GameBanshee Forums

Fable, since I know you've had a pre-release copy for awhile, I'm hoping you can answer this....

The various sub-races that have higher effective levels (drow, duergar, svirfneblin, etc).... just how much is this a negative as the game advances?

I started a svirfneblin druid last night and the +3 effective levels might be a headache, or not. I'd rather discover it now then a couple of dozen hours into the game

Also, I've heard there are some dialogue options only available to half-orcs. Have you seen dialogue options that are only available to various subraces?

There's no absolute. Simply put, you can use sub-races to your advantage, or you can use 'em badly--it's all how well you play the game.

For example, I would *never* choose a sub-race with an experience drawback for a wizard or sorc. It could be done, if a player really wants a huge challenge, but it really brings in no benefits.

On the other hand, if you plan to play a bard, I think a drow makes a very good choice. Spells take longer to arrive, but the bonus to CHA means that you'll ultimately have more spells, while you can use your attribute points to build a better all-around character--and you'll be able to use him for that, since the Lingering Song feat means a song will continue while your bard does other things for two rounds.

Hope that helps.

For example, I would *never* choose a sub-race with an experience drawback for a wizard or sorc. It could be done, if a player really wants a huge challenge, but it really brings in no benefits.

Hmm. My current line up -is- a drow wizard, a duergar cleric/fighter and a svirfneblin druid. Perhaps I should rethink this; I'm open to suggestions. What it comes down to is I plan to play a party of the following races:

Svirfneblin
Tiefling
Aasimar
Drow
Duergar
Half orc

...and the following class combos....

Paladin/Fighter
Fighter(or Barbarian)/Rogue
Cleric (w/ a couple of fighter levels)
Druid (preferably with a couple of fighter levels)
Monk (pureclass)
Wizard (pureclass, or possibly a level or two of bard later on simply to get bardsong)

Any suggestion as to a better method to assign race/class then what I've got now, which is...

Aasimar pal/fig
tiefling rogue/barbarian
duergar cleric/fighter
svirfneblin druid
half orc monk
drow wizard

As with other, similar BIS and Bioware games, there's no single route to success: just some paths are harder than others. My own current party is as follows:

Human fighter
Human druid/fighter (9th level druid, 2nd level fighter)
Strongheart Halfling rogue/ranger (10th level rogue, 1st level ranger--gets ambidexterity and two weapons fighting free)
Aasimar Lathander Cleric
Drow Bard
Human Wizard

Were I to play again (which I may), I'd definitely figure in a monk, and try a different kind of cleric, just for fun. But I wouldn't change much else. Barbarians have little going for them, and rangers even less, IMO. The good thing about humans is that they gain one free feat, and since I think feats are of major importance in the game, I don't want my party to be caught with its, er, feat down.

As with other, similar BIS and Bioware games, there's no single route to success: just some paths are harder than others.

Very true. I'm not looking so much for a power gaming route (in large part the races I've selected preclude it) as just a desire to play with these races. Still, I don't want to hamstring myself too badly. I may, eventually, try doing that deliberately....a party of six svirfneblin has a certain appeal... but not for a first run through of the game

The good thing about humans is that they gain one free feat

Absolutely. Every single character I played in NWN was a human, for just this reason. Still, I figure that with six characters, there's plenty of opportunity to spread feats around usefully. I'm more worried about xp penalties from multi-classing to non favored classes and from effective levels.

By all means, try out all the races: some of 'em look great. There are also different verbal reactions to various races and professions, including one or two tiny quests that are profession-related. In general, though, much of it is fluff. I put my character with the highest CHA and diplomacy/intimidate/bluff skill at the front in discussion--my bard--and move up my fighter for combat.

One thing: don't put a paladin or a multi-classed paladin in front for discussion in the first town! The government there will gladly "forget" to pay you for a variety of quests if you don't demand payment. They may grouch if you have a non-paladin ask for it, but they pay up, it doesn't affect your alignment, and you're at least 10,000 gold ahead. Paladins simply won't get the chance to request a reward.

Paladins simply won't get the chance to request a reward.

Eep. And, of course, I was counting on my paladin for diplomacy. Hmm. Bards get diplomacy, intimidation and bluff all as class skills? Might have to make a bard after all, then... I suppose I could give up my druid for one, maybe.

All classes can do these things, I believe. (I'd have to check, and I'm too lazy to do so, right now.) The difference is that it's so much easier and cheaper, skill point-wise, for some classes to go after diplomacy etc, than others. I'd recommend a bard or a cleric, while using a high-end sub-race to max out those stats. You take the hit on experience, but you gain some invaluable stats for a variety of purposes.

Incidentally, your characters gain an extra attribute point every four levels.

The difference is that it's so much easier and cheaper, skill point-wise, for some classes

Yeah, I know S'what I meant by "class skills"

Well, bards do get all those skills. If you're still at the very beginning of the game, I'd suggest replacing a character or two to create a party member who isn't altruistic yet has all your diplomatic potential. A level at the front end isn't much of a loss, but it's up to you.

Oh, I'm barely off the docks at Targos. If I make character changes, I'll just import the chars I want to keep and restart the game with the new additions. Just have to decide how much I really want to hang on to my druid (or, possibly, my monk) versus including a bard.

That, and decide wether I want to make my monk a svirfneblin instead of a half orc. The armor class bonus might be real handy there, and the +3 effective levels less of a handicap.

Where there's a will, there's a way:

paladin 3/cleric 27 - aasimar
rogue 20/fighter 10 - tiefling
fighter 8/druid 22 - duergar
monk (pureclass) - svirneblin
wizard (pureclass) - human
bard (pureclass, or with a bunch of wiz levels) - drow

I realize I won't be hitting anywhere near level 30 in one play through. Still, the above party gives me access to every class I've an interest in playing, and almost every race... couldn't figure out how to work in half-orc without running into problems.

Just out of curiosity, why do a paladin/cleric when you can do a fighter/cleric, and pick up more feats?

Well...original version was:
fighter/cleric
paladin/fighter
druid

New version:
fighter/druid
paladin/cleric
bard

So I don't really loose out on any additional "fighter"-ness... the druid was previously single classed, and now gets the advantage of fighter feats added to his repertoire.

The cleric/paladin has a number of complimentary feats.... heroic inspiration, heretic bane, etc. Between them, I think they can equal the BAB of weapon specialization, at least somewhat.

But the main reason, of course, is to free up a slot for a bard without cutting any other class type. I'm also toying with putting 11 wiz levels on the bard to gain access to spellbook spells through level six. Combine the advantage of sorcerous spells (cast at need) with the versatility of a spellbook (cast what you may only need as specific situation warrants it.

All in all, while I'm loosing a little toe-to-toe tanking ability, I think in terms of sheer power I'm coming out ahead. And certainly coming out ahead in terms of versatility.

Oh, and as to why a paladin at all versus a regular fighter... well, I've a soft spot for wielding holy avengers, that's all