Stalker or Archer?
Kenyon
Member Posts: 142
I've narrowed down my class choices down to Stalker or Archer (it's an RP thing - I love the idea of roleplaying a stealthy, speedy protagonist without being a thief), but I'm trying to settle on my final choice. Is there anyone out there with experience of either kit (or both!) and can share their experiences?
0
Comments
I also like the concept of being a master of my chosen weapon, which the Archer fits nicely.
I would say Stalker. They are powerful, good at fulfilling their job, and fun besides.
Archer is extremely useful and all, they absolutely rip things to shreds with their Bow THAC0 and bonus damage, but they are not all that enjoyable really. It's just "Target. Shoot. Die." there is literally nothing entertaining about them. Their Called Shot ability is kind of a joke, truly it doesn't even spice up the kit very much at all.
The archer loses power quite drastically in mid-late BG2/TOB, so if you're planning to take it all the way through, be aware that it'll end up being little more than a mule for the rest of the party (at least, that's my experience - there are too many immune enemies and not enough/any really high-powered arrows).
Archers definitely lack nothing in power, they're just not very entertaining.
And yes, for anything that's not immune, it's the machine gun of death.
But in either case, this is a moot point for BGEE. Just wanted to mention it, as I was quite frustrated with my archer in BG2
The Stalker is fun aswell, I never used one in BG1, but they can deal some pretty major damage in the second game. Sadly in ToB I found a lot of enemies would be either immune to backstab or would just see through my stealth and characters invisibility, even with non-detection on. Cheesey.
Imoen, though we'll see what happens. I'd focus my thief on detecting traps and lockpicking.
Also keep in mind that with an archer you'll have to micromanage arrows, imo not a big deal as he is quite powerful, but still something to consider
An archer is better suited for BG1 IMO, which is ideal for ranged weapon parties - it helps minimize the amount of melee combat (which is especially helpful early in the game, when you only have a handful of HPs), and you can diffuse almost any spellcaster with ranged weapons.
Archers are less effective in BG2 though, which requires a more versatile approach to beat the improved spellcasters and more powerful monsters - although, if you don't intend to take someone like Mazzy or Valygar along with you, you would benefit from having at least one powerful archer in your party.
Archers are too stand offish to my liking...
On a serious note. Archers will own BG1. Stalker would own BG2. All down to missiles not being as effective in BG2 as mentioned before.
Don't get me wrong, I still think ranged weapons are useful in BG2, but they can't simply own the game the way they could in BG1.
I would like to be a Sorcerer but start BG1 as an Archer up to say Lev .4-5 then dual to Sorcerer. This way I get good HP to start and some usefulness at low level which will also come back once the Sorcerer reach Lev 4-5. Also the archer, like the sorcerer, tries to stay away from melee to be most effective. The armor restriction also suit it well. Any comment ?
Remember that bows are very effective in BG1, so a party with an archer will go off like a frog in a sock.
Also, you cannot have a Multi or Dual Class Sorcerer.
So the closest you can get to an Archer>Sorcerer dual class is a Fighter>Mage, but it won't be quite the same. You can put your Fighter weapon proficiency points into Bows or Crossbows, and with a 18+ Dex and 3 or more WP points in your ranged weapon of choice, it will a fairly strong ranged attacker. But you won't get Called Shot or have any of the Ranger benefits, like Stealth, Charm Animal, or Priest spells, and you'll especially miss out on the Archer's "+1 to hit and damage per 3 levels".
What about Monk, can it dual to Mage ?