Archers Viable in BG2/ToB?
Battlehamster
Member Posts: 298
So I'm about to finish off my BG1 game with my ranger I had all spec'd out for archery. His stats look like this:
(Also I rolled a 95 for some sick OP character action)
STR: 18 - Found manual
DEX: 19 - Found Manual - Used a Human for archer since everyone likes teh elven archers
CON: 18 - Found Manual
INT: 11 - Found Manual
WIS: 20 - Found manual in Candlekeep graves & Durlag's Tower
CHA: 15
That said, I don't have a lot of BG2 ranged weapon experience and am wondering if Archers are still worth having around or if I should convert him to a Stalker, OR possibly dual-class to a cleric given the WIS score. I'd really like having an archer for a little bit of variety still, and because its something I haven't really played with...but not if archery contributes insignificantly to an overall party build.
(Also I rolled a 95 for some sick OP character action)
STR: 18 - Found manual
DEX: 19 - Found Manual - Used a Human for archer since everyone likes teh elven archers
CON: 18 - Found Manual
INT: 11 - Found Manual
WIS: 20 - Found manual in Candlekeep graves & Durlag's Tower
CHA: 15
That said, I don't have a lot of BG2 ranged weapon experience and am wondering if Archers are still worth having around or if I should convert him to a Stalker, OR possibly dual-class to a cleric given the WIS score. I'd really like having an archer for a little bit of variety still, and because its something I haven't really played with...but not if archery contributes insignificantly to an overall party build.
0
Comments
The best bows in BG2 are short bows, as they offer two bows which require no ammunition with high enchantment (+3 and +4) and one bow with a high attack rate (which is very good with all those damage bonuses an archer gets through his kit).
But as long as an enemy isn't immune to +2 weapons even (composite) longbows are good.
Moreover, due to all those damage bonuses from his kit, most enemies will be dead before they reach your party.
By that time, the poor archers seem to be shooting toothpicks by comparison. Damage from arrows just doesn't seem to scale well into the endgame and into ToB. That's all merely my opinion based on my play experience. I'm sure others will have different viewpoints.
you can play everything you wish and with a party there is nothing that will stop you if just put little effort into battle
solo without some classes could be hard but it was done too
@zur312 - I was concerned with creating a character that later on could in no possible way contribute to the party which I think is a legitimate rather than "stupid" question. Why would I waste my time on putting effort into a character who has the entire game world immune to his abilities?
Only Minsc.
(Don't tell Minsc I said that.)
There are ways to make an archer viable in BG2, but unless you can get your hands on one of the bows that uses infinite ammunition (they bestow their enchantment on their arrows), melee options tend to be more reliable.
but as everyone already told you, there are no +4 and +5 arrows. anyway, there are 2 shortbows that can help you bypass the immunity against your arrows, no matter which encounter you challenge.
those bows are
- tasherons bow
- gesens bow
both oth them don´t need ammunition and fire some kind of phantom arrows. they can both even hurt adamantine golems and all that crap.
if you dont know where to find them:
tasherons bow can be purchased from a vendor in trademeet after you freed the town from the animals attacks, a simple quest that you can finish early in chapter one. for finishing the quest you get enough gold to buy it (or just steal the bow if you prefer).
gesens bow is a bit harder to get, for it is crafted by cromwell in the harbour district out of 2 parts. first part is in the bridge district. just do the quest with the murderer. when you found the evil foe, follow him into his cellar, kill all the enemmies there and open the big box in the center (beware the trap).
the second part can be found somewhere in spellhold. as a result you can´t finish that bow before lvl 6. since you have tasherons bow (which i prefer over gesens) you have something meanwhile.
the only thing you have to do is to set skillpoints in shortbow. since have no need for melee weapons and combat styles archer is a ranger kit (that gives you many skillpoints), you can easily get 5 points in long and in shortbow.
follow this guidelines and your archer will finish tob on any difficulty wihtout any urgent problems (anyway its no solorun kit).
And I bet in bgee2 they will add some new bows that would be +5 and compare to most Melee weapons.
*nudge, nudge, hint hint*
(I live in the middle of nowhere and can only cruise around the internet during breaks at work sadly)
but seriously it is RP game not quake everything is really good even those "not soo good classes" like beastmaster = just ranger without metal
mage slayer = just fighter without magic rings and amulets belts gloves
some kind of thief = guy who backstabs for 100 dmg or doing almost the same damage as kensai
cleric = many great spells summons and healer
druid = like cleric but few very good spells
how is someone not viable?
The concern was late enemy games with enchantment resistances. I was worried a round could look like this:
CHARNAME: Weapon roll (20+0) - Critical hit
Demony thing: Immune to damage
CHARNAME: Weapon roll (20+0) - Critical hit
Demony thing: Immune to damage
CHARNAME: Weapon roll (20+0) - Critical hit
Demony thing: Immune to Damage
-----5 minutes later-----
Battlehamster: Weapon roll = (20+0) Critical hit
Computer Screen: Death
I could be wrong...but I'm pretty sure that if this was the case the class wouldn't really be viable. It would be like playing through the game as a kolbold (if you could). I mean sure you could...but chances are highly unlikely you would ever finish the game.
Basically I heard some mixed complaints about archers and I wanted to make sure the complaints were more of a boo-boo in terms of power rather than a OMG you severed CHARNAME's arms! Nerf.
I know you can buff up your weapons a bit, I just didn't know if you could buff them up enough to where the archer could damage magic users since late game loves immunities and mages/ would be able to play the game without having to PURELY rely on a mage's ability to enchant weapons so you can do something other than 0 damage.
also archers can use melee weapons so they are not useless in melee if you have something they are just not as good as other fighers
Proficiency doesn't really matter with Dispel or Detonation.
But if you want to go straight archer...why not ? It's a role playing game after all.
Just remember BG2 has a lot of tight areas. Prep for that and you will be fine.
The reason is largely their weapon selection and APR limitations. In order to compete with fighters who can reach a natural 5 APR with the right dual-wield setup, you are forced into using one of two weapons:
Light Crossbow of Speed
Tuigan Bow
LCS gets you to 4 APR, Tuigan to 5. However, that means that you can *at best* fire ammo that is +3 enchanted - and +3 weapons cannot damage several of the ToB bosses (as well as simply dealing less damage than more powerfully enchanted weapons).
There are +4/+5 ranged weapons in the game (several in fact), but they suffer from severe APR limitations. You can get around that by using GWW, but that is considerably less effective than Improved Haste.
That being said, there are upsides as well. You will be a BEAST in the early/mid game. Make no mistake about it, archers DESTROY enemies at that stage. It's very easy to get Firetooth+4 almost straight away, along with the Tuigan Bow - those two can handle pretty much anything thrown your way.
Firetooth in particular is a very good weapon, not only because of its damage output and free ammo, but also because of its quirky behavior: it adds +2 fire damage to every shot, regardless of what kind of ammo you are using (or whether you are using any at all). That means that you can equip simple, un-magical Bolts that pierce through Protection from Magic Weapons but also deliver +2 fire damage, which pierces Stoneskin as well. That makes Archers quite the mage-killers early on in the game.
The other available ammo is quite versatile and powerful as well, particularly Arrows of Dispelling, Bolts of Lightning, and Biting Bolts. Combined with the considerable THAC0 bonuses of Archers, you can literally go around mowing down scores of enemies with ease and safety.
But as I said, all that changes once your fighters catch up in levels and gear. Soon you'll find yourself outclassed left and right by dual-wielding killing machines, using weapons so much better than yours its laughable.
In addition, there is quite a bit of piercing resistance going around. Several mobs take very little damage from your ranged weapons, some are even completely immune. Resistances to melee weapon types are far less prevalent. Range is also less of an issue as the game progresses and you gain access to regular Haste spell buffs and Boots of Speed. There is no more need to kite things, you can just run up there and slash it in two!
Keep in mind, though, that these differences are fairly minor when talking about the vanilla version of the game. While immunity to +3 and lower weapons can be a bother, there's plenty of ways to get around it as an Archer; the performance hit you suffer won't be very pronounced in an unmodded game. Archers are a completely valid choice for the entire saga, start to finish.
With difficult mods, though, I'd prefer not to use an Archer. Early/mid game only lasts so long, and many of the more difficult fights are towards the end of the game. At that point Archers won't be a lot of help, though they certainly are possible to go through with. I finished Ascension/SCSII on Insane with an Archer CHARNAME, but there is no doubt it would be significantly easier with a more melee-focused setup. The difference in damage output and utility (Archer is a single class after all) is very pronounced at that level of play, and creates unnecessary encumbrance.
TL;DR: Archers are amazing early/mid game. For vanilla games, you can totally rock with them. For modded high-difficulty games, there are many better alternatives.
classes are as good as you use them and playing vanilla game(99% of players?) is very easy
- Clay golems(wrong damage type, needs bludgeoning)
- Adamantine golems(need +4)
- Magic golems(use normal arrows, silly!)
- Second form of Kangaxx(need +4)
Even so, there are plenty of enemies resistant to piercing damage still, and that resistance is by far the most prevalent.
But yall act like archer's are useless in melee...big whoop, they lose +1 hit, +2 damage, and +1/2 attack (that they shouldn't have had anyway). It might be a concern if they were PnP-accurate and also lost their bonus attacks from warrior levels and dual-wielding bonus too, but they don't.
Keep 2 weapons handy for dual-wielding (generally if you're in an area with lots of piercing immune enemies, you're better off just going straight melee...it's pretty rare to find a mix, and even then, due to your higher ranged damage and volume of fire (5 attacks at 13 using a GM'd Tuigan bow), you can pick off all the non-piercing resistant enemies first and then clean up. Or just use single weapon style +belm for a respectable 3 apr by 13, or dual-wield with Kuudane for 5). +2 is fine for killing all the piercing immune stuff, and you won't have to worry about unequipping your bow. The clay golems are pretty fragile and can be easily killed by any blunt magical weapon. And the higher end stuff can be killed using GWW and a +4 or higher weapon of you choice, assuming you're solo...otherwise someone else in the party can handle it.
Demi-liches, Demogorogon, Finalbad, and Ravager are the only +4 required enemies in the core game. And only a handful of enemies require +3 as well. (Kangaxx-Lich, that vampire with the twisted rune I can't remember the name of, a few very high level undead, Greater mummies I think, a couple enemies in ToB/Watchers Keep). And Dread Wraith summoned by the deck of many things is the only +5 required enemy in game.
You have to keep in mind that these discussions are usually all about effectivity, and not about possibility; i.e. you aren't trying to find ways to just do it, you are exploring how it is done *best*. You can beat even the most difficult mods with very sub-par parties and setups. It'll take longer, be a hassle, and require a lot of patience and creativity, but it sure can be done.
What's much more interesting is how to get the most out of your characters, which setups work well together, and so on - questions of optimization. That's usually what people mean when they ask "is X a valid choice".
As such, you can totally melee with your Archer - but in that case you have to ask, why aren't you melee to begin with? As I outlined before, the only advantage of an Archer is during early/mid game. If that's your main focus, then by all means; chances are it won't be, though. The actually difficult fights are all clustered around late mid to end game, and there Archers are simply not very useful.
An issue I haven't brought up earlier is that they are essentially fighters; their priest spells are great to have, but no substitute for a party cleric. As such, they add mainly QoL, not real power. That means that you end up with essentially a pure class fighter, which from a power-gaming perspective is not where you want to be. Despite the impressive damage/THAC0 bonuses, losing the utility from a potential dual-class (which you would have with any other fighter) is usually not worth it.
You always have to keep the entire party in mind, even when discussing single classes. For a high-difficulty mod setup (assuming you go for efficiency) you absolutely want a cleric and at least one mage, possibly more. You also don't want a full party, in order to be more XP-efficient. That leaves preciously little room, and an Archer's lack of utility only exacerbates the problem. I suppose things would be different if you could dual an Archer to mage - but you can't.
The usual caveat, though: all my arguments assume die-hard efficiency power-gaming. This will not apply to everyone, but it's about as objective a viewpoint as you can get in a game where everyone has different mod setups and preferences. As I said before, Archers are *completely fine* for vanilla playthroughs. They are fun, they have a certain RP value, they can totally be a great character to play. But in terms of raw power, there is just little to no reason to ever pick one.
questions is "X a valid choice" is different than "is X a most powerfull choice"
i think "valid" is a question of "is it doable" and yes every class is of playing BG1/2
While the bow of Gesen doesn't require ammo, there is no reason not to. Say you're firing Arrows of Piercing with it, you will do 7-12 piercing dmg (without modifiers of course), 1-8 electrical dmg and with an insane thaco of +8.
If the enemy is resistant to piercing, use elemental arrows (Acid Arrows for pure dmg)
If you come across something immune to +2 (+3 for ToB) or higher, don't use ammo and you will still be able to hit it with 2 piercing dmg, 1-8 electrical and with a +4 thaco.
Also, by the time you're capped, you will be doing an additional +11 dmg/+11 thaco.
So, a lvl 34 (cap) archer can do 11-31 (13-33 with called shot) without any additional equipment taken into consideration. And your thaco will be at like -50 or something crazy like that (too many potential modifiers for me to bother doing the math).
It's still not as damaging as a dual-wielding madman, but for a ranged dmg-dealer, it is awesome.
But from the very fact that people come and ask for other people's opinions I think it's safe to infer that they want a more detailed analysis. Also, I'm pretty sure anyone can see that it's highly unlikely the developers would have put in a class that is *not* viable (as in "doable"), which again pretty much invalidates your point. "Doable" is essentially a given - "valid" is therefore a more complex issue, and demands a more complex answer.
Going by efficiency is the only way I see of answering this in an objective way, as personal preference, RP, etc. can easily upturn the entire argument and as such aren't arguments themselves. Unless you want to make every discussion a case-specific one, the only way to provide information for a more general public is to go by the most objective arguments, as far as that's feasible - and clearly mark those parts that are specific, or peculiar.
For example, a Wizard Slayer is a valid choice for fighting non-wizards, but it's not viable because its strengths lie in fighting spellcasters, not wolves.
/ˈvīəbəl/
adjective
adjective: viable
1. capable of working successfully; feasible.
"the proposed investment was economically viable"
synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable;
val·id
/ˈvalid/
adjective
adjective: valid
1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
"a valid criticism"
synonyms: well-founded, sound, reasonable, rational, logical, justifiable, defensible, viable, bona fide;
Source: Google dictionary
I'm surprised more people don't just look up words in a dictionary to settle the issue, when a thread gets derailed into an argument about semantics. I'm pretty sure the OP just wanted to talk about archers, not to get into a debate about the fine differences in meaning between "valid", "viable", "doable", etc.
People that ask such questions don't expect Yes/No answers, they expect comprehensive information, a discussion, arguments. There are few definitive answers in this game, so it's about the decision-making process, not some actual decision served up by others.
Either way, I agree that this is derailing somewhat. Sometimes it's necessary to talk about these things, so people don't forget that things are rarely clear-cut, and that there are many aspects to consider. While it (hopefully) helps them in their original question, it's also supposed to help them analyze facts critically and arrive at their own answers using the tools provided by the collaboration of forum posters.
There.
So here: Archers. Gaad.