The important question I have to ask that nobody seems to be discussing - What about the Deva? It goes off before time stop and since its "gated" in the mage can't simply dispel the Deva. And, correct me if I'm wrong but since the Deva is extraplanar isn't it UNAFFECTED by time stop? Also they can cast true sight so it pretty much tosses your invisibility out the window. In fact...
[Taken from http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/DivineSpells.htm] The ultimate clerical summon. Calls forth a powerful Solar armed with a mace that destroys undead, dispels magic and Stuns on a hit. The thing's fighting ability compares to that of a level 10 Fighter, has good magic resistance and is immune to various elemental damages, insta-kill effects and weapons of less than +2 enchantment. It regenerates and can see the invisible. The Deva is actually gated instead of summoned, so it's unaffected by Death Spells.
The Deva is a decent Divine spellcaster (with a touch of Arcane) with the following spells memorized:
@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.
A total of 5 dispels, all of which dispel ALL spells. All the Inquisitor needs to do is wait for A single sequencer (you can't see an enemy twice) and follow-up with a dispel. After that your risking being interrupted while casting all your non-sequenced spells which you have to cast since the Inquisitor + Deva are going to out DPR and out DPT you in melee
Just to be clear again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PVP IN BALDUR'S GATE. I don't know where this sudden obsession comes from, but there just isn't. The end.
It's of some interest to me in these "x vs. y" discussions whether we are coming at it from a roleplaying or a powergaming PVP point of view.
I think that the whole BG engine was designed from the ground up as a roleplaying engine, and never as a PVP engine, although, it can be powergamed if one uses metaknowledge and has some desire to "beat", thoroughly and absolutely, a computer program that was not necessarily designed for that kind of play. (Result: a computerized "arms race", and mods like SCS.)
I always approach these kinds of "x vs. y" problems from a roleplaying perspective, since my willing suspension of disbelief for any game depends absolutely upon the empirical and logical sense of the "reality" being put to me for entertainment.
What I never see from the evil archmage overlords in these kinds of threads, is an understanding of the consequences of their actions in "mopping the floor", hypothetically, with the good inquisitor hero types. If you can defeat Superhero Good, with your Supervillain God Evil magic powers, without breaking a sweat, then, what I almost never see any of you Supervillain God Evil types understand, is that the entire Good Army of Good Heroes is going to unite against you, with the charter goal of sending Supervillain God Evil you back to the Abyss, where You belong. Even some of the Tyrannical Evil armies of the world will probably join together against you.
A 25 or so level mage in D&D is about as close to "Supervillain God", evil or good, as you can come in this particular little fantasy world. So, if you can defeat up to six "good" (or maybe evil?) superheroes, without breaking a sweat, what makes you think that you are going to enjoy your status as the "Supervillain God" of the world for very long, without every army in existence in the material plane uniting their collective mights against you?
Are you proud of your 25th, or even 30th level mage status of being able to defeat groups of six, ten, twelve, twenty, or whatever superheroes of non-mage classes?
Then I welcome you to try your mortal hand, and yes, you're still mortal, against the combined might of the entire population of the world. I really wouldn't think you'd want to make such a public nuisance of yourself, not unless you think you have a way to change the reality of your own plane of existence.
And honestly, the heroes of any plane have an unfathomable way of stopping entities just like you, at every turn of your supposedly impregnable, invulnerable, evil overlord plans, leaving you forever coughing up death gurgles like "To end...like this....gasp....no....it's not...poss...i....ble...garahhleagh."
I do hope you enjoy your group hug by the dozen or so pit fiends that will greet you as you and they plummet from the highest cliffs of Hell into the Lake of Fire. (See "Irenicus, final end")
Why would an inquisitor even be trying to kill you in the first place?
TLDR: Any F/M of epic level who wants to fight and defeat an inquisitor of epic level, mano a mano, must have a wisdom score of about 3. Yeah, you'll probably beat him. All glory to you. I hope you enjoy what you get for it. May you live in interesting times. :0
@the_spyder, it would be, except, I read the Dragonlance epic so long ago, I don't really remember what happened to him.
What my hopelessly Good, goody two-shoes being and memory remembers, is that his brother tried to redeem him. I don't remember it working. I do remember some horrible fate for Raist where he screwed his Good to the core twin brother, and entered the pantheon as some kind of hated-by-all archetype of all Evil.
I guess I'll try looking it up on Wiki, since you're trying to make a point with the Dragonlance story.
@Battlehamster To my knowledge, Devas aren't immune to Time Stop in BG2. And it's a very risky move for the Inquisitor; for one, since he doesn't have much in the way of casting time reducers, he risks being interrupted by the F/M if they are currently engaged in melee. For another, the F/M does have access to casting time reducers, namely the Robe of Vecna, which makes Time Stop a faster cast than Summon Deva.
Why would an inquisitor even be trying to kill you in the first place?
An excellent question, but one with many answers, not all of which place the Inquisitor firmly in the right such that the forces of Good will band together to avenge his death. The F/M is not necessarily an evil supervillain, the Inquisitor may have been deceived into targeting him. Or else the F/M may have made some (real or imagined) insult on the Inquisitor's honor that provoked a challenge to a duel, making this a personal matter and not a battle for the Fate of the Realms. Let us not fall into the trap of imagining Paladins as infallible and incapable of making mistakes: Both Paladins in the BG series have been known to attack party members on flimsy pretexts.
@Kaigen, I appreciate your trying to engage with my roleplaying question about this supposedly epic mage vs. inquisitor battle that the majority assumes that the mage will win.
Hmm, on thinking about your hypothetical scenario of "the mage is in the right and the inquisitor is in the wrong", all I can see that would make the mage a force for good is that the mage might just be wanting to be left alone to study and to contemplate existence, and that the inquisitor is a torturer a la the real life Catholic Inquisition who is almost universally hated, such that, the "good vs. evil" scenario I posed gets turned on its head, where the mage is actually a Gandalfesque force for good, and the inquisitor is actually evil, despite D&D labels. In that case, I would be saying "Go, Gandalf! You get that evil sob Keldorn, girlfriend!"
Hmm, on thinking about your hypothetical scenario of "the mage is in the right and the inquisitor is in the wrong", all I can see that would make the mage a force for good is that the mage might just be wanting to be left alone to study and to contemplate existence, and that the inquisitor is a torturer a la the real life Catholic Inquisition who is almost universally hated, such that, the "good vs. evil" scenario I posed gets turned on its head, where the mage is actually a Gandalfesque force for good, and the inquisitor is actually evil, despite D&D labels. In that case, I would be saying "Go, Gandalf! You get that evil sob Keldorn, girlfriend!"
I look at it this way, the circumstances of the fight are (apparently) that the fight starts with the two combatants a swords-length apart, without any buff spells whatsoever active on the F/M. This doesn't make any sense if the F/M is the aggressor, why would he cast aside any possible advantage and make no preparations before attacking? It barely makes any sense if the Inquisitor is attacking the F/M out of the blue, for what high level mage would be walking around with no contingencies and not even a Stoneskin active? The most sensible scenario is that this is a formal duel (perhaps the F/M cuckolded the Inquisitor, ala Keldorn and Sir William). And one of the binding features of a formal duel is that whatever the matter that provoked it, it is considered settled by the outcome. Unless foul play is involved, it's unlikely to spark a holy crusade against the F/M. Neither party necessarily has to be Evil or "in the wrong," but once the duel is over, the matter is closed.
@belgarathmth - Basically it was what you said, only there were two timelines. In the first, he makes it through the gate and starts a war against the gods that ultimately leaves the Prime plane a wasteland. Because his Brother gets deposited back on the Prime Plane in the future, he sees what the outcome will be and has foreknowledge so that he can go back in time to stop it. There's a bit more to it than that, but basically Raistlin turns into a Super-villain on steroids and ends up destroying the entire pantheon.
At the end of the day, I really think it would boil down to if the wizard could get off Time Stop before dying at the hand of the Inquisitor, and there are quite a few paths whereupon he should be able to do that more often than not. Once that milestone is hit, i think it would be fairly fate accompli.
I agree with several folks here that PvP was not the intention of either D&D or any of the CRPG games based on those systems. However, there are always those who will push the envelope; which is fine because it broadens the appeal to an already robust game. I don't personally partake (mainly because I would suck worse at it than against the relatively dumb AI, which boggles the mind) but it is sometimes a fun mental exercise in mechanics and game knowledge.
I also don't think that 'Balance' between the classes was ever intended to accommodate PvP (at least not until later editions) and so therefore the question is really a blown one. All IMHO.
I can see where this hypothetical cosmic battle between the epic fighter/mage and the epic inquisitor should be couched in terms of the "how and why", way more than in terms of who will win.
The "how and why" is the critical underpinnings of our F/M's supposed inevitable win of the fight, since that "inevitable win" is wholly predicated upon the correct contingencies and sequencers having been prepared beforehand.
Why wouldn't the inquisitor, with his high wisdom score, have done everything in his power to catch this Irenicus level mage by surprise?
Exactly what is this Sauron level mage anticipating that he has prepared the exact contingency of "mage is attacked, cast on self, Spell Immunity:Abjuration, Stoneskin, Protection from Magic Weapons"?
In any real world scenario, a contingency like that would likely be wasted on the very first kobold that ever went mad and attacked our increasingly hypothetical Loki.
I think that we are assuming here that our Palpatine is about to fight the paladin/inquisitor Luke. And, Palpatine has completely forgotten about our Anakin.
There is *always* something that is going to make our ever more hypothetical evil fighter-mage, (or even the "good" one, if we are going to find a reason to turn the morality of this scenario on its head), lose the fight to our hypothetical inquisitor superhero/supervillain, be it, the ring thrown into the volcano, the MacGuffin removing the f/m's invulnerabilities, the forgotten Anakin or Gollum in the shadows, or the Bhaalspawn factor.
You guys who delight in pressing the powergaming advantages of the fighter-mage should really become a bit more genre-savvy. You will *always* lose. The genre demands it. Unless, of course, you are a heroic big bad fighter-mage fighting an even *bigger* big bad villainous fighter-mage. Then, and only then, all bets are off, pending the decisions of the god Storywritus.
@belgarathmth - I think you are overthinking even from a role play perspective. I can very well see two equals of this type squaring off against each other over a simple difference in ideologies.
You say 'What is this Sauron level mage doing?" Well, you are an Epic (I can't think of a high level counterpart from literature) Inquisitor. You aren't fearful of the mage "Because he is that much more powerful than you." From your perspective, it 'should' be a pretty evenly matched fight. So why go against one of your basic tennants (that of attacking like a coward, from surprise)?
But at the end of the day, the exercise being decided here isn't 'What is their motivation for fighting', it's to look at the mechanics of if they did fight.
@the_spyder, if I answer you from my paladin aspect, (which is only one face of my self-diamond), I would say that I would not be out to defeat our hypothetical, win-assured f/m, unless I had a very good reason, such as, this hypothetical f/m wants to cause horrible suffering in the world, just because it feels good to him or her, for some reason.
Since this hypothetical f/m is in fact win-assured, because of the mechanics (but if, and only if, there is an axiomatic contingency that allows Spell Immunity:Abjuration, Stoneskin, and PfMW to be instant cast with no chance of interrupt, followed by Time Stop on the next round plus Chain Sequencer Abu-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting x3, or some such "you die now" combo), I think that my roleplaying insistence is critical to the question, and not an "overthinking" at all.
The mechanics boil down to this: The mage is ready, the inquisitor loses. The mage is not ready, the inquisitor wins.
Why is this a topic of contention? I would almost claim that what I just said is an objective fact.
So, it seems to me, that this whole topic poses a bottom-line question of "Why would a mage prepare to defeat an inquisitor, specifically?"
And, as someone else has said, why even put "fighter" into the mix for the mage, unless you want to cut him off from a 9th level spell or two? This is much more a question of "mage vs. inquisitor".
And even more, a question of "Can a high level mage always get off a Spell Immunity:Abjuration before a high level inquisitor can blow off his defenses like smoke and kick his butt?"
The mechanics boil down to this: The mage is ready, the inquisitor loses. The mage is not ready, the inquisitor wins.
Why is this a topic of contention? I would almost claim that what I just said is an objective fact.
It is not quite so simple; as it happens, the F/M having grandmastery and dual-wielding is enough to make him a more dangerous combatant than the Inquisitor in hand-to-hand combat (I can drop my calculations into the thread if anyone is skeptical, but I've driven people nuts before with my tendency to drop a lot of math in the middle of a thread). Even adjusting for accuracy, the F/M deals more damage per round and has very close to the same hit points. This is the big difference that adding the "fighter" into the mix makes. Mage vs. Inquisitor is a game of cat and mouse. F/M vs. Inquisitor is a game of wearing the Inquisitor down until he makes a mistake in the process of trying to turn things in his favor.
Thus, we cannot simply assume that either party is specifically preparing to beat the other (though the circumstances of the fight strongly suggest that it is not a matter of happenstance).
Which brings us to the other major point of contention in these threads. Obviously, in any real match between two players, skill and the capacity for error makes a big difference. With that in mind, these threads are usually searching for an outcome assuming "perfect play," because it's easy to say "if the Mage tries to spam Magic Missile he's totally going to lose." The problem that arises is distinguishing "perfect play," i.e. always making the tactically best decision in light of your opponent's actions, from "precognition," or the Mage having the perfect move before the fight even begins, i.e. the "axiomatic contingency" that's perfectly tailored to this exact opponent. People draw the lines about where "perfect play" verges into "precognition" in different places and it makes a big difference in determining the outcome.
Ofcourse a cunning Inquisitor would wait with arresting/confronting the target until the odds were in his favor. How about a nice, unexpected nighttime raid for instance?
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
Ofcourse a cunning Inquisitor would wait with arresting/confronting the target until the odds were in his favor. How about a nice, unexpected nighttime raid for instance?
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
Aren't paladins suposed to face fights fairly? Face to face without fear? What normally kill paladins are the excessive goody two shoes of them and their lack of a sense of strategy in gray positions.
Ofcourse a cunning Inquisitor would wait with arresting/confronting the target until the odds were in his favor. How about a nice, unexpected nighttime raid for instance?
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
Aren't paladins suposed to face fights fairly? Face to face without fear? What normally kill paladins are the excessive goody two shoes of them and their lack of a sense of strategy in gray positions.
Quite so, quite so. And that is why I said "cunning" inquisitor. Only a hotheaded sword-toter would consider a well prepared - and grinning - fightermage a "fair" fight :P
Ofcourse a cunning Inquisitor would wait with arresting/confronting the target until the odds were in his favor. How about a nice, unexpected nighttime raid for instance?
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
On the other hand, people have a different term for someone who breaks into houses in the middle of the night and stabs people to death in their sleep.
Paladins rely heavily on a reputation for trustworthiness and virtue, and behaving in the manner or an assassin or secret policeman rather undercuts that. It invites suspicion into the paladin's motives, and such suspicion is anathema to their ability to represent justice and righteousness and to their ability to strike openly at Evil.
Not to mention that a cunning Fighter/Mage is certain to have magical alarms and wards to protect them while they sleep, and while an Inquisitor may have the capacity to dispel said alarms, he doesn't have the wherewithal to find them, considering he lacks the ability to detect magic.
Ofcourse a cunning Inquisitor would wait with arresting/confronting the target until the odds were in his favor. How about a nice, unexpected nighttime raid for instance?
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
On the other hand, people have a different term for someone who breaks into houses in the middle of the night and stabs people to death in their sleep.
Paladins rely heavily on a reputation for trustworthiness and virtue, and behaving in the manner or an assassin or secret policeman rather undercuts that. It invites suspicion into the paladin's motives, and such suspicion is anathema to their ability to represent justice and righteousness and to their ability to strike openly at Evil.
Not to mention that a cunning Fighter/Mage is certain to have magical alarms and wards to protect them while they sleep, and while an Inquisitor may have the capacity to dispel said alarms, he doesn't have the wherewithal to find them, considering he lacks the ability to detect magic.
In fact, I did not mention the technique of "stabbing to death". A good oldfashioned arrest and a cold dungeon (or possibly Spellhold?) would do the trick Im sure. To me, the 'Trustworhiness' of law-enforcement means that the public can entrust it to deal with wrongdoers in a way that is reliable and efficient. As a rule, a good inquisitor would probably have some sort of backup aswell, since going in alone would be reckless and suicidal and thus not very reliable.
*Following* the arrest, a fair *trial* would be preferrable, to hold corruption at bay and ensure the rule of law.
Here is a scenario to ponder: A Fightermage is wreaking havoc in the city and as such, needs to be confronted by somekind of law-enforcement to ensure public saftey. You could ofcourse send in a lone hot headed Inquisitor, risking his safety and also risking to escalate the incident. Maybe he *could* succeed, but there would be no guarantees. The Fightermage could get away or set fire to the building in the confrontation, threatening collateral damage and loss of innocent life. A better way to deal with the situation would ofcourse be to surround the building and force the Fightermage to surrender or, failing that, confront him in a more forceful and controlled manner.
Public safety is key when speaking of Virtue and Trustworthiness.
The mechanics boil down to this: The mage is ready, the inquisitor loses. The mage is not ready, the inquisitor wins.
If an Inquisitor of equal level to the F/M believes that it is this cut and dry, why face said F/M at all?
The point I was trying to make is that any beacon of light and good that feels that striking from surprise against an un-prepared opponent is a 'Good' thing, would probably be getting a good hard talking too from his/her Deity in any game that I DM'd. "Good" simply doesn't ever sneak attack. EVER! in my philosophy. Contemplating doing so might (and I say only MIGHT) be considered in the utmost dire of consequences when no other option is available.
I can't see any self respecting Inquisitor being so underwhelmed with his own ability to fight that which he has trained his entire life to fight that he would resort to that base level of fear and trickery. All IMHO.
Why is this a topic of contention? I would almost claim that what I just said is an objective fact.
So, it seems to me, that this whole topic poses a bottom-line question of "Why would a mage prepare to defeat an inquisitor, specifically?"
Hmm... Why would an Evil (presumably) Wizard intent on some evil scheme, prepare for the intervention of an Inquisitor, who presumably the said evil wizard knows is in the area? I wonder?
And, as someone else has said, why even put "fighter" into the mix for the mage, unless you want to cut him off from a 9th level spell or two? This is much more a question of "mage vs. inquisitor".
And even more, a question of "Can a high level mage always get off a Spell Immunity:Abjuration before a high level inquisitor can blow off his defenses like smoke and kick his butt?"
I wouldn't say 'Always'. I would say 95% of the time. But that is assuming that is the path they are going. As I have stated before, invisibility or Miss-direction (which is not blown away by True sight) work much better. And the Mage only needs to keep the Inquisitor at bay until he can get his first time stop. So any solution of spells that achieve that would work just as well.
To me, the 'Trustworhiness' of law-enforcement means that the public can entrust it to deal with wrongdoers in a way that is reliable and efficient. As a rule, a good inquisitor would probably have some sort of backup aswell, since going in alone would be reckless and suicidal and thus not very reliable.
*Following* the arrest, a fair *trial* would be preferrable, to hold corruption at bay and ensure the rule of law.
"Let me tell you, you need to keep an eye on these Paladin types, because sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes they go wrong. While back a whole passel of 'em went bad in Athkatla. Tried to muscle in on some territory in the Bridge District, set themselves up. What'd the 'Most Noble Order' of the Radiant Heart do? They send some group of mercenaries in there to clean 'em out. No writ, no arrests, just a lot of bladework and blood in the streets while they keep their hands clean. If that doesn't stink to high heaven to you, you need to get your sniffer fixed. No, when the 'guardians of justice' decide they need to keep secrets and walk in the shadows ain't no one you can trust."
Here is a scenario to ponder: A Fightermage is wreaking havoc in the city and as such, needs to be confronted by somekind of law-enforcement to ensure public saftey. You could ofcourse send in a lone hot headed Inquisitor, risking his safety and also risking to escalate the incident. Maybe he *could* succeed, but there would be no guarantees. The Fightermage could get away or set fire to the building in the confrontation, threatening collateral damage and loss of innocent life. A better way to deal with the situation would ofcourse be to surround the building and force the Fightermage to surrender or, failing that, confront him in a more forceful and controlled manner.
Public safety is key when speaking of Virtue and Trustworthiness.
All of which has nothing to do with a hypothetical one-on-one fight between a Fighter/Mage and an Inquisitor. Of course if a Fighter/Mage is wreaking havoc the law is going to respond, and it is going to respond in force, and if the law is smart it will respond with its own magical backup. Which suggests that if an Inquisitor is choosing to fight a Fighter/Mage solo, then it is a rather more personal matter, and not a matter of public safety or law enforcement.
To me, the 'Trustworhiness' of law-enforcement means that the public can entrust it to deal with wrongdoers in a way that is reliable and efficient. As a rule, a good inquisitor would probably have some sort of backup aswell, since going in alone would be reckless and suicidal and thus not very reliable.
*Following* the arrest, a fair *trial* would be preferrable, to hold corruption at bay and ensure the rule of law.
"Let me tell you, you need to keep an eye on these Paladin types, because sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes they go wrong. While back a whole passel of 'em went bad in Athkatla. Tried to muscle in on some territory in the Bridge District, set themselves up. What'd the 'Most Noble Order' of the Radiant Heart do? They send some group of mercenaries in there to clean 'em out. No writ, no arrests, just a lot of bladework and blood in the streets while they keep their hands clean. If that doesn't stink to high heaven to you, you need to get your sniffer fixed. No, when the 'guardians of justice' decide they need to keep secrets and walk in the shadows ain't no one you can trust."
Here is a scenario to ponder: A Fightermage is wreaking havoc in the city and as such, needs to be confronted by somekind of law-enforcement to ensure public saftey. You could ofcourse send in a lone hot headed Inquisitor, risking his safety and also risking to escalate the incident. Maybe he *could* succeed, but there would be no guarantees. The Fightermage could get away or set fire to the building in the confrontation, threatening collateral damage and loss of innocent life. A better way to deal with the situation would ofcourse be to surround the building and force the Fightermage to surrender or, failing that, confront him in a more forceful and controlled manner.
Public safety is key when speaking of Virtue and Trustworthiness.
All of which has nothing to do with a hypothetical one-on-one fight between a Fighter/Mage and an Inquisitor. Of course if a Fighter/Mage is wreaking havoc the law is going to respond, and it is going to respond in force, and if the law is smart it will respond with its own magical backup. Which suggests that if an Inquisitor is choosing to fight a Fighter/Mage solo, then it is a rather more personal matter, and not a matter of public safety or law enforcement.
Paladins are humans. Humans can be corrupted. Way of the world. Not sure where youre going with this quote.
A "personal matter" sounds shady to me. Paladins are (supposed to be) lawful and serving.
If you want to take everything out of context and reduce it to numbers, I guess the Fightermage could have the upper hand. But I wouldnt see the point.
Paladins are humans. Humans can be corrupted. Way of the world. Not sure where youre going with this quote.
Where I'm going is, the price of being a Paladin is being held to a higher standard of transparency and action. That's why they have a Code of things they're not allowed to do in addition to having to be Lawful Good. A clandestine solo arrest attempt that ends with a dead suspect is going to raise a lot of questions and get people thinking about how convenient it is that no one can contradict the Paladin's story.
A "personal matter" sounds shady to me. Paladins are (supposed to be) lawful and serving.
A duel is a personal matter; it is also (in a jurisdiction where dueling is legal) completely above board and completely legal. As for whether it is "serving," well, as you say, Paladins are people too. Not everything they do has to be about the greater good. Sometimes they have their own notions of honor that must be upheld.
Paladins are humans. Humans can be corrupted. Way of the world. Not sure where youre going with this quote.
Where I'm going is, the price of being a Paladin is being held to a higher standard of transparency and action. That's why they have a Code of things they're not allowed to do in addition to having to be Lawful Good. A clandestine solo arrest attempt that ends with a dead suspect is going to raise a lot of questions and get people thinking about how convenient it is that no one can contradict the Paladin's story.
A "personal matter" sounds shady to me. Paladins are (supposed to be) lawful and serving.
A duel is a personal matter; it is also (in a jurisdiction where dueling is legal) completely above board and completely legal. As for whether it is "serving," well, as you say, Paladins are people too. Not everything they do has to be about the greater good. Sometimes they have their own notions of honor that must be upheld.
Whatever the reasons, I find the scenario unprobable and pointless. As Ive stated before. A cunning Inquisitor would go about the situation a little differently. I certainly would have.
If the Fightermage gets to dicate terms ofcourse it is going to come out on top.
Whatever the reasons, I find the scenario unprobable and pointless. As Ive stated before. A cunning Inquisitor would go about the situation a little differently. I certainly would have.
If the Fightermage gets to dicate terms ofcourse it is going to come out on top.
The parameters set by the OP are: One Fighter/Mage, one Inquisitor, fighting. Aside from that, it's the Inquisitor crowd that's been dictating terms. First no Contingencies or spell triggers. Then no buff spells active whatsoever. Now you want the Inquisitor to bring all his friends and attack a conveniently oblivious Fighter/Mage in the dead of night. It rather defeats the purpose of the original thought exercise.
Whatever the reasons, I find the scenario unprobable and pointless. As Ive stated before. A cunning Inquisitor would go about the situation a little differently. I certainly would have.
If the Fightermage gets to dicate terms ofcourse it is going to come out on top.
The parameters set by the OP are: One Fighter/Mage, one Inquisitor, fighting. Aside from that, it's the Inquisitor crowd that's been dictating terms. First no Contingencies or spell triggers. Then no buff spells active whatsoever. Now you want the Inquisitor to bring all his friends and attack a conveniently oblivious Fighter/Mage in the dead of night. It rather defeats the purpose of the original thought exercise.
Not at all. You have to draw the line somewhere. Are they naked or can they pick items freely? Are there environmental factors to take into account? Are they locked in an arena by an evil overseer? Are they part of a breathing world?
The Magefighter crowd ofcourse wants the inquisitor to come charging right into their well-prepared traps. The Inquisitor crowd wants the fight to fair and in a 'realistic' context.
Until we have the rules firmly set, there will be no hypythetical victor, Im afraid.
That's the problem with Vancian magic, you run into all sorts of metaknowledge problems. Do they know they'll fight? Do they know *who* they'll fight? Is it some sort of gladiatorial combat, perhaps under special "friendly" rules that actually stop the fight before death to eliminate RP concerns for the paladins? I think such a scenario would be "fairest" in a way that allows both characters some degree of metaknowledge, but not too much: they know that they are going to fight 1-on-1 today, but they don't know who they are going to face. Also, there is space to move, but not infinitely much. That leaves the whole problem of pre-buffs and contingencies. One could posit that those are simply disallowed by the rules of "fair combat", but that's a slippery slope. I don't think they matter much anyway, at least in the face of the importance of a properly set-up spellbook. Even without any pre-buffs or contingencies of any kind, the F/M will defeat the Inquisitor with comical ease. I think that the only condition somewhat required for an unbiased scenario is that the mage has a properly filled spellbook; this is necessitated by the Vancian system, and anything else would be a severe bias against casters as no other classes require such preparation.
Whatever the reasons, I find the scenario unprobable and pointless. As Ive stated before. A cunning Inquisitor would go about the situation a little differently. I certainly would have.
If the Fightermage gets to dicate terms ofcourse it is going to come out on top.
The parameters set by the OP are: One Fighter/Mage, one Inquisitor, fighting. Aside from that, it's the Inquisitor crowd that's been dictating terms. First no Contingencies or spell triggers. Then no buff spells active whatsoever. Now you want the Inquisitor to bring all his friends and attack a conveniently oblivious Fighter/Mage in the dead of night. It rather defeats the purpose of the original thought exercise.
Not at all. You have to draw the line somewhere. Are they naked or can they pick items freely? Are there environmental factors to take into account? Are they locked in an arena by an evil overseer? Are they part of a breathing world?
The Magefighter crowd ofcourse wants the inquisitor to come charging right into their well-prepared traps. The Inquisitor crowd wants the fight to fair and in a 'realistic' context.
Until we have the rules firmly set, there will be no hypythetical victor, Im afraid.
In what way is the way the Inquisitor crowd imagines this "fair" and "realistic"? It's already a big warning flag in a discussion like this to assume that one side is all even-handed and fair and the one totally biased. For example, why should it be the Inquisitor who comes after the Fighter/Mage and not the other way around? Perhaps the Fighter/Mage wants to proactively remove a threat to his power or has been hired to remove a paragon of good. If you come after the mage won't he be in his stronghold, protected by golems, undead, demons and magical traps? OTH if the F/M comes after the Paladin he could be in the HQ of his order, surrounded by other powerful paladins and clerics.
The only way this discussion makes even remotely sense is to have them both alone, with both being either in normal adventuring mode or being roughly aware of what is to come. In both cases the F/M will almost certainly win. He will either have a powerful defensive trigger including SI:Abjuration because that's really the best one - it protects against dispels from otherwise more powerful spellcaster and is not circumvented by creatures which see through invisibility like demons or planetars. Let's face it: as a defensive trigger SI:Abjuration is not a specific Inquisitor protection. Or it will be a very powerful offensive one including for example three copies of ADHW. He might also have triggers with additional protections. Three flame arrows will also be enough to turn the tide. Remember that the F/M is almost as good in melee as the Paladin even without fighter HLA due to GM and dual-wielding. If he has something like Celestial Fury or FoA a missed saving throw by the Paladin might mean the F/M winning even without magic at all.
Finally, if the Paladin gets Carsomyr the F/M will probably have either the Amulet of Power or the Robe of Vecna in which case many spells become instant-cast. Even just using those casts for damage will make the F/M probably win given the very close melee capabilities. Summon Deva is also no help since this means the mage will get the Timestop off which means he wins. Also note that Planetars are also superior to Devas.
I think if more people would play the game through with a mage they would notice these options, as it is playing a party mage is very different since he's part of a team and keeping your mage safe while the rest of your team is killed is not a winning tactic in that case.
I think an Inquisitor with the Cloak of Mirrors and Carsomyr would put up a great fight until late levels.
Also, as fate could have it, the Inquisitor could end up with the Amulet of Power and the Robe of Vecna, and the F/M could end up with Carsomyr and the Cloak of Mirrors. Just take a look at Firkraag, lucky dog has the sweetest paladin sword in town :P
The Inquisitor could end up with all of the high level spell scrolls that the F/M never learned. After all, he's been busy burning a lot of low level witches at the stake :P Maybe he found and killed several delivery boy apprentices with high level mage scrolls!
And what if the Inquisitor has the only scroll of Timestop in his backpack? ... :P *The Inquisitor pulls out a scroll of Timestop* "Haha! Looking for this?!" "Can I have the scroll please?" "NEVER!"
But it's clear that the F/M has the advantage if you're looking at an end-game scenario.
Although, of course, as was stated above, it depends on the style of the duel.
What if they're simply playing a friendly game of rock-paper-scissors... >>
Or perhaps the good ol' fashioned coin flip! "By Helm, I call HEADS!"
Comments
[Taken from http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/DivineSpells.htm]
The ultimate clerical summon. Calls forth a powerful Solar armed with a mace that destroys undead, dispels magic and Stuns on a hit. The thing's fighting ability compares to that of a level 10 Fighter, has good magic resistance and is immune to various elemental damages, insta-kill effects and weapons of less than +2 enchantment. It regenerates and can see the invisible. The Deva is actually gated instead of summoned, so it's unaffected by Death Spells.
The Deva is a decent Divine spellcaster (with a touch of Arcane) with the following spells memorized:
Chaos.
Detect Invisibility.
Fireball.
Flame Arrow.
Haste.
Magic Missile.
Cure Critical Wounds.
Cure Disease.
Dispel Magic.
Globe of Blades.
Neutralize Poison.
Remove Curse.
Remove Fear.
I find it funny how the included HLA the OP included has been completely disregarded in the discussion.
A total of 5 dispels, all of which dispel ALL spells. All the Inquisitor needs to do is wait for A single sequencer (you can't see an enemy twice) and follow-up with a dispel. After that your risking being interrupted while casting all your non-sequenced spells which you have to cast since the Inquisitor + Deva are going to out DPR and out DPT you in melee
I think that the whole BG engine was designed from the ground up as a roleplaying engine, and never as a PVP engine, although, it can be powergamed if one uses metaknowledge and has some desire to "beat", thoroughly and absolutely, a computer program that was not necessarily designed for that kind of play. (Result: a computerized "arms race", and mods like SCS.)
I always approach these kinds of "x vs. y" problems from a roleplaying perspective, since my willing suspension of disbelief for any game depends absolutely upon the empirical and logical sense of the "reality" being put to me for entertainment.
What I never see from the evil archmage overlords in these kinds of threads, is an understanding of the consequences of their actions in "mopping the floor", hypothetically, with the good inquisitor hero types. If you can defeat Superhero Good, with your Supervillain God Evil magic powers, without breaking a sweat, then, what I almost never see any of you Supervillain God Evil types understand, is that the entire Good Army of Good Heroes is going to unite against you, with the charter goal of sending Supervillain God Evil you back to the Abyss, where You belong. Even some of the Tyrannical Evil armies of the world will probably join together against you.
A 25 or so level mage in D&D is about as close to "Supervillain God", evil or good, as you can come in this particular little fantasy world. So, if you can defeat up to six "good" (or maybe evil?) superheroes, without breaking a sweat, what makes you think that you are going to enjoy your status as the "Supervillain God" of the world for very long, without every army in existence in the material plane uniting their collective mights against you?
Are you proud of your 25th, or even 30th level mage status of being able to defeat groups of six, ten, twelve, twenty, or whatever superheroes of non-mage classes?
Then I welcome you to try your mortal hand, and yes, you're still mortal, against the combined might of the entire population of the world. I really wouldn't think you'd want to make such a public nuisance of yourself, not unless you think you have a way to change the reality of your own plane of existence.
And honestly, the heroes of any plane have an unfathomable way of stopping entities just like you, at every turn of your supposedly impregnable, invulnerable, evil overlord plans, leaving you forever coughing up death gurgles like "To end...like this....gasp....no....it's not...poss...i....ble...garahhleagh."
I do hope you enjoy your group hug by the dozen or so pit fiends that will greet you as you and they plummet from the highest cliffs of Hell into the Lake of Fire. (See "Irenicus, final end")
Why would an inquisitor even be trying to kill you in the first place?
TLDR: Any F/M of epic level who wants to fight and defeat an inquisitor of epic level, mano a mano, must have a wisdom score of about 3. Yeah, you'll probably beat him. All glory to you. I hope you enjoy what you get for it. May you live in interesting times. :0
I guess I'll try looking it up on Wiki, since you're trying to make a point with the Dragonlance story.
@belgarathmth An excellent question, but one with many answers, not all of which place the Inquisitor firmly in the right such that the forces of Good will band together to avenge his death. The F/M is not necessarily an evil supervillain, the Inquisitor may have been deceived into targeting him. Or else the F/M may have made some (real or imagined) insult on the Inquisitor's honor that provoked a challenge to a duel, making this a personal matter and not a battle for the Fate of the Realms. Let us not fall into the trap of imagining Paladins as infallible and incapable of making mistakes: Both Paladins in the BG series have been known to attack party members on flimsy pretexts.
Hmm, on thinking about your hypothetical scenario of "the mage is in the right and the inquisitor is in the wrong", all I can see that would make the mage a force for good is that the mage might just be wanting to be left alone to study and to contemplate existence, and that the inquisitor is a torturer a la the real life Catholic Inquisition who is almost universally hated, such that, the "good vs. evil" scenario I posed gets turned on its head, where the mage is actually a Gandalfesque force for good, and the inquisitor is actually evil, despite D&D labels. In that case, I would be saying "Go, Gandalf! You get that evil sob Keldorn, girlfriend!"
At the end of the day, I really think it would boil down to if the wizard could get off Time Stop before dying at the hand of the Inquisitor, and there are quite a few paths whereupon he should be able to do that more often than not. Once that milestone is hit, i think it would be fairly fate accompli.
I agree with several folks here that PvP was not the intention of either D&D or any of the CRPG games based on those systems. However, there are always those who will push the envelope; which is fine because it broadens the appeal to an already robust game. I don't personally partake (mainly because I would suck worse at it than against the relatively dumb AI, which boggles the mind) but it is sometimes a fun mental exercise in mechanics and game knowledge.
I also don't think that 'Balance' between the classes was ever intended to accommodate PvP (at least not until later editions) and so therefore the question is really a blown one. All IMHO.
The "how and why" is the critical underpinnings of our F/M's supposed inevitable win of the fight, since that "inevitable win" is wholly predicated upon the correct contingencies and sequencers having been prepared beforehand.
Why wouldn't the inquisitor, with his high wisdom score, have done everything in his power to catch this Irenicus level mage by surprise?
Exactly what is this Sauron level mage anticipating that he has prepared the exact contingency of "mage is attacked, cast on self, Spell Immunity:Abjuration, Stoneskin, Protection from Magic Weapons"?
In any real world scenario, a contingency like that would likely be wasted on the very first kobold that ever went mad and attacked our increasingly hypothetical Loki.
I think that we are assuming here that our Palpatine is about to fight the paladin/inquisitor Luke. And, Palpatine has completely forgotten about our Anakin.
There is *always* something that is going to make our ever more hypothetical evil fighter-mage, (or even the "good" one, if we are going to find a reason to turn the morality of this scenario on its head), lose the fight to our hypothetical inquisitor superhero/supervillain, be it, the ring thrown into the volcano, the MacGuffin removing the f/m's invulnerabilities, the forgotten Anakin or Gollum in the shadows, or the Bhaalspawn factor.
You guys who delight in pressing the powergaming advantages of the fighter-mage should really become a bit more genre-savvy. You will *always* lose. The genre demands it. Unless, of course, you are a heroic big bad fighter-mage fighting an even *bigger* big bad villainous fighter-mage. Then, and only then, all bets are off, pending the decisions of the god Storywritus.
You say 'What is this Sauron level mage doing?" Well, you are an Epic (I can't think of a high level counterpart from literature) Inquisitor. You aren't fearful of the mage "Because he is that much more powerful than you." From your perspective, it 'should' be a pretty evenly matched fight. So why go against one of your basic tennants (that of attacking like a coward, from surprise)?
But at the end of the day, the exercise being decided here isn't 'What is their motivation for fighting', it's to look at the mechanics of if they did fight.
Since this hypothetical f/m is in fact win-assured, because of the mechanics (but if, and only if, there is an axiomatic contingency that allows Spell Immunity:Abjuration, Stoneskin, and PfMW to be instant cast with no chance of interrupt, followed by Time Stop on the next round plus Chain Sequencer Abu-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting x3, or some such "you die now" combo), I think that my roleplaying insistence is critical to the question, and not an "overthinking" at all.
The mechanics boil down to this: The mage is ready, the inquisitor loses. The mage is not ready, the inquisitor wins.
Why is this a topic of contention? I would almost claim that what I just said is an objective fact.
So, it seems to me, that this whole topic poses a bottom-line question of "Why would a mage prepare to defeat an inquisitor, specifically?"
And, as someone else has said, why even put "fighter" into the mix for the mage, unless you want to cut him off from a 9th level spell or two? This is much more a question of "mage vs. inquisitor".
And even more, a question of "Can a high level mage always get off a Spell Immunity:Abjuration before a high level inquisitor can blow off his defenses like smoke and kick his butt?"
Thus, we cannot simply assume that either party is specifically preparing to beat the other (though the circumstances of the fight strongly suggest that it is not a matter of happenstance).
Which brings us to the other major point of contention in these threads. Obviously, in any real match between two players, skill and the capacity for error makes a big difference. With that in mind, these threads are usually searching for an outcome assuming "perfect play," because it's easy to say "if the Mage tries to spam Magic Missile he's totally going to lose." The problem that arises is distinguishing "perfect play," i.e. always making the tactically best decision in light of your opponent's actions, from "precognition," or the Mage having the perfect move before the fight even begins, i.e. the "axiomatic contingency" that's perfectly tailored to this exact opponent. People draw the lines about where "perfect play" verges into "precognition" in different places and it makes a big difference in determining the outcome.
You cant just run off a cliff expecting fruitful results. You have to be realistic.
Sorry guys, the Inquisitor doesn't even have a chance.
Nothing beats a F/M in this game.
Only a hotheaded sword-toter would consider a well prepared - and grinning - fightermage a "fair" fight :P
Paladins rely heavily on a reputation for trustworthiness and virtue, and behaving in the manner or an assassin or secret policeman rather undercuts that. It invites suspicion into the paladin's motives, and such suspicion is anathema to their ability to represent justice and righteousness and to their ability to strike openly at Evil.
Not to mention that a cunning Fighter/Mage is certain to have magical alarms and wards to protect them while they sleep, and while an Inquisitor may have the capacity to dispel said alarms, he doesn't have the wherewithal to find them, considering he lacks the ability to detect magic.
To me, the 'Trustworhiness' of law-enforcement means that the public can entrust it to deal with wrongdoers in a way that is reliable and efficient. As a rule, a good inquisitor would probably have some sort of backup aswell, since going in alone would be reckless and suicidal and thus not very reliable.
*Following* the arrest, a fair *trial* would be preferrable, to hold corruption at bay and ensure the rule of law.
Here is a scenario to ponder: A Fightermage is wreaking havoc in the city and as such, needs to be confronted by somekind of law-enforcement to ensure public saftey.
You could ofcourse send in a lone hot headed Inquisitor, risking his safety and also risking to escalate the incident. Maybe he *could* succeed, but there would be no guarantees. The Fightermage could get away or set fire to the building in the confrontation, threatening collateral damage and loss of innocent life.
A better way to deal with the situation would ofcourse be to surround the building and force the Fightermage to surrender or, failing that, confront him in a more forceful and controlled manner.
Public safety is key when speaking of Virtue and Trustworthiness.
The point I was trying to make is that any beacon of light and good that feels that striking from surprise against an un-prepared opponent is a 'Good' thing, would probably be getting a good hard talking too from his/her Deity in any game that I DM'd. "Good" simply doesn't ever sneak attack. EVER! in my philosophy. Contemplating doing so might (and I say only MIGHT) be considered in the utmost dire of consequences when no other option is available.
I can't see any self respecting Inquisitor being so underwhelmed with his own ability to fight that which he has trained his entire life to fight that he would resort to that base level of fear and trickery. All IMHO. Hmm... Why would an Evil (presumably) Wizard intent on some evil scheme, prepare for the intervention of an Inquisitor, who presumably the said evil wizard knows is in the area? I wonder? That was me who said that. I wouldn't say 'Always'. I would say 95% of the time. But that is assuming that is the path they are going. As I have stated before, invisibility or Miss-direction (which is not blown away by True sight) work much better. And the Mage only needs to keep the Inquisitor at bay until he can get his first time stop. So any solution of spells that achieve that would work just as well.
A "personal matter" sounds shady to me. Paladins are (supposed to be) lawful and serving.
If you want to take everything out of context and reduce it to numbers, I guess the Fightermage could have the upper hand. But I wouldnt see the point.
Or maybe I've been watching too much Luther. A duel is a personal matter; it is also (in a jurisdiction where dueling is legal) completely above board and completely legal. As for whether it is "serving," well, as you say, Paladins are people too. Not everything they do has to be about the greater good. Sometimes they have their own notions of honor that must be upheld.
As Ive stated before. A cunning Inquisitor would go about the situation a little differently. I certainly would have.
If the Fightermage gets to dicate terms ofcourse it is going to come out on top.
The Magefighter crowd ofcourse wants the inquisitor to come charging right into their well-prepared traps.
The Inquisitor crowd wants the fight to fair and in a 'realistic' context.
Until we have the rules firmly set, there will be no hypythetical victor, Im afraid.
The only way this discussion makes even remotely sense is to have them both alone, with both being either in normal adventuring mode or being roughly aware of what is to come. In both cases the F/M will almost certainly win. He will either have a powerful defensive trigger including SI:Abjuration because that's really the best one - it protects against dispels from otherwise more powerful spellcaster and is not circumvented by creatures which see through invisibility like demons or planetars. Let's face it: as a defensive trigger SI:Abjuration is not a specific Inquisitor protection. Or it will be a very powerful offensive one including for example three copies of ADHW. He might also have triggers with additional protections. Three flame arrows will also be enough to turn the tide. Remember that the F/M is almost as good in melee as the Paladin even without fighter HLA due to GM and dual-wielding. If he has something like Celestial Fury or FoA a missed saving throw by the Paladin might mean the F/M winning even without magic at all.
Finally, if the Paladin gets Carsomyr the F/M will probably have either the Amulet of Power or the Robe of Vecna in which case many spells become instant-cast. Even just using those casts for damage will make the F/M probably win given the very close melee capabilities. Summon Deva is also no help since this means the mage will get the Timestop off which means he wins. Also note that Planetars are also superior to Devas.
I think if more people would play the game through with a mage they would notice these options, as it is playing a party mage is very different since he's part of a team and keeping your mage safe while the rest of your team is killed is not a winning tactic in that case.
Also, as fate could have it, the Inquisitor could end up with the Amulet of Power and the Robe of Vecna, and the F/M could end up with Carsomyr and the Cloak of Mirrors. Just take a look at Firkraag, lucky dog has the sweetest paladin sword in town :P
The Inquisitor could end up with all of the high level spell scrolls that the F/M never learned. After all, he's been busy burning a lot of low level witches at the stake :P Maybe he found and killed several delivery boy apprentices with high level mage scrolls!
And what if the Inquisitor has the only scroll of Timestop in his backpack? ... :P
*The Inquisitor pulls out a scroll of Timestop* "Haha! Looking for this?!"
"Can I have the scroll please?"
"NEVER!"
But it's clear that the F/M has the advantage if you're looking at an end-game scenario.
Although, of course, as was stated above, it depends on the style of the duel.
What if they're simply playing a friendly game of rock-paper-scissors... >>
Or perhaps the good ol' fashioned coin flip! "By Helm, I call HEADS!"