F/M/T Worth it in BG?

Remove all ads!

The single weapon slot was definitely a put-off for me. How do you F/M/T fanatics deal with this? Since you all seem to really enjoy this character you must have a tactic(s).

 

Simple, you don't use missile weapons. At least, not much. Sneak into the middle of an enemy group, backstab the most dangerous enemy, and then go nuts hacking and casting. Should they prove too difficult for this, you cast Invisibility or something and get the hell out to lick your wounds and come back in for another round. An F/M/T always has a way out, or even a last resort.

AC isn't a problem, since at first you don't have many spells to make it worth using no armor, and by the time you do get enough you'll have enough money for a Robe of the Archmagi. That's already AC1 (18 DEX, I assume) without a shield, helm, or any other protective items. My elven F/M/Ts AC got down to -6 with:

Robe of the Good Archmagi (AC 5)
DEX 20 (-4)
Helm of Glory (-1)
Large Shield +2 (-3)
Ring of Protection +2 (-2)
Cloak of Balduran (-1)

You could go even farther to -9 with the Claw of Kazgaroth and Drizzt's Defender sword, but I was RPing good. In Chapter Six, you also get a weapon that can be both melee and missile, but you can't backstab with (Throwing Axe +2).

 

If you change the Throwing Axe (the returning one yeh?) to melee, doesn't that allow you to backstab with it?

 

You ever tried backstabbing with an axe?

 

Umm, nope! I'm thinking it wouldn't work because it's not in the thief class of weapons, but you never know! But I'll take that as a no

 

You can'T backstab with non-thief weapons even in old BG1 eh?

 

Seriously though, it would make more sence if you COULD backstab with an axe seeing as how you can somehow backstab with a staff. I guess they're both possible though, if you think about it, because a trained fighter (or any character) can learn to use their weapon rather effectively.

 

Thieves can backstab with axes if you install Ashes of Embers.....it removes all the stupid 2e weapon restrictions.

 

2E 'stupid' weapon restrictions are for balance. If a thief starts backstabbing with a two handed sword he will be too powerful. Likewise, a pure mage swinging a battle-axe both completely destroys the image of pure wizardry and causes many unbalanced annoyances. Poor fighter will be really weak, as now mage can swing ANY weapon he wants, this takes one of the advantages of being a pure fighter. Sure fighter will have better combat statistics but once the mage gets some spells (ie:Tenser's trans, stoneskin, strength, haste etc.) this will be soo horribly unabalanced IMHO, ofcourse!

 

LOL yeh but still ...

 

I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure that doing 1-10 points of damage instead of 1-8 isn't going to turn the thief into an unbalanced power class. A cleric who can do 2-7 points of damage with a mace dosn't become over-powered when he can suddenly do 1-8 with a long sword (and he still can only attack once a round with it) and a Mage will suck with a Halberd just as much as he sucks with a dagger or staff.

Remember, the main advantage of a warrior is that he attacks more often, can take more damage, is able to use any weapon style, can wear any armor, and is more likely to hit when he attacks. The ability to use any weapon is a tiny, tiny perk by comparison.

 

Okay, so the main advantage is A, B, C, D, & E? No, I'm afraid you've got it wrong there, my friend. And using your own language, each one (well, most) of those perks are just as tiny. Especially in comparison to the benefits of other classes. Personally, I think the 2e warrior needs all the comparative advantages that he can get.

Now I agree that having the ability to use any weapon wouldn't overbalance other classes much, but it would underbalance the warriors by eliminating one of the few advantages that they have over the others. The one thing I will agree with you wholeheartedly on, though, is that you ought to be able to backstab with any weapon that you are able to use, since the power of the backstab lies not with the weapon, but with the wielder. (I think the restriction was one of the tweaks that DMs and players added to the game over the years to balance, because I don't remember seeing the rule laid out in any source book.)

 

Since warriors only have so many proficiencies, I think the ability to take them in anything is underrated. By the way, since when is the ability to make 3 and a half attacks a round with a two handed sword, +3 to hit, +5 to damage, a reduction in speed factor, exceptional strength, exceptional constitution, better Thac0, more hit points and the ability to wear any armor a slight advantage. In truth, dual wielding daggers (a weapon almost anyone can use) with grand mastery would be even more effective than that. It's not the weapons that make the warrior dangerous. It's the warrior's expertise with his weapons that makes the warrior dangerous. A priest/mage/thief with a two handed sword is still only going to attack once a round and that attack is less likely to hit. It also won't do as much damage.

 

I agree that a fighter has many other advantages, but learning and wielding ALL weapons is one of his advantages too, and you will take it from them if you rule 'No weapon restrictions'.

As for backstabbing, back-stabbing needs stealth and quickness, and such easily concealable and/or fast weapons are most suited, and in such thieves train these weapons efficiently before starting their adventuring career. A dagger or shortsword, or a harmless looking quarterstaff is suitable. BUT a huge and clumsy halberd? Don'T think so.

And clerics are not allowed to use edged weapons at all, since their gods (generally) forbid the bloodspilt. Clerics are both defenders of faith and recruiters. Most people won't say good things about a savage cleric wielding a huge, blood-spilled two-handed sword. But a small, elegantly created mace is appropriate. Plus these type of weapons are hardest to resist (they are effective against chainmails, and many creatures with damage resistance) and require little training to learn how to use efficiently.

Right now I noticed we are going off topic, really sorry about that.

As for the topic, a F/M/T is still a cool class, one man army, and he almost always has something to do, be it sneaking past, spell casting or whacking.

 

At PPG, Ding0 tweak carries a component that reduces the backstab multiplier when using large weapons to be used with AoE. So, with those mods installed the F/M/T can backstab with a two handed sword, but he'd be a lot better off with a dagger since two handed swords reduce the multiplier by 2 or 3 notches. The point is that a thief, wizard, or priest shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted from using a weapon.

 

^That is actually an interesting house rule, and kinda balanced at least. And makes sense to me. This IS the flexibility of 2E, if you don't like it, you can change if all players/DM agree.

 

Sorry to nitpick, but that is not exactly something only 2E can handle Every P&P system can be houseruled in that manner if players/DM's want it. It is rather a testament to how rigid the computergames is about the rules.

 

I like F/M and F/T better, but that's mainly because you can only get one quick-weapon slot as a FMT in BG1.

 

I've been playing with a M/T for awhile and I have to say I'm enjoying it! It works soooOoOo much better than a hardcore F/M/T!

 

M/T are quite cool, but I always find them to be quite weak. But that's probably because I spend all my attribute points on INT and DEX.

F/M/T are pretty sh!t 'cus they take aaaaaages to gain levels. They're okay if you have some kind of XP cap remover, though.