Xavier Blackthorn

Oh - I totally agree that even a third of the way through the game, a Wizard (or two in my case) really start to shine - and by the end - indispensible. If I started the game again, I'd play a Wizard, without Might to start with knowing I could boost might to a certain extent with items in-game. My first time through was kinda frustrating tho. Still - I was happy with how my Chanter worked out.

Having finished the game, I just wanted to post my Party and PC build, and add some comments. I had great difficulty settling on a Primary Character (PC). Partially due to the Might attribute being a desired attribute across all classes. Traditionally I've always built a wizard/mage class, but to start with, this class is SUPER weak. So I started playing other classes. Tried a Ranger, a Cipher, a Priest and finally a Chanter. I got quite away through the first Act with a Ranger with a bear, but I always came back to the feeling that I was missing out on a lot of conversation options, due to low Perception, Intelligence and Resolve. In the end, I decided I'd break the rules, and build a PC that had no might. This way, I could invest in high Intelligence, Perception and Resolve. No, this still didn't give me ALL the conversation options I wanted, but it certainly gave me most of them. Of course I had to choose carefully which class I believed would be LEAST affected by lack of might. A melee toon was of course not an option. As were Wizards, Ciphers, Druids and possibly Rangers. Rangers don't DO an awful lot of damage anyway, but still. In the end, I settled on a Chanter. But this Chanter was ranged. With a Arquebus. Which made up for *some* of the lack of might due to it's raw damage output. (I was annoyed to find that Might affects the rifle and pistol - as if the damage output of these guns reflected how hard you pulled the trigger or something!) The Chanter can still Chant, (and I'm don't *think* the Chants were affected by might - I could be wrong here). And the Chanter could still summon very useful allies - again supposedly without the use of Might. To make my Chanter more useful, I made her the Mechanic, so she was the one finding all the traps and loot etc. I finished the game, including beating the Master Below, with her, Eder, Aloth, Durance, Pallegina and another custom Wizard. Although I regularly swapped the custom Wizard for a Cipher - either Grieving Mother, or a custom Cipher (because GM stat's were pretty poor), because I thought the Cipher was a really interesting class. Using the boots of stealth on my Chanter with the gun, with the Cipher casting the 'Flanked' skill, gave some decent damage results for my Chanter with a lack of Might.

I'm sure this has been raised before, but I did a search for "Might" on the forums and didn't get any hits, so here is my question: Why is Might required for every class? Now, Obsidian have every right to build they game they want to play - even if what they make is their own version/take of things like DnD rules and previous games like Baldur's Gate. And if they take away 'healing' and put 'Endurance' in it's place, so be it. (Personally I think it sounds like an extra layer of complexity, but that's their call). I just don't understand why, in order to have an effective character in combat, you HAVE to have Might. As a wizard, you shouldn't need it. You never had to have might (or strength) as a Wizard before. This would also apply to other characters like Rogues, and in this game, Ciphers, Druids, Priests etc. But to be an effective combatant, the game says you should have Might, regardless of class. Why do you need Might to pull a trigger on a pistol or rifle? Why does the resulting damage from said weapons increase if you have more Might?? It was frustrating and very limiting to consider a party build where Might was needed for all classes.