lol okay let's just say all the classes i mentioned are all viable at ranged attacks but the Archer is MORE viable than the others. I'll still stick with my Assassin and his poison
@Lord_Tansheron As far as I can see the problem isn't that you are being misunderstood, but rather that the point you are arguing is not really pertinent to the question being asked. @Battlehamster wants to kit his ranger into an archer and, as is quite clear from his posts, the worry he wants to address is whether late-game enemies might be overwhelmingly immune to ranged damage.
^ This. I just got back from a weekend trip and totally didn't expect to see this turn into a debate on making an overpowered CHARNAME reaper class. xD I don't mind if my archer is a little lackluster here and there, I just want to make sure that I can actually have him stick to archery, for the most part, as I don't want to have an archer who HAS to spend the back-end of the game dedicating himself to fighting on the front lines. If this were the case then an archer isn't really viable as, well, an archer.
I'm about midway through BG2 with my bow using elven fighter/mage. While his damage is already lackluster compared to my melee fighters like Minsc, he still has his magic to fall back on whenever his arrows don't really cut it.
The damage numbers are fine; but they are 1) limited by ammunition (though not as drastically as one might think) and 2) limited by APR. That one is actually somewhat of a big deal.
Seems a bit weird that with the hassle of having to find, buy, and carry ammo you are still worse (performance-wise) than a melee for substantial parts of the game. I guess you could see it offset by the ungodly OP-ness of ranged in BG1... ¬_¬
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
An archer could put proficiency pips in slings.
*self-facepalm*
Herpa-derpa-herpderp. Thanks for that lol
Don't worry about it. It's not an intuitive thought for a traditional "archer" type of character.
It really isn't (intuitive) but its good to know if I'm trying to keep him a dedicated ranged person. I'll invest in a melee slot, but ideally I'd like to keep the archer doing ranged things and fighting in melee only if there is absolutely no other option.
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
An archer could put proficiency pips in slings.
*self-facepalm*
Herpa-derpa-herpderp. Thanks for that lol
Ha ha ha Epic.Actually despite all i said in my previous posts.Archers are pretty lethal,had a mini run for an hour with one and just at the very start they can deal out the damage alright.Long Bow +2 with +1 arrows,all pips in long bow,one in long sword and yeah not a bad class actually.You can get some epic leather armour thats not too expensive in the Promenade,for really good ac.Gotta say i'm impressed.
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
I wouldn't want to SOLO an archer, you will run in to more opponents who are immune to piercing damage. But every class is viable, and no doubt an archer can carry more than their fair share of the load!
A class does not become 'viable' if it cannot handle all situations but it should be able to do the job that it is supposed to perform. When I asked if a shapeshifter is viable I was asking if anyone knew a way it could fulfill any role (I suspected that it was supposed to be some kind of warrior/cleric thing). It couldn't be an effective fighter and it couldn't be an effective divine caster at the same time when the other classes had much better ways of doing this. The shapeshifter wasn't viable due to a lack of equipment, it wasn't viable because it was mechanically unsound to do the roles that it was intended to fulfill.
I'm going to reiterate (in hopes of ending this conversation) that when I am asked or if I ask 'if a class is viable' I am asking if this class can perform the role that the class is supposed to fill. Archers are designed to do one thing really well and that is DPS from a distance. Their bonuses apply to short bows, long bows, and crossbows and thus have a wide variety of options. As a class they can do the whole 'ranged damage' bit pretty well and only the fighter can hope to come close in terms of non-magical ranged damage. Archer is viable because it CAN do a role with at least average success (unlike the shapeshifter).
A class does not become 'viable' if it cannot handle all situations but it should be able to do the job that it is supposed to perform. When I asked if a shapeshifter is viable I was asking if anyone knew a way it could fulfill any role (I suspected that it was supposed to be some kind of warrior/cleric thing). It couldn't be an effective fighter and it couldn't be an effective divine caster at the same time when the other classes had much better ways of doing this. The shapeshifter wasn't viable due to a lack of equipment, it wasn't viable because it was mechanically unsound to do the roles that it was intended to fulfill.
I'm going to reiterate (in hopes of ending this conversation) that when I am asked or if I ask 'if a class is viable' I am asking if this class can perform the role that the class is supposed to fill. Archers are designed to do one thing really well and that is DPS from a distance. Their bonuses apply to short bows, long bows, and crossbows and thus have a wide variety of options. As a class they can do the whole 'ranged damage' bit pretty well and only the fighter can hope to come close in terms of non-magical ranged damage. Archer is viable because it CAN do a role with at least average success (unlike the shapeshifter).
The problem is that these "roles" are largely arbitrary. "Ranged damage dealer" makes little sense in an environment where range is not a real issue. Also, what makes a class "effective" at their job? What about classes whose strength is the ability to fill multiple roles, even though they excel at none of them? These things are far from obvious in my opinion, which is the whole reason I think a lengthy, even long-winded, discussion is actually beneficial.
Yes it's not pertinent to the original question, but that's how forums work - things evolve with the audience. And at the end of the day, you may find out you learned more than you thought.
Their bonuses apply to short bows, long bows, and crossbows and thus have a wide variety of options. .
They can be specialised in slings and darts and proficient in throwing axes, throwing hammers (bg2), and throwing daggers. However, their missile bonus (+1 hit/ +1 damage every 3 levels) applies to all missile weapons (including throwing axes, throwing daggers, etc).
Your definition of viable only really applies if you plan to solo.
A shapeshifter is very viable in a party. Their werewolf form, while lackluster vs certain enemies with regard to damage dealing is still an awesome tank, and while situational, some of their spells can be quite powerful. Their insect swarm spells are good vs casters and can completely shut them down for the higher level one, and their elemental summons while fragile, pack a punch, and unlike the HLA versions (hit as +2), hits as +5, making them useful for damage dealers while your shapeshifter tanks the enemies attacks.
While it's truth the shapeshifter does suffer some loss compared to what it's billed as (it's forms not having the proper benefits for the type of creatures it's supposed to be changing into), it's hardly useless.
In someways, it's better then a beastmaster, even though I personally rate a Beastmaster higher due to simply being more straight up powerful in melee. Beastmasters, aside from their spell slots actually being useful by getting higher level animal summons at lower levels, don't really have a stand out bonus like stalker's BS or archer's ranged supremacy. They're limited to clubs and quarterstaves, and bows, darts, slings as weapon choices, and get a slight bonus to stealth. Their animal summons are pretty much useless for damage dealing, due to no being considered magical, and even the tougher animals you can get simply aren't very useful straight up...but for soaking spells and being distractions, they are awesome. Summon a few animals to break up the enemy formation, while you stealth in and start smashing the most dangerous target, while your pets keep the other enemies distracted, and then pick them apart from there. Or using them to soak a beholder's volley of spells while you zip in and beat the crap out of them before they can prepare a 2nd volley. Beholder's thankfully are pretty fragile and good solid hit or 2 from a warrior can take them down...getting close without being torn apart by eye-beams is the hard part, since they can see through stealth/invisibility.
The archer by contrast does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a ranged damage specialist, with a couple extra tricks, and actually doesn't sacrifice much of anything for it. (as mentioned else where, their penalties are actually weaker then they should be, and they get a few extra bonuses on top).
The problem is that these "roles" are largely arbitrary. "Ranged damage dealer" makes little sense in an environment where range is not a real issue. Also, what makes a class "effective" at their job? What about classes whose strength is the ability to fill multiple roles, even though they excel at none of them? These things are far from obvious in my opinion, which is the whole reason I think a lengthy, even long-winded, discussion is actually beneficial.
Yes it's not pertinent to the original question, but that's how forums work - things evolve with the audience. And at the end of the day, you may find out you learned more than you thought.
Essentially some classes are built to fulfill certain 'roles'. The information that I am looking for is not whether or not another class can do the role better but can the current class do what it's meant to do well enough to do that role? Some classes are built to do multiple roles at a disadavantage (such as the stunted progression of a cleric/mage in comparison to an actual cleric or mage) but these classes/kits/combinations and their effectiveness is based on if they can do the role well.
Some classes or combinations try to fulfill roles but fall short of the goal because the class itself not only pales in comparison to the other classes in that role but the class itself does the role poorly. For example, the impression I get from the shapeshifter is that it is supposed to imitate a fighter/cleric or a fighter/druid. However, an actual fighter/druid or fighter/cleric would have access to armor, weapon proficiencies, and be able to cast spells and fight seamlessly. A shapeshifter cannot use any armor, nor benefit from any weapon proficiencies (except one slot in single weapon fighting), and cannot cast spells while shapeshifted. Their best form is useable once per day so if I need to cast a spell and I'm already shapeshifted then I'll need to choose between the spell I need to cast or the combat buffs I got. Also, werewolf paws at best count as +2 and gets no better while a fighter/cleric or a fighter/druid could just get a better sword. Even if dual-classed the shapeshifter gets no better because they STILL cannot use armor, weapons, or weapon proficiency slots. Perhaps in BG1 this class could be useable for this role but not in the end game for BG2 (and especially not the end game for ToB).
Your definition of viable only really applies if you plan to solo.
I'm only talking about a party setting. As in "Okay, you play the bruiser, I'll play the thief, that guy plays the healer, and that guy plays the blaster mage". I've already said it before that just because a character can't (or finds great difficulty) solo the game doesn't mean he isn't viable. A solo run is MEANT to be a challenge so do it with a class that would have difficulty.
See above for my thoughts on the shapeshifter, although lets stop talking about the shapeshifter here since this thread is about the archer. If you want to keep talking about these we can do it in PMs or on the thread I've already started on the subject. I would also like to open a topic on beast master and get some opinions in on that.
The archer by contrast does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a ranged damage specialist, with a couple extra tricks, and actually doesn't sacrifice much of anything for it. (as mentioned else where, their penalties are actually weaker then they should be, and they get a few extra bonuses on top).
I agree, Archer does what it sets out to do and it does it really well.
Essentially some classes are built to fulfill certain 'roles'.
What makes you say that? Even if there is such a thing as "roles" in the game, what those roles are is very much up for debate. Personally, I think that the "role" model you find in other "traditional" RPGs only applies to a very limited extent to BG. There is no dedicated tanking in BG, no dedicated healing.
Performance in BG is essentially divided into two groups: damage output and survival. Both have to be looked at from a party-wide perspective, i.e. including buffs to other people. That means that there really are only two "roles" in a sense, and that makes class analysis a lot simpler. It also means that the vast majority of classes/kits are going to fall short of being optimal, simply because there is no need for complexity and the straightforward, brute-force classes always come out on top; it's also why the fighter/mage combinations are so powerful, as they combine the highest damage output (fighter single/mage group) with the best survival (fighter HP/mage defense buffs).
The Archer suffers from essentially contributing only in one "role". While they do have cleric spells, they are rudimentary only and not enough to supplant a party cleric - which in turn makes them largely redundant, as you only need one cleric. The same of course is true for most other classes as well, and it's also why dual/multi class combos are so powerful.
But again, this is just in terms of raw power. RP, QoL, and personal preference are entirely different lines of argument, and may play a much larger role in the ultimate decision. I can't really speak to those, though, that's up to everyone to decide for themselves. Me, I don't really care about RP and my personal preferences are mathematical more than anything - that's certainly not true for the vast majority of players out there.
@Lord_Tansheron, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. That is far too oversimplified for my tastes.
1) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand toe to toe with enemies and take lots of damage, keeping enemies away from allies doing other jobs. Doing high damage at the same time is a nice bonus, but it's not the primary function of this role. Most people who play a lot of different games including D&D would call it "tank".
2) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand behind the people doing the first job, and deal out high damage. This role lends itself most easily to being combined with other roles. People doing this role often perform it through ranged combat, or through mastery of a long-handled or pole weapon. Lots of games would call this "DPS".
3) You need somebody who can heal, protect, and buff others, be it before combat, during, or after. The "healer" needs to also have protections and cures for all the dreaded "conditions" in whatever game. In D&D, that would be poisoned, afraid, held, stunned, paralyzed, confused, charmed, dominated, level-drained, and intelligence-drained.
4) You need somebody who can deal with locks and traps. This role is especially important in a game like Baldur's Gate, where the traps are lethal.
5) You need somebody who can scout ahead, map the terrain, and spy on the enemy, without being detected, and then report back, so that there are no surprises about what the party is about to face.
6) You need somebody who can do effective area-effect attacks against mobs, and crowd-control. This person is usually your mage, and is also responsible for countering other mages who are trying to do this same job against your allies.
That's six specific and vital combat functions. My perfect six member party has two melee fighters, two healers who can do second functions, a thief, and a mage. It's very helpful if one of the party other than the thief can be the scout, freeing the thief to concentrate skills on locks and traps.
Now, on-topic, I think the archer is a very good candidate for effectively filling role number 2. His weakness is that he really can't fulfill any of the other roles that well, making him kind of a one-trick pony.
Since the shapeshifter has been brought into the discussion about the archer, I'll mention that, too. It's a very cool concept, but it really only does a good job at role number 1, and role number 2, early in the trilogy. After that, it's really only good for roles 3 (healing/buffing/protection), and somewhat effective at 6. The trouble is that a straight mage can do 6 better, and a straight cleric can do 3 better. Although, that criticism could potentially be made of the entire druid class.
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
Replace the word 'viable' with 'reasonable'. They are asking if playing an Archer presents any unreasonable and/or unnecessary hardships on progression through TOB which can be avoided by playing a more reasonable character choice.
Not everyone is so hard core that they can play a totally gimped character solo through SCS Ascension.
1) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand toe to toe with enemies and take lots of damage, keeping enemies away from allies doing other jobs. Doing high damage at the same time is a nice bonus, but it's not the primary function of this role. Most people who play a lot of different games including D&D would call it "tank".
You don't NEED tanks in this game by any means. The game is not designed in a way that only fighters and their ilk can take front-line damage - the difference in damage avoidance, especially in BG2, is fairly small; mitigation is exceedingly rare. Additionally, there is no dedicated tanking system so the best you can hope for is use the terrain cleverly and hope that enemies chase the right guy. Not to mention that mages (arguably the hardest enemies in the game hands down) completely ignore all target preferences and fire all their damage at pretty much everyone. Avoiding damage becomes not the responsibility of a dedicated "tank" but of every individual character - whether through micromanagement, buffs, armor, or whatever doesn't really matter.
By your definition, you couldn't ever use rogues to melee, because they'd always be at risk of "pulling aggro", but that just isn't a reality. Also: you say that damage dealing is "not the primary function of this role", but that is an arbitrary statement by you. Fighters are the highest damage dealers in the game, while at the same time having access to the highest level armor and high HP pools, and the only time where you compromise survival for damage is by using shields - which you shouldn't, as AC becomes less and less relevant in BG2 due to the way enemy THAC0s progress.
Sure, you could make that "tank role" work; but that would be an artificially constructed role, not an integral part of the game, and certainly not "needed" as you say.
2) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand behind the people doing the first job, and deal out high damage. This role lends itself most easily to being combined with other roles. People doing this role often perform it through ranged combat, or through mastery of a long-handled or pole weapon. Lots of games would call this "DPS".
So anyone not using ranged or long weapons is not a DPS? What about the fact that the highest damage output in the game hands down comes from melee-range swords and flails? Again, you construct an arbitrary category to fit your "tank/DPS" model. There is no real aggro, so you go around that by only having your tank in close melee range - sure, that can work against non-ranged non-mage enemies, but not because the game requires it, but because you make it so. What if I only kited, for the entire game? Does that mean the game "needs" a kiter?
3) You need somebody who can heal, protect, and buff others, be it before combat, during, or after. The "healer" needs to also have protections and cures for all the dreaded "conditions" in whatever game. In D&D, that would be poisoned, afraid, held, stunned, paralyzed, confused, charmed, dominated, level-drained, and intelligence-drained.
I agree with you there, you need buffs of some sort - either to survive, or to increase damage output. However, unlike in other games you are not required in BG to have someone DEDICATED to that role. In fact you can do without it if you want to go through the hassle, but even if you don't (i.e. play optimally) you would feel the slot with a hybrid, not a dedicated "role". That's why I favor a more simple model - the complex "role" model just isn't accurate in an environment where you can go hybrid at every corner.
4) You need somebody who can deal with locks and traps. This role is especially important in a game like Baldur's Gate, where the traps are lethal.
That is simply untrue. There are only a handful (literally, there's like 4 or 5) actually LETHAL traps in BG2/ToB. The rest deal damage or have nasty effects, but even the few ones that can't be avoided with meta knowledge or Find Traps (Cleric) can easily be brute-forced through. The same with locks - there is no lock on anything essential that cannot be forced open with sufficient strength (very simple to get with DuHM). Thieves add QoL, but are not essential - in fact, the biggest loss you will feel is the XP from traps/locks, but that too is just a drop in the bucket overall.
5) You need somebody who can scout ahead, map the terrain, and spy on the enemy, without being detected, and then report back, so that there are no surprises about what the party is about to face.
That is an RP argument. You don't need to scout ahead at all, you can simply go in and deal with it 99% of the time. Pretending meta knowledge doesn't exist is also not exactly an argument, because it, well, does. There is no forgetting what you know, and pretending otherwise can be valid for RP, but not for objective discussions. Gameplay-wise, there is no objective reason you need to scout ahead, much less so undetected.
6) You need somebody who can do effective area-effect attacks against mobs, and crowd-control. This person is usually your mage, and is also responsible for countering other mages who are trying to do this same job against your allies.
Neither AoE nor CC is required. Given the binary nature of saving throws, CC cannot be relied on in any case (in BG2 anyway), and there are preciously few situations where true AoE is needed. If anything, you could argue that "mage" is a role that could be considered "needed" - simply because they offer the best buffs and dispels in the game, but not specifically because of CC or AoE.
I see where you are coming from with your concept, but I still think the categorization is arbitrary. There is no objective argument why those would be the "roles" of the game; I could make similar arguments for 10 more such "roles" and it wouldn't really mean anything. The whole idea behind "roles" is distilling the essential elements of combat down into the simplest categories - if you make things more complex, there is no meaning behind the entire system. The "traditional" trifecta model of DPS/Tank/Heal is contingent on people actually being specialized in that role, to a point where they do nothing else. In BG, that is simply not a reality - unless you specifically choose to make it so. The game is deliberately designed to work outside of a "role" system, mainly because it offers more RP freedom.
Of course, my usual warning applies: these arguments are made with objective power/performance in mind. Things like RP, fun, personal preference etc. don't enter into it, but are VITAL to your own personal enjoyment of the game. Always keep that in mind!
@Lord_Tansheron, the last two lines in your counter-post set out beautifully why you and I have such different points of view and tastes in what is fun in gaming, that we are never going to agree on anything.
Let us be friends, nevertheless. A toast to individuality! Vive la difference! *clink*
"What is fun" is not a discussion that can be held rationally. As you point out, the viewpoints diverge too drastically, and the arguments are not exactly objective to begin with.
Still, both the original discussion and the point us two were making were not about "what is fun", but "what is viable". Elaboration on that is required, and has hopefully been provided.
I do enjoy lengthy conversations, but I think this one has run its course. Unless some shocking new argument is brought forth, I think I'd only risk repeating myself in further elaboration.
Comments
^ This. I just got back from a weekend trip and totally didn't expect to see this turn into a debate on making an overpowered CHARNAME reaper class. xD I don't mind if my archer is a little lackluster here and there, I just want to make sure that I can actually have him stick to archery, for the most part, as I don't want to have an archer who HAS to spend the back-end of the game dedicating himself to fighting on the front lines. If this were the case then an archer isn't really viable as, well, an archer.
Firetooth +4 +6 THACO, +2 fire dam., automatically fires +2 Fire Arrows
Seems a bit weird that with the hassle of having to find, buy, and carry ammo you are still worse (performance-wise) than a melee for substantial parts of the game. I guess you could see it offset by the ungodly OP-ness of ranged in BG1... ¬_¬
Herpa-derpa-herpderp. Thanks for that lol
I'm going to reiterate (in hopes of ending this conversation) that when I am asked or if I ask 'if a class is viable' I am asking if this class can perform the role that the class is supposed to fill. Archers are designed to do one thing really well and that is DPS from a distance. Their bonuses apply to short bows, long bows, and crossbows and thus have a wide variety of options. As a class they can do the whole 'ranged damage' bit pretty well and only the fighter can hope to come close in terms of non-magical ranged damage. Archer is viable because it CAN do a role with at least average success (unlike the shapeshifter).
Yes it's not pertinent to the original question, but that's how forums work - things evolve with the audience. And at the end of the day, you may find out you learned more than you thought.
Your definition of viable only really applies if you plan to solo.
A shapeshifter is very viable in a party. Their werewolf form, while lackluster vs certain enemies with regard to damage dealing is still an awesome tank, and while situational, some of their spells can be quite powerful. Their insect swarm spells are good vs casters and can completely shut them down for the higher level one, and their elemental summons while fragile, pack a punch, and unlike the HLA versions (hit as +2), hits as +5, making them useful for damage dealers while your shapeshifter tanks the enemies attacks.
While it's truth the shapeshifter does suffer some loss compared to what it's billed as (it's forms not having the proper benefits for the type of creatures it's supposed to be changing into), it's hardly useless.
In someways, it's better then a beastmaster, even though I personally rate a Beastmaster higher due to simply being more straight up powerful in melee. Beastmasters, aside from their spell slots actually being useful by getting higher level animal summons at lower levels, don't really have a stand out bonus like stalker's BS or archer's ranged supremacy. They're limited to clubs and quarterstaves, and bows, darts, slings as weapon choices, and get a slight bonus to stealth. Their animal summons are pretty much useless for damage dealing, due to no being considered magical, and even the tougher animals you can get simply aren't very useful straight up...but for soaking spells and being distractions, they are awesome. Summon a few animals to break up the enemy formation, while you stealth in and start smashing the most dangerous target, while your pets keep the other enemies distracted, and then pick them apart from there. Or using them to soak a beholder's volley of spells while you zip in and beat the crap out of them before they can prepare a 2nd volley. Beholder's thankfully are pretty fragile and good solid hit or 2 from a warrior can take them down...getting close without being torn apart by eye-beams is the hard part, since they can see through stealth/invisibility.
The archer by contrast does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a ranged damage specialist, with a couple extra tricks, and actually doesn't sacrifice much of anything for it. (as mentioned else where, their penalties are actually weaker then they should be, and they get a few extra bonuses on top).
Essentially some classes are built to fulfill certain 'roles'. The information that I am looking for is not whether or not another class can do the role better but can the current class do what it's meant to do well enough to do that role? Some classes are built to do multiple roles at a disadavantage (such as the stunted progression of a cleric/mage in comparison to an actual cleric or mage) but these classes/kits/combinations and their effectiveness is based on if they can do the role well.
Some classes or combinations try to fulfill roles but fall short of the goal because the class itself not only pales in comparison to the other classes in that role but the class itself does the role poorly. For example, the impression I get from the shapeshifter is that it is supposed to imitate a fighter/cleric or a fighter/druid. However, an actual fighter/druid or fighter/cleric would have access to armor, weapon proficiencies, and be able to cast spells and fight seamlessly. A shapeshifter cannot use any armor, nor benefit from any weapon proficiencies (except one slot in single weapon fighting), and cannot cast spells while shapeshifted. Their best form is useable once per day so if I need to cast a spell and I'm already shapeshifted then I'll need to choose between the spell I need to cast or the combat buffs I got. Also, werewolf paws at best count as +2 and gets no better while a fighter/cleric or a fighter/druid could just get a better sword. Even if dual-classed the shapeshifter gets no better because they STILL cannot use armor, weapons, or weapon proficiency slots. Perhaps in BG1 this class could be useable for this role but not in the end game for BG2 (and especially not the end game for ToB). I'm only talking about a party setting. As in "Okay, you play the bruiser, I'll play the thief, that guy plays the healer, and that guy plays the blaster mage". I've already said it before that just because a character can't (or finds great difficulty) solo the game doesn't mean he isn't viable. A solo run is MEANT to be a challenge so do it with a class that would have difficulty.
See above for my thoughts on the shapeshifter, although lets stop talking about the shapeshifter here since this thread is about the archer. If you want to keep talking about these we can do it in PMs or on the thread I've already started on the subject. I would also like to open a topic on beast master and get some opinions in on that.
BUT THIS IS NOT THAT DAY. I agree, Archer does what it sets out to do and it does it really well.
Performance in BG is essentially divided into two groups: damage output and survival. Both have to be looked at from a party-wide perspective, i.e. including buffs to other people. That means that there really are only two "roles" in a sense, and that makes class analysis a lot simpler. It also means that the vast majority of classes/kits are going to fall short of being optimal, simply because there is no need for complexity and the straightforward, brute-force classes always come out on top; it's also why the fighter/mage combinations are so powerful, as they combine the highest damage output (fighter single/mage group) with the best survival (fighter HP/mage defense buffs).
The Archer suffers from essentially contributing only in one "role". While they do have cleric spells, they are rudimentary only and not enough to supplant a party cleric - which in turn makes them largely redundant, as you only need one cleric. The same of course is true for most other classes as well, and it's also why dual/multi class combos are so powerful.
But again, this is just in terms of raw power. RP, QoL, and personal preference are entirely different lines of argument, and may play a much larger role in the ultimate decision. I can't really speak to those, though, that's up to everyone to decide for themselves. Me, I don't really care about RP and my personal preferences are mathematical more than anything - that's certainly not true for the vast majority of players out there.
1) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand toe to toe with enemies and take lots of damage, keeping enemies away from allies doing other jobs. Doing high damage at the same time is a nice bonus, but it's not the primary function of this role. Most people who play a lot of different games including D&D would call it "tank".
2) You need somebody (preferably two people) who can stand behind the people doing the first job, and deal out high damage. This role lends itself most easily to being combined with other roles. People doing this role often perform it through ranged combat, or through mastery of a long-handled or pole weapon. Lots of games would call this "DPS".
3) You need somebody who can heal, protect, and buff others, be it before combat, during, or after. The "healer" needs to also have protections and cures for all the dreaded "conditions" in whatever game. In D&D, that would be poisoned, afraid, held, stunned, paralyzed, confused, charmed, dominated, level-drained, and intelligence-drained.
4) You need somebody who can deal with locks and traps. This role is especially important in a game like Baldur's Gate, where the traps are lethal.
5) You need somebody who can scout ahead, map the terrain, and spy on the enemy, without being detected, and then report back, so that there are no surprises about what the party is about to face.
6) You need somebody who can do effective area-effect attacks against mobs, and crowd-control. This person is usually your mage, and is also responsible for countering other mages who are trying to do this same job against your allies.
That's six specific and vital combat functions. My perfect six member party has two melee fighters, two healers who can do second functions, a thief, and a mage. It's very helpful if one of the party other than the thief can be the scout, freeing the thief to concentrate skills on locks and traps.
Now, on-topic, I think the archer is a very good candidate for effectively filling role number 2. His weakness is that he really can't fulfill any of the other roles that well, making him kind of a one-trick pony.
Since the shapeshifter has been brought into the discussion about the archer, I'll mention that, too. It's a very cool concept, but it really only does a good job at role number 1, and role number 2, early in the trilogy. After that, it's really only good for roles 3 (healing/buffing/protection), and somewhat effective at 6. The trouble is that a straight mage can do 6 better, and a straight cleric can do 3 better. Although, that criticism could potentially be made of the entire druid class.
Not everyone is so hard core that they can play a totally gimped character solo through SCS Ascension.
By your definition, you couldn't ever use rogues to melee, because they'd always be at risk of "pulling aggro", but that just isn't a reality. Also: you say that damage dealing is "not the primary function of this role", but that is an arbitrary statement by you. Fighters are the highest damage dealers in the game, while at the same time having access to the highest level armor and high HP pools, and the only time where you compromise survival for damage is by using shields - which you shouldn't, as AC becomes less and less relevant in BG2 due to the way enemy THAC0s progress.
Sure, you could make that "tank role" work; but that would be an artificially constructed role, not an integral part of the game, and certainly not "needed" as you say. So anyone not using ranged or long weapons is not a DPS? What about the fact that the highest damage output in the game hands down comes from melee-range swords and flails? Again, you construct an arbitrary category to fit your "tank/DPS" model. There is no real aggro, so you go around that by only having your tank in close melee range - sure, that can work against non-ranged non-mage enemies, but not because the game requires it, but because you make it so. What if I only kited, for the entire game? Does that mean the game "needs" a kiter? I agree with you there, you need buffs of some sort - either to survive, or to increase damage output. However, unlike in other games you are not required in BG to have someone DEDICATED to that role. In fact you can do without it if you want to go through the hassle, but even if you don't (i.e. play optimally) you would feel the slot with a hybrid, not a dedicated "role". That's why I favor a more simple model - the complex "role" model just isn't accurate in an environment where you can go hybrid at every corner. That is simply untrue. There are only a handful (literally, there's like 4 or 5) actually LETHAL traps in BG2/ToB. The rest deal damage or have nasty effects, but even the few ones that can't be avoided with meta knowledge or Find Traps (Cleric) can easily be brute-forced through. The same with locks - there is no lock on anything essential that cannot be forced open with sufficient strength (very simple to get with DuHM). Thieves add QoL, but are not essential - in fact, the biggest loss you will feel is the XP from traps/locks, but that too is just a drop in the bucket overall. That is an RP argument. You don't need to scout ahead at all, you can simply go in and deal with it 99% of the time. Pretending meta knowledge doesn't exist is also not exactly an argument, because it, well, does. There is no forgetting what you know, and pretending otherwise can be valid for RP, but not for objective discussions. Gameplay-wise, there is no objective reason you need to scout ahead, much less so undetected. Neither AoE nor CC is required. Given the binary nature of saving throws, CC cannot be relied on in any case (in BG2 anyway), and there are preciously few situations where true AoE is needed. If anything, you could argue that "mage" is a role that could be considered "needed" - simply because they offer the best buffs and dispels in the game, but not specifically because of CC or AoE.
I see where you are coming from with your concept, but I still think the categorization is arbitrary. There is no objective argument why those would be the "roles" of the game; I could make similar arguments for 10 more such "roles" and it wouldn't really mean anything. The whole idea behind "roles" is distilling the essential elements of combat down into the simplest categories - if you make things more complex, there is no meaning behind the entire system. The "traditional" trifecta model of DPS/Tank/Heal is contingent on people actually being specialized in that role, to a point where they do nothing else. In BG, that is simply not a reality - unless you specifically choose to make it so. The game is deliberately designed to work outside of a "role" system, mainly because it offers more RP freedom.
Of course, my usual warning applies: these arguments are made with objective power/performance in mind. Things like RP, fun, personal preference etc. don't enter into it, but are VITAL to your own personal enjoyment of the game. Always keep that in mind!
Let us be friends, nevertheless. A toast to individuality! Vive la difference! *clink*
Still, both the original discussion and the point us two were making were not about "what is fun", but "what is viable". Elaboration on that is required, and has hopefully been provided.
I do enjoy lengthy conversations, but I think this one has run its course. Unless some shocking new argument is brought forth, I think I'd only risk repeating myself in further elaboration.
Gesen bow, and fire crossbow from ToB are the best bows in the game in my opinion. Tuigan bow is very very very good early game.