By the time a melee-character is able to hit a mage repeatedly, the mage is as good as dead anyway, there is a reason people call them "squishy". So the main class ability of the Wizard Slayer is basically worthless.
What do mean, by the time you're able to hit the mage....the WS spell failure applies through stoneskins and other protections. So by the time you can manage to hit them the WS has long disabled them.
Cough breach cough, along with anything else by another like a dispel, then hit. 1 second? In order to effectively disable him, you have to hit him 6-8 times. You're gonna wait 3 rounds with an enemy mage alive and well?
Mages are the first thing i target, and they go down in 3-5 seconds tops. Or else you're screwed.
Wizard slayer's ability is powerful as a standalone, but redundant. His attack also doesn't work on mislead from what i see, unless i'm wrong. Even if you're fighting THE wizard, Kangaxx the demilich, imprisonment will still own a wizard slayer, where a fighter/mage tanks him no problem.
But even if all that was fine, still, you can't skewer someone with immunities, like protection from weapons. You are supposed to be a wizard slayer, and a lich with protection from magical weapons and mislead will own you unless you use your party.
And what are you going to use? Breach. And within seconds after you use breach, you will maul him down fast, he won't have the chance to cast again because of interruptions or mass damage leading to death.
So i fail to see what is the thing that the WS does so well.
It's not like you can't make an excellent character that is a wizard slayer. You can. But a berserker can tank Kangaxx because of immunities, it should be the other way around.
It's not WS hate. It's a desperate cry that this kit is supposed to be doing something that others do better than him.
@Goodsteve Are you actually mocking D&D by implying that spellcasters are no big deal? Are your opinions of them so low that you'd actually have the gall to say that any advantage against them is "situational"? You can kite warriors. It's difficult, it's tedious, but with skill and patience it can be done. A successful Sleep/Fear/Horror cast on the other hand is out of your control - the die rolls, and whether you make your save or not can mean all the difference between a victory and a reload.
It's depressing how most of the defense put forth against the Wizard Slayer so far is based on BG2 (Kangaax finally got mentioned, heh) or reaching higher levels. Seriously... talking about Breach in BG1? That's like saying "I killed the Twisted Rune guys easy because my Mage had Time Stop!" in BG2. Learn some perspective - Breach is an end-game spell in BG1. Perspective is very important in this thread because I think pretty much everyone who has posted here so far agrees that the Wizard Slayer is one of the weaker kits in BG2. Yes, even me. But this is BG1.
As for the "caster spells get disrupted when I hit them" defense: Mirror Image. Still no bites.
As for the implicit criticism/sarcasm, don't care. Not everyone who posts in threads like these is a fanboy blindly defending his favorite class. I defended bards in BG1 (apparently bards were weak in a time when everyone hated the Horror spell for being OP) and I was already defending kits like the Blade long before Scythesong wrote his guide. I'm right at my element.
@Silverspirit2001 Yes and no. It works on some, and not on others. The kit remains buggy in that respect. Ideally though it should only affect spellcasting. Beholders mostly use gaze attacks (though some do cast spells).
Funny that you talk about perspective, then you imply that since Wizard Slayer is ok for BG1, he's fine. This is no BG1 or BG2 talk, it's Wizard Slayer as a whole.
Perspective. Nice word.
As for Mirror Image, the 2 things you target a mage with is dispel magic and breach, breach comes handy as soon as immunities arrive, so you're set, and before dispel magic, you just gank his mirror images with melee since it's the only thing he can do that you can't otherwise put an end to.
This is the first time i hear someone imply that Mirror Image is something to be even considered as a serious threat against a party. What will he do to you? Horror? Resist fear is something trivial and lasts a long time. For lower levels, Mirror Image is no issue, and for higher levels, guess what, still no issue.
Cleric or Inquisitor dispels, mage breaches, the end. Fighters are there to hit when the spell casts. What more will the Wizard Slayer give you?
Oh, and Inquisitor instant dispel says hello. You mirror image again? Have another instant dispel.
It's simple. You need 3 things against mages.
1) Bypass their illusions. See invisibility, True Seeing, etc. Inquisitor beats Wizard Slayer here. He has an instant True Seeing from starter levels. You said Mirror image, Inquisitor beats WS again. Instant dispel. What do i need a WS when i can have an Inquisitor that does the job better and has Carsomyr as well? But ok, forget about Carsomyr, let's talk about BG1, you still won't have issues with mages, unless you don't know how to deal with them. Anyone that dispels will help you kill the mage faster, compared to the time you need to apply properly spell failure so it affects him.
2) Bypass their immunites, they appear at higher levels. Breach does that. Here, the Wizard Slayer can hit some times to apply spell failure, but you don't need to wait for him to hamper the mage, you can dispel these immunities faster.
3) Enough meleers to skewer them before they cast again. 2 or 3 meleers will end the fight in 2 or 3 seconds after the last dispel. He mirror images? How much chances does he have to survive long enough to cast? 3 people melee him and if you have Blackguard or an Assassin the poison weapon after the dispels guarantees he will never cast again. Let him do a thousand mirror images then, they will not buy him time at all. They never buy time if more than 1 person is attacking you.
I disagree, i don't consider the Wizard Slayer up to snuff.
How many times are you going to hit the Wizard with Mirror image, using the WS? Only you hamper his spellcasting, and by the time you hit him 3 times, to apply a wooping 30% failure, the other 2 melees will have hit him 3 times each as well. 9 Hits, or even 7. Mirror image ends, and he has 30% failure. If we are talking low levels like 3 or 4, at best a mage has what, 20 hp, 25? I'm being generous here, enemy mages have like 14-15. 2 hits after ending mirror image at 20 hp, he's dead.
All I do is play mages... mirror image is good, but all it's really good for is to give me a breath of air as I step away from whatever is trying to whack me. You act like in BG1 the mages are going to have 16 images you have to painfully weed through with your slow attack speed.
The WS is fantastic against spellcasters, so fantastic in fact that he can sometimes totally disable a otherwise "fully protected" and very powerful caster. It think people should try completing the game with a WS in the party, at least once, cause he's really not that bad
I agree that he's panalties are a bit much, and imo he should instead have -2 strenght and constitution, plus maybe have "remove magic" added as an innate ability.
By the time a melee-character is able to hit a mage repeatedly, the mage is as good as dead anyway, there is a reason people call them "squishy". So the main class ability of the Wizard Slayer is basically worthless.
Except that a mage can completely ignore the damage from those hits with spells like Mirror Image and Stoneskin? The Wizard Slayer's spell failure still gets through those, however. It's incredibly useful.
@Goodsteve Are you actually mocking D&D by implying that spellcasters are no big deal? Are your opinions of them so low that you'd actually have the gall to say that any advantage against them is "situational"? You can kite warriors. It's difficult, it's tedious, but with skill and patience it can be done. A successful Sleep/Fear/Horror cast on the other hand is out of your control - the die rolls, and whether you make your save or not can mean all the difference between a victory and a reload.
It's depressing how most of the defense put forth against the Wizard Slayer so far is based on BG2 (Kangaax finally got mentioned, heh) or reaching higher levels. Seriously... talking about Breach in BG1? That's like saying "I killed the Twisted Rune guys easy because my Mage had Time Stop!" in BG2. Learn some perspective - Breach is an end-game spell in BG1. Perspective is very important in this thread because I think pretty much everyone who has posted here so far agrees that the Wizard Slayer is one of the weaker kits in BG2. Yes, even me. But this is BG1.
As for the "caster spells get disrupted when I hit them" defense: Mirror Image. Still no bites.
As for the implicit criticism/sarcasm, don't care. Not everyone who posts in threads like these is a fanboy blindly defending his favorite class. I defended bards in BG1 (apparently bards were weak in a time when everyone hated the Horror spell for being OP) and I was already defending kits like the Blade long before Scythesong wrote his guide. I'm right at my element.
Ok, so it seems you have some questions about my previous response, let me enlighten you:
1. I never said spellcasters are no big deal. So, to answer your question, no.
2. An advantage you gain only in a situation where you fight a spellcaster is situational. You only get the bonus in that situation... That's pretty much the definition of situational. So, to answer your second question, yes.
Hope that clears things up.
I agree, those spells can really be a game changer. Wizard Slayers aren't immune to fear. I could name a few better classes that are if you'd like.
My "defense" for why I don't like the Wizard Slayer is because it is situational. When not in that situation it is worse than the basic class. Makes for a pretty silly kit, imo. It also has the steepest disadvantage of any of the kits, so when not in your element it hurts extra hard... even in BG1.
What do mean, by the time you're able to hit the mage....the WS spell failure applies through stoneskins and other protections. So by the time you can manage to hit them the WS has long disabled them.
Comments
Call us the Wizard Slayer mockers o_O
I mock thee, ho
Mages are the first thing i target, and they go down in 3-5 seconds tops. Or else you're screwed.
Wizard slayer's ability is powerful as a standalone, but redundant. His attack also doesn't work on mislead from what i see, unless i'm wrong. Even if you're fighting THE wizard, Kangaxx the demilich, imprisonment will still own a wizard slayer, where a fighter/mage tanks him no problem.
But even if all that was fine, still, you can't skewer someone with immunities, like protection from weapons. You are supposed to be a wizard slayer, and a lich with protection from magical weapons and mislead will own you unless you use your party.
And what are you going to use? Breach. And within seconds after you use breach, you will maul him down fast, he won't have the chance to cast again because of interruptions or mass damage leading to death.
So i fail to see what is the thing that the WS does so well.
It's not like you can't make an excellent character that is a wizard slayer. You can. But a berserker can tank Kangaxx because of immunities, it should be the other way around.
It's not WS hate. It's a desperate cry that this kit is supposed to be doing something that others do better than him.
Are you actually mocking D&D by implying that spellcasters are no big deal? Are your opinions of them so low that you'd actually have the gall to say that any advantage against them is "situational"? You can kite warriors. It's difficult, it's tedious, but with skill and patience it can be done. A successful Sleep/Fear/Horror cast on the other hand is out of your control - the die rolls, and whether you make your save or not can mean all the difference between a victory and a reload.
It's depressing how most of the defense put forth against the Wizard Slayer so far is based on BG2 (Kangaax finally got mentioned, heh) or reaching higher levels. Seriously... talking about Breach in BG1? That's like saying "I killed the Twisted Rune guys easy because my Mage had Time Stop!" in BG2. Learn some perspective - Breach is an end-game spell in BG1.
Perspective is very important in this thread because I think pretty much everyone who has posted here so far agrees that the Wizard Slayer is one of the weaker kits in BG2. Yes, even me. But this is BG1.
As for the "caster spells get disrupted when I hit them" defense: Mirror Image. Still no bites.
As for the implicit criticism/sarcasm, don't care. Not everyone who posts in threads like these is a fanboy blindly defending his favorite class. I defended bards in BG1 (apparently bards were weak in a time when everyone hated the Horror spell for being OP) and I was already defending kits like the Blade long before Scythesong wrote his guide. I'm right at my element.
@Silverspirit2001
Yes and no. It works on some, and not on others. The kit remains buggy in that respect. Ideally though it should only affect spellcasting. Beholders mostly use gaze attacks (though some do cast spells).
Perspective. Nice word.
As for Mirror Image, the 2 things you target a mage with is dispel magic and breach, breach comes handy as soon as immunities arrive, so you're set, and before dispel magic, you just gank his mirror images with melee since it's the only thing he can do that you can't otherwise put an end to.
This is the first time i hear someone imply that Mirror Image is something to be even considered as a serious threat against a party. What will he do to you? Horror? Resist fear is something trivial and lasts a long time. For lower levels, Mirror Image is no issue, and for higher levels, guess what, still no issue.
Cleric or Inquisitor dispels, mage breaches, the end. Fighters are there to hit when the spell casts. What more will the Wizard Slayer give you?
Oh, and Inquisitor instant dispel says hello. You mirror image again? Have another instant dispel.
It's simple. You need 3 things against mages.
1) Bypass their illusions. See invisibility, True Seeing, etc. Inquisitor beats Wizard Slayer here. He has an instant True Seeing from starter levels. You said Mirror image, Inquisitor beats WS again. Instant dispel. What do i need a WS when i can have an Inquisitor that does the job better and has Carsomyr as well? But ok, forget about Carsomyr, let's talk about BG1, you still won't have issues with mages, unless you don't know how to deal with them. Anyone that dispels will help you kill the mage faster, compared to the time you need to apply properly spell failure so it affects him.
2) Bypass their immunites, they appear at higher levels. Breach does that. Here, the Wizard Slayer can hit some times to apply spell failure, but you don't need to wait for him to hamper the mage, you can dispel these immunities faster.
3) Enough meleers to skewer them before they cast again. 2 or 3 meleers will end the fight in 2 or 3 seconds after the last dispel. He mirror images? How much chances does he have to survive long enough to cast? 3 people melee him and if you have Blackguard or an Assassin the poison weapon after the dispels guarantees he will never cast again. Let him do a thousand mirror images then, they will not buy him time at all. They never buy time if more than 1 person is attacking you.
I disagree, i don't consider the Wizard Slayer up to snuff.
How many times are you going to hit the Wizard with Mirror image, using the WS? Only you hamper his spellcasting, and by the time you hit him 3 times, to apply a wooping 30% failure, the other 2 melees will have hit him 3 times each as well. 9 Hits, or even 7. Mirror image ends, and he has 30% failure. If we are talking low levels like 3 or 4, at best a mage has what, 20 hp, 25? I'm being generous here, enemy mages have like 14-15. 2 hits after ending mirror image at 20 hp, he's dead.
P.S. I don't like Inquisitors.
Friend of Sorcerers
Lover of Mages
these are good kits.
1. I never said spellcasters are no big deal. So, to answer your question, no.
2. An advantage you gain only in a situation where you fight a spellcaster is situational. You only get the bonus in that situation... That's pretty much the definition of situational. So, to answer your second question, yes.
Hope that clears things up.
I agree, those spells can really be a game changer. Wizard Slayers aren't immune to fear. I could name a few better classes that are if you'd like.
My "defense" for why I don't like the Wizard Slayer is because it is situational. When not in that situation it is worse than the basic class. Makes for a pretty silly kit, imo. It also has the steepest disadvantage of any of the kits, so when not in your element it hurts extra hard... even in BG1.
Skip this one to 5:45 and watch the following two battles:
And you need a Wizard Slayer because?
By the time a WSs spell failure applies, I've already silenced, poisoned and nearly killed any mage in the game.