This game is very hard.

Remove all ads!

Critical hits don't affect sneak attack damage, but there are feats that allow sneak attacks to slow/blind/cripple enemies on a critical hit, iirc.

Rogues are supposed to be survivalists in D&D, right? Unlike their WoW counterparts (which resemble bounty hunters/assassins or specialized warriors more than "rogues"). Bards and Thieves are both rogues but while Bards rely on wit and lore, thieves rely on street smarts and common sense.

Every ability a thief has is a "side effect" of their survivalist background. Pick locks/pickpocketting is a necessity when honest deals are impossible/not worth it; search/stealth/disable traps allows them to evade notice or deal with potential obstacles; sneak attacks/backstab/set traps allows them to hit fast and hit hard when they really need to (with minimum risk).

Making the rogue better in IWD2 IMO should not be about increasing their damage output (although raising it a bit should be inevitable), it should be about making rogues live up to their survivalist nature. Crippling Strike, Slippery Mind and Evasion were good starts, but sadly it ends there for the "rogue". (at lvl 10. Crippling Strike seems more like a level 6-ish skill, though)
Giving the rogue a high level skill like immunity to friendly fire on a successful reflex save will make him more useful than giving him more DPS, for example.

"DPS" is and should always be seen as a "side effect" rather than a character specialty, IMO. Ex, WoW rogue - character adept at dealing with single targets quickly and efficiently at close combat, side effect: high single-target DPS; WoW mage - character adept at aoe spells and crowd control, side effect: high cumulative DPS. "DPS" as a character specialty is misleading (unless you're a game moderator with a level 1000+ character).

 

@Scythesong: you're thinking about the arterial strike, crippling strike and dirty fighting feats. Dirty fighting works on critical hits but arterial strike and crippling strike work on sneak attacks (I'm not a big fan because you have to sacrifice one sneak attack dice if you want to use either).

I've never played WoW and I don't intend to so I won't comment on that game but as far as IWD2 and D&D are concerned then you have to take into account that Rogues are meant to be devious characters. They don't get into fair fights. They always tip the scales before ever drawing a weapon. In PnP, a Rogue is one of the most important characters in the party because of all the things the Rogue can do especially the things which are not combat related.

IMO a great way to make fulltime Rogues better would be to allow ranged sneak attacks. That would be deadly and make a high level Rogue way more useful without changing rules (in fact it would make IWD2 stick to PnP rules more). I don't know if that can be done. Any thought on this Crucis?

 

Caradhras, I agree as well. I don't like sacrificing SA dice for these feats. Frankly, these feats would be better if you did NOT have to sacrifice the SA dice. I sort of figure that the "sacrifice" is in spending the feat point on the feat in the first place.

(I'm also not all that fond of Dirty fighting because it only works on critical hits, and only if a Fort save fails. That seems too rare to be worth a feat point IMHO.)

I suspect that this last point (the class being useful for many non-combat abilities) is also true of rangers.

I agree that this would make pure rogues more potent in combat. Unfortunately, I'm thinking that this would be the sort of thing that would require a change in the actual program code, similar to Mindchild's DLL mod. Perhaps Mindchild could make another revision to his mod to make this little, but useful tweak. (And what the heck ... at the same time, perhaps the rogue feats that currently require the sacrifice of sneak attack dice to get the benefit could remove that sacrifice...)


I think that it would be possible to make some tweaks to make classes like Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, etc. more combat capable by adjusting some 2DA files, though it'd almost certainly be very much against the 3e rules.

For example, Rangers and Paladins (possibly even barbarians) could gain additional feat points, similar to Fighters, though not at the same rate as fighters (perhaps at half the rate that fighters earn bonus feat points). Another thing that might be done for Rangers and Paladins is to adjust their spell table so that they get their spells sooner. As it stands currently, Rangers and Pallys really don't start getting useful numbers of spells until well into normal mode.

I suppose that this could be done for Rogues as well. Actually, Rogues already do earn bonus feat points, but starting at level 10... so perhaps this could be lowered. Rogues could also have their # of HP/level increased, perhaps from 6 to 8. (Not sure right now if this would also affect Bards.)

Another interesting possibility, though a bit more subtle, might be to reduce the skill cost of Alchemy for Rogues from 2 to 1 to make the Envenom Weapon feat easier to get. Not sure if EW is that good a feat, but there's no doubt (well aside from the 1 level of rogue requirement) that it's a very rogue-ish feat.

Flipside, another way to make rogues more useful would be to further increase the nastiness of traps, beyond what I already do in the Light of Selune mod.


I think that there are a number of tweaks that might be do-able, even if limited only to 2DA edits, though many of the tweaks may be very much against the official rules. Honestly though, I wouldn't feel that bad about tweaks that were against the p&p rules since IWD2 is so entirely combat focused that the non-combat value of certain classes is almost entirely non-existent. OTOH, I wouldn't want to (for example) tweak the rogue class to such a degree that it seemed like it was the fighter class in all but name.

 

That would be an interesting option (especially since it could be done without breaking the rules).

 

It's also not too terribly difficult. Not as easy as programatically editting 2DA files. IIRC, it requires editing the SPL files that manage the various trap effects.

As for "breaking the rules", at this point I don't care that much. In a way, the extreme combat focus of IWD2 itself breaks the inherent balance of the various classes in normal p&p D&D. As you've stated yourself, much of the value of any rogue is in non-combat related abilities.

I also tend to think that playing style can affect the relative value of classes. For example, if a player just isn't into stealthy scouting and attacking from stealth and prefers a more open, bold as brass combat style, that player has greatly devalued classes such as rogue and ranger, since much of those classes non-combat value comes from stealth. And of course, such a player might think that the rogue and ranger classes are too weak. But in a very real sense, that player "made" the rogue and ranger classes "weaker" by using a style of play that removes a major component of those classes' value. Please note that that is not a criticism of players who prefer a less stealthy style of play... only an observation that style of play can affect a player's perceptions of the relative value of the various classes.

I also think that one could extend this observation to powergaming. I tend to think that powergaming places such a great emphasis on raw damage production that classes whose very reason for existing isn't about raw damage production often end up suffering. Again, an observation, not a criticism.


Anyways, were I to do anything on this, I wouldn't mind "breaking" the rules, though I would want to do it in a way that preserved the spirit of the tweaked classes. My goal would be to try to "recover" some of the value lost by some classes due to the combat-heavy nature of the game without simply turning all of the "warrior" classes into total clones of each other. Of course, nearly all of that "recovered value" would have to be on the combat side of things, since that's the nature of IWD2.

 

Nicely said Crucis. It makes you wonder why they didn't balance the classes a little more in the Damgae output department, especially since they made the game combat oriented and included the HoF mode. HoF is all about Damage output and really high ACs. I realize they probably wanted to stick to PnP for the D&D fans, but since your ability to utilize skills is limited, especially for the Ranger and Rogue who thrive with their skill use in PnP, I wonder if they should've tweaked the classes in another way to make them as useful. Maybe by adding another element to the game that was missing, like more feats that they could of utilized, ex. improved two-weapon fighting or two-weapon defense. Or maybe something similar to your Archery changes to the Ranger. Possibly more missle weapon feats as well? Point-blank-shot?

 

The problem with increasing the nastiness of traps is that it still doesnt necessitate a solo class rogue, unless the DC for those traps was too high for even a wizard with boatloads of skillpoints to reach. And if it is that high, you essentially have a character who does nothing for most of the time, and is only brought around to avoid a resurrection or reload. In fact, if the trap just kills someone and thats it, most of us would just resurrect the character than put up with an otherwise useless (I know not all people share this opinion) character. And if the traps dont allow for resurrection, well thats just mean.

Yeah, I do think rogues and rangers could use some beefing up. Very few choose to go with a character that is predominantly or solely one of those two classes. Lots of people take them as mix in classes, but thats it.

 

No offence but that's a powergamer's point of view. I'm sure you will agree that you don't have to resort to powergaming to complete normal mode so even if Rogues aren't as powerful as Sorcerers they can be effective (and for the record I'm pretty sure no class can compete with a high level Sorcerer).

Crucis mentioned it already but it all depends on playing styles. I for one don't care for HoF at all and Rogues are my favourite characters.

In any party characters work as a team and the Rogue's sneak attacks are very handy in order to finish off foes that are engaged by the warrior or disabled by a spellcaster. A well played Rogue will probably get a good number of kills in the party.

Kmonster soloed HoF with a Ranger so I guess that if you know what you're doing Rangers can be quite effective.

 

Oh, I'm sure that sticking to the p&p rules was a big influence, BoV. And that may have been less about the D&D fans than about licensing issues.

And in the BG1/2 games, I tend to think that the supporting classes seemed to manage fairly well. Rogues could get some pretty good value out of their skills.

As far as possible tweaks to IWD2, I'd be limited to whatever I could produce with adjustments to the 2DA files, and possibly some of the SPL "special effects" files. Some changes simply wouldn't be doable in this way, like creating new feats (or adjusting old ones).

One thing that I wouldn't want to do is add in a number of additional at-creation benefits, because I don't want to increase the number of reasons for players to snipe a level of rogue or ranger just to get more level 1 abilities.

 

If some players would do that, that's on them. But for those that would enjoy the changes for what they were intended, to make those classes more playable by themselves, it would make the game more enjoyable. Is that not reason enough?

 

Thanks, Caradhras. I was going to say many of the same things, but I'll just let your comments stand.

I personally don't mind HOF. However, I've also never found it necessary to build parties with HOF in mind. I've been completely able to use traditional balanced parties imported from normal mode and get through HOF. I don't think that success in HOF requires one of those ultimate powergaming parties. Oh, there may be times when a traditional party may have a little more difficulty, but I have to wonder if the added challenge is more fun than using some uber-maximized party.

When I've used a pure rogue that wanted to be a sneak attacking fiend, I'd just have the rogue run around the battlefield and SA each monster that was engaging my own wall of tanks, one right after the other. Stab and move, stab and move, etc. Does it require some micromanagement? Yes, but it was fun to sneak attack one baddy after another after another! STAB! "Take that, you evil hobgoblin!!!" STAB! "Here's one for Targos!!!" STAB! "Go back to the hells that spawned you!!!" STAB!

BTW, one really great thing in HOF for sneak attackers is that 12 Paces spear. What a great sneak attacking weapon!!! It may not be "ranged" sneak attacking, but it's better than having to get up close and personal with a lil' ole dagger.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

BoV, the idea would be to spread the abilities across multiple levels so that you have to gain multiple levels to get said abilities. Stacking them all in level 1 only serves to give people more reason to snipe a single level of that class.

For example, one of the nice abilities of rogue is greater evasion at (IIRC) level 10. But if greater evasion was available at level 1, what point would there be in going for 10 or more levels of rogue? Well, there are all those other abilities that are spread across the levels, but that's the point. Spreading abilities across many levels gives players reasons to stay with a given class, rather than simply sniping one level of a number of classes.

 

Not really. Before I was into IWD2 powergaming, I didnt really use rogues. Now that I'm a powergamer, I never take more than one level of them.

Its all about, what are they effective at, and is there a class that can do what they can do, better? In the case of fighting, yes just about all warrior types, including clerics and druids, make better warriors. In the case of skillpoints, wizards can do all of those while still being extremely effective wizards.

The point is, you dont have to be a powergamer to not want a rogue in your party. I dont consider it powergamey to use a wizard to disarm traps and locks, or a monk to scout. I consider it powergamey to create characters with ability scores below 6.

I would say you have to be a roleplayer to want a rogue in your party. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying I dont see a reason for bringing a fulltime rogue along, other than for roleplaying reasons.

Sidenote: I also think its odd that rogues are allowed be any alignment, even Lawful Good. Well, especially Lawful Good. Neutral Good I could justify, but I can imagine a Lawful Good character sneak attacking someone and then picking a lock to steal stuff.

 

So you don't like Rogues, fair enough.

Last time I did check, Clerics didn't get better BAB (unless you take into account buffs but then nothing forbids a Rogue from getting a few buffs from the spellcasters in the party).

Wizards have high INT so they may have enough skillpoints to spend some points on skills that don't belong to their class. It doesn't mean that maxing out Rogue skills with a Wizard is as easy as you make it sound. Still putting points in many skills is more of an RP choice because the game is rather weak as far as skills are concerned and you don't need that many skill levels to get by.

A Wizard shouldn't disarm traps or open locks because that is what a Rogue does. Most Wizards would probably find such tasks to be beneath them. A powergamer wouldn't bother about this aspect but a RPer would either dismiss it as unsuitable or come up with a background to explain the Wizard's behaviour (not to mention the fact that the Wizard never actually took a Rogue level so can never be considered to be a Rogue).

Rangers can scout too. In fact given how broken the game is any character can scout and sometimes characters with high skill levels will fail when characters with average levels will succeed. When everything else fails there is still invisibility which is certainly more reliable.

As far as lowering stats, I don't necessarily find that to be powergamey provided there is a valid explanation for dumping a stat. Of course I wouldn't dump CHA or INT to 1 just because any given character doesn't need to put points in those stats but there is nothing wrong with playing a character with a very low stat if it helps making that character more unique.

In PnP it is virtually impossible for any party to survive without a Rogue (or Thief depending on the version that is played). In IWD2 the game can be played without one because traps are just really weak. Would you consider playing through BG1 without a Thief? I don't think so.

There are a few advantages to be gained from using a Rogue in IWD2, these appear to be overlooked by most because sneak attacks are more difficult to use than Evocation spells. Nuking everything in sight is easier and faster so why even bother? My answer is simple: because Rogues are fun.

Following the same logic any straight Fighter gets rather useless when the spellcasters start to be able to cast many spells.

In 2E they couldn't be LG but I think there is nothing wrong with a LG Rogue. You've got to bear in mind that Rogues are not necessarily Thieves. I don't see why they couldn't use sneak attacks either. A LG Rogue will only sneak attack evil characters and monsters and there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the character is treacherous but that he or she will use unusual tactics (think guerilla warfare).

If the Rogue is fighting an evil Wizard does he or she have to relinquish the surprise effect in the name of chivalry? The Rogue will nevertheless have a code of honour and a strong sense of duty (think good aligned ninja). However that LG character won't put the success of the task at hand before more important things like saving human lives (when a LN character will ignore civilian casualties and focus on the mission).

Regarding stealing stuff, would it be a bad action if the LG Rogue stole from criminals or evildoers? Especially if it was ultimately to give away most of the loot to the poor and the bereft.

I think that to view LG Rogues in such a way would be the same as considering that a Paladin couldn't actually fight much less shed blood. A Paladin is the epitome of goodness and therefore has to act like a saint and forgive enemies who are truly repentant but it doesn't mean that a Paladin can't use violence or kill sentient beings so I don't see why a LG Rogue couldn't use the tools at his disposal.

There is a strong case for a Rogue/Paladin provided you can bend the rigid representation of Paladins as holy warriors in shiny armours and see such a character as a streetwise and savvy man of the world who can put aside his prejudices to uphold justice and goodness where other Paladins never go (at least unnoticed).

 

Yes, this is true. Rogues have the same BAB progression as clerics, druids, monks, and bards, which is at 75% of the rate of warrior classes.

It'd probably be true that a pure wizard should see disarming traps, etc. as being below them, from a RP standpoint. However, I wouldn't say that this is true for a multi-classed wizzy/rogue (which I see you point out).

Also from a raw skill point management PoV, trying to be decent in rogue trap/lock skills as a pure wizzy would be awfully expensive. It'd probably be better to take a rogue level once in a while simply to get a big burst of SP on rogue skills. Of course, this would weaken the wizzy somewhat ... however, if you're going with a wizzy/rogue MC you already know that you are making this trade-off, and perhaps the w/r is only the secondary mage in the party, so it's not such a terrible loss of spellcasting power.

I think that it all depends on what one means by "scouting". If scouting means looking for enemies, then any character that can be invisible either by stealth or spell or potion, etc. can "scout". However, if you also include searching for traps into the "scouting" definition, then you need a character that can either use the Search skill or use the Find Traps spell.

I see nothing wrong or non-roleplaying about using characters other than rogues for scouting. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that scouting almost seems like what a ranger is in so many ways. Monks are also good at the stealthy skills, but search is a 2 pt skill for them, so they don't exactly make ideal "trap" scouts.

Crap, I wouldn't consider doing BG2 without a thief. Heck, I used to often prefer using a PC that was a Thief of some sort, simply so that I'd guarantee that my party would have a strong thief. Of course, it didn't hurt that in BG2 thieves could be rather nasty characters.

I agree. I think that rogues are fun as well. But then again, my style of play is somewhat role-playie and I like using stealth tactics as much as possible... and I don't mean simply for scouting. I'd love to create a little team of 2 or 3 stealthy warriors that would quietly sneak up to some unsuspecting enemies and hit them hard and fast (with particular attention on hitting enemy spellcasters). I'm sure that some players would just march their entire party up to these enemies and just spank them down, but that's just too boring for me. I like a more subtle approach, which I suppose is why I like rogues and rangers.

Well, to a certain degree, as the levels progress, warriors do tend to go from being the offensive arm of a party to the spellcasters' bodyguards. But I can live with that. To me, that doesn't make the warriors useless. It just means that their job description is adjusting to the changing circumstances.

The key point is that "Rogue" does not automatically mean "Thief". A "rogue" may simply be an "adventurer" with a rather more diverse set of "job skills" than a Fighter. For the most part, "Fighters" fight, whereas an "adventurer" may learn by intention or necessity a wider array of skills (like talking ones way out of trouble, or finding all those nasty traps, or being sneaky, stealthy scout, etc.) "Sneak Attacks" for a rogue are simply the way for a "sneaky, light fighter" to make the most of his abilities, since the traditional rogue isn't going to be running around in full plate with a great sword.

A LG "Thief" may seem rather questionable, but I can see plenty of room for a LG "Rogue".

 

In HOF, I find I need my fighters (and characters capable of buffing and debuffing) far more than I need bombardiers. Fireballs just dont do enough damage to monsters in HOF. In Normal mode, yeah they would still be effective.

As for LG rogues, I still dont buy it.

The thing is, Paladin's know they have to fight to bring justice and good to the world. But they do as mostly as a last resort. They would probably ask that you repent before killing you, whereas a rogue would give you no such chance - you would find a dagger protuding from your chest. Sneak attacking, IMHO, is not an activity that a LG character would want to engage in. Its devious by its very nature, and LG characters arent devious.

Yeah, in terms of survival skills, I could see a LG warrior of some kind, rogue or not, needing some skills such as lockpicking or disarming traps. Those could be useful. Pick pocketing? No way. Lockpicking could let you gain access to the fortress without having to beat down the front door, pick pocketing is always just thievery.

 

The fact that you don't "buy it" doesn't change that it's just the way it is. If you don't like the idea just don't make any LG Rogue, nobody is forcing you.

A Paladin is still a warrior so I don't think any Paladin would think twice before sticking a blade in some evildoer's chest. Why do they have Holy Avengers if it's not to avenge the innocents? RPing a Paladin doesn't preclude the forgive and forget thing but I'm pretty sure a Paladin won't be foolish enough to let a dangerous evildoer go because of a pretended repentance.

Following your logic sneak attacks are not a possibility for a LG Rogue because they are devious.

If you sneak attack in the middle of a fight that's using an unconventional technique to maximize damage. It's not necessarily treachery: you do what you've got to do with the means at your disposal. In the case of sneak attacks it means taking the opportunity to strike at a vital spot when a foe's guard is lowered.

I don't see anything devious in that definition of sneak attacks. A Rogue is good at targeting the weak spot of an enemy, that's not devious, that's what fighting is about.

Backstabbing the enemy can be qualified as devious but is it that devious when the foe in question is threatening to kill innocent bystanders in a hostage situation? Or if that foe is a powerful mage engaged in a ritual and that you may not get a second chance to strike him down?

The LG Rogue may not use backstabbing under normal circumstances but my bet is that if it means saving some innocent lives he or she would (albeit reluctantly) backstab the foe.

Don't you think that it would be awfully stupid for any LG character in both situations to start haranguing a band of thugs and bodyguards thus losing any strategic advantage? Unless you have a plan of course.

Sure, it is thievery but it depends on the reason for picking someone's pockets. If it means picking your jailor's key ring I don't think it's out of character. If it means picking that arcane phylactery from the evil mage when he is not looking then I don't think it is out of character either.

 

Try thinking of them as IWD's version of a geeky CIA agent rather than a bank robber. Does that make it easier?

 

Why add the extra abilities at just level 1 then? Or are you saying that is the only possiblity available when modding the game? Why not have a few more options added in at higher levels.

 

Bard's Tale series had the "Hunter" class with a small chance of insta-kill on any monster, and a Rogue class which could do the same thing when hidden. You could view a "Rogue" as a sort of medical specialist (heh heh) who specializes in surgical removal of tender bits. That fits fine with the LG motif. However, I don't think the prior suggestion "it's okay to steal from bad guys as long as you're giving to the poor and needy" fits the LG ethos. That's more neutral or chaotic, IMO.

-Max

 

Sigh.... Blades, Blades, Blades.


Blades, clearly, we're having a communications problem here.

I commented on why I don't like adding extra abilities at level 1 because I don't like giving players additional incentive to snipe single levels. Nothing more and nothing less. I was not saying anything like the only possibility was to add things at creation or level 1. I will say now that that may be the case, but I don't know one way or the other, and it would likely be on a case by case basis.

And of course it would be much more preferable to spread the added abilities across multiple levels to increase the reasons that people would want to take many levels of that class. (I don't know how you could have inferred that I'd said otherwise... )