NWN: Weird design, or am I missing something? (long)

Games
1

I recently started tooling around with NWN again. I noticed a couple of things about the character design that seem really weird:

  1. Racial stat modifiers. Unlike most systems, where you apply the modifier AFTER you roll (or buy) stats, in NWN the modifier is applied before. So, while human characters start with all 8s (before using stat points), an elf starts with all 8s, but a 6 Con and a 10 Dex. The problem with this system is that at a 6 or 7, your character has a -2 penalty applied for that stat. So, unless you’re willing to suck that up, the first thing you do is spend 2 character points to raise your low stat to an 8. I doubt people would suck that up in most stats, because it’s a pretty serious penalty (the manual, for example, recommends going to at least 10 in every stat). So presumably, every nonhuman character is going to spend 2 points right off the bat to raise their 6 to an 8.

Once you do that, though, your racial modifiers become meaningless. An elf who spends two points to get his Con to 8 is no better or worse than a human who spends two points to get a 10 dex. They have the same stats and same amount of character points left. That’s pretty lame–in AD&D (and in most fantasy RPGs), racial choice is really important, in large part because of its effect on your stats. In NWN, it’s pointless. This could be easiliy alleviated if NWN applied the racial bonus after you buy stats. I don’t understand why they decided to design it the way they did.

  1. Multiclassing. I haven’t played 3rd edition AD&D, but I think the NWN people went pretty much with the rules straight from the book. Even so, the system seems broken to me, so I don’t see why they went with it instead of changing it. In 2nd Edition, multiclass characters benefit from using separate XP tables. Since the XP tables are all exponential, a multiclass character isn’t too far behind. For example, it might take 40,000 XP to make 5th level, and then 80,000 XP to make 6th level. Therefore, a character with 90,000 XP could be either a 6th level fighter, or a 5/5 figther/thief (45K in each class). That always seemed about right: a 6 fighter is about as good as a 5/5 fighter/thief. I always thought the multis had a slight edge, but not that much.

In NWN, though, multis are terrible. You use one advancement table (for your “character level”), but each time you go up you can take a level in any class (giving you various “class levels”). This cripples multiclass characters. Using the prior example, you could be a 6 fighter, but you would only be a 3/3 fighter/thief (because you alternated where you put your character levels). The problem is supposedly balanced out because your class abilities stack rather than being mutually exclusive. So, for example, a 6 fighter might get +6 to hit, and a 3rd fighter gets +3, and a 3rd thief gets +2, say. The 3/3 fighter/thief gets to combine his combat bonuses, so he’s +5 to hit, almost as good as the 6 fighter. All is well.

The problem comes with classes that gain powers that don’t stack together. For example, a 3/3 fighter/mage, or 3/3 barbarian/bard, or any of dozens of other classes, suck in this system. The fighter/mage can’t fight (because he’s only like +3 to hit and has 22 avg hitpoints), and only has 2nd-level spells; he sucks ass compared to a 6 fighter or a 6 mage.

On the one hand, people might say “Well, obviously not all class combinations are good. Part of the game is picking classes that work well, with complementary skills.” Well and good, but the system as it’s made discourages many of the “classic” multiclass combos that are dear to many players and in fact discourages nearly all interesting multiclassing. For example, the classes that are primarily spellcasters–wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, bard–cannot effectively multiclass with anything, because they have to get their new spell levels as they advance to remain viable. Monks aren’t very good either, because they need to get regular access to their level-based abilities.

That leaves you with a bunch of idiotic effective multiclasses like “Fighter/Ranger” or “Barbarian/Rogue” that have complimentary abilities (so they stack together well). Who wants that? What’s the point of playing something like a Barbarian/Fighter or Paladin/Ranger? Why did they do it this way?

Another problem with it is that there’s a real temptation to take a single level in some unrelated class to get some cool 1st-level abilities. For example, a wizard or sorcerer might take a level in a fighting class to get access to better weapons. Anyone might take one barbarian level to get rage, dodge, and fast movement. Anyone might take one druid level to get the awesome “Animal Companion” special ability. Or one ranger level to get two-hand fighting. (This only works for humans and half-elves, or nonhumans playing their favored class as either their primary class, or the one they take a single level from, because otherwise you get an XP penalty. But still, that subset describes nearly everybody.) It seems like a lame sort of thing. Obviously I can just not do that if I think it’s lame, but then if I try to game with other people, I’m going to have my 6 ranger who is not that much different from, and is worse in combat than, the 1 ranger / 5 barbarian next to me. Lame.

2

I’m not a rules geek, but is it possible some of your issues are just 3rd Edition rules? Also, most choices were made for very good reasons. When I was working on the game I would ask programmers about how hard it would be to do task X. X seemed very straightforward to me, but once they explained the details and how difficult it would be to put in I soon realized that most choices are made on an effort/reward basis.

Also, there is still balancing and rule tweaks happening. Have you got the latest patch?

3

I do have the latest patch, and I find it hard to believe that (for example) it’s really hard to tell the computer to apply stat modifiers after the player clicks “OK” on the stats screen, rather than after he clicks “OK” on the screen before that.

I think the multiclass thing may be straight out of 3rd ed, although I’m not sure. Like I said, though, even if it IS a straight port of the rules, I don’t see why they didn’t change it. They apparently changed plenty of other stuff.

4

Sure everyone is going to raise their attributes to at least 8, but there is still much more going on here. Not all attribute increases cost the same amount, so those 2 points off really are going to cost you even if you try to raise your constitution. Here’s how it works:

You are given 30 points to spend. For a human character, all attributes start off at 8 and it costs one point for each attribute increase up to 14. It costs two “point buy” points to raise an attribute to 15 and another two to raise it to 16. It costs three points to raise it to 17 and another three points to raise it to 18.

For example, if I want to set my constitution to 10, it costs two points – one to raise it from 8 to 9 and one to raise it from 9 to 10. Now if I want to set it to 17, it doesn’t cost me 17-8 = 9 points, instead it costs me 13 points. It costs 6 points for incrementing from 8 to 14, another 4 points for incrementing up to 16 (since those increments cost twice as much), and another 3 points for the last increment from 16 to 17.

Now, how does this relate to being an elf? The -2 to constitution is taken before the graduated point cost system. Thus for an elf, for constitution it will cost them 1 point to increase constitution up to 12. It costs 2 points for them to increase their constitution to 13 and another 2 to increment it to 14. It costs them three to increase it to 15 and another three to 16. I think technically they can’t increase it past 16 for any price. So for an elf, raising constitution costs more than it does a human. In contrast, since elves start off with a +2 dexterity, so they can get dexterity increases cheap. So elves will always have lower constitution on average than humans and higher dexterity.

Hope my post makes sense. Anyway, I think the graduated point-buy system works very well (much better than a straight 1-for-1 system anyway). It allows players to have high attributes, but only at high cost. I think it reduces min-maxing, since the cost of setting one or more attributes to 18 is very high. 3rd edition DnD also does a much better job making all attributes meaningful (if you have low intelligence, for example, you won’t learn very many skills and if you have low wisdom, your Will saving throw sucks).

5

Yep, you’re right. Thanks. That makes a lot more sense.

6

“Sure everyone is going to raise their attributes to at least 8”

Why would they? What point does CON have for a mage with a fighter in front of him soaking up hits?

The only change from 2nd edition is that +s and -s actually have an effect in the 8-12 range now.

7

Okay, at the risk of seeming like a DnD geek …

Maybe. But I think having a 6 constitution means -2 hit points per level, so as I recall, since mages get 1-4 hit points normally, with a 6 constitution you’ll only have get 1-2 hit points per level. That’s going to make you very fragile if anything gets past your fighter up front. It’s also going to make you very dead if something manages to pump a few arrows into you.

Also, CON directly impacts fortitude savings throws. A wizard already has crummy fortitude to start with, and adding in a -2 on top of that is going to make them very vulnerable.

I think all 6 attributes really do make a difference in 3rd edition. I tried playing a rogue with an 8 strength (for the NWN Guild War module) and discovered that even though my Weapon Finesse let me use my dexterity to get hits, the -1 damage from my strength was just killing me. (Really terrific module by the way, highly recommended for anyone that wants to try playing a thief). Similarly, I discovered that having a low wisdom really sucks on will saving throws. Low intelligence means no skills. Dexterity determines reflex throws, missle weapons, and can provide an armor class bonus. Charisma is the only one which might not have an impact, and if the module designer did a good job, that one should make a difference as well.

This was definitely a good change. Before I think you needed at least a 16 to make a difference, so everything between say 5-15 was basically treated the same. Overall I think 3rd Edition is a much better game. I really like the feats too.

8

Hmm, good point.

9

It isn’t. They made multiclass characters a bit weaker than they were in 2nd edition, but 2nd edition multiclass characters were overpowered. A level 6 fighter is not “about as good” as a 5/5 fighter/thief–he’s worse. The thief has fewer hit points, but has nearly the same combat bonuses as the straight fighter, and can hide in shadows and backstab. It gets worse with some other combinations, such as a 5/5 fighter/mage. A 3rd edition 3/3 fighter/mage is less powerful than the 5/5 fighter/mage, clearly, but more in line with the level 6 fighter.

Remember that you still have the hit points, attack bonuses, and saves of a 6th level character, even if some of those hit points and attack/save bonuses are from different classes. It’s really not much different than averaging your hit points in 2nd edition, but with all your abilities. Clearly the 3/3 fighter/mage is not as good a fighter, of course, but he shouldn’t be. He has other skills to compensate. And you have the flexibility to make him a better fighter, if you want, at the expense of his other class. You can have a 4/2 (or a 5/1) fighter/mage, if you want.

The problem comes with classes that gain powers that don’t stack together.

I think you underestimate the importance of skill points, feats, and other abilities that stack across all classes, as well as the hit bonuses for non-fighting classes. Here’s a higher level comparison (10th level fighter vs. a 5/5 fighter/mage):

10th level Fighter
10d10 hit points (10-100; 59 average)
+10/+5 base attack bonus
6 bonus feats
+7/+3/+3 saves (Fort/Ref/Will)
Skill points: 28

5th level fighter/5th level mage
5d10+5d4 hit points (10-70; 44 average, assuming you start with fighter)
+7/+2 base attack bonus
3 bonus Fighter feats
1 bonus Wizard feat(metamagic, item creation, spell mastery only)
+5/+2/+5 saves (Fort/Ref/Will)
Skill points: 36

Now the fighter is clearly better in a straight fight, but the fighter/mage is hardly “crippled,” especially when you consider that he has a familiar, can cast fourth level spells (some in armor), and gets many of the bonuses that the fighter gets (access to martial weapons, extra feats, etc.). The fighter is probably a more powerful character, but only slightly (all things considered), and the multiclass character is more flexible (a “Jack of all trades, master of none”).

Now compare that the the 2nd Edition equivalent. 10th level fighter requires 500,000xp, which would make a 9/10 fighter/mage. The only tradeoff is that he has to average his hit points; in general, the fighter mage is going to hand the straight fighter’s ass to him on a platter in this particular confrontation. In fact, you barely even need to do the numbers to recognize that giving up one level of fighter to get 10 levels of mage is an enormously unbalanced deal. I never liked the way multiclassing worked in 2nd edition.

Another problem with it is that there’s a real temptation to take a single level in some unrelated class to get some cool 1st-level abilities. For example, a wizard or sorcerer might take a level in a fighting class to get access to better weapons.

I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, really. If you only take one level in fighter, you are never going to be great with those weapons. You’d be taking them more for flavor, which I think is just fine. If you want to play a wizard with a tiny bit of fighting expertise so that you can also weild a sword (like Gandalf with Glamdring), more power to you, I say.

To go back to your original comment, though, I think one of NWN’s problems is that skills and feats are considerably less usefull than they are in pen-&-paper 3rd Edition D&D. They had to trim a LOT of the skills out, leaving mostly only the combat-related ones, and the feats are trimmed back quite a bit too. This emphasizes some of the negative aspects of multiclassing.

10

[Major geek alert for my post here]

"A level 6 fighter is not “about as good” as a 5/5 fighter/thief–he’s worse. The thief has fewer hit points, but has nearly the same combat bonuses as the straight fighter, and can hide in shadows and backstab. "

Well, that’s a rather disingenuous way of putting it–the f/t can wear the same armor as the fighter, and can hide and backstab…but not at the same time. In other words, the f/t, if he wants to use his thief abilities, has to be wearing leather or lighter. So I think a 5/5 F/T is only a little better than a 6 fighter. He’s either got thief abilities but worse HP and WAY worse AC, or he’s got same weapons and AC, worse HP, and a couple of abilities he can still use in armor. As I said before–I agree multis had the advantage in 2nd Ed. But I hardly think they were vastly overpowered.

“It’s really not much different than averaging your hit points in 2nd edition, but with all your abilities.”

I agree with this as far as it goes–your saves, hitpoints, and physical combat abilities are an average of whatever classes you take, pretty much, and that’s fine for that. Like I said before, classes dependent on those skills–the fighter-types–do fine in 3rd ed.

The problem is that the majority of classes depend on things other than that to be viable–they depend on level-linked abilities like spells, and the special abilities that monks and (to a lesser extent) druids get as they advance. Those skills do not keep up if you multiclass in 3rd ed. Unlike 2nd ed, where you could expect to be only a level behind your single-classed friends, in NWN you will be at HALF of their level, rounded up. As time goes on, that makes you totally not viable as a party member. When your pal is a 7th level fighter with like 50 hit points and tons of combat feats, and you are a 3/4 fighter/mage with around 30 hit points, less combat ability, and second-level spells, you’re in big trouble.

“And you have the flexibility to make him a better fighter, if you want, at the expense of his other class. You can have a 4/2 (or a 5/1) fighter/mage, if you want.”

You could do that, but it would only exacerbate the problem–now your fighter is two levels down and he REALLY has nothing to show for it–two first level spells!

“Now the [10th level] fighter is clearly better in a straight fight, but the [5/5] fighter/mage is hardly “crippled,” especially when you consider that he has a familiar, can cast fourth level spells (some in armor), and gets many of the bonuses that the fighter gets (access to martial weapons, extra feats, etc.). The fighter is probably a more powerful character, but only slightly (all things considered), and the multiclass character is more flexible (a “Jack of all trades, master of none”).”

The only thing I agree with is that the multi is more flexible. The fighter is WAY better in a fight. If the mage wants to be able to cast spells with any reliability, he’s hardly wearing any armor (I don’t know why you say that “some” spells can be cast in armor, but maybe there’s a rule I’m missing. I thought all spells have a % chance to fail based on your armor). So he has fewer hit points (I got an average of 40), worse combat abilities, and WAY worse AC. His situation is somewhat alleviated because his mage combat bonuses, crappy as they are, stack with the fighter ones. But the lack of armor is a killer. He can’t stand in the line–even starting at round 3 or 4 after he unloads some spells. Unless, of course, he wears armor, but then he pretty much forgoes any use of his mage class.

His real downfall, though, is the crappy mage class. He has third level spells, not fourth, and they cast at 5th level of ability. And actually, change that “spells” to “spell,” because he only gets one. The kinds of monsters that 10th level fighters fight are not going to be that bothered by a single 5d6 lightning bolt, and that’s the absolute best thing this guy has to offer. After that, he’s basically done. See what I mean? The problem is that he doesn’t keep up as a mage, because his levels fall so far behind the party average and there’s nothing to “stack” with them to help make up for the shortfall, the way there is with a fighter. He’d be way better off jettisoning one class or the other.

11

Most of my 3rd edition knowledge comes from playing IWD2 (which implements rules differently from NWN or pen-and-paper), so my apologies if my observations are a bit skewed.

About racial attribute bonuses/penalties, ydejin pretty much covered how the point-buy modifiers work. In IWD2 the point-buy is just linear, in which case it makes less sense. The only (dis)advantage is the starting attribute caps, so the elf can start with 20 DEX, but cannot raise starting CON higher than 16. Really then it’s just a bookkeeping issue. The bigger differences are in the innate feats and abilities.

As for multi-classing, it seems the system is just plain different than 2nd edition. I find the system makes more sense if you ignore the class designations and simply think of character development in terms of abilities instead of XP. I prefer 3rd edition over 2nd edition (where it seems like multi-class characters received a disproportionately large number of abilities compared to their single-class companions).

  • Alan
12

Regarding the first post in this thread – why is it a problem that a fighter/barbarian multiclass makes sense while a fighter/mage doesn’t? I’d call that a feature, not a problem. In a party-oriented system like D&D, nobody should be proficient in two diametrically opposed professions. That’s only a problem with the single-player campaign of NWN, because it’s a single-character game for a party-oriented system, but the D&D rules can’t be held accountable for that.

13

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I have to agree with the sentiment that 3rd Ed. multiclassing is more reasonable than 2nd Ed. I’m not even sure if I ever played a character in 2nd Ed. other than a fighter/mage. In retrospect, I can see why: it gives you the best of both worlds, letting me cast spells and hack’n’slash. In fact, you’re almost shooting youself in the foot if you DON’T multi - why wouldn’t you want to be this uber-character. There just isn’t much of a penalty for doing so.

In a party-oriented system like D&D, nobody should be proficient in two diametrically opposed professions.

I find the system makes more sense if you ignore the class designations and simply think of character development in terms of abilities instead of XP.

Definitely on both counts. If you look around the web (and even in these forums, I think), you can find plenty of peoples “recipies” for homebrew classes. Only one that comes to mind is an archer class. It mostly multi-classes ranger and thief, with one level of fighter and maybe one of monk thrown in to get extra attacks per round. It definitely requires a lot more planning up front so you make sure you get all the right feat bonuses thrown in there. The trick is that (just like in…erm…“real life”) it’s easier to merge skills from similar classes. A person who’s studied fighting all his life should have a more difficult time getting up to speed in the scholarly pursuits of wizardry.

14

Well, at this point it’s just a basic disagreement on playstyle. You guys essentially concede that spellcasting classes cannot effectively multiclass, but you think that’s good rather than bad. I disagree, but there you go.

As for 2nd ed., I think the multis had an advantage, but not as good as you’re making out. In fact, I played three different PnP campaigns, and my two single-class characters (a ranger and a fighter) were both better than the multiclass mage/thief I played in the other game. Part of that was just my uniqure experience, though–I agree that multis are usually better, although only by a bit.

15

I think you can make effective multiclass characters using one (or more) spellcasting classes. Sure, they cannot cast spells quite as well as single class spellcasters, but otherwise there wouldn’t be any point in using just one class.

Some examples:
Sorcerer with one level of Paladin. More HP and weapon proficencies (bows anyone?) as well as excellent saving throws. (Paladins have saving throw bonuses for high CHA while CHA is the sorcerer’s primary stat.)

Wizard/Sorcerer with one level of Barbarian. More HP and faster movement (easier to keep your distance in a fight)

Cleric with a few levels of Fighter. Nice if you fancy warrior-like priests. More HP, more weapon proficiencies and more feats.

Wizard/Sorcerer with a few levels of Monk. If you’re not going to use armor anyway, why not? Monks have good saving throws as well.

Warrior with at least three levels of Cleric. Gaining access to bull’s strength (and similar spells) can be a huge boost.

Rogue with a few levels of Wizard/Sorcerer. Low-level spells such as protection from evil, shield, mage armor, etc. can be helpful to rogues of any level. Spells that doesn’t improve (much) with higher level is clear candidates.

I guess I would hesitate to split levels evenly when creating a spellcaster/non-spellcaster multiclass character.

16

Wow, a LOT of D&D geeks here.

To offer my say on some of things already covered here…

  1. Yes, multi-classing does make you a weaker character in most cases… it enables you to do more, but you aren’t as strong as a ‘straight’ char. That’s the way it should be.

  2. Yes, in almost every 3rd edition D&D game I’ve played, I end up taking one level of another class so I can get access to the feats/skills/abilities. A low level wizard is MUCH better with a level of fighter under their belt (now they can use a bow, have more hitpoints and an extra feat). Classes in 3rd edition are made to be mixed…that’s the whole point of one leveling system.

  3. Yes, NWN did lose a lot of the more interesting things about combat. Not saying they didn’t implement a lot, but they almost missed a lot. This made combat pretty much uninteresting (IMHO) and really limited the customization of the characters…which is the point of the feats and the skills.

  4. We should all get together and play some D&D, sounds like we have some real enthusiasts in the crowd. :)

-Matt

17

As for taking one level of some class just to get cool stuff-- I believe you take a 20% hit on XP if your classes aren’t within two levels of each other.

So if you were a fifth level fighter and first level mage, and the DM hands out 1000XP to each member of the party, you’d only get 800XP. Over time that adds up.

The only loophole to this is if you take a level of your race’s preferred class, so for instance if you were a fifth level gnome fighter and you took a level of illusionist, you wouldn’t get the XP hit.

I don’t know if that made it into NWN or not, but that’s what 3rd edition rules specify for multiclassing.

18

Yeah, I forgot to mention that before, thanks Dean. That’s a limiting factor that is good to have, stops many people from taking 1 level in 6 different things to get the basics.

Normally, I figure out a concept, figure out what race is going to allow me to do said concept (if I need to be a fighter/mage, then fighter or mage needs to be my preferred class). I BELIEVE that NWN also that in their game.

19

I just purchased Neverwinter Nights (slightly cheaper now in Australia) and like it so far. It is hard to get used to 3rd Edition Rules but interesting at the same time.

I currently have a pure Level 4 Wizard. Will a single class character allow me to progress through NWN or should I start thinking about multi-classing him ?

20

You shouldn’t have any problem getting through as a single-class character. Just make sure you get Toughness for the early levels–otherwise you could find yourself dying a lot.