Skip to content

Are Longsword and Longbow good choices for weapon proficiencies? Should I take flail too?

ZeroxSP7ZeroxSP7 Member Posts: 55
I for sure want to use a Longsword as that goes with my character concept. A knight in plate mail wielding a Longsword and shield. Strategically speaking, I think it would be smart to take a ranged weapon like a Longbow. And a blunt weapon like Flail.

So I’m thinking 2 points in Longsword, 1 in Longbow, and 1 in Flail. Is that good? Or is there something I should change? How do other weapon choices stack up against these?

For reference, this character is a Lawful Good Human Fighter.

Comments

  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 3,872
    Longswords are fine; they're actually one of the best choices for BG1 since the unique longsword Varscona is available quite early.

    Longbows are excellent in BG1 as well; bows are fantastic in general, and you can aim for either the +1 composite longbow (buy in Beregost, +2 attack/+3 damage, requires at least 18 strength) or the +2 longbow (find in the bandit camp, +3 attack/+2 damage).

    And the combination's so good they gave it to two different NPCs. Khalid starts with that same longsword specialization and longbow proficiency (though he took axe with his last proficiency dot). Coran starts with longsword specialization and longbow mastery (at fighter level 3).

    Sadly, there's only one Varscona. Taking two longsword users in the party is not recommended. So if you go for this, I recommend not including Khalid or Coran in your party.

    If you plan to continue to BG2, longswords continue to be very good in that game. Longbows don't; bows in general are sharply worse, and all of the best bows are shortbows.

    As for the point in flails ... probably not worth it. Sure, skeletons are 50% resistant to slashing, but most of them have rather low HP totals so you can kill them easily with a sword anyway. Better to invest in getting your primary weapons to at least mastery (three dot) levels as soon as possible.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    I would recommend against splitting your proficiencies like this. There’s nothing wrong with any of those choices, any weapon can be made effective by focusing in on it. But not by spreading your skills around so much. Even to say, it’s usually better to focus a character wholly on one type of fighting (melee or missile) which then determines where you put them in your party. With your main character you could take this two different ways, either specialize in Long Sword and Flail at first level and carry both (using flail against skeletal undead, long sword against most other foes) then build up one or the other (but not both!) until you reach 5 pips.
    OR, specialize in Long Bow to be the archer. At 1st level you can also specialize in Long Sword or Flail as your emergency weapon when your front liners are overwhelmed. But then you will add pips to long bow until you reach 5.
    Chosing based on specific weapons is a meta-gaming choice, don’t get wrong we’ve all done it. But if you do that I would say Long Sword is best for melee, or Short Bow for missile (because there are much better short bows available in BG2).
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    edited October 2023
    atcDave wrote: »
    I would recommend against splitting your proficiencies like this. There’s nothing wrong with any of those choices, any weapon can be made effective by focusing in on it. But not by spreading your skills around so much. Even to say, it’s usually better to focus a character wholly on one type of fighting (melee or missile) which then determines where you put them in your party. With your main character you could take this two different ways, either specialize in Long Sword and Flail at first level and carry both (using flail against skeletal undead, long sword against most other foes) then build up one or the other (but not both!) until you reach 5 pips.
    OR, specialize in Long Bow to be the archer. At 1st level you can also specialize in Long Sword or Flail as your emergency weapon when your front liners are overwhelmed. But then you will add pips to long bow until you reach 5.
    Chosing based on specific weapons is a meta-gaming choice, don’t get wrong we’ve all done it. But if you do that I would say Long Sword is best for melee, or Short Bow for missile (because there are much better short bows available in BG2).

    Hmm... I actually think for a full saga playthrough, starting with longbow and then transitioning over to a melee weapon, like longswords, is perfectly fine advice. Given the nature of combat in BG1 and the small margin for error for a protagonist on the frontlines, I think it's perfectly fine to start as an archer, and then transition to primarily melee for BG2 and ToB. If anything, that's a super power-game kind of build. As well I think this can make for a more interesting experience, as your character develops in an interesting way over the course of the story.

    Despite what some folks on here say, I also don't think longbow is at all a bad choice in early BG2. There's two very nice options available early in the game and while your damage output isn't great, you can get a very low thaco by doing this. A helpful thing to have if you want to have interrupts or are fighting high AC enemies.

    You might not want to go the full five pips for longbow, perhaps stopping at three or four. But nonetheless, I think you can make a strong build (i.e. not going to reload alot). Even at only two or three pips in longbow, your character will still dominate in BG1 combat. That's all Kivan or Coran get, and every veteran knows how well they do.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    Well, as I said, I think any weapon is viable if you develop the skill. There are weapons available of every sort, you’ll never be completely hung out to dry.
    but I disagree about melee in BG1. I probably choose a front and center melee type for my main character 75% of the time. Lead from the front. And a warrior with good skills stays viable all the way through. Don’t get me wrong, you can build a good character either way. It just feels too meta to me, I like the idea of a character training for a particular role and place. I currently have an unkitted fighter going, that I expect to dual to cleric soon. But I put her front and center the whole game, and I never once reloaded because of her getting hurt (good armor class, good hit points, and good support). Neera is another story entirely…
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    My advice is geared towards a player unfamiliar with the game, as I assume the questioner was. Veteran players tend to have a good sense of where some of the dangerous parts of the game are, and even some of the handy tricks for neutralizing those dangers. But the beginning of BG1 is full of all kinds of potential bad-luck moments that thrust the game over screen on you -- from the first visit to the friendly arm, to kobold commandos, to even packs of gnolls with high damage halberd hits. And I think sometimes veteran players forget what it was like to not know these dangers were coming and not know how to adapt to them.

    This is why I think ranged, at least in early BG1, is a good recommendation for newer players. It tends to result in a less frustrating playthrough. Remember that protagonist death can instantly trigger the game over screen with no ability to scroll through the combat log. New players suffering an unlucky streak of dice rolls may not even know what killed them!

    By BG2 you tend to have larger hit point pools and the instant death type spells or abilities require you to dig into the game a bit. So there, melee for a protagonist is less of an issue, because of the large hit point pools. As such, I think most first time players buy themselves a bit of reprieve by playing BG1 with their protagonist on the back lines. If Montaron or Khalid get killed in combat, you still might want to reload, but at least you'll have a better sense of what killed them and what you can do to prevent it in the future.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    No doubt there's a lot true in all of that. But I played an unkitted paladin on my first play through (there were no kits back then!) and I had no particular difficulties with it. Now admittedly I was a veteran AD&D player long before BG came along, but that was with no meta knowledge of the game itself at all.

    I think kiting and drawing out combat longer than need be would be more discouraging. I just hate to see new players getting an excessive fear of going toe to toe. I say go for it, in their face. No doubt things will go spectacularly wrong on occasion. But they'll learn their own lessons and learn what is needed to mix it up, and who to mix it up with!
  • ZeroxSP7ZeroxSP7 Member Posts: 55
    The two points in Longsword will stay. Longsword is going to be my guy’s primary weapon. His main role is to be up front hacking and slashing his way to victory. His main role is not an archer. I just figured it would be smart to take a ranged option just in case. But I will listen to you if you say it’s not wise to spread points like that.
  • SixOfSpadesSixOfSpades Member Posts: 44
    As far as Character Creation is concerned, it is to the player's overall advantage to build a melee-oriented Warrior as their protagonist. Because [CHARNAME] is the only creature in the game whose stats the player can control, and thus maximize their effectiveness. A warrior with maxed-out STR, DEX and CON will instantly eclipse every recruitable Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger in the game (with the possible exception of Kagain, although it won't be long before you can leave him in the dust, too). This is not true of the other classes: You could certainly give yourself better stats than Branwen or Dynaheir, for instance, but it's not like you'll have access to better spells. And no matter how hard you min-max your stats, you'll never have more spellslots than Edwin, or more Magic Resistance than Viconia, etc. If you're looking to get the most bang for your Character Creation buck, the best place to see every stat point count the most is as your party's Tank.

    With that said, however, there's a lot to be said for flexibility. No one ever said any given character has to be the Tank all the time, and in fact a character who con only do one thing can tend to get rather boring. So go ahead, build a warrior-type who specializes in both melee and ranged weapons, and experiment with how you play them. If your main Tank has taken a lot of damage, let somebody else step up & take point for the rest of the day. Go ahead & recruit Khalid, or Coran, or heck even both of them simultaneously--it doesn't even matter that there's only one Varscona, as there's nothing at all preventing you/them from sharing the weapon; just pass it around, to whoever's the Tank at the moment, and there are still enough other decent Longswords in the game to keep everybody happy at the same time. True, this "sharing" kind of setup requires more micromanagement, and is measurably sub-optimal, to designing a party's proficiencies around the best weapons in the game. But as that would require meta knowledge that new players wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) have yet, I for one say it's more fun to let your first game(s) be more organic, adding new weapons (and developing their respective proficiencies) as you literally discover them.
    atcDave wrote: »
    . . . either specialize in Long Sword and Flail . . . then build up one or the other (but not both!) until you reach 5 pips.
    DinoDin wrote: »
    You might not want to go the full five pips for longbow . . .
    Except that you cannot reach 5 pips (Grandmastery) in BG1, unless you've got either Siege of Dragonspear or an EXP cap remover. (Well, technically you can, but you have to abuse a game mechanic and cripple your character's long-term development to do it.) So; since you can't realistically get to 5, and the benefits from reaching 4 are frankly pretty lackluster, you're looking at an effective maximum of 3 stars (Mastery) in any weapon. And you don't even need to go all the way to 3: 2 pips (Specialization) is all that Paladins, Rangers, and Multiclassed Fighters get, and nobody has ever said that they can't fight.
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Even at only two or three pips in longbow, your character will still dominate in BG1 combat. That's all Kivan or Coran get, and every veteran knows how well they do.

    So go ahead. Build your Fighter with [Longsword **, Longbow *, Flail *]. Or [Longsword ***, Longbow ***]. Or [Longsword **, Longbow **, Flail **]. Or [Longsword **, Longbow ***, Flail *]. Build whatever kind of character you want--anything that makes sense is probably going to turn out fine.

    One last note: Please DON'T LET US TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. This is your game, and what's more it sounds like it's your first game. No matter what, all future playthroughs are going to be colored by your meta knowledge from this one: This is your ONLY chance to experience the game when it can still surprise you. I urge you not to waste this one opportunity. Your opinion may differ, of course; you might actually want to be given spoilers, and read walkthroughs, and whatnot--and that's perfectly all right, play in whatever way suits you. I just want to emphasize that this may be your only chance to actually beat the game for yourself, instead of having half of the internet holding your hand through Easy mode.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    One of the key reasons why I'm recommending a longbow->melee transition is it takes advantage of the gear the saga makes available to you. In addition to my points about early-level vulnerability. I've covered the latter already. But on the former. Longbow w/ 18 strength will give you access to the best weapon in the prologue of Candlekeep. As well as some of the best weapons in the pre-Baldur's Gate section of the game. And arguably among the best overall in the first game.

    Secondly, one of your big enemies in BG1 is your high thaco. The best thing you can do for consistent increased damage is to drop your thacos. Bows are not only good because of their enchantment level, but because you can further lower your thaco with ammunition. As well as the extra attack per round. This becomes less of an issue the further you progress in the saga, but it's a big leg up for your character in the first half of BG1. On top of that, the bow also offers some later game utility (and immense power) with certain kinds of ammunition. That you simply won't get with a melee weapon. Moreover, there's two great longbows, so you're not even monopolizing a companion's ideal weapon.

    I do agree, you should play however you want. And frankly, the game isn't all that difficult. You can beat this game with poorly distributed weapon proficiencies. But I'm just putting down advice that will allow players to avoid reloads, move through the game at a steady, rewarding pace, while avoiding cheesing the game systems.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    SixOfSpades is right on the money about really playing the character how YOU want to. Any character can win the game, with a good party and good tactics. And a lot of the tactics are obvious; like using melee types to hold a line so the support character with bows or spells can do their work unmolested, or concentrating fire on the most dangerous opponent *to the extent you can*. Many other, more specific tactics will be learned over the course of just playing the game. These will even vary from party to party based on specific characters and their abilities, spells and equipment. That is all the fun of it.
  • AerakarAerakar Member Posts: 1,043
    Some great advice on this thread! I sense an un-kitted fighter in my future, perhaps an elf this time...
  • ZeroxSP7ZeroxSP7 Member Posts: 55
    A little late, but what if I did 2 in Longswords and then 2 in Axes? That way the Axe could act as BOTH a ranged weapon to draw aggro and a melee option?
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 3,872
    Sure, that works too. Not as powerful as bows in BG1, and throwing axes are heavy if you actually use them for throwing, but it's certainly a way to have melee and ranged options in the same proficiency.

    One neat trick if you go with axes: while most nonmagical weapons have a chance of breaking when used in melee (as part of the game's plot), throwing axes don't. Your stack will only be depleted if you actually throw them.
    On top of that, you can buy some magic throwing axes in Beregost, and they're extraordinarily cheap for magic weapons. It's a reasonable price if you're using them up by throwing them, but if you just buy a stack of five and only use them in melee... well, you're set for a long time.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    Going to second what jmerry said about the +1 axe. That can definitely give you a helpful leg-up in the very beginning of the game, where often your party resources are super scarce. Another minor consideration is throwing axes allows you to keep your shield on even when in ranged mode. Something you can't do with the bow, a wee bit more defense there. Lastly, if you're playing a good party, axes are a solid choice as there are just about zero good or neutral NPC's (even Khalid) where axes are a good choice. So you won't be monopolizing anyone else's ideal weapon. Lastly, axes are a very, very strong ranged option in BG2. The combination of adding strength and potentially have a fixed +2 or +3 enchantment on your ranged weapon is good, for immunity breaking purposes.

    One significant trade-off is that you will be a little less versatile as a fighter. I realize you strongly want to go for the longsword, and that is a good option, I'm just laying out here what you will be sacrificing. With the bow you can have access to diverse damage types -- fire, cold, poison, acid. You won't get that with axes in BG1. Secondly both your melee weapon choices will be slashing, meaning you will be hurt when encountering resistant or immune enemies. FWIW, there is anti-undead longsword in BG1, pretty easy to get, and this will help for many of the slashing resistant undead. But a fighter with say an axe proficiency and then a blunt weapon proficiency will be slightly more versatile than your current choice. I'm not saying you have to do this at all, merely noting what the possible strong/versatile fighter builds are. A fighter with say warhammer or flail to go along with axe will be a teensy bit stronger than than axe+longsword. But just a tiny bit. And again, you'll have a full party of six to work with, so you can build your companions in a way to help compensate for this.
  • ZeroxSP7ZeroxSP7 Member Posts: 55
    I’m thinking 2 in Longsword, 1 in Axe, and 1 in Flail then. I’ll max out Longsword first then the other 2. That way he’s focused on melee but can use Axe for a dual purpose.
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 3,872
    So, if you follow through on that, you'll be playing for a long time with just one dot in each of axe and flail. That's not ideal. The second dot in a proficiency, for a warrior, is far more important than the first. One dot just is +2 to attack; actually, it removes the -2 non-proficiency penalty, but that amounts to the same thing. The second dot grants +1 attack, +2 damage, and an additional 1/2 attack per round if it's your main-hand weapon.

    Basically, even if you plan to invest in both axes and flails in the long run, you'd be much better off starting with two dots in one of those proficiencies than with one in each.

    The corollary of this: don't be afraid to use a weapon you're not proficient at all in, if you're a fighter (or ranger, or paladin, or monk). If it's the best weapon for the situation, you'll still be able to hit things even at a -2 penalty. You'll use your specialized weapons most of the time, but if you just want to bash a skeleton (or, later, a clay golem) with a flail you can do that even without proficiency.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    Now you’re back to spreading yourself too thin again! Don’t do that. You can’t do *everything* with one character. Choose what they’re going to be good at and *be good at it*!

    You can have up to six characters in your party. Different people to excel at different things, don’t think your PC needs to do it all themselves.
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,537
    I think there are three proficiency values to stop at for fighters. Two for the half attack per round. Three for +3 thac0. Five for a full attack per round.
    One is only for emergencies. Four is a waste if you ask me.

    Generally, I pick two weapons that do different damage types in BG1 and in BG2 a third is added.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    edited October 2023
    Fighter is pretty tricky because more than any class you committing your key resource (proficiencies) without knowing what's best. If you're going to spread out your profiencies across three or more weapon types, frankly you might as well consider paladin, ranger or a multiclass instead. Unless you're gunning for some specific fighter kit. There's a funny irony that both in these games and the Pathfinder game they are one of the less newbie friendly classes.

    The advantage of fighter, five potential profiencies, is offset by not having as much versatility, in the long run. So if youre looking to maximize your character, you should settle on two weapon choices. With one being a blunt type. As I said above, choosing axes and also daggers can give you increased versatility above and beyond other weapons because of the throwing option. And don't be fooled by the humble dagger, it has great options in both games. Going with fighter, unless you're barbarian, you will have the most fun specializing, and choosing companions that complement you.
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,537
    There is much truth in that, but I always find that with creature resistances it makes sense to have at least two options available. Moreover, in BG1 you cannot even reach 5 stars and therefore I always stop at 3.
  • konvakonva Member Posts: 65
    Well, as fighter in BG1 part, you can technically spec whatewer you want and be OP, since game is fairly easy. Also, most spec have their +2 enchantment version, whic hare also one of the good ones. Long Swords has Varscona, while Hammers has Ashidena or whats the name of +2 hammer with +1 electricity dmg. Also dagger of venom isnt bad, short sword +3 also availabke, in BG city hovewer. With ankegh plate, decent dex bonus, and any cool weapon, you wreck all in BG1 part. Hovewer, in TotSC, in the werewolf island, you need +3 weapon for dmg, which is only silver dagger or kondar (bastard sword), and this is where you fully utilize all buffs (and also for quite long time). In SoD hovewer, fights become IWD stylish, with high enemy stats too, but nothing extra hard. BG2 has very nice weapons for almost all proficiences, especially with TOB and watchers, where you can assemble kinda powerful artifacts (even +6 weapon if I recall correctly)
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 3,872
    konva wrote: »
    Hovewer, in TotSC, in the werewolf island, you need +3 weapon for dmg...
    This is not true. It's not about enchantment level at all.

    Ordinary werewolves and wolfweres require magical weapons to hit. No problem there. The lycanthrope bosses require weapons with the special "silver" or "cold iron" flags - silver for the greater wolfwere Karoug on the ship, cold iron for the loup-garou at the end. The list, in BGEE:
    - Albruin (bastard sword, from Dorn's quest): silver, but not cold iron.
    - The Burning Earth (long sword, from Durlag's Tower): silver and cold iron.
    - Kondar (bastard sword, from Aldeth Sashenstar in either chapter 4 or chapter 5): silver and cold iron.
    - Sword of Balduran (bastard sword, from a chest after Karoug on the ship): silver and cold iron.
    - Werebane (dagger, from a chest before Karoug on the ship): silver and cold iron.

    Karoug specifically also has extremely high regeneration, and 50% elemental resistance. You have to hit him hard and fast, so getting as many of your party using these weapons as possible is a good idea. As is finding something to do for the rest of your party, like dealing damage with spells or wands.

    No enemy in the entire standard BG1 campaign requires a higher enchantment level to hit. Even a bare +0 magic weapon like an ice arrow is enough to hit everything except the two lycanthrope bosses.

    SoD does require higher enchantment levels in places; there are a few enemies that require +2 weapons, and the climactic boss requires +3 on higher difficulties.
  • TrouveurTrouveur Member Posts: 626
    jmerry wrote: »
    konva wrote: »
    Hovewer, in TotSC, in the werewolf island, you need +3 weapon for dmg...
    No enemy in the entire standard BG1 campaign requires a higher enchantment level to hit. Even a bare +0 magic weapon like an ice arrow is enough to hit everything except the two lycanthrope bosses.
    I wonder if the two Thrall of Azothet from Dorn's quest require magical weapon to be hit ?
  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 3,872
    Yes, those two require magic weapons to hit.
  • ZeroxSP7ZeroxSP7 Member Posts: 55
    As a Fighter I started with 2 in longswords. I for sure wanted to keep that one for roleplaying purposes. Just had to do with my character concept. I also had 1 in axe and flail. By the end of bg1, I hadn’t used axe or flail at all and desperately needed a bastard sword user for the werewolves. Also someone to use Kondar against the dopplegangers. I used EE Keeper to change those points in axe and flail to 2 points in Bastard Sword.

    Lesson learned. I don’t like to cheat like this, but I was desperate and figured those two points in Axe and Flail were a waste. It worked out well and continues to do so as I progress into SOD. I don’t plan to use EE Keeper again as I’m quite happy with my proficiency points.

    For reference, my party was this.

    Minsc. 2 in 2h swords. 2 in two handed style.

    Jaheira. 2 in clubs. 2 in scimitars.

    Khalid. 2 in longswords. 3 in longbows

    Imoen. 1 in shortbow. 1 in crossbow

    Dynaheir. 1 in sling. 1 in darts
  • StummvonBordwehrStummvonBordwehr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 1,384
    Great thread, and I just have some considerations regarding SoD.

    If you are playing SoD, I would pick longswords over flails, and axes last.

    Longswords are perfectly viable trough the whole saga. The longsword shines the brightest in BG1 and SoD - and especially in the last boss fight in SoD. Doing swords and boards is great, even if dualwielding flails may be better in parts of BG2 and ToB
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,331
    If you don’t like cheating, don’t change your proficiencies! A warrior using a weapon they are not proficient in is not a *huge* disadvantage. I think it even fits the spirit of adventure to occasionally be forced into doing something that’s less than ideal.
Sign In or Register to comment.