GameBanshee Forums

Hi all, I'm a new player to IWD and here are some of my thoughts on the game, the storyline, some complaints and a question or two as well.

The start of the game was good and kept me interested in it. I had a quest and someone that needed my help. But by Chapter 3 Dragon's Eye and Severed Hand - with the Archdruid dead ( and the original person that hired me buried in a snow avalanche in K pass and presumed dead) is there any point in keeping on with the other quests besides a desire for justice for the Northern people? With no one paying me for my services why play into Chp 4 (or is it 5) Dorn's Deep?

This is the biggest problem with the Icewind Dale - although I have not yet completed the game - I no longer have any urgency in completing the game moving on to the next chapter - my team no longer has a real purpose -- Hey if worse gets to worse - my team of adventurers can always move to the South - the weather is so much better

Does anyone else feel that the IWD story line is weak? I've played BG2 - and was captivated through out the entire game - whether it was rescuing my sister (lmoen) or trying to get back my soul (or even the side quests to help my companions with their difficulties) it was a riveting story that kept the game interesting. Sadly IWD is rather lacking - and while I will complete the game for the sake of just finishing it and seeing out how it turns out - with a better story line you can see why this series is not as acclaimed and popular as the BG series.

A question for everyone here that has tried the entire IWD story - is it worth the effort to play IWD 2 (bought the box set that included it and HoW) - yes i know it uses 3E rules (which I really don't like - don't like the idea that a Paladin can get thief skills (excuse me aren't you supposed to be Lawful Good) - or that a monk or wizard can get other skills that require extreme dedication in order to master it. Imagine a wizard that can fight like a monk - where the hell do you find all the time to study your spells and meditate/train enough to gain the skills of a monk, ranger or whatever else you can think of or that you can play a drow - accuse me they are evil mostly if not all evil - and they don't wonder around on top of Fearun that freely (most people would not associate with them if they were not attacked out right for just being a Drow) - plus they lose most of their racial gifts under the sun - so why play them? I could B#$% more about 3E rules (and the new 4E rules) but why bother (even though there are some good points to it as well ) - I will stick with 2E when playing DnD (in person). Sorry I got side tracked with 3E complaints ...moving on...

More thoughts on IWD: I forgot how hard it was to play a first level character - no money - no good equipment - hard any HP - no magic worth speaking of - if there was not 6 characters and the hit and run tactics (where it is usually 6:1 me against enemies) - I don't think I would last all that long. But it was fun to start all over at level 1.

Things I miss in IWD (as compared to BG2) - I miss several things - my Staff of the Magi - there are hardly any wizard staffs in IWD - and as for wands nothing really besides one magic missile and one Ice wand - not much and they cost a lot of gold (lucky i have lots of gold and a bard with a friendship spell). Also no rings of invisibility - one of my favorite items for thieves (or for mages that do not have the Staff of the Magi). Yes i know I shouldn't compare different games - bad of me.

[My favorite magical item in BG2 for mages - Staff of the Magi, ring of invisibility, Wand of cloud kill, and wand of monster summoning (and if you have enough protection from lightning scrolls - there is nothing like a wand of lightning to fry everyone in an enclosed area).]

Although there are a ton of magic weapons/armor - some of them quiet good - my team is more spell heavy so it does not matter to me all that much -although I do make a ton of gold selling them off. Another thing that bothers me - no place to buy spell scrolls - not all my mages have all the spells - try finding four fireball scrolls or other scrolls like blur or improved invisibility - grrrrrr. ( Ya ya i know you shouldn't be able to get all scrolls but low level scrolls should be able to be bought in quantity at least - this is after all a world that uses magic!) - How to carry it all - no bag of holding in IWD - argggghhhhh - I had to make so many trips to get all the weapons and sell them - that was annoying - now i have tons of gold but nowhere to spend it.

A question: I read you could pickpocket someone (in Kuldahar) for a necklace of missiles - but I can't seem to find this person - does anyone know if this is correct? You can never have enough fireballs. :mischief:

My team:

Paladin (tank - or wall - average fighter mostly - but lots of HP and a low AC) weapons: long/great sword, hammer, sling.

Fighter (9th - dual)/Mage (low level at the moment) at the moment - its going to be along wait to get back all my fighter skills - and better spells. (Good thing i have a high HP and spells like invisibility, blurr, armor, and mirror images to save my butt). weapons: sling (as a mage); halberd and c-bow (as a fighter)

Cleric/Ranger (multi) - best of both druid and cleric spells (sort of) and a better fighter than the Paladin at times. Sling and flail - main weapons.

Thief (7th - dual)/Mage - my resident scout and ambusher. She loves to hit and run especially with area spells and spells that cause confusion. (too bad thieves in IWD don't get the skill to lay traps - something i miss for my thief).
weapons: short bow and short sword (might have been better as a F/T/M rather than a dual class - since I can't backstab worth anything - hitting as much as missing when backstabbing). weapons: -s-bow, wand of sleep, s-sword [also boots of the fox(speed) - to better hit and run or just getting the monsters to chase you while your party hits them.]

Bard - nothing like having a bard a long to identify everything and to give a boost to moral - and when it gets cold during the long winter nights - can entertain us with music. Plus you get free pickpocket skills - although not a whole lot of people you can pickpocket from. My bard pitches in and helps with everything at the moment - a bit of magic and a bit of fighting and a bit of standing around playing music. weapons: c-bow, axe, wand of magic missile

Cleric/Mage (multi) - probably my most powerful character in terms of magic. She is starting to get enough good spells to really cause havoc.
weapons: sling, wand of freezing cold (sadly only 11 charges but it has 3 settings each with 11 charges)

So far no one has been raised (from the dead) but there has been some close calls.

IWD is a different game than BG2. It's rather a honest, balanced CRPG and not so powergaming like BG2 where overpowered spells and equipment can be bought at every corner for cheap and you're supposed to use metagaming in order defeat using powergaming "I'm so powerful" enemies .

It's no surprise that a powergamer like you is disappointed realizing that your 4 arcane casters aren't overpowered and don't get cheesy equipment like the staff of the magi in IWD.

I don't get your point about there being no motivation for the party to continue the storyline.
You agreed to help and you haven't finished your mission yet, the fact that an evil guy kills your allies and mocks you is reason enough for you to abort it ?
You really have a strange understanding of roleplaying, especially if we consider that your party is led by a paladin.

I consider the IWD story far better than the BG2 one, it might be a traditional "heroes save the world" plot but it's honest and no illogical depth faking nonsense like in BG2 which even punishes roleplaying.


The necklace of missiles can be pickpocketed from Oswald.


IWD2 features the superior 3E rules which are less illogical and offer far more freedom at character development (but also more freedom to mess up). I enjoyed it a lot. It's very long however.

kmonster wrote: IWD2 features the superior 3E rules which are less illogical and offer far more freedom at character development (but also more freedom to mess up). I enjoyed it a lot. It's very long however.

About the best summary one can give about that point.

kmonster wrote:IWD is a different game than BG2. It's rather a honest, balanced CRPG and not so powergaming like BG2 where overpowered spells and equipment can be bought at every corner for cheap and you're supposed to use metagaming in order defeat using powergaming "I'm so powerful" enemies .

It's no surprise that a powergamer like you is disappointed realizing that your 4 arcane casters aren't overpowered and don't get cheesy equipment like the staff of the magi in IWD.

I don't get your point about there being no motivation for the party to continue the storyline.
You agreed to help and you haven't finished your mission yet, the fact that an evil guy kills your allies and mocks you is reason enough for you to abort it ?
You really have a strange understanding of roleplaying, especially if we consider that your party is led by a paladin.

I consider the IWD story far better than the BG2 one, it might be a traditional "heroes save the world" plot but it's honest and no illogical depth faking nonsense like in BG2 which even punishes roleplaying.


The necklace of missiles can be pickpocketed from Oswald.


IWD2 features the superior 3E rules which are less illogical and offer far more freedom at character development (but also more freedom to mess up). I enjoyed it a lot. It's very long however.

Another perspective on icewind dale's story is always good. And balance is always good - I just thought that the IWD was more focused on fighter class than mage class - how often do you see +3/+4 weapons available with 10 to 50% resistance and extra magic damage -- talk about cheesy weapons? (In BG2 - my fighter/mage just used - blade of the roses +3 and daystar.) I never thought of myself as a powergamer - I just like magic and mages as characters and whats a mage without a staff of somthing or other and all the useful low level spells (grease, stink, blind, blur etc are great spells to use). Yes the staff of the magi is overpowered but considering that Aerie carries it for the invisibility then anything else (the perfect defense tool for a mage with very little HP).


My roleplaying is strange? hmmm maybe it is - but I play each character in a certain way - my bard doesn't even steal in front of the party when she pickpockets people - would you trust someone that stole from store clerks and when she does steal everything is kept for herself no sharing stolen goods at least not with lawful good characters - unless she can explain where she got it.
Yes I have a Paladin in the party unfortunately he is not the brightest of bunch and therefore is not the leader of the party (INT 10) so my fighter/mage leads and he is chaotic neutral - so not all the gungho about defeating big villains (especially with all my "allies" dead as you say).


Your comment about my 'allies?' What 'allies' you mean the guy from easthaven who hired me - and died escorting cargo you expect to be ambushed (what rpg doesn't have bandits and such) - and didn't he hire me - barely an ally. As for the archdruid - wasn't he more interested in maintaining the balance - yes the balance is a bit out of whack - so i helped out a bit - the heartstone has a user now and at least one of the villains has been eliminated. I mean if I defeat the big bad boss at the end will anyone notice - as you said all of my allies are dead at the moment (and no i don't really count the lich-elf one of my allies - we just traded services - i cleared the tower and restored his mind - he helps me find the bad guys).
As for the bad guy mocking me? Well ya - having the archdruid being killed by him not so great and I was a little angry - so I destroy some of his lackeys to get even and maybe call it even?

Glory isn't that what all no-named fighters want? With my "allies" all dead who will know besides myself who did this deed? (and no the lich-elf whats his name does not count as he will never leave his tower). Therefore somewhat lacking in motivation (and no saving the north is not enough motivation.)


Thanks for the tip on the necklace of missiles.

We can agree to disagree on the storyline between IWD and BG2. Everyone has their own thoughts on which is the better storyline. Yes less character development in BG2 (your party is full of NPC) but your reputation can go up or down depending on what you do (ie don't get caught stealing or it goes way down or doing evil things) doesn't that add a sense of balance to the game? Again we can agree to disagree on which is the better story line. And yes IWD has more character development - it was fun to start as a level 1 character. When I finish the game I will add more comments on the overall gaming experience.

2E or 3E rules - again we can agree to disagree on that - if what I wrote about multiple skills in different classes (ie get a level of paladin skill and then get a level of monk skill how about a level of barbarian skill) does not sound kind of ridiculous in that these skills should have a dedication that a character should not be able to get because it requires dedication ( what kind of god allows a paladin - a champion of good/justice - representative of a god even - to take one level - and then go - no more for me - i'm going to get some monk level now - i think the god/goddess would strike that person down for being the insincere %$#%^). Yes there are some good aspects to 3E - but there are awful aspects as well. Again we agree to disagree on this issue.

I will try out IWD 2 - there is nothing like a long game to make it more interesting.

Sensei wrote: 2E or 3E rules - again we can agree to disagree on that - if what I wrote about multiple skills in different classes (ie get a level of paladin skill and then get a level of monk skill how about a level of barbarian skill) does not sound kind of ridiculous in that these skills should have a dedication that a character should not be able to get because it requires dedication ( what kind of god allows a paladin - a champion of good/justice - representative of a god even - to take one level - and then go - no more for me - i'm going to get some monk level now - i think the god/goddess would strike that person down for being the insincere %$#%^). Yes there are some good aspects to 3E - but there are awful aspects as well. Again we agree to disagree on this issue.

Actually, it's not a matter to agree to disagree, since 2E has a lot of illogical and quirky rules. (Saving Throws, Stat tables, level limit based on race & class, classes restricted by race,... to name a few.)
You should try to think outside of 2E: why would your Paladin be a worse servant of his god because he spends some time learning to sneak around and fight with his hands? Why is he a bad paladin because he doesn't wear Full Plate and a Longsword? Don't think of class levels as actual levels in a preset career, but think of it as aspects to a character. A Rogue that's good in combat has some Fighter levels, not because he went to Fighter evening school, but maybe because he had to fend for himself, one of the guild toughguys learned him how to brawl, or he is a diplomat-noble (Easily do-able, just spend your skillpoints in the social skills) and he attended a high-standing fencing school. A Barbarian-Paladin (ignore the alignment for a moment) can be a tribe's champion whose rage is a divine inspiration sent to him because he fights for a noble cause. In 3E, YOU make your character, not the game designers. Even a Paladin *can* learn to pickpocket, only he won't be one for long if he abuses it. Churgeons can carve people up, but they don't. No omnipotent power that prevents them, just common sense.
Not to say that 3E is perfect, it certainly has its flaws, but it's superior to 2Ein every aspect. (Apart from multiclassing, which *can* be easier in 2E, but with a tiny bit of effort, is a lot more logical and useful in 3E.)
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this issue.

I always found that IWD had a lot more atmosphere than any other Infinity Engine game, barring PS:T. It has beautiful music, the dungeons are well designed, and I, for one, really felt motivated to roleplay through the story. Granted, it makes more sense for a Good party than a Neutral/Evil one.
Try to install/buy Heart of Winter, it really adds to IWD.

Sensei wrote:Another perspective on icewind dale's story is always good. And balance is always good - I just thought that the IWD was more focused on fighter class than mage class - how often do you see +3/+4 weapons available with 10 to 50% resistance and extra magic damage -- talk about cheesy weapons? (In BG2 - my fighter/mage just used - blade of the roses +3 and daystar.) I never thought of myself as a powergamer - I just like magic and mages as characters and whats a mage without a staff of somthing or other and all the useful low level spells (grease, stink, blind, blur etc are great spells to use). Yes the staff of the magi is overpowered but considering that Aerie carries it for the invisibility then anything else (the perfect defense tool for a mage with very little HP).

Mages are still more powerful than fighters in IWD (even with +4 weapons, none of them is so powerful that it breaks the balance), but it's not as unbalanced as in BG2 where they are totally over the top and even in physical combat superior to fighters thanks to spells like mislead, protection from magical weapons, contigencies, melf's meteors ... .
Since you put 4 arcane casters which are so overpowered in BG2 into your party instead of mixing a balanced group and missed the cheesy staff I assumed you wanted to powergame.

My roleplaying is strange? hmmm maybe it is - but I play each character in a certain way - my bard doesn't even steal in front of the party when she pickpockets people - would you trust someone that stole from store clerks and when she does steal everything is kept for herself no sharing stolen goods at least not with lawful good characters - unless she can explain where she got it.
Yes I have a Paladin in the party unfortunately he is not the brightest of bunch and therefore is not the leader of the party (INT 10) so my fighter/mage leads and he is chaotic neutral - so not all the gungho about defeating big villains (especially with all my "allies" dead as you say).

Your comment about my 'allies?' What 'allies' you mean the guy from easthaven who hired me - and died escorting cargo you expect to be ambushed (what rpg doesn't have bandits and such) - and didn't he hire me - barely an ally. As for the archdruid - wasn't he more interested in maintaining the balance - yes the balance is a bit out of whack - so i helped out a bit - the heartstone has a user now and at least one of the villains has been eliminated. I mean if I defeat the big bad boss at the end will anyone notice - as you said all of my allies are dead at the moment (and no i don't really count the lich-elf one of my allies - we just traded services - i cleared the tower and restored his mind - he helps me find the bad guys).
As for the bad guy mocking me? Well ya - having the archdruid being killed by him not so great and I was a little angry - so I destroy some of his lackeys to get even and maybe call it even?

Glory isn't that what all no-named fighters want? With my "allies" all dead who will know besides myself who did this deed? (and no the lich-elf whats his name does not count as he will never leave his tower). Therefore somewhat lacking in motivation (and no saving the north is not enough motivation.)

If your bard can sing you can be sure the world will know , but you can be sure words of your heroic deeds will spread even without his help.
You really do have a lot of creativity in constructing a strange party personality to justify of your statement of there being no reason to continue, why do characters join adventuring partys when they could lie at the beach instead ?

We can agree to disagree on the storyline between IWD and BG2. Everyone has their own thoughts on which is the better storyline. Yes less character development in BG2 (your party is full of NPC) but your reputation can go up or down depending on what you do (ie don't get caught stealing or it goes way down or doing evil things) doesn't that add a sense of balance to the game?

IWD actually does have reputation. Shop prices can increase and your paladin can fall when it gets bad. A reputation which can be altered at will like in BG2 is a meaningless annoyance.

kmonster wrote:Mages are still more powerful than fighters in IWD (even with +4 weapons, none of them is so powerful that it breaks the balance), but it's not as unbalanced as in BG2 where they are totally over the top and even in physical combat superior to fighters thanks to spells like mislead, protection from magical weapons, contigencies, melf's meteors ... .
Since you put 4 arcane casters which are so overpowered in BG2 into your party instead of mixing a balanced group and missed the cheesy staff I assumed you wanted to powergame.



If your bard can sing you can be sure the world will know , but you can be sure words of your heroic deeds will spread even without his help.
You really do have a lot of creativity in constructing a strange party personality to justify of your statement of there being no reason to continue, why do characters join adventuring partys when they could lie at the beach instead ?

IWD actually does have reputation. Shop prices can increase and your paladin can fall when it gets bad. A reputation which can be altered at will like in BG2 is a meaningless annoyance.

Yes you are right - mages in BG2 are really overpowered - with contingencies and protection spells and spells that allow a mage to transform etc - I never played with those spells - there is nothing like a fireball to get everything done (my favorite spell area spell), stoneskin (for protection), magic missile (for precision attacks), and improved invisibility for added protection (or to run away) from any and all bad guys. As for mages in IWD - well mine has only 11% of the kills in the party - but it could be because I don't have a lot of higher level spells or that I don't use them in favor of my fireball ( my mage seems to have only level 6 spells at the moment and still can't cast them. Lots of summoning spells which are cool as you can summon an elemental/shadows and there seems to 0% chance of them attacking you for calling them - did that in BG2 once - and it turned on me.) What seems strange to me is if you are a mage why transform (the spell tenser something or other) into something and get into physical combat - if you wanted that become a warrior but you are a mage - you stand back blast from a distance - so you don't get any blood on your robes ( and hey thats why you have warriors in your party as meat shields so you can relax and blast (or annoy) bad guys from a relatively safe distance. I like nothing better than to use a magical shield (in BG2 fire shield/wall -so that the bad guys who are brave enough to attack my mage has to climb through fire to do it.) - wish IWD had something like that for mages (blade barrier is a cleric spell right? Doesn't matter as i still haven't found a scroll for it yet). Roleplaying in BG2 or in IWD depends a lot of how you want to play the mage - my mage is a person that loves to stand back and watch the action and take action only if she feels like it (so as to not get blood and guts all over her robes).

And yes reputation in BG2 is a bit annoying it goes up and down a lot faster - I did not know it would do that in IWD - for me none of the prices in the shops have gone down ( and I am 80% done with the game in lower dorn's deep at the moment) the only time the prices go down for me is when my bard uses a friendship spell otherwise I haven't noticed any change in prices.

Well we (adventurers) could lie on the beach (and maybe we will if the bad guys are getting too tough or if we get tired of the cold weather) - but my mage loves to throw a fireball once in awhile (gets cranky if she doesn't cause some havoc once in awhile) and she doesn't want to fry the fishes - so she throws them at orcs, goblins and whatever else she finds while dungeon crawling. :laugh:

GawainBS wrote:Actually, it's not a matter to agree to disagree, since 2E has a lot of illogical and quirky rules. (Saving Throws, Stat tables, level limit based on race & class, classes restricted by race,... to name a few.)




I always found that IWD had a lot more atmosphere than any other Infinity Engine game, barring PS:T. It has beautiful music, the dungeons are well designed, and I, for one, really felt motivated to roleplay through the story. Granted, it makes more sense for a Good party than a Neutral/Evil one.
Try to install/buy Heart of Winter, it really adds to IWD.

I think it is because I grew up playing with 2e rules (ADnD) - it makes sense to me. A lot of the 3e rules seem strange and more complicated then needed to play a good game - or at least from the discussion that is taking place in the forums on how to design a character for IWD2. Or it could be because as I was reading it I was also looking at 4e rules (players handbook and DM guide) and compared it to 3e - and if 3e (after reading it makes sense - than 4e is full of %$##% - as it is worse and not even worth playing the pnp version of dnd using these rules). But I have to disagree about the Paladin - a champion of some God or other - they are full of righteousness - that means breaking down a door not sneaking around - you are a champion of your GOD not some lowly knight or something - you have GOD on your side in your quest for justice and that means you are right (even if you are wrong) - and that means no sneaking around and doing that makes you less of a great and shining champion of your god. A barbarian-paladin ....lets not go there -- too much to discuss - can you imagine Conan or Red Sonja as a Paladin (no not really - if ever). A lot of these 3e character design has to make sense - if you are a monk for example taking a level of fighting seems to make sense (but not vice verse - as it takes more dedication to be a specialist character than to be a regular fighter) - but if you are a lawful good paladin taking a level of rogue is outside of the character design - similarly - if you are a mage and take a level of fighting does not fit -- you are a mage because you don't want the hand to hand action (unless you are multi-class) - taking a level of druid would make sense. You should not be able to take just one level of something and get its benefits - that just seems so wrong - as if you are a making a god-like-character -- and they should not exist unless you are a god/goddess. Classes have to match or at least have some synchronicity to it or it becomes too arbitrary - remember to much freedom in character design becomes chaos and then what happens to the rules of rpg. My final thoughts on this topic at least on this page at least. I wonder if there is a thread that discusses 2e and 3e here?

I will install HoW - and see how it plays out. I agree some of the atmosphere is really well done in IWD.

Sensei wrote:I think it is because I grew up playing with 2e rules (ADnD) - it makes sense to me. A lot of the 3e rules seem strange and more complicated then needed to play a good game - or at least from the discussion that is taking place in the forums on how to design a character for IWD2. Or it could be because as I was reading it I was also looking at 4e rules (players handbook and DM guide) and compared it to 3e - and if 3e (after reading it makes sense - than 4e is full of %$##% - as it is worse and not even worth playing the pnp version of dnd using these rules). But I have to disagree about the Paladin - a champion of some God or other - they are full of righteousness - that means breaking down a door not sneaking around - you are a champion of your GOD not some lowly knight or something - you have GOD on your side in your quest for justice and that means you are right (even if you are wrong) - and that means no sneaking around and doing that makes you less of a great and shining champion of your god. A barbarian-paladin ....lets not go there -- too much to discuss - can you imagine Conan or Red Sonja as a Paladin (no not really - if ever). A lot of these 3e character design has to make sense - if you are a monk for example taking a level of fighting seems to make sense (but not vice verse - as it takes more dedication to be a specialist character than to be a regular fighter) - but if you are a lawful good paladin taking a level of rogue is outside of the character design - similarly - if you are a mage and take a level of fighting does not fit -- you are a mage because you don't want the hand to hand action (unless you are multi-class) - taking a level of druid would make sense. You should not be able to take just one level of something and get its benefits - that just seems so wrong - as if you are a making a god-like-character -- and they should not exist unless you are a god/goddess. Classes have to match or at least have some synchronicity to it or it becomes too arbitrary - remember to much freedom in character design becomes chaos and then what happens to the rules of rpg. My final thoughts on this topic at least on this page at least. I wonder if there is a thread that discusses 2e and 3e here?

I can only agree about the 4E stuff. Some of it is good, but overall, it's a downgrade.
All the other points about character design are dellusions. You have preconceived character clichés and you aren't willing to put them aside.
The mage not taking a fighter level? What are all those elves going to say? Combining swordplay and magic is second nature to them. They are specialising in two paths at once, but more slowly than someone who focuses his efforts. (Wizard 4/Fighter4 vs Wizard 8 or Fighter 8).
A Paladin has to get the job done. If that's done by kicking in the door, good. If it requires subterfuge, well, he sneaks. There's nothing un-good or un-lawful in using stealth, wether or not you have a god on your side. Maybe you can avoid unnecessary bloodshed by being subtle. Besides, chances are big that the opposition has a god on their side as well.
You're looking besides the point: you're not taking a level of everything, you're just learning a lot of different things. If you spread yourself too thin, you're going to have a weak character in the end.
People do it all the time, learning the best/basic stuff of a profession without becoming an überspecialist. I learn to drive with a car good enough to be a safe driver, but I'm not going to become an F1 pilot. I learn enough of economics to fullfill my job, but I'm not going to learn so much as too become the next Keynes.

GawainBS wrote:I can only agree about the 4E stuff. Some of it is good, but overall, it's a downgrade.
All the other points about character design are dellusions. You have preconceived character clichés and you aren't willing to put them aside.
The mage not taking a fighter level? What are all those elves going to say? Combining swordplay and magic is second nature to them. They are specialising in two paths at once, but more slowly than someone who focuses his efforts. (Wizard 4/Fighter4 vs Wizard 8 or Fighter 8).
A Paladin has to get the job done. If that's done by kicking in the door, good. If it requires subterfuge, well, he sneaks. There's nothing un-good or un-lawful in using stealth, wether or not you have a god on your side. Maybe you can avoid unnecessary bloodshed by being subtle. Besides, chances are big that the opposition has a god on their side as well.
You're looking besides the point: you're not taking a level of everything, you're just learning a lot of different things. If you spread yourself too thin, you're going to have a weak character in the end.
People do it all the time, learning the best/basic stuff of a profession without becoming an überspecialist. I learn to drive with a car good enough to be a safe driver, but I'm not going to become an F1 pilot. I learn enough of economics to fullfill my job, but I'm not going to learn so much as too become the next Keynes.

Glad we agree on 4e.

Everyone has their own ideals when it comes to characters - for me a Paladin is the CHOSEN one from her goddess - to be her champion in the world of mortals. She fights the good fight against all the forces of darkness to protect the people of Faerun. My Paladin is a force to be reckoned with - as her desire for peace, justice, and understanding is what her goddess wants in the world. We all imagine are Champions of Gods to be a certain way and for me my Paladin is the chosen one - who battles with honour even if the villains are not honourable. Does this preclude gaining stealth/rogue skills - well no - is it unlawful well no again - if you get right down to it - but it is a matter of honour - you as a paladin are not going to backstab someone regardless of whether or not you have that skill. Doe this mean you cannot sneak around as a paladin to spy on villains to save a town of course not - but it does preclude you from attacking like a rogue - as a paladin you should have a greater sense of justice in your battles against the forces of darkness - and not decide to use their tactics to win (the ends do not justify the means - if you are a Paladin but you might say defeating the bad guy is all that matters - well no its not if you become as bad as they are - where is honour where is principle - what do you become if you do that - a fallen paladin perhaps?) But that is just my rant on what a Paladin is as everyone has their own vision of what a Paladin is and stands for.

On a sidenote I imagine you could have a paladin that could sneak around like a rogue - but that would be troublesome in full plate armor - and unless you want to do a quick change back and forth - I wonder if it is really worth it for you have to have this skill.

As for elves - I already said multi-class characters were exempt from this rule. Of course living for several 100 years - I imagine you could master several different arts (ie sword and magic combo). Just look at Elminister ( yes i know he is not an elf - but he has lived a long time.)

What I wonder is what a level of rogue skill is going to do? 10% in stealth is practically useless - and with only a level or two - all the skills gained should be really limited to the point of being useless. You should not be able to take higher skills sets in those classes (regardless of what character class you are presently - lets say you are a 10th level Paladin - with a 2nd level of rogue skills - then all your skills should be at the 2nd level - not at the level of the Paladins. From some of the discussion it seems to be saying that you can do this - get a level of something - be a higher level of something else - then gain those higher skills even though you no longer leveled up in it - as you should have -- now if that is the case then that is just cheating - and you might as well throw out the rules altogether.)

I can imagine an adventuring mage wanting to take a level of fighting skills to improve HP and AC even (although dexterity and constitution should already do that) - and maybe become a less than useless fighter in the extreme case where a mage has to defend himself with a weapon - but wouldn't dual classing solve that problem? ( I once played a 3rd level fighter that dualed with a mage for the added HP and gain a slightly better weapon proficiency. ) Skills gained at level 1 fighter should remain at level 1 regardless if you are 20th level mage.

Talk about walls of text and non-forum related information...

:laugh:

Sensei wrote:Glad we agree on 4e.

Everyone has their own ideals when it comes to characters - for me a Paladin is the CHOSEN one from her goddess - to be her champion in the world of mortals. She fights the good fight against all the forces of darkness to protect the people of Faerun. My Paladin is a force to be reckoned with - as her desire for peace, justice, and understanding is what her goddess wants in the world. We all imagine are Champions of Gods to be a certain way and for me my Paladin is the chosen one - who battles with honour even if the villains are not honourable. Does this preclude gaining stealth/rogue skills - well no - is it unlawful well no again - if you get right down to it - but it is a matter of honour - you as a paladin are not going to backstab someone regardless of whether or not you have that skill. Doe this mean you cannot sneak around as a paladin to spy on villains to save a town of course not - but it does preclude you from attacking like a rogue - as a paladin you should have a greater sense of justice in your battles against the forces of darkness - and not decide to use their tactics to win (the ends do not justify the means - if you are a Paladin but you might say defeating the bad guy is all that matters - well no its not if you become as bad as they are - where is honour where is principle - what do you become if you do that - a fallen paladin perhaps?) But that is just my rant on what a Paladin is as everyone has their own vision of what a Paladin is and stands for.

On a sidenote I imagine you could have a paladin that could sneak around like a rogue - but that would be troublesome in full plate armor - and unless you want to do a quick change back and forth - I wonder if it is really worth it for you have to have this skill.

As for elves - I already said multi-class characters were exempt from this rule. Of course living for several 100 years - I imagine you could master several different arts (ie sword and magic combo). Just look at Elminister ( yes i know he is not an elf - but he has lived a long time.)

What I wonder is what a level of rogue skill is going to do? 10% in stealth is practically useless - and with only a level or two - all the skills gained should be really limited to the point of being useless. You should not be able to take higher skills sets in those classes (regardless of what character class you are presently - lets say you are a 10th level Paladin - with a 2nd level of rogue skills - then all your skills should be at the 2nd level - not at the level of the Paladins. From some of the discussion it seems to be saying that you can do this - get a level of something - be a higher level of something else - then gain those higher skills even though you no longer leveled up in it - as you should have -- now if that is the case then that is just cheating - and you might as well throw out the rules altogether.)

I can imagine an adventuring mage wanting to take a level of fighting skills to improve HP and AC even (although dexterity and constitution should already do that) - and maybe become a less than useless fighter in the extreme case where a mage has to defend himself with a weapon - but wouldn't dual classing solve that problem? ( I once played a 3rd level fighter that dualed with a mage for the added HP and gain a slightly better weapon proficiency. ) Skills gained at level 1 fighter should remain at level 1 regardless if you are 20th level mage.

I think you don't fully understand how 3E works. Being a lvl 2 Rogue & lvl 8 Paladin (Character level 10 in total) would give you the benefits of being a lvl 8 Paladin and a level 2 Rogue: the Paladin can put points in "Rogue" skills even when he is a paladin, it just takes more effort. Taking a level of Rogue would give your more skillpoints to spend (on whatever you want: Diplomacy, Knowledge Religion, Hide, Pickpocket), but your Paladin spells or Smite Evil won't get any better.
If you want to sneak, you don't wear fullplate. Being a Paladin has nothing to do with wearing Fullplate anyway. You can instead wear a chainshirt, get a high dexterity, and a dexterity-based weapon, like a Rapier.
I find the point about honour a bit strange, though. Ofcourse, the end doesn't always justifies the means, but there's a big difference between using clever tactics and feints and what not, and confronting a superior foe head-on. I see no honour in kicking in the door, shouting, "Evil, here I am!" and getting riddled with arrows. Being "honourable" and "fairplaying" is all good if you can meet your foe on even terms, but in general, evil isn't known for playing on even terms. (It's a basic stratagem: play your own strengths and downplay those of the enemy.) Being honourable, to me, means getting your objective done and protecting the innocent. If you *are forced * to lie or cheat, so be it. If your God is a true Lawful and more importantly, Good deity, he'll forgive you. Otherwise, he'd put you all too often in an inwinnable situation.

GawainBS wrote:I think you don't fully understand how 3E works. Being a lvl 2 Rogue & lvl 8 Paladin (Character level 10 in total) would give you the benefits of being a lvl 8 Paladin and a level 2 Rogue: the Paladin can put points in "Rogue" skills even when he is a paladin, it just takes more effort. Taking a level of Rogue would give your more skillpoints to spend (on whatever you want: Diplomacy, Knowledge Religion, Hide, Pickpocket), but your Paladin spells or Smite Evil won't get any better.
If you want to sneak, you don't wear fullplate. Being a Paladin has nothing to do with wearing Fullplate anyway. You can instead wear a chainshirt, get a high dexterity, and a dexterity-based weapon, like a Rapier.
I find the point about honour a bit strange, though. Ofcourse, the end doesn't always justifies the means, but there's a big difference between using clever tactics and feints and what not, and confronting a superior foe head-on. I see no honour in kicking in the door, shouting, "Evil, here I am!" and getting riddled with arrows. Being "honourable" and "fairplaying" is all good if you can meet your foe on even terms, but in general, evil isn't known for playing on even terms. (It's a basic stratagem: play your own strengths and downplay those of the enemy.) Being honourable, to me, means getting your objective done and protecting the innocent. If you *are forced * to lie or cheat, so be it. If your God is a true Lawful and more importantly, Good deity, he'll forgive you. Otherwise, he'd put you all too often in an inwinnable situation.

Hi Gawain

Thanks for your input in 2e and 3e but you just highlighted even more of the reasons why I don't like 3e and consider it a wacky rule system. You can add levels to together to get higher level skills? Isn't that just crazy? Getting things for free which as a character you have not earned? I personally think that is just nuts no offense intended for those that like 3e but that just seems so wrong to me. An 8th level Paladin is an 8th level Paladin just like a 2nd level rogue should be a 2nd level rogue - its nuts to think you can add the two and get level 10 skills (or more points to put in skills) in something or other. That is just so wrong.

As an analogy maybe I can add 5 years from one job then 5 years from another job and get 10years worth of seniority on the job - how cool would that be. Another would be I am a 1st dan in kendo and 1st dan in karate - can i add the two and become a 2nd dan with all the benefits and recognition - I don't think so.

Moving on... I think our ideas of honour and what a Paladin is and represents himself in the world differs. I can see what you are getting at and I dont diisagree with it - I just think a Paladin is such a person that lying and cheating is not in their character and should not be - you should be held to a hirer standard after all you are a champion/chosen one of some god or other.

Moving on - as the last few discussions have gotten away from the original discussion of this thread. I found that if you kill Malovan then the Drow-elf (G??? don't remember her name) does not want to be freed. Damn I was rather annoyed at her - I removed a blight on woman and she does not want to leave her prison - sigh - so I just left the oil of null and left it up to her to decide if she wants to free herself. This was a surprise for me - and that made it for some of the lack of interactions with NPCs in the game. Although I was disappointed that she would stay in her prison instead of leaving it. Has this happened to anyone else?

Eh? Maybe I haven't explained 3E clear enough, but you certainly are twisting its logic. (Which may well be may fault. ) If you switch jobs, do you simply forget everything from the first job? I'm a historian and then took a master in economics. I didn't forget my history lessons when I started the economics study. I "added the skills together", which is the reason why I can draw upon both historical knowledge and economic knowledge. However, I spent 7 years studying, as opposed to 4 (for history) or 3 (for economics) that most other people do. Likewise, I'm less knowledgeable about specific theories in either field than someone who specialized and became a professor in one of those expertises. Still, I can combine the knowledge I gained in economics to explain certain historic events, or discover why certain economic crises happened in the past. There isn't anything whacky about it.
In short: multiclassing in 3E is quite realistic. Just as in real life, not all fields of expertise are as compatible as others. A Fighter8/Rogue2 doesn't fight as good as a Fighter 10, but he can skulk around better, but not as good as a Rogue 10, yet he fights better than that Rogue10. Ofcourse, a Fighter8/Rogue is a stronger character than a Fighter 8, because he has two more levels.
2E has a terribly rigid class system that forces you into preconceived character notions.
If you want to give 3E an honest chance, read up on it here: The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5 d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org . That's really the last thing I'll say about it.

About honour: I just hope we never serve the same Lawful Good deity.

To the point: after defeating Malavon, I just gave his sister (I believe she was) the oil and she left.

Thanks for that info on 3e I will take a look at it.

If you put 3e in that light then it makes more sense - then my objection to it has to do more with compatibility between the classes (although combining levels is still strange - add levels to get new skills?). My view on DnD is that most of the classes with the exception of fighter (excluding fighter subclass e.g kensai etc) and maybe rogue (excluding assassin subclass etc) where specialist classes. A paladin is a chosen champion of the gods not just a regular fighter or even a knight; a monk has spent years learning to meditate and train his body to be a weapon; a mage spends years training to channel magical energies; a cleric is devoted to his/her god etc. These classes are specialist in their own fields of study - it would be more like being a NBA player and then deciding he wants to play for the NHL - could it be done, sure (he is an athlete in peak shape) but would he be able to compete with the others in the NHL - no. So if in 3e the rules limited what you could combine as classes then it would be more acceptable but it does not (I mean I could create a sorcerer/monk for example and that is just crazy in my opinion). Again this is just my take on the 3e rules from our discussion. I will read more on 3e (thanks for the link) - but I generally prefer 2e rules (not matter how arbitrary because it allows me to role play - without having to deal with all the little things like skills and feats that 3e offers). More comments after reading and playing 3e dnd.

I tried to give the oil of null to her but she won't accept it - none of the scripts offered that option (of course this could be because i did not promise her not to kill Malaovan - I said I could not promise anything to her.) Oh well doesn't matter I got rid of a woman/gnome abuser and my fighter and the party are happy about it.