Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Fighters feel really overpowered

Ive done multiple playthroughs of BG 1 EE at this point...and in every playthrough, having a fighter in the party is simply the superior choice and makes most encounters trivial. Infact, the game becomes extremely easy if you have a fighter/thief and a fighter/cleric as well, as they get the 2 point proficiency bonus, the ability to use longbows (for thieves, this is pretty huge) as well as better THACO/HP.

For most encounters, just having your fighter with some decent gear run in is enough to murder everything. The extra weapon proficiency points are way better than the abilities paladins/rangers get...compare a 9th level blackguard to a 9th level fighter for example. Even with aura of despair, the fighter does more damage. Immunity to level drain is cool, but that can be achieved via other means.

The cleric, mage and thief are basically just there for utility. In my last SOD playthrough, I had a fighter kill the green dragon in two rounds just by throwing some simple buffs on him (haste, chant, etc) and using breach to take down stoneskin. 112 hp doesnt last long when you have a fighter with 4 attacks averaging 18 damage per hit, which you can achieve easily by the end of the first game (19 str with the tome, no half orc needed). Enemy mages die instantly unless they cast stoneskin/mirror image immediately and even that only maybe 2-3 rounds of time max.

The fact that you can have a dwarven fighter with a +7 bonus to 3 different saves at level 1 (if im reading the race description correctly) is also quite silly. By level 9, you have a fighter that is pretty much immune to any spells that let you have a saving throw...without even using potions or buffs.

Theres literally no reason for me to use most of the options in the game because one fighter just slaughters everything. For example, why risk backstabbing with a squishy thief (which requires you to spam invisibility) when a fighter can just run in and kill everything? Its just way easier to give the thief a bow (hence the fighter/thief multiclass) and have the thief around mainly for open locks and find traps.

Its also hard to justify use of damage spells because the fighter makes them largely redundant...unless you just want to delete a dozen low level enemies with a single click. Like...why bother with melf's acid arrow when the fighter can kill the same target in one round?

Even taking out the entire crusader army stationed at bridgefort or dragonspear castle is pretty easy. You may need to pause occasionally to cast chaos but you can pretty much just watch your fighter chunk everything with ease.

semiticgodCharlestonianTemplarKlorox
«13

Comments

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,690
    Not mention, most fighters are HELPLESS against mages with even mid level magic.

    LethlianBelgarathMTHCharlestonianTemplar
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,418
    That's part of the design of 2E DnD.
    Mages suck in the beginning, Warriors rock.
    In BG2 Mages become godlike and warriors take a back seat.

    It's the same with Monks.
    Don't make a Monk in BG1, they're terrible.
    But in BG2 and ToB? Very very powerful.

    BelgarathMTHsemiticgodthespaceCharlestonianTemplar
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 509
    Grond0 said:

    It's actually nice to see a bit of love for fighters on the forums. While they may not ultimately scale up to the power of mages, a dwarven fighter is far easier to manage, requires virtually no rests and is not easy to stop with spells. If you've not played BG2 before though you will find some enemies that can easily stop a fighter unless you choose your tactics pretty carefully ...

    Any kind of berseker/barbarian also shores up the weaknesses of the fighter nicely, allowing them to continue fighting even when forces conspire to make them stop.

    Dwarven Berserker/Barbarian tackles it from both ends. Complete immunity to many harmful effects like Charm and Hold, and strong saving throws for everything else.

    Wizard Slayer, despite its severe drawbacks, I hear is quite an unstoppable force at high levels too. In the Throne of Bhaal levels they start gaining Magic Resistance very rapidly, which in some ways offers more complete protection than Saving Throws or Rage, but it's quite a trek getting to those levels.

    Grond0
  • LethlianLethlian Member Posts: 16
    It depends. With meta game knowledge comes greater understanding of how to maximize classes like thief, cleric and mage.

    I think why most are turned off to low level mages is due to the fact that in all the bg(s) there is allot of trivial mobs that you don't want to waste your spells on. (Unless of course you don't mind spam sleeping)

    But as I've seen it posted before and it is completely true; A level 9 mage (using no consumables) can kill Sarevok solo within 7 to 8 rounds with him wailing on you. No other pure class can do that... unless maybe you super kite him in a small radius with a ranged weapon using class, but that's just ridiculous.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 4,034
    Lethlian said:

    But as I've seen it posted before and it is completely true; A level 9 mage (using no consumables) can kill Sarevok solo within 7 to 8 rounds with him wailing on you. No other pure class can do that... /blockquote>

    A berserker could, but any fighter class can be successful in melee against Sarevok if you do use consumables. I admit I tend not to do so, but that's exactly the sort of fight they're intended for.

    StummvonBordwehr
  • GreenWarlockGreenWarlock Member Posts: 1,344
    Grond0 said:


    A berserker could, but any fighter class can be successful in melee against Sarevok if you do use consumables. I admit I tend not to do so, but that's exactly the sort of fight they're intended for.

    I've never had a problem with the final Sarevok fight, but I hit that zone with every consumable from the game sitting in my inventory unused, and decide "you know what, it is now or never" and spend the next 1- minutes buffing, hoping to hit the fight before they start to expire ;)

    Grond0
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,690
    Lethlian said:

    It depends. With meta game knowledge comes greater understanding of how to maximize classes like thief, cleric and mage.

    I think why most are turned off to low level mages is due to the fact that in all the bg(s) there is allot of trivial mobs that you don't want to waste your spells on. (Unless of course you don't mind spam sleeping)

    But as I've seen it posted before and it is completely true; A level 9 mage (using no consumables) can kill Sarevok solo within 7 to 8 rounds with him wailing on you. No other pure class can do that... unless maybe you super kite him in a small radius with a ranged weapon using class, but that's just ridiculous.

    Dwarven Defenders and Blades can do so as well. The DD is a bit more reliable about it though.

  • foma_mgppufoma_mgppu Member Posts: 113
    I don't know, mate... Look at what skilled mage can do for example.
    If you take post BG:EE trilogy mage vs. fighter, my bet is on the mage. I seriously think that there is nothing a fighter can do after mage passes certain point in his/her exp.
    I think that IN ALL of EE games (if not IN ALL RPG games) mages are FAR superior to any other class.
    Of course, it is my personal, highly biased opinion, but it is what it is.
    A thief, for example is another thing. Good backstab solves a lot of things.

  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74

    Berserkers, barbarians, dwarven defenders, and of course fighter multiclasses are very good in Baldur's Gate 1, but on the other hand, kensai, wizard slayers, and unkitted fighters are at approximately the same power level as any other class.

    In your examples showing the power of fighters, I noticed that part of the reason your fighter was so good was because you had other non-fighter characters buffing the fighter ("haste, chant, etc") or disabling enemies (e.g. Chaos). It's not all because of the fighter.

    Furthermore, even if a fighter with decent gear can just murder everything, you have to get that decent gear first. For example, you can't obtain the Strength manual until very late in Baldur's Gate 1.

    Even the base fighter feels OP really. The ability to deal and take massive damage every round is just too good.

    Kensai are poorly designed...if you dont dual class them to a mage, they dont have the AC to survive. Try playing a pure kensai through BG 1 if you want to see what its like.

    Wizard slayers are really really bad. You can get 50% MR just from drinking a potion, not to mention potions that cut all incoming magical damage by half AND lets you auto succeed saving throws. Not being able to use magical rings and cloaks is also a massive drawback...and you cant drink strength potions to buff yourself up to 24 strength. The spell failure chance is pointless...if a fighter is hitting a mage, hes going to die anyway, why bother inflicting spell failure on him? I just killed Ramazith earlier...he didnt even get a single spell off before the fighter chunked him.

    Its not all about the fighter, but the rest of the party feels like they are just around for utility. For most encounters, I dont even need to buff the party at all, the fighter slaughters everything on his own.

    You can get decent gear VERY early in BG 1. You get plate mail on the road to Nashkel from the flaming fist enforcers, and you can buy a longsword +1 in Beregost. Theres ankeg plate in Nashkel for free to boot. You dont even need to go crazy looting houses either...its very easy to get gold in the game. Bassilus gets you 5k gold and if you can interrupt his hold person spells, he cant hurt you. I killed him with a 3 person party at level 2.

  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74
    ThacoBell said:

    Not mention, most fighters are HELPLESS against mages with even mid level magic.

    Not really. If the mage doesnt start the fight with buffs, he dies before he can do anything. Case in point : When I fought Ragefast, his first spell was ghost armor. The fighter then killed him in 2 hits. I didnt even bother with buffs.

    There are basically only 2 spells in BG 1 that can help the mage to survive : mirror image and stoneskin. Anything that modifies AC wont do much for a pure mage since a fighter's THACO will be more than sufficient to guarantee a hit anyway.

    If the mage can survive long enough to get off a "save or lose" spell such as horror, hold person or confusion...great.

    I think part of the problem in BG 1 is that stuff like contigency spells came later and the BG 1 enemies dont have them. But you can only get minor spell sequencer in BG 1 anyway.

    Skatan
  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74
    Archaos said:

    That's part of the design of 2E DnD.
    Mages suck in the beginning, Warriors rock.
    In BG2 Mages become godlike and warriors take a back seat.

    It's the same with Monks.
    Don't make a Monk in BG1, they're terrible.
    But in BG2 and ToB? Very very powerful.

    The weird thing is...mages need more xp to level up in the beginning. If they are weak at the beginning, they should need less...then at around level 9 mages need less xp to level than fighters for some reason...

    Monks are another example of badly designed. They have too many gimmicky abilities...what good is the ability to detect traps if you cant disarm them? May as well bring a thief. And magical fists at level 9 just comes too late, when you can easily get +1 weapons by level 3...

  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74

    Grond0 said:

    It's actually nice to see a bit of love for fighters on the forums. While they may not ultimately scale up to the power of mages, a dwarven fighter is far easier to manage, requires virtually no rests and is not easy to stop with spells. If you've not played BG2 before though you will find some enemies that can easily stop a fighter unless you choose your tactics pretty carefully ...

    Any kind of berseker/barbarian also shores up the weaknesses of the fighter nicely, allowing them to continue fighting even when forces conspire to make them stop.

    Dwarven Berserker/Barbarian tackles it from both ends. Complete immunity to many harmful effects like Charm and Hold, and strong saving throws for everything else.

    Wizard Slayer, despite its severe drawbacks, I hear is quite an unstoppable force at high levels too. In the Throne of Bhaal levels they start gaining Magic Resistance very rapidly, which in some ways offers more complete protection than Saving Throws or Rage, but it's quite a trek getting to those levels.
    Berserkers are actually pretty OP. I dont even know why they exist. They are basically better barbarians. Their rage lasts longer, and the bonuses stack with everything, whereas barbarians are still limited to the stat cap of 25. They can wear full plate and reach grandmastery as well. Not being able to specialize in ranged weapons is pointless...there is no reason to do so anyway.

    subtledoctorStummvonBordwehrKlorox
  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74
    Lethlian said:

    It depends. With meta game knowledge comes greater understanding of how to maximize classes like thief, cleric and mage.

    I think why most are turned off to low level mages is due to the fact that in all the bg(s) there is allot of trivial mobs that you don't want to waste your spells on. (Unless of course you don't mind spam sleeping)

    But as I've seen it posted before and it is completely true; A level 9 mage (using no consumables) can kill Sarevok solo within 7 to 8 rounds with him wailing on you. No other pure class can do that... unless maybe you super kite him in a small radius with a ranged weapon using class, but that's just ridiculous.

    I did a playthrough of BG 1 as a sorcerer. At low levels you have sleep which is pretty ridiculous...but the main issue is that there is literally no reason to not go with a party unless you want to challenge yourself, and in a party the mage is there for buffs/debuffs and encounters consist of the fighter slaughtering everything. Even if you had unlimited spell slots, mages are really bad at killing things...their spells can be interrupted, they can only cast 1 spell per round, they do friendly fire damage...sure you can kill a dozen orcs with a single fireball...but low level enemies cant hurt a level 5 fighter anyway...

    StummvonBordwehr
  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74

    I don't know, mate... Look at what skilled mage can do for example.
    If you take post BG:EE trilogy mage vs. fighter, my bet is on the mage. I seriously think that there is nothing a fighter can do after mage passes certain point in his/her exp.
    I think that IN ALL of EE games (if not IN ALL RPG games) mages are FAR superior to any other class.
    Of course, it is my personal, highly biased opinion, but it is what it is.
    A thief, for example is another thing. Good backstab solves a lot of things.

    So at what level do you think this happens at?

    Part of the issue from a design perspective is that fighters stop getting anything interesting after level 13, while mages keep getting access to more and higher level spells.

    Backstab is cool, but the problem is you are exposing a lightly armored thief to a ton of enemies. Oh sure you do lots of damage on the backstab...which is cool...or...you can just get the fighter to do the same amount of damage per round...without needing to setup the backstab.

    In the BG 1 campaign, you are better off putting points to max out open locks/find traps as soon as possible, for obvious reasons. Hide in shadows/move silently being two different skills makes it really point intensive, and you can only do it once per combat since you cant hide in plain sight. You can spam invisibility pots to get multiple backstabs...but you still run into the same problem : a fighter does the same or higher damage per round on auto pilot without needing any micro management at all.

    I cant recall a single encounter in BG 1 or SOD where having backstab would make a difference, except for the special ones where you are trying to get maximum XP by killing a NPC scripted to teleport away.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,690
    @Question2 Sleep, web, stinking cloud, spook, chaos, etc. There are a ton of disablers that a mage can use on a fighter that they just plain can't defend against. Dwarves have an easier time with higher saves, but its still a dice roll. Beserkers can block anything that isn't instant death, so they are pretty safe in BG1 so long as they don't get caught out by web. Fighters do a lot of damage, IF they can hit their target.

  • crawlkillcrawlkill Member Posts: 58
    mages really only shine when they spend a mind-bleeding amount of time buffing ahead of combat, though. fighters are basically Good Enough for the entire game, and they take way less maintenance to play. you can easily beat the game with a pretty martial party only using your wizards to cast haste and maybe summon distraction monsters sometimes.

    I like the Pillars of Eternity style where the game doesn't let you prebuff so it can be designed around all buffs being an opportunity cost versus other actions. in theory, at least, it lets buffs be even stronger relative to other kinds of spells. not sure if that pans out, but it does, at least, stop the hesitant "how many Tenser's Transformations and Stoneskins and Improved Hastes and Improved Invisibilities will I need" that BG2 can suffer from when you're overthinkin it.

    BelgarathMTHStummvonBordwehr
  • Question2Question2 Member Posts: 74
    I have a level 20+ party in BG 2 and fighters still feel overpowered. If you dual wield belm + something else, you can hit 5 attacks before buffs and average 100+ damage per round. If your PC is a fighter, he can use holy might to bump his strength to 25 easily.

    Im not even bothering to cast any spells in battles, my fighter just slaughters everything, Firkaarg died in 2 rounds...

    The only thing that doesnt die fast are admantanium golems with their 90% resist, but they cant hurt my fighter so its just a matter of waiting till it dies.

  • DordledumDordledum Member Posts: 173
    edited August 27
    Can't really say for the later games in the series, but now I'm doing a BGEE run for the first time with no fighters at all and it is tougher indeed. Especially all the low level mob stuff is suddenly dangerous.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 7,690
    Question2 said:

    I have a level 20+ party in BG 2 and fighters still feel overpowered. If you dual wield belm + something else, you can hit 5 attacks before buffs and average 100+ damage per round. If your PC is a fighter, he can use holy might to bump his strength to 25 easily.

    Im not even bothering to cast any spells in battles, my fighter just slaughters everything, Firkaarg died in 2 rounds...

    The only thing that doesnt die fast are admantanium golems with their 90% resist, but they cant hurt my fighter so its just a matter of waiting till it dies.

    How exactly, are adamantium golems unable to hurt your fighters? Same goes for Firkraag.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 9,776
    Someone needs to start using SCS...

    GoturalThe_Cheeseman
  • WatchForWolvesWatchForWolves Member Posts: 156
    No one ever needs to start using SCS

    ThacoBellsarevok57
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 16,545

    No one ever needs to start using SCS

    Reasons?

    subtledoctorGotural
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 2,780
    A 20th level fighter is still vulnerable against two umber hulks, thats where party balance comes up.

    ThacoBellGoturalGreenWarlock
  • The_CheesemanThe_Cheeseman Member Posts: 175

    Someone needs to start using SCS...

    This. The reason you think mages are bad is because the mages you’ve encountered are bad. In that they don’t use good spells or tactics. A mage is obviously going to suck compared to a fighter when they’re only tossing ghost armor and Melf’s acid arrows.

    Install SCS and you will quickly find out what makes mages so deadly. As your fighter whiffs pathetically against Protection From Magic Weapons, Mirror Image, Stoneskin, and double fire shields while eating triple skull trap sequencers and getting smacked around by Mord’s Swords.

    Fighters are easy to play, they run in and hit stuff. The efficacy of mages is entirely dependent on their spell selection and tactics. Without mods, most mages in the BG series are basically free exp. With SCS, you quickly learn that fighters are mild annoyances that stand between you and the real threat—enemy mages.

    GoturalConjurerDragon
  • ShashakiroShashakiro Member Posts: 24
    Referring to a mod seems to me entirely unresponsive to the complaint. If the argument is that fighters are overpowered in the unmodded games, the fact that they are less so with some mod installed does not even slightly demonstrate the incorrectness of the argument; if anything, it bolsters it by showing that others who have tweaked the game balance have come on the side of improving non-fighters.

    That said, I don't agree with OP that fighters are generally overpowered compared to mages. While I agree that fighters are much better at dealing damage and that the "blaster" mage is pretty awful in BGEE, an asleep, unconscious, held, panicked, or confused enemy is in most cases not meaningfully different from a dead enemy, and mages can cause all of these effects in party-friendly AoE. And this isn't even getting into buffs like Haste, which I suppose is "simple" in its effect but a massive power boost regardless.

    As for thieves, they are indeed mostly there for utility; but I can't imagine how miserable it would be to do, say, Durlag's Tower without one.

    ThacoBellGreenWarlock
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.