Multiclassed characters -- what do you think of them?

[ister]

I agree with you on most of this but have a couple of quibbles. Philosophically I take your approach, one or two chanracters get all the best gear and absorb attacks while the rest deal out damage etc.

Originally posted by Aerich: You don't need to "plan" out who will be the lead if each of your characters is proficient or better in both a crushing and an edged weapon. I prefer versatility in each character over sheer strength in a more restricted area; doing everything well instead of being the best of the best in one area. Also, I can turn your own argument against you - what do you do with the GM-in-slashing-weapon characters when you run up against slashing-resistant enemies? Sit there? All of mine can attack and attack well with "only" specialization in crushing weapons.

But you need to plan to keep your tank/protected character in the lead anyway. And how many of these 100% resistant to slashing enemies are there? As I pointed out, GM with a slashing weapon is every bit as good as specialization with crushing weapons against an enemy with 50% slashing resistance. My point was always that the GM with the wrong weapon is almost always better than the specialist with the optimal weapon.

I've never needed GM to disrupt spellcasters. I tend to use missiles or spells (MM, MAA, Spike Growth, Web, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Death Fog, etc) or summons. An extra APR isn't going to help all that much. Further, a high level fighter multiclass has a good APR - I've seen 3.5 on some of mine, and that's good enough for me.

The disruption argument was simply a bonus. I agree that it's not important in the choice between GM and specialization. If you have 3.5 Apr on an MC it's because of a weapon that grants an extra apr. The GM would have 4.5 apr with the same weapon, or could have the same APR as your MC, but with additional bonuses from a different weapon. The weapons that do grant an extra attack are better used by specialists than by GMs, but they are extremely powerful for either.

Multiclass fighters are perfectly capable of causing enemies to flee in terror, you don't need to cripple your fighting capacity in one area of the game via dual classing to accomplish that.

FOr me this is the biggest trade-off.

[NobleNick]

Originally posted by Aerich: ... With respect, Nick, your dc strategy is only optimal for high levels, but not very high levels.

Yeah, I agree. Futhermore, it is not optimal for low to moderate levels (e.g., IWD-only games). My experience is from a narrow slice of the full IWD experience available: Virtually all my experience is with full parties, on Normal (no HoF) and doing the expansions in-line with the IWD game. I maintain that a more powerful DC character can be made for virtually any MC Fighter that you can dream up; but this game is about enjoyment, and building a DC Fighter(29)/Mage(30) does not appeal to me.

It's a matter of how and where you decide to balance your party... Playing style matters a lot... Because I prefer the higher difficulty levels, I favour a defence-first philosophy that avoids the chaos and risk of full-out melee. My strategy is based on sound positional tactics, caster disabling, heavy and intelligent spell usage, focus-attacks on the most dangerous enemies, and minimization of the opportunity for multiple enemies to attack in melee.

Your philosophy is sound. I get my jollies from seeing how EASY I can make the game without cheating. (O.K., O.K., so in times past I have even cheated.) I must admit that the extra beef my party packs around facilitates lax/unwise gameplay. For instance, I almost never use the "turn undead" capability of my Cleric, because I typically just don't need it. So, yeah, extra muscle tends to make you play dumb.

Second, it is more efficient healing-wise to have one or two highly protected characters take the brunt of the punishment.

Agreed, *if* you can keep him healed up. I have a main tank, and I try to let him tank; but I really enjoy the flexibiity of laying smack-down on enemies that don't comply with Plan A for crowd control. Also, having 4 to 5 heavy melee artists allows tactics not available otherwise. For instance:

A.) a single Sword Spider could take out my tank in 2-3 rounds; and there is nothing my Cleric can do about it. I let the lethal arachnid follow the tank into the group, while the Cleric offers up a Recitation or quick Prayer, then the entire group (except the singing Bard) slams in from all sides, with enchanted weapons in which they have specialized. The fight usually lasts less than a round; and often, no one (except the spider) takes damage.

B.) IWD is chock full of chokepoints that are easy for 3 or 4 characters to physically block but almost impossible for 1 or 2. Placing the tanks slightly forward in a staggered line of 4, allows the tanks to take most of the hits, while simultaneously allowing the more lightly armored GMS to deal melee-strength death from a relatively protected position. And, most importantly, this tactic allows control of a wide chokepoint. But it does not work well if your guys are just meat shields: They need to be able to eliminate the threat.

Whenever possible, I favour the use of spells to disrupt the flow, or the crush, of enemies. Having six characters going toe-to-toe with the enemy is fine if there's only six enemies, but it gets sticky if you're looking at 2:1 or 3:1 odds.

I usually try to make it very sticky (with multiple Webs) when facing 3:1 odds! I favor heavy magic use also (although you wouldn't be able to tell it from my current pre-DC party of 4 Fighters, a Cleric and a Bard). I don't know how my goon squad would get through without the modest magical and buff support that my Bard and Cleric provide. I was pondering this when my party met up with about a dozen Wights in DE. This is typically an ugly fight. However, the Cleric pumped out a Recitation, and the Bard's Web captured EVERY one of the Wights in a neat line, and then held EVERY one of them for the ENTIRE fight. Meanwhile, the two main Fighters (with rings of free action) simply started at one end and walked down the line, chewing 'em up at the rate of about 1.5 wights per round.

Using 2-3 melee specialists (and two archers/casters) instead of 5 is more efficient because it is easier to focus attacks without getting in each others way, and you don't waste time getting into melee position. It's also easier to get off a crucial battle-altering spell if your primary casters are not occupied in melee.

Good point on tactics; but don't forget that this tactic is available to a party with 4 GMs, too. In fact, it can be MORE effective, since the GMs can (and mine *will*) have 3+ stars in ranged weapons, instead of the MC or generalist's 1 to 2 stars. My F/T is going for GM in axes, which includes thown axe. Right now she is using a bow (with ZERO PP, ugh!) for range (cause I am too cheap to keep her supplied with throwing axes); but she should get her 5th PP in Axe about the same time that she gets the +2 returning axe. Oh-h-h, baby!

Given the above points, it is almost a waste to take GM with more than 2-3 characters. GM and full-on melee with dc F/Ts and F/Ds means those characters will take a fair chunk of damage. Moreover, using GM with dc fighter/casters is very dangerous if an enemy caster gets loose, and has potentially less effect on the battle than a well placed spell or three... If an enemy spellcaster is not immediately neutralized via spells, a melee party may be vulnerable to a Dispel Magic before the caster is tracked down and killed. [/QB]

Your argument seems to imply that just because a character has GM, he *HAS* to fight all the time. If someone is doing that, well, he is just playing dumb (refer to earlier paragraph, wherein I freely admit that players can be enticed to play dumb). Yes, a single well placed spell can easily be worth MORE than having TWO extra GMS for the full battle; and an intelligent player can usually FORESEE this possibility and use his F/M (with GM) accordingly. In any case, if that enemy spellcaster gets loose, your GM-equipped characters will be no worse off than your non-GM.

My F/M will primarily be a Mage, just a very tough one that doubles as a ranged attacker, and (in a pinch) CAN melee well. I am taking her all the way to CLVL12 (versus CLVL9) to get the extra natural THAC0 to make her bow more effective, since she is the only archer in the group. (I would like to take her to CLVL13; but, good gravy! SOMEONE has to DC before CLVL13! Hmm... maybe the F/T....) So the extra GM is just a bonus.

Now, on the F/D: That is a character that I hope to be effective in melee. My last experiment (DCed at Fighter 9 and with DEX=14) was a disappointment. This time it is STR=CON=DEX=18; and I will DC around F(13). I'll let you know how it goes.

On the F/T: I tried the DC F(9)/T, and (like the F/D) was disappointed: She just couldn't dish out the punishment, and couldn't take it, either. I don't see anything wrong with a DC F(13)/T, given that one wants Thief skills in the party. The party just needs to deal with the fact that this character will not have Thief skills for basically the entire IWD game. I will probably let her carry plate mail to don just after a fight breaks out (cheesy, I know).

Also, don't forget that with 4 GMs in assorted weapons, your party is more resilient in the face of enemies with resistance to certain damage types. In a party of 1 GM, if it is HIS weapon to which the enemy is resistant (or immune), then you are down to ZERO GMs.

NOTE: I didn't follow my own advice on GM spread of weapons between crushing and non-crushing; but have good coverage on crushing, nonetheless. Amongst melee-groomed characters, the plan is currently:

1.) DC F(13)/D . *****S (Large Sword) . ***C (Sling)
2.) DC F(13)/C . *****C (Mace) . ***C (Sling)
3.) DC F(13)/T . *****S (Axe) . *****P (Thrown Axe) . ***C (Mace)
4.) DC F(12)/M . *****S (Large Sword) . ***P (Bow)
5.) DC C(12)/R . **C (Mace) **C (Sling) **C (Hammer) **C (Flail)

So, a crushing-immune foe faces:
*****S
(DC F/C = useless)
*****S and (Ranged) *****P
*****S and (Ranged) ***P
(DC C/R = useless)

A Slashing-immune foe faces:
***C (Ranged)
*****C and (Ranged) ***C
*****P (Ranged) and ***C
***P (Ranged)
**C and (Ranged) **C

A piercing-immune foe faces:
*****S and (Ranged) ***C
*****C and (Ranged) ***C
*****S
*****S
**C and (Ranged) **C

So, the lowest number of effective GMs available in any case is 2 (for slashing-immune); and they have plenty of 3-star help. In the one case where 2 characters are totally useless offensively (crushing-immune), all 3 of the rest are effective GMs. Piercing-immune foes are rare, and will get the snot beat out of them in any case. Given that one of the GM slashers is the Mage, who won't be on the front lines much, this looks pretty well balanced, and is an example of what can be achieved with a "4 GM" party.

Hope you found this interesting.

--------------------
What's a party,
without a song?
Bards ROCK!
Party On!!


[ 10-05-2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: NobleNick ]

[krunchyfrogg]

Originally posted by NobleNick: My F/M will primarily be a Mage, just a very tough one that doubles as a ranged attacker, and (in a pinch) CAN melee well. I am taking her all the way to CLVL12 (versus CLVL9) to get the extra natural THAC0 to make her bow more effective, since she is the only archer in the group. (I would like to take her to CLVL13; but, good gravy! SOMEONE has to DC before CLVL13! Hmm... maybe the F/T....) So the extra GM is just a bonus.

If you can wait until level 13 to dual, you'll get an extra 1/2 ApR, which is well worth it IMHO.

[Aerich]

Some good points on all sides, I think.

I also favour the party-wide ability to hand out damage in melee, as well as by ranged attack and spells. That's why I go for MC fighters. My MC fighters can take down a HoF sword spider in 2-3 rounds, so I don't think their efficiency as fighters is much less than a DC. I can get away with playing careless as well, and often do for the minor fights on every level.

I think the MC or DC preference boils down to two related things: tolerance for going without full spell or fighting capacity during the game, and fun.

To me, it's not fun shepherding up to 4 DC characters through the game, DCing at high levels and missing out on the usage of their other class for a significant length of time. I will use a DC F[13]/M with pleasure, because I think the HP benefits and yes, the GM, make the DC F/M an ideal tank combined with the mage's caster-only spells. I just don't see it as worth it for the other classes.