374 replies to this topic

[Feanor]

Good points. Paladins will only get Toughness then. I'm still undecided on Rangers though.

Rangers should get improved critical. Why ? Because they focus upon using two weapon simultaneously, they have a bonus in two weapons fighting and they usually spent their points in two weapon fighting (Minsc is the exception here, but he ressembles more a berserker or a barbarian) so IC comes like a welcome addition.

[Feanor]

I have some suggestions about Assassin's HLA, guys !
1. What if Assassins would get a new HLA called Dagger Focus who would give them mastery (3 points) in daggers ? The main reason is that it would be expected for assassins to wield daggers better than paladins, barbarians or rangers.
2. What if Assasins would be able to design a poison who drains one level for every succesful hit (or for every round after a succesful hit), with Nerve Poison and Brew Poison as prerequisites ?

[Jinnai]

I don''t nessarily like opening up old arguments, but since its been several versions with no change, is there any way of giving GENERIC fighters ambidexetiyy and I Abidexterity as, if they chose to fight that way, should be able to surpass a ranger who must devided his time between fighting, memorizing spells and other ranger duties.

[Feanor]

I don''t nessarily like opening up old arguments, but since its been several versions with no change, is there any way of giving GENERIC fighters ambidexetiyy and I Abidexterity as, if they chose to fight that way, should be able to surpass a ranger who must devided his time between fighting, memorizing spells and other ranger duties.

Could you be more specific, Jinnai, because your post seems quite unclear and I don't get the idea.

[Feanor]

A question here, Maestro : don't you think that kensai should also have Improved Ambidexterity because they also seem to be a kit totally devoted for two weapons fighting ?

[Rathwellin the Bard]

I don''t nessarily like opening up old arguments, but since its been several versions with no change, is there any way of giving GENERIC fighters ambidexetiyy and I Abidexterity as, if they chose to fight that way, should be able to surpass a ranger who must devided his time between fighting, memorizing spells and other ranger duties.

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't like that idea J.

[Kish]

A question here, Maestro : don't you think that kensai should also have Improved Ambidexterity because they also seem to be a kit totally devoted for two weapons fighting ?

How so?

[Grim Squeaker]

A question here, Maestro : don't you think that kensai should also have Improved Ambidexterity because they also seem to be a kit totally devoted for two weapons fighting ?

How so?

If anything you'd think they'd use a Katana with both hands (i.e. two-handed weapon) or something...

[Rathwellin the Bard]

The only kensai I ever played used a spear....

[Feanor]

The only kensai I ever played used a spear....

That was your option, Rath. But what I had in mind when I suggested Improved Ambidexterity :
1. Kensai means sword saint so it would be logical for them to have a special affinity for sword. And five of the six sword types in the game are one handed.
2. Kensai seems to be a finesse fighter more than a heavy fighter. They can't wear armors, they have a natural AC bonus...

[Littiz]

Good points. Paladins will only get Toughness then. I'm still undecided on Rangers though.


PS.: Littiz, if you read this thread, please drop a line about your opinions!

sorry, I fear I've lost a good part of the recent debates

[Jinnai]

I don''t nessarily like opening up old arguments, but since its been several versions with no change, is there any way of giving GENERIC fighters ambidexetiyy and I Abidexterity as, if they chose to fight that way, should be able to surpass a ranger who must devided his time between fighting, memorizing spells and other ranger duties.

I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't like that idea J.

Why? Think about it. This only comes into play at the later stages of the game for one thing and a fighter that would emphasise dueal weilding would eventually become amidexterious like a ranger gets to be. Why should a generic fighter, the one with the most potential for leaning fighting styles be denied one?

I do agree there should be some drawback, but that could be from either giving them enough avilities that taking them makes them lose others other that taking the dual wielding route makes them lose other fighting styles.

Bottom line, a generic fighter of 40th level who trained in dual fighting all his life vs a ranger with in a battle using only their melee combat skills (and all else things being equal) you get beaten because the fighter has had more time to perfect his technique, not spending it on other meaningless (in the fighter's opiion) stuff.

True the ranger had a head start, but the ranger is also more diverse in his opions overall.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

I *have* thought about it.

I just very strongly disagree with your opinion on this one.

[Jinnai]

I *have* thought about it.

I just very strongly disagree with your opinion on this one.

Amd i very stongly believe this should be done. Mostly because generic fighter should be able to become whatever the character wants more than any other fighter type and as ambidexterity is a learned style a generic fighter should have that chance.

Edited by Jinnai, 23 May 2004 - 10:18 AM.

[Schatten]

isnt a ranger born with ambidexterity and a fighter learns it? thus the fighter wont be as good as a ranger with dualwielding.

[Kish]

A ranger is not born a ranger--all a ranger's abilities result from training.

In unmodded BG2, a ranger will start off more easily able to dual-wield than most fighters due to automatically having Two-Weapon Style **, but a fighter can certainly become as good at is as a ranger (Two-Weapon Style *** is available to both), or even better due to also having Grand Mastery in both weapons dual-wielded.

[Andyr]

Could tracking be an innate for rangers? it really has no place in the HLA tables...

Yeah, it is a little weak. Perhaps it could be improved to cast Detect Invisibility or something when used too, on the basis the Ranger sees the tracks of the invisible creature?

Given the choice of Tracking or the combat bonuses of things like Whirlwind, I know which I'd be likely to pick.

About Kensai and better ambidexterity, I don't personally see them as a kit totally devoted to fighting with two weapons.

[T.G.Maestro]

About Kensai and better ambidexterity, I don't personally see them as a kit totally devoted to fighting with two weapons

The same here. The two-katana "style" comes from a neat powergaming habit of the BG2 community. Hm, simply try to dual-wield two katanas in RL..!
And BTW, there are many non-dual kensai in the game: simply think on Abazigal or the kensai-dwarf from the Tactics Kangaxx Guardians.

Yeah, it is a little weak. Perhaps it could be improved to cast Detect Invisibility or something when used too, on the basis the Ranger sees the tracks of the invisible creature

A noteable suggestion Andyr, thanks! I'll consider this.

In unmodded BG2, a ranger will start off more easily able to dual-wield than most fighters due to automatically having Two-Weapon Style **, but a fighter can certainly become as good at is as a ranger (Two-Weapon Style *** is available to both), or even better due to also having Grand Mastery in both weapons dual-wielded

And I think these words from Kish are nice ending thoughts on this discussion: Jinnai, don't forget that Fighters get the option to advance to Grand Mastery in every weapon, which makes them clearly as skilled with two weapons as a Ranger with IA. Its only that they reach this level differently. I really think things are fine as they are at the moment.

sorry, I fear I've lost a good part of the recent debates

I'll try to summarize things for you then in mail - a bit later.

[T.G.Maestro]

I have some suggestions about Assassin's HLA, guys !
1. What if Assassins would get a new HLA called Dagger Focus who would give them mastery (3 points) in daggers ? The main reason is that it would be expected for assassins to wield daggers better than paladins, barbarians or rangers.
2. What if Assasins would be able to design a poison who drains one level for every succesful hit (or for every round after a succesful hit), with Nerve Poison and Brew Poison as prerequisites ?

Why do you think they need even more HLAs? Assassins were already considerably buffed up in Refinements - since they are my favourite kit in BG2 I'd gladly improve them further, but I fear it'd heavily threat the game balance, so I think they won't be changed for a while.
And about these ideas:
Dagger Focus has the same problem as your kensai suggestion - you assume that most Assassins wield daggers. While this may be logical, there are numerous exceptions, and then players would have all right to claim a "Short Sword Focus, Scimitar Focus, Dart Focus to get their Assassins equal options.
And about the "Level-draining" poison - sorry, I don't like this idea. I fail to see how such a heavily magical effect could be "brewed". Lets keep Level Drain for spellcasters and magical monsters, ok?