Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Deflowerer]

No, I'm playing it for the first time and only reload when my main character dies.

That's the way to play IMO - there are gazilions of NPCs that you would not touch with a long pole anyway.

Just seems like a really weird perspective to me. You're ok with reloading, but not ok with reloading. A self-imposed self-contradictory rule that doesn't add anything?

One of your team-mates dies, you fight on... but in that same fight you die, so you reload. Your companion is alive again, yay. One of your companions dies, but you hang on by the threads, no reload, a companion dies, oh woe. I dunno, it's just not something I can get my head round really.

At least early in the game, companion death has a significant economic cost in terms of reviving the party members. I also have self-reinforced rule that 10 deaths = permadeath.

Anyway, I reload when I die because it's game over then, not much I can do about that.

Basically this LARPing maximizes my enjoyment since it's more exciting and dangerous, and on the other hand, it actually requires me to make use of mechanics I wouldn't otherwise use at all (stealth mode, revivals) and in certain dialogues, especially if I haven't saved in a while, makes me more careful of what I say if I think the other person/party is significantly stronger than me.

 

[Delterius]

No, I'm playing it for the first time and only reload when my main character dies.

That's the way to play IMO - there are gazilions of NPCs that you would not touch with a long pole anyway.

Just seems like a really weird perspective to me. You're ok with reloading, but not ok with reloading. A self-imposed self-contradictory rule that doesn't add anything?

No?

 

[McPlusle]

Alright, time to start the trilogy over again for the 324238th time. After all these years, I've still never beaten it, but I'm gonna make an archer this time. The question is: shortbow, longbow, or crossbow?

 

[Lacrymas]

It was either Longbows for BG1 and shortbows for BG2 or the other way around.

 

[Dzupakazul]

Alright, time to start the trilogy over again for the 324238th time. After all these years, I've still never beaten it, but I'm gonna make an archer this time. The question is: shortbow, longbow, or crossbow?

If you're starting the trilogy from BG1, then Long Bows have the best representation by far. You start off being able to buy a Composite Long Bow, and all the best ranged weaponry is from that weapon class. The best artifact longbow shows up in early chapter 3; the best artifact shortbow will elude you until you get to Baldur's Gate. Crossbows are a viable item choice, but they don't get as many attacks per round (+1 APR Light Crossbow can be acquired in Beregost to somewhat help with that), and you can actually miss acquiring the best artifact crossbow if you don't pick a specific option during a certain quest.

Short Bows are generally considered better in BG2 - Tuigan is available from the start. Low magical enchantment, but +1 APR rocks until you get GWW; raw damage on the bow itself doesn't matter as much as the amount of arrows you can fire from it in a round, and the amount of Called Shot benefits you can stack on an enemy; the Archer stacks so many flat damage boni that you want to hit as often as possible, especially if magical ammo is involved. Gesen is fantastic for the elemental damage (pierces Stoneskins and some physical immunities) and massive enchantment/THAC0. Crossbows still lack APR, but Firetooth (huge enchantment and elemental damage) is available from pretty much the start of the game and is a very potent weapon, which can definitely be your mainstay throughout the whole game, or at least would warrant a few ** into because of useful bolts you can purchase or find, and because Firetooth's fire damage is often useful (if only to finish off trolls without a hassle or pierce Stoneskin). The main problem that ranged weapons face in BG2 is that arrows generally lack high-tier enchantments, and Gesen/Firetooth solve that issue by supplying you with high enchantment missiles (+4, when the max enchantment you can get on vendor arrows in vanilla ToB is +3). Some enemies in BG2 can't be hurt by anything but weapon enchantment higher than +4, so you will want those special missiles generated by either weapon at bay. Long Bows don't have an equivalent, so they generally aren't as attractive there.

tl;dr:
- Long Bows - best weapon in BG1, falls off harshly in BG2 due to lack of late game options and the attacks-per-round cap that ranged characters have, which you need to subvert through other means
- Short Bows - passable in BG1 (Archer will destroy everything in his path in that game no matter what you give him anyway), fantastic in BG2, only weapon class which lets you reach the APR cap on an Archer without Whirlwind/Improved Haste, strong artifacts
- Crossbows - good in BG1, ridiculously strong crossbow available from almost the start of BG2 (purchasable from Watcher's Keep vendors) which may very well be your most reliable way of piercing Stoneskin until you reach Underdark

You can honestly go whichever way, but if you get Long Bows, you might want to opt out of them in mid-BG1 (even ** will be honestly enough with any composite long bow) and focus on Short Bows and Crossbows to secure your race to godhood in SoA/ToB, as I honestly think Archers need absolutely no help in BG1, but will want to optimize a tiny bit when approaching late game, where archery falls off ever so slightly. It helps that Bows and Crossbows ammo comes with slightly different enchantments here and there - that +1 APR crossbow you can acquire in both games sounds strictly like Tuigan's weaker cousin (5 vs 4 attacks at natural cap) until you realize the game offers you bolts that deal +4k4 lightning damage. (Not too many, but they can work in a pinch).

 

[SwiftCrack]

In the endgame of BG1 at least you can have Heavy Crossbow of Accuracy and Light Crossbow of Speed in your quickslots and swap accordingly for whatever situation (heavy armor enemies, the heavy xbow is the only weapon in BG1 that has +5 THACO vs the lowest speed arrow/bolt-based ranged weapon in the game). You can equip the Long bow of marksmanship in you third quickslot and ignore shortbows completely until you get to BG2.

In BG2 shortbows do indeed reign supreme, and you can still keep one crossbow around. If you don't want to cheese the game by getting the TOB crossbow from watcher's keep straight away you can use the +fire damage crossbow from Ribald to slay trolls easily.

 

[Walty Warner]

Playing BG1.

If someone gets blown to fucking smithereens, there's no way to revive them, right? Just had someone get fucked by a Flesh Golem by blowing to pieces, and the character disappeared from my party (unlike normal death where the person gets greyed out). So is that guy lost forever?

If I remember correctly you only get "blown to smithereens" if you die to a critical hit and you don't have a helmet. (which makes you immune to critical hits)

Otherwise the only other way I can remember you getting gibbed is if you get hit by lightning. If I remember correctly.

 

[ga♥]

It depends with how many HPs you go under 0. After a certain threeshold you can't be ressed.

I don't remember lightning but I do remember "death by green slime" and by that expansion demon aoc'something'something.

 

[Lacrymas]

I think chunking is when a single hit drops you below -10 HP. It usually happens on crits and that's why people think it's crit-related, but it's not.

 

[Lujo]

I'm nearing my first ever playthrough of BG 1. It's strange, been a PC gamer all my life, played so many things up and down, and I only managed to ever force myself to get to the bandit camp in BG once. That's the furthest I ever got. Steam achievements improved the experience enough for my taste this time as did sticking with the more fun characters like Montaron and Xzar, getting good use out of that sleazy Bard guy nobody likes, playing an evil party and not really powergaming. I got one battle in Baldurs Gate, Durlags Tower and Candlekeep left.

I liked... I liked the layout of the city of Baldur's gate, the whole walled-off bits shtick, and how the thiefs guild quests made it feel cool. It looks like something that could be very annoying but it turned out not to be. I liked the Gnoll Stronghold map - a cliff-face labyrinth, really nice. Unfortunately, it was also the only memorable open air-map. Or, like, map in general.

I can't call the game bad. The system aged badly (or rather was always terrible in various regards), the inventory management is tedious to the extreme, I had my wife ask me what the plot was and what was I doing in-game ATM and I couldn't answe. Wondering around the wilderness? For unclear reasons? I couldn't answer what the game was about, and as I'm typing I'm trying to figure out what it was about. There's some doppleganger guys, and some guys trying to kill me, and many more guys who I'm trying to kill, and some guys want me to do stuff here and there, and I get paid to juggle shit. And there's, like, stuff in it. But it's not exactly bad.

Why was this game such a hit though? I vividly remember playing both Fallouts when they were fresh, I remember playing Planescape: Torment, hell, I remember playing pen and paper D&D a lot, but BG was just something that happened to other people. Why do people who like BG like it?

 

[Jason Liang]

I'm nearing my first ever playthrough of BG 1. It's strange, been a PC gamer all my life, played so many things up and down, and I only managed to ever force myself to get to the bandit camp in BG once. That's the furthest I ever got. Steam achievements improved the experience enough for my taste this time as did sticking with the more fun characters like Montaron and Xzar, getting good use out of that sleazy Bard guy nobody likes, playing an evil party and not really powergaming. I got one battle in Baldurs Gate, Durlags Tower and Candlekeep left.

I liked... I liked the layout of the city of Baldur's gate, the whole walled-off bits shtick, and how the thiefs guild quests made it feel cool. It looks like something that could be very annoying but it turned out not to be. I liked the Gnoll Stronghold map - a cliff-face labyrinth, really nice. Unfortunately, it was also the only memorable open air-map. Or, like, map in general.

I can't call the game bad. The system aged badly (or rather was always terrible in various regards), the inventory management is tedious to the extreme, I had my wife ask me what the plot was and what was I doing in-game ATM and I couldn't answe. Wondering around the wilderness? For unclear reasons? I couldn't answer what the game was about, and as I'm typing I'm trying to figure out what it was about. There's some doppleganger guys, and some guys trying to kill me, and many more guys who I'm trying to kill, and some guys want me to do stuff here and there, and I get paid to juggle shit. And there's, like, stuff in it. But it's not exactly bad.

Why was this game such a hit though? I vividly remember playing both Fallouts when they were fresh, I remember playing Planescape: Torment, hell, I remember playing pen and paper D&D a lot, but BG was just something that happened to other people. Why do people who like BG like it?

BG1: EE wasn't a big hit. Just BG2: EE.

BG1: EE was a moderate hit since it was a nice update over gold box GUI and graphics. Especially things like animated spells which were cool back then.

 

[Lilura]

Beamdog born and bred Infinity Engine gamers.

 

[Lujo]

BG:EE is a repackaging. BG was a huge hit where I'm from (in part because almost everybody had PC-s, consoles were almost unheard of). Like, most of the guys in my highschool have played it. D&D groups sprang up like mushrooms because groups of people from the same class had discovered D&D through it. I could never get why.

Having said that I actually preferred it to BG2, because BG2 kinda required you to be somewhat invested in the characters and familiar with the setting and the system, and it plopped you in the middle of a city. I tried it once or twice over the years and never got much farther than the end of the first dungeon. I was pleasantly surprised at how I actually kinda liked the city of Baldurs Gate in BG1 this time around. In BG2 it was like an overload of content, but really meh content. In BG1 it was kind of nice change of scenery/pace/pixel-to-content ratio opposed to all the semi-empty wilderness.

 

[ghostdog]

I think chunking is when a single hit drops you below -10 HP. It usually happens on crits and that's why people think it's crit-related, but it's not.

IIRC getting killed while being petrified also obliterates the character.

 

[Doktor Best]

I'm nearing my first ever playthrough of BG 1. It's strange, been a PC gamer all my life, played so many things up and down, and I only managed to ever force myself to get to the bandit camp in BG once. That's the furthest I ever got. Steam achievements improved the experience enough for my taste this time as did sticking with the more fun characters like Montaron and Xzar, getting good use out of that sleazy Bard guy nobody likes, playing an evil party and not really powergaming. I got one battle in Baldurs Gate, Durlags Tower and Candlekeep left.

I liked... I liked the layout of the city of Baldur's gate, the whole walled-off bits shtick, and how the thiefs guild quests made it feel cool. It looks like something that could be very annoying but it turned out not to be. I liked the Gnoll Stronghold map - a cliff-face labyrinth, really nice. Unfortunately, it was also the only memorable open air-map. Or, like, map in general.

I can't call the game bad. The system aged badly (or rather was always terrible in various regards), the inventory management is tedious to the extreme, I had my wife ask me what the plot was and what was I doing in-game ATM and I couldn't answe. Wondering around the wilderness? For unclear reasons? I couldn't answer what the game was about, and as I'm typing I'm trying to figure out what it was about. There's some doppleganger guys, and some guys trying to kill me, and many more guys who I'm trying to kill, and some guys want me to do stuff here and there, and I get paid to juggle shit. And there's, like, stuff in it. But it's not exactly bad.

Why was this game such a hit though? I vividly remember playing both Fallouts when they were fresh, I remember playing Planescape: Torment, hell, I remember playing pen and paper D&D a lot, but BG was just something that happened to other people. Why do people who like BG like it?

Paying attention to dialogue would help quite a bit understanding the plot. Its really barebones...

 

[Lujo]

I know the plot's not very complicated, that's part of the problem. It's kinda hard to tell it from the sidequests, and the majority of the time you can look at the screen, ask yourself "why am I doing this thing on the screen now?" and not really have an answer. Then try to figure out what you're supposed to be doing instead of being in the middle of nowhere, and whatever it is is not much different. In a weird sense it feels more non-linear than either Fallout 1 or Fallout 2, because you really feel like you could at any point be anywhere doing anything. On the flip side, it all feels like doing anything makes about as much sense, so if you don't like one thing you can't really go do something more fun as most of it is about equaly as fun (or boring).

Achievements really did something for it, though, there's a sense of direction when you shoot for them which helps things out a lot. I think part of the problem is that most things you can do in-game are not very rewarding, or rather, that the rewards are not very meaningful. Like in-game, I mean. The loot is mostly pointless, trying to carry most drops is pointless, a few spells are clearly better than other ones, XP is kinda slow to come by... So when you combine this with the general aimlesness and kinda breezy excuse-plot there's a strong feeling of "What am I doing?"

Cloakwood, for example, feels unrealy tacked on and filler. You're there "because plot" except "there" is just a bunch of nowhere like the 20-odd bunches of nowhere you've allready been to (and some of those were more dinstinct and memorable) and there's barely any plot going on. And then what's at the end of it is more mines, except also less memorable ones than the one's you've allready been to for no obvious reasons. Really, I met these two guys on the road, they wanted me to go to Naskhel and instead of doing the Friendly Arm Inn like the plot wanted me to I ended up on the other side of the map doing what seemed to be a completely random sidequest... Which turns out was exactly the same as the main plot. How bizzare is that :D You go do something with two complete goofballs in order to NOT get caught up in "ye boringe olde maine queft", something that looks like a 100% foolproof sidetrack, but no, by some miracle that's what you were supposed to be doing anyway. And then after you clear the bandits - NOPE, your bandits are in another mine, past another stretch of the ass end of space, much like the one you've been trekking through to get to the first mine and then the first bandits.

So first the main plot is the same thing as a sidequest, and then after one mine, some woods and a bunch of bandits... you get to go through some woods to a mine full of bandits. Mind actually blown, that's two different ways of making whatever you do feel the same as whatever else you do or did. I kinda found it all fun this time around.

 

[Alkarl]

I know the plot's not very complicated, that's part of the problem. It's kinda hard to tell it from the sidequests, and the majority of the time you can look at the screen, ask yourself "why am I doing this thing on the screen now?" and not really have an answer. Then try to figure out what you're supposed to be doing instead of being in the middle of nowhere, and whatever it is is not much different. In a weird sense it feels more non-linear than either Fallout 1 or Fallout 2, because you really feel like you could at any point be anywhere doing anything. On the flip side, it all feels like doing anything makes about as much sense, so if you don't like one thing you can't really go do something more fun as most of it is about equaly as fun (or boring).

Achievements really did something for it, though, there's a sense of direction when you shoot for them which helps things out a lot. I think part of the problem is that most things you can do in-game are not very rewarding, or rather, that the rewards are not very meaningful. Like in-game, I mean. The loot is mostly pointless, trying to carry most drops is pointless, a few spells are clearly better than other ones, XP is kinda slow to come by... So when you combine this with the general aimlesness and kinda breezy excuse-plot there's a strong feeling of "What am I doing?"

Cloakwood, for example, feels unrealy tacked on and filler. You're there "because plot" except "there" is just a bunch of nowhere like the 20-odd bunches of nowhere you've allready been to (and some of those were more dinstinct and memorable) and there's barely any plot going on. And then what's at the end of it is more mines, except also less memorable ones than the one's you've allready been to for no obvious reasons. Really, I met these two guys on the road, they wanted me to go to Naskhel and instead of doing the Friendly Arm Inn like the plot wanted me to I ended up on the other side of the map doing what seemed to be a completely random sidequest... Which turns out was exactly the same as the main plot. How bizzare is that :D You go do something with two complete goofballs in order to NOT get caught up in "ye boringe olde maine queft", something that looks like a 100% foolproof sidetrack, but no, by some miracle that's what you were supposed to be doing anyway. And then after you clear the bandits - NOPE, your bandits are in another mine, past another stretch of the ass end of space, much like the one you've been trekking through to get to the first mine and then the first bandits.

So first the main plot is the same thing as a sidequest, and then after one mine, some woods and a bunch of bandits... you get to go through some woods to a mine full of bandits. Mind actually blown, that's two different ways of making whatever you do feel the same as whatever else you do or did. I kinda found it all fun this time around.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I think chunking is when a single hit drops you below -10 HP. It usually happens on crits and that's why people think it's crit-related, but it's not.

IIRC getting killed while being petrified also obliterates the character.

Also, disruption.

 

[Lacrymas]

The main plot is there just to have an ending to the game. It's a true open world where it actually works, the main plot is the thread running through the entire thing and you always have it in the back of your mind. There is no bullshit collect-a-thons or repeatable mini-games, it's just a full-on exploration adventure and you are free to go wherever you please and do whatever you want, meet various characters and fight clay golems in a cave with a book that increases your CON. All the while the companions are a source of golden silence, as opposed to modern RPGs where they chew your ear off the moment you merely glance at their direction. They have enough of a personality to matter and to have achieved cult status, but they aren't a try-hardy abortion by "writers" who have no business being anywhere near that word.

Yes, it's unstructured and the pacing is wonky, I fully admit that, but it doesn't really matter and it's enjoyable despite that. The first time you set foot in Baldur's Gate (the city) is a great moment that feels earned. The low-level adventuring feels dangerous and unpredictable that culminates in Durlag's Tower, I can't think of a better example where the gameplay builds up to such a crescendo in the end. It's just a masterfully done non-linear adventure that has so many highs and pros that the very few criticisms are easily ignored.

 

[Lujo]

The main plot is very obviously only there to direct you to the bottom of the map first, then back up, then to the left etc. It's just rather samey, and mostly feels like a bunch of excuses not to let you into the city. The game's kinda tolerable in a way up until Cloakwood and afterwards, and yeah, finally getting into the city is a nice change.

I wouldn't call it a masterfully done anything with many highs and pro's. It's kinda bare bones, samey, high on inventory juggling, rewards cheeze too much, isn't very imaginative (I have seen worse, but it's still quite pedestrian). I don't think I've ever played a D&D campaign which was not strictly better, and I've played PC games from roughly the same era which felt much better.

Idk about what NPC's are like these days. The ones Beamdog added feel a bit overwritten. They don't seem to not match the style or the general taste. If you could just have self-intiated dialogues with NPC-s they'd be indistinguishable from the original ones. And, well, the original voice lines, especially for combat are so over the top and grating that I just turn the volume off when I'm playing. Xzar's lines are fun, Minsc's lines are fun, but the voice acting in the game is often way overdone, sometimes simply badly done and quite often feels like they just recorded whover was in the building that day doing unconvincing foreign accents.

 

[Alkarl]

The main plot is very obviously only there to direct you to the bottom of the map first, then back up, then to the left etc. It's just rather samey, and mostly feels like a bunch of excuses not to let you into the city. The game's kinda tolerable in a way up until Cloakwood and afterwards, and yeah, finally getting into the city is a nice change.

I wouldn't call it a masterfully done anything with many highs and pro's. It's kinda bare bones, samey, high on inventory juggling, rewards cheeze too much, isn't very imaginative (I have seen worse, but it's still quite pedestrian). I don't think I've ever played a D&D campaign which was not strictly better, and I've played PC games from roughly the same era which felt much better.

Idk about what NPC's are like these days. The ones Beamdog added feel a bit overwritten. They don't seem to not match the style or the general taste. If you could just have self-intiated dialogues with NPC-s they'd be indistinguishable from the original ones. And, well, the original voice lines, especially for combat are so over the top and grating that I just turn the volume off when I'm playing. Xzar's lines are fun, Minsc's lines are fun, but the voice acting in the game is often way overdone, sometimes simply badly done and quite often feels like they just recorded whover was in the building that day doing unconvincing foreign accents.

Personally, I actually enjoyed Cloakwood. I usually play with house-rules that make that portion more difficult and it's the first time the combat portion of the game seems to really stretch its legs. Sure, spiders are somewhat lame, but its a low-level adventure and there are also druids and wyverns plus other fauna to battle. It isn't amazing, but it's the most fun I have in BG before Durlags Tower.

I completely agree with you on Beamdogs Npcs. They are far too colorful in comparison to everything else around them. I usually play TuTu with SCS, but when I did play EE, I modded those characters out. They were far too nuBioware, besides.

 

[Lacrymas]

I like Dorn. "BURN THE WITCH!" etc. Anyway, he kind of fits with the other larger-than-life characters and his quest spans almost the entire map. He isn't whiny or Tumblr personified and his character makes sense, down to his desire to follow you. He's fine and I don't mind him, as opposed to the other 2 losers. His BG2 quest also has some meaningful C&C.

 

[Lilura]

I completely agree with you on Beamdogs Npcs. They are far too colorful

OP, too. But then, degenerates who play BG in the BG2 engine don't care about stuff like that.

 

[Tom Selleck]

Steam achievements improved the experience enough for my taste this time

 

[Lujo]

Yeah, I was just going to say that I'm a bit in disbelief folks are complaining about Dorn. I don't actually mind the others so much, whatever certain people are halucinating about themselves, infinity games or their tastes, none of the added companions "doesn't fit in", it's just that the rest of the companions were severely underdesigned, and the new guys were slightly mis-designed (and fit in a little TOO well for my tastes). They do initiate dialogue a bit too much giving them the annoying air of "overly important NPC", which is... annoying.

And yeah, steam achievements improved the experience, oddly enough. As I said, too many of it is the exact same thing and the in-game rewards for doing various things are mostly kinda meh so having any goal other than being more or less a murderhobo was quite fine. It's like - do I CARE to get a stat to 25? Do I need it? Hell no, but wth, it keeps me on the lookout for items that might help do it so I have some reason to read the text on the screen. Or getting -15 armor. Do I need it? No. Could I beat the game blindfolded? I probably could in my early teens. But with that achievement I have a reason to check if loot, spells or companions reduce AC. And so on and so forth. As I said - never have I ever in so many years found a reason to believe there's anything to the game past bandit camp. Finished PST many many times, finished Falout 2 many many times, never could do the same with BG. Steam achievements did it for me and I'm glad they did.