NWN2: Drooool

That makes sense.

 

But what would they use? AD&D really doesn't provide content beyond level 20, and the system just falls apart at that point.

 

Okay, the numbers seem to be on your side, but it still feels fairly cramped. You let off an arrow or a spell and they're usually upon you in that time. Mind you in the pen and paper version, terrain feels like it makes more of a difference. I'm going off an IRC/maptools online Eberron game, distances feel more substaintial.

The other pisser is that to maintain difficulty, if you're a really powerful character relative to what you're fighting, it'll nerf your rolls.

 

AD&D, breaks down much earlier in my opinion considering the amount of cheese there is in the way of spells. Updated to 3.5, and the system seems to have a lot more legs.

 

That makes you lose your action in that round unlike in ToEE.

I can give you many examples when not focusing your attacks is the most useful tactic:

When you're fighting an enemy using mirror image. When the "sidekick" you ignored turns out to be the real threat and you realise it mid-round; in BG you either have to be trigger happy with the pause to switch your attacks or waste your attacks until the next round to change targets. When the "sidekick" which is really not a threat does a threatening single action you may want to prevent without actually stopping focusing on the real threat like sundering the wand he just took out of his belt or he's nearly dying and he casts a cure spell so you decide to break off from your main oponent just to get one attack and try and finish the sidekick off right there.

I completely agree with the first two sentences but I continue to disagree with the last one. Here is why BG can never be as strategic as ToEE:

Melee wise in BG you can either:

*switch weapons
*not attack
*attack

In ToEE:

*switch weapons (and you can switch them as a move action, as a round or as a free action depending on the situation: all these three options have different prices and consequences).
*not attack (and not attack but still parry incoming attacks)
*full attack
*single attack
*only attack (or do anything really) until some condition is met during the round.
*aid another (to increase your ally's attack or AC versus that enemy)
*trip the enemy
*grapple the enemy
*disarm the enemy
*sunder his weapon/item
*attack defensively
*charge
*bullrush
*throw feats into the mix and you can increase damage by reducing attack, increasing AC by reducing attack, do more attacks with less accuracy, cleave as extra attacks, etc.
*Some of these "attacks" have to be weighted against the fact they draw attacks of opportunity.

Spell-wise in BG:
*You cast a spell
*You don't cast a spell
*You cast dispel magic

In ToEE you have the same options as BG and more:
*You cast a metamagic-ed spell
*You cast a spell defensively
*You cast a counter spell
*You ready an action to counterspell
*You use dispel magic not only to dispel but to counterspell as well

Even movement requires more strategy in ToEE than in BG:
*In BG before moving you only have to pay attention if there are any traps in your way.
*In BG movement is limited to walking or running (this option was later removed in later IE games even)
*Your position at any given time is only determined by whether or not it's dangerous for area-spells.

In ToEE:
*You have to carefully plot your path to avoid (or minimise) attacks of opportunity.
*You still have to pay attention to traps.
*You can take a 5ft step, move action (equivalent to walk in BG), double move action, withdraw, run (equivalent to run in BG) and some of these provoke AoO by their very nature.
*Your position still matters for area-spells.
*Your position matters for determining attacks of opportunity when you make certain melee attacks, ranged attacks, cast spells from the mind or scrolls (but not wands).
*Your position matters for certain actions you can force your oponents to make that may leave them vulnerable (like charging, running, grappling, etc.)

So as you see, when compared to ToEE, BG's options in combat are incredibly limited (and limiting). A single decision in ToEE (like choosing to grapple a secondary enemy instead of keep attacking your main enemy) can turn the tide of the encounter whereas in BG success is mostly determined by which spells you use (as seen in the listing above, it's probably the only area where BG's level of strategy aproaches ToEE's) and which caracter is attacking which enemy. In ToEE the same character attacking the same enemy in the same encounter can do many, many different things that change how the encounter plays out the second time around.

I can definitely see that. I think I made it clear before but it bears mentioning again: I'm not arguing turn-based is better than realtime. I'm simply arguing that ToEE has much more strategy than BG.

But in ToEE because of the complexity of strategies I mentioned above a single "attack" can make a huge difference on an encounter. As John mentioned ToEE is filled with deeply strategic elements; I'd actually classify the game as downright tactical where you really have to think before you do a move that has consequences in terms of time expended and reactions the same way the old turn-based strategy games like X-Com, et al used to be.

 

Not all of it. Only the time you 'wasted' standing around waiting for the caster to finish the spell. You could set the game to pause on spell cast and still get in attacks the same round from the other characters.

 

That time "wasted" could be large enough for you to only act in the second round: say the wizard takes half a round to get to you and another half a round to cast the spell on you. By then the round is over and you haven't acted. In ToEE you simply delay your initative to just after the wizard and no matter how much time he took in his round to cast the spell you still have your own full round to act in.

Chalnoth: yeah, I think BG/IWD can provide good combats and they can become very strategic during some encounters; I'm thinking specifically of IWD's Heart of Winter expansion in Heart of Fury mode... heh, ah the memories. Other real-time RPGs like Diablo 2 and NwN for instance can lead to very superficial combats, especially melee wise.

 

*Could*, yes. In general I prefer concurrent turns to sequential ones, but I can see how that could make for more strategic gameplay. You have, at least, peaked my interest.

I'll pick up ToEE if I see it in a bargain bin somewhere. Was about to buy it yesterday as I thought I remembered seeing it @ Play.com for £7.99 shipped, but they're sold out.

 

Patch the hell out of it before diving in.

 

Thanks for the warning. It was after all made by Troika: The masters of potentially great, yet horribly flawed, RPGs.

 

Heh, they were only living up to their company logo: design before art and way before code.

Btw, you may want to try the fan-patches that correct bugs present in the latest official patch. http://www.co8.org/

 

And Throne of Bhaal did so by providing hordes of high level creatures which shouldn't be at that level, and by tossing in a set of their own, highly unbalanced skills.

 

Widescreen resolutions are also easily added to ToEE by editing the game's .cfg/.ini file in its install folder, though at 1920x1200 I'm sure that little halfling rogue might be rather hard to click on.

 

But it is very fun to play. With a bunch of wacked out skills and level 10 spells, every battle feels epic.

 

Well, if you were a BG2 power-gamer you'd find every battle lasted about five seconds (enough time for your contingencies to fire), but there are mods which fix that like the Improved Battles mod by Dave Gaider (BG2 Lead Designer)? Makes fighting the Five a lot more epic. Ascension (by Dave Gaider and modders from IEEAIS, including myself) re-jigs the entire ending, and it becomes truly epic (and rather hard).