Zolgar: Also the number of foes you get hit with, even at really low levels, can with just a few lucky shots tear your melee fighters to pieces.
wvpr: Thankfully, BG2 and PS:T manage to avoid this.
BG, not so much. There's a late-game dungeon notorious for its combination of tight corridors, horrible pathfinding, and packs of accurate kobold snipers armed with devastating fire arrows. Even at the max level cap, surviving is difficult.
BG2 and PS:T are equally good, for different tastes. BG2 is fantasy epic with loads of character interaction and classic CRPG gameplay. PS:T is deep, filled with very serious and thoughtful philosophy and psychology, difficult moral choices, and quirky encounters. BG2 has more traditional gaming, finely polished; PS:T is heavier on (beautifully written) text and encourages introspection.
BG1 is more of a straightforward hack & slash with lots of storytelling along the way to a predetermined conclusion. BG2 took a lot of lessons from PS:T and deepened in many ways. Playing BG1 can add some meaning to BG2, but it's not absolutely necessary for understanding and enjoying the sequel.
That was a really good summation I think.
Aaron86: 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.
Well, yeah, I don't think they should be equal so much as suited to different roles. I have no problem with certain characters outshining others in different situations (and then working together becomes more meaningful also). If the game doesn't cater for this (those different situations, in a party-based setting) then I believe that to be a fault of the developers.
But I agree there shouldn't be obvious over/underpowerd classes in general. However, I think that dnd would do better for multiclassing if it required very high base stats (higher than dual-class requirements) and allowed those classes to shine. If a charcter is so rare as to have all of those abilities then developing simultaneously in different areas is a good reward for the player who spends a couple of days rolling for stats.
