Hacking VS Spells

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Jun 04, 2002 12:30 am

As our vampiric lawyer has already pointed out, we summon. A troll won't be much good against a Mordenkainen's sword, which is immune to it's damage.

And the fact that a mage can obliterate a horde of enemies with a fireball or two tends to defeat your argument, my friend, not to mention the fact that a single Planetar is more than capable of wiping out an enemy horde on it's own.
I like turning my enemies into stone.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 12:59 am

While the cheese potential and power of fighters is awesome, the potential of spell casters is even higher. A mage (not necessarily single-class) handled by a resourceful individual can pretty much obliterate anything, in short order. That's just the nature of magic, not an inherent superiority of one class over another. A character that blends both the skills of a warrior and a spell caster is perhaps the most fearsome of all. The potiential is virtually unlimited.

Entirely agree, except for the cheese part...
Mages already rock WITHOUT cheese!

As for the rest of the discussion, you guess my position!
(and we could always go for a dual too......

)

blueguy · Post by **blueguy** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 1:48 pm

your taunts and ridicule of my beloved class is breaking my mighty warrior heart

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Jun 04, 2002 11:01 pm

There's no taunting or ridiculing going on, it's simply that a high-level mage is more powerful than a high-level fighter. You still need a good combination of the two for a good party, and as BG2 is all about role-playing go for the one that you like best.

I like my elven archer the best out of my characters, it's just personal taste.

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 1:15 am

your taunts and ridicule of my beloved class is breaking my mighty warrior heart

Hey, Conan the Barbarian would never say such a thing!

Fight with pride!!

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 1:42 am

@Littiz:

Entirely agree, except for the cheese part... Mages already rock WITHOUT cheese!

But of course. I concur.

Heh, I like the Black Blade of Disaster spell. I've buffed Edwin up with every spell I could think of - second to the last being the Blade - then capped it off by casting Tenser's Transformation. The results were most gratifying. Foes were being disintegrated left and right, and quite frankly, he was every bit as effective as my tanks at melee while under the spell effects. In short, he was awesome.

The higher the level, the more powerful the mage. Hit points and AC don't matter past a certain point, it seems, if you know how to use a mage.

lompo · Post by **lompo** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 2:40 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
There's no taunting or ridiculing going on, it's simply that a high-level mage is more powerful than a high-level fighter. You still need a good combination of the two for a good party, and as BG2 is all about role-playing go for the one that you like best.

I like my elven archer the best out of my characters, it's just personal taste.

You are right!!!
At low level Warriors are far more powerful than mages, they balance at mid level, but, unfortunatly (I like melee characters), there is no competition between high level mages (and sorc.) and high level warriors (only Inquisitors and, maybe, berserkers have some very limited chance).
But, luckly, BG is not a game for duels (go for Diablo, great game, if you like that), but a role game and a game where you play with a team (I always play with a team, to play alone Diablo is better!!!): and in a team is good to have different useful characters, although at high level warriors for mages are just a stronger version of their summons (maybe with the exception of Inquisitor, their true sighting and dispel magic rock).
That said I still prefer as my main Char. a fighter (but at the moment I'm giving a try to a Kensai-mage).

Bruce Lee · Post by **Bruce Lee** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 3:48 am

Granted mages are more powerful than fighters, however fighters have a more even level of performance. Unless you install MODS to make the game more difficult a fighter based party makes for the easiest way through the game. With easy meaning fewer reloads and less resting.
An all mage party is cool and very powerful but things can easily go wrong.
As someone said earlier, the game is not about duels, it is about defeating the game and a fighter based party is just more efficient at that.

Rattman · Post by **Rattman** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 5:19 am

there should be alot less mages because they would have to memorise the diffrence langanges to be a mage but low level mages dualed would seem more likley

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:10 am

@Chanak if this is true for Edwin, who starts with one attack/round, imagine it for a dual...
The usual Kensai/Mage buffed up AND with Black Blade of Disaster.... eheehhe ..... ouch!!!

@Bruce: as you have already pointed, this happens 'cause the AI acts
stupidly.... dragons stand there while you plan their deaths, mages cast always the same sequence of spells and so...

The mage class in itself is FAR more powerful, but of course, without a clever guide, they're hopeless and fall easily to an all-fighter-team..

The mods now show (and still only partially IMHO, there's always the CPU behind the enemies!!!) how magic could be damn fearsome!

damn, Weimer is a little "mad" though, I cannot beat the new Bodhi, you know, when she appears for the first time challenging you....

help!!!

blueguy · Post by **blueguy** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 2:01 pm

Originally posted by Littiz

Hey, Conan the Barbarian would never say such a thing!
Fight with pride!!

I DO fight with pride!!!! Pure merciless slaughter is the greatest thing possible (when its evil being slaughtered, like i said in the alignment thread, im a goodie

) Every hack I take, every chunk of flesh that falls from an enemy, every dead body i step over, is proof of the greatness of the warrior class.

And heres another aspect that i dont think was covered. Necessity. Lets say, hypothetically, theres a large tribe of warriors. If they never encountered hostile magic, what need would they ever have of it? There would be no magical dragons immune to their physical attacks, no over-killing magical weapons to slaughter their entire tribe. The only magic they would need would be healing clerical magic for the occasional illness. Now, on the other hand, a society of mages will always need manpower to back up their doings. They will always need fighters to ward off dragons, or goblins, or smaller tasks that magic would be a waste to use on. Fighters can survive without mages, but mages can't survive without fighters.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:12 am

Once again I feel obliged to mention summons.

Your whole never-seen-magic before tribe will go down pretty quick to a physical-damage immune Mordenkainen's sword. Their non-magic weapons won't stop a summoned Pit Fiend, while the Protected from Evil mage sits there laughing at them.

blueguy · Post by **blueguy** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 1:49 pm

what i was trying to get at was that this hypothetical tribe could survive well enough without hostile magic, be it FOR them or AGAINST them. They just may get slaughtered if they were attacked by magical beings, but im saying that they would survive well enough in a world without magic. if magic isnt threatening them, they dont NEED magic. they can exist without it. Life can exist without magic... i have a really good example too, were all kinda living in it

Querschen · Post by **Querschen** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:32 pm

I feel like I should throw in my two cents just because Im new to the board and you people hopefully arent sick of them yet. Blueguy -- I have to agree that warriors are much more independent than mages and this has been obvious through out many different games. I dont want to bring up a game I didnt play -- but when I watched a freind play UO as a warrior, if he died, he picked up a sword and got back into the mix. IF a mage wants to go out and own **** solo, they need reagents, bracers, robe etc etc. This makes mages much more high maintenance and worth it against difficult opponents but warriors work hard all the time against opponents that are both difficult and run-of-the-mill in whatever dungeon you may be charging through.

hackers>casters

Ode to a Grasshopper · Fri Jun 07, 2002 4:40 am

Originally posted by blueguy
what i was trying to get at was that this hypothetical tribe could survive well enough without hostile magic, be it FOR them or AGAINST them. They just may get slaughtered if they were attacked by magical beings, but im saying that they would survive well enough in a world without magic. if magic isnt threatening them, they dont NEED magic. they can exist without it. Life can exist without magic... i have a really good example too, were all kinda living in it

That's true, but I for one sort of mourn the lack of magic in modern life.

That's why I retreat to BG2, where I can converse with dragons.

blueguy · Post by **blueguy** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 1:32 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
That's true, but I for one sort of mourn the lack of magic in modern life.

Theres no magic in modern life THAT WE KNOW OF

just keep that in mind of course, theres no reason to not believe in it