Thieves

[Dermit]

Dual class is more or less ok Imo but the large amount of XP in BG2 and TOB make it broken. Surely nobody dualclass a character in BG1.

 

Yes, but that's the problem. It's the game, not the dual class concept.

 

50% Quest Experience from DEF JAM goes a long way towards remedying that.

[Demivrgvs]

Dual Classing

Dual class is more or less ok Imo but the large amount of XP in BG2 and TOB make it broken. Surely nobody dualclass a character in BG1.

Yes, but that's the problem. It's the game, not the dual class concept.

50% Quest Experience from DEF JAM goes a long way towards remedying that.

As I said, I don't want to "save the dual class system" because I think its broken to the core: the concpet behind it and the end result if exploited. Almost everything the dual class system aims to achieve can be done in a much better way with kitted or multi-classed characters, both conceptually and balance wise. For example instead of having Anomen as a dual classed fighter-cleric, we could just make him a Watcher's of Helm, and having such kit work as a warrior-priest class (e.g. getting less spells per day but granting +1/2 apr at 7th and 137th lvl as warriors).

 

One thing that could partially rebalance the dual class sytem imo would be forcing multi-class HLAs tables to dual classed characters. This way kensages wouldn't be able to become as good archmages as true archmages, but will get some fighter-mage HLAs (e.g. Whirlwind Attack, but not Greater Whirlwind Attack) because of their heritage (though then the "dual class characters can also be kitted" problem arises). Anyway, afaik this is not possible thus it doesn't matter.

 

Long story short, I won't destroy nor change dual classing within KR. Other than relatively small things like preventing uber cheesy exploits (e.g. kenasi-thief wearing armor via UAI), implementing cross class restrictions (e.g. a Wizard Slayer really cannot dual to mage) or very small refinements which may have impact on power-gaming (e.g. enraged characters within KR cannot cast spells), there's little I can do about it, but it may be enough.

 

 

P.S Why everyone here posted his opinion on the dual class system (off topic) but nobody let us know his/her opinion on true thieves using scrolls at 1st lvl (on topic)?

[Dermit]

P.S Why everyone here posted his opinion on the dual class system (off topic) but nobody let us know his/her opinion on true thieves using scrolls at 1st lvl (on topic)?

 

10th level I would say, not only for AD&D purity but to give thieves some delayed abilities. In the IWD Heart of Winter expansion they implemented a form of backstabbing similar to the 3rd Ed style sneak attack, would it be possible to do that in BG?

[Demivrgvs]

Use Scrolls

P.S Why everyone here posted his opinion on the dual class system (off topic) but nobody let us know his/her opinion on true thieves using scrolls at 1st lvl (on topic)?

10th level I would say, not only for AD&D purity but to give thieves some delayed abilities.

Well, if using Refinements solution isn't a problem I'd surely vote for this...but for some reason Ardanis seems to prefer avoiding it, and he's the better coder.

 

@Ardanis, how do Refinements solution handle things like RR/IR SSoB's +1 to backstab which is granted vie EFF file? Does it patch items to add an additional EFF file for the new "class"?

 

Sneak Attack

In the IWD Heart of Winter expansion they implemented a form of backstabbing similar to the 3rd Ed style sneak attack, would it be possible to do that in BG?

ToBEx has recently done something about this, but not in a 3E style. If I'm not wrong it allows you to make a character ignore one or both the requirements to inflict a backstab attack: 1) being invisible, and 2) behind the target. Removing the former is somewhat interesting because I really like 3E flanking system (it makes rogues A LOT more interesting on the battlefield), but with AD&D backstabbing system (multipliers instead of additional +d6 dmg) I do fear it can be abused, especially Assassin's 7x.

[leania]

I feel that Use Scrolls at first lvl is a little powerful so I think it's better to limit its ability of lower level.

 

Use Limited Scrolls

True Thief can use 1-4 (or 1-5) level scrolls at first level.

 

True Theif will get Use Scrolls which allows to use all of scrolls as HLA instead of UAI.

 

And I have another idea, which adds weaker version of Alchemy at first level. This basic alchemy will allow to make some sorts of potions such as Potion of Invisibility and Potion of Perception.

[J Beau]

I like leania's solution if it can be implemented.

[Ardanis]

Well, if using Refinements solution isn't a problem I'd surely vote for this...but for some reason Ardanis seems to prefer avoiding it, and he's the better coder.

 

@Ardanis, how do Refinements solution handle things like RR/IR SSoB's +1 to backstab which is granted vie EFF file? Does it patch items to add an additional EFF file for the new "class"?

Older Refinements iirc didn't update EFF usage, though it may do so now.

And another point of concern are scripts/dialogs, which may check for specific kit.

 

In both cases, the update patch must go the last in install order. And knowing that there're other 'must be installed last' mods, it may prove disappealing under certain curcumstances.

 

Use Limited Scrolls

It indeed is implementable, either through the Refinements' solution, or via

Say, there's a small list of items (15-20) which are normally forbidden for use, but can be unlocked by UAI lvl1. Then another list for UAI lvl2. Maybe third one as well.

but either way imo isn't perfect and, more importantly, not really having any noticable effect. Like I've said, how many high-level scrolls - left unused after wizards are done scribing new spells - can be found early in game? And if INT requirement is implemented, then it's already a serious limitation.

 

And I have another idea, which adds weaker version of Alchemy at first level. This basic alchemy will allow to make some sorts of potions such as Potion of Invisibility and Potion of Perception.

This, instead, is very simple to do.

[SixOfSpades]

I won't destroy nor change dual classing within KR. Other than relatively small things like . . . implementing cross class restrictions (e.g. a Wizard Slayer really cannot dual to mage), there's little I can do about it, but it may be enough.

Personally, I would leave open any character that would make a plausible roleplay. The Kensai->Thief using UAI to wear Full Plate is obviously pure cheese, but a Wizard Slayer could very conceivably become a Mage in order to access all those great Abjuration spells that can make enemy spellcasters so vulnerable.

 

As far as Thieves using scrolls is concerned, I too could get behind a level-based system . . . level-based restrictions actually being implementable in BG is news to me, but if you say it's so, then my 2 cents is that a pure Thief should not be able to read any scroll that a Bard of the same EXP level could not cast. But even that's infringing on the Bard's territory, which was already painfully small. How on earth is a Bard supposed to compete with a Berserker->Thief with scrolls of Stoneskin & Tenser's?

[Constantine]

Personally, I would leave open any character that would make a plausible roleplay. The Kensai->Thief using UAI to wear Full Plate is obviously pure cheese, but a Wizard Slayer could very conceivably become a Mage in order to access all those great Abjuration spells that can make enemy spellcasters so vulnerable.

Are you serious? And even if he could, shouldn't he kill himself, then?

[Salk]

I am with Demi here.

 

To me, a wizard slayer dualling to spellcaster does not make much sense. His kit embodies a crusader against magic practice and there should be no affinity between a mage's and a wizard slayer's ethic.

[Ardanis]

As far as Thieves using scrolls is concerned, I too could get behind a level-based system . . . level-based restrictions actually being implementable in BG is news to me, but if you say it's so, then my 2 cents is that a pure Thief should not be able to read any scroll that a Bard of the same EXP level could not cast. But even that's infringing on the Bard's territory, which was already painfully small. How on earth is a Bard supposed to compete with a Berserker->Thief with scrolls of Stoneskin & Tenser's?

And implementable they are not. There're two methods to work around it, but neither is without a hole. If possible, I'd prefer to not spend time and effort only to hear once in a while a random "hey, something is broke there".

 

Personally, I would leave open any character that would make a plausible roleplay. The Kensai->Thief using UAI to wear Full Plate is obviously pure cheese, but a Wizard Slayer could very conceivably become a Mage in order to access all those great Abjuration spells that can make enemy spellcasters so vulnerable.

Are you serious? And even if he could, shouldn't he kill himself, then?

Agreed with Six. Lets leave it up to individual players how they envision each class, kit and item. I, for example, have no trouble seeing a kensai wearing a minor wizard robe.

And, since when a WS became a nazi inquisitor? A weapon is always a weapon if you can handle it, even if it was developed by enemy. I probably won't ever consider playing WS/wizard, but someone may come up with a concept borrowed from yet another fiction novel and feel offended that they can't play it.

 

But then, ever since I knew well both 2nd and 3rd editions, I have always thought the latter to be far more user-friendly than former. Though I know there're people who'd prefer being strictly directed by unknown DnD gods. Perhaps we're just having an ideological conflict here.

[Demivrgvs]

Use Scrolls

Well, if using Refinements solution isn't a problem I'd surely vote for this...but for some reason Ardanis seems to prefer avoiding it, and he's the better coder.

 

@Ardanis, how do Refinements solution handle things like RR/IR SSoB's +1 to backstab which is granted vie EFF file? Does it patch items to add an additional EFF file for the new "class"?

Older Refinements iirc didn't update EFF usage, though it may do so now.

And another point of concern are scripts/dialogs, which may check for specific kit.

 

In both cases, the update patch must go the last in install order. And knowing that there're other 'must be installed last' mods, it may prove disappealing under certain curcumstances.

Mmm, long story short, we should avoid Refinements solution, be it at 10th lvl or as an HLA. Thus unless we can find a new creative solution we're stuck with either vanilla's UAI HLA or letting thieves use scrolls at 1st lvl. Damn, I'll try to think a bit more about it.

 

Regarding a possible limitation to use scrolls (e.g. low lvl thieves can only use low lvl scrolls) I agree with Ardanis, it's not worth the effort, because at low lvl you're not going to have high lvl scrolls anyway.

 

my 2 cents is that a pure Thief should not be able to read any scroll that a Bard of the same EXP level could not cast. But even that's infringing on the Bard's territory, which was already painfully small. How on earth is a Bard supposed to compete with a Berserker->Thief with scrolls of Stoneskin & Tenser's?

Well, a Berserker->Thief combo is another of those silly non-roleplaying things caused by the broken dual class system, and on a vanilla game they could get UAI, thus we're simply discussing about having them a more limited ability early on. A Stoneskin scroll doesn't scare me much, especially considering that IR's Potion of Stone Form is actually more effective when used by non-spellcasters, because afaik thieves would cast scrolls as a 1st lvl character (am I wrong?). A TT scroll on a Berserker can be scary yes, but it costs 2000gp, how many of them could you afford? Bards can cast TT without spending any gp.

 

The problems with bards imo is that their defining features (e.g. bard's song) suck within BG, and that too many players don't understand how bards should be played: they are not fighter-mages (except Blades), they excel at buffing the party and debuffing/disabling the opponents.

 

Alchemy

And I have another idea, which adds weaker version of Alchemy at first level. This basic alchemy will allow to make some sorts of potions such as Potion of Invisibility and Potion of Perception.

This, instead, is very simple to do.

Indeed, but then again, not at 1st lvl imo. I do prefer to spread all abilities because you gain a sense of achievement by leveling up, and in this case even a simple Potion of Invisibility at 1st lvl is actually "overkill" imo if you think it's kinda like giving them a 2nd lvl arcane spell at 1st lvl.

[DavidW]

Going all the way back to the original proposal: I'm actually unconvinced that it makes design sense to try to make the original, unkitted classes competitive. Aren't kits there, at least in part, to reward characters for not multi-classing? (That was certainly part of the original motivation for them in PnP, for all that it got lost later.)

 

(& yes, I appreciate that dual-class characters also get kits. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Demi's general view here, though.)

[SixOfSpades]

Use Scrolls

. . . Well, a Berserker->Thief combo is another of those silly non-roleplaying things caused by the broken dual class system, and on a vanilla game they could get UAI, thus we're simply discussing about having them a more limited ability early on.

Well, theoretically, a Berserker->Thief could be roleplayed, but I definitely agree, it'd be a stretch, and far more likely to have powergaming motivations than anything else. But did I miss something? In my Tweakpack (playtesting now), I've locked out UAI for Kensai->Thieves and (modded) Wizard Slayer->Thieves, but this is the first I've heard of other modders doing the same thing for other characters.

 

The problems with bards imo is that their defining features (e.g. bard's song) suck within BG, and that too many players don't understand how bards should be played: they are not fighter-mages (except Blades), they excel at buffing the party and debuffing/disabling the opponents.

Well, that's the majority of the problem with Bards--they're almost completely eclipsed by nearly any Multiclassed character. The rest of the Bard problem is hardcoded into the maximum party size of 6: It quite simply isn't worth taking 1/6th of your team out of action so that the other 5 can enjoy relatively trivial combat bonuses. If we could band together a group of 10, sure, I'd throw a Bard in there, but as the game stands now, Haer'Dalis is mostly just dead weight.

[yarpen]

Is it just me, or dual-classing really should be restricted to trueclass characters? Well, it'd solve a lot of problems with balance.