|
There are a couple of other threads going on where I see comments regarding the lack of quality thieves in SOA. I was wondering what makes the situation regarding thieves different from that of any other class (especially compared to BG1)
Looking at Thieves first - it takes two to really excell anyway, unless all you're looking for is "find traps" and open locks - in which case, isn't Jan the man (or gnome). Imoen has good pick pockets. Nalia's skills are more a bonus to her magery.
Mages - apart from Edwin, all are severely limited by INT. This class more than any other begs to be played by the PC, no other way to get the best abilities, coupled with the great equipment for them. BUT it's possible to go without one.
Clerics (Druids) - A requirement for any group - non of the NPCs are brilliant, but IMO a brilliant cleric is not _that_ much better than an average one (compare to mages, where good is much better). Which gives you chance to pick on other abilities.
Fighter types - best selection, but probably only one outstanding candidate in Korgan (Mazzy second maybe). Minsc is nice, but could be better (no real specialisation). Keldorn is only an average paladin (but that obviously gives him a certain huge advantage). Where's the archers? (missiles can still be useful), where's the grandmastery skills (Korgan excepted)?
In summary, I don't think any of the NPCs are brilliant, but they are certainly more than adequate for compensating where your own skills lack. I found in BG1 that it was possible to go through most of the story with just the NPCs (I tagged along for the ride). SOA forces you into using _everyones_ skills. The fact that none of those are outstanding makes that better IMO.
Thoughts?
|