Am pretty sure he sunfire'd me roughly 0.001 sec after teleporting behind a wall...fireball looks different I guess (am more into disabling, CC...debuff - lesson learned in at least IWDx/hof ^^)
BTT: great topic btw :P lol .. am really looking forward to give Keldorn a try now or it was my intention anyway as all cleric/druids in BG2 just s*ck and viconia, despite having some good stats still only has 1ApR. So CG fighter->cleric specced to flail (of ages) and 21 wisdom might be nifty. Good only cause I want to try the beyond to law npc mod.
There is a spell "Dimension Door" - Not shadow door. This spell was removed in BG2. He can teleport to an area in his sight - but he's cheating since he can TP in rooms where he cannot see (too bad for him my warriors were waiting for him in this one).
The column of fire spell is trigged from the traps on the ground, I guess (as well as the Batlle horrors).
My question is with the holy sword two-handed sword having dispel magic built into it and the bastard sword able to cast it doesn't that take away the dispel magic benefit? I'm thinking long term, and I will be having to mages in my party (imoen and the new wild Mage npc). In light of being covered so much in magic dispel wouldn't of the kit ability just be a waste?
The other reason why the Inquisitor's Dispel ability is great is that its casting time is instantaneous. It's great for disabling a group of spellcasters, which isn't unheard of in BG2.
Also Inquisitors are useful against ghasts and the like with their immunity to Hold. Dispel Magic is great against those pesky Greater Dopplegangers in DT (mirror imaged and hasted GD can be a fright before you drop their buffs)
Ok that makes sense. I'm trying to pick either inquisitor or caviler. The cav benfits of spells, and turn undead is covered by a cleric but the poison immunity is nice for bg1 (evil spiders!!!!). But a part of me love the idea if a inquisitor falls in love with a wild Mage.
I have found that Inquisitor is indeed quite worthless (sorry fella !) in unmodded BG1, but is very useful in the Black Pits and BG2 since mages are much more prepared for the fight than BG1 mages are.
So you've found that the most anti caster class in the game is less useful in a game with less mages. Wow that's quite the observation ... Thanks for keeping us all up to date.
My question is with the holy sword two-handed sword having dispel magic built into it and the bastard sword able to cast it doesn't that take away the dispel magic benefit? I'm thinking long term, and I will be having to mages in my party (imoen and the new wild Mage npc). In light of being covered so much in magic dispel wouldn't of the kit ability just be a waste?
It doesn't because the Inquisitor's Dispel Magic is much more powerful - double the strength of the one that Carsomyr delivers. The Inquisitor's Dispel Magic is also area of effect and not dependent on hitting the opponent.
I'm currently playing an Inquisitor as the leader in an all PC multi/solo game as a "Witch Hunter" party (no mages) the group also has Halfling Barb, Beastmaster3>cleric, Gnome Cleric/Thief, Dwarf WS and Elf Archer and at level 3-ish has no reloads and no deaths on core rules.
He has been very useful thus far in battles with spellcasters and as a general tank weilding two handed swords/longbow (rarely).
So you've found that the most anti caster class in the game is less useful in a game with less mages. Wow that's quite the observation ... Thanks for keeping us all up to date.
Yes sir, sorry to help you see your white knight naked :-)
The problem with *any* Paladin class IMHO is that you have to be Lawful Good, which can be very boring...
The roleplaying opportunities in Baldur's Gate are effectively nil, which makes the choice of alignment pointless as well.
There are opportunities to behave more or less according to your alignment e.g. not killing an innocent just because you want their magic item, if playing good...
There are opportunities to behave more or less according to your alignment e.g. not killing an innocent just because you want their magic item, if playing good...
As if any good guys wouldn't kill someone for a magic item.
To hell with it, Inquisitor > Cavalier for me. Played both and I had more fun with the Inquisitor. Burn me at the stake if you must, but LoH isn't that big of a deal, and why Turn Undead when you can kill it for xp?
To hell with it, Inquisitor > Cavalier for me. Played both and I had more fun with the Inquisitor. Burn me at the stake if you must, but LoH isn't that big of a deal, and why Turn Undead when you can kill it for xp?
Instagibbing things with Turn Undead still gives you XP... =D
But you're right, Paladins suck at turning undead compared to a proper cleric anyway. It's almost like running around with a MC Cleric as far as effective Turn Undead levels go - mediocre at best.
And just because Cavalier MIGHT be marginally better than Inquisitor in BG1, doesn't make them useless. Remove fear is a lvl 1 Cleric spell, so it's not like you won't have easy access to it. Immunity to hold is harder to obtain early plus it's quite prevalent in BG1. The 2x Lvl Dispels, True Sight, and immune to charm are just icing on the cake.
And in SoA and ToB, Inquisitors become much more useful as well. Carsomyr's Dispel on Hit doesn't marginalize the spell either, because it dispels at a much lower level - I find it pretty noticable by the end of SoA and start of ToB. There's a reason why SCS offers nerfed versions of Inquisitor's Dispel... it's to keep the game challenging...
It's not only a remove fear, but a protect from fear also ;-)
So is the Cleric spell. Mind you, there's something to be said for having a remove fear button on a character who is immune to fear, which guarantees that you can always have it handy, but I agree with AHF that it doesn't really carry any weight with me.
So you've found that the most anti caster class in the game is less useful in a game with less mages. Wow that's quite the observation ... Thanks for keeping us all up to date.
Yes sir, sorry to help you see your white knight naked :-)
Hey dont get me wrong i like the Cavalier more myself but your wrong to call the Inquisitor worthless, hes not at the peak of his power like he is in BG2 but its still a useful class certainly more useful then a lot of other classes/kits.
Arguably, the pure, unkitted Paladin is superior to either kit if you're looking exclusively at BG1. The advantages either kit gets over the Paladin are marginal and easily replicated by spells/consumables, especially since you can easily predict when most of them will come into play. Sirines don't show up out of nowhere, and ghasts are only random encounters on particular maps. Have a Cleric cast Remove Fear at the beginning of a map, and its long duration will keep you safe for the time it takes you to explore it. Poison is only a major concern during Cloakwood, and antidote potions aren't hard to come by, nor is keeping plenty of Slow Poison spells on hand for that sequence a hardship (if the spellcaster is poisoned, antidote. Someone else, SP).
On the flip side, the Inquisitor gives up everything that makes a Paladin distinguishable from a slow-leveling Fighter, and the Cavalier gives up bows and crossbows, either of which beat throwing axes in both damage and utility.
Comments
The column of fire spell is trigged from the traps on the ground, I guess (as well as the Batlle horrors).
I have found that Inquisitor is indeed quite worthless (sorry fella !) in unmodded BG1, but is very useful in the Black Pits and BG2 since mages are much more prepared for the fight than BG1 mages are.
Inquisitors are great throughout the saga, IMO.
He has been very useful thus far in battles with spellcasters and as a general tank weilding two handed swords/longbow (rarely).
(joke).
that's why this character is so great in the first game (I should add this in capital letters i guess...)
But you're right, Paladins suck at turning undead compared to a proper cleric anyway. It's almost like running around with a MC Cleric as far as effective Turn Undead levels go - mediocre at best.
And just because Cavalier MIGHT be marginally better than Inquisitor in BG1, doesn't make them useless. Remove fear is a lvl 1 Cleric spell, so it's not like you won't have easy access to it. Immunity to hold is harder to obtain early plus it's quite prevalent in BG1. The 2x Lvl Dispels, True Sight, and immune to charm are just icing on the cake.
And in SoA and ToB, Inquisitors become much more useful as well. Carsomyr's Dispel on Hit doesn't marginalize the spell either, because it dispels at a much lower level - I find it pretty noticable by the end of SoA and start of ToB. There's a reason why SCS offers nerfed versions of Inquisitor's Dispel... it's to keep the game challenging...
On the flip side, the Inquisitor gives up everything that makes a Paladin distinguishable from a slow-leveling Fighter, and the Cavalier gives up bows and crossbows, either of which beat throwing axes in both damage and utility.