My gaming history:

In the early/mid 1970s I was not aware of a practical desktop computer. So, I invented a desktop for work around 1975 but it wasn't good enough -- took 1.5 years of "free time" before I had something to turn on (well worth it for what I learned -- I applied the knowledge at work). By the time, my crude design started improving, the first desktops using Basic language came out. That ended my experiment. Along the way, gaming wise, I was teaching my desktop to play checkers -- didn't get too far.

Henceforth, I used commercial desktop computers only for work -- initially, one of the only guys on site with a desktop. Most used the room-filling beast. But, my desktop was only for work. I also bought one for work at home -- never bought a game for it. I wrote a game to practice programming -- a crude dungeon crawl with monsters and very crude graphics -- a workplace friend liked to play it

Then, in the early 90s, I ordered some business software and they included a free Combat Flight Simulator. That got me started on gaming (hooked, actually). I only played flight simulators. SimHQ became my favorite site along the way. SimHQ had a reboot circa 1999 and I was one of the first 60 or so to sign up during the reboot. I liked to try to make my own aircraft (in a small way).

Baldur's Gate was published in 1998 and got me started on fantasy RPG. Since then Flight Sims and Fantasy RPG. I modded BG1 with a hex editor.

Modding in my DNA -- e.g. teaching the first desktop checkers, the next one a game written in Basic, etc. Problem is, Modding has become too easy with tools like Cheat Engine -- I give all the credit to the Cheat Engine team -- I can't take any. If I had invented Cheat Engine (for example), I would not mind using it.

As noted above, now that modding is too easy, I might try playing by the rules

I snapped a shot of my main after having fought the final battle and returned to the Lady Vengeance. The glow is divinity itself

This is his card as equipped for that battle, minus leadership bonus to resistances and dodging. For as long as I have played this sort of game I have leaned toward ranger class. My main was my best damage dealer. 50% crit chance is strong. By necessity he was far less well-protected than the others, but his range, high damage and crit plus the ability to deal every type of physical, magical and elemental damage made him the most decisive and versatile part of the party. Notice how few skills he has. But what he does have are all hella useful and strong. That was a lot of fun, I'm glad to have picked the run up again. I saw when reinstalling DOS 1 I had finished my Tactician run on October 11, 2016, so it's been a while. Should be fun to revisit it and compare it with the second game so fresh in my mind.

Very interesting build. Tomorrow, I'll compare it to my build to see what I can learn from someone who doesn't mod aka "cheat".

I wouldn't call it cheating, in single player you should play the way that you find most compelling. If the mods affect things like damage, action points, skills, protection and the like (not just cosmetic) it could be said that's an advantage over a player not using them, but I wouldn't call it cheating. No different than a player using the gift bags which Larian provides.

In that build above, about 30 of the Finesse comes from gear bonuses and runes.

I played the first game for a couple hours and it all came back to me. I'll post some thoughts about the two games a little later when I have the time. I've said in this thread that I didn't like the way armor and initiative was changed for DOS 2 but it goes beyond that.

Here's a quick visual comparison between your winning build and my current build status.

I think we both "fight" similarly -- bow and magic. Your damage level is very high at level 20. It was interesting to see how "all in" your build went and how well it succeeded.

Regarding my level 16 character: All her equipment, potions, and spells are "stock". They are not improved by mods. I do mod the money supply so I can buy and try without penalty -- in the end she's only wearing one set of armor, only using a few spells, etc. So it does not matter much to winning and losing.

In my case, I modded her characteristics to give more options during the game. So, I raised all her characteristics to be very good -- but, not all maximum. I just wanted one character with all-around good characteristics so I could have more fun trying things -- but not be locked into a path for her "build".

Thus, strength was maximized to allow carrying maximum weight (not for fighting) -- some games don't limit carry weight in the first place. I get more conversation choices. I get more spell slots (but only actually use a few of them). Etc.

I can still lose a battle. But, I've come up with a battle plan that seems to work better than it should -- if I stick to it. Like I noted before, an accidental battle loss is okay. However, after a few deaths due to my bad play, I would consider a game "restart".

I'll be interested to read the further thoughts you mentioned.

By the way, I don't mod my character all the way up at the game's beginning. Rather, I made her comparable/competitive to the levels I was facing regarding the individual characteristics (Strength, etc) -- and added points along the way.

Yes, the ranger build was a pure build, and Lohse as a Aero/Hydro mage was too. But Fane and Red Prince were both hybrid builds, battlemage archetype but which became more mage than battle as the game wore on as mentioned. Skills are more versatile and powerful than weapons (aside from a bow backed by massive Finesse + High Ground). Swords and wands were carried strictly for their inherent skills and attribute bonuses through the second half of the game for me.

Thanks for the side-by-side comparison. That's interesting. My ranger does a hell of a lot more damage, but with you so heavily invested in INT and Memory she must have a lot of skills and spells to use as well. My ranger gets it all from the Huntsman skills and magic arrows (most of which I saved for the end battles, aside from Knockdown arrows which I used a lot for CC). High ground was insane, with another +70% damage from that. Your character is heavy in to all attributes, even strength, with numbers beyond what could be achieved without mods.

I fired up DOS 1 EE last night. I had a good idea of what I wanted to do, but I needed to re-acquaint myself with the rules and build options. The idea was to do a dual Lone Wolf run. Lone Wolf means no companion slot, and dual means no companions at all, just the two mains. Instead the characters get +70% vitality and additional attribute and skill points on level up. The key to success is denying the enemy the ability to CC your characters. With just two, a stunlock or knockdown takes half of your firepower and that won't do. And that brings me to DOS 1 and some thoughts about how the two games differ.

I've talked about armor, and how it was split in to both magical and physical for the second game. Beyond that, status effects can't apply until the armor type that resists it is completely gone. Skill descriptions use the term "resisted by", but it really should say "blocked by". Charm or shock for example cannot work until magic armor is removed. And then it works 100%. It's an odd change and I don't like it. I'd rather it worked traditionally, that is with saving throws. DOS 1 works this way, and in that game you have Defenses (Body Building and Willpower) that are rolled against the attack, so statuses can be applied at any time if you win the roll. Conversely you need to invest in these if you want to prevent being CC'd, set on fire and the like. I much prefer this as it is dependent on your build and makes combat less binary in a sense. It also means that mixed parties (both physical and magical damage) are less effective in the second game. You'd have an advantage going all-in on one or the other. But that's less interesting and I didn't do it for my Tactician DOS 2 run.

So that small difference means that in DOS 1 the build is more important (since defenses do not even exist in DOS 2). Failing to invest in Body Building or Willpower means that your character can be CC'd by even the most modest enemy. In DOS 2 it just comes down to how much armor you have (and what type). And for me, any mechanical/combat interlacing between build and effectiveness makes that aspect of the game more interesting.

Another thing that was changed is how initiative works. In DOS 1 you have a Speed attribute, that affects Action Points, movement and initiative. In the first game this is important since initiative affects the combat order of all combatants. In DOS 2 this was changed to a round-robin type system, where initiative of your party only affects the order they fight in, and regardless of stats, the enemy will always go next. It alternates, meaning initiative is far less important. You just want to make it so your characters fight in the order you want, and forget about improving the stat beyond that. In DOS 1 if all of your party have higher initiative than all enemies, all of your party gets to take their turns before the enemy fires a shot. So the change was likely made to make combat more challenging, by preventing you from ganging up at the start. Personally I don't like it as it takes another 'interlaced mechanic' away from the build synergy.

A third thing that was changed is how action points work. In DOS 1, as you level your skills you start to gain 'mastery' over them (my term). For example a Novice-level Aerotheurge spell at Aero 1 might consume 4 action points. But when you add an additional point to Aero that same spell now consumes 3 action points. So as you level and increase these stats you can use more spells in any given turn. In addition, increasing speed gives you more APs, further increasing the number of skills and spells you can perform in any given turn. Leveling also affects cooldowns, all of which means that as your character levels up it imparts the sensation that your character is mastering that school. In DOS 2 leveling these stats is more of an 'unlock', or the pre-requisite needed to learn the higher level abilities. There is a small 5% boost to damage per point, but that's all. You do not gain more APs, and AP costs do not drop. You can just cast more powerful stuff. Once again, I prefer the way it works in DOS 1.

In the end I re-rolled my dual mains about six times lol, as I kept making mistakes or forgetting to change their portrait or whatever haha. I built a sword and board battlemage (Lone Wolf / Pet Pal + Man-at -Arms + Witchcraft, Geo and later Pyro and Scoundrel) and a mage (Lone Wolf / Far Out Man + Witchcraft, Aero, Hydro, but who will eventually have points in all schools). A fourth difference between the two games is how skill points are spent. In order to level something like Aero in DOS 2 you just spend a single point. But in DOS 1 each level costs the same in skill points. So to reach Aero 5 in DOS 2 you spend 5 points. But in DOS 1 to reach level 5 you need to spend 15 (1+2+3+4+5). That's a huge difference and means that to go to the highest level you need to heavily invest. Instead, I will spread it out. Instead of taking these to level 5 I will go to 4, meaning I have 5 skills points saved and can invest them instead in another school. There is no Memory-type cap, you're simply limited by your money and ability to find skill books. In a sense it's a system that is even more classless than DOS 2 if that makes any sense, and encourages you to diversify. Plus, the Master spells are extremely powerful but have just one use per combat, further encouraging me to spread it around rather than go pure.

That's a long post

I must admit I spent many hours inside DOS debut and Norton Hex Editor in the late 80s trying to make games do things they weren't supposed to do.

I only cheated a couple of times in Bard's Tale 1, but that's it.

As far as modding is concerned, I mod everything I own almost outside of computing, too. I can't help myself. I find that almost anything can be made better.

Thanks for the many details -- clearly written. Your approach is logical. DOS 1 mechanics do seem better in some respects. I read your post closely and imagined how to set up DOS 1 based on your explanations. I'll re-read before starting DOS 1.

If I started on my own without reading your information, I'd play by ear -- and, as usual miss some things. Normally, with a new RPG, I play 4 to 8 hours, get the idea, and do a restart.

Another thought: In some harmless respects, I am actually a "lone wolf" in real life. Normally I'm happier during the moments I can play an RPG that way -- a single "hero" against the world. For example, at the end of Risen 3, I cleared the final map by myself -- except where the game seemed to force a temporary companion.

Nevertheless, in most RPG, followers are necessary for expanding the story and adding quests. So, I normally have followers. For DOS 1, I may try "lone wolf" right off the bat -- based on how that 4 to 8 hour play test turns out.

Regarding a long post: I was noted (at work) for long answers. Seems we're similar. I always felt, "say it all". No doubt, the reader knows some (or nearly all) of it. But, being complete allows the reader to "pick and choose" and to have some information they may need but would not have gotten if the one explaining gave a concise explanation of what the one explaining valued but that "left things out" (that's a long sentence ).

That's two of us.

I find/feel kindred spirits at SimHQ. Many logical/thoughtful folks. Why its my favorite site, by far.

My pleasure, thanks for reading. Your comments are appreciated.



That's SOP for me too.



Same here. I am also drawn to games like that. Sub sims for example, black ops, solo RPGs (Witcher for example), Thief games and on and on. It's part of why I took so long to get in to party RPGs, waiting through many classic titles until the early 2000s. Once I started though I found I like these games too.



That would be great if this thread got you to give the first game a go. Maybe we can keep it going and you'll share your thoughts on that one too. For what it's worth DOS 1 has two mains, and and that cannot be changed.



Well, you engineer types are like that And yes, it appears you are correct.

Having sunk a few hours in to DOS 1 EE after four years away, a few random thoughts....

-- I had forgotten about the Rock-Paper-Scissors mini-game. Seems to do the trick and adds some variability to the outcomes of conversations.
-- The start of this game is slower than DOS 2. The second game would be a much better introduction to the series for a new player I think in order to keep his attention until the game hooks him.
-- DOS 1 is more light-hearted, funny and whimsical. The second game takes itself more seriously.
-- It is striking to me how much of an effort Larian made to remove RNG from the systems in the second game. I love DOS 2, but playing DOS 1 again confirms how much more I prefer the unpredictability and variability that comes from traditional percentages, RNG and dice rolls. I would bet that I have already seen as many 'misses' in a few hours as I did in an entire DOS 2 run.
-- Apparently in my previous runs I had failed to find a talking clam right on the starting beach. Blows my mind. But there he was and I got an achievement out of it (and some good loot ) which I did not expect to earn so soon, as I have virtually all of them. I am missing about twelve, eight of which are hidden (OK, seven, now). Of the four shown on the Steam library page, one is for Lone Wolf, and this is my first try at that. I hope to get more of the hidden ones as I am curious what they might be!
-- I miss the improved inventory of the second game, especially the shared inventory concept.
-- I like crafting and blacksmithing mechanics. While crafting is fine in DOS 2, every character can do it all, and blacksmithing is not a thing. In DOS 1, you need to invest points, adding another layer to the opportunity cost of build choices. For me, this is ALWAYS a good thing. The more decisions I need to agonize over, the better the experience.
-- I really like the whole 'mastery' concept I described above in another post. I wish the second game worked the same way honestly.
-- It is also striking how many things were changed or removed, like the trait system. Traits exist in DOS 2, but in the first game they are the result of dialog choices you make. Traits like Bold, Righteous, Altruistic and Egotistical for example, all of which give bonuses such as +1 Willpower or Immunity to Charm. A cool system. It is a double-ended sliding scale that can flip-flop over the run. More consequence of choice, which I approve of.
-- I miss the wide "hot-bar" of the second game.
-- DOS 1 has a great soundtrack/score


Anyway, just a few observations, with both games so fresh in my mind.

Thanks for the info.

I'm still "cleaning" the second to last map in DOS2 (and watching the Golf Channel). The early game seemed to make the point that the Heroine is ultimately "on her own".

Now in the late game, the Heroine remembers that point. She talks softly but mercilessly kills those who threaten her. Seems like everyone on this map is threatening

Just a fill in. Don't correct me if I'm wrong. She has to learn the hard way and live or die with the consequences of her "path"

In my last run I cleared the Black Ring, even the group of traders, which I did just before moving on to Arx. The folks on the tree I had no quarrel with so they lived. Red Prince had max persuasion along with high strength and constitution so could easily pass the skill checks, which maybe avoided some combat that otherwise would occur? But the Black Ring could not be allowed to go on

Ordered Divinity Original Sin Enhanced (DOS1) -- and pre-ordered MSFS2020. I may not play DOS1 soon. But, DOS2 is good enough that I wanted to support the studio with cash. Meantime, I continue to get my in-game "ducks lined up" to finish DOS2.

Biggest thing I liked about DOS1 more than DOS2 is the "party fights their turn, then enemy party fights their turn" mechanic, and the absence of the magical/physical armor distinction. I can get my head around the later by now, but the former really makes it much harder to chain abilities of different characters together, which to me was a great use of the environmental mecahnics.

Yeah Colonel, and I gave some of my thoughts on both of those things in the longer post above. In DOS 1 you can CC or apply status in the first attack, where in DOS 2 you need to chop off the armor first. Big change that makes quite a difference in how it plays out. I used the word binary, and for better or worse that's how DOS 2 combat feels. It's still good, I always look forward to the next battle. But playing DOS 1 again now, the difference is so clear. I'm playing with dual lone wolf characters, which really puts a premium on crowd control. It would be a lot more difficult if I had to remove one armor or the other in order to apply a status like in the second game. If I can get a knockdown and a stunlock on the first turn against a mob it makes the whole thing more manageable with just two characters. And of course avoiding the same on my characters is important too. There's no armor to hide behind and protection against these has to come through the defense stats or pre-emptive strikes to CC them first.

Some big changes were made in how Lone Wolf works in the EE. When the game was released, LW was pretty OP. But now it's not, and I'd reckon harder in certain circumstances. But it is much more manageable in terms of inventory and gear as I only need to outfit two.

Pretty quickly I swapped my sword and board battlemage to two-handers. Shields in DOS 1 give no additional armor, unlike the second game, where they are very strong. I've hit level 6 and having a good time with it once again.

One correction: I said earlier that there is no Memory type cap to spells and skills. But that's wrong. The way it works is the spells/skills you can have is tied to the level of that school/discipline. These are divided in to three types, Novice, Adept and Master. As you level the skill, you gain more slots and it works like this

Level 1 -- 3 Novice skills
Level 2 -- 5 Novice, 2 Adept
Level 3 -- 6 Novice, 3 Adept
Level 4 -- 6 Novice, 4 Adept, 1 Master
Level 5 -- 6 Novice, 4 Adept, 2 Master

The thing that might jump out at you is that going from level 4 to 5 grants just a single spell slot. Master spells are very strong, but that's another five skill points invested to gain that one strong spell. Not worth it for me, since those 5 points could be spent in a different school, gaining a number of lesser spells/skills that make the character more versatile and ultimately, effective, especially when you consider that master skills can only be used once per combat. There is no source-type soft cap to the strongest ones like in DOS 2.

I've started the 4th and nominally final map yesterday (8/6/20).

I knew there were 4 maps, but I had not "read up" on what and how. I thought I was moments away from the 4th map a few days ago -- wrong. I've been very surprised at the surprises along the path to the 4th map -- that's a good thing. DOS2 is even better than expected due to the unexpected twists and turns (compared to other good RPG). Maybe why its rated the 2'd best RPG of all time, by some.

I also just found the "nuclear option" (of course, experienced players would know about it). "Pyroclastic Eruption" requires 3 source and 3 action points to activate and takes 3 spell slots. But, if one has high specs in the right categories, it brings a lot of big fights to an end almost immediately. I don't always use it -- but, if things seem out of hand -- I "pull the trigger". I used it in the "lair of the white worm" yesterday. At the start, I looked very outmatched. I pulled the trigger -- battle over (actually surprised me). That's another positive about DOS2 -- one does not have to grind every battle -- if one "builds" correctly.

I'd chalk that up to the fact you are doing it right and not reading about everything first. You get the best experience this way in my view. And actually, what caused me to necro this thread was the fact PC Gamer listed it as the best PC game period, not just RPG. Since then I've seen it top more lists as well. It's all subjective, but still very revealing about the quality of the game.



Boom! Haha, yes indeed. I didn't spec in to Poly in my run, but this spell is a great reason to do so.

There is one more way to increase your power in Arx. It's a spoiler so I will reserve comment for now. But if you are interested I will reveal it, or at least give cryptic clues should you be interested. It is something I missed entirely my first time through, but stumbled on to it by accident in the last run. It's the thing I said made me feel like I was using high-level DOS 1 characters again.

Speaking of DOS 1, I have reached level 11 and having a good time with it again. The dual Lone Wolf thing has been fine, and maybe OP in some ways. But it's cool to just have the two characters while taking on mobs much, much larger. A different sort of challenge, with a premium put on crowd control. Plenty of game left, but I've had no trouble progressing with just the two mains.

DOS2 keeps surprising. As noted above, it's more intricate than a normal RPG (most I play make the next step obvious).

There was a very-very small area along a very small beach (20 feet or so of beach area). Looked "useless" from 30 feet away. Nothing in the plot was sending me there. And, to get to it I had to "teleport" a 15 feet. But, I did it. There was a toy and a couple other "nothing" objects on the beach which was hidden from view until I got there -- not the first time that's happened -- big deal (yawn). But, I had learned by now I should investigate everything I come across -- so, I tried to pick up the toy. Unexpectedly, the toy spoke -- most toys in the game are inert toys -- this one had a soul (makes sense in the story-line of this game). And, it gave me a very key piece of information to get to that "final battle" (not there yet). Had I not done what I did (jump to nondescript area, pick up nondescript toy), I would never have gotten that piece of information. I assume the game has alternate paths to the same final destination -- so maybe I did not need this bit -- but, it has helped me forward and given satisfaction.

This little comment is by way of recommending the game yet again.