So far I'm impressed

Remove all ads!

I played Icewind Dale II a while back and gave it a 'meh' review here:
http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47268

After being a little discouraged, I decided to give Icewind Dale a whirl. Given that it was made before Icewind Dale II, I thought that it would be *worse*. But quite to the contrary, it's far more enjoyable with challenging (but not grossly overpowered) battles. Everything seems more polished, the story doesn't try to over-complicate things, and I haven't hit any stupid puzzle areas (Ice Cathedral and Fell Wood Maze, anyone?) yet. The 2nd edition rules give this game a BGII sort of feel, which is a very good thing.

I'm playing with a four member evil party at the moment, at have reached Dragon's Eye lvl4. No humans, given that humans suck donkey wang in this edition (and I'm playing evil, so no paladin!). And apparently I'd forgotten how much fighter/clerics kick ass, because wow, my dwarf fighter/cleric is accounting for 51% of kills. Compare that to the dwarf cleric (19%), gnome illusionist/thief (16%), and my halfing illusionist (12%).

Clerics *and* mages seem to be better off buffing and disabling than casting direct damage spells!

 

If you had an unbalanced party like this in IWD2 it's obvious why the game was too hard for you.

 

I tried IWD1 with a recommended party from a walkthrough:
-Paladin
-Human fighter6/druid
-Human ranger3/cleric
-Halfling fighter/thief
-Human fighter2/conjurer
-Human fighter2/diviner
But I forgot to dual the last 2 characters at level 2, so dualing them at level 3 set me back. I was fighting Kresselack's tomb and still my mages weren't level 4 yet, so still no fighter abilities.
I didn't like how I was having to make excursions back to Kuldahar to unload loot. And some opponents were of reasonable difficulty, so my low level party was being challenged. But this is all acceptable, and wasn't the reason I stopped playing.
What I really didn't like, was the outdated game rules; it's an arcane version of 2nd edition, where dual wielding is simulated by getting an extra attack if you keep your off hand empty. That was pathetic. And compared to IWD2, the game is lacking in leveling choices and possibilities. There are no feats or skills, just summary weapon proficiency picks. Game info options are less advanced in the info screen, so it's hard to improve your tactics even through experience. It's hard to look up information, so using equipment, party planning, and spellcasting, are all less involved and immersive. Most of these criticisms hold true for BG2 as well, but the BG2 world itself is huge and captivating, so that give that game a charm of its own. The interface also looks quite plain and unappealing. All in all, the game is just too old to captivate me the same way IWD2 does.

 

I think I'd use the word streamlined rather than polished. It's definitely the easiest IE game to just fly through without being forced to stop and think about either the plot or about the game mechanics. I liked the fact that this left it free to concentrate on placing you in interesting combat situations for you to hack your way through. I found that BG tends to line up enemies against you whilst IWD (I and II) often leaves you surrounded or in an unusual situation. This means tactics is more about how to employ your troops as opposed to figuring out which spells are needed to get through the fight. I think the polish comes as much from its simplicity as opposed to the amount of work put into it.

I was able to cover most of the character classes in a 6 man party:
Paladin
Fighter
F/T (multi)
R/C (multi)
Druid
Mage
Bard is the obvious one missing but they've never appealed to me anyway. Maybe it's the fact that my line up was much less magic intensive than normal but I found that melee worked much better than magic in the main, which is not my usual experience. The mage was poor at lower levels and at very high had a very limited selection. Duid was much better than expected but faded at higher levels. The pure class fighter with grand mastery was an absolute monster. I must say it's odd to see someone talking about buffing when you just surely only have two characters worth buffing, neither a pure melee type?

I can't see myself replaying it though. The other games all offer a much deeper experience. BG/PST mainly through the plot and option to take different characters. As a non-D&D player it's clear that IWDII does suffer in that it's very easy to make a character that's of very limited use because of the 3e implementation. This might only be apparent a while into it and at that stage there's no way of doing anything about it (barring deleting him and importing a new one cheated up to that level but that doesn't seem right). I had a F/R/T in one game that relied on finessing dual short swords. He was awesome at the start but later in the game he simply wasn't able to scratch anything with damage resistance as his strength and low damage output couldn't overcome it. As more and more enemies came with DR he really started to become pointless. Still, the IWDII system does provide so much scope that there's a wealth of ideas for new characters going through my head constantly. If I replayed IWDI it would pretty much be with the same cast.

I don't remember infuriating puzzles offhand , aside one or two from TotL. I think this part was only quasi-official which may explain it. And it really does feel as though you're just given a hint and are then expected to work it out for yourself rather than having your hand held through it. Apart from the time when I solved the puzzle but then never noticed the door opening in the middle of the screen. I literally spent hours scouring the entire castle aimlessly until I found the bloody thing. The hands-off approach suited the darker tone of IWD which is really bleak at times (not to spoil anything but right from the avalanche friendly characters tend to have the life expectancy of a bond villain) and more adult. This reaches its apex in TotL, where I struggled to see anything uplifting in the story at all. It kinda gives an impression of what can be done when you don't have a marketing department insisting on a happy story, even in an 18 rated game.

 

How is my party unbalanced? I have a meat shield (dwarven cleric/fighter), a healer who can function as a rather decent fighter (dwarven cleric), a devoted mage (gnome illusionist), and a thief to disarm and use bows (halfling illusionist/rogue). I've optimised all their stats.

I'm starting to think that the cleric levels for my meat shield would be better replaced by either a mage multiclass, or a pure fighter. Apart from Draw Upon Holy Might and Spiritual Hammer, the self-buffs for Cleric aren't that good.

 

number 1 is way better than the second one. The second one is just all about tweaking characters, to make them godlike. Picking a level of this and that, just to get a speciffic feat. Roleplaying wise its lame. The story in number 1 is better too. Not that the second one had a bad story, though.

Why do you use the halfing rogue\illusionist by the way? Seeing that you have allready covered those classes.

 

IWD1 the game for you, IWD2 the game for me

I see you lack a sorcerer, and your wizards can't cast Abjuration or Necromancy. No wonder you're having a hard time. And it seems that you've 'multi'-classed your fighter/cleric and illusionist/thief, which is a bad idea. Due to the experience and leveling system in 3E IWD2, it's much worse to be a fighter9/cleric9 at level 18 than, say, a fighter1/cleric17. IWD2 works with mix-ins, which can seem overpowered compared to the dual/multiclassing system in all 2nd Edition games (IWD1, BG1 & BG2 are 2E), but the challenges in IWD2 are great, so you'll need them. It's true that you can make 'wrong' characters in IWD2, but I see that as a great part of the challenge of the game.
As for the clerics, they have some of the best buff spells in the game: Bless, Bull's Strength, DUHM, Magic Circle, Holy Power, Recitation, Champion's Strength, Iron Skins, Divine Shell, Holy Aura, etc. And need I even speak about the cleric's wonderful ability to summon and heal as well? At high level, the cleric is the best melee combatant, due to his buffs; the cleric is the most overpowered class in the game.
countD, I think you just couldn't be bothered to get a hang of the game system and tactics, and I agree that IWD1 is easier to get right the first time. But it's a lot less fun for me, because of the limitations of the characters.

It did seem right to me. There isn't a Character Arbitration screen in there for nothing. And if you hadn't cheated the new character up, then your party would've gotten much more XP. But I cheated them up anyway, as if they were in the party all along.

But I have heard that the IWD1 story is longer, and perhaps better. I'd love to see an IWD1 tutu conversion, so that the story can be played in the IWD2 rules and engine. So far, this is only possible with Shadows of Amn...

 

coin, I'm playing Icewind Dale I. These are 2nd Edition rules we're talking about.

 

IWD2 being the operative word. Maybe you were describing your IWD1 party, but from your writing it looked like you were talking about IWD2.

IWD1 and (unmodded) BG1 are just too old to be played enjoyably, since their successors are so much better. Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate 2 have an immersive storyline, and captivating game worlds, so I play them more for the atmosphere than the actual challenge. It's funny how I acquired such overpowered gear in my BG2 megamod, that most enemies just splatter after the first hit, but I don't even care; it's about following the story

 

I made it clear I was talking about IWD1. I introduced the topic along the lines of: "After playing IWD2 some time back, I decided to try IWD1". And then I went on to describe my IWD1 experiences so far. That may be the source of your confusion.

Yes.

I didn't enjoy BG1, simply because there are wide expanses of nothing, and your party members move like slugs. However, I am thoroughly enjoying Icewind Dale I. It is a straight-forward dungeon crawler with well implemented 2E rules, no bull*****ing around.

 

I don't know if you have HoW installed and assume the cheat programs you use (halflings cannot be illusionists) don't add additional power.

All 4 characters combined have about as little physical fighting power as a single fighter. 3 of your characters don't have warrior levels, no exceptional strength, no specialisation bonus, only warriors can have more than 1 base attack per round, not the cleric (who's miles away from a fighter), not the thief, not the mage. Your only fighter is multiclassed with cleric which means slower levelling, no grandmastery, no axes, greatswords, crossbows, composite bows, ...

In IWD you can still get along quite well with this kind of party, especially since you'll be able to cast high level spells long before you're supposed to. IWD2 doesn't work this way and offers far more freedom and therefore far more freedom to make your game harder or easier with decisions (what was your party btw ?). It's not as easy as in BG2 where it's hard to mess up since you've hardly any choices in developing your party.

 

I was debating giving this game a run through. I noticed you mentioned having a halfling specialist mage. Are their more character class options in IWD1 than SoA?

How about kits and so on.... or the bug barring druid/mages?

 

Icewind Dale has no kits, and is second edition, so no druid/mages, no halfling mages of any stripe. Any game that allows them is using hacks or cheats.

The game is plenty fun without them, anyway. A gnomish illusionist/thief is better than a halfling version, and just as short.

 

Thanks for the quick reply.

Does it have clerics of a specific D&D god or would that be under the same heading as kits.

Also D&D 2nd edition has Druid/Mages. They are legit and an option listed in the players handbook. I suspect that the makers of the game made a mistake with their program and it was never fixed.

Possibly it was never noticed as most people wouldn't try to take a Druid/Mage as a multi-class. Had they made the same mistake with a different type of multi-class like a fighter/mage (more commonly used) I think it would have been complained about more and/or fixed.

 

@countduckula

I can understand why your party would have difficulty, not only does it only have 4 members but you also have only one melee character. Clerics make poor fighters in 2E, unlike in 3E, since they can never have more than one proficiency point with a weapon, and they never get more than one attack per round. They also have poor THAC0. You should have dualled a Ranger to a cleric, or a fighter.

Personally, I like IWD2, and perhaps part of the reason for that is that it is almost completely devoid of roleplaying. Its like an adventure/tactics game. You choose a party of up to 6, and they face some difficult battles in some cool locations (I especially like the cold marshes/wandering village bit). I dont find interparty dialogue interesting at all - I hated hearing Aerie whine about the loss of her wings in BG2, or Jaheira being *****y/bossy/just plain annoying, or Minsc going crazy. It never added anything to the game for me. But I suppose for me, I dont see them as.... "people". They are, at best, units to me. Weapons that I create and customize to fulfil a particular role in a party.

I know that makes me completely different to most fans of BG2, since most of you seem to have an attachment to the NPCs. Personally, I couldnt care less.

The reason I really like IWD2 is because of the tactical possibilities offered by 3E. I see it as far more balanced and fair than 2E, which, to me, had some horrendously useless classes and some incredibly powerful ones. Thats also why, I'm really keen to play IWD1Tutu, when its finally finished, because it upgrades IWD1 to use the IWD2 engine, which naturally includes 3E rules.

PS I dont like BG1 because its too slow. Nothing happens, and you are stuck with incredibly weak characters, forcing you to rest after every battle to refresh your spells. Dont judge me!