Decline BG1EE might as well be a different game

[Mauman]

Enemies being able to close on you faster nerfs this slightly.

Enemy speeds remain the same. Thats part of the problem. see: vanilla vs tutu
https://pihwiki.bgforge.net/BG1TuTu_vs_Vanilla_BG

So the problems of PCs moving faster is purely advantageous to the player. I doubt BD changed this.

It's probably a consequence of faster movement speed, generally games perform collision by detecting if you are inside something else after each step of movement, so faster steps = more ability to walk through each other.

No, BD trannies definitely changed sizes - probably in an attempt to fix the notorious pathfinding problems they introduced/exacerbated. I remember this because BD fanboys were talking on the forums about how battles in BG2 were changed due large enemies now being able to enter chokepoints that they couldn't in vanilla BG2.

This is incorrect. You can equip a sling and a one handed weapon+shield, or a bow and a two handed weapon. The idea that this is some kind of intentional balance decision is stupid. It's a UI limitation, the engine had tons of rough edges like this along with cut corners and unimplemented features.

Intended behavior.

So anyone using a bow - the best ranged weapon class in the game - cannot also be equipping a shield at the same time.

Funnily enough, in most versions of dnd (including 2nd I believe) you're not supposed to be able to use a sling one handed either. Yes, you can shoot the sling one handed, but require two hands to load AND shoot.

edit - just looked in the player's handbook. Surprisingly, it's not mentioned there. I guess technically in 2nd edition you can use a sling one-handed due to the writers forgetting basic logic. Any GM with half a brain (such as mine back in the day) are likely to houserule it in though. That being said, this was changed after 2nd ed.

Nigga, its a sling. Its always "fired" one handed. Even loading it would not be particularly cumbersome with a shield on one arm and in fact I'm pretty sure thats how the romans did it. On the other hand, firing a bow - especially a longbow - with anything larger than a buckler mounted on the arm would be very challenging.

Turns out gygax and the other wargaming nerds before dnd was taken over by trannies and anime geeks, knew what they were doing more or less.

I specifically mentioned you could fire the sling one handed. Perhaps you should learn to read.

As for loading it....well....I disagree with your assessment.

 

[King Crispy]

You don't "fire" a sling ffs. You sling it! That's why it's called a sling!

 

[Ontopoly]

DnD is gay and I'm tired of having to contend with the notion that BG is worse off for not implementing it 100%. It's a video game, if you want DnD go find some friends you can tolerate for more than 2 hours and paly it.

 

[Percy]

BG1 is a boring game anyway and the only reason to play it is to level a dual classed character for BG2

No it's to kill Drizzt.

 

[skaraher]

The intro movie was awesome and the EE removed it.

 

[mondblut]

You ever read the AD&D 2E rulebook? The game's original combat system was very close to a real-time system, wherein players would have a short amount of time to shout out their actions, initiative would be rolled for players as a team after turn declarations, and damage/action outcomes would be calculated after the fact. Turn-based combat was an optional choice if you wanted much more explicitly-defined fights. So actually RTwP is basically closer to the source material than turn-based is. The more you know!

It's only 2023, and we already have a strong contender for the most retarded post of the decade.

 

[Netch]

Here's some further evidence for those who disagree that 2E was meant to approach realtime combat:

"If you check the credits page in your 2E rulebook, you'll see "Designer: David 'Zeb' Cook" and "Development: Steve Winter and Jon Pickens." I'm the SteveWinter leg of that tripod. I wrote the example of play in question, so I can state with fair authority that you're searching for more rigor than the turn sequence was meant to have.

The question of when things happen depends on the players' descriptions and the DM's interpretation of the situation more than on the initiative rolls. Within the one-minute combat round, a lot of things are happening more-or-less at the same time. The initiative roll doesn't determine exactly when any particular character does something, especially if you're using the basic one-roll-per-side rule. Initiative is not synonymous with turn sequence as it is in many other rules. It is simply 'which side has the slight upper hand this round?' That side gets to log its damage before the other guys. But they're all in there swinging, dodging, maneuvering, and casting spells at the same time. It's significant that in the example, the wizard cancels her fireball before the initiative dice are rolled. The dwarf is charging into melee without hesitation, so he's bound to be in the target area before she can launch the spell. No particular rule dictates this; it's part of the scene that the dwarf's player created when he shouted 'charge!'

The second part of the example paints a pretty clear picture (I like to think) of a lot of things happening simultaneously. The wizard's spell strikes while the dwarf is fighting with the orcs. An arrow hits an orc as it takes its position in line. The orcs don't finish forming their line until their turn comes around (because they lost initiative; the heroes "had the upper hand"), but they were trying to get into formation the whole time while simultaneously dodging the dwarf's ax and the archer's arrows. When the troll leader finally lands a blow on the dwarf, the others follow their leader's example and swarm around him.
It's meant to be chaotic; it's intended that everything is happening at the same time. The initiative roll is a tool to help the DM decide whether the dwarf or the troll lands a telling blow* first, but they're both hacking away and maneuvering the whole time according to the DM's and players' descriptions."

- Steve Winter (bold added for emphasis)

 

[NecroLord]

DnD is gay

Don't go there.

Anyway, BG is awesome due to it being an old-school AD&D 2E game.
2E. Arguably the best D&D edition.

 

[King Crispy]

It sure took you a long time to come up with that quote, Netch.

Why is it that you fail to realize that Dungeons & Dragons' combat has to be abstracted; of course, in tabletop D&D combat, on a conceptual level, you're attempting to simulate a real-life deadly encounter. Great pains have been taken over the decades to get it right by using abstractions such as armor class, rounds, etc., with varying degrees of success. But as I said above it's impossible in a tabletop environment to try to somehow actually force real-time combat, regardless of what morons like Steve Winter are attempting to grasp at.

The relevant point is that if you're simulating a tabletop Dungeons & Dragons playsession, which Baldur's Gate is in my opinion doing, you cannot implement "real-time" combat without divesting yourself wholly from the spirit of the game in terms of it being a simulation. You sacrifice too much. If you, the player, are responsible for the actions of everyone in the party who conceptually sits across the table from the DM (BioWare and the computer and the program in this case) then you have to conduct combat in a phase-based fashion, or you are now doing something other than Dungeons & Dragons. More to the point of this thread, BG EE tried implementing other things to take some of the pressure off the player. Is that good or bad?

One may argue that BG is not nor has ever meant to be a simulation of D&D, but that's a separate argument. As it stands, the only way to do D&D in real-time is if you strip the responsibility of all other members of the party from the single player and have anyone not the player's character operate with A.I. instead. You can also choose to go full first-person, to take the "immersion" even further. This is obviously what games like TES attempt to achieve (again, with varying degrees of success).

Now, what about online games where multiple players can cooperate in the party against the virtual (or actual) DM? There you can probably get away with real-time combat, but not here. BG is a failure of a D&D sim, but it's still a relatively okay "game".

 

[NecroLord]

BG is a failure of a D&D sim, but it's still a relatively okay "game".

Them's fighting words.

 

[King Crispy]

Then fight me.

 

[NecroLord]

Then fight me.

*casts Finger of Death

 

[King Crispy]

You fail.

 

[Netch]

It sure took you a long time to come up with that quote, Netch.

My bad, I just have things to do other than argue on a forum all day.

Why is it that you fail to realize that Dungeons & Dragons' combat has to be abstracted; of course, in tabletop D&D combat, on a conceptual level, you're attempting to simulate a real-life deadly encounter. Great pains have been taken over the decades to get it right by using abstractions such as armor class, rounds, etc., with varying degrees of success. But as I said above it's impossible in a tabletop environment to try to somehow actually force real-time combat, regardless of what morons like Steve Winter are attempting to grasp at

Of course it has to be abstracted to some degree in a tabletop environment, which is D&D will never be fully realtime. But 2E attempted to approximate the chaos of realtime combat as much as possible for a P&P game, that much is evident from my quotes. And calling Steve Winters a moron is hardly a refutation of what he and the other 2E writers tried to do nor my point.

The relevant point is that if you're simulating a tabletop Dungeons & Dragons playsession, which Baldur's Gate is in my opinion doing, you cannot implement "real-time" combat without divesting yourself wholly from the spirit of the game in terms of it being a simulation. You sacrifice too much. If you, the player, are responsible for the actions of everyone in the party who conceptually sits across the table from the DM (BioWare and the computer and the program in this case) then you have to conduct combat in a phase-based fashion, or you are now doing something other than Dungeons & Dragons. More to the point of this thread, BG EE tried implementing other things to take some of the pressure off the player. Is that good or bad?

One may argue that BG is not nor has ever meant to be a simulation of D&D, but that's a separate argument. As it stands, the only way to do D&D in real-time is if you strip the responsibility of all other members of the party from the single player and have anyone not the player's character operate with A.I. instead. You can also choose to go full first-person, to take the "immersion" even further. This is obviously what games like TES attempt to achieve (again, with varying degrees of success).

Now, what about online games where multiple players can cooperate in the party against the virtual (or actual) DM? There you can probably get away with real-time combat, but not here. BG is a failure of a D&D sim, but it's still a relatively okay "game".

But BG can and did simulate realtime multi-character combat controlled by one player successfully. The abstractions that require not implementing realtime due to the necessity of calculations and decision making are absent in a digital environment. As far as it not being D&D, I disagree. BG may not be the exact same experience as tabletop but it's decision to use RTwP was simply trying to emulate and expand on the nature of combat in 2E.

I really don't understand the issue people have with RTwP. Maybe I've just never read the arguments against it but to me it's a lot more lively and engaging than turn based. Call it decline if you want but it's better than waiting for every NPC in a town to walk ten feet, one at a time, every turn in Fallout (and for the record I love Fallout).

 

[King Crispy]

But 2E attempted to approximate the chaos of realtime combat as much as possible for a P&P game, that much is evident from my quotes.

I will concede the 'attempted' part.

Call it decline if you want but it's better than waiting for every NPC in a town to walk ten feet, one at a time, every turn in Fallout

This is, regrettably, a point in favor of real-time games attempting to emulate D&D since the scope of turn (phase)-based can sometimes grow too large, to their detriment. Wizardry 8 is a good example of this; its WizFast mod is the most popular mod for it of all time and for good reason.

I still don't think it makes RTwP superior, and never will, but I acknowledge the pitfalls that wait in the way of a turn-based RPG. Turn-based has to be done right, as in ToEE which in my book will always be the far superior D&D sim to anything related to Baldur's Gate.

 

[Delterius]

BG's RTwP was just a matter of technological limitations. Larian proved those are far behind us, for which we should be thankful.

 

[Skdursh]

Doesn't matter if it's OG or EE, BG1 is a shit game.

 

[octavius]

4. Collision changes - for whatever dumb reason, beamdog decided to make it so units can more easily pass one another and into tight corridors, including large enemies. Perhaps they think it is a "cheese" to be able to use the terrain to block off enemies, but it isn't - even in BG1's wilderness maps, there are many chokepoints in the terrain you can use to your advantage against hordes, and I would argue that this is intended. It is also in general just easier for any enemy to simply walk through your frontliners to get to your squishies, for you to your enemy's squishies. The changes here make valid tactics much less effective, formations less relevant, and make BG1's benny hill moments even more frequent, as well as exacerbating noted problems with IE combat.

Hmm...is it the same behaviour as in BG2 or as in IWD2?
Personally I only noticed this in IWD2, never in BG2, and I didn't play enough of BG1EE to form my own opinion so to speak.

 

[octavius]

Reminder that BG was mega decline from the Gold Box series, and it is deeply regrettable that people still hold it up as an exemplar of CRPGs.

I found it a mega incline myself, especially once the good mods started appearing. I'm still waiting for the mods that will improve the AI in the GB games, or make more spells than Stinking Cloud, Fireball and Delayed Blast Fireball matter.

 

[cretin]

4. Collision changes - for whatever dumb reason, beamdog decided to make it so units can more easily pass one another and into tight corridors, including large enemies. Perhaps they think it is a "cheese" to be able to use the terrain to block off enemies, but it isn't - even in BG1's wilderness maps, there are many chokepoints in the terrain you can use to your advantage against hordes, and I would argue that this is intended. It is also in general just easier for any enemy to simply walk through your frontliners to get to your squishies, for you to your enemy's squishies. The changes here make valid tactics much less effective, formations less relevant, and make BG1's benny hill moments even more frequent, as well as exacerbating noted problems with IE combat.

Hmm...is it the same behaviour as in BG2 or as in IWD2?
Personally I only noticed this in IWD2, never in BG2, and I didn't play enough of BG1EE to form my own opinion so to speak.

changed by BD for BG2EE as i understand it. Not sure why it was done.

 

[octavius]

I actually rage quit IWD2 due to this behavior; orogs heading right for my mages, squeezing right through my fighters.

 

[user]

It's been a while since I saw so much TB bigotry in a thread

 

[Twizman]

The main issue I had with it (as a Tutu player) is being able to kite a significant amount of the wilderness encounters in the game. For example, just moving my character back and forth while Coran and Khalid mow down various non-humanoid creatures. The human movement speed was increased significantly in BG2, which is a double edged sword I think in that humanoid encounters close in faster.

Modifying the animal movement speed seems to be problematic given the wonky SCS attempt at doing so, and Beamdog apparently didn't either? (Haven't played EE version). Other than that, agree with Manatee's post. Love Sword Coast Stratagems.

 

[octavius]

Vanilla BG1 doesn't even have Call for Help scripts, so you could happily kite one gibberling at a time, while the others just outside the LOS would do nothing. So it's not like BG1 didn't have its own problems.

 

[Nikanuur]

I've never touched Beamdog's versions (absent hate or much understanding what's going on, to be honest). I've got my Big World Project BG, which is likely working well (throughout the years, I've played without notable bugs from the start of BG1 to the point of chasing Irenicus to Suldanessellar in BG2). There are cca 15 "real" QoL mods, such as widescreen gaming, bigger fonts, fixpack, herbs, or lost items. I had spent nearly a week modding it approx 10 years ago--several hours a day after work--before it started to work. The installation has been cosily occupying my harddrives ever since, being transfered to various systems. I still have to keep the ISO images copied from the original CDs and use Daemon Tools to run the game, but I love that directory and I will defend it with my many offensive spells! This is the true EE, guys. Don't listen to anybody saying anything different.