New to IWD2, looking for advice

Remove all ads!

Hey guys,
I made a similar post in the IWD forums and thought I would do the same here since I don't know how different IWD2 is from IWD1 (note that I am pretty new to D&D based games to begin with).

I am completely new to IWD2 and wanted to try it out. I recently purchased the IWD/IWD2 series and after I finish IWD I will start IWD2.

Would you guys suggest I play through all of the games at least once in vanilla or would I be doing myself a disservice by not getting some essential mods/addons that would make my first play through much more enjoyable. Note that I am not looking to make the game any easier or remove challenges but I am sure that since the game was released there are some mods that fix some irritating thing or another. Is there a preferred order to play through these games?

Also, I am equally clueless when it comes to character creation. For my first time through I'll just play whatever I like but are there resources/tips that I can look at to get a better idea of what works and what doesn't?

Thanks a lot guys. I'm really looking forward to getting started. Any tips/suggestions are greatly appreciated

I got some good advice for IWD so hopefully I can get the same here.

 

I don't own IWD, but AFAIK the biggest difference between IWD and IWD2 is that IWD is AD&D 2nd edition rules and IWD2 is D&D 3rd edition rules. That's a very big change when it comes to things like multi-classing rules and the way attributes and spell saving throws work. I understand that the games are quite similar when it comes to plot and playstyle--they're both hack and slash games in the far north of Faerun that involve Kuldahar, the Ten Towns, and the Severed Hand fortress.

As far as IWD2 goes, the only "essential" add-on I can recommend is to make sure you have the patch installed, since it fixes some minor bugs and you might as well.

Just playing through your first time is a good idea. I will mention only one tip but I'll spoiler it just in case:

Spoiler

the Rapid Shot feat is very good for low-level parties, especially since slings add STR bonus to damage. I would give Rapid Shot and good STR to every single one of my characters with enough DEX for the feat, even the wizards. It basically doubles damage output until you start getting multiple attacks/round.

-Max

 

I think there are patches that fixes a few bugs here an there. Best to just get those and play through the game.

As for character advice, it just depends on your play style. My personal style is spellcasting light for this game and build my party around using weapons for the most part. This may or may not suit the style you like to play. I don't think that there is any place in the game that requires any specific build to get past. Obviously different characters will open up different options at various points of the game. You likely will not be able to do everything, but that's part of choosing how your party is.

If you want to really min/max, then ensure that you use your dump stats wisely. Generally, Int or Cha can be reduced to the bare minimum (-3 or -1). Con should probably be 12 minimum and most likely maxed. Str, Dex and Wis probably shouldn't go below 8. The game does not need min/maxing to complete. How much you min/max is up to you.

There is one pretty good item that you many want to know about which will likely influency your character choice:

Spoiler

There is a holy avenger in the game. If you want to use it, you need a paladin or a character with at least 1 level in paladin.

If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask the members here.

 

I also tend to have a playing style that's a bit light on spellcasting. My tendency is to reserve the heavy duty spellcasting for the nastier battles.

Without going into any details, there are certain points in the game where it may appear that you are required to do certain things to progress. Often, there will be multiple paths to success, some of which can be fairly subtle and not particularly obvious. I should admit that in all the years that I've played IWD2, I only learned of some of these alternatives recently... though in retrospect they weren't as inobvious as they seemed. (I'm sure that that sounded like a bunch of vague nonsense, since I haven't given any details to avoid any spoilers...)

 

I'll comment on one such path, in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

There's an area where it appears that, in order to progress, you need to pick one guy to fight a bunch of monsters and stuff solo, without any equipment or spell buffs from other party members. This sounds pretty hard, and it can be if you don't have the right character class. It turns out that there's an alternate path which involves just killing the guys who are giving you the test in question.

 

And a spoiler to the above spoiler...

Spoiler

Or you can simply pickpocket the key that you need...

And on a much less significant situation...

Spoiler

There's a certain place a bit earlier where an undead creature wants something that will allow him to rest. I didn't know until just today, but there's a different way to put the "poor" creature to rest... a mildly skillful bard can simply sing a song to honor his memory.

 

Re spoiler #1: !!! Wow.

Re spoiler #2: Heh. I suspected that but the spoiler always just made fun of my spoiler's spoiling and I had to get the spoiler instead. I was pretty sure this was because my spoiler is only level one but it's good to have it confirmed.

-Max

 

Since you haven't played D&D all that much previously, it's prudent to point out that 2nd Edition rules (IWD) didn't favor buffing your characters all that much (since the spell durations were usually rather limited), spells that allowed for a saving throw quickly lost their edge as you started battling tougher enemies and the heaviest armors ruled the day. In 3rd edition rules (IWD2) it's the other way around on all points, more or less.

Other than that, I'd suggest your party members can make use of a wide variety of weapon types and that you have at least one pure divine and one pure arcane caster in your ranks to get early access to best spells.

 

Yeah. It's never seemed like there was all that much use for the skill required by spoiler #1, and even with this tidbit, it's probably still true. And given that I've never actually tried this tactic, I don't know how difficult it would be to do, since the item in question will either be in possession of a either a level 18 or level 16 character (depending on the circumstances at the moment). I've heard that this particular skill is hard to use on higher level characters.

From a role-playing standpoint, it might be a fun way to get "it". But in the larger scheme of things it may be easier to get it via the more obvious two methods.

I haven't tried this one either. I only noticed its existence in the dialogs. However, I'm going to give it a shot with my next party (same with spoiler #1).

 

On your first play through it might be an idea to pick one of the pre-made parties. That way you have everything you need plus a few extras. It'll give you a better idea for a more fun party later as well.

 

An I'll comment on this as well.

Spoiler

You don't have to pick the same guy to fight all of the battles. I have switched guys depending on what I need. Sometimes you need spellcasting and sometimes you need a good melee character. Also, even if you don't have any equipment, there is mundane equipment that your melee guys can use. The annoying thing about switching guys is that you have to reequip two characters.

 

If you're playing IWD1 first you'd probably be best off asking again when you've finished the first. It's easier to explain the differences in the rules and what to watch out for.

The first thing to note is that you only have a few stat points to spend. No more rerolling until you have wonderful stats for everything. You're best off dropping some to the minimum to concentrate on the ones you need. But some that you don't need still have to be at a respectable level. Str is for warriors and seems useless for wizards. But it affects how much you can carry and you'll struggle to walk at all if you drop it. Cha though can be dumped completely for a wizard.

The other major point is the way you can mix levels freely compared to the old multi/dual class system. This is flexible but easy to mess up. The most important thing is NOT to split levels for anybody who's a caster. This absolutely cripples them. In IWD1 a multi class fighter/wizard is a respectable fighter and wizard and good overall. In IWD2 splitting the levels would give you a weak fighter and a very poor wizard. Casters spell level is everything and they need their levels for this.

Warrior types are the opposite. They get most of their goodies up front and little afterwards. Paladins and Rangers in particular get some great stuff at level 1 but very litle afterwards. Paladins in particular have almost nothing to commend them after level 3. So mixing their levels is a good idea. Fighters are good for this as they constantly get new feats. There aren't that many great ones but you'll always have one that's a nice bonus.

Going with this you can create very powerful characters by adding just a level or two of another class to your normal one. A single level of a warrior type will let your caster get all of the weapon feats for example (rarely worth it). The most famous examples are ranger (free two weapon feats), paladin (massive saving throw bonuses to a character with high Cha), rogue (a high Int wizard has enough skills to cover the rogue skills as well) and monk (some very powerful clerics/druids who don't wear armour).

I'd go against the premade parties. You'll probably enjoy one you make yourself more. But it is easy to mess up a bit. A powerful character at the beginning may not be so later on and likewise some great characters take a few levels of babysitting before they come good. If you throw your party up beforehand you can get some advice if something doesn't look right.

Don't get too depressed at the above. The game's not that hard and you should easily be able to finish it with pretty much any party you make. I just found it frustrating to have parties where after a while it was obvious one or two just weren't on a par with the others. Not 100% useless but definitely substandard.

 

I've got to disagree with some points here.

It is entirely unnecessary to dump certain stats to the minimum. Claims to the contrary are made by powergamers.

Diese is correct when it may seem that STR is "useless" for mages. However, since STR dictates a character's carrying capacity, it's often a bad idea to reduce STR, and IMHO, it's not a bad thing for a mage to have a STR of 12, or possibly 14, if you have the stat points to spare.

This is mostly true. In normal mode, multiclassing a spellcasting class is generally a bad thing with only a few very rare exceptions.

I have to disagree here as well.

Once again, these opinions of Rangers and Paladins are those promoted by powergamers. There's not a darned thing wrong with pure paladins or rangers!!! I've played many a pure pally and ranger without a single regret. Oh, I won't say that mixing in 4 levels of fighter (to get weapon specialization) is a bad thing, but it's also not really necessary.

The problem is that some people (aka powergamers) seem to be of the opinion that if a character hasn't been fine-tuned to perfection, then it's somehow a bad character. Oh, sure, having a pure ranger as a party's lead tank may not be the absolutely 110% perfectly optimized killing machine ... but it's completely unnecessary that your characters fit that description to produce a party that can successfully navigate its way thru IWD2.

This strategy also creates nightmares for keeping track of favored class issues, if you intend to worry about try to avoid the XP penalty.

I mostly agree here. However, I probably would suggest reading through the premade parties to get some ideas. Also, read thru some threads here on the forum where people are discussing various party combos.

One thing about the pre-made parties.... While the class mixtures of the parties seem to be reasonably balanced, I don't think much of the stat point assignments or the skill and feat selections. Far too many characters in the premade parties have very sub-optimal stat, skill, and feat choices. Now, I should point out that I'm far from a powergamer, but I'm also not a pure role-player either. But when I look at the pre-made parties, there are just way too many bad decisions (IMHO, of course) in the character building of those parties for me to ever say that they're particularly good representations of what a reasonable party should look like, even for a non-powergamer.

Yeah, I agree, Diese. It's a good idea for any newbie to run potential parties by the people here. And while some people are, IMHO, too prone to giving advice that's too skewed towards powergaming, most of the people here, powergamers and non-powergamers alike, can give advice that will help a newbie avoid building a party that will face problems later in the game, or simply avoid obvious newbie mistakes (like not remembering that CHA is the spellcasting stat for a bard or a sorc).

Having said that, it does take a little bit of "work" to create a party that can't be successful.

 

Crucis, with all due respect to your stance against powergaming, but it's not really helpfull to state that pure pallies or rangers would make GOOD tanks. Sure, they'll get the job done, and finely at that, but that could be said about most anything.

There's a fine line between noting that you don't really need the BEST (or even second best) to succeed in this game, but if the question is about which one of the two given alternatives is BETTER, there can really be only one correct answer to that question, right? Yes, including the possibility that they're equally good within measurable parameters, but that's still just one correct answer.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that both ways of seeing it are "correct" in their own ways, it's just becomes a huge mess if one doesn't make this distinction when talking about spesifics.

 

Rechet, my problem isn't with powergaming per se. It's with the advice of powergamers to newbies that comes off as a pronouncement from on high ... that's there's only one way to succeed ... the Powergaming Way (tm) !... pallies and rangers and rogues are baaaaad and no one should ever play them, ruthlessly minimize your stats... make your characters as stooopid as a potted plant.... blah blah blah.

You don't get style points or extra XP for having the most uber powerful, maximized DPS killing machine. You don't get any extra XP for killing your enemies faster. If anything, that sort of character just makes the game more boring because it takes all the challenge out of the battles.

I'm sorry if I come off so anti-powergaming. But I'm really sick of the one-sided proselytizing "advice" from powergamers. Such advice ought to come with a warning label ... "WARNING: This advice is in support of Power-Gaming(tm) and does not represent a balanced point of view."

 

Agreed on all points.

There's no need to regard powergaming as the Only Truth (tm), it's just hard to know at times what sort of advice is being sought. And since there's no standardized way of deducing the subtle difference between "you can pick X, Y or Z and you'll do fine" and "Y is most likely 1,2333 (repeating of course) percent better than the other two", we'll probably continue strangling each other's throats for the foreseeable future.

Edit: All in good spirit, of course.

 

Reading this thread, I see very little evidence that anyone (including the powergamers) is preaching that "paladins are baaaad and you MUST maximize everything." I see a relaxed attitude that says, "Pretty much anything works in normal mode, but here are a couple of things I wish I'd known when I first started[1]." For some people that means pointing out that sorcs and bards need CHA more than INT (good advice), for some it means favoring fighter bonus feats over paladin healing/spells. Whatever, it's all good.

Of course, if someone tries to claim that crossbows are the best missile weapon someone else is undoubtedly going to point out the many ways in which this is not true. This is completely independent of whether you choose to use a crossbow anyway because of your own personal Rule of Cool.

-Max

[1] This is particularly appropriate because the OP actually ASKED for tips on making an effective party.

 

Yeah, no prob, Rechet.

I guess when a newbie asks for such generic advice, I tend to think that it's best to avoid powergaming responses, and stick with more generic answers. You can succeed with most any character. There are no 'bad' classes. The stat-wise the most important thing to remember is what stat is the spellcasting stat for each spellcasting class, and then to take a sufficient amount of that stat for that class. (( Nothing makes a sorc suck more than having a INT=18, CHA=10. )) And for a newbie, usually the "best" parties are fairly balanced ones... a couple of warriors (fighter, pally, ranger, or barbarian), a cleric, a mage (wizzies are probably best for newbies, since you're not locked into bad spell choices), and a rogue isn't a bad inclusion for a newbie, if only to learn how to use them. And arguably, for simplicity's sake, perhaps make the 6th character a warrior as well.

And I'd personally suggest that newbies NOT multiclass any characters. Keep things simple. Learn how to use spells in combat, learn how to manage your party, and so forth. Worry about multi-classing later.

A problem that I have with some powergaming advice given to newbies is that true green as grass newbies don't understand the basics. And PG advice really seems best given to people who have mastered the basics and want to move on to more advanced things... more advanced character builds, more extreme min-maxing, more advanced tactics, and so forth. But I think that it's best to try to keep things more simple and basic for newbies.

When I first played IWD2, I'd already played BG1/2/TOB and IWD1/HOW/TOTL and was entirely familiar with the mechanics of D&D and the Infinity Engine. All I had to do was to make the leap from the 2e terminology to the 3e terminology (which isn't really a big deal) and learn the subtle differences between spells in 2e vs 3e (which simply required some playing experience in IWD2). Almost all of the tactics I'd learned in prior games were largely still valid in IWD2, aside from some minor spell differences.

But to a newbie, the amount of things to be learned is quite significant... and as I said above, I think that trying to keep the advice simple and basic makes life much easier.

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 1 seconds later... ----------

I didn't get much of that from Diese's post at all. What I read was advice straight from the Powergamer's Bible.

Well, I see it differently. Of course, I was using a little hyperbole with the "paladins are baaaaad" statement. When I read Diese's comments on paladins and rangers, saying "Paladins in particular have almost nothing to commend them after level 3", that positively screams "POWERGAMER" to me.

I agree about the former. That's good basic stuff. But I don't agree about the latter. (Oh, not so much about the content, as the sentiment.)

 

The attitude was still relaxed though.

-Max

 

The way I personally play a game such as IWD2 is to make a party, play a bit, make a new party, play a bit and keep the iteration until I found a party I like. Part of playing a new game is exploring how different configurations of your party works with the way the game is played and then figuring out which configuration is one I am happiest with according to my own play style. I have restarted some games dozens of times before deciding to go all the way with a party.

I find that different game engines and different games demand a different type of party configuration. Some games I played were more enjoyable with a lot of spellcasting that others for example. I wouldn't know for sure until I actually play some way through the game.

A fairly balanced party for a new player will ensure that the new player has a decent chance of survival. However, the player may find that he wants more melee characters or more ranged characters or more spellscasting or fewer spellcasting. It really depends on the player. Then this player may ask for more specific character or party advice once he identifies what style of play suits him.