Going without a rogue

Remove all ads!

Shall we say, the ranger takes his most obvious hide & silent moving plus search and lockpick. Some other character takes disable device. If a very high search skill doesn't pay, then the ranger only takes lockpick and the other character, leader/talker with 16 int (he'll anyway have to buy hobby skills for 2 pts), both disable device and search and on each of them he will then have INTEGER((level + 3) / 2) + 3 effective skill. This means 5 on level 1, 10 on level 11, 12 on level 15. Is that enough for disable device and search checks (search if leader's not enough, the ranger will do as well as rogue)?

The ranger with 20 DEX and lockpick will have INTEGER((level + 3) / 2) + 5 on start and her dex will grow. Her effective lockpick will begin from 7 on level 1, 12 on level 11 and 14 on level 15 (after dex increase higher by one or two). NOTE: lockpicking will not be a primary skill since it's a rp-ing goody goody party. For the same reason pickpocketing is not even a single point.

 

I've done this with all my parties sofar. Works like a charm.

Just don't forget to give your ranger the Weaponfinesse feat if you're going to get him into melee Make use of that fat DEX

 

I had no lock picking skills whatsoever in my paladin/sorcerer, Druid, Monk party.

But my druid could shapeshift to get strong enough that, with the luck spell, I could pop most locks in 3-10 tries.

Later, my sorcerer got knock for the nasty ones.

 

Sounds good. I suppose one could do without several skills. What about getting the search and disable device with the 16-INT paladin (should be good to have the chief talker, spyglass and trap screwer in one person always in lead - I had problems with that in BG). Forget about concetration since he doesn't have much to cast and nearly nothing in combat. Bluff is not in RP line, Intimidating is not as good as direct physical argumentation. Arcane wold be in-line (Mystra), but sorc takes it, same to alchemy. So I suppose it's either disarm & search or hide & move silently (what for?) unless some hobby skills...

I also think that lockpick can be done by just about any caster with skyhigh dex. Shall we say, a fairly ugly wizard.

 

A thief just isn't quite as handy in this one as the first one. It's true.

There are some times when an improved critical backstab can seriously neutralize an enemy. But it's not all that often you get a real good setup, that would not have worked just as well as a frontal assault. I can think of two; the mindflayer and the lich (demi-lich?).

I don't know about the specific point checks in the game. I would guess a knock would work just as well. And the traps just aren't all that wicked, even though there is a whole slew of them.

The original IwD had some nasty effects for you if you didn't take (specifically) a thief. But this one spreads the love out a little more. 3rd edition is kind of good, in that regard.

 

Yes, I agree. Well..., I could to leave the thief be in my present party mainly because:

1. I have some interesting build for him (1 ranger, 1 barb and if he has troubles or goes nicely that will be it, but if he goes perfectly in terms of skills, I'd only insist on rogue 10 and the rest even, he's a halfling).

2. I don't have a wizard (int monger => skill monger) nor any high-dex high-int human character to get many skill points, base stats high and not screw the character. Once I play a party with a wizard or two goodbye rogues.

I suppose the druid could be human, get a bit more int and do disarming while the ranger (human again) would cover search (core) and lockpick apart from scouting. Or a human ranger with 14 int will cover all he can ie hide, silent moving, disable device, search and lockpick. 5 sp/lev for 5 skills (storing some points every second level). You gain: better archer, better supporting fighter (only with w. finesse), possibly a caster, racial enemies. You lose: two or three not bad feats, assassin, barb level (or face xp penalties), some stat points (for int), un-human bonuses (or another +2 to int). With those skills and more sp/lev your rogue will be able to put more pts into con, getting together with 1 ranger level and 1 barb lev the average ranger hp. So it's not that much difference.

Getting a wizard instead (anyway more sp/lev than rogue, esp. later) would seem reasonable, but not for everyone. Myself, I would then have one aasimar pally talker (ekhm, you know, all-the-options talker build , one dwarven tank, one human morninglord (with then 14 str/14 con as he wouldn't need to take arcana), one human druid, one wild-elven sorcerer and the wizard. Heavy artillery and buffs for everyone, but someone has to keep the ranks up (archers wouldn't be that needed ). With maxed concentration some battles could be won, many of them in seconds, but since not min-maxing on int, wis or cha (rping rules!), surrounded=dead.