That is true. You are quite right - there is no prebuilt companion NPC in BG2 that is a pure Thief that you can use for the whole game. But then, coming back to my counterpoint: why does it matter? It's not something I've personally ever found to be a problem.

Bear in mind that any criticism of the character development or level balancing of either game is actually a criticism of the 2nd ed. D&D ruleset that both are based on. Both games aimed to try to recreate 2nd ed. D&D in a video game as faithfully as possible - they didn't develop the ruleset from scratch. I am also not a huge fan of 2nd ed. D&D. It is very dated and well known to have balance issues, one of which is that spellcasters are underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels. So, there are balance issues in both games. A good indication of this in BG1 is the fact that most of the more challenging enemies in BG1 tend to be fighter classes, as opposed to mages. Most mages, once they've spunked their 3 spells and as long as you survive them, you then simply walk over to them and kill them trivially with two hits of your broadsword. They have no staying power in combat.

I have always thought that Baldur's Gate with one of the more modern D&D rulesets would be pretty much my perfect RPG. I have high hopes for BG3 :-)

I agree the lich in the basement is a bit random and odd. However, it's one isolated example in a massive game, which doesn't detract a huge amount, imo. The plot of BG2 is certainly relevant to the Bhaalspawn legacy:

---- SPOILER ALERT FOR GERALTOFRIVIA ----

After all, it is during BG2 that the player learns that a certain other character is also a bhaalspawn, which is quite a twist. The player also spends significant parts of the later game trying to resist the temptation to turn into their 'alternate form', which is another interesting development that doesn't have a parallel in the first game. All of this extends and elaborates on the bhaalspawn saga and is highly relevant.

I have a right to voice my opinion, the same as you do. You prefer BG1. That's fair enough, but I personally think BG2 is stronger. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What can I say, except that I strongly disagree with pretty much every sentence you've written there.

----- WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AGAIN FOR GERALTOFRIVIA -----

This is completely false. In my last playthrough, I played as a mage and so my stronghold was the Planar Sphere. The sphere has a very interesting sub-plot all of it's own, with an intriguing mystery involving a long lost mage, who has traveled through time and been lost ever since. Gaining access to the sphere in the first place is a non-trivial puzzle and once inside, there are many interesting areas to explore. Its side quest line as the mage stronghold is very enjoyable and in itself lasts probably somewhere between 6-10 hours. Can you name a side-quest line in BG1 that is anywhere near as substantial (outside of TotSC)? Given this is only one of 9 class-based strongholds in BG2, it gives you some idea of just how much content is in the game.

Sorry, but this is again totally wrong. The faction choice doesn't affect the ending of the game, but it has a huge effect on the whole of Chapter 3. I don't recall anywhere in BG1 where the plot branches like that for a whole chapter in a similar manner, based on a choice the player makes.

This is simply an inane comment, that makes me seriously question whether you have even played Baldur's Gate 2.

Regarding plot depth and complexity, as an example, let's compare the two main antagonists, Sarevok and Jon Irenicus:

First, Sarevok: except for a very brief glimpse near the start, you never meet or see him until the final battle of the game. Pretty much everything you learn about him is indirect, through letters you find and conversations with other NPCs. There is very little development of his character throughout the game and you learn relatively little about his background or personality. He is something of a faceless bad guy that you barely interact with (literally you never see his face). Even once you do finally meet him at the end of the game, the conversation you have with him is very brief and frankly a bit of a let-down.

By comparison, Jon Irenicus you meet face to face in the very opening sequence of BG2. You get acquainted with him personally very quickly and you proceed to meet and interact with him at several other points throughout the game, which all helps to develop his character. You learn about his history with Suldanesselar and between them, he and his accomplice are a very colorful and interesting pair of villains. They stalk, manipulate and taunt you throughout the game. They both have more personality and deeper character development than Sarevok, which is a good example of the generally more sophisticated writing in BG2.

Another point I will make is that one of the criticisms that was often leveled at BG1 before BG2 came along was that, for a 'Dungeons and Dragons' game, it features no dragons and very few dungeons. Sure, it has some caves, mines and sewers in the city, but the only real dungeon it has that is anything like substantial is Durlag's Tower in TotSC. BG2 remedied that problem very well. The opening dungeon, as well as several of the side quest areas that are available in Chapter 2, e.g. Firkraag's Maze and the crypts below the graveyard in Athkatla, are all sizeable and interesting dungeons that are accessible early in the game. And of course, there are plenty of dragons in BG2 as well :-)

It matters in a way that the game is balanced terribly and the player is extremely limited in the party composition, without creating all 6 characters.

I actually really enjoy playing AD&D 2nd ed. both in cRPGs and Pen and Paper and I think it's well thought out until level 10 or something. That's why I said that having high levels maybe wasn't that great of an idea for a game. Still, arcane casters are not underpowered in the early levels, far from it. Even one spell can change the flow of the combat, and not only the damage dealing one (e.g. Confusion). The limited number of spells is balancing out their big potential, so it is fair this way I think.

I'm cautiosly optimistic for BG3, so far only those jumps/dashes are weird to me.

Learning that someone is a bhaalspawn and the 'alternate form' has nothing to do with Alaundo's prophecy unfortunately. It would be nice if you'd have to fight with that particular bhaalspawn, but no, that character became a mascot for the series after Minsc.

Yes, you have a right to voice your opinion, but don't try to present it as some sort of fact. I don't think you did that on purpose, of course. In order to have a discussion, instead of an argument I don't use statements that one game is better than the other, I can say which one I like more.

You proved all my points. Stronghold quests are straightforward. They can be interesting, but they are simple. You go, you kill, you exit.

Yes, the faction choice ONLY effects chapter 3, and ONLY a portion of it. Chapter 3 is NOT the whole game. You do the same things, for the same reason, and the rest of the game goes EXACTLY THE SAME. Nothing changes. Not a single thing. Tell me if I am wrong, state a simple thing that changes after Chapter 3?

If you think that Sarevok's character development was "little" you are exactly the sort of people I stated that BG2 and IWD was made for. Sarevok's character is actually detailed beyond measure. His ambition to prove himself to his father, his ingenious to take advantage of fear and lead the people of Baldur's Gate to disarray, Provoke Amn to do the same by different means, all beyond the shadow. The way he handled the Iron Fist and how he manipulated the Lords of Baldur's Gate and even his own father and his associates. You get these informations in almost every quest and every random encounter in BG1. It is not handed out to you.

And that's exactly the same thing you said. It is thrown into your face in BG2, because people like you were not able to comprehend the dept of characters of BG1. Irenicus appears right in front of you, every single time. No hidden messages, no character development, no single piece of information about him that you can actually use your intelligence to piece together. It is rubbed to your face, right from the start. You have to be a complete idiot to not understand it. You don't even have to think about it. In the end, it is a simple and straightforward story of a madman's lust for power, which we have seen millions of times in games and movies. Nothing more.

In the end, I can write thousands of pages about Sarevok's story. What can you possibly say about Irenicus? Except his lust for power and he is kicked of his community because of that and spent years to regain that power, dealing with aging problems and prove them wrong. The end. That's literally the whole story for him. There absolutely nothing else.

About the D&D compression. Have you ever played a real, tabletop campaign of D&D? I've played, DMed, and watched thousands of hours and I've NEVER came across a Dragon yet. If you are one of those people that D&D is all about storming Dungeons, slaying dragons and loot, you are gravely mistaken, which actually shows your general point of view in the whole concept. D&D is about using your imagination to create a world and live in it. It is about "make-believe". BG1 delivered that spirit. There are tons of quests in BG1 where you get to choose what kind of person you want to be. Will you save the captain or leave him to his doom? Will you put the pieces together and help the gem guy? How will you handle the lords of Baldur's Gate? What will you do to the spirits of the woods? How about the seemingly evil Sirine who actually turns out to be a slave? Will you free her or will you slay her on sight?

In the end, BG2 is made for people who think that dept is all about killing and looting more, which I presume are the same MMORPG players who are fine with killing the same bug 1000 times just to level up and where you don't even have to read a single thing.

And I do not judge you for enjoying BG2 more. It is an excellent game. But it is not acceptable to claim it is deeper and more complex than BG1 just because you were not capable of comprehending the ingenious dept and complexity of it.

No, the game is not 'balanced terribly' just because of the lack of a pure Thief companion NPC. There are several multi-class Thief characters available, which provide all the thief skills you would need for most all situations. Plus, many of the companion NPCs in BG2 have class kits, which I would argue makes them more interesting than many of the BG1 companions and gives the player more diverse and nuanced options.

Besides, as I mentioned before, any balance issues with character leveling is really an issue with the 2nd ed ruleset, not BG2. You don't like higher-level 2nd ed., that's fair enough. But, Bioware chose to do a faithful recreation of that ruleset and they had to work within its limitations.

Imo, the game is best balanced between fighters and mages between about levels 7 and 13. That corresponds to more or less the first half of BG2. I disagree with you - at low levels mages are indeed underpowered. Let's take a look ... a level 3 mage in 2nd ed. has 3 spell slots. That means they can cast 3 spells before they have to rest again to re-memorize. If you're planning on having more than 1 combat encounter before you rest, that means they are obviously going to be spending a lot of time munching popcorn. I agree with you that, when they do cast a key spell in an important encounter, it can be quite impactful. But still, 3 spells ... that's a lot of popcorn. I would not like to play a mage in a low-level 2nd ed D&D campaign. Yawn ...

Sorry, I don't follow how that has 'nothing to do' with the bhaalspawn saga. Again, to me it seems highly relevant.

Where did I present my opinion as fact, any more than you have?

I'm sorry, but you are not following to what I'm saying:

- If a dual or multi class thief is enough then the game is balanced terribly - thieves are useless. Don't put the blame on AD&D 2nd edition, the gameplay was made by Bioware. You also argued that the first game has very few dungeons and no dragons, but the system is called Dungeons and Dragons. I remember those complaints when BG2 was announced, these people missed the point of the first game. Having dungeons and especially dragons does not make a good game, or a good D&D game. Quite the opposite in my opinion. Dragons are always immersion breaking - why would they stay on the ground instead of burning all those silly adventurers from the sky? Anyway, going back to thieves - when thinking about all-thief party in BG1 I'm exicted for all the possiblities, whereas in BG2 I'm not sure that I'll be able to complete the game.

- Mages at level 3 have three spell slots: two 1st level and one 2nd level (specialists have more of course). This translates to 2 sleep and 1 web spells, enough for 3 enounters + all the scrolls and wands that are available, considering that we're talking about level 3 enounters. Mages are not just magic missles and fireballs, these spells can get easily replaced by wands. I finished BG1 playing as a mage (no specialization) and I don't remember my character being useless in the early levels.

- Alaundo's prophecy was about time of troubles, Bhaal's doom, creation of bhaalspawn, the chaos that they will cause fighting against eachother. Irenicus is not a bhaalspawn, he's just a sad dude with too big ego, the discovery that there's another bhaalspawn goes nowhere, since that character can't die, otherwise the fans will be mad. The 'alternate form' does not connect to anything in the prophecy, apart from the chaos, maybe. Whereas if we look at BG1: we get hints and clues as for the main character's origin throughout the whole game, we can also learn about Bhaal. Towards the end we also discover that not only Sarevok is also a bhaalspawn, but that he wants to put the prophecy into motion, replacing Bhaal. The ending shows that there are many other bhaalspawn apart from him, but instead of developing that we get to listen to sad emo mage and then get rushed bhaalspawn story in the expansion, because someone forgot about it.

Sorry man, but I think your logic here is flawed. What you seem to be saying is that, because a pure thief character is not required to complete the game, that means thieves are useless. So, if something is not essential, it is useless? That is plain wrong and is in fact a classic false dichotomy. A pure Druid or Paladin is also not essential for completing the game, so does that mean those classes are also useless? I agree that a pure thief with high level thief abilities can be powerful/useful, but that doesn't mean they need to be made essential.

Also, to look at it another way: if you are suggesting Bioware should have designed the game to make it necessary to have a pure thief in your party, then surely that is in fact restricting the player more, not less, in terms of their party composition? Do you see what I am saying? Your point here simply doesn't make sense to me.

This probably covers part of Engerek's last comment as well, I didn't say dungeons and/or dragons are necessary for a good D&D game, or that by themselves they would automatically constitute a good D&D game. But I would argue they are both interesting features that can enhance the experience of a campaign. And after all, the name 'Dungeons and Dragons' is there for a reason and came from somewhere right? Both do feature in the D&D world/setting. So, imo it would be reasonable for a player to expect to encounter one or both, at some point during a very long campaign that spans levels 1-20 and beyond.

I also disagree with your points about dragons being immersion-breaking by definition. Sure, dragons have wings and a smart dragon would most likely try to blast a party of adventurers from the air. And, of course, in the pen and paper game, dragons can fly. However, on the flipside, there might be environmental reasons why a dragon might not be able to fly in a certain location, and a smart party of adventurers would probably try to take on a dragon in such a place. For example, in their lair or a cavern with a low roof, where flying might be impossible or risky. Note that all of the dragons in BG2 are encountered in indoor, dungeon or cavern-like areas, which makes sense. Yes, if they were fighting a dragon that was just walking on foot out in the wilderness and didn't take flight, I agree that would be silly.

It's still only 3 meaningful actions that they get per rest, aside from burning one-use items. Imo, that is pretty low utility. I am not arguing that low-level mages are useless, just that they are underpowered. Also, its not just about the spells, it's also a matter of their hit points, combat stats, etc. A mage has a d4 hit dice, so a level 3 mage will on average have probably <10 hit points. That is nothing. Literally two clean hits with a typical broadsword and he's done. It seems your idea of fun is different to mine.

For starters, the whole Bhaalspawn saga was written by Bioware for these games. So I tend to defer to them to decide what is and isn't relevant and 'canon' to the story arc, as it's their story and really up to them.

I think we could discuss this for a long time, but you seem to be suggesting that, rather than the Irenicus story, they should have instead continued with the bhaalspawn legacy plotline in BG2. I don't know what drove their decision-making at the time (although it would be interesting to find out more). However, I suspect they may have been concerned about that option possibly becoming too formulaic, in a similar manner to the Highlander TV shows. I mean, those are pretty formulaic: he finds another highlander (or discovers another one is hunting him); he dicks about a bit, to pad out the show while he is supposedly trying to figure out who the other one is and how to take them down; they finally meet and have a showdown; he cuts off the other one's head, lightning bolts everywhere, etc. etc., he is the chosen one.

Personally, I find it a bit hard to see where Bioware could have really gone with that idea if they had used it as the basis for the whole of BG2. I mean, if the plot of BG2 had revolved around the player tracking down and killing another bhaalspawn or two, before they took him out, wouldn't that seem a bit similar to the first game and risk becoming formulaic? Would they have been accused of just making a D&D adaptation of Highlander?

We'll never know for sure, but I think perhaps they did the right thing by going in a slightly different direction with the plot of BG2, to make it more original and distinctive, and pushing the bhaalspawn legacy 'there can be only one' stuff into the expansion. Just my take, but whatever their reasons, I thoroughly enjoyed the plot of the second game and found it to be a refreshing switchup from BG1.

No, quite the opposite in fact.

I think the strongholds are a great addition to the game, that helps to give something different and unique to each playthrough and adds to the replay value. You can try to trivialize them all you want, but as I showed with my planar sphere example, they are interesting and substantial side-quest lines in their own right. You still didn't point to any side quest line in BG1 that is as substantial in content as the planar sphere example.

I agree with you that the faction choice only really affects Chapter 3. That is true. But, even if it doesn't affect the later main plotline of the game, it still provides the player with an opportunity to make a choice that has a real affect on the game world. They are effectively deciding which of these factions is going to win out in their war and gain control of the Athkatla underground. Besides, again you can try to minimize it all you want, but even if it only affects that one chapter, it is still more than BG1 has to offer, in terms of a branching of the main plotline.

I strongly disagree with what you've written there and here's why:

Good character development requires both background and personality to be established. A character's background can be established through indirect means, such as documents, letters, second-hand sources. However, establishing personality generally requires interaction and dialogue, in particular. When you boil it down, what is really the essence of role-playing? It's not combat systems and dice rolling, it is character interaction and dialogue, i.e. playing a role. So yes, the player gets some sense of Sarevok's background and history through secondary sources, like picking up the occasional pamphlet during the game. But, there is almost nothing in BG1 that give us any sense of his personality, because he himself barely features in the game and doesn't interact with the player. In fact, it could be argued that he is one of the laziest bad guys in role-playing, since he just sits in his chair for the whole game, getting other people to do his dirty work. He is totally passive, a hollow penata in a silly spiky suit, who only bothers to get out of his chair when the player strolls into his lair, and even then barely says anything. This is what I mean when I talk about a lack of character development.

On the other hand, Irenicus and his accomplice interact with the player throughout the game, which gives us plenty of glimpses into their complex and troubled personalities. He probably says more in the first 10 minutes of BG2 than Sarevok does in the whole of the first game. You criticize him for being 'in your face' all the time - I like that in an antagonist. To me, that is a good thing. The best RPG baddies are always the ones that actually interact with the player directly and build a rapport, rather than ones that are passive, detached and distant. I.e. the ones that have characters that are built during the game. I think Bioware did a fantastic job with Irenicus and his partner, in that they made them very active participants in the game right from the start, which helped establish character early on and gave the impression of them being like living, breathing characters. It's a masterful show of RPG villains done right.

Talking about dialogue, there are far more lines of dialogue in BG2 than 1, which is another indication of it's improved depth of character development in general.

I've been playing RPGs for some 30 years, both PC and tabletop, so I'm hardly inexperienced. As I mentioned in my answer to the other poster above, I am not saying the game is 'all about' dungeons and dragons, but that those features are good things to have that are present in the setting and can enhance a campaign.

Yes, I agree with you there. But, that goes for any RPG - that is what role playing in general is all about. But then, what makes D&D in particular special or distinctive? What makes the Forgotten Realms setting so popular among RPG fans in general? I think it would be disingenuous to claim that it isn't to some extent the FR world, lore and the creatures and characters that inhabit it. It's not just dragons, BG2 includes many other iconic D&D creatures that are often cited as favorites among fans - beholders, illithids, rakshasas, demons, a pleasant stroll through a Drow city in the underdark. BG1 has a handful of D&D specifics (kobolds, gnolls), but other than that many of the enemies are either humans, woodland animals or fairly generic fantasy fare, with the result that there isn't an awful lot that really identifies it specifically as a 'D&D' game.

Well, I find it less than acceptable for you to insult my intelligence, simply because I don't share your opinion. I live in a free country and I am entitled to voice my opinion, whether you agree with me or not.

You proved all my points once again. You openly admitted that you like BG2 because it is simpler, more linear and easier to understand.

You keep saying things like

"On the other hand, Irenicus and his accomplice interact with the player throughout the game, which gives us plenty of glimpses into their complex and troubled personalities"

but so far you are unable to state a single part that really happens. "How you feel" is not the same thing as "How it is".

You called Sarevok lazy and that he never interacts with the player. You clearly haven't played BG1. Sarevok interacts with the player in multiple occasions and even talks to you in disguise. Like I mentioned in my previous posts, he is utterly active in EVERY aspect of the world. You clearly couldn't get any of that.

And no, I am not insulting your intelligence. I am insulting your habits of confusing facts with opinions. You keep saying things like..

"two opposing factions, which greatly influences the course of the game."

And when I proved that you are terribly wrong, you sidestep. You can't say things like it changes the whole game where it doesn't. That's the difference between facts and opinions. For example, you are allowed to say "To me, it felt like it changed the whole game". No one can argue that because it is your personal opinion and as Descartes said you are the center of it. However, you are not allowed to say "it changes the whole game" like it is a fact. Well, you can, but that makes you a liar. Because it DOES NOT, and that is a simple, undeniable fact.

The same thing for strongholds. You are allowed the say you like them, you enjoyed them and you found them interesting and nobody can say a single word about it. They can only disagree. But when you say "they add complexity to the game and change how you play ", this is not objective. Do you see the difference?

If you failed to see the difference, allow me to make it simpler for you. A long sword does D8 damage and a dagger does D4 damage. Those are facts, and nobody can disagree with that. They are NOT opinions so you are not allowed to say "agree to disagree". However, one may say that they prefer daggers because they feel more personal, or even better because you can backstab with it. Now, that's an opinion, highly objective and people can disagree, but they are not allowed to say you are wrong.

That's the general problem with the things you say. You clearly love BG2, which is an AMAZING game. I finished BG1 5 times but my playtime for BG2 is probably 5 times than BG1. And you love it, and you "feel" it is superior. Do not allow that feeling to prevent you from seeing facts.

Yeah, I agree. At the very start of the game, you have the opportunity to explore his labs, his residence, bedroom, interact with his servants. It all really helps to flesh out his background and build a sense of familiarity, so you immediately start to feel like you know him.

A few people seem to not like Irenicus' dungeon and even seem to want to skip it when they replay the game, which I don't really understand. Imo, it's a great dungeon in its own right - a very interesting place to explore with an interesting variety of enemies to fight; some great attention to detail; opportunities for roleplaying; some cool challenges, puzzles and some secrets to find. I struggle to think of a location in BG1 where you have a multi-level dungeon that is anywhere near as interesting to explore.

Talking about BG1again, imo one of the weakest areas I remember is the Gnoll Stronghold. You traipse for miles across the wilderness, searching for Dynaheir. Then, you finally reach this large, imposing Gnoll fortress. You fight your way valiantly through crowds of armed Gnolls and ascend the stairs - surely there's going to be some interesting stuff to explore here ... but ... you can't even go inside! I mean, talk about immersion-breaking! Here you have a large stone fortress that has places where there are stairs down and where it looks like there clearly ought to be doors to go in, but no. Computer says no! :-P

I mean, it would have been a perfect opportunity for them to have put in an interesting dungeon interior to break up the overground traipsing. A two-level dungeon surely wouldn't have been that much effort to build, or even a few rooms. To me, that was quite a let-down and seemed like somewhat lazy design. It's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about where I say BG1 was a bit lacking in something ... perhaps variety and attention to detail?

- Considering that acrane casters are essential in BG2, it would be really nice if other archetypes were useful as well. I'd rather tone down the casters to be honest. The gap between them and other classes is way too big. I didn't say that normal thieves are essential, it's just painful that they're almost useless.

- If we go by the name of the Dungeons and Dragons system, then let's maybe look at the title of the game? To me it's looking like they were developing a totally different game, but slapped Baldur's Gate to the title and changed some things towards the end of the development, in order for it to sell. As for the dragons, the reason why they're forced to fight on the ground are always far fetched and require some heavy suspension of one's disbelief. That's just my personal take, never liked dragons.

- Those 3 spellsthat I mentioned basically end 3 fights, if the mages were more powerful we would get overpowered casters, just like in BG2. If you worry about hit points of the mages, you're not playing them correctly, if you get the situation when a mage is being hit in melee, you did something terribly wrong, or tried to fight way too powerful enemies. Besides, there's a ring in the Friendly Arm Inn location that gives you more than enough spell slots.

- I didn't say that the story should revolve around 'there can be only one', I don't like that the bhaalspawn are mostly ignored throughout Shadows of Amn. I'm just saying they could maybe perhaps go with that one character being bhaalspawn and slowly turn this character into the one accepting the chaos and legacy? Instead of just throwing this there and doing nothing, because we can't have that particular character dead. This is just an example, just do something with that theme, instead of sad Irenicus being angry.

Ok, but tone them down how? You mean as in making high-level casters less powerful? But then you are modifying the 2nd ed AD&D ruleset, so the game would no longer be a faithful representation (which it was aiming to be). As I've said at least twice now (and you seem to not be taking in): the issue with mages being too powerful at high levels is an issue with the ruleset - i.e. that issue is always going to be there, for any high-level 2nd ed AD&D campaign.

We seem to be going round in circles with this ...

I'm not sure I agree that pure thieves are 'almost useless' at high levels. For a start, the thief's backstabbing ability tops out at x5 at level 13, although I know that's not really 'high-level', it is powerful. If you use an assassin, it tops out at x7 at level 21, which imo is very powerful.

I admit that I haven't played a very high-level pure thief character in BG2, so I'm not speaking from first-hand experience, but I have read that at high-levels there are a couple of other things involving thieves that could be considered somewhat broken combos/exploits:

First, there is the Bounty Hunter kit. At level 21 their special snare mazes targets, with no save and ignores magic resistance. That is potentially very powerful and opens up some 'tricks' that are verging on 'broken'. Specifically, they can use their snares to maze a whole group of enemies and then wait in the shadows to backstab them in turn as they reappear. Furthermore, because they reappear in order of intelligence, spellcasters will most likely return first, where they can be quickly picked off without their fighter bodyguards.

Second, the thief high level ability, 'use any item', I have also heard can be very powerful, because it allows thieves to use any items, ignoring class restrictions. That supposedly opens up some possible OP combos with items that were not intended to be used together.

So, I don't know ... it seems to me there are some interesting possibilities involving high-level thieves that might be worth exploring. It seems a bit of an exaggeration to label them 'useless'.

It's true the second game doesn't actually take place in the city of Baldur's Gate, although there is clearly some continuity of plotline and characters from the first game. So, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim it is a different game with just the BG brand slapped on. The game was clearly intended to be a sequel to Baldur's Gate from the very early stages of development. Personally, I like the fact that the second game provided a different city to explore, rather than just more of the same.

I don't have a lot more to say on this particular point, tbh. I was perfectly satisfied with the plot of the sequel and thought it was very well done. It seems like you weren't. Oh well ... different strokes for different folks?

I don't really understand the demand for "balance". I don't think different archetypes need to be exactly as powerful as every other and at every stage of leveling. I'm ok with the heavies protecting the squishies, til the squishies can hold their own. It's a party based ruleset. Why expect the guys running around with knives and leather to do as much damage as knights and fireball hurlers?

Yeah, I agree. 2nd ed isn't perfectly balanced across all the levels and it's not my personal fave D&D ruleset, but it works. Both games are perfectly enjoyable and there is an interesting dynamic where there are different challenges at different levels that the player has to manage.

Also, the game is more than just combat. Thieves have many useful abilities outside of combat (spotting/disarming traps, picking locks, picking pockets, scouting and infiltrating), so why should they be as effective in combat as the other classes?