Skip to content

Kits for NPCs

2

Comments

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    1° -I believe that special NPCs shoud get locked kits that cover their background. Make Tiax get a priest of cyric kit to his half priest class, minsc a ranger of Rasheman (if is this), edwin a red wizard.

    2° - A change in Coran to a proper class, as ranger (archer if possible)... but that would be to lame.

    3° - And pretty much as Planescape: Torment, faction bonus/penalities would fit well in the game to some characters, as Jaheira and Khalid (as harper faction), Edwin (Red Wizard Faction), Xzar/Montaron (Zhentarim faction), Faldorn (shadow druid faction). I give those as examples, but the idea is change those characters from a main player created with the same stats in the game. Except for edwin, none there have real good status, so a faction bonus would fit well.
    noober
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    edited June 2012
    Jaheira does have a faction bonus (though its only relevant for BG2). She gets that special raise dead spell from being a Harper as well as that unique item in BG2.
  • LuneverLunever Member Posts: 307
    @elminster: If I remember correctly this isn't part of Tutu, it is a separate mod.
  • GrogGrog Member Posts: 3
    edited July 2012
    I heard the BG2 classes are available for BG1.
    Than it makes sense to use this classes.

    I think the archer class (subclass of ranger) suits Kivan better than a simple ranger class.

    Maybe such kind of changes makes also sense for other NPCs.
  • BoasterBoaster Member Posts: 622
    Would be useful.
  • TiggrrTiggrr Member Posts: 25
    I suggest using the kits with as many joinable NPCs as feasible. Safana could be a swashbuckler, for example. For each of them, it could be another point of difference.
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    Agreed, makes complete sense with regards to the character. Appropriate kits for all!
  • TiggrrTiggrr Member Posts: 25
    Kivan might have OK strength, but his CON makes him a very fragile front-line fighter. Very suitable for an archer.
  • MooseChangerPatMooseChangerPat Member Posts: 148
    I agree that overusing the kits would probably be unwise, and that it should for the most part only be used where they would make sense. However I'm also inclined to agree that Kivan makes a lot more sense as an Archer ranger than any other kind. That's just my personal opinion though.
    Fluid29Dragonspear
  • XenonXenon Member Posts: 13
    Good idea. Sounds great.
  • The_New_RomanceThe_New_Romance Member Posts: 839

    I agree that overusing the kits would probably be unwise, and that it should for the most part only be used where they would make sense. However I'm also inclined to agree that Kivan makes a lot more sense as an Archer ranger than any other kind. That's just my personal opinion though.

    If I explicitly had to chose between kits for Kivan, Archer would surely be the best option - but then again, why not leave him as a versatile vanilla Ranger? There is no obligation to choose only from kits.
  • CrawleyCrawley Member Posts: 74
    edited July 2012
    Winthal said:

    As for Ajantis, he is described as a squire - a knight in training - in his biography. A cavalier would be a highly skilled and experienced paladin trained to fight demons and dragons, which Ajantis simply isn't when we meet him, so the kit makes no sense.

    That's why I feel really bad about starting with kits when it comes to the Player Character. In BG2 they made a lot of sense as you were starting as an experienced adventurer that might have gained some non-standard skills. When you start with a kit from lv 1, something feels very wrong to me. Sometimes you are much overpowered, but most of the time it just does not fit. Starting as a paladin or a druid in Candlekeep makes very little sense, so how would you become a cavalier or demon hunter? How would you explain being a a beastmaster or an assasin? How come you are cleric of Talos when there was only a temple of Oghma in Candlekeep and you haven't left its walls for your entire life? Additional classes like monk or barbarian also pose such questions.
    For that reason I'd rather see kits as prestige classes / some sorts of HLAs (HLAs should be revamped and brought to a lower level, neared feats from DD 3ed). I know kits are fun in terms of power gaming and I really enjoyed them, but in terms of role-playing they don't make much sense when not applied to NPCs (where it should be made with both taste and sense).

    BTW, if we are discussing classes and kits as such - I would warmly welcome character progression beyond LV 20 (or whatever it is) that would not involve HLAs (which in fact are very generic). I remember my disappointment when my bard stopped getting thac0 improvements after some lv. It's just that on one hand I just feel as if my character does not develop after reaching certain lv (especially since they don't matter that much in TOB as in SoA), and on the other HLAs make my characters feel so generic (fighters, spellcasters and rogues feel so the-same).

    Sorry for going a bit off-topic :)
    ConphantusThe_New_RomanceGrandeC
  • pacekpacek Member Posts: 92
  • FrozenCellsFrozenCells Member Posts: 385
    Have to say, I always liked Kivan as a Stalker...
  • WinthalWinthal Member Posts: 366

    Have to say, I always liked Kivan as a Stalker...

    @FrozenCells This - at least - makes as much sense as making him an archer. When we find Kivan, he is hunting/tracking the ogre Tazok who killed his wife so a stalker class fits pretty well (problem is the kit description also mentions rural familiarity and working as a spy/intelligence gatherer, I'm pretty sure Kivan complains while inside cities). I guess it depends on how you interpret the kit/class.

    jalden
  • ScooterScooter Member Posts: 182
    @Tanthalas may want to merge this thread with @Pacek ’s previously mentioned thread
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    edited July 2012
    Thanks

    Merged the threads.
  • WinthalWinthal Member Posts: 366
    The more I think about this, the more it makes sense to me if the "kits" would actually work like a level up milestone of sorts, completely optional of course. Let's say that every class gets to choose between pursuing a particular kit at level 8-9 (slightly higher for thieves and bards), or they could choose to remain vanilla and continue to level up as normal. This would make alot more sense than starting out as something so specialized...
    CrawleyThe_New_RomanceRushAndAPush
  • CrawleyCrawley Member Posts: 74
    edited July 2012
    I'm totally after the milestone, but would go a bit lower with the lv requirement. 7lv chars are actually pretty experienced, its just BG2 which made us think of them as weak. I think that lv 5-6 would be best, maybe even lv 4.

    On the other hand I'd gladly have kits as a kind of semi-quest reward, where getting specialized is actually a result of getting a master.
    It'd also let you go specialised in a second class or while being a multi class!
    The_New_Romance
  • ElectricMonkElectricMonk Member Posts: 599
    Winthal said:

    Have to say, I always liked Kivan as a Stalker...

    @FrozenCells This - at least - makes as much sense as making him an archer. When we find Kivan, he is hunting/tracking the ogre Tazok who killed his wife so a stalker class fits pretty well (problem is the kit description also mentions rural familiarity and working as a spy/intelligence gatherer, I'm pretty sure Kivan complains while inside cities). I guess it depends on how you interpret the kit/class.

    This is one of the main disadvantages of this idea: everyone has a different idea of "If I could pick the classes/kits of all the NPCs, what would they be..." There may be some particular ideas that seem to be popular on this thread, but it's hardly an appropriate sample to make a change like this. As for me, I'd kind of like to see Minsc as a Berserker, and there are a few people that will agree with me on this, but probably just as many or more that strongly disagree. I agree with a few of those mentioned so far, but I also disagree with some that others have agreed with it just seems impossible to come to an agreement that everyone can stand by for the most part.

    Then again, if used sparingly, I'm sure that a couple of changes could be implemented without ruffling any feathers (and possibly add to the experience for a lot of players). I would just strongly agree with those that have suggested caution in this area, the over-saturation of kits would definitely take something away from the game for me, and I'm sure others as well (pure classes are classes too!).
    Winthal
  • AranneasAranneas Member Posts: 282
    Why has no-one made the obvious suggestion of switching Minsc from an illegal ranger to a much more suitable Barbarian? :D
  • shout27shout27 Member Posts: 89
    Meh, I'd prefer to have Imoen as the Swashbuckler, especially if the PC is a fighter of some type. . .
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    The fear of oblivion to vanilla classes is unfair when we talk about NPCs kits, in fact Kits make a lot more sense with NPCs than with the main char.

    In my view, at each new game the kits shoud be locked and only through quests ingame the main char would be able to reach those kits. In fact the own NPCs that join the party (but maybe not all of them) should be able to be good teachers (pretty much like dragon age: origins, but no unlock of the kit to other new games). Exception here to mage specialist only, cos it's not a kit in fact but more a choice.

    Some kits could be only reachable in BG2 for example.

    But my main request is in fact special kits to NPCs as i described before to make them unique or at least a faction signature on those characters to differ them from a normal made NPC.

  • pacekpacek Member Posts: 92
    Aranneas said:

    Why has no-one made the obvious suggestion of switching Minsc from an illegal ranger to a much more suitable Barbarian? :D

    If Minsc were a barbarian, it would make no sense to hear his cry: "Full plate and packing steel!" Aside from the Intellectual deficiencies (which are explained in-game as he's taken too many blows to the head), he actually fits a ranger role quite well. Affinity with animals (boo), protector of travellers (Dynaheir's bodyguard). Then there is always the fact that he remained a ranger in BG2, when the barbarian class became available.

    FillaFillasong314Scooterlolien
  • pacekpacek Member Posts: 92
    shout27 said:

    Meh, I'd prefer to have Imoen as the Swashbuckler, especially if the PC is a fighter of some type. . .

    Like Minsc, she remained true-class in BG2 so I think it would cause continuity issues. And Safana surely maes a better candidate.
    lolien
  • AranneasAranneas Member Posts: 282
    pacek said:

    Aranneas said:

    Why has no-one made the obvious suggestion of switching Minsc from an illegal ranger to a much more suitable Barbarian? :D

    If Minsc were a barbarian, it would make no sense to hear his cry: "Full plate and packing steel!" Aside from the Intellectual deficiencies (which are explained in-game as he's taken too many blows to the head), he actually fits a ranger role quite well. Affinity with animals (boo), protector of travellers (Dynaheir's bodyguard). Then there is always the fact that he remained a ranger in BG2, when the barbarian class became available.

    Well they made the decision not to change anyone's class from the original. The only one they chose to change at all was Imoen, and to a class that existed in the original already.

    Barbarans are also a 'primal' class of character, though they don't have the same features for it that Rangers do. And if you go to the first source that includes Barbarians, 3rd edition, Rangers don't have heavy armor proficiency any more than they do. The 'bodyguard' part does fit well for a ranger, but it works just as well for a barbarian because it's a feature of his cultural background and his personal story, not a class feature.

    As far as I'm concerned, taking too many blows to the head doesn't excuse him from his class's requirements, either. If we're going by the 2e/2.5 ruleset that rules the BG universe, Minsc [i]had[/i] to have those stats to become a ranger in the first places. In most cases, when you no longer meet the requirements of a class you're no longer able to advance in it. At that point Minsc should probably have become an unkitted fighter (seeing as he never actually went through the disgrace of a proper fall). Barbarian is a far better fit, however.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    Like someone already mentioned, Boo provides the Wisdom for Minsc's abilities.
    The_New_Romancemch202CrawleyDragonspear
  • pacekpacek Member Posts: 92
    I like to think of Minsc as a flawed Ranger, for sure I don't think he should be able to cast spells with his terrible wisdom (maybe could be a request?) but he's still a ranger, and that ain't gonna change in an unmodded game (or unless Devs make a lvl1NPCs style option). Besides, this thread is about assigning kits to unkitted NPCs, not wholesale changes of class (which I'm sure have zilch chance of being implemented).
    lolien
  • gesellegeselle Member Posts: 325
    Shar-Teel going for Berserker; Safana for swashbuckler: Faldorn for Avenger; Don't think anyone else requires a kit (lore-wise)
Sign In or Register to comment.