Skip to content

Archer vs Barbarian

I'm having a hard time figuring out a class to pick and stick with because in thinking about the party I want on bg2.
I'm going for a good party.

Rasaad monk
Imoen thief/Mage
Anomen melee/clerix with the crom hammer
Neera-second Mage and romance
Keldorn

In debating between half Orc barbarian
Or elf archer

I already have the half Orc made with 19/18/19/10/10/18 stats already duel wielding axes (I love the looks!). That is my best roll ever! I'm not a min/Max powergamer but want a "fun" experience.

What would balance out my party better at archer or duel wielding barbarian?



«1

Comments

  • mjsmjs Member Posts: 742
    IMO either would work.

    keldorn and anomen can tank together reasonably well. i think if you have the archer you'll be better at mid-low level encounters as the archer will thin out most stuff before the battle even properly start, but i think the barbarian would be better at high level encounters (for the immunities granted during BR). what about a berserker instead of barbarian though? GM & better immunities...
  • baaddarebaaddare Member Posts: 145
    i would think archer. Remember there are dragons in BG2 and standing out of their range and shooting arrows works wonders
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    baaddare said:

    i would think archer. Remember there are dragons in BG2 and standing out of their range and shooting arrows works wonders

    Especially if you take racial enemy Dragons in BG2.

  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    A Barbarian works out as a decent kiter/ranged attacker thanks to their speed, and since they can use thrown weapons for the strength bonus, their ranged damage can turn out to be surprisingly competitive.

    Archers overall probably still have the edge purely at range, but Barbarians are overall more versatile and still very functional ranged combatants.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    edited January 2013
    Barbarian is awesome, but judging by how you are taking Keldorn and Anomen, and hell, even Rasaad ... I'd definitely go with an Archer. You need some ranged firepower in that group, and besides, once you get Archers way up there they honestly don't do half bad at melee (so they're missing a 1/2 attack per round from specialization ... oh no?)
    mjs said:

    what about a berserker instead of barbarian though? GM & better immunities...

    No. Especially in his party, that would be horrible (no ranged specialization).
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited January 2013
    Ranged cannot compete with melee in BG2, even for an Archer (and the Kensai is actually a better ranged combatant (with thrown axes/hammers/daggers) AND can kick everything's ass in melee to boot). Most of the elemental arrows are heavily nerf'd and the big hitters of BG1 like Arrows of Detonation or dispelling don't exist without mods. The fact that melee and most thrown weapons (Axes, hammers, some thrown daggers...and normal and +1 darts) add str in BG2 gives them a massive edge over a 1 base attack advantage and are comparable to a 3 base attacks, but have MUCH more versatile options for damage and effects (and under IH or using GWW the attack advantage can disappear).

  • SindyanSindyan Member Posts: 146
    I was thinking my party was a little melee heavy. Once I got to enemies I would kill pretty faster. I never realized how powerful a half Orc barbarian is at level 1. I think his damage was 13-20 with each axe.
    I can see that having a range character beside mages would help to thin out the ranks and hit the mages/clerics faster. I have been hoping for some better bows or buffs to help out range combat. I have heard it doesn't compare towards the end.
    I'm still on the fence but learning towards archer now.
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    I personally would go with the barbarian. I find ranged combat to be essential to BG1 and near worthless in BG2. There are very few highly enchanted ranged weapons in BG2 and there will be at least one enemy that no ranged weapon can hit (absent the addition of new content). As others have said, you can use the ranged axes as well if you really want some ranged weapons.
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    100% Barbarian if they keep the changes to ranged combat that are present in the current patch.

    If you can't get over 2APR with a bow there is no point to playing an Archer in my opinion.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited January 2013
    Well..you could get 3 attacks with the Tuigan bow..and haste still gives +1 or under improved haste you'd get 4 or 6...and GWW still sets your attacks to 10.

    And you're avoiding 73% of combat threats at range vs what a melee character exposes themselves to.

    Though..if they'd add the str bonus bows are supposed to get, it might even things up a little.
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    I'll take my chances closing the gap with the flail of the ages in one hand the the defender of east haven in the other with 10 APR on the best damage type in the game (blunt) over the most heavily resisted one.

    And if the discussion is on a Barbarian. Their natural resistance + DOEH + Hardiness, the gap I have to close with haste wont matter.
  • mjsmjs Member Posts: 742
    Quartz said:

    B

    No. Especially in his party, that would be horrible (no ranged specialization).
    well with thrown weapons you'd actually get up to GM! plus in BG2 melee>ranged. plenty of ranged attacks as well: keldorn has his crossbow, anomen his sling and then you have 2 mages for ranged attacks. plenty of rangedness there!
  • SindyanSindyan Member Posts: 146
    Ok. I'll stay with the barbarian. The question now is dwarf vs half Orc?
  • Oxford_GuyOxford_Guy Member Posts: 3,729
    Dwarf is better in the long-term, mostly due to the shorty saving throw bonuses and can have 19 Str by the end of BG2. BTW does anyone know if the "dwarven thrower" +3 throwing hammer gets the strength bonus damage added in vanilla BG2 (like throwing axes do)?
  • MillardkillmooreMillardkillmoore Member Posts: 150
    edited January 2013
    Go for Half-Orc.

    1) Better STR

    2) Better DEX. You will have lower AC than most warriors due to your inability to wear heavy armor. Don't hurt it more with the reduced DEX of a Dwarf.

    3) Half-Orcs are awesome for roleplaying purposes. Dwarves are fun, but every dwarf is basically the same Gimli ripoff.
  • mjsmjs Member Posts: 742
    GNOME! with 19 intelligence and dualling daggers!

    shorty bonuses, no loss to dex and he's a gnomic/gnomish/gnomen barbarian
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    edited January 2013

    Go for Half-Orc.

    1) Better STR

    2) Better DEX. You will have lower AC than most warriors due to your inability to wear heavy armor. Don't hurt it more with the reduced DEX of a Dwarf.

    3) Half-Orcs are awesome for roleplaying purposes. Dwarves are fun, but every dwarf is basically the same Gimli ripoff.

    I get the feeling you didn't read the two posts above you, did you?

    @Corvino has it. Go Dwarf. The saving throws are a huge blessing.
  • SindyanSindyan Member Posts: 146
    Thanks everyone. I'm glad I have delayed so much! I saw the new possible kits! Dwarf will be my race!
  • DebaserDebaser Member Posts: 669
    edited January 2013
    @Sindyan

    Go Half Orc Fighter / Thief with ++ in Two-Handed Weapon Style. ++ Staves, and ++ Longbow!

    You won't attack as much as a straight fighter, or the Archer with a bow...but you'll be the same as a barbarian, but you'll get thief abilities like Open Lock and Find Traps. You can make your NPC Thieves turn into back-stab machines. And then max Hide In Shadows and Move Silently in BG2.

    To me this works out great because you can be the archer you want to be in BG1....but as bows get less effective you can turn into a backstab machine in BG2 with Staves...and there's a +4 Staff you can buy early on in BG2. Plus Barbarians don't get Grand Mastery either...so you don't really lose much of anything other than their resistances. And you can wear heavy armor when you want to. (Though you won't be able to use thief skills when you do)
    Post edited by Debaser on
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    This is why I say we need to reintroduce racial class caps. Completely removing the caps makes multiclasses the overall most powerful choice in all situations. Hard racial caps for multi-classes, and we'll just ignore the single class race caps, since there's no reason to penalize someone that much if they're willing to take a single class. Compared with their advantages, and the fact human dual-classing is already pretty heavily nerf'd, we'll call it a day at that.
  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    @ZanathKariashi

    How do racial class caps work exactly. Do you mean X race can only go above Y in a class and Z in another? Or that race X can never go past level Y in anything?
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited January 2013
    Each race has a certain maximum level they can attain in a particular class, largely based on stereotypes for their kind. Technically it applies to ALL classes for non-humans, regardless of multi or single.

    For instance, a Halfling has class caps of 9 fighter, 8 cleric, or 15 thief. By default, single class characters with high prime ability scores can go a little higher, but multiclass or low score characters, that's the best they get. Like say you had a halfling with 17 str and 19 dex. If he was a single class fighter, he could get to level 11, since halfling are sucky fighters, but he's unusually strong and is better then normal at. On the other hand, if he was a thief, he could go as high as 19, since not only are halflings natural thieves, he's VERY good dexterous.

    Dwarf (Fighter 15, Cleric 10, Thief 12), Gnome (Cleric 9, Fighter 11, Illusionist 15, Thief 13), Half-Elf (Bard Any, Cleric 14, Druid 9, Fighter 14, Mage 12, Ranger 16, Thief 12), Elf(Cleric 12, Fighter 12, Mage 15, Ranger 15, Thief 12), Halfling (Fighter 9, Cleric 8, Thief 15), Half-Orc (Fighter 10, Thief 8, Cleric 4).



    Under the above proposition, Multiclasses would be Race capped (lets be generous and say +4 max to each cap (A Halfling fighter/thief could become 13/19, for instance), since the average player will have ridiculously awesome stats anyway), but single classes could have unlimited advancement.

    This would make multiclassing a bit harder decision, do I want some awesome racial stats and built-in buffs and a moderate spread of class ability access, or unlimited advancement and the opportunity to take a kit, but give up some flexibility for my extra racial powers?

    Humans on the other hand have to juggle higher stat requirements, downtime, and significantly stricter dual-class rules then in PnP, and don't get any real advantages otherwise.


    And no, contrary to what you may think, it wouldn't hurt you, or your NPCs in ToB at all. By level 10, most classes have the majority of their abilities, any further power comes largely from the gear you find and the tactics you use. (Spellcasters are obviously an exception, but with the +4 bonus, all multi-casters except Half-orc clerics could attain reasonably high levels and all the spell casting they really need.)

    And most multiclasses would still get access to a few HLA from all their class pools, just fewer then a single class would.

    People have solo all of SoA and ToB using a a variety of 161,000 xp capped classes (I've done a multiclass F/M myself), so the stunted max level isn't a huge deal at all.
    Post edited by ZanathKariashi on
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853

    And no, contrary to what you may think, it wouldn't hurt you, or your NPCs in ToB at all. By level 10, most classes have the majority of their abilities, any further power comes largely from the gear you find and the tactics you use.

    Yeah, but good luck convincing anyone of that.
  • IkMarcIkMarc Member Posts: 552
    edited January 2013
    You should play what you would enjoy to play, not what is strongest. You will finish the game regardless what you choose.

    In 90% of the RPG's a warrior type with a simple hack and slash tactic is the strongest class, and also the most boring class to play.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,604
    edited January 2013
    Corvino said:

    There's also no additional bonus AC between 18 and 19 dexterity so the stat advantages of a Half-Orc over a Dwarf are minimal in the medium-to-long term.

    This is correct, but there is a missile Thac0 bonus.

    Dont necessarily agree with the Dwarf>Orc arguments. Rage seems to negate the weak saving throws of Orc.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    DinoDin said:

    This is correct, but there is a missile Thac0 bonus.
    Thus why he said "minimal" not "non-existent." Hooray -4 AC +2 missile THAC0 vs. -4 AC +3 missile THAC0, oh frabgerous day kaloo-kaley.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    Well here's the thing...Half-orcs don't get ANY racial bonuses aside from their +1 str, +1 con. Dwarves get a pretty massive +5 saves, and an additional +1 per 3.5 points on Constitution. You actually don't get very many rage uses, and when the rages are all gone, the dwarf is still damn near immune to any spell with a saving throw, (except for petrification/polymorph, which are extremely rare attacks...most of the effects you see that should use those, use save vs spells or save vs breath instead of Pet/Poly). Both have the same potential Con, and the difference is pretty minor. Half-orcs have a slight advantage in early BG1...slight, since the rages allow the dwarf to compete damage-wise (always just a mere 1 damage less per hit, but MUCH tougher due to superior saves). And once you get the str manual, the dwarf is just plain superior. Yes the Half-orc can potentially get a +1 bonus to hit in ranged over the a dwarf, which largely doesn't matter as ranged sucks the moment you break lvl 7 and 19 str.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,604
    Err, actually the rage score gives an edge to half orc as well. If you consult str tables, youll see theres a difference between 22 and 23 str. not just dmg, but thaco as well. In fact if we're talking serious long-term play, you can get another point of str, and then with rage hit 25 on an orc, which is a bonus of 1 thaco and 2 more dmg. i disagree that range is worthless at high levels. a smart tactician should always have a ranged option for every char and a melee option. because of AOE spell like web, entangle, fireball, and the higher level ones, i often use ranged even on the frontline tanks.

    as for there not being many rages im just not sure. at level 9, which is just after the beginning of SoA, you have 3 rage/day. Before most of the serious fights you have 4 rage/day, which, if you're doing good scouting, is plenty to handle the key fights where those saving throws would matter.

    I just don't agree dwarf barb is better. dwarves seem better suited to multi-class types that don't have abilities like rage which are redundant with excellent saving throws, such as fighter/thief or fighter/cleric, that's where dwarf really shines.
Sign In or Register to comment.