My first *complete* run through was with a cavalier. While I can't say anything about the inquisitor, the cavalier is a BEAST late game when you start fighting successively more demons and the occasional dragon. Also the 20% fire and acid resistance are nothing to laugh about either. Give a caviler a ring of fire resistance and Red Dragon Armor and you become literally perma-immune to fire. Give CHARNAME the dragon's tongue and watch CHARNAME laugh when firekragg does nothing. Meanwhile CHARNAME crits for 100+ points of damage. Against a freakin dragon. Cavaliers eat dragons for dinner. Period.
Add on the fact that fire giants, fire salamanders, fire elementals, and anything with the word "fire" in the name or even implied with the name will run from you like frightened school girls from your wrath, yeah its that good. Couple in that BG seems to have a fetish with fireballs and fire in general, I found that oftentimes difficult situations (involving fire) were made laughably easy and could be solved by having my Cavalier charge in solo. Also the whole immune to mind stuff is ridiculously useful.
Being able to dispell magic is useful, but you can disrupt most spellcasting with archers and a few magic spells lost on the rest of the party are well worth the benefits of the DPS/tanking ability you gain imo. Based on what I have read, I think the inquisitor gets all the love it does because it makes boss fights against the lich(es)/high-level spell casters markedly easier. But really, there are so many other ways to deal with undead and spellcasters, the brief perks you get aren't really seen much. With a caviler you will find yourself remarking at how much fire really is in BG 1&2.
i must disagree the most hardcore oponenets in BG are liches/mages so destroying mages should be top priority that is why inquisitor with 200% dispell could be better
also many characters could get 100% resists to fire permanently
other things like bersererk/cleric being better than cavalier at what he is doing best while never being able to do what inquisitor does better
it really depends on your party who would fit better in party of many mages you could probably go with cavalier and strip magic defences with mages
in party with only 1 mage you will better take some inquisitor with you
We will have to agree to disagree then. I think part of my experience is that I seem to attract fireballs like the plague so it must be that the world has something against cute, cuddly violent creatures for whatever reason. Also, that party had 2 mages if I remember correctly so one was setup as a counter-mage whereas the other was mostly DPS. In any case nothing quite beats launching a solo Dragon-Slaying Paladin at a dragon for great justice. And imho opinion the dragons/demons can be just as difficult as the liches and they tend to be much less willing to be de-buffed than your typical mage...I agree with you though that an Inquisitor is far more useful in particular situations. The way I see it is, do you want the hard parts in the game to be significantly easier, or do you want the game overall to be a little bit easier?
And then I played Vanilla BG1 with a Ranger spec'd for bows and now this conversation is irrelevant. Who needs dispel when you have arrows of biting?
I agree with zur in that it depends on the party composition. However I've always preferred the Inquisitor kit for its tools versus spellcasters. Mind shield is just great to have throughout the series versus sirens, clerics, mages, Illithids, etc.
And then I played Vanilla BG1 with a Ranger spec'd for bows and now this conversation is irrelevant. Who needs dispel when you have arrows of biting?
True, but this approach only reliably works in BG1. In BG2, many spellcasters have protections from missiles, and spell devices that can continue to cast spells even when being hit or poisoned.
IMO, the best approach to thwarting a spellcaster in BG2 is to tank him or her with an "enraged" barbarian or berserker. Even if the tanker can't break through the caster's defenses, the caster will use up his or her spells uselessly on him, while the rest of the party works him over with spells from a safe distance and/or the caster's defenses run out.
Also I found that Carsomyr +5, while not as effective as a full-blown inquisitor, still does a good job of counter-magic. Another reason I pick caviler, the inquisitor simply doesn't gain the same benefit as the other kits do with this sword.
Comments
Add on the fact that fire giants, fire salamanders, fire elementals, and anything with the word "fire" in the name or even implied with the name will run from you like frightened school girls from your wrath, yeah its that good. Couple in that BG seems to have a fetish with fireballs and fire in general, I found that oftentimes difficult situations (involving fire) were made laughably easy and could be solved by having my Cavalier charge in solo. Also the whole immune to mind stuff is ridiculously useful.
Being able to dispell magic is useful, but you can disrupt most spellcasting with archers and a few magic spells lost on the rest of the party are well worth the benefits of the DPS/tanking ability you gain imo.
Based on what I have read, I think the inquisitor gets all the love it does because it makes boss fights against the lich(es)/high-level spell casters markedly easier. But really, there are so many other ways to deal with undead and spellcasters, the brief perks you get aren't really seen much. With a caviler you will find yourself remarking at how much fire really is in BG 1&2.
the most hardcore oponenets in BG are liches/mages so destroying mages should be top priority that is why inquisitor with 200% dispell could be better
also many characters could get 100% resists to fire permanently
other things like bersererk/cleric being better than cavalier at what he is doing best while never being able to do what inquisitor does better
it really depends on your party who would fit better
in party of many mages you could probably go with cavalier and strip magic defences with mages
in party with only 1 mage you will better take some inquisitor with you
And then I played Vanilla BG1 with a Ranger spec'd for bows and now this conversation is irrelevant. Who needs dispel when you have arrows of biting?
But... Arrows of Biting are near useless in BG 2 until you strip enemies of various magical protections.
IMO, the best approach to thwarting a spellcaster in BG2 is to tank him or her with an "enraged" barbarian or berserker. Even if the tanker can't break through the caster's defenses, the caster will use up his or her spells uselessly on him, while the rest of the party works him over with spells from a safe distance and/or the caster's defenses run out.