Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

IWD2

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

DJKajuruButtercheese

Comments

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,287
    I agree, it gives you the opportunity to equip fighter mages with chain mail with little penalties, since there are feats that decrease spell failure.

  • lunarlunar Member Posts: 3,424
    edited March 2015
    A dedicated mage wouldn't touch the chainmail or swords anyway. To equip them without penalties, and to dual wield martial weapons, a mage has to sacrifice a lot of feats and/or gain a fighter/ranger lvl, which would weaken his spell casting power considerably in 3e. A pure mage that puts all his şevels into his profession, and his feats to magey feats like spell focus and penetration would be the better caster.

    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)

  • BladesBlades Member Posts: 167
    lunar said:

    A dedicated mage wouldn't touch the chainmail or swords anyway. To equip them without penalties, and to dual wield martial weapons, a mage has to sacrifice a lot of feats and/or gain a fighter/ranger lvl, which would weaken his spell casting power considerably in 3e. A pure mage that puts all his şevels into his profession, and his feats to magey feats like spell focus and penetration would be the better caster.

    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)

    3e was made for tabletop RPing, not computer power gaming. RPers love the idea of a Mage with a magic sword. 2e MCing was overpowered imo.


    Buttercheese
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,287
    @lunar , I understand that a multiclass of even levels makes mages weak and ineffective on the longer road. However, when you invest one or two levels in another class and the rest on spellcasting, then you've got yourself new tactics, such as a monk/ mage with armor bonuses, a fighter/mage who can wear light armor and ranged weapons ,a thief/ mage who has evasion...

    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 .

    lunar
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,829
    The 2E and 3E systems are both silly. We should have a system like in the Elder Scrolls, where everyone can be perfect at everything and you increase your skills by sitting in a bar and casting the same 4-magicka spell over and over until you can summon Liches.

    Delvarianjackjack
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    Man, my Skyrim character soul-trapped that one dead goat so many times...

    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.

    lunar
  • lunarlunar Member Posts: 3,424
    DJKajuru said:

    @lunar , I understand that a multiclass of even levels makes mages weak and ineffective on the longer road. However, when you invest one or two levels in another class and the rest on spellcasting, then you've got yourself new tactics, such as a monk/ mage with armor bonuses, a fighter/mage who can wear light armor and ranged weapons ,a thief/ mage who has evasion...

    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 .

    I see, indeed. If the character was pure cleric, at this point he would have been cleric9 and thus able to raise dead. Now he can't , but he has evasion (I think) and a good unarmored ac thanks to wisdom. Which is superiour, is open to debate and depends on the needs of the campaign. Evasion and good ac can not help when you need a raise dead spell. The reverse is also true, though.
    Jarrakul said:

    Man, my Skyrim character soul-trapped that one dead goat so many times...

    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.

    DJKajuru
  • BladesBlades Member Posts: 167
    edited March 2015
    3rd edition was made for customization. You cant compare levels from each edition as equivants. Each system has the XP dynamic is completely different. Knowing this, then of course a 9/9 FM from 2nd edition will be overpowered when comparing to a level 9 or 10 3rd edition character.

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    edited March 2015
    Blades said:

    3rd edition was made for customization. You cant compare levels from each edition as equivants. Each system has the XP dynamic is completely different. Knowing this, then of course a 9/9 FM from 2nd edition will be overpowered when comparing to a level 9 or 10 3rd edition character.

    I don't think the comparison is to the equivalent 3rd edition character. I think the comparison is to the equivalent 2nd edition character. A 2nd edition character with 500k experience could be a fighter/mage 9/10, a fighter 10, or a mage 11. The problem is, odds are good the fighter/mage is gonna wipe the floor with either of the other two. That's what people mean when they say multiclass in 2E is overpowered.

    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.

    lunar
  • DelvarianDelvarian Member Posts: 1,232
    I just want my shorty bard!

    VallmyrButtercheese
  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,438
    Delvarian said:

    I just want my shorty bard!

    This! Piro works as an Illusionist Thief for IWD:EE and BG:EE but she's truly a Gnome Bard :(

  • DelvarianDelvarian Member Posts: 1,232
    Vallmyr said:

    Delvarian said:

    I just want my shorty bard!

    This! Piro works as an Illusionist Thief for IWD:EE and BG:EE but she's truly a Gnome Bard :(
    Kind of scary how much we both love shorties.

    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!

    Vallmyr
  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,438
    Delvarian said:

    Vallmyr said:

    Delvarian said:

    I just want my shorty bard!

    This! Piro works as an Illusionist Thief for IWD:EE and BG:EE but she's truly a Gnome Bard :(
    Kind of scary how much we both love shorties.

    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!
    I have The Complete Book of Necromancers and it explains that Drow can be Necromancer Wizards. Though, in the complete book of wizards (I think that's what it's called. I don't own many 2e books) it says only humans have the energy to use Necromantic Wizard spells.

    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 @[email protected]. 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.

    DelvarianJarrakul
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    I totally agree with you folks about race/class restrictions. I may like the way 2E does multiclassing, but 3E's lack of class restrictions in definitely the way to go. If you're going to say a race can't be a class, you have to have a very strong lore reason why it *never* happens, and it needs to be consistently relevant. Otherwise, as a game designer, you're restricting player freedom because you think some combinations are weird, and that's just not your all to make.

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,287
    edited March 2015
    It is fruitless to discuss about the limitations of 2E because they've already made a third edition that sought to correct what people didn't really like about the previous one. I don't think it's illegal to change something that had already been officially corrected.

    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.

  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    DJKajuru said:

    It is fruitless to discuss about the limitations of 2E because they've already made a third edition that sought to correct what people didn't really like about the previous one.

    Hm. It would be difficult for me to disagree with this more strongly than I do. WotC did indeed make a 3rd edition, and 4th and a 5th. All of these are intended as improvements on what came before, and by the nature of such things, none of them has been 100% successful. I'm a big fan of the later editions (particularly 3rd and 5th), but they aren't perfect. They aren't even better than their predecessors in every way. Because of this, it is extremely useful to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of earlier editions, not just the most recent ones, so that we can take the good ideas, identify the bad, and make something better (or provide useful information for other people, if we don't make games ourselves). That's the opposite of fruitless.

    DJKajuru
  • DelvarianDelvarian Member Posts: 1,232
    Would it be possible in BG and BG2 to remove the race/class restrictions? Or is it hard coded? (Pretends to know what that means)

  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,438
    Delvarian said:

    Would it be possible in BG and BG2 to remove the race/class restrictions? Or is it hard coded? (Pretends to know what that means)

    BG2 tweaks is a mod that removes them. I think the only thing that won't work is dwarvern paladin because of the negative in cha >_>

    JuliusBorisovDelvarian
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Multi-classing in 3.x varies from incredibly good to really awful, depending on how good you are at planning things out, and obviously, how much material you have to work with. Not having Prestige Classes is sucky, and the limited range of feats greatly reduces the value of being a Fighter after level 4, and there is no way some skill points are calculated correctly. A human rogue with 13 intelligence should be getting 10 skill points, meaning even a multi-classed rogue can easily handle thievery.

    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. ;) The 1 damage can be handy vs enemies that are very resiliant. Hamstring can make hit and fade much more useful too, though Arterial Strike is cooler.

    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!

Sign In or Register to comment.