I don't think that class-balancing is at all necessary. You have the potential to form a party of 6. You'll often be fighting enemies in parties of 6, thereabouts, or even larger. 4E has clearly tried to level out the playing field from 1-30 for all classes, and that works in 4E very well. But the imbalances of classes in 2E and 3E is what makes them all unique and challenging to play. I think if you removed the aspect of the game were each class is forced to face it's own limitations and rely on the strengths of it's party members to overcome an otherwise impossible encounter, there would be a lot less intrigue from battle-to-battle in BG1 and 2. I love Mages more than anything, but at the start of BG1, they are relatively dreadful. That's part of the experience as much as being level 18 and being able to swipe aside almost anything ^^ If you want to multiclass, that's fine. Kits are another way of adding flavour. But the pure classes are what they are because they are incapable of doing the things that other classes excel in doing! If Clerics could pound out fireballs and chain lightnings 6 times a day, why would you want a Sorcerer? If Fighters could dispel defences and lower spell resistance, then what point is there for Mages having such spells?
Comments
I love Mages more than anything, but at the start of BG1, they are relatively dreadful. That's part of the experience as much as being level 18 and being able to swipe aside almost anything ^^
If you want to multiclass, that's fine. Kits are another way of adding flavour. But the pure classes are what they are because they are incapable of doing the things that other classes excel in doing! If Clerics could pound out fireballs and chain lightnings 6 times a day, why would you want a Sorcerer? If Fighters could dispel defences and lower spell resistance, then what point is there for Mages having such spells?