Secret of Berserker

[RiseofBane]

I am pretty sure Most of you never ever choose your main character as berserker.
I beat SOA about 2 weeks ago, my main character is Berserker, race Half-Orc.

Well, I am pretty sure you guys have wrong ideas on berserker such as these

1) character will go berserk like having cursed berserk blade, therefore it will attack the team during the battle.
- nope you are wrong. If you create your MAIN char as berserker, it will never attack the own teammate. While enraged, it only attacks the opponent even with Standard Attack script. I know Minsc will possibly attack anyone while he is enraged, but not UR main character.
However, when enrage period is over, theres about 1% chance that ur main character will attack your teammate, like I said, it happens really rarely. And if he ever does, simply move him, and he won't attack anyone further!

2) Berserker is weak
- nope, their base attack, damage is about same as fighter. The HP is lil bit lower than pure fighter(about 10-15points?), but while your enraged, your HP and damage goes up, which makes you equivalent to fighter. Perhaps, better than fighter , since Rage makes you protected from "All sorts of mind spell (such as charm, feeblemind, deaf and so on), and most importantly, you are immune to Maze and Imprisonment!"

3) Berserker is weaker than Barbarian
- semi-true. Barbarian-halfOrc has the highest physical damage in the game, but I believe only with weapon axe. However, barbarian can't wear plate armor, nor full plate or any armors that are better. Therefore Barbarians are weak on physical defence. However Barbarian can use rage like Berserker. If you want to choose Barbarian, I say make him dual-wield of axe, so that he can finish enemies quickly before he gets hurt.
And Berserker Half-Orc does about same damage as Barbarian-Human.

I been using 2handed sword, and it does great damage. with a spell haste and whirlwind, my main character wiped out everything so easily. Espcialy the Rage skill is what makes the berserker most worthy.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

You should totally write some [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgateii/strategyguides.php"]guides[/url]. I've never done any myself but if you PM Buck Satan (the site owner) he should be able to tell you where to submit them.

Did you end up getting [url="http://www.baldurdash.org/tweaksandcheats.html"]Universal Carsomyr[/url] btw?

[galraen]

I am pretty sure Most of you never ever choose your main character as berserker.

Huh? What on earth makes you think that? Apart from tsting out a Kensai/Mage, I always chose berserker, the immunity to Maze, Energy Drain and Imprisonment makes them the best choice IMHO.

character will go berserk like having cursed berserk blade, therefore it will attack the team during the battle.

I'm not sure anyone thinks that, it's true for Minsc the Psychopath of course, but never for the fighter sub-class, which brings me to

Berserker is weak
- nope, their base attack, damage is about same as fighter.

of course it is, they are fighters!

[Crenshinibon]

I'm pretty sure that most people on these forums realize the value of Berserkers

I would like to make some corrections (and add some of my personal opinions) to your statements:

1. Berserkers have the same amount of HP as fighters.

2. The THAC0 and damage of the Berserker is EXACTLY the same as that of a fighter of the same attributes, except for the two bonus to hit and damage during rage and two penalty to hit and damage after the rage.

3. The half-orc Barbarian does NOT have the highest physical damage in the game. That would be a mage/thief. Also, damage is only dependent on race at the very start of the game, before girdles become available. As such, most characters imported from BG1 should match the half-orc in strength. Also, the weapon type, for the most part does not matter. What matters is the weapon itself.

In my opinion, the Barbarian is superior to the Berserker for the following reasons:

The Barbarian's Rage not only increases his to hit and to damage, but also increases his health, in addition to the immunities (and bonus saves that it provides). Also, this rage lets you control the Barbarian and has no side effects.

The Barbarian's hit die is d12, instead of the fighter's d10. As such, he gains hit points at a faster rate.

Over the course of the game, the Barbarian develops a total of 20% resistance to all physical weapons.

Although the Barbarian is limited to chain, he can still get the same AC as the Berserker by using the White Dragon Scale. My Halfling Barbarian currently has -15 AC. As such, with a total of -15 AC and 80% physical resistance (20% natural resistance, 20% from Defender of Easthaven and 40% from Hardiness), the Barbarian is in fact very strong defensively.

[Berethor]

3. The half-orc Barbarian does NOT have the highest physical damage in the game. That would be a mage/thief. Also, damage is only dependent on race at the very start of the game, before girdles become available. As such, most characters imported from BG1 should match the half-orc in strength. Also, the weapon type, for the most part does not matter. What matters is the weapon itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't an Assassin have the highest physical damage potential in the game? I played as one during my first playthrough and the x7 multiplier really lays a beating on enemies, especially if using the HLA Assassination.

I can see why a Mage/Thief would have a high ceiling due to strength enhancing spells (Harm too, perhaps) but I've never seen them put out quite the same numbers. But I've probably been using them wrong.

[Crenshinibon]

Well, a Mage/Thief or an Assassin/Mage, but the main point of this build is to take advantage of not only the damage bonuses gained from the enhancing spells, such as Tensor's Transformation, but to utilize the Shapechange spell, which would allow you to transform into an Iron Golem with 4d10 + 10 fists. As such, the backstab damage caused by this type of character is massive, especially when backed up by a cleric.

Harm is a cleric spell, and a very potent one at that, but it doesn't really deal damage - rather it reduces the target's life to a single point.

[Berethor]

Well, a Mage/Thief or an Assassin/Mage, but the main point of this build is to take advantage of not only the damage bonuses gain from the enhancing spells, such as Tensor's Transformation, but to utilize the Shapechange spell, which would allow you to transform into an Iron Golem with 4d10 + 10 fists. As such, the backstab damage caused by this type of character is massive, especially when backed up by a cleric.

Harm is a cleric spell, and a very potent one at that, but it doesn't really deal damage - rather it reduces the target's life to a single point.

Ah yes, I forgot that Harm was a cleric spell.

But I see your point. Mage/Thief combinations are probably the most useful and reliable builds in the game for a lot of reasons.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

In terms for pure damage dealt then a Mage/Thief will outdo pretty much anything else with a backstab, but I get the feeling RoB is talking about standard melee. Not to dispute mage/thieves as the most useful builds mind you, it's just that they require finesse, a certain amount of planning, and a fairly in-depth understanding of the game and spell system to make effective use from.

I'd favor the Berserker over the Barbarian myself, if only because they can dual-class (if human anyway) and wear all armour. On a damage dealing and reduction count that gives them access to a whole heap of useful spells (Righteous Magic springs to mind for Cleric/druid duals, couple that baby with Improved Haste and the Staff of the Ram and it's pretty impressive), though lamentably means they're likely to miss out on fighter HLAs unless you're OK with a ridiculous 1st-class downtime. Pity multi-classes can't (legitimately) have kits.

Huh? What on earth makes you think that?

Have a read through of RoBs post history and it should make sense, in an overenthusiastic-teen-who's-just-discovered-sex-and-has-to-tell-everyone-all-about-it sort of way. I admire his passion, it makes me want to fire up BG2 again.
I'd really like to do a multiplayer Neverwinter Nights game with him - he's quite keen on getting the most powerful build he can and the 3rd Ed D&D rules of NWN are much better for that than 2.5 Ed-esque BG2 - and a decent mage-user (I'm really more of a Ranger/Rogue player type myself and so need a decent meat shield ).

[galraen]

the 3rd Ed D&D rules of NWN are much better for that than 2.5 Ed-esque BG2

Completely disagree with that, Turd Edition is terrible IMO, far, far worse than 2.5. If NWN had been written for the same rules as BG it would have been a much better game, in fact it might even have been good.

[Daynov]

As far as different builds and character customization goes NWN and the 3rd ed rules are really what you're looking for. Their implementation is far from perfect in NWN but still give a whole bigger area for experimentation and creation of different characters. In BG II if you want some real char. customization your only choice is pretty much the sorcerer. Most classes have some gimmicks to them but after HLAs most look the same. Tinkering with SK can expand on that though.

With that being said NWNs OC was so bad that it took me 3 reinstalls to finally gather some strength and finish it, plus going for some epic char. build utimately didn't matter at all because of how easy the game was.

[Stworca]

Quote from my guide

Any warrior is good for dual weild, except WS, i recommend berserker to tank mobs that use imprisonment.

But i must admit that Barbarians are superior to berserkers, due to physical damage resistance on higher levels. I also must admit that i only "made" a berserker as a secondary character in custom-party-playthough. But i guess everyone knows that i almost always played a sorc.

What you said about Berserker vs Barb

barbarian can't wear plate armor, nor full plate or any armors that are better. Therefore Barbarians are weak on physical defence

This is not true in TOB, because in TOB your AC does not matter (unless its sky-high.. like the case of blade).
In vanilla-TOB you tank with immunities, in modded-TOB you tank with damage resistance up. Your armor does not matter there, because mobs have -11 THAC0 (or even lower?)

With the above beign said, i'll quote what was written by everyone on these forums ever since release : Every class is good enough to win the game, even solo

Edit : As to warriors. D&D treats warriors as 3rd grade characters. Most of the time its a "click to attack and forget about him" char. In pen and paper its not as bad, as roleplaying kicks in and you have great time, but warriors in NWN? In BG prior to HLA's? Absolutely horrible one-button classes. This is what made me play sorcerer. I can fight with either X, Y or Z spells, throw an @ here and a $ there. This is also what makes any warrior-discussions less interesting.
I've played DA for the last two days and i was stunned how many abilities the warriors can use!

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Completely disagree with that, Turd Edition is terrible IMO, far, far worse than 2.5. If NWN had been written for the same rules as BG it would have been a much better game, in fact it might even have been good.

Just to clarify, I don't think NWN's better in general, but it is better for powerbuilding munchkin characters and character customisation. I don't think it's a matter of what edition ruleset it uses so much as the fact it doesn't really take advantage of a Party system, has little-to-no NPC control and inadequate AI (especially for spellcasters ), and the woeful OC and general unchallenging-ness - there a fair few fan-made mods that are pretty good, and HotU is quite fun for the most part. But then, the main selling point of NWN was all about the toolset anyway.

I quite like NWN for building and customizing characters (and Rangers and Druids being able to get animal companions, which I really would have liked in BG2) but there's no denying it falls far short of BG2 as a game.

[galraen]

Post deleted by Galraen, went far too far Off Topic.

[QuenGalad]

I think it's pretty safe to assume that we, and by that I mean regulars on GameBanshee's BG forums, have played every class, at least to see what it's like. Personally I have created a half-orc berserkeress ( ) named Hildur Insufferable and an all-female party that was heavy on enthousiastic slaughter :laugh: One of the soundsets was just perfect.

As far as Third Ed goes, I liked the change from negative to positive numbers. Cleared things up a bit. NWN was not that great a game, but had something that made me play it many times : the wonderful possibility to mix a ranger with a rogue. Most rogue/something mixes came up insanely powerful, but this one was only a bit tougher while staying reasonable and really cool from the roleplaying point of view : sneaking around, attacking from behind and having a wolf companion.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Post deleted by Galraen, went far too far Off Topic.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/baldurs-gate-ii-shadows-of-amn-9/i-can-only-hope-nwn-will-fun-bg-5437.html"]Maybe continue the discussion here?[/url]

As far as Third Ed goes, I liked the change from negative to positive numbers. Cleared things up a bit. NWN was not that great a game, but had something that made me play it many times : the wonderful possibility to mix a ranger with a rogue. Most rogue/something mixes came up insanely powerful, but this one was only a bit tougher while staying reasonable and really cool from the roleplaying point of view : sneaking around, attacking from behind and having a wolf companion.

That's my preferred build too, Ranger 26/Rogue 13/Barbarian 1 (for the movement speed bonus and a nice CON boost for those drinking contests that seems to crop up every now and then), with a falcon familiar. Wish Awaken was a Ranger spell too though.

[galraen]

Ranger 26/Rogue 13/Barbarian 1

That's the sort of hideous anti-role playing build that makes me despise Turd edition, sums up almost everything wrong with the game; add in the idiotic 'crafting' rubbish and the derisory amount of XP needed to hit 20th level and the recipe for a really bad game!

[QuenGalad]

Well, adding the barbarian seems a little over the top for me, but I have to admit I don't find a ranger/rogue very outrageous.
Those classes have a lot in common, and the ability to backstab has been given to rangers before (bg II stalker). Finding traps is a class ability for both of them in NWN, and frankly, I find that very fitting. The lockpicking aspect of a rogue is a bit of a stretch, but if you consider a ranger as someone who, generally, dislikes cities and their dwellers, it all sums up nicely. Of course, it gives your ranger kind of a harsh personality - the end justifies the means - but that's how I always thought about them anyway. While out in the wild, they will sneak around animals so they won't have to hurt them, they will help village dwellers and so on, but in those nests of corruption and villany that are cities they will have little scruples.

[galraen]

Have a lot in common??!!! One's a country boy/girl, at home in the wild supposedly committed to helping nature and being a good gal/guy. The other is a city dwelling scumbag who cuts purses, robs people, with or without violence etc. etc., you'd have trouble finding two more disparate characters! Next you'll be telling me that a Ninja/Paladin are a natural combination.

A Barbarian changing to Ranger is credible perhaps, but not a Ranger to Rogue, at least not without changing alignment and losing all Ranger benefits.

I've always found the idea of a thief/rogue being able to be of any good alignment daft, they are, or should be, anti-social scum, end of story. A reformed character, fine, start as a thief, change class, and alignment if necessary, after atonement, but no backsliding.

When it comes to Berserkers incidentally, Minsc is actually true to the class, you shouldn't be able to switch berserkergang on and off easily. Once it's triggered it should run it's course, and woe to any 'innocents' who get in the way; there was a reason why Berserkers where social pariahs after all. So when it comes to them, I also have to confess to being a poor role player.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Aw, I really want to see how this topic pans out but I have to start full-time study.

See, IMO Rangers are pretty much the warrior version of Druids, as Paladins are to Clerics; nature-warriors VS holy warriors as it were, and as such should theoretically lean more towards neutrality than good or evil (for that matter Paladins should have alignments in accordance with their deity, but that's a different discussion). As the saying goes, nature is red in tooth and claw, so for her warriors to be all-good seems a bit counter-intuitive.

The Ode to a Grasshopper character as I envisage him actually is 2 parts Ranger to 1 part Rogue, and BG2 doesn't allow that - and as a matter of necessity makes you the spawn of a dead God of Murder to boot as opposed to the plain old wandering elf archer backstory I use.
He started out as a fairly typical CG elf ranger adventuring out of wanderlust, with a slight distaste for humans (favored enemy: human-IRL I'm not a fan of our species either) in addition to the usual elf racial enemies of orcs/drow/undead due to some bad experiences with humans damaging forests and their propensity for breeding out of control where most creatures reach an equilibrium with their habitat.
After a while he hooks up with and travels with an older and much more worldly half-elf bard-type who teaches him the benefits of fast-talking, misdirection/diversion, and general sneakiness (and the fact that as a travelling adventurer he really needs to gain knowledge of the ways of the city as well as the wild for survival's sake) for a while before they go their separate ways. Like myself he's gradually gotten more and more cynical (alignment shift to CN) as his experiences expose him to the cruelty and injustice of the world (and the sheer hopelessness of trying to save it all) and he sees that the path of righteousness is rarely that of happiness-it might work in the elven tree-cities of home but in the human lands life is cheap and unfair. It always struck me as kind of silly that a wandering adventurer who spent a reasonable amount of time in villages/towns - and dungeons - wouldn't learn to adapt to them, even if s/he did prefer natural settings and still self-identifies as a ranger.
In fiction terms, sometime after that he joins the SYM Rolling Thunder crew and becomes a plane-hopping drunk.

He's meant to be a support/backup character, nowhere near as versatile as a full rogue but able to do in a pinch. Similarly he's competent enough in battle to survive your avergae orc or bandit encounter but not able to match a devoted high-level warrior or mage, and will usually turn to bluffing or trickery over outrigh combat if he's on his own. He only reaches full effectiveness when he's got a tank to keep enemies occupied and an arcane spellcaster to take care of the magic side of things - my two best friends tend towards barbarians and bards respectively.
The barbarian bit is mostly 'cos I had a level left over with the 2-to-1 ratio, didn't know which class to put it into, and got sick of his slow movement speed, but aside from that he actually is a pretty apt expression of the type of character and role I like to play.

[galraen]

Rangers didn't really have much, if anything to do with Druids originally, the class was based on Aragorn, the title Strider for a first level Ranger wasn't a coincidence. No Druids as such in Lord of the Rings of course, so originally when a Ranger reached 8th level they started acquiring Druidical spells to reflect their herb lore and wilderness abilities, and also mage spells*, then WoC started playing silly buggers!

Which was how my very first Ranger many decades ago also had a falcon familiar coincidentally.