|
ProfessorCirno posted:I couldn't say how/if they are related, but the mid-late 90's was also a lull in actual fantasy tabletop gaming. This was when 2e was decaying and White Wolf was making their big move and, at one point, even ended up beating D&D for awhile. My money's on that they're related and it was largely due to a demographic change. Original D&D and AD&D 1E players were largely very very late boomers/early Gen Xers. While that was what I was weaned on (late Gen Xer, born in mid-70s) I was always the youngest player in my group by a very large margin. Most people my age and a little younger hit D&D playing age right in the middle of the D&D moral panic in the 80s. AD&D 2E came out in that environment--and was effected by it too, such as removing demons and devils in favor of the stupid Baatezu and Tanari'i or whatever the hell they called them--but its reception was lukewarm at best by most of the 1E players I knew (and the less said about 3E, the better) and other kids my age were still forbidden to play so never really picked it up. By the mid-late 90s the OD&D/1E cohort had graduated college and moved on with their lives and left a general-purpose RPG fan vacuum in their wake. You can also see it in the types of CRPGs that actually came out too. OD&D/AD&D 1E were really built from the ground up as being primarily dungeon delving games and nearly all the CRPGs that came out up to and during the slump reflected that. After the slump you start to see much more narrative-driven games (Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, etc) that more reflected the tabletop gaming trend at the time. At least that's from what I understand--being part of the 1E cohort myself I stopped tabletop gaming in the mid-90s so am somewhat out of that loop.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Though to be fair 3rd Edition's enormous popularity and instant revitalization of the tabletop role-playing scene/business may have then had an impact on how feasible it seemed to companies to invest heavily in computerized versions of such games again, too. That is all fairly interesting, and I think it is a topic that could really be explored. You hear a significant number of modern video game designers talk about how they design by either creating and running a tabletop version of their campaign setting ideas first to work out the logistics or at least by thinking in tabletop gaming terms--maybe 3rd Edition got everyone thinking "hey, wait, remember when we used to play D&D all the time?" and then the positive feedback loop exploded. Or maybe it is that Windows 2000 was SO AWESOME
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Quarex posted:Though to be fair 3rd Edition's enormous popularity and instant revitalization of the tabletop role-playing scene/business may have then had an impact on how feasible it seemed to companies to invest heavily in computerized versions of such games again, too. Oh, I'm not disparaging 3E, and I think you're right on that part--especially since 3E seems almost tailor-made for computer adaptions. Just that it was not received well at all by those remaining 1E players I knew that were interested in that stuff. TBH I haven't really had any exposure to 3E outside of PC game adaptions so can't really speak to that. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you're right on that point about designers running campaigns for their games, especially in light of the complaints I've heard about 3E in general from the old OD&D/1E crowd and the general trend in cRPGs now. Complaints I've heard fall into one of two general areas--first, that the new system encourages min-maxing and rules lawyering to a much greater extent than in the past where rules were less strictly codified (and if the 3E cRPGs are any indication I can definitely believe this) and second that campaigns nowadays trend towards leading the party through a story the GM has largely planned in advance, rather than just dumping the party in a world and letting them go hog wild and making poo poo up on the fly. (which was more the trend when I used to play) There are notable exceptions but most modern cRPGs lean heavily on that narrative-driven design. Though how much of that is due to JRPGs and wanting to make every AAA game like a movie-wannabe, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Quarex posted:Though to be fair 3rd Edition's enormous popularity and instant revitalization of the tabletop role-playing scene/business may have then had an impact on how feasible it seemed to companies to invest heavily in computerized versions of such games again, too. Other way around. Baldur's Gate was '98, 3e was 2000. The Infinite Engine ended up probably being the biggest recruitment tool for D&D that it's seen...well, poo poo, I can't think of a single thing that probably boosted attention to the tabletop gaming hobby more then that, unless you count the whole Satanic scare thing that, let's not kid ourselves, probably got way more kids interested then scared. 3e rode the cRPG train, not vice versa. Honestly, I think what revived poo poo wasn't even a "traditional" cRPG. It was the poppa of PC game hack and slash. Diablo was '96 and set a lot of grounds for Baldur's Gate. Diablo basically set out and proved that PC RPGs still had a potential presence. It also completely dominated it's niche - opening up other niches. In the midst of a ton of Diablo clones - and I mean a loving TON of clones, that poo poo didn't start with the horrible Diablo 2 copies - Baldur's Gate presented a different style of RPG, a revival of the previous kinds. Baldur's Gate revived the cRPG. But I guarantee, without Diablo, there's no Baldur's Gate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Hidden Asbestos posted:
Oh my, that is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I couldn't say how/if they are related, but the mid-late 90's was also a lull in actual fantasy tabletop gaming. This was when 2e was decaying and White Wolf was making their big move and, at one point, even ended up beating D&D for awhile. Yea, i sorta agree with this. My tabletop gaming phase was like early 90's to the late 90's and by the end no one I knew was playing AD&D. It was all White Wolf stuff. Hell, when we needed a break from all the doom and gloom we stitched to some old rear end Starwars rpg rather then some flavor of D&D. I still think old school Paranoia played with squirtguns is the best tabletop game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
I'm going to play the gently caress out of Champions of Krynn, Secret of the Silver Blades or Curse of the Azure Bonds this weekend. Any recommendations? I've not competed any of these. I'm leaning towards Champions because I loved Death Knights many years ago. Go go go!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:I'm going to play the gently caress out of Champions of Krynn, Secret of the Silver Blades or Curse of the Azure Bonds this weekend. Any recommendations? I've not competed any of these. I'm leaning towards Champions because I loved Death Knights many years ago. Go go go! Champions is great. I just replayed and finished it a couple months ago on DOS. (I originally played it on the Apple as a kid) It's also one of the few D&D games where multiclass characters are viable. My recent playthrough was a little more traditional but as a kid I had a party full of Fighter/Magic-User/Clerics and they worked really well. I guess that might be an issue if you import your party through all three games though, since since 1E had those dumb level limits for non-humans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Is it even with concerning oneself with classes beyond having fighters, and at least one magic user and a cleric? I used to really mix up my parties to cover all bases but I don't remember any actual need for thief skills... Is the occasional backstab worth giving up a dedicated fighter or additional spellcaster? Can you or anyone else remind me which race/class combinations to avoid for that stupid limit again? BadAstronaut fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
chairface posted:What's the best way to try to play the old Gold Box games nowadays? Amiga emulator? DOSbox? I've only used DOSBox; it's worked really well for me and I played all of these games on DOS anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:Is it even with concerning oneself with classes beyond having fighters, and at least one magic user and a cleric? I used to really mix up my parties to cover all bases but I don't remember any actual need for thief skills... Is the occasional backstab worth giving up a dedicated fighter or additional spellcaster? Yeah, party composition in Champions is reasonably important. You'll want at least two clerics since Hold Person is critically important, at least one Red Robe Mage, and at least one White Robe Mage. Having Red/White mages is particularly important as each class gets access to a different set of spells. There's also an entire quest line that only a Solamnic Knight can do, so if you want to do that you'll need one of those too. The thief backstabbing ability is really nice when you pull it off but tricky to do since it's hard to tell what direction a given monster is facing. I wouldn't make a single-class thief. A Kender Cleric/Thief would be better. (Kender get Hoopaks too, which dual as both melee and unlimited-ammo missile weapons) You can largely ignore level limits in Champions, since the maximum level is like 8 for all classes anyway. The only way you'll really start running up against them is if you take your party all the way to Dark Queen of Krynn. And even then you'll only start hitting level limits for "non-ideal" classes. Ie there's no level limits for elven Clerics/Magic-Users, Dwarven fighters, Kender Thieves and whatnot. The only level limits below 10 are Kender fighters and Dwarven thieves I think. If you really want to avoid level limits you'll pretty much need to make a party of exclusively single-class humans, but it's extremely difficult to fill all the roles you'll want in your party without making at least a couple of dual-class characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Avoid Silvanesti elves if you intend to take them through DQoK. They fighter level cap at 10 and don't get double attack like Qualinesti elves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Largepotato posted:Avoid Silvanesti elves if you intend to take them through DQoK. They fighter level cap at 10 and don't get double attack like Qualinesti elves. This, also avoid Half-elves unless you're making them straight-up clerics or cleric/thieves as they level cap at 10 or 11 for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Thanks guys. Hopefully get to put some proper time in this weekend. What was your favourite Gold Box game, and why? I think looking back, the one I enjoyed the most was Treasures of the Savage Frontier. It had slightly higher level characters, a very wide range of enemies, a nice overworld map to explore with plenty going on, and some really cool encounters that meant more of that good old strategic combat. The whole Zhentarim thing - it felt like a solid plot and the graphics and sound were at last at an improved level. I spent a lot of time in this game...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Definitely Treasures of the Savage Frontier. The interface was prettier and they added some nifty new scripting, plus the game-internal decoder gels were a really neat touch. I started out with Pool of Radiance and sampled the others, but that one definitely felt the smoothest and most satisfying to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Windows 2000 was actually when I started to hate it less, though that really came about when XP showed up. Now Windows 8 is out and I think that they are morons again. I was thinking about playing Champions of Krynn myself... what's the level cap on the cleric half of a kender cleric/thief? That sounds like a fun combo, and I would have another single-class cleric anyway to help out. My planned party is: Knight Ranger (do they get mage and cleric spells in Champions or was that another game?) Kender Something/Thief (thinking cleric, but I already have a ton of priestly casters) Single-class mage (red or white) Single-class cleric (human, of Mishakal... your average healbot) Multi-class cleric/ (of not-Mishakal) mage (of the opposite type from previous. I like caster-heavy parties, as you can see. If rangers are bollocks I'd take a paladin, but knights kind of make those redundant. I just don't like pure melee classes in those games because they are boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I was thinking about playing Champions of Krynn myself... what's the level cap on the cleric half of a kender cleric/thief? The Kender cleric limit is 12. That's two levels below clerics' maximum turn undead ability, i.e. enough for the Majere bonus to make up. Though that won't really matter if you're just playing Champions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Windows 2000 was actually when I started to hate it less, though that really came about when XP showed up. Now Windows 8 is out and I think that they are morons again. It's 1E, so Rangers get druid spells. In fact that's the only way you'll get Druid spells in the Krynn games since IIRC you can't actually make Druids. But you won't get any in Champions because max level for Rangers is 7--you start getting Druid spells at level 8, which you can't get to until Death Knights. That's almost the same party as the last Champions run I did (Knight, Ranger/Cleric, Cleric/Thief, Cleric--or was it a Fighter?, Red mage, White Mage IIRC) but it wasn't as effective as my first run, where I think I used one of the parties recommended either in the manual or hint book, which was chock full of multi-class elven fighter/mage/cleric whathaveyou. Your Kender should be Cleric/Thief. Top level for Kender fighters is 5 which is practically not worth it. There's nothing wrong with having more clerics--in fact they're more useful than Magic-Users in a lot of ways. Most of the enemies you'll be up against will be either evil humans or Draconians. Draconians resist magic so well it's not really worth wasting it on them, and Hold Person (2nd level Cleric spell) is the best human killer in the game, since a Held character goes down in a single hit. Clerics in the Krynn are best not used as healbots (you'll almost never cast healing spells in battle, using Fix during camp instead) but are best used for buffing and support, and as second-line fighters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Are there any "gently caress you" tips to keep in mind for MM7? I'm thinking things along the lines of "never throw this junk away" or "be sure to get this easy to miss secret early on", etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Alpha3KV posted:The Kender cleric limit is 12. That's two levels below clerics' maximum turn undead ability, i.e. enough for the Majere bonus to make up. Though that won't really matter if you're just playing Champions. No, it would be the beginning of a trilogy run. So Kender cleric/thieves would be able to get spells up to 6th level, then, like Heal? I remember 2nd edition rules well enough, but I was so young that D&D versions before that are on the fringes of memory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:Thanks guys. Hopefully get to put some proper time in this weekend. I did not know the word "canon" at this point, but you know what I mean. Plus it was definitely at least a mild improvement interface-wise, even if apparently most of the game was relatively uninteresting combat. I remember there were some pretty entertaining magic items to find, though ... if you were 10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
So I just found and rescued Caramon in Throtl. This game is still in the micromanagey stage where I need to rememorize spells every time I have used them - or am I missing an option somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:No, it would be the beginning of a trilogy run. So Kender cleric/thieves would be able to get spells up to 6th level, then, like Heal? I remember 2nd edition rules well enough, but I was so young that D&D versions before that are on the fringes of memory. Yeah, that's right--the only thing Kender clerics won't have access to is the level 7 spells, which are Restoration and Resurrection. Really though, if you know 2nd edition rules you pretty much know first edition too. The only really major change is a switch from the to-hit tables to THAC0, and a reimaging of the Ranger class. (Plus lots of sanitizing in reaction to the moral panic, like the removal of half-orcs and assassins, and inexplicably monks and illusionists as well) BadAstronaut posted:So I just found and rescued Caramon in Throtl. This game is still in the micromanagey stage where I need to rememorize spells every time I have used them - or am I missing an option somewhere? Rememorizing spells every time you use them is just a part of AD&D, it's pretty much a core mechanic. IIRC it remembers which spells you memorized last time you slept and asks you if you want to memorize the same ones first though. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:No, it would be the beginning of a trilogy run. So Kender cleric/thieves would be able to get spells up to 6th level, then, like Heal? I remember 2nd edition rules well enough, but I was so young that D&D versions before that are on the fringes of memory. drat, I hope so - because I have a Kender Kiri-Joloith Cleric/Thief  Also a Human Knight of the Crown, a Human Cleric of Mishakal, a Silvanesti Elf Red Mage, a Human White Mage and a Mountain Dwarf Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:No, it would be the beginning of a trilogy run. So Kender cleric/thieves would be able to get spells up to 6th level, then, like Heal? I remember 2nd edition rules well enough, but I was so young that D&D versions before that are on the fringes of memory. If you're doing a trilogy run, it's a good idea to look at the Dark Queen of Krynn Adventurer's Journal. That has all racial level limits, and the full experience and spell progression for all classes. The latter is especially important because Krynn spell-casters do not follow the standard progression, and they furthermore differ based on their alignment. Alpha3KV fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Really though, if you know 2nd edition rules you pretty much know first edition too. The only really major change is a switch from the to-hit tables to THAC0, and a reimaging of the Ranger class. (Plus lots of sanitizing in reaction to the moral panic, like the removal of half-orcs and assassins, and inexplicably monks and illusionists as well) 2E did have illusionists, they were just folded into the broader "specialist wizard" framework. Monks were eventually added back in by supplements, first as a weird cleric subclass and then as something closer to the 1E monk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Alpha3KV posted:If you're doing a trilogy run, it's a good idea to look at the Dark Queen of Krynn Adventurer's Journal. I will, thanks. Actually, I looked at GameFAG's and Kender clerics can't have 6th level spells due to a cap of 16 on their wisdom. 17 wis is required for level 6 and 18 for level 7. So, they can get the level but not the wisdom. Granted, that could be changed in a number of ways, but I don't know of any editors for those games and I'm not going to be faffing about with hex editing, thanks. It hardly matters as I would have a Knight and a single-class cleric in the party anyway. The cleric/thief is mostly because, in the great tradition of D&D games using 2nd edition rules, single-class rogues are shite and if you play a game set on Krynn without having a kender then you clearly aren't living properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Alpha3KV posted:If you're doing a trilogy run, it's a good idea to look at the Dark Queen of Krynn Adventurer's Journal. That has all racial level limits, and the full experience and spell progression for all classes. The latter is especially important because Krynn spell-casters do not follow the standard progression, and they furthermore differ based on their alignment. Here it is, everyone:  So, it looks like I have sort of screwed myself in some way by having a Kender thief/cleric. Or, will XP just stop going into the cleric side of things from Level 12 on, and only the thief then levels up? What happens here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Baldur's Gate revived the cRPG. But I guarantee, without Diablo, there's no Baldur's Gate. I was in a Diablo guild in late '97, I was 15 and most of the leaders were in their late 20's or 30's. They were all really into D&D and I remember we were going to become a Baldur's Gate focused guild, we assumed it was going to be a good multiplayer game since p&p RPGs are all about multiplayer. I think we expected something along the line of what Neverwinter Nights was supposed to be. Oops. Anyway, Diablo lead me directly to BG but I ended up hating BG at first because it wasn't what I was expecting and the multiplayer was pointless. Eventually I gave it another shot and learned to love it, and that was the only reason I ever got interested in the "world" of D&D. This is a long-winded way of saying I agree with your point completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:Is it even with concerning oneself with classes beyond having fighters, and at least one magic user and a cleric? I used to really mix up my parties to cover all bases but I don't remember any actual need for thief skills... Is the occasional backstab worth giving up a dedicated fighter or additional spellcaster? My recommendations are already linked from the OP, but I suppose you'll want to know WHY some classes are important, in case you feel something else would be more fun. You need a Knight to be able to do all the quests, so one of those is essential for any kind of completionist. A Knight is also useful for being able to lead NPCs in Death Knights and Dark Queen. More than that doesn't really help. A Paladin doesn't really help either, in the games where you can make them, if you already have a Knight. (The free Paladin protection from evil won't matter much when you reach the point where you can easily cast protection from evil on the entire party for difficult places.) Thieves aren't really useful beyond picking some locks; the backstab ability isn't better than straight-up fighting or casting ability. Kender make okay cleric/thieves at low level, but they run into the cleric level cap fairly quickly if you go beyond Champions, and additionally have the weakness that they can't cast mage spells. The kender unique ability isn't that good, anyway. (Taunting monsters to attack a tank would work well, but kender aren't tanks.) Having a thief is genuinely useful, but you're better off with a Qualinesti fighter/mage/thief. (Don't make a Silvanesti triple-class; their fighter level cap is lower, and you'll probably hit that in Dark Queen. They have zero advantages over a Qualinesti triple-class even if you don't play Dark Queen.) You want as many people as possible casting mage spells (there are lots of really useful mage combat spells). Your Knight is one person who can't, and you probably also want a Ranger/Cleric (a ranger gives you a bunch of bonuses to tracking), and even then both can still cast cleric spells, which is good enough in many cases. Lots of clerical casters isn't as useful as lots of mage casters, so resist the urge to include a bunch of random clerics in the party just to worship as many gods as you can (most of those abilities make little difference once you get a few levels). If you are at all considering transferring to later games, you should have at least one single-classed White Robe Mage. This is useful even just in Champions, starts to come into its own in Death Knights, and is hugely helpful in Dark Queen. This is because to overcome magic resistance rolls, the higher the level you are the better; levels even above 20th are hugely useful to have solely for that reason. The first and third game throw hordes of draconians at you; their magic resistance is far easier to overcome with single-classed mages. White Robe Mages are preferred to Red Robes for single-classed mages because they're the ones with better defense (Globe of Invulnerability goes a long way, and you eventually want to be able to Mind Blank your entire party). After a few playthroughs, I think having 2 of them is right. If you're not specifically single-classing, then you should multi-class as much as you can, to maximize access to a fighter or ranger's hit points/access to good equipment/fighting skill, and to spells. It takes a while to hit the flat part of the experience point table, so you get more total levels by multi-classing as much as you can if there isn't a reason to single-class. You can't make a triple-class character including ranger, so your ranger is the only character who should double-class. So that gives you: 1 good human knight, 1 good Silvanesti ranger/cleric, 1 neutral Qualinesti fighter/mage/thief, 1 neutral Qualinesti fighter/mage/cleric, 2 good human single-classed mages. Bouchacha posted:Are there any "gently caress you" tips to keep in mind for MM7? I'm thinking things along the lines of "never throw this junk away" or "be sure to get this easy to miss secret early on", etc About the only one is that you're asking for trouble if you don't have 1 Cleric and 1 Sorcerer. Most people who read the manual figure this out anyway since you can't get the best spells without these classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:2E did have illusionists, they were just folded into the broader "specialist wizard" framework. Monks were eventually added back in by supplements, first as a weird cleric subclass and then as something closer to the 1E monk. True, but an illusionist under the "specialist wizard" framework was nothing even remotely like the 1E illusionist, which was an entirely separate class with its own spellbook and independent set of rules. A specialist 2E caster was just a magic user that got a bonus to one type of spell and can't cast another. ed: and if we're going into supplements, 2E also lost barbarians, cavaliers, acrobats and probably more that I've forgotten--bottom line was that there was less class diversity in general. BadAstronaut posted:So, it looks like I have sort of screwed myself in some way by having a Kender thief/cleric. Or, will XP just stop going into the cleric side of things from Level 12 on, and only the thief then levels up? What happens here? Honestly, I don't think you have screwed yourself. Level 12 is still a perfectly respectable Cleric level, the only thing you'll miss out is on more casts/level for some of the higher level spells. And since in the Gold Box games you practically have to rest after every combat anyway to re-learn spells, that's not really such a big deal. Thief will still continue to level up after you hit level 12. Genpei Turtle fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:True, but an illusionist under the "specialist wizard" framework was nothing even remotely like the 1E illusionist, which was an entirely separate class with its own spellbook and independent set of rules. A specialist 2E caster was just a magic user that got a bonus to one type of spell and can't cast another. Wow, I'd forgotten about that but I did some research and it just came flooding back. I had forgotten about illusionists having their own progression, only having spells up to 7, and all that. I'm having flashbacks now of my first group when I was about 11... I remember that we had this twit named Eric who wanted to play a cleric, but he felt that it would be sacrilegious because the cleric would worship some other god  in a game about wizards and goblins. He ended up playing a cleric who worshipped God God... you know, the real one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Wow, I'd forgotten about that but I did some research and it just came flooding back. I had forgotten about illusionists having their own progression, only having spells up to 7, and all that. I'm having flashbacks now of my first group when I was about 11... I remember that we had this twit named Eric who wanted to play a cleric, but he felt that it would be sacrilegious because the cleric would worship some other god Yeah there always were some of those weirdos. We had one of those in our group at one point but kicked him out really quick. 1E Illusionists on paper looked like a really terrible class compared to magic-users, but they were boss at getting the party to avoid combat, which was a huge deal in 1E in general. It seems a lot of people really preferred the hack-and-slash aspect though which affected the later versions, which all have much more complicated combat rules. Old school D&D wasn't much more than "roll for initiative to see who goes first, roll to see if you hit, roll for damage, repeat"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Yeah there always were some of those weirdos. We had one of those in our group at one point but kicked him out really quick. Amazingly, he turned out to be fine after that. He was a good cleric who did his job well, and I think that he enjoyed healing people and smiting evil in the name of God rather than a god. All's the better, I suppose, but I don't blame you for booting that other chap for getting twitchy about made-up things because he believes in other made-up things. I was lucky to have such talented and subtle DM's who could write great campaigns that were built around stealth, diplomacy, intrigue and evasion rather than just KILL KILL KILL. Too many dumb players have to kill something every 10 minutes, but my favourite memories often involve not fighting. I remember one adventure trying to catch thieves at a really posh party in the city, and another where my gnome illusionist/thief (best toon I ever played) and his crew were being chased through Myan ruins (we were in Maztica but didn't know it then) by goblin~ish things... hundreds of them. They were catching us up when I had the clever idea of a mate rolling a rock down a slope in a tunnel, I cast Grow on it, and it crushed a few goblins and lodged in an archway, cutting them off. Not traditional combat, bloody brilliant, never forget it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Amazingly, he turned out to be fine after that. He was a good cleric who did his job well, and I think that he enjoyed healing people and smiting evil in the name of God rather than a god. All's the better, I suppose, but I don't blame you for booting that other chap for getting twitchy about made-up things because he believes in other made-up things. In our case, it was mostly because he was being especially dickish about it, and it was kind of inappropriate in our motley crew of players religion-wise (me and my brother were universalist Quakers, another guy was a Chinese Buddhist, and the DM was Jewish) the way he was acting. We didn't so much kick him out as the DM insisted that if the guy really wanted to be a biblical-god cleric his character would have to be Lawful Evil and try to call down OT-style plagues and atrocities. Which might have made for an interesting campaign but our resident born-again type was having none of that. A lot of the really old-school D&D was pretty much designed around campaigns like you note, with nearly all EXP coming from treasure found rather than caving skulls in. Even traditional dungeon-delving felt more like underground cat burglary, with combat occurring only when you screw up or when facing off against the guardians of something you wanted, with creative problem-solving being the focus of the game. It was really rare to see a CRPG even approach that kind of game play though, mostly due to technical limitations. You do see attempts at approximation in not-really-CRPGs like Zork though. Even later on, the only CRPGs that come even close to that that I can think of would be Fallout 1/2, Planescape: Torment, and maybe Arcanum. And even those are pretty hamstrung by the technology in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:ed: and if we're going into supplements, 2E also lost barbarians, cavaliers, acrobats and probably more that I've forgotten--bottom line was that there was less class diversity in general. A number of those classes were weird Unearthed Arcana bolt-ons, like the Cavalier and the Acrobat, that didn't bring much more than goofy this-class-only rules to the table. Barbarian illiteracy and vandalism, Cavalier attribute improvement, Cavalier-based Paladins... Unrelated, not that I think there were ever any explicitly 2E Gold Box games, but they raised the level limits between editions. It wasn't a huge jump, but it was a sight better than the punitively low, might-as-well-multiclass clamps they had in 1E.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Man I can't wait to climb a few levels in COK. The first few levels make all the combat in Throtl very very samey. I want to be done with this place now and explore more of the overland map!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
f
Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
... the little umpani who knew it was none of his business? I'm finally getting into NWN2 after years of being irrationally put off by something to do with how the camera positioning works. The OC is pleasant enough and I'm looking forward to MOTB. They actually make a decent go of letting you play evilly, despite the questionable wisdom of sending the village's only CE drow warlock off on a quest to save it. Does anyone have any tips (or mods) for really keeping party members under your thumb, BG style, during combat? With AI turned off, given orders with the speech commands, only 1 pc selected etc, they still seem more likely than not to wander off and do their own thing at critical moments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
I did a run through the Dragonlance trilogy not too long ago, and I spent way too much time poring over party composition. Glad it's going to be of use to someone else too. Here's what I ended up with: Human Knight Dwarf Fighter Qualinesti Fighter/Red Mage/Thief Elf Cleric of Mishakal/White Mage Human Red Mage Kender Cleric of Kiri-Jolith/Thief You definitely want a knight for the quest in Champions, and to control NPCs in battle later on. Knights get the best armor in the games. Since it's non-magical, it stacks with rings and cloaks of protection for fantastic AC. The only drawback is that it slows you down, which you can mitigate with boots of speed. You lose your major magical items going from Champions to Death Knights, but Death Knights to Dark Queen imports your full inventory. In DQK, you will find a second pair of boots, so you could take two knights, if you wanted. They also start the game with more hp than other fighters. The big beginner trap with knights is the way changing orders works. A knight of the crown levels fastest, but gets no spells. Since you get bonus melee attacks at levels 7 and 13, you'll have to decide if you want to be able to fight better earlier, or if you want access to their cleric spells. I changed orders near the end of Champions, since I had enough XP to reach the level cap even as knight of the sword. The big hitch is changing from knight of the sword to knight of the rose. Pretty much the only advantage of a rose knight over a sword knight is that they can level past 18; so you should definitely stay a knight of the sword until you have enough XP to stay level 18 when you change to rose, which will happen in the mid- to late game of Dark Queen. Rose knights gain levels at an absolutely glacial pace, so don't change earlier. Having a second high-hp fighter type is useful since you'll get a second dragonlance early in DQK. Dragonlances deal you current hp as damage to dragons, and while they're no that hard to kill, dragon breath deals their max hp as damage. An unlucky encounter with a green dragon can easily lead to a total party kill early on, and they're especially nasty if you play on the highest difficulty, as that gives enemies 50% more hp. So, while a second fighter-type isn't essential, he'll be definitely useful. I took a dwarf fighter for the extra hp and the faster leveling, but it could be a second knight, a paladin (not that useful, only available from DKK onwards) a ranger or a ranger/cleric. My dwarf outpaced the knight in hp eventually. The only noteworthy spell that rangers get is a special version of protection from fire, which lets them shrug off red dragon breath and fireballs. They do get bonus damage against giant-class enemies, which includes iron golems, and also works with missile weapons. Mages are the most powerful class at high levels, and you could easily break the game with a single knight and five mage single- and multi-classes. In the dragonlance games, mages get bonuses and penalties to their casting depending on the phases of the moons, and each type has some exclusive spells. In DQK, you can buy scrolls that let you learn some but not all of them cross-class. Red mages gain levels faster and have exclusive access to the most important melee buff spell, haste, so if you only take a single mage, they should be red. If you take more, you should alternate. White mages get some exclusive protection spells such as globe of protection (cross-class scroll in DQK), and some strong save-or-else spells such as hold monster, as well as a greater high level spell selection, but by that point, you'll be spammming delayed blast fireballs most of the time. A party of a single knight and five mage-types can go far, if that's your kind of thing. Damage spells get more powerful with each caster level, which is why single-class mages dominate in DQK. But at lower levels, multi-classes bring a lot of utility to the table. Multi-classed characters can cast spells in armor in the Dragonlance trilogy, which is one of the reasons why fighter/mages are so strong. THe most essential buff spell is Enlarge. It will set strength to 22 and lasts for a huge duration at higher levels. Good and neutral clerics have a different level and spell progression, and there are seven patron gods to choose from. To boil it down, neutral clerics get access to high level spells earlier, but there's a weird mid-game curve where they level slower, only to overtake good clerics again in the high tens or early twenties. Their god choices suck. Good clerics start with extra hp, but take a bit longer to get to high level spells. The powergame choices are Mishakal and Kiri-Jolith. Mishakal boosts all your healing spells, while Kiri-Jolith gives you a THAC0 bonus that's great for ranger/clerics and especially cleric/thieves. Majere gives you a bonus to turn undead, but the turning table is capped at level 14. I had a single-class cleric of Majere in the first two games, but never was really happy with him. The problem with single class clerics is that they can't fight, and past the hold person spells at lower levels, they don't have any go-to offensive magic. Multi-classing them gives you much better options in combat, at the price of slower leveling. A cleric/mage can be a full-time caster in heavy armor, while an elf ranger/cleric isn't level-capped, unlike a fighter/cleric, and still gets great hp for a multi-class. Some people don't like thieves, but there's nothing more satisfying in the gold box games than setting up a devastating backstab on a boss. That said, you should multi-class them. Single-class thieves can't wear any decent armor and have poor THAC0. This is where a kender cleric/thief of Kiri-Jolith shines. They can backstab in plate mail, and kender can use hoopaks, which are the best weapons for backstabbing. You can find a magical +2 version of early in Champions, which will be your best magical weapon for a while. They're level-capped as clerics, but they're still useful as backup healer. You can backstab the bosses in the first two games, but DQK becomes more about fireball spamming. My kender became less useful, but I still had some fun setting him up with all the infinite use magic items such as the eyes of petrification (not the cursed ones!), which let him turn dragons to stone. Thieves need a partner who attacks the enemy from the opposite direction first to set up a backstab, so you don't want more than two, even if you love backstabbing as much as I do. A Qualinesti elf fighter/red mage/thief is a great support character, backstabbing enemies with a fighter THAC0 when possible, casting spells against groups, and mopping up stragglers with normal attacks. I'm not a big fan of fighter/mage/cleric characters, as they don't have that synergy, and triple classes advance so slowly. Also, between the knight and kender, you should be set for back-up clerical casting. BadAstronaut posted:drat, I hope so - because I have a Kender Kiri-Joloith Cleric/Thief That looks like a very solid party. A bit light on melee, but you'll make up for that with spells soon enough. The wisdom limit isn't implemented in DKK, but it is in DQK. IIRC, if you import that character with level 6 spells, i.e. Heal, memorized, you can cast them and relearn them when you rest, but you will lose them permanently if you try to change them. Something like that. Elves can't get resurrected, so if your red mage ever buys the farm, you'll have to load your game. On the other hand, they get higher dexterity, which is very important for mage duels in DQK. Hannibal Rex fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:05
|
|