[Suggestion] ApR Progression for non-Warrior Classes

FrozenCells

Currently, non-warrior classes never receive any increase in their base attack speed. It remains at 1 from Candlekeep to the end of ToB. In BG1 it's not really a problem because warriors only have ½ attack more than non-warriors, so the non-warriors can still provide some kind of a contribution to combat damage. However in BG2, warriors get an extra ½ attack at levels 7 and 13 and, in addition to all their other benefits, become IMO too far ahead of the other classes in close combat scenarios. It's not that Fighters are too strong but that the others are too weak because of this ApR handicap.

It means that, for example, fighter/whatever multiclasses are way more powerful than their straight class counterparts (maybe not fighter/mage over mage, but normal mages wouldn't benefit from an ApR increase much in any case). It also means as a non-warrior, dual wielding and snatching those couple of ApR-increasing weapons in BG2 becomes basically essential. Having to limit your weapon choice to these ApR+ weapons and being forced into putting 2/3 of your rare profiency points into dual-wielding (if your class is allowed...IIRC only swashbucklers can in vanilla? anyway)...well, it sucks. It would be nice to have a wider variety of options.

Something like the 3E rules basing number of attacks on base attack bonus (BG2 equivalent = THAC0) would be nice, e.g.

Warriors get extra ½ attacks at level 7 and 13. At these levels, they hit THAC0 14 and 8 respectively. If other classes received the same boost at these thac0 levels it would translate as:

Fighter = 1.5 attacks at level 7 (64 000xp), 2 attacks at level 13 (1.25mil xp) [paladin and ranger not long afterwards]
Cleric/Druid = 1.5 attacks at level 10 (Cleric needs 450 000 xp, Druid 125 000), 2 attacks at level 19 (C 2.475mil, Druid 1.98 mil)
Bard/Rogue = 1.5 attacks at level 13 (660 000xp), 2 attacks at level 25 (3.3mil)
Mage/Sorcerer = 1.5 attacks at level 19 (3.37mil) only

It's not a massive change at all but I think it would improve the gameplay for those classes noticeably without turning it into a god mode or anything. What do you think?

TJ_Hooker

I kinda like this idea. I really want to try a bard PC for the first time with BGEE but the idea of having 1 APR the entire game is so off-putting, making a fighter/mage or a fighter->mage seem so much more appealing. Same with a single classed cleric that you want to tank with. But on the other hand you'd have to watch out for game balance, as well as taking away something unique to warriors, a group that isn't exactly flush with features to begin with.

At what level other classes would get extra APR would be debatable. The progression you presented seems pretty logical, with the exception that druids, due to their quick leveling, are getting additional APR not long after fighters in terms of XP.

However, at the end of the day this may be the kind of thing better left to mods, as it seems like something that would never reach enough of a consensus to be officially added into the game.

Dee

Eh... There's a reason why the AD&D rules don't allow this, and why Baldur's Gate maintains that rule.

Warrior classes get extra attacks per round because that's literally all they do. Rogue classes are intended to fight "around" the combat, making single attacks at opportune moments to deal massive damage; spellcasters are intended to cast spells and not get involved with direct combat at all.

If you give the warrior's attacks per round to the thief or the mage, you diminish the aspect of the warrior that makes them special.

Zaor

WHAAAAAT? Fighters-types are the best at fighting without buffs?

Communard

I agree with the naysayers, there's little enough reason to play fighters as it is (especially at high levels). I mean there's only this and Grandmastery, and Grandmastery isn't very good in the vanilla game. There is a reason they call 3E "caster edition". If your Cleric wants to train well enough with arms to get multiple attacks per round then he's a Fighter/Cleric. I suppose there is a bit of a problem when it comes to classes that can't multiclass (like Bard). A kit that traded away some Bardic abilities for multiple attacks per round would probably be the solution there. The Blade kind of does that, but in an odd way (martial stance).

kamuizin

High level wizards are overpowered in BG2, thiefs are deadly (worsened by the fact that the engine is broken for enemies backstabs and an enemy will backstab you even by front hit), warriors have few reasons to be picked besides those bonus that you're complaining about.

Brude

However in BG2, warriors get an extra ½ attack at levels 7 and 13 and, in addition to all their other benefits, become IMO too far ahead of the other classes in close combat scenarios. It's not that Fighters are too strong but that the others are too weak because of this ApR handicap.

BG2 also nerfs fighter classes in two ways:

- By decreasing the benefits of High Mastery & Grand Mastery
- By capping their thac0 progression at level 20.

This could, arguably, be viewed as is an indirect buff to other classes. Limited weapon specialization and steady thac0 progression minimizes the pure combat drawbacks of the rogue, for example, over the course of the entire series.

bob_veng

this would be potentially ok only for bards and thieves imho.

1.5 attacks at level 13 and 2 attacks at level 25 doesn't sound like a drastic change.
perhaps 1.5 attacks at level 17 and never to reach 2 attacks