As seemingly one of the few people in existence, I like regular Thief. Mage is also nice seeing as all the cool specialist mages (Invoker, Necromancer, Conjurer) have some crippling opposed school... though now I have Sorcerer, so bye bye to Mage I prefer Cleric to the kit ones too come to think of it, as none of those 3 fit my character concepts (not that I ever play Cleric myself mind you). Most of the druid kits doesn't make sense until BGII imo, but they are more interesting for sure.
The kits are generally cooler and more interesting than the base classes, so that's my preference, but several of the core classes are indeed just fine. One of the great things about Baldur's Gate, or indeed the D&D CRPGs in general, is that we have so much choice with races and classes and playing the available combinations is always valid.
This is a loaded question. I think mulit classes unbalance things greatly in the game. In particular it removes the need for certain classes if you have a multi or dual class. Groups would be a lot more in need of different single classes if that's all that was allowed. Having played some early MMOs and games that based on D&D that had only single classes/hybrids I'd say I prefer it that way. It makes group play a lot for enjoyable. Generally I play a dual class in this game as it is vastly more powerful then a single class in most cases. Hybrids are a lot better balanced then multi class IMO. If there is a need for mult/dual class it should be done via single class hybrids instead IMO.
Also I disliked "thief" and was very pleased to see it change to "rogue" in 3rd Ed.
I am just the opposite. I hated the conversion from thief to rogue. Rogue is just a little bit to "Politically Correct" for my taste. You hide in shadows, you pick locks, you pick pockets. you are a Thief. Why the need to 'class' it up? Were they feeling that thieves were in need of a self image boost?
I also prefer Thief and Fighter... though I don't like fighters OR warriors no matter what you call them, they're the most generic, silly and boring class in any RPG.
What I find odd is how they renamed classes within the four categories (Priest, Rogue, Warrior and Wizard) to said categories. Fighters, Paladins and Rangers were all warriors, now Fighters are Warriors. Bards and Thieves were rogues, now Thieves are Rogues. (Specialist) Mages and Sorcerers were wizards, now Mages are Wizards. Clerics and Druids were priests and now noone is. I guess it has something to do with race/multi restrictions on classes being chucked out the window with third edition.
It's all just names in the end though and there's usually not even in-game references to them. Thief and Fighter > Rogue and Warrior still mind you.
Also I disliked "thief" and was very pleased to see it change to "rogue" in 3rd Ed.
I am just the opposite. I hated the conversion from thief to rogue. Rogue is just a little bit to "Politically Correct" for my taste. You hide in shadows, you pick locks, you pick pockets. you are a Thief. Why the need to 'class' it up? Were they feeling that thieves were in need of a self image boost?
It's to avoid confusion. The word "Thief" implies criminal behavior. Not everyone who has those skills is a criminal. 1st edition suggests using the name "Scout" for non-law-breaking Thieves.
It's to avoid confusion. The word "Thief" implies criminal behavior. Not everyone who has those skills is a criminal. 1st edition suggests using the name "Scout" for non-law-breaking Thieves.
This is the reason I always disliked the term "Thief" as I distanced myself from picking pockets and stealing from the good honest folk of the realms. I choose the class for their ability to hide in shadows, to backstab, to poison blades or lay traps, etc. I still only ever drew a blade against monsters and criminals.
It's to avoid confusion. The word "Thief" implies criminal behavior. Not everyone who has those skills is a criminal. 1st edition suggests using the name "Scout" for non-law-breaking Thieves.
This is the reason I always disliked the term "Thief" as I distanced myself from picking pockets and stealing from the good honest folk of the realms. I choose the class for their ability to hide in shadows, to backstab, to poison blades or lay traps, etc. I still only ever drew a blade against monsters and criminals.
What the character calls themselves for role playing, and what the class description says can easily be completely different things. My wife played a neutral-good fighter/thief for years that she always introduced as a scout, I don't see any problems with that at all. "Thief" in this case is a meta-gaming term for when you're discussing the character. If you come to this forum and starting bragging up your "scout" there may be many questions about what the heck you're talking about. But it's perfectly reasonable in character. "Assassin" is even worse. We all know its a thief kit, but as a job description, it's actually anyone who kills for money regardless of class. And talk about a name with baggage...
Triple classing is too slow a progression for my liking. You get away with it in the Black Pits where the exp rewards are completely out of proportion with the main game though.
I play a vanilla thief or mage, but due to shoddy implementation the rest are inferior to their kits.
Kitted (or X>fighter duals) fighters aren't supposed to go above specialization (Except the Kensai in ONE weapon, which can attain Mastery (***)), kitted rangers/paladins aren't suppose to be able to specialize at all (except the Archer which can attain mastery (***) in bows, but loses the level based extra attacks with melee weapons). (this leaving aside how ridiculously overpowered the Berserk's enrage is compared to what it should do)
Druids are simply inferior to Avengers and Totemics. And only really surpass shape-shifters once you start running into enemies they can't hit.
Cleric kits give extra abilities based on alignment with no downsides at all (which since they're explicit mythos priests should have reduced spell access and/or other differences, the cleric of Talos shouldn't be able to cast ANY Cure spells just the inflict versions or any spells from the Order or Protection spheres but also gets major access to the weather sphere).
Bards are gimp by an improperly implemented song, and the fact the blade who shouldn't have a song at all, is just as good until 15, then just as good again at 24+ while having marginally better melee due to Offensive spin being s a 4 round +2 hit/damage buff +1 attack +maxed damage rolls when all it's supposed to actually do is cause fear on the next hit for 5 rounds with no save. I won't go in depth, since this'll turn into a 2-3 page essay, but in Brief, Bards are the worst implemented, counting their kits, of any of the classes available.
Not necessarily. BG Assassins can be of all alignments except Lawful Good, since while it's true that some alignments are just hired killers, other are agents who do what they must for the greater good, or in the name of balance..or however you want to spin it, when the law can't exact punishment enough for the crime (A Good assassin having to discreetly kill a Corrupt official because he's either covered his tracks too well and has the people's support to prosecute or the system of law is equally corrup (or killing a Lawful Good leader who's gone too far into Lawful Extremist to save).
A lot of the implementation of kits does seem overpowered. I really cannot see the reason you would play a vanilla Paladin over a Cavalier, or a Fighter over Berserker (but I'm not really one for ranged weapons). Too many kits have downsides that are negligible if played a certain way and do not offset the benefits they offer.
The only class I can really see as being solid in vanilla form compared to kits is Ranger due to the ability to use heavy armour. Stalker and Archer are well implemented in the sense that you specialise and become good at one thing but lose out on the flexibility and heavy armour of the ranger.
Thief kits are moderately balanced in that they all lose something fairly worthwhile, but this is rather overshadowed by "thief redundancy" that sets in once 100 in pick locks and find traps are reached. Thieves don't gain as much combat ability from levels as fighter-types or casters, and their utility plateaus once traps/locks are maxed. While in BG1 you may still struggle for the skill points, in BG2 there is little point in a single-class thief/thief kit when compared to the multi/dual alternative. I've played a Thief, Swashbuckler and Fighter-thief though the whole saga before and the F/T starts stronger and stays that way.
The thing I dislike about kits is when they trade roles for bonuses. You can be a better melee thief, but you lose back stab, or you can get a bunch of immunities, but you lose your effectiveness at range. Chances are as a matter of playstyle a lot of characters don't take advantage of all their roles anyway, so it becomes less a choice of "What do I want my character to do?" and more "What kit do I need to pick up so my class doesn't fall behind?" So many amount to "You're more like a fighter" I'm wondering why they bothered.
It gets to the point that if I want to play a vanilla fighter or paladin, I feel like I have to put some focus on ranged combat.
One very good reason for not using a kit is that so many of the characters I've created for BG are recreations of characters I played in PNP. And in PNP kits are much more about the role playing issues. Very few of the 2E kits actually offer meaningful combat bonuses either. They are far more often about role playing and social roles. Those kits that do offer useful combat bonuses (like Cavalier) often have significant requirements in addition to class minimums (Cavalier requires a 15 in strength, dexterity AND constitution). So the majority of Paladins I played (and yeah, I played a lot of paladins in PNP) do not have a kit represented in BG at all. So I end up with a lot of single class characters with no kit. It kind of takes me back to my early gaming days that way. That's always a good thing!
I like vanilla thief. It has max thief skill points, backstab, and vanilla traps. Swashbuckler loses backstab. Bounty Hunter and Assasin lose precious skill points.
Also I disliked "thief" and was very pleased to see it change to "rogue" in 3rd Ed.
I am just the opposite. I hated the conversion from thief to rogue. Rogue is just a little bit to "Politically Correct" for my taste. You hide in shadows, you pick locks, you pick pockets. you are a Thief. Why the need to 'class' it up? Were they feeling that thieves were in need of a self image boost?
It's mostly a RP thing for me. I tend to envision my characters as having a roguish flair and daring rather than a burglars mentality. Hence I like the swashbuckler kit in BG. Rogue is more accurately descriptive for my characters than thief is, but is only a personal choice. I can see the flip side.
Comments
The kits are generally cooler and more interesting than the base classes, so that's my preference, but several of the core classes are indeed just fine. One of the great things about Baldur's Gate, or indeed the D&D CRPGs in general, is that we have so much choice with races and classes and playing the available combinations is always valid.
What I find odd is how they renamed classes within the four categories (Priest, Rogue, Warrior and Wizard) to said categories. Fighters, Paladins and Rangers were all warriors, now Fighters are Warriors. Bards and Thieves were rogues, now Thieves are Rogues. (Specialist) Mages and Sorcerers were wizards, now Mages are Wizards. Clerics and Druids were priests and now noone is. I guess it has something to do with race/multi restrictions on classes being chucked out the window with third edition.
It's all just names in the end though and there's usually not even in-game references to them. Thief and Fighter > Rogue and Warrior still mind you.
"Assassin" is even worse. We all know its a thief kit, but as a job description, it's actually anyone who kills for money regardless of class. And talk about a name with baggage...
Kitted (or X>fighter duals) fighters aren't supposed to go above specialization (Except the Kensai in ONE weapon, which can attain Mastery (***)), kitted rangers/paladins aren't suppose to be able to specialize at all (except the Archer which can attain mastery (***) in bows, but loses the level based extra attacks with melee weapons). (this leaving aside how ridiculously overpowered the Berserk's enrage is compared to what it should do)
Druids are simply inferior to Avengers and Totemics. And only really surpass shape-shifters once you start running into enemies they can't hit.
Cleric kits give extra abilities based on alignment with no downsides at all (which since they're explicit mythos priests should have reduced spell access and/or other differences, the cleric of Talos shouldn't be able to cast ANY Cure spells just the inflict versions or any spells from the Order or Protection spheres but also gets major access to the weather sphere).
Bards are gimp by an improperly implemented song, and the fact the blade who shouldn't have a song at all, is just as good until 15, then just as good again at 24+ while having marginally better melee due to Offensive spin being s a 4 round +2 hit/damage buff +1 attack +maxed damage rolls when all it's supposed to actually do is cause fear on the next hit for 5 rounds with no save. I won't go in depth, since this'll turn into a 2-3 page essay, but in Brief, Bards are the worst implemented, counting their kits, of any of the classes available.
Not necessarily. BG Assassins can be of all alignments except Lawful Good, since while it's true that some alignments are just hired killers, other are agents who do what they must for the greater good, or in the name of balance..or however you want to spin it, when the law can't exact punishment enough for the crime (A Good assassin having to discreetly kill a Corrupt official because he's either covered his tracks too well and has the people's support to prosecute or the system of law is equally corrup (or killing a Lawful Good leader who's gone too far into Lawful Extremist to save).
I also like vanilla icecream.
The only class I can really see as being solid in vanilla form compared to kits is Ranger due to the ability to use heavy armour. Stalker and Archer are well implemented in the sense that you specialise and become good at one thing but lose out on the flexibility and heavy armour of the ranger.
Thief kits are moderately balanced in that they all lose something fairly worthwhile, but this is rather overshadowed by "thief redundancy" that sets in once 100 in pick locks and find traps are reached. Thieves don't gain as much combat ability from levels as fighter-types or casters, and their utility plateaus once traps/locks are maxed. While in BG1 you may still struggle for the skill points, in BG2 there is little point in a single-class thief/thief kit when compared to the multi/dual alternative. I've played a Thief, Swashbuckler and Fighter-thief though the whole saga before and the F/T starts stronger and stays that way.
It gets to the point that if I want to play a vanilla fighter or paladin, I feel like I have to put some focus on ranged combat.
So the majority of Paladins I played (and yeah, I played a lot of paladins in PNP) do not have a kit represented in BG at all. So I end up with a lot of single class characters with no kit.
It kind of takes me back to my early gaming days that way. That's always a good thing!