So how do you explain his following incarnations' peaceful attitude towards you after you slaughter him every time? Does he suffer from The Nameless One syndrome? )
Remember, he's a good guy. So he says to himself: "Well, maybe that guy grew up, let's give him another chance". We see this attitude in real world politics all the time
Besides, the protagonist can become quite a useful pawn in games the gods play, so he'd rather you slay another clone (I think those are clones in the AD&D meaning of the word, indeed), than destroy you altogether.
I don't do hardcore runs, as I don't find them fun, but I would be interested in seeing a legitimate one some time, should you be so inclined. I am also looking forward to a BG2 runthrough video, the tactics involved with some of the more advanced battles would be quite impressive! What sidequests do you generally choose to do or not in BG2? I assume stuff like the Twisted Rune aren't worth the trouble for a non-caster, but Ring of Gaxx is pretty awesome, and lich fights can go bad pretty quickly.
I like to play ironman but with a full party and on core rules. On the other hand, the run should cover the entire story and discover the entire map, including TotSC content (Werewolf Island, Durlag Towere, Aec Letec).
It would appear that murdering Elminster for exp is no longer possible. There is a new script for him in the Override folder that forces him to either drop a cow on you or polymorph you into a chicken and then vanish whenever he is attacked. I assume you could prevent that by breaking his script with confusion, but it severely limits the usefulness of the tactic. Oh well, abusing such an obvious exploit rather defeats the purpose if a hardcore challenge run, anyway.
I still killed Elminster with the Stupidfier and off hand dagger of venom. The stun on the stupidfier has no save. Personally I think it needs a saving throw on that stun effect.
Of course in one of my attempts he killed me with a cow on the head, that was pretty awesome.
I can think of at least three more methods to kill him, but all of them, Stupefier included, require more time/effort and are much more risky than recently (he has a natural AC -9, so if you hit him only on 19-20 [10% probability], assuming Single-Weapon style, and then need to pass another probability check of 25% to stun, the chances are pretty low).
Who are you arguing with? Or just sharing your thoughts?
The only good thing about ranged weapons is they are ranged (i. e., you can basically hit your enemies without taking any damage in return). However, they are ridiculously underpowered, that's why you need a Blackguard/Assassin with a bow or a Half-Orc Barbarian with a sling (Str bonus) if you want to deal some damage as a ranged character.
Let me put it a bit bluntly: if your Archer is your second highest dps, something is wrong with your party There is no doubt a properly built melee character is so much more effective in this role there should be no comparison damage-wise.
The OP said ranged weapons can't compete with melee.
I've noticed that not only do ranged attacks usually hit more often (unless it's a crossbow). They are also very accurate. Especially a longbow used by an elf.. If you make an archer kit they end up doing more damage than your front line attackers
from OP
"ranged weapons are not exactly the hottest option in IE games due to very low damage in comparison to their melee counterparts. "
My ranger in IWD is my number one dps. So i have to disagree with the low damage statement.. Ranged weapons are very powerful when used correctly. In 3rd edition they seem to be underpowered compared to melee though
1. They hit more often, because they get a +1 ApR. Very accurate? How so? Well, a longbow is +1 THAC0, but to call it 'very accurate' is a stretch.
2. No. Archer kit in BG:EE ends up with ++++ in his weapon of choice and +2 THAC0/damage from his innate passive with no Str bonus and no weapon style. That's it, his Called Shot doesn't boost damage. Compare it to a Berserker, a Kensai or a Barbarian activating their abilities (Rage or Kai) with ++++ (or ++ for a Barbarian) in Halberds, ++ in Two-Handed Weapons, using Chesley Crusher (1d10+6 dmg+Str bonus before any modifications due to proficiency, weapon style, ability used, or weapon enchantment). Do the math, please, before making such bold statements.
3. Regarding the meta-game. Overall, magical ranged weapons are very scarce in comparison with their melee counterparts.
4. IWD is very different in many aspects from BG:EE. However, ranged weapons are even less worth it there, if we are talking Heart of Fury mode Low damage doesn't help. Soloing HoF IWD is a melee afair along these lines, more or less: http://www.wikihost.org/w/inassorted/iwd1solo, though a summoner run is possible as well.
How is IWD so different? they are both based on ADnD 2e. Which is my point.
Missile damage has greater chance to hit than slashing weapons. WIth a high dexterity, and elf racial trait it easily out paces melee in thac0.
Most of the time your ranged weapon users are going to be halflings or elves. On the rare occasion that it isn't you still benefit from the extra attacks made before the target reaches melee range. By "meta-game" i guess you're referring to BG2. I find magical arrows in BG quite often... Beregost even sells as many arrow+2 as you'll ever need.
You get the THAC0 bonus from the bow AND from the arrow.
I can sit here and argue the math of it all day but it is pretty obvious to me. With every ranged character i ever made their ranged thac0 was always higher than their melee. Even the ones with 18/00 str
Oh, there are many engine differences. Even without digging in the internals via Near Infinity, these differences are clearly felt. I find it strange you haven't noticed them if you played both games.
>I can sit here and argue the math of it all day but it is pretty obvious to me. With every ranged character >i ever made their ranged thac0 was always higher than their melee. Even the ones with 18/00 str
Heh. Not a math type, I guess. Okay, let's conduct a little experiment to give you an empirical proof of my point. Make a short clip of your maximized level/best gear BG:EE Archer hitting for maximum damage, I will make a similar video with a melee specialist. Deal?
base thac0 at level 8- 13 with proficiencies and battle axe+2- 8
damage 8-15
Kivan
Base thac0 at level 8- 13 with proficiencies, racial bonuses, and magical bow- 6. with +1 arrows- 5. with +2 arrows- 4
damage 5-10 normal, 6-11 +1, 7-12 +2.
acid- 6-11 +2d6 = 8-23 frost- 5-10 +1d6= 6-16 Fire- 7-11 +1d6= 8-17 with a save vs spell for just 7-11.
Now my highest hitting party member. Amorus (my bhaalspawn)
does 11-16 damage with 5/2 attacks per round She will out dps Kivan in a close quarters fight, but this is assuming we are fighting an easy opponent such as bandits or a bear. Even still she does not beat him by such a significant amount that he is obsolete.. He is still the second highest dps after all.
Now my archer kit in back pits was my highest dps. WIth the bonus thac0/dmg there was nothing he couldnt hit and with 4 attacks per round he was tearing through anything in a matter of seconds. He is also gains the bonus from the mastery proficiencies special to the archer kit.
An Elf With 19 dexterity and 9 levels his thac0 is -3
his damage is 10-15 with normal arrows. He also gains 4 attacks per round.
Let's compare with my kensai
Half orc with 19 str and 9 levels his thac0 is 0
Using a normal bastard sword his damage is 18-24. A greater amount than the archer, however. He gains only 5/2 per round. 2 /12 vs 4.
the archer would do 17-23 damage rounded down (considering APR). Making their damage pretty damn close to equal.
With magical arrows the archer will easily out DPS the Kensai. With a composite bow +1 (instead of the +2 equipped) he would also gain an additional +2 +2 damage which does even him out to 18-24 when attacks per round are considered
With magical equipment. The kensai would do 20-26 and the archer with acid arrows would do 20-26
Now say we made a human ranger with 18/xx strength and 18 dex
With no magical equipment
Bows would still be ahead by +1 or +2 depending on the thac0 of the arrows. add in the extra damage from fire, acid, and frost (which are very abundant in the game).
the damage isn't much more than bows. In some cases the bow will do bonus damage (fire bows versus a cold enemy). The melee fighter will get 2 attacks and the ranged user will get 3. At higher levels 5/2 and 4
"Heh. Not a math type, I guess. Okay, let's conduct a little experiment to give you an empirical proof of my point. Make a short clip of your maximized level/best gear BG:EE Archer hitting for maximum damage, I will make a similar video with a melee specialist. Deal? "
It is not about who does the most max damage that i am arguing..
It is about who does the most on average dps. Which for me is almost always the ranger. (in my BG playthrough my cleric/ranger does the most dps with 18/75 str and duel wielding +2 flail and stupifier.
Ranged still has the benefit over her at disrupting spells when a fight begins. Also if i gave kivan boots of speed he could solo nearly the whole game. (with the exception of a few boss battles).
If there is interest, I can make a BG2 run with Blackguard (the kit is easily importable, as noted in this thread). The question, however, is: should I emulate an imported character from BG:EE (+1 Str, Dex, Con, Int, Cha, +3 Wis from different Tomes), or should I roll a new Blackguard for BG2?
Please note the actual BG2:EE experience will probably be a bit different. I doubt that the difference will be significant, though (at least, it will be felt much less than BG1 vs. BG:EE, since the engine used is basically the same).
Hmm that is a good question, one thing you could do is copy the stats of the Blackguard you finished BG:EE with (You only used the Dex book right? that's the only one I saw in the videos) for a sorta solo the BG series with the same character feel.
Fair enough. Yes, only the Dex book, it's the most important and the most easily accessible one anyway. Okay, I will start with the same stats I've finished BG:EE with.
A Barbarian/Berserker/Kensai, no doubt about that That pathetic +1 ApR Archer gets won't help him much, when the average damage per hit of a properly built and geared melee character is about 30, with 10% crit chance as opposed to only 5% for Archer.
I'm even willing to disregard the fact you assume shooting expensive magical arrows non-stop for average dps calculations. Moreover, you seem to assume your enemies always fail their saving throw for half-damage.
In short, I'm all for ranged during hardcore runs, but surely not because some mythical high damage ranged weapons deal.
It's like you didn't read anything i wrote. I was including magical arrows as a bonus. Even without magical arrows the archer kit kept up to speed with the kensai.
I did a short test in black pits. i took the archer and soloed the tier 2 challenge red wizards.
He took out every single enemy. I tried it next with my kensai. Dead before killing a single one.
All things considered range will out dps a melee strictly based on the fact that they are ranged and can avoid aggro/spells.
Melee are much more likely to be confused/panicked/held, etc. While the archer ran around the arena cutting down every enemy in 2-3 seconds (with +1 arrows)
Btw there is no save against acid. (+1 thac0 bonus, and the best damage on an arrow in the game)
Also no saving throw against frost arrows (1d6). Also no Thac0 bonus. Acid is easily the best arrow in the game.
>He took out every single enemy. I tried it next with my kensai. Dead before killing a single one.
ROFL. That... can hardly be considered an objective experiment. I hope you understand that
>All things considered range will out dps a melee strictly based on the fact that they are ranged and can >avoid aggro/spells.
That's the one and only thing to be taken into consideration, and the only advantage ranged have over melee, since a competently built Archer will never out-dps a competently built Berserker/Barbarian/Kensai. Numbers are not on their side:
>acid- 6-11 +2d6 = 8-23 >frost- 5-10 +1d6= 6-16 >Fire- 7-11 +1d6= 8-17 with a save vs spell for just 7-11.
It means 15.5 avg for acid, 11 avg for frost, 12.5 avg for fire, very boldly assuming the save is always failed.
Half-Orc Barbarian, Str 19, Chesley Crusher, ++ Halberds, + Two-handed, Rage (yes, it should be calculated for averages, since a level 8 Barbarian can rage twice = 1 minute long Rage, and I'm hard pressed to name a fight that will have a longer duration): 5.5+6+11(Str)+2(prof)+1(style)=25.5 avg, 2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
A similarly geared Human Berserker dual-classed at 2 will achieve Grandmastery in Halberds, and so will get +5 damage from prof, +1/2 ApR: 5.5+6+6(Str)+2(Rage)+5(prof)+1(style)=25.5 avg, 5/2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
A similarly geared Human Kensai dual-classed at 2 will achieve Grandmastery in Halberds, and so will get +5 damage from prof, for +1/2 ApR: 10(Kai)+6+6(Str)+5(prof)+1(style)=30 avg, 5/2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
>Melee are much more likely to be confused/panicked/held, etc. While the archer ran around the arena >cutting down every enemy in 2-3 seconds (with +1 arrows)
Errr... No. Barbarian and Berserker are immune to all negative states while raging. An Archer has zero protection, though
+1 to hit and +1 to damage with any missile weapon for every 3 levels of experience.
Archers may start out being relatively weak but that adds up quickly. Boots of speed and its GG.
My whole point is that ranged does not do "very low damage". More times than not a few shots are all it takes to kill an opponent, and in a boss battle the archer has the advantage of distance and can constantly hit the opponent while the rest of the party needs to worry about damage and spell effects. It does not protection from negative states because if played right it will never be in the area of effect. It also has the advantage of squeezing in 1-2 extra attacks before the fighters can even engage the enemy; Pre-emptive strikes are very helpful especially in tactical games.
You also never listed the levels of the fighters you mentioned..
You're comparing level 9+ fighter kits to a level 7 RANGER (not even archer kit).
also where is the 5.5+6 coming from and how in the hell are you getting 11 extra DPS from strength?
1. Level 9? :-O The level doesn't really matter. A level 1 Barbarian will hit for the damage I listed.
2. +11 from Str is 19 natural +4 from Rage = 23 Str.
3. 5.5 is from 1-10, +6 is, well, from +6 dmg Chelsey Crusher gets (it's a +2 to-hit/+6 dmg weapon).
I'm sorry, but your questions clearly indicate you have a lot to familiarize yourself with in respect to basic AD&D mechanics. Currently, I'm a bit tired of trying to prove something that is immediately evident, to a person that didn't even bother to learn the most basic rules. Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but that's definitely the impression I get.
the level does matter when youre listing grand master proficiencies
the bonus from 23 str is 11 damage i was assuming that was averaged for some reason.
Your character should be receiving 1 apr but since you're using a bugged weapon you get 2 apr. I will pretend it is not bugged since it is an OP weapon.
25.5 x 1 apr = 25.5
considering my ranger gets 3 APR and using normal weapon and arrows
3-8 x 3 apr = 9-21 averaged 15 damage per round with a THAC0 of 3
Adding +2 arrows and dead shot+ 2 7-12x 3 = 21- 36 averaged 28 per round
If the ranger was level 9 (assuming your barb is) and had 4 APR his damage would then be
7-12 x 4 = 28- 48 averaged 38 per round
You also never listed Thac0 which is a big deal in DPS calculations.
Thac0 of 3. The best AC i could find for an enemy in the game is 2. I'm sure there are higher ones for enemies in plate mail but against any type of monster in the game it is impossible for my ranger to miss
3-2= a roll of one needed to hit
say i was fighting an opponent with decent AC (-5). 3+5= 8-20= 12 I would still have a 60% chance of hitting an average 9.5 a hit
Someone who doesnt understand how more APR is an advantage telling me i don't understand basic adnd mechanics lmao.
I said the level doesn't matter in Barbarian's case. If we are talking Berserker/Thief or Kensai/Thief, it's 2/4 for them. Which does not equal 9, I think
>You also never listed Thac0 which is a big deal in DPS calculations. You instead listed raw damage and >you didn't even do it accurately.
How is THAC0 related to dps calculations? :-O I think you misunderstand what it does. It's a to-hit chance, buddy. No relation to dps at all, unless we are discussing a dps vs a specific enemy having a specific AC.
We weren't discussing THAC0, but that will obviously be at least the same (probably better) as well: melee THAC0 is directly affected by Str. Str 23 = -5 THAC0.
Also, you are conveniently disregarding the fact Dead Shot is only available at the end of Chapter III, while the Chesley Crusher is ready for taking right after Candlekeep, if you are so inclined.
>Someone who doesnt understand how more APR is an advantage telling me i don't understand basic >adnd mechanics lmao
ApR doesn't make a huge difference in the context of a low-level module, provided your THAC0 is high enough (and it is, you don't need fantastic THAC0 in BG:EE), where most end-game enemies have 50-60 hp. It's not as if you are fighting 300+ hp dragons in BG:EE.
Damage per second requires that damage is being dealt. Have you never used a dps calculater? if you miss that does not apply to your DPS therefore THAC0 and your enemy's AC are huge aspects of DPS. The amount of times you hit an enemy impacts how fast you can kill him and therefore which character has the better dps.
Just because a weapon is available sooner in a game does not mean that it makes whichever class it is related to far superior than another. Even still most fighter class will not have great Thac0 with melee weapons compared to the Thac0 of ranged classes. Go ahead and tell me your barb's thac0 even with 23 strength it will not be that great. Also, with that type of gameplay i guess you'll be resting after every single fight since you assume that you will always have rage up. Which is fine but pretty damn cheesy
As a sidenote, I find it amusing how you come into a thread that is heavily advocating ranged characters use over melee ones, and begin to argue fanatically about how ranged characters are good in BG:EE Okay, by this point it's clear you have some troubles understanding text, but then there are the videos, in which my character always uses the longbow.
Concerning THAC0, I repeat: "No relation to dps at all, unless we are discussing a dps vs a specific enemy having a specific AC." In a global dps discussion, THAC0 is meaningless, since we don't know what AC we are rolling against. Is that so difficult to grasp?
The general principle is: in BG:EE, when choosing between THAC0 and damage, always choose THAC0 early game, always damage mid and late game. Having a very low THAC0 won't help you much, except vs Drizzt and Elminster incarnations. Even Sarevok's AC is only -2.
It has a huge relation. Your dps will fluctuate depending on what enemy you are fighting therefore there are situations where one class will out dps another.
and your right. Thac0 is most useful early game. Where the ranged class will be the most useful.
Even imoen out dpses my assassin at low level because she hits more often, and thats with a shortbow. Kivan at level 1 with a normal bow has a thac0 of 15 (it would be 14 if he was an archer). While most fighters will have 17-18.
>Just because a weapon is available sooner in a game does not mean that it makes whichever class it is >related to far superior than another.
Of course it does. Timing (when a certain character reaches his peak) and meta-game (in this context: when and where a certain item can be obtained) are the most important aspects of it all. In BG2, Paladins and Good Berserkers/Barbarians rule so mercilessly because of Azuredge and Carsomyr available so early. Similarly, in IWD, a TN Gnome Fighter is the best possibility for soloing because of weapons and armor available to him.
@IN1 Well it really doesn't make a huge difference by that time Kivan will have a composite bow +1 thaco +2 damage which just leaves him slightly lower than before, and he'd be using +1 arrows. But once again i'm comparing an NPC to a Min/maxed PC. An archer would have the damage bonuses from the kit and damage from weapon proficiencies not available to not kit rangers. Around the same dps i listed above without deadshot+2 or arrow +2s cus of 5/2 apr instead of 3
a level 9 archer would have damage bonuses of +8 (+3 from class +5 from proficiency). Not quite the 14 from 23 str and proficiences but the 4 apr would make up for it quickly
If we're comparing characters from level 1-9; there will be times when one out DPSes another, but the ranged user never does "very low damage"
"Let me put it a bit bluntly: if your Archer is your second highest dps, something is wrong with your party There is no doubt a properly built melee character is so much more effective in this role there should be no comparison damage-wise. "
Didn't reply to this earlier so i will now
I have 2 dps characters in my party
A duel/wielding cleric/ranger with 18/78 strength and kivan.
they each have 32% of the kills in the party. My PC has 526 kills and kivan has 522.
My party is Amorus(cleric/ranger) kagain- 3rd highest with 11% of the kills. Branwen Kivan neera imoen
Now i know Kills aren't a direct coorelation to DPS but i think that big of a difference between my 2nd and 3rd should show ranged does some nice damage
Comments
So how do you explain his following incarnations' peaceful attitude towards you after you slaughter him every time? Does he suffer from The Nameless One syndrome?
Remember, he's a good guy. So he says to himself: "Well, maybe that guy grew up, let's give him another chance". We see this attitude in real world politics all the time
Besides, the protagonist can become quite a useful pawn in games the gods play, so he'd rather you slay another clone (I think those are clones in the AD&D meaning of the word, indeed), than destroy you altogether.
How's that?
>but Ring of Gaxx is pretty awesome, and lich fights can go bad pretty quickly
Sidequests: still undecided, I've done a BG2 hardcore run earlier with a Barbarian, which is very different in many ways.
I can tell for sure there will be lich-slaying aplenty, though it depends on whether I'm going to simulate a BG:EE import or not.
Of course in one of my attempts he killed me with a cow on the head, that was pretty awesome.
I can think of at least three more methods to kill him, but all of them, Stupefier included, require more time/effort and are much more risky than recently (he has a natural AC -9, so if you hit him only on 19-20 [10% probability], assuming Single-Weapon style, and then need to pass another probability check of 25% to stun, the chances are pretty low).
kivan (my archer),iIs my second highest dps
Who are you arguing with?
The only good thing about ranged weapons is they are ranged (i. e., you can basically hit your enemies without taking any damage in return). However, they are ridiculously underpowered, that's why you need a Blackguard/Assassin with a bow or a Half-Orc Barbarian with a sling (Str bonus) if you want to deal some damage as a ranged character.
Let me put it a bit bluntly: if your Archer is your second highest dps, something is wrong with your party
I've noticed that not only do ranged attacks usually hit more often (unless it's a crossbow). They are also very accurate. Especially a longbow used by an elf.. If you make an archer kit they end up doing more damage than your front line attackers
from OP
"ranged weapons are not exactly the hottest option in IE games due to very low damage in comparison to their melee counterparts. "
My ranger in IWD is my number one dps. So i have to disagree with the low damage statement.. Ranged weapons are very powerful when used correctly. In 3rd edition they seem to be underpowered compared to melee though
1. They hit more often, because they get a +1 ApR. Very accurate? How so? Well, a longbow is +1 THAC0, but to call it 'very accurate' is a stretch.
2. No. Archer kit in BG:EE ends up with ++++ in his weapon of choice and +2 THAC0/damage from his innate passive with no Str bonus and no weapon style. That's it, his Called Shot doesn't boost damage. Compare it to a Berserker, a Kensai or a Barbarian activating their abilities (Rage or Kai) with ++++ (or ++ for a Barbarian) in Halberds, ++ in Two-Handed Weapons, using Chesley Crusher (1d10+6 dmg+Str bonus before any modifications due to proficiency, weapon style, ability used, or weapon enchantment). Do the math, please, before making such bold statements.
3. Regarding the meta-game. Overall, magical ranged weapons are very scarce in comparison with their melee counterparts.
4. IWD is very different in many aspects from BG:EE. However, ranged weapons are even less worth it there, if we are talking Heart of Fury mode
Missile damage has greater chance to hit than slashing weapons. WIth a high dexterity, and elf racial trait it easily out paces melee in thac0.
Most of the time your ranged weapon users are going to be halflings or elves. On the rare occasion that it isn't you still benefit from the extra attacks made before the target reaches melee range. By "meta-game" i guess you're referring to BG2. I find magical arrows in BG quite often... Beregost even sells as many arrow+2 as you'll ever need.
You get the THAC0 bonus from the bow AND from the arrow.
I can sit here and argue the math of it all day but it is pretty obvious to me. With every ranged character i ever made their ranged thac0 was always higher than their melee. Even the ones with 18/00 str
Oh, there are many engine differences. Even without digging in the internals via Near Infinity, these differences are clearly felt. I find it strange you haven't noticed them if you played both games.
>I can sit here and argue the math of it all day but it is pretty obvious to me. With every ranged character >i ever made their ranged thac0 was always higher than their melee. Even the ones with 18/00 str
Heh. Not a math type, I guess. Okay, let's conduct a little experiment to give you an empirical proof of my point. Make a short clip of your maximized level/best gear BG:EE Archer hitting for maximum damage, I will make a similar video with a melee specialist. Deal?
Kagain- fighter
base thac0 at level 8- 13
with proficiencies and battle axe+2- 8
damage 8-15
Kivan
Base thac0 at level 8- 13
with proficiencies, racial bonuses, and magical bow- 6.
with +1 arrows- 5. with +2 arrows- 4
damage 5-10 normal, 6-11 +1, 7-12 +2.
acid- 6-11 +2d6 = 8-23
frost- 5-10 +1d6= 6-16
Fire- 7-11 +1d6= 8-17 with a save vs spell for just 7-11.
Now my highest hitting party member. Amorus (my bhaalspawn)
does 11-16 damage with 5/2 attacks per round
She will out dps Kivan in a close quarters fight, but this is assuming we are fighting an easy opponent such as bandits or a bear. Even still she does not beat him by such a significant amount that he is obsolete.. He is still the second highest dps after all.
Now my archer kit in back pits was my highest dps.
WIth the bonus thac0/dmg there was nothing he couldnt hit and with 4 attacks per round he was tearing through anything in a matter of seconds. He is also gains the bonus from the mastery proficiencies special to the archer kit.
An Elf With 19 dexterity and 9 levels his thac0 is -3
his damage is 10-15 with normal arrows. He also gains 4 attacks per round.
Let's compare with my kensai
Half orc with 19 str and 9 levels his thac0 is 0
Using a normal bastard sword his damage is 18-24. A greater amount than the archer, however. He gains only 5/2 per round. 2 /12 vs 4.
the archer would do 17-23 damage rounded down (considering APR). Making their damage pretty damn close to equal.
With magical arrows the archer will easily out DPS the Kensai. With a composite bow +1 (instead of the +2 equipped) he would also gain an additional +2 +2 damage which does even him out to 18-24 when attacks per round are considered
With magical equipment. The kensai would do 20-26 and the archer with acid arrows would do 20-26
Now say we made a human ranger with 18/xx strength and 18 dex
With no magical equipment
Bows would still be ahead by +1 or +2 depending on the thac0 of the arrows. add in the extra damage from fire, acid, and frost (which are very abundant in the game).
the damage isn't much more than bows. In some cases the bow will do bonus damage (fire bows versus a cold enemy). The melee fighter will get 2 attacks and the ranged user will get 3. At higher levels 5/2 and 4
"Heh. Not a math type, I guess. Okay, let's conduct a little experiment to give you an empirical proof of my point. Make a short clip of your maximized level/best gear BG:EE Archer hitting for maximum damage, I will make a similar video with a melee specialist. Deal? "
It is not about who does the most max damage that i am arguing..
It is about who does the most on average dps. Which for me is almost always the ranger. (in my BG playthrough my cleric/ranger does the most dps with 18/75 str and duel wielding +2 flail and stupifier.
Ranged still has the benefit over her at disrupting spells when a fight begins. Also if i gave kivan boots of speed he could solo nearly the whole game. (with the exception of a few boss battles).
Fair enough. Yes, only the Dex book, it's the most important and the most easily accessible one anyway. Okay, I will start with the same stats I've finished BG:EE with.
>It is about who does the most on average dps.
A Barbarian/Berserker/Kensai, no doubt about that
I'm even willing to disregard the fact you assume shooting expensive magical arrows non-stop for average dps calculations. Moreover, you seem to assume your enemies always fail their saving throw for half-damage.
In short, I'm all for ranged during hardcore runs, but surely not because some mythical high damage ranged weapons deal.
I did a short test in black pits. i took the archer and soloed the tier 2 challenge red wizards.
He took out every single enemy. I tried it next with my kensai. Dead before killing a single one.
All things considered range will out dps a melee strictly based on the fact that they are ranged and can avoid aggro/spells.
Melee are much more likely to be confused/panicked/held, etc. While the archer ran around the arena cutting down every enemy in 2-3 seconds (with +1 arrows)
Btw there is no save against acid. (+1 thac0 bonus, and the best damage on an arrow in the game)
Also no saving throw against frost arrows (1d6). Also no Thac0 bonus. Acid is easily the best arrow in the game.
>He took out every single enemy. I tried it next with my kensai. Dead before killing a single one.
ROFL. That... can hardly be considered an objective experiment. I hope you understand that
>All things considered range will out dps a melee strictly based on the fact that they are ranged and can >avoid aggro/spells.
That's the one and only thing to be taken into consideration, and the only advantage ranged have over melee, since a competently built Archer will never out-dps a competently built Berserker/Barbarian/Kensai. Numbers are not on their side:
>acid- 6-11 +2d6 = 8-23
>frost- 5-10 +1d6= 6-16
>Fire- 7-11 +1d6= 8-17 with a save vs spell for just 7-11.
It means 15.5 avg for acid, 11 avg for frost, 12.5 avg for fire, very boldly assuming the save is always failed.
Half-Orc Barbarian, Str 19, Chesley Crusher, ++ Halberds, + Two-handed, Rage (yes, it should be calculated for averages, since a level 8 Barbarian can rage twice = 1 minute long Rage, and I'm hard pressed to name a fight that will have a longer duration): 5.5+6+11(Str)+2(prof)+1(style)=25.5 avg, 2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
A similarly geared Human Berserker dual-classed at 2 will achieve Grandmastery in Halberds, and so will get +5 damage from prof, +1/2 ApR: 5.5+6+6(Str)+2(Rage)+5(prof)+1(style)=25.5 avg, 5/2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
A similarly geared Human Kensai dual-classed at 2 will achieve Grandmastery in Halberds, and so will get +5 damage from prof, for +1/2 ApR: 10(Kai)+6+6(Str)+5(prof)+1(style)=30 avg, 5/2 ApR. Plus 10% critical.
>Melee are much more likely to be confused/panicked/held, etc. While the archer ran around the arena >cutting down every enemy in 2-3 seconds (with +1 arrows)
Errr... No. Barbarian and Berserker are immune to all negative states while raging. An Archer has zero protection, though
Archers may start out being relatively weak but that adds up quickly. Boots of speed and its GG.
My whole point is that ranged does not do "very low damage". More times than not a few shots are all it takes to kill an opponent, and in a boss battle the archer has the advantage of distance and can constantly hit the opponent while the rest of the party needs to worry about damage and spell effects. It does not protection from negative states because if played right it will never be in the area of effect. It also has the advantage of squeezing in 1-2 extra attacks before the fighters can even engage the enemy; Pre-emptive strikes are very helpful especially in tactical games.
You also never listed the levels of the fighters you mentioned..
You're comparing level 9+ fighter kits to a level 7 RANGER (not even archer kit).
also where is the 5.5+6 coming from and how in the hell are you getting 11 extra DPS from strength?
1. Level 9? :-O The level doesn't really matter. A level 1 Barbarian will hit for the damage I listed.
2. +11 from Str is 19 natural +4 from Rage = 23 Str.
3. 5.5 is from 1-10, +6 is, well, from +6 dmg Chelsey Crusher gets (it's a +2 to-hit/+6 dmg weapon).
I'm sorry, but your questions clearly indicate you have a lot to familiarize yourself with in respect to basic AD&D mechanics. Currently, I'm a bit tired of trying to prove something that is immediately evident, to a person that didn't even bother to learn the most basic rules. Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but that's definitely the impression I get.
the bonus from 23 str is 11 damage i was assuming that was averaged for some reason.
Your character should be receiving 1 apr but since you're using a bugged weapon you get 2 apr. I will pretend it is not bugged since it is an OP weapon.
25.5 x 1 apr = 25.5
considering my ranger gets 3 APR and using normal weapon and arrows
3-8 x 3 apr = 9-21 averaged 15 damage per round with a THAC0 of 3
Adding +2 arrows and dead shot+ 2 7-12x 3 = 21- 36 averaged 28 per round
If the ranger was level 9 (assuming your barb is) and had 4 APR his damage would then be
7-12 x 4 = 28- 48 averaged 38 per round
You also never listed Thac0 which is a big deal in DPS calculations.
Thac0 of 3. The best AC i could find for an enemy in the game is 2. I'm sure there are higher ones for enemies in plate mail but against any type of monster in the game it is impossible for my ranger to miss
3-2= a roll of one needed to hit
say i was fighting an opponent with decent AC (-5). 3+5= 8-20= 12 I would still have a 60% chance of hitting an average 9.5 a hit
Someone who doesnt understand how more APR is an advantage telling me i don't understand basic adnd mechanics lmao.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/11146/the-chesley-crusher
I said the level doesn't matter in Barbarian's case. If we are talking Berserker/Thief or Kensai/Thief, it's 2/4 for them. Which does not equal 9, I think
>You also never listed Thac0 which is a big deal in DPS calculations. You instead listed raw damage and >you didn't even do it accurately.
How is THAC0 related to dps calculations? :-O I think you misunderstand what it does. It's a to-hit chance, buddy. No relation to dps at all, unless we are discussing a dps vs a specific enemy having a specific AC.
We weren't discussing THAC0, but that will obviously be at least the same (probably better) as well: melee THAC0 is directly affected by Str. Str 23 = -5 THAC0.
Also, you are conveniently disregarding the fact Dead Shot is only available at the end of Chapter III, while the Chesley Crusher is ready for taking right after Candlekeep, if you are so inclined.
>Someone who doesnt understand how more APR is an advantage telling me i don't understand basic >adnd mechanics lmao
ApR doesn't make a huge difference in the context of a low-level module, provided your THAC0 is high enough (and it is, you don't need fantastic THAC0 in BG:EE), where most end-game enemies have 50-60 hp. It's not as if you are fighting 300+ hp dragons in BG:EE.
Just because a weapon is available sooner in a game does not mean that it makes whichever class it is related to far superior than another. Even still most fighter class will not have great Thac0 with melee weapons compared to the Thac0 of ranged classes. Go ahead and tell me your barb's thac0 even with 23 strength it will not be that great. Also, with that type of gameplay i guess you'll be resting after every single fight since you assume that you will always have rage up. Which is fine but pretty damn cheesy
As a sidenote, I find it amusing how you come into a thread that is heavily advocating ranged characters use over melee ones, and begin to argue fanatically about how ranged characters are good in BG:EE
This is the whole reason i started posting. "very low damage"
also note that we're comparing a min maxed half orc to an in-game NPC with 17 dex and no class kit
Concerning THAC0, I repeat: "No relation to dps at all, unless we are discussing a dps vs a specific enemy having a specific AC." In a global dps discussion, THAC0 is meaningless, since we don't know what AC we are rolling against. Is that so difficult to grasp?
The general principle is: in BG:EE, when choosing between THAC0 and damage, always choose THAC0 early game, always damage mid and late game. Having a very low THAC0 won't help you much, except vs Drizzt and Elminster incarnations. Even Sarevok's AC is only -2.
and your right. Thac0 is most useful early game. Where the ranged class will be the most useful.
Even imoen out dpses my assassin at low level because she hits more often, and thats with a shortbow. Kivan at level 1 with a normal bow has a thac0 of 15 (it would be 14 if he was an archer). While most fighters will have 17-18.
>Just because a weapon is available sooner in a game does not mean that it makes whichever class it is >related to far superior than another.
Of course it does. Timing (when a certain character reaches his peak) and meta-game (in this context: when and where a certain item can be obtained) are the most important aspects of it all. In BG2, Paladins and Good Berserkers/Barbarians rule so mercilessly because of Azuredge and Carsomyr available so early. Similarly, in IWD, a TN Gnome Fighter is the best possibility for soloing because of weapons and armor available to him.
Well it really doesn't make a huge difference by that time Kivan will have a composite bow +1 thaco +2 damage which just leaves him slightly lower than before, and he'd be using +1 arrows. But once again i'm comparing an NPC to a Min/maxed PC. An archer would have the damage bonuses from the kit and damage from weapon proficiencies not available to not kit rangers. Around the same dps i listed above without deadshot+2 or arrow +2s cus of 5/2 apr instead of 3
a level 9 archer would have damage bonuses of +8 (+3 from class +5 from proficiency). Not quite the 14 from 23 str and proficiences but the 4 apr would make up for it quickly
If we're comparing characters from level 1-9; there will be times when one out DPSes another, but the ranged user never does "very low damage"
"Let me put it a bit bluntly: if your Archer is your second highest dps, something is wrong with your party
Didn't reply to this earlier so i will now
I have 2 dps characters in my party
A duel/wielding cleric/ranger with 18/78 strength and kivan.
they each have 32% of the kills in the party. My PC has 526 kills and kivan has 522.
My party is
Amorus(cleric/ranger)
kagain- 3rd highest with 11% of the kills.
Branwen
Kivan
neera
imoen
Now i know Kills aren't a direct coorelation to DPS but i think that big of a difference between my 2nd and 3rd should show ranged does some nice damage