Well, he's only superior if you count Conjurer as the best specialization.
Edwin is so highly rated because it's not like BG2 is that difficult, so you don't need more from a mage than spam whatever spell is the most powerful on that level.Well, he's only superior if you count Conjurer as the best specialization.
And he has additional spell slot to boot... which main will never get.
The point is not multiple or not, but Edwin always superior, and main always carry suitcases for him.
Not even Kangaxx can stop the Melf Spam.
No, he can't, because the melf meteors spell generates missiles with high enough enchantment to hurt him. At least in unmodded game, SCS reduces their enchantment.Not even Kangaxx can stop the Melf Spam.
Well, actually he can, because liche and demi-liche are immune to spell up to the fifth circle.
Conjurers lose divination *and* invocation in P&P too, so they are buffed in the BGs in comparison.Divination is by far the worst school in BG. If you're judging the specializations by that criteria then Conjurers are obviously the best.
That's non-BG1 content.Conjurers lose divination *and* invocation in P&P too, so they are buffed in the BGs in comparison.
Sure... but why is this a problem? Do you insist on your MC being the strongest?
Untrue. It does. It just uses a small fixed amount of movement points regardless of the "height" of the ladder.Another thing that makes rogues (or really anything stealthy) overpowered: vertical movement apparently doesn't count as movement, because it doesn't use movement points.
stronger than the comic relief wizardThe point is not multiple or not, but Edwin always superior, and main always carry suitcases for him.
Sure... but why is this a problem? Do you insist on your MC being the strongest?
What isn't?Steamtards are also eating up slop like Outer Worlds or <latest weeb shovelware>
Steam reviews are about as relevant and reliable as the opinion of a toddler.
What's wrong with Outer Worlds?
I mean, they always hit a good spot for me and I loved them dearly over the years, but yeah... it's weird sometime to read game journalists and younger people talk as if BG was the peak of hardcore gaming in the RPG genre, when if anything the exact opposite was true: BG1 and 2 were arguably the point where RPGs started making an active effort to be a bit more mainstream: excellent production value (comparatively to their time of release), streamlined interface that made everything as intuitive as possible, the least possible amount of numbers openly displayed, very limited reactivity and scenery interaction, a control scheme borrowed by the then super-popular RTS genre and real time combat because turn-based was assumed to lack mainstream appeal.
Steamtards are also eating up slop like Outer Worlds or <latest weeb shovelware>
Steam reviews are about as relevant and reliable as the opinion of a toddler.
What's wrong with Outer Worlds?
Lol even normies think its mediocre look at the user score.Kodex Kritical Konsensus is that its aggressively mediocre at best.
Well, there were several ways to interpret what I wrote, but if you're happy embracing what's arguably the most dense, stupid and passive-aggressive one among the possible options, who am I to stop you?So "real" RPGs should have low production values, an unintuitive interface, and a hard to use control scheme?