Skip to content

Improve Wizard Slayer

2»

Comments

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,582
    Agreed. It's a crippling disadvantage that isn't even close to worth it
  • SilenceSilence Member Posts: 437
    The wizard slayer is a great idea. But yes it is the least powered fighter kit, though it's very playable. A lot of people feel as you do.

    I think that prohibiting the use of magic items besides weapons and armour is a great idea. Increasing spell failure is a great idea too. The problem for me is that the magic resistance is a little low. And the other problem is the barring of magical potions which increase statistics. Wizard slayers accept magical buffs cast on them which are beneficial....why can't they accept potions too?
  • HvitrEbrithilHvitrEbrithil Member Posts: 36
    Have you ever tried dual-classing a wizard slayer/thief? It's one of the most OP classes in the game, played through entire BGII:SOA and BGII:TOB solo with that class, it's unstoppable! Due to the merging of the thiefs later ability to use ANY magical in the game.

    If they are going to buff the wizard slayer, they need to nerf or take away the option to dual-class with thief, or the fucker would be unstoppable!
  • Ulfgar_TorunnUlfgar_Torunn Member Posts: 169
    The Wizard Slayer class has always garnered mixed attention for its great utility against caster classes, but also its utter uselessness outside of magic battles; I too agree that something should be done.

    A simple solution to increasing the slayer's versatility would be to allow for a single magical item to be equipped. It would allow for better stats without making them overpowered (as @HvitrEbrithil points out), but makes little sense from a roleplaying perspective (on the other hand, so does using magical weapons and armor).

    I also considered what @bill_zagoudis said about the spell failure rarely mattering. What if the Wizard Slayer had a small chance of removing a single combat protection with every attack? Something like 5% by end game; this would allow him to penetrate the enemy's defenses and apply the spell failure more easily.

    I'm quite partial to the first solution (doesn't increase the power of a UAI Wizard Slayer, less complex balancing), but the second makes more sense from a roleplaying perspective.
    HvitrEbrithilMoira
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,207

    remove completely the spell failure on hit bonus

    Then what exactly makes it a wizard slayer? Aren't you just left with magic resistance then? That makes you a Drow, not a wizard slayer.
    HvitrEbrithil
  • HvitrEbrithilHvitrEbrithil Member Posts: 36
    There are a lot of possibilities when it comes to adding other "mage-fighting"-abilities. Examples are:

    Chance on hit to make a random spell un-memorized.
    Chance on hit to steal a buff from the enemy.
    Each hit adds magic resistance from THAT mage's spells.
    Active ability making user immune from magic for a little while.

    Just examples.

    I suggest making the wizard slayer an end-game-hero, meaning he's not that useful in the beginning of the game, but gets quite good at the end. This way, we make it a useful and very fun class to have on our team, but at the same time, we remove the problems with dual-classing, as the wizard slayer class would be stuck at level 9 or something like that, making it contribute less to the other class.

    Also, the spell failure is what makes it so OP when dual-classing with a thief, and should be nerfed or removed to make way for another mage-fighting ability.


    Ways to make Wizard Slayer an end-game-hero:

    Simply make the magic resistance slightly exponential. Meaning less magic resistance in the beginning of the game, but enough so that it will be a viable class at the end of the game (but not so OP that you can just send your Wizard Slayer alone to deal with John Irenicus, so to speak).
  • ElessarElessar Member Posts: 44

    The Wizard Slayer class has always garnered mixed attention for its great utility against caster classes, but also its utter uselessness outside of magic battles; I too agree that something should be done.

    A simple solution to increasing the slayer's versatility would be to allow for a single magical item to be equipped. It would allow for better stats without making them overpowered (as @HvitrEbrithil points out), but makes little sense from a roleplaying perspective (on the other hand, so does using magical weapons and armor).

    I also considered what @bill_zagoudis said about the spell failure rarely mattering. What if the Wizard Slayer had a small chance of removing a single combat protection with every attack? Something like 5% by end game; this would allow him to penetrate the enemy's defenses and apply the spell failure more easily.

    I'm quite partial to the first solution (doesn't increase the power of a UAI Wizard Slayer, less complex balancing), but the second makes more sense from a roleplaying perspective.

    I agree. It could be cool to be a human Nishruu (though it would be nice if the magic item loot wasn't affected)
    HvitrEbrithil
  • KithrixxKithrixx Member Posts: 215
    Wizard Slayers having a chance to apply a defensive strip spell would be amazing (such as Dispel Magic or, at higher levels, Breach). Being able to reliably penetrate magical defenses would be a massive help in making the kit more viable.
    HvitrEbrithilThe_New_Romance
  • kiroskiros Member Posts: 119
    The class is designed to do what the class title indicates, Slay wizards ;)
    He isn't designed to a tank against pure melee characters, but he can stand his ground.
    I do think the class needs a slight adjusting, but wearing magical items is a no-no (Wizard Slayers hate ANYTHING to do with magic, this includes magical items/equipment)

    The 10% chance of cumulative spell failure is nothing to joke about, mage's have a tendency to recast buff spells immediately after their buffs end..so if you manage to land 3-4 strikes within that re-cast period (with haste it isn't a problem) that's almost 50% spell failure for a few hits! Not to mention the magic resistance they bolster. (with that initial spell failure % added they have a chance at failing their second defensive spell launch which = dead mage.

    I was able to massacre mage's with constant spell fail, which includes high end magic users like Irenicus etc

  • bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
    if you manage to land 3-4 strikes it's one more and they're dead...
  • bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
    after all the only reason i ask for the removal of this passive is so i can ask for something meaningfull,in fact i hardly care if it exists apart from the nice rp tone it gives...when you read it....
  • kiroskiros Member Posts: 119
    edited August 2012

    if you manage to land 3-4 strikes it's one more and they're dead...

    Weak mages yes, but there are plenty of enemies/bosses that take advantage of Physical/Magical based attack combinations i.e they don't have to be mages.

    It also bypasses Stonekin, which means each strike that lands on a target while stone skinned will add culmative spell failure. At least this is what I remember. And no, this is not a bug as each time they are hit one skin is removed, thus they are technically being struck.. Mages love to use stoneskin ;)

    Added benefits for the build would be nice, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
    That is to say, they have these special abillities for a reason..they despise magic ;)
    So I think them wearing magical items/equipment is a bit hypocritical.

    Overall, I found the class actually useful despite the lack of item use which would deter most from choosing it.

    Post edited by kiros on
  • SilenceSilence Member Posts: 437
    I think the Inquisitor is actually a better Wizard Slayer than the Wizard Slayer is. One mid-level Inquisitor can cast a Dispel Magic that debuffs the enemy completely. And he can do this a few times.

    I also prefer the resistances granted by Berserker/Barbarian Rage to magic resistance, but that's me.

    Wizard Slayers are very playable, but I think they need some tweaking to be on par with the other kits.
  • kiroskiros Member Posts: 119
    edited August 2012
    @Silence
    Agreed, the inquisitor is a much more viable class as opposed to the wizard slayer.
    I played a few mods that had actually nerfed the inquisitors somewhat overpowered Dispel magic rendering him not as effective at that role, but I doubt this nerfing will be introduced in vanilla.

    I still thoroughly enjoyed playing the class and feel he does deserve more added bonuses (with the exception of not being able to utilize magical items of course)

  • AntonAnton Member, Moderator, Mobile Tester Posts: 513
    edited August 2012
  • bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
    true,an inquisitor just dispels everything and can simply step in and kill the mage in a few blows...even assasin works better if you can initiate the fight with a poisoned weapon(provided they somehow survive the backstab),overal of course wizard slayer is playable,but berserker is simply superior overall and inquisitor outperforms him in his very role...as for the 'he hates magic part' i think it's a poor assumption, if my fighter trains at defending himself against arrows,does that mean he hates archers and he cannot use bows?
  • bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
    edited August 2012

    same point as the above to both of the merged threads
    Post edited by bill_zagoudis on
  • MilesBeyondMilesBeyond Member Posts: 324
    Quartz said:

    caruga said:

    Tanthalas said:

    The problem I have with the 10% cumulative spell failure thing is that if I can actually hit the Wizard that cumulative spell failure means nothing because the mage is already as good as dead.

    Doesn't the spell failure effect ignore stoneskin, illusion, weapon immunities etc? I thought it did, but if not, perhaps that could be an ideal buff to the kit.
    I agree with this. I have actually never played a Wizard Slayer because based on the description I always wondered "like a hit that does DAMAGE, or just a hit?" That would make ALL the difference in the world. If it has to be a hit that does damage then Wizard Slayers are extremely useless, if not then it could actually be useful.

    I also like this. The spell failure should be based on whether the Wizard Slayer rolls a hit, not whether he does damage. A hit from a WS on a mage with Stoneskin, Mirror Image and Absolute Immunity should still add the cumulative failure, even if it does no damage.

    Another question: Does the spell failure apply to hits from ranged weapons? If not, it really should.

    Finally, I really like the idea above of the Wizard Slayer being able to hit immune creatures. I think a Wizard Slayer's attack should always count as +5 (i.e. he wouldn't get +5 to hit, but he would be able to bypass weapon immunities). As others have said, this may be a coding issue, but it should be possible.

    Take these above changes and combine them with a more consistent MR and you've got, what I think, would be a great kit. Especially with GM in Bows, you could drop spellcasters without mercy, but the lack of magical items would make you less effective than other fighters on the front line, both at taking and dealing damage.

    The more I think about this, the more interesting it seems.
    Anton
  • MilesBeyondMilesBeyond Member Posts: 324
    Okay, I ran some tests. They're hardly conclusive, but they give us an indication:

    First, it would seem that Spell Failure bypasses Stoneskin, but NOT immunity spells (i.e. Mantle et al).

    Second, it would seem that Spell Failure is NOT applied to ranged attacks.

    Third, it would seem that Spell Failure is NOT applied to divine magic.

    So, reversing some of those and adding in increased Magic Resistance might make it a much more viable option.

    Note that reversing ALL of them might make it too powerful. 10% cumulative spell failure on a ranged attack that bypasses any and all magical defenses seems like it would make spellcasters too easy.

    Then again, the whole no magical items thing is a bit of a downer, so the WS better have some strong bonuses.

    That reminds me: There seem to be a couple of exceptions to the "no magical items" rule. For example, it would appear a WS can use healing potions (but no other kinds). Additionally, there seem to be a couple magical items a WS can equip (probably ones that are flagged as "usable by all") - the Amulet of the Seldarine is a noteworthy example.
    Antonlakrids
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,975
    and i think boots of speed can also be worn by wizard slayers as well
  • kiroskiros Member Posts: 119
    edited August 2012
    @bill_zagoudis
    This is true, I found a revision mod that would suit him perfectly.

    http://www.shsforums.net/topic/49205-wizard-slayer-rebalancing-v106/
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,497
    edited August 2012
    @MilesBeyond
    Nice list! I didn't know about the divine magic exception, but it makes alot of sense. There was a mod where the ranged weapons were fixed for applying spell failure, it think it was in combo with getting waylaid by adventuring parties where you would get an wizard slaying archer equipped with arrows of dispelling, it makes me shudder to remember.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    edited August 2012
    Merged the similar threads.
  • AntonAnton Member, Moderator, Mobile Tester Posts: 513
    edited December 2012
    @PhillipDaigle Please implement at lease these 2 tweaks in order to improve this kit:
    1) Spell disruption should work with ranged weapons
    2) Spell disruption should ignore Protection from magical weapon.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited December 2012
    A wizard slayer's final magic resistance is capped at 40%. Regardless of level.

    And due to their lack of gear, Wizard Slayers are currently LESS effective at killing casters then a plain fighter is.

    IF you really wanna overhaul the kit.

    25% chance on any melee hit to dispel the target (cl=Level).
    Breach 1/day per 10 levels.
    Spell Turning 1/day per 5 levels.
    Spellstrike 1 day at 17, 23, 29
    Spell Trap 1/day at 26, 36

    Same penalties, replace all their current "bonuses" with the above.
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,497
    The problem is clearly the Wizard slayer's abhorrence of magic and enchantments. Changing the class from a wizard-hater to a wizard-killer would allow many more solutions that make sense to the class.
  • HexHammerHexHammer Member Posts: 288
    edited December 2012
    I think he should:
    - start out with 40% M resist.

    - have 50%-70% shorter duration from spells. (both posetive and negative)

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    Currently the wizard slayer is a great idea for a fighter kit but lacking in execution,i know this is the case in AD&D rules but could we make a small exception to make the kit just a little bit better?
    ....
    ,but in SoA,you loose:
    a)loosing acces to belts means that your strengt will not be increased unless you use Agruavadal or Crom Fayr
    b)loosing acces to rings means that you loose the amazing ring of gax,along with possible ac bonuses or regeneration,also you cannot use ring of human influence
    c)loosing acces to gauntlets means less thac0,even -1/2attack per round later with gloves of extraordinary specialization
    d)loosing acces to amulets is arguably not that important
    e)loosing acces to cloaks means less ac most likely
    f)loosing acces to boots means that you cannot use boots of speed,and have to rely on mages for haste
    g)loosing acces to the head slot means less ac/hp/thac0 once again(helm of balduran?)

    overal a wizard slayer in the endgame will loose(depending on the player's gear choices) about 2ac,3 thac0,1/2 attack per round,~10 hp,2 damage,regenarion,various useful immunieties(poison/disease) and is stack with base stats

    ....

    Egads man it's lose not loose
Sign In or Register to comment.