Icewind Dale Icewind Dale is a very boring, bad game

[Brancaleone]

It is indeed fair to ask how memorable or customised IWD's encounters are. It can feel very much a slog if you need every fight to be a special set piece, if you really find IE combat a drag, etc.

But usually the big comparison point is BG2's mage battle strategy. BG2's enemy line up does feature a lot of special enemies and custom-made abilities and the like, but a lot of what drives it is the ability to plonk a couple of spellcasters in a room and have that really drive the combat situation. In IWD, for example, you can sort of stroll along without any kind of spell deflection/save spells, just because enemy spellcasters are few, their spell selection is limited, and they are pretty easy to pick off or interrupt. Think how easy it is to deal with the spells of the skeletal mage in the initial entry to Kresselack's Tomb, compared to how you've got to build all of your plans around not your spells but the enemy's spells if you happen to run into Garrick's woman or the Red Wizards early on (and you don't just stealth cheese backstab fireball them in 0.1 seconds).

Honestly, I like having this range. IWD could have done really cool things had it gone the BG2 route (and come out after BG2 with more development time, I guess), but there's something nice about IWD's more stripped down approach, and the kind of parties you build in response.

Very well put.

I personally am not a great fan of the more stripped down approach. To cut it short, once the awesome atmosphere starts wearing off in each replay, I quickly get to the point where I keep telling myself "Oh please, let there not be another group of Cold Wraiths, please". It's the kind of feeling I get in Arcanum's dungeons (or, if we want to be mean, in Inquisitor or post-Barcelona Lionheart).
But I think the problems with IWD's spell selection are not limited to the wizard ones. In general, the game does very, very little with enemy spellcasters, not just mages, but clerics and druids too. And on top of that, it is further limited by the excel spreadsheet approach (Monster Summoning I-VI, piling fifty prayer-like buffs on top of each other, color coded nukes, etc.).

 

[Micormic]

In my spare time I like to fire up IWD and kill skeletons over and over with little to no risk.



Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

 

[Cael]

Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

Except they don't respawn :D

 

[frajaq]

In my spare time I like to fire up IWD and kill skeletons over and over with little to no risk.

Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

Damn that doesn't sound very entertaining my dude but who am I to judge how people spend their spare time?

 

[Theldaran]

Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

Except they don't respawn :D

I understood he kills 5 orcs, then loads, then again and again and again. Lovely.

 

[Cael]

Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

Except they don't respawn :D

I understood he kills 5 orcs, then loads, then again and again and again. Lovely.

*facepalm* You are really that oblivious to the sarcasm that both he and I are using? Go back to ignoring me as you stated you would, you imbecile.

 

[Tigranes]

It is indeed fair to ask how memorable or customised IWD's encounters are. It can feel very much a slog if you need every fight to be a special set piece, if you really find IE combat a drag, etc.

But usually the big comparison point is BG2's mage battle strategy. BG2's enemy line up does feature a lot of special enemies and custom-made abilities and the like, but a lot of what drives it is the ability to plonk a couple of spellcasters in a room and have that really drive the combat situation. In IWD, for example, you can sort of stroll along without any kind of spell deflection/save spells, just because enemy spellcasters are few, their spell selection is limited, and they are pretty easy to pick off or interrupt. Think how easy it is to deal with the spells of the skeletal mage in the initial entry to Kresselack's Tomb, compared to how you've got to build all of your plans around not your spells but the enemy's spells if you happen to run into Garrick's woman or the Red Wizards early on (and you don't just stealth cheese backstab fireball them in 0.1 seconds).

Honestly, I like having this range. IWD could have done really cool things had it gone the BG2 route (and come out after BG2 with more development time, I guess), but there's something nice about IWD's more stripped down approach, and the kind of parties you build in response.

Very well put.

I personally am not a great fan of the more stripped down approach. To cut it short, once the awesome atmosphere starts wearing off in each replay, I quickly get to the point where I keep telling myself "Oh please, let there not be another group of Cold Wraiths, please". It's the kind of feeling I get in Arcanum's dungeons (or, if we want to be mean, in Inquisitor or post-Barcelona Lionheart).
But I think the problems with IWD's spell selection are not limited to the wizard ones. In general, the game does very, very little with enemy spellcasters, not just mages, but clerics and druids too. And on top of that, it is further limited by the excel spreadsheet approach (Monster Summoning I-VI, piling fifty prayer-like buffs on top of each other, color coded nukes, etc.).

I sympathise with that (and also Trashos). Ultimately I would put the mage battles and other goodies BG2 offers above IWD, even when we are only thinking about combat experience. And yes, in general your own spellcasters are doing less exciting or transformative things on the battlefield as well, especially the divine casters; it really does become far more focused on a well oiled melee machine, to the point that Haste probably the single most effective thing your party could ever want or need in a, say, full-party core rules playthrough.

For me, the enjoyment of IWD even after several playthroughs comes from maximising the atmosphere and attrition side of things. To arrive in Dragon's Eye and sneak about checking out enemies, because I've decided not to rest in a dungeon until the entire level has been cleared, and not reloading if the sneak-scout gets discovered, either (though death might force the issue). Actually, when I tried the Level 1 party of dwarves IWD playthrough recently (it's documented in the IWD megathread), that was again a case where you're making the most of an effectively low-magic party in a situation of more extreme precarity than the vanilla ever gives you.

I suppose that does bring out the fact that the Infinity Engine ultimately isn't very good for strategic resource management or attrition, but that's OK - can't do it all.

 

[Brancaleone]

I sympathise with that (and also Trashos). Ultimately I would put the mage battles and other goodies BG2 offers above IWD, even when we are only thinking about combat experience. And yes, in general your own spellcasters are doing less exciting or transformative things on the battlefield as well, especially the divine casters; it really does become far more focused on a well oiled melee machine, to the point that Haste probably the single most effective thing your party could ever want or need in a, say, full-party core rules playthrough.

For me, the enjoyment of IWD even after several playthroughs comes from maximising the atmosphere and attrition side of things. To arrive in Dragon's Eye and sneak about checking out enemies, because I've decided not to rest in a dungeon until the entire level has been cleared, and not reloading if the sneak-scout gets discovered, either (though death might force the issue). Actually, when I tried the Level 1 party of dwarves IWD playthrough recently (it's documented in the IWD megathread), that was again a case where you're making the most of an effectively low-magic party in a situation of more extreme precarity than the vanilla ever gives you.

I suppose that does bring out the fact that the Infinity Engine ultimately isn't very good for strategic resource management or attrition, but that's OK - can't do it all.

It is definitely not, which is why I also tend to play with self-imposed strategic restrictions (don't rest until I run out of spells+everybody fatigued / don't rest in a dungeon-level / don't rest in a multilevel-dungeon / etc.; specifically for IWD, for example, I never use haste).

That's exactly the point: IWD is melee-dominant, both in terms of encounter design and in terms of spell selection, and when I play it cannot help but miss BG2's combinations of mage-cleric-druid magics (I've always found the focus on BG2's mage-duels a bit reductive, it's the entire complex of arcane+divine spells that opens up the gameplay). I have the suspicion that David Wallace never undertook a IWD equivalent of Sword Coast Stratagems not because of a lack of interest in the game (after all, he's responsible for a good part of what would become Beamdog's EE edition), but because encounter design and spell selection really do not leave that much room for improving things without having to go through a massive re-designing effort. Which is a real pity, by the way.

P.S. By Level 1 dwarves you mean the Jansens' playthrough? I read all of it.

 

[Harold]

OP's mom is a very boring, bad whore.

 

[Theldaran]

OP's mom is a very boring, bad whore.

Filler posts are even worse than filler combat.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

IWD is melee-dominant, both in terms of encounter design and in terms of spell selection, and when I play it cannot help but miss BG2's combinations of mage-cleric-druid magics (I've always found the focus on BG2's mage-duels a bit reductive, it's the entire complex of arcane+divine spells that opens up the gameplay).

It would appear that your criticism is solely based around a comparison to BG2. While that's fine, you can do that if you like, it does shed an overly negative light on the spell encounters and spell abilities the game does provide.

Practically every map has some form of mage/druid/cleric spell-based encounter and the mages/clerics do have lots of spells to play around with.

The part that's 'lacking' from BG2 are the whole Spell Protections and Protection Breaches category of spell. I'm not entirely sure I enjoy that kind of combat anyway, but you'd be correct if you said you do enjoy that kind of mage combat and you played IWD after playing SoA and were therefore mildly disappointed by IWD not giving you the same thing SoA gave you.

 

[Nas92]

Icewind dale must be played with a underpowered party/characters, without savescumming and cheesy tactics/strategy (rest everytime, i.e). It will be boring otherwise.

Yeah, I remember once I made a party where I basically accepted average rolls. I actually had to think about combat, not simply buff up, go in, and fuck everything up. I would however add that you still should reroll your Mage to have the highest possible Con and Dex. Your Mage getting one hit killed by goblins and skeletons is just not fun.

 

[Brancaleone]

IWD is melee-dominant, both in terms of encounter design and in terms of spell selection, and when I play it cannot help but miss BG2's combinations of mage-cleric-druid magics (I've always found the focus on BG2's mage-duels a bit reductive, it's the entire complex of arcane+divine spells that opens up the gameplay).

It would appear that your criticism is solely based around a comparison to BG2. While that's fine, you can do that if you like, it does shed an overly negative light on the spell encounters and spell abilities the game does provide.

Practically every map has some form of mage/druid/cleric spell-based encounter and the mages/clerics do have lots of spells to play around with.

The part that's 'lacking' from BG2 are the whole Spell Protections and Protection Breaches category of spell. I'm not entirely sure I enjoy that kind of combat anyway, but you'd be correct if you said you do enjoy that kind of mage combat and you played IWD after playing SoA and were therefore mildly disappointed by IWD not giving you the same thing SoA gave you.

Read my post again.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I also believe that ID is more melee orientated than BG2, which is fine by me, I've always prefered might to magic in D&D, I never played a mage in any PnP session back in the days. I can understand battle mages lovers being disappointed. As for BG1 the melee/magic ratio seems pretty samey to me.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Also, the term generic suits me well enough. More so than trash or fiiler. But that's one of the reasons why I like the game. Sure you start by killing low level skeletons and zombies. But then you face you first wight and better have some magic weapon at the ready. And yes, you then face endless hordes of wights. And so on with higher level monsters. That's generic yes, but fuck... that's D&D ! That's to be expected and fulfilling that expectation is part of the deal for me. I know I'll start by fighting low level undead/goblins/whatever and then move on to higher shit, but it's part of what D&D is and why I like it. And always have. Meeting my first wight in a PnP session after casually killing some shitty zombies is one of my fondest/scariest memories from my teen playdays.

Anyway, I totally concede that being a D&D old-time lover sure helps when judging the encounter design.

 

[Brancaleone]

IWD is melee-dominant, both in terms of encounter design and in terms of spell selection, and when I play it cannot help but miss BG2's combinations of mage-cleric-druid magics (I've always found the focus on BG2's mage-duels a bit reductive, it's the entire complex of arcane+divine spells that opens up the gameplay).

The part that's 'lacking' from BG2 are the whole Spell Protections and Protection Breaches category of spell. I'm not entirely sure I enjoy that kind of combat anyway, but you'd be correct if you said you do enjoy that kind of mage combat and you played IWD after playing SoA and were therefore mildly disappointed by IWD not giving you the same thing SoA gave you.

I'll try to elaborate a bit.

I've been talking specifically about the entire BG2 spell system because, as a matter of fact, I don't consider the mage-duels as its pinnacle (although it adds to the fun, within certain limits).
In terms of personal enjoyment, for me magic in IWD has two main problems: 1) too focused on melee and multi-colored nuking; 2) showing what I might call early Sawyerism, that is, a) being designed around stacking of the buffs/debuffs of the same type by means of very similar spells, b) having to cover the entire matrix of elemental source / area of effect / power level.

And that philosophy (which is btw even more visible in PoE, wouldn't know about Deadfire) makes it so that, in my opinion, a SCS for IWD wouldn't make much sense without a complete overhaul of combat encounters and spell selections. It's pointless to, for example, program advanced AI for spellcasters when no spellcaster can function within the massive range of DoT, AoE spells that IWD allows. Same with buffs and debuffs, you can stack any sort of them in IWD: in BG2, if you want to lower saving throws, you get a -4 from Greater Malison if you have a wizard/sorcerer, or -2 from a priest's Doom. If you want to put the -1 of the cleric's Chant to use, either you take massive risks because of distance and casting time, or you have at least get a little bit creative with a cleric/mage and the use of level 4 Sequencer.

On the other hand, I quite like the 'editing' that was done in BG2 (I would have liked even more non-combat spells in exchanged for some of the more redundant combat-ones, btw), while I dislike the kind of "cast Chant, Prayer, Recitation" which are basically the same spell with different power levels (just to name the first that come to mind, I really don't want to go through all IWD spells with similar effects or which are redundant, it would be really too long). Of course, this Sawyerist "give the options to stack small buffs/debuffs in a great number" makes it so that everything ought to be designed around it, i.e. it makes little sense to use only one of the redundant/similar spells, you ought to use the entire package to make it worthwhile, which I find really tedious. I'm not even getting started on damage spells, same applies and even more.

In short, I like BG2's magic much more because of the approach to spells that I've described, rather than because of the mage-duels by themselves.

 

[Micormic]

Sometimes I get cheeky and fire up IWD 2 and kill the same group of 5 orcs for a couple hours at the beginning of the game :D

Except they don't respawn :D

I understood he kills 5 orcs, then loads, then again and again and again. Lovely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnNA7uGTDs&index=1&list=PL08CDA9A60E4F8217


The guy in that playlists spends an hour and a half killing goblins, another 2 hours killing orcs and by part 22 he's moved onto slime.



SUPER great encounter design in IWD 2, super amazing game :D

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

it makes little sense to use only one of the redundant/similar spells, you ought to use the entire package to make it worthwhile, which I find really tedious.

Fucking tedious yes. But I still use prayer, it's pretty efficient on its own.

 

[Brancaleone]

it makes little sense to use only one of the redundant/similar spells, you ought to use the entire package to make it worthwhile, which I find really tedious.

Fucking tedious yes. But I still use prayer, it's pretty efficient on its own.

Oh, it is, especially for the casting time and giant area of effect.

What I meant is that when I am having trouble with an encounter in IWD the feeling I get is typically "I have to find a way to stack some more buffs/debuffs/DoT/etc." instead of the "I have to find a way to tackle the problem from a different direction" that I get from challenging situations in BG2 (although I've been playing it with SCS for so much time that I don't remember anymore how much of it applies to the original).

In general (and I'm talking about personal impressions here, so it's not something I can prove mathematically) IWD feels like it's designed around winning by attrition, while BG2 is focused more on KO blows (if it makes any sense).

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I guess I kinda get where you're coming from.

Just out of curiosity, way back a few posts ago you suggested you'd replayed the game quite a number of times, which is awesome. How many times do you think you've run through the Dale?

 

[Brancaleone]

I guess I kinda get where you're coming from.

Just out of curiosity, way back a few posts ago you suggested you'd replayed the game quite a number of times, which is awesome. How many times do you think you've run through the Dale?

Well, if we are talking about creating a party and going some not insignificant way into it, I'd say a couple dozens' times. I always finish the Vale of Shadow, and about half of those times weariness gots the better of me at some point within Dragon's Eye. I think I finished the game about four or five times in total.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Yeah, I've done about 4 or 5 too.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Damn, I think I finished it like ten times at least. HoF re-runs for high level parties included.

 

[Micormic]

I beat IWD once. Not a fan of mediocre 20-25 hour dungeon crawlers so that's all I could stomach.

 

[Tigranes]

About a dozen, but then I replay games a lot while never spending a minute on FO4 or DA2 or whatever. It actually got less sloggy for me as time went on, partly because I figured out the different houserules that I tend to now use across a lot of other RPGs (just basic things like resting, etc), whereas as a kid I'd just powergame/cheese it to the max.