The reason these X vs. Y threads never amount to anything is that the game was never designed around player characters fighting each other. There's so many balance issues I don't even know where to begin...
I usually begin with PC damage output vs. PC hit points, because that's enough by itself, though this is less a problem in BG than it is with other CRPGs that rely more heavily on bloated enemy HP numbers to control combat pacing. Without absolute protections, PCs just don't have the HP to survive a high level backstab, greater whirlwind, chain contingency x3 horrid wilting, etc.
The reason these X vs. Y threads never amount to anything is that the game was never designed around player characters fighting each other. There's so many balance issues I don't even know where to begin...
That, and it's just common forum tendencies to have certain discussions go on and on. Many threads (e.g. how does thac0 work?) essentially get answered in the first 2-3 replies, but then extend a few more pages anyway.
Yeah, but the following pages are often more interesting :-)
Ok, I'm an inquisitor and I want to kill a f/m who knows that I'm coming for him. I must think different... but I'm not going to throw apples.... I know I can't prevent him from use contingency or spell sequencer, but I can prevent him from casting any other spell. He will guess that I'll use my dispel magic and my Carsomir, but I won't. I'm just gonna use true sight and dual FoA and a +apr weapon. Could I prevent him from casting just with the elemental damage FoA deals (I'll have 4 apr with FoA +5 wich means 10 * 4 elemental damage per round) Is it enough?
Or alternatively I could equipe a couple of rings of fire resistance and throwing arrows of detonation.
@Pibaro: No. You are using a faulty premise: "I can prevent him from casting any other spell" is simply not true. There is virtually no way to prevent a (player-controlled) mage from casting Stoneskin or Protection from Magic Weapons through interrupts. PfMW in particular laughs in the face of your FoA and just keeps on casting that lethal Time Stop. And as I pointed out earlier there are not enough dispels available to the Inquisitor to match the number of SS/PfMW a mage of comparable level can stock up on. Carsomyr on-hit dispel works against Stoneskin, but has fairly low APR; the on-use dispel has a hugely long cast time and can be easily interrupted.
Another thing people tend to forget: mages have haste, and can simply run away all day long, firing off instants as they go. There is no way you will ever catch up at equal speed, unless the controlling player screws up.
@Schneidend: PfMW, Mantle, Improved Mantle, Stoneskin, etc. do a lot to buy that time. They are instant casts, and you have more of them than the Inquisitor has dispels.
In that case, if I were the Inquisitor I start the fight with a Greater Whirlwind instead of my kit abilities, allow the F/M to lay on a few protections, and THEN dispel all of them. If he casts PfMW, I switch to a mundane, if he starts with stoneskin, I'll let my 10 attacks per round worry about that. If we're just going to assume the F/M can somehow cast 4 or so protections in a row without the cooldown between rounds, then obviously the F/M would win.
As a F/M I would likely start with haste, and run away. Then I'd put up SS, and if the Inq is catching up, kite until I can put down PfMW. If the Inq dispels, I repeat that until the dispels are gone; if not, I cast Time Stop and it's game over. Once the dispels are gone, I put up SS and PfMW and cast Time Stop and it's game over.
If we're just going to assume the F/M can somehow cast 4 or so protections in a row without the cooldown between rounds, then obviously the F/M would win.
The OP states the f/m starts buffed, which would render him untouchable for the inquisitor. But as stated, even if he didn't the inquisitor would still be hard pressed to pull off a win.
Pfmw, Mantle, improved mantle and absolute imunity aren't passible of be dispeled by dispel magic. So anyone correct if i'm wrong, but if those short duration spells can't be dispelled (as far as i know only breach/pierce magic can take them down). If they can't be dispelled the time stop can't be stopped.
The only chance here would be an ravager with GWW activated. If spell immunity necromancy stop the instant kill of ravager the inquisitor is fucked, he can drink an invisible potion with a cloak of non-detection to waste the time stop, but after that, he will have to deal with the other spells.
i speak of uses to cloak of non-detection for inquisitors to waste the time stop time, but then a mage with it or just casting the proper spell can simply cast simulacrum(s) and make a hell of the inquisitor's life.
Not sure why the OP seems intent on throwing Fighter into the mix. Straight up Mage would kill the Inquisitor. Time stop - > Miss-direction -> Any combination of kill spells that the Wizard wants and hey-presto! one dead Inquisitor.
Inquisitor might be able to blow through spell defences, but they need to (a) be able to attack the mage and (b) have to do it before the mage gets the killing spell off. Miss-direction/Invisibility make that very difficult. And Time Stop allows the wizard to be able to adjust strategy towards anything that the Inquisitor has.
Since there is no save to Time Stop, the only possibility that the inquisitor has to stop his own death is to hit and disrupt the first spell. Standard contingencies that any decent wizard would reasonably have would stop that from happening.
Seems like we're giving the F/M a lot of leeway to prepare and cast spells with really long cast times, or multiple spells that would have cooldown in between, unhindered, while Inquisitor is not being afforded the opportunity to pop any spells or HLAs of his own beforehand.
@Schneidend: go ahead, let the F/M be unbuffed and you pop everything you want. All the defensive spells are instant. The F/M only has to kite until the next is available, and the Inquisitor *has* to stand still momentarily to cast Dispel Magic. With equal speed, there is no reason he'd ever catch the mage, let alone if haste comes into play (which is also instant with RoV+AoP). What HLA do you think is going to do anything?
@Schneidend - Invisibility doesn't take that long to cast. And if you go with 'Reasonable preparation', most wizards have contingencies that would be ample to the task of holding off the Inquisitor while the caster gets off a Time Stop. Then it is all over but the crying for the Inquisitor. No benefit is being accorded to the F/M that isn't reasonable. And what spells are the Inquisitor going to get off to counter anything a 20th level mage anyway?
Bards have scrolls, also defensive spin. I assume that if you're in defensive spin then they can't target you even in timestop? So the Mage would have to do melee damage or area damage?
Bard also has traps. Time traps too.
If a Bard can survive mage timestop then they win. At level 22 a mage has 3 level 9 spells. A bard at the same experience is level 30 and would win a dispel war.
Monks yeah. Though they could run and hide, maybe!
@Schneidend - Invisibility doesn't take that long to cast. And if you go with 'Reasonable preparation', most wizards have contingencies that would be ample to the task of holding off the Inquisitor while the caster gets off a Time Stop. Then it is all over but the crying for the Inquisitor. No benefit is being accorded to the F/M that isn't reasonable. And what spells are the Inquisitor going to get off to counter anything a 20th level mage anyway?
The Inquisitor's True Sight would dispel the Invisibility, Greater Whirlwind will take care of Mirror Image or Stoneskin within a round, Dispel Magic can potentially dispel anything else. Meanwhile, True Sight is ticking away every round to get rid of any more illusions.
I'm not saying the Inquisitor has this in the bag, but the assumption that Mages can just walk all over the Inquisitor seems more than a little biased.
As with the F/C, this fight isn't even close. Inquisitors may have all the tools to deal with AI mages, but they wouldn't have a chance against a human controlled mage who knew what they were doing.
Well what if both characters were being controlled by players?
The true HLAs from monks (not the ones implemented on BG2) make them immune to time stop and other alike spells, they can't be slowed, their speed is greater than haste (and sometimes improved haste also in very high levels), good saving throws, hide in shadow (that can be used to waste the physical immunity protections). Well the monk has a chance, not a big chance but there is it.
A bard in Baldur's Gate has no chane against a mage, period.
The true HLAs from monks (not the ones implemented on BG2) make them immune to time stop and other alike spells, they can't be slowed, their speed is greater than haste (and sometimes improved haste also in very high levels), good saving throws, hide in shadow (that can be used to waste the physical immunity protections). Well the monk has a chance, not a big chance but there is it.
A bard in Baldur's Gate has no chane against a mage, period.
How is a Mage going to kill a Bard, if it's so easy?
Actually, forget Time Stop. Chain Contingency is actually instant cast which allows the Mage to cast any three spells up to level 8 with no possibility of interruption. I'm rather hoping they give it a lengthy casting time in BG:EE to fix that since it's brokenly overpowered even by current Mage standards.
@Schneidend: go ahead, let the F/M be unbuffed and you pop everything you want. All the defensive spells are instant. The F/M only has to kite until the next is available, and the Inquisitor *has* to stand still momentarily to cast Dispel Magic. With equal speed, there is no reason he'd ever catch the mage, let alone if haste comes into play (which is also instant with RoV+AoP). What HLA do you think is going to do anything?
One protection spell isn't as powerful as you think. Elemental damage > Stoneskin. Magical weapon > PfNMW. Non-magical weapon > PfMW. +6 weapon > Absolute Immunity. BG allows instant weapon switching so there's no problem having the correct weapon to hand.
If the F/M starts with stoneskin then GWW + FoA+5 is 100 elemental damage in the first round alone. The F/M is pretty much dead at this point. Or GWW + AoU/Ravager is a very likely instant death.
If the F/M starts PfMW then 10 non-magical attacks/round = dead F/M.
The only proper protection is Stoneskin + PfMW. And that takes 2 rounds to cast, and as soon as both go up the Inquisitor can dispel.
If we allow running away as a tactic then as I showed earlier it's a no score draw - assuming they both have boots of speed then neither can catch the other.
Comments
I must think different... but I'm not going to throw apples....
I know I can't prevent him from use contingency or spell sequencer, but I can prevent him from casting any other spell.
He will guess that I'll use my dispel magic and my Carsomir, but I won't.
I'm just gonna use true sight and dual FoA and a +apr weapon.
Could I prevent him from casting just with the elemental damage FoA deals (I'll have 4 apr with FoA +5 wich means 10 * 4 elemental damage per round)
Is it enough?
Or alternatively I could equipe a couple of rings of fire resistance and throwing arrows of detonation.
Do I have any chance?
Another thing people tend to forget: mages have haste, and can simply run away all day long, firing off instants as they go. There is no way you will ever catch up at equal speed, unless the controlling player screws up.
The only chance here would be an ravager with GWW activated. If spell immunity necromancy stop the instant kill of ravager the inquisitor is fucked, he can drink an invisible potion with a cloak of non-detection to waste the time stop, but after that, he will have to deal with the other spells.
not buffed f/m is second most op character
i think inuisitor can only do as much as f/m let him do even with arrows of dispelling detonation and others there are spells to stop everything
Inquisitor might be able to blow through spell defences, but they need to (a) be able to attack the mage and (b) have to do it before the mage gets the killing spell off. Miss-direction/Invisibility make that very difficult. And Time Stop allows the wizard to be able to adjust strategy towards anything that the Inquisitor has.
Since there is no save to Time Stop, the only possibility that the inquisitor has to stop his own death is to hit and disrupt the first spell. Standard contingencies that any decent wizard would reasonably have would stop that from happening.
Mage v Bard
Mage v Monk
Bard also has traps. Time traps too.
If a Bard can survive mage timestop then they win. At level 22 a mage has 3 level 9 spells. A bard at the same experience is level 30 and would win a dispel war.
Monks yeah. Though they could run and hide, maybe!
I'm not saying the Inquisitor has this in the bag, but the assumption that Mages can just walk all over the Inquisitor seems more than a little biased.
I just hope that this sudden fad of X vs. Y ends soon. It's inherently unbalanced and unfair, and was never meant to be. Let it go!
A bard in Baldur's Gate has no chane against a mage, period.
The Monk has no chance, as stated above.
If the F/M starts with stoneskin then GWW + FoA+5 is 100 elemental damage in the first round alone. The F/M is pretty much dead at this point. Or GWW + AoU/Ravager is a very likely instant death.
If the F/M starts PfMW then 10 non-magical attacks/round = dead F/M.
The only proper protection is Stoneskin + PfMW. And that takes 2 rounds to cast, and as soon as both go up the Inquisitor can dispel.
If we allow running away as a tactic then as I showed earlier it's a no score draw - assuming they both have boots of speed then neither can catch the other.