I'm all for the extirpation of "GM sucker-punch" just, as always with Sawyer, not certain our definitions align. I really don't find things like the Mulmaster Beholder Corps (got Dust of Disappearance? No? Enjoy only being able to win via exploits. Yes? Congrats, most of the fight becomes trivial), the Dink in Wizardry 4, or the Empathetic Manifestation in BG2 to be all that interesting. I do, however, find things like BG2 set-piece encounters to be pretty interesting but, according to Sawyer tracts/fragments from His Commentator, they are rife with abilities that
require "hard counters".
So, yeah, ambivalent about these J-Saw gleanings.
Well, you can test that pretty simply. Try to imagine a game that's exactly like Baldur's Gate 2 but doesn't have the issues he mentions. For example, a Baldur's Gate 2 where thieves and fighters have some innate abilities that allow them to participate more actively in dismantling enemy mage defenses in so-called "mage duels".
If that seems less fun to you, then you're right and he's being an arrogant git. If it's equally or more fun, then he's right and the things you thought were important aren't really that important.
Thing is, Sawyer takes it a lot further than simply going for a more equitable allocation of mechanics amongst classes and arbitrarily deems certain things as "unfun" or "(requiring) hard counters", justifying their removal. While I would certainly be down with "Infinitronism", a design philosophy that builds extra options into Mechanically-Underprivileged-Classes, I can't be down with losing fun abilities like Haste, Simulacrum, "real" Spell Turning, powerful summons, and such because Sawyer can't bother himself to actually design in counters and ways around them. It's not like these abilities are stupidly broken/uninteractive like Time Stop and are incapable of existing in a "balanced" (nebulous term alert) system.
Not efficient in BG ?
You mean dying like the bitch without using game knowledge if you fuckup your stats. His point are viable imo. For example AD&D and 3.5 wisdom and int stat being responsible for max level of your spells. As new player you don't fucking now this is super important and in BG or BG2 you couldn't increase stats so if you choose 14 int for a mage then you essentially fucked it up and you would need to start all over again.
Neither BG title actually implemented stat-requirements for spells. All INT did was increase chance to learn from scrolls and WIS merely granted a few bonus spell slots to Clerics/Druids/Rangers/Pallys. Anomen's tiny, pink 12 WIS was enough to intone Summon Deva, Earthquake, and other high level priestly goodies.
The game was also quite robust against most stat mis-allocations. Fighting classes actually had floors on STR/CON/DEX that would prevent truly harsh maluses from hampering their proficiencies in combat. Early game could be a lot rougher for poorly rolled characters, but could easily be ameliorated by good spell/ability use. Later game becomes far more equipment-focused, with many weapons and pieces of armor setting stats to a high level. Your 11-STR warrior can now have anywhere between 18/00 and 25 STR, depending on what you equip. Similar accouterments exist for DEX, CON, and even CHA (if you need it). And in the interim, before acquiring these pieces, stat-setting potions actually become useful, as opposed to being vendor trash. Getting 18 STR for a couple hours or setting AC to 0 is actually an upgrade, whereas min/max'd juggernauts would only be downgraded by quaffing these brews. Both Baldur's Gate titles also had companions with decent to good stats to further soften any blow and the
The biggest mis-steps players could make are selecting a poor party (which isn't irreversible in BG1/2) or not exploiting the random hit-points on level-up (which was a dumb holdover from PnP, ill-suited to combat-focused cRPGs).
While it can be argued that character creation in the (2nd-Ed Forgotten Realms) IE games was tactically uninteresting (hmmm, do I roll all 18s or do I not? Decisions...decisions), it's really hard for me to see it as difficult, unforgiving, or inaccessible.
