Sorcs and Wizards

Remove all ads!

Actually, I don't see having super nuking skills as all that important in HOF. I tend to think that buffing, crowd control, and enchantment spells are more important in HOF, since damaging spells really don't keep pace with the #'s of HPs that monsters have in HOF mode. Plenty of summoning spells can be useful if you're the sort of player that doesn't mind using summons, though with certain party mixes, a wizard or a sorc need not be a party summoner. Clerics and Druids can do just fine as summoners.

 

I happen to be using a wizard as my primary/only arcane caster in my current party. I decided to have a tiefling wizard because I wanted to have a party without a rogue. The tiefling wizard with maxxed Int/Dex so far is able to fulfill the trap finding and lock picking shoes of the rogue of my last party. The lack of high enough level scrolls at various points in the game made me decide to play a tiefling wizard. The ECL would not be as big of a hindance otherwise.

I found that my style of play in my first go around is rather spell light. Therefore, I went with a greater portion of melee characters this time around. I didn't choose to use a wizard with no sorcerer for the challenge. I chose a wizard simply because I wanted fewer spellcasters and felt that a wizard would simply be more flexible if I happen to need to reload.

I'm currently near the beginning of Chapter 3. So far, I don't feel I really miss not having the sorcerer. My party seems to do well enough. The one move I used to use, but can no longer was the double fireball against enemy casters. This would kill off enemy casters quickly in the Hoard Fortress. So far, I haven't felt that I am at much of a disadvantage without my second blaster sorcerer.

 

@crucis
Same, but for argument's sake I guess if you really want to nuke in HoF then you'd want nothing less than the best. Wizards are useful for getting critical spells early and being able to cast spells that would be inhibit/are not ideal for Sorcs/Bards, but they're nothing like Sorcerers when it comes to nuking.

 

Note, S.I. that I didn't say that Sorcs weren't the best nukers. Of course they are. And IF you are going to try to nuke your way thru HoF, then yes, you probably really do need a sorc.

But frankly, I tend to think that you'll often run out of spells, if you try to nuke your way thru HOF, unless you have something like 3 sorcs in your party, cuz I doubt that 1 sorc in a party of 6 is going to have enough nuking spells to get the job done in many battles. IMHO, HOF tends to require a somewhat different approach than Normal mode.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

Good for you, Stuntman. Though I think that if you played with my LoS mod, you'd find that using a Wiz X/Rog 2 sort of build would be decidedly inferior at dealing with traps, etc.

 

I'm just using a single classed tiefling wizard. I don't multiclass at all. I find that with 20 Int, I have enough skill points so far to put into search, disable device and open lock as well as alchemy, arcana and spellcraft. I may only be at half ranks for my rogue skills, but so far it hasn't been a big problem. I occasionally fail to disarm the odd trap, but big deal. If I fail to pick locks, there's the knock spell. For stealth, I have my deep gnome monk. I'm not using the LoS mod, either.

The only thing that my rogue used to have that my current party does not is sneak attack. I used SA a total of 0 times in my first go around since my rogue used ranged weapons exclusively.

With the 1 ECL, I am still encountering a shortage of scolls for high level spells. Still, I occasionally use the odd fireball, so I still want some good nuke damage.

 

Nuking, as in using spells that do damage measured in hitpoints, isn't really all that effective use of your spellcasters in HOF mode as you'll need several to kill off monsters. That's what Prayer/Recitation/Malison followed by Wail of the Banshee is for.

After doing the number crunch for the physical damage potential for your everyday berserkers it quickly dawned on me that damage spells aren't really the preferred solution -- not even dps-wise -- unless fighting massive hordes of enemies at once. Fighting such masses at once leaves your tank(s) prone to tactical whoopsies that quickly lead to fatalities unless at least some disablers are used. And since some of the premiere ones such as Mass Dominate and Greater Command are incompatible with AoE damage spells, it's quite often easier to just let your berserkers do the slaughtering.

The single target damage spells are, naturally, at the bottom of the heap. Many of them do not even pass the bow dps benchmark, ie. you'll likely do more damage by taking potshots with a lousy bow than wasting a round on casting them, and yet many more fall flat to generic ranged dps if your caster happens to have decent STR score and/or Rapid Shot.

 

Actually, I didn't suggest that you are using LoS. I only said that IF you used it, you'd probably find that a Wiz X/Rog 2 build might have problems, and I suspect that this might also be true of a tiefling wizzy that invests a few points in rogue skills.



BTW, I think that I read somewhere that druids can be good at dealing with locks after they get one of their Bear shapechanges because the bear shape in question has such a high STR that it's very rare that they fail to break the lock.


As for sneak attack, while SA actually isn't linked to STR, and one could theoretically have a good sneak attacker with a relative low STR (assuming that the rogue has a high DEX and uses weapon finesse), I'm not sure that such a build is all that good, as the rogue wouldn't have the STR to be as effective once he loses his SA opportunity, and may be a better ranged attacker. It seems that a more dedicated sneak attacker would probably want to be a fairly physically tough (good STR/CON, as well as a great DEX, of course) sort so that you would have better HP's, better damage bonuses for when you weren't delivering sneak attacks.

Having said that, it's also possible that one could build a high skills, ranged attacker and party spokesman rogue with a high DEX and INT, and a decent CHA, but little else. Hardly a powergamer's build to be sure. I've never played such a build. Considered it, but never played one. I always end up prefering that my rogues be relatively tough in melee, even if they are primarily archers.

---------- Added 0 hours, 20 minutes and 11 seconds later... ----------

I agree that standard nuking spells don't really cut it in HOF. And you're right that some spell combos can be incompatible.

I have to admit that I'm particularly fond of kill zones. I know that they're not super in terms of raw DPS, but I don't give a rat's bleepity-bleep. Kills zones are fun and effective, even in HOF. I like luring in a big mob of baddies into a region that's choked with grease, web, and entangle, and then hitting them with cloudkills, firey clouds, acid fogs, spike stones, and so forth. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to dump a SoH into the mix, just to make sure that even fewer of them can slog their way thru the grease and web before the damaging spells have fully killed them.

Generally, I do agree that single target damaging spells in HOF are fairly wasted. Oh, I might still use something like Flame Arrow against the White Dragons simply because I know that they're vulnerable to fire damage, and FA does produce a rather significant amount of fire damage. But generally speaking, single target damage spells are rather wasteful. A party's mage in HOF is better of savings his magics for either summons, buffing, or spells that will affect the maximum number of targets possible. (Well, except of course, when there's only a single target in the first place...)

 

Ah, but kill zones are a different beast altogether.

You're effectively trading raw number-crunch DPS for slow roast, prolonged suffering and the smell of fresh napalm in the morning. Which is a clear-cut, valid and thoroughly enjoyable goal in and of itself, and presumably preferred mode of action when playing evil or at least excessively sadistical parties.

 

LMAO!!!


Never really thought of it as an evil or sadistic tactic, but I guess I could see where some might see it that way.

BURN BABY, BURN!!!!


Kill zones do have the benefit that since they occur over a longer time frame, baddies that don't actually start out in the KZ, may still walk into it. Of course, one could say that this is an unrealistic "feature" of the game engine, and that any moderately intelligent enemy wouldn't be so stupid as to just walk into a KZ. "Hey, look. Look at all da grease and web stuff on the ground. And all the fire and poison gas and acid in da air! Oh, there are enemies on the other side... Sure, let's go charging thru all that stuff!!! I'm sure that it won't be hurtin' us!" ( ya.... right! )

 

I know, which is why I said "Same".

Wizard/Rogue is great for getting skills from alchemy to pickpocket/sleight of hand, but I wouldn't recommend turning him into the party spokesperson. You'll need high talking skills from the onset, and raising your Cha for this can hurt your other stats (like Dex, which is important for your thieving skills and Con, since your natural HP and fortitude saves are very poor).
Taking rogue levels is not mandatory, but the extra skills points are useful so you have everything covered from the start.

How many people do you currently have in your party Stuntman? I usually have 4-5 and I rarely encounter the lack of scrolls issue. Then again your party doesn't have as much casters and your Wizard is a primary caster so I guess you really need the extra scrolls.

When I said that Wizards weren't as good at nuking, I also meant that he's not as good at maintaining kill zones.
He excels at debuffing/disabling and taking the odd spell (sorcerers/bard-wise), and being able to switch to a more aggressive/defensive spell list when necessary.
It's been argued that a customized Sorcerer is more ideal for buffing/debuffing/summoning, but such a character would lack the versatility of a plain Wizard.
One person suggested taking 2 Sorcs so you get lots of castings of every important spell in the game (thus completely eliminating the need for a wizard), but not every party will welcome the extra member.

 

Yeah, that may be true. I'm not even half way through the regular game, so perhaps later on, my Wiz may have issues with traps and stuff. I considered a number of things before deciding to try out the rogueless party.

I did try using a druid once, but I never bothered to use shape changing and then I restarted with another party. Abilities that are not always on end up being always forgotten. I don't use Rage with my barbarian and I don't use Smite with my paladin. The nature of the Infiniti Engine seems to make me just want to point and click to attack and then just sit back. Also, limited use powers get forgotten as well. That is why I am a light spell user.

You don't need a high Str for SA. I find that having high Dex and Weapon Finesse is good enough. Although I do not use a rogue, I do have a monk with high Dex and SA. That way, I can boost my AC and AB when I increase Dex.

Setting up SA is one of those high maintenance type of moves that I just cannot be bothered to do. I'm already controlling 6 guys in real time (with pausing). It's enough of a hassle to select whom to attack for 6 characters, let alone trying to constantly gain flanking in a near real time game engine. If the game were turn-based, I will more likely make more detailed moves.

In Temple of Elemental Evil, I am not so sloppy on my positioning. I try to position my characters properly to flank, get out of the way of archers and set up opportunities to use Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. I actually do not have a rogue in ToEE either. Also, the turn-based nature of ToEE allows me to use spells more often. My first party consisted of a fighter, wizard, sorcerer, druid and cleric. In the major battles towards the end of the game, I can open with Fireball, Empowered Fireball, Flame Strike, Flame Strike. You simply cannot do that effectively in IWD2.

I never liked rogues. In D&D computer games since the Gold Box, rogues always felt like the class I don't want to have, but need. I like all other classes, but the rogue. I usually have one simply because it was needed in most D&D games to make your job easier in a few places in the game. This actaully seem to start in Ultima III where you would have so much hassle without having a Thief.

I always liked spellcasters since the Gold Box days. In the Azure Bonds game, every single character in my party of 6 can cast spells (Paladin, Cleric/Ranger, Cleric/Fighter/MU, Cleric, Fighter/MU and Fighter/MU/Thief). I was slinging spells left, right and centre. Once games became real time, my love for spellcasters have diminished greatly. Either that or I'm just getting old.

 

I don't know if it's the nature if the game engine or not, but I agree with you that in combat, special abilities that need to be activated always seem to be forgotten by me. It's a big reason why I rarely take barbarians... I can't seem to remember to use their most important ability ... Rage. And without Rage, barbs are just nerfed fighters.

I'll admit that I don't really tend to forget to use spells all that much. Maybe some. I'm fully aware that they're there, and I do use them, but not as aggressively as other people.

Yes, I mentioned that (the not needing high STR for SA) already. The thing is though that I find that if I have a character that I intend to be big on sneak attacking, I also will tend to leave that character in melee more... and if that's the case, they tend to perform better if they have a decent STR to back up their melee abilities when the attacks aren't "sneak attacks".

Of course, if I'm planning from the start to have the rogue be strictly for skills and ranged attacks, high STR is far less important.

I guesss that we're different here... Sneak attacking is something I look forward to doing. The normal melee tanks tend to be able to look after themselves well enough. And the behind the lines characters will do well enough as long as the front line holds and they're not threatened in melee. So I look forward to sending my rogue running around the battle field from time to time, gleefully sneak attacking anything that moves.

I guess that I'm different. I love rogues. I hate how in IWD2 that the various rules changes have conspired to make them seem all but useless. I guess that I just love playing stealthy characters, such as rogues and rangers.

I played all those games as well, although my memories of them a rather vague. I do remember that I wasn't into heavy spellcasting back then either.

 

Yeah. I know my friend who introduced me to Bauldur's Gate showed me how he plays his thief. He like the stealthy backstabbing ability in BG. In the Infiniti Engine games, I only used my stealthy abilities to scout. Then I just pick and choose where I move in to attack with my party.

I found that with the 3E D&D rules, rogues became one of my favourite classes to play PnP style. The reason is that they have became so much more useful because of SA. With IWD2, they seem more useful than say the Goldbox games. With Azure Bonds, you had to attack from the opposite direction of the first ally who attacked the target to backstab. Now, with IWD2, you can flank with any ally, not just the ally that attacked it first. I would have thought that the rogue would be more useful in IWD2 than in previous versions of the game.

Spellcasting back then in the Goldbox games as well as other similar games at the time was a long term investment. You were pretty useless at the beginning and then became very powerful at the end. For D&D computer games, level 5 was the threshold where your patience really paid off.

I never played the original Pool of Radiance. Azure Bonds was the first game I played in that era. As I recall, my party was heavily multiclassed, so my tanks weren't as tough as a pure tank. I recall that at the beginning, I had to heavily rely on Stinking Cloud in many battles in order to win. In that game, I got used to casting spells often because I had to with the way my party was designed. Later on, my characters did not have to rely so heavily on spellcasting, but it's still very fun dropping multiple fireballs against a group of enemies. The turn-based nature made casting area spells much easier without the threat of friendly fire.

 

Oh, I do agree about "sneak attack" vs. old 2e backstabbing. I simply left that out earlier. As powerful as a backstabbing attack could be, you could really only get one good backstab per engagement unless you were making heavy use of invisibility spells or spells. Of course, on the flip side, I suppose that some people who don't have the desire or attention spans to use sneak attacks constantly in battle, might have preferred the old backstabbing style because (heaven forbid) they didn't have to actually manage a character's constant movements to get full value out of sneak attacks.

Your memory of this is better than mine. I don't have any memories of this one way or the other, though I suppose that you could say that even in earlier Infinity Engine games where you only had Wizards (and no sorcs), wizzies also tend to be very weak to early on and grow in power.

I think that I played all of the old gold box games. One thing that I remember liking about them was that SSI was releasing them one right after another. It was great (at least IMHO) that they weren't being held hostage to constantly having to upgrade the graphics, etc.

I also remember that there was basically two different series of these games. One was the Pool of Radiance series, which I think was the gold box games. And the other was a set of Dragonlance (?) series games also released by SSI... perhaps these were the silver box games? My memory's vague on these. I only remember that there were two distinct storylines, two different series.

Come to think of it, I think that you're right about Stinking Cloud being more useful back in those games... or at least more commonly used.

 

I played those gold boxers all the time back then, even starting from scratch and beating the first Krynn game in a single day. Its so different these days with the real-time. I got the whole set back in the late 90s and tried using a thief character. The only place a thief was useful was on single target humanoids that were really tough(like the -7 AC drow fighter guy in the Azure Bonds game) Considering the illustration of the backstab mechanic was almost a perfect rendering of that battle, it seemed really obvious.

As for IWD2 My rogues sneak in a level of Ranger at first level up for the TWF/Ambi feats. Then I get finesse at level 3. Thinking Rapid Shot at level 6 to give them some nice bonuses to archery.

 

But you should have 3 (at least) sorcs in HOF. The different approach is that everybody is a caster. Mixing in other classes is fine, but 20 levels of rogue/fighter/etc are pointless in HOF.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 41 seconds later... ----------

It was a level 2 AOE save-or-die [*] spell. Definitely more powerful than any IWD2 level 2 spell, except maybe mirror image.


[*] some restrictions may apply

 

Oh, bullpuckey!!! This is such an utter pantload of bull feces!

You can be entirely successful in HOF with a normal, balanced party that worked in Normal Mode. About the only real different is that you need to adjust your spell selections. I absolutely do NOT buy into this powergaming tripe that in HOF everyone has to be some sort of uber-powerful spellcaster to have any chance to succeed.


I've also found that pure rangers are very useful in HOF because by that point, their spell books are starting to get sufficiently large (relatively speaking) that they have a nice little assortment of spells (particularly Animal Summoning spells) that are quite useful.

Yeah, I do remember thinking that I remembered is as a level 2 spell. Didn't remember how powerful it was, though I do vaguely using it rather often.

 

I find this to be true as well. If I move a spell (Greater Command, Delayed Blast Fireball, Ghost Armor, etc.) into my quick-click icons it tends to get cast much more casually. I highly recommend reconfiguring your UI as frequently as your spell selection.

-Max

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

In the past couple of days I've found myself opening major battles with Mirror Image/Greater Command, Summon Monster IX, Giant Vermin, Greater Shadow Conjuration, Greater Shadow Conjuration, Animate Dead. Insta-fodder.

BTW, I've also discovered that the regular HoF tripling of damage inflicted does NOT apply to attacks on summons, although there's still some kind of a boost. A Yuan-ti may do 40 points of damage when he hits my tank and only 17 when he hits a rhino beetle or Cornugon (and the Cornugon resists 10 points of that). That's why summons last so long even in HoF, and it's also why Mass Dominated enemies tend to act more as meat shields than buzz saws (you still have to do most of the killing yourself).

-Max

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

Not only that, it was a *PERSISTENT* save-or-die effect. I don't remember how long it lasted but I remember that anyone moving through it had to make a save for each square they stepped in and each round they were in the cloud.

Of course, saving throws were easier back then because you rarely had bonuses/penalties a la DC from high spell level/caster stats. Still, it was a strong spell.

-Max

 

I used to think this way as well; see older versions of JUPP for example.

While it's certainly a nice sight to behold to blast your enemies with a double or even triple shot of DBFB or Horrid Wilting, there just isn't all that many places where it actually is feasible to gather a bunch of enemies into a clump. Either they won't follow you predictably or they'll sandwich you in their amidst and you're dead.

One of my favourites is the Kuldahar village (HOF) with a whole lot of yuan-ti, without spellcasters or anything nasty like that to spoil the fun. Just haste a decoy, run like mad through the area clockwise and bring the rest of the party into the town square via the shorter route by the Heartstone Gem. The decoy has some 30+ angry snakes in hot pursuit, but they'll get pasted as soon as they reach the ambush set up by my party in just a few castings.

Rather than try to maximize the amount of "pure" spellslingers, I nowadays try to incorporate as many berserkers as possible. Their focused damage output racks in the kill count in the order I want them to die rather than spreading the damage around evenly.

Additionally, just because you're (mostly) a caster doesn't mean you'll automatically be a wimp in physical combat. Try a sorcerer with a monk mix-in level for the +1 att/rnd bracers, maxed STR and Rapid Shot in combination with the Black Death, like the one in the JUPP's Melee party. You'll quickly notice that there's no point in casting most of your damage spells in many situations as your axe will fare better.

Crucis, you're stating the obvious here. Surely you'll manage, but that doesn't mean there isn't easier ways to do it. Whether you want it easier is another issue altogether, though...

 

Rechet, it's not so "obvious" when someone like JT is saying that you "should" have at least 3 sorcs in an HOF party, and that 20 levels of warrior or rogue classes are "pointless". To me, stating that it's "pointless" is saying that you cannot succeed with such characters, a statement which is patently false.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later... ----------

Reconfiguring the IU for spellcasters to put the most commonly used spells for each caster at that moment is a very good suggestion, Max.

I've done it in the past, but forgot to do so in my most recent party.