to use a flare or even Stuff of Magus which doesn't seem like the best way a mage could be of use to me.
My water/air mage instead could use his lightning spell every turn. There wasn't even much of an incentive to use any other spell in combat since lightning offered much damage and a stun probability. This is even worse when lightning is used on a puddle each round.
I just prefer a system in which you have more skills at hand but can't use them as often as you want in combat. That way you have to decide which spell to use in which moment and for which enemy. Together with a great variety of spells this is more fun to me than basically casting the same two or three (or even one spell in the example with my water/air mage...) spells the whole time.
The spell interaction and effects combination system in D:OS is better than anything i remember in BG, but the damage potential of mages is definitely behind the other classes. However, i think this is both intentional and a good idea: If mages are a great at area damage, great in controlling, great damage dealers, the other classes are just filler. In P&P, this was balanced by the limited spells/day. In BG2, it wasn't balanced at all: Who needs fighters, i can summon an army. Who needs sneak attack rogues, i can stack high damage and save or die spells until my time stops run out. Who needs clerics, i take no damage anyway. Etc.
Well, I guess it depended on how you've played BG2. I had some pretty effective fighters in my playthroughs whos "killing stats" matched those of my attack mages. A properly buffed paladin wearing Carsomyr for example was a killer machine and not comparable to summoned creatures. And again, mages could be interrupted. You needed warriors/tanks to keep enemies away from them. I agree that time stop in BG2 was overpowered. But it never appeared game breaking or completely balancing breaking to me though.
Clerics and healers of course had their part in the party, healing the tanks in the right moment. In my experience healing abilities were among the most important skills back in the days...
But I agree on your point that in D:OS mages seem more like made for crowd control and environmental combinations. Don't get me wrong, I love this feature and it's something D:OS really stands out. But imo there is also the danger of "one-dimensional" playstyle for mages. There is hardly any incentive to not set enemy groups on fire with a fire mage or to not stun groups of enemies with lightning and water. That's a cool feature but it can get boring after some time I fear.
Agreed, i hope for an iron man mode. But if you take a look at other threads, some people are even frustrated by the game difficulty now. Not everyone is a P&P/Tactical cRPG veteran
.
True indeed. But I don't think that the ability to save during combat is directly connected with the difficulty of the game. The game should be easy enough in easy mode to win almost every encounter without the need of saves during combat. To me the ability to save during combat is more or less a design decision. Maybe it was invented as a try to bring some convenience to the game but imo there is no need for that since combat encounters hardly last more than a few minutes and it definitely takes away from the fascination of "solving" solutions and enconunters.
But in most cases, you could just go back and save/rest.
True. The resting system wasn't without flaws. Most people tried to rest as often as they could, travelling back and forth the whole time. At least there was the "random encounter" functionality which tried to prevent you from resting everywhere. Each system has its pros and cons. But to me the cons were simply outweighted by the pros in BG2.
But the tanks didn't have any tactical depth in BG, the right position and focus was really all you needed. In D:OS, the Rogue/Ranger/Fighter special abilities mean you have the tactical equivalent of a 4 wizard party (in terms of micromanagement). I also think, due to turn based combat, that single turns would last too long in a bigger party, especially considering the ability to add 4 summons to the mix.
Well, first of all I don't think that summons add anything to the combat at the moment. They don't stand for full party members. I actually hoped for something like that during the kickstarter. It was never communicated that clear that summons are just elementals who are there for only 2-3 turn and who can only hit in melee and use ONE spell/skill at the maximum. That's boring and doesn't add to the depth of combat. Mostly you just use summons to distract or occupy enemies (to take them out of the equation for a while) instead of using them for more sophisticated group tactics.
I can't agree on the micromanagement of a "4 wizards party". First, I don't use micromanagement that much after all in D:OS. The game is pretty straight-forward which cuts out the need for it imo. Second, I don't see warriors and rangers as wizards. Sure, they maybe have more skills than their equivalents in BG2, but they are still used for the same purpose, basically doing the same. You still put your warrior in melee combat and let your ranger shoot arrows. That doesn't make them wizards to me tbh.
I agree that more party members can make turn-based combat lasting a lot longer. But at the moment combat encounters doesn't last more than a view minutes so I don't see the point. And other games like Dragon Age which is based on a RTwP system has reduced party numbers as well which is an indication to me that devs tend to reduce party size in order to make balancing easier and to reduce the workload. That's ok and I know there are limitations but it's still sad somehow.
Quoted in full for truth, unfortunately. There are multiple interesting ways to solve quests (like pickpocketing a handkerchief and give it to a dog to check the persons guilt in a certain crime, if you can speak to animals), but the choices in dialogue itself are a bit lacking.
I agree. Quests indeed offer nice ways of solving which are not based on dialogue but on finding secrets or items and stuff. But the dialogues themselves are lacking compared to other games, both in scope and in player agency.
