I just feel one thing. Backstabbing just don't match to Imoen and Nalia. I think that they should be swashbucklers, because of the lack of backstabbing ability or another rogue kit without backstabbing.
Neither Imoen nor Nalia is as suave as a swashbuckler would be. They both come off as naive. Safana is the only thief who seems to be a bit older than early twenties, and age does play a bit into specialization in my opinion, if it deals with skills you don't study. Mages, clerics and monks would be obvious exceptions, as they learn their stuff in schools or temples. For them, it is logical that they can be specialized at young age, simply because their teacher or mentor may have been a specialist and passed on his or her specific knowledge. To an extend, it works for fighters and paladins who had trainers or mentors that were masters of a particular weapon style or knights of a church, too.
Thieves usually come from the streets and learned their skills via trial and error; whatever worked best for their situation. Thieves are also more competitive and won't usually tell others their tricks. Would be pretty stupid to groom their competition. After all, thieves are thieves because they try to enrich themselves; why would they teach people how to steal things they want from under their noses? Thief guilds teach the basic skills like lock picking or pick pocketing, but at some point, the trainees must earn their "street cred" by pulling something off on their own. Same as bards, who need to write their own songs or poems and can't just copy whatever someone else did.
Swashbucklers, like bards, use charisma for their strategies. Charisma is something you can't learn. Either you have it or not. A low charisma thief would likely develop into an assassin or bounty hunter and use the ability to blend into a crowd and draw no attention to their advantage. But they'd first have learned that they can't sweet talk people into anything and make the choice to specialize because of that.
I have to admit, the Adventurer kit might be hopeless power gaming in terms of utility thief skills, but I do think it fits both of them well. Backstabbing doesn't really fit either of them, but I can't really figure either as a Swashie.
Imoen's charisma and how it plays into her thief skills is probably more that she can act harmless and innocent, and people won't suspect what she's up to. That's different from a cunning Swashbuckler who actively misleads and charms people.
I think both Imoen and Nalia fit as pure thieves. Nalia probably got her skills by stealing from her rich family and giving it to the poor. She had no need to backstab or charm people, and was certainly not looking for a bounty. Imoen grew up with you in Candlekeep; also not much need to backstab there.
The only non-backstabbing kit in BG:EE is swashbuckler. Pure thief, bounty hunter and assassin CAN backstab.
It's just that Imoen and Nalia should have some non-backstabbing kit and people see Imoen and Nalia as swashbucklers, because swashbucklers do not backstab.
On the other hand Imoen (and MAYBE Nalia) can intentionally act harmless and innocent to actively mislead people. :> Hmmm.... Only women can that!
They are both still young and Nalia just became an adventurer. They may start to practise backstabbing now because it became neccessary. So giving them a kit that prevents them from ever learning it doesn't feel right either.
I think sometimes it's difficult for folks to differentiate between what works best according to the math (and even common sense), on the one hand, and the enjoyment a player might derive from just trying something different in order to gain a fresh experience and, often, a greater challenge, on the other. (Or a different type of challenge if not a greater one.)
Montaron is arguably not going to be as effective as an Assassin as a Fighter-Thief. Not that I'm 100% sold on that premise, but I suspect it's likely true. But regardless, I'm actually be drawn to see how I might get the most out of Monty as an Assassin. That, for me, could be as fun (possibly even funner) than playing him as I'm already accustomed to (as a F/T) for lo these many years now. And I do think his personality lends itself really well to the Assassin kit. So for me that would be fun to explore.
Am I recommending this as the 'best' build for Monty? No. Do I feel others 'should' play him that way? No. Might I have fun trying this out? Yeah, I think I would.
It's not that Monty isn't fun to play as the awesome F/T that the developers made him. (Of course he is!) Or that he's more formidable overall as a F/T versus Assassin. (He may well be.) It's about me as a player seeking something fresh, and a new challenge.
@mjs - Yeah, there was something in her bio. Comes out as the same; she was a thief, not a killer.
I think we all agree that backstabbing isn't something that suits Nalia or Imoen. If the ability to ever learn it should be restricted by a kit? I don't think it's neccessary. There are reasons why one or the other may want to learn that skill, but it's the player's choice to put points in it or not. And that's how it should be - like @Lemernis says, it's all about personal preferences. I would certainly find an assassin Monty interesting, but I can also see the logic behind his current class combo. He was teamed up with a squishy mage and is loyal to him (I know, you can break them up, but that's not the point). It's not said specifically, but many other mages travel with a bodyguard and Monty's fighter side is likely to be understood as Xzar's meat shield. On the good side, you have mage + bodyguard in the form of Dynaheir and Minsc, and the other pairs are lovers (though, with Eldoth and Skie, it's a twisted kind of love). Only makes sense to have the same constellation for the evil pair. Making Monty a kitted thief wouldn't find that balance.
And that's why we have mods and Shadowkeeper; if we really want a kit for an NPC or just try how they would work as a different class, we can do that.
Swashbucklers, like bards, use charisma for their strategies. Charisma is something you can't learn. Either you have it or not.
Nah, their powers don't indicate this at all. A Swashbuckler is someone who would swing from a chandelier, rappel out a castle window using the drapes, or who just enjoys nautical things.
Nalia is from a castle, and has had extensive drape-rappelling experience; Imoen is from a coastal castle, and has both swung from the chandeliers therein and has breathed deep of the salty ocean air.
Actually, from a kit-fixing perspective, what I'd do is remove the Two Weapon Fighting from Swashbucklers, and give them two or even THREE dots in Single Weapon Style, which fits much better the Errol Flynn / Zorro type of fencing which I picture them doing.
[Montaron] was teamed up with a squishy mage and is loyal to him (I know, you can break them up, but that's not the point). It's not said specifically, but many other mages travel with a bodyguard and Monty's fighter side is likely to be understood as Xzar's meat shield.
I hadn't thought of that! This is a very good reason for Monty to stay part Fighter.
The name swashbuckler is "nautical", but it doesn't say they need to be pirates. And level 1 swashbucklers and bards make sense (to me) because charisma is a trait they were born with and discovered early in life that they can get their way by being charming and possibly manipulative. That is also why it makes sense that you can't dual bards - you just can't decide to be charismatic.
The name swashbuckler is "nautical", but it doesn't say they need to be pirates. And level 1 swashbucklers and bards make sense (to me) because charisma is a trait they were born with and discovered early in life that they can get their way by being charming and possibly manipulative. That is also why it makes sense that you can't dual bards - you just can't decide to be charismatic.
Back in 1e, Bards were the first Prestige class. You had to start out as a Fighter, dual class to Thief for a while, then dual class to Druid -- yeah, three dual classes. You also had to have a high Charisma (possibly for Druid, can't recall, certainly for Bard). Back in that edition, you'd be right about never seeing an inexperienced Bard, but you'd be wrong about never seeing a dual'd Bard. They are the ONLY Bards you'd see.
In 2e, there's no Charisma requirement for Swashbucklers, so I think this is something YOU are imposing on the game, rather than something in the game itself.
The name swashbuckler is "nautical", but it doesn't say they need to be pirates. And level 1 swashbucklers and bards make sense (to me) because charisma is a trait they were born with and discovered early in life that they can get their way by being charming and possibly manipulative. That is also why it makes sense that you can't dual bards - you just can't decide to be charismatic.
Back in 1e, Bards were the first Prestige class. You had to start out as a Fighter, dual class to Thief for a while, then dual class to Druid -- yeah, three dual classes. You also had to have a high Charisma (possibly for Druid, can't recall, certainly for Bard). Back in that edition, you'd be right about never seeing an inexperienced Bard, but you'd be wrong about never seeing a dual'd Bard. They are the ONLY Bards you'd see.
In 2e, there's no Charisma requirement for Swashbucklers, so I think this is something YOU are imposing on the game, rather than something in the game itself.
Not sure about that. The Dragon Magazine bard for first edition is a single class, no dualing involved. They do hit level 2 at 1000 xp, rather quickly, so they aren't low level for long, and hit level 3 at 4000.
Edit: also, bards being part Druid could work in later additions, but it doesn't make sense that it is required for a bard.
Not sure about that. The Dragon Magazine bard for first edition is a single class, no dualing involved. They do hit level 2 at 1000 xp, rather quickly, so they aren't low level for long, and hit level 3 at 4000.
Edit: also, bards being part Druid could work in later additions, but it doesn't make sense that it is required for a bard.
It could be that I'm thinking of Blue Box rather than 1e.
I might be able to dig up the reference if you're really interested.
The name swashbuckler is "nautical", but it doesn't say they need to be pirates. And level 1 swashbucklers and bards make sense (to me) because charisma is a trait they were born with and discovered early in life that they can get their way by being charming and possibly manipulative. That is also why it makes sense that you can't dual bards - you just can't decide to be charismatic.
Back in 1e, Bards were the first Prestige class. You had to start out as a Fighter, dual class to Thief for a while, then dual class to Druid -- yeah, three dual classes. You also had to have a high Charisma (possibly for Druid, can't recall, certainly for Bard). Back in that edition, you'd be right about never seeing an inexperienced Bard, but you'd be wrong about never seeing a dual'd Bard. They are the ONLY Bards you'd see.
In 2e, there's no Charisma requirement for Swashbucklers, so I think this is something YOU are imposing on the game, rather than something in the game itself.
As far as BG:EE game mechanics go, these are the minimums for Swashy:
Str 3 Dex 9 Con 3 Int 3 Wis 3 Cha 3
In this game they are designed as a kind of acrobatic dual-wielder. But in folk lore, popular culture, literature, etc., they are defined by their swagger and charisma. And as rougish, rakish, ne'er-do-wells.
Not sure about that. The Dragon Magazine bard for first edition is a single class, no dualing involved. They do hit level 2 at 1000 xp, rather quickly, so they aren't low level for long, and hit level 3 at 4000.
Edit: also, bards being part Druid could work in later additions, but it doesn't make sense that it is required for a bard.
It could be that I'm thinking of Blue Box rather than 1e.
I might be able to dig up the reference if you're really interested.
I am a little interested where Druid-bards come from (the mandatory aspect) but don't feel obligated :-)
I am a little interested where Druid-bards come from (the mandatory aspect) but don't feel obligated :-)
Meh, turns out Google can find page references pretty quickly. ;-)
It was 1e, it's in the PHB page 117 (Bards were in an Appendix).
Also, I was wrong: you start out as a Fighter, then dual-class to Thief, and then you can enter Bard directly. Being a Bard got you access to Druidic spells in 1e (thus my confusion). Here's the text:
"Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage. Bards must fulfill the requirements in all the above classes before progressing to Bards Table 1. They must always remain neutral, but can be chaotic, evil, good or lawful neutral if they wish."
Comments
Thieves usually come from the streets and learned their skills via trial and error; whatever worked best for their situation. Thieves are also more competitive and won't usually tell others their tricks. Would be pretty stupid to groom their competition. After all, thieves are thieves because they try to enrich themselves; why would they teach people how to steal things they want from under their noses? Thief guilds teach the basic skills like lock picking or pick pocketing, but at some point, the trainees must earn their "street cred" by pulling something off on their own.
Same as bards, who need to write their own songs or poems and can't just copy whatever someone else did.
Swashbucklers, like bards, use charisma for their strategies. Charisma is something you can't learn. Either you have it or not. A low charisma thief would likely develop into an assassin or bounty hunter and use the ability to blend into a crowd and draw no attention to their advantage. But they'd first have learned that they can't sweet talk people into anything and make the choice to specialize because of that.
And maybe Nalia is not charismatic (13), but Imoen is (16)...
Is there another D&D rogue kit which would match Imoen and Nalia?
I think both Imoen and Nalia fit as pure thieves. Nalia probably got her skills by stealing from her rich family and giving it to the poor. She had no need to backstab or charm people, and was certainly not looking for a bounty. Imoen grew up with you in Candlekeep; also not much need to backstab there.
It's just that Imoen and Nalia should have some non-backstabbing kit and people see Imoen and Nalia as swashbucklers, because swashbucklers do not backstab.
On the other hand Imoen (and MAYBE Nalia) can intentionally act harmless and innocent to actively mislead people. :> Hmmm.... Only women can that!
i always thought Nalia's thief abilities came from her sneaking out of the castle when she was younger...
Montaron is arguably not going to be as effective as an Assassin as a Fighter-Thief. Not that I'm 100% sold on that premise, but I suspect it's likely true. But regardless, I'm actually be drawn to see how I might get the most out of Monty as an Assassin. That, for me, could be as fun (possibly even funner) than playing him as I'm already accustomed to (as a F/T) for lo these many years now. And I do think his personality lends itself really well to the Assassin kit. So for me that would be fun to explore.
Am I recommending this as the 'best' build for Monty? No. Do I feel others 'should' play him that way? No. Might I have fun trying this out? Yeah, I think I would.
It's not that Monty isn't fun to play as the awesome F/T that the developers made him. (Of course he is!) Or that he's more formidable overall as a F/T versus Assassin. (He may well be.) It's about me as a player seeking something fresh, and a new challenge.
Does this make sense?
I think we all agree that backstabbing isn't something that suits Nalia or Imoen. If the ability to ever learn it should be restricted by a kit? I don't think it's neccessary. There are reasons why one or the other may want to learn that skill, but it's the player's choice to put points in it or not. And that's how it should be - like @Lemernis says, it's all about personal preferences. I would certainly find an assassin Monty interesting, but I can also see the logic behind his current class combo.
He was teamed up with a squishy mage and is loyal to him (I know, you can break them up, but that's not the point). It's not said specifically, but many other mages travel with a bodyguard and Monty's fighter side is likely to be understood as Xzar's meat shield. On the good side, you have mage + bodyguard in the form of Dynaheir and Minsc, and the other pairs are lovers (though, with Eldoth and Skie, it's a twisted kind of love). Only makes sense to have the same constellation for the evil pair. Making Monty a kitted thief wouldn't find that balance.
And that's why we have mods and Shadowkeeper; if we really want a kit for an NPC or just try how they would work as a different class, we can do that.
Nalia is from a castle, and has had extensive drape-rappelling experience; Imoen is from a coastal castle, and has both swung from the chandeliers therein and has breathed deep of the salty ocean air.
Actually, from a kit-fixing perspective, what I'd do is remove the Two Weapon Fighting from Swashbucklers, and give them two or even THREE dots in Single Weapon Style, which fits much better the Errol Flynn / Zorro type of fencing which I picture them doing.
In 2e, there's no Charisma requirement for Swashbucklers, so I think this is something YOU are imposing on the game, rather than something in the game itself.
Edit: also, bards being part Druid could work in later additions, but it doesn't make sense that it is required for a bard.
I might be able to dig up the reference if you're really interested.
Str 3
Dex 9
Con 3
Int 3
Wis 3
Cha 3
In this game they are designed as a kind of acrobatic dual-wielder. But in folk lore, popular culture, literature, etc., they are defined by their swagger and charisma. And as rougish, rakish, ne'er-do-wells.
It was 1e, it's in the PHB page 117 (Bards were in an Appendix).
Also, I was wrong: you start out as a Fighter, then dual-class to Thief, and then you can enter Bard directly. Being a Bard got you access to Druidic spells in 1e (thus my confusion). Here's the text:
"Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage. Bards must fulfill the requirements in all the above classes before progressing to Bards Table 1. They must always remain neutral, but can be chaotic, evil, good or lawful neutral if they wish."