Weak none warriors

Eideu

I always found playing through these games that playing anything buy a warrior/paladin was like playing on hard mode . Have we been informed yet that if the rolled PC dies , the games ends? Or is it possible to ress them in a temple / with a high level cleric? I personally like playing as a ranger , but the lack of heavy armour was a major draw back.

salieri

I'm pretty certain that game ver on pc death is unchangeable. They'd have to write in a load of bars to plot progression while the pc was dead if the party were allowed to carry on without him/her.

I always felt playing with a warrior was like playing on boring mode. There are plenty of ways for a non-melee pc to avoid getting stuck in combat.

reedmilfam

Warriors are stronger earlier, but not over the long haul.

Pantalion

Personally I always felt that playing without a primary spellcaster was hard mode, comparing a guy who swings a sword around to the guy who can invalidate entire encounters with the right spell just seems unfair.

ryuken87

Eideu said:

I always found playing through these games that playing anything buy a warrior/paladin was like playing on hard mode . Have we been informed yet that if the rolled PC dies , the games ends? Or is it possible to ress them in a temple / with a high level cleric? I personally like playing as a ranger , but the lack of heavy armour was a major draw back.

@Eideu

Warriors are certainly easiest at low levels when 1/2 hits means death, but when you have a well built party around you most classes are as easy as each other.

Why would the PC's death making the game end change in EE? I don't think that's even been suggested.

Vanilla rangers can wear heavy armour.

ArtOfShred

I don't know if there was ever any kind of reason behind it, but I always liked to think of the PC's death ending the game as the Bhaalspawn essence preventing you from being raised by normal means.

As far as struggling early on with lower HP classes like mages, it's certainly more difficult starting out but that's to be expected. I think the game was designed back in the day with the idea that you either knew 2nd Edition or read the manual front to back, keeping in mind that it comes from the good old era of non hand holding games. Maybe you get dunked the first time you fight Carbos and Shank as a mage (rofl), and you might have to reroll when you realize that Infravision and Identify probably aren't the best two spells to start out with.

Mechalibur

ArtOfShred said:

I don't know if there was ever any kind of reason behind it, but I always liked to think of the PC's death ending the game as the Bhaalspawn essence preventing you from being raised by normal means.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. I think the gameplay reason is that it can cause dialogue issues, especially if you never end up reviving the main character.

Even though the reasoning makes sense, it always pissed me off a little. I was often forced to keep my main character out of fights that had any chance of instant death (mind flayers especially), no matter how unlikely (because if the chance is > 0%, then it will happen). So the Bhaalspawn's importance made me not use him for a few fights :P

Bercon

Certainly makes designing the game a lot easier then you can assume the charname is always there. Half of the dialogs in the game wouldn't make any sense if charname isn't alive.

reedmilfam

I never leave out of fights because is needed for most victories to become victories. Otherwise, it's re-load time!

Archaos

Fighter/Mage *Nods sagely*
Either dual or multiclass. And you get the best of both worlds. A bit more survivability in the beginning and more options later on.
Though playing a mage at level 1, is part of the challenge.

Oxford_Guy

Eideu said:

I personally like playing as a ranger , but the lack of heavy armour was a major draw back.

You *can* wear heavy armour as a Ranger in BG (unless playing a kit, like Archer or Stalker), though lose stealth ability. Just carry around both studded leather and plate and swap as necessary.