You can't design your rules about OP loot that was originally intended as a pre-order bonus.
At the moment you can't reach physical immunity (except with a FMC and the steps I mentioned). A dwarven defender can have: Innate: 20% Defensive Stance: 50% Defender of Easthaven: 20% against melee Belt of inertial barrier: 25% against ranged
Overall, that's 90% (95% against ranged) physical damage resistance. Defensive Stance and Hardiness won't stack, for obvious reasons. You might push for 5 more % with cloak of atonement but that's it.
Shadowdancers can reach 110% with the Shadow Form HLA, giving 50% damage reduction, which stacks with Hardiness and DoE. Obviously a really late game oriented build but it can already be done without any exploit
Shadowdancers can reach 110% with the Shadow Form HLA, giving 50% damage reduction, which stacks with Hardiness and DoE. Obviously a really late game oriented build but it can already be done without any exploit
Yup I just thought about it and made the test this morning, it works indeed (though physical resistance appears to hardcap at 100 anyway, meaning you can't heal even if you should have more than 100).
If it bothers people so much, a simple change would be to hardcap physical resistance to 95%, but many late game enemies can do elemental damage anyway.
That's actually not a change. They couldn't dual before, either. However, it stands to reason that them being a kit should make it more logical to allow them to dual. If they cannot dual, it should at least be included in the kit as a downside.
I wonder, since the Barbarian was already in the base game (for BG2 at least), would that prevent the devs from making such alterations as allowing the Barbarian to dualclass?
Just because something can be modded, doesn't mean it cannot be 'fixed' in the base game.
With a change like this, I don't see how someone can be annoyed over the option of dual-class existing. Unless of course it would lead to certain trouble down the road, but since it's a Fighter kit, and Fighters can already dualclass just fine, I doubt that's true.
If we wanted to be really true to 2E Rules, any class could dual to any other class. Case in Point, go play Unlimited Adventures or the Pools series. You could easily have a Paladin/Ranger, or a Paladin/Fighter or a Ranger/Thief. In fact, success usually meant dual cheesing your fighters, paladins or rangers into a mage or priest anyway at some point. Stat and alignment restrictictions still applied.
If we wanted to be really true to 2E Rules, any class could dual to any other class. Case in Point, go play Unlimited Adventures or the Pools series. You could easily have a Paladin/Ranger, or a Paladin/Fighter or a Ranger/Thief. In fact, success usually meant dual cheesing your fighters, paladins or rangers into a mage or priest anyway at some point. Stat and alignment restrictictions still applied.
That would, granted, require a ton of code.
If we wanted to be really true to 2E rules, the barbarian's special benefit should be a +3 reaction adjustment bonus in certain situations. No rage. No damage resistance. No bonus movement rate. No d12 hit die. Just a reaction bonus when the reaction roll is already positive (and a -3 penalty when the reaction roll is already negative). On the plus side, they can wear any armor.
I don't think that change would go over very well.
If we wanted to be really true to 2E Rules, any class could dual to any other class. Case in Point, go play Unlimited Adventures or the Pools series. You could easily have a Paladin/Ranger, or a Paladin/Fighter or a Ranger/Thief. In fact, success usually meant dual cheesing your fighters, paladins or rangers into a mage or priest anyway at some point. Stat and alignment restrictictions still applied.
That would, granted, require a ton of code.
There is no such as "true to 2e," when it comes to rules, because 2e is all about giving power, control, and ultimate freedom to the DM. In this case, the DM is Baldurs Gate.
That being said, anything can be changed, but changing it just to be more in keeping with 2e is subjective and limiting.
Berserker gets 5 pips in weapon choice, wears heavy armor, and has, arguably, just as good enrage as barbarians, and they can dual class. Is 2 extra hp really that op, that disallows barbarians to dual class. IMHO I don't think it does.
At top level that's just 60 extra hp at most versus berserkers better ac.
I am not talking about HLA that I know will be mentioned such as thief UAI.
Now I bought and played every incarnation of this game, but I don't claim to know down to the nth degree what gives most dps, ac, spell damage, and all the other metagame knowledge that some of the forum members have. But I just play to escape the every day grind of rl.
And dammit I want to legitimately dual class my barbarian.
1)
If you were playing the PnP game would you ever agree to a different rule than what is written in the DM's guide? Of course you would - the DM's Guide literally says "use different rules whenever you feel like it."
Well, a mod is exactly that: the player (you) and the DM (the software) mutually agreeing for the sake of increased satisfaction to change some of the rules or content of the game. Again, Dungeons & Dragons literally says you should do this. Therefore there is nothing at all illegitimate about using mods to make the game the way you think it should be.
If you were playing the PnP game would you ever agree to a different rule than what is written in the DM's guide? Of course you would - the DM's Guide literally says "use different rules whenever you feel like it."
Well, a mod is exactly that: the player (you) and the DM (the software) mutually agreeing for the sake of increased satisfaction to change some of the rules or content of the game. Again, Dungeons & Dragons literally says you should do this. Therefore there is nothing at all illegitimate about using mods to make the game the way you think it should be.
I couldn't believe Irenicus left a bag of holding with 100000 gold in that dungeon. What was I going to do, just leave it for some stupid kobold to pick up? (Especially since it mine to begin with.)
It's just 18 more HP. Remember you only roll the first 9 hit dices as a Fighter.
Having 138 HP instead of 120 barely change anything. 298 instead of 280 is only cosmetic.
My opinion is that Barbarians were prevented to dual class because they could reach 100%+ Physical Damage Resistances if you dual one into Cleric.
> @Ithual said: > I don't see any problem in barbarians now being a kit. > > All classes fit under the 4 headings: Warrior, Priest, Rogue & Wizard > > The class itself is unchanged so won't effect your game in anyway. > > > > > > The sole change is that a fighter kit can dual, while Barbarian cannot dual at the moment. > > > > Dwarven Defender is also a fighter class that cannot dual. So having Barbarian as a kit that cannot dual is also not out of the ordinary. > > This change is minor, is just cosmetic. The barbarian class is the same as its ever been, it is just in a different sub-heading. > > There really shouldn't be a problem when Beamdog have so much more important things to be fixing.
It's not a "fighter kit that cannot dual" but a fighter kit restricted to dwarf and dwarves cannot dual. Barbarian can be human, and human fighters, even kit, can dual. If the barbarian kit is not supposed to dual it should be written in the description, else it should be able to dual
Is there a problem with using a mod for this? Nothing has changed. It's just organized differently. Barbarians were always fighter kits. I fail to see why the simple act of changing how the class is selected during character creation now means that it must be required to edit:be allowed to dual-class. Rangers can dual, but not all of the ranger kits can.
If you want to dual your barbarian, use this mod. It is one of the most stable and tested mods for BG.
Comments
You can't design your rules about OP loot that was originally intended as a pre-order bonus.
Innate: 20%
Defensive Stance: 50%
Defender of Easthaven: 20% against melee
Belt of inertial barrier: 25% against ranged
Overall, that's 90% (95% against ranged) physical damage resistance. Defensive Stance and Hardiness won't stack, for obvious reasons. You might push for 5 more % with cloak of atonement but that's it.
Obviously a really late game oriented build but it can already be done without any exploit
All classes fit under the 4 headings: Warrior, Priest, Rogue & Wizard
The class itself is unchanged so won't effect your game in anyway.
I wonder, since the Barbarian was already in the base game (for BG2 at least), would that prevent the devs from making such alterations as allowing the Barbarian to dualclass?
With a change like this, I don't see how someone can be annoyed over the option of dual-class existing. Unless of course it would lead to certain trouble down the road, but since it's a Fighter kit, and Fighters can already dualclass just fine, I doubt that's true.
This change is minor, is just cosmetic. The barbarian class is the same as its ever been, it is just in a different sub-heading.
There really shouldn't be a problem when Beamdog have so much more important things to be fixing.
As long as "Unable to Dualclass" is clearly labeled as one of the kit's drawbacks, all should be well.
That would, granted, require a ton of code.
If we wanted to be really true to 2E rules, the barbarian's special benefit should be a +3 reaction adjustment bonus in certain situations. No rage. No damage resistance. No bonus movement rate. No d12 hit die. Just a reaction bonus when the reaction roll is already positive (and a -3 penalty when the reaction roll is already negative). On the plus side, they can wear any armor.
I don't think that change would go over very well.
There is no such as "true to 2e," when it comes to rules, because 2e is all about giving power, control, and ultimate freedom to the DM. In this case, the DM is Baldurs Gate.
That being said, anything can be changed, but changing it just to be more in keeping with 2e is subjective and limiting.
At top level that's just 60 extra hp at most versus berserkers better ac.
I am not talking about HLA that I know will be mentioned such as thief UAI.
Now I bought and played every incarnation of this game, but I don't claim to know down to the nth degree what gives most dps, ac, spell damage, and all the other metagame knowledge that some of the forum members have. But I just play to escape the every day grind of rl.
And dammit I want to legitimately dual class my barbarian.
^^ I second this a million times.
I couldn't believe Irenicus left a bag of holding with 100000 gold in that dungeon. What was I going to do, just leave it for some stupid kobold to pick up?
Having 138 HP instead of 120 barely change anything. 298 instead of 280 is only cosmetic.
My opinion is that Barbarians were prevented to dual class because they could reach 100%+ Physical Damage Resistances if you dual one into Cleric.
> I don't see any problem in barbarians now being a kit.
>
> All classes fit under the 4 headings: Warrior, Priest, Rogue & Wizard
>
> The class itself is unchanged so won't effect your game in anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> The sole change is that a fighter kit can dual, while Barbarian cannot dual at the moment.
>
>
>
> Dwarven Defender is also a fighter class that cannot dual. So having Barbarian as a kit that cannot dual is also not out of the ordinary.
>
> This change is minor, is just cosmetic. The barbarian class is the same as its ever been, it is just in a different sub-heading.
>
> There really shouldn't be a problem when Beamdog have so much more important things to be fixing.
It's not a "fighter kit that cannot dual" but a fighter kit restricted to dwarf and dwarves cannot dual.
Barbarian can be human, and human fighters, even kit, can dual. If the barbarian kit is not supposed to dual it should be written in the description, else it should be able to dual
If you want to dual your barbarian, use this mod. It is one of the most stable and tested mods for BG.
http://www.gibberlings3.net/bg2tweaks/