but it would do less single target damage than dual wielding for balance purposes. 2 handed melee should have been made to give a guaranteed extra AoE hit, if the initial hit didn't miss, to any adjacent enemy and then from then on the percentage would go down. They gave melee and bow/missile characters absolute garbage AoE capability. Then even with dual wield your mage is going to hit from afar just as hard if not harder than your warrior One bow guy is useful to pick off people at weird angles in areas where melee is tighter, but even then to specialize a guy in bows/missile is pointless. I don't think the game is balanced very well most of the skills on the skill tree are useless and magic w/ summons and duel wielding are the 2 strongest offenses 2 handed weapons are useless and bows aren't far behind. Originally posted by bobsson:You're entirely correct, per the primary strategy guide: Adequate lore skills (Arcane Lore, Cave Lore, Tool Use), at least eventually 2 or 3 spellcasters (at least 1 mage, at least 1 priest) Adrenaline Rush (Bladeshield for front PCs) Damage Output (either dual-melee, mage spells, or priest spells) Survivability (more, for the first 1 or 2 PCs) To sum up, here's what we definitely want in each character: Will do about 60% more damage initially, and that number actually goes UP as Likewise, pole weapons and shields are usable,īut they do dramatically less damage than dual-wielded swords - double swords Mages and warriors can be good at "on the side," so it will be summarily Without Divinely Touched, and with the 4-stat system, it's not something You're entirely correct, per the primary strategy guide: Īrchery is usable, but it's just not as good as melee combat or magic in this
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |