Some strange differences

Remove all ads!

Hello. Other than DDO, I've never played a game with 3E rules, however I've played BG1/BG2 and a small amount of IWD1. I'm noticing quite a big difference in IWD2 in a number of ways.
For one thing, my sorcerer5 seems to be the best archer in the party, and has 3rd highest kills, and uses just a crossbow 85% of the time. Mages are useless in any form of combat in other games I've played, so I'm wondering why that is...
Also, the items you pick up in the game seem quite unbalanced. My druid is wearing leather armour that he picked up in chapter 1 or 2 with DR/10 and has a mace that stuns enemies often and deals a lot of damage...he's almost indestructible, it just seems a bit crazy to me. I'm used to druids being useless in combat.
I want to know is, is this normal?

 

Yes.

A fighter with the same stats and the same equipment would of course be a bit more successful than those casters in spell-less combat.

In 2e fighters get enourmous specialisation bonusses from the start, while in 3E they only get twice the BAB progression of mages which doesn't make a real difference at the start.

The difference in fighting skill will grow somewhat when your warriors get their extra attacks at level 6,11,16 while mages get only one at level 12.

Crossbows are nice at the beginning, but you don't get more than 1 attack/round with them, so bows are far better at higher levels, a level 16 fighter with rapid shot gets 5 times as many attacks with a bow.

 

Unlike 2E both clerics and druids are now good fighters. They gain new attacks somewhat slower than pure fighter classes, but not by too much (75% of fighter BAB). I usually only use them as tanks (sometimes combined with a decoy) since for example a cleric with the right buffs deals much more damage than a fighter and survives longer with those heal spells.

That leather armor gives damage resistance unless the weapon is enchanted iirc.
DR 10/+1 means damage resistance of then unless the weapon is a +1 or more enchanted weapon.

And as kmonster said, crossbows are very useful early on, but becomes less useful when other weapons get multiple attacks.

 

The "number of kills" stat is deceptive. It only counts the number of times that a character managed to get the final HP's that kill a target. If you have an archer or 2 in your party and use them to suppliment the damage of your tanks and to specifically attack targets that seem near death, it's entirely possible with a little luck that a sorceror-archer could get a lot of kills.


Don't get too wound up about the number of kills stat.

 

2E is more about low level characters, so the difference must be there starting from the beginning.

In 3E you can multiclass any number of fighter levels in, for this to be a bit balanced you get less advantadges from the first level and more from the later level than in 2E.

 

An elven Sorcerer with 20 DEX will start at +5 to hit with ranged weaponry. Plus elves already know how to use bows. That is why mages, with the right stats, can be quite formidable in fighting even at the start of the game.

It is not like this in 2e ofcourse. Even with 19 DEX, the bonus to hit is negligible, and you can not use bows anyway. Just cast your one spell and scram! Or die while trying to throw darts.

 

I cant decide whether 2e favours fighters or mages more.

Usually I think mages.

One thing I really dig about 3e is the multiclassing system. Can create some really nice interesting builds.

 

Be wary of too much multiclassing, this is a mistake that many new players make with IWD2 (and one I'm guilty of) because the number of levels matters when it comes to sneak attacks for a rogue, spellcasting for any magic user, efficiency for a monk or rage for a barbarian.
It's almost never a good idea to give more than one level from any other classes to a spellcaster (there are exceptions like Paladin/Sorcerer and still some would argue that this level shouldn't be given before you get the best spells in the game).

 

I agree its bad to spread to thin, especially with your mages. In my last game, I had a rogue 1/wizard x. Didnt need the sneak cos it has been made useless in 3e.

Paladin/fighter is pretty useful cos paladin spells suck.

 

3e multiclassing does indeed result in more interesting customisation of your character builds.

 

Proteus, I wouldn't be so certain that Sneak Attacks are "useless" in 3e/IWD2. A pure rogue with the right build can be rather fun to play as a sneak attacker. Sure, such a character might not be as powerful as some other builds, but a sneak attacking rogue/scout can be rather fun in IWD2, particularly in places where stealth can be beneficial.

 

I'm not that far into the game because I restarted a couple of times after realizing I had a very badly planned party, but I agree that, early on, the mages have surprising ranged attacks if you give them the right weapons. I tried giving one of my sorcerors one fighter level to add all the weapon feats (except bastard sword, of course) and now have quite a sniper, though I wonder if I will be sorry for that one lost sorceror level later.

It's a fascinating game, all kinds of complicated decisions to make as you initialize your party and progress in levels.

 

Stealth and scouting is nice and useful.

but 1d6 damage every 2 levels, when all characters gain hp every level rather than the first 10, means your sneak attack wont even kill a sorceror with average hit points. wont even disable him. so you have a sneak attack that isnt even lethal to the weakest of enemies.

what good is it? with backstabbing in 3e, you start doing 100 damage pretty soon. In fact, given the way hit points progress, they have things the wrong way round - 2e should have 1d6 per 2 levels, while 3e should have the multiplier, cos hit points go a lot higher.

One thing I noticed about iwd2 (which isnt present in nwn), is that there isnt much difference between a fighter specialized in a weapon type and a fighter not specialized in a weapon type. Its +1 BAB and +2 damage if I remember correctly. Which I dont like, I like the idea that a warrior trains with a certain weapon, and he masters it.

 

Proteus, regarding fighter weapon "specialization"... For starters, I get a bit confused by the new 3e terminology in this regard. Anyways, IIRC, 2 stars in a given weapon gives you +1 AB and 3 starts adds +2 damage per hit. I agree that it doesn't seem like much. (But also, IIRC, in PnP 3e, you can also take an additional 2 points in weapon skills and get additional AB and damage bonuses.) I agree that +1 AB and +2 damage isn't all that impressive.

Then again, some of the other feats don't exactly have particularly good bonuses either, like the Fiendslayer and Heretic's Bane feats. A +1 bonus for taking a given feat just doesn't seem all that impressive.


Regarding Sneak Attacks, perhaps they'd be better as you've described them. But don't forget that SA is much easier to execute in 3e. You don't need to be utterly invisible to your target with SA's. And you can sneak attack multiple targets in a melee with your rogue. All you have to do is get behind the front line and SA one target after another.

 

Ah, but don't forget that SA damage is ADDED to your regular attack. So, you often do kill mages with a single attack like this. I've done it several times myself.

 

But your regular attack might be 20 damage at most.

So a level 20 rogue with a 1d6 +5 weapon and 18 strength does soemthing like 10-15 damage per hit.

add 10d6 damage, and you get 20 - 75 damage. hardly groundbreaking, especially at level 20.

 

If you want your rogue for fighting then he won't have 18 str at level 20, he'll rather have about 30 (18-20 at creation + 5 stat raises + 5-8 champion's strength).
And he won't use a tiny short sword, rather a weapon like the "massive halberd of hate", so you get
6-20 (weapon) + 15 (str bonus) + 10-60 sneak attack that's 31-95 damage or 63 average at a non-critical.
Extra bonusses like from the "gauntlets of weapon specialization" or other buff spells can be added.

Since A level 20 mage with average con has 4+19d4= 23-80 HP, that's only 51.5 average, most attacks will insta-kill.

 

Proteus, you're being entirely too analytical. Rogues can be fun to play, regardless of whether or not they're not being the absolutely most efficient killing machines.

 

Perhaps, but while I see thieves useful for their trap disarming, lock picking and backstabbing abilities in 2e, 3e makes rogues completely useless in my opinion. Sneak attack is simply no where near as good, and one level of rogue lets other characters use their skills as class skills. obviously they still wont get as many skill points.

But basically, in 2e, I see a single class thief as a waste, and a 3e single class rogue as an even worse waste of a character.

 

^I like rogues. And pure thieves. They are cool, and have a character! They are not as strong/durable and skilled in fighting as a fighter, nor they have any spell casting ability. But they are still quite capable of taking care of themselves! By sticking to the shadows, and a well placed backstab-sneak attack, ofcourse!