Fighter > Cleric vs. Fighter > Mage

[Azred]

I never give any fighter-type more than ++ specialization in any weapon; once your fighter gets above 13th level the extra weapon proficiency slot makes little to no difference. I would rather have my fighters be able to use a wider variety of weapons than be some sort of super-specialist in only one or two weapons.

[NobleNick]

darkmage,

I agree with Aerich on the Maces. Not so sure I agree with my old friend Azred on the stacking: Check out the chart, below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
. THAC0, Damage and Attacks per Round (ApR) Bonus vs. Proficiency Points (PP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonuses To THAC0, Weapon Damage and ApR, vs. Proficiency Points in the weapon.


_#_OF_|___TOTAL_PP_BONUS_TO___|
__PP__|_THAC0_|_DAMAGE_|__APR__|
___0__|___-1__ |___-1___|___0.0__|
___1__|____0__ |____0___|___0.0__|
___2__|___+1__ |___+2___|__+0.5__|
___3__|___+3__ |___+3___|__+0.5__|
___4__|___+3__ |___+4___|__+0.5__|
___5__|___+3__ |___+5___|__+1.5__| <-- extra 1.0 ApR going from 4 to 5 PP is not a typo.

- Chart data for ApR, only, is verified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the difference between the 5 PP and the 2 PP bonuses in a weapon is: 2 points THAC0; 3 points damage; and a full ApR.

Let's take two Fighters at CLVL 13. Both have identically rolled stats, including STR = 18. Fighter A has 2 PP in Mace and Fighter B has 5 PP in Mace. Assume both have a +3 Mace.

Fighter A has: THAC0 of 6 - 3 = 3; Avg. Damage = 5 (Base weapon) + 3 (Weapon bonus) + 3 (STR bonus, IIRC) + 2 (PP bonus) = 13; ApR = 1 (base) + 0.5 (CLVL 7) + 0.5 (CLVL 13) + 0.5 (PP bonus) = 2.5.

Fighter B has: THAC0 of 6 - 5 = 1; Avg. Damage = 5 (Base weapon) + 3 (Weapon bonus) + 3 (STR bonus, IIRC) + 5 (PP bonus) = 16; ApR = 1 (base) + 0.5 (CLVL 7) + 0.5 (CLVL 13) + 1.5 (PP bonus) = 3.5.

Example 1: Both Fighters meet an enemy with AC = 3. (3 - 3) = 0 and (1 - 3) = -1. Since both numbers are 1 or less, the differences in THAC0 do not matter. Both Fighters hit normally 90% of the time, and get a critical miss 5% of the time and a critical hit for double damage 5% of the time. It is not quite true, but to keep the math simple, call this equivalent to a 95% hit rate at single damage. Then Fighter A AVERAGES (13 HP Damage/Hit) x (0.95 Hits/Attack) x (2.5 Attacks per Round) = about 31 HP damage/Round. Fighter B AVERAGES (16 HP Damage/Hit) x (0.95 Hits/Attack) x (3.5 Attacks per Round) = about 53 HP damage/Round. Fighter B dishes out about 72% more damage per round than Fighter A. That is significant.

Example 2: Same as Example 1; but the enemy AC = -3. Again, we'll call the effects from critical hit and critical miss an approximate net zero effect. Fighter A: THAC0 of 3 - (AC of -3) = 6; so hits per attack = (20-(6+1))/20 = 13/20 = 0.65 . So Fighter A AVERAGES (13 HP Damage/Hit) x (0.65 Hits/Attack) x (2.5 Attacks per Round) = about 21 HP damage/Round. Fighter B: THAC0 of 1 - (AC of -3) = 4; so hits per attack = (20-(4+1))/20 = 15/20 = 0.75 . So Fighter B AVERAGES (16 HP Damage/Hit) x (0.75 Hits/Attack) x (3.5 Attacks per Round) = about 42 HP damage/Round. Fighter B dishes out about 100% MORE damage per round than Fighter A. So Fighter B wreaks about as much havoc as two Fighters of the caliber of Fighter A: Very significant.

The lower the opponent's AC (the tougher the opponent), the better Fighter B will perform in comparison to the less specialized Fighter A.

Azred's desire for versatility is well founded. Fighter B's effectiveness against an opponent immune to crushing damage is zero. I address that problem by making sure that I have AT LEAST one Fighter specializing in slashing *AND* AT LEAST one Fighter specializing in crushing *AND* AT LEAST two Fighters specializing in piercing damage weapons (Bow and arrows cover piercing). For most fights, all weapon types are effective; and your highly specialized warriors just mow through their opponents.

--------------------
What's a party,
without a song?
Bards ROCK!
Party On!!

[Azred]

I also view my fighter types differently than most. If I am reading the tone of most people's posts correctly, they are thinking of desiging their fighers for maximum offensive carnage. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] I use my fighters defensively, making sure that opponents are kept in a general area which is thickly blanketed by Web, Cloudkill, Death Fog, etc. I try to combine items and spells which will make my fighters either 1) very difficult to hit through a very low AC or 2) maximize their damage resistance.

Especially when playing in HoF, the second goal is of prime importance. Once a fighter attains 100% slashing damage, most opponents are simply walking corpses--it is only a matter of time before my invulnerable fighter kills them. Crushing resistance maxes at 95% if using only items from the game; this means the cute little Remorhaz will hit you for only 5 damage instead of 100.... Piercing resistance is hard to obtain and maxes at only 60%; fortunately, only few foes attack via piercing.

[Midget Gems]

I'm another who goes for minimum AC. For that reason I have never used a Fighter with a two-handed weapon, in any of the BG or IWD games.

[NobleNick]

I also view my fighter types differently than most. If I am reading the tone of most people's posts correctly, they are thinking of desiging their fighers for maximum offensive carnage. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] I use my fighters defensively, making sure that opponents are kept in a general area which is thickly blanketed by Web, Cloudkill, Death Fog, etc.

Azred, It's been years, and I'm still learning great stuff from you. I like your use of appropriate icons as punctuation. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I'd like to get better at that.

"...designing Fighters for maximum offensive carnage..." Yes, that's me. I believe in the overused adage of, "The best defense is a good offense." However, I have gotten into a bit of trouble going down that road: Built a DC Fighter(9)/Thief(gazillion) specializing in Axe/Bow. She's armed with a 2-handed axe and, of course, no shield; and despite her 130+ HP and 5 PP in Axe, she has NOT fared well on the front line in the expansions: Everyone seems to know she is shieldless, and she spends much of her time in the tough battles running in circles while the C/F and R/C beat the snot out of whatever is chasing her. This experiment has convinced me that there is a lot to Midget Gems' shield philosophy. Still, although, every other warrior mix in my parties carries a shield, I keep searching for a way to build a durable character that dishes out damage like an expert in 2-handed weapons. That is one reason why I insist on stacking PP as high as possible: to get the maximum "Ummph!" out of those one-handed weapons.

I try to combine items and spells which will make my fighters either 1) very difficult to hit through a very low AC or 2) maximize their damage resistance... Especially when playing in HoF, the second goal is of prime importance. Once a fighter attains 100% slashing damage, most opponents are simply walking corpses--it is only a matter of time before my invulnerable fighter kills them. Crushing resistance maxes at 95% if using only items from the game; this means the cute little Remorhaz will hit you for only 5 damage instead of 100.... Piercing resistance is hard to obtain and maxes at only 60%; fortunately, only few foes attack via piercing.

Well... yes... most of the opponents *ARE* walking corpses. The oject is to make them unwalking, right? Heheheh, gotcha. Seriously, this is a side of the game to which I have paid virtually no attention. Even 50% slashing and crushing resistance would probably be worth trading in a shield.

--------------------
What's a party,
without a song?
Bards ROCK!
Party On!!

[Kyrvias]

Originally posted by NobleNick: Well... yes... most of the opponents *ARE* walking corpses. The oject is to make them unwalking, right? Heheheh, gotcha. Seriously, this is a side of the game to which I have paid virtually no attention. Even 50% slashing and crushing resistance would probably be worth trading in a shield.

Unwalking, eh? I can live with that.

[ 05-24-2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Kyrvias ]

[Aerich]

I go along with Azred on having your tanks avoid damage first - never mind HoF, it's necessary on Insane. Sometimes you just can't dish out the hurt fast enough to avoid getting killed.

My 'mental picture' example of this was when I mixed it up with Ilmadia's fire giants in Lower Dorn's. I was standing on one of the islands, fully buffed, with nasty spells out front, elemental summons, the whole shebang. My elementals lasted about 30 seconds, my paladin tank lasted a couple of rounds with Lathander's Shield, then got hit hard by Ilmadia - this is with about -20 AC and bardsong, mind you. I had to retreat two islands, rotating my tanks. When it was all over, no character except the non-combatant bard had more than 10% of its hitpoints, and I had a mere half-dozen spells uncast out of a full repertoire (4 casters + paladin). All my characters wouldn't have survived, except that my bard's last spell, Flesh to Stone, luckily took down a healthy Priest-Mage of Vhaeraun.

You have to have shields. When each enemy hit costs 20+ HP, it's very important to make them miss as much as possible. You do not want to get caught in a battle of attrition with tough, numerous, hard-hitting foes. You will lose. Strategy, spells, and equipment are what enables a party to take on enemies, not sheer HP. On higher difficulty levels, I typically have the first two tanks using shields. Any rangers or characters using two-handed weapons enter combat from the secondary position, limiting their exposure to attacks. Of course, with a bard, you can rotate your tanks and it doesn't matter if one tank tends to take damage faster; you just have to rotate it sooner.

Re: 5 PP in weapons - I kind of like doing that. I so rarely take single-classed fighters that 5 PP is a novelty for me. Whenever I get it, it's usually in Axe. It's melee and ranged weapon for the price of one. That frees up more PP to take 3 or so in a bludgeoning weapon. You can still use axes with shields, just not the two-handed ones. I'm not a big fan of any of the two-handers anyway - the Celebrant's Blade is good enough for me.

Re: a durable fighter build with two-handed weapons. Why not a Fighter/Mage? Mirror Images and Stoneskin make pretty good shields. I will admit to using Joril's Axe with a Fighter[13]/Mage with 5 PP in Axe. Mirror Image takes the pain, Stoneskin blocks enemies long enough to cast another MI, and repeat. Makes a very durable tank, as long as you have enough of the right spells.

[NobleNick]

Aerich,

You have to have shields. That's not what I want to hear, but I've been slowly coming around to it. The really tough fights are where your theories get put to the test; and my shieldless DC F(9)/Thief just stinks defensively in the tough fights. (I guess I shouldn't complain, because she *IS* a great Thief and a VERY tough character: beats the pants off taking a SC Thief into the expansions. But I wanted more: a great Thief AND a great Fighter, so am disappointed. I had thought that going F(13)/T would make the situation rosier; but it only helps offensively: doesn't do a thing for AC.)

5 PP is a novelty for me. Whenever I get it, it's usually in Axe. It's melee and ranged weapon for the price of one... I have been wondering about this for a while, and looking for an authoritative answer: does the 5 PP in Axe really give you all the 5PP bonuses for a RANGED axe attack? (I had a HDD crash and had to rebuild my machine; so have been without IWD for over a month. Need to reinstall. I feel a test build of an axe expert coming on...)

Why not a Fighter/Mage? Mirror Images and Stoneskin make pretty good shields. I will admit to using Joril's Axe with a Fighter[13]/Mage with 5 PP in Axe. Mirror Image takes the pain, Stoneskin blocks enemies long enough to cast another MI, and repeat. Makes a very durable tank, as long as you have enough of the right spells. The Battle Mage. Ahhhh, if you really have a full Mage with 140+ HP, a natural THAC0 of 5 *PLUS* 5 PP bonuses for melee AND ranged attacks, and 3.5 ApR, then I *AM* envious!! Don't forget that you can stack a Blur and/or Improved Invisibility on top of everything else. Oh yeah, that will replace a shield, and then some! And the extra PP would stack nicely 3 high in Mace (for those pesky slash-resistant monsters). My back up party has a few Fighters destined to be Battle Mages. I am re-jazzed about getting them to where I can DC. Maybe the shield-less carnage-wreaking tank is not out of reach after all!

--------------------
What's a party,
without a song?
Bards ROCK!
Party On!!


[ 05-25-2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: NobleNick ]

[Azred]

You know, I've never designed a real "battle mage" before. Since I am creating an all-evil party to go through Grog's Auril's Bane expansion, I should make one. Yes, Mirror Image and Stoneskin means armor isn't needed, then Blur adds to saving throws, Phantom Sword/Mordenkainen's Sword for offense (note that Mordenkainen's Sword is a ranged melee attack [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ), etc. Possibilities.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Marty4]

Originally posted by Azred: You know, I've never designed a real "battle mage" before. Since I am creating an all-evil party to go through Grog's Auril's Bane expansion, I should make one. Yes, Mirror Image and Stoneskin means armor isn't needed, then Blur adds to saving throws, Phantom Sword/Mordenkainen's Sword for offense (note that Mordenkainen's Sword is a ranged melee attack [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ), etc. Possibilities.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Sure, armor isn't needed, but where can you go wrong with a nice suit of elvish chait