If they X, would you still....?
Pantalion
Member Posts: 2,137
Would you still....
1: Dual class from a Fighter if they fixed the dual-class proficiency bug?
Ex-Fighters retain whatever proficiencies they had originally, but all proficiency points they gain in future are as members of their new class, 1 pip and class specific weapons only.
2: Use Fighter Kits if they fixed the Kit proficiency bug?
Unless an actual kit ability, only pure unkitted Fighters may put more than 2 pips into a weapon type (with the exception of Two Weapon Fighting).
3: Still use Mislead if they fixed the invisibility bug?
Mislead currently allows you to remain utterly undetectable and untargetable if your mislead clone isn't around to be dispelled or destroyed, rather than behaving like Improved Invisibility when you attack.
4: Play a Ranger/Cleric if they fixed the spellcasting bug?
Ranger/Clerics currently get all Cleric and all Druid spells, rather than a limited number of druid spells up to level 3.
5: Dual Wield if they introduced a Shield that added +1 Attack? Or fixed the bug such that extra Attacks apply to the weapon that grants them?
Currently all weapons that add attacks do so to the main hand, meaning dual wielding such weapons gives you more attacks of your primary (and usually best) weapon.
Feel free to answer, or add your own.
1: Dual class from a Fighter if they fixed the dual-class proficiency bug?
Ex-Fighters retain whatever proficiencies they had originally, but all proficiency points they gain in future are as members of their new class, 1 pip and class specific weapons only.
2: Use Fighter Kits if they fixed the Kit proficiency bug?
Unless an actual kit ability, only pure unkitted Fighters may put more than 2 pips into a weapon type (with the exception of Two Weapon Fighting).
3: Still use Mislead if they fixed the invisibility bug?
Mislead currently allows you to remain utterly undetectable and untargetable if your mislead clone isn't around to be dispelled or destroyed, rather than behaving like Improved Invisibility when you attack.
4: Play a Ranger/Cleric if they fixed the spellcasting bug?
Ranger/Clerics currently get all Cleric and all Druid spells, rather than a limited number of druid spells up to level 3.
5: Dual Wield if they introduced a Shield that added +1 Attack? Or fixed the bug such that extra Attacks apply to the weapon that grants them?
Currently all weapons that add attacks do so to the main hand, meaning dual wielding such weapons gives you more attacks of your primary (and usually best) weapon.
Feel free to answer, or add your own.
4
Comments
As for 5 I still would as I view dual wielding more as a thematic/RP kind of choice. However it would be a shame if 1h+shield ended up better than dual wielding in offense as well as defense. It already requires a fair bit of investment to make dual wielding work well (early on you just gimp yourself unless you have 3 pips), whereas a shield works great at any time.
2. Yes
3. You can do this?
4. Only if they then add Ranger/Druid as a class option XD (but I never play R/C anyway)
5. Yes, for the aesthetic, but i would love this shield.
Yes, if I dual from a fighter, I dual to thief or mage to wear a helm or have fighter levels as a roleplay backstory, so weapon profs are not my reason to dual.
2: Use Fighter Kits if they fixed the Kit proficiency bug?
No, I don't play fighters, so I'm not using it unfixed either.
3: Still use Mislead if they fixed the invisibility bug?
Barely play mages, I wasn't even aware this bug existed.
4: Play a Ranger/Cleric if they fixed the spellcasting bug?
I generally prefer fighter/cleric and the few ranger/clerics I made were for the dual wielding and ended up not casting much. I guess I wouldn't really notice the difference.
5: Dual Wield if they introduced a Shield that added +1 Attack? Or fixed the bug such that extra Attacks apply to the weapon that grants them?
Yes, for the looks and sometimes because it just fits a character concept better.
I'm a completionist, but not really a powergamer, so none of this would bother me much.
Dual? Never do, i tend to like Multi.
2: Yes again for there reasons stated above.
3: Yes. I'd never even used it like this.
4: Yes. It's an obvious bug and should be fixed.
5: Even with +1 attack on shield or Belm, etc. only giving extra attack to the weapon. DW would still be way superior to using a shield.
2) I don't understand how this is a bug?
3) I don't use it anyway. Something I would have done in the old days when I was terrible at the game and needed cheese/exploits to win.
4) No. The only thing making it more fun than a F/C are the fun spells like Insect Plague. If they changed it I'd always take a short race F/C.
5) Yes, but early game I'd probably have a character with the shield too.
#2 is a bug because the Kensai, Berserker etc should all only be able to Specialise (2 pips) in a single weapon, just like Rangers, Paladins and multiclass Fighters.
6: If they fixed the specialist mage spell bug? Would your specialist mage choice change?
Specialist mages gain an extra slot that must be used for a spell of that school.
7:Still use Edwin if his advantages were applied correctly?
As a Red Wizard Edwin would gain two spellslots, like BG1, instead of three, in BG2. And he'd have to have sacrificed a second opposition school to get it!
8: Still reload, or lower the difficulty, if an "Average Rolls" option existed for Hitpoints at level up?
An Average Rolls option would automatically set the hitpoints gained per level at 6.5 for Barbarians, 5.5 for Fighters, 4.5 for Clerics, 3.5 for Thieves/Bards and 2.5 for Mages.
9: Still use Sleep if the victim woke up after the first time you hit them?
I always though that was actually how Sleep worked until I used it. Too much playing Final Fantasy, I guess.
Trying to divine which of these is intentional and not intentional, however, is entirely irrelevant in the context of this thread.
As for my own answers:
1: Nope. The only possible reason I'd Dual over multiclassing is to eventually pick up Grand Mastery in something.
2: I only ever use fighters as a component of a multiclass anyway, so I'd use the kits just as much either way.
3: Sure would, using it as intended works as a nice distraction whilst you replenish your buffs.
4: Definitely. I love Ranger/Clerics, dual-wielding for free, stealth, and Ranger's are a pretty cool class anyway.
5: I'd still dual-wield usually, but with a shield that actually made shield-wielding particularly viable outside of BG:1 would make me feel less like I was intentionally self-handicapping as a single-wielder.
6: I usually play wild mages anyway, but for my rare Gnome I'm sure I'd be okay picking out some illusion spells.
7: Sometimes, he's one of the more entertaining characters.
8: I'd actually much prefer to stick on Core and be guaranteed average rolls, so no, I'd not need to do either.
9: Yes, and I'd still consider it a game winning spell to boot, just less incredibly overpowered.
2. Yep, I'd like that change too. Gives you a reason to use a pure Fighter.
3. You mean tricks like leaving the clone out of sight? I only use it in combat so that wouldn't change anything for me. But if it breaks the invisibility on any action, whether or not the clone is around... heck no, the spell becomes pointless for me then.
4. Probably not. I don't really like rangers as a base class, and I'd rather play a fighter/cleric without the bug.
5. Shields all the way! I might still use something like Crom Faeyr, though.
7. I'd like to see this too.
8. Yes please!
9. It'd hurt, but at low levels you don't have many tools and you have to work with what you've got. So yeah, I'd still use it.
2. I only ever use Kensai anyway so this wouldn't bother me a bit. My current playthrough is a vanilla Fighter. Wizard Slayer is awful and Berserker is typically used pretty much solely by powergamers. My Dwarves are always a Cleric or Thief of some sort so I haven't touched Dwarven Defender.
3. Yep.
4. No. That would be pretty much horrifying. There would be like, very little point to play Cleric/Ranger at that point.
5. Uhhh … yes? Confused.
2. What are you even talking about? That's definitely not a bug. Why, then, is the Dwarven Defender allowed to get to High Mastery in axes and hammers if it's a kit, AND if it's a brand-new one, at that? If kits weren't able to achieve Grandmastery it would be explicity stated in their descriptions listed under 'Disadvantages', which they aren't.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes. I think it adds flavor.
7. Yes. If you're going to add all of his advantages as a Red Wizard, and not just spell slots, it would make him obscenely powerful. Circle Magic would practically allow him to go Super Red Wizard.
8. Yes.
9. Yes. Still useful to incapacitate a bunch of enemies and work on them one by one.
10: Would you use Polymorph Self differently if they changed the humanoid forms to use your already equipped weapon?
Currently the Gnoll has a fire damage attack which is very handy for trolls, and the ogre has a plain mace thingy.
11: Would you still take your time if they changed it so that Imoen had an increasing chance of being dead the longer it took you to get to Spellhold?
12: Would you still take your time if they made it so that you and Imoen lost 1 random stat point per day whilst in Chapter 6?
To be regained after defeating Bodhi (Imoen) and Irenicus (CHARNAME) for the final time.
13: Would you still use Tomes on CHARNAME only if they fixed the issue such that NPCs in BG1 retained the bonuses (even over any BG2 stat gains) into BG2?
14: Would you still "save" your Romantic partner if they gave you the option to just have them come back as an evil vampiric version of themselves with increased powers?
And with a magic cloak that allowed just such a character to continue to function in day to day life already in the game...
11: Absolutely. I would also actively try to get Neera sent to Spellhold, too.
12: How would that be relevant if Imoen was already dead? It would be game breaking if she had to defeat anyone.
13: Yes. I often use all wisdom tomes on Xzar in BG1 anyway; those 3 points would be lost either way. Another frequent tome user is Eldoth (con). The only NPC I usually have in both games is Edwin, and I usually don't give him any tomes. No carry over to NPCs has never been an issue for me.
14: This implies I have a romantic partner. Charname usually doesn't, so whatever.
10: Well, maybe Gnoll for trolls. But generally no, would being able to use your own weapons change that?
12: If Imoen isn't alive, then killing Bodhi would have no effect, since Imoen's not getting her soul back. If she is, killing Bodhi would restore Imoen's stats only, much like killing Irenicus would restore yours.
12: I kill or abandon Imoen as soon as possible, so nothing would change for me then.