Icewind Dale The Icewind Dale Series Thread

[octavius]

PnP DnD from 3e onwards doesn't really limit the number of classes you can take either

One good thing about PnP DnD from 3e onwards: it almost makes me feel like a jock. Nothing makes me want to contemptously say "nerds!" to fellow nerds more than in depth discussions about DnD. Super hero comics is close, though.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Once I started character creation I couldn't resist and I've began steering towards roleplaying again

I already did a roleplayer's party in IWD, and I had promised myself to go for a more optimized party in IWD2. Oh well. Also, my portraits are so good, they simply cry for roleplaying.

Speaking of roleplaying, they've apparently made a serious change to Clerics in D&D3 - in my priest of Tempus' description says he gets all the Axe feats automatically. Clerics using edged weapons?

 

[Dorateen]

Clerics using edged weapons?

Clerics using weapons other than blunt has been possible since 3rd edition. More brilliant streamlining from Wizards of the Coast.

 

[Average Manatee]

Clerics using edged weapons?

Clerics using weapons other than blunt has been possible since 3rd edition. More brilliant streamlining from Wizards of the Coast.

Clerics only using blunt weapons has made literally zero sense ever since D&D was developed to include multiple alignments serving hundreds of different gods across an entire multiverse. Nevermind Paladins of the exact same faith being allowed to hack and slash to their heart's content. It only made sense as a specific determination for Gygax's initial roleplaying games, but it should have remained a rule for a specific ethos rather than generalized across an entire class.

 

[Cael]

Because the most important reason for having a paladin is for the bonuses to saving throws.

Which you need 2 levels of max to get.

Edit: DoB are also evil aligned characters, which might rub some roleplayers a bit when dualing with a Paladin...

You are a fucking retard. There is no other way to view how you have stupidly conflated everything in a simple list of 6 characters into some sort of 1 super character having all the classes of the 6.

 

[Cael]

Once I started character creation I couldn't resist and I've began steering towards roleplaying again

I already did a roleplayer's party in IWD, and I had promised myself to go for a more optimized party in IWD2. Oh well. Also, my portraits are so good, they simply cry for roleplaying.

Speaking of roleplaying, they've apparently made a serious change to Clerics in D&D3 - in my priest of Tempus' description says he gets all the Axe feats automatically. Clerics using edged weapons?

In 3.x (which is what IWD2 is based on), Clerics get all simple weapons but if they get the War domain, they get their god's favourite weapon as well. Tempus is the only one with the War domain in the choices you are given. Hence the automatic 2 dots in Axes.

 

[Dorateen]

Clerics only using blunt weapons has made literally zero sense ever since D&D was developed to include multiple alignments serving hundreds of different gods across an entire multiverse. Nevermind Paladins of the exact same faith being allowed to hack and slash to their heart's content. It only made sense as a specific determination for Gygax's initial roleplaying games, but it should have remained a rule for a specific ethos rather than generalized across an entire class.

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

This example is maybe not the best, because rules prohibit the spilling of blood, not the cutting of rope, pork, potato, etc.

 

[Cael]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

This example is maybe not the best, because rules prohibit the spilling of blood, not the cutting of rope, pork, potato, etc.

Obviously someone hasn't been hit by a blunt object before. Not spilling blood, my ass.

 

[Dorateen]

Accessibility is the nursemaid to streamlined game design.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

This example is maybe not the best, because rules prohibit the spilling of blood, not the cutting of rope, pork, potato, etc.

Obviously someone hasn't been hit by a blunt object before. Not spilling blood, my ass.

If it's broken bone that causes the cuts from the inside out, then apparently it doesn't count..? :D

 

[Kayerts]

The "clerics can't wield bladed weapons" rule was always an inane distinction and got more inane in the IE games, where morning stars and flails were considered completely fine despite being depicted with enormous spikes.

Popular misconception is that the real world medieval clergy did this when they fought, as a form of real world rules lawyering against some proscription against drawing blood. There doesn't appear to be a ton of evidence that this really happened. As far as I can tell, the basis of it is that Odo (Bishop of Bayeaux and Earl of Kent) is depicted as using a mace in the Bayeaux tapestry. It's sort of like how D&D rangers dual wield because Aragorn used a torch and sword in one fight in Lord of the Rings.

 

[Cael]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

This example is maybe not the best, because rules prohibit the spilling of blood, not the cutting of rope, pork, potato, etc.

Obviously someone hasn't been hit by a blunt object before. Not spilling blood, my ass.

If it's broken bone that causes the cuts from the inside out, then apparently it doesn't count..? :D

You obviously haven't banged your shin hard against something unyielding before... :D

 

[Average Manatee]

It's still rules streamlining, no matter the justification. If someone wants to play an axe-wielding cleric, they can roll a paladin, as you said, or dual class fighter/cleric. Otherwise, weapon limitations are a class defining feature.

In 3rd ed every deity has their own favored weapon type, so if anything there's now several hundred defining features to show that certain types of clerics are "supposed" to use certain types of weapons. The only difference is no retarded AD&D blanket restrictions. No one needs the rules lawyer arguments when a Cleric has his hands bound with rope and a knife is lying nearby.

This example is maybe not the best, because rules prohibit the spilling of blood, not the cutting of rope, pork, potato, etc.

You don't know true rules-lawyering. IIRC the rules are "Clerics can't use weapons that draw blood". This doesn't mean they can't use weapons TO draw blood, they are wholly unable to utilize them for any purpose.

Popular misconception is that the real world medieval clergy did this when they fought, as a form of real world rules lawyering against some proscription against drawing blood. There doesn't appear to be a ton of evidence that this really happened. As far as I can tell, the basis of it is that Odo (Bishop of Bayeaux and Earl of Kent) is depicted as using a mace in the Bayeaux tapestry. It's sort of like how D&D rangers dual wield because Aragorn used a torch and sword in one fight in Lord of the Rings.

Dual wielding does make some practical sense for rangers. Shields are fucking hell to carry around on a long cross country trip. An extra scabbard is trivial.

But yeah, basically every D&D class can be traced back to "Isn't (insert awesome character) cool? Let's make a class for them!"

 

[octavius]

If you're gonna have classes, you need to make them distinct. The less distinct, the less need for a class based system in the first place.

 

[Lilura]

Which is why I'm against many of the +21 kits/prestige classes (some are ok). And the several others added by Beam-mutt.

Just give me the base array and the ability to dual and multi; at the end of the day, it's enough. IWD wasn't balanced for this dross, anyway.

 

[AwesomeButton]

And this, lady and gentlemen, is what I call an example of solid writing:

Spoiler

 

[Sigourn]

So I returned to Icewind Dale now after my final is over (for the better!). I'm one dungeon away from beating Heart of Winter. Comfy expansion. Really good voice acting.

 

[Wintermute]

What do these values mean?

1) Rhino Beetle Shield: it gives me one point in AC, and separately one point against Missile Weapons? Or what?
2) Large Shield +1, +4 vs. Missiles: it gives me two points in AC, and separately five points against Missile Weapons? Or what?

It means Large Shield +1, +4 vs. Missiles is better.

Is protection against Missile Weapons already covered by the base AC, so the extra points are just to indicate I'm even more protected against Missile Weapons?

Yes.

Your AC modifiers for different attack types (missiles, piercing, slashing, crushing) are shown on your character sheet. Those get added to your base AC when facing that type of attack. Negatives shown there are good, positives bad.

 

[Sigourn]

Your AC modifiers for different attack types (missiles, piercing, slashing, crushing) are shown on your character sheet. Those get added to your base AC when facing that type of attack. Negatives shown there are good, positives bad.

I deleted my post quickly because I thought it was just easier to look up the character sheet and see how it changed depending on what was wearing. But thank you anyways.

 

[octavius]

So I returned to Icewind Dale now after my final is over (for the better!). I'm one dungeon away from beating Heart of Winter. Comfy expansion.

What did you think about the game balance?

 

[Sigourn]

So I returned to Icewind Dale now after my final is over (for the better!). I'm one dungeon away from beating Heart of Winter. Comfy expansion.

What did you think about the game balance?

I'm honestly terrible at game mechanics and knowing when a game is balanced or not.

 

[Sigourn]

Much, MUCH easier than the main boss for Icewind Dale. I don't mind, though. Felt satisfying anyhow, except for that sweet XP that has gone to waste since I'm redoing Heart of Winter to play Trials of the Luremaster. The strategy was literally buff up before the fight, start killing the minions (magicals first) with my tanks and leave everyone else out of harm, use an Oil of Speed when they debuffed my tanks, have the dwarf be healed by my Cleric when his health was low, and just keep going at the dragon once the minions were dead.

Going into the new expansion, my only issue is that I think I can't buy arrows ANYWHERE.

 

[ga♥]

That white dragon had a much better model than BG2 dragons.