Why don't you play as the Wizard Slayer kit in BG2?
Joey
Member Posts: 201
Wondering if the restriction is simply too castrating for other players as it is for me.
- Why don't you play as the Wizard Slayer kit in BG2?200 votes
- I do, it's awesome.17.50%
- The magic item restriction.44.50%
- Just not interested.23.50%
- Skip to result.14.50%
3
Comments
I haven't yet because I find pure fighters kind of boring and the best dual class options (thief and mage) seem cheesy (thief because it completely eliminates the hard part of WS, and mage for obvious reasons). WS/cleric could be fun now that I think about it.
"Wizard Slayers are inherently flawed because any mage you are actually hitting is about to die anyway."
Gear restrictions or not, that fact alone is enough for me to completely disqualify Wizard Slayers from my considerations. When was the last time you got a bunch of hits in on a mage with your fighter, and the mage actually lived to talk about it?
So, what kind of wizard slayer is he?
Incidentally, does the slayer's spell-failure-per-hit apply to hits with any weapon, or only melee? (Either way wouldn't change my opinion however.)
However since this means sacrificing a slew of powerful items - many of which grant Magic Resistance - it simply isn't worth it.
An anti-magic warrior doesn't need some dispel-on-hit nonsense, he needs buckets of Magic Resistance.
1- the class is bad
2- the class is boring
in theory its kinda cool. But its not
The WS's magic resistance is a nice side benefit, but the hard part about fighting mages is breaking through their defenses and being a WS doesn't do anything to make it easier.
I can't play Kensai either
And really. They should stop trying to slay me. I'm the good guy here.
It already bothers me that there is (except in BP) nothing I can put on a mage's head or off hand. I'd take a decorate item with zero effects, just let me fill that empty slot.
I always say the real wizard slayer is the Inquisitor.
I play that instead.