Have you thought of other archetypes? The archetypes could mirror Mages' specialist schools, but I think I'd like them to be more specific, like your Fire Sorcerer. I find it relatively easy to come up with other types of "Elemental" Sorcerers, for example a Lightning Sorcerer (Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt, perhaps editing in the Druid's Call Lightning, Chain Lightning). Other non-Elemental Sorcerers could be more difficult to flesh out. I'd have to take a look at the different availale spells. No time for that now, because I need to go.
Btw another rule could be that these archetypical spells have to be picked first once they become available, and then later you roll the dice for the other spells.
My Wild Sorcerer for the multiplayer game is forced to chose a damaging spell for each level, and in first, to limit his power (Chain Lightning and Delayed Blast Fireball are considered awful, and I'm going to pick them first) and for RP reasons (He is Chaotic Evil). It looks like the archetype concept you're speaking about.
@Blackraven I haven't yet, but I think they should be quite distinct from mage schools. The mage schools seem like a very academic approach to to magic, while the sorcerer should have a more fundamental approach, like fire or ice.
@arizael, you make very good points. I get i value the assassin->dual very highly because in solo/no reload the find traps/set traps ability are unvaluable and the dual downtime is very small. But in any other setting, the blackguard is indeed stronger, and probably the second best single class character (after sorcerer)
I think the Sorcerer is the best single class of the game, but the best character, I'm not sure, considering F/M, F/M/T and F/M/C ...
I agree that the Blackguard is very strong, and better than the Assassin dual Fighter.
Some comments on the classes you listed.
A sorcerer is a straightforward character to play since it is magic-spamming all the way. If his spells run out, refresh them via resting or Wish, and repeat. His killing power is heavily dependent on his personal magic arsenal - summons are excellent against weak and middle-strength monsters but they falter against strong monsters. Even planetars die fast against a swarm in insane mode. A good sorcerer is singularly focused on getting off his killer spell combos, and everything else merely helps him achieve this goal, unless the opposition is so weak that the summons can deal with them.
A fighter/mage, IMO, is used most effectively as a fighter with magic support. He is not built to be a pure bombardier like a sorcerer and should not be used as one. Magic is best used for buffing and debuffing to help him overcome enemies in melee, with a small selection of utility and bombardment spells as opening/closing moves. A sorcerer will most likely have all the spells he needs from his personal arsenal, but a fighter/mage needs to expand his spell selection by using key items in quick slots, like Rod of Reversal and Wand of Spell Striking.
Regarding the various flavors of fighter/mages, a wizard slayer/mage is pretty bad because of the equipment restriction. A berserker/mage is good in the beginning, but as he levels up and gains access to better spell protections, since berserk does not scale up in power, he tends to falter. A kensai/mage offers more brute force, which makes him more efficient in killing monsters, saving him effort, spells and grief. A kensai/mage has the edge in endgame power if he duals late and can reach XP cap (I farm XP so I dual him at high levels). Otherwise, a berserker/mage is often a superior choice.
As for the multi fighter/mage(Illusionist), he has fewer spells (or limited spell selection), but has HLAs to compensate. However, this does not always translate into a clear advantage over the dual fighter/mage. Even a kensai/mage can get to 5 APR naturally in BG2EE, Hardiness can be replaced with Protection from Magic Weapons, etc. If XP is short and/or using two weapons (Belm/Kundane+another weapon) is not an option, the multi can be better.
A fighter/mage/thief sacrifices a little fighting ability and L9 magic spells, but gains access to the full suite of thief abilities like traps and backstab. I see him as a fighter/thief with magic support. He lacks L9 spells to make certain opening/closing moves, but should still buff/debuff capably, and thief abilities can help considerably (and even let him have other opening/closing moves) so he is still competitive. But the fighter/mage/cleric, IMO, is subpar. No L9 mage spells, few L7 priest spells and limited priest abilities (low turning level, no holy symbol) hurt him a lot. He cannot compare to most of the fighter/mage variants.
In summary, sorcerers and most fighter/mage variants are strong in their own way, and depends somewhat on factors outside of the class, like XP gain, play style, and so on. On these counts, I put forth the case that they are all good depending on the situation. Let us have a little love for more characters
Using the traditional D&D class archetypes of warrior, magic-user, priest and rogue, I think priests are more shortchanged than anyone else.
Warriors can be relatively decent main classes (e.g. inquisitor), and are sufficiently plastic such that they can gain a lot from having another class, whether it is magic-user, priest or rogue.
Magic-users like mages and sorcerers can win battles on their own, and are good whether the magic-user is a main class (e.g. sorcerer), a joint main class (e.g. thief/mage) or a supporting class (e.g. fighter/mage).
Rogues have a variety of kits for players of various stripes, and offer access to abilities that are very relevant even at the high levels (e.g. use any item, backstab, enhanced bard song). Rogues are also quite plastic like warriors in that they can gain a lot from having another class.
The way I see it, priests got the least love. Of all class archetypes, they add the least value either as a main class or as a supporting class.
They have the second best THAC0 of all the archetypes, but lack APR, specialization and weapon choices. Their magic is considerably weaker than those of magic-users, with weaker summons, few direct damage spells, and lots of protection and healing spells whose effects can often be duplicated by magic-user spells, items in-game, temples or even summons. The cleric kits basically add a couple (very) limited innate abilities, and that is about it. Druids have more interesting kits, but it seems that they are one step forward, one step backward - totemic animals are limited and they falter at high levels, avengers still cannot muster a credible magic offense and their new forms are of limited use, and shapeshifters... Cernd. Oops.
@jacobtan, re: Priests, I don't think they're so bad. They're almost as good at fighting as Fighters. I think that if they got better APR not many people would be playing Warriors anymore. I know I wouldn't. Imo APR is the only thing a Warrior has over a Priest. The other drawbacks (lack of weapons choices, lower hitpoints, no specialization) are easily compensated for by picking good weapons, and by the priest spells.
A Cleric/Thief would practically become a Fighter/Cleric/Thief, and a Cleric/Mage a Fighter/Cleric/Mage, i.e. triple class multis condensed in two classes.
I agree that priests should not get additional APR, specialization, etc. because these are distinctive abilities of fighters.
I am more for modified specialty priest kits with more granted abilities and different weapon selections compared to clerics. As it stands now, there is no downside to picking a cleric kit, and the more powerful granted abilities are quite limited in castings
Great posts I completely share your analysis on arcane caster variants, save for the dual part (dual is not the way to go anymore IMO)
Regarding clerics, i also feel they are the weakest class archetype at higher levels : - lack of decent fighting - lack of great casting
At lower level however they are great (thanks to their ok THACO and great armor selection).
As for buffing them, i agree that adding APR is not the way to go. I like the more specific kits with powerful (and scaling) abilities.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that most dual-classed characters are weak.
I will add that I went to extremes for XP farming and programmed my characters extensively before any playthrough, hence I dual-classed my fighter/mages at very high levels way beyond what most people would advocate (dual-classed at L17 or L21 instead of L9 or L13).
With normal play, dual builds cannot compete with multi builds. With extreme play, some dual builds (specifically, very high-level kensai/mage duals only) can outmatch their corresponding multi builds. The catch is whether one is willing to spend a near-eternity farming XP and explore the BG world in a bizarre order, or play with high-level imported characters. There is also very little room for error for proficiency selection.
A few more comments on classes, with a focus on the multi cleric/mage. Dual cleric/mages are terrible so I will not comment further on them.
A multi cleric/mage sacrifices some high-level wizard spell slots for the entire array of cleric abilities. Therefore, to make the sacrifice worthwhile, he has to tap into what the cleric class can offer - particularly buffing/debuffing with priest spells, priest summons, and priest spells in sequencers. In a solo game, he would be considerably weaker than a sorcerer, but in a full party, if he is going to be the only priest, he can add value comparable to that from a sorcerer since there are other characters to share the burden of magic offense/defense and his expanded spell access would then be of greater relative benefit.
the problem of the cleric/mage is that you can only cast 1 spell/round. So they have dozens of spell but they cannot use them fast enough. Therefore their usefulness is limited to prebuffing only.
At low level, the cleric spells are rather nice and mages have very small quantites of spell but quite soon (around level 7 i would say) the arcane spells are much better and in sufficient number. At the end of the day, the cleric levels are just slowing you down.
the problem of the cleric/mage is that you can only cast 1 spell/round. So they have dozens of spell but they cannot use them fast enough. Therefore their usefulness is limited to prebuffing only.
At low level, the cleric spells are rather nice and mages have very small quantites of spell but quite soon (around level 7 i would say) the arcane spells are much better and in sufficient number. At the end of the day, the cleric levels are just slowing you down.
Yes, this is why I emphasized that it is a full party with no other cleric that can best utilize a cleric/mage. He can function as the sole cleric with some mage power to spare to relieve the burden of buffing/debuffing off other mages.
For myself, I prefer running full parties with only one cleric or druid. The other characters are usually mages of various stripes. I didn't find myself missing much clerical power since I rest very often and even a cleric/mage has many low-level spell slots for buffing purposes.
@jacobtan I agree with everything you said except for F/M/C.
The F/M/C is a very underestimated class, many people see it as a trash caster who progresses too slowly, especially in a group. But the way I see it, with Cleric buffs in sequencers (Spell Trigger : Improved Haste + Rightous Magic + something) you can reach a very very nasty DPS. Plus with Spirit Armor + Blur + Improved Invisibility + Prot from Evil + Defensive Harmony + DUHM + whatever you want you can have an effective AC of -20 pretty easely.
It is a very powerful class, very vulnerable to dispel because of the many buffs required and the low level caster, but apart from that, it is the ultimate melee character.
There is nothing wrong with cleric class in general. The purpose of cleric isn't to omghroflstomp. He is designed to support. That means healing and buffing/debuffing or dispelling. When needed they can step in and both fight well in meele, or cast powerfull damaging spells from ranged, but naturaly not as well as warriors and arcane casters.
What mainly hurts clerils is the BG ridiculous ability to safely rest for hours nearly everywhere. Ask yourselves how many times did you rest in Cloackwood mines, Planar prison, Spellhold and other ridiculous areas, where no sane DM would ever allow it?
If you try to play minimun rest playtrough, you will trully appreciate the usefulness of cleric. Because after long and exhaustive dungeon crawl, your mages will be just a weak squishy guys with wooden sticks. You will be grateful for your well armored cleric with trusty mace&shield and any heals he has left.
@jacobtan I agree with everything you said except for F/M/C.
The F/M/C is a very underestimated class, many people see it as a trash caster who progresses too slowly, especially in a group. But the way I see it, with Cleric buffs in sequencers (Spell Trigger : Improved Haste + Rightous Magic + something) you can reach a very very nasty DPS. Plus with Spirit Armor + Blur + Improved Invisibility + Prot from Evil + Defensive Harmony + DUHM + whatever you want you can have an effective AC of -20 pretty easely.
It is a very powerful class, very vulnerable to dispel because of the many buffs required and the low level caster, but apart from that, it is the ultimate melee character.
I would not be so quick to make such a declaration.
A F/M/C is basically a fighter with access to both mage and cleric buffs. For the sake of our discussion, let us subdivide buffs into self buffs and non-self buffs. In a party with another cleric, the cleric non-self buffs (e.g. Defensive Harmony, Protection from Evil) need not be cast personally by the F/M/C. Of the cleric self buffs you described, they may not even be relevant under the right circumstances. Crom Faeyr is a common weapon of choice for clerics, rendering Righteous Magic obsolete. In melee, defensive cleric buffs are typically trumped by defensive mage buffs like Stoneskin and Protection from Magical Weapons.
In return for access to cleric self buffs which can be made obsolete, you are sacrificing considerable magical power that cannot be replaced - no L9 mage spells sticks out like a sore thumb when there are no corresponding benefits to balance it off unlike the case of the F/M/T. To top it off, a F/M/C has limited weapon choices (no Belm/Kundane or most of the other special effect weapons) and limited specialization.
The F/M/C is still reasonably good, but to call him the "ultimate melee character" is a bit much.
I don't think Crom Faeyr is a common weapon of choice for clerics, I think it is a critical error to give this weapon to a char who can reach 25 Str so easely. If a magic belt would give you Improved Haste permanently, would you give it to your F/M or your F/C ? But that's another debate. I also think that the cleric buffs to AC are underestimated, like AC in general. Having a very good AC maximises the efficiency of Mirror Image / Stoneskin and allow you to spend less time rebuffing in fight.
The discussion is very interesting but I think we would need to set some rules (solo ? party ? no-reload ? which mods ?) to go further. I also think speed weapons are overrated because you are very often moving, repositioning or casting, so you can't really exploit the 10 APR setup.
the problem of the cleric/mage is that you can only cast 1 spell/round. So they have dozens of spell but they cannot use them fast enough. Therefore their usefulness is limited to prebuffing only.
At low level, the cleric spells are rather nice and mages have very small quantites of spell but quite soon (around level 7 i would say) the arcane spells are much better and in sufficient number. At the end of the day, the cleric levels are just slowing you down.
If you put it that way, dualling a Cleric to Mage actually sounds like a nice idea. If you dual at level 7 (55k XP) as a Cleric you'll get your Cleric levels back in BG1, you'll be able to use helmets and shields and you can still reach the maximum level (level 31)as a mage and thus the maximum amount of arcane spells for a single class mage. Dualling at level 8 would also allow you to get to level 31as a Mage, but you wouldn't be able to complete the dualling process in BG1 unless you remove the XP cap. At lower levels, as a Cleric, you're arguably more powerful than a Mage with your armor and helmet and with great spells such as Command, Hold Person, Animate Dead, Silence. Once you've dualled, the Cleric spells are simply a bonus that regular mages don't have, and some of the priest spells remain useful throughout the game: the cure wounds spells for faster heal upon rest, Doom (especially when combined with Greater Malison), Remove Fear, Chant, Strength of One (for summons), PfFire, Remove Paralysis (stun is a nasty status effect), PfE 10' Radius, Freedom. You want be casting all of these spells all the time, but it's great to have them available when needed.
If you try to play minimun rest playtrough, you will trully appreciate the usefulness of cleric. Because after long and exhaustive dungeon crawl, your mages will be just a weak squishy guys with wooden sticks. You will be grateful for your well armored cleric with trusty mace&shield and any heals he has left.
That's an interesting concept. I've seen people do no-rest challenges, but never saw the point really, but minimum rest sounds like something I'd like to try out. How do you implement it? Rest only at taverns? I think might be a bit more lenient. For example: in the High Hedge area there's an abandoned house. I think the game mechanics won't allow you to rest inside, so I would rest outside and roleplay that I rested inside. Yes, I think this is going to be a new rule for my playthroughs. Not only because it makes Priests and their healing spells more useful, but also because It adds extra realism. Thanks for this.
I don't rest in cloakwood or the asylum or chateau irenicus or the astral prison. It make things more interesting. And yet i have never felt the need for a cleric.
The dual cleric-> mage maybe ok for bgee and early soa. But quite soon, your only real advantage will be to be able to wear a helmet. And in exchange you would lose quite a lot compared to a specialist mage (or even worse to a sorcerer or wild mage)
I don't think Crom Faeyr is a common weapon of choice for clerics, I think it is a critical error to give this weapon to a char who can reach 25 Str so easely. If a magic belt would give you Improved Haste permanently, would you give it to your F/M or your F/C ? But that's another debate. I also think that the cleric buffs to AC are underestimated, like AC in general. Having a very good AC maximises the efficiency of Mirror Image / Stoneskin and allow you to spend less time rebuffing in fight.
The discussion is very interesting but I think we would need to set some rules (solo ? party ? no-reload ? which mods ?) to go further. I also think speed weapons are overrated because you are very often moving, repositioning or casting, so you can't really exploit the 10 APR setup.
For starters, just because a cleric character can reach Str 25 with spells does not mean he cannot make good use of Crom Faeyr. It depends on how you are equipping your party. Remember that there are many weapons that are also commonly used (APR weapons, special effect damage weapons), so insisting that a non-cleric character use Crom Faeyr is already a critical error in itself.
As for AC, some people swear by it. Others eschew it. I do not trust AC to defend myself, so I take steps to minimize the relevance of AC, including using summons to tank, focusing on ranged weaponry, and so on. Your mileage may vary.
Your comment on speed weapons sounds strange. If you are attacking an enemy in melee, why is there a need to move from the spot or otherwise reposition yourself during the round that you are swinging away, unless your character is so badly outclassed that you cannot even stand there for 6 seconds (1 round) for the extra APR to kick in? If your front-liner is in a position where he is "very often casting", is he really supposed to be a front-liner, or is it an issue with overall strategy?
My impression is that you may be describing solo play (which is a niche play style in itself) when I am describing party play. If you wish, you can set the rules of engagement and we can discuss this elsewhere.
I don't rest in cloakwood or the asylum or chateau irenicus or the astral prison. It make things more interesting. And yet i have never felt the need for a cleric.
The dual cleric-> mage maybe ok for bgee and early soa. But quite soon, your only real advantage will be to be able to wear a helmet. And in exchange you would lose quite a lot compared to a specialist mage (or even worse to a sorcerer or wild mage)
I second your statement.
I do rest frequently - the designers actually expect you to rest in Chateau Irenicus (consider Imoen's dialogue with you after you rest), and they do expect you to rest in dungeons (consider they did create a "rest in dungeon" video). After I get Rings of Regeneration and the Ring of Gaxx, I only rest if I run low on key spells. Healing is not a concern because I typically equip wounded characters with the rings and go for some coffee... yes I am cheap. Even if I need to heal myself, a simple Heal spell would work for each wounded character.
As for dual cleric/mage, it is actually pretty bad. Consider:
- You need to reach L14 to get L7 priest spells. If you dual here, you can reach C14/M27 at most. You lose out on goodies like the cleric HLAs and the holy symbol. Your spells are only cast at L14 potency. Your THAC0 would also be pretty bad (12). To top it off, your spell progression is a lackluster 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 (not counting bonus spells from Wis)
- If you dual at a lower cleric level, you lose the top cleric spells. If you dual at a higher cleric level, you still will not get the cleric HLAs and you start eating into your mage spell progression. Unlike a F/M who can function as a fighter using his limited supply of mage spells to turn him into a top-notch fighter, a dual C/M with a limited supply of mage spells cannot function as a top-notch cleric or mage
- Assuming dual at L8 with access to 4th-level priest spells, we need to ask ourselves what we get in exchange for what we lose. If a specialist mage or wild mage was chosen right at the start, as far as magic is concerned:
o cleric/mage loses 1 spell per level from L1 through L9 o cleric/mage gains a few low-level spells at L8 potency - spells that can be covered by a full cleric in the party
Different people will have different views but this does not look like a good trade IMO
@mumumomo yes well pretty much all classes "lose quite a lot compared to a specialist mage (or even worse to a sorcerer or wild mage)". However, I wasn't really arguing that a dualled Cleric/Mage would be the most powerful caster possible, but rather that it sounds like a nice idea as I put it, because you're strong when a straight wizard is at their weakest (lower levels) and you get a number of useful bonus spells other wizards won't have, memorized in a different spellbook. But I concede that I might have posted my comment in the wrong thread.
The dual Cleric/Mage at level 7 or 8 sounds very interesting, like @Blackraven said, it is very convenient to be a cleric at very low levels instead of a mage and later on, you are a full mage with some cool perks like more HP, Santuary / Prot from evil 10 radius / Remove Fear and most importantly Doom which is excellent for a Mage, considering you can put in your Minor Spell Sequencer to cast it instantly. I would like to try it !
As for the melee standing debate, it is because I micro a lot. For example, if I have a weapon with a very good Speed Factor, I often try to hit then back leaving no chance for my foe to counter. If I'm attacking two enemies in melee at the same time, I run in circle between every attacks to make one opponent waste his attacks trying to reach me, this particular strategy become less and less efficient with APR.
But for example with my Blackguard lately, he had 2 APR, so I knew I made 1 attack every 3 seconds. So each time my attack connect and I hit my enemy, I run for 3 secs back or in circle to prevent the enemies from attacking, then 3 secs later I come back and strike, I try to cast some Armor of Faith / DUHM during theses time, etc.
In teamfights, I split my team every time an aoe spell is cast and it is VERY rare more than 1 of my pary members got hit by a Dragon Breath or other spells.
I play BG a bit like I play Starcraft 2 or DotA for exemple, I'm microing all the time to reposition myself.
And that's why I dislike speed weapons, most of the time standing still auto attacking isn't the most efficient way of winning, but the fastest. If I can kite my enemy to death with 1 APR and a quatterstaff but it takes me 1 minute, I will prefer this instead of going toe to toe standing still for 6 secs killing the enemy but taking some damage in the exchange.
I would seriously beg to differ that "standing still auto attacking isn't the most efficient way of winning".
- Killing more quickly can save you spells instead of running all over the place while your buffs run out
- Debuffs on monsters typically create a short window when they are vulnerable. Running around can also hurt you by wasting time that can be used to hit vulnerable enemies
- You screw your own attacks just as you screw enemies' attacks. But why not use summons as tanks or use buffs like Protection from Magical Weapons so that you are not targeted or are invulnerable to attacks?
- Against fast and hard-hitting mobs, especially in enclosed spaces, running around is not always a viable strategy
- Healing via potions is cheap and easy
Then again, it's different strokes for different folks. If you like to play this way, it's probably the best for you.
I agree with your statement about the duration of buffs and debuffs, my example was of course an extreme one. Capitalizing on the moments when the enemies are vulnerable is really important and you are 100% right about that.
You don't screw your own attacks with this tactic if you don't have too much APR, if I have 3 APR or less I don't lose anything because it is fairly easy to micro but if I have more than 5 APR the melee kiting strategy if often pretty useless I agree too.
With SCS on, enemies tend to ignore my summons or kill them with Death Spell. With PfMW it is also true that standing and attacking is very efficient, still, a character able to cast this spell should be able to cast key spells every rounds, thus cancelling the point of having 10 APR.
Something I really think wholeheartly is that speed weapons are often bad. They are good on 1 base APR character like Blade or Swashbuckler, but I would never ever give them to a Kensai=>Mage, F/M or F/M/T, because I always have a key spell to cast every round.
Actually, I also use hit-and-run tactics like you do. But I make sure I get one full round's worth of attacks to tap into the APR bonus before running away. So we are in agreement here. I just disagree with the "hit once, run away and repeat" way of hit-and-run.
For the APR, we can agree to disagree, but it does not make any sense to say "I don't want more APR because if I have too much APR I screw my own attacks". You can do hit-and-run the way you like it even if you have a lot of APR. I would call a spade a spade and say it sounds more like "I don't want the APR bonus because I don't want to feel bad about wasting it when I do hit-and-run my way". Having more APR translates into more damage and a higher chance of having special effect damage kick in, so since you insist on your preferred method of hit-and-run, you need a justification for not having the APR bonus - cast a spell every round, even if it need not necessarily be the best option.
I remember a friend who applied for a scholarship for his university course, won the scholarship, but he had second thoughts and in the end, he chose a very different course so that he could justify rejecting the scholarship that he had won.
You are right, it is pointless to reject APR for the sake of not using them correctly, but I will take others weapons instead of speed weapons because I feel having 9 or 10 APR is useless.
dual cleric/mage is defintely not bad (anything that can cast level 9 spells cannot be bad) But it is grossly inferior to any kind of other arcane caster.
For that reason, i would also qualify it as terrible.
Regarding speed weapons, they are mostly good to make easy fights faster. Indeed having 9 or 10 PAR is kinda useless. even at 5 you will slaughter anything if they can connect.
I try and avoid using hit and run tactics because I grew up with the pen and paper rules which states that the enemy gets a free hit at anyone who runs away from melee range.
Going with mumumomo's input into an Assassin/Fighter, I have to say this is probably the most lethal melee character I've ever played.
Throughout BGEE, poison darts ripped apart every major villain, including Koveras. In the smaller fights the assassin wasn't as effective, but was more of a boss killer (Of course, "ASSASSIN" as he was).
Near the end of BGEE, Dorn made him somewhat irrelevant, as the only thing unique he had going for him was traps in the last chapters.
BG2EE: After dualing to fighter after assassin lvl 11, he starts to shine again. Got to level 12 fighter very quickly, accumulative poisoning with 4 APR (Belm, no haste) makes the game crazy easy.
For a no-buff-jump-right-in character, Assassin/Fighter takes the cake.
Comments
Have you thought of other archetypes? The archetypes could mirror Mages' specialist schools, but I think I'd like them to be more specific, like your Fire Sorcerer. I find it relatively easy to come up with other types of "Elemental" Sorcerers, for example a Lightning Sorcerer (Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt, perhaps editing in the Druid's Call Lightning, Chain Lightning). Other non-Elemental Sorcerers could be more difficult to flesh out. I'd have to take a look at the different availale spells. No time for that now, because I need to go.
Btw another rule could be that these archetypical spells have to be picked first once they become available, and then later you roll the dice for the other spells.
you make very good points. I get i value the assassin->dual very highly because in solo/no reload the find traps/set traps ability are unvaluable and the dual downtime is very small.
But in any other setting, the blackguard is indeed stronger, and probably the second best single class character (after sorcerer)
A sorcerer is a straightforward character to play since it is magic-spamming all the way. If his spells run out, refresh them via resting or Wish, and repeat. His killing power is heavily dependent on his personal magic arsenal - summons are excellent against weak and middle-strength monsters but they falter against strong monsters. Even planetars die fast against a swarm in insane mode. A good sorcerer is singularly focused on getting off his killer spell combos, and everything else merely helps him achieve this goal, unless the opposition is so weak that the summons can deal with them.
A fighter/mage, IMO, is used most effectively as a fighter with magic support. He is not built to be a pure bombardier like a sorcerer and should not be used as one. Magic is best used for buffing and debuffing to help him overcome enemies in melee, with a small selection of utility and bombardment spells as opening/closing moves. A sorcerer will most likely have all the spells he needs from his personal arsenal, but a fighter/mage needs to expand his spell selection by using key items in quick slots, like Rod of Reversal and Wand of Spell Striking.
Regarding the various flavors of fighter/mages, a wizard slayer/mage is pretty bad because of the equipment restriction. A berserker/mage is good in the beginning, but as he levels up and gains access to better spell protections, since berserk does not scale up in power, he tends to falter. A kensai/mage offers more brute force, which makes him more efficient in killing monsters, saving him effort, spells and grief. A kensai/mage has the edge in endgame power if he duals late and can reach XP cap (I farm XP so I dual him at high levels). Otherwise, a berserker/mage is often a superior choice.
As for the multi fighter/mage(Illusionist), he has fewer spells (or limited spell selection), but has HLAs to compensate. However, this does not always translate into a clear advantage over the dual fighter/mage. Even a kensai/mage can get to 5 APR naturally in BG2EE, Hardiness can be replaced with Protection from Magic Weapons, etc. If XP is short and/or using two weapons (Belm/Kundane+another weapon) is not an option, the multi can be better.
A fighter/mage/thief sacrifices a little fighting ability and L9 magic spells, but gains access to the full suite of thief abilities like traps and backstab. I see him as a fighter/thief with magic support. He lacks L9 spells to make certain opening/closing moves, but should still buff/debuff capably, and thief abilities can help considerably (and even let him have other opening/closing moves) so he is still competitive. But the fighter/mage/cleric, IMO, is subpar. No L9 mage spells, few L7 priest spells and limited priest abilities (low turning level, no holy symbol) hurt him a lot. He cannot compare to most of the fighter/mage variants.
In summary, sorcerers and most fighter/mage variants are strong in their own way, and depends somewhat on factors outside of the class, like XP gain, play style, and so on. On these counts, I put forth the case that they are all good depending on the situation. Let us have a little love for more characters
Using the traditional D&D class archetypes of warrior, magic-user, priest and rogue, I think priests are more shortchanged than anyone else.
Warriors can be relatively decent main classes (e.g. inquisitor), and are sufficiently plastic such that they can gain a lot from having another class, whether it is magic-user, priest or rogue.
Magic-users like mages and sorcerers can win battles on their own, and are good whether the magic-user is a main class (e.g. sorcerer), a joint main class (e.g. thief/mage) or a supporting class (e.g. fighter/mage).
Rogues have a variety of kits for players of various stripes, and offer access to abilities that are very relevant even at the high levels (e.g. use any item, backstab, enhanced bard song). Rogues are also quite plastic like warriors in that they can gain a lot from having another class.
The way I see it, priests got the least love. Of all class archetypes, they add the least value either as a main class or as a supporting class.
They have the second best THAC0 of all the archetypes, but lack APR, specialization and weapon choices. Their magic is considerably weaker than those of magic-users, with weaker summons, few direct damage spells, and lots of protection and healing spells whose effects can often be duplicated by magic-user spells, items in-game, temples or even summons. The cleric kits basically add a couple (very) limited innate abilities, and that is about it. Druids have more interesting kits, but it seems that they are one step forward, one step backward - totemic animals are limited and they falter at high levels, avengers still cannot muster a credible magic offense and their new forms are of limited use, and shapeshifters... Cernd. Oops.
A Cleric/Thief would practically become a Fighter/Cleric/Thief, and a Cleric/Mage a Fighter/Cleric/Mage, i.e. triple class multis condensed in two classes.
I agree that priests should not get additional APR, specialization, etc. because these are distinctive abilities of fighters.
I am more for modified specialty priest kits with more granted abilities and different weapon selections compared to clerics. As it stands now, there is no downside to picking a cleric kit, and the more powerful granted abilities are quite limited in castings
Great posts
I completely share your analysis on arcane caster variants, save for the dual part (dual is not the way to go anymore IMO)
Regarding clerics, i also feel they are the weakest class archetype at higher levels :
- lack of decent fighting
- lack of great casting
At lower level however they are great (thanks to their ok THACO and great armor selection).
As for buffing them, i agree that adding APR is not the way to go. I like the more specific kits with powerful (and scaling) abilities.
I will add that I went to extremes for XP farming and programmed my characters extensively before any playthrough, hence I dual-classed my fighter/mages at very high levels way beyond what most people would advocate (dual-classed at L17 or L21 instead of L9 or L13).
With normal play, dual builds cannot compete with multi builds. With extreme play, some dual builds (specifically, very high-level kensai/mage duals only) can outmatch their corresponding multi builds. The catch is whether one is willing to spend a near-eternity farming XP and explore the BG world in a bizarre order, or play with high-level imported characters. There is also very little room for error for proficiency selection.
A multi cleric/mage sacrifices some high-level wizard spell slots for the entire array of cleric abilities. Therefore, to make the sacrifice worthwhile, he has to tap into what the cleric class can offer - particularly buffing/debuffing with priest spells, priest summons, and priest spells in sequencers. In a solo game, he would be considerably weaker than a sorcerer, but in a full party, if he is going to be the only priest, he can add value comparable to that from a sorcerer since there are other characters to share the burden of magic offense/defense and his expanded spell access would then be of greater relative benefit.
So they have dozens of spell but they cannot use them fast enough. Therefore their usefulness is limited to prebuffing only.
At low level, the cleric spells are rather nice and mages have very small quantites of spell but quite soon (around level 7 i would say) the arcane spells are much better and in sufficient number. At the end of the day, the cleric levels are just slowing you down.
For myself, I prefer running full parties with only one cleric or druid. The other characters are usually mages of various stripes. I didn't find myself missing much clerical power since I rest very often and even a cleric/mage has many low-level spell slots for buffing purposes.
The F/M/C is a very underestimated class, many people see it as a trash caster who progresses too slowly, especially in a group. But the way I see it, with Cleric buffs in sequencers (Spell Trigger : Improved Haste + Rightous Magic + something) you can reach a very very nasty DPS. Plus with Spirit Armor + Blur + Improved Invisibility + Prot from Evil + Defensive Harmony + DUHM + whatever you want you can have an effective AC of -20 pretty easely.
It is a very powerful class, very vulnerable to dispel because of the many buffs required and the low level caster, but apart from that, it is the ultimate melee character.
What mainly hurts clerils is the BG ridiculous ability to safely rest for hours nearly everywhere. Ask yourselves how many times did you rest in Cloackwood mines, Planar prison, Spellhold and other ridiculous areas, where no sane DM would ever allow it?
If you try to play minimun rest playtrough, you will trully appreciate the usefulness of cleric. Because after long and exhaustive dungeon crawl, your mages will be just a weak squishy guys with wooden sticks. You will be grateful for your well armored cleric with trusty mace&shield and any heals he has left.
A F/M/C is basically a fighter with access to both mage and cleric buffs. For the sake of our discussion, let us subdivide buffs into self buffs and non-self buffs. In a party with another cleric, the cleric non-self buffs (e.g. Defensive Harmony, Protection from Evil) need not be cast personally by the F/M/C. Of the cleric self buffs you described, they may not even be relevant under the right circumstances. Crom Faeyr is a common weapon of choice for clerics, rendering Righteous Magic obsolete. In melee, defensive cleric buffs are typically trumped by defensive mage buffs like Stoneskin and Protection from Magical Weapons.
In return for access to cleric self buffs which can be made obsolete, you are sacrificing considerable magical power that cannot be replaced - no L9 mage spells sticks out like a sore thumb when there are no corresponding benefits to balance it off unlike the case of the F/M/T. To top it off, a F/M/C has limited weapon choices (no Belm/Kundane or most of the other special effect weapons) and limited specialization.
The F/M/C is still reasonably good, but to call him the "ultimate melee character" is a bit much.
The discussion is very interesting but I think we would need to set some rules (solo ? party ? no-reload ? which mods ?) to go further.
I also think speed weapons are overrated because you are very often moving, repositioning or casting, so you can't really exploit the 10 APR setup.
At lower levels, as a Cleric, you're arguably more powerful than a Mage with your armor and helmet and with great spells such as Command, Hold Person, Animate Dead, Silence. Once you've dualled, the Cleric spells are simply a bonus that regular mages don't have, and some of the priest spells remain useful throughout the game: the cure wounds spells for faster heal upon rest, Doom (especially when combined with Greater Malison), Remove Fear, Chant, Strength of One (for summons), PfFire, Remove Paralysis (stun is a nasty status effect), PfE 10' Radius, Freedom. You want be casting all of these spells all the time, but it's great to have them available when needed. That's an interesting concept. I've seen people do no-rest challenges, but never saw the point really, but minimum rest sounds like something I'd like to try out. How do you implement it? Rest only at taverns?
I think might be a bit more lenient. For example: in the High Hedge area there's an abandoned house. I think the game mechanics won't allow you to rest inside, so I would rest outside and roleplay that I rested inside.
Yes, I think this is going to be a new rule for my playthroughs. Not only because it makes Priests and their healing spells more useful, but also because It adds extra realism. Thanks for this.
And yet i have never felt the need for a cleric.
The dual cleric-> mage maybe ok for bgee and early soa.
But quite soon, your only real advantage will be to be able to wear a helmet. And in exchange you would lose quite a lot compared to a specialist mage (or even worse to a sorcerer or wild mage)
As for AC, some people swear by it. Others eschew it. I do not trust AC to defend myself, so I take steps to minimize the relevance of AC, including using summons to tank, focusing on ranged weaponry, and so on. Your mileage may vary.
Your comment on speed weapons sounds strange. If you are attacking an enemy in melee, why is there a need to move from the spot or otherwise reposition yourself during the round that you are swinging away, unless your character is so badly outclassed that you cannot even stand there for 6 seconds (1 round) for the extra APR to kick in? If your front-liner is in a position where he is "very often casting", is he really supposed to be a front-liner, or is it an issue with overall strategy?
My impression is that you may be describing solo play (which is a niche play style in itself) when I am describing party play. If you wish, you can set the rules of engagement and we can discuss this elsewhere.
I do rest frequently - the designers actually expect you to rest in Chateau Irenicus (consider Imoen's dialogue with you after you rest), and they do expect you to rest in dungeons (consider they did create a "rest in dungeon" video). After I get Rings of Regeneration and the Ring of Gaxx, I only rest if I run low on key spells. Healing is not a concern because I typically equip wounded characters with the rings and go for some coffee... yes I am cheap. Even if I need to heal myself, a simple Heal spell would work for each wounded character.
As for dual cleric/mage, it is actually pretty bad. Consider:
- You need to reach L14 to get L7 priest spells. If you dual here, you can reach C14/M27 at most. You lose out on goodies like the cleric HLAs and the holy symbol. Your spells are only cast at L14 potency. Your THAC0 would also be pretty bad (12). To top it off, your spell progression is a lackluster 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 (not counting bonus spells from Wis)
- If you dual at a lower cleric level, you lose the top cleric spells. If you dual at a higher cleric level, you still will not get the cleric HLAs and you start eating into your mage spell progression. Unlike a F/M who can function as a fighter using his limited supply of mage spells to turn him into a top-notch fighter, a dual C/M with a limited supply of mage spells cannot function as a top-notch cleric or mage
- Assuming dual at L8 with access to 4th-level priest spells, we need to ask ourselves what we get in exchange for what we lose. If a specialist mage or wild mage was chosen right at the start, as far as magic is concerned:
o cleric/mage loses 1 spell per level from L1 through L9
o cleric/mage gains a few low-level spells at L8 potency - spells that can be covered by a full cleric in the party
Different people will have different views but this does not look like a good trade IMO
At any rate I disagree with @jacobtan that:
As for the melee standing debate, it is because I micro a lot. For example, if I have a weapon with a very good Speed Factor, I often try to hit then back leaving no chance for my foe to counter. If I'm attacking two enemies in melee at the same time, I run in circle between every attacks to make one opponent waste his attacks trying to reach me, this particular strategy become less and less efficient with APR.
But for example with my Blackguard lately, he had 2 APR, so I knew I made 1 attack every 3 seconds. So each time my attack connect and I hit my enemy, I run for 3 secs back or in circle to prevent the enemies from attacking, then 3 secs later I come back and strike, I try to cast some Armor of Faith / DUHM during theses time, etc.
In teamfights, I split my team every time an aoe spell is cast and it is VERY rare more than 1 of my pary members got hit by a Dragon Breath or other spells.
I play BG a bit like I play Starcraft 2 or DotA for exemple, I'm microing all the time to reposition myself.
And that's why I dislike speed weapons, most of the time standing still auto attacking isn't the most efficient way of winning, but the fastest. If I can kite my enemy to death with 1 APR and a quatterstaff but it takes me 1 minute, I will prefer this instead of going toe to toe standing still for 6 secs killing the enemy but taking some damage in the exchange.
You remind me why I suck at RTS lol
I would seriously beg to differ that "standing still auto attacking isn't the most efficient way of winning".
- Killing more quickly can save you spells instead of running all over the place while your buffs run out
- Debuffs on monsters typically create a short window when they are vulnerable. Running around can also hurt you by wasting time that can be used to hit vulnerable enemies
- You screw your own attacks just as you screw enemies' attacks. But why not use summons as tanks or use buffs like Protection from Magical Weapons so that you are not targeted or are invulnerable to attacks?
- Against fast and hard-hitting mobs, especially in enclosed spaces, running around is not always a viable strategy
- Healing via potions is cheap and easy
Then again, it's different strokes for different folks. If you like to play this way, it's probably the best for you.
You don't screw your own attacks with this tactic if you don't have too much APR, if I have 3 APR or less I don't lose anything because it is fairly easy to micro but if I have more than 5 APR the melee kiting strategy if often pretty useless I agree too.
With SCS on, enemies tend to ignore my summons or kill them with Death Spell. With PfMW it is also true that standing and attacking is very efficient, still, a character able to cast this spell should be able to cast key spells every rounds, thus cancelling the point of having 10 APR.
Something I really think wholeheartly is that speed weapons are often bad. They are good on 1 base APR character like Blade or Swashbuckler, but I would never ever give them to a Kensai=>Mage, F/M or F/M/T, because I always have a key spell to cast every round.
Actually, I also use hit-and-run tactics like you do. But I make sure I get one full round's worth of attacks to tap into the APR bonus before running away. So we are in agreement here. I just disagree with the "hit once, run away and repeat" way of hit-and-run.
For the APR, we can agree to disagree, but it does not make any sense to say "I don't want more APR because if I have too much APR I screw my own attacks". You can do hit-and-run the way you like it even if you have a lot of APR. I would call a spade a spade and say it sounds more like "I don't want the APR bonus because I don't want to feel bad about wasting it when I do hit-and-run my way". Having more APR translates into more damage and a higher chance of having special effect damage kick in, so since you insist on your preferred method of hit-and-run, you need a justification for not having the APR bonus - cast a spell every round, even if it need not necessarily be the best option.
I remember a friend who applied for a scholarship for his university course, won the scholarship, but he had second thoughts and in the end, he chose a very different course so that he could justify rejecting the scholarship that he had won.
But it is grossly inferior to any kind of other arcane caster.
For that reason, i would also qualify it as terrible.
Regarding speed weapons, they are mostly good to make easy fights faster.
Indeed having 9 or 10 PAR is kinda useless. even at 5 you will slaughter anything if they can connect.
Throughout BGEE, poison darts ripped apart every major villain, including Koveras. In the smaller fights the assassin wasn't as effective, but was more of a boss killer (Of course, "ASSASSIN" as he was).
Near the end of BGEE, Dorn made him somewhat irrelevant, as the only thing unique he had going for him was traps in the last chapters.
BG2EE: After dualing to fighter after assassin lvl 11, he starts to shine again. Got to level 12 fighter very quickly, accumulative poisoning with 4 APR (Belm, no haste) makes the game crazy easy.
For a no-buff-jump-right-in character, Assassin/Fighter takes the cake.