Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Mage > Bow Rogue > Melee?

I have a general question about the class balance.

It feels like Mages are by far the best class in this game, and that ranged is by far the best way to fight. But I may have missed something, so I wanted to check.

Mages seem to have a clear advantage for two reasons. First, they're ranged, which means they don't have to spend any of their action point to move before they attack (barring some line of sight problem). They get to use all of it for actual actions (spells). They share this advantage with bow Rogues. This is why it seems ranged (mage or bow rogue) > melee.

But they're better than bow Rogues because spells don't miss, whereas arrows can. The effects of the spells can be resisted, but this risk is shared with arrows. Basically, spells have to pass 1 test to work (vs resist), arrows have to pass 2 tests (to hit and vs resist).

Is this right? Because if it is it seems like a huge imbalance to the combat power of each class.

There have been many debates on these forums about the best/worst classes. They have all been fairly inconclusive. Mages are powerful, yes, but warriors and melee rogues can pump out damage as well. Obviously having range is a huge advantage, as it is in every game in the world, but mages and archers need this range because they are squishy. Warriors can take hits, especially if they have a shield, and still have respectable damage output. I would say mages are only "better" than pure warriors and rogues because of the sheer variety they have. They get tons of CC, group attacks, buffs and debuffs, all of which can get really low cooldowns with high intelligence while warriors only have one skill tree and cannot reduce skill cooldowns. Battering Ram and Phoenix Dive are both powerful skills to close distance, and featherfalling a warrior into position can be effective as well.

Archers start off pretty weak, but they can start out-damaging a mage later in the game, especially against single targets. Also, arrows don't have to pass 2 tests. Regular auto-attacks are either hit or miss, and there is no resist (though armor can reduce damage). Special arrows are guaranteed to hit, but some of them can be resisted. And they just buffed special arrow damage (or at least some of them), so archers are even more effective now.

No. All classes are very viable and offer different possibilities. Rangers lend themselves near perfect for high perception, opening fights with battlefield setting and crowd control arrows.

And one of the abilities of melee I nearly never see discussed are the man in arms skilss dealing resistance and body building/willpower debuffs (lower and nullify resistances, divine light). Powerful tools best applied in the middle of enemy groups.

In short - I always had the best time with mixed groups enclosing all 3 principle types (ranger, mage, melee). Only the 4th class, the rogue (which is NOT a warrior), escapes me - too much patience and caution required to get them going, especially early on. But others report him to be equally powerful.

There is no such thing as a ranking of character "classes", there is only different battleplay styles and different approaches. Not to forget powerful hybrids like battlemages, which I personally regard as useful as a specialized build. Larian has done a good job on class balance.

Regards,
Thorsten

It's definitely not like the OP states.

Balance seems very good in the game, all classes have their uses.

Personally, though, I've found melee rogues to be the best. They take a couple of levels to get going, but when they do... oh boy.

You'll be able to move insane distances every turn for very little cost soon enough, meaning you'll always get behind enemies. Your attacks only cost 2 AP, and you attack twice -- meaning on-hit chances are better as well. I found my melee rogues outdamaging my two-handed warriors by far.

And well-built two-handers outdamage mages and bows. Also, the fact that melee has several ways of closing the distance makes bows less needed and nullifies the range advantage somewhat.

Reading this (and other) thread(s) I've the idea to play D:OS with 3 heroes (one of the Source Hunters then with Lone Wolf), remembering Larian Studios very first project :
"The Lady, the Mage and the Knight" (see : Larian Studios on Wikipedia )

I believe this would be awsome (I hope to believe it would) to play

And remember clearly Divine Divinity, I ever wish to play with a Warrior type together with a Survivor and a Mage ! Then I have 3 basic classes in 1 party ... it's like playing DD, but then the pleasure starts to become 3 times more exciting & better !!!

In other threads you'll see people say this too but this isn't a game where you need or should have the "holy RPG trinity" or quartet

In D&D it is more of a quartet, in MMO's it's more the triad

D&D - Tank/Damage; Mage/Utility/Damage; Cleric/Heal; Rogue/Utility/distractions and RPG stealth and picking locks and traps, and rogues of course a damage dealers
the thing is mostly each piece provides an ability that is mostly unavailable to all the others.

In MMO's there's less emphasis on the lock picking and traps, so the mage and rogue kind of got merged

IN this game, you might say you need the duo, which would be a sort of tank and then the other one
but there aren't any taunt skills so tanking isn't all that reliable.

First in this game, healing spells have multiturn cool downs and there are 4 at most, so your healer often won't get to use any of them more than once. One heal is actually from men at arms rather than water.

In this game you don't really need any specific class. Healing potions can be about as good as healing spells and without a cool down I think
Stealth isn't really required and everyone can learn it. Lock picking isn't required to finish the game either.

If you go with 1 lone wolf you get more of a "the master adventurer and the 2 apprentices"
The lone wolf will have significantly more health and ap and skills than the other

As for any one class being better, I don't know that it's really true.
I do know if you mess up your build you will cripple that character.
But if you follow certain templates each class does really well.

As for the comment about bows, bows seem to be a lot more about combinations of magic arrows than just doing lots of damage with normal arrows.
Try shooting a poison cloud followed with a fire or explosion arrow for example.
So the archer ends up more as AoE and CC, but they still do a lot of damage if done right.
They're sort of like mages except they don't have cooldowns on their damage spells. They do have cooldowns on some abilities but the damage spell equivalents are the magic arrows.

I was enjoying playing the rogue but got fed up with the ridiculous bobbing animation causing targetting to break and the annoying amount of trial an error and inconsistent results when positioning for a backstab.
The number times a target who wasn't the one with the turn bobbed or weaved and was suddenly NOT under my cursor when clicked really fucking frustrating.
Lets backstab...ooops I guess we're go the face to face handshake and wasting AP DAMMIT
I didn't like using the combat cam/view much and didn't even know it was there at first, but that might help.

But I found a rogue was mostly like what exant said - lots of ap so you run all over the map
and easy have ap to spare to run circles around a taget to keep backstabbing them.
backstab..end of turn..spend 1 or 2 ap moving behind the target, backstab, backstab, back.. oops it's dead.

I've been playing 2 lone wolf mages and they do pretty well, but the play style feels really awkward at times, since the AoE spells do the most damage, so it a few rounds of AoE then you tap away until the mobs die or the AoE cooldown expires and then you finish them.

I thought with the rogue though each backstab did more damage than a mage's non-AoE spell and you got to reuse it a lot of time.

I've no need for the holy RPG trinity

I just wish to find a play style that gives me te most pleasure , the best feeling of roleplaying ...
I can imagine to have only two mages or only two rogues it's kind of repetitive fighting style ...
Just 3 (or more) different types gives much more tactical possibilities in combat and the mage can help the warrior and vice versa, etc ...

So no offense : for me no special needings, but only my vision/opinion about playing RPG's

Greetings

Ahh I misunderstood then
The fun in having 2 very similar character is figuring out strategies where they support each other and can be interchangeable. So you come up with ways tactics where 1 supports the other or prepares the way for the other.

With 2 mages you have 5 different schools of spells to choose from. So they aren't really just 2 identical mages. You pretty much have to cover the different types of magic or you end up in fights you just can't win.
For example a lot of demon types and fire elemental types. If both mages focus on pyromancy then you're pretty much screwed for that fight because all your spells end up healing the creatures instead of hurting them. Even the creature you can summon will heal them instead.
So that's why you have to split the schools up in some way.

Water and Air are somewhat complementary
As are earth and fire
So you pretty much have
Scarlet: Fire+Earth Rod: Water+Air
or
Fire+Water and Earth+Air, then in a single round you can pull off certain combinations like rain to make a poll of water and lightning to stun everyone in the water
ect


But for Bow/Rogue/Tank each has just the 1 school so there wouldn't be any variation there.

I'd suggest searching for people talking about "power builds" or their "ultimate builds" and see which ones sound fun then try it out. Or just try stuff out, but that can get frustrating each time you make a choice that turns out to be a dead end or just uninteresting.


With rogues and tanks I think it would be boring

At least with the archer you can use complementary arrow types
Poison Gas + Fire/Exlplosive
Steam Cloud + Shocking
ect

With tanks and rogues... pick up lots of barrels drop them early in the fight and break them?

There isn't any taunt so you couldn't do an MMO style rogue ping pong

Where you have a rogue on each side of a target and then argo from back stabs causes it keep turning 180 degrees

Ultimately there are fights you have to go through that some classes just aren't suited for. There are some creatures that are healed by all elemental damage, which negates 4 of 5 schools of spells. Of course witch craft has "death punch" which has a long cool down but does a HUGE amount of physical damage.

In the later game there are a few places where 2 lone wolf characters gets annoying though because of other limitations

Just created a login to answer to this. This game is a pearl regarding roleplay potential but... "Class Balance" is missing some key features that makes the ideal party very easy to assemble. Not going to dabble on "gameplay" preferences, etc, as there are enough features to support each role, imo, in a satisfying way but...

...Strictly speaking about Combat difficulty (Meassured in how much turns it takes you to kill enemies) Combat is ridiculously easy with a party of 3 Mages + 1 Warrior. (Most regular fights end in the 1st turn in normal difficulty):

- Warrior = Man at arms. Stack strength get BOTH 2 handed (early) & 1 Hand + Shield (late).

- Mage 1 = Pyro > Hydro > Airo. Stack Int (Mages Schools are also roughly ordered in importance from early game to late).

- Mage 2 = Airo > Geom > Witch. Stack Int.

- Mage 3 = Hydro > Pyro > Geom. Stack Int.

The ammount of pets you can precast, the ammount of raw healing/AOE/surface control and impressive buffing to your Warrior when Magical resistant enemies appear will make any other combination pale.

The only thing you will miss with this party is:
- Charm (Which in plain game terms is just another pet).
- Silence.
- Pickpocket (The entire rogue class can be skipped almost completely due to a few game design flaws).

If you are starting or planning to play with a friend online... I REALLY DISCOURAGE you to mix main characters that aren't mages... Above everything else avoid rogues/nightblades because they require a lot of time for weak performance (And even worse... Costly "Dirty Deeds" skills that will get replaced by simple spells or nullified by the environment/Breakable objects)... And once elemental pets start to be common they are usually a nuissance because they lack the required immunity to operate in the fields your fellow mage will create. A warrior is strictly needed because there are a couple of main story encounters that are immune (or close) to elemental magic. It's perfectly ok to go with BOTH mains as physical characters to enjoy all the extra mechanics and challenges mages made trivial otherwise, but do not MIX or one is bound to get frustrated or the other bored while waiting.

THere are key flaws that trigger this that could be solved... But detailing them would require a lengthy answer.

And yet another one regarding some things as universally inferior and superior while in reality only his own preferences and playstyle lead to that result. Boring.

Regards,
Thorsten

And you seem to ignore the difference between preferences and mechanics... Numbers, sadly do not lie. On a limited stat RPG system that immensely reward combination of skillsets the basic flaws are numerically obvious:

- 5 skillsets that scale and improve by a single stat = INT.

- 2 Mutually exclusive skillsets that improve with DEX. Each also requires a linked weapon skill to be able to scale in damage.

- STR only controls 1 skillset. As above, it requires an additional weapon skill to enjoy damage scaling.

- Range is an AP bonus. Some powers are designed ignoring this basic feature. The best example I found is comparing Scoundrel's "Cloak and Dagger" versus Markman's "Tactical Retreat". TR moves the character 3.75m per AP while CnD just 2.5m... And the final "touch" is realizing that, by the time a Scoundrel reaches CnD most likely has movement above 2.5m. The final paradox is that the higher cost power is assigned to a melee restricted set, while the cheaper is assigned to the ranged one. The same critical flaw happens on most melee special moves AP... They have the same or higher cost than their equivalent magical counterparts which, ofc, disregards completely the fact they require movement to reach the target.

- Linear benefits linked to increasing costs. Skillpoint-wise, to have a certain ammount of skill slots, is cheaper to have 2 skillsets at lower level than one at higher. This option can only be performed efficiently by mages because... Their 5 different skillset are controlled by the same attribute.

- Ranged attacks can be perfomed undisturbed at melee range.

So even without having to analyze each repertory of effects... Mages are more powerful simply because they have more stat points to allocate to "other things" (In particular AP pools) and far more efficient skill slots than the rest of the classes that are pigeonholed into a single skillset per stat.

Such balance arguments as the above one are however inconclusive without also taking into account what each attribute affects in detail(movement range, AP amount, survivability etc.), what weapons with what skill + values each class can or can't use due to min req attribute and what enemies with what bonus or malus regarding damage-dealt/hits-taken exist in the game.

I am mentioning that because the discussion is kinda pointless. The game doesn't need a perfect balance between "classes". It only needs something more or less balanced in such a way that each party composition can finish the game. And with Madora and Jahan you essentially already have a perfect party combo available to you, without even taking Player chars into account. And I am sure 2 lone-wolf ranged/dagger rogues could finish this game with ease just by using the barrels and environment.

The only real conclusive evidence a look at each attribute, and skillset that it relates to, brings, is that it shows us which combinations of stats are stronger and which are less stronger. But it does not mean that it is unbalanced or that it even shows us where imbalances exist.

D:OS simply has no actual combat system alá DnD. Where you fight not just monsters, but characters with IDENTICAL class, stat, item and ability pools as the player, where a inter-class balance is extremely important. In D:OS you fight special classes and at no point are they in any way a match to the player in a 1:1 fight. Even the bosses, if you remove any ability the player does NOT have would be push-overs. And in those situations the question is whether players can realistically counter boss abilities with any class combination (I think they can)

Raw numbers are not everything when it comes to balance in a game where the only "balance" is that of "player group vs encounter group"

If you wanted to find a true balance, you'd have to look at each encounter in the game, specify what level the player chars have at that point, what skills, items available etc. To see whether something is inherently unbalanced or overpowered. And that then, shows you what is unbalanced. In the end you would however not make a fun game imo.

If you think the game doesn't need balance... Why you care about ppl that think so? It's something I always wonder... If you like to play in a given way what you should be asking is to have gameplay elements you can interact with. If you scroll up and actually read the very first post is about that... This game offers those elements, that's no problem.



Really? Well I will quote yourself to highlight how, in reality, you are caring about balance and already showing examples of what you also perceive as broken:



If you are sure... Why didn't you do it? Have you checked, in your reassoning, how many turns it would take for them to finish a fight? There is nothing complex about evaluating balance... Just requires ppl to look for the right magnitude and just playing the game with different configurations. I challenge you to play the game with the following Lone-wolf Duo: Hydro/Air/Pyro Mage and Nightblade (You may be tempted to add to the "roguish" character the traditional skills used to solve some challenges... I assume you have already the knowledge to avoid that extra pitfall. Just focus on trying a 2 stats character with a weapon skill)... If possible let another real person play the Mage and see what happens at resolving conflicts (not just combat) during the game (Specially if he gets Invisibility)... You don't need to even play the entire game, just try to finish Cysae, and if you manage do take a note on the different party "tactics" you both had developed.

It's the standard check about balance... Compare the winning combo versus the weakest and see the difference in performance (The real weakest would be a pure Rogue loaded with Dirty Deeds skills... But that would make comparisson harder as it will mix a Combat oriented 3 skills character with an, in theory, "usefull" characer for OOC situations).



This phrase is selfcontradictory... How can be a stat + skillset "stronger" than other and not be "unbalanced"?



I just think a lot of ppl posting about balance simply come to defend their gamestyle and haven't bothered to play the game multiple times with different combinations... Which is paradoxical as they are likely playing solo, a field D:OS have no problems with as, I repeat again, offers enough gameplay elements to keep interesting each "class", meaning whatever change done to classes would not affect them as they don't have anything to compare with... For them the difference between finishing "conflicts" in 1 turn or 10 will just have an impact on game longetivity.

Meanwhile, in multiplayer, "conflict solving" is performed far more efficiently by characters able to manipulate the battlefield at distance using skillsets that require the minimum investment in skillpoints/stats to scale up to the game content... That means ultimately that one person will spend time waiting for the other or the other will be superflous in the outcome of conflicts.

Basically, I am disagreeing with your assertion that each class should be equally strong in combat.

Can't really reply to all that text ,) I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that you look at class strength in singular raw numbers fashion, while I look at PARTY strength as a whole in all situations. And I played rogues, mages and everything else in between. Dual Lone wolf and party of 4 (granted, dual lone wolf rogues was.. interesting to say the least)... are mages very strong? Yes sure, and rogues not so much in combat... but rogues are not high damage dealers in DnD either, they are a support class.

But without a rogue class in my party I'd never play this game. No matter how weak or strong that is in detail. It is, after all.. an RPG.. not a competitive death match And rogues have situational uses that can decide certain situations very much in your favor...

Anyway, I guess they should have more uses, but they should not have the same kill strength/speed as mages nor the survivability of tanks ,)

Depends on the version of DnD you play... From 3rd onwards, rogues are in fact, the best physical damage dealers by far... They require possition and are extremely foe immunity dependant, but their sneak attacks beat by far anything other physical combatants can provide. Put in other words, against regular targets are the best at taking out a single target by physical damage. Coincidently, something that has also been a "tradition" on DnD Rogue class is its extreme ressilience versus AOE damage (exacerbated to humongous proportions from 3rd onwards)... Something that is timidly represented on D:OS by Headstrong, sadly only entering into play at high levels were 20% bonus will not "patch" the main problem which is the weak effects compared to skill cost of Bodybuilding & Willpower. This "resillience" is needed because they can't just stand there and exchange blows with opposition (That's the specialty of the Fighters, aka Man-at-arms here on D:OS) so they are forced to move around the battlefield all the time.



Not as advertised, true... But every time you mix multiplayer on a game, something THIS game advertises as strong selling point, you have to care about the "ethereal" concept of "usefullness".

On a PnP RPG usually there is no problem at all assigning "solo scenes" were each character specialty shines (be it talking, fighting, exploring or crafting/researching). Sadly, on online environments, you have to provide ways for the entire party to participate in as many different aspects as possible so no player may feel like "loosing their time" when others are taking the lead in whatever activity. That's why it's feels paradoxical that after beating (or lessening) the showstopper that dialogs are usually in multiplayer RPGs with the shared dialog system (or through the "listen" to conversation option, or the conversation log), providing interesting "offspec" activities that can be done in parallel (Stealing, bartering, crafting, character control management and even the excellent OOC/IC concurrent state assisted by the pyramids), suddenly, in the activity that consumes most game time which is combat, Physical classes are overriden by Magical ones to the point of becoming just support most of the time.



Sorry for reshufling the quotes, but 1st I needed to explain how I perceive party mechanics... Sadly, years of MMO terminology have "poisoned" the concept of balance (Due to economical reassons "balance" in MMOs usually ends in cloning). I still adhere to the PnP RPG concept of balance... It's not about every1 having the same whatever numerical output you want to meassure, it's about every one having a strong specialty and, if possible, balance the ammount of opportunities to show that "specialty". So each player, through his/her character, can feel usefull at some point.

As this is a computer game and not a real PnP session... You don't have the GM as a balancing factor. Instead you have to revise your mechanics to provide this variety of specialties at the same "costs" and then control encounters so the optimum specialty rotates in a balanced way (And control that the worse one still have a chance).

I will not enter into the encounters in detail because I don't want to spoil... That's why I focused on character creation flaws, instead... But D:OS can be improved on BOTH and, even if solo players don't need this adjustments (But I'm sure that they will welcome more variety in party tactics), multiplayer ones suffer when mixing characters "ways to approach combat".

I have to disagree with this statement. INT affects only one skill set (magic), which is spread out over five different alternative paths. Maybe just a case of semantics, but still a distinction worth pointing out nevertheless (in my opinion, at least).

- Pickpocket is not a rogue skill in this game.
- Charm is not just a plain pet.
- Why a warrior and not a ranger or a rogue in a party of 3 mages? I could not see any valid argument there.
- STR and DEX skillsets "require" an additional skillset (a weapon skillset) to enjoy scaling, or one could say it's an optionnal extra buff mages do not have (nor do they have bully). You can spin that both ways as long as you want if you don't crunch numbers.
- "Cloak and Dagger" and "Tactical Retreat" are largelly irrelevant, but since you compare them, have you taken into account the fact rangers need the PER (perception) stat while rogues do not?
- If mages spells did only 1 damage each, they could not be called "the most powerful", and if they did 10,000 they could. Hence there is a breaking point, and numbers must be crunched. You didn't.
- Why are you expecting eRe4s3r to demonstrate how many turns it would take to end any given fight? You are making the claim, it's up to you.

Maybe I didn't highlight this specific topic enough... I will try to explain it with an specific example. Suppose that you want to have 10 different skills in your character with a 20% bonus (This "bonus" is 10%/AP until you reach 100% and then 5%/AP after 100%) to effect in all of them. Here is the cost based on the different options (SP: Skillpoint, AP: Atributte points in this case):

a) 2 Mage Skillsets = 6 SP + 4 AP

b) Scoundrel + Markmanship = 6 SP + 4 AP

c) 1 Mage Skillset + 1 Physical Skillset = 6 SP + 8 AP

d) Man-at-arms + Other Physical = 6 SP + 8 AP

Now suppose that you also want to have a good bonus to damage while using all of them, let's say +20%:

a) 2 Mage Skillsets = 6 SP + 4 AP + Free Scaling

b) Scoundrel + Markmanship = 6 SP + 4 AP + 6 SP (Single Hand + 1 Ranged Weapon)

c) 1 Mage Skillset + 1 Physical Skillset = 6 SP + 8 AP + 3 SP (Weapon)

d) Man-at-arms + Scoundrel = 6 SP + 8 AP + 3 SP (Single Hand... Will mean degraded performance on MAA AOE powers unless specced also in 2H Weapon, in which case it will be as case e) ).

e) Man-at-arms + Markmanship = 6 SP + 8 AP + 6 SP (Weapon + Ranged Weapon)


I haven't even need to check what EACH skill does (With the exception of the "free scaling" which, even nerfed after last patch is still biased towards mages even taking into account maxed weapon skills) to know that a Mage with the same bonuses will enjoy a net advantage of 4 AP and 6 SP over the worse combo. If you want to translate this into levels... Feel free to do so.

Considering that pickpocket requires you to be on stealth, and approach your enemy in stealth (In fact is the only "stealth activity" that can't be mimicked by Invisibility), and stealth is a basic requirement to offset the dagger penalty to damage... I wouldn't expect any other character but a rogue to use it at full efficiency against most targets.



In fact is worse because can be resisted, but I consider it fair trade to remove temporarily an enemy and/or turn its powers against their group.



Because a Man-at-arms is the only one that, adequately buffed, can whistand the most damage from most varied sources. If you also use it as mobile cover while using a shield will force ranged attackers to target him instead of your mages. Finnally it's the only one able to project some form of area superiority through its attack of opportunity mechanic (D:OS uses a weak version because a MAA can't get traits to increase the number of times he/she can retaliate nor add CC effects to them) specially combined with weapons that can CC your enemies on hit, meaning it's the only one capable of preventing enemies to approach your ranged attackers.



Just do a basic check at any level of single target damage per AP cost (After applying the last patch that reduced the initial excellent coeficients magical attacks enjoyed) and you will see how devs provided the scaling "for free" to mages.



This probably mean you aren't used to play with a melee character or you would know how valuable tools they are SPECIALLY when having a mage creating fields you don't want to step on (Yes friendly ones included).

Rangers are only affected by PER when perfoming regular attacks. Special powers and special arrows (The real strong point of Rangers) are spells and have 100% chance to hit. Instead of stacking PER, stack SPEED (After you cap your DEX ofc) to regain extra AP that you can use to move closer and cancel that penalty directly, or if you want to keep range advantage, by adding the extra AP of "Precisse Stance". On top of that you will move more per AP point and also will be able to use more skills middle fight.

PER, paradoxically, is better for Mages as that 1st round of combat is critically important to configure the battlefield to your own taste before enemies start to walk around or simply to deal a devastating AOE barrage that will cripple/kill most your enemies. As they have the extra Atributes to do so, compared to physicals, in my solo "min maxed" party the 2 damage mages have PER as secondary (The AIR one is also the explorer with light steeper and invisibility) and the Hydro has more speed (To be able to cast multiple heals in the same combat round, specially later).



I expect some1 that discuss mechanics to do the analysis him/herself and offer another viewpoint... I can simply say the same about your post.



Instead of typing anything... I expect you to actually bother to play with the weak class and check it yourself. That way you can't come later and claim that I was lying about mine. Which is what usually happens when ppl comes complaining about facts that take literally 4 minutes to check (Loading the game and customizing a new character gives all the necesary info you seem to look from me).

Your explanation does not make pickpocket a rogue skill.

Charm is not "in fact" (lol at your facts) worse than a summon, because if you remove "temporarily" an ennemy and/or turns its powers against their groups, it also means the ennemy group can turn its damage on their charmed friend, which is free damage that makes the fight end in fewer turns. Weird it escapes you, since you're so big on that.

You can use any melee as meat shield. With 3 mages there's no difference whether the meat shield is a warrior or not. You could even use a mage as meat shield. If you ever played with a mage in your party you'd know that.

Target damage per AP cost is better for rogues than mage, depends on the situation, level and gear, and whether or not you have glass cannon (if you run out of good spell to cast and still have action points to use). Physical attacks scale with weapon level aswell.

There's no field I don't want my melee to step on, if you ever played with a mage in your party you'd know that.

Even if rangers sometimes use special arrows, auto attacks remain useful so they end up with more PER than rogues do anyway. "Cloak and Dagger" and "Tactical Retreat" are still largelly irrelevant, because most of the time I can cover the distance just by walking and it will cost less AP to do so. I use those skills out of combat more than within.

I will not lose my time crunching numbers with someone who didn't do the first step. You aren't discussing mechanics, as Thorsten pointed to, you're just spouting baseless gibberish.