Overdone, with some musings on tone thrown in...

[kniVur79]

Originally posted by two:
<STRONG>I honestly think part of the problem is that AD&D ain't meant for high level (above level 15 or so) combat. It seems to be designed for lower level combat, and at this BGII excells, I think. But once you get level 1-9 spells, and your fighter has 200 hps, and your Monk is 70% Magic Resistant -- the game gets strained. It just can't HANDLE a high level party very well.

Level 9 spells, for instance, were meant to be cast once in a very great while under moments of extreme need. Not every day, certainly not a couple of them every day. This explains imprisonment; yes it breaks the game but honestly, it was meant to. That scary level 18 mage that your level 13-14 party has to battle SHOULD be scary and take out one party member immediately if he/she desires.

But when the player can do this multiple times, it gets boring, and challanges are hard to come by. Again, in AD&D a dragon is an end-battle. What's harder than a dragon? An older dragon. There is nothing meaner besides demi-gods and gods and all that stuff (demigorgon, etc). So after your level 25 party can whip a dragon, what is Bioware to do? Structurally, it is difficult.

Fighters can easily dish out 200+ damage a ROUND. Easy. How to stop this? Stoneskin/protections (AC can't cut it). Which are easily dispelled by swords/spellcasters. What CAN bioware do? Improved AI yes, less combat YES, but actualy combat...it's very very difficult to stop a few hack-n-slash level 25 fighters supported by a level 25 mage and cleric.

It's tough for the game mechanics; it's tough for a fantasy world "logic," it's just tough all around.

What Bioware did was just ramp up all the monsters about 10 levels; scatter about more magic; and sit back. AD&D is played out at levels 30-40, it is nothing more than a strategy game at this point.

Perhaps blaming Bioware is not quite the point; after all AD&D was NOT set up to handle TOB power levels. The problem is somewhere in the middle. Bioware could have done better yes, but they are somewhat handicapped.</STRONG>

I thought the critter level in TOB was ok. After all, given the story one would expect to be confronted with demigorgons, demi-liches and the like. And the dragons in TOB are much tougher to kill. They ignore your fighters and go for the magic users in your group. At least in my case. Also it seems someone at Bioware was aware of the "I´m not gonna skulk in some damp dungeon for a few coins" attitude. Like when you can subcontract the quest to get the beholder eyestalk.

But not every fight in TOB was with some badass dragon or a lich. My personal favourite was the Drow encampment. There´s nothing as stress relieving as facing a dozen Drow warriors and elder umber hulks.

[Xyx]

Originally posted by two:
<STRONG>I honestly think part of the problem is that AD&D ain't meant for high level (above level 15 or so) combat. It seems to be designed for lower level combat, and at this BGII excells, I think.</STRONG>

The (really) old stuff (such as Pools of Darkness and Dark Queen of Krynn) seemed to handle high level combat just fine. In PoD you were of even higher level than in ToB; we're talking flights of Dragons here.

I think one of the problems of high level campaigns is the lack of experience and playtesting. Everyone who's ever played D&D (whether PnP or CRPG) knows how to balance out low level stuff. I bet not too many people have extensive experience playing level 40 characters.

[average joe]

I must say that you have an excellent point Xyx. I could elaborate and give my two cents, but with the number of posts (with many good points of view), i'm quite sure i'd come off as redundant.

[two]

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>The (really) old stuff (such as Pools of Darkness and Dark Queen of Krynn) seemed to handle high level combat just fine. In PoD you were of even higher level than in ToB; we're talking flights of Dragons here.

I think one of the problems of high level campaigns is the lack of experience and playtesting. Everyone who's ever played D&D (whether PnP or CRPG) knows how to balance out low level stuff. I bet not too many people have extensive experience playing level 40 characters.</STRONG>

I'm not sure about those other games; were they even AD&D based? Or a simulacrum therof?

AD&D I do know to some degree. Take the saving throw issue. After about level 18 fighters have way low saving throws; with normal magic for that level they are negative. Paladins even more so. Ditto most classes. At level 30 almost everyone is well negative, some even after a greater malison (specially with the hell bonus and stuff). This effectively removes many spells from the game, as they just won't work on a level 20 fighter ever, period.

Magic is broken at high levels; TOB is notibly mage-deficient (as enemies), as they simply can't do that much damage. A cloak of reflection, or spell turning, etc. plus the low saving throw makes enemy magic a yawner.

Same issue with the monk's MR; is a mage really going to cast 2 lower resistances and then some attack spells -- all before being pounded into a pulp? And the Monk still will have some MR remaining, will make the save, half damage, etc. etc.

This is a structural issue, along with the problem of a fighter with 4 attacks/round dealing out 30+ damage a HIT. And always hitting. Unless you give a monster 600 hit points it's a short battle; and that is outside the scope of AD&D. Resistances of course help (Adamantine Golem); but these are under-used for some reason.

To get around these issues Bioware had to do a lot more than they did. I can think of plenty of scenarios that would give a challenge; or new monsters that would be quite nasty. For example high MR, high speed monsters that swarm; more "dead magic" zones where spells/equipment turn plain-jane; an astral projection adventure in which the characters are stripped of all equipment and need to battle it out with what they find -- same idea could be used underwater or something (no armor, too heavy, only weapons of speed 0 due to water resistance) etc.

The point is a plain dungeon with souped up but recognizeable monsters ain't gonna cut it. I went through TOB solo and never had any problem with any mage until the end mage; you just ran up to them with an appropriate weapon and started hitting. It was very easy to wait out time stops, they never seemed to do anything at all bad.

Is this bad AI? Yes. But AD&D makes it difficult as well, as did the equipment Bioware handed out in SOA (cloak of reflection, CromF).

There DO exist systems (like ancient RoleMaster) where every battle is scary; you just never know when that low-level kobold is going to shoot a fire arrow through your hero's eye in a once-in-a-lifetime freak event. And yes, you die even if you are level 40.

[Not that all solutions have to depend on critical tables; Rolemaster was also much less magic-tolerant, in that if a high level spell was cast in your direction, you didn't have a concept like MR to help you out. You had to suck up whatever happened. It also rewarded high level mages for their levels, i.e. a level 40 mage casting Magic Missle-type spell was MUCH more powerful than a level 10 mage casting the same spell].

[KaaZe]

Originally posted by two:
[Q][Not that all solutions have to depend on critical tables; Rolemaster was also much less magic-tolerant, in that if a high level spell was cast in your direction, you didn't have a concept like MR to help you out. You had to suck up whatever happened. It also rewarded high level mages for their levels, i.e. a level 40 mage casting Magic Missle-type spell was MUCH more powerful than a level 10 mage casting the same spell].[/QB]

Rolemaster, tried that game some years back. Never rolled so many dices for what "might" happen. Did manage to slay a very powerfull demon with a very lucky roll of the dice (The GM all so happy afterwards ). I like the D&D system, nice a simpel. But I do also think that when you reach level 20'ish, you should retire the character, its just not that fun afterwards. To get a challenge you would have to fight very tough opponents all the time. When you do that, you start loosing respect for them. Liches, Dragons and other insanely power creature is something to could maybe stumble on once or twice through a whole life time.

Just think, what if there only was 1 or 2 beholders trough the whole of BG2... who would spend that large amount of money on the shield of the baldurian?!? Im guessing that in real D&D beholders are very rare guardians. But after some time in BG2, they are just another type of monster to kill.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: KaaZe ]

[Panda]

Some very good points have been made, but I can't understand why it's ok to have scores of dragons in PoD but not so many tough monsters in SoA / ToB... After all, Bane's assault and the fulfillment of Alaundo's prophecy - a new deity emerges - are IMHO more or less equal in magnitude.

In general, I liked it very much how the frightened library boy grew to become a walking menace that left bodies and death behind himself whether he liked it or not. And if you believe that every force in the universe has a counter-force, it makes sense that his divine heritage attracted powerful beings.

OTOH, I believe that most of the people in this thread lamenting details like the lich in the Crooked Crane didn't mind too much when they first played SoA. At least for me, it's only the 3rd or 4th time you play it that you think, "Hey, wait a minute..."

[Dimensional]

Some very good points have been made, but I can't understand why it's ok to have scores of dragons in PoD but not so many tough monsters in SoA / ToB... After all, Bane's assault and the fulfillment of Alaundo's prophecy - a new deity emerges - are IMHO more or less equal in magnitude.

I think the difference is that when you are fighting an army of invading dragons or fighting in a dimension of dragons one expects scores of dragons. in SOA TOB there are to many Dragons just hanging around for no good reason (one would have been reasonable in each game)

Oh and i think that POD'smonsters were even less balanced than BGII's and in some cases very rediculous. however they did have some excuse for throwing major oponets at you - a very major GOD was trying to desroy the realms (and you). In Tob some of the monster encounters just don't make that much sense(to me) however i do feel that i would not noticed them if the general level of the game were not so high that these details jar and feel as if they are below what has been demonstrated that could be done.
(hope that all made sense)

[nayle]

OK, all of you who are complaining about high level combat are simply missing the point. BG2 is a COMPUTER game. There is no way to implement the unpredictability of pnp AD&D because there is no DM, no other humans.

For instance, a while ago sellsword wrote a very long post on ana alternative to the Kangaxx quest. First of all, BG2 is primarily a single plot game. Get your soul back. To make a huge, totally unrelated plot is totally unneccessary. Second of all, it would just be to hard for any developer to actually fill any game close to the size of BG2 with such unrelated quests.

As far as the complaint that there are too many high level creatures without proper motivations, again, this is a CRPG, not pnp. You try to create a conputer game where every individual enemy has its own seperate evil plan. It's simply not possible. Don't get me wrong, if I was playing a pnp AD&D game that was like this, I would not have a good time. But BG2 cannot be like that. You want unique liches and dragons? Go get you friends, break out the twenty sided dice, and stop complaining

[Xyx]

Originally posted by Panda:
<STRONG>I believe that most of the people in this thread lamenting details like the lich in the Crooked Crane didn't mind too much when they first played SoA. At least for me, it's only the 3rd or 4th time you play it that you think, "Hey, wait a minute..." </STRONG>

Well... the first time you come across that you probably assume that it's part of some plot you have yet to uncover...