Archer vs Barbarian
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a83aa/a83aa16f1f35c3350b60118777072927aa3ed951" alt="Sindyan"
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?
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?
0
Comments
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...
Archers overall probably still have the edge purely at range, but Barbarians are overall more versatile and still very functional ranged combatants.
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.
If you can't get over 2APR with a bow there is no point to playing an Archer in my opinion.
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.
And if the discussion is on a Barbarian. Their natural resistance + DOEH + Hardiness, the gap I have to close with haste wont matter.
Shorty saves are great. Really, really great. A dwarf with decent constitution will avoid annoying status effects on a pretty regular basis.
For level 1-4 where every point of THAC0 & AC is life-or-death then the Half-Orc is appealing. If you can get through that part of the game then a Dwarf becomes better. In BG2 you also get access to the rather tasty "dwarven thrower" +3 throwing hammer for giggles.
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.
shorty bonuses, no loss to dex and he's a gnomic/gnomish/gnomen barbarian
@Corvino has it. Go Dwarf. The saving throws are a huge blessing.
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)
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?
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.
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.
Dont necessarily agree with the Dwarf>Orc arguments. Rage seems to negate the weak saving throws of Orc.
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.