IWD2
Rajick
Member Posts: 207
so I personally love the customization in iwd2 I thought it was awesome that I could make a mage who used chain mail with duel wielded swords and yeah I'd suffer a spell failure % but I could totally do it. And all the races. So yeah this is just a post about how I loved that system. Bye
2
Comments
That's my gripe with the 3e, you can do some class-dipping, gaining a level or two in one class, to gain the maximum benefits. Dipping a level to fighter or ranger will net you all the martial weapons and armor feats, and dual wielding in case of rangers. Dipping a few lvls to rogue or a monk is nice for evasion, tons of skills, and saving throw bonuses. The classes lose their special charn as any character, with some planning, can learn those tricks.
This does not work well with spellcasting classes as you lose spell levels which hinder the character a lot. Especially, a cleric/mage proper multi class is very useless and weak in iwd2, in bg1, c/m is one levels behind the pure classes and thus is very viable. In iwd2, a pure lvl 10 cleric or lvl 10 mage is far, far more powerful than the equal mc hybrid:a lvl 5 cleric/lvl 5 mage who still fiddles around with lowly lvl 3 spells. To alleviate this, at least in pnp, mystic theurge prestige kit tries hard, but ultimately is not very succesful. (And oh, don't get me started on prestige class shenenigans)
Actually, the ideal level for multiclassing should be gaining an extra level on your secondary class between every 4 or 5 levels of your primary class. For example, I made my character a cleric monk:
level 1 - cleric
level 2 - cleric 1/ monk 1
level 3,4,5 - cleric 4/ monk 1
level 6 - cleric 4/ monk 2
levels 7,8,9 - cleric 7/ monk 2
You see, there is a limitation in his spellcasting, but he makes up for his other skills .
If you want my opinion, multiclassing was overpowered in 2E, but it basically worked. Multiclassing in 3E really doesn't. It's either a 1-2 level "dip" to get a specific ability, or it's a full split that either yields very little change from the single class (warrior/warrior types) or a tremendously underpowered character (warrior/caster types, for example). The only real exception to this is warrior/rogue types, which unfortunately end up underpowered for other reasons.
While we're on the subject, people talk about how roleplayers should be willing to sacrifice power for character concept. I agree with this entirely from the player perspective. But when we're talking about systems, we're really having a very different discussion. We're talking about what a system should and should not do. And a system shouldn't punish a player for roleplaying a reasonable concept. Given that D&D is a very general system, and the warrior/mage archetype is a common fantasy archetype, D&D should really support that character concept better than 3E does.
I agree. And 2e does f/m well with mc, dual classes are even more formidable, kensai/mage is the pinnacle of fighter/mage figure IMHO.
Doing a similar comparison within 3rd edition, a 10th level character could be a fighter/mage 5/5, a fighter 10, or a mage 10. The fighter/mage is going to get stomped on by both single-classed characters (unless he's *very* creative, in which case he might beat the fighter, but that speaks to other problems within the system). That's what I, personally, mean when I say warrior/caster multiclass in 3E is underpowered.
The one thing I like IWD2 over the others about is that it lacks the race/class restrictions. I always thought it unfair in 2E that the player couldn't be an Elf bard or a Dwarven mage, but the literature broke the rules all the time! I'm looking at you R.A. Salvatore!
Probably an oversight of sorts, though if they're going to give me a lore reason I want it to be consistent. It also explains that Elves aren't Necromancers in The Complete Book of Necromancers is because that they live so long they don't think about or are interested in necromancy.
From what I've gathered this mean Elves can indeed be necromancers; it's just arbitrary rules that don't allow them to be as such =/
I don't mind 2e mechanically as Multi-Classing and dual classing is an alright replacement of the feat system and while THAC0 is less than desirable it is workable. The one thing that annoys me hardcore is class/race restrictions.
Some restrictions are fine if the race is compensated for such and it makes sense. One example for a restriction that makes sense is in the Dragon Age universe Dwarves can't be mages because they are highly resistant to magic. They have a pretty nice buff against magical attacks that can make them absolutely not work on them (I think in Origins it was a 1/13th chance of a spell just not affecting them at all).
So that works if you make those kind of explanations but why can't Elves be druids? Why can't Half-Orcs be Blackguards (unless you're Dorn)? Why can't Mazzy be a Paladin despite her God willingly granting her Paladin-like abilities?
/end rant.
I don't like arbitrary that don't have well-written explanations.
Anyway, normally I don't like modding games because I feel like that's not what the developer intended but for D&D based CRPGs I see it as "House rules" which are just as part of the game as the rules in the rulebook and so I mod out race/class restrictions.
Anyway, I went way off subject with my rant @_@. I own IWD2 and I try to go back and play it but the resolution is killer and I'm spoiled by the EE game's resolutions /blech.
In fact , I also sometimes convert certain elements of the game to 3E , such as the attribute bonus system. By using Near Infinity I changed the str, dex and con modifiers to 12-13= +1, 14-15=+2 , 16-17+3 etc ,
because it is a problem from 2E that had already been corrected.
Anyways, as for multiclassed casters, I agree that almost any build that will be casting 100% of the time should be a pure caster, preferably with no LA, as this will be the best. A Paladin/Sorcerer for example is a so-so Fighter if you get your Paladin level out of the way at lvl 1 (you will need maxed CHA, so your other stats will suffer as a warrior, unless you powergame, which will hurt your will save), but by level 10, he has no value as a warrior, and is not going to be much better if at all saving throw wise vs a Monk 2/Cleric X... Now, Cleric Monk does have synergy, as Wisdom does the heavy lifting for both, and for a Cleric of Bane, 1 or 2 levels of Monk are pretty tempting, especially for an imported into HoF party. Wisdom is also an easy stat to boost sky-high, so it has that going for it too, making it slightly more viable than an arcane multi.
Oh, the best AC tanky builds usually require some pretty wonky multi-classing of a Deep Gnome... which sounds about as fun as pulling teeth. Huge level adjustment AND an XP penalty? Just so a lucky SOB can STILL hit you on a crit? *sobs*
Most warriors benefit from 4 levels of Fighter, as do Rogues. Oh, and for the love of all things good and holy, use a Big Bruiser... ideally with either a Two-Handed Sword or Axe. Later maybe a Halberd, if he's evil. But seriously, the game is painful if you don't include such a character, probably with max physical stats. A greatsword deals 2d6 + 7 for a 1st level half-orc Fighter, and 2d6 + 10 for a barbarian. You kinda NEED a bruiser and you kinda need a skilled archery guy, and the rest should be a balanced out with strong casters and a rogue. Clerics are just amazing, Animate Dead is a win button for a pure or nearly pure cleric. So beefy! If you try not using a melee and ranged superman team, you will definately want to use summons and shut-down spells. Sleep is terrible compared to 2nd ed, but its still handy. A warrior Rogue is actually pretty useful, but make sure you get Arterial Strike.... which seems to be bugged, making it extra awesome by costing nothing to use.
Gotta love the option offered with Spell Focus, and how hard you can ultimately make some spells to resist. Nothing like Blinding a boss! Greater Spell Focus in Enchantment is very, very nasty.
IWD2 encounters are not always properly balanced, with some enemies clearly having CR below what the rules dictate. Enemies are generally supposed to get average HP, so an enemy with 40 HP needs a good supply of HD, or a very high constitution. Which should limit strength and dex, especially for mooks. Also, throwing in extra damage from higher difficulties really takes a giant, steaming dump on the balance, moreso than in 2nd Ed, where nobody fires x3 crit arrows. Which can oneshot a 4th lvl warrior, which is bloody awful for balance. Requires you to reload if you lose a guy due to profoundly bad luck. Ugh. Also, most enemies will never miss a concentration check unless you drop a Delayed Blast Fireball on their head, it's downright infuriating at times. I suspect IWD2 did not strictly follow the 3rd ed system of making enemies follow identical rules to you. An archer has almost no hope of ever interrupting anything, even Orc Shaman when you're at lvl 2, which is a bit strange. A lvl 1 caster in IWD can easily have concentration at +10, which means you need to deal 12 or more damage to even have a chance to interrupt, which is a bit unfair. Combat Casting was implemented funny.
Also, game still has serious bugs after patching. Downer!