| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
madglee
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 169
Location: St. Louis, MO (USA) |
Hey I'm going to start a new game soon and I wanted to know what you guys thought of the bishop, since i've never played one. My last party was a fighter, lord, monk, ninja, mage and bard...now i'm thinking from what i've learned that a mage kind of sucks..so i was thinking..ranger, fighter, gadgeteer, priest, and then for the last two either a psionic and another fighter or maybe a bishop, who could study alchemy and mage spellbook..something like that..bottom line: is the bishop basically taking up two spots in the party because he can learn from what the manual says, "two spellbooks" at once?
I think since you can find a monk I won't make one, but you don't find an alchemist so that sounds good. Was thinking the bishop could be alchemist and something..maybe mage, and then i could use the psionic position for a fighter or valkyrie..what do you guys think??
|
Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:40 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Your ranger can study alchemy spells. The bishop makes a good back-up for your priest and can easily excel in the other magic schools. Try one out.
I don't share your opinion on the mage though, I liked having a mage who could throw fireballs and blast the completion away. My little fairy mage saved my bacon more than once.
_________________
Proprietor of the Forum of Slating Intellectual Lusts. :smile:
[ This Message was edited by: Val on 2002-03-10 18:52 ] |
|
Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:47 am |
|
|
Maggot
Magister of the Light
Joined: 17 Jul 2001
Posts: 392
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland |
Bishops are very weak at the beginning (have to spread themselves thin, what with being a mage/priest combo), but later on they'll be powerful as hell. I second Val, a faerie mage does not suck at all. But then again, you seem to favour a low-pure-magic-user party. I have three, an alchemist, a bishop and a mage, and they generally manage to make themselves useful. |
|
Mon Mar 11, 2002 1:28 am |
|
|
madglee
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 169
Location: St. Louis, MO (USA) |
Well I like magic users a lot, but they need muscle around them. I like my faerie mage, but overall, most of her combat spells don't do as much damage as I'd think they should. instead, I use her mostly to protect us, freeze the enemy, and so forth.
What kind of parties are you guys using? |
|
Mon Mar 11, 2002 2:56 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
On 2002-03-10 20:56, madglee wrote:
I like my faerie mage, but overall, most of her combat spells don't do as much damage as I'd think they should. instead, I use her mostly to protect us, freeze the enemy, and so forth.
Yes, it was same with my faerie mage. Or maybe it was way how I put points into their abilities.
She was great healer at the end. But she was very weak.
My favorit "normal" combat spell was fireball (against large groups of enemies - 30 - 50 dmg. to every creature) and dehydrate (against single enemy - around 100 dmg).
Of course when I reached spells like instant death, death wish, asfixation, they were immediately my favorit.
And healer learns realms where instant death and death wish are. So later in game he/she will be very very dangerous atack mage.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-03-11 01:00 ] |
|
Mon Mar 11, 2002 6:59 am |
|
|
Sir Markus
Counselor of the King
Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 369
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA |
I was disappointed with my faerie mage early on, but she can deal some major damage now, the water and fire realms are things I've stressed, freeze all and fireball are nice spells, and armormelt from the earth realm is another good one.
When I play again, I'll probably include this character just because it's good at dealing damage to multiple monsters early on, I seriously would consider the fact that the numerous battles would take significantly longer to complete without a mage, but this is just a hunch.
The designers seemed to favor bards, I'd probably start developing a bard early, I was suprised how many nice bard weapons are in the game, I'm not sure about having a gadgeteer, though. |
|
Wed Mar 13, 2002 4:24 pm |
|
|
Moulin Rogue
Village Dweller
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 2
|
Bards- Yes, they are favored in this game, and the result is that, using one in my current party, I'll never leave home without one again.
Gadgeteers- Three or four of their gadgets were left out of the game, and that is rather annoying... overall, their ability to make better crossbows is almost worth their overall liability (until the very end of the game). If you don't like magic users, Bards and Gadgeteers make an impressibe combo.
Bishops- Best magic class. Period. I'd only concentrate in two schools though. If you have a Bard and Gadgeteer, a Bishop will help round out the magic side of the party.
By the end of the game, my magic users were a hassle to keep alive in almost every battle. This time, I'll change them to Lords or Valks once they learn their highest spells, so they can still use magic and also equip very strong armor. |
|
Fri Mar 15, 2002 5:24 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
The Bishop is surely a versatile spellcaster, and very playable, but the priest will level up faster and will cast spells both protection and attack spells with more power much faster than the bishop. The priest may not have the many choises like the bishop, but he/she got what he needs for a divine spellcaster. |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:53 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
I had bishop in my first party, now I have priest.
Priest is faster and more useful (at least for me). |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:41 am |
|
|
Maggot
Magister of the Light
Joined: 17 Jul 2001
Posts: 392
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland |
Yup, it's all a matter of opinion I suppose. But I never take a priest when I can get a bishop  |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:55 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
Maggot: I do understand your opinion, but we need arguments. This is a discussion forum, so come let us hear why you prefer a bishop.
I also started my first party with a Bishop, and I was very satisfied with him except that point that he leveled up very slowly compared to the others and did get really powerfull at the very end of the game.
I'm not saying Priest is better or funnier to play, but for the gamer who wants "power" characters the priest will get it faster and with a little more power than the bishop.
The Bishop on the other hand has the highest number of different spells. |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:18 am |
|
|
Maggot
Magister of the Light
Joined: 17 Jul 2001
Posts: 392
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland |
All right, all right, I'll state reasons for my opinions . The reason I pick a bishop is that priests are a bit useless early in the game. Healing wounds is kind of pointless when you can get killed in one hit. You get so many potions to heal yourself with in the early levels, that you don't really have to worry about the bishop's low level. Anyways, I had an alchemist as well, and they can heal you even if they're silenced (which hasn't happened much to me in this game, compared to Wizardry 7.)
Bishops can now cast spells from any spellbook, which covers the spellbooks I missed by already choosing a mage and an alchemist (namely Psionics and Divinity). I may be wrong about this (I probably am) but when I picked my party I had a feeling that priest spells were weaker than the other spells, and overly-concentrated on healing.
I also had a feeling that Psionic spells were not diverse enough across realms to allow for a versatile spellcaster. So that's why I went with a bishop.
Anyway, I already find the bishop very useful at low levels, she can use Psionic magic (driving monsters insane, which makes them occasionally hurt other monsters), Mage magic and Priest magic (I haven't advanced alchemy much for her). She's not as good as the mage or the alchemist at area-damage spells, but makes up for it with versatility!
As for the power-character issue, I don't really go for an all-power-character-party. I take it you mean characters that have ability scores at 100 very early in the game? If all your characters had to be power-characters, you'd have to stick to only five or so classes.
[ This Message was edited by: Maggot on 2002-03-18 04:40 ] |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:32 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
Maggot: Good arguments
I can agree on almost everything. The alchemist can help you heal in the beginning, but soon you will need his/her offensive spells and the bishop/priest will have to do the healing. The spell "Heal all" and "Resurrection" is nice to have already in the early mid-game, which only the Priest can get early on. The priest can't cast fireballs, tsunamis, earthquake, lightning or other very nice elemental spells, but he can cure everything, and cast a lot of protection spells, and he also gets the level 7 spell "Death wish" (Divine realm), which is the "instant kill" on all enemies spell. The bishop get the same spells, but need much more time to get them to same power level as the priest.
I currently have a level 31 Priest and a level 31 Mage. Battle rounds go to max to 3 rounds, often only 1 or 2 rounds before every enemy is eliminated. The Priest cast "Death wish" Power 7, the "Mage" cast "Asphyxaion" power 7, and not much is standing after these spells is cast at that power level. That's what I call "power" characters. I could have finished the game long time ago, but I just wanted to see how powerfull my characters really can get. Even at level 31 there seems to be something to improve at the next level up!
The battles are mostly very easy now, and many will even say boring, and they are probably right, but I'm doing it as an experiment. I have destroyed the bomb in Arnika, and collected all artifacts, and united the T'rangs & Umpanis, and solved every quest I could find so far. I found out that there is some, lets say story evolvment, to make by talking to all the NPC's at that point with the correct "topics", and to escalate a meeting with the other tribes at Ascension peek. Ups, got of the subject, (don't want to spoil anything). Lets say the Bishop is good if you want a lot of choises. And a Priest is good if you can live with less choises, but with more power in those he got.
[ This Message was edited by: Michael C on 2002-03-18 05:45 ] |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:40 am |
|
|
Maggot
Magister of the Light
Joined: 17 Jul 2001
Posts: 392
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland |
Did you start a new game, or did you switch your fighter to a mage? |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:44 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
My party was/is from the begining:
Fighter
Samurai
Alchemist
Mage
Priest
Ranger
and I didn't change them during game.
First time around, I played:
fighter
Gadgeteer
Lord
Bishop
Mage
Bard
My until now last experiment is:
Priest
Fighter
My 2 character party had a hard time in the beginning, but now they are very high leveled compared to where I am in the game, and doing very well, eventhough battles take a lot longer time to finish. |
|
Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:52 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
