Best Feats

[fable]

Might as well start this up, because it's going to be the subject of intense debate. What do you think are the best feats for specific classes?

[Pebz]

If you are starting these threads so we dont get multiple post regarding the same topic, you might aswell make them stickys

As for the question... I've heard that cleave is very good for fighter-types

[smass]

Cleave is pretty cool - my cleric/ranger looks bad ass when he chop someone down and then turns quickly to wack the dude biting at his ankles.

Also like 2 weapon fighting - but who doesn't?

[Skinbeard]

I find that the feats that are activated automaticaly are very useful for any class. Things like evasion, mobility, and such are great to survive those though few first levels...

[THE JAKER]

Power Attack and Greater Power Attack are very nice for fighters. I assign them to Quickbar slots so I can activate them easily and this should be done with other combat feats that have to be activated. Power Attack is useful in any combat AFAICT, especially fighting bosses where you have to dish out big damage fast. It seems quite balanced against the fighter's naturally hit BAB, in that I find myself hitting just fine with Power Attack activated. It's also great for "bashing" stationary objects.

Nobody should be without Cleave if they are going to engage in ANY melee combat whatsoever IMO- a pretty regular free attack is pretty much invaluable.

I don't want to derail the thread but what are people's thoughts on Dual Wielding? I believe in Baldur's Gate 2 and TOB it was pretty much accepted that dual-wield was THE path to ultimate combat power, and the trend seems to be continuing in NWN in that the opponents I have met that dual-wielded or used double ended weapons were......."difficult". However, becoming the master of dual wielding in 3E rules is quite costly in terms of feats and especially characteristic points for that 15 DEX requirement for Ambidexterity - is it worth it? Can a low-dex heavy armor fighter dual wield effectively without Ambidexterity and Improved Two Weapon Fighting? Does the Ranger Class only exist to allow people to circumvent the Dex restriction and receive Ambidexterity for cheap??? Only time and dedicated research will allow these questions to be answered my friends !!!!!!! (extra exclamation points added purely to taunt Fable )

[Pebz]

In the long run its basicly better and cheaper to dual-weild as a fighter than as a ranger because of the fact that fighters get ALOT more feats, so they can get all the dual-weilding feats AND wear better armor than light armor.

Also, in 3E, armor class tends to play a bigger role then it does in BG2 (2E)... so having a shield insted of 2 weapons can really pay of in many situations...

As for two-handers, you add your strenght bonus to you damage rolls (1.5x or 2x.. dont remember) so you can dish out a insane amount of damage.

[Kerwyn]

@ Pebz
Of course ur right about the fighter getting all those feats, but still they need 15 dex to get ambidexterity. Now a full plate (which i believe most pure fighters will be using) only allows +1 AC from dex. U get that at 12 dex so some points waisted there (except for reflex throws, ranged attacks, dex skills ... bla bla bla u name it). Is it really worth it ? A shield uses no feats, and as u point out urself: AC seems to be more important now, in some way. Still i agree with u, that a fighter would do better in the long run than the ranger, mostly cuz of the ranger beeing underpowered though. Which is an enterily different debate.

[THE JAKER]

Hmmm, well I started a new character to see how dual wielding was working for me - I tried a couple diff combos. First of all Rangers do NOT get Ambidexterity if their DEX isn't 15. I ended up going with straight fighter, now 3rd level, dual wielding, ambidexterity, power attack, cleave, and exotic weapon proficiency. The character uses the double sword. So far I am just playing through the early part of the game which I have already played with a fighter, longsword and tower shield style, and the dual wielding character is doing MUCH better.

Combats are quicker with less potions used and the 1st chapter battles that were quite difficult for the longsword/shield character (I won't name specific names here) have been far easier for the dual-wield. The extra attack makes a huge difference at early levels becuase most enemies only have 1 attack. The BAB penalties for not having improved 2weapon fighting have not slowed him down at all - I still use power attack in most combats and still score plenty of hits.

So my initial reaction is that dual wielding is the way to go for combat power. Of course any class other than fighter will have trouble stacking up the feats necessary.

[Wyvern]

Yeah, first of all note that I don't have the game so I don't know how these feats are implemented. But, wouldn't a rogue with ambidexterity and two handed fighting equiping daggers (which by the way offer less penalties) rock? If you make it human, you can get both feats at the first level. The real beauty is that the next feat you choose would be weapon finesse, so a high dexterity rogue will be really very good. Of course, consider the sneak attack advantage as well.

Of course, after that you can specialise in daggers and get improved two handed fighting...

[frudi]

ok, isn't anybody playing a sorcerer? or at least a mage?

[Kull]

@The Jaker

In third edition, the best fighters use two-hand weapons. The sword and shield can be useful. The two weapon route is simply not the best any more.

Of course, this game does not exactly parallel the RPG. The monsters seem to have been adjusted. So, if your experience is that two weapon feats are valuable, I'll have to give it a whirl!

[fable]

Originally posted by frudi
ok, isn't anybody playing a sorcerer? or at least a mage?

I plan on giving one a try, after a few more levels as a druid. But there's less incentive, IMO, to play a mage both with 3E, and in NWN. With 3E, because you have fewer spells, and because some of the best, handiest spells don't automatically become more powerful over time; you need to buy metamagics to increase 'em, and that wastes valuable bonuses and spell slots. Spellcraft? NWN, because a mage requires a good tank, and there's only adequate tank among the henchmen. If I could control the monk, the bard, the cleric or the rogue henchman better, they could probably tank for me. But they won't go where I need 'em, and let's not get into henchman spellcasting...! I don't think my wizardly heart can take the strain.

[Trix]

@above, is it not feasible to use summons as tanks then?

[fable]

Originally posted by Trix
@above, is it not feasible to use summons as tanks then?

Who's '@above," @Trix?

[Alvin]

I'm playin an elven wizard (7th lvl). I use Tom as a henchman and I find him a pretty good tank (atm anyway). But I also use a summoned dire wolf and my pet panther as tanks, so I've not had many probs so far. Both Tom and my familiar use *Sneak attack* wich is quite effective. IMO the wiz is a lot less effective than in BGII, but that might change on later levels or when I've had more exp playin with it.