first run in bg1

mowfo · Post by **mowfo** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:03 pm

hey i have never finished the game i remember playing it couple years ago and i got the sudden envy to finish it along with bg2. im thinking about playing single player so i was wondering if the fighter class was a good choice along continuing over bg2 also(cause im thinking about keeping my character for bg2) and what profiencies should i pick up 2handed swords? or dual wielding? any suggestion would help i am pretty new to the game so to speak.

Darth Gavinius · Post by **Darth Gavinius** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:43 am

I would recommend installing TUTU, which will convert BG to the BGII engine. That way you get all the improvements, such as the optional Kits when you build your character - these have various advantages and disadvantages - but generally improve character customization and make Dual-Classing worthwhile.

By single player, do you mean going solo? Soloing through BG as a single class fighter is easier than in BGII, where additional skills (especially some magic proficiency) are useful for harder fights.

Crenshinibon · Post by **Crenshinibon** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:30 am

You can beat the game with any character.

Unfortunately, you can't dual wield in BG1, but when you import your character into BG2, you will have the option to change them - picking out a new fighter kit and new proficiencies.

In BG1 two handed swords, long swords and bastard swords are all grouped under the "Large Swords" proficiency, so you can specialize in that and then decide what you want to do.

The two handed sword does the most damage (1d10) but is slow at one attack per round while the longsword and bastard sword (1d8 and 2d4, respectively) do less damage but provide you with not only two attacks per round, but also the option to use a shield for more armor.

mowfo · Post by **mowfo** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:14 pm

alright thx for the info and if i do install TUTU do i keep my current saved game? guess not since it would have to change my skills and such. and by 1h weapons and 2h weapon is there a better weapon end game or do they both end up being pretty much equal to each other.

oh and by single player i meant just playing the game by myself not soloing(i wouldnt dare to try it since im not experienced enough)

Crenshinibon · Post by **Crenshinibon** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:58 pm

I'd say that in both games, it's generally a matter of personal preference, however, the weapons in BG1 don't get nearly as unique and extravagant as they do in BG2.

Curry · Post by **Curry** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:20 pm

I recommend not using tutu but BG with widescreen mod.

oogle_spliggit · Post by **oogle_spliggit** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:57 am

Although you can win with any character, as far as im concerned you should be a fighter.

You need to be the hero and leader of your party, who better than a dashing brave warrior.

All the best items are for fighters and it means you can tank the damage whilst your companions shoot form behind, a very heroic gesture.

But anyways, you can be whoever you want.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:07 am

You need to be the hero and leader of your party, who better than a dashing brave warrior.

Someone with intelligence, wisdom and the ability to stand in the front rank and lead by example, as well as the skill to spot danger before it hits maybe?

For a good aligned party this would be a Ranger, the original class was based on Aragon remember, they got screwed over in 2nd edition, but still the natural party leader.

More difficult for an evil aligned party, but basically anyone but an intellectually challenged meatshield.

All the best items are for fighters

Um; have you actually played the game?

oogle_spliggit · Post by **oogle_spliggit** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:59 am

galraen wrote:
Um; have you actually played the game?

Please, there are many more pieces of super enchanted armor and powerful melee weapons than there are robes or wands...i'd like to see a mage try and wear the helm of balduran or equip the large shield +2

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:53 pm

I'd like to see a fighter trying to wield a Staff of Magi as well, or Carsomyr, and there are quite few other extremely powerful items a fighter can't use, and that's ignoring the fact that mages deal out a lot more damage than a fighter. When it comes to physical defence Stoneskin tops any armour as well.

You also seem to miss the point that Ranger and Paladins can wield any weapon or wear any armour (depending on kit) that a fighter can use.

Now a fighter, either Berserker or Kensai dualled is another ball game entirely!

I'll leave it to our old friend Crenshinibon to point out the superiority of a Blade to a fighter. Apart from their other attributes they can, as with thieves, utilise any item in the game

oogle_spliggit · Post by **oogle_spliggit** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:26 pm

Staff of magi doesn't count, the question was referring to BG1. Also rangers and paladin are warrior, they are just specialised fighters.

Magic wielders are awesome, no doubt, they own. but the leader should be a fighter, a brave warrior leads by charging into battle,, whilst his mage supports him.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:16 pm

It didn't occur to me that anyone would consider playing BG1 and not play through the whole trilogy.

I cant agree with the fighter being the best leader, unless they have the intelligence or wisdom to back it up, and if they have that then they'd be heading for dual classing. History is littered with disasters where the leader was a gung ho tank. If the leader of my group was too dumb to be anything other than a straight fighter I'd look for another group.

Smart generals stay out of the fray so they can asses the ongoing situation. If you want an example of brave death or glory boys leading, check out the fates of George Armstrong Custer or Lord Cardigan. More importantly check out the fate of the men they bravely lead to their deaths.

oogle_spliggit · Post by **oogle_spliggit** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:13 am

True, leaders should stay at the back - in reality. But this is a fantasy game. In almost every fantasy genre, novel or film (almost every) the leader is a warrior.

In the forgotten realms (the setting of this game) heroic fighters are the best leaders of small groups...Drizzt, Bruenor Battlehammer etc.

Lord of the rings...leader of the gang? aragon...warrior (ranger but still not a mage).

I feel we're not going to agree on this. We have given the player who started this thread something to think about at least.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:49 am

It could be argued that in fact Gandalf was the leader of the Fellowship, the rest of the Fellowship certainly thought so at least. Drizzt, who I always have considered to be a follower, not a leader due to the first time I met him in a game, was also a Ranger.

There is a difference between a straight fighter and a Ranger, Rangers (at least in the original form) had to have 13 intelligence, fighters could (in 'real' AD&D) have as little as 3 intelligence. They also have other abilities that fighters don't get of course, but still are able to use any weapon a fighter can use.

Do mages automatically make the best leaders? Not necessarily, high intelligence doesn't mean they have any wisdom, Edwin being a prime example.

Clerics may have the wisdom, but rarely the intelligence to make good leaders; Bards can suffer the same wisdom deficiencies as mages.

My 'bottom line' is that the character with the highest combined int, wis and cha should be the leader, with none of the attributes being below 11, which means that the protagonist shouldn't automatically be considered the leader. Indeed, the obvious 'leader when you leave Candlekeep should nearly always be Imoen, not only is her combined stats 46, a number a PC is very unlikely to match, she is also of course a Child of Bhaal. In many ways a far better protagonist than any protagonist.

My main point of disagreement with you hypothesis wasn't actually the class. If the fighter has what it takes in terms of intelligence etc., then great; and of course the real 'bottom line' is that everyone should paly the game how she/he wants. My quibble was with the notion that dashing bravery in itself is all that's needed to define the best leader; being a history freak that concept horrifies me.

No we may not ever agree, and we should let the thread get back to it's original intent; but it's been fun chatting with you.

Enjoy the game, I'm currently playing through yet again, using the BG Trilogy mod, and I have to say it's brilliant. I'm now in BG2, my protagonist is a Half-Orc Cleric/Thief (I cheated to make him an Assassin, seems more appropriate for a Child of Bhaal, who intends to become a god). Through BG1 I did let Imoen (in my head) make the decisions, now of course she's gone, and I intend following the original Bioware concept that she dies in Spellhold. Fortunately my protagonist has gained enough intelligence and charisma to be considered leadership material, but be damned if I'd want him as my leader; the trail of death, including most of the NPCs he's picked up, follow him like a shadow! Unlike Custer, he doesn't lead his followers into death traps, he send them ahead!:laugh:

oogle_spliggit · Post by **oogle_spliggit** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:29 am

Just remembered that the protagonist was a fighter in the novel and in the mission pack pre assembled team in TOSC. Abdel Adrian