Has anybody else noticed the huge mistake?

Remove all ads!

In the BG series, there is a huge mistake in the way something from the D&D rules has been implemented in the gameplay. Has anybody got any suggestions as to what I might be refering to?

 

Am I the only lost one?

My only guess is that you're playing 3rd Edition D&D at home, while the Baldur's Gate games are 2nd Edition AD&D.

 

Maybe because a computer game can never and will never be 100% D&D accurate. Anyway I guess Klorox has a point.

Geee, the new poster sure have some funny name... back in my first post we didn't have that imagination...

Internet time pass very fast doesn't it? *sigh*

 

Are you talking about kits? But im pretty sure those are standard in 2.5. There are a lot of mechanical problems, but those are standard because this is a crpg, not a pnp game.

 

I wondered if the post was worth making the way I did it. No, I am, and always will be, a 2nd ed. devotee and I strongly disagree that a computer RPG can never be the same as a pencil and paper one, at least in terms of what I'm thinking of.
The huge mistake is the casting time. A level 9 mage spell is meant to have a +9 onto the mage's initiative die. This *should* equate to being slightly faster than an immensely powerful warrior can swing a double-handed sword back i.e. about 1 second! As we can all see from the graphics, a warrior gets several swings in before a mage can cast a 9th level spell.
The weapon speeds seem to be accurately comparable to one another although the effect doesn't mirror P&P. I helped a friend roll up a fighter with something different about him and went for him as a dagger specialist wielding one in each hand and he turned out to be incredibly effective because he was so quick. The guy had a huge strength (something like 18 (75)) and his damage bonus combined with his specialism bonus had him killing monsters very quickly. The other players started to get cheesed off that his was always getting the kills while their characters were still drawing back their longswords!
The spell casting times on the other hand, are nowhere near correct, especially as you move upwards through the levels.

 

Balance issue, I bet. Imagine dragons/liches casting lv9 spells in 1 second x_X

 

and imagine how pathetic Sarevok, Minsc or Keldorn would be if they were restricted to a maximum of 2 attacks per round?

 

Does it really matter?

At heart this is a great game that I've played a dozen times and will probably play a dozen more. So what if casting times are messed up? They were probably made that way to make the game more enjoyable.

 

I could fix this problem if you want.

Prepare for the next incarnation of Super Firkraag, the insta-timestopping dragon/mage! (Note that Firkraag does not use Time Stop in the mod. I'm not that mean.)

 

Why not have Firkraag use Time Stop? He's got high level spells and Time Stop would be a killer for an ancient red dragon to have - cast it then breathe fire at the whole party a couple of times or tear them apart, all before the spell expires.

 

Time Stop + 3 Horrid Wiltings + Dragon + Absolute Immunity + Finger of Death Spells.

Somehow that seems a bit mean. I'll give him Timestop if people want it, but he's hard enough as is.

 

Well, that is cause game needs to be balanced...And BG is done on mix between AD&D 2nd and 3rd edition...Fightin and Casting rules are more like 2nd, but you got 3rd editon classes and kits..

 

In 2E pnp, for non-single-class-fighter characters, you have expertise in optional rules. No more damage or to hit, but at least the additional 1/2 attack. It's 1 from start, 1 from levels 7 and 13, and 1/2 from expertise (specialisation) for 2.5 total. 3.5 if dual-wielding. Should be more for grand mastery, but game balance required tweaking fighters down. Pity. Not like I ever have a single-class fighter in my team in BG2. In BG1 and IWD1 I do, though.

 

BG2 is based on 2nd ed. AD&D not 2nd and 3rd.
Red dragons, no matter how old, cannot (according to the Monstrous Manual) cast spells greater than 5th level. Logically I'd have to admit that their great longevity and ability to polymorph into human form (via spell though), perhaps *should* , make it possible for them to cast higher level spells. Certainly they can use spell scrolls.
In retrospect, AD&D as a computer RPG, is properly balanced I think since on paper, getting a high level mage is so difficult that anyone who has done so deserves to be able to destroy warriors with a mere word. On the computer however, attaining high level mages is easy-peasy, so the true to P&P rules would be unbalanced. -sigh- I love mages.
Further to Chevalier, in 2nd ed. P&P, single classed fighters are no different from BG2 i.e. they get specialisation, mastery, high mastery and grand mastery. Indeed, in BG2 you don't appear to get 2 attacks per round with *any* weapon beyond level 13, as you do in 2nd ed. P&P.

 

It is right, no D&D CRPG will ever be 100% PnP-compatible. On the contrary, it can be made better.
The Fields of the Dead tries to do this with BG1. Too bad I have not heard of such thing for BGII.

 

Such a mod *is* being made for BG2. Do not bother asking for details or who is doing it, though.

And please remember one thing: Just because the books say something does not mean it will be changed accordingly. Why? Because there are vast differences between playing P&P and a computer game. This applies both to my mod and its BG2 equivalent.

[ January 25, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: Echon ]

 

Back to the sword swinging and stuff. As far as I have seen, they animate the sword swinging, but don't always put this first swing in the calculation. No hit or miss in the dialogue screen if you use that option. Like they say in 2nd edition, a combat round is full of swings and misses, the attack roll is only rolled for the attack that potentionally can cause damage, resulting in your attack rate.

 

True Thunder, but don't you think it's rubbish i.e. unrealistic? I would sooner see a warrior with a double-handed sword make no inneffective swings because with a blade as long as six feet, it is daft to have 'misses' against a mage who cannot duck or dodge (or his spell casting will be interupted (I don't know if you know it, but mages get no AC adjustments for high dexterity when they are casting spells - in P&P at least)). They are meant to just stand there and concentrate on their spell. Thus, it's inconceivable that a warrior would swing and miss several times - this is purely the mechanics the game has adopted for initiative - unless the warrior rolls a 1 for his attack (which will always miss). In P&P DMs would sometimes declare that the weapon had been dropped or had broken when a 1 was rolled (making more sense of warriors carrying back-up weapons). N.B. Magical weapons NEVER break in normal use.
If the game implemeted weapon speeds and spell casting accurately, it would make much more sense to fight spell casters with quick weapons i.e. with them casting as fast as they *should*, it would quickly become apparent to all that attempting to beat a mage 'to the punch' with a two-handed sword would be hopeless and warriors would leap to grab their daggers or even leap in with their fists!
The multiple swings game implementation is only credible in combat between melee combatants, not between melee combatants and mages.

 

What is your problem with weapon speed factors and spellcasting? Speed factors *are* implemented and fast weapons are much more effective against wizards and clerics.

 

Echon, if you read the entire thread, you'll get what my problem is.