[Suggestion] ApR Progression for non-Warrior Classes

Comments

• TJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438

  October 2012 edited October 2012

  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.

  0
• Dee Member Posts: 10,447

  October 2012

  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.

  6
• Zaor Member Posts: 69

  October 2012

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

  0
• Communard Member Posts: 556

  October 2012

  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).

  1
• kamuizin Member Posts: 3,704

  October 2012

  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.

  0
• Brude Member Posts: 560

  October 2012

  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.

  0
• bob_veng Member Posts: 2,308

  October 2012

  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

  0