This game is very hard.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Nicely said Crucis. It makes you wonder why they didn't balance the classes a little more in the Damgae output department, especially since they made the game combat oriented and included the HoF mode. HoF is all about Damage output and really high ACs. I realize they probably wanted to stick to PnP for the D&D fans, but since your ability to utilize skills is limited, especially for the Ranger and Rogue who thrive with their skill use in PnP, I wonder if they should've tweaked the classes in another way to make them as useful. Maybe by adding another element to the game that was missing, like more feats that they could of utilized, ex. improved two-weapon fighting or two-weapon defense. Or maybe something similar to your Archery changes to the Ranger. Possibly more missle weapon feats as well? Point-blank-shot?

[Proteus_za]

The problem with increasing the nastiness of traps is that it still doesnt necessitate a solo class rogue, unless the DC for those traps was too high for even a wizard with boatloads of skillpoints to reach. And if it is that high, you essentially have a character who does nothing for most of the time, and is only brought around to avoid a resurrection or reload. In fact, if the trap just kills someone and thats it, most of us would just resurrect the character than put up with an otherwise useless (I know not all people share this opinion) character. And if the traps dont allow for resurrection, well thats just mean.

Yeah, I do think rogues and rangers could use some beefing up. Very few choose to go with a character that is predominantly or solely one of those two classes. Lots of people take them as mix in classes, but thats it.

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Yeah, I do think rogues and rangers could use some beefing up. Very few choose to go with a character that is predominantly or solely one of those two classes. Lots of people take them as mix in classes, but thats it.

No offence but that's a powergamer's point of view. I'm sure you will agree that you don't have to resort to powergaming to complete normal mode so even if Rogues aren't as powerful as Sorcerers they can be effective (and for the record I'm pretty sure no class can compete with a high level Sorcerer).

Crucis mentioned it already but it all depends on playing styles. I for one don't care for HoF at all and Rogues are my favourite characters.

In any party characters work as a team and the Rogue's sneak attacks are very handy in order to finish off foes that are engaged by the warrior or disabled by a spellcaster. A well played Rogue will probably get a good number of kills in the party.

Kmonster soloed HoF with a Ranger so I guess that if you know what you're doing Rangers can be quite effective.

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

Nicely said Crucis. It makes you wonder why they didn't balance the classes a little more in the Damgae output department, especially since they made the game combat oriented and included the HoF mode. HoF is all about Damage output and really high ACs. I realize they probably wanted to stick to PnP for the D&D fans, but since your ability to utilize skills is limited, especially for the Ranger and Rogue who thrive with their skill use in PnP, I wonder if they should've tweaked the classes in another way to make them as useful. Maybe by adding another element to the game that was missing, like more feats that they could of utilized, ex. improved two-weapon fighting or two-weapon defense. Or maybe something similar to your Archery changes to the Ranger. Possibly more missle weapon feats as well? Point-blank-shot?

Oh, I'm sure that sticking to the p&p rules was a big influence, BoV. And that may have been less about the D&D fans than about licensing issues.

And in the BG1/2 games, I tend to think that the supporting classes seemed to manage fairly well. Rogues could get some pretty good value out of their skills.

As far as possible tweaks to IWD2, I'd be limited to whatever I could produce with adjustments to the 2DA files, and possibly some of the SPL "special effects" files. Some changes simply wouldn't be doable in this way, like creating new feats (or adjusting old ones).

One thing that I wouldn't want to do is add in a number of additional at-creation benefits, because I don't want to increase the number of reasons for players to snipe a level of rogue or ranger just to get more level 1 abilities.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Originally Posted by crucis

One thing that I wouldn't want to do is add in a number of additional at-creation benefits, because I don't want to increase the number of reasons for players to snipe a level of rogue or ranger just to get more level 1 abilities.

If some players would do that, that's on them. But for those that would enjoy the changes for what they were intended, to make those classes more playable by themselves, it would make the game more enjoyable. Is that not reason enough?

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

No offence but that's a powergamer's point of view. I'm sure you will agree that you don't have to resort to powergaming to complete normal mode so even if Rogues aren't as powerful as Sorcerers they can be effective (and for the record I'm pretty sure no class can compete with a high level Sorcerer).

Crucis mentioned it already but it all depends on playing styles. I for one don't care for HoF at all and Rogues are my favourite characters.

In any party characters work as a team and the Rogue's sneak attacks are very handy in order to finish off foes that are engaged by the warrior or disabled by a spellcaster. A well played Rogue will probably get a good number of kills in the party.

Kmonster soloed HoF with a Ranger so I guess that if you know what you're doing Rangers can be quite effective.

Thanks, Caradhras. I was going to say many of the same things, but I'll just let your comments stand.

I personally don't mind HOF. However, I've also never found it necessary to build parties with HOF in mind. I've been completely able to use traditional balanced parties imported from normal mode and get through HOF. I don't think that success in HOF requires one of those ultimate powergaming parties. Oh, there may be times when a traditional party may have a little more difficulty, but I have to wonder if the added challenge is more fun than using some uber-maximized party.

When I've used a pure rogue that wanted to be a sneak attacking fiend, I'd just have the rogue run around the battlefield and SA each monster that was engaging my own wall of tanks, one right after the other. Stab and move, stab and move, etc. Does it require some micromanagement? Yes, but it was fun to sneak attack one baddy after another after another! STAB! "Take that, you evil hobgoblin!!!" STAB! "Here's one for Targos!!!" STAB! "Go back to the hells that spawned you!!!" STAB!

BTW, one really great thing in HOF for sneak attackers is that 12 Paces spear. What a great sneak attacking weapon!!! It may not be "ranged" sneak attacking, but it's better than having to get up close and personal with a lil' ole dagger.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

If some players would do that, that's on them. But for those that would enjoy the changes for what they were intended, to make those classes more playable by themselves, it would make the game more enjoyable. Is that not reason enough?

BoV, the idea would be to spread the abilities across multiple levels so that you have to gain multiple levels to get said abilities. Stacking them all in level 1 only serves to give people more reason to snipe a single level of that class.

For example, one of the nice abilities of rogue is greater evasion at (IIRC) level 10. But if greater evasion was available at level 1, what point would there be in going for 10 or more levels of rogue? Well, there are all those other abilities that are spread across the levels, but that's the point. Spreading abilities across many levels gives players reasons to stay with a given class, rather than simply sniping one level of a number of classes.

[Proteus_za]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

No offence but that's a powergamer's point of view. I'm sure you will agree that you don't have to resort to powergaming to complete normal mode so even if Rogues aren't as powerful as Sorcerers they can be effective (and for the record I'm pretty sure no class can compete with a high level Sorcerer).

Crucis mentioned it already but it all depends on playing styles. I for one don't care for HoF at all and Rogues are my favourite characters.

In any party characters work as a team and the Rogue's sneak attacks are very handy in order to finish off foes that are engaged by the warrior or disabled by a spellcaster. A well played Rogue will probably get a good number of kills in the party.

Kmonster soloed HoF with a Ranger so I guess that if you know what you're doing Rangers can be quite effective.

Not really. Before I was into IWD2 powergaming, I didnt really use rogues. Now that I'm a powergamer, I never take more than one level of them.

Its all about, what are they effective at, and is there a class that can do what they can do, better? In the case of fighting, yes just about all warrior types, including clerics and druids, make better warriors. In the case of skillpoints, wizards can do all of those while still being extremely effective wizards.

The point is, you dont have to be a powergamer to not want a rogue in your party. I dont consider it powergamey to use a wizard to disarm traps and locks, or a monk to scout. I consider it powergamey to create characters with ability scores below 6.

I would say you have to be a roleplayer to want a rogue in your party. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying I dont see a reason for bringing a fulltime rogue along, other than for roleplaying reasons.

Sidenote: I also think its odd that rogues are allowed be any alignment, even Lawful Good. Well, especially Lawful Good. Neutral Good I could justify, but I can imagine a Lawful Good character sneak attacking someone and then picking a lock to steal stuff.

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Not really. Before I was into IWD2 powergaming, I didnt really use rogues. Now that I'm a powergamer, I never take more than one level of them.

So you don't like Rogues, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Its all about, what are they effective at, and is there a class that can do what they can do, better? In the case of fighting, yes just about all warrior types, including clerics and druids, make better warriors. In the case of skillpoints, wizards can do all of those while still being extremely effective wizards.

Last time I did check, Clerics didn't get better BAB (unless you take into account buffs but then nothing forbids a Rogue from getting a few buffs from the spellcasters in the party).

Wizards have high INT so they may have enough skillpoints to spend some points on skills that don't belong to their class. It doesn't mean that maxing out Rogue skills with a Wizard is as easy as you make it sound. Still putting points in many skills is more of an RP choice because the game is rather weak as far as skills are concerned and you don't need that many skill levels to get by.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

The point is, you dont have to be a powergamer to not want a rogue in your party. I dont consider it powergamey to use a wizard to disarm traps and locks, or a monk to scout. I consider it powergamey to create characters with ability scores below 6.

A Wizard shouldn't disarm traps or open locks because that is what a Rogue does. Most Wizards would probably find such tasks to be beneath them. A powergamer wouldn't bother about this aspect but a RPer would either dismiss it as unsuitable or come up with a background to explain the Wizard's behaviour (not to mention the fact that the Wizard never actually took a Rogue level so can never be considered to be a Rogue).

Rangers can scout too. In fact given how broken the game is any character can scout and sometimes characters with high skill levels will fail when characters with average levels will succeed. When everything else fails there is still invisibility which is certainly more reliable.

As far as lowering stats, I don't necessarily find that to be powergamey provided there is a valid explanation for dumping a stat. Of course I wouldn't dump CHA or INT to 1 just because any given character doesn't need to put points in those stats but there is nothing wrong with playing a character with a very low stat if it helps making that character more unique.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

I would say you have to be a roleplayer to want a rogue in your party. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying I dont see a reason for bringing a fulltime rogue along, other than for roleplaying reasons.

In PnP it is virtually impossible for any party to survive without a Rogue (or Thief depending on the version that is played). In IWD2 the game can be played without one because traps are just really weak. Would you consider playing through BG1 without a Thief? I don't think so.

There are a few advantages to be gained from using a Rogue in IWD2, these appear to be overlooked by most because sneak attacks are more difficult to use than Evocation spells. Nuking everything in sight is easier and faster so why even bother? My answer is simple: because Rogues are fun.

Following the same logic any straight Fighter gets rather useless when the spellcasters start to be able to cast many spells.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Sidenote: I also think its odd that rogues are allowed be any alignment, even Lawful Good. Well, especially Lawful Good. Neutral Good I could justify, but I can imagine a Lawful Good character sneak attacking someone and then picking a lock to steal stuff.

In 2E they couldn't be LG but I think there is nothing wrong with a LG Rogue. You've got to bear in mind that Rogues are not necessarily Thieves. I don't see why they couldn't use sneak attacks either. A LG Rogue will only sneak attack evil characters and monsters and there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the character is treacherous but that he or she will use unusual tactics (think guerilla warfare).

If the Rogue is fighting an evil Wizard does he or she have to relinquish the surprise effect in the name of chivalry? The Rogue will nevertheless have a code of honour and a strong sense of duty (think good aligned ninja). However that LG character won't put the success of the task at hand before more important things like saving human lives (when a LN character will ignore civilian casualties and focus on the mission).

Regarding stealing stuff, would it be a bad action if the LG Rogue stole from criminals or evildoers? Especially if it was ultimately to give away most of the loot to the poor and the bereft.

I think that to view LG Rogues in such a way would be the same as considering that a Paladin couldn't actually fight much less shed blood. A Paladin is the epitome of goodness and therefore has to act like a saint and forgive enemies who are truly repentant but it doesn't mean that a Paladin can't use violence or kill sentient beings so I don't see why a LG Rogue couldn't use the tools at his disposal.

There is a strong case for a Rogue/Paladin provided you can bend the rigid representation of Paladins as holy warriors in shiny armours and see such a character as a streetwise and savvy man of the world who can put aside his prejudices to uphold justice and goodness where other Paladins never go (at least unnoticed).

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

Last time I did check, Clerics didn't get better BAB (unless you take into account buffs but then nothing forbids a Rogue from getting a few buffs from the spellcasters in the party).

Yes, this is true. Rogues have the same BAB progression as clerics, druids, monks, and bards, which is at 75% of the rate of warrior classes.

A Wizard shouldn't disarm traps or open locks because that is what a Rogue does. Most Wizards would probably find such tasks to be beneath them. A powergamer wouldn't bother about this aspect but a RPer would either dismiss it as unsuitable or come up with a background to explain the Wizard's behaviour (not to mention the fact that the Wizard never actually took a Rogue level so can never be considered to be a Rogue).

It'd probably be true that a pure wizard should see disarming traps, etc. as being below them, from a RP standpoint. However, I wouldn't say that this is true for a multi-classed wizzy/rogue (which I see you point out).

Also from a raw skill point management PoV, trying to be decent in rogue trap/lock skills as a pure wizzy would be awfully expensive. It'd probably be better to take a rogue level once in a while simply to get a big burst of SP on rogue skills. Of course, this would weaken the wizzy somewhat ... however, if you're going with a wizzy/rogue MC you already know that you are making this trade-off, and perhaps the w/r is only the secondary mage in the party, so it's not such a terrible loss of spellcasting power.

Rangers can scout too. In fact given how broken the game is any character can scout and sometimes characters with high skill levels will fail when characters with average levels will succeed. When everything else fails there is still invisibility which is certainly more reliable.

I think that it all depends on what one means by "scouting". If scouting means looking for enemies, then any character that can be invisible either by stealth or spell or potion, etc. can "scout". However, if you also include searching for traps into the "scouting" definition, then you need a character that can either use the Search skill or use the Find Traps spell.

I see nothing wrong or non-roleplaying about using characters other than rogues for scouting. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that scouting almost seems like what a ranger is in so many ways. Monks are also good at the stealthy skills, but search is a 2 pt skill for them, so they don't exactly make ideal "trap" scouts.

In PnP it is virtually impossible for any party to survive without a Rogue (or Thief depending on the version that is played). In IWD2 the game can be played without one because traps are just really weak. Would you consider playing through BG1 without a Thief? I don't think so.

Crap, I wouldn't consider doing BG2 without a thief. Heck, I used to often prefer using a PC that was a Thief of some sort, simply so that I'd guarantee that my party would have a strong thief. Of course, it didn't hurt that in BG2 thieves could be rather nasty characters.

There are a few advantages to be gained from using a Rogue in IWD2, these appear to be overlooked by most because sneak attacks are more difficult to use than Evocation spells. Nuking everything in sight is easier and faster so why even bother? My answer is simple: because Rogues are fun.

I agree. I think that rogues are fun as well. But then again, my style of play is somewhat role-playie and I like using stealth tactics as much as possible... and I don't mean simply for scouting. I'd love to create a little team of 2 or 3 stealthy warriors that would quietly sneak up to some unsuspecting enemies and hit them hard and fast (with particular attention on hitting enemy spellcasters). I'm sure that some players would just march their entire party up to these enemies and just spank them down, but that's just too boring for me. I like a more subtle approach, which I suppose is why I like rogues and rangers.

Following the same logic any straight Fighter gets rather useless when the spellcasters start to be able to cast many spells.

Well, to a certain degree, as the levels progress, warriors do tend to go from being the offensive arm of a party to the spellcasters' bodyguards. But I can live with that. To me, that doesn't make the warriors useless. It just means that their job description is adjusting to the changing circumstances.

In 2E they couldn't be LG but I think there is nothing wrong with a LG Rogue. You've got to bear in mind that Rogues are not necessarily Thieves. I don't see why they couldn't use sneak attacks either. A LG Rogue will only sneak attack evil characters and monsters and there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the character is treacherous but that he or she will use unusual tactics (think guerilla warfare).

If the Rogue is fighting an evil Wizard does he or she have to relinquish the surprise effect in the name of chivalry? The Rogue will nevertheless have a code of honour and a strong sense of duty (think good aligned ninja). However that LG character won't put the success of the task at hand before more important things like saving human lives (when a LN character will ignore civilian casualties and focus on the mission).

The key point is that "Rogue" does not automatically mean "Thief". A "rogue" may simply be an "adventurer" with a rather more diverse set of "job skills" than a Fighter. For the most part, "Fighters" fight, whereas an "adventurer" may learn by intention or necessity a wider array of skills (like talking ones way out of trouble, or finding all those nasty traps, or being sneaky, stealthy scout, etc.) "Sneak Attacks" for a rogue are simply the way for a "sneaky, light fighter" to make the most of his abilities, since the traditional rogue isn't going to be running around in full plate with a great sword.

A LG "Thief" may seem rather questionable, but I can see plenty of room for a LG "Rogue".

[Proteus_za]

In HOF, I find I need my fighters (and characters capable of buffing and debuffing) far more than I need bombardiers. Fireballs just dont do enough damage to monsters in HOF. In Normal mode, yeah they would still be effective.

As for LG rogues, I still dont buy it.

The thing is, Paladin's know they have to fight to bring justice and good to the world. But they do as mostly as a last resort. They would probably ask that you repent before killing you, whereas a rogue would give you no such chance - you would find a dagger protuding from your chest. Sneak attacking, IMHO, is not an activity that a LG character would want to engage in. Its devious by its very nature, and LG characters arent devious.

Yeah, in terms of survival skills, I could see a LG warrior of some kind, rogue or not, needing some skills such as lockpicking or disarming traps. Those could be useful. Pick pocketing? No way. Lockpicking could let you gain access to the fortress without having to beat down the front door, pick pocketing is always just thievery.

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

As for LG rogues, I still dont buy it.

The fact that you don't "buy it" doesn't change that it's just the way it is. If you don't like the idea just don't make any LG Rogue, nobody is forcing you.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

The thing is, Paladin's know they have to fight to bring justice and good to the world. But they do as mostly as a last resort. They would probably ask that you repent before killing you, whereas a rogue would give you no such chance - you would find a dagger protuding from your chest. Sneak attacking, IMHO, is not an activity that a LG character would want to engage in. Its devious by its very nature, and LG characters arent devious.

A Paladin is still a warrior so I don't think any Paladin would think twice before sticking a blade in some evildoer's chest. Why do they have Holy Avengers if it's not to avenge the innocents? RPing a Paladin doesn't preclude the forgive and forget thing but I'm pretty sure a Paladin won't be foolish enough to let a dangerous evildoer go because of a pretended repentance.

Following your logic sneak attacks are not a possibility for a LG Rogue because they are devious.

If you sneak attack in the middle of a fight that's using an unconventional technique to maximize damage. It's not necessarily treachery: you do what you've got to do with the means at your disposal. In the case of sneak attacks it means taking the opportunity to strike at a vital spot when a foe's guard is lowered.

I don't see anything devious in that definition of sneak attacks. A Rogue is good at targeting the weak spot of an enemy, that's not devious, that's what fighting is about.

Backstabbing the enemy can be qualified as devious but is it that devious when the foe in question is threatening to kill innocent bystanders in a hostage situation? Or if that foe is a powerful mage engaged in a ritual and that you may not get a second chance to strike him down?

The LG Rogue may not use backstabbing under normal circumstances but my bet is that if it means saving some innocent lives he or she would (albeit reluctantly) backstab the foe.

Don't you think that it would be awfully stupid for any LG character in both situations to start haranguing a band of thugs and bodyguards thus losing any strategic advantage? Unless you have a plan of course.

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Yeah, in terms of survival skills, I could see a LG warrior of some kind, rogue or not, needing some skills such as lockpicking or disarming traps. Those could be useful. Pick pocketing? No way. Lockpicking could let you gain access to the fortress without having to beat down the front door, pick pocketing is always just thievery.

Sure, it is thievery but it depends on the reason for picking someone's pockets. If it means picking your jailor's key ring I don't think it's out of character. If it means picking that arcane phylactery from the evil mage when he is not looking then I don't think it is out of character either.

[Déise]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

As for LG rogues, I still dont buy it.

Try thinking of them as IWD's version of a geeky CIA agent rather than a bank robber. Does that make it easier?

[Blades of Vanatar]

Originally Posted by crucis

BoV, the idea would be to spread the abilities across multiple levels so that you have to gain multiple levels to get said abilities. Stacking them all in level 1 only serves to give people more reason to snipe a single level of that class.

For example, one of the nice abilities of rogue is greater evasion at (IIRC) level 10. But if greater evasion was available at level 1, what point would there be in going for 10 or more levels of rogue? Well, there are all those other abilities that are spread across the levels, but that's the point. Spreading abilities across many levels gives players reasons to stay with a given class, rather than simply sniping one level of a number of classes.

Why add the extra abilities at just level 1 then? Or are you saying that is the only possiblity available when modding the game? Why not have a few more options added in at higher levels.

[spmdw45]

Originally Posted by crucis

The key point is that "Rogue" does not automatically mean "Thief". A "rogue" may simply be an "adventurer" with a rather more diverse set of "job skills" than a Fighter. For the most part, "Fighters" fight, whereas an "adventurer" may learn by intention or necessity a wider array of skills (like talking ones way out of trouble, or finding all those nasty traps, or being sneaky, stealthy scout, etc.) "Sneak Attacks" for a rogue are simply the way for a "sneaky, light fighter" to make the most of his abilities, since the traditional rogue isn't going to be running around in full plate with a great sword.

Bard's Tale series had the "Hunter" class with a small chance of insta-kill on any monster, and a Rogue class which could do the same thing when hidden. You could view a "Rogue" as a sort of medical specialist (heh heh) who specializes in surgical removal of tender bits. That fits fine with the LG motif. However, I don't think the prior suggestion "it's okay to steal from bad guys as long as you're giving to the poor and needy" fits the LG ethos. That's more neutral or chaotic, IMO.

-Max

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

Why add the extra abilities at just level 1 then? Or are you saying that is the only possibility available when modding the game? Why not have a few more options added in at higher levels.

Sigh.... Blades, Blades, Blades.


Blades, clearly, we're having a communications problem here.

I commented on why I don't like adding extra abilities at level 1 because I don't like giving players additional incentive to snipe single levels. Nothing more and nothing less. I was not saying anything like the only possibility was to add things at creation or level 1. I will say now that that may be the case, but I don't know one way or the other, and it would likely be on a case by case basis.

And of course it would be much more preferable to spread the added abilities across multiple levels to increase the reasons that people would want to take many levels of that class. (I don't know how you could have inferred that I'd said otherwise... )

[Blades of Vanatar]

Originally Posted by crucis

Sigh.... Blades, Blades, Blades.


Blades, clearly, we're having a communications problem here.

I commented on why I don't like adding extra abilities at level 1 because I don't like giving players additional incentive to snipe single levels. Nothing more and nothing less. I was not saying anything like the only possibility was to add things at creation or level 1. I will say now that that may be the case, but I don't know one way or the other, and it would likely be on a case by case basis.

And of course it would be much more preferable to spread the added abilities across multiple levels to increase the reasons that people would want to take many levels of that class. (I don't know how you could have inferred that I'd said otherwise... )

Crucis,

I wasn't inferring that you did. I'm not a modder, just a big fan of the game, so my background on what type of content, changes and additions you can and can't add to the game as a modder is very limited. I was simply wondering if that was a possible reason for your previous statement, as I wasn't sure where it came from in the 1st place. But no biggie, you answered my initial question now.

[Proteus_za]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

The fact that you don't "buy it" doesn't change that it's just the way it is. If you don't like the idea just don't make any LG Rogue, nobody is forcing you.

No need to use comments like that. You and I disagree both on the use of Rogues in PC D&D games and whether any LG can engage in rogue-like behaviour, whether they have the rogue class or not. No need to be rude.

Lawful Good characters dont believe in the idea of greater good anyway. Try telling a lawful good character that its okay to perform a devious or morally questionable act if it means servicing the idea of good. A warrior who smites evil has the law on his side, much as a modern day policeman does.

There are circumstances where I suppose it could be lawful, to engage in such behaviour, but a lawful good character definitely wouldnt want to make a profession out of it.

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

Crucis,

I wasn't inferring that you did. I'm not a modder, just a big fan of the game, so my background on what type of content, changes and additions you can and can't add to the game as a modder is very limited. I was simply wondering if that was a possible reason for your previous statement, as I wasn't sure where it came from in the 1st place. But no biggie, you answered my initial question now.

Ok, Blades. no prob.

I was just frustrated at how you could apparently misconstrue my earlier comments that I thought were about as clear as possible.

At this point, from memory, I might be able to tell you what abilities might be able to be adjusted easily on a level by level basis (vs. stacked up at level 1). And I'm pretty sure that I'd know which ones are beyond my abilities or might simply be impossible (like creating new feats). But there might be a pretty fair number of things that lay in between....

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

No need to use comments like that. You and I disagree both on the use of Rogues in PC D&D games and whether any LG can engage in rogue-like behaviour, whether they have the rogue class or not. No need to be rude.

I didn't mean to be rude, actually I don't see what was rude about my comment. I'm truly sorry you were offended I was just making a point.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Although I'd like to point at similarities between your "modern day policeman" and Déise's "geeky CIA agent"

[crucis]

Originally Posted by Proteus_za

Lawful Good characters don't believe in the idea of greater good anyway. Try telling a lawful good character that its okay to perform a devious or morally questionable act if it means servicing the idea of good. A warrior who smites evil has the law on his side, much as a modern day policeman does.

There are circumstances where I suppose it could be lawful, to engage in such behaviour, but a lawful good character definitely wouldn't want to make a profession out of it.

I'm not sure that I agree with your first statement about LG not believing in the greater good. What I'd say is that LG people see "the greater good" differently than NG or CG people. I'd say that LG people see "the greater good" as being served by a greater degree of adherence to "the law" and Order.


Also, I think that we have different definitions of "devious". I don't see "devious" as being non-good, or even being non-lawful. I see "devious" as being more of thinking outside the box, being unconventional yet effective. This isn't to say that a devious act couldn't be evil. But it could also be entirely good. I don't see LG combat as requiring you to fight according to some set rules of fair play, like boxers in a ring, or two people in a pistol duel. I think that it's entirely possible for one to be LG and yet come up with some inventive, effective, and intelligent tactic that one might think of as "devious". A "devious" tactic may simply be something that nobody has ever used.

[spmdw45]

Originally Posted by crucis

Also, I think that we have different definitions of "devious". I don't see "devious" as being non-good, or even being non-lawful. I see "devious" as being more of thinking outside the box, being unconventional yet effective. This isn't to say that a devious act couldn't be evil. But it could also be entirely good. I don't see LG combat as requiring you to fight according to some set rules of fair play, like boxers in a ring, or two people in a pistol duel. I think that it's entirely possible for one to be LG and yet come up with some inventive, effective, and intelligent tactic that one might think of as "devious". A "devious" tactic may simply be something that nobody has ever used.

Agreeing with crucis, I will add:

A Lawful Evil character will keep his word, but stab you in the back if you write the contract wrong. (See "The Monkey's Paw.") Ergo, deviousness != "Chaotic." A Lawful Good character, once engaged in combat, may not feel the need to walk right up and challenge the foe to single combat--he may be perfectly happy sniping the foe from 300 yards away. However, he views law (/order/obedience/cooperation) as an important element of the greater good, and he's unlikely to initiate combat without the agreement of the others on his side who would be affected, i.e. allies. In a civilized context, this means he won't start the fighting without a declaration of war or other legal sanction--he's neither a Batman vigilante nor a John Brown abolitionist, but perhaps more of a William T. Sherman. But combat is not a civilized context, so outside a culture where non-single-combat is viewed with the same horror we reserve for biological/chemical weapons, he's not going to have any particular problems killing OrcBob while OrcBob is concentrating on killing ElfFred. Ergo, sneak attacks on a flanking character are fine, but gratuitous killings are not. He would probably let the Aurilite postulants in the ice temple go after they surrender, for instance.

Not that enemies surrendering or fleeing is much of an ethical dilemma in IWD2, since it happens so seldom. Imagine if enemies often fled from losing battles, and if fleeing enemies (still) gave you no XP unless you chased them down and killed them. I think many people would discover that even if their characters are LG, the player controlling them is actually CE.

-Max

[Caradhras]

@spmdw45: like in that book in the Black Raven Monastery, let's face it you're NE!

@Crucis: I agree with you but I have reservations about the use of the word devious in such a context I'd prefer the word unconventional since it has a much more neutral connotation. Although devious doesn't have an explicitly negative denotation, the connotation of the word is quite negative.

[Stuntman]

Originally Posted by DrKissinger1

Turns out I ain't seen nothing yet. Just about every encounter in the field outside the Goblin Fortress is a life-or-death struggle. My main problem is that most enemies have gone from a +3 to +5 attack bonus at Shaengarde to a +9 to +10 attack bonus at the area outside the fortress (the one with the bridges and drums).

...

Any tips or suggestions? I feel like I'm definitely doing something wrong here.

I think that the half plate is the best armour you can get. There is a magical chain armour for any fighters with good dex. That would give the best AC for your party. Get the best shields as well.

As for the bridge, the best thing to do is to kill the first group and then go northeast and save the bridge. Kill anything in your way. Do not move west or you will draw too many enemies. There will be a few archers from the west, use your archers to kill them. Keep your melee character focused on anything between you and the bridge. Once you make it to the bridge, you need to take down that big boss as fast as you can, just charge her. After that, you can mop up anything on the bridge. Once you've killed the enemies on the bridge, you can actually rest there on the bridge before going out and clearing the rest of the map to the west.

The hoard fortress is difficult if you do not know how to take out the drums first. The drum to the south can be taken out with any stealthy character with a bow, crossbow or sling. Just sneak past the camp. You will trigger the traps, but will survive. Go north of the camp so that you are out of view of the camp. You should just see the drum on the bottom of the screen. Take it out with your ranged weapon and then sneak back to your group. Then you should be able to take out that camp easily without drawing and worg riders.

The camp with the drum to the northwest can be done the same way. Sneak past the camp via the bridge (triggering the traps) and then go east of the camp. Take out the drum. Then that camp is easy.

The drum on the NE camp can be taken out by ranged weapons by shooting across the chasm. This one is the easiest drum to take out.

The NE camp is hard if you draw too many enemies at once. An easy way to defeat it is to draw only a few enemies at the time. After you have taken out the NW camp. Keep your guys there. Send one guy east towards the NE camp. Once you see an enemy just lead them back to the rest of the group and take out those enemies that follow. Then repeat again and again. Once you feel you have weakened them enough, you can just do an all out assault. Sometimes the rest of them come. You should be able to weaken them enough with your divide and conquer tactics that by the time the rest of the camp shows up, the battle will be easier.

A few things to note is that the enemy spellcaster needs to be taken down quickly. Once he shows up, just send everyone to attack him ignoring anyone else. The call lighting is bad even after he dies. Make sure you take him out before he can cast it. If you have chromatic orb, use it on that guy ASAP and hope he fails his save. Also, the ice troll needs to be hit with blunt weapons or it would take a long time to kill. After the druid dies, send your guys with blunt weapons after him. He will go down quickly. The rest is easy.

The spellcaster usually casts entangle. This will limit who you can use to attack him. Just do your best and hope enough melee guys get to him. Always attack him with your ranged guys until he goes down.

Originally Posted by DrKissinger1

Yeah, I made sure to pack some Mage Armor with me, but it works differently than in NWN/NWN2. In those games, the armor bonus was considered an enchantment bonus, so you could cast it on someone with say, nonmagical Full Plate armor, and they would get +4 AC. I could be wrong, but in IWD2 it seems to be standard armor bonus that doesn't stack with whatever armor you're wearing, so someone in splint or half-plate doesn't get a bonus at all.

Mage Armor does not stack with armour worn. I find that Mage Armour is only really useful if you have a monk. The other characters who cannot wear good armour are usually at the back and rarely get attacked.

Sleep was worth its weight in gold when dealing with goblins and such, but it's no longer effective at crowd control. I assume the enemies are now too high level to be effected. Problem is that I don't really have a replacement spell to fill that function anymore. Chromatic orb does some nice stuns, but it's only one creature at a time.

Sleep is only useful against lower level monsters. Chromatic Orb should be used on single dangerous targets like enemy spellcasters. I find the Orb to be really useful once you are able to stun an paralise.

If you want better crowd control for higher level creatures, use Horror.

My character setup is pretty simple:

2 fighters, one human and one shield dwarf (for whatever reason I never get much use out of paladins or barbarians; paladin abilities seem of limited use, and I don't like the fatigue effects of rage)
1 wild elf ranger (I'm a sucker for dual wielding, though she actually does quite a bit less damage than either fighter)
1 halfling rogue (just cause you have to have one)
1 human cleric (pretty useless in combat, not much STR)
1 human generalist wizard

A tip to improve your AC is to ensure that your characters have at least 13 Dex and take the Dodge feat. All of my melee character take this feat ASAP.

If you want to dual wield, you can either take one level of ranger and then take fighter levels form then on or go straight fighter and blow two feats on TWF and Ambidexterity. A human or dwarf (or even half-elf) is best for the multiclass Ranger 1/Fighter X because of the multiclassing penalties. If you are going straight fighter, you can take a half-orc for the +2 Str. Multiclassing to fighter also allows you to wear heavy armour so you don't need that high of Dex. Just make sure you have enough Dex to take the TWF and AD feats.

If your cleric is useless in combat you could either have him use ranged weapons or improve his Str. An elf cleric can use bows so does not need much strength. I personally prefer to give him high Str since I like to have someone who uses blunt, melee weapons. None of the other melee types use blunt weapons.

Like a few others, I personally do not really care for the rogue. I never sneak attack as it is just too much trouble for me. In my first run through the game, I just gave him a bow and let him pick away. I don't think I have ever sneak attacked with my rogue. Normal attacks deem to do enough damage anyway. In my second run through the game, I am not using one at all. The wizard does the trap finding/disarming. The monk does the scouting (since he is also a deep gnome, he can cast invisibility as well). I do admit that the wizard does miss the odd trap here and there. In general, none of the traps that I have triggered are leathal enough to make me feel I need a rogue. Sometimes I can't be bothered to search and I just trigger them and rest later.

[spmdw45]

Originally Posted by Stuntman

I do admit that the wizard does miss the odd trap here and there. In general, none of the traps that I have triggered are leathal enough to make me feel I need a rogue. Sometimes I can't be bothered to search and I just trigger them and rest later.

There's a rather nasty trap I just hit today in Chult which smashes you for 50 points of damage and then resets itself for the next time you have to come across. Worse yet, my rogue is still squatting at level 3 (rogue1/monk1/paladin1) and she can't even detect the trap, let alone disarm it or survive it.

And yet, it's still not worth it to me to take more rogue levels. Traps are weak IMO.

-Max

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Stuntman

The hoard fortress is difficult if you do not know how to take out the drums first. The drum to the south can be taken out with any stealthy character with a bow, crossbow or sling. Just sneak past the camp. You will trigger the traps, but will survive. Go north of the camp so that you are out of view of the camp. You should just see the drum on the bottom of the screen. Take it out with your ranged weapon and then sneak back to your group. Then you should be able to take out that camp easily without drawing and worg riders.

The drums can also be used as a source of XP if you don't mind fighting the worg riders.

I think it's already been pointed out before but slings are good for high strength characters because the bonus to damage applies.

By the way if you play the Light of Selune mod by Crucis you'll find that traps become more than a minor inconvenience.