Kit Revisions (Paladins)

[Ardanis]

I'm not sure if I'm pro this:

 

1) there are lots of other undead beside liches, and many of them can be boosted to a high degree of danger with aTweaks (and SCS vampires)

2) dealing with spellcasters should be reserved for Inquisitor and WS, do we really want another class to have an anti-caster ability?

3) such an ability would be essentially an anti-lich ability, plus maybe a couple of Bodhi's vampire mages, hardly counting up to a dozen of encounters

[Demivrgvs]

Undead Hunter

I fully agree with Arda about not granting an "anti-lich" ability. Otoh, the Positive Energy Burst ability which I've dropped in favor of keeping spellcasting could fit a a role similar to kreso's suggested ability, without strictly being a lich-only or anti-spellcaster feat.

 

 

Cavalier

Well, leaving aside that I'm really not convinced about implementing a Shield Bash ability without proper animation, if it will ever make it to the public, it should be usable by most warriors (or at least by a True Fighter) not just Cavaliers. No?

[kreso]

Well, I always hated the fact that of all Paladin kits UH is the worst against Liches (apart True Paladin), therefore my suggestion. I'm not saying this ability should have "disruption" ability or anything, just to have something other in their sleeve than relying on weapons/Turning against Undead.

I didn't suggest this to be "anti-caster", more of an "anti-undead" feat (i.e. working only on Undead, Liches being a part of the family)

[Kalindor]

OK, I've been testing a party composed of various flavors of Paladins and Fighters in the Black Pits. The beatdowns are being dispensed liberally. I will provide more feedback later, but I am convinced that the current memorize-but-can't-cast situation with the Cavalier is untenable. If a way to remove spellbooks from kits does not present itself, I suggest allowing all kits to maintain the spellcasting feature of the base class but severely restricting their spellbooks to only a few memorizable spells per level (meaning the choices to memorize is restricted, not talking about the slots).

 

*Edit: It appears the Undead Hunter still gets Shillelagh in his spellbook. Magical Stone seems a bit out of place also.

[Demivrgvs]

OK, I've been testing a party composed of various flavors of Paladins and Fighters in the Black Pits. The beatdowns are being dispensed liberally. I will provide more feedback later, but I am convinced that the current memorize-but-can't-cast situation with the Cavalier is untenable. If a way to remove spellbooks from kits does not present itself, I suggest allowing all kits to maintain the spellcasting feature of the base class but severely restricting their spellbooks to only a few memorizable spells per level (meaning the choices to memorize is restricted, not talking about the slots).

This is something I'm already taking into consideration since a while. The only problem imo is that we don't have so much room for making different spellbooks.

 

*Edit: It appears the Undead Hunter still gets Shillelagh in his spellbook. Magical Stone seems a bit out of place also.

I assume you don't have SR, because within SR that spell is druid/ranger only. Anyway, just to be sure KR works as intended even without SR I can remove Shillelagh within UH spellbook itself.

[Jarno Mikkola]

OK, I've been testing a party composed of various flavors of Paladins and Fighters in the Black Pits. The beatdowns are being dispensed liberally. I will provide more feedback later, but I am convinced that the current memorize-but-can't-cast situation with the Cavalier is untenable. If a way to remove spellbooks from kits does not present itself, I suggest allowing all kits to maintain the spellcasting feature of the base class but severely restricting their spellbooks to only a few memorizable spells per level (meaning the choices to memorize is restricted, not talking about the slots).

This is something I'm already taking into consideration since a while. The only problem imo is that we don't have so much room for making different spellbooks.

Erhm you can always give the kitted character the ability to cast specific spell via the clab file...

Say, giving the Undead Hunter the spell hgfh.spl is as easy as assigning them the GA_HGFH in one of the lines... the spell itself can be restricted from both paladins/priests and rangers/druids so no one else gets the spell except the Undead Hunter.. and the spell of course needs to be set as spell, not a special ability. And you are set to give the casters the spell books you like... (Well you will need to also remove the paladin/priest spells you don't like via a special spell at each level, but that's not my problem.)

You'll learn this method if you look how they did the special Stalkers kit spells(Haste, Protection From Normal Missiles, Minor Spell Deflection).

[Demivrgvs]

@Jarno, thanks for underestimating me so much and for a lesson I did not needed. I obviously know how to tweak spellbooks, what I meant with "we don't have so much room for making different spellbooks" was that paladins have very few spells, even counting possible new paladin-only spells from PnP, and giving to each kit a different spellbook with so few spells isn't that easy.

[Kalindor]

I wasn't necessarily proposing giving them unique spells from one another. I am just proposing that, instead of removing spellcasting abilities entirely from a kit, you can reduce their options of spells to cast to 3 or 4. For example, Cavalier could still cast spells but they are restricted to spells that specifically shield the target such as Sanctuary and Armor of Faith.

 

*Edit: No worries, Jarno. That is what I thought he meant as well!

[Jarno Mikkola]

@Jarno, thanks for underestimating me so much and for a lesson I did not needed. I obviously know how to tweak spellbooks, what I meant with "we don't have so much room for making different spellbooks" was that paladins have very few spells, even counting possible new paladin-only spells from PnP, and giving to each kit a different spellbook with so few spells isn't that easy.

Well, counting the fact that this game doesn't use a PnP rules, you might wish to broaden your perspective and see if you could do some if not all the abilities the kits have through spells instead of special abilities ...

Say letting the Vanilla Paladin to choose the ability to either Smite Evil or Lay on Hands up to a specific number of times, instead of giving them randomly via the special ability spells. This can easily be set through the first level spells... You didn't see that one, did you ?

[kreso]

Some toughts about UH:

This kit is very weird . I'll be gentle anyway.

1) given he can cast spells, wear Full plate, shields and cast Armor of Faith, he belongs to the front line, yet has ranged Smite Evil. I'm iclined to use him with slings.

2) His Smite works on evil, but not all Undead are evil in this game. May be Fixpack, but skeletons (and BG1 is filled with those) aren't. He should really have "Smite Undead", not "evil". UH shouldn't care wether skeleton is evil in aligment or not - in his eyes, it's an abomination and must be put to rest.

3) Ranged Smite is far more useful vs evil spellcasters (magic damage bypasses Stoneskin and disrupts spellcasting) than Undead in general, making him an anti-spellcaster class

4)The in-game kit description should be changed. His Lay on hands description is wrong.

[Kalindor]

I can confirm that the Undead Hunter is useful against evil mages with Ranged Smite Evil. It's not an Inquisitor by any means, but it is helpful.

 

After using the Undead Hunter in the lower levels of BG:EE and the Black Pits, I think he needs an always-active THAC0 and/or damage bonus against undead. Restricting these bonuses to Smite alone seems underwhelming. I cannot speak for higher levels.

[kreso]

I can confirm that the Undead Hunter is useful against evil mages with Ranged Smite Evil. It's not an Inquisitor by any means, but it is helpful.

In some instances, it's better than Inquisitor's dispel. I'm running a party of 4 Paladins(got all kits covered ), thief and a sorcerer and it indeed makes a difference to disrupt a mage through his stoneskin when casting Chaos if Inquisitor fails his dispel. Furthermore, Ranged THAC0 is usally far better than melee (due to DEX bonus) so he rarely misses (and gets a THAC0 boost as well when Smite is active). In addition, ranged weapons have better initiative.

I think the "ranged" concept would work far better with different set of immunities than these. Fear is ok, even tough it's relatively easy to avoid (I have 4 Paladins so Fear is of no concern tough ).

Paralyisis of any kind was never casted on him, since he attacks from range. I'll soon see how he fares vs some aTweaks Undead and I'll know more.

[Demivrgvs]

Undead Hunter

Some toughts about UH:

This kit is very weird . I'll be gentle anyway.

Thanks, I do told you this UH wasn't even a beta but rather an alpha.

 

1) given he can cast spells, wear Full plate, shields and cast Armor of Faith, he belongs to the front line, yet has ranged Smite Evil. I'm iclined to use him with slings.

2) His Smite works on evil, but not all Undead are evil in this game. May be Fixpack, but skeletons (and BG1 is filled with those) aren't. He should really have "Smite Undead", not "evil". UH shouldn't care wether skeleton is evil in aligment or not - in his eyes, it's an abomination and must be put to rest.

3) Ranged Smite is far more useful vs evil spellcasters (magic damage bypasses Stoneskin and disrupts spellcasting) than Undead in general, making him an anti-spellcaster class

4)The in-game kit description should be changed. His Lay on hands description is wrong.

1) Well, I suggested to limit it a little, either allowing only medium armors or perhaps plate mail but not full plate armors.

2) I did not expected this, probably because since 3E skeletons have always been neutral evil. Strangely, AD&D had them as true neutral. Right now the ability checks first for 'evil' and only later for 'undead', but I should be able to tweak the ability a little bit to make the checks separately. That way evil undead creatures will take both xd4 damage from Smite Evil and Smite Undead, while neutral undead take only xd4 from Smite Undead.

Perhaps it is just me not liking overspecialized kits, but I fear completely removing Smite Evil and limiting UH to only Smite Undead would hugely reduce the class appeal for a complete game, am I wrong?

3) Oh my...not sure what to say here. It could seem a good reason to make UH get only Smite Undead, but it's not like a ranged character with fire, ice or acid arrows would perform any different. As Kalindor says this might make UH slightly better than a Cavalier against spellcasters but by far not as good as an Inquisitor imo. On a side note, IR V3.1 will slightly affect this by changing ranged weapons speed factor.

4) Ops, sorry.

 

After using the Undead Hunter in the lower levels of BG:EE and the Black Pits, I think he needs an always-active THAC0 and/or damage bonus against undead. Restricting these bonuses to Smite alone seems underwhelming. I cannot speak for higher levels.

You know my issue with these ranger-like bonuses: they do not stack with similar effects from other sources (I could actually use a workaround to make damage effects stacks, but for thac0 effects it's impossible).

This means that an UH with those vanilla-like effects is the one to benefit the least from anti-undead weapons such as Mace of Disruption, Daystar or IR's Blessed Bolts. Wouldn't it be strange?

 

I think the "ranged" concept would work far better with different set of immunities than these. Fear is ok, even tough it's relatively easy to avoid (I have 4 Paladins so Fear is of no concern tough ).

Paralyisis of any kind was never casted on him, since he attacks from range. I'll soon see how he fares vs some aTweaks Undead and I'll know more.

Fear is not that easy to avoid imo because all spells and abilities involving it have some sort of range, unlike paralysis and level drain, and fear effects always use saves. spell, which is paladin's worst save type.

Wasn't you the one saying immunity to paralysis was a must at low levels? As I expected, playing him as a ranged character makes him much less vulnerable to it. Anyway, even if he is less vulnerable he must remain immune to it imo. It's an AD&D thing, he needs to be fully immune to it to be the one removing paralysis from others reliably, and the whole "ranged paladin" isn't set in stone yet.

[kreso]

Undead Hunter

2) I did not expected this, probably because since 3E skeletons have always been neutral evil. Strangely, AD&D had them as true neutral. Right now the ability checks first for 'evil' and only later for 'undead', but I should be able to tweak the ability a little bit to make the checks separately. That way evil undead creatures will take both xd4 damage from Smite Evil and Smite Undead, while neutral undead take only xd4 from Smite Undead.

Perhaps it is just me not liking overspecialized kits, but I fear completely removing Smite Evil and limiting UH to only Smite Undead would hugely reduce the class appeal for a complete game, am I wrong?

I find neutral skeletons stupid, tbh. If they're so neutral and brainless, why do they attack on sight? Can't they play football or something?

As for the appeal, well, he is an "Undead Hunter"...I don't know. I usually like kits which are like vanilla Archer/Asassin - pick 1 area of expertise and be really good at it.

 

3)

Oh my...not sure what to say here. It could seem a good reason to make UH get only Smite Undead, but it's not like a ranged character with fire, ice or acid arrows would perform any different.

Well, generally, he does more damage than fire/ice arrows so chance to disrupt spell is therefore higher (at least with ToBEx). Since crossbows don't have fire or ice coated arrows (only lightning/poison) and these are rare in BG1 - he's good at disrupting, to say the least.

4)

Ops, sorry.

I fixed it already for my game, np.

 

Wasn't you the one saying immunity to paralysis was a must at low levels? As I expected playing him as a ranged character makes him much less vulnerable to it. Anyway, even if he is less vulnerable he must remain immune to it imo. It's an AD&D thing, he needs to be fully immune to it to be the one removing paralysis from others reliably, and the whole "ranged paladin" isn't set in stone yet.

Well, as I noted, I'm playing with 4 different Paladins, 3 of them are Fear-immune, having only 2 would hardly make any difference.

I'd still keep Paralysis immunity (it makes sense so he can reliably remove it, as you said), and in addition I'd still move it to level 2 - so he can go melee vs ghasts/clerics and the like - it would help make him more unique.

(no kit can melee vs ghouls/ghasts reliably early, apart Berserker in Frenzy - on a side-note, this is where when-hit Frenzy is far better than on-hit)

even tough he's bulit around ranged concept , since 2 kits already have this immunity at 2nd level.

Of course, I imagine not many people will play with 4 Paladins in a single game.

 

P.S.

I don't think Smite Evil checks for both "evil" and "Undead". Neutral Undead don't take any damage from this ability.

[Demivrgvs]

Undead Hunter

I find neutral skeletons stupid, tbh. If they're so neutral and brainless, why do they attack on sight? Can't they play football or something?

LOL

 

Perhaps it is just me not liking overspecialized kits, but I fear completely removing Smite Evil and limiting UH to only Smite Undead would hugely reduce the class appeal for a complete game, am I wrong?

As for the appeal, well, he is an "Undead Hunter"...I don't know. I usually like kits which are like vanilla Archer/Asassin - pick 1 area of expertise and be really good at it.

Well, I prefer a kit to be great in a particular area and decent in most other situations rather than incredibly outstanding in one area and almost useless in all other areas. I do like the Assassin but he is a good example of a kit which is borderline OP against humanoids (give him a bunch of Potions of Invisibility, a Cloak of Non-detection and he can murder a team of fighters without taking a scratch) and almost useless in too many situations (against golems, undead, demons, etc. he can do very little to contribute).

 

That's why personally I'd vote for him getting a Smite Evil ability which also deals more damage vs. undead rather than him getting only Smite Undead, but if there's a large consensus about him getting the latter I might be persuaded.

 

I don't think Smite Evil checks for both "evil" and "Undead". Neutral Undead don't take any damage from this ability.

I do said "Right now the ability checks first for 'evil' and only later for 'undead', but I should be able to tweak the ability a little bit to make the checks separately" which means that if the first condition is null (aka target is not evil) the second check (is the target an undead?) doesn't even happen. I was saying I can separate those checks completely, so that non-evil undead can be affected, even though non-evil undead should not exist in the first place imo except for extremely rare RP cases.