On Cheesiness

Remove all ads!

I've been tinkering around playing with some of the harder mods, and I've noticed something... Be prepared, rather long posting!

So the main complaint about unmodded BGII enemies is that they are too easy to defeat given the correct strategy. For example, we all know that a protection from magic scroll makes Kangaxx easy, that the shield of balduran makes beholders a joke, etc. Often, using these tactics is marked off as cheesy. That is, beating a demilich supposedly shouldn't be as easy as casting protection from magic and letting someone wack away with the staff of rynn. I don't understand it. It seems to me that the proper RP way to go about things is to find a powerful enemy's "achilles heel" and exploit it, as opposed to an upfront attack. Think about the great man vs. monster stories... it seems to come down to "exploiting the enemy's one weakness" much more often than "running up with some summoned buddies and hitting it with swords". Think Smaug in The Hobbit, Medusa in Greek mythology, David and Goliath, etc.

I don't understand why or how it is called cheesy to exploit an enemy's achilles heel. It seems a lot more cheesy for me to, say, play a mod that makes it so that an undead like Bodhi is given amazing ultra-uber undead abilities, with NONE of the weaknesses that should come with an undead. Thus you are forced to drink some potions and smash smash smash.

By my reckoning, it seems a lot more cheesy to go toe to toe with these god-like enemies (until late ToB when you are indeed supposed to be god-like) than to exploit an achilles heel for an easy win.

What do you guys think? Am I nuts? Am I just trying to subconsciously justify my addiction to the shield of balduran ?

 

Not at all. The Kangaxx strategy you mentioned isn't the slightest bit cheesy IMO, and the Shield of Balduran is only considered cheesy because it's over-powered (if you made it only reflect one or two rays, then it might be more fair). I never find tactics to be cheesy unless it's a preparation-from-foreknowledge thing, and even most of those can be justified with a little careful scouting.

Of course, absolutely none of those even compare to the engine manipulation of the greater cheeses like multiple PIs and such.

 

exactly... the engine cheesiness and the against the rules cheesiness is the greatest cheesiness of all!

And, of course, the hard mods make the cheesometer go through the roof because they simultaneously cause your enemies to break rules, and force you to do things like the multiple project images.

EDIT: I just wish there was a way to add strategic depth/difficulty without making things all cheesy!

 

My personal definition of cheese is: things that are allowed by the game engine that I would never allow as a DM. None of the things you mentioned fit that definition. I see no need to go into it further, as one man's cheese is another's favorite tactic

 

This is an interesting post indeed -- I do believe that you're right in saying that the game offers little "strategic fights" in terms of thought. It's mostly about formation and spell choice, but rarely about how to defeat an opponent.

I've got to say one of my favorite fights is the dastardly Empathic Manifestation found deep below Athkatla. That one took me so darn long to find out I just thought he had an infinity of HP!

There ought to be more fights like these in my humble opinion in order to respect the true PnP feeling, but then again, I guess people just like to mindlessly click stuff and watch them die.

 

I don't consider 'improved' enemies cheesy when the improvements consist of more intelligent behaviour and use of legitimate abilities, rather than just giving them buckets of immunities and resistances. If a mind flayer wants to teleport to you using astral travel, that's fair enough, but if Bodhi stops being affected by protection from undead, sunray and stuff, that's just plain dodgy.

The other problem is just part of the way the game is, it treats enemies that could theoretically be extremely challenging altogether too casually. The various demons are probably the worst offenders. I remember back in TotSC, the death knight and nabassu were freaking terrifying. In BG2 there's a point where you're fighting six death knights at once, and nobody even cares when an enemy caster summons a pit fiend. Blah.

 

^ You bring up a good point about the greater terror factor found in BG1. Though BG2 is a superior adventure in many ways you simply cannot beat the challenge of starting out green (i.e., at level 1). Having to begin as a weakling and building yourself up from scratch is perhaps the best aspect of any RPG, computer or otherwise. Though it can be quite fun to possess the powers of a demigod I prefer the journey to the destination.

 

As much as the shield of Balduran is overpowered, at the same time it's not particularly useful in a group setting. Particularly when entering the behloder area in the underdark it's not always clear who they're going to attack. I've lost more than one beholder fight the first time round even with the shield. Or maybe I'm just not playing enough.

 

Yeah, likewise. That's probably why I'm not much for TOB.

I still think they could've given supposedly advanced enemies more interesting behaviour, though. Even foes like the hamadryad and succubus in BG1 were decent encounters because of how they used their abilities. Things like the cambion in Irenicus' dungeon... why is it there? It doesn't behave like a cambion, it could've just as easily been an enemy fighter.

 

I could not agree more. That is why NWN and IWD2 have more replayability for me than BGII, because I get to start my characters from level 1, which is easily the most interesting level.

 

I consider cheese to be: doing something you aren't supposed to do with the rules of the game. Hey, I can't put level 8 spells in a spell sequencer, so why can liches and Irenicus? That's my big peeve on Tactics, Ascension, Solafein, etc. They subvert the rules of the game to make enemies more powerful - why can a hobgoblin shaman cast Sunray? WTF?!?

Objects provided in the game (unmodded) are tools to be used. Yeah, I could strategify a plan to clear out the beholder lair in the Underdark, but wth is the point of Balduran's shield or the cloak of mirroring?

As for Kangaxx, using those protection from undead scrolls is just smart once you realize wtf it is you just brought back from the dead. Gee, if I can get close enough and cast a protection from magic scroll on *him*, yayness for me. But I really, really dislike undead, so any method of getting them back into the ground is fine by me.

 

The sunray thing is part of Valen, isn't it? People were complaining that Valen was too powerful, so instead of making her less powerful we end up with every cleric and his dog chucking sunrays around. Haha.

 

That is why D&D system is so good. Here you don't just win with the bigger sword, there are many spells and special abilities that make each combat much more interesting. You have to know them all to beat Kangaxx and other (?) broken opponents.

 

Only in BG2 the "one weakness" usually boils down to weak, or rather non-existent AI. A demilich will still target the character with PFMagic on, or just stand there getting bashed by someone with PFUndead, presenting the same intelligence as a squirrel in the game. (well, the squirrels sometimes run away, at least)

 

Well harder mods really make it interesting.

For example, Kangaxx will summon a squirrel, so he can still target the squirrel to unleash many ABDHWs, if all of the party is protected from undead. This is sensible I guess.

Bodhi's immunities make her much more interesting as you will have to think new type of strategies. 'OH, another undead, let's pro from undead, turn undead and sunray them all!' Lame.

And as for dragons and liches putting illegal sequencer and contingencies, they are ancient beings. A dragon has been living and studying magic for at least thousands of years, same for the liches. They MIGHT have discovered new spells and different ways to bend the rules of the magic in their long time of research and pracrice. PC mage, on the other hand, lives a busy adventurer's life, always travelling from place to place, so he does not have time to search new spells or new ways to use spells. This explains why Imp.Firkraag can put a TimeStop in a Chain Contingency and Lİches putting tons of protections, spesific spell immunities, and their Tatoo of Power, for instance.

Regarding cheese, I confess I am the cheesiest player you can know. I like creating 4 Project Iamegs and each summoning 2-3 Planetars and improved hasting them all etc.

Though I am now experienced enough, as a player mind you, so I want my games to be hard, so I will restrict my usage of cheese. I promise.

 

Why should you bother restricting your 'cheese'? If you're fighting enemies whose own limitations have clearly been lifted, like improved Bodhi, or time stop-contingency liches, or dragons with unlimited spells, then why should you be expected to work within your own limits?

That's the point of this thread, I guess; that by subverting the game's rules to create these 'improved' enemies, players are being encouraged to use actual game engine exploits and oversights more and more with each 'cheesy', but legitimate, strategy that's eliminated.

 

The thing to be remembered about these mods is this: they're not supposed to be fair.

Read that again because people complain all the time that Tactics doesn't follow the rules, is too hard, and encourages cheese. These mods aren't supposed to be fair and I'm sure everyone who plays them knows that. They're designed for the people who can walk all over the game unmodded. Sometimes it gets boring to just use a Protection from Undead scroll and beat Kangaxx to death. Now there are two options: intentionally handicap your character or get mods so Kangaxx will use cheese. Personally, I prefer the latter to handicapping my character any day.

On another note, while these mods might seem to encourage cheese, it is by no means necessary to use cheese and I find it much more gratifying to complete the game without it. Sure the mods bend the rules and make things so much harder than the normal game, you'll probably want to pull your teeth out sometimes. But winning is all the more enjoyable for it. So really, everyone knows the mods aren't fair. No one is trying to argue that. That doesn't mean they don't have some use nor does it mean that a lot of people don't enjoy playing them.

 

The games could get a lot harder just without the enemies using cheese if they'd use actual Tactics instead of just run cheese rampant over you.

Kangaxx would be a lot scarier if somebody just made him target other characters. Or Archers that intentionally targetted your spells casters.

This is what I like about the slight improvements Ascension adds to certain bosses. They think. Bodhi in the final battle if one of your non-negative plane protected characters gets too close to her and your not keeping her real busy. She will go after that character and then others. She doesn't just sit there and take on your immune powerhouses. Irenicus in that same battle likes to aim his finger of death spell at the ones it's more likely to work on. Such as Jan or Aerie for their lower levels and thus higher saves. That damned Fallen Daeva or whatever it is with them. He targets your spell casters first.

Imagine a normal encounter like the pack of drow just below the iron sphere if they used tactics. There are about 8 of them there.

Or the Beholder Dungeon if say some of them ran around one of those rock sections and attacked your party from a new direction.

heck. the only enemy that will draw you into a trap is in Fiirkraag's layer in the unmodified game. That dorky little kobold or whatever with his exploding friends.

Imagine Sendai in the unmodded game if you had to take on all like 8 of her statues at once and then her final form. Specially since with any tactics at all they would be a frighteningly formidable party without having to use an unresistable harm spell.

[ February 26, 2006, 00:55: Message edited by: starwalker ]

 

@ starwalker:

The problem is, you can't develop "tactics" in the common sense for AI. Say archers are made to target your mages, as you say. Fine, Protection from Normal Missiles combined with Protection from Magical Weapons and archers can't touch you. Now you have an immortal (to archers) tank. They could, of course, be scripted to attack the fighters again if the arrows aren't hurting the casters but then you're back where you started.

Kangaxx, as has been said, is quite simple to take on just by casting a Protection from Magic Scroll on him.

Against the situation you described using Bodhi, just run your non-immune character around in circles while all your other characters get free hits. A modification like that would actually allow you to beat her without ever being hit, hardly an increase in challenge. And again, if you make it so she refuses to give chase and just starts attacking other characters, you're back where you started.

If the Drow used tactics, you'd just mow over them with melee or Sunfire them to death, same as always. Only this time you might have to cast Stoneskin or something. It's not an increase in difficulty at all.

Beholders, flanking or not, are no match for an invisible party and one member with the Shield of Balduran.

Same thing with Sendai as the drow: you might actually have to protect party members but it's not like that's difficult or requires any thought in the unmodded game.

The underlying theme here is that the enemies can't react. You can give them new scripts all you want but they can't think and thus can't respond to what you do. Changing one single tactic to another single tactic doesn't make things any more difficult; it just forces you to use a new (though incredibly obvious) tactic. The only method of making the AI anywhere near a challenge is to give them things the player just can't do so the play has to use tactics the AI doesn't have to defeat them. If every enemy could only do what the player could do, the only difference between the player and the enemy would be the player's mind, in which case, the AI doesn't stand a chance.

 

The strategies used by a CRE are limited by two things - the game engine, and the imagination of whoever wrote its script.

An archer could attempt to coordinate with any available friendly mage to dispel characters who have immunity effects. Failing that, at least the script would cause the player to waste two rounds worth of spellcasting.

The "run characters around" problem is partially defeated by the BG2 pathfinding, which causes creatures to go where their targets will be, not where they are. Better still, you can throw a few RandomNum() into the script to make the creature's actions less uniform.

Beholders can charm enemies, and they aren't stupid. What's stopping them from keeping thralls around to help them deal with foes their special abilities have trouble handling, like invisible characters and ones with the shield? The same applies to vampires vs enemies who're protected from undead.

Another thing: a lot of foes have very powerful escape mechanisms that go completely unused. Why would a vampire hang around and risk its immortal life if it's fighting an enemy that's protected from undead? Why not disperse into vapour and leave? Why wouldn't a lich teleport away? If players found enemies responding to 'unfair advantages' by denying them their precious experience and loot, then they might look for other ways to defeat them, or at least a way to stop them from escaping.

There's lots of ways to counter player tactics without resorting to outright cheating. You're correct in saying that scripted enemies can't adjust to unaccounted-for player tactics like a human could, but then again that's what keeps scripters in business, isn't it?

[ February 26, 2006, 05:32: Message edited by: Prine ]