Wizardslayer alterations

[Rataxes]

The Wizard Slayer's item restrictions were not meant to show what he was unable to wear, they were meant to show what he would refuse to wear.

But the thing is just that Wizard Slayers are supposed to refuse to use any item containing magic or associated with it. Bioware eased those very tight restrictions to allow for enchanted weapons, armors and healing potions, for balance and gameplay issues, while still keeping his refusal to associate himself with enchanted gear a considerable disadvantage.

But--A Potion that grants immunity to mind-controlling spells? A Ring that grants improved Saving Throws and Magic Resistance? A Book that lets me cast Spell Turning? A Cloak that deflects ALL spells cast directly at me? There is no question about it: A Warrior who is sworn to abhor dangerous magic and eradicate its practitioners would use such items.

Perhaps, but the class you're describing is the Inquisitor, Wizard Slayers have an altogether different relation to magic. They abhor it entirely and regard anything and anyone associated with it with suspicion. It's true that Bioware strayed from the PnP description when they allowed him to use certain enchanted items, but that is no reason to throw the most unique aspect of the Wizard Slayer in the bin altogether. Because lets face it, with the revised list of items the WS will use, he might as well not have any item restrictions at all.

Then there's your notion that Offense <=> Defense. While it's true that sometimes the best offense is defense, and vice versa, I don't agree that you can use that to justify someone who has specialized in hunting down a particular type of creature being better at defending himself from such creatures than he is at actually attacking them. I associate the term "slayer" with rather offensive and aggressive qualities, and indeed, the handbook kit description for the Wizard Slayer does read:

"Combat Compulsion: A Wizard Slayer must, in combat situations, seek out a mage or spell caster over any other opponents"
(from sorcerers.net)

which I interpret as Wizard Slayers having an almost natural instinct to actively attack evil spellcasters whenever they see them. Can you see why I think the Wizard Slayers offensive qualities should be more prominent than his defensive ones? The idea of a Wizard Slayer tackling mages by relying on his inpenetrable magic defenses is akin to a Kensai equipping a throwing dagger and the boots of speed to make certain he will never be involved in melee combat. Perhaps sound from a survival perspective, but clearly in conflict with the philosophy of both kits. You don't pick a Kensai if you want something else than a close range meat blender, and you don't pick a Wizard Slayer if you want someone to passively defeat a mage by letting him exhaust his spell supply on you.

There are monks for that, or wands of summoning.

What, you mean a loss of 4 THAC0 points, 1 ApR, 2 points of Damage per hit, and the inability to Dual-Wield efficiently means you think Wizard Slayers aren't capable of fighting anything but Mages? Last I checked, Paladins and Rangers were getting along just fine, as were Clerics. (In fact, now that I type those stats out loud, I don't think the RebalWS has enough disadvantages--I'm thinking of limiting their "Greater" HLAs.) And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a way to negate the cons of the RebalWS, unless you really think it's worth Dualing to Thief so you can use Ilbratha.

Negating cons can also be to have other members of your party compensate for the the weaker sides of one party member. RebalWS would be less overpowered in a solo game where he will have to live with being rather poor at melee combat (which hurts his ability to kill mages, no?). But what troubles me the most isn't really whether RebalWS is overpowered, it's primarily that you saw it fit to revamp the kit completely, remove his most unique aspect and replace it with completely different powers and flaws, based on personal opinions of what the Wizard Slayer is about that have no basis in existing kit descriptions. If the Wizard Slayer needs to be improved or changed, and I don't think any great changes are needed, surely it can be done without basically creating a new kit? (call it something else then).

I'd be in favour of this upgrade, assuming it can be done:

- Let the spell disruption on hit ignore mantle spells and PfMW. As I recall, the PnP version has an ability that lets his normal weapon strike with an enchantment of +1 per two levels, which allows him to hit creatures immune to normal weapons, but also punch through spells that block magical weapons, since his weapon isn't enchanted in the normal sense. This wouldn't be quite the same, but in line with the general idea that his spell disruption should ignore magical protections altogether.

In my opinion this single change would bring him closer to his PnP description, make him more uniquely useful, and thus make him comparatively capable enough against mages to hopefully in everyones eyes outweigh his considerable item limitations.

[ 04-20-2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by K2Grey: ....it's not that unplausible for Sion and Ketta and those other Guarded Compound guys to set up an elaborate trap, and when their quarry breaks out, for only the fighters to follow and for the mages to just sit there. Similarly, Shangalar should realize that just because the enemy is not in plain sight, does not mean that Layene can handle the magic aspect of the fight on her own.

I made those points not to advocate the use of unrealistic and cheesy 'divide and conquer' tactics, but merely to demonstrate that it can be done--almost any dangerous Wizard fight can be isolated to the point of simply exhausting his spells.

As far as the warrior bit goes, the fighter in question may not necessarily know for sure whether it is Protection from Magical Weapons that he is running up against, or Stoneskin, and since one can be bashed through, it makes sense to make the attempt. Finally, even if the fighter knows how both spells work and can recognize them via the meta-ability of message buffer, he may not necessarily wish to just run away and allow the mage to summon up an army of Skeleton Warriors, at which point killing him can get real hard.

I'm not exactly pointing fingers directly at you, but I do notice a trend to assume that Warriors are stupid, that Korgan lacks the sophistication to know how to defeat Haer'Dalis, for example. Anybody would be able to recognize Stoneskin/Ironskin on sight, and after the first attempt would learn what PfMW does. As for one's Warriors 'metagaming' and reading the Text Window, allow me to repeat such quotes as, "No effect? Need bigger sword?" "Not even a dent?" and "Blasted beggar's immune!" No BG2 Warrior worth even half of his salt would be afraid of taking on multiple Skeleton Warriors at once--I think you mean Mordenkainen's Swords. And those have a short Summoning duration, so as long as you're waiting out the Wizard, you might as well dance around his Swords, too.

Originally posted by Rataxes: While it's true that sometimes the best offense is defense, and vice versa, I don't agree that you can use that to justify someone who has specialized in hunting down a particular type of creature being better at defending himself from such creatures than he is at actually attacking them. "Combat Compulsion: A Wizard Slayer must, in combat situations, seek out a mage or spell caster over any other opponents" (from sorcerers.net) which I interpret as Wizard Slayers having an almost natural instinct to actively attack evil spellcasters whenever they see them. Can you see why I think the Wizard Slayers offensive qualities should be more prominent than his defensive ones? There are monks for that, or wands of summoning.

I agree. But agreeing with you on these issues doesn't stop me from pointing out the irony that Monks and Paladins (especially Inquisitors) are usually far better at whacking Mages safely and efficiently than Wizard Slayers are.

But the thing is just that Wizard Slayers are supposed to refuse to use any item containing magic or associated with it. They abhor it entirely and regard anything and anyone associated with it with suspicion. Bioware eased those very tight restrictions to allow for enchanted weapons, armors and healing potions, for balance issues, while still keeping his refusal to associate himself with enchanted gear a considerable disadvantage. It's true that they strayed from the PnP description when they allowed him to use certain enchanted items, but that is no reason to throw the most unique aspect of the Wizard Slayer in the bin altogether. But what troubles me the most isn't really whether RebalWS is overpowered, it's primarily that you saw it fit to revamp the kit completely, remove his most unique aspect and replace it with completely different powers and flaws, based on personal opinions of what the Wizard Slayer is about that have no basis in existing kit descriptions. If the Wizard Slayer needs to be improved or changed, and I don't think any great changes are needed, surely it can be done without basically creating a new kit?

1) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from using any magical items except weapons (with no additional effects other than simple weapon enchantment), they would be so abysmally screwed it wouldn't even be remotely funny.
2) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from 80% of the magical items that were most useful in slaying Wizards, they wouldn't be worthy of the name.
3) If Wizard Slayers were only restricted from all magical items that were useful against hack & slash enemies, but utter crap against spellcasters (items such as the Defender of Easthaven, or the Sentinel+4, for example), that would make all the sense in the world.
3) If Wizard Slayers were allowed to use certain magical items that a pure Fighter could not, items that were specifically designed to combat spellcasters, that too would make sense, though not quite as much.

P&P takes Path 1. BioWare takes Path 2. I take Path 3, and probably 4 as well. I do not hold it as any sort of virtue to adhere to a design that has been proven to be flawed. If the RebalWS can overcome the way the original Wizard Slayer was biting his own tail, and yet still fit a sound roleplaying ethos that follows in the footsteps of what the Wizard Slayer was conceived to be, then the RebalWS is even more valid than the WS ever was.

Yes indeed, I "saw fit to revamp the kit completely, based on personal opinions of what the Wizard Slayer is about." With all due modesty, if I am not capable/worthy of formulating a well-balanced kit, then the bar for who does get to make those suggestions must be set pretty damn high. And if you'll look back to the link I posted on the first page of this thread, you'll see that Alson and Dundee Slaytern were very involved in the process as well.

You twice mention that I remove the "most unique aspect" of the Wizard Slayer. Well, it's not his Magic Resistance or his Spell Disruption (as both of these attributes are strengthened in the RebalWS), so you must mean his refusal to wear Cloaks, Boots, Rings, etc., that are most useful against spellcasters. You're damn right I took away that aspect, that's the #1 thing that needed to be corrected.

quote: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a way to negate the cons of the RebalWS, unless you really think it's worth Dualing to Thief so you can use Ilbratha.

Negating cons can also be to have other members of your party compensate for the the weaker sides of one party member. RebalWS would be less overpowered in a solo game....[/QUOTE]Ah, so you're afraid that the RebalWS will become a "Wizard Gun" that the party only brings out when there's a dangerous spellcaster to neutralize....in much the same "unbalanced" way that they only bring out Thieves to pick locks and set Traps, and Clerics when they need healing or a Holy Smite, or Wizards when they encounter a boss enemy? No, the fact that the other Warriors in the party are better fighters does not mean that the RebalWS isn't a worse one.
When I was referring to negation of a kit's disadvantages, I was thinking of how Kensai are 'negated' by using throwing weapons and Dualing to Mage. Or how existing Wizard Slayers are 'negated' by Dualing to Thief. Etc.

....where he will have to live with being rather poor at melee combat (which hurts his ability to kill mages, no?).

Hardly. Mages, Druids, and even most Clerics have crap for AC. Even Thieves and Bards can usually take them down with little difficulty, once their combat protections are down of course. There are exceptions (such as Kuroisan, Arumach Rilmani, and the like), but these are rare.

I'd be in favour of this upgrade, assuming it can be done: - Let the spell disruption on hit ignore mantle spells and PfMW. As I recall, the PnP version has an ability that lets his normal weapon strike with an enchantment of +1 per two levels, which allows him to hit creatures immune to normal weapons, but also punch through spells that block magical weapons, since his weapon isn't enchanted in the normal sense. This wouldn't be quite the same, but in line with the general idea that his spell disruption should ignore magical protections altogether.

Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately, while a Human DM would be very understanding, the game engine renders it utterly impossible. A workaround might be found, wherein a Wizard Slayer's fists would be made to strike as of -1 enchantment, all spellcasting creatures would be vulnerable to weapons of that enchantment, and no combat protection spells would give immunity to it. But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort.

What might be feasible would be to make the RebalWS's Anti-Magic Aura not strip all spell effects from the immediate area, but just combat protections. But that would sort of conflict with what I'd envisioned the AMA as being (a portable, temporary Anti-Magic Zone), so I'm not sure I'd be a fan of that either.

[ 04-20-2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: SixOfSpades ]

[Leslie]

Hmm, this debate looks like powergamer against roleplayer. Now, who is who? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[timothy trotter]

ha ha! its easy to forget

[K2Grey]

There's another possible method, which is a little more overboard - give him an ability which removes combat protections, like Balthazar's Dragon Fist, and have it immediately apply an Aura Cleansing afterwards. So it'd be an "at will" ability.

[Rataxes]

I agree. But agreeing with you on these issues doesn't stop me from pointing out the irony that Monks and Paladins (especially Inquisitors) are usually far better at whacking Mages safely and efficiently than Wizard Slayers are.

Better at absorbing magic. That may make them more appropriate for countering mages for someone who prefers tactics based on passive offense against spellcasters (you I assume?) but someone who cannot effectively wield an elemental damage weapon (or even a normal weapon) and is stuck with between 2 and 4 ApR until ToB levels isn't anywhere near as fit for tackling mages as a Wizard Slayer for someone who in general prefers tactics based on more active offense (me, I'm a reckless and aggressive player). What I'm trying to say here is that how you view the power relation between Wizard Slayers and for instance Monks depends on your perspective.

1) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from using any magical items except weapons (with no additional effects other than simple weapon enchantment), they would be so abysmally screwed it wouldn't even be remotely funny.

Dull perhaps, with the full array of PnP WS abilities I think he could hold his own nicely even if restricted entirely to unenchanted equipment. But I wouldn't want that either since not being able to use any enchanted items at all (particularly weapons) would take away a lot of the fun.

2) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from 80% of the magical items that were most useful in slaying Wizards, they wouldn't be worthy of the name.

Oh, really? So Kensais aren't worthy of the title 'master of melee' because they cannot wear armor or use the, beyond weapons, single most important item for improving melee attack power? (GoES) Again, the Wizard Slayer should be a primarily offensively orientated kit. I would be in favour of changes that will give him unique potential to tackle mages in an actively offensive manner (though the anti-magic aura is simply not balanced in the cunning hands of a human player, it barely is in the hands of a computer AI). I’m not in favour of changes that will mold him to fit tactics based on passive offense, both because I think we already have several other classes that fill the role, but also because it’s not in line with the nature of the Wizard Slayer.

I do not hold it as any sort of virtue to adhere to a design that has been proven to be flawed.

Exactly what are you referring to when you say design and mean that it is flawed?

If the RebalWS can overcome the way the original Wizard Slayer was biting his own tail, and yet still fit a sound roleplaying ethos that follows in the footsteps of what the Wizard Slayer was conceived to be, then the RebalWS is even more valid than the WS ever was.

But it does not follow in the footsteps. The current reasoning for the RebalWS seems to be that if you pitch him against a spellcaster, the spellcaster should get his ass handed to him in just about every aspect of the battle imaginable. Is that really how you imagine the Wizard Slayer, as the supreme master of every single aspect there is to fighting spellcasters?

With all due modesty, if I am not capable/worthy of formulating a well-balanced kit, then the bar for who does get to make those suggestions must be set pretty damn high.

As good as I know your judgement is, I don't think anyone can be expected to be able to view his own creation with the same critical eyes. Were Alson and Dundee involved in the design, or just reviewers of the finished creation?

You twice mention that I remove the "most unique aspect" of the Wizard Slayer. Well, it's not his Magic Resistance or his Spell Disruption (as both of these attributes are strengthened in the RebalWS), so you must mean his refusal to wear Cloaks, Boots, Rings, etc., that are most useful against spellcasters. You're damn right I took away that aspect, that's the #1 thing that needed to be corrected.

I don’t get your reasoning at all. The Wizard Slayer refusal to use enchanted items is a basic premise of the kit. You throw this out the window and it’s not the same kit anymore. Your statement is akin to “You’re damned right I allowed the Kensai to wear armor, that’s the #1 thing that needed to be corrected for him to be the master of melee”

Hardly. Mages, Druids, and even most Clerics have crap for AC

Poor dual-wielding and no Grand Mastery means he’ll have considerably fewer attacks per round than a standard fighter, which does hurt his ability to fight mages. Though this problem is negated at the same that his THAC0 penalties cease to be an issue (when he gains Critical Strike that is).

Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately, while a Human DM would be very understanding, the game engine renders it utterly impossible. A workaround might be found, wherein a Wizard Slayer's fists would be made to strike as of -1 enchantment, all spellcasting creatures would be vulnerable to weapons of that enchantment, and no combat protection spells would give immunity to it. But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort. What might be feasible would be to make the RebalWS's Anti-Magic Aura not strip all spell effects from the immediate area, but just combat protections. But that would sort of conflict with what I'd envisioned the AMA as being (a portable, temporary Anti-Magic Zone), so I'm not sure I'd be a fan of that either.

Pity, though wouldn’t it be possible to create alternate versions of every weapon in the game with an enchantment of -1, that the original weapon turns into in the hands of a Wizard Slayer, similar to how the Sword of Backstabbing has different properties when wielded by a thief? Though that would allow the entire weapon to ignore weapon immunities, and not just the spell disruption.

[ 04-21-2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Dace De'Briago]

I honestly don't think that the Wizardslayer class needs to be 'improved' at all.

It's essentially a fighter class with the bonus of improved magic resistance and spell disruption in exchange for some item restrictions. The item restrictions arent particularly awful because we can still use the very best enchanted armours and weapons.

It can be inconvenient to have the item restrictions, but IMO it is not essential for the Wizardslayer to be rebalanced. There is still the opportunity for a 25/26 Wizardslayer/Thief that has no item restrictions if you do want to overcome that 'hurdle'.

The dual-class also eliminates the arguement about regular fighters being able to get similar MR% via items.

I also think that there is a general underestimation in this thread of the effectiveness of the spell disruption ability of the class. It ignores both stoneskin and mirror image spells, and in my experience the mage fails to cast a spell more often than not - even after only being hit once or twice (I'm not sure if the 'real' spell disruption is only 10%... it seems far greater to me). Six, I suggest that you test this premise out.

I will concede that the thief dual-class is ONLY valid in the case of a solo, or small party scenario. My current Wizardslayer is going to join up with Aerie once he reaches SoA and the party is going to be suitably small to achieve these levels relatively quickly.

To reiterate: The Wizardslayer DOES NOT need improvement or re-balancing of any sort.

[ 04-21-2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Dace De'Briago ]

[Rataxes]

I agree. My personal experience with the Wizard Slayer so far is that I don't really miss the ability to use some magic items or potions that much at all, though the other party members (Imoen, Kelsey and Viconia) have more than enough protective spells between them to cover his every need. The spell disruption on hit was a huge help against mages early on (particularly the duergar mages in the starting dungeons), and even now in Chapter 5 have made some high level mage encounters noticeably smoother compared to how the party would've fared with a standard fighter.

[ 04-21-2005, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Dundee Slaytern]

It always amuses me to see Jon Irenicus suffer from 100% Spell Disruption, and Insect Plague/Creeping Doom is not involved.

[SixOfSpades]

And he's back again! Sorry for the intermittent nature of all of this...

Originally posted by Leslie: Hmm, this debate looks like powergamer against roleplayer. Now, who is who?

It's true that I'm arguing for increasing the power of a kit that some people consider to be balanced--but then, there are people that think the Beastmaster and Shapeshifter are balanced, too. And "balance" is itself a rather nebulous term: Are we talking 'balanced' in terms of 2nd Edition PnP, or 'balanced' in comparison to the other classes / kits in the game?
Anybody who calls me a powergamer obviously hasn't heard of my mania for using natural stat rolls....something which is rather evident in my current Multiplayer party.

Originally posted by K2Grey: There's another possible method, which is a little more overboard - give him an ability which removes combat protections, like Balthazar's Dragon Fist, and have it immediately apply an Aura Cleansing afterwards. So it'd be an "at will" ability.

Yeah, I noticed something like this in the Monk's HLA tables (I have Oversight). Only problem is: If it's an on-hit ability, it will still be utterly useless against PfMW, and if it's ranged, it's too much like a guaranteed auto-kill (I'm in favor of making the % chance of the RebalWS's AMA contingent on his level). And just about anything that can be cast "at will" is guaranteed to be overpowered right from the get-go.

Originally posted by Rataxes: quote: .... Monks and Paladins (especially Inquisitors) are usually far better at whacking Mages safely and efficiently than Wizard Slayers are.

Better at absorbing magic. That may make them more appropriate for countering mages for someone who prefers tactics based on passive offense against spellcasters (you I assume?) but .... isn't anywhere near as fit for tackling mages as a Wizard Slayer for someone who in general prefers tactics based on more active offense (me, I'm a reckless and aggressive player).[/QUOTE]Please explain how/why someone who has dedicated his/her life to the hatred/distrust of magic and the destruction of its practitioners would not strive to gain as much resistance to the stuff as possible. And it is possible, as witness the Monk.

quote: 1) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from using any magical items except weapons (with no additional effects other than simple weapon enchantment), they would be so abysmally screwed it wouldn't even be remotely funny.

Dull perhaps, with the full array of PnP WS abilities I think he could hold his own nicely even if restricted entirely to unenchanted equipment. But I wouldn't want that either since not being able to use any enchanted items at all (particularly weapons) would take away a lot of the fun.[/QUOTE]Since I'm pretty sure that the WS's PnP abilities will not work in-game, it seems rather intuitive that the prohibition against all enchanted items is wholly invalid. All I ask is that the RebalWS be allowed to use any item with primarily anti-spellcaster enchantments, is that so difficult to swallow? If it's weapons you want, I would allow the RebalWS to use any weapon that:

• Deals 2 or more types of elemental damage per hit (or just 1 if it's Poison)
• Is a Launcher-type weapon that can add 1 type of elemental damage to another
• Deals damage over time
• Has Dispel / Breach / Lose memorized spell on hit
• Confers Magic Resistance
• Confers a bonus to Save vs. Spells and/or Wands
• Confers immunity to a spell not commonly used by non-magical creatures (e.g., Confusion is out, because Umber Hulks use it)
• Has no inherent magic other than a simple enchantment bonus

As you can see, there are a lot of very good items now restricted from the RebalWS (Celestial Fury, Crom Faeyr, Foebane), but many more that are still accessible (Flail of Ages, Gnasher, Firetooth).

Oh, really? So Kensais aren't worthy of the title 'master of melee' because they cannot wear armor or use the, beyond weapons, single most important item for improving melee attack power? (GoES)

Your analogy is on the right track, but it lacks the proper magnitude. To bring it onto the scale of the WS fiasco, it would be like if the Kensai were forbidden to use any weapon of +4 enchantment or greater.

quote: I do not hold it as any sort of virtue to adhere to a design that has been proven to be flawed.

Exactly what are you referring to when you say design and mean that it is flawed?[/QUOTE]You and Dace De'Briago may hold that there is no need to 'correct' the WS at all. That's perfectly fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Everyone is also entitled to be wrong, and I'm sorry, but to believe that a Wizard Slayer being unable to use the Amulet of Spell Warding is a sign that all is right with the world, then that's just plain wrong.

quote: If the RebalWS can overcome the way the original Wizard Slayer was biting his own tail, and yet still fit a sound roleplaying ethos that follows in the footsteps of what the Wizard Slayer was conceived to be, then the RebalWS is even more valid than the WS ever was.

But it does not follow in the footsteps. The current reasoning for the RebalWS seems to be that if you pitch him against a spellcaster, the spellcaster should get his ass handed to him in just about every aspect of the battle imaginable. Is that really how you imagine the Wizard Slayer, as the supreme master of every single aspect there is to fighting spellcasters?[/QUOTE]Yes, the AMA is indeed a difficult idea to balance--how to make the RebalWS a threat to Liches without obliterating everyone else?--and I am currently considering dropping the Deafness it can inflict on those in the area of effect, thus making it an instantaneous-duration effect. I must point out, though, that I have never said that these specifics were cast in stone: I have been adamant about the RebalWS being allowed to use anti-spellcaster items, sure, but I have always been open to feedback on things like the AMA.
And the RebalWS is actually not the supreme master in every aspect of spellcaster combat, considering that the Monk still has 10% more overall Magic Resistance.

Were Alson and Dundee involved in the design, or just reviewers of the finished creation?

Hmmm.....the only component on which I'm sure we all collaborated equally was the list of which items should be made usable (or unusable) by RebalWSs. I sent round a list of all the items, and we all voted Yes, No, or Maybe on each one. But I'm almost positive that I also included a description of the kit that very closely matches the one I set to RPGDungeon, and if either Alson or Dundee had any strong objections to my design, they sure didn't mention them to me.

I don’t get your reasoning at all. The Wizard Slayer refusal to use enchanted items is a basic premise of the kit. You throw this out the window and it’s not the same kit anymore. Your statement is akin to “You’re damned right I allowed the Kensai to wear armor, that’s the #1 thing that needed to be corrected for him to be the master of melee”

Of course it's not the same kit anymore, it ceased to be the same kit when BioWare allowed him to use things like the Silver Sword, Sentinel+4, and Vhailor's Helm. And your Kensai argument is invalid, as the Kensai is the Sword Saint, not the 'master of melee.' The Kensai's specialty is unarmored combat, as is made abundantly clear in the Kit Description.

Poor dual-wielding and no Grand Mastery means he’ll have considerably fewer attacks per round than a standard fighter, which does hurt his ability to fight mages.

It will hurt his ability to fight Warriors, not Mages. Weren't you the one who was arguing that even a few hits' worth of Spell Disruption was enough to neutralize a spellcaster, and a Mage (even a Draconic Mage) is only seconds away from death once his PfMW and Stoneskins are gone?

Originally posted by Dace De'Briago: It's essentially a fighter class with the bonus of improved magic resistance and spell disruption in exchange for some item restrictions. The item restrictions arent particularly awful because we can still use the very best enchanted armours and weapons.

I could be content with that, if those item restrictions made any sense. And I don't really care about "the very best" items, as long as they're the "right" items to be using. I wouldn't mind being reduced to using nothing but the Sword of Balduran, Bala's Axe, and Everard's Morning Star (provided those weapons had the enchantment level to hit what needs to be hit, of course), because that's what a Wizard Slayer should be using.

It can be inconvenient to have the item restrictions, but IMO it is not essential for the Wizardslayer to be rebalanced. There is still the opportunity for a 25/26 Wizardslayer/Thief that has no item restrictions if you do want to overcome that 'hurdle'. The dual-class also eliminates the arguement about regular fighters being able to get similar MR% via items.

The argument that a kit is 'balanced' because a Dual-class can overcome its disadvantages is utter fallacy.

I also think that there is a general underestimation in this thread of the effectiveness of the spell disruption ability of the class. It ignores both stoneskin and mirror image spells, and in my experience the mage fails to cast a spell more often than not - even after only being hit once or twice.

I think Rataxes is singing its praises with all the attention it merits, actually. If it means you can incapacitate Mages (not Liches) just by always carrying a Normal weapon around and taking a lot of Fireshield damage off every Wizard in the game, that could be quite useful.

Originally posted by Dundee Slaytern: It always amuses me to see Jon Irenicus suffer from 100% Spell Disruption, and Insect Plague/Creeping Doom is not involved.

Just as it amuses me to see people pretend that the WS is not rendered obsolete by those two spells.

[ 04-26-2005, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: SixOfSpades ]