Trying to decide between Ranger/Cleric, Assassin and Wizard Slayer
PugPug
Member Posts: 560
I've played through the game many times. Any of these would give me a pretty new experience.
The WS is unlike anything else, and mage fights annoy me. They don't do anything for why they annoy me though, which is the process of stripping an endless stream of defense spells held in contingencies. Though they would, at least, prevent the mage from doing anything during that time.
I am considering the Assassin because I've never really utilized backstab before, and I think I should.
The Ranger/Cleric is a candidate because I think they have some cool tricks on account of getting access to both Druid and Cleric spells (even Druid spells the Ranger would never get). And I don't think Druid/Cleric is a valid multiclass in BG, and having a decent THAC0 can't hurt besides.
The WS is unlike anything else, and mage fights annoy me. They don't do anything for why they annoy me though, which is the process of stripping an endless stream of defense spells held in contingencies. Though they would, at least, prevent the mage from doing anything during that time.
I am considering the Assassin because I've never really utilized backstab before, and I think I should.
The Ranger/Cleric is a candidate because I think they have some cool tricks on account of getting access to both Druid and Cleric spells (even Druid spells the Ranger would never get). And I don't think Druid/Cleric is a valid multiclass in BG, and having a decent THAC0 can't hurt besides.
0
Comments
Assassins are fun, but they are pretty slow for BG1. You don't get epic backstabs til BG2 anyway. Still, considering the only guy who still levels up as thief is Jan Jansen, you know you won't overlap with any of your NPCs.
Ranger/Clerics are a blast. People who complain they are "OP" haven't ever used a dwarven fighter/cleric or any of the broken dual-class combinatiosn in the game, or a million other truly OP classes. The only druid-only spell you'll ever utilize is Iron Skins which I admit is pretty badass. It's really not that much better than a regular fighter/cleric.
The ability to access spells they should not -- like Iron Skins and Insect Plague -- is an *enormous* advantage throughout the entire game.
Kensai/Mages are overpowered because Bioware has never been able to balance anything. Ranger/Clerics are overpowered because of an oversight and broken code.
It's one thing if the player takes advantage of bad design decisions and poor scaling. It's another if they're using class mechanics that are very clearly outside the rules of the game.
One is power gaming, other is just cheesy.
TWO SPELLS, OH MY GOD IT'S THE MOST BROKEN CLASS EVVVVVVVVERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
It's not that big a deal. Also, "throughout the entire game." Oh? You won't have 5th level spells as a cleric/ranger til 450000 xp. It's not til BG2 and even then, not til you finish a good chunk of Shadows of Amn.
TWO SPELLS.
TWOOOOOOOO SPEEEEELLLLSSSSSSSS.
I think it's funny people flip their shit about this multi-class, especially because outside of those two spells, everyone thinks Druids are gimp to Clerics in every way. (I disagree with that assessment, but still.) Yeah okay it's an oversight. Whatever. If it bothers you that much, never prep Iron Skins or Insect Plague.
@elminster: you're probably right. I should stop now. I just find it funny people crying for game balance on something 15 years old where half the fun is cheesing through the game.
Also, it's not just two spells. It's a helluva lot of extra spells. I mentioned the two that give you the biggest edge.
Insect Plague is a party friendly AoE that *interrupts* casters in a game packed with enemy mages. And you're claiming that makes a marginal difference, encounter after encounter? C'mon.
Likewise Iron Skins ( @Debaser ). That gives an extra layer of damage mitigation to a melee based fighter. In every encounter. At low cost. Not only that, but it frees up your other casters to cast other buffs on other party members.
It's a single player game and people are obviously free to play however they want. @sandmanCCL But your argument that balance doesn't matter in a "15 year old game" doesn't hold water.
We're on the BG:EE forums and presumably this *new* version will bring people to Baldur's Gate who have never played the game before.
Is your best advice to them, on their first experience with the franchise, going to be to roll something you know to be imbalanced and cheesy?
I'd also point out that this November 30 Baldur's Gate will be 14 years old, though as you pointed out yourself the issues you and Brude are talking about relates to Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn which is actually 12 years old as of two days ago (or 11 if you want to count Throne of Bhaal since getting the the experience cap of 2,950,000 is very feasible before the end of SoA and that helps multiclasses a lot).
But getting back to the topic at hand I say the assassin because I think of the three of them it provides the most unique experience. Without a lot of thieving points to distribute you really have to think out where you are going to focus your character in both games. The poison can also be helpful against mages, though typically in BG1 I would say the greater threat to your health comes from archers or up close fighters. Still, it is always a good thing to get those pesky mages out of the way, especially if you are playing with an ai mod.
OF.
ALL.
TIME.
If it mattered, the game wouldn't be in the upper eschalons of RPGdom and not for as long as this title has. BG:Enhanced Edition still has to directly compete against it's source material.
Game Balance is the most overused, over-hyped idea for a single player RPG. It really is. I take it you refuse to use Orlandeau in Final Fantasy Tactics because he's so much stronger than the other party members you can bring? Or you don't throw the Atma Weapon at Kefka at the end of FF6 even though it instantly kills him as the game displays "TOO MUCH TO COUNT"? You never mindlessly ran around just to up your athletics skill in Morrowind? I guess Omnislash in FF7 you never utilized as it instantly won a lot of the most difficult encounters in that, too. (Wow, I guess my youth of playing JRPGs is really showing.)
I can roll a regular, not-even-specialized mage that can solo the entire saga, easily. Yet somehow an oversight that makes an already great alternative class still great is "broken" and "cheesy" to the point it should be changed? Please. I had a lot of fun the Beastmaster/Cleric playthrough of the entire Saga I did this summer. I'd be pretty upset if that was taken away from me.
Removing character options hurts the product.
If the title has already been around for literally half of the life cycle of the target audience, trying to rebalance it is actually detrimental to the product. If you remove things people enjoyed (and there's a lot of people who enjoy cleric/ranger's total access to druid spells), it creates less incentive to get the "enhanced" product, no? People can go get the original for significantly cheaper from multiple other outlets.
I am always going to argue on the side of "don't change it" when the people who want this particular issue changed can simply exercise some self-restraint by not memorizing druid spells beyond 3rd level. It's the only win-win situation. It lets cheeseballers cheese, and purist ... uh... "pure." (Yes I just made that word a verb.
@Elminster I always see your logic and reason after I've already written up what I wrote and I'm too egotistical to erase it.
I'd say go for Assassin. An immensely entertaining character, and capable of being rather devastating, if played properly. The one thing you have to learn to really use one effectively is how to backstab multiple times in one battle. I love Boots of Speed on an Assassin for this reason - backstab, zoom out of enemy's sight range, stealth, backstab again. Rinse and repeat. Far better, but less plentiful, are Potions of Invisibility - save those suckers for battles where you can't escape the enemy's LOS.
The only real challenge the kit presents is that at 15 points a level, with most of that going into Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, you might struggle a bit with traps and locks. This is specifically a problem in BG1, as traps and locks seem to be mostly a non-issue in BG2 (Nalia, a level 4 thief, can take care of 90% of them).
So two ways to solve it in BG1. First option: Take a second thief. Montaron is your best option, as he can also take on more of a fighting role, while you throw all his points into traps and locks. Coran is the same, but as he's available later... Tiax would be idea if you didn't have to wait until Ch 5 for him.
The other option is to just make do with your Assassin. Since you'll want a high STR anyway to take advantage of those backstabs, forcing locks is a surprisingly effective option (especially if you max out at 18 - with the tome, that's 19, enough to take care of most locks). Potions of Master Thievery can also level that one out. Of course, the ultimate solution is having a Mage cast Knock, but doing things this way will free up some level 2 slots for him (and spell slots are very precious in BG1).
For traps, if you want to take on Durlag's Tower, you're going to have to put some points in, no way around it. Make it your third skill (with Hide in Shadows and Move Silently being your first and second, obviously). Once you pick up the armour and boots of Stealth you can probably afford to dump an entire level into Traps, and that plus Potions of Perception should do the trick.
One last thing: An argument could be made for Detect Illusions. I've never tried it - never had the points to throw into it - but I can see the advantages, as Assassins often function as Mage-killers, and this would allow them to circumvent a lot of defensive spells.
It's a fun class and the poisons are insanely useful against casters. The biggest downside is that it's the nicheiest of niche playstyles and to really get the most out of it requires you be a backstabbing fiend who utilizes your special ability every time it's up.
From my experience, you won't have enough points to really get much beyond Find Traps and Stealth, which is split into two skills.
But, as you note, in BG1 this doesn't matter so much. To anyone interested in it, I'd say there are enough multi class and dual class thieves in the game that there's always someone at hand to pick a pocket or open a lock.
- your last games
- the alignment you're going to choose
- The party you're going to use
- The weapons that you pretend to use
RPGs, especially Bioware RPGs, are designed so that almost anyone at any skill level can complete them. They're designed this way to make sure that any player can see the entire story. Funny then that balance continues to be an issue and a challenge for developers, then, and if it's not present then players will scream bloody murder (witness Diablo 3).
Also funny that ToB tends to be, on scale, the least popular installment in the series, and this is also when you get overpowered HLA abilities like UAI and Time Traps and the game is packed with powerful magic items and the game's balance went straight out the window. Bioware caved and gave players everything the might ever wants in a Marty Sue, and the result was a significantly less interesting expansion.
And the short answer to your questions is: No.
I don't cheese game mechanics if I can help it. I'm the kind of player who will not equip Valygar's armor on my Monk because I feel that goes against the spirit of the game and the developer's intentions. Likewise for force-talking exploits and dragon-related trap cheese. Doing these things makes the game significantly less fun for me.
The way I look at it, if you're going to play like that -- in a single player RPG, no less, which is on par with cheating at solitaire -- you might as well Ctrl-Shift-8 into straight 18s at character creation or Shadowkeep your way into having 100% magic resistance.
Because seriously, what's the difference? Either way you're giving yourself an advantage the developers did not intend for you to have. I haven't argued -- at least not yet -- for reverting Ranger/Clerics to where they're supposed to be. I was just pointing out that, in the current game, they're cheesy and operate outside of the game's stated rules. (To me, this makes the issue more of a bug fix than anything else.)
Finally, in response to your last few statements: If there's anywhere out there who plays as I do, whether it be the OP or someone finding this thread through Google, they might find an alternative perspective useful to have.
I just wanted to point out one last thing. I specifically mentioned "for single player RPGs" in my game balance argument. It's the hardest thing in the world to do for a multiplayer environment with PVP mechanics especially, but it's something that I would argue doesn't really apply to the single player game.
I can't think of a single player RPG that doesn't have some god-like powers and abilities in it. There's always something that's downright HNNNG inducing.
On the other point -- I think you're right. Some companies are better at it than others, but on the whole I've found Bioware games particularly vulnerable to power builds, even ones that couldn't ever be considered plain exploits.
Also funny that ToB tends to be, on scale, the least popular installment in the series, and this is also when you get overpowered HLA abilities like UAI and Time Traps and the game is packed with powerful magic items and the game's balance went straight out the window. Bioware caved and gave players everything the might ever wants in a Marty Sue, and the result was a significantly less interesting expansion.
@Brude, @SandmanCCL, @Elminster and to everyone else who reads this. I must apologize in advance but I just woke up.
Ok with that out of the way now I can respond. Also @Brude I apologize for how thoroughly I hacked up your post but I wanted to get to the points that for me stuck out the most.
You say that its continued success is due to the story, characters and setting and then you argue that TOB is considered the weakest part and immediately go after the game mechanics of TOB. Personally what disappoints me most about TOB isn't the mechanics but rather the story. I don't find it anywhere near as compelling as BG1 or SoA. Honestly I'm mixed when it comes to HLA abilities. Some of them can be game changing (I refuse to use the term game breaking), especially abilities like Enhanced Bard Song, Improved Alacrity, Time Stop, Time Stop Trap, Greater Whirlwind, etc. Many of those same abilities end up making up for otherwise significant weaknesses in some characters and kits (especially Enhanced Bard Song for Blades or Greater Whirlwind for Swashbucklers just to give some examples). But the fact of the matter is, especially in Epic Level D&D Campaigns (which is what TOB is considered) basically everyone gets to be a badass of some sort. Balance is in some aspects ignored in the name of fun.
Also what I took away from @SandmanCCL's comment was that back in the 90s game developers (In particular Square Soft where he points out FFT, FF6 and FF7, at least 1 of which ends up in almost every final fantasy characters personal favorite top 3), eschewed thoughts of balance in order to have fun. Orlandu is literally given to you on a platter with the second best sword in game for the final chapter. Ya know what, the character itself was still fun. Knights of the Round and Omnislash were still put into FF7 even though as @SandmanCCL rightly pointed out they negated a lot of fights, but they were still fun to use.
I agree with you that developers spend YEARS trying to achieve game balance, but I don't think its beneficial in single player games. If people want to be overpowered by playing a Kensage, Kensief, Cleric/Ranger, using Omnislash, Running with Orlandu, Casting Knights of the Round, then let them for their personal fun. At the end of the day this is a single player game and people will play in a manner that is most fun to them.
Personally I'll never play a dual-class as I never liked the restrictions on the character itself. I will however multiclass. That's how I enjoy the game, but I know that some people have fun doing it. At the end of the day its story, compelling characters and watching your character go from someone who was afraid of a hit from an ogre or two hits from a gibberling upon leaving Candlekeep to becoming a figurative and literal god at the end of TOB which makes this game enjoyable.
I think you're right about balance. It's elusive and difficult and never fully achieved. But in single player games, especially RPGs, it matters to me because better balance increases replay value.
For example, I've played through KOTOR probably a dozen times, but stopped when I finished the game with an amazing Jedi power build I found online. It was fun, but it also killed the game for me. Likewise DA:O. I got less value and less entertainment out of that once I tricked into a dual wielding warrior "chainsaw" build.
That's not really my problem with Ranger/Clerics, though (and I'll continue to refer to them that way just to needle Elminster a little bit, hehe).
They're not cheesy and out of place because they're powerful and scale too well (although they are and they do). They're cheesy because they operate outside the stayed rules and violate, as I was talking about before, the spirit of the game.
If Bioware accidentally implemented a paladin kit that randomly and arbitrarily crossed AD&D rules and broke immersion? What if your rep dropped below 8 and your paladin gained special abilities they werent supposed to have? Wouldn't you have an issue with that?
That's kinda how I see Ranger/Clerics.
Every coding system has its flaws and Cleric/Ranger/Cleric (s) had that flaw since BG1 anyway. While I think they could have fixed it, enough people enjoyed it that they made a particular decision to NOT fix it. I respect that decision. Personally I've never played a Ranger/Cleric but that's because my clerics have standards. ALMOST all of my clerics are Human or Dwarven. I just envision them as clerics more.
Thus I don't play them because outside of FMC those clerics just break the immersion for me anyway as a PC :P. That's not to say that I mind Viconia or Aerie, but especially in games like SoA/ToB or IWD, I purposely don't play non-human clerics because the only deities offered are those from the human Pantheon. At least in the case of SoA/ToB, with your character having grown up in Candlekeep it makes some sense that they'd feel more kinship towards said Pantheon.
But I guess that's in my nature to keep playing even after I've found things that just outright make things explode. I went a pure cunning Assassin/Bard dagger build in DA: O and DA: A the first time to beat them, for the most part just giggling like a school girl when I killed my way through things. But my personal favorite rogue to play is still a duelist/assassin.
Long story short: I understand your lamenting of the Class and why you feel it broken (broken code allowing them spells earlier than they should have access too and beyond what they should have access too), but I think while it might break your personal immersion. Like many things immersion is subjective on a per person basis and some people might enjoy that playstyle.
As another proof of a broken system in BG, all Elves from AD&D were not only supposed to gain increased Thac0 with Bows and Longswords, I'm fairly certain they were supposed to be able to put proficiency points into them. EVEN if they're wizards. But that's my grumble about the IE engine.
The problem of high level is that you can't just trow any monster on the table, says that those monsters are 2x or 3x more strong than the average of their specie and end with a good game. A high level party has to focus into a diferent game style, but in ToB the old devs tried to use the same plot system that made BG and BG II SoA, they keep the same recipe and we just wanted something new.
When i got in ToB on my first plays, i hoped for some huge challenge, but i got only mobs to kill. The devs could tried to make more named enemies, more talk solutions questions, some environment dificults (as done in solafein mod from weimer during the eclipse fight) and more side quests, cos ToB was TOO MUCH linear.
ToB greatest problem is the amount of items carried from SoA, part of the fun is to build your character inventory. But this isn't ToB's fault, it's a lack of item control in SoA that generate this problem.
In the end it's not the adventure of high level party that make the game less charismatic, but saturation of the saga, items, fights among other things that happeed before. For example start a direct ToB game, the diference on the fun is huge and you're going to enjoy the game a lot more.
If the devs of the actual Team BG get a license to make small changes on ToB (and i believe they really need one), i suggest the following changes:
- More content and a indepth extension of some old content as many things in ToB happen too fast (we need at least 2x to 3x more game time than the original ToB).
- More talk quests, where we don't need to fight to solve the problem.
- More important characters meetings, to fight, ally and etc...
- Make deep changes on ToB NPCs in the party, NPCs on ToB lost part of their flavor that we aprreciate so much in SoA. We need something to shock there.
- Make the fucking oasis battle something more than kill goblin alike soldiers, after all that's an entire army send against a party.
- Make an item trade system in SoA and on early ToB, so to get some items you must trade others, make game events in SoA that make us lost some items (in quest, trade for XP in the old BG beregost system, in certain events) or anything that make a flawed equiped party reach ToB. Make the strongholds in SoA need some item investment (each stronghold could ask for different things) and make some new items that request some of the old items to be fused to generate them... i dunno just vanish with some of SoA items.
Some not needed changes but more personal opinions:
- Make special events for each party NPC in ToB that give a chance of a permanent plot death to that NPC (or to leave the party), add some new ToB NPCs and create some relations between the pary NPCs and the NPCs in ToB, something that make me want to get in ToB with different NPCs (as Vollo's article for each NPC in the party).
- I suggest to change (if Beamdog already has) or get (if that will be discussed yet) the assignment rights to be able to change ToB (specially in the character end), cos this freedom can provide a more open wide of choices for a future Baldur's Gate III (if BG make a sucess maybe this isn't a so impossible option).
The bonus was actually OVER implemented in the entire saga. It's something that Beamdog is fixing. Basically if it was listed as a Bow or Large Sword in BG1 then your elf got additional thac0 for using it. So rather than it being restricted to Bows and Longswords, you gained the same thac0 bonus for Bastard Swords and 2 handed (Great)swords. It might have also applied to Katanas in BG2, I'm not certain.
I do know that they never implemented the ability for Elven Wizards to specialize in longswords and bows though. @LadyRhian would know more about whether that was an AD&D thing or not.
It probably stemmed from the limited weapon proficiency table in the first game -- long swords, bastard swords, and 2handers were all just "Large Swords."
Since there probably wasn't a way to make the bonus distinct, they didn't bother for the first game and didn't fix it for the second.
(This is pure speculation on my part, though.)
I agree with almost everything you said, but I also firmly believe that everything would be easier to implement, more immersive, more fun, etc. if the overall power level of the party is lower. This is also valid for SoA, though to a lesser extent.
For most people, the game stops being rewarding because the challenge is gone and the accumulated levels start to become meaningless. Hence we re-roll another character and re-start the saga. In pretty much any game - even Diablo - this seems to be a repeated pattern in any game involving levels.
The best way to maintain challenge in any game is to limit the levels players can achieve and gear they can get. This is also one of the best ways to lose players if you're not careful.
@Kamuizin, Dragonspear: I agree - ToB's biggest problem is that the content is insufficient to be it's own campaign. It lacks depth. You could improve balance, but this game would never be truly great unless it had a richer and more complete story. Your suggestions are good.
@SandmanCCL: I'm a *huge* fan of FFT. And to keep the game challenging, I basically did exactly what you did. I removed Orlandu from my party whenever possible. I also elected not to use the 'Kill the Leader' strategy in any battle, unless it made 100% story sense to do so (eg: a battle with Lucavi, etc.) While playing BG1, I also barred myself from using more than 1 summoning spell at a time because the game was just too easy.
@Brude: Unrelated, why are you called Brude?
Why are you called Silence? :-D