Also they did it with fewer than 20 people whereas DA2 had something like ~170. Though Troika didn't do it entirely from scratch, they had the Arcanum engine as a base.Cynic said:However, I watched an interview with Tim Cain where he said they had 18 months to build this. I think that is a mammoth achievement to be honest. Also remember that this is the same amount of time it took to create DA2...with it's already existing engine, shitty writing and reused maps/dungeons.
Roguey said:Also they did it with fewer than 20 people whereas DA2 had something like ~170. Though Troika didn't do it entirely from scratch, they had the Arcanum engine as a base.Cynic said:However, I watched an interview with Tim Cain where he said they had 18 months to build this. I think that is a mammoth achievement to be honest. Also remember that this is the same amount of time it took to create DA2...with it's already existing engine, shitty writing and reused maps/dungeons.
General rule: don't multiclass casters unless they are secondary casters. Keep a single-classed arcane and divine caster. Losing one caster level and being one spell level behind is huge. Normally multiclassing is suboptimal unless your base class gives you no specific benefits any more (3.5 paladin!) or a class gets a lot of beneficial abilities for your builds (this is called a 'dip'). Good examples of dips: fighter for armour/weapon profs + one feat. Barbarian for weapon/armour profs and one burst of rage. Few levels of rogue for evasion, skills and uncanny dodge. Cleric for domain special abilities like feats you get for free. Monk for the plethora of stuff they get, including +2 to all saves.Cynic said:So bros...dual/multi classing. Have I fucked it? I haven't multi classed anyone yet, but I've waited pretty long. Everyone is at about to get to level 6. Party is: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Ranger.
What's boring about it that isn't boring about a standard fighter? Anyway since you already have a fighter you can take druid levels just fine. Quick draw is awesome in this game because it allows you to access any inventory item at no charge in the action economy. Switch weapons and a shield, no fuss. It works for those guys you want to switch between ranged and melee. Which rangers are suited for if you mix melee/archery feats.Ranger is getting a bit boring, I think Druiding him might be a cool change. Someone mentioned getting Quickdraw which seemed like a great idea. I guess I'll have to get that feat this level and wait till next level to multi.
Might work, not using the rogue in melee a lot and his archery sucking? His skill selection will suffer though, not that skills are vital in this game. You could avoid those problems somewhat by taking a few BARD levels instead of sorcerer. Bards become more awesome the more allies you have and they won't hurt your attacking abilities. Anyway if attacking is important keep an eye on Base-Attack Bonus progression. If you want to maximize it make sure your rogue has a multiple of 4 levels. Do not MC a rogue (or a druid or cleric) at lvl1, 5, 9 etc unless it is totally necessary for your build.How about Sorcerer dualling the rogue and focusing on Necromancy spells or something since my other wizard is almost totally Evocation focused. Might be fun. Any suggestions?
JrK said:General rule: don't multiclass casters unless they are secondary casters. Keep a single-classed arcane and divine caster. Losing one caster level and being one spell level behind is huge. Normally multiclassing is suboptimal unless your base class gives you no specific benefits any more (3.5 paladin!) or a class gets a lot of beneficial abilities for your builds (this is called a 'dip'). Good examples of dips: fighter for armour/weapon profs + one feat. Barbarian for weapon/armour profs and one burst of rage. Few levels of rogue for evasion, skills and uncanny dodge. Cleric for domain special abilities like feats you get for free. Monk for the plethora of stuff they get, including +2 to all saves.
What's boring about it that isn't boring about a standard fighter? Anyway since you already have a fighter you can take druid levels just fine. Quick draw is awesome in this game because it allows you to access any inventory item at no charge in the action economy. Switch weapons and a shield, no fuss. It works for those guys you want to switch between ranged and melee. Which rangers are suited for if you mix melee/archery feats.
Might work, not using the rogue in melee a lot and his archery sucking? His skill selection will suffer though, not that skills are vital in this game. You could avoid those problems somewhat by taking a few BARD levels instead of sorcerer. Bards become more awesome the more allies you have and they won't hurt your attacking abilities. Anyway if attacking is important keep an eye on Base-Attack Bonus progression. If you want to maximize it make sure your rogue has a multiple of 4 levels. Do not MC a rogue (or a druid or cleric) at lvl1, 5, 9 etc unless it is totally necessary for your build.
LeStryfe79 said:Goddamn, best D&D ever. I even soloed St. Cuthbert with a rogue on my only play through. I just wished it was longer, but ToEE was probably meant to be the first part of a series. I kind of made fun of this game when it first came out, but fuck if it didn't age well.
Best D&D:
1. ToEE
2. PoR
3. Sozzy
4. EotB
5. Bioqueer
Honorable mention: Heroes of the Lance
LeStryfe79 said:MotB has a great story and atmosphere, but the insanely fat loot and soul eater shit severely tarnishes it. SoZ is completely old school D&D in every sense, but stumbles do to the batshit engine. Also, in SoZ, my party went from lv4 to 24, making it quite long for a D&D expansion. I liked SoZ better, if only out of spite for the fact that it farts in the face of newfag game design(outside of the RTwP combat of course).
Also, SoZ music is pretty fucking awesome.
Fuck you, Volourn.
Higher Str than Dex? Do you have a composite bow for his Str rating? That makes a huge difference. Because of Rapid Shot archers with composite bows can outdamage melee fighters for a while. Melee fighters can catch up due to Power Attack.Cynic said:It's boring because I already have a fighter. Problem is, I specialized the Ranger in archery, and he's pretty good at it. Problem is he is better with a spear.
No 3.5 gives you the choice of one level in any class when you pick them. After that level you can choose anything. A fighter1/rogue1/barb1/cleric1/wizard1/sorcerer1/bard1 is totally possible, though probably ineffective. I believe there were special rules for monk and paladin but I'm not sure if those are 3.5 and actually implemented in ToEE.For this reason I thought, why not give him some spells as well? Does 3.5 continue the rules for Elves multiclassing as in they can continue to gain levels for all the classes rather than shutting off one and moving to another?
Then a bard can be pretty useful while not destroying her melee abilities. As noted above, keep favoured classes in mind when MCing.I'm actually using her in melee quite a bit...but I thought for the tougher fights when she gets down to low hp perhaps it might be cool to have her hang back and throw a few magic missiles / buffs etc.,
At first you were like "OMG look at me I'm super powerful with my tranny party... yupiiiii!"Leimrey said:I had zero problems blasting through hordes of shitty mobs with my sorcerer + mage party.
my Mirror Image + Stoneskin defenses ensured that I took exactly zero damage in 90% of encounters.
But then you got all emo and rage quited.Leimrey said:The retarded level cap, and, thus, the castrated spellcasters
Why should I continue playing a game which has shit story, dialogues that are as dull as a pile of rocks and brings absolutely no challenge to the table?kaizoku said:But then you got all emo and rage quited.
The level cap itself is not a problem, Arcanum had a level cap of 50 and I enjoyed that game from start to finish (and then some more) because it's extremely hard to reach. The problem lies in the fact that the game caps your level at fucking 10, which may be reached after approximately 60% of the game with a two character party (I imagine a solo character would hit the cap quicker). This basically strips the remaining part of the game of all character progression. Is this the mark of a good RPG? I know that the Codexers stroke their reproductive organs to low-level/low-loot shit, but the designers could've employed a system similar to the one in IWD2, where the party is granted diminishing XP gains while fighting enemies of lower level than themselves. This allows to balance encounters while still allowing character progression. But no, Troika decided to go the lazy route but they still managed to fuck up the encounter design.kaizoku said:90% of RPGs have level caps and you whine about it?
Leimrey said:The retarded level cap, and, thus, the castrated spellcasters
Can you be coherent for a second here?Leimrey said:brings absolutely no challenge to the table?
Keep in mind that Troika implemented the ToEE AD&D module and tried to be faithful, so some things that could have been better stayed that way. That includes level cap and story (or lack of it).Leimrey said:The level cap itself is not a problem, Arcanum had a level cap of 50 and I enjoyed that game from start to finish (and then some more) because it's extremely hard to reach. The problem lies in the fact that the game caps your level at fucking 10, which may be reached after approximately 60% of the game with a two character party (I imagine a solo character would hit the cap quicker). This basically strips the remaining part of the game of all character progression.
If that is your main concern, then why don't you go play some MMO then? Lots of levels and loot.Leimrey said:low-level/low-loot shit