kensai level 2 vs conjurer level 2
zur312
Member Posts: 1,366
as my master!! and god!!!!!!!!!!!!1 SionIV said
"3.) A level 2 mage will win over a kensai with blind or sleep, we already went through this in the Mage Vs thread." he said many great things like sorc is better than kensai/mage co sorc can use vecna but that is not the point
i put his words( of wisdom) to the test
setup
dwarven kensai 18/100 17 19 ++daggers throwing daggers level 2 hp 30 thaco 14 (no blindness) apr 5/2 AC 5
conjurer 18/18/18 +dagger throwing daggers level 2 hp 12 thaco 18 apr 2 AC 6 3x blindness
THE VIDEO spoiler for result
http://youtu.be/Zzpc39SiUIg
"3.) A level 2 mage will win over a kensai with blind or sleep, we already went through this in the Mage Vs thread." he said many great things like sorc is better than kensai/mage co sorc can use vecna but that is not the point
i put his words( of wisdom) to the test
setup
dwarven kensai 18/100 17 19 ++daggers throwing daggers level 2 hp 30 thaco 14 (no blindness) apr 5/2 AC 5
conjurer 18/18/18 +dagger throwing daggers level 2 hp 12 thaco 18 apr 2 AC 6 3x blindness
THE VIDEO spoiler for result
kensai 5-0 conjurer after waiting for him to cast blindness without save
http://youtu.be/Zzpc39SiUIg Post edited by zur312 on
0
Comments
Why are his bips in throwing dagger?
1. Blindness reduces the target's LOS to 0 (possibly 1, can't remember exactly).....BG allows the party to share LOS which means the entire process is invalid from the start as a result of blindness lacking it's most powerful feature...the kensai should not have even been able to see the mage to target him. Not only that, the video showed just how badly a conjurer would crush a kensai if the conjurer were actually casting the actual blindness spell on them.
The mage would've simply thrown daggers at them from a distance until they were almost out, and then poked them, one round at a time, while the kensai remained unable to follow where their next attack would come from.
(and due to blindness having almost 2x the range of a throwing dagger, you don't even need to give him a handicap by waiting, the kensai's only chance is to resist all the spells or ambush the mage...which is about the ONLY reliable means to kill a prepared mage).
Or if no ranged is in effect, simply move in and poke and move away preventing the kensai from ever fighting back.
2. That isn't blindness. That's vanilla BG2 blindness (being replaced in EE2 with BG1's (and actual) blindness, which isn't correctly implemented (-10 thac0 instead of -4 thac0, -4 AC like it's supposed to be), so the conjurer should've been nailing the kensai with almost every other attack.
Any time people say "X" Class can beat "Y" class, they mean if such a class was human controlled, because as has been known forever, BG's AI scripts are RETARDED and are incapable of properly using a class to even 1/4th of it's full potential.
The only way to legitimately test this is to make a hostile NPC with the proper stats to be the kensai (since there is no finesse in only being able to attack blindly and is the closest you can come to approximating a player controlling it) and use the conjurer yourself.
btw. this blindness is -10 thaco
i mean if mage can not hit a guy who is blind then how would he win? magic missle? gl 30 hp chromatic orb? not really maybe some stupid luck with sling while kiting but i don't think so;D
And since the vanilla BG2 version of blindness DOESN'T include a AC penalty, his blindness or not has no barring on your last statement, since he is not in fact blind, he simply can't hit as easily. The actual version of Blindness includes an AC penalty due to the character's inability to see and having to try and rely on their other senses to avoid or land attacks (hence the -4 thac0/-4 AC) since they literally can't see anything, so yes, if the guy actually was blinded by actual blindness, the conjurer would've had a field day $%#^ stomping his ass with his whopping 9 AC (the blindness negating his +3 from dex and 1 point of his kensai bonus). And this only works at very close ranges which means, yes, a blinded character is quite literally almost helpless, by design. Just be glad the BG version of blindness isn't permanent like it's supposed to be.
Were they denied their LOS, LIKE THE SPELL IS SUPPOSED TO DO, even with that version blindness, the conjuerer would've killed them effortlessly, with no danger to themselves.
So, go re-test, and do it properly this time.
The version of Blindess doesn't matter so much, but the BG1/PnP/IWD//Torment/EE/EE2 version (-4 thac0/AC) just makes it even easier for the conjuror to win. (see where I'm going with that...only vanilla BG2 uses that version of blindness which doesn't exist in any other media).
Same set up, but use a hostile NPC with the proper stats to ensure the LOS penalty is imposed, and play the conjurer like any sane individual would. Due to the lack of combat maneuvers there's really nothing a player or ai controlled kensai can do to change the outcome if blinded, aside from attempting to flee, so leaving that to the ai is acceptable.
SCSII/Tactics are cheating, because they use broken mechanics that they should've fixed FIRST and then worked on Ai improvements around the corrected mechanics to add additional challenge. I have no real opposition to the Ai improvements, but the fact they DIDN'T remove the cheese/broken mechanics first, invalidates their entire reason for existence, since the game is not hard if you exploit cheese in the first place (and when I say cheese/broken mechanics, I mean that are available to both players and Ai). But that has nothing in the slightest to do with this.
at -4 thaco he would be at 18 thaco rather than 24 and 18 is mage thaco
thaco to hit is thaco - oponent's armor = numer on d20 you need or higher
kensai with blindness 18-6=12 so this is 40% to hit a mage
mage with blind kensai+4ac 18-9=9 this is 55% to hit kensai
so mage will hit more often but kensai with higher apr should come really close to this while having 250% of mage life? that should do the trick
(-10 thaco blindness)
24-6=18 so only 15% to hit a mage see?
18-6=12 so 40% to hit kensai
The mage can simply skirt around him just out of his melee range and move in for a strike at an opening and move back before he can retaliate.
His thac0 and extra 1/2 attack is irrelevant because he never gets to attack in the first place.
That's why blind is such a strong low to mid-level disabler, even though it does lose a lot of it's power once you start getting to higher level targets, without save debuffs. And of course stuff that can't be blinded.
And of course blinded archers and mages are truly helpless. Archers take an extra -4 thac0/-4 ac if using a launcher in melee range, and mages can't cast targetted spells, and while they could throw aoes, they're pretty likely to miss.
-------------------------------
@KolonKu
Sure, if the other team starts with 30 point advantage and you're not allowed to tackle them, having to rely exclusively on them fumbling or tripping or some crap.
90% of blindness's power comes from reducing LOS to 0, his "test" completely removes that, therefore it's invalid.
There are already agreed upon rules of engagement, which were followed, but THEN he weakens the spell and uses it improperly, the way NO ONE playing that character in any media would use it.
It's like telling a lvl 10 sorcerer. Here, you can cast just fireballs, but it can only do 1d6 damage. And my character suffers no penalties, lets fight. That's EXACTLY what this "test" was.
That is why this whole "test" is just plain stupid and clearly shows bias. If you put a human in control of the kensai, it's not going to make any difference, the human controlled conjurer would still win pretty much every time. The only thing a human could do would be to attempt to kite until the blindness ran out, without being able to see where the mage was or what the area looked like.
If a mage is prepared, they are invincible...which is the whole point of the other topic. No class can go toe to toe with a prepared mage and win reliably. (even the PnP-style Wizard Slayer wouldn't be completely invulnerable..the mage simply couldn't use any spells directly against them (unless they don't allow MR) or depend on defensive spells. But the PnP wizard slayer pays a high price for that level of power)
In BG you just need to click to attack your opponent and you will keep following them, even if they go into the fog of war, round a corner or wherever.
Also in P&P, a blinded creature suffers a -4 penalty to its attack rolls and its opponents gain a +4 bonus to their attack rolls (equivalent to a +4 AC penalty). That's it. It doesn't prevent the blinded player tracking down another player by using sound for example. The kensai could even have picked up the blind-fighting non-weapon proficiency to eliminate the AC penalty (except against missiles) and reduce the to-hit penalty to -2.
2nd.....actually use it in game against someone who DOESN'T share LOS of with you or a party member.
If you cast blindness on anything in BG or BG2, it immediately loses it's target (though will continue walking until it gets where they last were) and due to a LOS of 0 cannot re-target it, unless it comes into melee range (which is either 0 or 1, but not 2, since I know for a fact that you can beat blind enemies to death effortlessly with a 2hder as long as you keep moving away since they'll move to where your were standing when you hit them last), and if it moves out of LOS it loses it's target again after 1 round of no vision.
(I use Blindness and Glitterdust extensively and am QUITE familiar how they work, and due to my preference towards soloing, also know exactly what happens if a mephit or something else blinds you when you're trying to attack something else (he walks where the target was..and..does nothing because he has no target (though less of an issue unless the enemy was fleeing, as the ai is retarded and will come to you, instead of taking advantage of the situation)).
This affects both PC and enemies, BUT, only if it leaves LOS. Due to the party sharing LOS, your character can keep tracking the enemy as long as it's in SOMEONE's LOS. This is why the "test" was invalid. There is no reason for them to be able to tell where the mage is or attacking from.
BG incorrectly allows the party to share LOS, even though it's not supposed to work that way, allowing a blinded character to still see fine (albeit with penalties) and keep going. (I assume this is supposed to represent to party members telling the blinded character the general area where the target is....but would not apply to a 1 v 1 duel)
Also Blindsense just removes the hit/ac penalties while blinded (this also denies invisible enemies their kit bonus, which is technically the same thing as the AC penalty from being blind), it doesn't change the fact your character can't see where the enemy is coming from or accurately track their movements, except at close range, it simply allows them to strike back or dodge attacks more easily.
And yes, BG actually does use the PnP version of blindness. That's why if an enemy within melee range you can target them (albiet with penalties since you can't pinpoint EXACTLY where they are or their attacks are coming from), but will lose target it they move out and manage to stay out of LOS for 1 round.
------------------------------
My issue is, as stated several times, the "test" is tainted due to Blindness being prevented from working correctly due to shared party LOS.
And the actual hypothetical test assumes players are at the helm of both characters and will use them appropriately, unlike the brain-dead Ai that simply goes in and swings back and forth...well NO $%#^ sherlock, it's the same as that asinine question of will a fighter beat a thief in a straight fight, without do anything remotely thiefy,...of course it will, the fighter is better in straight combat in every way.
Even with the debuff, a Kensai has a ok-ish chance of hitting the mage, IF the mage is retarded and tries to stand and fight straight up, instead of exploiting the enemy's inability to follow them accurately as long as they can stay out of melee range.
A blinded enemy can target you if you get in very close (1hd melee range), but will lose track if you stay out of LOS for more then a round. Even if a player was to control the kensai they would be MAJORLY disadvantaged trying to keep track of the enemy who could weave around until the player lost them, and the best they could do would be to simply try to stay away until the Blindness ran out, since if they try to fight, the mage will kill them pretty easily due to their easy to hit AC while blinded and the ability to easily get the first swing and leave before they can retaliate.
If not for that thing about the party sharing LOS and so many spells being party friendly that shouldn't, you could just have two people hop in multiplayer and duel several rounds to settle the matter.
(imagine trying to play a thief vs fighter duel under those conditions, except the fighter can see you even when your're stealthed or invisible without having to use any spells or special equipment to do so....it'll be a pretty lop-sided match up).
also am i the only one who made the test the best i could and there is no other player who will record "proper" test? if there is no other for recording "proper" my test is the only test that works and i won
we can argue for 100 posts what should/would go in proper test but unless someone is going to do the test and record my is working perfectly
also i see you are arguing AI of npc and that is so stupid if we argue Ai of dumb npc than everything might happen coz they are dumb