The remove fear of the Cavalier can be duplicated by a remove/resist fear spell (Priest 1/Mage 2), so of itself it is not so powerful but - as your Paladin is immune to fear, you do not need to metagame and put up the remove fear in advance you just can cast it, if anyone is affected by a fear spell, as it won't be your Cavalier. And you do not need to occupy any spell slots.
The remove fear of the Cavalier can be duplicated by a remove/resist fear spell (Priest 1/Mage 2), so of itself it is not so powerful but - as your Paladin is immune to fear, you do not need to metagame and put up the remove fear in advance you just can cast it, if anyone is affected by a fear spell, as it won't be your Cavalier. And you do not need to occupy any spell slots.
I'd say that 1 spell slot is still better than an entire kit being unable to use ranged weapon. Having an undead hunter also means you can save the other 2 rings for other party members, meaning that there are now 3 members immune to holds as opposed to two. (Of course... if we all meta-game, the summoned minions can take those holds for you)
I don't think anyone who powergames can complain about metagaming. Else why would you generate a fighter with 18 wisdom?
Yeah, it frees up a spell slot or two. I personally don't think that is worth an entire character slot. A Paladin excels in one or two situations without any buffing necessary, whereas a Fighter 7 (or 9) -> Cleric X will be better in most situations and excel with buffs.
The only viable frontline tanks in HoF mode (since we're talking about powergaming here) are the summoned minions, Dwarven Defenders, or spellcasters with Stoneskin/Ironskin.
Or Fighter/Cleric with Shield of Entropy Works quite well. Actually I think AC/resistance-based defenses might be better than SS and the likes due to the much larger amounts of enemies you face compared to BG. When there's 20 monsters hitting you, your Skin charges are consumed way too quickly.
We can always compare a Paladin wielding Pale Justice with Weapon Specialization in Longsword to a Fighter wielding a +4 Longsword with Grand Mastery in Longsword
Weapon Specialization: +1 to hit, +2 dmg, extra 1/2 attack/round
Grand Mastery: +3 to hit, +5 dmg, extra 1 attack/round
GM in IWD is actually +3/2 APR, you gain 1 APR *plus* the 1/2 from Specialization (different from BG). That puts Fighters another 1/2 APR ahead.
I'm not sure about the THAC0 progression difference in between Paladins and Fighters, if someone cane clarify that, I'd be most grateful.
The same in terms of level (maxed at 21, same rate of increase) BUT of course Paladins/Rangers do need more actual XP per level (250k/lvl for Fighters, 300k/lvl for Paladins for lvl 10+).
Cavalier is not about the remove fear, it is handy and situational very handy, that's it, as is the poison immunity. Lay on Hands sometimes can be a live safer and immunity to Hold and Level Drain are unimportant. +3 against Dragons and Demons is more useful than against undead. So it all comes down to the use of ranged weapons - if you use or want the option to use them it is Undead Hunter, otherwise it is Cavalier. I never use ranged weapons on my tanks - I have dedicated archers for that and someone has to hold the line ...
If I had to choose, I think I would still take an Undead Hunter. I agree about Level Drain - it is worthless. And yes, if you cast the free action spell or get a Ring of Free Action, then immunity to hold does not matter. But assuming those things were not available to me, immunity to hold is still more useful.
Of course, when looking at the damage figures, Fighter->Clerics will be ahead of any Paladin by miles. Look at the difference between Specialization and Grand Mastery: Specialization: +2 damage, 3/2 attacks per round, +1 to hit Grand Mastery: +5 damage, +3 to hit, 5/2 attacks per round
But that is against every single enemy - demon, undead, golems, humans, NPCs, whatever. Plus the ability to cast Free Action, Chaotic Commands etc. That to me is worth far more than anything a Paladin brings to the table.
Agree with @Ancalagon44, Paladins are just not enough bang. Even in BG the only reasons to actually use them were a) Inquisitor and b) Carsomyr - since both of those are basically lost with IWD, I see no real reason to use a Paladin. Yes Pale Justice is a good weapon, but it's not THAT good. It's just a bit of extra damage over other alternatives (and really just a bit) and some minorly relevant immunities.
Cavalier is not about the remove fear, it is handy and situational very handy, that's it, as is the poison immunity. Lay on Hands sometimes can be a live safer and immunity to Hold and Level Drain are unimportant. +3 against Dragons and Demons is more useful than against undead. So it all comes down to the use of ranged weapons - if you use or want the option to use them it is Undead Hunter, otherwise it is Cavalier. I never use ranged weapons on my tanks - I have dedicated archers for that and someone has to hold the line ...
You have a point on the poison immunity and Lay on Hands. However, the +3 against Dragons and Demons are mostly rare boss occasions (Still useful, nonetheless, as those are the most important and hardest fights in IWD). And let us not forget about the Burial Isle and its denizens, mostly drowned dead, as they will tear the cavaliers (or any melee, actually) a new one.
The only character I allow to sit there and do nothing are the bards, provided they sing their songs. Even then, ranged damage is reduced to almost nothing and melee won't last very long against a swarm of drowned dead. Having a cavalier means to have no choice but to either stand and fight or have him do nothing until the field is clear, whereas an undead hunter will have these bonus damages against them. Not to mention those wailing virgins, ugh, the faster they are *deader* the better. Undead Hunters can have their damage and to hit bonuses applied to ranged, as well, which means they can bypass most of those charging wights without having to risk dying on the frontlines (That's my summoned minions' job)
I digress, if I were forced to choose a character as my frontline tank, cavaliers would not be the first choice on my list, as dwarven defenders will have an easier time not getting killed. Of course, Cavaliers with Pale Justice can be quite a formidable opponent against Yxunomei (only if imported with PJ, that is), Icasaracht, or Belhifet. Still not the best choice, in all honesty.
Dwarven Defender is a very valid alternative to the Paladin - more tanking less versatility. I used one in my last playthrough (together with the Cavalier it was him to hold the front line).
I hear the long sword of action +4 is pretty good...
I'm actually very curious to see what the Black Blade of Disaster can do in the right hands - especially with time stop involved. I actually think it might be an underrated spell, especially in IWD. In BG2, every mage and their cousin has PfMW, whereas in IWD, you will chop through them like butta, as Lilarcor would say..
EDIT: BBoD damage when wielded by a mage with 10 strength: 2d12 + 5 (grand mastery, given by the spell) at 2.5 attacks per round.
Make it a Fighter 7 -> Mage with 18/93 strength and you get 3 attacks per round and a bonus 5 damage. Add Emotion: Courage and Emotion: Hope to that and you get another 5 bonus damage. 2d12 +15 damage at 3 attacks per round - not counting haste or improved haste!
So, 17-39 damage per hit, 3 times per round. I wonder what will happen if the wielder has proficiency points in he weapon styles of two handed weapon or single weapon style? You might get a greater critical threat range. Imagine a critical hit on 39 damage!
Show me a demon or undead that could stand up to that!
Still investigating the whole dual vs. multi issue, what are people's thoughts on that? I am a bit worried about THAC0 with dual, as damage output is quite important in HoF - which, on the other hand, dual may make up for by having GM.
Thing is, the fighter kits don't actually seem that impressive in IWD. Kensai has offensive power to be sure, but with fights lasting forever I am having a bit of a hard time keeping them alive. The (apparently new?) chase-scripts that glue monsters to you aren't helping... Sometimes you can tank well, but there are plenty of occasions where you just can't (because you just switched zones, for example). Berserker is as it's always been - except that I haven't really found enemies that regularly CC you, so that you'd need the Rage to block the effects. And again the long fight duration in HoF makes using Rage for damage a bit of a pain, because you WILL end up fighting while winded, whereas in BG2 most of the fight was usually over by then. Such a shame that you cannot dual a DD... but I suppose that's for obvious balance reasons, too :P
Either way, it seems to me that a Fighter/Cleric combination (of either kind) is probably the way to go for tanking. The Cleric buffs are simply amazing, and once you get Shield of Entropy you can just stand in the middle of a horde without a sweat.
Another issue is group size. I am unsure on this. In BG2 I am now fairly certain that 6-party is NOT the way to go (but rather ~4), but HoF has such huge amounts of XP floating around that I am not entirely sure how things are in IWD. Plus, damage output is a real concern (as I may have mentioned) as since enemy HP doesn't scale with party size, additional party members are a significant damage increase. My first HoF run I went with 4 (F/C, F/T, F/M, Archer) and damage does feel a bit low at times - though maybe that's my two ranged girls (F/M + Archer). I did not play enough IWD back in the day to remember that everything in this game seems to have 50%+ missile resistance :P
Regarding multi vs dual, I think in general dual is better, but there are important factors to consider.
One of the most important is what your target level is. Are you aiming for a level 30 party? If so, dual class is probably not for you, unless you dual class fairly late, such as at level 13. Also, does one of the classes need to be present at all times of the game? An example would be a thief. Personally, I always want one thief available. So, if I dual classed my only thief, it would leave me without those talents for a significant portion of the game, which is unacceptable.
I consider THAC0 to be a minor consideration. By the time mastery and buffs are taken into account, your THAC0 is more than enough to hit any enemy. So far, I have not found a case where good base THAC0 was the deciding factor in the outcome of a battle. However, that being said, if your target level is fairly high, then it is worth considering that at level 13, warriors get an extra half attack per round. This could factor into your decision of when to dual your character. Or whether to use a multi class instead, although obviously you will lose out on grand mastery if you do.
I also tend to prefer dual classing for caster classes, because they gain levels in their caster classes so much faster. This is especially important for mages and clerics who want to use turn undead. Turn undead can make an undead heavy battle a cakewalk, but it is rare for multi classed clerics to attain the necessary high levels. HoF will probably be an exception though. As for mages, getting early access to high levels makes a helluva difference. However, once again, target level is important here. If you are playing on HoF, then even a multi classed mage can probably reach a high enough level to cast level 9 spells.
EDIT: Kensais are only doable if you dual class them to mages to give them access to the various armor spells, including stone skin. Mirror image will also help with survivability, as will memorizing a few copies of invisibility for when things get tough.
There are some metagame things to keep in mind IMO while you want to make a min/maxed run:
-Will you start HoF from the beginning? I was wondering how the devs wanted us to play it, if 2nd imported run or what (xx exp total)
-Will you change your party composition in the run? In IWDee I have read that it's impossible to change the party in single player due to potential instability iussie but you can still do that making your save an mpsave -> should not be "chese" but the only way they had to fix this IF I understood that right.
-Is it hallowed to leech exp with resting in low lvl area?
All those things come to mind, multi class run look more tedious then bg2 run in the regain lvl step, at least imo.
@Lord_tansheron I was taking in serious consideration a DD myself, In my 1st "casual" run at insane difficult he was shining and it's a powerfull kit for sure vs hordes of phisical dealers and long fights. Btw I'm a bit worried to see how well he will do past the 1.5m exp, since in the end it's still a fighter kit. In the end, maybe, they just share the same archer props and slops off mid game and end game trade off ^^
Also, monsters looks like they will stick to the 1st target they see no matter what, so you will want a very solid front liner most of the time, giving potential damage as a trade off. I HATE this future to be honest but, oh well, I guess I will get used to it.
edit: on the 6 man party, I'm having trouble myself. We are not used to optimize a 6man run anymore I guess but in IWD looks like it's the potential way to go. You NEED that dps and you are less locked into metagame items knowledge (given that some of them are random as well).
A few things I'd like to mention from a level 1 HoF run perspective, so I guess this counts as powergaming
You don't need a tank. To be honest pure tanks like Dwarven Defender are a complete waste of a slot. Why? Because your summons will be your tanks. And they will do a fantastic job at this, letting your melee characters go full damage.
Totemic Druid is godlike in this mode, his spirit beasts can be used from level 1, gain immunity to non magical weapons eventually and have neat additional effects (Wolves can paralyze for example), not to mention druids have pretty damn awesome summons overall. Remember there's a 6 summons max limit so don't cast too many at once.
A lot of the fights are done in tight corridors. With summons doing the tanking, your melee will sometimes not even have to participate in combat. As such, invest into a good archer. Preferably.. an Archer. Lol. Taking skeletal undead as racial enemy offsets their resistance to missiles, at least somewhat.
Sorcerer is mandatory, unless you like walking around with a Mage with empty spell slots because you are unable to buy/find any higher level scrolls. Sorcs are useful against pretty much anything, with stuff like Web and Hold Undead they can turn even the hardest battles around instantly.
And remember if you swap your party around during a playthrough (there is a way to do that, even without modify party button) you will be stuck with level 1 party members. I had to swallow a bitter pill just before entering Dragon's Eye and replaced two characters, but that improved my group by a ton.
The only viable frontline tanks in HoF mode (since we're talking about powergaming here) are the summoned minions, Dwarven Defenders, or spellcasters with Stoneskin/Ironskin. (Maybe Shapeshifter druids or Monks with immunity to normal weapons later on, but I'm uncertain on that aspect of the kit)
Pale Justice is a +7 THAC0/dmg vs. Evil creatures (That applies to most monsters and bosses). It's safe to say that by having a paladin you are trading off half an attack per round for an extra THAC0 and no damage difference.
Technically Fighter is still the better choice but consider Paladins are now almost as proficient at melee as fighters with the ability to use up to level4 cleric spells. With all those cleric buffs Paladins will definitely trump fighters in terms of raw power and party utility.
I'm not sure about the THAC0 progression difference in between Paladins and Fighters, if someone cane clarify that, I'd be most grateful.
There are significantly more viable tanks than that. There are no THAC0 differences between Fighters & Paladins aside from the Fighter leveling marginally quicker. The Paladin also gains access to 6th power spells.
Cavalier is not about the remove fear, it is handy and situational very handy, that's it, as is the poison immunity. Lay on Hands sometimes can be a live safer and immunity to Hold and Level Drain are unimportant. +3 against Dragons and Demons is more useful than against undead. So it all comes down to the use of ranged weapons - if you use or want the option to use them it is Undead Hunter, otherwise it is Cavalier. I never use ranged weapons on my tanks - I have dedicated archers for that and someone has to hold the line ...
You have a point on the poison immunity and Lay on Hands. However, the +3 against Dragons and Demons are mostly rare boss occasions (Still useful, nonetheless, as those are the most important and hardest fights in IWD). And let us not forget about the Burial Isle and its denizens, mostly drowned dead, as they will tear the cavaliers (or any melee, actually) a new one.
I digress, if I were forced to choose a character as my frontline tank, cavaliers would not be the first choice on my list, as dwarven defenders will have an easier time not getting killed. Of course, Cavaliers with Pale Justice can be quite a formidable opponent against Yxunomei (only if imported with PJ, that is), Icasaracht, or Belhifet. Still not the best choice, in all honesty.
Both Fighters & Paladins can hit the APR cap...
If you are powergaming you do not build your party for the trash mobs: you build it to dominate the boss mobs.
Self-healing chars tend to have the easiest time not getting killed.
The problem with a Paladin is that it's going to take him a lot of time to get access to high level spells. Honestly if you're looking for a divine magic tank who can heal himself you're probably better off with a Ranger/Cleric or something.
If you are powergaming you do not build your party for the trash mobs: you build it to dominate the boss mobs.
I strongly strongly STRONGLY disagree with this. The bosses in this game are, for the most part, a complete joke. My Archer casually solo'd Yxunomei while the rest of the group was busy controlling the minions, it was not even close to a challenge. The other bosses are similarly easy, except for Icasaracht and Belhifet which are reasonably difficult - but like 0.01% of the game.
Powergaming shouldn't be so narrow, it should be about overall efficiency. Top-heavy setups (i.e. focusing on high levels), boss-heavy setups... those are, in my mind, incomplete concepts. Yes those factors play a role, but so do early game, mid game, and trash mobs.
The question isn't whether they can, but how and when. Fighters get to high APR fairly quickly; Paladins do not. If you get to max APR when you're lvl25 that is all well and good, but that would be what I call top-heavy. How do Paladins perform UNTIL they get Pale Justice and all the APR items they can wear? And are they better than a Berserker->Cleric?
About dual vs. multi, I must say I prefer multi but I'm playing on HoF. In that mode, dualing to Mage is useless since you don't get scrolls quickly enough. Unless of course, you know exactly what you need and when you can get it. So that reasonably leaves Cleric. Why not?
But, in the end, there's no XP cap in IWD but a level cap of 30. So the question is: would it be better to level up my Cleric class faster or to level up both classes evenly? The answer's not so simple, but the ability to increase THAC0, Saves and to choose a better Race account for something.
Dual requires careful management or you'll frustratingly wait for your character to reach it's full potential. In HoF, you can't really afford the luxury of delaying that. Still, I'd like to know if some had success with dual in a HoF game.
But, building a team is much more than that. As some pointed out, it's about knowing what items you'll use, when you'll get them, how you'll manage encounters. So yes, the best party has the game almost all figured out.
You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter Powergaming HAS a definition and you cannot simply change it because it does not suit your purposes... The truth is that not much (if anything) in the game is challenging, but the bosses are still less easy than the trash. Trash are trash for a reason after all ;-)
Well what do you define as high? Until level8 both Paladins & Fighters have the same APR; Fighters pull ahead at lvl9 (+1APR) and then both gain another half attack @ lvl13: Ftr = 3.5 Pal = 2.5
Add an Action item for another attack (+1) each but add a second and the Ftr caps out APR while the Pal fully benefits: Ftr = 5 Pal = 4.5
The Paladin also gains 5th Power spells @ lvl22 and can then cast Righteous Wrath of the Faithful for an additional attack (in addition to some nice defensive modifiers). Either capping out APR as well or permitting use of a superior weapon.
Going back to compare the overall validity of both shows no difference between them for lvl1&2. Level3-8 the Ftr is slightly better at melee, but Pal become immune to fear at lvl3 and get their 1st Power spells at lvl6. Ftr9 is a big jump in melee power, but Pal10 brings 2nd Power spells permitting melee buffing with DUHM (+3 STR/DEX/CON) and improves the Pal's Armour of Faith increasing his defences and thus making the Pal far more survivable.
Pal12 increases DUHM to +4 and brings 3rd Power spells (Prayer/Moonblade/etc). Pal15 brings 4th Power spells (Recitation), AoF increases again to 20% resistance and DUHM bumps up to +5! Pal18 & 20 see incremental improvements to the Paladin's spells with Pal22 granting access to 5th Power as previously discussed. The 5th Power Righteous Magic ensures every successful hit does max damage and combined with DUHM maxes out the Paladin's STR at 25 for +7tohit & +14damage: a fairly substantial increase of ~+5tohit & ~+10damage... the Ftr's Grandmastery grants +2tohit & +3damage over the Pal's Specialization.
Now the Ftr achieves lvl13 first and pulls a level ahead to 14 when the Pal reaches 13; the Ftr increases this lead to two at lvl20 (Pal18) and finally three at lvl26 (Pal23); however the Fighter caps out at lvl30 before increasing the lead to four and from that point on the Paladin is catching up and gains 6th Power spells at Pal29 just before achieving the same level30 that the Ftr already has. Pal30 brings a final 5th Power spell permitting Shield of Lathander for damage immunity.
In addition while the Paladin has sole access to arguably the best weapon in the game, the Fighter can take advantage of all the other better weapon types; however, the Ftr must focus on only a few specific types in order to achieve Grandmastery (14 total pips = just 2 grandmasteries) while the Pal must spread around his pips (7 specializations).
Obviously the Ftr will on average do better at melee; however, the Pal is certainly more survivable and will surpass the Ftr when fully buffed. One good a many things and another better at specific things is the epitome of balance!
Ignoring that the Berserker => Cleric pales in comparison to the Kensai => Mage, and that the initial debate was Paladin vs F/C multi, for the same 6.6million XP necessary for Pal30 one can build a Ber13/Clr30 (Ber14 actually, but I am skeptical that the single HP is worth the effort). In this case, the dual has slightly worse THAC0 and reduced HP but significantly improved spell casting. The Pal has better saves and some immunities, but has lost his defensive and survivability advantages. The dual at least equals and often exceeds the Pal in buffage: surpassing the Pal in melee while being far more survivable as well. However, the Cleric weapon restrictions limit the dual to decidedly inferior weapons across the board.
Nevertheless, given that the Berserker => Cleric dual meets or betters the Paladin in most metrics, develops faster and is far more versatile for the disadvantage of worse weapons and having some build 'downtime' while regaining levels it is clear that the dual is in general a better option.
@Abel absolutely agree on the process, that's why we're having these discussions :P Things do need to be tried and tested.
I've also gone with multi for my first HoF, and it went alright. But I do have a feeling that duals could improve on things, the Berserker->Cleric one in particular. Since you're already overloading on buffs, THAC0 is a minor concern - but having the most powerful spells available earlier is a very real consideration, as is a higher Turn Undead level. HoF, while demanding, also provides enough experience to make dual-classing at least theoretically viable. I am going to test this out in detail in my next run, with a Berserker->Cleric and also a Swashbuckler->Fighter. The all-time BG favorite Kensai->Mage seems like an underdog in IWD for various reasons, but maybe I'll give it a try some time, too. The lack of scrolls you mentioned really does hurt any non-Sorcerer arcane caster...
Faster caster gain AND better turn ud AND GM is a no brainer even not considering a kit for the dual fighter/cleric won IMO.
And I don't get the whole pala wot based on the point fighter vs pally.
Make it Bers 9>cleric vs pally and there is NO chance a stupid pally is better at any given time, no matter if trash or bosses.
And about power gaming: no, it's not like you have to just consider top fight in a min/max set up IF they are easy and 0.001% of the contest, you must consider trash has main problem and bosses has a secondary point, since you will play them let's say 30 min in a whole run. That it's min/max, always play the best set up METAGAMING what you will encounter and this game is different from bg since trash>bosses all the time.
And I don't get the whole pala wot based on the point fighter vs pally.
And we do not get what you are trying to say here...
The original question was Pal or a F/C multi, then it was Pal vs Ftr and finally it was Pal vs Ber/Clr dual. We are not picking these - they are getting thrown out in the thread.
Make it Bers 9>cleric vs pally and there is NO chance a stupid pally is better at any given time, no matter if trash or bosses.
Laugh, actually the Paladin would be significantly better from Cleric1 through Cleric10. Probably be roughly equally at Cleric10, and then the Pal would start falling behind at Clr11. From that point on certainly the dual is better as the Cleric levels faster and gains spells (both slots & power) quicker. However, the Ber9 gave up 0.5 APR compared to the Ber13, letting the Pal close a bit of the melee gap.
And about power gaming: no, it's not like you have to just consider top fight in a min/max set up IF they are easy and 0.001% of the contest, you must consider trash has main problem and bosses has a secondary point, since you will play them let's say 30 min in a whole run. That it's min/max, always play the best set up METAGAMING what you will encounter and this game is different from bg since trash>bosses all the time.
By definition one does not consider trash - THAT is metagaming. You build the party for the most difficult fights, regardless of what those may be. Of course within this paradigm any other considerations must be placed: to wit, party composition works out very differently if you are not resting (for whatever reason).
By definition one does not consider trash - THAT is metagaming. You build the party for the most difficult fights, regardless of what those may be.
Looks like a definition problem. "Trash" usually refers to "non-boss" enemies (at least in the usual video game lingo), and not per se to "non-difficult monsters". At least that's how I'm using the term, and consistently so.
In HoF in particular there are certainly many many "trash" packs that are more challenging than boss fights. I mentioned Yxunomei earlier because it was such a disappointment, and definitely miles easier than, say, the 20+ Cold Wights right upon zone entry I faced earlier in the same dungeon. The same is true for basically every "boss" fight except for Icasaracht and Belhifet - and of course, those "trash" mobs do make up the vast, VAST majority of the game, too. I do not think it unreasonable to focus powergaming efforts on them, quite the contrary. That is not to say I would discount the bosses, not at all; but they are certainly not the prime target of party design.
Note that the focus of any powergaming discussion is inherently linked to the nature of the game in question. In IWD, trash is more important than in say, BG2. In other games it may be thoroughly unimportant, and bosses may be the overwhelming, almost exclusive factor to consider (like say, Final Fantasy 10 where all that matters are the superbosses at post-game).
Comments
Yeah, it frees up a spell slot or two. I personally don't think that is worth an entire character slot. A Paladin excels in one or two situations without any buffing necessary, whereas a Fighter 7 (or 9) -> Cleric X will be better in most situations and excel with buffs.
+3 against Dragons and Demons is more useful than against undead.
So it all comes down to the use of ranged weapons - if you use or want the option to use them it is Undead Hunter, otherwise it is Cavalier.
I never use ranged weapons on my tanks - I have dedicated archers for that and someone has to hold the line ...
Of course, when looking at the damage figures, Fighter->Clerics will be ahead of any Paladin by miles. Look at the difference between Specialization and Grand Mastery:
Specialization: +2 damage, 3/2 attacks per round, +1 to hit
Grand Mastery: +5 damage, +3 to hit, 5/2 attacks per round
But that is against every single enemy - demon, undead, golems, humans, NPCs, whatever. Plus the ability to cast Free Action, Chaotic Commands etc. That to me is worth far more than anything a Paladin brings to the table.
You have a point on the poison immunity and Lay on Hands. However, the +3 against Dragons and Demons are mostly rare boss occasions (Still useful, nonetheless, as those are the most important and hardest fights in IWD). And let us not forget about the Burial Isle and its denizens, mostly drowned dead, as they will tear the cavaliers (or any melee, actually) a new one.
The only character I allow to sit there and do nothing are the bards, provided they sing their songs. Even then, ranged damage is reduced to almost nothing and melee won't last very long against a swarm of drowned dead. Having a cavalier means to have no choice but to either stand and fight or have him do nothing until the field is clear, whereas an undead hunter will have these bonus damages against them. Not to mention those wailing virgins, ugh, the faster they are *deader* the better. Undead Hunters can have their damage and to hit bonuses applied to ranged, as well, which means they can bypass most of those charging wights without having to risk dying on the frontlines (That's my summoned minions' job)
I digress, if I were forced to choose a character as my frontline tank, cavaliers would not be the first choice on my list, as dwarven defenders will have an easier time not getting killed. Of course, Cavaliers with Pale Justice can be quite a formidable opponent against Yxunomei (only if imported with PJ, that is), Icasaracht, or Belhifet. Still not the best choice, in all honesty.
I'm actually very curious to see what the Black Blade of Disaster can do in the right hands - especially with time stop involved. I actually think it might be an underrated spell, especially in IWD. In BG2, every mage and their cousin has PfMW, whereas in IWD, you will chop through them like butta, as Lilarcor would say..
EDIT: BBoD damage when wielded by a mage with 10 strength:
2d12 + 5 (grand mastery, given by the spell) at 2.5 attacks per round.
Make it a Fighter 7 -> Mage with 18/93 strength and you get 3 attacks per round and a bonus 5 damage. Add Emotion: Courage and Emotion: Hope to that and you get another 5 bonus damage.
2d12 +15 damage at 3 attacks per round - not counting haste or improved haste!
So, 17-39 damage per hit, 3 times per round. I wonder what will happen if the wielder has proficiency points in he weapon styles of two handed weapon or single weapon style? You might get a greater critical threat range. Imagine a critical hit on 39 damage!
Show me a demon or undead that could stand up to that!
FM
FC
FD
FT
Berseker
Wizard Slayer
-_-
Thing is, the fighter kits don't actually seem that impressive in IWD. Kensai has offensive power to be sure, but with fights lasting forever I am having a bit of a hard time keeping them alive. The (apparently new?) chase-scripts that glue monsters to you aren't helping... Sometimes you can tank well, but there are plenty of occasions where you just can't (because you just switched zones, for example). Berserker is as it's always been - except that I haven't really found enemies that regularly CC you, so that you'd need the Rage to block the effects. And again the long fight duration in HoF makes using Rage for damage a bit of a pain, because you WILL end up fighting while winded, whereas in BG2 most of the fight was usually over by then. Such a shame that you cannot dual a DD... but I suppose that's for obvious balance reasons, too :P
Either way, it seems to me that a Fighter/Cleric combination (of either kind) is probably the way to go for tanking. The Cleric buffs are simply amazing, and once you get Shield of Entropy you can just stand in the middle of a horde without a sweat.
Another issue is group size. I am unsure on this. In BG2 I am now fairly certain that 6-party is NOT the way to go (but rather ~4), but HoF has such huge amounts of XP floating around that I am not entirely sure how things are in IWD. Plus, damage output is a real concern (as I may have mentioned) as since enemy HP doesn't scale with party size, additional party members are a significant damage increase. My first HoF run I went with 4 (F/C, F/T, F/M, Archer) and damage does feel a bit low at times - though maybe that's my two ranged girls (F/M + Archer). I did not play enough IWD back in the day to remember that everything in this game seems to have 50%+ missile resistance :P
One of the most important is what your target level is. Are you aiming for a level 30 party? If so, dual class is probably not for you, unless you dual class fairly late, such as at level 13. Also, does one of the classes need to be present at all times of the game? An example would be a thief. Personally, I always want one thief available. So, if I dual classed my only thief, it would leave me without those talents for a significant portion of the game, which is unacceptable.
I consider THAC0 to be a minor consideration. By the time mastery and buffs are taken into account, your THAC0 is more than enough to hit any enemy. So far, I have not found a case where good base THAC0 was the deciding factor in the outcome of a battle. However, that being said, if your target level is fairly high, then it is worth considering that at level 13, warriors get an extra half attack per round. This could factor into your decision of when to dual your character. Or whether to use a multi class instead, although obviously you will lose out on grand mastery if you do.
I also tend to prefer dual classing for caster classes, because they gain levels in their caster classes so much faster. This is especially important for mages and clerics who want to use turn undead. Turn undead can make an undead heavy battle a cakewalk, but it is rare for multi classed clerics to attain the necessary high levels. HoF will probably be an exception though. As for mages, getting early access to high levels makes a helluva difference. However, once again, target level is important here. If you are playing on HoF, then even a multi classed mage can probably reach a high enough level to cast level 9 spells.
EDIT: Kensais are only doable if you dual class them to mages to give them access to the various armor spells, including stone skin. Mirror image will also help with survivability, as will memorizing a few copies of invisibility for when things get tough.
-Will you start HoF from the beginning? I was wondering how the devs wanted us to play it, if 2nd imported run or what (xx exp total)
-Will you change your party composition in the run? In IWDee I have read that it's impossible to change the party in single player due to potential instability iussie but you can still do that making your save an mpsave -> should not be "chese" but the only way they had to fix this IF I understood that right.
-Is it hallowed to leech exp with resting in low lvl area?
All those things come to mind, multi class run look more tedious then bg2 run in the regain lvl step, at least imo.
@Lord_tansheron I was taking in serious consideration a DD myself, In my 1st "casual" run at insane difficult he was shining and it's a powerfull kit for sure vs hordes of phisical dealers and long fights. Btw I'm a bit worried to see how well he will do past the 1.5m exp, since in the end it's still a fighter kit. In the end, maybe, they just share the same archer props and slops off mid game and end game trade off ^^
Also, monsters looks like they will stick to the 1st target they see no matter what, so you will want a very solid front liner most of the time, giving potential damage as a trade off. I HATE this future to be honest but, oh well, I guess I will get used to it.
edit: on the 6 man party, I'm having trouble myself. We are not used to optimize a 6man run anymore I guess but in IWD looks like it's the potential way to go. You NEED that dps and you are less locked into metagame items knowledge (given that some of them are random as well).
You don't need a tank. To be honest pure tanks like Dwarven Defender are a complete waste of a slot. Why? Because your summons will be your tanks. And they will do a fantastic job at this, letting your melee characters go full damage.
Totemic Druid is godlike in this mode, his spirit beasts can be used from level 1, gain immunity to non magical weapons eventually and have neat additional effects (Wolves can paralyze for example), not to mention druids have pretty damn awesome summons overall. Remember there's a 6 summons max limit so don't cast too many at once.
A lot of the fights are done in tight corridors. With summons doing the tanking, your melee will sometimes not even have to participate in combat. As such, invest into a good archer. Preferably.. an Archer. Lol. Taking skeletal undead as racial enemy offsets their resistance to missiles, at least somewhat.
Sorcerer is mandatory, unless you like walking around with a Mage with empty spell slots because you are unable to buy/find any higher level scrolls. Sorcs are useful against pretty much anything, with stuff like Web and Hold Undead they can turn even the hardest battles around instantly.
And remember if you swap your party around during a playthrough (there is a way to do that, even without modify party button) you will be stuck with level 1 party members. I had to swallow a bitter pill just before entering Dragon's Eye and replaced two characters, but that improved my group by a ton.
Both Fighters & Paladins can hit the APR cap...
If you are powergaming you do not build your party for the trash mobs: you build it to dominate the boss mobs.
Self-healing chars tend to have the easiest time not getting killed.
Just a few things to keep in mind ;-)
Ranger/Cleric is an equally awesome character that can tank, DPS, buff and heal depending upon the requirements. Certainly my favourite multiclass.
Powergaming shouldn't be so narrow, it should be about overall efficiency. Top-heavy setups (i.e. focusing on high levels), boss-heavy setups... those are, in my mind, incomplete concepts. Yes those factors play a role, but so do early game, mid game, and trash mobs. The question isn't whether they can, but how and when. Fighters get to high APR fairly quickly; Paladins do not. If you get to max APR when you're lvl25 that is all well and good, but that would be what I call top-heavy. How do Paladins perform UNTIL they get Pale Justice and all the APR items they can wear? And are they better than a Berserker->Cleric?
In that mode, dualing to Mage is useless since you don't get scrolls quickly enough. Unless of course, you know exactly what you need and when you can get it.
So that reasonably leaves Cleric. Why not?
But, in the end, there's no XP cap in IWD but a level cap of 30. So the question is: would it be better to level up my Cleric class faster or to level up both classes evenly? The answer's not so simple, but the ability to increase THAC0, Saves and to choose a better Race account for something.
Dual requires careful management or you'll frustratingly wait for your character to reach it's full potential. In HoF, you can't really afford the luxury of delaying that. Still, I'd like to know if some had success with dual in a HoF game.
But, building a team is much more than that. As some pointed out, it's about knowing what items you'll use, when you'll get them, how you'll manage encounters. So yes, the best party has the game almost all figured out.
Well what do you define as high? Until level8 both Paladins & Fighters have the same APR; Fighters pull ahead at lvl9 (+1APR) and then both gain another half attack @ lvl13:
Ftr = 3.5
Pal = 2.5
Add an Action item for another attack (+1) each but add a second and the Ftr caps out APR while the Pal fully benefits:
Ftr = 5
Pal = 4.5
The Paladin also gains 5th Power spells @ lvl22 and can then cast Righteous Wrath of the Faithful for an additional attack (in addition to some nice defensive modifiers). Either capping out APR as well or permitting use of a superior weapon.
Going back to compare the overall validity of both shows no difference between them for lvl1&2. Level3-8 the Ftr is slightly better at melee, but Pal become immune to fear at lvl3 and get their 1st Power spells at lvl6. Ftr9 is a big jump in melee power, but Pal10 brings 2nd Power spells permitting melee buffing with DUHM (+3 STR/DEX/CON) and improves the Pal's Armour of Faith increasing his defences and thus making the Pal far more survivable.
Pal12 increases DUHM to +4 and brings 3rd Power spells (Prayer/Moonblade/etc). Pal15 brings 4th Power spells (Recitation), AoF increases again to 20% resistance and DUHM bumps up to +5! Pal18 & 20 see incremental improvements to the Paladin's spells with Pal22 granting access to 5th Power as previously discussed. The 5th Power Righteous Magic ensures every successful hit does max damage and combined with DUHM maxes out the Paladin's STR at 25 for +7tohit & +14damage: a fairly substantial increase of ~+5tohit & ~+10damage... the Ftr's Grandmastery grants +2tohit & +3damage over the Pal's Specialization.
Now the Ftr achieves lvl13 first and pulls a level ahead to 14 when the Pal reaches 13; the Ftr increases this lead to two at lvl20 (Pal18) and finally three at lvl26 (Pal23); however the Fighter caps out at lvl30 before increasing the lead to four and from that point on the Paladin is catching up and gains 6th Power spells at Pal29 just before achieving the same level30 that the Ftr already has. Pal30 brings a final 5th Power spell permitting Shield of Lathander for damage immunity.
In addition while the Paladin has sole access to arguably the best weapon in the game, the Fighter can take advantage of all the other better weapon types; however, the Ftr must focus on only a few specific types in order to achieve Grandmastery (14 total pips = just 2 grandmasteries) while the Pal must spread around his pips (7 specializations).
Obviously the Ftr will on average do better at melee; however, the Pal is certainly more survivable and will surpass the Ftr when fully buffed. One good a many things and another better at specific things is the epitome of balance!
Ignoring that the Berserker => Cleric pales in comparison to the Kensai => Mage, and that the initial debate was Paladin vs F/C multi, for the same 6.6million XP necessary for Pal30 one can build a Ber13/Clr30 (Ber14 actually, but I am skeptical that the single HP is worth the effort). In this case, the dual has slightly worse THAC0 and reduced HP but significantly improved spell casting. The Pal has better saves and some immunities, but has lost his defensive and survivability advantages. The dual at least equals and often exceeds the Pal in buffage: surpassing the Pal in melee while being far more survivable as well. However, the Cleric weapon restrictions limit the dual to decidedly inferior weapons across the board.
Nevertheless, given that the Berserker => Cleric dual meets or betters the Paladin in most metrics, develops faster and is far more versatile for the disadvantage of worse weapons and having some build 'downtime' while regaining levels it is clear that the dual is in general a better option.
I've also gone with multi for my first HoF, and it went alright. But I do have a feeling that duals could improve on things, the Berserker->Cleric one in particular. Since you're already overloading on buffs, THAC0 is a minor concern - but having the most powerful spells available earlier is a very real consideration, as is a higher Turn Undead level. HoF, while demanding, also provides enough experience to make dual-classing at least theoretically viable. I am going to test this out in detail in my next run, with a Berserker->Cleric and also a Swashbuckler->Fighter. The all-time BG favorite Kensai->Mage seems like an underdog in IWD for various reasons, but maybe I'll give it a try some time, too. The lack of scrolls you mentioned really does hurt any non-Sorcerer arcane caster...
And I don't get the whole pala wot based on the point fighter vs pally.
Make it Bers 9>cleric vs pally and there is NO chance a stupid pally is better at any given time, no matter if trash or bosses.
And about power gaming: no, it's not like you have to just consider top fight in a min/max set up IF they are easy and 0.001% of the contest, you must consider trash has main problem and bosses has a secondary point, since you will play them let's say 30 min in a whole run. That it's min/max, always play the best set up METAGAMING what you will encounter and this game is different from bg since trash>bosses all the time.
The original question was Pal or a F/C multi, then it was Pal vs Ftr and finally it was Pal vs Ber/Clr dual. We are not picking these - they are getting thrown out in the thread. Laugh, actually the Paladin would be significantly better from Cleric1 through Cleric10. Probably be roughly equally at Cleric10, and then the Pal would start falling behind at Clr11. From that point on certainly the dual is better as the Cleric levels faster and gains spells (both slots & power) quicker. However, the Ber9 gave up 0.5 APR compared to the Ber13, letting the Pal close a bit of the melee gap. By definition one does not consider trash - THAT is metagaming. You build the party for the most difficult fights, regardless of what those may be. Of course within this paradigm any other considerations must be placed: to wit, party composition works out very differently if you are not resting (for whatever reason).
In HoF in particular there are certainly many many "trash" packs that are more challenging than boss fights. I mentioned Yxunomei earlier because it was such a disappointment, and definitely miles easier than, say, the 20+ Cold Wights right upon zone entry I faced earlier in the same dungeon. The same is true for basically every "boss" fight except for Icasaracht and Belhifet - and of course, those "trash" mobs do make up the vast, VAST majority of the game, too. I do not think it unreasonable to focus powergaming efforts on them, quite the contrary. That is not to say I would discount the bosses, not at all; but they are certainly not the prime target of party design.
Note that the focus of any powergaming discussion is inherently linked to the nature of the game in question. In IWD, trash is more important than in say, BG2. In other games it may be thoroughly unimportant, and bosses may be the overwhelming, almost exclusive factor to consider (like say, Final Fantasy 10 where all that matters are the superbosses at post-game).