[n00body]

Are two handed swords worth it? A 1 handed bastard sword does 2d4 (or 2-8 damage right?) while a two handed sword does 1d10 (1-10 damage). However this means you can't equip a shield with a 2 handed sword!! Is 2 more points of damage *really* worth having a armor class that's a couple points higher?

In my not-so-educated opinion HELL NO! If a 2 handed sword did like 2d6 + 3 then *maybe* it would be worth it.

Now, 2 handed Bows on the other handed (not those stupid 1 handed missile weapons that do no damage) seem to be worth it, especially if most of your party is using them, as you can't be hit (unless your enemy is also using a bow/missile weapon) when using a bow...the game explicity forbids this (which I think is sorta stupid. I mean a 250 lb guy is running at you and you're pumping arrows as fast as humanly possible into him and then he gets 5 feet from you and you're forced to switch to a sword or something? please...).

Now, i'm nowhere NEAR a BG expert (i've only just finished the Nashkel mines quest for the first time) but I have had some experience playing another RPG game, the first Diablo, and in that game you could shoot arrows into an enemy point blank.

And why would anyone want to specialize in a weapon, excluding missle/bow weapons, other than long swords? A standard bastard sword does just as much, if not a little more than the best blunt/etc. weapon out there. 2 handed does 10 even...

On a side note, am I the only one to notice some really stupid spells like the 2nd level priest spell goodberry that gives you 5 berries that you can give to ppl, but each berry only gives like 1 or 2 HP!? Or how about that Level 2 Priest spell Spiritual hammer that rarely hits and when it does, it does like crap damage?

Did the ppl who make Baldur's gate want to be able to brag that there were 50+ spells in the game, and make 1/4 of them really useless in the process?

P. S. Feel free to add your own useless spells, comments, etc.

[ 08-30-2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: n00body ]