Kit Revisions (Fighters)

[Demivrgvs]

I'd like to point out that inability to drink a healing potion for a full turn is a sure death sentence when fighting anything posing a challenge (be it a lich, a dragon or a bunch of grunts) - regardless of party level. And you don't really want to waste rages on opponents below threat threshold, do you?

I'm not sure this is completely true. I never found tank's hit points to be a problem against liches, but it's a different matter when it comes to dragons indeed. That being said, that's how rage always worked within PnP thus I guess it cannot be so crazy to be unplayable, and you always have other ways to keep the enraged tank alive (cleric's healing spells, items with regeneration, etc.).

 

Do you think keeping vanilla's 5 rounds duration would be better? I'd be a sad panda if I cannot implement this drawback.

 

P.S This is even less of a problem (espically if we're speaking of fighting dragons) if we decide to have berserker get Deathless Frenzy (aka "min hp set to 1 until raged - then suffer stunning dmg to knock him out" as planned.

[SixOfSpades]

As a caveat, I have to mention that I have a bit of negative baggage concerning other people "watering down" my kits. A few years back, I proposed the Sharpshooter kit, and was so displeased when Andyr removed the only factor that made it worth playing (level-based improvements to ranged THAC0/Damage) that I demanded he remove my name from it, and I released the bona fide kit as the Sniper. So . . . I'm not going to insist you treat this kit design as an all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it idea, although I would prefer it if you did.

Considering that the Wizard Slayer has always been a bad joke, I hardly think staying true to vanilla is a concern. I also know that this isn't how the Wizard Slayer is presented in PnP, or it would have been proposed long before now . . . but canon or not, this design seems to work.

 

WIZARD SLAYER

Description: Warriors have always frequently regarded spellcasters with both contempt and fear, and naturally this led to certain cadres of fighters trained to strike down practitioners of magic above all other targets. Abject hatred of spellcasters (especially mages) is what drives most of them, and since the Time of Troubles, Wizard Slayers have grown even more dangerous: They have learned to channel the newly-discovered Dead Magic into an aura around themselves, disrupting any nearby magical enchantments.

 

ADVANTAGES:

» Gains +3% Magic Resistance per level

» Gains +1% Magic Damage Resistance per level

» Special Ability of Nullifying Blow, usable 1x/day per level: For 1 turn, all successful attacks by the Wizard Slayer cause a cumulative chance of Spell Failure to their victims--melee hits cause 1% per EXP level of the Wizard Slayer, and ranged hits cause 1% per 2 levels. The Spell Failure effect lasts for 6 rounds.

» Special Ability of Anti-Magic Aura, usable 1x/day per 4 levels. For each EXP level of the Wizard Slayer, all creatures within 30 feet take a 2% cumulative Spellcasting Failure penalty (lasts for 6 rounds), and have a 1% chance to have all active enchantments on them instantly dispelled.

» Gains access to the HLA of Greater Magic Resistance: Grants +30% Magic Resistance for four rounds. Unlike the regular Magic Resistance HLA, this is cumulative with other sources of Magic Resistance.

» Gains access to the ToB HLA of HLA of Greater Anti-Magic Aura: Instead of being centered on the Wizard Slayer, the Greater Aura can be projected toward any point within 30 feet.

 

DISADVANTAGES:

» +1 penalty to THAC0 every 4 levels (stops after Level 20)

» May put no more than three proficiency points into any weapon

» Cannot use ANY magic item whose enchantments make it primarily useful against any foes other than spellcasters. (See below.)

» Able to select the ToB HLAs of Greater Whirlwind, Greater Deathblow, and Critical Strike only 3 times each

» Able to select the ToB HLA of Hardiness only once

 

Compatibility and other Notes: Wizard Slayers who Dual-class to Thief will be unable to choose the ToB HLA of Use Any Item. The Spell Failure effect (though not the Dispel Magic effect) of both Nullifying Blow and the Anti-Magic Auras acts as a Level 7 spell, so it will affect creatures such as Liches and Rakshasa. All of my spells and abilities have a maximum casting level of 20, so a Level 40 Wizard Slayer's Nullifying Blow will still cause 20% Casting Failure on a melee hit, and 10% on a ranged hit. While the original Wizard Slayer caused Spell Failure only for Wizard spells, mine affects both Wizard and Priest spellcasting.

 

ITEM USABILITY:

All magic items are determined on a case-by-case basis, and are flagged as Acceptable or Unacceptable based on their enchantments, not where on the body they are worn. By default, Wizard Slayers are predisposed to reject all magical items, except those that are either A) beneficial in defeating spellcasters, or B) too critical and fundamental to do without.

Enchantments that contribute to an item's Acceptance:

Base enchantment level of melee weapons or ammunition, Magic Resistance, Elemental resistances, Saving Throw bonuses, Immunities to spells & effects commonly used by spellcasters, Weapons that add elemental damage, Attacks that do extended damage over time, Bonuses to Speed Factor, anything designed to prevent spellcasters from casting, anything likely to make a spellcaster more vulnerable to physical attacks.

Enchantments that contribute to an item's Rejection:

Base enchantment level of launcher-type weapons, Bonuses to Armor Class, Physical Resistances, Bonuses to THAC0 or Damage, Changes to STR / DEX / CON / INT / WIS / CHA, the casting of any spell that would not be especially useful against spellcasters, any item designed to combat any specific type of enemy other than spellcasters, any spell or effect that would not directly benefit a trueclassed Wizard Slayer.

 

If an item has a fairly even mix of "positive" and "negative" enchantments (e.g., Rings of Protection), I usually allow their use, provided that the items are fairly simple and rather benign. Artifact-level items, however, such as the Ring of Gaxx and Staff of the Magi, are commonly ruled out, as they would be rejected simply due to the large number of powerful enchantments on them. Also, where two spells/effects are very similar, Wizard Slayers will tend to accept one but shun the other: Healing is good, Regeneration is bad. Potions of Explosions are magical, Oils of Fiery Burning are not. Etc. All items added or altered by other mods would have to be individually reviewed and categorized, if true compatibility is to be assured.

 

ADD: While I agree that the Wizard Slayer->Mage Dual-class is an unlikely roleplay, I do not find it implausible, as it allows the character to access all those lovely anti-Protection spells that can forestall even a trueclassed Wizard Slayer.

[Demivrgvs]

As a caveat, I have to mention that I have a bit of negative baggage concerning other people "watering down" my kits.

I have no intention of doing that, and our vision of the Wizard Slayer is hugely different anyway.

 

Wizard Slayer

» Gains +3% Magic Resistance per level

This is too much imo considering that, unlike vanilla, you're allowing WS to use magical equipment. Drinking a Potion of Magic Resistance and/or equipping one of the many magic resistance boosting items will easily get WS to 100% magic resistance. Then some spellcasters (if you have SCS installed) may deal with it with multiple Lower Resistance, but those who can't will be completely unable to even scratch a WS. Not to mention that a huge magic resistance also turns the WS into the perfect Demon Slayer because they can't use any of theirs spell-like abilities against him, and to a lesser extend into a Dragon Slayer too (do SCS dragons use spell triggers with multiple Lower Resistance?).

 

The way I see it magic resistance should just be a small aspect early on, and then become a huge asset against archmages later on. If you instead want it to be effective early on then I'd suggest to start with a solid base (at least 10% if not 20%-30%) and add a smaller bonus per level (e.g. 2% per lvl or 1% if the base value is high). If I'm not wrong you would prefer this to be more similar to 3E's spell resistance, which is a variable check around a base chance, working more or less as a base 50% magic resistance.

 

Btw I faced the same problem with barbarian's physical resistance, the way % resistance work it actually scales by its own, unlike 3E damage reduction (which is a way better system imo) that requires a gradual increase to remain efficient later on. Long story short, I think % resistance doesn't work well as a scaling resistance, because low % values early on makes it uneffective, and increasing the % isn't a linear improvement to it, but an exponential increase in effectiveness. I just consider the "+x% every yth lvl" thing as a sign the character is developing a skill, but that skill isn't really there until fully developed.

 

» Gains +1% Magic Damage Resistance per level

Isn't this a bit redundant considering magic resistance? And having 1% magic damage res per level wouldn't make a difference anyway imo, magic resistance or not.

 

» Special Ability of Nullifying Blow, usable 1x/day per level: For 1 turn, all successful attacks by the Wizard Slayer cause a cumulative chance of Spell Failure to their victims--melee hits cause 1% per EXP level of the Wizard Slayer, and ranged hits cause 1% per 2 levels. The Spell Failure effect lasts for 6 rounds.

If you ask me, anything less than 10% per hit is completely pointless, in fact I'd probably prefer to drastically increase it and make it not stackable. With your progression this ability won't matter until WS is at least a 10th lvl imo, is it intentional?

 

» Special Ability of Anti-Magic Aura, usable 1x/day per 4 levels. For each EXP level of the Wizard Slayer, all creatures within 30 feet take a 2% cumulative Spellcasting Failure penalty (lasts for 6 rounds), and have a 1% chance to have all active enchantments on them instantly dispelled.

Yeah, an anti-magic aura is indeed something I've been thinking of, but my issue with it is that it seems a magical, spell-like feature, and I don't know if I like true warriors classes to have such feats.

 

I'd be curious to know though, do players think an ability such as this could be considered a supernatural innate feat? Or do you think it belongs to classes with magical abilities?

[Ardanis]

I'd be curious to know though, do players think an ability such as this could be considered a supernatural innate feat? Or do you think it belongs to classes with magical abilities?

Imo this falls into spell-like category, not supernatural.

[polytope]

ITEM USABILITY:

All magic items are determined on a case-by-case basis, and are flagged as Acceptable or Unacceptable based on their enchantments, not where on the body they are worn. By default, Wizard Slayers are predisposed to reject all magical items, except those that are either A) beneficial in defeating spellcasters, or B) too critical and fundamental to do without.

Enchantments that contribute to an item's Acceptance:

Base enchantment level of melee weapons or ammunition, Magic Resistance, Elemental resistances, Saving Throw bonuses, Immunities to spells & effects commonly used by spellcasters, Weapons that add elemental damage, Attacks that do extended damage over time, Bonuses to Speed Factor, anything designed to prevent spellcasters from casting, anything likely to make a spellcaster more vulnerable to physical attacks.

Enchantments that contribute to an item's Rejection:

Base enchantment level of launcher-type weapons, Bonuses to Armor Class, Physical Resistances, Bonuses to THAC0 or Damage, Changes to STR / DEX / CON / INT / WIS / CHA, the casting of any spell that would not be especially useful against spellcasters, any item designed to combat any specific type of enemy other than spellcasters, any spell or effect that would not directly benefit a trueclassed Wizard Slayer.

 

Interesting, but it seems a bit complicated; most kits had easily understandable restrictions based on ethos or practical considerations: A cavalier considers ranged combat cowardly; an archer doesn't want their aim to be effected by bulky armor etc. It would be strange from an RP perspective for a WS to be able to cast Spell Turning from the book of Infinite Spells but not use the mirror images from Ilbratha. Also there are some clear "grey areas" - the silver sword for instance is an excellent weapon against magic users as it's vorpal effect ignores stoneskin and forces a save vs death (Most ToB wizards save vs death at 10), but it's still pretty useful against non spellcasters, should it stay or go?

 

My proposed restrictions:

 

Light armor only. I know, it's overused (Archers, Stalkers, Beastmasters, huge number of mod-added kits), however, for the restriction to be meaningful it actually should be overused; because there are already some excellent light armors in the game (white dragon scale comes to mind) meaning that your party will only really be disadvantaged if you have more than one character with such restrictions. I'm not sure precisely what "level" of armoring (chain, leather or what?) is best for balance.

 

It makes sense for this kit anyway, armor isn't useful against the majority of a wizards' attacks, and 2ed wizards had many ways to mess with an opponent wearing plate armor (Heat Metal, Superior Magnetism, the movement penalty which makes catching the wizard a difficult proposition).

 

Can go beyond proficient only in weapons available to thieves (and spears), the WS isn't interested in awkward weapons like halberds that are useful against mounted enemies, nor in things like maces designed to defeat armor; they'd want a weapon with a good s.f. to strike quickly at an enemy mage before he casts something to disable them. I wouldn't actually make the weapons unequipable as that would prevent them being used in "life or death" situations (inappropriate for a "practical" limitation) but lack of specialization should make them unappealing.

 

Proposed Benefits

 

Spell failure; I mentioned that SF % is overpowered when hasted or improved hasted. Here's an idea: It's cumulative (25%) with every round of being attacked by the wizard slayer provided that an attack is successful, to achieve this, the WS melee hit effect triggers a spell that lasts 5 (?) rounds but protects from itself for one round after it triggers, this would allow visual cues or "spell failure" strings to be included without filling the combat log with spam. Also, it solves the strange situation where darts (or Tuigan bow) are among the most powerful weapons in a WS arsenal - why is it more effective to disrupt a mage with darts rather than a sword?

 

Resists magic; 10% MR and +1 to save vs magic attack (wands and spells) at lvls 1, 7 and 14.

 

I don't really like the idea of a spell like ability for a fighter kit; it's justified for inquisitors because their God grants them such powers to fight evil. If WS get something like "Breaching blow" I'd make it have a disadvantage like a short duration hp penalty, strength penalty, or fatigue on use to simulate the difficulty of overcoming magic defenses through effort alone.

 

Not to mention that a huge magic resistance also turns the WS into the perfect Demon Slayer because they can't use any of theirs spell-like abilities against him, and to a lesser extend into a Dragon Slayer too (do SCS dragons use spell triggers with multiple Lower Resistance?).

Dragons mainly rely on their breath and melee attacks for damage, plus remove magic and breach for debuffing, and a few self targetted buffs like haste and stoneskin. I'm not worried about wizard slayers being overprotected against them.

 

That said, there is a bug with SCS demons and dragons using SpellNoDec + casting speed bonus to cast "instantly" they can still be disrupted with WS casting failure, silence (demons only... all dragons are immune) and drain spell opcode (Nishruus and Everards morning star); since DavidW is away, perhaps tweak the WS casting failure to give immunity via eff to races that have "innate magic".

[Demivrgvs]

ITEM USABILITY

All magic items are determined on a case-by-case basis, and are flagged as Acceptable or Unacceptable based on their enchantments, not where on the body they are worn. By default, Wizard Slayers are predisposed to reject all magical items, except those that are either A) beneficial in defeating spellcasters, or B) too critical and fundamental to do without.

Interesting, but it seems a bit complicated; most kits had easily understandable restrictions based on ethos or practical considerations: A cavalier considers ranged combat cowardly; an archer doesn't want their aim to be effected by bulky armor etc. It would be strange from an RP perspective for a WS to be able to cast Spell Turning from the book of Infinite Spells but not use the mirror images from Ilbratha. Also there are some clear "grey areas" - the silver sword for instance is an excellent weapon against magic users as it's vorpal effect ignores stoneskin and forces a save vs death (Most ToB wizards save vs death at 10), but it's still pretty useful against non spellcasters, should it stay or go?

My issues exactly. Making a highly customized item restriction list it too much subjective imo.

 

My proposed restrictions:

Light armor only. ...

 

Can go beyond proficient only in weapons available to thieves ...

Eh, they both makes sense for the same reasons we suggested to make them not use shields, but:

a) wouldn't those restriction make WS look like a Stalker rather than a fighter?

b) while the limitations per se doesn't imply a huge nerf in terms of potential within a IR game (light armors are quite good, and all weapons types should be great now) it may cost the class to loose quite a few items qhich would instead highly suit them (almost the entire Balduran set, Bala's Axe, Mana Bow, etc.).

 

I guess you'd allow them to get to Grandmastery then, else the kit would pretty much loose everything that defines a fighter class except the hp/thac0 progression. The problem I'd have with this is that removing Grandmastery is a huge disadvantage, and allows the kit to get all those bonuses (magic res, spell disruption, etc.), while restricting armor and weapon types is a lot less of an hindrance for the class's power lvl imo.

 

Proposed Benefits

Spell failure; I mentioned that SF % is overpowered when hasted or improved hasted. Here's an idea: It's cumulative (25%) with every round of being attacked by the wizard slayer provided that an attack is successful, to achieve this, the WS melee hit effect triggers a spell that lasts 5 (?) rounds but protects from itself for one round after it triggers, this would allow visual cues or "spell failure" strings to be included without filling the combat log with spam. Also, it solves the strange situation where darts (or Tuigan bow) are among the most powerful weapons in a WS arsenal - why is it more effective to disrupt a mage with darts rather than a sword?

Ehm...isn't that more or less what suggested myself but in a more complicated way? As I said, I do prefer a higher but not stackable spell failure per hit, because mages don't survive many hits anyway, thus a low % is very unappealing imo. Btw, I don't get your issue with Haste or Improved Haste, if your WS has struck the mage 3-5 times in a round the target is almost surely dead, no? The only exception I can imagine is a stoneskinned mage.

 

I also agree darts and bows should necessarily be better than melee weapons to disrupt spellcasting, and a non-stackable spell failure would even the odds, while still keeping a ranged WS a very appealing option because of bow/dart's fast speed factor (this is true only under IR V3) and range (not having to go near the caster is still a huge advantage). Not to mention bow/dart's higher apr is also very effective against things such as Reflected/Mirror Image and Stoneskin!

 

That being said, while causing 10% spell failure on hit is trifling, causing 25%+ is quite devastating (1 spell every 4 rounds is likely to not work), and if we ever opt for such solution I do think the effect should allow a save (perhaps based on WS lvl to make it more difficult to resist as the WS gains levels).

 

Resists magic; 10% MR and +1 to save vs magic attack (wands and spells) at lvls 1, 7 and 14.

I have to say I have one huge issue with granting 1st level kits too many bonus: dual classes, and to lesser extent multi classes, can hugely exploit them by taking just a few levels on that particulat class (e.g. with your suggested solution you could give a thief 10% mr, spell failure on hit, and better saves by having him take a single fighter lvl!).

 

Regarding a bonus to saves, I'm partially in favor and partially not, because they do overlap with magic resistance. Perhaps we could give the class a +2 to saves vs spell at 3rd lvl (imitating an Iron Will feat, or Monk's Still Mind) to fill the "missing +5% magic resistance" (if you get what I mean). That way I preserve the similarity between WS' magic res progression and Barbarian's physical resistance, while still granting a superior protection against mages to low lvl WS compared to other classes.

 

I don't really like the idea of a spell like ability for a fighter kit; it's justified for inquisitors because their God grants them such powers to fight evil.

My feelings exactly.

 

That said, there is a bug with SCS demons and dragons using SpellNoDec + casting speed bonus to cast "instantly" they can still be disrupted with WS casting failure, silence (demons only... all dragons are immune) and drain spell opcode (Nishruus and Everards morning star); since DavidW is away, perhaps tweak the WS casting failure to give immunity via eff to races that have "innate magic".

Unlike vanilla kit I've made it work via spl (a la IR) thus yes, I can do that if we wish so.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Resists magic; 10% MR and +1 to save vs magic attack (wands and spells) at lvls 1, 7 and 14.

I have to say I have one HEGU issue with granting 1st level kits too many bonus: dual classes, and to lesser extent multi classes, can hugely exploit them by taking just a few levels on that particulat class (e.g. with your suggested solution you could give a thief 10% mr, spell failure on hit, and better saves by having him take a single fighter lvl!).

HEGU ?

Actually no one can take a single level of Fighter class, you need two, which will restrict the dual classes XP to less than max, which is 1 thief level less... not that that's huge in the original rules, but whatever.

 

More than the level 1 benefit, I have far more cripe about the level 7 advantage, the dual just got +1/2 attack bonus, and then this...

Same goes fro the level 14, as the 13th level give the additional bonus of +1/2 plus the level 7's... timing those benefits little more on different levels might make the kit a little less dual-class convenient.

Start with 0% at level 1, give a bonus of 25% at level 5, at level 8 put it to 30%, and set to 35% at level 11, and then push it even further(~50%) until you reach the 20th level.

[Demivrgvs]

More than the level 1 benefit, I have far more cripe about the level 7 advantage, the dual just got +1/2 attack bonus, and then this...

Lvl 1 benefit (or lvl 2, it doesn't change much) is much worse because dualing a low level character is an almost instantaneous task, whereas dualing a L7 character takes time (though not much due the ridiculous amount of easy xp within BG2), and it's actually impossibile within BG1. That being said, I do agree with you about timing the bonus to avoid having too many bonuses at the same time, in fact I always try to do that. The fact that WS takes +5% magic rs at 7th lvl is just because I followed the same progression of Barbarian's physical res (extended note: vanilla's progression was +0% at L7, +10% at L11, +5% at L15-19 - I simply made made the obcious choice of splitting 10% between L7 and L11, which ends up being identical to 3rd edition PnP pregression).

 

Same goes fro the level 14, as the 13th level give the additional bonus of +1/2 plus the level 7's... timing those benefits little more on different levels might make the kit a little less dual-class convenient.

Afaik I don't give anything to any class at 13th.

 

Start with 0% at level 1, give a bonus of 25% at level 5, at level 8 put it to 30%, and set to 35% at level 11, and then push it even further(~50%) until you reach the 20th level.

As I said, I'm against such a high magic resistance value at low level unless there' a huge drawback to make up for it. Else all dual-classed clerics and thieves will start taking those easy 5-8 fighter lvls to get a mastodontic 25-30% magic resistance (and Spell Disruption too which doesn't even scale with lvls right now).

[Jarno Mikkola]

whereas dualing a L7 character takes time (though not much due the ridiculous amount of easy xp within BG2), and it's actually impossibile within BG1.

Had you actually ever played the BG1, you would know that it's possible to dual at level 7 if there's no level & xp caps ... it's harder, but completely possible with the BGT for example, it's actually really hard before the BGII.

 

Else all dual-classed clerics and thieves will start taking those easy 5-8 fighter lvls to get a mastodontic 25-30% magic resistance (and Spell Disruption too which doesn't even scale with lvls right now).

That's why there's thief&cleric kits. And I doubt that every player will use the Level1NPCs to make the Templar dual from their Alistair Anomen as they need the clerics too to actually get to the 10th level.

[Demivrgvs]

whereas dualing a L7 character takes time (though not much due the ridiculous amount of easy xp within BG2), and it's actually impossibile within BG1.

Had you actually ever played the BG1, you would know that it's possible to dual at level 7 if there's no level & xp caps ... it's harder, but completely possible with the BGT for example, it's actually really hard before the BGII.

A "fighter (7) - cleric (8)" would need 164000xp, and the xp cap is 161000. Anyway, removing the cap simply turns actually impossible into almost impossible but the whole discussion doesn't change at all, my point stays true.

 

Else all dual-classed clerics and thieves will start taking those easy 5-8 fighter lvls to get a mastodontic 25-30% magic resistance (and Spell Disruption too which doesn't even scale with lvls right now).

That's why there's thief&cleric kits.

What??? Thief and cleric kits exist to make sure you don't always dual class them with a bunch of WS levels? The next step will be to claim true classes have no reason to exist except for multi-class characters.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Had you actually ever played the BG1, you would know that it's possible to dual at level 7 if there's no level & xp caps ... it's harder, but completely possible with the BGT for example, it's actually really hard before the BGII.

A "fighter (7) - cleric (8)" would need 164000xp, and the xp cap is 161000. Anyway, removing the cap simply turns actually impossible into almost impossible but the whole discussion doesn't change at all, my point stays true.

The BG1 doesn't end when you hit the 161 000xp, it end when you have killed the bad guys. And there's more of them always coming.

I myself have twice hit the 161000xp cap with my BG1 party of 6, half way the expansion pack, in the unmodified BG1 game.

 

What??? :: Thief and cleric kits exist to make sure you don't always dual class them with a bunch of WS levels? The next step will be to claim true classes have no reason to exist except for multi-class characters.

Well, the true class is there to not have the added restrictions that come via the kits, it not there to be the power substitute for not being a kitted fighter turned to cleric/thief.

PS, the kit should also take the multi(dual)class dependent items into account when setting item restrictions... yeah, you know that already.

[Demivrgvs]

A "fighter (7) - cleric (8)" would need 164000xp, and the xp cap is 161000. Anyway, removing the cap simply turns actually impossible into almost impossible but the whole discussion doesn't change at all, my point stays true.

The BG1 doesn't end when you hit the 161 000xp, it end when you have killed the bad guys. And there's more of them always coming.

I myself have twice hit the 161000xp cap with my BG1 party of 6, half way the expansion pack, in the unmodified BG1 game.

First, you need to remove the cap, and once removed you're still talking about getting to that amount of xp at almost the end of BG1. Anyway, all of this is pointless, if it's just to state dualling a character at lvl 7 within BG1 is doable, fine, I'll give you that, for the last 5 minutes of your BG1 game you'll have it, wow!

 

The point was that granting too many bonuses to low lvl kits makes dual classed characters overpowered, especially because exploiting the broken dual class system is far from difficult.

 

What??? :'> Thief and cleric kits exist to make sure you don't always dual class them with a bunch of WS levels? The next step will be to claim true classes have no reason to exist except for multi-class characters.

Well, the true class is there to not have the added restrictions that come via the kits, it not there to be the power substitute for not being a kitted fighter turned to cleric/thief.

PS, the kit should also take the multi(dual)class dependent items into account when setting item restrictions... yeah, you know that already.

Yeah, can you explain me the restriction of a Berserker-cleric? Cannot use slings?

 

Pratically what you suggested few posts ago was: do not care if dual class combos end up being OP, and make sure even the other classes kits get the same OP combo potential!

[Jarno Mikkola]

Yeah, can you explain me the restriction of a Berserker-cleric? Cannot use slings?

Well, the berserker has his own draw back, say you run into a hundred goblins, the rage will run out before they are all dead, and the AC penalty from the rage will make his full plate +5 to be full plate +2... whatever, and the charm spell somehow turned the whole party against him, as they seem to have gone berserk on him too to just get killed, but never fear, the Bhallspawn was still saved by his trusted armor and the god of hatred, somehow.

 

Yes, the charm spells should have harder saving throw for berserker when the berserk is on, not immunity to it... because the borderline between enemy and friend is not very large for them, at least in low levels. Of course that can be revised on high levels.

 

Pratically what you suggested few posts ago was: do not care if dual class combos end up being OP, and make sure even the other classes kits get the same OP combo potential!

Näh, it was suggestion to make the player need to pay for the bonus of the high ability via XP requirement, and extra restrictions.

And Over Powered ability/kit is a bonus for all situations, not a bonus on certain occasions and with penalty on others... I never said there cannot be a penalty, did I. I never meant it at least.

[polytope]

My proposed restrictions:

Light armor only. ...

 

Can go beyond proficient only in weapons available to thieves ...

Eh, they both makes sense for the same reasons we suggested to make them not use shields, but:

a) wouldn't those restriction make WS look like a Stalker rather than a fighter?

b) while the limitations per se doesn't imply a huge nerf in terms of potential within a IR game (light armors are quite good, and all weapons types should be great now) it may cost the class to loose quite a few items qhich would instead highly suit them (almost the entire Balduran set, Bala's Axe, Mana Bow, etc.).

 

I guess you'd allow them to get to Grandmastery then, else the kit would pretty much loose everything that defines a fighter class except the hp/thac0 progression. The problem I'd have with this is that removing Grandmastery is a huge disadvantage, and allows the kit to get all those bonuses (magic res, spell disruption, etc.), while restricting armor and weapon types is a lot less of an hindrance for the class's power lvl imo.

I'd settle on chainmail for armor then (not really better than the most enchanted leathers, only an advantage in the early game) just to distinguish them from stalkers.

 

The WS could still use Bala's axe, just not with specialization; while that particular axe is good against wizards, it might be the exception rather than the rule.

 

Another potential restriction (I think this looks too "modded", and poses the same slippery slope problem) is use of items that duplicate wizard spells: Arbane's sword, Book of Infinite Spells, Bracers of Blinding strike, Helm of Brilliance, Ilbratha, improved cloak of protection, Ring of Gaxx... Am I missing any? I still prefer the former.

 

Ehm...isn't that more or less what suggested myself but in a more complicated way? As I said, I do prefer a higher but not stackable spell failure per hit, because mages don't survive many hits anyway, thus a low % is very unappealing imo. Btw, I don't get your issue with Haste or Improved Haste, if your WS has struck the mage 3-5 times in a round the target is almost surely dead, no? The only exception I can imagine is a stoneskinned mage.

If the mage lacks stoneskins and similar protections, your party doesn't need a WS, since you'll interrupt them anyway with damage. OTOH, a mage with 10 SS and 7 mirror images (and ProMW to foil magic weapon effects like elemental damge, vorpal hits etc.) takes at least one round for even two fighters to clear (during which time the mage can cast Time Stop and begin to create havoc). Tagging them with casting failure is very useful in such a situation, however, while causing 25% spell failure is reasonable for 1 round of attacks, causing 70% failure in one round (with improved haste and aVENGER's revised WS) is a little bit overpowered; causing 100% failure after 4 hits (vanilla WS) is genuinely overpowered. I think stackability won't be a balance problem if it progresses by combat round rather than per hit.

 

Resists magic; 10% MR and +1 to save vs magic attack (wands and spells) at lvls 1, 7 and 14.

I have to say I have one huge issue with granting 1st level kits too many bonus: dual classes, and to lesser extent multi classes, can hugely exploit them by taking just a few levels on that particulat class (e.g. with your suggested solution you could give a thief 10% mr, spell failure on hit, and better saves by having him take a single fighter lvl!).

I'd suggest making them unable to dual class to thief (rogues do have some arcane learnings in 2ed such as wand and scroll use); also, dualling to druid wouldn't be allowed for the original PnP kit (where WS must be good aligned) - besides the kits' concept seems a bit too much a partisan to become a druid paragon of neutrality; clerics don't look entirely unsuitable for a WS dual... Although with weapon restrictions dual class to cleric might be unappealing anyway.

 

If you don't want to disable dual classing, I guess you could balance it with a penalty of inflicting 75% normal combat damage (opcode 73 can apply a percentage based damage reduction), though I'm not sure how this will interact with other buffs/debuffs.

 

It would noticeably nerf backstabbing with a WS/thief whilst not being too bad with a single class WS (since the engine rounds damage up rather than down), and it's justifiable (somewhat), in that the fighters training focuses on disabling enemy casters. As before, I prefer the former option for the sake of "purism".

[Pacek]

On Wizard Slayers and weapons restriction: I'm not a fan. If you want your WS to wield light weapons because they can disrupt mages quickly, then do it. If you want him to specialise in big 2 handed weapons because they can kill a mage with one almighty swipe, that should be your choice too.

 

On armour restrictions: I might be a little more persuaded, but again I can really see no good reason for it. Indeed, wearing heavy armour might even be a statement: "I don't cast spells, nor would I want to". That's semiotics.

 

I like the concept of an anti magic aura from Six's kit, but I have a different take on it. Make it passive(I love passive) and permanent, causing spell failure to ALL mages, friends and enemies. Now it can become as powerful as you like, because it has a major drawback. So it doesn't seem like a magicky supernatural ability, imagine mages are rattled by the wizard slayer's presence. How else do you explain vanilla's spell failure on-hit effect (which this aura augments)? Coupled with demi's breaching blow, however he chooses to implement it, I think you have the definitive mage killer.

 

Regardless of the final solution, I think you really need to keep it as simple as possible.