Wizardslayer alterations

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by K2Grey: IMHO, giving AMA a save makes it completely pointless, compared to say Inquisitor, or you can just cast multiple Remove Magics, etc, especially when you consider that AMA takes off all buffs so chances are if the WS were to use it against a higher level enemy he'd probably dispel his entire partys buffs and fail to dispel the enemy mages.

I've reconsidered this problem, and suggest a softener: The Rebalanced Wizard Slayer gets to use his Anti-Magic Aura more often (once per day per 8 levels or so, starting at Level 1 with 1 use), but the odds of its success are 5% per caster level (for each creature in its area of effect). This would reach 100% spell removal and application of the 50% chance of spell failure once the WS hits Level 20, the same level that is the effective cap for spells such as Dispel and Remove Magic. Making the odds dependent solely on the WS's level puts all enemy spellcasters on an equal footing, thus negating Weimersaves.
Then again, having the WS reach an effective maximum at Level 20 might encourage people to plan a Dual at that level, to milk the Wizard Slayer for what they can and run for something cooler.....then again, there's really not much for a Rebalanced Wizard Slayer to Dual to, since any Mage, Cleric or Druid would simply strip his own buffs by casting AMA, and there's now hardly any reason for a Wizard Slayer to Dual to Thief.

Also for me Creeping Doom never works that well, it takes forever to cast and it takes forever for hte insects to slowly make their way over and for some reason I've hit liches with it (im pretty sure I used CD not Insect Plague) without success and also I remember hitting party members right by Imp Irenicus with Insect Plague and it didn't successfully spread to Iren.

If these were Tactics Liches, there's a chance that they might have randomly had SI:Conjuration as one of their autobuffs, or you might simply be wrong about your not casting Insect Plague by mistake. As for Improved Irenicus, he tends to teleport away whenever anyone gets within melee range, thus making it rather difficult to nail him with an Insect Plague cast on a friendly....or an Anti-Magic Aura, for that matter.

... you can just have him charge the enemies, fire AMA, then run out and instantly no one else has buffs, and this is huge because in general enemies without buffs are easy .... because the buffs in this game are ridiculous allowing you to become immune to practically everything and without some kind of dispel ability for the enemies there's just nothing that can stop them ...

Edited for length.
One of the things I dislike about Smarter Mages & Liches is the "We have all the buffs in the world, for free, and you're not allowed to have any because we'll strip you naked every time you see one of us" mentality. If they open the fight with a barrage of autobuffs (and let's not forget those Horrid Wiltings), and I respond with an AMA, and they follow up with a Level 20 Remove Magic, that's a lot closer to a level playing field than what existed previously.

Originally posted by Rataxes: When do you usually take on the lich in the docks or improved Kangaxx? They're both extremely difficult fights for non-specialized parties and the cloak and ring will probably be among the last items you acquire in SoA.

I tend to do those kinds of fights in Chapter 6, soon after getting access to 9th level spells. So, let's say I've got a Mage with 2 Level 9 slots, which means they've got to be at least Level 20, which means they need 3.75 million EXP. A Wizard Slayer with that EXP would be Level 23, proud owner of--wait for it--28% base Magic Resistance. Any Paladin could almost double that just by waving a sword around, and a Monk of equivalent EXP would have nearly triple that amount. Even when you toss the Shield of the Lost and the Sword of Balduran to the Wizard Slayer, that's a whopping 43% MR, which is decent, but hardly on a par with the 92% that the Monk has after equipping Kaligun's Amulet of Magic Resistance and the Ring of Gaxx--which the party just won and your Wizard Slayer can't wear.

....the bottom line is that Wizard Slayers are fighters, and it is with fighters their power against spellcasters should be compared. A few extra item slots and the ability to use potions doesn't compare to permanent and nonremovable MR that grows to quite impressive numbers at higher levels.

Um....I did compare them to Fighters, along with all the other classes in the game. I've been comparing them to Fighters all this time, every time I state that any other type of Warrior would stomp all over a Wizard Slayer in any type of fight except one where spellcasters dominate the scene. And bear in mind that Magic Resistance isn't exactly 'nonremovable,' as you put it. Spells such as Lower Magic Resistance, Pierce Magic, and even Shatter Magic come to mind. There is also the fact that Magic Resistance, even when very high, is small consolation to the hapless Wizard Slayer who's been targeted with a spell that ignores MR, and he's not allowed to wear an item that would grant resistance or immunity to it.

What about them? So dragons aren't bothered by spell disruption, they're still heavily reliant on dispellable buff spells. A dragon not shielded by Stoneskins or PfMW is just a naked mage with lower AC and a few hundred hit points who will fall just the same to a couple of lvl 20+ fighters with Imp Haste.

A Dragon faced with a couple of Improved Hasted Warriors is a Dragon that's about to pull a Wing Buffet and/or its Breath Weapon. And I think the analogy between a Dragon and a naked Mage shows just a little....exaggeration on your part. Dragons aren't "reliant on dispellable buff spells" anywhere near as much as they're reliant on their THAC0, ApR, AC, hitpoints, and of course their impressive Special Abilities.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: Um....I did compare them to Fighters, along with all the other classes in the game. I've been comparing them to Fighters all this time, every time I state that any other type of Warrior would stomp all over a Wizard Slayer in any type of fight except one where spellcasters dominate the scene.]

I see a lot of comparisons with monks, thieves, mages and paladins with the fighter class thrown in almost as an afterthought. I happen to think the only valid comparison is with other fighters, the main advantage fighters have over Wizard Slayers in terms of magic defense is the ability to use potions. An ability that can easily be compensated for in a party game.

And bear in mind that Magic Resistance isn't exactly 'nonremovable,' as you put it. Spells such as Lower Magic Resistance, Pierce Magic, and even Shatter Magic come to mind. There is also the fact that Magic Resistance, even when very high, is small consolation to the hapless Wizard Slayer who's been targeted with a spell that ignores MR, and he's not allowed to wear an item that would grant resistance or immunity to it.

We are discussing this in the context of party game right? There's no question that a Wizard Slayer has a very high maximum potential, which he would reach quite early on in a solo game. Anyway, in a party game a Wizard Slayer probably has both a friendly mage and a cleric who can bestow him with protective spells that are fully comparable to most of the potions a regular fighter can use that are barred from the Wizard Slayer. In any fight where MR-reducing spells become an issue I think it's safe to assume that dispel/remove magic becomes an issue even earlier, which makes this an issue of who has the best nondispellable magical defense. A Wizard Slayer will have better nondispellable defenses against magic than a regular fighter at almost any point in the game.

A Dragon faced with a couple of Improved Hasted Warriors is a Dragon that's about to pull a Wing Buffet and/or its Breath Weapon. And I think the analogy between a Dragon and a naked Mage shows just a little....exaggeration on your part. Dragons aren't "reliant on dispellable buff spells" anywhere near as much as they're reliant on their THAC0, ApR, AC, hitpoints, and of course their impressive Special Abilities.

What I mean is that the time span that an enemy can survive a physical attack onslaught by high level warriors with Critical Strikes and Imp Haste, is fairly similar regardless of HP, compared to the time span he can survive with intact magical defenses. This is without taking things such as permanent physical damage resistances in account, but dragons usually don't have much of that compared to normal mages.

[ 04-11-2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[White Lancer]

I'd just like to ask how comparing WSs to Monks is not valid? Both have inate MR, with the monk having MUCH more. Paladins? sure they dont have inate MR, but equip a certain sword (yes we all know the one) and suddenly they have 50% MR. I remember smoeone stating the Carsomyr doesnt stack with other items... well thats true, unless it is equiped first. Carsomyr SETS MR to 50%, then anything with +%MR adds to that. Also, a paladin is a holy WARIOR how could comparing them be wrong? An inquisitor wielding Carsomyr would be MUCH more effective mage killer than the WS, by far.

[White Lancer]

I'd just like to ask how comparing WSs to Monks is not valid? Both have inate MR, with the monk having MUCH more. Paladins? sure they dont have inate MR, but equip a certain sword (yes we all know the one) and suddenly they have 50% MR. I remember smoeone stating the Carsomyr doesnt stack with other items... well thats true, unless it is equiped first. Carsomyr SETS MR to 50%, then anything with +%MR adds to that. Also, a paladin is a holy WARIOR how could comparing them be wrong? An inquisitor wielding Carsomyr would be MUCH more effective mage killer than the WS, by far.

[Rataxes]

I'd just like to ask how comparing WSs to Monks is not valid? Both have inate MR, with the monk having MUCH more

Monks are monks and Wizard Slayers are fighters. They are completely different classes so it's only to be expected that their performance differs for certain tasks. If the Wizard Slayer was a lesser mage killer than another fighter kit, I'd admit to a problem, but they aren't for most part. Furthermore, Wiz Slayers do eventually get more MR than Monks, when that happens depends on the size of your party as it could happen in Chapter 2 just as well as the end of ToB.

Paladins? sure they dont have inate MR, but equip a certain sword (yes we all know the one) and suddenly they have 50% MR

If it was such a gross injustice that a class not designed to kill mages could become better at it than a kit designed for that very task by equipping a single item, then perhaps the error lies with Carsomyr and not with the Wizard Slayer? Hmmm.

I remember smoeone stating the Carsomyr doesnt stack with other items... well thats true, unless it is equiped first. Carsomyr SETS MR to 50%, then anything with +%MR adds to that

Carsomyr resets your MR (not counting innate) to 50% with each swing. Unless you can be bothered re-equip your other MR boosting items after each bloody swing you take, it effectively sets your MR to 50%.

An inquisitor wielding Carsomyr would be MUCH more effective mage killer than the WS, by far.

I don't see why Inquisitors shouldn't be as good or better at killing mages than Wizard Slayers. 'Eliminating practitioners of magic' happens to be the speciality of that particular kit as well, and they're worse fighters and level up more slowly than Wiz Slayers do. Furthermore these two belong to two different classes and have radically different means of dealing with spellcasters.


I stand by that the main question here is: Is the Wizard Slayer weaker than the standard fighter class and the other fighter kits, and more importantly, is it worse at dealing with spellcasters than the other fighter kits?

If the answer is no, and I think it is, then no improvement is needed.

[ 04-11-2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by K2Grey: I don't think its possible to make non-humans dual class. Maybe you could pull it off with Shadowkeeper. There is no particular logical rationale why non-humans can't dual class, or why humans can't multi, but 2e D&D is full of that kind of stuff and what's even more annoying is when people try to defend it.

It all comes back to the rule set, back when halflings and elves and dwarves were classes demihumans were always considered multiclassed (halflings were fighter/thieves, elves were fightermages, and dwarves IIRC were fighters), thus Dualclassing was the only way for humans to pick up new classes and class abilities. It stuck, and provides a very keen difference between human's and non-humans. One of the few advantages humans get, esp since level limits are not implemented (who would play a 1/2 orc cleric if they were lvl limit 4). Humans can't see in the dark, they don't get +1 to hit with swords or bows, they aren't resistant to poison or magic, can't hit orcs extra good, etc etc.

If you want "everyone to be balanced and equal" play 3E, BG2 is 2nd edition (with some 3E spells) Extra stuff from the 2.5E stuff (players option/dm's option books, like grandmastery and 10th lvl spells/quest spells) and a handful of 1st edition things brought in (barbarian, monk, assassin kit, etc).

[ 04-11-2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by Rataxes: I see a lot of comparisons with monks, thieves, mages and paladins with the fighter class thrown in almost as an afterthought. I happen to think the only valid comparison is with other fighters, the main advantage fighters have over Wizard Slayers in terms of magic defense is the ability to use potions. An ability that can easily be compensated for in a party game.

IIRC, the only classes I've mentioned more than once are Monks and assorted Warriors, to which Wizard Slayers are ripe for comparison. You will recall that one of the objectives of the Rebalanced WS mod was "to forcibly boot the Monk and Inquisitor the hell out of the Wizard Slayer's proper place," since they are far better at dispatching spellcasters than a WS could ever be, excepting a Dual to Thief of course. But, since you insist on a comparison with Fighters, here you are:

WIZARD SLAYER
Advantages:

• Each melee hit (given sufficient weapon enchantment) causes 10% chance of Spell Failure in the victim (cumulative)
• 1% Magic Resistance per level

Disadvantages:

• Can use hardly any items or potions that provide valuable protection from spellcasters, such as Saving Throws, Magic Resistance, elemental resistances, immunities, etc. There are a few exceptions in the form of some half-decent Helms and Shields, but that's it.

FIGHTER
Advantages:

• Can use weapons that cause elemental damage (such as Stonefire, Frostreaver, the Flail of Ages, Wyvern's Tail, Ashideena, Halcyon, and Dragon's Breath) just as well as any Wizard Slayer can, thus pretty much equalizing the Wizard Slayer's precious Spell Failure trick
• Can use items that grant at least 20% Magic Resistance (which the Wizard Slayer can't compete with until frickin' ToB), essentially free, along with a -5 bonus to AC, -4 to Saving Throws, +3 to Strength, some nice Regeneration, -1 to THAC0, and +2 to Damage on every flippin' hit.

Disadvantages:

• Can't get 85% innate Magic Resistance in the last 15 minutes of the game

In any fight where MR-reducing spells become an issue I think it's safe to assume that dispel/remove magic becomes an issue even earlier, which makes this an issue of who has the best nondispellable magical defense. A Wizard Slayer will have better nondispellable defenses against magic than a regular fighter at almost any point in the game.

First point--not really, to me, it becomes more of an issue of who can replace those defenses quickly, without taking up a round of one of your teammates' precious casting time. Say your Cleric went around casting Resist Fire/Cold on everybody, and Firkraag counters that with a Lower Fire Resistance. Well, a Fighter can have a few Potions of Fire Resistance tucked in his belt, a Paladin or Ranger can also whip out a scroll of Protection from Fire, and any of them can wear the Ring of Fire Resistance. The Wizard Slayer, though....
Second point--you mean better innate nondispellable defenses. Given the magic-protecting gear that's thrown around like candy in this game, a Fighter would practically have to be buck naked before he would start looking envious of the Wizard Slayer's glorious 1% MR per level.

Monks are monks and Wizard Slayers are fighters. They are completely different classes so it's only to be expected that their performance differs for certain tasks. If the Wizard Slayer was a lesser mage killer than another fighter kit, I'd admit to a problem, but they aren't for most part.

Does their base class really matter all that much? If the world heavyweight boxing champion gets the snot kicked out of him by some dental hygienist from Cleveland, doesn't that just make it all the more embarassing?
As for Monks--Monks have THAC0, ApR, and AC powers that very closely match that of any Warrior (I've never played one, so I can't be specific), so I'm going so say that they tie with the Wizard Slayer in pure hack & slash power. And since the Wizard Slayer's spell Disruption is essentially useless, the only factor that matters is Magic Resistance, in which we see total Monk ownage. And let's not forget that Monks can Stealth. Result: The Wizard Slayer is completely eclipsed by the Monk, except in cases where using Magic Helmets, Shields, Armor, 2-Handed weapons, or some Dual-wielding combination might even out that imbalance.
But who needs Monks, let's do this with the Fighter: Given the speed and ease with which any decent party can obtain items like the Rop+2, Cloak of the Sewers, Ring of Earth Control, Girdle of Hill Giant Strength, etc., the question is fairly simple: Is it better to be immune to most spells 15% (on average) of the time, or have a -2 bonus (at least) to Saving Throws, and full immunity to certain spells, all of the time?

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: IIRC, the only classes I've mentioned more than once are Monks and assorted Warriors, to which Wizard Slayers are ripe for comparison. You will recall that one of the objectives of the Rebalanced WS mod was "to forcibly boot the Monk and Inquisitor the hell out of the Wizard Slayer's proper place," since they are far better at dispatching spellcasters than a WS could ever be, excepting a Dual to Thief of course. But, since you insist on a comparison with Fighters, here you are:

I'll admit that the spell disruption isn't as useful as one would hope, it would've been nice if that particular effect could actually pierce PfMW, but it does have it's uses. Regular fighters can't do much for spell disruption against a mage with PfMW up since no normal weapon (lets forget about ranged weapons here) deals elemental damage, but a Wizard Slayer could cause considerable problems for a mage with nothing but his fists if it came to that.

We've been through what his item restrictions essentially mean before, I don't think the items he's barred from make a considerable difference, especially not since a powerful item your PC can't use is just a powerful item you can pass on to another party member who is very likely to be able to make as good use of it as the PC. Before you have more powerful cloaks or rings than you can distribute between the members of your party who need them, the MR of your Wizard Slayer has likely already risen to a considerable amount. The inability to use potions can hurt I admit, even though I very rarely use anything but healing potions myself. Protective spells cast by other party members will serve just as well in most situations though.

First point--not really, to me, it becomes more of an issue of who can replace those defenses quickly, without taking up a round of one of your teammates' precious casting time. Say your Cleric went around casting Resist Fire/Cold on everybody, and Firkraag counters that with a Lower Fire Resistance. Well, a Fighter can have a few Potions of Fire Resistance tucked in his belt, a Paladin or Ranger can also whip out a scroll of Protection from Fire, and any of them can wear the Ring of Fire Resistance. The Wizard Slayer, though....

I didn't know Firkraag even had such an ability, you mean to say you often find the time to use anything but healing potions and special abilities in the heat of battle, or is this just what is hypothetically possible? I can't think of any situation in a battle when I'd rather waste my one action per round on drinking a potion of fire resistance instead of healing myself or use a special ability. I use special potions as a means of prebuffing before a battle. If these effects are dispelled in the middle of battle, well that sucks but usually you have way more important things to worry about by then than to replace them.

Does their base class really matter all that much? If the world heavyweight boxing champion gets the snot kicked out of him by some dental hygienist from Cleveland, doesn't that just make it all the more embarassing? As for Monks--Monks have THAC0, ApR, and AC powers that very closely match that of any Warrior (I've never played one, so I can't be specific), so I'm going so say that they tie with the Wizard Slayer in pure hack & slash power.

Wizard Slayers have more HP, likely better ApR, likely better THAC0, do more damage and have better AC for a large part of the game and are far better at actually killing mages than Monks because they can actually effectively use elemental damage weapons and normal weapons for PfMW (and still cause spell disruption too). A monk has nothing but his fists which for a large part of the game are slow, never cause elemental damage, and faced with PfMW he's absolutely pathetic. All a monk is really good for is soaking up magic attacks. In that particular area he has a definite advantage over Wizard Slayers for part of the game, but that's it.

Given the speed and ease with which any decent party can obtain items like the Rop+2, Cloak of the Sewers, Ring of Earth Control, Girdle of Hill Giant Strength, etc., the question is fairly simple: Is it better to be immune to most spells 15% (on average) of the time, or have a -2 bonus (at least) to Saving Throws, and full immunity to certain spells, all of the time? [/qb]

Wizard slayers will have considerably more MR than 15% when it actually begins to matter (late SoA and ToB). Furthermore, why not have both? With a Wizard Slayer in your party who cannot use and doesn't need those items, you're free to equip them on another fighter. Voila, you now have two fighters with good protection against magic.

[ 04-12-2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[SixOfSpades]

Sorry. Would have gotten back to this much sooner, but this week has really knocked me for a loop.

Rataxes, you are correct in that a WS is the clear winner (compared to a Fighter or Monk) when it comes to using a Normal weapon on a Mage protected by PfMW. But I must point out that this tactic is worthless against Liches, and Liches are almost more common than Mages anyway. More importantly, the easier way to handle Wizards is to concentrate on defense (or lure their non-spellcasting friends away from them) and until all their good spells are gone, and in this vein, the Monk and pure Fighter are easily better than the Wizard Slayer.

Regarding WSs "not needing" good MR items, which can then be shared among the party: It is much more important to have a simgle person with 100% MR than three people with 65% each. There are almost NO fights in the game where you have to take your entire party up against a dangerous spellcaster--the only one that I can think of right now is Deirex.

I know Tactics Firkraag has a Lower Fire Resistance ability, and perhaps he does even in standard BG2 as well (given the brevity of most Dragon fights, it might not have come early enough in his script to have been seen much). Given the choice of a Potion that will heal 27 hitpoints and a Potion that will render me immune to any future Fire damage, darn right I'll take the latter of the two.

As I said, I've never played a Monk, so I can't go into the niceties of Monk vs. Wizard Slayer melee prowess, but I do know that they are at least comparable, which is more than I can say for their Magic Resistances during almost the entire game.

Yes, WSs will indeed have more than 15% MR during the latter part of the game. I chose that figure as the average value held during all of SoA--which, after all, takes up roughly 3/4ths of the time required to play all the way through the game. For a concrete example, I have a party in Chapter 6. With Unfinished Business, Quest Pack, and Tactics installed, they have done everything available without actually entering Suldenessellar (this includes all of Watcher's Keep) except the last couple of Fighter Stronghold quests. The PC has the highest EXP of the party (never having died and having been Party Leader for most of the game), and is a Level 30 Berserker. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my figures say that a Wizard Slayer of equivalent EXP would have 45% innate Magic Resistance.
Do you, Rataxes, actually hold that the inability to use Rings, Cloaks, Amulets, Gauntlets, Belts, and almost every single type of Potion there is, for at least 3/4ths of the game, is actually worth having a Magic Resistance lower than what any Paladin could get just for killing a Dragon and using a sword that would be quite useful even if it didn't confer MR?!?

What I find most usual about this thread is the fact that Cerek hasn't chimed in. Surely he must have some Wizard Slayer insights to share with us?

[SimDing0]

Why should a Monk be better at dealing with (resisting) spellcasters than a Wizard Slayer? That seems somewhat counter-intuitive.