A Request for Info from Gamefaqs JUPP

Remove all ads!

Hi there!

I've had a good read of the JUPP guide and have built an arcane party as suggested but am in the opening stages of the game and have the deep gnome and Drow Cleric but was wondering when I should add the second duo of party members?

I'm gonna add the aasmiar sorc's after shaengarne bridge I think?

What do you reckon?

Cheers,

 

i ran with the original JUPP party a while back, though i added them all in right from the start and had no problem taking on all the content.
Adding them after shaengarnee might be a good idea, holding off untill after you enter the underdark would work too.

Just so you know, there's actually an undated version of the JUPP guide right here on sorcerers.

 

Cheers Xosmi!

I've actually created a new thread here:
http://www.sorcerers.net/community/index.php?threads/upp-vs-jupp-vs-jupp2.73891/

Asking about the relative merits of each party...I like the idea of the original arcane party but say the creator say you needed to seriously mule and squat with the druid/cleric...

 

Muling and squatting are exactly the reasons why you should toss that early abomination of the JUPP guide to the Recycle Bin ASAP. Get the updated guide here at Sorcerer's instead.

 

Jukka, from a game design perspective, do you agree that IWD2 would be better balanced if it used (highest character level in party) instead of (average party level) for xp earned calculations?

Also, I think this is a no brainer: The ECL for drow and DG should count as levels for the purpose of xp earned caculations.

 

I'm fairly certain that APL is calculated with ECL by RAW in all 3E versions, so I'm not sure why they took this approach in IWD2. Maybe they just didn't want to discourage players too much from selecting races with LA. That said, Level Adjustment is widely considered to be a horrible thing, so this is one approach to alleviating the problem.

As for balance, "more" or "less" balanced are relatively pointless metrics. Third edition D&D is imbalanced by design, so fiddling with XP is barely even a band-aid. Not to mention the whole XP system is garbage.

 

My AD&D broke up in '97, so I've never actually played a 3E P&P game. However, you have to admit that the Deep Gnome is more powerful than a normal gnome, and the Drow is more powerful than its surface world counterpart. Just about all the Underdark races have those extra bonuses to make them more challenging.
This was handled in 2E by not making those races playable by PCs, but I think one of the splatbooks suggested XP penalties for players that wanted their own Drizzit or other races.

It's been ~20 years since I read it, I have no clear recollection. It's been 18 years since I last played P&P AD&D. It was literally half my lifetime ago, so forgive me for not remembering sources or being incorrect.

 

Of course, they're more powerful, but the simple fact of the matter is that the bonuses they get from their race quickly become negligible compared to class levels, which is why the LA system is considered bad by just about everyone who's anyone. Over the years, there have been a lot of optional variant rules to allow LA buyoff, scaling of racial abilities, and other methods of mitigating the ever-wider power gap imposed by level adjustments, but none of them were particularly smooth or effective, as is always the case when you're treating the symptoms instead of the actual problem.

As someone who has spent way too many years patching the mess that is 3E D&D, I can honestly say that there are no good solutions, at least short of scrapping entire subsystems.

 

Well, to be fair, IWD2 just happens to have a HOF ruleset that allows Deep Gnomes to reach nigh-unhittable status much easier than any other race out there. Sure, this only matters if you're trying to create a tank/decoy character, but I'd still say that would be well worth a three level penalty compared to the rest of the group with ALL of the penalties about level adjustments (discussed above) thrown in. Class level differences only really matter early on when you're still getting new abilities, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between clvl 17 and clvl 20 for most classes, especially if unlimited resting is allowed.

 

I agree, those racial bonuses only really seem to make a difference at first level, after level 5 they are negligible.
Perhaps an XP penalty instead of a level penalty? They have to earn 1500 XP to get to 2nd level, 4000 to get to level 3, and 7000 to get to level 4, after which they are back on track with the rest of the races at level 5?

I'm just pulling numbers off the top of my head, I haven't done an in-depth analysis, and again, my experience is with the CRPGs here at Sorcerers Place, not P&P. I've only played 2nd edition P&P and that was a LONG time ago (unfortunately).

Actually, upon reflection, the XP penalty should be dependent on the nominal ECL adjustment, such that they are only penalized below level 5 and it reflects what they need to reach level 5 under the current ECL system, then they "catch up".

 

Yeah, that's one way of handling it, but it also creates an XP disparity. Not that there isn't one already since 3.0 and 3.5 have plenty of ways to lose or spend XP, but it's not a very elegant solution.

XP penalties, shifts, and level adjustments are all bad. D&D's XP system in general is bad.

Indeed, but that's only true for IWD2. In PnP, the difference between a level 17 and level 20 character may or may not be negligible depending on the class, but lagging behind three levels is an enormously massive setback for all spellcasters at the very least. That's also why the number of bonus spellcaster levels is just the about the most important factor when selecting prestige classes. A pretty common mistake in theoretical optimization is to only focus on the end-game result. Reaching the desired point often presents an entirely different challenge in and of itself. Like I said, the IWD2 XP system might have simply been a way to avoid the problem.

And on another note, tanking is a massive waste of time in D&D for the most part, although it might have a niche place in IWD2 HoF mode (haven't played it enough to know).

 

The nominal solution is not to make those races available to PCs as was generally the case in 2nd edition. How do you suggest allowing PCs to play those races without removing all non-RP incentive to play standard races? They are clearly superior level for level. It is an attempt at balance. You say XP penalties, shifts, and level adjustments are all bad. What alternative is there for PC balance?
Them being a bit more powerful can be great for a rival party from the DM's perspective. The rival is always the same level as you, but their racial bonuses give them that little bit of edge so they can always survive and escape, if not always win.

The only other thing I can think of is to put lots of racism in the world, where most merchants that sell "the good stuff" will refuse to service that OP drow, and the ones that will overcharge them for equipment.

That won't be as much of an issue in IWD2, since most equipment is found for free.

What do you mean? In 2nd edition a warrior's primary duty and most cleric's secondary (some deities proscribed heavy armor, and I should point out that heavy armor did not cancel your dex bonus to ac) was to be a meat shield for the squishy wizard or druid. The Thief would usually use two tactics. Hide and backstab, then pull out his shortbow or crossbow and snipe while trying to find a way to slip away so he could backstab again. Sometimes he'd try to flank the enemy for the cleric, warrior, or druid.

Why isn't that important in 3rd?

 

That's what I'm trying to say, there are no good solutions and there is no balance to begin with, regardless of races.

You actually bring up a very good point which also applies to core races. In 3.0, 3.5, and even more so in 3.P, human is almost always the best core race you can select for just about any character. And yet, not everyone plays a human. Why is that? Simple, because it's an RPG and sometimes you want to role play not roll play.

Tanking is an assumed role, it's not a de facto role. Just like healing is an assumed role for clerics, but it really shouldn't be. Being able to take a hit or heal a hit should always be secondary to being able to hit first and hit hard. Warriors and priests are both amazing combatants when specced right. An enemy that's dead, can't hurt you.

 

The issue is that in most of our P&P games, it was not the party vs a single monster that you could fell in one round. Combat almost always lasted more than one round.

So, tanks were necessary to protect the weaker party members. Otherwise, you'd get off an initial salvo, then the enemy could move in and kill one of your party members. Raising the dead is not like in the games. Before your cleric can cast 5th level spells it is usually a nontrivial matter, and you still lose one point of CON from Raise Dead along with a chance not to come back.

 

Trust me, I am all too aware that combat does not consist of party vs. one enemy (unless the GM doesn't know what he's doing). That's why you don't bother hedging your bets on being able to tank. Even the toughest parties will fall if the members fail to perform, especially when the number enemies is great since there's always at least a 5% chance you'll get hit, not to mention most spells don't care about your AC. A good party will disable or outright obliterate any group of enemies to a degree that will allow them to survive the following rounds. As long as your GM isn't overly fond of ambush ex machina, even a 1st level offensive group should be absolutely fine.

Obviously, I'm not saying warriors should be running around naked with CON 3 or whatever. The point is simply that in D&D (every edition to date, afaik), offense is the best defense. If you can ramp up your AC and make two dozen mirror images, that's awesome, but only so long as it doesn't come at the expense of meaningfully contributing to a fight. As I said, tanking is an assumed secondary role of warriors, but tanking or healing should not be anyone's focus or primary role. That's what disposable summons/companions are for.

If there's a niche for it in IWD2 HoF, I don't know. From what I remember, I did just fine with my summon skills when I did a duo run.