|
Zeerust posted:Dual-classing a Kensai to Mage at level 7 or 9 is the classic cheese method. Dual classing berserker 7 to mage is better in every concievable way except 'cant do more bonus damage'. Surviability and quality of life just blow it out of the water, plus if you start from bg1 you arent stuck playing a drat kensai lol
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Well there's the amulet of shield you can buy at the Nashkel carnival, but yeah, Kensai in BG1 isn't the most fun experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Yeah I'm basically asking for the cheesiest cheese class. So Berserker dualing to Mage is the way to go? I thought I remembered Kensai being awesome, but I think maybe that was Kensai dual-wielding as a solo character in BG2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Kensai/Mage dual is cheesy as gently caress but if you're starting with BG1 it will just be a simple kensai for the whole game
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
MMF Freeway posted:Kensai/Mage dual is cheesy as gently caress but if you're starting with BG1 it will just be a simple kensai for the whole game the halls of 19 years of grognards echo with the phrase "berserk is more useful and cheesy than kai"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Yes but have you considered just how incredibly cool a Kensai/Mage dual wielding Celestial Fury and Dak'kon's Zerth Blade is when you're 15 and have recently discovered anime Because let me tell you it was so loving cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
If anyone out there has not played a Sorcerer class PC, play a Sorcerer class PC. They're the best!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
DeadButDelicious posted:In people's experience is it worth/enjoyable dualling a kensai at 13 to a thief or is it too much of a pita to get your kensai levels back and 9 is more preferable (Dillbag above said that dualling at 9 meant that they got their skills back at the end of SoD which seems... Fine?) From everything I've heard it's a tremendous slog to get things going if you dual at 13. 7 is the sweet spot for Fighter dualling since you get your extra 1/2 attack and it's absolutely trivial to get the XP to activate your lost levels. Go for 9 if you're really jonesing for the extra proficiency point, 2d10 hp and +1 hit and damage a Kensai would get. Otherwise... Ehhh. e: And like Meyer's-Briggs said, although the Kensai is the classic cheese option, Berserker is actually better. BG1 early levels are trivialised by the Berserk HP bonus and you're not having to give up armour. Zeerust fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
If you dual a Fighter/Thief at 7, you might as well go Berserker. Much better survivability, and the +2 to hit/damage from Rage equalises the Kensai's bonus at that point. Kensai isn't worth it unless you go to level 9 at least. 13 would be better, but that's a long time you'll spend as a gimped build. Edit: Though again, dualing is more of a caster thing. Thieves benefit a lot from multiclassing since they're only real high-level advantage are the HLAs, and you get even more of those as a multi. Samuel Clemens fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:Put me on the "very optimistic" list. Larian did good work with DOS 1 and 2, and I bet a lot of their devs played and look up to doing Baldur's Gate right. Yeah. Some people might not think of Larian as being the best fit for BG3, but of all the Western RPG developers active today, I'm really glad they got the license. It was amazing how much they grew and improved just between D:OS 1 and D:OS 2, let alone since the early days. They're ready for this. As long as they manage expectations well, BG3 could be really good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Is there anyone else who genuinely enjoys the 2nd edition ruleset? I'm sure it's largely nostalgia, but I've always loved it myself. I like how classes have less overlap with each other which seems to make each playthrough much more unique. I know there's tons more potential build combinations in 3rd edition (haven't played 4th or 5th) but there's still more overlap I think. I like thaco and armor class being a negative number and the weird poo poo like only humans can multi-class while other races can dual (or was it the other way around?) I don't know, I see all the reasons people don't like it, but I adore it. Also the complaint regarding caster supremacy never held water with me. Casters are super weak babies in the early levels and make up for it later. Plus you have up to 5 other characters to control and from a party perspective there's still a lot going on even if your PC is just a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:Is there anyone else who genuinely enjoys the 2nd edition ruleset? I'm sure it's largely nostalgia, but I've always loved it myself. I like how classes have less overlap with each other which seems to make each playthrough much more unique. I know there's tons more potential build combinations in 3rd edition (haven't played 4th or 5th) but there's still more overlap I think. I like thaco and armor class being a negative number and the weird poo poo like only humans can multi-class while other races can dual (or was it the other way around?) I don't know, I see all the reasons people don't like it, but I adore it. Also the complaint regarding caster supremacy never held water with me. Casters are super weak babies in the early levels and make up for it later. Plus you have up to 5 other characters to control and from a party perspective there's still a lot going on even if your PC is just a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
The bigger problem isn't that casters are weaker or stronger than other classes, the problem is that casters are the only classes interesting to play. This is before the era where fighters got special moves to use, you just get to autoattack well. HLAs help a little bit (very little, most of them are either passive buffs or else just temporary buffs for the autoattack), but casters get those too and don't need to wait until they have millions of xp to actually get mid-battle choices. The way the combat system works you need some fighters in your party, but they're really more ablative targets to let the casters do the actually fun stuff, vessels for the casters to pour buffs in, or the guys that stab all the enemies on the ground to death after the casters have effectively won the fight by disabling them all. The fighters will get the most kills on their stat screen and inflict the most raw hp damage over the course of the campaign, but you won't remember a single thing they do, all your pre-battle and mid-battle attention is going to be on the casters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
While I do like the simplicity of BG's interpretation and how every class is distinct, I've read the rules for 2e P&P and honestly it looks like a nightmare. There's so much stuff going on and overlapping resolution systems that I don't see how it's really playable outside of massive houseruling. Which, obviously, is what people did, and why people enjoyed it. The THAC0 system of armour class and attack rolls is extremely elegant as a step forward from hit charts, but from an objective standpoint it's way more complicated than it needs to be. Subtraction is always harder for a brain to process on the fly than addition, and 3e was right to flip everything to 'higher numbers are better', even 3e was garbage for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
I always felt the opposite regarding Thac0. It’s a number to beat, so lower is always better. Like Golf. It never seemed unintuitive to me, but I also played PnP back in my teen years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Subtraction or addition I'm fine with either, but it was a dumb decision to make the baseline THAC0 and then have everyone's base armor be 10 instead of 0.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah base Thac0 being one positive arbitrary number and goes down to get better, then base armor being a different but also positive arbitrary number and goes down to get better is super loving batty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
THAC0 is a simple mechanic presented in a way that is so needlessly unintuitive it has to be deliberate.Mzbundifund posted:The bigger problem isn't that casters are weaker or stronger than other classes, the problem is that casters are the only classes interesting to play. This is before the era where fighters got special moves to use, you just get to autoattack well. HLAs help a little bit (very little, most of them are either passive buffs or else just temporary buffs for the autoattack), but casters get those too and don't need to wait until they have millions of xp to actually get mid-battle choices. The way the combat system works you need some fighters in your party, but they're really more ablative targets to let the casters do the actually fun stuff, vessels for the casters to pour buffs in, or the guys that stab all the enemies on the ground to death after the casters have effectively won the fight by disabling them all. Having never played PnP, though, I wonder who the people that always play Fighters are. I can only assume they're drunk and/or high every session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:I always felt the opposite regarding Thac0. Its a number to beat, so lower is always better. Like Golf. It never seemed unintuitive to me, but I also played PnP back in my teen years. I don't hate THAC0, and was fine with it as soon as I understood how it worked, but you have to admit it becomes mindbending when you get into the negative numbers. "Okay, so my THAC0 is -8, and the enemy's AC is -4, so I just... I..." the other problem is that in 2e, not everything is roll under. Skill rolls are (which, tying them to ability scores? terrible idea), then saving throws are roll over iirc. It's not consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:Having never played PnP, though, I wonder who the people that always play Fighters are. I can only assume they're drunk and/or high every session. Early on I always played fighter but not by choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:THAC0 is a simple mechanic presented in a way that is so needlessly unintuitive it has to be deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Wizard Styles posted:That's not a problem for a video game where the entity you control is ultimately the party, not one individual character. Yeah you're right that it's not a problem for Baldur's Gate, which is why the game is a classic and we're still talking about it today. If you're playing multiplayer though be sure to split the casters between players or someone's going to pass out from boredom. As for PnP, even 2nd ed fighters can do infinite fun cool stuff just by virtue of it being a freeform tabletop game. Buy a double saddle for your giant armored warhorse and carry the wizard around like a fireball turret while you handle all the ride checks and run over fools. Use your rippling Conan muscles to push over a statue and crush the enemy shaman. Challenge a villain to a Princess-Bride-style poisoned drinking challenge and win because you're a dwarf with 20 constitution. Swing on a rope and snatch the princess from the dragon jaws. Buy barrels of acid in town and throw them out of the back of the wagon like an insane alchemical Donkey Kong. You can do all sorts of fun memorable ad-hoc stuff because you didn't use Strength or Dex as dump stats. Sadly none of that translated to Baldur's Gate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah base Thac0 being one positive arbitrary number and goes down to get better, then base armor being a different but also positive arbitrary number and goes down to get better is super loving batty. It makes total sense when you actually do the attack roll though: roll D20, add their AC, check if it exceeds your THAC0. Because it was a target to beat you'd have so many "ugh! If only I'd rolled a bit higher!" moments that seeing something that reduced your THAC0 immediately made sense as a good thing. It's one of those things that didn't translate well to games because they're handling all the rolls and poo poo, so you never really experience it in action. And starting THAC0 20 / base AC 10 makes sense too as a default 50% chance to hit. It also means that in practice you'll be dealing with relatively small addition or subtraction sums, because in practice AC numbers are going to be fairly close to either side of 0. THAC0 starting at 20 means it's going to stay a positive integer for most players too, because the intuitiveness of it starts to fall over when it goes negative. Most campaigns would never have seen characters with negative THAC0 or super low ACs, second edition was not at all well balanced around the higher level stuff because very few campaigns made it to those levels. voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
It all made good sense in pnp, until you got magic armour, then the +’s are subtracted from your AC (or are you supposed to add them to the attacker’s THACO?), because pluses are always good, even when lower numbers are better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Pluses are always better because they're secretly minuses. Unless you're talking about Saving Throws, in which cases pluses are actually pluses and thus bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Glimpse posted:It all made good sense in pnp, until you got magic armour, then the +’s are subtracted from your AC (or are you supposed to add them to the attacker’s THACO?), because pluses are always good, even when lower numbers are better. It still made sense because your AC is a fixed value, you don't calculate it and then add/subtract the bonuses from each piece of gear on each to-hit roll. I'm not saying the newer system isn't better, obviously having a consistent "higher is better" rule is way easier to understand and learn in the abstract, and THAC0 was a totally unnecessary intermediary between defensive and attacking stats. I'm just saying that it made sense when you're the one doing all the calculations because you saw all the time which stats were targets to reach (where smaller was obviously better) and which ones affect the rolls towards those targets (where higher was obviously better). voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
AD&D2e core is better then 3.x core. Once you start adding splats though, things can get kinda crazy. I still lean a bit towards 2e over 3e if Tome of Battle isn't allowed, because at least fighters in 2e, while boring, are also murdersticks that don't die. Add weapon grandmastery and fighters are chainsaws. 3e fighters literally never become good, ever. Likewise, if you use 2e "skills" the way they're meant to be used (where you roll under your attribute for success), fighters again can do way more in 2e then they can in 3.x. 4e / BECMI supremacy though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind - not worth it.
JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Edit: Forget this post
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Much like how the Blood War's endless fighting spills over to the Prime and other Planes, so too does the Edition War find threads other than the DnD ones to keep the eternal arguing forever alive. I don't like 4e. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
cigaw posted:Much like how the Blood War's endless fighting spills over to the Prime and other Planes, so too does the Edition War find threads other than the DnD ones to keep the eternal arguing forever alive. It's not supposed to be talked about in those threads ether. Though I am of the opinion that all editions have their upsides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
5e is pretty good though I think we can all agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
bike tory posted:5e is pretty good though I think we can all agree. Well goodbye thread, you were fun while you lasted...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
bike tory posted:5e is pretty good though I think we can all agree. It's a) not, and b) made by some truly horrible people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
No fighting about this. This is not the place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:No fighting about this. This is not the place. Agreed. It’s my fault for saying I liked 2nd edition and why, and I apologize for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:Agreed. It’s my fault for saying I liked 2nd edition and why, and I apologize for that. There is no fault for liking any edition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:There is no fault for liking any edition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:If anyone out there has not played a Sorcerer class PC, play a Sorcerer class PC. They're the best! You don't even have to worry that much about stats. It's amazing!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Guys, the only way to adequately resolve a fight over what edition is better is to bludgeon each other to death with your chosen book, at least is how we used to do it. Good ol' Hackmaster phb, I wish I could clean the blood stains though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 10:05
|
|
