Best NPC Archer: Kivan or Coran?

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:41 am

roller1234 wrote:interesting. Yes my bg2 archer was able to reach damage values up to 11. With a 2-9 bow this would indeed imply there is a +2 to damage bonus. The interesting part is that it is generally assumed that the longbow of marksmanship is the better bow. With this however lets look at the stats

Longbow of Marksmanship: +3th, +2td
Composite Longbow +1: +2th, +5td (+3td base +2td from being composite)

Given high enough thac0, +3 extra damage per strike isnt that insignificant.

No, the Comp. Longbow +1 gives +2 to hit and +3 damage. I prefer the Longbow of Marksmanship because of the +3 to hit bonus.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:09 am

Ah, i see. I was just mystified a bit by your statement that composite bows do have an additional hidden damage bonus, where you merely stated the listed bonus.

EtherImp · Post by **EtherImp** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:01 am

roller1234 wrote:How can you say this. What does have another game or mods have to do with anything. Regardless of whether composite bows in BG2 actually do apply anything to damage, which they by design dont do in bg1 nor in nwn1/2. I actually went ahead and made a 25 str comp. bow archer in BG2. He did 7 damage to a mephit. You cant do 7 damage to something if youre doing 1d8+15 with each strike, here is the proof. Feel free to look up yourself, its not that difficult at all. Composite bows do not apply anything to anything.

Jordoo
Hehe yeah, i picked up Khalid as an archer so far. There is still time 'till Cloakwood. Here is another thought. Maybe he was designed to be an archer. That would explain his low str, and/or make it irrelevant. Another successful deception by avatar i'd say.

A lot of people play BG1 using Tutu, which runs off of the BG2 engine, first of all.

Secondly, if I'm wrong about BG2 using Composite Longbow rules which apply Strength bonus to damage, then just ignore what I said.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:09 am

I believe someone already tested the "Comp. Longbow uses STR" and he confirmed that it doesn't.

Pellinore · Post by **Pellinore** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:31 pm

I would prefer an archer with higher chance to hit rather than a high damage. So I think Coran would be my choice.

koz-ivan · Post by **koz-ivan** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:54 pm

i've always been really impressed with coran, both as an archer, and as a useful npc.

strictly speaking as an archer he's got a slight edge on kivan, and imho a ftr / thief is a more useful combination of classes than a ranger.

Aqua-chan · Post by **Aqua-chan** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:29 pm

koz-ivan wrote:i've always been really impressed with coran, both as an archer, and as a useful npc.

strictly speaking as an archer he's got a slight edge on kivan, and imho a ftr / thief is a more useful combination of classes than a ranger.

Ranger in BG1 is just a disappointing class all around. I'm currently running through without TuTu, my PC is a Fighter/Thief so I opted for Kivan. His high STR makes him a better impromptu melee combatant than Coran, but of the two in the unmodded game I think it's pretty obvious that Coran is the better archer.

That's not to say Kivan isn't an excellent bowman himself, of course. But if what you're looking for is strictly an archer without TuTu (Kivan's then defaulted to the Ranger>Archer class, in which case he blows Coran out of the water) then Coran's DEX and higher proficiency is just unbeatable.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:34 am

Aqua-chan wrote: TuTu Kivan's then defaulted to the Ranger>Archer class

Just another proof of that mods have no rights in anything and do not care about keeping game balance. If i give Garrik 25 in each stat and make him an Archer, he'll be the best too. Wasnt it DSotSC which had items which doubled attacks and spellslots.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:38 am

roller1234 wrote:Just another proof of that mods have no rights in anything and do not care about keeping game balance. If i give Garrik 25 in each stat and make him an Archer, he'll be the best too. Wasnt it DSotSC which had items which doubled attacks and spellslots.

In context, this is relevant: a lot of people here play BG1 via Tutu. So for a lot of people, Kivan will probably be the best archer in their game. Tutu doesn't overpower anything, it just allows you to play BG1 with the updated BG2 engine.
However, as far as vanilla BG1 goes, there's no doubt Coran is the best archer.

roller1234 · Post by **roller1234** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:24 am

GawainBS wrote:In context, this is relevant: a lot of people here play BG1 via Tutu. So for a lot of people, Kivan will probably be the best archer in their game. However, as far as vanilla BG1 goes, there's no doubt Coran is the best archer.

There are many people which play different mods so there will be no right answer for everyone. Oh wait, there is. This topic is about bg1. Any mod which changes balance is mods problem, not the game's, and concern of the player who using it. I really couldnt care less about people using mods XYZ. I fear a statement about "a lot of people play TuTu" has to be proven as well, and "I'm fairly sure" (by EtherImp) doesnt make it. Not that it has any relevance, as written above, just curious where this impression is coming from.

Tutu doesn't overpower anything, it just allows you to play BG1 with the updated BG2 engine.

Wishful thinking? Look at this thread, Coran is already borderline cheating. Making an even stronger archer.. well well. *roll eyes*. BG2 is a different game, not an "updated bg1", using it to play bg1 makes just as much sense as porting Civ4 to Fallout3 (same engine too). And not for the better. Ofc nobody is stopping anyone to do that, using 25 stats Garriks or Kivans with Kits. It just invalidates every opinion such people have about the game. They arent playing it anymore and thus their opinion is meaningless to those, who are playing the product made by Bioware.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:45 am

Check the various BG fora here, and see for yourself how many people play using Tutu. That should satisfy that.
Playing BG1 in BG2's engine makes pretty much sense, since they use nearly all the same rules (BG2 is often more detailed, though). Further more, it makes more sense, since you can now take the same character from BG1 to Throne of Bhaal, without getting a kit out of the blue along the way.
I'd say that as far as cheating goes, Coran is more of a cheat in regular BG1 (he breaks rules, with his 20 DEX and 3 Bow points) than Kivan in Tutu, who merely uses other rules. (Rules which apply to *everything* in Tutu, not just one character.)

Once more: Coran is the better archer in plain BG1, but taking Tutu into account is, if not literally valid, at least a smart consideration, given the popularity.

Jordoo · Post by **Jordoo** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:39 am

I have not played BGI in about 4 year but I do recal trying it after playing alot of BGII and I couldn't beleive how slowley everyone walked .......... aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! It was truely too much for my patience so I oinstalled TuTu and I'll never play BGI "proper" again. I have been reading up on the BGI NPC Project and after I finish up what I'm doing now in BGII I'll probably spend alot of time playing the BGI NPC Project with TuTu!

EtherImp · Post by **EtherImp** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:33 pm

roller1234 wrote:There are many people which play different mods so there will be no right answer for everyone. Oh wait, there is. This topic is about bg1. Any mod which changes balance is mods problem, not the game's, and concern of the player who using it. I really couldnt care less about people using mods XYZ. I fear a statement about "a lot of people play TuTu" has to be proven as well, and "I'm fairly sure" (by EtherImp) doesnt make it. Not that it has any relevance, as written above, just curious where this impression is coming from.

Wishful thinking? Look at this thread, Coran is already borderline cheating. Making an even stronger archer.. well well. *roll eyes*. BG2 is a different game, not an "updated bg1", using it to play bg1 makes just as much sense as porting Civ4 to Fallout3 (same engine too). And not for the better. Ofc nobody is stopping anyone to do that, using 25 stats Garriks or Kivans with Kits. It just invalidates every opinion such people have about the game. They arent playing it anymore and thus their opinion is meaningless to those, who are playing the product made by Bioware.

There's a reason so many people use Tutu. As explained below, it doesn't apply "Cheats", it actually fixes BG1 so it's not restricted by stupid rules which the programmers were forced to use instead of Core AD&D 2nd Ed rules like the game was intended to be written for.

For example:

-Rather than having only a handful of proficiencies, you get the full gambit. Which means you have to use your proficiencies more wisely. Clearly this is not a cheat.

-In BG1 there's no option to carry 2 weapons simultaniously (1 in each hand). This is one of the Rangers major strengths as a class (2 weapon fighting specialization). Since BG2 was a better (more advanced) program, this rule was allowed to be implimented. Clearly, using 2 weapon fighting is not cheating. While it would make certain characters inherently more powerful, this is only because the classes was nerfed by the crappy programming used in BG1 in the first place.

I want my D&D Computer Game to as closely resemble Pen and Paper D&D as possible. BG2 does this better than BG1.

Hence: In Pen and Paper AD&D where Kivan was allowed to use all of the abilities of his class (including becoming an "Archer", subclass), Kivan would be the better "Archer". Unfortunately, default BG1 does not accurately represent AD&D.

Aqua-chan · Post by **Aqua-chan** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:30 pm

roller1234, I really don't understand the hostility towards TuTu and mods like it. TuTu doesn't alter Kivan's ability scores, just gives him a specialization in bows. This doesn't cause an imbalance: in return for the perks the Archer subclass is crippled in terms of melee specialization. Kivan's high STR only means so much when he can only put one point into close-range weapons.

Rangers were painfully nerfed in BG1, in my personal opinion to the point where multiclassing Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Druid is by far the better choice. Subclasses restore at least some of the Ranger's integrity, and I fail to see how that ruins the game.

Pellinore · Post by **Pellinore** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:25 pm

I use TuTu (but not at the moment as I do not have it installed) and I have to agree with the majority here. Rangers were meant to have dual-wield (Thank Aragorn and Drizzt for that) and making Kivan an Archer means he is only a real threat via ranged combat. BG TuTu is closer to 2e rules than BG1 and is not a cheat except MAYBE for starting off with a Half Orc with 19 str

And thats a weak maybe because he can still get eaten by a wolf at 1st level

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:26 am

Pellinore wrote:I use TuTu (but not at the moment as I do not have it installed) and I have to agree with the majority here. Rangers were meant to have dual-wield (Thank Aragorn and Drizzt for that) and making Kivan an Archer means he is only a real threat via ranged combat. BG TuTu is closer to 2e rules than BG1 and is not a cheat except MAYBE for starting off with a Half Orc with 19 str And thats a weak maybe because he can still get eaten by a wolf at 1st level

Just curious, but did Aragon dualwield?

EtherImp · Post by **EtherImp** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:13 am

Yes.. Aragorn from LoTR was a dual wielding Ranger. In the last movie, when he becomes "the King", someone even tells him he has to "abandon your ranger ways, and become the one true king", or something to that effect.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:29 am

I always remember him with a single sword or a bow. Oh, well, good to know there are other dualwielding rangers than Drizzt.

Pellinore · Post by **Pellinore** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:21 am

I don't think Aragorn dual wielded a lot come to think of it. Perhaps it was Legolas with his silly elvish knives... Basically my point was that Aragorn and Drizzt were the models for pretty much all rangers in D&D...

EtherImp · Post by **EtherImp** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:22 am

I seem to remember him dual wielding in the first (and/or possibly second) movie.