Double your damage

Having played this game through many times, I have found a sure way to ensure you can have an elven fighter/wizard but only choose the wizard class.

As you are an elf, you get the bonus for dexterity, and the wizard is a favoured class. But as an elf, you also get the elven weapon proficency, which includes the longbow. You can outfit your wizard with all the spells you choose, but the fact you can use the longbow at the start makes you an obvious choice as an archer. Equip with a high intelligence and dexterity the bow adds a mighty punch. Add later gloves of dexterity and bracers of archery and magiking the bow, you get the picture. Essentially, the wizard can act as a melee character without any sacrifice.

You do not get as many feat options as a fighter would or as a multiclassed one would, but every feat can be focused on magic weapon creation or wand manufacture. Add in Vick's and Wedge's mod, you can get a composite bow that can be magiked and is especially deadly when the rolls are right.

Just thought I would let you all know.

PS> The wonders of having a cleric start with just 1 level as a fighter and then switching is beyond words. Try it.... your cleric will be a MUCH better fighter in the long run.....

 

Ehhm

why make a wizard and not use his spells ?? - and a wizard gets 2 attacks (one if not uncapped) - a fighter gets 4 (or 2 if uncapped). and his to hit is half as good as a warrior.

 

Of course spell use is manditory. My point is that you can get bow proficiency IN ADDITION to spell use if you play your cards right. Deep in the temple you cannot cast spells ad infinitum, so a backup form of damage is helpful. Besides you do not have to use up wizard proficency slots to take the bow as being elf you already have it.

 

Getting bow proficiency is nice, and even nicer in my book is the +2 dex (though the -2 con sucks a bit). The main thing that's nice about it is the chance to get some magic behind you, but honestly, if you're not investing in precise shot, having a ranged weapon is largely useless in this game. It's all well and good to have an alternative way to cause damage, and the longbow is definitely a better alternative than is the crossbow. However, it is still largely useless, and I personally prefer to go with a human and get the extra feat, to invest in spell focus evocation (I'm always a specialist) and spell penetration, etc. Beefing up your primary means of doing damage and helping your party is more important than beefing up your secondary means. You get the longbow "for free" only after giving up the "free" feat for a human, and to my mind that trade off isn't worth it. Of course, that only goes for temple, where bows have been severely slighted by the mechanics. In pen and paper D&D, an elf wizard is probably the way I would go. Just doesn't translate to Temple, IMO.

 

I've tried a human wizard who at some point is given an exotic weapon proficiency in the spiked chain. If you can get hold of the magic spiked chain then the wizard can stay behind the front lines, cast spells as needed and still help in the fight with the chain without standing too close to get whacked in reply. The magic chain really helps out a lot here and makes the wizard a valuable contributor even when his/her spells are low.

 

Staff of Striking's fine

By level 5 I don't even bother with a crossbow. My wiz gets Lareth's staff of striking, which lets him take care of annoying creatures manually. And I don't mind if he does nothing on the easier combats. Once I got to the nastier boss characters, I needed every wizardly feat I could get.

 

Where did you come up with that? If anything the mechanics of the game favour bows. Manyshot and Rapid Shot's penalties are pathetic, bows can be enchanted in odd ways (Keen Longbow, anyone?), and are given the only silver material in the game (at least that I've come across). Really, what can you say about a sword that you can't say about a bow? Longbows do almost comparable damage to a sword, are just as enhanceable, can give you many, many attacks, and come with a delightful range. Plus there are Bracers of Archery (which even a wizard can wear), an enhancement no other weapon has. You could have a wizard getting 1d8+5+5d6 damage versus evil creatures (practically everything), hell, even 6d6 is possible with holy/lawful, and the threat range is 18-20x3. With +25 to hit (True Strike, sure it takes 2 rounds but it's so worth it--that's a lot more damage than 2 Magic Missiles), without even adding Dex or class bonuses.

 

Blaming it on the mechanics was perhaps misleading. What I really meant to be saying way bows aren't too useful in Temple, or at least aren't nearly as useful as they are in a pnp game, because so much of the combat takes place indoors, with no cover, all at the same height, and with stupid enemies that will close with you at every possible opportunity. In a pnp game, where you've got to deal with orcs holding a defensive position up on a ridge shooting at you, with no way up, or with flying creatures that stay out of range of your melee attacks, bows are more important. In temple, where just about all combat winds up being melee, while having a good bow for a wizard helps, certainly, if you have to choose between a good bow and excellent melee weapon, or a good melee and excellent bow, the choice is obvious. In a pnp game, not so much. In temple, the wizard and sorcerer seem to me to be the only exceptions, only because they can't mix it up so they've got to deal with the firing into a melee and cover issues (whereas a fighter might have room to spend feats on getting around some of these things, he's better off beefing his melee combat (in temple), and a wizard has metamagic and and other feats to worry about). Just my opinion. I almost never use bows, though of course it's a good idea to beef up your wizard's bow.

 

Now, now. I wouldn't say that. Bows are extraordinarily useful. Consider my archer vs my fighter:
Archer
Ftr 12
Full Attack +25/+25/+20/+15 (1d8+7+1d6 fire +1d6 cold +1d6 electric +2d6 holy 18-20x3 Keen, Holy, Flaming Longbow of Frost and Shock +3)
Fighter
Ftr 10/Rg 2
Full Attack +23/+18/+13 (1d10+16+2d6 holy +2d6 chaotic 19-20x2 Fragarach)
Sneak Attack +1d6
Always hits
To illustrate my point I had both characters do full attacks against a party member. The fighter's damage was: 22, 30, 29, for a total of 81. The archer's damage was 41 (Critical hit), 21, 22, 32 (Critical hit, seriously). Since that's not useful in the least, I redid it and got 24, 26, 24, 29 for a total of 103, 25% more than the fighter, with a higher to-hit rate (assuming he wasn't using Fragarach) despite having both Rapid Shot and Manyshot active (though these rarely seem to be actually used by the game, I still get the penalties). This doesn't take into account the +12 damage the fighter could add for Power Attack because of Fragarach, and indeed his damage would top the archer's if I included that. These numbers do include the sneak attacks, though. So unless you intend to find three weapons that always hit, you're better off with an archer than a fighter.
To put this into perspective, the fighter deals 21-50 per hit over 3 attacks for 63-150 total. The archer deals 13-45 over 4 attacks for 52-180 total. I think 30 more max damage plus increased accuracy and range more than makes up for 11 less min damage. Another point to note is that because your archer is going to have high dex, he'll have a disgisting iniative bonus, allowing you to, say, kill an ettin on your first action.

 

Impressive!

I'm impressed! I have not found bows to be to useful, but I think that was because I played mostly with uncrafted ones. How much did yours cost to make?

Also, have you found a good source for arrows? I usually have to buy them 60 at a time from the blacksmith, and I thought (though I could be wrong) that it takes him a while to restock.

 

I don't think it's fair to compare a level 12 fighter's total damage to a f10/r2's damage, when the first gets 4 attacks and the second does not. Nor do I think it's fair to compare a highly crafted bow to fragarach, which sucks except for the counterattack feature you neglected to mention (sure it always hits, but doesn't do any damage, which is all you have considered). Anyway, even if bows are equivalent to melee at higher levels, which I think they pretty much are (since the only reasons I cited for them not being quite as effective have to do with some little -4 penalties that are huge early on but nothing when you've got a +25 to hit anyway. My point was not that they suck at level 12, but that they're not as effective in the game as a whole. Most of your time will be spent between the levels of 2 and say, 9, and during most of that time, melee is more effective, given a) the assumption that both are equally crafted, and b) the characters using them are comparable. The point is nothing more complicated than that most situations in the game there are going to be penalties on your ranged attacks for cover or firing into a melee, and that detracts from the usefulness of the bow, especially at low levels. I said nothing about damage potential, and certainly was not discussing only high-level usefulness. Anyway, your point is well taken that they can be useful... that's just not something I disagree with.

 

I think it is reasonable to include the bow's extra attack in the comparison, as that is from a feat specific to bows, though with great cleave, a melee fighter might have several extra attacks. The most crucial omission from the discussion is strength damage bonus. Suppose you compare a longbow and a long spear with the same crafting bonuses (fire, cold, ...) and similar feats (improved critical, weapon focus, ...). A level 16 halforc wielding the longspear might have strength of 30, which translates to a +15 damage bonus for twohanded weapons. Even assuming greatcleave is not a factor the longbow makes 5 attacks for a total expected damage of 5x (I am not going to figure out x in this post, but it is not hard to do, and is certainly less than 30), while the longspear makes 4 attacks for a total expected damage of 4x + 60. Clear advange melee. Still 5x is not bad!

 

Nago: Hell, I don't remember how much it cost. Once you get Thrommel's reward, money doesn't mean anything. That, or if you encounter the bug where you get several million copper for crafting too many bonuses onto an item. I pick arrows off of whoever I can, but sometimes I end up having to switch to silvered arrows for awhile until I can grab some more.
Lord Plothos: I think it's perfectly fair to compare their damages. Perhaps it would seem more fair once he got another level and reached 2d6 sneak attack damage, but honestly, can you see anything glaringly inferior about the ftr/rg that makes the comparison imbalanced? That sneak attack is more useful than 3 levels of fighter, IMHO at least.
Fragarach is at least the equivalent of the bow, and how dare you speak of it like that! Seriously, though, Fragarach grants you some crazy bonuses. I actually think the counterattack is a little weak -- my fighter never gets hit except by creatures with Large reach, so I don't get a chance to use it much. Don't forget about Power Attack, which, as I mentioned, I excluded, but it was only through thoughtlessness on my part.
What do you mean by "sure it always hits, but doesn't do any damage?" Fragarach, if memory serves, does 1d10+BAB (Power Attack, never forget it!)+4+4d6 damage. That's a lot more than anything else, though I guess if your BAB is low a super-enchanted weapon might beat it by a bit.
Your point about the penalties being big at lower levels is valid, but I've noticed my archer always has the highest attack bonus of any character, no matter the level (except maybe level 1). Thus a -2 for rapid shot isn't a big deal, even if you have, say, +10; if you built your archer right, that's probably 2-4 higher than your fighter's attack bonus. Remember also that in TOEE, there is no cover (and in pnp DnD, Improved Precise Shot removes it anyway), IIRC, and firing into melee's penalty is removed by precise shot (a crucial feat for any archer). And if you're not talking about damage potential, what are you talking about? Prettiness? Not to sound condescending, but what else is there? Your fighter has higher skill ranks? Strictly comparing bows vs. melee weapons, I think it's perfectly appropriate to compare damage potential.
Nago's second post: I think a level 16 fighter with 30 str is a bit of a stretch, don't you? Assuming 18 base str, you get +2 for being a half-orc, +4 for level 16, that's 6 str you have to account for. Well, maybe he has gloves of strength +6. Assuming that, you can't just say you have an expected damage of 4x + 60. Since you haven't mentioned enhancements of any kind, we'll go with him using a regular longspear. His attack bonuses would then be +31/+26/+21/+16.
The only two CR 15 creatures in the Monster Manual have ACs of 32 and 34. I think it's safe to assume your level 16 fighter would be fighting CR 14-16 creatures at least 30% of the time. CR 16s have higher ACs, at about 30-35, the lowest of which is the greater stone golem (27). Let's take 31, because that's about average. You would need to roll, in order, 1/5/10/15 to hit an AC 31 every time to deal the full 4x+60 damage. Considering your attacks will hit 95%/75%/50%/25% of the time, which is a sharp decrease, the most accurate formula would be 2x+30 (I think so, at least, but I'm a pessimist).
Compare this to an equivalent archer (30 dex) using rapid shot (come on, it's only fair), where you have +29/+29/+24/+19/+14. Okay, so your last attack isn't going to hit either, but you now have 85%/85%/65%/40%/15%, which, I think, has a decent chance of netting you 3x or even 4x (if you're lucky) damage. This is still a lot lower than 2x+30 (probably even lower than x+15). In terms of damage, here, the fighter is indeed superior. But it bears mentioning that the fighter can't hit anyone adjacent to him with that longspear (at least not in proper DnD), nor will he have even a decent AC. Add some enhancements to those weapons, and the fighter still beats the archer, but the archer becomes a force to be reckoned with. Using a full attack, with some of those nifty feats (and with 15 slots, he'll have them), and the archer can maximize the effectiveness of his bow. For example, the first arrows can go to the highest AC creature (adding items and such, the archer will have by far the highest to-hit, trust me), maybe the second two could finish off a medium creature, and the one which has no chance to hit? Improved Precise Shot -- it can be spent on a grappling creature to get an automatic hit. In TOEE, well, I guess that last arrow would be wasted unless you pick a crappy creature.
I know this post is way too long, but I want to mention one thing. Let's say your fighter gets into melee with a Planetar (CR 16). A planetar gets +23/+18/+13 (3d6+13). Your AC is guaranteed to be under 25. That planetar is going to cream you. I don't think the advantage is as clear when you're taking 13-31 damage per attack, and the first two will almost definitely hit you. I guess it's not really the point but I have to point out the folly of using longspears :roll:

 

I want to say, again, that I have no firm convictions that either melee or bow is better at higher levels, so all your points about those situations are really not relevant to the point that I was making (that is not to invalidate your points in any way, but just to try and firm up the dialectic here). I also want to say I did not ever suggest that damage potential was the wrong criteria to use (I do feel you were a little condescending, by the way, since you might have double-checked to make sure you understood what I was saying). What I said was that if that is your criteria and you're comparing uber-weapons (which again doesn't really speak to my point about the game as a whole, since you only have such weapons later on), it's not good to compare your uber-bow to fragarach. Fraggy does do decent damage, but you can craft better stuff. A suped-up great cleaver is the best weapon in the game, IMO, with a huge threat range and x3 modifier. Given that I'll have huge strength, which gets multiplied by 3, I routinely do in excess of 90-100 points of damage with one critical hit and 30-40 with non-crits, even without sneak attack damage. You can get three of them in the game, so basically all your main melee characters can have one. This is how I killed the water node boss with my first attack of the second round.

Some other minor points (I'm not going to bother trying to answer everything you say, since I'm not that invested in this debate): 1) There very definitely is cover in this game. It's mostly soft cover or from firing around corners, but you can see it when you open the roll window, click on your hit or miss roll info and then click on the target's AC, which frequently gets a +4 for cover. 2) While it's true that precise shot, rapid shot, and all those things help to make archers better, they take a while before you can get them all. In the meantime the melee guys have no penalties; also if you're including rapid shot, why not two weapon fighting, at least if you've got fragarach in the other hand? 3) Meleers constantly get +2 from flanking and HELP OTHERS get that bonus too. 4) While your archer may have a higher to-hit bonus than a meleer, that speaks only to the way you've built the two. Mine do not. An archer will get a bonus for dex, but melee gets a bonus for strength. Dex helps AC, but str helps damage, and is not inconsistent with a high dex. By contrast, while an archer can have high strength, it won't improve his damage (assuming no mods to include composite bows).

Basically, the sum total of my point comes down to this: damage is going to reflect mostly what stuff you pack on with crafting, and that will be equivalent across both melee and ranged. With melee, you can get some better threat ranges and thus get more crits. You also have more potential for sneak attacking by flanking, and you get bonuses to hit from flanking and help other party members. Minuses from cover and firing into a melee, while they can be compensated for with feats, are there in early levels and at best go away, whereas they are never there to begin with for melee. You get extra attacks via rapid shot, but even if this is not made up for by the increased crits from cleavers, there is always TWF (my cleaver and handaxe monk come to mind). Thus, if I'm apt to recant anything, it's that ranged catches up to melee at later stages. It certainly isn't as good early on (recall also that you only get one magic-able longbow for quite a long time - temple level 3 is the second one - on top of the cover/FIAM penalties), so it can't be as good on average, even if they are comparable later. It can certainly still be made to work, and can be very very effective later on, especially in the hands of a character with the right feats and stats. I just feel archery is better in pnp than it is here, because the biggest single benefit of ranged weapons (that you don't have to be close to the enemy) is just a non-issue in this game for anyone but a sorc/wizard. Combat here is almost always at close-quarters and never against an enemy you can't get at. If there had been some fights like that in this game, I would never have made the claim that ranged attacks got slighted here.

 

Lord Plothos: Come on, the great cleaver? You actually use that? It's such an obvious oversight, I never touch it. Besides, my fighter does 40-50 normal and 90-100 critical damage, with sneak attack.
I had never noticed cover being an issue. I agree that flanking is great -- which is why all my fighters have rogue levels. And I think you can get a masterwork longbow at level 6 from Brother Smythe. There's also one on the big frog in Imeryd's Run. I think.