Vale of Shadows! (yes, again! :p)

[Lord Brass]

The least number of classes that you can have the better. That way you'll all level up faster. IWD is very much different than BG2, as far as I can see, in that Bards are really good with HoW/TotL installed. Also, Druids have the 'Static Charge' spell. It's so annoying that BG2 doesn't!

Paladins are a tricky issue, in that people regard them as having the skills of fighters and clerics, but not really being one or the other. For a rather good mention of Paladins, look at this thread, if you haven't already.

If you're going to fiddle about with your party, you should really have a Gnome Cleric/Illusionist. Those guys rock. You'll also want that Thief. Really, as the Vale has some nasty traps, and as Peytin says, it'll only get worse. Run a single class through the game, and when s/he gets some levels under their belt, import them into your existing game. That way, you won't have to start again.

[Dundee Slaytern]

I think I should mention some more on Paladins, since I was quite skimpy on details in that thread( since it was about players' playing styles).

Besides the fact that the Paladin can stack his innate Protection from Evil spell with the Clerical version, he can also cast Draw Upon Holy Might to boost his STR, CON and DEX.

If you want to maximise this ability, have a Mage cast Strength on the Paladin first.

Paladins cannot have Grandmastery in their weapon proficiencies, but they more than make up for it with better weapon versatility, a buttload of spells, immunities, and Turn Undead. Due to the way IWD works, both Paladins and Fighters can reach level 30; the Paladin just takes longer to reach that level, but level for level, I feel the Paladin is better.

At this point, some might ask, what about the Cleric/Ranger? True, if the Cleric/Ranger is maxed, it will be more potent than the Paladin, but you have to take into consideration that it will take almost twice as long for a Cleric/Ranger to reach 30/30. The Paladin also has the advantage of better AC.

In fact I have both. I use the Paladin as the main tank, while the Cleric/Ranger casts as many spells as possible before joining the Paladin into the fray.

Always remember that the Paladin is a singleclassed character, so comparing him to 30/30 multiclassed characters is a bit unfair as not only is it virtually unrealistic for multiclassed characters to reach that kind of level in the game( HoF mode, IWD+HoW+TotL), the Paladin already reaches his full potential much, much earlier.

In addition, I personally feel that 30/30 characters in comparison to Paladins is like paying an additional $100 just to be a few Hz faster... ...

Anybody else wants to chip in for the Paladin? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Lord Brass]

Paladins do have one limiting factor: their alignment. We've all read about people that cannot tolerate evil characters in their party if that party is predominantly good. This is an issue of playing styles I know, but it is still an important factor in whether you should play them or not.

The simple solution should have been their obvious evil counterpart. This has never been something that any incarnation of (A-) D&D has been willing to accept. Siembieda's 'Palladium Role Playing Game', has a much better approach to this character class, but then they do not get the same abilities as here.

You're obviously an "old" and well established player of the class Dundee Slaytern. I might go back and check my old prejudices out, and see if they have any validity at all. It might be that I'll be playing one next time we discuss the topic. You've given me, if not others, something to think about.

[ 09-30-2002, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

[Keraptisdm]

I tend to enjoy running Paladins, even from the old Pen and Paper, Advanced Dungeon and Dragons days. (Did we just change the topic of Sir G's thread? He won't mind. I hope.) I am drawn to their singleness of purpose for Role Playing, along with their high charisma to win and influence the masses. We've discussed my views on evil members in party with Paladins before, so I won't mention it here. My first two parties in IWD/HOW/TOLM did not have a Paladin, and then I made a party with one, and I noticed some different dialog options. This aspect was missing in BG, it seemed to me. IWD had the advantage of creating the complete party from the start, with limited NPC interaction. This allowed me to "filter" the party for the Paladin. Just some of my thoughts.

Lord Brass: I am blushing with embarrassment because I NEVER put two and two together regarding that shield spell. How many imbued wight magic missles have I absorbed, not recalling that spell. [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

And lastly, back on topic for Sir G. Just charge in and cut them down! Barring that, use the "Fog of War" to your advantage.

HOORAY!! My avatar is no longer that creeping looking dude with the veins bulging out of his skull - the acronym for which is: CLDWTVBOOHS [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 09-30-2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Keraptisdm ]

[Peytin of Rothmire]

Spoiler
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
My first run through I took a paladin. I had a fondness for them from BGII. But he instantly unmasked the Yuan-ti on Dragon's Eye Level 4 as soon as he got close! I had to reload, and leave the pal way back, then talk to the disguised yuan-ti with another party member. After that I was able to bring the pal forward and was alright for the rest of the level.

By the way, I'm afraid it was me that changed the thread...Sorry.

[Lord Brass]

That's alright mate. I'm glad you did, as I normally give paladin's pretty short shrift. Some of the things mentioned here have given me pause for thought if nothing else. I'm afraid my preconceptions of them are a left-over from PnP days too.

Oh yeah, back on topic: Shields up. Red alert and charge!

There are a couple of advantages to "discovering" that the monks/priests are naughty without using a paladin. As we've spoiled it a bit already perhaps...
*SPOILER*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1. That you can get over to the NPC party without having to fight your way there, and so release them when you want to.

2. If you reveal that all is not as it seems via an analytical survey of their library books (all of which are overdue and have big fines I bet) then you'll get the XP bonus. I'm sure I mentioned this just recently.

[ 09-30-2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Lord Brass: Paladins do have one limiting factor: their alignment. We've all read about people that cannot tolerate evil characters in their party if that party is predominantly good. This is an issue of playing styles I know, but it is still an important factor in whether you should play them or not. The simple solution should have been their obvious evil counterpart. This has never been something that any incarnation of (A-) D&D has been willing to accept. Siembieda's 'Palladium Role Playing Game', has a much better approach to this character class, but then they do not get the same abilities as here. You're obviously an "old" and well established player of the class Dundee Slaytern. I might go back and check my old prejudices out, and see if they have any validity at all. It might be that I'll be playing one next time we discuss the topic. You've given me, if not others, something to think about.

there was an AD&D (1st edition) class that was the antithesis of the paladin, the Assassin, dragon magazine later added an interesting, if somewhat misguided arch-enemy for the paladin, the Anti-paladin, anyway BG2 reinstated the Assassin (from the thieves handbook, with some alterations to make it more acceptable to BG2)

[Lord Brass]

The original offshoot of the rogue - I remember it well. The notion of an anit-paladin is reasonably sound, even if the name is not. After all, paladins are supposed to be shining examples of a particular faith (read alignment).

If you've ever played the original D&D series, the long-awaited Companion Boxed Set contained the rules for fighters "moving on" from their base classes upon reaching a certain level. 9^th level I believe. Good aligned fighters could become Paladins (though they would have to have 13 Wisdom to cast any spells). Evil characters could become Avengers, rubbish name but the same thing as a paladin (and they had to buy their spells if Wis=13). Neutral fighters could become Knights of a lord or establish their own realm.

The possibilities are there, but they have not been made use of as far as the core rules are concerned. Shame really, as alignment and ethos are often painted as two-dimensional, and they should be far from that in reality.

[ 10-01-2002, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

[Sir Goulum]

I disagree with the 'anti-paladin' thing. My paladins are doing VERY well, and haven't died as of yet.

[Micah Foehammer]

Lord Brass,

you forget a THIRD advantage to not revealing the deception too early:

Spoiler:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The mage in the room just to the left will actually sell you a few spells if you haven't revealed the truth about him and his mates. [img]smile.gif[/img]