Then you're not responding to what I was actually talking about.

Yes, mages are initially weak, a mechanic that I'm not fond of, but I am completely used to and accept it as the norm in RPGs (because TSR decided that was how it should be with D&D, and thus every fantasy game to follow has stupidly followed suit). I was actually talking though about the 2E mechanics of X class taking more XP to level up than Y class.

And mages are in the higher XP category. I was expressing that this fact magnifies the already flawed mechanic of mages being weak at the beginning. So not only do they start off weaker, they stay weaker longer.

As to the 4E element that's coming up:
4E does a few things right in D&D. The problem is.. 4E basically turns D&D in to a video game or a minatures combat game.

The good things they did though:
They made first level seem less suicidal. Because honestly, we're playing a fantasy game to be heroes, we don't want to have to run in terror from 2 kobolds.
And they balanced the classes better. No longer is a first level mage sitting there in combat twiddling their thumbs, or maybe casting Magic Missile once, while the fighter obliterates everything, and no longer is the 12th level fighter sitting there twiddling his thumbs while the mage obliterates everything. Both have skill and abilities that make them useful in a fight at any level.

The bad things in 4E, is.. well pretty much everything else. ;)

That being said, a 4E based video game (such as Daggerdale), would actually have decent mechanics backing it, from the game industry standpoint.

It further reinforces my point that good tabletop mechanics don't always make good video game mechanics, and vice versa. Though I would like to see a video game driven by Tephra.

I really have to disagree about balance issues here, I think the worst thing you can do is try to 'balance' every character class, like we see in 3.5 and 4e especially. Each should be as different as possible, which is why I like 2e better (although the at-will system does make more sense philosophically than the memorisation mechanic).

To me it really doesn't make sense to have all classes the same- I see a mage (and druids, priests etc) as someone who is focusing inwards through most of their development, there's not much they would be able to do at lower levels and that makes sense, as magic is difficult to learn and harder to master, whereas a dedicated fighter or thief could excel quicker as their effort in improving themselves pays off sooner, only tapering off as they reach their peak, as physical training works.

It makes sense that at higher levels a mage would be infinitely more powerful than a non-caster. To me, if there is a problem it's that this didn't happen enough, that the difference should be greater.

The answer then should be either multiclass or character kits that use some sort of innate magic or psionic ability, like the monk and chi/ki, or classes like the ranger and paladin - again either following the mage route of being very weak at the beginnning but then reaching greater power at the end, as they reach some sort of transcendental ability (perfect self?), or of being even throughout as that focus changes from early level martial to their later level divine strength, as in the paladin (of course we can include the bard here as well :P).

It may not work in tabletop, but honestly, crpg is more important :P

(Regarding the discussion of the last few posts)

In 2e & 3e/3.5e, I don't think mages are weak at any level. They juss can't frontline at initial levels due to having to use their ability score assets to become mages, sacrificing the opportunity cost to develop into pro fighters (which is harder than preparing to play sports in NCAA D-1 or pro, as sports is simply playing to win, and fighting in AD&D is making a career out of staying alive in harm's way!) or at least the hit points they have, & that wearing a fighter's armor would restrict the somatic movements needed to get spells off.

Their lack of martial prowress is what people complain about (but it seems fully logical to me - maybe I'm special!). But even at initial spell levels, they have AoE spells Grease, Sleep, Stinking Cloud, Horror & Web to use at enemies (if they fail their saving throws), and thus get their fighters some easy kills. They can also use mage-specific magic items right as soon as they've learned the initial in's & out's of magery at 1st level, provided they're available (you can find some early in BG1 from the time you leave Candlekeep to travelling to the Nashkel Mines, if you talk to the people who know of them; or if you like cheese or aren't interested in the roleplaying aspects of the game, use a walkthrough). So I disagree with those that say mages are weak at initial levels.

Of course, anticipating the right spells to prepare before resting vs. what your potential foe has defenses against, is entirely another matter. ;op Teehee!

As far as resting after only a few fights in BG1 is concerned, no one said you had to fight every foe chasing after you (and thus exhaust spells; and also supplies). It's a roleplaying game. There's always been the option to run. If you wanna roleplay being a dominator who isn't exactly proficient at doing so, then you do it at your own peril! :OD

Brother-Eros, I actually think the memorization way makes more sense than at-will, even in philosophical terms. Memorization deals with work-ethic and the ability to wear 'mana' and the growth thereof (leveling up), whereas at-will is like every spellcaster is a wand or wand variant all unto themselves. I feel at-will should be reserved for those few folk who are born sorcerers. BG2 implemented them nicely thereof, I feel.

Eros.. Seriously, you think game balance is a bad idea?

All characters shouldn't be the same, but they should be balanced to eachother, within reason. There should not be situations where Class X is twiddling it's thumbs while class Y is doing everything, and vice versa. This is the problem with things like classic D&D traps, as well. The game slows down while the Rogue rolls a few dice,, which neither advances the story, nor gives anyone else in the party anything to do.

Balance is a very important thing in games, and to have the game as even horribly off balance as it is, is part of what makes D&d such a pain in the ass, and so full of uberpowermongers, as they sought ways to make their melee fighters be USEFUL in combat when the mages were around.

And in CRPGs, balance is about 20,000,000x more important than it is in tabletops, if there's multiplayer involved. Tabletop a DM can slap someone for being a powermongering dimwit. :p

And CRPGs MORE important than Tabletop? Stop and think for a moment..
Without Tabletops, we would never have had CRPGs in the first place, and we DEFINITELY wouldn't have BG. So Tabletop > CRPG :p

That's your problem right there. Remove that and everything's great :)

If you're singleplayer, then because of the party system your group isn't off-balanced at all, it's perfectly balanced with different classes taking on different roles. The problem is when each class needs to be the same as the others, and the dynamic is lost. It's no problem to have your rogue disarming traps if you play the rogue as well as the others who are waiting.

Tabletop gave rise to crpg, so it has historical relevance, but is now outdated, it's like saying that boats are more important than aeroplanes :)

I like BG2's implementation too, and I don't like the 4e system, but it makes more sense to me to have a mage casting a spell because they have the ability to, but that it depletes them to do so, rather than to have had to memorise the incantation the night before and just holding it at bay until needed. At-will can symbolise this mana as well, if your casts per day for example change with your level, which is where 4e fails. The sorcerer type of casting seems to make more sense. What I would like is similar to the 3.5 druid/cleric where certain spells are prepared, the ritual half-complete, but then that magical energy can be re-directed as pure magical force - either to cast heal light wounds as a cleric or magic missle as a mage, etc, maybe changing depending on your specialsation school. That to me would be a good inbetween. Or even maybe seperate mana pools (or casts per day) for different schools like the wizardry games.

That said, I enjoy the memorisation mechanic more than a mana one, it just doesn't make sense to me if I think about it too much :)

However we're discussing a video game that is DIRECTLY using Tabletop mechanics, so the mechanics for the game are tied to Tabletop, which is a Multiplayer experience.

Tabletops, however, will never be out dated. You must have had many bad experiences with Tabletop (or none at all, which renders your opinions of tabletop invalid.) Because you see.. CRPGs will behave more or less the same every time. CRPGs limit us, CRPGs give us a predfined story and say 'go do this.' and maybe they let us fart around a little, but there's only so much we can do before the plot is thrust on to us, or we die of boredom for lack of non-plot related things to do in the world.

A half way decent DM changes things up, tweaks the game to fit his needs and the needs of his party, adjusts the campaign to suit what his players want.

Tabletop gaming is a social experience that is driven by the whim of the players involved, and works to do what they want.

CRPGs are a rigid, antisocial experience that provides pre-defined paths you can take.

Tabletop might be, but crpgs shouldn't, unless you love WoW :P

Yeah bad experiences to be sure. It takes forever to do anything for a start, and worst of all is you have to interact with a bunch of idiots. I'm playing a 4e game right now, because I like the people though, not the game ... which is kind of the point, as you said:

Tabletop is, from a gaming perspective, vastly deficient. A bad RPG may be very linear or rigid, to be sure, but that's the fault of the developers for not making a very good game, the same as a bad DM may run a lousy campaign. The difference is that you will always be crippled in tabletop, first by the speed, secondly by the story, unless you happen to be friends with a bunch of authors, and most importantly by the dynamic, the rules are, as you say, stymied for human simplification. It's a fancified board game, it's monopoly with orcs.

I've played WoW, and I even liked that better than tabletop, which is saying something I'm sure you'll agree. At least I won't spend all evening waiting for something to happen or getting through a single fight. If I wanted to game with people I'd go to a LAN party. :)

So, you should then prefer games that aren't driven by the faulty, flawed, and out-right idiotic mechanics of D&D :p

I think brother-eros should clarify what his definition of balance is.

Every class and character build should be different, but they should be "equal". There shouldn't be any classes or builds that are obviously underpowered or overpowered. There shouldn't be any no-brainer builds.

And don't tell me that an underpowered class is meant to be a "challenge" class. A difficulty setting is more straightforward.

You know, it's always bothered me that in CRPGs mages are always the expert class while warriors are the n00b class.

^

I personally don't think there are any no-brainer builds. And the ones that are (in BG2) considered no-brainers are virtual impossibilities from a roleplaying POV. Example: A Kensai-Mage? For real? Someone who spent their life becoming a mage also somehow spent their life becoming a master swordsman as well? Really? All this while in his/her youth in Candlekeep, or on the roads & wilderness in BG1? Hot damn they must have had 18's in all ability scores since the time they were 12yrs old!

However, I think you can make any (normal) class be very powerful, even within the context of roleplaying and not powergaming (like the Kensai-Mage build!) if you're dedicated and know what you're doing! And keep in mind, so MUCH depends upon what kind of equipment the player has, no matter what class! :OD

Well, mages are more intelligent than other classes, so it does make sense that they're the expert class (though Imoen does give a lesson in humility, becoming an arch-mage later on in BG2, yet always deferring leadership to PC, as she always has). Becoming a fighter is more straightforward. That shouldn't undervalue their importance, of course!

Gandalf knew how to sword fight... ;)

Gandalf was also a Demi-God.

I would recommend you Planescape: Torment! :)
This game have incredible story, design and atmosphere!

Isn't there a Feat for that?

LOL - yeah, it's called being lvl 40 (in 3ed) or lvl 30 in 4ed :)