Game Experimentations

[Gangrell]

Yea, I might take her along, problem with miniature groups is lack of certain classes.

[Borg]

Very true about mini-parties. But, don't think you have to have thief skills. I have seen many discussions about not taking a thief, although never done it myself. If you have played the game enough, I imagine you know about where the traps are and can use tactics to overcome them.

By the way, one mini party I've been considering, but probably won't do for a couple months is: Monk (me), and Aerie. If you have gone through ToB with Aerie, you might have a further apreciation of that combo (hopefully, this isn't a spoiler and ok in an SoA discussion). I've never played a Monk either and don't quite think I have what it takes to solo a Monk (somehow waiting for a mage's resistances to drop away after casting doesn't appeal to me). Plus, something perverted in me likes the idea of soiling a LG Monk via a romance with Aerie. Any thoughts on this mini-combo? And, Gangrell, you are welcome to that combo if you so choose (like I could have some proprietary rights to it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-31-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Borg ]

[SpongeBobTheDestoyer]

Originally posted by Xen: Yes. I will give you another good idea, Archer->Mage [img]smile.gif[/img]

You might want to let people know you're talking about a generic archer via tactics mod so nobody says "whatchu talkin' bout Xen, rangers can't dual to a mage".

[Xen]

Hmm sorry.
Ok..

FArcher and not RArcher. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gangrell]

Ok, explain something to me, what is the difference between an archer and a generic archer? Their class kit descriptions are exactly the same.

[SpongeBobTheDestoyer]

Originally posted by Gangrell: Ok, explain something to me, what is the difference between an archer and a generic archer? Their class kit descriptions are exactly the same.

The generic archer is a kit in the fighter class from the tactics mod while the "game's" archer is a kit from the ranger class, thus adding a few priest spells. I think the priest spells are pretty much the only difference, that and you can dual to a mage or thief or cleric from the generic one like any fighter kit.

[Xen]

It should not surprise many, but I for one, do not support the idea of the Fighter Archer. Why muscle into an area that is already occupied by the Ranger Archer? The Fighter Archer is superior to the Ranger Archer overall, and people will be hardpressed to choose the original over the mod version, especially when you consider that the Fighter Archer can be DUALED to another class besides the Cleric.


I've never agreed with the Ranger kits getting shafted when it comes to dual classing. A pure Ranger can dual class, but the Archer and Stalker (not sure about the Beastie Boy) cannot. This makes no sense, since *all* of the fighter kits *can* dual class. Not sure what BIS were thinking of when they placed these limitations on the ranger kits.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Gangrell: Ok, explain something to me, what is the difference between an archer and a generic archer? Their class kit descriptions are exactly the same.

Spongebob is right about the priest spells, but there are other subtle differences. Here are all the differences I can think of:

• RArchers cannot grandmaster in slings (they can only specialise), FArchers can grandmaster in slings (same applies to darts AFAIK)
• RArchers can only become proficient in melee weapons, FArchers can specialise
• RArchers can cast priest spells up to third level, FArchers do not have access to any spells
• FArchers level up faster than RArchers, and therefore can reach 40th level as opposed to 34 (meaning more Archer bonuses and warrior HLA's)
• The RArcher kit bonuses slow to +1 to hit and damage every 5 levels (rather than every 3) after level 18. The FArcher does not suffer this limitation, and gets +1 to hit and damage every 3 levels all the way up to level 40. This is a big difference, since the RArchers bonuses are therefore +9/+9 hit/damage by level 34, compared to the FArchers +13/+13 hit/damage. If you're attacking 5 times per round, this difference is extremely significant.

That about does it AFAIK. From a combat perspective, the FArcher wins hands down, but the priest spells still make the RArcher extremely versitile.

[ 08-01-2003, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Jim ]

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Xen: I've never agreed with the Ranger kits getting shafted when it comes to dual classing. A pure Ranger can dual class, but the Archer and Stalker (not sure about the Beastie Boy) cannot. This makes no sense, since *all* of the fighter kits *can* dual class. Not sure what BIS were thinking of when they placed these limitations on the ranger kits.

I would have to say that the druid classes could use a bit of modifying. I never understood why druids never could use a variety of weapons like the other classes could, even thieves have better selections, but since I really looked into it in the FR Campaign Book and 3rd Edition D&D Campaign Book, it makes sense but it's extreme. They're allied with nature so their weaponry is limited because they cannot bring much harm.

My point is, if they can use Scimitars, why not a longsword or a katana?

[Xen]

Originally posted by Gangrell: My point is, if they can use Scimitars, why not a longsword or a katana?

Exactly! And there is another thing. They should be very powerful and they should be able to unleash the raining death and destruction just like the Sorcerers. Why? Becuase as you know the nature can be very destructive. It has avalnches...

So my point isruids should be more powerful!

[ 08-01-2003, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Xen ]