New to IWD2, looking for advice

Remove all ads!

Ha! Hilarious! Crucis, you and I had the same argument re: "archer-builds" say, 4 or 6 years ago?

On the topic of "archers", my current HoF party has a Clr (Lath) 9/Rgr 8. He has been fairly effective so far. He has the best bow so far available (something like +6 to hit, +7 to damage), a high natural DEX (plus those slippers from the Hand, so he has something like a 24 DEX), and all the best arrows. I have him equipped with 2 pretty good scimitars he dual-weilds from time-to-time but I have him also equipped with a spear (that one you find in the wall outside the Hand, can't remember what it's called, does a ton of damage though) that he generally melees with. With a few buffs, including Holy Power et al, he's pretty effective. Not awesomely so, but pretty good. Probably his biggest issue is the lack of armor; I have the Chain of Drakkas on my ftr/rog/wiz, so he's wearing mere +2 studded leather. I think what I really like about him is his utility; he's a decent healer right up there, has a decent weapon with stand-off (the spear), and is the best marksman in my party.

 

Ahhh.... you answered a question that I had.... I remembered a "dogsoldier" on one of these IWD2 boards from a few years back. (Didn't remember if it was here or on the old Ironworks board.) I seem to recall that you had to deploy to a certain rather dusty place. Glad to see that you're back with us!!!


Dogsoldier, be aware that in LOS, I add a LOT of new bows and crossbows. And that one of the new bows is only usable by good-aligned rangers. I also re-included some STR requirements on all bows, depending on the basic type of bow (i.e. shortbow, longbow, and composite vs non-composite). I created the ranger bow to be a nice benefit for people who like to use rangers, like myself. Funny how that works, when you write your own mods...

 

Without measuring explicitly on my monitor it's hard to know for sure, but thrown hammers and darts can go all the way across the screen, or at least that's how it feels subjectively. (It could be only 2/3 of the way across the screen in reality, that would probably feel the same since to go a full screen you'd need to have the PCs scrolled off the edge of the viewscreen.) Slings and bows can go even a little bit further than that. Thrown axes like Screamer are a pain because they only go maybe ten feet or so (about two inches on my monitor), which tends to bring you almost into melee range if there are a lot of enemies milling around.

There is no way a bow has 3-4 times the range of a hammer or two-handed throwing axe. It's more like 30-40% more, about ten feet (the range of a thrown axe). The extra range on slings/bows is useful for automatically keeping someone at the back of the party (e.g. I give my tank a sling so she tends to automatically become the target of anyone hitting the back of the party), but hammers have plenty of range to target anyone you want to target.

-Max

 

Max, the range of Th.Daggers and Th.Axes is (in game terms) 10 units. The range of Darts and Th. Hammers is 20 units. And the range of a shortbow, the shortest ranged of bows is 75 units, and longbows are 100 units. And slings are 40-50 units.

Now, what a "unit" actually comprises, I cannot strictly say. However, clearly there's a vast gulf between the range of darts/th.hammers and shortbows. Whether that "vast gulf" is something we can see on-screen, I don't really know.

 

When the characters' line of sight extends only to about sling range, the longer range of bows et al is rather irrelevant.

The range of throwing hammers and darts is about half the range of slings, and shortbows have effectively sling range (it could be longer like you mention but there's no way to shoot at opponents one cannot see).

 

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I find that the fighter makes the best archer because he has more feats that can help an archery character sooner and has access to more feats (weapon specialisation) that allow him to do more damage.

 

Stuntman, I stand by my statement.

To make a great fighter-archer, you have to build a character that runs counter to the paradigm of the fighter ... a character with a high DEX. Ditto for making a great cleric-archer... you have to have a high DEX (and you'd either have to actually be a slinger, take bow feats, or get the bow feats free by being some sort of elf). The paradigm for great fighter builds is high STR and CHA, and the paradigm for great cleric builds is a max WIS and moderate to high-ish STR/CON.

OTOH, a ranger with a max DEX actually IS the paradigm of a great ranger build. You don't have to do anything that runs counter to the class' paradigm or the stats that the class strongly tends to favor. You can build a great ranger without the slightest intention of being an archer, just a light-armor wearing ranger with a max DEX, maxed out stealth skills, and you'd STILL have a potentially great archer without lifting a finger.

This is the logic behind my statement that rangers often make the best archer builds. They don't have to do anything that runs counter to the paradigm of their class to be good at ranged combat. The same runs true for rogues, though rogues of course don't have the same BAB advancement curve of a ranger, so rangers would have a slight advantage on that front.

 

Only Rapid Shot and Weapon Specialization really help an archer build. There is a strong case for Weapon Specialization in bows but it doesn't change the fact that Crucis did use the word "often" not the word always.

If you make a melee Fighter you don't need a high DEX (armour limits you so 13 points for Dodge is the limit). If you go for a high DEX fighter specializing in bows you'll benefit from Weapon Specialization that's true.

That being said I'm pretty sure making a high DEX ranged Fighter would be a poor choice compared to a high STR one with a two hander and /or slings.

 

Spoilering for the OP's sake, even though we've drifted well into the nitty gritty already since the first page of this thread:

Spoiler

BTW, if there's anyone trying to make a ranged attacker on a limited stat point budget: high DEX is nice but high STR is essential. Hitting things generally isn't a problem once you start getting some levels, but there are only a few ways to boost damage per-hit and high STR is the best and easiest one. Don't be fooled into prioritizing DEX over STR, unless of course it just satisfies your own personal Rule of Cool in which case go for it.

Edit: Another comment. Melee fighters do benefit from high DEX more than this thread would lead you to believe. Even if you don't invest anything in DEX from level-ups, you can be getting +6 or +7 to AC by using Cat's Grace and/or racial bonuses. Combine that with some good armor (Spirit Armor from the spell is +6, Chains of Drakka is +7) and you've got better AC than anything you can get from heavy armor. On the other hand, the best way not to get hit by monsters is to not rely on the dice at all--don't be within melee range of a monster that's not busy already attacking something else. The dice can always fail you but the physical constraints of the game world cannot. Try to keep your damage dealers out of melee range, *especially* in HoF, and pay attention to which way monsters are facing.

Remember to "run away" where appropriate.

-Max

 

When I make an archer, I make a character with high Dex regardless of what class he is. There is nothing about a fighter class that says he must not have high Dex. My fighter archer will be better than a ranger archer, paladin archer, rogue archer, wizard archer, or cleric archer. I do not understand where you get at making a fighter archer how does not have high Dex. If he is going to be an archer, he is going to have high Dex.

I personally do not see any paradigm that says the fighter is not going to have high Dex or must always have high Str and Con. If I am going to make an archer the only paradigm is that he will have high Dex. My 3E PnP character is an archer and he has high Dex and happens to be a fighter.

Even for an inexperienced IWD2 player, the basic advice for building a good archer is to start with high Dex. If archery is going to be his main role, I would recommend a fighter because of access to more feats and having more feats.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later... ----------

If you make a melee fighter, you are not making an archer. If you are making an archer, he is going to have high Dex even if he is a fighter.

 

I de-spoilered the first paragraph of the previous post's spoiler because there simply wasn't any "spoiler" content in it, and it was easier to respond to thusly.

Claiming that high STR is "essential" for a good ranged attacker on a limited stat budget is nothing more than a powergaming opinion. Furthermore, this opinion operates in the vacuum of assuming that STR is necessary improves ranged combat damage, which is only true with certain types of weapons, i.e. thrown weapons and slings, but not true for bows and crossbows.

I'm not going to say that it isn't nice for an archer to have some STR, but that isn't because it's necessary to enhance archery. It's nice to have some STR because every character will have times when it is drawn into melee. And if you have a non-spellcasting archer type character in your party, and the party starts getting pressed hard by enemies from all directions, that archer may find that it is forced into melee, if only to protect the party's mage. And if that's the case and the archer switches to any melee weapon, whether a massive greataxe or all the way down to the merest dagger, the archer will benefit from having some STR to add extra damage to that weapon's own damage.

To use Max's words, don't be fooled into thinking that powergaming advice represents the one and only true path to success in IWD2 because it isn't.

Spoiler

Crucis embedded reply: Well, duh, of course you can get some benefit from DEX in situations like combining it with a spell, Spirit Armor, or a very, very late game special armor. However, the latter is metagaming knowledge that a player who is unfamiliar with the game (as we all were at some point) wouldn't be aware of. The former, i.e. the Spirit Armor, even a newbie could know about with some D&D experience or from just reading the manual rather closely.

Personally, I don't like relying on metagaming knowledge for planning a party. Besides, Giving the Chain of Drakkas to a tank that has a little bit of "extra" DEX seems like a terrible waste. IMHO, the CoD armor is best given to a very, very high DEX character such as a ranger or a rogue, or possibly even a mage or bard, if they have the strength to wear and carry it. Frankly, the CoD's +7 AC really isn't all that special compared to other armors in the game. What makes it special is that it has no Max DEX bonus and allows spellcasting without penalty. A tank with a moderate DEX can get this much added AC from the best sets of Chain Mail. And lastly, the CoD armor is found so late in the game that it really is pretty silly to plan a character based on it.

Max is entirely correct here. I suppose that it may seem obvious, but if an enemy is strictly a melee combatant, the best way to avoid taking damage from it is to not enter melee against it. This is entirely true. And quite often, very good advice. ( And there's nothing powergamey here ... if you don't want to get hit by a sword, don't be in range of the sword! )

Of course, this isn't always something that you can control. There will be times when you have almost no choice but to enter melee. But there are other times when you can run away to open the distance and use ranged combat, or use magics to do certain things to keep the enemy at a distance so that you can pepper the enemy with ranged weapons and destructive magics.

Or if one or more in your party is severely wounded and you don't have the magics or potions to properly heal the wounded characters, running away and leaving the area outright can be an option, at times. That is, leave the area, take the time to heal up, and return. (There are a couple of battles where you cannot do this because there are some certain time constraints...)

---------- Added 0 hours, 11 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

Stuntman, you UTTERLY misread and completely misunderstood my post.

I NEVER said that an archer-fighter shouldn't have a high DEX.

What I DID say is that building a high DEX fighter is counter to the paradigm of the fighter class. Of course, that doesn't mean that you are breaking any rules or whatever to build a high DEX fighter-archer. However, it is counter to the fighter paradigm.

OTOH, if you build a ranger strictly to its paradigm, with a max DEX wearing light armor for maximum stealth, the ranger will be by default a great potential archer.

As for you not seeing "any paradigm that says the fighter is not going to have high Dex or must always have high Str and Con", then you are being blind. It's there for all to see. 99+% of all pure fighters are melee tanks... that's the paradigm right there.

 

Of course, it depends whether or not you intend for that character to be a fulltime archer or only a part time archer. I think we agree on that point.

IMO Fighters are meant to be melee characters (it's the stereotype and it's also my playing style). Nothing prevents them from being used as ranged attackers of course.

Rangers are meant to have higher DEX by default because they tend to use light armours, whereas Fighters are better off wearing heavier armours and wielding two handed weapons to maximize damage.

I've always limited ranged combat to supporting characters like Bards and spellcasters who've run out of spells because I've always considered that fighter types were more efficient when engaging the enemy in melee. There are some exceptions but I don't play HoF so our game experience may differ because of that.

 

Not sure that I'd call it a "poor" choice. I do think that a pure fighter-archer isn't as flexible as a ranger-archer, at least as I'd define "flexible". I think that archers make can be very useful with stealth to bring themselves into range of enemy mages and get in a few shots from surprise, and I tend to think that that's worth the cost of Weap. Spec. Or heck, if you really want the Weap. Spec., you could just go for a ranger X/ftr 4 build. Frankly, for a dedicated archer, I'm not sure that all those extra fighter bonus feats (outside of weapon specialization, of course) really add all that much to an archer (or slinger, etc.).

What does an archer "need" to be the best possible archer (not counting spell enhancements)? For starters, weapon specialization in your ranged weapon. Rapid shot. Precise Shot, I suppose (though it does seem like a waste, since unless you are going to role-play an archer using his bow in melee, you're almost certainly better off switching to a melee weapon). Fine... we're got the ranged feats covered, what next? Frankly, after that, I don't think that any of the remaining feats really do anything to make the character a better "archer". They just make the character better generally. Thus, it seems to me that all you really need is 4 levels of fighter get the Weap. Spec., and the other archery feats (Rapid Shot and maybe Precise Shot). After that, you could take any other warrior class for the maximized BAB and you'd be just as good as a pure fighter, when it comes to being the best possible archer.

Personally, I think that rangers are best because of the stealth abilities, though one could argue that for a ranged combatant using throwing weapons or slings, barbarian rage could make for a nice enhancement for more STR bonus damage... though the idea of a "barbarian" enraging himself to use ... a sling ... seems so wrong. And I suppose that a paladin-archer could use its Smite Evil ability to add damage to archery, but that also seems rather ... wrong (though if it's an elven paladin, it might seem less wrong).

Stuntman, it was rather unfair of you chop off the second sentence from Carad's reply (in the paragraph in bold well above). You removed the context of his reply, and then replied to an out-of-context sentence as if the following sentence did not exist.

Carad wasn't arguing that a person making a melee fighter was making an archer. He was comparing melee fighters to archer fighters in that paragraph ...

 

First of all, I would like to appologise if I took some of the posts out of context.

I guess that I did not see the 3E fighter class as being a stereotypical melee class. That goes for both the PnP D&D (in 2E and 3E only) I have played and IWD2. That seems to be the reason for our disagreement. To me the 3E fighter is a versatile combattant that is very good with any weapon he chooses whether it be melee or ranged. The 3E ranger seems more of a melee class to me than a 3E fighter. The reason is that the ranger has a good melee ability built into the class (TWF and AD), but has no build-in good ranged ability.

(Note that this has changed with 4E D&D. IWD2 is based on 3E rules, so my view of the fighter on this subject is in the context of 3E and IWD2.)

 

That's correct of course but you'll probably agree that STR and DEX make a difference regarding a fighter's martial prowess. Without stat dumping it's difficult to increase STR, CON and DEX. Besides if you plan to wear heavier armours (or thus don't focus on ranged combat) maxing out DEX is not a priority. Consequently it would seem that if a fighter wears heavy armour he (or she) will be better in combat with a melee weapon. A Monk will run around in his underwear but most fighters wear armour.

Actually, in ToEE Rangers can get some Archery specialization instead of Two Weapon fighting so I think it has more to do with IWD2 than 3E.

 

I always saw the 3E fighter as being versatile, but when it comes down to making a character, you probably would choose melee or ranged, then allocate your stats accordingly. At least that's how I approached it. It is possible to be a more generalist fighter that allows you to be effective at both options, but you give up the ability to really excel at one or the other as you would have to spread your ability scores across Str, Dex and Con.

The fighter does have proficency with heavy armour. However, a fighter who is built to be an archer, may forgo using heavy armour in favour of light armour. I find that I would rather have my archers with better movement than higher AC if I had to make the choice.

IWD2 came out prior to the release of 3.5. ToEE came out after 3.5. These games used whatever ruleset was the latest at the time. I wouldn't expect IWD2 to have the ranged option for rangers as the 3.0 rules were the most current at the time of IWD2.

 

Y'know, I thought this was a thread about giving advice on IWD2....obviously it's just a fight about edition rules/classes/skill points............ho hum

 

It's pretty awful but that's the IWD2 forum. Most threads seem to end up with hair splitting arguments about obscenely obscure points. It's not unlike Byzantine theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Silvery, it may seem like piling on, but I'm perfectly content giving newbies simple basic advice. The problem is that some powergamers are constitutionally incapable of giving such "simple basic advice". They seem hardwired into thinking that requests for advice, even from newbies, require that they offer powergaming advice.

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 38 seconds later... ----------

Well, it's not as bad as it used to be when there were the 2e vs. 3e flame-a-thons.

 

3e sucks.

The whole ranger vs fighter archer argument is especially bad when everyone knows a fighter(4)/thief(x) is the best archer in the game.

... I kinda feel sorry for Flack, I think we scared him off.