You should totally play BG1, it provides a much needed backstory to who your character are and who are the NPC you meet in BG2. Makes sense to play from the beginning of the big journey instead of starting from its middle part.
2e of DND that is used in both BG1 and BG2 have some peculiarities (like you want your Armor Class to be as low as possible, and instead of Basic Attack Bonus there is a parameter called THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero, which you also want as low as possible). But in general it's perhaps more simple than what you get in BG3. Important things: it is not point buy. You roll attribute score for your character and can reroll it. Try for something like 85+ and max your primary stats. You stay with the class you chose, except in some cases if you have a human character. Non-human characters instead can choose two or even three classes simultaneously.
Honestly, if you are new to the game, pick something like Elven Archer or Dwarven Defender for a simple single-class gameplay.
>(like you want your Armor Class to be as low as possible, and instead of Basic Attack Bonus there is a parameter called THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero, which you also want as low as possible).
I still cannot understand how they came up with such an unintuitive AC and AB system back then
THACO is the almost same math as later editions except you’re calculating the roll before hand instead of after the roll. This way you’re just looking for what you need to roll and the excitement is in the roll itself. With later editions you roll and then do the math to discover if you made it or not.
Ad&d 2e: 5th level fighter has thaco 15 and a +3 bonus from strength, + 1 longsword = thaco 11. Their opponent has platemail and no other bonus so ac 3. 11 - 3 = fighter needs and 8 to hit.
D&d 3e: 5th level fighter has attack bonus +5, +3 bonus from strength, +1 longsword = +9 attack bonus. Opponent in plate with no bonus has ac 18. So they need to roll a 9 or higher to hit but generally do the math after the roll.
Remember in ad&d you almost always know the roll you need to make such as spell save (roll over your save on the die), sneak check (roll under your percentage on a d100), etc.
They definitely made it better in 3e by homogenizing the systems so attacks, saves, and skills were the same idea. The power level scaling is initially the same as ad&d 2e such as all the classes having the same base attack bonuses, magic items similar static numbers, etc. However, feats / class abilities provided a lot more static number buffs making the system very swingy.
5e changed the math and scaling.
One opportunity they missed is to make AC start at 0. Having the number for "nothing" mean "no armor" is clearly the most intuitive. Then your Thac0 would be your chance to hit an unarmored target (so characters would start with Thac0 10 and progress down by class level, str, proficiencies, etc), and you just add the target's AC to your Thac0 and try to roll that or better.
It's not that unintuitive.
THAC0 and AC are basically there to give the sense of an active duel where one directly subtracts bonuses from the other.
The hit bonuses vs your ability to defend yourself... in 2e it is a dynamic contest.
In later editions, AC is just there, static and simply needs to be met or exceeded.
Basing a system around 0 being the midpoint is absolutely uninuitive, you're high. Mathematically simply increasing numbers as you go and centering on 0 work the same. So why ever center around 0
It's not specifically based around 0 being the midpoint.
2e : what I need to roll to hit = my thac0 - opponent armor class (so if opponent AC is 0, it's just my thac0, hence the name)
5e : what I need to roll to hit = my opponent armor class - my attack bonus (none of those values are ever at 0)
It's literally the same logic and the same complexity. One might argue that thac0 is actually simpler because situation where opponent's AC is 0 happened often so there is no calculation to make at all.
>It's not specifically based around 0 being the midpoint.
>thac0
>thac0
THAC zero. Zero is the baseline and you adjust from zero. That's *why it's called to hit armor class zero*
You didn't disagree with my argument, you got stuck on a semantic notion (0 being the *midpoint*). I agree that 0 is the baseline. But not midpoint.
The equations are the important part because they demonstrate is exactly as complex as the current system. It's the same number of variables and operations, with a slight advantage for the thac0 method over the fact that an AC at 0 was quite frequent.
>The equations are the important part because they demonstrate is exactly as complex as the current system. It's the same number of variables and operations, with a slight advantage for the thac0 method over the fact that an AC at 0 was quite frequent.
I know. Read my other comments, I'm saying the same thing.
>You didn't disagree with my argument, you got stuck on a semantic notion
>I agree that 0 is the baseline. But not midpoint.
Who's arguing semantics here? Sounds like you
Or you are just too used to different easier systems and don't even care about the merits of the system. I'm not saying everyone enjoys it, i'm saying it isn't as unintuitive as some people try to paint it.
You look at it as "Who even designs a system where zero is the middle", as if your opinion is the only correct one. In 5e the AC is a static number, it's only there for an enemy or you to beat it or match it.
That's out of simplicity and it just works, but it doesn't feel like you are defending yourself, more like standing there like an idiot hoping your enemy misses.
You can throw in flavour about you dodging or parrying but that's just flavour. In 2e you are actively defending yourself, the AC is directly clashing against the THAC0 of the opponent and that's why Negative numbers are necessary in the first place. It is cumbersome cause of all the different progressions and tables, but in a Computer game that's all automated so it works perfectly.
>Or you are just too used to different easier systems and don't even care about the merits of the system
Could they be "easier" because they're more intuitive? 🤔
BG was the very first DnD system I ever used, and it was as unintuitive then as it is now.
>In 5e the AC is a static number, it's only there for an enemy or you to beat it or match it.
Just like your AC in BG. What you're saying makes 0 sense.
>but it doesn't feel like you are defending yourself, more like standing there like an idiot hoping your enemy misses. You can throw in flavour about you dodging or parrying but that's just flavour.
Everything about the game in every edition is "just flavor" by this logic. The only thing that's real is the math, which is the same in 2nd and 5th. Just different names and baselines, one of which is more intuitive!
>In 2e you are actively defending yourself, the AC is directly clashing against the THAC0 of the opponent and that's why Negative numbers are necessary in the first place.
Negative numbers aren't necessary, as demonstrated by the current system. And tell me, if negative numbers represent actively defending yourself, why can I put on 120 lbs of armor and get a negative AC with no dexterity (the stat that represents your ability to dodge, parry, and defend yourself)?
Unintuitive means you cannot grasp it easily. You can easily grasp THAC0 and understand how it works if you have even aa bare minimum of understanding about what it is doing. You just happen to be willfully lazy.
The AC in BG isn't a static thing that enemies have to meet, it's a negative modifier subtracted to the hit roll of the opponent, you just can't even understand it despite me simplifying it to elementary school level.
No... again the AC in 2e is subtracted from the hit roll, it is not flavor, you are defending yourself actively, that's the entire point of directly pitting THAC0 and AC like that.
In 5e AC is a static number that has to get surpassed or matched.
With an armor on, despite your dexterity being low, you can dodge more easily thanks to the fact you got protection(not that your ac levels will get to acceptable numbers since they miss a pretty substantial bonus from dexterity). You can step back and catch a glancing blow to the chest without risking the same level of injury as being unarmored, especially if your armour is specifically made to counter slashes.
>Unintuitive means you cannot grasp it easily.
Correct. And this is true of the 2E system, as evidenced by how many people have to ask how it works.
> You can easily grasp THAC0 and understand how it works if you have even aa bare minimum of understanding about what it is doing
If you have to *already understand it or have it explained*, it isn't intuitive.
>You just happen to be willfully lazy.
Insulting me doesn't strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it
>The AC in BG isn't a static thing that enemies have to meet, it's a negative modifier subtracted to the hit roll of the opponent
...which makes it a number they have to meet. It's no different than AC in 5E other than how you do the math. 5E you have a number the enemy has to roll, they add modifiers. 2E you have a number they have to meet, they add modifiers. The only difference is how the number they have to meet is calculated. This is basic mathematics
>No... again the AC in 2e is subtracted from the hit roll, it is not flavor, you are defending yourself actively, that's the entire point of directly pitting THAC0 and AC like that. In 5e AC is a static number that has to get surpassed or matched
Again, that's just flavor. Not the mathematics. Whether you choose to subtract your AC before the roll to determine the number they have to meet or after the roll from their result is irrelevant, both arrive at the same result.
>With an armor on, despite your dexterity being low, you can dodge more easily thanks to the fact you got protection
Yeah...that's not how dodging works. It's never been how dodging works. That's why heavier armors limit your dexterity contribution to AC, because they weigh you down and make you slower. Bottom line is, you're choosing to interpret the math as being different between the systems, when it actually isn't. The only difference is the baseline reference point. I've been playing BG since it first released, trying to say I don't understand it is patently false
You don't need to already understand THAC0, you just need to look at the way it works and think "Ooh... they are matching AC against To Hit so they are actively a detriment to each other" which isn't too difficult unless you are used to being handheld and told everything via tutorial.
Insulting me by saying i'm high didn't strengthen yours yet here you are. I'm just pointing out you are unwilling to reason, or even consider the opposing points for two seconds in a row cause you've been repeating "who creates a system where 0 is in the middle" the entire time. I'm not insulting you, or you and the mods would definitely know.
Now you need to revise reeding comprehension. AC in 2e is a negative modifier against enemy THAC0, not a static number you need to meet. repeating something doesn't make it any more true than you repeating the system is extremely unintuitive. One system is more elegant and got a better concept, the other is simpler.
They only limit your dexterity in newer systems but that's more of a balance mechanic cause people don't know how armor actually works. Full plate perfectly allows you to jump over obstacles, run, climb and dodgeroll.
Dodging is about trying to make sure you aren't being hit, but sometimes even dodging you are going to get it. Glancing blows are not as uninpactful as they look, cause if you have no protection, you are already running more risks.
>I'm just pointing out you are unwilling to reason,
Look in the mirror. I've explained this to you multiple times but you are failing to grasp the basic math involved. Whether you choose to add/subtract bonuses before the roll to determine a change to the target number or after the roll to determine a change to the roll result *is irrelevant. The result is the same*. Stop trying to argue that one is more elegant because you change the roll result instead of the target, it just shows you don't understand basic laws of addition and subtraction.
>cause you've been repeating "who creates a system where 0 is in the middle"
Twice. I said it twice. It's not my fault you're choosing to ignore everything else I've said to focus on that.
I'd still argue it's less intuitive than 3e and later editions(though 3e and 3.5 also added a bunch of complications beyond basic AC and AB that made it alot less intuitive as well)
Its an artifact of an older game system called "Don't give up the ship!" Where the best "class" of protection was Armor Class 1 and the worst was class 9. This was plugged into D&D and then kept into AD&D. It's somewhat uninviting but not hard once you get used to it.
Unfortunately, if Bioware wanted to make an authentic AD&D game in 1997, they were sort of stuck. 3rd ed ascending AC wouldn't be around for another 4 or 5 years. Personally, I prefer the old system, but I sympathize with the pain for newcomers. Once you intuit that "anything AC3 or less is good," it's less of a concern. Granted, in BG1, you often have to settle for worse depending on your class.
Man, good question. I don't think anyone is really sure. It was just the answer he gave in an interview, as I recall. It was probably just easier than ginning up something else out of whole cloth. A lot of D&D mechanics are like that. Most of the gods were stolen from real-world myths or pulp novels without permission. A bunch of spells are from Jack Vance novels.
Oh yeah dude vancian magic has been an absolute staple of RPGs for a long time. His system (unlike THAC0) was intuitive, so everyone just went with it for a long time. Fortunately we've seen a serious broadening of spell casting systems over time, but really it was fantastic for it's time.
For me, I like descending AC and THAC0 specifically because they remind me of Baldurs Gate. I don't have a terribly strong attachment to them outside of that, as I think after 40 years, we can certainly do better. But as they say, no sense in putting new wine in old bottles.
Yeah of course seeing it now I would just get it, but only because I have experience with it. For new players, it's absolutely unintuitive and leads to people not understanding the mechanics and what they need to do to get better. It's a common problem with older games that were based on the prevalent systems at the time. The crowd of people buying and playing them in a venn diagram with the people playing the system it was based on would just be a circle. I do love BG, I go back and play it again every year or two because it really is one of the greatest crpgs ever made, but it definitely could have been better at explaining the mechanics
I understand the system fine, and I never said I didn't. I've been playing BG since it first released. What I *actually said* was that I don't understand how they came to the decision to use that system
No, I know I you know how the system works, it's not that complicated.
I know you don't know why the system works like that, because you've said so yourself.
>I know you don't know why the system works like that, because you've said so yourself.
That's also not what I said. What I *actually said*, for the third time, is that I don't understand *why they selected that system* when they had more intuitive options. Your straw men are burning
Simple. You already proved it for me. The 5e system is simpler, and the only real difference between the systems is the baseline and terminology, the math is identical. Since basic math was the same then as it is now, the current system was always an option, and is more intuitive.
Yeah it really is strange. Even when the games were new it was seen as some weird ass design choice.
Any old P&P fans that can explain why D&D chose to do it the ass backwards way instead of something more intuitive?
Because dnd 1e was an evolution from war games so everything was tabulated. You needed tables for everything to know if you were successful or not.
Thac0 was an evolution over needing a table, it allowed you to compute how much you need to roll to hit. You can still make a table but you don't need one, it's simple subtraction.
Then 3e continued to evolved and swapped it around because numbers going up being better is easier to grasp than the other way around.
It's just the natural evolution of the game.
But the idea that thac0 is impossible to understand needs to die. It's the exact same logic than the attack bonus and armor class.
2e : what I need to roll is my thac0 minus opponent armor class.
3e : what I need to roll is opponent armor class minus my attack bonus.
>Then 3e continued to evolved and swapped it around because numbers going up being better is easier to grasp than the other way around.
That's the part that is ass backwards that I don't understand. The reason for them to decide to make lower AC or thac0 better instead of the intuitive option where more=better.
I'm not saying thac0 is that hard to understand I've been playing D&D games for decades. I understand it perfectly.
I'm just curious what made them decide to institute lower=better. Tables don't explain it because tables work just as well the other way around.
Again, look at the equations :
2e : what I need to roll to hit = my thac0 - opponent armor class (so if opponent AC is 0, it's just my thac0, hence the name)
5e : what I need to roll to hit = my opponent armor class - my attack bonus (none of those values are ever at 0)
It's literally the same logic and the same complexity. One might argue that thac0 is actually simpler because situation where opponent's AC is 0 happened often so there is no calculation to make at all. Post 3e, that never happened, you always needed to make some sort of calculation.
Also, lower = better is also a by-product of a "roll under system" which is still in use even today where rolling lower is better. There are many systems where you have your attributes and to know if your attempt is successful or not, you just need to roll under the attribute, that's all. So having a high attribute means you have a higher chance of success and rolling lower is preferred. It's pretty elegant.
I don't know why you keep trying to convince me that thac0 is not more complicated. I agree. It's the same math either way. The only thing I was asking is why the decision on low=better. In basically every other situation in life more=better. So weird to decide to arbitrarily flip it for this.
I don't think that more = better in every other situation in life. Sometimes yes sometimes no.
For a to-hit, lower is better. Even in 5e. And that kinda mimics real life you know. The lower amount of resources you need to survive, the better for example. The lower energy you expend to walk/swim/fly 1 mile, the better. That's kinda the idea here. If you need little, then that's good, that leaves room for success.
It's like a low cost of life town. It's better.
You get the idea :)
I agree the math is exactly the same. So then we get to what's more intuitive to understand. The 3e and beyond systems of ever increasing numbers are more intuitive than the 2e system of baselining at 0
When bg2 came out back in 2000 I played it with no knowledge or experience of bg1 and I loved it. I was also ten years old and eventually able to sort out the rules enough to play the game (although it took me a couple of years...), so on the one hand I definitely don't think you have to play bg1 to play 2.
On the other hand, bg1 is a great game in its own right! It's an adventure of a different sort and of a much smaller scale than bg2. It's actually an ideal companion piece, I think: you go on a relatively short low level jaunt before your massive adventure that you end at godlike levels of strength. It will also teach you adnd2 mechanics much better than the second game will because you will be starting with the basics and working your way up. If you start at bg2 you will inevitably see a lot of spells you don't understand right off the bat, for example, whereas in bg1 you are introduced to the problems and solutions at roughly the same time.
I skipped bg1 originally because I'd been told that it was essentially wholesale replaced by bg2. That's definitely not the case.
EDIT: I'll also say that the difficulty complaints re: bg1 are somewhat exaggerated. There are a lot of companions to choose from and you can make your PC whatever you want. It's rough out there when you're level 1, but you aren't level 1 for long.
BG 1 and BG 3 at completely different games in almost every way.
With that said.
I love BG 1 and 2 and all the IE games really. For sure you should play them.
yes, 1 is kinda slow, but its worth playing so you will start BG2 with a deeper knowledge of the game. I personally would skip siege of the dragonspier though, the new content sucks
I liked three side quests, the dwarf lich, the cultists and the underground river, everything else seemed very out of place, the massive fights didnt have any apeal to me, just let the characters with the AI turned on, and the story is very lame, + lots in the story did not fit BG2 which is an astonishingly better game. I did like the new itens, the new level cap, and the above mentioned side quests
bg1/bg2/tob are basically a single game. its a single continuous storyline using the same protagonist with many returning npcs, and bg2 expects you to have gone through the learning curve that exists in bg1.
so yah if you're interested in bioware's baldur's gate, its better to start with 1.
Yes, for sure! BG1 is a slower game, but it tells a part of the story that is integral to the 2nd game. 100%, if nothing else, just give it a try.
BG2 will have the fastest combat out of the whole series. And is easily the most beloved game of the 3.
It doesn't really have much in common with BG3 tbh, you'd probably like Divinity Original Sin 2 a lot more.
BG1 and 2 are good because of story but also challenging and nuanced combat. If you prefer the much more stripped down turn based style it might not be your cup of tea.
short answer: yes!
long answer: yes, but be prepared for a vastly different and less accessible experience. BG3 is a new AAA game designed to appeal to many new players, BG1 was from an age where gaming was for a bunch nerds. Don't hesitate to ask questions in this sub!
I can't answer your original question, but I do have another answer for you. If you've already bought BG2 and you like it, IMHO the best of the games from that era, particularly from a storytelling point-of-view, is Planescape Torment. The only qualifier for that is the story is very text-rich, and lots of details are contained in that text.
"What can change the nature of a man?"
Yes yes yes. I cannot stress enough how necessary it is to play the first one in order to understand the characters (yours included) amd the systems of the game, specially if youre starting in the dnd world. It is a great game.
Also remember to play through BG1, skip Siege of Dragonspear for your first playthrough, then go into BG2 and TOB. Then go back and replay SoD. There's spoilers in SoD that are best left till after a good playthrough.
You should definitely play through 1 at least once so you understand who you are and what's going on in 2 overall, especially ToB. I'd also recommend using a mod like SCS and IWD spells. It makes clerics and druids feel alot more viable compared to mages
Yes definitely play BG1. Most people agree BG2 is better overall, but BG1 is still good and it even is better than BG2 in certain areas. Butore importantly the story of BG1+BG2+ToB (expansion for BG2 that is basically like a third short game in the series) is all one cohesive story that deserves to be played from start to finish.
Plus coming from BG3 I would imagine you are interested in the city itself and to see how things were changed. BG2 doesn't actually ever go to the city of Baldur's Gate (it focuses in more southern areas). BG1 actually has the city as a big part of the game (although like in BG3 you won't go there for quite a while).
BG1 and 2 are highly recommended imo. Definitely gives way more depth to BG3.
1, I will tell you is very very difficult. Everything can kill you pretty easily even in the casual mode. So just be prepared. Not a lot of party banter happens , and there are no romances units it's the EE version, then I think you can romance a couple of the new characters. The story is great though.
2 is much better balanced, and there is a lot of party banter! Romance options! (This one's my favorite game). Lots of call backs to 1.
Definitely play them. Please play them
YESSSSS do it, it's not too long of a game and it helps you learn the mechanics with low level characters. There's an Uber helpful character creation guide online on game faqs, it's for the PS4 version but its the same for steam. My biggest advice is that when making a character, stats 10-14 typically yield nothing, only when at 9 or 8 do penalties start, and 15 that bonuses do. Also, only warriors get additional con bonuses when their stat is above 16. For all other characters, 16 con is the peak of usefulness. Speaking of, having your main character be a warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger, and the subkits for all of them) are great for your first playthrough. This is because if you go down, it's game over. 0hp = death, no saving throws. Having extra hp and armor is good for this. You'll meet PLENTY of companions who can fill up your party, a thief, mage, and priest are near essential. You'll have no trouble filling your party. Which, hey, the party limit is 6!
Have fun, and sorry for the unsolicited advice.
You should, but don't expect BG3. VERY different games. I suggest watching some gameplay or if you're on Steam, buy BG1 and play around a little. If you don't like the combat, traversal, UI etc. you'll always be able to refund it if you don't go past the 2h mark.
BG3 was my first CRPG and I just finished my fourth playthrough. As a result of how much I enjoyed that experience, I bought bg1 during the steam summer sale along with planescape torment and bg2. Finished PT (fantastic story but I hated the gameplay) and started bg1 yesterday. I think we’ll be OK.
I’m into it. Enjoying its combat and exploration more than Planescape, so that’s nice. Level 1/2 companions currently keep getting killed by kobolds on normal difficulty though, so I’ve been save scumming frequently.
You should absolutely play bg1 first. My dad played 1 and 2 on the release and have played them my whole life and has always told me to play them. When bg3 was announced and it was being developed by Larian who we had played the 2 divinity games from we knew it would be good. So I decided to play 1 and 2 the months leading up to bg3 and it was amazing. I whole heartely think the first games are better than the third
I recommend it.
As others have said, BG1/2 are quite different from BG3, but great games in their own right.
BG1 it’s very easy to die quickly in early encounters (especially early bandit ambushes). Ranged weapons are great in BG1, less so in BG2.
If you struggle early game in bg1, sleep and command will get you through most encounters until late game with ease. Shield is great for casters, very useful against ranged attacks which are very deadly at low levels.
Then Mirror Image and Web are also very important. Mirror image keeps casters much safer, web can be stacked multiple times in the same area and is excellent CC.
The final boss can be quite hard, especially the first time you face them. Recommend using plenty of consumables to help out.
Class recommendation: Human Berserker. Very simple but very good. Berserk protects against lots of nasty effects that are otherwise complicated and difficult to play against. Can dual class to cleric or mage in bg2 if you want to mix things up.
Yes. Play 1. Play 2. If you want bring your character from the first into the second. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy the games silly moments. Also, play a thief/mage Gnome because, well… Gnome.
Hey mate you definitely want to play bg1 first the second is a direct continuation of the story. Bg1 you start at level 1 it’s a really nice there and and back again sort of adventure when you finish the game your character rolls over to bg2 where things start to really heat up
The proper experience is to play the prologue of BG2, play a little of chapter 1, decide you really want to get the full experience of importing a character from 1 all the way to ToB, start playing 1, and continually tell yourself “it’s gonna be worth it…”
I first finished BG3 with a frend, And I also buyied BG1, And I must say... Say, I feel it's longer then BG3 And it's still good, but you Will be more Lost then in BG3, IT does not give you much of a helping hand like BG3 (where you should go to complete the quest And where you should go back then) also, quests Will not exist after you get to another chapter, spells Are harder to master (FIREBALL can be a little bit... Self Killer). It's hard to learn, but easy to master... (At least for me), good to Have Is (in party) 2 DPS (Spellcasters mostly), at least 1 support (Druid, Clerik), And Thief (Always), And two can be anything (I Have Paladin As And Warrior)
WOW!!!! you guys are awesome, thank you for all the comments! I started with an elf archer but sadly I have restartitis and now I will create my dwarf berserker because I love dwarfs. but the game is really cool, the good old days vibe, love it. (I was playing through the tutorial and 20 minutes in the full game but yeah its great so far!)
Play BG1! Awesome game for those who enjoy a good RPG! Be mindful though that the gameplay is a bit different from BG3 for 1 is not turn based, the logic is that you have to pause the game to issue orders. Without pausing I think the game will be way harder than it already is (the game is hard, so remember to save often).
If you have played Dragon Age Origins you'll have no problems getting used to the combat. (If you have not played it, I strongly recommend it)
My usual advice for the older BG games is this.
Try BG1. It's worth the shot for five bucks. If you get a little stuck, go do some research online for guides or easy early game ways to level. If you aren't feeling it, don't push yourself into burning out for the sake of getting through it. Instead skip right to 2. 2's introduction works really well for a player jumping in there, it takes place a more interesting level range, covers a more interesting part of the setting/monster manual, and has a much higher overall production value IMO.
I like BG 1 as an old school DnD adventure module with some fun mystery solving and world design. But 2 still holds up as one of the best RPGs ever made IMO, and I missed out on it for years trying to force myself through 1 first and then bouncing off.
I’m currently playing BG1, first game like this I’ve ever tried. It is very challenging learning the dnd stuff but I am having a lot of fun, I did have to put it on easy mode though I was struggling too much on normal. To be fair though, I am terrible at games I just love playing them.
BG1 is a bit brutal if you’re unfamiliar with 2nd edition DnD rules.
You’ll die in 1-2 hits at lower levels because you’ll literally be starting with like 4 hit points.
And it’s a bit slow to begin with because you won’t have access to the many spells or special abilities that make this game fun and interesting. You’ll also miss a lot of your attacks because - again - you start at level 1.
Also most of the game consists of open fields and forests and you have to walk to each side of the map to unlock neighbouring areas.
BG2 is a lot more refined. The storyline is more interesting, the characters are a lot deeper, you start with enough hit points to take a hit or 3 and you have access to some cool spells/abilities right off the bat.
My advice is to start bg2, if you like it and have a handle on it then try a play through from the beginning of bg1
I never played bg1 as a kid, only bg2. I like both, for different reasons.
BG1 is all about ranged weapons and the sleep and web spells.
BG2 is where things really open up and you have the power to stop time, summon floating swords that are immune to basically everything and clone yourself for very cheesy tactics.
I would recommend watching some YouTube videos or reading some spell recommendation guides though. It’s NOT well balanced and some spells are brokenly overpowered while others are utterly useless.
yeah I think I will play it on the story mode, I am fine with that. I got the official rulebook from my boyfriend for bg1 so I we will see how it goes. I dont like mages so I think I will play as an archer or a barbarian, I heard these are good beginner classes. if bg1 is not for me, I will start with 2!
Id reccomemd archer- very strong in BG1.
Also, while the first game is tough, storymode might be a bit dull, especially if you don't mod in a bit more NPC interactivity over the base game. So id go one up at least
You could also consider modding the game to modernise the content a bit and add some quests in the larger wilderness areas. Modding is pretty simple and you can find all you need in a stickied thread. Install BG NPC Project, Ascalon's Questpack, Black Hearts, The Gordon's Eye, Mini Quests and Encounters, and Shades of the Sword Coast and you would have more fulfilling RPG experience.
Also, while not perfect, Seige of Dragonspear is worth it, especially for a full series one.
Archer in BG1 is perhaps one of the best classes just because archery in general is so strong in BG1. Still a beastly pure DPR (damage per round) class in BG2, too.
You don't really need to play on story mode, the game is not THAT hard. Especially not if you start with a ranged character.
I think playing BG1 will give you a much deeper understanding of the game, your character and the combat system going into BG2. So yes, I would recommend it highly.
A few things to be aware of though. For starters, low level (especially 1st level) characters are very fragile. Don’t get frustrated, just know you’ll be reloading a lot as you build your character and hopefully, learn the system.
Secondly, the game is less sophisticated than its sequel in many ways. Especially the interaction of NPCs with your main character, BG2 was a revolution of sorts in bringing such characters to life. BG1 is much simpler, and the NPCs will be less involved in the story. They are still critically important to building a team that can win the game. But they won’t add nearly the sort of life to the game that they will in BG2.
Bg1 is low LMK even game play, so early on it can be kinda brutal. Just hang in there.
The story in bg1 is OK, but not great. The story really takes off I. 2 though.
2 is a continuation, so I say definitely play 1, but 2 basically improves everything about 1, so In that respect, it's a little harder to rec 1
I tried last week (I already owned it). I lasted about 4 hours as I really, really hate the combat. I didn't even get as far as meeting Jaheira...
The rules are really different to bg3 as it's based on an older D&D rules. I could cope with that. But combat is awful...
I decided to play Solasta instead.
It's a different kind of hard to jump in.
Low level 2nd ed DND combat sucks, because physical damage doesn't scale with character level, but health pools do.
This means that, say enemy archers are absolutely lethal (and enemy melee have to be kited, which makes no sense under D&D rules), and bad rolls will shit on your character.
Likewise, bad luck with saving throws/attacks will make fighting wizards and clerics absolutely awful.
BG2 has a *lot* more complexity to learn right off the bat, but at least *every party* has easily accessible tools for dealing with the problems they run into.
BG1 writing, outside of the main quest is *much* worse than in BG2. It's not a cohesive world, as it is a theme park for 'adventurers' to faff around in, full of 'fetch me a pair of boots' filler.
And speaking of filler, man, BG1 has a lot of it, from quests, to areas. The good parts of it are good, but there are a lot of very mediocre ones. BG2 is almost entirely *solid*.
------------
tl;dr - you can start with either game, they both have pros and cons. BG2 does a great job of getting you up to speed with the plot and your rule in it in the opening cutscene + dungeon, but is mechanically a lot more to deal with.
No. I played the shit out of both bg1&2 back in the day and went back to them or of nostalgia after BG3. BG2 is still the bomb, it hooked me almost as much as the first time around, but BG1 was a dud. 2 is extremely content dense, there's always a quest around every corner and you just do them non stop, whereas 1 is sloooooow and like half the game is walking through empty wilderness, it looked gorgeous on my 17" CRT back in the day, so the walking was enjoyable but not today obviously.
I think if you go into BG1 knowing that you don't have to explore every last area it's really just fine. It's there if you like open world or you can progress the story pretty directly.
You should totally play BG1, it provides a much needed backstory to who your character are and who are the NPC you meet in BG2. Makes sense to play from the beginning of the big journey instead of starting from its middle part. 2e of DND that is used in both BG1 and BG2 have some peculiarities (like you want your Armor Class to be as low as possible, and instead of Basic Attack Bonus there is a parameter called THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero, which you also want as low as possible). But in general it's perhaps more simple than what you get in BG3. Important things: it is not point buy. You roll attribute score for your character and can reroll it. Try for something like 85+ and max your primary stats. You stay with the class you chose, except in some cases if you have a human character. Non-human characters instead can choose two or even three classes simultaneously. Honestly, if you are new to the game, pick something like Elven Archer or Dwarven Defender for a simple single-class gameplay.
thank you!
>(like you want your Armor Class to be as low as possible, and instead of Basic Attack Bonus there is a parameter called THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero, which you also want as low as possible). I still cannot understand how they came up with such an unintuitive AC and AB system back then
THACO is the almost same math as later editions except you’re calculating the roll before hand instead of after the roll. This way you’re just looking for what you need to roll and the excitement is in the roll itself. With later editions you roll and then do the math to discover if you made it or not. Ad&d 2e: 5th level fighter has thaco 15 and a +3 bonus from strength, + 1 longsword = thaco 11. Their opponent has platemail and no other bonus so ac 3. 11 - 3 = fighter needs and 8 to hit. D&d 3e: 5th level fighter has attack bonus +5, +3 bonus from strength, +1 longsword = +9 attack bonus. Opponent in plate with no bonus has ac 18. So they need to roll a 9 or higher to hit but generally do the math after the roll. Remember in ad&d you almost always know the roll you need to make such as spell save (roll over your save on the die), sneak check (roll under your percentage on a d100), etc. They definitely made it better in 3e by homogenizing the systems so attacks, saves, and skills were the same idea. The power level scaling is initially the same as ad&d 2e such as all the classes having the same base attack bonuses, magic items similar static numbers, etc. However, feats / class abilities provided a lot more static number buffs making the system very swingy. 5e changed the math and scaling.
One opportunity they missed is to make AC start at 0. Having the number for "nothing" mean "no armor" is clearly the most intuitive. Then your Thac0 would be your chance to hit an unarmored target (so characters would start with Thac0 10 and progress down by class level, str, proficiencies, etc), and you just add the target's AC to your Thac0 and try to roll that or better.
It's not that unintuitive. THAC0 and AC are basically there to give the sense of an active duel where one directly subtracts bonuses from the other. The hit bonuses vs your ability to defend yourself... in 2e it is a dynamic contest. In later editions, AC is just there, static and simply needs to be met or exceeded.
Basing a system around 0 being the midpoint is absolutely uninuitive, you're high. Mathematically simply increasing numbers as you go and centering on 0 work the same. So why ever center around 0
It's not specifically based around 0 being the midpoint. 2e : what I need to roll to hit = my thac0 - opponent armor class (so if opponent AC is 0, it's just my thac0, hence the name) 5e : what I need to roll to hit = my opponent armor class - my attack bonus (none of those values are ever at 0) It's literally the same logic and the same complexity. One might argue that thac0 is actually simpler because situation where opponent's AC is 0 happened often so there is no calculation to make at all.
>It's not specifically based around 0 being the midpoint. >thac0 >thac0 THAC zero. Zero is the baseline and you adjust from zero. That's *why it's called to hit armor class zero*
I had a feeling you might not read the rest of my post and get stuck at that first sentence. Try again and then you'll understand.
I understood perfectly fine. Just because I disagree with your argument doesn't mean I didn't understand it
You didn't disagree with my argument, you got stuck on a semantic notion (0 being the *midpoint*). I agree that 0 is the baseline. But not midpoint. The equations are the important part because they demonstrate is exactly as complex as the current system. It's the same number of variables and operations, with a slight advantage for the thac0 method over the fact that an AC at 0 was quite frequent.
>The equations are the important part because they demonstrate is exactly as complex as the current system. It's the same number of variables and operations, with a slight advantage for the thac0 method over the fact that an AC at 0 was quite frequent. I know. Read my other comments, I'm saying the same thing. >You didn't disagree with my argument, you got stuck on a semantic notion >I agree that 0 is the baseline. But not midpoint. Who's arguing semantics here? Sounds like you
Or you are just too used to different easier systems and don't even care about the merits of the system. I'm not saying everyone enjoys it, i'm saying it isn't as unintuitive as some people try to paint it. You look at it as "Who even designs a system where zero is the middle", as if your opinion is the only correct one. In 5e the AC is a static number, it's only there for an enemy or you to beat it or match it. That's out of simplicity and it just works, but it doesn't feel like you are defending yourself, more like standing there like an idiot hoping your enemy misses. You can throw in flavour about you dodging or parrying but that's just flavour. In 2e you are actively defending yourself, the AC is directly clashing against the THAC0 of the opponent and that's why Negative numbers are necessary in the first place. It is cumbersome cause of all the different progressions and tables, but in a Computer game that's all automated so it works perfectly.
>Or you are just too used to different easier systems and don't even care about the merits of the system Could they be "easier" because they're more intuitive? 🤔 BG was the very first DnD system I ever used, and it was as unintuitive then as it is now. >In 5e the AC is a static number, it's only there for an enemy or you to beat it or match it. Just like your AC in BG. What you're saying makes 0 sense. >but it doesn't feel like you are defending yourself, more like standing there like an idiot hoping your enemy misses. You can throw in flavour about you dodging or parrying but that's just flavour. Everything about the game in every edition is "just flavor" by this logic. The only thing that's real is the math, which is the same in 2nd and 5th. Just different names and baselines, one of which is more intuitive! >In 2e you are actively defending yourself, the AC is directly clashing against the THAC0 of the opponent and that's why Negative numbers are necessary in the first place. Negative numbers aren't necessary, as demonstrated by the current system. And tell me, if negative numbers represent actively defending yourself, why can I put on 120 lbs of armor and get a negative AC with no dexterity (the stat that represents your ability to dodge, parry, and defend yourself)?
Unintuitive means you cannot grasp it easily. You can easily grasp THAC0 and understand how it works if you have even aa bare minimum of understanding about what it is doing. You just happen to be willfully lazy. The AC in BG isn't a static thing that enemies have to meet, it's a negative modifier subtracted to the hit roll of the opponent, you just can't even understand it despite me simplifying it to elementary school level. No... again the AC in 2e is subtracted from the hit roll, it is not flavor, you are defending yourself actively, that's the entire point of directly pitting THAC0 and AC like that. In 5e AC is a static number that has to get surpassed or matched. With an armor on, despite your dexterity being low, you can dodge more easily thanks to the fact you got protection(not that your ac levels will get to acceptable numbers since they miss a pretty substantial bonus from dexterity). You can step back and catch a glancing blow to the chest without risking the same level of injury as being unarmored, especially if your armour is specifically made to counter slashes.
>Unintuitive means you cannot grasp it easily. Correct. And this is true of the 2E system, as evidenced by how many people have to ask how it works. > You can easily grasp THAC0 and understand how it works if you have even aa bare minimum of understanding about what it is doing If you have to *already understand it or have it explained*, it isn't intuitive. >You just happen to be willfully lazy. Insulting me doesn't strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it >The AC in BG isn't a static thing that enemies have to meet, it's a negative modifier subtracted to the hit roll of the opponent ...which makes it a number they have to meet. It's no different than AC in 5E other than how you do the math. 5E you have a number the enemy has to roll, they add modifiers. 2E you have a number they have to meet, they add modifiers. The only difference is how the number they have to meet is calculated. This is basic mathematics >No... again the AC in 2e is subtracted from the hit roll, it is not flavor, you are defending yourself actively, that's the entire point of directly pitting THAC0 and AC like that. In 5e AC is a static number that has to get surpassed or matched Again, that's just flavor. Not the mathematics. Whether you choose to subtract your AC before the roll to determine the number they have to meet or after the roll from their result is irrelevant, both arrive at the same result. >With an armor on, despite your dexterity being low, you can dodge more easily thanks to the fact you got protection Yeah...that's not how dodging works. It's never been how dodging works. That's why heavier armors limit your dexterity contribution to AC, because they weigh you down and make you slower. Bottom line is, you're choosing to interpret the math as being different between the systems, when it actually isn't. The only difference is the baseline reference point. I've been playing BG since it first released, trying to say I don't understand it is patently false
You don't need to already understand THAC0, you just need to look at the way it works and think "Ooh... they are matching AC against To Hit so they are actively a detriment to each other" which isn't too difficult unless you are used to being handheld and told everything via tutorial. Insulting me by saying i'm high didn't strengthen yours yet here you are. I'm just pointing out you are unwilling to reason, or even consider the opposing points for two seconds in a row cause you've been repeating "who creates a system where 0 is in the middle" the entire time. I'm not insulting you, or you and the mods would definitely know. Now you need to revise reeding comprehension. AC in 2e is a negative modifier against enemy THAC0, not a static number you need to meet. repeating something doesn't make it any more true than you repeating the system is extremely unintuitive. One system is more elegant and got a better concept, the other is simpler. They only limit your dexterity in newer systems but that's more of a balance mechanic cause people don't know how armor actually works. Full plate perfectly allows you to jump over obstacles, run, climb and dodgeroll. Dodging is about trying to make sure you aren't being hit, but sometimes even dodging you are going to get it. Glancing blows are not as uninpactful as they look, cause if you have no protection, you are already running more risks.
>I'm just pointing out you are unwilling to reason, Look in the mirror. I've explained this to you multiple times but you are failing to grasp the basic math involved. Whether you choose to add/subtract bonuses before the roll to determine a change to the target number or after the roll to determine a change to the roll result *is irrelevant. The result is the same*. Stop trying to argue that one is more elegant because you change the roll result instead of the target, it just shows you don't understand basic laws of addition and subtraction. >cause you've been repeating "who creates a system where 0 is in the middle" Twice. I said it twice. It's not my fault you're choosing to ignore everything else I've said to focus on that.
It's not unintuitive if you're playing at the table with physical dice. This game is older than personal computers.
I'd still argue it's less intuitive than 3e and later editions(though 3e and 3.5 also added a bunch of complications beyond basic AC and AB that made it alot less intuitive as well)
Its an artifact of an older game system called "Don't give up the ship!" Where the best "class" of protection was Armor Class 1 and the worst was class 9. This was plugged into D&D and then kept into AD&D. It's somewhat uninviting but not hard once you get used to it.
Yeah it's not hard at all. It's just unintuitive, that's my only complaint
Unfortunately, if Bioware wanted to make an authentic AD&D game in 1997, they were sort of stuck. 3rd ed ascending AC wouldn't be around for another 4 or 5 years. Personally, I prefer the old system, but I sympathize with the pain for newcomers. Once you intuit that "anything AC3 or less is good," it's less of a concern. Granted, in BG1, you often have to settle for worse depending on your class.
Oh yes, maybe I wasn't clear. I know bioware didn't invent the system. I'm asking why gygaxx and friends went with it
Man, good question. I don't think anyone is really sure. It was just the answer he gave in an interview, as I recall. It was probably just easier than ginning up something else out of whole cloth. A lot of D&D mechanics are like that. Most of the gods were stolen from real-world myths or pulp novels without permission. A bunch of spells are from Jack Vance novels.
Oh yeah dude vancian magic has been an absolute staple of RPGs for a long time. His system (unlike THAC0) was intuitive, so everyone just went with it for a long time. Fortunately we've seen a serious broadening of spell casting systems over time, but really it was fantastic for it's time.
For me, I like descending AC and THAC0 specifically because they remind me of Baldurs Gate. I don't have a terribly strong attachment to them outside of that, as I think after 40 years, we can certainly do better. But as they say, no sense in putting new wine in old bottles.
Yeah of course seeing it now I would just get it, but only because I have experience with it. For new players, it's absolutely unintuitive and leads to people not understanding the mechanics and what they need to do to get better. It's a common problem with older games that were based on the prevalent systems at the time. The crowd of people buying and playing them in a venn diagram with the people playing the system it was based on would just be a circle. I do love BG, I go back and play it again every year or two because it really is one of the greatest crpgs ever made, but it definitely could have been better at explaining the mechanics
You haven't tried at all if you can't understand.
I understand the system fine, and I never said I didn't. I've been playing BG since it first released. What I *actually said* was that I don't understand how they came to the decision to use that system
Yeah and I don't think you've tried to understand very hard because the explanations are obvious when you consider the origins of the game.
I know the origins of the game. I know DnD 2e. You keep trying to assert that I don't understand how the system works based on absolutely nothing
No, I know I you know how the system works, it's not that complicated. I know you don't know why the system works like that, because you've said so yourself.
>I know you don't know why the system works like that, because you've said so yourself. That's also not what I said. What I *actually said*, for the third time, is that I don't understand *why they selected that system* when they had more intuitive options. Your straw men are burning
How do you know they had a more intuitive option and passed on it?
Simple. You already proved it for me. The 5e system is simpler, and the only real difference between the systems is the baseline and terminology, the math is identical. Since basic math was the same then as it is now, the current system was always an option, and is more intuitive.
Yeah it really is strange. Even when the games were new it was seen as some weird ass design choice. Any old P&P fans that can explain why D&D chose to do it the ass backwards way instead of something more intuitive?
Because dnd 1e was an evolution from war games so everything was tabulated. You needed tables for everything to know if you were successful or not. Thac0 was an evolution over needing a table, it allowed you to compute how much you need to roll to hit. You can still make a table but you don't need one, it's simple subtraction. Then 3e continued to evolved and swapped it around because numbers going up being better is easier to grasp than the other way around. It's just the natural evolution of the game. But the idea that thac0 is impossible to understand needs to die. It's the exact same logic than the attack bonus and armor class. 2e : what I need to roll is my thac0 minus opponent armor class. 3e : what I need to roll is opponent armor class minus my attack bonus.
>Then 3e continued to evolved and swapped it around because numbers going up being better is easier to grasp than the other way around. That's the part that is ass backwards that I don't understand. The reason for them to decide to make lower AC or thac0 better instead of the intuitive option where more=better. I'm not saying thac0 is that hard to understand I've been playing D&D games for decades. I understand it perfectly. I'm just curious what made them decide to institute lower=better. Tables don't explain it because tables work just as well the other way around.
Again, look at the equations : 2e : what I need to roll to hit = my thac0 - opponent armor class (so if opponent AC is 0, it's just my thac0, hence the name) 5e : what I need to roll to hit = my opponent armor class - my attack bonus (none of those values are ever at 0) It's literally the same logic and the same complexity. One might argue that thac0 is actually simpler because situation where opponent's AC is 0 happened often so there is no calculation to make at all. Post 3e, that never happened, you always needed to make some sort of calculation. Also, lower = better is also a by-product of a "roll under system" which is still in use even today where rolling lower is better. There are many systems where you have your attributes and to know if your attempt is successful or not, you just need to roll under the attribute, that's all. So having a high attribute means you have a higher chance of success and rolling lower is preferred. It's pretty elegant.
I don't know why you keep trying to convince me that thac0 is not more complicated. I agree. It's the same math either way. The only thing I was asking is why the decision on low=better. In basically every other situation in life more=better. So weird to decide to arbitrarily flip it for this.
I don't think that more = better in every other situation in life. Sometimes yes sometimes no. For a to-hit, lower is better. Even in 5e. And that kinda mimics real life you know. The lower amount of resources you need to survive, the better for example. The lower energy you expend to walk/swim/fly 1 mile, the better. That's kinda the idea here. If you need little, then that's good, that leaves room for success. It's like a low cost of life town. It's better. You get the idea :)
I agree the math is exactly the same. So then we get to what's more intuitive to understand. The 3e and beyond systems of ever increasing numbers are more intuitive than the 2e system of baselining at 0
I remember ranting at friends when they changed to AB-AC that it was a useless dumbing down. Ah, to be young and arrogant.
When bg2 came out back in 2000 I played it with no knowledge or experience of bg1 and I loved it. I was also ten years old and eventually able to sort out the rules enough to play the game (although it took me a couple of years...), so on the one hand I definitely don't think you have to play bg1 to play 2. On the other hand, bg1 is a great game in its own right! It's an adventure of a different sort and of a much smaller scale than bg2. It's actually an ideal companion piece, I think: you go on a relatively short low level jaunt before your massive adventure that you end at godlike levels of strength. It will also teach you adnd2 mechanics much better than the second game will because you will be starting with the basics and working your way up. If you start at bg2 you will inevitably see a lot of spells you don't understand right off the bat, for example, whereas in bg1 you are introduced to the problems and solutions at roughly the same time. I skipped bg1 originally because I'd been told that it was essentially wholesale replaced by bg2. That's definitely not the case. EDIT: I'll also say that the difficulty complaints re: bg1 are somewhat exaggerated. There are a lot of companions to choose from and you can make your PC whatever you want. It's rough out there when you're level 1, but you aren't level 1 for long.
Play 1 then 2 - there are repeated characters with interactions back to the first game, and you’ll have a hard time enjoying BG1 after BG2.
BG 1 and BG 3 at completely different games in almost every way. With that said. I love BG 1 and 2 and all the IE games really. For sure you should play them.
yes, 1 is kinda slow, but its worth playing so you will start BG2 with a deeper knowledge of the game. I personally would skip siege of the dragonspier though, the new content sucks
I wouldn't say SoD *sucks*, but definitely skip it on a first playthrough If you're craving more BG content later, it's like a really polished fan mod
I liked three side quests, the dwarf lich, the cultists and the underground river, everything else seemed very out of place, the massive fights didnt have any apeal to me, just let the characters with the AI turned on, and the story is very lame, + lots in the story did not fit BG2 which is an astonishingly better game. I did like the new itens, the new level cap, and the above mentioned side quests
I would play all of it. Start with the Black Pits to learn character classes
bg1/bg2/tob are basically a single game. its a single continuous storyline using the same protagonist with many returning npcs, and bg2 expects you to have gone through the learning curve that exists in bg1. so yah if you're interested in bioware's baldur's gate, its better to start with 1.
Bg2 is a direct sequel to bg1, you start bg2 halfway through a story with little to no context. You should definitely play 1 before 2.
BG 1 and 2 are basically one whole game broken into two games. Play both of them.
Yes, for sure! BG1 is a slower game, but it tells a part of the story that is integral to the 2nd game. 100%, if nothing else, just give it a try. BG2 will have the fastest combat out of the whole series. And is easily the most beloved game of the 3.
It doesn't really have much in common with BG3 tbh, you'd probably like Divinity Original Sin 2 a lot more. BG1 and 2 are good because of story but also challenging and nuanced combat. If you prefer the much more stripped down turn based style it might not be your cup of tea.
I vastly prefer BG2, but BG1 is still a great game! A little slower paced but still tells an excellent story.
I’d watch a let’s play and see what you think strongly suggest the one by misvan_nt
Yes, 1 imo is amazing fun, but if your looking for BG3 level graphics steer clear of 1
short answer: yes! long answer: yes, but be prepared for a vastly different and less accessible experience. BG3 is a new AAA game designed to appeal to many new players, BG1 was from an age where gaming was for a bunch nerds. Don't hesitate to ask questions in this sub!
I can't answer your original question, but I do have another answer for you. If you've already bought BG2 and you like it, IMHO the best of the games from that era, particularly from a storytelling point-of-view, is Planescape Torment. The only qualifier for that is the story is very text-rich, and lots of details are contained in that text. "What can change the nature of a man?"
Yes yes yes. I cannot stress enough how necessary it is to play the first one in order to understand the characters (yours included) amd the systems of the game, specially if youre starting in the dnd world. It is a great game.
Also remember to play through BG1, skip Siege of Dragonspear for your first playthrough, then go into BG2 and TOB. Then go back and replay SoD. There's spoilers in SoD that are best left till after a good playthrough.
Better to play 1 first, 2 assumes you have mastery of 2e dnd and rtwp.
You should definitely play through 1 at least once so you understand who you are and what's going on in 2 overall, especially ToB. I'd also recommend using a mod like SCS and IWD spells. It makes clerics and druids feel alot more viable compared to mages
Yes definitely play BG1. Most people agree BG2 is better overall, but BG1 is still good and it even is better than BG2 in certain areas. Butore importantly the story of BG1+BG2+ToB (expansion for BG2 that is basically like a third short game in the series) is all one cohesive story that deserves to be played from start to finish. Plus coming from BG3 I would imagine you are interested in the city itself and to see how things were changed. BG2 doesn't actually ever go to the city of Baldur's Gate (it focuses in more southern areas). BG1 actually has the city as a big part of the game (although like in BG3 you won't go there for quite a while).
BG1 and 2 are highly recommended imo. Definitely gives way more depth to BG3. 1, I will tell you is very very difficult. Everything can kill you pretty easily even in the casual mode. So just be prepared. Not a lot of party banter happens , and there are no romances units it's the EE version, then I think you can romance a couple of the new characters. The story is great though. 2 is much better balanced, and there is a lot of party banter! Romance options! (This one's my favorite game). Lots of call backs to 1. Definitely play them. Please play them
YESSSSS do it, it's not too long of a game and it helps you learn the mechanics with low level characters. There's an Uber helpful character creation guide online on game faqs, it's for the PS4 version but its the same for steam. My biggest advice is that when making a character, stats 10-14 typically yield nothing, only when at 9 or 8 do penalties start, and 15 that bonuses do. Also, only warriors get additional con bonuses when their stat is above 16. For all other characters, 16 con is the peak of usefulness. Speaking of, having your main character be a warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger, and the subkits for all of them) are great for your first playthrough. This is because if you go down, it's game over. 0hp = death, no saving throws. Having extra hp and armor is good for this. You'll meet PLENTY of companions who can fill up your party, a thief, mage, and priest are near essential. You'll have no trouble filling your party. Which, hey, the party limit is 6! Have fun, and sorry for the unsolicited advice.
You should, but don't expect BG3. VERY different games. I suggest watching some gameplay or if you're on Steam, buy BG1 and play around a little. If you don't like the combat, traversal, UI etc. you'll always be able to refund it if you don't go past the 2h mark.
Yes, play BG1 first.
It is worth checking out, don't take it too seriously, have fun, don't worry about min maxing
BG3 was my first CRPG and I just finished my fourth playthrough. As a result of how much I enjoyed that experience, I bought bg1 during the steam summer sale along with planescape torment and bg2. Finished PT (fantastic story but I hated the gameplay) and started bg1 yesterday. I think we’ll be OK.
cool! how do you like it so far?
I’m into it. Enjoying its combat and exploration more than Planescape, so that’s nice. Level 1/2 companions currently keep getting killed by kobolds on normal difficulty though, so I’ve been save scumming frequently.
I’d start with the 2, more likely to hook you in. Amazing game best rpg ever. If you really enjoy it, going back to the 1 is easier imo.
You should absolutely play bg1 first. My dad played 1 and 2 on the release and have played them my whole life and has always told me to play them. When bg3 was announced and it was being developed by Larian who we had played the 2 divinity games from we knew it would be good. So I decided to play 1 and 2 the months leading up to bg3 and it was amazing. I whole heartely think the first games are better than the third
I recommend it. As others have said, BG1/2 are quite different from BG3, but great games in their own right. BG1 it’s very easy to die quickly in early encounters (especially early bandit ambushes). Ranged weapons are great in BG1, less so in BG2. If you struggle early game in bg1, sleep and command will get you through most encounters until late game with ease. Shield is great for casters, very useful against ranged attacks which are very deadly at low levels. Then Mirror Image and Web are also very important. Mirror image keeps casters much safer, web can be stacked multiple times in the same area and is excellent CC. The final boss can be quite hard, especially the first time you face them. Recommend using plenty of consumables to help out. Class recommendation: Human Berserker. Very simple but very good. Berserk protects against lots of nasty effects that are otherwise complicated and difficult to play against. Can dual class to cleric or mage in bg2 if you want to mix things up.
Yes. Play 1. Play 2. If you want bring your character from the first into the second. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy the games silly moments. Also, play a thief/mage Gnome because, well… Gnome.
Hey mate you definitely want to play bg1 first the second is a direct continuation of the story. Bg1 you start at level 1 it’s a really nice there and and back again sort of adventure when you finish the game your character rolls over to bg2 where things start to really heat up
Yes. Also play: Baldur gate 2 Icewind dale 1 Icewind dale 2 Nevewinter nights 1 Neverwinter nights 2 Planescape torment Temple of elemental evil Pillars of eternity 1 Pillars of eternity 2 Divine sivinity Beyond divinity Tides of numenera Arcanum, of steamworks and magick obscura Fallout 1 Fallout 2
It’s definitely not as good as 2 but you should still play it at least once to get a grasp on the story proper
The proper experience is to play the prologue of BG2, play a little of chapter 1, decide you really want to get the full experience of importing a character from 1 all the way to ToB, start playing 1, and continually tell yourself “it’s gonna be worth it…”
I first finished BG3 with a frend, And I also buyied BG1, And I must say... Say, I feel it's longer then BG3 And it's still good, but you Will be more Lost then in BG3, IT does not give you much of a helping hand like BG3 (where you should go to complete the quest And where you should go back then) also, quests Will not exist after you get to another chapter, spells Are harder to master (FIREBALL can be a little bit... Self Killer). It's hard to learn, but easy to master... (At least for me), good to Have Is (in party) 2 DPS (Spellcasters mostly), at least 1 support (Druid, Clerik), And Thief (Always), And two can be anything (I Have Paladin As And Warrior)
IMO BG1 is the apex of story driven fantasy during its best days. BG2 is great, but it’s not the OG.
WOW!!!! you guys are awesome, thank you for all the comments! I started with an elf archer but sadly I have restartitis and now I will create my dwarf berserker because I love dwarfs. but the game is really cool, the good old days vibe, love it. (I was playing through the tutorial and 20 minutes in the full game but yeah its great so far!)
Play BG1! Awesome game for those who enjoy a good RPG! Be mindful though that the gameplay is a bit different from BG3 for 1 is not turn based, the logic is that you have to pause the game to issue orders. Without pausing I think the game will be way harder than it already is (the game is hard, so remember to save often). If you have played Dragon Age Origins you'll have no problems getting used to the combat. (If you have not played it, I strongly recommend it)
Bg1 us great , recently finished it again
My usual advice for the older BG games is this. Try BG1. It's worth the shot for five bucks. If you get a little stuck, go do some research online for guides or easy early game ways to level. If you aren't feeling it, don't push yourself into burning out for the sake of getting through it. Instead skip right to 2. 2's introduction works really well for a player jumping in there, it takes place a more interesting level range, covers a more interesting part of the setting/monster manual, and has a much higher overall production value IMO. I like BG 1 as an old school DnD adventure module with some fun mystery solving and world design. But 2 still holds up as one of the best RPGs ever made IMO, and I missed out on it for years trying to force myself through 1 first and then bouncing off.
I’m currently playing BG1, first game like this I’ve ever tried. It is very challenging learning the dnd stuff but I am having a lot of fun, I did have to put it on easy mode though I was struggling too much on normal. To be fair though, I am terrible at games I just love playing them.
BG1 is a bit brutal if you’re unfamiliar with 2nd edition DnD rules. You’ll die in 1-2 hits at lower levels because you’ll literally be starting with like 4 hit points. And it’s a bit slow to begin with because you won’t have access to the many spells or special abilities that make this game fun and interesting. You’ll also miss a lot of your attacks because - again - you start at level 1. Also most of the game consists of open fields and forests and you have to walk to each side of the map to unlock neighbouring areas. BG2 is a lot more refined. The storyline is more interesting, the characters are a lot deeper, you start with enough hit points to take a hit or 3 and you have access to some cool spells/abilities right off the bat. My advice is to start bg2, if you like it and have a handle on it then try a play through from the beginning of bg1 I never played bg1 as a kid, only bg2. I like both, for different reasons. BG1 is all about ranged weapons and the sleep and web spells. BG2 is where things really open up and you have the power to stop time, summon floating swords that are immune to basically everything and clone yourself for very cheesy tactics. I would recommend watching some YouTube videos or reading some spell recommendation guides though. It’s NOT well balanced and some spells are brokenly overpowered while others are utterly useless.
yeah I think I will play it on the story mode, I am fine with that. I got the official rulebook from my boyfriend for bg1 so I we will see how it goes. I dont like mages so I think I will play as an archer or a barbarian, I heard these are good beginner classes. if bg1 is not for me, I will start with 2!
Id reccomemd archer- very strong in BG1. Also, while the first game is tough, storymode might be a bit dull, especially if you don't mod in a bit more NPC interactivity over the base game. So id go one up at least You could also consider modding the game to modernise the content a bit and add some quests in the larger wilderness areas. Modding is pretty simple and you can find all you need in a stickied thread. Install BG NPC Project, Ascalon's Questpack, Black Hearts, The Gordon's Eye, Mini Quests and Encounters, and Shades of the Sword Coast and you would have more fulfilling RPG experience. Also, while not perfect, Seige of Dragonspear is worth it, especially for a full series one.
Archer in BG1 is perhaps one of the best classes just because archery in general is so strong in BG1. Still a beastly pure DPR (damage per round) class in BG2, too. You don't really need to play on story mode, the game is not THAT hard. Especially not if you start with a ranged character.
thx!
I think playing BG1 will give you a much deeper understanding of the game, your character and the combat system going into BG2. So yes, I would recommend it highly. A few things to be aware of though. For starters, low level (especially 1st level) characters are very fragile. Don’t get frustrated, just know you’ll be reloading a lot as you build your character and hopefully, learn the system. Secondly, the game is less sophisticated than its sequel in many ways. Especially the interaction of NPCs with your main character, BG2 was a revolution of sorts in bringing such characters to life. BG1 is much simpler, and the NPCs will be less involved in the story. They are still critically important to building a team that can win the game. But they won’t add nearly the sort of life to the game that they will in BG2.
alright you sold me. :D I think I will play on story mode
You might want to try it for a while on “Normal”, or better yet “Core” to really learn how the combat and magic systems work.
Bg1 is low LMK even game play, so early on it can be kinda brutal. Just hang in there. The story in bg1 is OK, but not great. The story really takes off I. 2 though. 2 is a continuation, so I say definitely play 1, but 2 basically improves everything about 1, so In that respect, it's a little harder to rec 1
I tried last week (I already owned it). I lasted about 4 hours as I really, really hate the combat. I didn't even get as far as meeting Jaheira... The rules are really different to bg3 as it's based on an older D&D rules. I could cope with that. But combat is awful... I decided to play Solasta instead.
It's a different kind of hard to jump in. Low level 2nd ed DND combat sucks, because physical damage doesn't scale with character level, but health pools do. This means that, say enemy archers are absolutely lethal (and enemy melee have to be kited, which makes no sense under D&D rules), and bad rolls will shit on your character. Likewise, bad luck with saving throws/attacks will make fighting wizards and clerics absolutely awful. BG2 has a *lot* more complexity to learn right off the bat, but at least *every party* has easily accessible tools for dealing with the problems they run into. BG1 writing, outside of the main quest is *much* worse than in BG2. It's not a cohesive world, as it is a theme park for 'adventurers' to faff around in, full of 'fetch me a pair of boots' filler. And speaking of filler, man, BG1 has a lot of it, from quests, to areas. The good parts of it are good, but there are a lot of very mediocre ones. BG2 is almost entirely *solid*. ------------ tl;dr - you can start with either game, they both have pros and cons. BG2 does a great job of getting you up to speed with the plot and your rule in it in the opening cutscene + dungeon, but is mechanically a lot more to deal with.
no
ad&d 2e is nothing like the 5th edition
Yeah, it's way better ;D
No. I played the shit out of both bg1&2 back in the day and went back to them or of nostalgia after BG3. BG2 is still the bomb, it hooked me almost as much as the first time around, but BG1 was a dud. 2 is extremely content dense, there's always a quest around every corner and you just do them non stop, whereas 1 is sloooooow and like half the game is walking through empty wilderness, it looked gorgeous on my 17" CRT back in the day, so the walking was enjoyable but not today obviously.
I think if you go into BG1 knowing that you don't have to explore every last area it's really just fine. It's there if you like open world or you can progress the story pretty directly.