Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Theldaran]

I only know I was dishing out crippling pain to Sarry, 50 by 50.

 

[Cael]

I only know I was dishing out crippling pain to Sarry, 50 by 50.

I never saw Sarevok in the final fight in my last playthrough. I had 3 mages with me, so there was a LOT of Skull trap spamming and then I used a Hasted guy to lure one of them into the mess. Sarevok died off-screen. Literally...

 

[Sykar]

Third edition talk

What small house rules on the Monk? You mean being able to Flurry while two-weapon fighting with Monk weapons? That was cleared up either by a WotC rep or one of the writers in that you can do that and the penalties stack. NWN got it right. It is still going to be a Flurry of Whiffing, though, unless you have something that will offset the penalties (HINT: RDD).

Kamas are really strong weapons in NWN pretty much solely due to their association with Monk (and the ability to enchant them up the wazoo) and the inclusion of an Unarmed Base Attack Bonus (which also works with Kamas, and gives you more accurate and earlier attacks), which also becomes a more solid martial dip because of free Cleave and entire Knockdown feat line.

There is no bonus to attack bonus in the Monk. If you are talking the extra attacks per round, that is a 3.0 thing that was removed in 3.5:

3.0 Monk
Unarmed progression: 1 attack at +0, 2 attacks at +4 and 1 extra attack every +3 thereafter (so, +0/+4/+7/+10/+13/+16/+19, total 7)
Flurrry of Blows: 1 extra attack at highest attack bonus, but -2 to all attack rolls.

3.5 Monk
Unarmed progression: same as any other attack (+0/+6/+11/+16)
Flurry of Blows: 1 extra attack at -2 attack bonus to all attacks at first. This eventually becomes 2 extra attacks with no penalties.

Some people like the change. I don't. It really nerfed the one thing the Monk had going for it and relegated its damage output to catshit level: small and stinks to the high heavens.

TWF in 3 feats isn't a problem IF you make it worthwhile. For example (and this is the one I use as a house rule):
TWF: Allows you to use an offhand weapon with the usual penalties (i.e., -4/-4 or -2/-2 depending on weapon) up to 3 attacks if your main hand allows it (i.e., 2 attacks with the off-hand at BAB 6, 3 at BAB 11, etc.).
ITWF: Reduces the offhand penalties by -2/-2 (i.e., it becomes -2/-2 or 0/0 depending on weapon). This stacks with any further reduction (e.g., Tempest would reduce it to 0/0 and +2/+2, IIRC). Any reduction past 0 will become a AB bonus. You also get a parry bonus to AC equal to the number of main hand attacks (i.e., +2 at BAB 6, +3 at BAB 11, etc.). NOTE: This is not a shield bonus. Note also that this AC bonus is affected by things ike Haste and weapon of Speed.
GTWF: You gain the same number of attacks with the offhand as you do with the main hand. That means if you have 4 attacks with the main hand, you get 4 attacks with the offhand. A spell like Haste, for example, would get you an extra attack with the main hand AND the offhand at the highest AB value. Weapon specific enchantments, however, is not affected by this feat (i.e., you cannot use a weapon of Speed in the main hand to gain an extra attack with the offhand; if the offhand is also wielding a weapon of Speed, then the offhand gets the extra attack as per normal for the weapon of Speed).

These are pretty decent, but I feel like the TWF package overall could also use a way to keep moving and full attacking, because without full attack TWF is already suffering as is, and you often feel forced to dip into stuff like that one Barbarian archetype for the free Pounce ability, or into some additional feats (which, again, adds to the problem of feat intensivity). My main gripe with spending feats on virtually the same thing thrice is that it doesn't feel like you're unlocking anything cool, new or better, and it doesn't make you versatile - a two-hander martial just gets Power Attack and is done, and can focus on other things in the meantime.

One option I never got to try, but it looks like it could be solid, would be to use the ability to bash with your shield as your off-hand weapon. Crusaders from ToB seem to be particularly effective with that style.

Make it so that you are able to attack once with any held melee weapon on a move. That automatically means that two-handers remain at one attack on a partial action and dual wielders get 2. That is a universal rule that I have, which I didn't put down as it was not pertaining to feats.

Bashing with a shield requries another feat: Improved Shield Bash in order to work properly. Shields also have crap damage, unless you make it into a +1 bashing shield, which will make it into the equivalent of a light/heavy mace (depending on light/heavy shield). Alternatively, you can put spikes on it, which will make it into a dagger or a crappy shortsword (d6 piercing damage but considered 1-hd weapon, not light). Bashing enchantment and spikes do not stack.

Sword and shield style in BG is not for the normal AC bonus, but the missile AC bonus to get to the enemy while running through a storm of arrows (tower shield +1/+4 vs missiles and boots of Avoidance for more anti-missile shenannigans). It is also particularly good for Fighter/Mages (who can't use armour, but can use shields), Clerics and Fighter/Clerics as it helps prevent them from getting their spells disrupted by projectile weapons. It falls off dramatically in BG2, where single weapon or two-handed style is better for the increased crit chance or TWF for the offhand weapon defenses and special abilities.

Oh, of course - but the problem is, missile attacks from enemies themselves aren't really the biggest concern outside of early BG1, and that's hardly a justification to spend points into the Sword-and-Shield style if you're playing TuTu/EE/BGT. And even then, the classes you mention as finding the shield useful. Not to mention that I'm generally not a fan of avoidance mechanics in RPGs - they don't feel like they work consistently enough to be truly reliable, and it's better to build up your effective HP or simply avoid getting hit in the first place through a buffer of summons or using crowd control.
Also, there's better, handier ways to increase your AC, even in BG1 - the Shield Amulet is pretty much a must-buy for any squishy CHARNAME, particularly aspiring Kensais who want to somehow plough through BG1 and cash in the ->Thief or ->Mage dual in the future. Mages and Mage-hybrids themselves can cast Mirror Image and Blur very early on in their career. Also, very fresh F/Ms are probably better off casting long-lasting buff spells early in the day or just before the big battle, and then simply donning heavy armor afterwards.

Point is, shields may very well be useful in some cases - but those cases are few and far in-between (mostly confined to early game, or for when you really need a particular intrinsic resistance from your offhand, such as Shield of Balduran, Shield of Reflection, or even just the robust AC bonus from Saving Grace), but the bonus from the SnS style is just really meh and I wouldn't go for it.

If I wanted to power-game a dedicated shield-carrier, I'd probably roll something like Priest of Lathander->Fighter and focus them on using a Sling. Decent utility from low level spells, ability to buff sling damage (from Seeking and Everard's) through DUHM, Gift of Lathander, minor party utility, Fighter HLAs later, can switch to a solid blunt weapon after being done with the shooting. :D

The problem is that BG have very uninspired shields. The +1/+4 vs missiles shield is as exciting as it gets. Now, if you have a shield like this one or this one, on the other hand...

Nothing beats http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Reflection_Shield to defend against missle attacks.

 

[Cael]

Nothing beats http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Reflection_Shield to defend against missle attacks.

BG, not BG2.

 

[Sykar]

 

[hell bovine]

This was the old versions, but once I backstabbed the life out of Sarevok with Fighter/Thief, 23 STR potion + DUHM (good-aligned character). Pretty fun.

I think the diff between 23 Str and 25 Str is 2 damage. Something like that. It is relatively minor by that stage.

It's multiplied by the backstab factor anyway, so any damage I can squeeze is welcome.

I was under the impression str bonuses are not multiplied when backstabbing. (?)

 

[Melcar]

This was the old versions, but once I backstabbed the life out of Sarevok with Fighter/Thief, 23 STR potion + DUHM (good-aligned character). Pretty fun.

I think the diff between 23 Str and 25 Str is 2 damage. Something like that. It is relatively minor by that stage.

It's multiplied by the backstab factor anyway, so any damage I can squeeze is welcome.

I was under the impression str bonuses are not multiplied when backstabbing. (?)

At least in non-EE they are.

 

[hell bovine]

This was the old versions, but once I backstabbed the life out of Sarevok with Fighter/Thief, 23 STR potion + DUHM (good-aligned character). Pretty fun.

I think the diff between 23 Str and 25 Str is 2 damage. Something like that. It is relatively minor by that stage.

It's multiplied by the backstab factor anyway, so any damage I can squeeze is welcome.

I was under the impression str bonuses are not multiplied when backstabbing. (?)

At least in non-EE they are.

That's why I wasn't sure; I got that info (backstab formula w/o str multiplier) from ironworks, and these forums were closed long before the EE.

 

[Melcar]

This was the old versions, but once I backstabbed the life out of Sarevok with Fighter/Thief, 23 STR potion + DUHM (good-aligned character). Pretty fun.

I think the diff between 23 Str and 25 Str is 2 damage. Something like that. It is relatively minor by that stage.

It's multiplied by the backstab factor anyway, so any damage I can squeeze is welcome.

I was under the impression str bonuses are not multiplied when backstabbing. (?)

At least in non-EE they are.

That's why I wasn't sure; I got that info (backstab formula w/o str multiplier) from ironworks, and these forums were closed long before the EE.

I would always give Monty the Ogre strength belt because of it, or have any F/T chug down a strength potion. That was in my first playthrought with the original game disks and last time I replayed BG/BG2 it was that way too.

 

[hell bovine]

Melcar
Yeah, but my question was whether the str bonus gets multiplied or simply added to the damage.

 

[Melcar]

Don't recall. I want to say multiplied, but not 100% about it.

 

[hell bovine]

Don't recall. I want to say multiplied, but not 100% about it.

That's the thing, the old websites I've checked list strenght after the multiplier in backstab calculations.

 

[marcuz]

I agree EE is not perfect. Still, it made the GUI easier to use after the 20 years passed since the original made me dumb.

On a side note; I remember stumbling on the original dev forum, in 1997, reading about this new game that would use the D&D ruleset, and I was so hyped, because I never had the chance to actually play the real D&D... it was a thread about range combat and calculating the chance to damage, against the turn based clock. That somehow stuck with me, I mean the complexity. And the game was more than a year away still!

Later on, right after release, I think I was playing it solo with a multiclass character, fighter thief, and I had to drop and restart after Firewine Bridge: my character was too underpowered... But to even get there it was rewarding.

I'm glad to notice now its depth after so much time!

 

[Baardhaas]

I'm glad to notice now its depth after so much time!

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but I brofisted you just in case it was something sensible.

 

[Dzupakazul]

Later on, right after release, I think I was playing it solo with a multiclass character, fighter thief, and I had to drop and restart after Firewine Bridge: my character was too underpowered... But to even get there it was rewarding.

Funnily enough, a multiclass Fighter/Thief is probably one of the most user-friendly and easy to play characters in the game with some nice utility on top of it all. Montaron is one of my favourite NPCs mechanically for this reason.

 

[Grunker]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

 

[Theldaran]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Backstabbing in BG was a bit "unbalanced" because depending on your base roll, you either did meh-worthy damage or skullcracking damage.

I think that the 3ED-style backstab does a more normalised damage, more midrange, without so many extremes; because even if you roll a 1 on your base damage, the extra d6s can come up with 5, 6...

 

[Cael]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Backstabbing in BG was a bit "unbalanced" because depending on your base roll, you either did meh-worthy damage or skullcracking damage.

I think that the 3ED-style backstab does a more normalised damage, more midrange, without so many extremes; because even if you roll a 1 on your base damage, the extra d6s can come up with 5, 6...

It depends on your base damage. Backstabbing with a Disintegrate for 40d6 damage, I want the BG version something bad...

 

[Grunker]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Backstabbing in BG was a bit "unbalanced" because depending on your base roll, you either did meh-worthy damage or skullcracking damage.

I think that the 3ED-style backstab does a more normalised damage, more midrange, without so many extremes; because even if you roll a 1 on your base damage, the extra d6s can come up with 5, 6...

Backstabbing in 2E multiplies your damages.

3E backstabbing adds a dice pool (betwee 1d6 and 12d6) to your total damage.

 

[Dzupakazul]

3E backstabbing adds a dice pool (betwee 1d6 and 12d6) to your total damage.

Also in 3E you can sneak attack people who do see you, but are incapable of defending themselves (all forms of flatfoot should work) and you can keep on piling up the sneak attack damage simply by being a flanker. And you can sneak attack with a ranged weapon at point-blank range. The way sneak attack is implemented in BG is mostly there for massive burst damage instead of consistent output.

I seem to recall there's a funny implementation of this if you set the backstab to the 3E rules in one of the .lua files. In regular BG, enemies don't have to actually stab you in the back in order to connect a backstab, probably because it would be too hard to code them to do so and/or be somehow abusable, so all they have to do is be invisible and make an attack. There's a way to make sneak attacks work without stealth, but only from the back, but this is overridden by the AI "cheat". So every attack of rogue-type enemies in this game counts as a backstab in that case. Oopsie.

 

[Cael]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Backstabbing in BG was a bit "unbalanced" because depending on your base roll, you either did meh-worthy damage or skullcracking damage.

I think that the 3ED-style backstab does a more normalised damage, more midrange, without so many extremes; because even if you roll a 1 on your base damage, the extra d6s can come up with 5, 6...

Backstabbing in 2E multiplies your damages.

3E backstabbing adds a dice pool (betwee 1d6 and 12d6) to your total damage.

In real 3.5, you can get an absurd amount of backstab d6 if you play Unseen Seer. That Ranger Divination spell coupled with Unseen Seer casting = a LOT of pain especially when coupled with Reserve feats.

 

[Cael]

Also in 3E you can sneak attack people who do see you, but are incapable of defending themselves (all forms of flatfoot should work) and you can keep on piling up the sneak attack damage simply by being a flanker.

People always wonder why my first pick for a wizard/sorcerer spell in 3.x is Grease. Until I cast it and pat the party Rogue on the head.

 

[Grunker]

I wasn't talking about differences between 2E and 3E in general, but about how the different settings work in the game

Also in 3E you can sneak attack people who do see you, but are incapable of defending themselves (all forms of flatfoot should work) and you can keep on piling up the sneak attack damage simply by being a flanker.

People always wonder why my first pick for a wizard/sorcerer spell in 3.x is Grease. Until I cast it and pat the party Rogue on the head.

Grease is p. great even w/o a Rogue!

 

[Parabalus]

It's sad that the IE implementation of 3E sneak is such garbage though, with a max of 1 per round. Mostly relevant for IWD2.

 

[hell bovine]

re: backstab and strength modifiers. They ARE multiplied.

Unless you use the 3E Sneak Attack option, which was also present in original ToB.

Can you post the correct calculation, or at least the source? Google fails me :/

edit: e.g. the archived wbpage quotes:
In AD&D, the multiplier is applied after adding strength bonuses but before adding magical weapon bonuses. In Baldur's Gate, the multiplication will be done before adding the strength bonus due to the easy availablity of Potions of Giant Strength which were making thieves' backstabbing too powerful.