14 réponses à ce sujet

[CSly]

I'm just starting my first play of BG2, having just finished BG1.  In BG1, it seemed that ranged combat was heavily favored, to an almost exclusive degree.  I don't want any spoilers, but I would like to gain a sense of where the balance between ranged and melee combat lies in BG2, so that I can plan a bit better and put together what I would consider an efficient party.

BTW, playing vanilla, if that matters.

TIA

[AnonymousHero]

Melee is much better than ranged combat in BG2/ToB, though Archers (the specific class, not just any bow user) can be extremely effective. Arcane magic is even stronger still, but since you asked about melee vs. ranged...

[sythsillis]

AnonymousHero is correct. Ranged weapons, in general, are not nearly as effective in BG2 because of the higher levels of the opponents, making them much tougher, Ranged weapons can still be useful against low to medium level opponents when used in conjunction with magic (such as stinking cloud).

[kenng]

Because enemies in BG2 tend to have much more hp, ranged combat isn't as effective. It is still useful for keeping your more fragile party members out of harm, but you will find your melee fighters doing the bulk of the damage. The discrepancy in damage is just too great, between high (19+) str being fairly commonplace, TWFing matching archery in terms of attacks/round and more powerful weapons outclassing magical arrows in terms of damage.

[Dante2377]

kenng wrote...

... and more powerful weapons outclassing magical arrows in terms of damage.

That - to be more specific, the better melee weapons often have accompanying disabling effects such as slow, stun, dispel magic, elemental damage that you don't have to restock (arrows), etc.  The lack of strength bonus is also a big detriment.  

Additionally, many of the melee weapons have good defensive properties (bonus to AC, damage reduction, etc), which are critical to staying alive in TOB (more important than raw damage).  Being able to dual wield and have a main-hand weapon with additional offensive power and an off-hand weapon with defensive properties is "better" from a power perspective than ranged combat.

However the vanilla game should be beatable with almost any competant party mix and player, so it really only matters a lot when you move to difficulty-enhancing mods.

[Reticent]

Just to play devil's advocate, ranged weapons do have some things going for them.

Ranged weapons allow you to spread out your party which can be very important when you start facing numerous spell-casters and others with area effect attacks. Certain ranged weapon types get multiple attacks per round which is an excellent property on character classes that normally only get one attack per round.

There are some quite powerful ranged weapons though they are far less common than powerful melee weapons or are constrained by limited amounts of powerful ammo.

[kenng]

Also, in BG1, when your PCs had so little hp, even 1 hit could prove fatal, so it was safer to stay away from your foes and pelt them with ranged attacks. However. in BG2, your party is generally tougher and harder to kill, so there is lower risk for your fighter to stand toe to toe with say, a dragon and whack away.

However, an all-melee party may not always be feasible, especially in narrow corridors where mobility is limited, so it may still be better to have 1 primary tank and a few ranged attackers.

[Grond0]

The nature of tanks changes a lot from BG1 to BG2. In the former a single character with high hitpoints and low AC could occupy all monsters (at least in vanilla), while the other members of the party used ranged weapons. In BG2 there's much more of a threat from area based magic - so ranged characters are not as safe as in BG1. Also resistances such as physical resistances or ironskin / stoneskin gradually take over from low AC as requirements to survive in melee during BG2.

[CSly]

Thanks again for the answers.

[HoonDing]

I'm currently playing with an Archer in BG2, and in the first half of the game my character had most kills in the game by far... but as the game is progressing more and more towards Throne of Bhaal, the fighters are starting to take over.

You basically become a support character, the advantage is though that you will probably never die.

[morbidest2]

Another thing to keep in mind for the first time going from BG1 to SoA is that all types of magic become more important in BG2. You could even think of it as magic becoming the new ranged weapon!

[Humanoid_Taifun]

A Kensai with throwing axes and a Ranger/Cleric with the Sling of Seeking are very good ranged options even in Baldur's Gate II. For really hard battles (against mages) add in a third character with Tuigan and Arrows of Dispelling (and other useful stuff). Ranged combat isn't dead, it simply requires more specialization.

Of course, there is also Item Revisions, a mod that overhauls pretty much everything in that regard, turning ranged combat into more than a niche subculture.

[CSly]

I'm a fair distance into BG2 now, so I thought I'd return to this thread and attest to the fact that for all the reasons given here and more, the scale is indeed weighted in favor of melee combat in BG2.  Ranged combat still has its role, but it's far more niche/situational now.  To be honest, I didn't even require a melee character in BG1.  I still had one of course; I built Minsc into a tank.  However, he turned out to be more of a dedicated loot gatherer than a fearsome warrior.  In most encounters, by the time he got out to engage the enemy, they were long since dead from devastating fusillades of acid arrows.  As he was the only one to have ventured out to actually meet the enemy, Minsc ended up being the one who would most often pick through their remains.  Speaking of acid arrows, they've been drastically toned down in BG2, they've gone from 2D6 acid damage in BG1, to a paltry 1D3 in BG2, making them little more than niche weapon for troll encounters.

Of course, as most here alluded to, I see now that the real answer to my question was not ranged or melee, but magic.

[Windfoot]

The acid damage (1d3) is in ADDITION to the physical damage of 1d6+1. Assuming no elememental damage reduction, they do more damage than fire arrows

[CSly]

Right. I was just referring to the acid component of the damage. It's only a quarter of what it was in BG1.

BG1=1d6+1 (+2d6 Acid)
BG2=1d6+1 (+1d3 Acid)