GameBanshee Forums

oK if there's no fighter kits in IWD2, whats best than PALADIN or a FIGHTER?

Fighters kan do some great speclaisation (?) and better hit damage and so...what about the paladins than?

and WHo's the best? best and best...most valuable to play with..

i'm thinking of a team with

A Sorcerer, Druid, Rouge, Monk, Cleric and paladin/fighter...

There's very little reason to have a paladin of high level... spell progression is so slow as to not be a factor. One level of paladin makes a lot of sense (saving throw bonuses, ability to wield holy avenger), and an argument can be made for going as high as three or four levels for other innate abilities. Otherwise, take all your levels as a fighter.

Your team looks a little light on tanking. I'd recommend the following changes:

fighter (1, or 4)/cleric - get all proficiencies for free, bonus feat, and if you go to fighter 4 you get specialization.

fighter (1, or 4)/druid - as above

rogue 1/ranger 1/rogue for the rest of the game - you get tons of skill points as a level 1 rogue. At level 2, take ranger and you'll get dual wield and ambidexterity for free as long as you stay in light armor (which you will, for the rogue skills). Then rogue for the rest of the game

I can really see little reason for a paladin. A fighter with a couple of levels of cleric, or vice versa, make much more sense, IMO.

multiclass paladin (aasimar) versus multiclass fighter

cleric:
i would rather take a paladin 2 / cleric x than a fighter 4 / cleric x.
reason is simple: both paladin and cleric could use high charisma (turn undead, saving throws, skills) don't forget you could take aasimar. they have paladin as favourite class and get +2 wis and charisma!

sorcerer:
a killer combo is paladin 2 / sorcerer x. sorcerer needs high charisma as well as the paladin. think of all the spells and saving throws!

in all other combos i prefer fighter 4 / other class x

i would rather take a paladin 2 / cleric x than a fighter 4 / cleric x.

It's a matter of taste, really. I tried the above combo in the very first party I put together in IWD2 and, to me, it fell a bit short. The saving throw bonus is nice, yes... but the turn undead ability is this side of useless in IWD2 (it comes in handy in one area, only) and the skills bonus is fairly pointless because of two reasons: first, unless you also pump up int, both clerics and paladins have lousy skill points, making it doubtful you'd have enough to really go around for all the diplomatic skills. Second and more importantly, you don't want a paladin for your talker. They turn down rewards, they refuse to accept quests from evil or dubious sources. Very much an inconvenience that's easily avoided by using a rogue or bard as your talker.

With cleric/paladin, you also get, what, two or three less feats then you would by going fighter 4? Plus no weapon specialization. You're also limited to only using the domain for illmater, which depending on the player may be a large issue to consider as well.

a killer combo is paladin 2 / sorcerer x.

If the still spell feat were in the game, I'd absolutely agree with you. Without it, and with armored arcana only cutting spell failure by 5%/rank (max 15%) I can't see mixing arcane spellcasters with an armor-using class. The saving throw bonus for a sorc -would- be nice, but they have good saves anyway and you have to ask if it's worth slowing down their development by two levels for just those bonuses.

@cjdevito
i see your point. but why don't lose 2 levels to get all that nice paladin stuff?

but i will give it an other try. paladin vs fighter round 2:


fighter lvl4 / other class lvl x

pros:

- 3 extra feats
- weapon specialization

cons:

- lose of 4 levels


paladin lvl2 / other class lvl x

pros:

- saving throw bonus if charisma modifier is positive
- immunity to disease
- immunity to fear
- +4 saving throws against fear to all allies (if near enough)
- can take aasimar (no xp penalty for multi and +2 wisdom and +2 charisma)

cons:

- lose of 2 levels


it is really a matter of taste but i prefer 2 level of paladin.



p.s.: my party has 3 char with 4 level of fighter.

Why take two straight levels as paladin and sufer an experience loss? Why not start as paladin take a level as paladin than the second level as paladin, and all the rest levels as sorcerer?

eh, it was meant this way.
you won't suffer an experience loss when you take an aasimar (fav. class: paladin)