AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - NWN EE Finished Classes

As a player of a muscle mage, I just cannot think of any reason I'd want Eldritch Knight as I see it here. Sure, a class that has wizard spell progression and fighter BAB progression sounds nice, but you need arcane prereqs just to get into it (meaning you've got to take mage anyways) and the feat progression is so slow and "eeeh" it's not worth taking over straight fighter. There's no realistic reason anyone is going to take this over a buncha wizard levels and dipping fighter instead.

If I wanted Auto Still (for some reason, IDK why you would since we hand out ASF armor here), I'd just rather go COT and actually get some stuff for my levels.

* * *

Still think Escape Artist needs a bit more fluff to make it compelling to take. Why take it when my Assassin is rolling around with multiple casts of Improved Invisibility at character level AND still gets sneak dice every other level?

Having seen Eldritch Knight elsewhere, I assure you people will run it.

MFW

Fellow gish-er. I can see similar concerns as MightNMagic. There are multiple uphill battles with full gish classes in NWN, the hardest being how we can give spell progression, but not spells known to my knowledge. Unless someone wants to play an exclusively self-buffing spellsword(read: Bard without Bard Song), I don't see anyone ever reaching that level 10 either. The Tenser's restriction, while it makes my heart happy, probably kills it for a lot of people, too. You're looking at a maximum of 5 AB more than going pure mage pre-epic, if you take full EK levels. Which is I think, like, ~3 more than you could get if you dipped Fighter pre-epic, depending on how many you have to spare? And then you still have access to higher level spells, Epic Spells, decent summons, and Tenser's. Still Spell and Auto-Still, while wholly theme appropriate, mean a lot less on Amia because the prevalence of ASF reduction. That's not a reason to exclude it, but just keep in mind why it isn't that attractive in itself.

The second concern is that the current incarnation allows Elven races to start wizard/sorc, ending up with a "standard" mage/melee(EK)/tumbler build. But any other race would have to dip a martial class for the proficiency. Thus limiting them to mage/melee/EK. The one workaround is taking Bard somewhere early to combine both your martial and tumble needs, but that limits viable builds for everyone without pointy ears.

TL:DR; Making a true hybrid arcane concept in NWN is really, really hard, because trying to go even in both styles makes you more mediocre at both than going mage and dipping melee. Mage gets a lot better by splashing melee than melee gets by splashing mage(at least in settings with standard UMD rules). Unless you can give additional spells known, it's hamstrung as a full PrC.

A possible tweak to the current class would be to require a Weapon Focus or similar combat feat instead of Martial Proficiency. You can get one of those during your mage levels, easily. That's also a bit limiting(you're either looking at Wizard weapons or Simple if you're a sorc), but it makes the class itself a bit more approachable to most builds, I'd think. You could still dip a tumble class early(monk, bard, rogue) to get the weapon focus in a weapon you might actually want to use later.

Alternatively, Abjurant Champion might be something to look at for inspiration. Not only in abilities, but in theme: a compact, 5 level class that can be switched out for the melee levels that gish builds already take. Something along the lines of Knight Commander, heavy buy-in, heavy pay-out. The main benefit would be these levels count towards your spellcaster levels, thus, making your 23 CL stab-wizard a 27-28 CL stab-wizard. That's basically what I foresee the current EK being used for anyway, given the most sizable payout is before level 5, and going full 10 EK runs into the issues already stated.

Edit: Not trying to get too down on the idea. Something is certainly better than nothing, and it's nice to at least have the mechanical option. I was bouncing some ideas off of msheeler once upon a time and might try to cobble together an example.

Updated.

I like the Cavalry class thus far.

However, for the mounted Archery thing, what I would suggest is inbetween your two suggestions. Have shooting from horse disabled unless you have the mounted Archery feat, but have the mounted archery feat not reduce the penalty from the base -4. I know this may require a little bit of scripting or something, but I think it would be worth it. If at all possible, I would also limit the weapons which can be used from Horseback to Shortbow and Javelin only, as outside of a few cases these are the common historical mounted ranged guys*. Whilst there are a few instances of other weapons, narrowing it down I think would have the effect of making people have to spec into mounted archery to use it, rather than any old AA jumping on a horse and being good at it. I also believe that Horses should be limited to outside areas, and indoors areas should force a dismount.

I believe that if we have horses we should have the capacity for mounted archery as such concepts are pretty cool. However, I do recognise the kiting aspect and think there should be Mechanical limitations, for example what I have suggested above. That way, if someone wants to spend the skill and feat investment to be incredibly good in a large open area, through riding around shooting things with a shortbow, then fine, let them. But it will only be in certain areas, and only with a certain, none optimal weapon.

* I know that arguements for Composite Longbows and Perhaps Light Crossbows, but shorter Mongolian/Turkish recurve bows and Javelin armed cavalry were the most predominant.

Don Is'def wrote:

I like the Cavalry class thus far.

However, for the mounted Archery thing, what I would suggest is inbetween your two suggestions. Have shooting from horse disabled unless you have the mounted Archery feat, but have the mounted archery feat not reduce the penalty from the base -4. I know this may require a little bit of scripting or something, but I think it would be worth it. If at all possible, I would also limit the weapons which can be used from Horseback to Shortbow and Javelin only, as outside of a few cases these are the common historical mounted ranged guys*. Whilst there are a few instances of other weapons, narrowing it down I think would have the effect of making people have to spec into mounted archery to use it, rather than any old AA jumping on a horse and being good at it. I also believe that Horses should be limited to outside areas, and indoors areas should force a dismount.

I believe that if we have horses we should have the capacity for mounted archery as such concepts are pretty cool. However, I do recognise the kiting aspect and think there should be Mechanical limitations, for example what I have suggested above. That way, if someone wants to spend the skill and feat investment to be incredibly good in a large open area, through riding around shooting things with a shortbow, then fine, let them. But it will only be in certain areas, and only with a certain, none optimal weapon.

* I know that arguements for Composite Longbows and Perhaps Light Crossbows, but shorter Mongolian/Turkish recurve bows and Javelin armed cavalry were the most predominant.

We do plan to introduce some sort of dismounting script for when people enter cities and perhaps certain dungeons. In Amia most caverns are actually huge so I can see someone riding a horse through it like a crazy bastard, plus balance wise it might be best to not kick people off of horses during PvE areas. We will see.

Overall I like your short bow idea and I believe I am going to go forward with it.

Going to add taunt and intimidate to the class as well, increase Temp HP (double it I believe), and decreasing the ride skill requirement to 5.

For alternative archer class ideas, I'd say check out Peerless Archer & Deepwood Sniper

Could put Peerless Archer down as not being compatible with AA due to ideology differences and requiring one to dedicate their entire life to mastery of their bow, that very same single mindedness not really allowing them to learn the "Art" to become Arcane Archers. (Could make it so you can't take it if you have any Arcane or Divine Classes for the same reason and making it a mundane archer).

10 Class levels (perhaps epic levels as well if someone wanted to make such)
Full BAB
Ranged Sneak Attack progression (Could be at any progression, the PnP version hit 4d6 at level 10, but could make it 3d6 similar to BG's for balance reasons)
Power Shot/Imp Power Shot (Power Attack but for bows? Perhaps using PnP's 2handed bonus damage for power attack? could make it -3ab +6 damage and -6ab +12 damage respectively)
Scaling Arrow Fletching ability (PnP version goes upto +5 arrows iircly, but could do something similiar to the aforementioned Warslingers Bullet Crafting as it's more suited to Amia)
Sharpshooting could be free Blind Fight, perhaps it could also have an additional bonus to AB while wielding a bow if the archer remains motionless for more then one round (or roots themselves in place like Dwarven Defenders defensive stance does?)

Deepwood Sniper was pretty much PnP's Bow version of a Weapon Master, could add additional requirements to it to make AA impossible to stack with, requiring Rogue/Ranger/Fighter levels to unlock the class?

Obviously their PnP abilities would need to be changed/balanced a bit to make them more interesting in Amia, but they might give a good starting point of ways one can consider going.

For Eldritch Knight and Tenser, have you considered maybe instead allowing them to use it, but changing the AB progression from CL based to similiar to Divine Power's AB increase? (BAB, so a 10 wizard, 10 Eldritch Knight would only benefit from 5, or a 6 wizard, 4 fighter, 10 EK might only benefit from 3 AB). That sort of change could be a general spell change or just when cast by a Eldritch Knight, that's upto you guys to make a call on. Could further customize it in the hands of an EK as well like having reduced Spell Failure chance with each additional class level taken (down to 0% at EK 10, putting it very similar to an arcane version of divine power at that point?)

Merely thoughts and stuff anyway.

I will add my two cents on the whole DwD and AA portion of this thread. Mostly because I'm not quite sure if there is a more fitting place to put the points other than the place it was mentioned:

Personally? I'm more in favor of simply opening up AA/DwD to be universal classes. Instead of making variations for every race for either. For two reasons:

1: Because there is, like Jes, Mav and a few other people have stated, no reason to have ICly different sources for similar abilities. Dragon Disciples, Pale Masters, Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics, Divine Champions, etc are all prime examples of that logic.

2: If you take a look at the number of races to make copies of a class with: Human, elf, dwarf, gnome, hafling, half-orc. If you take the arguement out that half-elf would be a combination of the two race classes. That's 6 classes for 6 races. Now, you take that you are doing that for both AA/DwD. That's now become 12 different PrCs. These don't even take into account the multitude of sub-races we have. Not only is that an obscene amount of work to make and make work for the dev team along with every other PrC they will be working on. But that also added to the PrCs we already have: Dragon Disciple, Palemaster, weapon master, Divine Champion, Master Scout, Dwarven Defender, Arcane Archer 7 prestige classes, along with the base classes: Fighter, Barbarian, Warrior, rogue, druid, cleric, paladin, wizard, sorceror, bard - 10 classes. 10+7+12 - 10+12 = 22+7=29 classes. Then even if you just add the PrCs that will be going in along with this already decided: Eldritch Knight, Warslinger, Escape artist, warlock - 4 classes. 29+4 - 33 classes.

I don't know about yall, but I really don't want to have to try and comb through a list of 33 classes and most probably more as a player, most of which are all mostly identical, just to find the class I want every time I need to take a level.

Both of these reasons are why I'm in favor of cutting the work, the IC breaking and the list in half by just opening up the two classes we have.

I would love to have every single class ever made in game.

The thing is not to have one for each, but to let those unique classes stay and add in a few more so each race has their own speciality PrC. To not undermine the flavour of a race. We can have AA and a universal archer PrC, we can have DwD and a universal tanky class. No one ever state the need for a unique PrC archer, melee, tank, rogueish type, etc for every single race out there. So you're really seeing issues where there is non.

Budly wrote:

I would love to have every single class ever made in game.

The thing is not to have one for each, but to let those unique classes stay and add in a few more so each race has their own speciality PrC. To not undermine the flavour of a race. We can have AA and a universal archer PrC, we can have DwD and a universal tanky class. No one ever state the need for a unique PrC archer, melee, tank, rogueish type, etc for every single race out there. So you're really seeing issues where there is non.

Jes wrote:

*looks at all the dwarven Dwarven Defenders running around*

*all...2 of them in the last few years?*

Might be an exaggeration, haha! But there really are few dwarves running around as it is. Let alone Dwarven Defenders. I do see your point in this, Budly. Maybe we can look into adding a racial PrC for all the races. So maybe we could get a few suggestions for these supported playable races in the suggestion topic (if we theoretically assume Warslinger for halflings):

Humans
Half-Elves
Gnomes
Half-Orcs
Evil/Good Outsiders
Fey
Genasi Outsider
Goblinoid
Reptilian

It was in fact mentioned yes. Also: If every other vastly unique concept for archery/Damage Reduction build can be universal, even when there are multitudes of various different PrCs that give each one something unique to bring to the concept, with a vast amount of lore and culture with every single racial PrC with both concepts. Why by any logic would AA/DwD be the only two that get to have their unique integrity intact? When everyone could be treated fairly and equally to have their mechanical concepts identical but have vastly different and heavy IC concepts like lore, culture et cetera to bring to it?

AA and DwD and Warslinger is clearly racial bound and should be.

There was never ever stated that we need an racial archer for all races, but morely I believe it was based on having a unique racial PrC for all races. Not one from every "class type".

The AA and DwD is artforms and traditional racial and cultural "ranks" in Elven and Dwarven society. As I said before, if we remove the DwD being uniquely Dwarven, we probably see even LESS Dwarves than now if someone want to use a perhaps buffed up DwD if that happens for example.

1 special unique racial for all races if possible and then we can have universal. Not everything need universal.

Last edited by Angelis96 on Sun, Apr 28 2019, 12:11 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Angelis96 wrote:

If every other vastly unique concept for archery/Damage Reduction build can be universal, even when there are multitudes of various different PrCs that give each one something unique to bring to the concept, with a vast amount of lore and culture with every single racial PrC with both concepts. Why by any logic would AA/DwD be the only two that get to have their unique integrity intact? When everyone could be treated fairly and equally to have their mechanical concepts identical but have vastly different and heavy IC concepts like lore, culture et cetera to bring to it?

That still doesn't really answer this question.

Jes wrote:

*looks at all the dwarven Dwarven Defenders running around*

*all...2 of them in the last few years?*

Might be an exaggeration, haha! But there really are few dwarves running around as it is. Let alone Dwarven Defenders.

robbi320 wrote:

I'd argue it's already like that, that people only play dwarves if they enjoy dwarves. Few people play dwarves because of the DwD class. Otherwise, why are there so many more dwarves than there are DwDs on Amia?

Are both points made that I 100% agree with that counter the concept that having DwD made universal will have any effect on dwarven player count.

robbi320 wrote:

Why are most of the elves I can think of, thinking back, not AAs, if people wouldn't play elf without AA?

Same thing I concur with for AAs

I am not quite sure what you're on about. All I am saying is that I would like to see the unqiue racials we got stay the way they are in the requirement sections.

I'm still of the opinion that opening up the racial classes (and adjusting the requirements a bit) would not remove current RP and lore. I also don't like the idea of having to make a generic archer class that's restricted from elves because we don't want them to double-dip. We'd have the same concern for Dwarven Defenders. Do we really want to make them able to stack those classes? Or force them into racial RP they maybe don't want by disallowing them from taking the new class? That's a real balance concern, and one of the reasons I favor just opening it up and changing it a bit so more races can take it - including elves. Elves can still RP the class how they want to, as the elven variant. We already have stuff like this for other PRCs, like Weapon Master.

But we've had this discussion a few times now, so we'll take it to the Team to discuss properly - seeing as it's still a concern.

Jes wrote:

I'm still of the opinion that opening up the racial classes (and adjusting the requirements a bit) would not remove current RP and lore. I also don't like the idea of having to make a generic archer class that's restricted from elves because we don't want them to double-dip. We'd have the same concern for Dwarven Defenders. Do we really want to make them able to stack those classes? Or force them into racial RP they maybe don't want by disallowing them from taking the new class? That's a real balance concern, and one of the reasons I favor just opening it up and changing it a bit so more races can take it - including elves. Elves can still RP the class how they want to, as the elven variant. We already have stuff like this for other PRCs, like Weapon Master.

But we've had this discussion a few times now, so we'll take it to the Team to discuss properly - seeing as it's still a concern.

I really, and I mean -really- think this is removing from the RP. If you open up the AA to all races, It will undermine the RP I have on Sylv, a lot of her identity is in her pride for the Elven race and their typical cultural things even if she herself was born in a Human village and got a very twisted view of it. She is proud of the Arcane Archery, proud of the achievements of the Elven people. If then suddenly, a Human comes up and does exactly the same, equally good if not better at it, swirling an arrow oddly and in engine shows they do Arcane Archery. That will not only undermine my character but Elves as a race, Arcane Archer as a class and "you get what you see" which many seem to follow and even is a rule in some communities will remove any unique flavour and taste to PrCs.

The stacking can be easily fixed by rules, you cannot stack classes if you pick one of them, the other may not be picked.

But im diligent in standing by that I rather have unique cultural, religious and racial classes and races than open up everything for balance, diversity and gameplay. To me this is about the lore, story and roleplay more than that so I hope we rather get more options than less options but universal such.

There is literally no reason that it should change the RP. So what if it turns out a human can be a good archer, too? They CAN be in PnP. I'm really not going to support balance decisions based on what exceptionally proud characters think IC. Neither do I want to shoehorn races into having to RP certain things they perhaps don't want to. I've played many AA's over the years. My first main character was an AA and she was awesome. The RP was awesome. My current AA's are awesome.

I do not feel like any of that RP is going to be compromised just because we may expand the class to allow for other variations and races to be viable bow archers. It's not gonna suddenly change how I RP them, either, and you shouldn't feel that it would. But as I said, we'll discuss it as a Team.

Jes wrote:

There is literally no reason that it should change the RP. So what if it turns out a human can be a good archer, too? They CAN be in PnP. I'm really not going to support balance decisions based on what exceptionally proud characters think IC. Neither do I want to shoehorn races into having to RP certain things they perhaps don't want to. I've played many AA's over the years. My first main character was an AA and she was awesome. The RP was awesome. My current AA's are awesome.

I do not feel like any of that RP is going to be compromised just because we may expand the class to allow for other variations and races to be viable bow archers. It's not gonna suddenly change how I RP them, either, and you shouldn't feel that it would. But as I said, we'll discuss it as a Team.

The thing is, Non Elves, cannot do arcane archery! But with the proposed changes, they can do so. No matter what you people say, mechanically they will do Arcane Archery. Dwarven Defenders? Suddenly a a Half Orc know the art of it. It undermines the RP, it undermines the races, it undermines the cultures. It is not about being a good or bad archer. It is about undermining the races by taking something away from them and give it to all. I know it won't be Arcane Archery or Dwarven Defending but mechanically it be the same, look the same, feel the same.

I rather see more added PrC than removal, more PrC and some racial uniques for each race if possible. Warslinger is a nice add on for a unique Halfling race too.

Warslinger is not a halfling-only PrC in Amia EE, at this time.

Jes wrote:

Warslinger is not a halfling-only PrC in Amia EE, at this time.

...Why not? Why did you people ask for racial PrC's then?

I asked for suggestions and said "Theoretically" if Warslinger was for halfling. Because we haven't decided to do racial PRCs. It was a request for suggestions, in the event that we did do it. Which we haven't.

Jes wrote:

I asked for suggestions and said "Theoretically" if Warslinger was for halfling. Because we haven't decided to do racial PRCs. It was a request for suggestions, in the event that we did do it. Which we haven't.

Well, that gave me hope it would be racial bound. Damnit! :cry:

Haha. Sorry. Yeah, no, I don't make such decisions alone - no DM does. So don't take things single DMs say to mean that it'll be that way. Just like my arguments for the dragon-related PrCs don't mean they'll happen. It just means I wish they would. :lol:

Personally, I find characters who are unique far cooler than some generic "chinese mass-production". Now, it might come from the fact that I oftentimes struggle with such characters, at least in my own opinion. But what I have certainly noticed is that many awesome characters I've either heard of, or perhaps just barely met when I was new, had some form of niche they filled. I could probably fan-boy here for hours about characters I find interesting, but it boils down to this: While a character's build is a large part of a character, it might be even be one of the most important parts of it, since every mechanical bonus, and a lot of RP comes from a build, a character -has- to be more than just a build.

Whether that "more" is from mechanical requests, or even RP ones, or background, actions, whatever. A character is a lot more than just three sets of classes, each with a number attached, totaling up to 28-30. What is an Arcane Archer, currently? It's an elven master of ranged combat, and magic. Gracefully combining bowmanship and arcane prowess, weaving the two together, forming an artform out the two that takes ages to master.

Now, what I would, personally, argue for, is two and a half things: Change to the name to some form of "Awesome Archer", remove the elven restriction, and perhaps even remove the arcane restriction. (Now, this is just me, and there are a few reasons why people might not like it, balance being one, but I'm just putting my voice out here, and arguing from this corner, from what I would think would be best for lore)

What that would do is make Archery a valid form of combat for all races. You wouldn't have elves dominate the field. In lore, elves should be far better at magic, and sword-fighting than humans as well. They've had hundred(s) of years to perfect their art, so why are elves so shitty mages compared to humans on Amia? Because gameplay. Archery is the same.

Now, it doesn't mean we'd be removing Arcane Archery. You take "Awesome Archer" class, a few arcane levels, and whatever else, thus having literally the same build as now. The only change is your character sheet, which, by the way, if another player looks at it, pretty sure that's rulebreaking, since the only way they can do that is by logging into your gamespy account. Might not even be that, but still. Your build, feature-wise, is literally unchanged. In character, you can still call yourself an Arcane Archer. you -are- an Arcane Archer. It's no different than Richard would've called himself a duelist, despite there being no such class, at the current time. He was a rapier-focussed dex WM, but he basically -was- a duelist. People have requested to play Favored souls, emulated by Cleric. Or hell, even Dragon Disciple is a nothing more than a huge emulation. Just recently, there was a request for some Monk/WM calling himself a "Kensei" instead of a Weapon Master, because it apparently would fit the RP for the character better.

And much the same would go for Elves. Arcane Archers still -are- Arcane Archers. But other characters could, and would come up, and play archers as well. It takes nothing away from elves, because nothing is being taken away. They still get their class, they still get their RP behind it, but humans could make a new niche as archers as well. Could they call themselves Arcane Archers? No. No more than Richard could call himself an Archmage. He doesn't fit the requirements. You don't need a mechanical class to -be- a class, in the roleplay of a character.

Sylv could still be an Arcane Archer, and could even brag to the other archers, because they're just lowly "human archers". They're shit at what they do. The only one who deserves even holding a bow is her, because she's an elf, and Solonor gave -her- the gift of Arcane Archery, not some dumb human who took up a bow and tried to use it.
She can still claim it's magic that directs her aim, which is something that few other characters could likely claim, because Arcane Archery still is an elven art.

... And I could write up this same thing for Dwarven Defenders as well, but I'm honestly too lazy to do that, unless another discussion of that comes up. But it's basically the same case. Dwarves still are the masters at it, because they're dwarves, and they're inherently too -stubborn- to take damage, but humans can still learn to withstand some damage, through whatever RP you want to.
Same even goes for any other classes that may or may not be racially bound. There really is little reason to restrict classes based on their lore, because those races -will- always be better suited to it. If a human wants to train with a sling, why wouldn't he be good at using it, just as good as a hin? He'd just look absolutely dumb with it, because what grown-ass man would ever use a sling to fight stuff, but still.

^ Everything Robbi said is how I personally view it, too.

Not the same, it still undermine it, the noN Elves STILL have the same arcane trickery. How you gonna explain that?

No, I will as I said before, simply put, not stand by removing the racial restrictions and the uniqueness. This is lore, this is culture, this is history. This will undermine it no matter what. If everyone runs around with Arcane Archer, then it waters down the Elven cultural artform, or if its changed to "Advanced Archer" or something, no, I am not a Arcane Archer then. I never been keen on the "substitute" request classes, I think I will never like that. If Arcane Archer or Dwarven Defender is changed to universal, it will take away from Sylv and Tetrik. It won't be the same. Thats my opinion. This is a personal opinion for my characters and RP. But I also stated to me, valid reasons why it should be kept as it is and a universal variety should be added.

It is funny, "Some dumb Human cannot use Arcane Archer", as the same Human do exactly the same trick archery BS a Arcane Archer can do. Nice try, but im the most stubborn and stalwart player on the server when it comes to my viewpoints and mindset

Non-elves won't have arcane Trickery, then. With my suggestion, at least, it wouldn't be arcane. It would be 100% mundane -unless- an it's an Arcane Archer, elf, and all that.

And an exploding arrow? The goblins in the Stinkpot warrens (by Cordor) have that trick. Does that diminish Sylv too?

Opinions are good and all, but consideration needs to be placed on the time of creating an entire class out of nothing, which does the same as AA, or just adjust the existing class to be available for everyone.

Regardless of personal view, benefit of the many is preferred. By Lore we should have thousands of things, but this is a game and I want personally prefer enabling others to make viable builds for new RP paths. If that means making away with DwD and AA, so be it. You can use lore to flesh out the concept, as was done with bladesinger, while using the classes we have to make the mix.

robbi320 wrote:

Non-elves won't have arcane Trickery, then. With my suggestion, at least, it wouldn't be arcane. It would be 100% mundane -unless- an it's an Arcane Archer, elf, and all that.

And an exploding arrow? The goblins in the Stinkpot warrens (by Cordor) have that trick. Does that diminish Sylv too?

That be extra coding? I been told the problem is that it takes "coding" and "script" to add more classes. If they gonna code so the Elven based things in AA cannot be used by non Elves...I am pretty sure that be a totally own thing under a different class tag.

If its exactly the same thing as a AAs ability, yes it diminish the Elven race if a Goblin has somehow gotten AA abilities.

Quote:

Opinions are good and all, but consideration needs to be placed on the time of creating an entire class out of nothing, which does the same as AA, or just adjust the existing class to be available for everyone.

Regardless of personal view, benefit of the many is preferred. By Lore we should have thousands of things, but this is a game and I want personally prefer enabling others to make viable builds for new RP paths. If that means making away with DwD and AA, so be it. You can use lore to flesh out the concept, as was done with bladesinger, while using the classes we have to make the mix

Time or not, I will not change my opinions. If DwD and AA is removed while newer PrCs is added in to remove bad subtitute classes like Warlock and Blighters, then I be highly disappointed. It is a borderline cause of leaving the server since I think it is a drastical change to racial things, racial unique things which I think is a great thing to have to seperate things and make unique things.

Not everyone plays the same, I think mechanics and classes can enable RP paths to. I rather have us as much lore bound things as possible we can have than make away with the lore bound things to have "Universal" classes. More options done well is always better than fewer options. Streamlining can be good, but also be bad. Lore can be used, but I always feel its a bit phony not to be able to have the class properly but substitute it with some odd mixed homebrew alchemy pot potion.

We had a PrC called Purple Dragon Knight. It is specific lorewise what they are... we opened it and now the server and the characters benefit from the Knight Commander. It does not diminish Purple Dragon Knight roleplay.

We had a PrC called Harpet Scout It is specific lorewise what they are... we opened it and now the server and the characters benefit from the Master Scout. It does not diminish Harper Scout roleplay.

We had a PrC called Champion of Torm. It is specific lorewise what they are... we opened it and now the server and the characters benefit from the Divine Champion. It does not diminish Champion of Torm roleplay.

Those who argue for opening the classes have voiced their opinions.

Those who argued against it have voiced their opinions.

I already voiced mine.

If a new person wants to voice their opinion ... great! We just need to let them have room to write it out without naysaying it, over and over and over again for each new person.

But, please, as the OP asked : :wink:

Maverick00053 wrote:

Please move the removing racial discussion to the other thread.

Haha! I was looking for that quote and couldn't find it. Thought I was crazy. Thank you. xD

Yes, please. No more discussion about that here. It's not going anywhere and this is for finished class changes.

Jes wrote:

Haha! Thought I was crazy.

*snip* edit *snip*

There we have it, admission the dragonlady is crazy!

Don't bring back the topic all the damn time then if you don't want it discussed

Seeingly it just will be that we gonna murder these racial classes, least altar the names then and abilities to not be arcane.

EDIT: And the Champion of Torm is a simplification in the NWN game but the Purple Knight I would have said the same about.

Stop discussing it here. I know you weren't the one to bring it up this time, but I'm not telling only you.

Finalized and finished all the work for both the Cav and Escape Artist class. I made some adjustments for both the classes based on feed back. Moving onto other classes now.

Eldritch Knight is going to make spellswords actually good. I approve. It does force you to choose between more fighter or anrogue dump though. Which I also like.

New class added.

Personally I would recommend two weapon fighter dropping two weapon fighting as a feature and making it a requisite for the class. Then you can possibly bjmb down some abilities and make its cap stone something that mitigates the penalty for using two weapons. Remove epic prowess entirely and make players take it independently.

I really like the two weapon fighter! Already trying to see how I could fit it into a build.

I am also a bit concerned if the class is a bit strong, being able to dual wield without loosing out on more than 4 AC is pretty good. Compared to a +5 tower shield you'll miss out on 4 AC. You also mentioned a new two weapon fighting change/feat that lowers the ab penalty on medium sized weapons. These two combined makes dual wielding a lot more appealing! (which is the point, of course) but I am concerned it will make the benefit of using a shield so negligible that unless you start using the two weapon fighter class your build will automatically be subpar.

One thing I am curious of is if any of the two weapon fighter class' features will be brought to the ranger as well? I know some builds use ranger lvls for more ab and the free dual-wielding feats (though fighter can be used for this as well).

For the games sake, I do not think we should go to crazy on "New stuff". We do not want to end up in the "New expansion" tier where old classes end up obselete and underpowered compared to old.

Budly wrote:

For the games sake, I do not think we should go to crazy on "New stuff". We do not want to end up in the "New expansion" tier where old classes end up obselete and underpowered compared to old.

While I raised my own concerns regarding this, I don't think it will be a huge issue. I trust Maverick, and the other balance gurus that are weighing in on these classes, both in this thread nad behind the scenes, have considered most of these things before Maverick posted them in this thread.

Shadowfiend wrote:

Budly wrote:

For the games sake, I do not think we should go to crazy on "New stuff". We do not want to end up in the "New expansion" tier where old classes end up obselete and underpowered compared to old.

While I raised my own concerns regarding this, I don't think it will be a huge issue. I trust Maverick, and the other balance gurus that are weighing in on these classes, both in this thread nad behind the scenes, have considered most of these things before Maverick posted them in this thread.

Well, that is true indeed. I cannot say I have any insight into the mechanics as ome others do and the "behind the curtains" work is probably much more refined then the chaos of a thread

On the other hand, Amia is not a MMO nor a dotalike game where I to many times seen the most insane balance issues with new classes/heroes. But reading what you said, yeah Maverick got his eyes on this!

Budly wrote:

Shadowfiend wrote:

Budly wrote:

For the games sake, I do not think we should go to crazy on "New stuff". We do not want to end up in the "New expansion" tier where old classes end up obselete and underpowered compared to old.

While I raised my own concerns regarding this, I don't think it will be a huge issue. I trust Maverick, and the other balance gurus that are weighing in on these classes, both in this thread nad behind the scenes, have considered most of these things before Maverick posted them in this thread.

Well, that is true indeed. I cannot say I have any insight into the mechanics as ome others do and the "behind the curtains" work is probably much more refined then the chaos of a thread

On the other hand, Amia is not a MMO nor a dotalike game where I to many times seen the most insane balance issues with new classes/heroes. But reading what you said, yeah Maverick got his eyes on this!

No offense, but since I know how you struggle with building characters mechanically, I think you should leave the balancing to Mav, Budly.
So far, I see potential for new interesting builds, but so far I have not come up with an insanely overpowered combination.

To be quite honest, the strongest thing with the new changes I can come up with is the RDD I gave you.

If something breaks, it'll be fixed.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Personally I would recommend two weapon fighter dropping two weapon fighting as a feature and making it a requisite for the class. Then you can possibly bjmb down some abilities and make its cap stone something that mitigates the penalty for using two weapons. Remove epic prowess entirely and make players take it independently.

The class allows for sub 15 Dex characters to TWF by giving them Ambidex for free in the class, that opens up a huge build subset.

Maverick00053 wrote:

Below is a list of classes that are complete in the hak. [/olala]

When you say in the hak is that the Amia EE? If so could I hop on to help with testing?

So I made some TWF adjustments based on feedback.

REQUIREMENTS:
BAB 7+
Power Attack
Lightning Reflexes

And Medium Weapons now are treated as small for medium characters, and small weapons as tiny for small characters for dual wielding AB penalty purposes once you reach level 5.

LordAzack wrote:

Maverick00053 wrote:

Below is a list of classes that are complete in the hak. [/olala]

When you say in the hak is that the Amia EE? If so could I hop on to help with testing?

Yeah. The current Amia EE server up doesnt have the most current hak. I am going to get a few more classes done before finalizing the hak. Then ill put it up for testing so we can work out all of the class kinks.

I have 3-4 more PRCs that I am considering.

Combat Medic PRC, Epic Monk PRC, Crossbow PRC, and a Duelist (One sworded user) PRC.

Very awesome. I just got EE and would love to add Amia to my video-game testing resume.

Currently I am a Suppertester for Wargaming. I have also tested for Warthunder as well as a bit of stuff for KSP WAAAAAAAAAY back in the day.

Maverick00053 wrote:

So I made some TWF adjustments based on feedback.

REQUIREMENTS:
BAB 7+
Power Attack
Lightning Reflexes

And Medium Weapons now are treated as small for medium characters, and small weapons as tiny for small characters for dual wielding AB penalty purposes once you reach level 5.

This class fills a niche that I think NWN 1 is missing, however the prerequisite of having Power Attack kind of makes the class feel like it should be expanding on being a strength based class, I suppose it also being a prerequisite for cleave could make some sense, as that route of being able to cut your way through many enemies due to your force of fighting, but reflected in the feats you get for having power attack feels a little bit strange to me. The feats you get are awesome, I love the idea of two weapon defense, but something like a Weapon Focus in a weapon makes a bit more sense to me, on the basis that this is a fighting class, or dodge to reflect that it is a class that relies upon being able to block with it's weapons or dodge out of the way of attacks, though understandably those two prerequisites have been done to death with other PRCs.

If with the two, the aim was to ensure that characters have a balance between strength and dexterity to be able to enter this class, then Dodge and Power attack would feel a bit more of a fair representation. Or maybe something like Combat Expertise and Dodge to reflect that the fighter isn't just your standard sword and board kind of guy and has to think a bit more about how he moves through combat.

Mostly just attempting to convey thoughts on the change. Two feats seems fair as a prerequisite considering what you get out of the class, but power attack just seemed like a bit of a jarring choice. Regardless if the class remains the same when we get to EE I will be using it.

I also think Power Attack is a bit of a ... Weird choice.

Weapon focus on the other hand would not be a proper prerequisite - You take a weapon focus no matter what anyways.

Weapon Spec would mean you need fighter which completely would kill the diversity of this class.

Maybe something less Stat-Focused, like Skill Focus: Discipline (Or Parry :^) )?

NWN EE Finished Classes - Discussion/Balance

Who is online