Page 5 of 7

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:20 pm
by pongsifu
Missile weapons, throw weapons and spells never "miss" (dice-roll wise).

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:38 pm
by Chiller
NakedGranny wrote:putting Light or Heavy Armor on someone who isn't skilled enough to wear it without penalties is like removing the wheels from a bicycle to make it go faster by making it lighter... likewise, claiming Fighters are limited because they don't have Reach is like saying birds are limited because they're poor at walking around on the ground.
:o :shock: :o

...yes, of course! Also, using similes which only serve to confuse the reader is like... er... bananas in an oil field!

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:14 pm
by Sabatasso
pongsifu wrote:Basically I didn't cast spells for every single encounter. I conserved for enemies I thought would need it. Casting for every mob would of course make you run out very quick.
If you didn't use pike or throwing and did not use spells on every mob, your Mage was lower level than the rest of the group. Again, I don't have anything against Mages, but I think they've gotten the short end of the stick in this game. If the party shared all XP regardless of who managed (or tried) to hit a mob, the Mage would be alright, though. It would make them keep up in terms of level, and they could be used as the bazookas they clearly are intended to be, just when the situation requires it.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:37 pm
by pongsifu
Strangely, my first warrior and my rogue level at about the same pace, but my second warrior and my mage stay at their own slower pace. My two warriors are both front-line and essentially the same except one is axe and the other sword. I obviously don't use one more than the other. I assumed him and my mage leveled slower is because they were not humans while the other two were.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:24 pm
by Tenzek
NakedGranny wrote: putting Light or Heavy Armor on someone who isn't skilled enough to wear it without penalties is like removing the wheels from a bicycle to make it go faster by making it lighter... likewise, claiming Fighters are limited because they don't have Reach is like saying birds are limited because they're poor at walking around on the ground.
The back row guys won't take advantage of evasion unless your party gets flanked and they are "up front" from the perspective of the attacker. They will still get hit by spells and similar effects, but evasion is not checked for that. This means that only protection matters for them in the majority of situations. This is why you can benefit from heavy armor on them without training them in that skill. Even a mage can wear armor.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:03 pm
by Gorgon
I used an insectoid air mage for my first playthrough and he worked pretty well. He did the most damage out of all party members and would help with the invisibility/light spells.

Then I had the idea to use 4 insectoid mages for my second playthrough, and they rocked! The only problem was that the front row mages couldn't absorb all damage. Staff defense is pretty crappy.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:07 pm
by Darklord
Gorgon wrote: Then I had the idea to use 4 insectoid mages for my second playthrough, and they rocked! The only problem was that the front row mages couldn't absorb all damage. Staff defense is pretty crappy.
Did you manage to complete the playthrough? :)

I guess giving your front mages extra HP from traits and such is the best bet, along with some Vitality.

Daniel.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:58 pm
by NakedGranny
Tenzek wrote:The back row guys won't take advantage of evasion unless your party gets flanked and they are "up front" from the perspective of the attacker. They will still get hit by spells and similar effects, but evasion is not checked for that. This means that only protection matters for them in the majority of situations. This is why you can benefit from heavy armor on them without training them in that skill. Even a mage can wear armor.
protection does not mitigate non-physical attacks which are 99% of the damage your back row characters will take. that is, they can benefit from Evasion just as much as Protection when being struck from behind. against Uggardians and poison traps, it's purely your resistances, and aside from some unique pieces, Armors don't grant you any of that.

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:23 pm
by Bees
Gorgon wrote:I used an insectoid air mage for my first playthrough and he worked pretty well. He did the most damage out of all party members and would help with the invisibility/light spells.

Then I had the idea to use 4 insectoid mages for my second playthrough, and they rocked! The only problem was that the front row mages couldn't absorb all damage. Staff defense is pretty crappy.
You're a braver bug than I am. The most I attempted was two mages (but on an all-insectoid team, at least). I don't think I'd be able to manage four mages in certain areas; the ice lizard area comes to mind. It certainly sounds like it would be fun purely for melting ogres, though. :P

Re: Why Not Bring a Mage?

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:56 pm
by Gorgon
Darklord wrote:Did you manage to complete the playthrough? :)
I did.

It was easier at the beginning, because I gave the front row bugs that shell ability that raises their protection. But it became really hard in the end with enemies wiping me out so easily :D