Baldurs gate - how should I start.

[Jon Miller]

the way the system is set up, with turnbased (basically), the fact that many of the characters are better at range than melee

a number of factors I think

Jon Miller

[centrifuge]

I'll be honest I always have my characters equiped with ranged weapons. I see no problem with it, It is still possible to get your butt kicked on a regular basis

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I think it's realistic that range weapons rule, in general; being able to strike from afar has always been an advantage. But there are also a couple of things in BG that make bows cheesey:

1) Rate of fire. Bowmen get two attacks per round, to a melee warrior's one. That doesn't strike me as especially realistic; using a bow may be faster than using a two-handed sword, but I'll bet I can stab someone many times over with a dagger in the time in takes to get off a couple of arrows.

2) Range and accuracy. Any BG player knows that bows are preferable to crossbows. Yet, in medieval Europe, the crossbow was seen as an advance over the bow, and was considered much deadlier. The reason is that the crossbow is accurate over a greater range than the bow, and it has a much, much greater range, period. But neither range nor acccuracy over range plays a role in BG (for understandable reasons of programming), so the crossbow ends up being inferior to the bow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I think it's realistic that range weapons rule, in general; being able to strike from afar has always been an advantage.

depends on rate at which melee attackers can close. Thats why in all those rock-paper-scissors RTS's the counter to bowmen is cavalry, who can close before bowmen can get sufficient shots off. And even then the bowmen had to be protected by a row of melee troops, usually pikemen, against the cavalry charge. Even against english longbowmen at agincourt, French lost cause the ground conditions precluded a cavalry charge. With gunpowder, early weapons still required melee protection - thus Spanish tercio was a combination of pikemen and guns. The pike wasnt obsolete till the Bayonet, which was also a melee weapon. The bayonet wasnt really obsolete till roughly the American civil war, when rifled fire arms made accurate fire over a long range good enough to defeat almost any charge cavalry or infantry(see Fredericksburg and Picketts Charge


Now BG has no cavalry, but the number of archers is small, which means you dont get the power of massed archers. And the ranged weapons rule (IIUC) not only when the melee guys are charging across a field, but when theyve ambushed you and are attacking from a relatively close distance.

[centrifuge]

May be silly, but everytime that I think of proficency with a bow, I think of Legolas from LOTR. He used his bow extremely effectively, and in close quarters, (at least in the movies ...in the book they don't seem to go into as great of detail about his effectiveness with the bow)


...As for crossbows, they were more accurate than bows but I don't believe that in general that they had greater range. I agree that they were deadlier, but only at shorter range (I have been known to be wrong however )

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by centrifuge
May be silly, but everytime that I think of proficency with a bow, I think of Legolas from LOTR. He used his bow extremely effectively, and in close quarters, (at least in the movies ...in the book they don't seem to go into as great of detail about his effectiveness with the bow)

yeah, but he was the only archer in a party of nine, with one wizard, (who also fought with a long sword) and 7 guys who fought melee. Even legolas used a knife at close quarters, IIRC.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by centrifuge
...As for crossbows, they were more accurate than bows but I don't believe that in general that they had greater range. I agree that they were deadlier, but only at shorter range (I have been known to be wrong however )

Actually, there's a really interesting history here. Apparently, the range and accuracy of the crossbow was so great that it was initially considered a threat to the traditional ethics of war, since it allowed killing from such a great distance that there was no "confronting" of the enemy; for that reason, the Church at one point pronounced it an instrument of evil, and threatened excommunication on anyone who used it on a fellow Christian!

[centrifuge]

That excommunication story has loosened some of the cobwebs in my brain ...and I stand (well sit) corrected

[lord of the mark]

IIRC the crossbow dominated bows both cause of the range and accuracy noted above, and because it was easier to llearn to use than the bow. The predominant crossbowmen were Genoese mercenaries, ISTR.(highly trained) English longbowmen challenged in range and accuracy, and were better in frequency of fire, i believe.

[Standup]

Another advantage in BG rather than real life is the way fog of war works so that you can take on groups of opponents one by one as they appear on the screen. I in reality (mmh ?) a large group of Gnolls would all close as a group rather than be picked off one by one.

[Dis]

crossbows sound cool.

Anyone know how much one costs? I want to get one. I'll use that for home defense instead of my Glock pistol . But I would like to get one.

And bows are also useful in BG because many enemies do not have many hitpoints, so you can kill them before they get to you. You will find this is not the case in BG2 (except maybe at the very beginning). I think they did something to nerf bows in BG2, not sure what.

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Re superiority of ranged weapons. Is this a bug or a feature? IE is there ANY story based reason for ranged weapons to dominate? Is forgotten realms a place where ranged weapons are more dominant for whatever reason, than they are either in real world Middle Ages, or in Tolkien? Or is this simply an oversight on the part of the designers? My impression is that its the latter - the large number of melee weapons available, the depowering (?) of ranged weapons in BG2, etc would lead me to believe that it was mistake.

I'm going with oversight. In BG2 melee weapons become more powerful, and fighters eventually aquire more melee attacks per round to offset the missle-weapon superiority. I think the str dmg bonus is nerfed for missle weapons in BG2 as well (as it should be). Also, in BG2 there are more "ambush" type combats, where the enemy appears from all around you and one has to resort to melee weapons. Quarters tend to more cramped as well; there's a lot less cavorting around in the wildnerness in BG2 vis-a-vis BG1.

I think an element of missle superiority is how easily they dispatch enemy mages. Then in BG2 Bioware programmed a lot of cheese in the engine, ipso facto felling enemy mages became very difficult without the aid of an armada of "anti-magic" magicks. There was never any happy compromise. For the record I think Icewind Dale II's treatment of this problem was best.

BG1 is biased towards longbows, but if whenever I take Montaron along in my party I always let him chill in the back with a heavy crossbow and watch him punch holes in the opposition with those nasty bolts. Less rate of fire, more damage. A trade-off. More Monty's style, anyway.

[Jamski]

Yeah, the simple reason is that in BG1 there's lots of 1HD or 2HD monsters that go down after an arrow or two. This lets you kill them before they reach you. In BG2, the monsters aren't so weak, and you can get enough arrows in them before they hit the lines. However, an Archer in BG2 with 5 points in bows and boots of speed.... run and shoot and run and shoot

-Jam

[centrifuge]

Dissident

http://coolgadget.net/crosandac.html


I want one too

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Jamski
Yeah, the simple reason is that in BG1 there's lots of 1HD or 2HD monsters that go down after an arrow or two. This lets you kill them before they reach you. In BG2, the monsters aren't so weak, and you can get enough arrows in them before they hit the lines. However, an Archer in BG2 with 5 points in bows and boots of speed.... run and shoot and run and shoot

-Jam

My tactic exactly
Unfortunately I Was constantly charmed and confused (as you know those spells never miss, they follow you around no matter where you run )
didn't know what the hell to do about that so I quit playing BG2

too much frikking confusion, and whenever I cast it myself, the baddies are immune to it
Got real fed up with it, because one confusion spell usually confused about 2-4 characters of mine on average, and those get butchered in an instant of course in BG2

[Traianvs]

Another big advantage of the crossbow is that if powerful enough, it could pierce the heavy armour the knights wore back then. That's what made everybody so pissed off, as knights ruled the combat and were not supposed to be harmed too much.

There was a knight's honour code, if a knight was knocked off his horse for example, he couldn't move anymore due to the heavy armour. Instead of killing him, he was often taken hostage and asked a ransom => so you could make a could sum of money on it

Also, considering the amount of battles in the middle ages, there would be noway near enough knights imo to support those wars if the knights got killed all the time.

On the other hand, it required a lot of time to arm a crossbow..
Highly skilled people could fire 2 bolts/minute.
It requires a lot of fysical strength to pull the string back.

[Jon Miller]

I sort of wish my chracter could handle a weapon

he is a theif/mage

I iwsh he was a figter/thief/mage

anyways, I got a twohandedsword +1

which is better, my longsword +2 or the two handed sword +1

Minsc is the only one who would really use them

Jon Miller

[Dis]

fighter/thieves rock. Why do the mage?

I used to think that was a good combo. But really, it's difficult to use them to their full potential. Look at Jan in BG2- he really isn't that great.

A Thief/Cleric would be better than a thief/mage I'd imagine (though I can't say for sure, never tried), as Cleric gets some buffs that can beef them up.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Trajanus


My tactic exactly
Unfortunately I Was constantly charmed and confused (as you know those spells never miss, they follow you around no matter where you run )
didn't know what the hell to do about that so I quit playing BG2

too much frikking confusion, and whenever I cast it myself, the baddies are immune to it
Got real fed up with it, because one confusion spell usually confused about 2-4 characters of mine on average, and those get butchered in an instant of course in BG2

chaotic commands works well with confusion. It lasts a long time as well.

I used to hate that as well. My first encounter with- argh I can't remember the name of those creatures whose main attack is to confuse you. They are in Nalia's Keep I believe. Of courses you could lure them with meat- but I didn't know that at the time.

Once you reach a higher level, there's less chance of that. But mind flayers can mess you up as well. Just use chaotic commands.

[Jamski]

which is better, my longsword +2 or the two handed sword +1

I'd say its six and two threes The longsword will hit ~5% more often, the twohander will do ~1.5 more damage per hit on average, but the longsword gives you a sheild too.

Diss, they're called Umber Hulks. Nasty critters.

-Jam

[Traianvs]

Yeah, fortunately that kind of monsters can be slaughtered by firing a volley of arrows and projectiles at them. Most of the time they hardly get the chance to fire, or they are hit so often that they can't reach your party... It's the frikking mages that piss me off; they ALWAYS cast confusion...every goddamn time! And of course, mind flayers are deadly too, had a looot of trouble with them.

I know chaotic commands, but as far as I know it only applies to one character, well I think... it should be a spell cast on your entire party. Also does it last that long? I don't know, I thought it wore out pretty quickly...

[lord of the mark]

Does the level of the NPC's who joing my party depend on the level of my existing party? seems that way.
Does the level of monsters and bandits depend on the level of my party?

It seems i got the power to heal after seeing the Gorion dream. Nice touch.

[lord of the mark]

Ive now got Myself (arathorn - a ranger) Imoen, Khaled and Jaheira, Garrick and Minsc. Have done most of the availbale quests in Beregost, in Nashkel and its fair (NOT the mines) Everybodys level 2 except Garrick, whos 1, and Imoen who's 3 (and not dual classed). Decent armor all around, but only 2 magic arrows - we've got money, but there dont seem any magic arrows or bolts for sale anymore, even at the Smithy in Beregost - perhaps we've bought and used to many in getting to this point?

Arathorn and Minsc are tanks, Kaled, Imoen and Garrick fight with long bow, short bow and cross bow respectively. Jaheira either casts spells, uses her sling, or her +1 staff depending on the situation.

Ive headed toward the Gnoll stronghold, and encountered neville and his pals and died, in a badly managed battle. I will reload - this time I will make sure Khaled has his 2 magic arrows in his quiver. I will have the magic ring of protection weve got on one of the tanks, not on Imoen. I will have Jaheira cast "bless" before we encounter Neville (is that cheesy?) I will probably have her entangle Neville, and send the tanks after the Hobgoblin archers, as well as having all the ranged fighters do the same. Then deal with Neville later.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I think it's realistic that range weapons rule, in general; being able to strike from afar has always been an advantage. But there are also a couple of things in BG that make bows cheesey:

Note that according to this article, bayonets were used in hand to hand fighting in Baghdad, in the Falklands, and in Viet Nam. Meelee figthing isnt dead, even in 2003.

The debate over the bayonet

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Does the level of the NPC's who joing my party depend on the level of my existing party? seems that way.
Does the level of monsters and bandits depend on the level of my party?

1. Yes

2. I don't think so.


All of this talk about Baldurs Gate has inspired me to start up a new game

My wife is not going to be pleased

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I will probably have her entangle Neville, and send the tanks after the Hobgoblin archers, as well as having all the ranged fighters do the same. Then deal with Neville later.

Just some advice, although I'm sure you already know, Focus your fire on one enemy at a time.

This will knock them off at a quicker pace...

... an injured enemy still does the same amount of damage as a healthy one.

[Traianvs]

In BG1 the enemies will always be the same strength

BG2 however adjusts the enemies to your XP level, more or less of course (you won't kill a lich just like that anyway). If you choose not to do that much sidequests your XP won't be very high, so you would eventually get stuck if the game didn't adjust that a bit!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Note that according to this article, bayonets were used in hand to hand fighting in Baghdad, in the Falklands, and in Viet Nam. Meelee figthing isnt dead, even in 2003.

The debate over the bayonet

I never meant to suggest otherwise; I only meant that range weapons have an absolute advantage over melee weapons because they allow you to attack without putting yourself in immediate danger.

But back to topic. In answer to your questions:

1. When you meet companions, they will either be level 1, 2, 4, or 6. Which level does indeed depend on which level you are (though I've never seen Jahiera at level 1, even when I've made a beeline for the Friendly Arm Inn; but that does seem to be the general formula).

2. Monster levels don't adjust to meet your party's. However -- not that this affects your current game, but just so you know -- monster numbers to adjust in some cases (a party of 3 will face fewer gibberlings in a random attack than a party of 6 will, for example).

[Jon Miller]

now I have over 10000 gold

I have leveled Imoen up to 5, than dualed her to theif (when will she be able to use her theif skills?)

I am a level 3/4 mage/theif

the mage and cleric are both level 3 I beleive

the two rangers are both level 4

Jon Miller

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
now I have over 10000 gold

I have leveled Imoen up to 5, than dualed her to theif (when will she be able to use her theif skills?)

I'm confused??? Imoen starts as a theif.


Anyway, after dualing a character, you have to wait until you reach the level of your first class with your new class, before you get the skills back.