Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Ranged in BG 1 is godly, low enemy HP (and your own too !)
outdated AI (attack first thing you see even if its a big plate armored guy with a tower shield)
and some range weapons even come with 2 or even 3 base APR or hit bonuses.
as for BG2 there is Shortbow of Gesen+4 as you said but you have to assemble it. much faster is Firetooth+4 in watchers keep , you can have it the second you can toss the gold into the merchants face and are set up for every bossfight.
though most will stick to Tuigan bow+3 for the Average enemy. slamming down 5 Arrows a round is just to good.
Talking about arrows , fire and acid are dirt cheap and do double the dmg, hell you even get a +1 unlimited arrow bag just poking your nose into watchers keep.
the party needs only one front line character and that can basically be anyone with low AC. Amusingly Mages make the best Tanks they get AC levels lower than actual Plate classes and layer up with stoneskins and mirror images.
90% of BG combat is smacking away Trash enemy's and standing in each others way is a poor tactic.
so your party has no reason to ever be in melee unless you fighting a slime or golem..or one of the few and on one hand countable enemys that need a +4 weapon to hit.
Fighters stop progressing at lvl13 aside marginal THAC0 increases up to lvl20
the game has tons of Fighter-like characters who make magnificent front line characters , and you only need one to take the heat off your party.
you getting a solid +1dmg/Hit every 3 level up to +10 !, arrows "only" do 1d6 dmg so at the end of the game you will hit an average of 2-3 times as hard as any other character in range. the only one who can hope to come even close is the kensai but they are stuck with throwing weapons and wear even less armor. or close third a swashbuckler ... with the same problem (though he can use gesens and firetooth!) and those classes are not in the game as Companion.
or just love for big easy numbers. no one else gives you more performance for less micromanagement.
- removed damage bonus from bows\crossbows, with what - two exceptions?
- removed damage bonus from arrows\bolts. And very few merchants even sell those bad arrows in big enough quantities that you wouldn't run out of them after a few fights.
- since you don't receive any damage bonus from strength either when using missiles, even epic level archers can't deal nearly as much damage as a regular fighter. And everyone who isn't an archer just better find something else to do with their time other than shooting.
- lack of enchanted arrows leaves you with a choise between one bow, or two in the late game.
- plenty of enemies who are either resistant, or straight up immune to missiles.
- most game takes place in rather close quarters, so it's difficult to even keep enough distance from enemies to get a few shots at them before they close in. And while archer can take a thac0 penalty without too much trouble, the fact that enemies get attack bonuses against them does hurt.
- oh, since archers were still too op to leave them in peace, after reaching epic levels, they start only receiving bonuses to hit and damage once every 5 levels instead of 3, which is not even mentioned anywhere in class description. And since rangers in general need a lot of xp for each level up, that leaves them with not much of a bonus even by the end of ToB.
So yeah, without Gessen's bow archers are just weak, and you can't get it until late game. And even with Gessen's bow, at best they can somewhat keep up with melee warriors. Kind of. They can't even claim the title of the best ranged weapon user, cause that would be knife-throwing kensai, who keeps all of his bonuses and kicks butt in melee as well.
I like archers, but unfortunately aside from RP there's really no good reasons to pick them.
kensai can melee if needed, and actually get quite good as a tank with spirit armor and defensive harmony cast on them, hardiness activated and defender of easthaven in the off hand.
called shot is actually not that good. I find that I like to try and mentally dominate the toughest faighters I'm up against and called shot just makes them ♥♥♥♥ at fighting.
I ended up liking plain Fighter as a better bowman over Archer, simply because Fighters can hit higher level than Rangers. Why's that important? Most HLAs can be used with ranged weaponry (that includes stuff like Power Attack, Greater Deathblow, Critical Strike and Smite) and higher level means more HLAs: Any Fighter who is not using 2handers will only pick up 3-5 Hardiness, the rest is entirely optional.
You'd be surprised how useful Imp. Hasted bowman + Power Attack can be. Did I mention those Fighter HLAs bypasses Magic Resistance? Have fun stunning Drows & Mind Flayers left and right :)
I love my Kensai. But really, being naked is pretty much a death sentence in LoB difficulty, so you have to use it with throwable weapons (daggers, axes, hammers) only. And they do amazing with them. I, however, prefer the speed, and most importantly, the range of the Archer. Numbers wise, the Kensai does more damage. But I think the Archer is the best killer in the game when you take into account how little micromanagement they need, and the overall damage they do.
Mate, I don't know what more you want, playing with my Archer feels almost like a cheat code, and I play LoB most of the time. They are BG's version of a machine gun. Is interesting, you complain about one of, if not the most powerful class kits in the game as if it sucks.
There is a crossbow and two shortbows in the game that fire their own arrows. Also, you can increase the number of arrows a merchant sells by buying a stack, and the sell it the stack back. The merchant will increase its stock of those stacks by 40 each time you do that. Being an Archer takes tons of money spent in arrows, or bolts, but that's the price you pay for that killing speed. Money in BG 2 is not an issue. You won't be able to spend most of the money you earned. So that has never bothered me.
Mate... have you actually played an Archer before? They receave bonus from Dexterity. And they do orders of magnitude more damage than a fighter using the same type of range weapon.
That would suck for someone soloing an Archer. Most people would use it in a party, so in the event such enemy appears the rest of the party will deal with it. Oh, and those enemies are not nearly as common as you make it sound.
The only times this is a problem is during ambushes. Your Mage should always have a wand of summoning handy so that when that happens immidiately there's a bunch of cheap summons spawned to distract foes, thus allowing your archer to reposition. Interesting enough, I haven't have any problems like this with any of my Archers as my foes tend to go for the squishy mages and thieves first and ignore the Archer altogether.
Not true at all! The best bow for an Archer is the Tuigan bow. Granted it only gives a +1 bonus to thaco and dmg, but happily the Archer gets all the Thaco and damage it needs, and if you resell stacks to the merchant you'll get infinite +2 arrows in SoA. In ToB they sell +3 arrows. So it's really just a handful of foes you are going to need the Gensen bow for due to their enchanment requirement. The Tuigan bow gives an extra attack per round, so when your Mage cast "Improved Haste" on the Archer, the guy turns into a machine gun!
At this point I'm wondering if you and I have played the same game mate. Nothing you said there made sense.
- Fighter Archer -
This dude is telling the truth. I think Basic NPC Mazzy is a better archer then the Archer Kit. I would say Archer might do more dmg, but I dont even know if thats true.
I am playing a thief/Mage archer right now with Tuigan and quiver +2 and he is doing 30% of my dmg. He can also take care of all my traps and locks. Oh an he has a ton of usefull spells. UAI makes this even better because you cause haste then the harp of whatever that knocks everyone back and mow them down. Thing has 3 charges.. Archer might do more dmg with a bow, but if i had to pick between the 2 id for sure take the thief/mage.
If you are speaking subjectively, as in that is what you prefer, then I have no arguments there. But if you are presenting that as an objective opinion, then I disagree, and I have to. And it's worth it to explain why, since there are people that are new to the game, or at least are no that well familiar to it, that may be seriously misinformed by the info in this thread. So let's clear out the fog here.
When we say ranged weapons in BG2 we are specifically referring to longbows, shortbows, crossbows, and slings. Archers can have up to 5 prof slots on any of them except the slings. They can only have up to 2 prof iciency in slings. This is explained by the fact slings get STR bonuses, while the others all get Dexterity bonuses. The Archer is clearly a Dexterity oriented toon. That's why the very best ones are Elven because of their ability to reach 19 Dexterity. In terms of BG, range weapons are considered a different class than throawable weapons. Which means throawable axes/hammers/daggers aren't considered in the same class as bows. And throawable weapons ALL get STR bonus to damage. This means the slings are indeed a weird type of weapon, because they are considered range weapons, while at the same type behaving like a throawable weapons in terms of bonus.
If we define an archer, as a guy that uses range weapons, then, I can pretty much tell you that the "Fighter Archer" is not even close to the Archer in terms of Thaco, Damage, and Attacks per Round. The Fighter will have advantages over the Archer, primarily three of them; A. The fighter can wear what ever armor he/she wants while the Ancher is stuck with Studded Leather. B. The Fighter can put up to 5 proficiency slots into a secondary weapon, like a melee weapon, which would mean the Fighter would be just as strong a melee combatant as it would be with a range weapon. C. Fighters can have up to 5 prof slots on slings, and take advantage of a nice STR bonus to damage and thaco while the Archer can only have 2 prof slots in that weapon. Clearly, the Fighter is about versatility, while the Archer is about specialization in range combat.
So which one is best is really based on what is your need to complement your party. If your party already has melee covered via another toon, you should really consider the Archer, since its killing potential is simply not matched by the fighter. Assuming the Archer is fighting in his/her element in the fight. As another poster explained, there are foes (like certain golems) that are immune to range weapons. Although those foes are actually quite rare. They do exists, and you will eventually encounter them. In such situation, your Archer can actually fight them using a melee weapon, since they can have up to one prof slots in them. It's just that they won't be awesome with them because of this limitation. When creating an Archer, you should always account for foes that the Archer won't be able to fight that well, this holds true for pretty much ALL toons, and not just the Archer. That's why party balance is so important in BG2.
Overall, the fighter, because of its versatility, would be more helpful to most parties thanks to that ability to excel at melee as well as range. But if the party already covered melee with another toon, then the choices should be between the Kensai and the Archer.
Now the comparison between the Kensai and the Archer is an interesting one. The Kensai does more damage, and the Archer has better attacks per round. Right off the bat the Archer has the advantage. If you have guy A attacking for 10-20 damage twice per round, and guy B attacking for 10-15 damage three times per round, guy A may look like is stronger, but in reality guy B is doing more damage. Attacks per round isn't the only advantage the Archer has over the kensai. The Kensai can't wear ANY armor, which means he's an aggro sucker. Foes would love to go for that squishy Kensai, and if you play in LoB difficulty, were melee foes can kill you in seconds, you will have to micromanage the Kensai a hell of a lot more. Further more, since the Kensai uses throawable weapons instead of rage weapons, it doesn't have the range of the Archer, which puts him closer to the fight. Still, I believe the choice between the Kensai and the Archer should be approached with care, since the kensai would have more hit points, and would be able to damage more foes than the Archer due to the weapon types he/she would have available. So which is best? I say it's all up to taste. I love both, and if you do too, then know that you have to play them slightly differently due to their differences. Archer is more friendly to beginners because of less micromanaging. That right there is an important detail to consider.
With Mazzy being a Fighter, for the reasons I explained above, she isn't on par with an Archer in terms of dmg, thaco, and APR. However, she would still benefit from the Fighter advantages I explored in detail in my summary above.
Multiclass toons will always outclass single class toons in terms of versatility. That's why you don't really compare the two. If magery, thieving, and melee are already covered by other toons in your party, the Archer would be a great complement, since with the right equipment it will be a literal machine gun, and will kill most foes with amazing speed. The Archer kit is there for people who already covered all bases in their party, and want a killer to make things easier. And at that, which is the Archer's sole job, it excels like nothing else in the game really. With the Kensai being its only counter.
Hope that helps and cheers!
Yes "archery" if skilled to Grand master early on in the series is amazing, regardless of being a fighter or Archer.
Archers in terms of Ranged bow/xbow damage start to really outshine fightersat at the start of BG2 Shadows of Amn, where 2-3 Damage, and hit chance (by that stage) starts to add up considering the bace damage for bows at that stage is 1-6, meaning an archer with grand mastery will do 8-13 or 9-14 damage per hit, which is a big upgrade to a figher just doing 6-11 whitch the fighter can only futher upgrade slightly with a good bow.
At the start of BG1 you start with no bonus damage at level 1, and get 1 damage every 3 levels. It's a tiny bonus though BG1, Which depending on the roll of a dice, a fighter might easely match or even outperform, Also because arrow damage has bonuses which where removed in BG2.. in BG1........ lets see, +2 arrows 3-8 Damage + 4 from Mastery of weapon ( Can't reach 5 in BG1), +2 from easy to get Braces. +2 for a good bow (Avoiding the Composit Longbow +1 as people don't power game Longbow) so that adds up to 11-16 damage "before the +2 from archer kit". It's extra damage but it's not really noticable.
Melee weapons when you get to The Throne of Bhaal expansion start to really shine, as you will get massive strength boost to melee damage, in the order between 7-13 extra damage. Ranged weapons don't get this sort of bonus at all, "But", Archers, do get the kit bonus which can matches the strength bonus and closses the gap. In this way a fighter really can't compare to an archer when using bows in terms of end game, as fighter's don't get that bonus and are stuck doing the same damage more or less as through BG@ shadows of Amn. The damage really iasn't there.
Base damage for an arrow in BG2 is 1-6, the only way to improve this is via A. special magical bow/xbow, B. Kit bonuses like the archer has. But even with those bonusses you will be doing similar damage "Per Hit" as most end game 1 handed weapons, and underperforming against a bunch. That being said, you do have a general attack speed advantage which evens things out. All That Considered, A fighter can still cheese out more a decent amount of extra damage over an archer by Throne of Bhaal if power gamed just right.
Therefore, the place that Archers actually shine as better than most, is through the Shadow of Amn expansion. It also does fine if you don't power game through the rest. If you wan't to be the best physical damage dealer through the whole series, a fighter who starts out focused on bows, then switches to melee by the end is you best bet.
But Power gaming that much sux, if you just want to pick up and play and know if the archer is viable throughout with what your general plans might be, then my initial post as is, stands.
Kit by itselft doesn't suck, but bows and xbows do, and that hampers the potential of an archer.
I'm not sure what are you trying to proove with all of your following replies. That archers are better than melee warriors? Well that simply isn't true. Even archers themselves, armed with a pair of good melee weapons may end up dealing more damage, than they would have if they were shooting. And a melee powerhouse, like kensai, will leave them so far behind that there's just no comparison.
Archer's bonuses help close the gap between ranged and melee weapons to some extent, but that's about it. The only real advantage to using bows is staying outside of range of some aoe spells, but if you're playing solo or don't have someone else to tank, then you don't even get that, meanwhile the numerous disadvantages are going to always be there for you to enjoy.
The reason why some might feel like a god machine gnning things down is because some people focus solely on decking out their main character, so compared to the rest of the group which often share in the second rate spoiles dibbied up between them, your archer will feel amazing.
Not necessarily, as I explained before the versility of a fighter with its ability to use both melee and range weapons is useful if the party in question doesn't have that base already covered and therefore it's looking for a means to consolidate the two fighting styles in one toon. Melee is powerful, but in high difficulty tiers, melee becomes quite redundant and it's often left to summons, all while range attackers stay useful throughout most of the journey.
Go try to melee "Tahassar" in the Mace level in Watcher's Keep in Legacy of Bhaal difficulty and you will see what I mean. Even if melee can outdo range in damage, it involves going face to face with your foes. That's why you can't really compare it with range fighting styles since they are really a different form of combat.
And you are wrong about that. Neither is the archer hampered by it, neither do those weapons suck at any level. They extremely powerful weapons that can dispatch most foes with ease, disrupt spell casters, and keep the user safe from being hit.
Why don't you tell me what you are trying to prove with yours then? You made erroneous statements about the Archer kit. It's worth clearifying that for those reading these threads for information.
Better than Fighters with range weapons. Did you even read my replies mate?
Now you lost whatever little respect I had for you there mate. This is the most nonsensical statement made yet. You don't know much about the class kit you are discussing. That's all there is to it.
Kensai, as I already explained, is illsuited for melee combat, due to its lack of protection and inability to wear credible protective gear. The Kensai does more damage, but lacks the attacks per round of the Archer. Further more, the kensai is at it best using throwable weapons, which means we could see it as another type of damage dealer that attacks from the distance. Go try to melee anyone in LoB difficulty and see for yourself how much of a melee guy a Kensai really is.
People compensate for that weakness by dual-classing their Kensais. I, however, would argue that a well played Kensai would be awesome as it is, and it doesn't need dual classing. You just have to micromanage it for effectiveness.
Archer bonuses ARE the point of the kit. The Archer is NOT a versatyle toon like the Fighter, neither they are utilities. They are range killers with that being their sole purpose. Only someone with an active need for that form of combat will benefit from an Archer, and for anyone falling into that category, they are the best there is in the game in terms of range combat period.
More nonsense. They keep you away from melee as well since you don't have to go face to face to inflict damage, which as I explained before, in higher tier difficulties this is extremely beneficial since foes can kill your toons in seconds. They disrupt spell casters, attack extremely fast, and do great damage. If you can't see that about range weapons in BG2, then you don't know much about the game you are commenting on.
I'm now convinced you haven't played the Archer. Which would explain your lack of knowledge on how this kit works.
If there is anything I have been promoting over the years in these forums is party balance. See if you can read my LoB difficulty guide that wrote on these forums a while ago, and check the party building tips I recommended, it's all about balance. The Archer would be a great complement for a well balanced party in which the main roles of thieving, magery, priest casting, and melee are already covered and thefore the party would benefit from a specialized killer like the Archer. Putting solo play aside, party balance is always the main focus on any success story in BG2. This is especially truthful in the higher tier difficulties. So no, I'm not evaluating the Archer from the perspective of a guy that builds its toon focused solely on it.
Leave thieving to thieves, magery to mages, melee to melee guys, and range combat to guys like the Archer. You let everyone do their intended roles. That doesn't equate "focus solely on decking out their main character." It's just playing to your toon's strenghts.
It's because you are thinking about the dificulty set to max, wheras I am thinking of Core rules and lower. Melee isn't made rudundant in those dificulties, and require a whole lot less micro managing. Higher dificullties I can imagine the entire game being asif everyone is a level 1, scared out of their brains to enter melee combat and gatting hacked to pieces within 2 seconds. lol In which case archers are likely king of ranged, or a fighter with a sling or something as mentioned before in peoples ideas for options.
I thought i was making myself pretty clear, but all right: melee weapons are way better than ranged weapons. Therefore, aside from personal preferance, there's little reason to pick a class that is focused on using raged weapons.
Yes. Did you read my posts?
I'm not saying that archer isn't better than others at using bows\xbows, i'm saying that warriors with melee weapons are going to deal more damage. I'm not sure how i can stress that any more.
Between shield amulet, potions and whatever mages\clerics can throw at them, kensai have all the protection they need. Especially since they cut just about any enemy into peaces in 1-2 rounds.
And i'm really not interested in how LoB, SSC or whatever changes things. Maybe in some mod druids will suddenly emerge as the most powerful class, but that doesn't happen in the base game.
They keep you away from melee if someone else tanks for you, or if you enjoy running around from enemies all the time. And if someone does tanks for you, then they will tank for you if you go in melee range all the same.
Yeah, they shoot at stuff with a bonus to hit\damage. This concept is too difficult for me to grasp.