Starting a thief char, advice needed :)

[Neverwas]

Hi,
I'm sort of new here, I played BG long time ago but it was, uh, 100% casual you would say.

I'm going to start off from the very beginning, BG1 with Tutu.

The idea is that I want to make a skirmishers/covert ops party, which would be including myself, Imoen, Kivan maybe for heavy fire support and a fourth thief, not sure who yet.

Thing is that I can't make up my mind about my own character. I realize that thieves have a class bonus to backstabbing but from my experience lingering in melee gets me killed. I also would prefer to kite enemies around with ranged weapon of some sort, lure them into traps etc.

Now, I can't really decide which class do I want to play:
1. Vanilla thief: my first choice ATM for being an all-rounder, the question is if damage output with a shortbow/crossbow + regular traps is enough to make it worthwhile?
2. Bounty hunter: second choice, although I dont like that I'd rely so much on traps for which there is a limited number of uses per day and after that my character looses it's core ability.

I'm actually surprised that it's so hard to make a ranged character which would use lot of traps aswell, in my mind it makes little sense for a glass cannon in light armor like a thief to be forced to melee.

Thoughts, advices, which subclass/kit should I take?

[Garriath]

I do recall that bounty hunters' traps can be insanely powerful, and give you a huge step up if you're able to take a look at any battlefield before you fight on it.

[Neverwas]

The thing that concerns me about the traps is that I can lay down so few of them. So the usefulness of my character expires after first few groups of enemies I encounter for the day.

[vaypah]

I think you'd love the Rogue Rebalancing Mod for this.

The modifications are too many to list now - not that I remember all of them offhand, mind you - but they make all the thief kits a bit more interesting and useful, without making them overpowered.

Take for example the Bounty Hunter:
In addition to the extra traps - that get nerfed a bit - you also get a sort of paralyzing poison for when you run out of traps or you don't have time to set up a proper ambush.

As for a suggestion:
Since you won't be making use of the back stab feature all that much, I'd suggest you go with a swashbuckler. It's a pretty good melee char, especially with Use Any Item, and kiting isn't all that possible once you get to BG2 proper.

[kmonster]

Bounty is hunter is definitely better than normal thief. Both have the same combat power but the bounty hunter gets more and better traps, the few skillpoints he gets less don't matter considering that you have a fast levelling pure class thief and Imoen who adds additional thieving skills, you don't need 2 characters spending points for lockpicking, trapfinding or pickpocketing.

Another option is playing a dualclass fighter2-3/thief, 2 fighter levels are enough for weapon specialization which grants +1 to hit, +2 to to damage and an extra half attack per round (you get also more HP and can wear helmets).
A fighter/thief multiclass grants even more combat power and still more than enough skillpoints.

A problem with your party is that you don't get access to mage spells like haste for buffing or damage spells, you could take a thief/illusionist or even a fighter/mage/thief multiclass to get more powerful, the best mage robe in teh game is better than the best leather armor and far better than the 2nd or 3rd best.

[Neverwas]

Thanks for the advices.

One more thing, would it be possible to make ranger/thief character using mods of some sort? This issue really keeps coming back to me, it makes zero sense that such an obvious mix is not available by default.

Edit. Oh, I mean ranger/thief as dual-class.

[kmonster]

Thieves are rather evil city dwellers while rangers are good tree huggers so it somehow makes sense that there's no ranger/cleric multiclass and therefore no dualclass available.
Mixing those two classes together might also yield an engine problem since you have 2 different stealth values.

You can try if you can get this option with shadowkeeper but I wouldn't bother.

It's not beneficial starting as ranger instead of fighter, you can't go beyond specialized, you have to wait longer until you can dualclass and even with the bonus from 18 dex the stealth skills of a low level ranger will be so low that mainly masochists who enjoy failure messages will use it.

If you dual make sure to specialize in long bows and don't waste proficiency points for short bows, using a composite long bow instead of a shortbow will add another +1 to hit and +2 to damage.

[Neverwas]

Thieves are rather evil city dwellers while rangers are good tree huggers so it somehow makes sense

Thing is that thieves set traps that look just like wolf snares and such. Everything would be okay if rangers were able to set traps aswell or if setting traps was exclusive to them. =)

[QuenGalad]

We had a bit of an argument with Galraen on the subject a while back, him going with a 'classical' outlook on rangers as innately good defenders of the forest and nature modeled after Aragorn, and me insisting that a class is just a set of skills that can be used for good, evil or neutral acts depending on personal choices.

But whatever the idea, I can't see a ranger setting wolf snares. If a ranger places traps (as they do in 3rd edition), they would probably be snares for people who disrespect the forest.

As for your character, I suggest you pick a kit that suits you - vanilla thieves can get a bit bland, although thieves in general are a great class that won't bore you easily.

[Neverwas]

Went with an archer after all, suits my need of kiting people to death much better.

About ranger alignment: wouldn't they be similar to druids in this regard? As in keeping the balance in the forests, ie. thinning the herd when one of the species gets too numerous due to human actions. Wolf snares might come in handy then.

[QuenGalad]

Alignment in general is a tricky subject, and we've debated the hell out of it here a couple of times. Which does not mean the subject can't be raised again and won't be interesting.
Personally I always felt that any class can be of any alignment : a good ranger would be one that tends to the forest, but also tries to minimalize negative consequences of interaction between people and nature on both sides : teaching people how to use healing plants, how to behave when they encounter a dangerous animal, how to harvest wood with minimum harm to the environment would all be valid tasks for the "neighborhood ranger" of the good variety - the one who wants both his people and his forest to thrive.
An evil ranger could be - this is only one of the possibilities, mind - someone who believes anything should be done to preserve the forest, thus killing people who pick healing herbs and leading helpless children to the starving wolves to be eaten. (Ok, that one is a bit extreme, but fanatics can be like that.)

The notion of druids "preserving the balance" at all has always been ridiculous to me. Nature is in balance as it is: that is its default state. The so-called "preserving the balance" is just another form of interference into the natural system, aiming to uphold what people think of as balance. To use the example you mention, the species that gets too numerous, even through human action, will inescapably thin itself out (and possibly the humans, too) in the fullness of time. Our limited lifespans prevent us from seeing this and thus make us think we actually need to interfere.
Hey, maybe that's the reason why elves can't be druids in 2 ed? They live longer and understand this?

You will have fun with your archer, they are wicked snipers.

[Neverwas]

While I agree with the most of it and I actually like evil-ranger idea (let me roleplay it, game!) one thing is that I don't agree with:

The so-called "preserving the balance" is just another form of interference into the natural system, aiming to uphold what people think of as balance. To use the example you mention, the species that gets too numerous, even through human action, will inescapably thin itself out (and possibly the humans, too) in the fullness of time.

I think that in any case when one is using term preserve the balance in nature it inevitably links with the conviction that humans aren't a natural part of this system, hence they pose a threat to it. And it's not necessarily true that eventually that the overnumerous species - like humans, who gained absolute domination - will extinct and there will still be an environment in which anything can live again. Unless we consider void and dust as a state of natural balance too. That last thing actually makes sense, because no life at all is a balanced state. But I guess most rational beings prefer some life instead of lack of life.
Generally I believe that when one's using the term preserve the balance it means for him preserve the current state as much as possible. Which leads to protecting the forests etc. in the case of druids.

You will have fun with your archer, they are wicked snipers.

Hah, well, at the moment my party is me with longbow, Kivan with longbow, Corwen with longbow, Safana with shortbow, Jaheira with sling and poor Khalid who has to be the shield for all of us. Steamrolling everything so far.


(Edit. spelling)

[QuenGalad]

Well, I roleplayed an evil ranger kinda like this in a paper campaign some time ago. It was great fun, right up to and including the point where I had to turn on my party and the party had to hunt me down in a most satisfying bounty hunt in our careers, each side knowing the other's tricks, them outnumbering me but me having the advantage of the forest and so on. Great times.

As to the balance thing, yes, I kinda do consider dust and desert a natural state, because Nature will heal. It may take Her millenia, but She will. That does not mean that I do not see the viability of environment protection - something I engage a lot in, IRL - but what I find jarring here is the idea that humans (or elves, druids, whoever) are somehow required to maintain the "balance". It really is like you say, more of a "preserve the current state as much as possible" thing, and that's all right because forests are breathtakingly beautiful and magnificent and deserve protection. But sometimes, our "balancing" efforts are the biggest threat.

Phew, that was long, but I hope it's comprehensible.