New to IWD2, looking for advice

Remove all ads!

Good advice from Stuntman.

I'd like to chime in though. For a first party keep things simple. You need a frontliner to take and deal damage, a healer, a spellcaster and a rogue (some may disagree but for a first run it's better to have one around). You also need a party leader/spokesperson who is not a Paladin or a Monk (they don't get rewards for completing quests).

-Frontliner: keep Barbarians pure. You can take 4 Fighter levels and then experiment with multiclassing if you want (adding a few Paladin levels can be fun if you didn't dump CHA). Max out STR and CON. DEX is useful for Barbarians and Rangers but you don't need too many points (13 for dodge, 14 for a medium armour, 10 or 12 for Fighter types in heavy armours). Dump CHA (if you don't want a Paladin) and INT. If you want to include a Monk max out WIS and DEX, put a few points in STR and CON and dump the rest.

-Healer: take a Cleric preferably neutral or good to take advantage of spontaneous casting (shift + click to convert regular non domain spells into healing spells) max concentration. Keep this character pure class. Max WIS, don't neglect CON and STR. DEX can be average since you can equip a heavy armour (I like giving them shields to increase their AC so they get to survive longer and heal the others). INT doesn't need to be too high (especially for humans). CHA is not essential except for turning undead (which is not imperative). Druids are built like Clerics but you can dump CHA and increase DEX a bit. Druids are more offensive but won't be that useful when it comes to healing.

-Spellcaster: Sorcerers are awesome if you know which spells to pick. If you don't you can't change spells so you may be stuck with useless spells. So either check one of the numerous threads that compare them and suggest the best ones OR play a Wizard and experiment with spells in game. Keep your Wizard pure. Max Concentration and Spellcraft you'll have extra points to put in Alchemy, Knowledge and stuff. Max out INT, put points in CON and at least some points in DEX and dump CHA.

-Rogue: they can take care of all the rogue skills, scouting and dialogue if you don't dump CHA. Either make it a sneak attacker (pick a two handed weapon and max out STR) or a ranged attacker with maxed DEX and weapon finesse (less spectacular but easier to use). Pick skills that you may like, disarm device, open locks, move silently, hide and then if you can put some points in pickpocket to be able pilfer some goods (not essential). Max out DEX, put a few points in INT (13 or 14 if you can). Extra points in CON will always help. You can dump CHA if this character is not your main talker.

-Support: you may want to include a Bard. They're really good as party boosters and they make great leaders/speakers. Max out CHA, put a few points in DEX and CON but don't neglect INT either (especially if you're not human). Pick skills that are not covered by other party members, dialogue skills if you want to make that character a speaker. Regarding spell selection choose spells that will still be useful later on (Sleep for instance is useless later on).

Remember that in IWD2 characters can use all weapons even if they're not proficient with them (make sure they are proficient in the weapons they use). High STR characters are better using two handed weapons for more damage (the STR bonus is increased with two handed weapons).

Feat selection is important, here is a list of the most useful feats:

Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting;
-Rangers get these for free. They're good for high DEX characters, high STR characters are better off with a two handed weapons.

Dash:
-moving faster is always a good thing.

Dodge:
-any character with at least 13 points in DEX should have it.

Expertise:
-a must have for spellcasters since they benefit a lot from this without disadvantages (they're not good with weapons anyway).

Improved Critical:
-perfect for higher level warrior types.

Lingering Song:
-the most useful feat for a Bard.

Luck of Heroes:
-great for humans.

Rapid Shot:
-great for ranged attackers. If you have a high STR character that can take it you can make a fearsome damage dealer with this feat and a sling even if it doesn't show in game slings get the damage bonus from STR.

Weapon Finesse:
-great for Rogues with average STR and high DEX.

These are the best picks to get you started. Other feats can be useful under certain circumstances (great cleave for soloers, great spell focus if you've decided which school you want to specialize in).

I'd suggest going for a 6 characters party with a Barbarian, a Fighter 4 /Paladin X (LG), a Cleric, a Wizard (specialist if you're sure you won't miss the forbidden spells), a Ranger 1/ Rogue X (start as a Rogue otherwise you'll lose many skillpoints, the Ranger level gives you the benefit of Ambidexterity and two weapon fighting) and a Bard (main speaker have this character lead the party).

 

Great post, Carad. But let me amplify a few things...

On monks/paladins as talkers... Actually a pally makes a perfectly fine party spokeman... EXCEPT when you know that you're returning to an NPC to get a reward. (And just to be picky ... it's not that paladins or monks don't "get" rewards... they refuse rewards on philosophical grounds.)

Agreed about keeping Barbarians pure, but let's explain why... Barbs are best kept pure because they have some nice special abilities at higher levels that you'll miss if you take 4 fighter levels.

Agreed, a little bit of dex is good for barbarians. In fact, I'd suggest a minimum of 14 DEX for a barb because pure barbarians cannot wear heavy armor, and will lose their barbarian speed if they do. And since nearly all medium armors have a max dex bonus of +2 or +4, a DEX of 14 (providing a +2 DEX bonus) is perfect for a barbarian that wishes to wear Chain Mail armor.

OTOH, I believe that rangers work best with maxed out DEX and wearing light armor.... for a few reasons.

1. Rangers need to make use of their stealthy skills to be worth using, and stealthy skills are DEX based. And furthermore, the heavier the armor, the greater the penalty when trying to use those stealthy skills. Stealth works best in light (or even no) armor.

2. Rangers often make the best archers. And all ranged combat is based on DEX.

3. Rangers get full ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting abilities for free when wearing light (or no) armor. This may not be all that great or necessary an ability, but some people like it and it's worth noting for that reason.

And another point on Rangers, vs. other warrior types... Do NOT dump INT for a ranger. Rangers need a little bit of INT so that they can buy Hide, Move Silently, and Search skills. (A little bit of Wilderness Lore isn't bad for a Ranger, or a Barbarian, or a druid... but it's really only useful at all in one area of the game, and it's an ability that has to be activated, and some people may forget to use it for that reason. BTW, if you do have a druid in your party, it is definitely worth taking at least one point of WL. You don't really need all that much, and since it's a WIS based skill, druids will get the most value from it.) Anyways, 10 or 12 INT is usually enough for a Ranger, depending on race.

Agreed here. Clerics need to max out WIS, and probably split the rest between STR and CON. Druids need to make out WIS as well, but I'm less sure about how they should split the rest of their points. Splitting them between STR/CON probably doesn't hurt, but I've often kept my druids in the back lines, so I often give them some DEX as well for ranged combat. (Also, IIRC, druids only start with the medium armor proficiency, so a bit of DEX helps here.)

For a newbie, I'd probably suggest sticking with a pure non-specialized wizard, for the reason that if you are uncertain as to what spells to choose, the wizzy's ability to adjust their spell choices works well for the newbie. Sorcerers tend to work best for people who are experienced enough to know what spells they really want and need.

Remember that the Wizard's spellcasting stat is INT, while the Sorcerer's spellcasting stat is CHA. Max out the spellcasting stat first, worry about the other stats later.

Wizzies don't need to worry about CHA, but Sorcs often do need to worry about INT a bit since INT generates the skill points that are needed to buy the arcane skills that most spellcasters need.

On STR, some people will dump a little STR with their sorcs or wizzies. I'm the opposite. I like to have my mages have a decent STR so that their carrying capacity isn't so low. A STR of 12 is usually sufficient. People have to remember that "carrying capacity" isn't just what they carry in the "backpacks". It also covers what they're wearing for robes/armor, cloaks, hats/helmets, amulets, rings, belts, and equipped weapons. It really stinks when a character's STR is so low that they can barely carry what they're wearing, let alone have anything left over for their backpack.


If a party has more than 1 arcane spellcaster, i.e. sorc, wizzy, or bard, you can easily get away with only one of the three learning all of the arcane skills. However, there is one arcane skill that any wizzy or sorc will want... Spellcraft ... because Spellcraft allows that wizzy or sorc to later on take certain very useful arcane feats after you have 10 skill points in spellcraft.

A side note on Spellcraft. Certain cleric domains (Lathander and Talos) and druids often want to take spellcraft because they can also use certain arcane Feats to their advantage.


As for Concentration, it's useful at times, but not critical. This isn't to say that you shouldn't take some, but it's not critical to constantly max it out either. For a spellcaster, the Concentration skill is what determines if the spellcaster has a casting disrupted if he takes damage in the middle of casting a spell. So, obviously, if you're not taking any damage, this skill doesn't matter much. Of course, if you ARE casting a very important spell, and you DO take damage, it's great to be able to finish the spell.

Alchemy is useful for mixing potions, and definitely gets used throughout IWD2, though really only one character in a party "needs" this skill.

And Knowledge Arcana is used for identifying items. Again, only one character really "needs" this skill. Bards are best at this (due to their "bardic knowledge" ability), followed by Wizards (due to their high INTs, since INT is a modifier to the KA skill), and lastly sorcs.

A "thieving skills" rogue will need about 5 SP per level (6, if you want to also take Pick pockets) to take the core thieving skills (i.e. Search, Open Locks, Disable Device, Hide, and Move Silently). Since a rogue gets 4 SP/level normally, that means that you'd need an INT of 12 (10 for a human) to get 5 SP/level. But if you want to add the talking skills to this mix, then you'll need more INT (and you'd want to NOT dump CHA, since CHA affects the talking skills).

As for sneak attacker vs ranged combatant, I'd actually argue that you don't need to choose one OR the other, per se. Since, at least IMHO, the best rogues always start with a maxed out DEX, a rogue will always be a competent ranged attacker. Secondly, since sneak attack damage isn't based on STR, a high STR isn't actually necessary for a good sneak attacker, as long as you are using weapon finesse.

However... it's my experience that sneak attacking rogues to tend to hang around melees quite a bit, and will be attacking enemies without those attacks actually being "sneak attacks" rather often... so, additional STR becomes useful since it increases normal melee damage. Having said that, there are only so many stat points to go around with a rogue, so having a maxed out STR isn't all that important, but a moderate STR (14-16) is nice. (And some points in CON are worthwhile as well.)

As far as the choice of weapons, 2H vs 1H or even "light weapons", i.e. Small Blades (short swords and daggers) (usable with weapon finesse in unmodded IWD2)... IF (big if) you're using the unmodded IWD2, then weapon finesse is only allowed with short swords and daggers, so if you intend to use weapons other than those for sneak attacking, you'll need to have a higher STR so that your BAB is decent. Also note that a reason for using 2H weapons for sneak attacking is range... 2H weapons are usually longer, and for whatever reason, targets of sneak attacks may not turn to face a sneak attacker who has used a 2H weapon but will turn to face a sneak attacker that's used a 1H weapon.

Having said that... there are occasionally some really nice short swords or daggers with some nasty secondary effects that are great in the hands of a sneak attacking rogue, and can be well worth the risk of having the sneak attack target turn to face you.

I tend to call this role the "utility" role, since it's usually an "extra" slot in the party that can be filled in any number of ways .... another tank, perhaps an archer tank, perhaps a druid (in support of a cleric), or perhaps a second mage, or as you suggest, a bard.

Bards do make a great choice in this "utility" role since they are traditionally seen as the class that's a "jack of all trades, master of none".

For bards, I don't actually think that it's all that critical to max out CHA. A CHA=16 will do nicely. (I do readily concede that it may be more important to max out CHA if you are more aggressive in your use of bard spells, particularly the enchantment ones. But a bard that's heavily focused on talking, singing, and ranged combat, can do just fine with a CHA of 16.)

Like you said, you can't neglect INT for a bard, since a bard in this role will probably be trying to cover a lot of a party's skill needs. As for the rest, some DEX is good to support ranged combat and AC. A little STR is nice, and ditto for CON. Bards can be fairly tough builds, because they tend to need to cover so many stats, and CHA and INT tend to eat heavily into their stat totals and leave very little left for the physical stats.

Rangers get them free WHEN they're wearing light or no armor.

I sort of agree. I see Dash as a luxury for some characters and more of a necessity for others. I like Dash for my scout type characters (rogues and rangers) so that they can run away from enemies faster. I sometimes like Dash for small races so that they can gain enough speed to keep up with the characters of the taller races. Aside from these examples, I tend to see Dash as a luxury more than a necessity, since I tend to prefer letting the enemy come to me, rather than the reverse.

Absolutely agree... Dodge equals +1 to AC all the time. It's an easy decision to take Dodge.

Expertise is particularly good for Wizards, since they get more feats than sorcs. Even when I would have a sorc with a high enough INT to buy Expertise, I'd tend to avoid it because there were other feats that I needed more. OTOH, I tend to think that wizards will be better able to afford this feat, due to their extra feats (vs. sorcs).

Pretty much a must-take ASAP feat for any non-spellcaster.

The singularly most important feat for a Bard to take, bar none. Should be taken at creation before any other feat for any bard character.

A nice feat. +1 to all saves. Hard to see any downside, though sometimes it tends to not be right at the top of my to-take list...

100% agree.

One point of information. Do NOT take rapid shot if your character intends to stick with crossbows.

Also great for Rangers and monks, for much the same reason.

FYI, it's worth noting that there's a IWD2 mod (Mindchild's "Custom DLL mod") that includes a subsection that adjusts Weapon Finesse so that ANY weapon in which you have 2 feat points can be finessed. The official version only allows "small blades" to be finessed, but without the 2 feat point limitation.

That's a nice newbie party. I would suggest sticking with a general wizard, rather than a specialist, though.

I'd mention that if you choose the Ftr 4/Pally X build, go with the Paladin of Helm kit, since it allows you to freely go between fighter and pally levels.

On the rogue, a Ftr 4/ Rogue X build is also VERY good. Regardless, as you correctly point out, starting as a Rogue is MUST, because of the initial burst of skills you get at creation. But in either build, I think that I'd suggest taking the first fighter level or the single ranger level at the very first level up because that allows you to get all of the various weapon proficiencies that come with that fighter or ranger level. Also, that early in the game, you don't really lose out by missing a second level of rogue (and the thieving skills) at that point.

If one chooses to go for a ftr 4/rogue X build, I suggest taking the first ftr level, as I said, at the first level up... but then take a few rogue levels ... maybe up to 4-5, then perhaps go back and forth between ftr and rogue levels til you get 4 ftr levels, then stick with rogue the rest of the way. This seems to provide sufficient rogue skills throughout the game and not leave you behind at any point.

 

Good job on filling some of the blanks Crucis, it's hard to be exhaustive and keep in mind things that you take for granted when writing such a long post.

Regarding the Fighter 4/Rogue X, I wouldn't take Fighter levels if I intend to use that character as a sneak attacker. If this character is meant to be a ranged Fighter with Rogue abilities it's fine but otherwise I'm convinced you lose a lot in normal mode.

Regarding wizards and specialists, I agree that picking a specialist is not easy for a beginner. If you want to make your life easier you can get your specialist to scribe all spells if you take a level as a Sorcerer, a Cleric, Druid, Paladin or Monk. I'm not sure it's actually worth it but it works with all these classes.

About ability points being spread out too much, this is not such a big deal if you use certain races for some of these characters. I meant to provide some guidelines as I don't want to spoil the fun a new IWD2 player can have messing around with builds (you're perfectly right Crucis, a Bard only needs 16 points in CHA although extra points come in handy for spellcasting as you've pointed out already).

I'd suggest making the Bard a Drow, the extra points in CHA can be very useful or an Aasimar if you want this character to level faster. Both will give you 4 more points to spend on your abilities.

Half Orcs make great Barbarians because you can start with 20 points in STR (but you have less points to spend overall). Any race that doesn't lower the maximum STR can be chosen, a Dwarf is not bad either because the bonus to CON is good and compared to the Half Orc you don't lose points.

If you go for a Fighter/Paladin (Helm like Crucis said) you should pick a Human, an Aasimar, a Gold Dwarf or a Half Elf. Bear in mind that in IWD2 Half Elves get minor advantages and that you're better off picking a Human instead (I have nothing against Half Elves, many of my best characters are Half Elves the IWD2 ruleset is just prejudiced against them -if you solo the game the immunities can save you but otherwise don't bother with it).

Almost any race is good for a Cleric. I wouldn't recommend Deep Gnomes because you want your Cleric to level up fast so you can take advantage of healing spells. Aasimar is not that bad since 20 points in WIS right at the beginning is not a bad thing.

As far as Wizards are concerned I'm partial to Tieflings and Dark Elves. Others will get the job done but I like the extra INT and I see no problem with having a Tiefling that will level up a bit later in the early game that actually will give you the time to find some scrolls to learn new spells. There is nothing more frustrating than having a Wizard who can't cast spells that he is powerful enough to cast because he hasn't learned them yet...

Most races will work for a Rogue but you may want to stick to races that get extra DEX points like Elves, Tieflings, Halflings.

When in doubt choose "Human" you can never go wrong with a Human.

That should cover most choices, I'm pretty sure Crucis (or somebody else) will correct any mistakes I may have posted. To be honest I've been celebrating so I hope most of the above actually makes sense.

 

I agree that if you are trying to totally maximize the sneak attacking potential of a rogue build, a pure rogue is best. However, I think that if you are want the rogue to be better able to stand up in melee generally, a ftr 4/rogue X build works a little better. You get 16 more HP (assuming that one is using max HP per level), +1 BAB, weapon proficiency in all martial weapons, 3 more feats (I think), and the ability to specialize in an weapon you choose. (And well yes, you also get medium and heavy armor profs, but this is largely a wasted benefit since a rogue build is going to work best in light armor.) On the flip side, you lose 2d6 of sneak attack dice, plus 4 levels of rogue skills. Also, assuming that you try to take the fighter levels relatively early, you delay gaining access to the higher level rogue feats, such as Improved Evasion.

Honesty, I'm not entirely sure that it's really worth the 4 fighter levels. Even in my LoS mod, my most recent ftr 4/rog X character was generally able to handle most traps. Perhaps with the next party I play, I'll try a pure rogue for comparison's sake. I suppose that I should also note that in rev 2 of my LOS mod, I've changed weapon focus and specialization such that you get +1 AB/+2 damage at WF and +2 AB/+4 damage at WS, so there's definitely something to be said for getting WS in a weapon now. The loss of the sneak attack dice doesn't seem so major when you know that your specialized weapon is getting +4 damage per hit.

Monk? Why monk? Monks can't cast spells? That's strange. If you had said Ranger or Bard, that would have made more sense.

You're probably correct, Carad, about it not being such a big deal for certain races. Of course, I tend to think that it seems like IWD2 should be giving about 4 more points per character across the board, because far too many non-ECL characters always seem to need to dump about that many points (for me, usually in CHA) to make a decently "heroic" character. But maybe that's just me.

Honestly, I've never played a Drow. The -2 ECL has always seem to severe for my tastes. But you're correct that a Drow will certainly provide a nice burst of extra stat points.

Oh, no doubt about it. Half-Orcs are great for barbarians. Let's face it... pure barbs and pure fighters don't have quite the same problems with not having enough stat points. For the most part, they only really need good STR and CON. And perhaps some DEX for barbs, as I describe in an earlier post.

Aasimar's seem to be the perfect race for paladins. +4 stat points and only a -1 ECL, and their favored class is paladin.

I've never played a Tiefling or Drow Wizard. But I will probably give it a try relatively soon.

The downside of choosing any sort of Elf for a rogue is the favored class issue. Tieflings and Halflings both have a FC of Rogue, so there's no conflicts. But unless you're looking to do a Rogue/Wizzy MC combo, elven rogues are better off pure if you want to avoid the XO penalty.

Personally, I actually prefer Human rogues. I like the +1 SP/level. It's effectively worth +2 to INT for the SP's. And the extra Feat at creation is nice too.

This is quite true.

Humans in IWD2 are good for pretty much any class. The extra SP/level is quite useful for any class that needs skills, as it allows you to have 2 less points in INT than other races would need to get the same # of SP/level.

About the only time where it may actually be worth having to spend the extra 2 stat points in INT is for a wizard, and then a Tiefling or Drow build is nice for the +2 to INT so that you get better spell bonuses and better DC on your spells (though at the cost of -1 or -2 ECL).

No mistakes that I saw, Carad. Just thought that I'd add some additional illumination to your points.

 

It doesn't make sense but that's the way it works.

The ECL thing isn't that bad, it's just a trade off. You can make up for it later on and the gap lessens as you progress through the game. Deep Gnomes have a rather harsh start as far as levelling is concerned but other races are fine. For a new IWD2 player I'd suggest avoiding races that get a too large gap in levels and use Aasimars or Tieflings instead of Deep Gnomes or Dark Elves.

Correct, I'd like to point out that a Dwarf Barbarian with maxed CON can be a really good asset to any party. I just don't like the way Dwarves look with two handed weapons.

Of course, it goes without saying that an Elven Rogue should only take Wizard levels to avoid the XP penalty. There is nothing wrong with a pure class Rogue especially if you're discovering the game and don't know all the tricks. More experienced players can get by without a Rogue or just a few levels of this class.

I for one like Rogues but I understand sneak attacks are not something most players use or like because they do require micromanagement. Don't forget that a sneak attacker engages in melee because they are useless with ranged attacks in IWD2. To maximize their uses two handed weapons are great because they have a longer range and that means that you can switch between foes without running around too much. That's one reason why the classical Weapon Finesse Rogue builds that look good on paper don't make the best sneak attackers.

To pull this off you let the fighters engage the enemy and you have your Rogue running around flanking enemies. Flanking works when you attack someone that is currently attacking someone else. When your sneak attack lands you have to switch to another foe to flank it and that's where the longer weapon range comes into play. Of course if your Rogue is stealthed or invisible he can backstab as well and if the targets are stunned or asleep you get sneak attacks with your Rogue.

It's always a good idea to have a spellcaster paralyze a foe with a spell and then let the Rogue finish it off with a few hits while the warriors are busy with other enemies or those who resisted the spell.

Of course all this requires some investment (probably a level in a fighting class to get weapon proficiencies) and most players only use Rogues as a lock opener/trap disabler that focuses on ranged attacks most of the time. Since Ranged attacks don't benefit from sneak attack bonuses that explain why Rogues are not considered to be a good class in IWD2. If sneak attacks worked like they do in NWN then pure Rogues would be included in any powergamer's party. If you go for the ranged multifunction Rogue then there is probably nothing that bad with taking either a Ranger level for dual wielding (a pity Rangers don't get the option to take some archery skill like in ToEE) or a few Fighter levels (preferably 4 since you won't sneak attack that much) and have fun with weapon specialization and rapid shots with bows.

 

Minor nitpick: There are some crossbows that allow the use of Rapid Shot with them. But don't bother until chapter 2, as that's when you see the first one.

My diplomat guys that can't afford the STR score have usually 6 STR, and I've never seen this as a problem. In fact, such characters make excellent inventory mules to carry all the zero weight loot you'll acquire such as gems and various ammunition.

Unless you're using several weapon configurations, large shields and/or body armor, 6 STR is pretty much all you need. You can get more breathing room later on by wearing a +STR item and/or using Bull's Strength as a permanent buff for this particular character.

 

I've never, ever needed to reduce my STR score that low on a spokesman character to make the character viable. About the only way that I can imagine "needing" to reduce a STR score that low is because one has min-maxed the character's other stats to such a degree that you have to dump some STR. This really isn't necessary for a decent character.

As for inventory "mules" for things like gems and ammo, there are these things called gem bags and ammo belts (as well as potion and scroll cases) that are wonderful. You should try them some time.

 

Nah, who needs gembags when you can completely skip the extra inventory management step. I stash the non-stackable ones (especially amulets) into them if I'm running low on inventory slots, rest can stay in the normal inventory. It's not like you'll need more than four or five inventories filled with items before it's time to unload again.

As for min-maxing.. Guilty as charged. It's not like that guy will be doing melee anyway so I'll gladly trade four stat points somewhere else where they'll actually do something for me.

 

This is incorrect. Rangers have no particular advantages when it comes to archery.

-Max

 

At least Rangers get to use the Arc of Gold from Riki, just like Fighters, Rogues and Bards do. That's a mighty fine bow if you happen to use one -- high STR characters need not apply.

 

STR 6 is a huge problem if you don't realize that "red" encumbrance actually doesn't do anything until you *exceed* the limit, and thus feel compelled to stay in the yellow/green zone. You probably can't even carry a crossbow and light armor without going into yellow.

I heartily second the suggestion of using Bull's Strength to boost carrying capacity on weaklings. It can save a *lot* of inventory micro under some circumstances.

-Max

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 16 seconds later... ----------

I have found that Spellcraft is more useful for its ability to identify enemies spells than for the spell feats. In HoF it's difficult to make direct damage spells pay off, Spirit of Flame or no Spirit of Flame. I'd rather tank INT and invest more in STR, and invest the few skill points you do get into Concentration. One of my two sorcs right now has zero Spellcraft and he doesn't miss it or Spirit of Flame one bit.

Greater Spell Focus: Enchantment, however, is a terrific feat.

-Max

 

No, it's not incorrect.

Most fighters, barbarians, or paladins will tend to have lower DEX's (and higher STR/CON's), because they are generally designed for melee combat and wearing heavy or medium armor.

OTOH, the best rangers are wearing light armor, have maxed out DEX's, and hence will have higher ranged BAB's than other warriors.

Furthermore, as a pure warrior class, they'll have a higher BAB than rogues, for example, who also make good archers.

Rangers don't have any special ability that makes the "better" archers. It's simply the synergy of all their other skills and stat requirements that trends towards making them great archers. And when I say "archers", I don't strictly mean using bows. This true for any ranged weapon, although as archers are best with maxed DEX, they may not have a maxed STR, and so may not produce the same STR bonuses to "thrown" weapons and slings as other classes.

 

Crucis,

That just doesn't make any sense. You're arguing that rangers make the best archers because they have high DEX and fighters/barbs/etc. don't, but the context was that you were arguing that rangers should have a high DEX because "rangers often make the best archers," so it's circular to claim that rangers often make the best archers because they have high DEX in order to be the best archers and sneak around.

While you can choose to shortsightedly tank DEX and rely on heavy armors, it's unsound to presume that all fighters will and must be built this way. If anything the fighter should have better DEX than the ranger because he doesn't feel the need to invest in WIS for spells. If you want a strong archer, and you weren't willing to use a caster class so you could use things like Holy Power, you'd make him a fighter so he could at least take weapon specialization (sling), and you'd give him high STR/DEX.

-Max

 

I didn't remember that the AoG bow had those class usability limitations. Interesting. I'm not exactly sure how much of a "limitation" it is, as from my experience, the classes that are most likely to want to use a bow are accounted for by that limitation (at least to my way of thinking, that is).


Also, I wouldn't say that "high STR characters need not apply". This is another example of powergaming advice that IMHO is very bad because it's given without context.

There's no reason whatsoever that a high STR character couldn't use this or any other bow. The reason (for any newbie reading this) that Rechet makes this comment is that from a raw efficiency (aka powergaming) Point of view, thrown weapons and slings, which allow STR to be added to weapon damage, are better weapons for very high STR characters. In context, this isn't bad advice for powergamers. However, it must also be noted that most thrown ranged weapons (but not slings) have rather limited range compared to bows, xbows, and slings.

Furthermore, there's no reason that you can't be successful with most ranged weapons. About the only ranged weapons that are a bit on the lame side are single shot per round crossbows.

Oh, and also, beware of any thrown weapon that isn't a returning weapon, particularly throwing hammers and axes. They are rather heavy, and can chew up your character's carrying capacity in a real hurry. (About the only time that I use enchanted throwing hammers/axes that are not returning ones is if I've found them and am not near a merchant to sell them. I may intentionally use them to get some combat value out of them, rather than drag them all around for a few screens.) Throwing daggers and darts are as bad in this regard as they are very, very light (or have no weight whatsoever ... don't remember which).

 

I think it's more like 50/50.

Good range:
Hammers, two-handed axes, darts
(And slings, bows, and crossbows too of course)

Poor range:
Axes, daggers

I can potentially see a moderately high-STR character using Arc of Gold under some circumstances. Say, STR 16 to 18. With its +7 bonus, it may be doing more damage than he'd get out of something like a throwing hammer, and while there are nice +5 slings that would give him more damage than Arc of Gold, slings require inventory management unless you are lucky enough to find the returning bullet of flame +1, and Arc of Gold can just use an Everlast Arrow. Plus, if he's low-DEX Arc of Gold would give a better attack bonus.

-Max

 

You're reading too much into what I wrote. I didn't make a circular argument.

I stated that rangers should have maxed out DEX's to get the most out of their abilities, the stealth skills in particular. A ranger that isn't using those skills is no different than a fighter, but without all the extra fighter feats. THEREFORE, if you have a ranger with a maxed out DEX, you are going to have a character that will have a very high AB bonus for ranged combat as an obvious side benefit. Hence, rangers make great archers.

I'm not saying that you can't make a great archer build from a fighter class character. Of course, you can. However, I doubt that very many people do so. Just like I'm not sure how many people create moderate DEX/STR/CON fighter or paladin builds that wear chain instead of plate. I've played such builds and they can be quite fun, though hardly a model of efficiency.


OTOH, rangers make for great archers because the primary reason for the class, the stealthy skills, synergistically matches up well with producing a high DEX and a high ranged combat bonus. As for rangers and WIS, you don't really need all that much, and it's rather easy to get a WIS item that help in that regard. Furthermore, while a ranger can get up to level 4 spells by level 16 (about the highest level you can normally expect for a pure ranger in a party of 6 in normal mode), it's hardly any great loss if you only have a WIS of say 12 or 13. Of course, if you intend to proceed into HOF, it really does help a pure ranger to have a higher WIS to get those higher level ranger spells. They can be quite useful.

Honestly, I never make my decisions on what makes a good archer or melee character based on what buffs the character might have. I'll admit that Holy Power is a nice buff for ranged combat. No doubt about it. The problem is that it seems that trying to create a archer/cleric build may end up leaving you with a rather weak melee character, and honestly, I feel more comfortable treating my clerics as melee characters, so that they can focus on WIS then STR/CON.

I have played druids as archers, though the reasons for this were a) there was already a traditional melee cleric in the party, b) the druid was an elf and got the bow feat free, and c) I was treating the druid as more of a utility mage and keeping her behind the lines, so she ended up with a high WIS and DEX, and relatively low STR and CON. Honestly, not really the build that I'm comfortable with for a cleric, but worked out fine for a druid. Of course, druids don't have Holy Power, but she managed just the same.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 24 seconds later... ----------

First of all, it depends upon whether you intend to go into HOF or not.

Secondly, true, if you have TWO sorcs, you may not need both to have it. (I should point out that I never EVER dump INT below 8. I am constitutionally incapable of dropping INT below 8. I just cannot do it.)

I agree that SF/GSF Enchantment is very, very good. And if you're going into HOF, it's worth trying to have both SF and GSF Enchantment before the end of NM, since (as you know) Will Save-based (which enchantment spells almost always are) spells are very, very useful in HOF.

Regardless, an extra 20% damage from one of the elemental spell Feats (usually spirit of flame or scion of storms) is nothing to sneeze at.

---------- Added 0 hours, 20 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

Oh, come on. You cannot claim that hammers, 2H axes, and darts have "good" range compared to slings, bows, and xbows. They're not even in the same league!!!

Slings, bows, and xbows have more than 3-4 times the range or more than those thrown weapons. Oh, they're better than throwing axes and daggers, but they're still very short ranged compared to slings, bows, and xbows!!!

I don't really see why th.axes and daggers have less range than other true throwing weapons. Oh well...

I'll definitely agree that if you have some uber-strong tank, it is a bit of a waste to not use a weapon that will add STR to your damage. If you have a very high STR, you may not have all that high a DEX, so I suppose that you might as well maximize your damage potential by improving the damage per HIT, even if you may have fewer hits.

I agree that life is a lot easier if you have returning ammo. OTOH, if you want to make it fairly simple, just use up the nice (aka +1) ammo as you get it. About the only ammo that you really want to save for a rainy day (so to speak) is the super-high enchantment (+3 or higher, I'd say) ammo, the disrupting (undead) ammo, and the Force Bullets (i.e. the bullets that encase the target in a Resilient Sphere ... very, very useful for a certain battle later in the game).

From my experience, aside from those exceptions, you can pretty safely burn thru any ammo you happen to find or buy without much fear. Oh, there might be the occasional battle where you know that a certain creature is immune to a certain kind of damage, so you might want to take ammo producing that damage out of your "quiver" (poison ammo for undead targets, for example IIRC, or ammo with a cold effect vs cold-based monsters). But generally speaking, I don't find this to be that big a problem. (Of course, if you're using an ammo belt where you can stash extra ammo, it makes life easier, unless you are going to whine about the injustice of having to take a few seconds to do so...)


BTW, speaking of returning ammo, I've found that returning ammo is EXTREMELY useful in HOF... mostly because by the time you're in HOF mode, your characters have much higher #'s of attacks per round and will burn thru (non-returning) ammo like crazy. So, if you have any nicely high enchantment ammo (say, +2 or higher), you might want to save it for tougher monsters, and use less powerful ammo or returning ammo for the enemy cannon fodder. It really is amazing how fast you can go thru ammo in HOF.

 

Don't forget that Flack was asking for advice as a new IWD2 player, it's rather unlikely that he wanted to start playing HoF before going through the game at least once on normal mode.

@spmdw45: Crucis meant that "Rangers often make the best archers" not always. Since maxing out DEX with other Fighter types is not as important or useful it's a rather valid assumption. In other games (like ToEE) Rangers get perks that gives them some extra edge as archers but there is nothing in IWD2 that makes a Ranger with maxed DEX better than regular Fighters or Paladins with maxed DEX (one could even argue that such a Paladin would probably end up being the best archer due to Holy Smite although it's rather situational).

 

True. Actually Flack asked for advice in the IWD1 forum too, and told us that he was new to D&D based games in general.

I'm afraid these discussions about min/maxing, powergaming and other things for advanced players is probably not what he is looking for.

 

Play through with the idea of 'see monster, kill monster' get an idea of what's what, how the game works and what each specific character can do. Play through again with a party you like. Play through again after taking advice from everyone on here. Ignore the arguing and tell these guys to shut it because you're a newbie and don't need to know peoples personal preferences until you've sorted out your own.

There...job's a good 'un

 

Which is a big part of my complaint against powergamers giving advice. Too often, when responding to a newbie's request for newbie advice, the powergamer launches right into giving powergamer advice, not basic advice aimed at helping out the newbie.

---------- Added 0 hours, 12 minutes and 51 seconds later... ----------

Exactly, Carad. My point was that the stats that will tend to make for a very good ranger build will also end up producing a good archer build. Of course, the same is true for rogues as well. But rangers will make slightly better archers than rogues simply because a pure ranger gets +1 BAB per level, whereas a rogue gets only +0.75 BAB per level.


As for other classes, I suppose that a pally or a cleric that cast either Holy Power, or Draw Upon Holy Might, or perhaps Champion's STR could be rather dangerous with ranged weapons that add STR to damage. DUHM would have the benefit of enhancing both STR and DEX, but HP would provide a larger damage bonus. (Actually, you might be able to stack HP with any STR damage enhancements... don't know.)

To be honest though, I don't really like predicating my decisions on what makes for the best archer or the best tank based on spell choices. I like thinking about what makes the best tank or archer without such buffs, and then think of those buffs as making a good thing better. But maybe that's just me.