Starting party with no intent to multi class

Remove all ads!

You'll roll a 3 on 3d6 one out of of 216 times, so I'd assume that only 0.5% of the population have INT:3. That's the equivalent of around 55-60 IQ.

The US millitary simply doesn't allow in people with IQ less than 80, the bottom 10%, or approximately INT:6 or less. So I find it hard to believe that a character with INT:3 could ever hope to be an adventurer.

I still minimax in IWD, because it's just a computer game. But if I were running a real life campaign, I wouldn't let a player put anything less than 6 into INT.

 

Think of the book Of mice and men. Lenny is a big stupid (but gentle) giant of a man who blindly follows his friend. This could easily be the case with adventurers. Also one too many bangs to the head would probably lower intelligence. Guy (or girl) probably started out smart, ran into an ogre, got bashed and voila, an instant drooler. Anyway I didn't mean for this thread to get so heated. Next time I'll just ask favourite race for a rogue. Not that I'm interested. Just should reduce the risk of som much text sparring.

[ February 09, 2006, 18:38: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Discussion heated or otherwise are the whole point of having a forum about a game- otherwise you may as well just post the odd guide/walkthrough and forget it.

 

Don't worry about it, Haggis. Everyone expressed their opinion and kept their cool.


Regarding "Lenny", while I haven't read the book, I'd still think that he'd likely be a good candidate for an INT of 6. I simply have a problem believing that anyone with an INT 3 would be capable of doing anything productive as an adventurer.

 

@crucis
"Lenny" in that book has an intelligence of 3. Take a normal group of around 200 persons. The least intelligent person there would certainly fit in an adventure if just someone guids him/her. That's what my more intelligent chars are there for. Not everyone has to be the one that reads the map.

It's quite hard to make a superior character by taking a level or two in different classes. You have to plan careful to avoid penalties to XP. Often those soper-multiclasses result in something worse than the pure-class. In some case they work.
In my super-multiclass decoy I wanted for RP-reasons to have a hard-to-hit small magic-using person. A plain sorc with summon spells is much easier to play and does the same job. I just don't like using too much summons and the only ways I know to beat HOF without summons or cheese is with a high-AC char.

I think that heavy using of summons is kind of a bad in most parties for RP-reasons (a few exceptions exists like when playing with a mad wizard who sees him self as a gate to hell).

 

1 of 216 is actually very high.
Imagine a pre-industrial village with 2,160 healthy citizen. 10 of them have 3 int. I don't think that so many inhabitants are too stupid to find a useful role in their society or in a adventurer group, especially if they have other strengths.
About 100 citizens have int 5 or lower. I don't think you would even realize one if you met him.

Or in a country with 216,000,000 citizens 1,000,000 would have 3 int.

I've replaced my estimates from above with exact calculations.
If you consider the average stats of healthy people as random 3d6 rolls, then you get:

- only 1 of 580 random 6-human groups have no stat lower than 8, but one of 6.5 random groups have someone with 3 in a stat
- only 2 of 11 groups have no stat 5 or lower
- only about 1 of 3 characters has no stat lower than 8
- every 4th human has a stat of 5 or lower
- about 1 of 6 humans has 7 int or less

There is no reason why someone with 3 int couldn't be an useful party member.

It's not important that all party members take part in abstract philosophical discussions about the meaning of life or can solve complex equation systems.

The concept behind building a party is that the party members have different strengths so they can overcome each others weaknesses.

And always remember: 3 is as common as 18.

 

Although this have gone off topic, the original premise of the stats was the average adventurer was an exceptional person (top 10% in their field, so to speak).

I really don't remember the intelligence stat real life comparison (but I would give Lenny a 1 intelligence), but the strength went along these lines:

A person could life 10 pounds over their head for each point in strength.

One additional pound for each point of exceptional strength.

So, that makes 30 pounds for the weakest adventurer, 100 pounds for the average adventurer, and a whopping 280 pounds for the 18/00 behemoth. I'm not sure that 50% of society can do a 30 pound shoulder press, let alone 100 pounds. Pretty much the 280 pound shoulder press is limited to professional athletes (damn that's a lot -- put 280 pounds on your shoulders and lift it to full extention).

Using that as an analogy for all the stats, an intelligence of 10 would be quite high (perhaps upper 80 percentile). I do recall 18 was considered super-genius, 16-17 was genius -- think of Einstein as a 16.

 

I have no problem with min maxed stats - so long as the game engine provides suitable penalties for having really low stats. For example, you could try and role play an 18 STR, 3 INT half-orc who would be great in combat but pretty much would not be able to read anything or understand much that anybody said to you, making most quests really tough. The problem with most min-maxing in IWD2 is that the penalties for some low stats are not severe enough (whereas in NWN they are TOO severe - try going below 9 in anything and you get hammered)

 

crucis, I'm not a mad multi-classer, in fact it's a relatively rare occurence that even a single character in my party have more than one class (I've probably played 40 - 50 parties atleast to the ice temple before abondoning the more boring combinations). I certainly was not trying to shout you down, nor am I distressed that you would "DARE" voice your opinion. Maybe in the future you could lay off expressions such as "rules lawyers" and "disrespectful abusers of the spirit of the game". I apologize to the forum for these posts which have less to do with IWD2 and more to do with personal differences. My future posts will be strictly game related.

 

About Multiclassing :

The game allows it. Whether you take advantage of it or not, it is your game.
Sure it is a little unbalanced, especially when characters like the Confused Gnome can have 7-8 of the allowed 11 classes. NWN limited a character to 3 classes iirc, and that seems about right.
However that does not mean that one start bemoaning the fact that no one plays single classes anymore. Players will play the game they want to the way they want to. The unfettered multiclassing is a major differentiating point of IWD II. And it makes for interesting combinations. Whether this is done from a powergaming perspective or a roleplaying one is irrelevant.

@crucis
You seem to think that any class is a career. Not necessarily. If you were to check any of the NPCs loitering about, they would mostly have class Fighter. However the game story identifies them and loggers and villagers. Prestige classes are more like careers.

About Min/Maxing :

Lack in any physical or mental stat does not necessarily preclude a character from becoming an adventurer. Frankly it is not clearly well defined what a stat level means (even Str, what does that amount you can lift have to do with fighting ability). However dumping a stat just to ensure that you can make an uber monster without bothering to define the character is out and out powergaming.
People here seem take lower limit of -2. I take -4 (Minsc was a Human with an Int of 6 and worked fine). But do you also limit the upper stats. A 3'5" gnome who is naturally strong enough to lift an elephant also should be seen as powergaming, no?

 

@kmonster

Within the general population, yes. But within the population of adventurers? I think not.

The nature of adventurers and adventuring is that exceptional competence and skill and physical/mental attributes are vastly more likely to succeed and survive than those at the other end of the spectrum.


@Shrikant

Uhhhh, perhaps you need to look at the players manual. Even that manual refers to classes as "careers".


Prestige classes seem more like getting an advanced degree, a specialization.

No, for the reasons that I mention in my first comment of this post. Adventuring, by its very nature, attracts the strong, the agile, the smart, and the wise. The fact that you have 16 stat points to play with above the average 60 (10 average in each) clearly indicates that you are "selecting" individuals from a rather above average subset of the general population. It should be expected that you will find people with exceptional physical and/or mental talents when you are selecting from such an above-average population.

 

As for putting limits on lowering stats but not on raising them I think the point buy system itself does a good enough job of limiting the upper end - perhaps even a little too well in games like NWN or ToEE when they charge more as stats grow higher. I think its important to note that stats can indeed permanently increase as the game progresses while they rarely decrease permanently and almost never as a result of player choice which also denotes the idea of a starting "cap" to limit the high end.

Minimizing on the other hand is almost always utilized to "ignore" stats that seem unimportant to the gaming side of the character regardless of how unbalanced or odd the reduction of that stat might be reflected in how likely it would be to find such a character filling whatver role has been chosen.

This is why I take away some of my options to minimize beyond a certain point but make no attempt to curb myself on the high end.

I do admit this may also have been negotiated carefully between my good natured roleplaying side and my somewhat more evil natured powergaming side. In "roll your own" games like BG or IWD 1 I do indeed recall that pretty much every warrior had maxed str dex and con and some of them may have suffered irreparable brain damage to do so but I try to put those evil days behind me now and seek balance in most things...

 

I doubt that. Someone that skilled would have no problems living a successful life without adventuring.

Why should he be an adventurer if he knows that many (80 percent ?) won't survive long enough to found their own family.
In IWD2 I would say about 99,9 percent wouldn't survive, unless there is a god who casts "powerword reload" pretty often.
Most of them died before even reaching Targos.

Why should the game provide a heavy penalty for one member with low int ? It would be very unrealistic. A party doesn't need more than one member who can read complex maps.
Someone who can't understand much what you say to him is brain-damaged and has an int of 1-2. 3 is still pretty common.

Minmaxed partys are far stronger than all stats equal parties, but that's realistic.
There are more or less useful characters.
You have the choice to build more or less powerful parties.
You can choose to play weak parties if you can't make yourself roleplaying characters with low intelligence or other weak stats, the game is playable either way.


@crucis: You think the 16 extra stat points are there to eliminate out characters with weaknesses, I think they are there for picking out the the most skilled adventurers.


About multiclassing:

The 2E games like IWD favored multiclassing far more than IWD2.
In IWD1 you lost much power if you built a single class mage,thief,cleric or druid.

A fighter9/mage X looses less than a mage level and gains:
- the ability to use all kinds of wepons and armor
- 72 extra hitpoints
- 3 attcks/round with greatsword and instead of 1 attack/round using quarterstaff.
- huge thac0 and damage bonusses for 18/00 str and for weapon specialisation

Compare this to what you get if your mage takes a fighter level in IWD2.

I played a normal IWD2 game without level squatting and spoilers. No party member had reached more than level 17 and I guess that's not low since the final battle wasn't that hard.

- If I had given other class levels to my druid she'd have lost powerful spells (all level 9 spells) and my party would have been weakened.

- The same is true with the other spellcasters, longer lasting spells, extra mass heal or champion's strength spells are more useful for the party than a little extra AB, AC or evasion feat for a single party member.

- The only classes who really benefit from multiclassing are barbarians,fighters, rangers or paladins and that's mainly because their classes are so weak. Rogues loose 2-12 sneak attack damage among other things if they take 4 fighter levels.

-So heavy multiclassing does in fact weaken the party in a normal game, the only really useful combos are fighter/barbarian, paladin 2or3/fighter x. Rangers are weak and if you add caster levels, a pure caster will always be stronger.

Conclusion:

Heavy Multiclassing is only useful if you do extensive level squatting or play in HoF mode.

In a normal IWD2 game where you will only reach about level 17 it actually weakens your party seriously. So you can call it "weak party gaming" instead of powergaming.

 

I think that those two statements actually mean just about the same thing, when you really think about it.

Agreed.

I generally agree with these statements. That said, a Rogue 2/Wizzy X isn't a bad combo to provide a minimal degree of rogue skills without having to commit to a full blown rogue. And given the general lack of scrolls, it doesn't really hurt as much as it does for non-scroll based spellcasting classes.

I agree and disagree. I agree that warriors tend to benefit more, but not so much because they're weak. I think that they gain more because any combo of warrrior classes tends to be a symbiotic relationship and they do not have the issue where losing levels inhibits upper level spellcasting. A warrior who takes levels in a different warrior class doesn't lose any HP or BAB, since all warriors are gaining HP and BAB at about the same rate.

Rangers aren't that bad. They're not meant to be as strong in front line melee as fighters, pallies, and barbs. But that doesn't make them bad characters. I've almost always had a ranger in most of my parties and have been happy with the result.

No, I don't think that I'll call it that. That's just word twisting.

I agree that not all multiclass combo's are created equal. And I agree that MC'ing becomes more "useful" when you're level squatting, etc., since you have extra XP to play with.

@wanderon

Wanderon, one thing to consider about min-maxing is that when one limits one's minimizing, you are also placing a modicum of limitation on your maxing by default, since limiting one's minimizing also limits the number of extra stat points that you could use to max out other stats.

 

Its not necessary to cast "powerword-reload" to raise dead in this setting and I think Crucis notion that its the best of the best that are drawn to adventuring is indeed the concept that the setting offers us. Especially when you consider the setting was designed with the adventurer-hero-villian as its center piece.

Even comparing fantasy adventurers to real life explorers/pioneers they were much more likely to be stronger more agile heartier smart wise and charismatic than the "average joe" back in "civilization".

As for the 3 int bit I think you both have the same idea and just differ on what an intelligence of 3 actually represents. Crucis thinks this represents a real dolt that might have trouble learning to tie a knot nevermind understanding and practicing the nuances required of swordplay facing multiple enemies while you think it just means hes a bit dull.

I do think that you are perhaps minimizing the importance of intelligence and to a lesser degree wisdom in being able to excel as a warrior tho and I too think the intelligence required to be the sort of outstanding warrior these characters represent is more properly represented with numbers closer to the "mid-range" of starting stats.

I agree the game is playable either way but I think min/maxing is unrealistic for the reasons I stated above. I think realisticly all attributtes need to be at close to average or above in order for the characters to achieve the kind of incredible prowess that even a non-min/maxed adventurer achieves in these games and this is not truly "balanced" in actual gameplay. Thus minimizing attributtes makes them unrealistic even if the game does not require the attributte for the class.

The exception to my "you need ALL these" argument is probably charisma and granted you could "roleplay" the concept that every single member of the group except the leader was just horribly scarred/ugly/cantankerous/etc but that just seems "contrived" to me.

I don't think they are either - I think they are just part of the total arbitrary number that the developers decided on for you to be able to distribute to a level 1 character. I think any computations of whats "average" should take them into consideration as well.


About multiclassing:

Agreed - altho it was very restrictive especially racially. Dual classing was somewhat less restrictive but the whole concept that you forgot everything about your first class until you learned more about your second class was silly.

In some ways this is all true and especially in regards to primary spellcasters. However you really only need 2 primary spellcasters ( 1 cleric and 1 mage type) so that leaves 4 other spots to "play with" for MCing unless you take a druid as well and even that leaves 3.

I think you can mix some spellcaster/warrior classes to come up with combinations that in most situations are almost as useful as a full blown warrior and in other situations are preferable over that same warrior and thus over all may actually be more powerful.

ie:Barb X /Stormlord 4X - what he loses in BAB and barb perks he makes up for with Stormlord spells and perks thus making him more interesting and perhaps even more useful than the plain Barb- for a tank especially late in the game when those extra spells are much more useful to the party than the extra attacks/damage or DR.

Other warrior/caster combos might be similar if built well.

Other combos like the rogue/wizzie may fall into the same category. I love the ranger/rogue combo too and think a ranger/barb combo would be interesting as well.

I do heartily agree that the best way to nerf your main spellcasters is to MC them and there are other horrible MC possibilities out there as well for the normal game. A fellow wanted me to play a party with an evenly leveled rogue/monk for instance...

 

Just make him a pure stormlord, he'll be far stronger than your multiclassed version.
The barbarian extra powers aren't as useful as one single extra mass heal and that's just one clerical spell.
It's the same with any warrior/spellcaster combo.
Spellcasters are just too powerful compared to warriors.

A rogue1/wizard16 is inferior to a pure wizard 17 regarding power, at least after you've found the scrolls (probably even before).

[ February 10, 2006, 19:46: Message edited by: kmonster ]

 

@Kmonster

I have a full cleric already when I use this sort of build I don't need a second full cleric - this is a tank/back up cleric build that I find more useful and more interesting to play than a straight (non spellcasting) tank. He can rage - gets lots of weapon profs - some extra hps - bonus speed and by games end he also has a hefty arsenal of spells that can be much more useful than a plain warriors single "attack" only options when facing crowds of high level enemies.

My point is that just becuase MCing your MAIN spellcasters just weakens them does not mean there is no place in your party for an MCed spellcaster. There are many MC builds that can fill your "extra" slots with fun and useful characters using MCs and to do so without doing the "cherry-pick" multi-multi-multi unit which does not fit into my gaming style.

 

@wanderon:
Even as secondary cleric your barbarian4/cleric is inferior to a pure cleric. He gains only +16HP and +1 AB.

Rage is useless since the gained strength doesn't add up to bull's or champion's strength which last much longer.

Faster movement is nice, but you can take the dash feat instead and someone who moves faster than the rest of the party gets also isolated fast.

The few weapon profs needed can also be taken as feats.

I doubt the barbarian bonusses are worth a single cleric level, even if there is a secondary cleric in the party. I've experienced how powerful a single mass heal can be in the battle with the twins.

I agree that your barb4/cleric x is more powerful than a pure warrior but that's because spellcasters are so powerful.

I also agree that your barb4/cleric is still powerful and more fun to play than a second cleric. Even pure rangers can be strong and fun to play although you can create a more powerful character instead.

Fun and power are different goals. I wouldn't like playing a party consisting of one cleric and five sorcerers just because they get so incredibly powerful.

Players who build so-called "cherry-pick" multi-multi-multi units in a normal game probably do this for fun since they are not a very powerful choice.

 

Well getting all the weapon profs means more to me than it does to most players becuase I tend NOT to stick to a single melee weapon for my warriors and instead switch them out with whatever the best "at hand" is altho the first character I played with this barb/stormlord build was a ghostwise halfling who used hammers for both melee and ranged most of the time. But when those +5 greatswords start dropping like acorns he used them as well...

 

Agh I know how hard it is to play with a full time cleric/mage, dividing his levels equally to each. My pure necromancer had uber 8th level spells by the time (level 15), while my poor Silverstar of Selune/Evoker had only 4th level spells. (8/7) He was very weak in normal game.

HOWEVER, once we were im HoF, I stopped levelling up my fighters and necromacner to give my SSoS/E much more XP. He leveled up quickly and became 13/17, 17 in evoker for uber level 9 spells. He was the most powerful and useful guy in my party, able to summon/banish/heal/revive/kill/disable, all in one character. He had 3 level 9 spells (one bonus for evoker, one bonus for god like int) and two WoBs and one MAss Dominate was enough for most of the battles. He was way more powerful than my pure necro, with better saving throws, HP, turn undead, MOST useful cleric/domain spells, and versatility.

I love 2E multi/dual classing better still. It was sooo tedious to raise my SSoS/E. I guess game designers noticed this and thus created Mystic Theurge prestige class, but since IWD2 does not have Prestige Classes...too bad.