Personally I dont find mages to be that effective. I mostly use them as debuffers so that my front line fighters aren't held up by pfmw.
Perhaps it's because I don't like to rest that much, so my mages need to ration their spells fairly carefully. But even when they do get going, spell damage seems fairly weak (because most spells get a save for half damage) compared to melee damage. 20d6 is only 35 damage assuming the save is made - that's a couple of hits for a fighter.
Now granted I could use contingency + triple wilting every fight (and then lie down for 8 hours sleep) but I always found this pretty cheesy (personal opinion I know) as contingency was never like this in P&P (check out the P&P cast time and try using that in a fight...).
That is precisely the reason why every arcane caster should be in some class combination that allows for spelll-independent damage, i.e. either Fighter/Mage or Fighter->Mage. The latter is preferable due to the diminishing scaling of fighter levels past 13.
The damage spells aren't very useful aside from AoE scenarios, but the buffs and dispels are. More than useful, they may even be considered mandatory for the higher difficulty mods.
Of course that doesn't mean that pure casters aren't "viable", it just means they're worse than multi/dual combos.
So, I've had more time to play now and cleared SoA with my party of Inquisitor, Ranger/Cleric, and two Kensai (13) -> Mages.
As I expected, missing a thief was no problem whatsoever. Locks can be forced/Knocked, traps can be brute-forced or avoided with absolutely no effort. The only part where traps were somewhat annoying was the Demon Wraith in Watcher's Keep, who is apparently scripted to lure you into them (particularly the permanent one which rapid-fires Fireballs). It wasn't anything that couldn't be dealt with otherwise, though.
Ranger/Cleric has been a positive experience, though it is noticeably weaker in damage output than a fighter dual during early/mid game. GWW helps compensate a bit, but requires more work. Where it does shine, though, is defense. I thought Barbarian->Cleric was good because of damage resistance; I now know that resistance doesn't matter if you don't take damage at all, thanks to Iron Skins. Being able to tank things all day without even looking is a very handy thing to have! In the early game especially it makes short work of things like golem packs, which can be a pain otherwise, and is an overall damage reduction factor that makes life easier by a mile. I was not particularly impressed with the other druid spells, though. Insects are largely useless because SCS scripts fire shields on pretty much every mage, and once you get to dispelling them you might just kill them outright. Also, casting with a front-liner can be annoying because of interrupts. I've also tried using Nature's Beauty a lot, as I've heard good things about it, but did not find it particularly effective. Anyone have some other suggestions as to what druid spells are actually useful?
Inquisitor remains the backbone of my setup, and is quickly rising to be one of the most powerful classes in the game in my eyes. The dispels and well as True Sight are simply too good; even with reduced power (I'm going with x1.5 this time) most mage battles are essentially dispel wars, and having and instant-cast AoE dispel is godsend in many ways. It's making me think it's TOO good even; so many fights are trivialized by it that I will consider leaving out the Inquisitor for my next run, simply because of Cheese Alert. I might try x1 too, but it still remains a free instant lvl0 dispel, which is amazing in and of itself. All the reduced power does, really, is force you to take things slower and skip certain areas (Liches) until you are a bit higher level, or rely on RNG. Carsomyr is another big reason, as it not only dispels as well (and completely annihilates Stoneskin), but also hits like a truck against many enemies. It is also fairly easy to get, as Firkraag is not a particularly challenging boss even at midgame.
Kensai->Mage remains strong as ever. With a 4-person party, I had little difficulty regaining levels, though I did start off with 3 and added the 4th (2nd K->M) later, so it started out with more XP. Even so, I had regained both classes well before the Asylum, without doing WK or all the sidequest areas (no Eyeless, no Temple Ruins iirc). There is little to say about this combination that hasn't been said already, they remain the most powerful characters in the game for sure.
One other thing I noticed is that having a R/C and Inquisitor, i.e. two fighter-types without GM capability, allowed me to vary up my weapon selection considerably. While my K->Ms were sticking to their preferred choices, I could switch around the other two characters' setups considerably. This for example allows me to transform half my team into ranged damage dealers, which helps tremendously against certain enemies. Against improved Fire Giants, for example, you can just kite them with a stoneskinned K->M and kill them with ranged weapons, never having to deal with their troublesome abilities. I should have noticed that earlier, really, and literally facepalmed when I did... ¬_¬
What remains? I think I've gotten fairly close to an optimal setup now. 4-person thiefless seems the way to go, as you level noticeably faster, while still retaining flexibility. The one part I'm unsure of is the cleric still. R/C really is basically Iron-Skins-on-a-stick and little else; I'm not sure it's necessary, though undoubtedly handy. The question remains whether it wouldn't be better to go for a dual instead, though I'm not even sure what the extra cleric levels would give me; Grandmastery is certainly nice, as is Berserker Rage, but it comes at the cost of losing fighter HLAs. Given that a Cleric can never cap APR anyway, GWW might actually be a necessity - which means dual class. The alternative would be Fighter/Cleric, essentially trading Iron Skins for 0.5 APR and some damage. Whether that is a trade worth making... I might be inclined to think it is not, especially since APR become less relevant the more GWW uses you have.
I might try something more exotic for my next playthrough, to bridge the time before BG2:EE hits and forces me to re-evaluate everything. I'm sure that the new classes/kits that are likely to come will make things much more interesting, so maybe I'll just skip the powergaming and have some fun. Don't know!
I finished ToB as well now, and as expected it was a breeze. Ascension remains a bit random as always, but if you get in some quick kills it's not particularly challenging. Lunar Eclipse, to me, remains one of the toughest battles and took me several tries to defeat.
Not much to say on the class setup, except that I'm re-evaluating the role of the cleric now. I paid careful attention as to what I do with it, and I found that I use *very* few of the spells. My #1 cleric spell used was Iron Skins, followed by #2 Protection from Evil 10' Radius and... well, #3 Draw upon Holy Might. Next came Righteous Magic and Remove Fear, and then a whole bunch of nothing. So in essence, all I use are self-buffs, and PfE/RF. PfE is a nice spell to have, but only a very minor bonus. PF can just as well be cast by mages, and I only used the cleric because of convenience (mages were busy casting IH during pre-buff time). Of course, both DuHM and RM are very good spells - I'm just not sure they are good enough to warrant the inclusion of a cleric.
I always thought of clerics as buffers mainly, but when you think about it, there aren't all that many buffs you want to cast. Chaotic Commands is certainly the best one, but it competes in its slot with both RM and IS, which means I basically never cast it in my game ever. Everything it protects against can be played around in other ways, and really the only time where it is even a hot consideration is when fighting Mind Flayers (since you apparently can't dispel their psionic stun, except with Remove Paralysis). Confusion happens fairly rarely in my games; mages usually have more dangerous things to cast than Chaos (and are a prime target anyway), and the only creatures that routinely confuse are Umber Hulks and Myconids, both of which are complete pushovers.
The other buffs include elemental protections, which you can easily replicate with potions/scrolls for the two or three times in the entire game you actually need them; minor bonuses such as Bless; and Negative Plane Protection. That one is handy against all the vampires, but any time you face them you can pretty easily "tank" them with whoever has the Amulet of Power, or upgraded Azureedge/Mace of Disruption. Even if one breaks loose, a hit or two isn't the end of the world. You can handle the final Irenicus battle in much the same way, just have the amulet/weapon ready to equip when you are about to take draining hits.
But wait, you might say, what about *healing*? Yeah, well, what about it? Healing with a cleric is extremely inefficient mid-combat. You not only have to get close to the target and survive through the lengthy cast, but the only heal really worth casting is Heal - a lvl 6 spell (assuming you mod away the complete OP-ness of Greater Restoration). Healing is best done with potions and the Rod of Resurrection, both of which are instant, or by not taking excessive damage before the fight is over. I find myself healing mid-combat quite rarely past the mid game, as by then I have all the defensive and offensive tools I need to negate most incoming damage, or at least manage it. No heal will save you from a lich pelting you with Dragon's Breath, Comet, or Horrid Wilting. Even against a failed CC-save, heals can only do so much; a stunned character will be hit so easily that you can't heal them up fast enough for the damage they take. Out of combat healing on the other hand is completely irrelevant in BG2. If the damage is substantial, your cleric won't be enough to heal you up anyway. If you can rest, then it doesn't matter if you rest for 8 hours or 8 days (the pretty much only exception being Ust Natha).
So, with that in mind, I'm going to start a new playthrough now with a party both cleric- and thief-less. Well, for the most part; I've decided to give the Archer another try. Analysis of the data from my previous attempt made me think - while late-game efficiency tapers off, even at the end my Archer remained a top contender in the number of overall kills. The wide variety of available ammo also makes it quite flexible when dealing with different sorts of enemies, particularly after someone pointed out to me that there is in fact a considerable amount of Arrows of Dispelling available.
This is the setup I am going to try now:
Inquisitor Kensai 13->Mage Kensai 13->Mage Archer
Weapons-wise, this leaves me in a bit of a weird spot. The inquisitor can change weapons around easily (due to only spending 2 pips each), but I still can't get a +APR weapon for her. Those will go to the Kensais, paired with the two most damaging weapons in the game, Crom Faeyr and Flail of Ages. I've grown to love Crom Faeyr, by the way; I must say I severely underestimated the importance of 25 STR, and its impact on overall performance. It comes very close to FoA in damage, and I do mean *very* - on paper, it can surpass it slightly (assuming 18/xx base STR), but FoA's large elemental component is very good. Both are also blunt weapons, the best damage type. The Archer will, of course, use Xbows and Shortbows, for Light Crossbow of Speed, Tuigan Bow, Firetooth, and Shortbow of Gesen - the former being for damage output, the latter for enemies that are difficult to hit.
I know I said I was going to drop the Inquisitor, but I just don't know for what. True Sight is incredibly useful throughout the game, and surviving early game without the Dispel Magic can be quite annoying and involve a lot of running away/waiting for buffs to expire, which I'm not sure is a good alternative. Besides, without UAI I don't have room for another dual-wielder anyway, and there are few 2h weapons that come close to Carsomyr in power.
As always, input and ideas are appreciated! Particularly regarding my evaluation of clerics, and possible substitutions for the Inquisitor.
Thanks for the thought-provoking posts. I tried your first 4-man party [Inquisitor, K->M, K->M, R-C] and had a lot of trouble without a strong arcane caster for so long. No Haste, no Skull Trap, etc. The early Suna Seni fight, for example, was a real pain. Stunned, panicked, soon dead -- even if the Inquisitor gets off a Dispel Magic. Maybe I'm just too set in having a Sorcerer in all my parties.
I understand the strategic decision for emphasizing DPS. Still, I think that the ability to summon (multiple) powerful allies makes a Sorcerer moderately effective even as a DPS character. Add to that AoE spells and repeated de-buffing to aid your K-Ms while they attack. After all, if the K->Ms are de-buffing, they aren't getting high DPS.
As for the Cleric, I have completed the game [Ascension, SCSII, Tactics, aTweaks, etc.] without a Cleric several times. The Berserker13->Cleric is a very powerful and versatile character, which I have also used on many occasions. A Berserker13->Cleric using DuHM + Berserker Rage + Chaotic Commands is extremely effective as a DPS character.
I have also played the game a couple of times without a Thief. Still, a Fighter-Thief [Dwarf], though "squishy," has a great deal going for it, as we've discussed before.
Right now I'm trying a 3-man party: Sorcerer, Mage-Thief [Jan->Imoen], and ultimately Sarevok [Barbarian] -- a Children of Bhaal Party. Going well so far but am dreading taking on the aTweaks demons in the Planar Sphere at a relatively low level.
Personally, I'd replace the Archer in your new party with a Sorcerer, but that's probably my prejudices talking. How about: Sorcerer, K13->M, K13->M, F-T [UAI for Carsomyr or Scarlet Ninja-To]. The Sorcerer can gain True Sight at L12 and have Dispel Magic from the beginning.
As you have mentioned elsewhere, Kensai13->Sorcerer or Swashbuckler10->Sorcerer would make great members of a dream team. Maybe BG2EE will be moddable in such a way.
I agree that some of the early fights, particularly the ambushes, can be annoying to deal with. However, that's just a matter of practice and priorities: TS immediately to un-stealth the rogue, and move into proper positions to snipe the mage asap. Sometimes you get unlucky and a failed CC save pins you down, but most of the time you can eliminate the mage fairly quickly and after that it's gg. Also: learn to love, and I mean LOVE Oil of Speed at early game!
Sorcerer was certainly a consideration, but I stand by my point that its damage output simply cannot compete. While it's nice to have a versatile caster early on, that's pretty much the time it will be best. Without a reliable source of damage, all the buffs and debuffs simply don't do enough. Summons are one solution, but they are laughably weak in comparison with player characters. They are distractions and meat-shields if anything, but not a source of good damage.
Also keep in mind that dualing at 13 requires extensive metagaming; mass-scribing and saving quest turn-ins for example, make it much less of a hassle to go through that downtime period. Also, you are far from useless either before or after - you can plan your route through the quests and fights in a way that you don't require a mage until you have one (e.g. skipping liches). Once you dual, your mages aren't useless either - with scrolls and clever xp usage, you can basically start them at lvl 7 or higher right away, and that's enough for many useful spells (like Haste).
I do agree that it requires jumping through some hoops; but then again, you only need what, 1.125.000xp to reactivate your old class? I finished SoA at over 8.000.000xp total per character, so I think that's not a terribly large fraction you have to deal with "reduced" power.
Your suggestion of K-M², F/T and Sorcerer seems interesting. F/T could actually be an answer to several issues (good user of SNT+Carsomyr), but I'm not sure I like trading solid damage and survival as well as the TS/Dispel utility for a pure spellcaster. I just don't see a Sorcerer do much at endgame - what do you do against all the tough, magic resistant enemies that seem to crop out everywhere? Beholders, liches, dragons, drow, they all seem like unpleasant obstacles. Sure there's stuff you can do, but raw damage does it better in most cases - all you need is a few dispels. For example, I killed Demogorgon within 10 seconds - once his defenses are down, you just slaughter him with melee damage. A Sorcerer wouldn't be able to help much there, no amount of hasted summons will match a buffed PC, and Demo's resistances against magic are very high (90 magic, 100 fire/ice/electricity, 50 cold). Spells simply take too much time - which is another thing that the Inquisitor excels at, as their TS/Dispel are both instant.
Perhaps I'm biased towards endgame, perhaps you aren't used to different (= mage-less) early game; I'm not sure. I think I will give Sorcerer another try soon, though, as the appeal of early high-level magic is certainly something worth considering. I just don't know what to do with my Time Stop time if I can't go and murder everything with my attacks :P
@Lord_Tansheron - A comment and a couple possibly useful references:
Comment: A high-level Sorcerer equipped with the Robe of Vecna & Amulet of Power can cast Project Image and Improved Alacrity, buff, use Farsight and Dimension Door to navigate the map and empty his spellbook repeatedly. His Time Stop will kick in slightly sooner than those of the Kensai-Mages so he can tear down the magical defenses and resistances of Beholders, Liches, Dragons, & Drow (possibly killing them outright) to help the K->Ms be most efficient when their Time Stops kick in. I find the high level Sorcerer (and its Project Image) in my party to be by far its most valuable member -- even when just standing back under Improved Alacrity and hitting enemies swiftly with one appropriate spell after another. And often throwing in a Planetar.
A link to Stworca's (AKA Tad30s) YouTube channel where you can find videos of his party engaged in the most difficult battles in BG2 with Difficulty Mods. https://www.youtube.com/user/Tad30s/videos
2. Cleric of Talos dualed ASAP to Fighter (Human - Dual Wield)
3. Weimer's Anti-Paladin or Inquisitor **The former is particularly good because it can get Grandmastery.
Any warrior is good for dual wielding except a Wizard Slayer. I recommend a Berserker to tank enemies that use Imprisonment.
4. Weimer's Generic Archer or Wizard Slayer dualed to Thief ASAP (Human) **The Wizard Slayer 7 -> Thief takes advantage of the "Ranged Weapons disrupt Magic" component of BG2 Tweaks.
The remaining slots are changed with each playthrough (or left empty).
5. Swashbuckler dualed to Cleric (Human) 6. Another 2H Paladin / Anti-Paladin
OR Weimer's Generic Archer, Blade, Viconia, Valen
I don't use Rangers, Druids, Monks, Kensai, Barbarians, Assassins etc. But that does not mean that those classes or kits are weak. I never use two Sorcerers/Mages (Bards are limited to Lvl 6 spells). One is enough to beat all enemies who should be beaten with magic, and having 5 physical DPS characters makes short work of enemies who are resistant to magic. Having a second arcane spellcaster will greatly reduce the difficulty of most encounters (not having one will increase it).
- If you want any of your characters to stay single class ... Create him as a Cleric and dual right after the game starts. Why?
1. Armor of Faith! Damage reduction is the key to later fights, cause enemy can wipe your whole party with just one spell if you fail its save (Horrid Wiltings for 100 is a good example) This 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25% (which is always added to your regular resistances) may be lifesaving. 2. Sanctuary (free time to prebuff in the middle of hell), Doom (handy saving throws debuff), and DuHM (bonus to all melee stats). 3. Resist Fire/Cold. (Cold is useful only against Adalon, but 80% of all non-physical damage is fire including many HLAs). 4. Level 3 spells: - Dispel Magic - Protection from Fire (100% to normal and 80% to magical) - Zone of Sweet Air (for my gameplay in later encounters its not necessary, but its always good to have in emergencies).
@Curmudgeon: Thanks for the input! I am indeed familiar with Stworca's work, but I disagree with it on several key factors.
It is absolutely true that a Sorcerer can just go around and cast cast cast, killing everyone and anyone. However, that's not the point; it's not about whether it's *possible* to kill stuff, it's about how you do it *best*, i.e. most efficiently.
Can a Sorcerer kill Demogorgon? Absolutely. Without taking damage, too. But will it be done in 10 seconds? No. The debuffing and general spell casting will take much longer, even with Robe of Vecna/Amulet of Power. Time Stop in particular is a bit of an illusion of efficiency (assuming fights where the mobs aren't immune, i.e. not Demogorgon); it is an amazing defensive spell because it completely negates all enemy action, but it also greatly diminishes offensive output because it eliminates your other party members for the duration. You have to keep overall throughput in mind at all times. That's the whole reason you have a party! Enemies don't "scale" with part size, and so more people directly translates into more damage. Going back on that through Time Stop is not efficient - unless the enemies would fight back significantly, and thereby reduce your damage output.
Time Stop aside, though, spell damage output in general is simply not competitive unless there are large numbers of enemies to be fought at the same time. If you can pelt 5+ mobs with Horrid Wiltings, then sure, go ahead and cast! If you are fighting one big boss and their two cronies (or something along those lines) then chances are spells won't do too much. Even some of the highest single-target damage spells like Dragon's Breath or Comet don't beat buffed melees. A DB might do 120 damage in one round - a melee does that in half the time, without chance of interrupt, and all day every day forever.
That is not to say, of course, that magic doesn't have its place - even offensive spell damage. It most certainly does. There is no question about the power and efficiency of mages in BG2/ToB, which is why I run so many in the first place. I just firmly believe that they should be based on fighter duals at all times, simply because of the damage output. I do not believe that a pure caster like a Sorcerer has significant benefits over a dual, because increased casting proficiency does not make up for a lack of sustained, easy-to-use physical damage for the vast majority of the game.
That being said, you do bring up some interesting ideas. The Cleric->Fighter route in particular seems interesting. Still, I do have a few questions:
#1 is AoF worth the sacrifice in HP? You lose substantial HP if you skip low fighter levels, particularly with high CON. Those HP also mitigate damage, in a way, and do so without needing to be cast or being at risk of being dispelled
#2 Needing Sanctuary to buff up mid-fight seems like an issue of poor planning. With meta knowledge or proper micromanagement, you shouldn't need it.
#3 Resist spells are handy, but only really needed for a few specific encounters (e.g. various dragons). You can cover that with scrolls and potions, or even rings in the case of fire resistance. And just how many cleric levels do you plan on getting? 3rd level spells need you to be lvl5, that's half your fighter HP gone.
#4 DuHM is the big one. That spell is super-useful, and it may be enough of an argument. I'll have to do some testing.
As for the others, let me just tell you that the Anti-Paladin is nothing short of the cheesiest pile of cheese you will ever find. Forget Kensai->Mage, AP->Mage walks all over them. It's an Inquisitor with built-in Carsomyr that has Grandmastery and can dual-class - yeah, totally fair. The Inquisitor is already borderline, Anti-Paladin is nothing short of ridiculous. I consider it a fun addition for a bit of RP and light-hearted god-mode play, but it has no place in a "serious" discussion. The same goes for Solaufein's sword, by the way; the character is cool, the fights the mod adds are fun and challenging, but the weapon he gets is the most overpowered pile of cheese (for those who don't know it: it's a +5 weapon with +1 APR, dealing extra magical damage on hit, and granting *permanent* Luck, Free Action, Chaotic Commands, Draw upon Holy Might, Armor of Faith, and Death Ward. Yeah. Um. Right...)
Generic Archer on the other hand is actually fairly okay. It's a Ranger Archer that trades divine spells for dual-classing, which is certainly something to consider. Not sure why you would dual it to thief and not mage, though; if anything, chaining Energy Blades with Called Shot seems like a plan. But to be honest, I don't like dualing Archers at all; ranged weapons are already behind in damage, so you need the scaling bonuses to compensate.
The Wizard Slayer was discussed at length before, and even as a thief dual it doesn't change the fact that once your hits are connecting with the mage, you are already winning; and besides, scripted spells (of which the most difficult mods have many) and contingencies are unaffected by the casting failure.
Much of what I criticize about Stworca's guide I have already covered in this thread, but I think the recap was worth it even at the risk of redundancy. Keep in mind that it's a 4-year old work, and much of my own testing and experimentation was made with his (and others, like UserUnfriendly) analyses in mind.
I think their main mistake is that they still operate under the (understandable) assumption that you need the cleric-mage-thief trifecta in every party in some way, and that a party of six is the best way to go. I'm realizing more and more that these are not necessarily optimal assumptions, and that brute-force offense couple with high HP can just steamroll over most parts of the game, without a need for utility. When you think about it, utility mostly applies in situations where you are faced with something unexpected - but that shouldn't happen. The degree of meta knowledge and the static nature of the encounters let you plan ahead almost 100%. There should be nothing happening that you did not account for, and most of it is a repetition/reshuffling of the same general effects (CC - damage - defense).
Before I go, one more thought that I am currently evaluating. I have always been a proponent of the lvl13 dual for my Kensai->Mages (and other fighter duals), given how important APR is for damage output. However, I am now rethinking that position. Sacrificing 1/2 APR if you dual at lvl9 instead may not be as bad a plan as I initially thought. Given that many fights are dispel-wars and not pure dps races, the APR may not be as relevant as more mage spells - and sooner regaining of the class. Early/mid game is a consideration, and has become more of one once I realized with my latest playthrough that you are basically invincible after 5.000.000xp or so. That means I can shift some focus to the early/mid game, and the difference between lvl9 and lvl13 is quite substantial (1 MILLION xp!!). I know I'm eating crow here, but that's part of any discussion. Those of you who have been butting heads with me over the issue, rejoice, you may very well have been right!
I guess I'll have more testing to do! And as always, keep the comments coming and the discussion going. Any input is appreciated greatly, no matter how small!
Honestly I don't mind dualing a fighter at lvl 7. Sure you get 2 less of the max possible hit die but you can pretty much have everything available by the end of BG1 that way. Then BG2 isn't a hassle at all. I've found it particularly nice for Fighter > Thief and Fighter > Cleric if you plan your proficiencies accordingly.
lvl7 dual seems very weak in BG2. You are practically lvl9 when you finish the starting dungeon, and HP is a godsend later in the game. Losing what, 10% of your total HP seems a steep price for how little effort it takes to get to 9 as fighter and 10 in the new class. You also gain an extra proficiency point, which can be relevant if you say dual to mage, who gain very little points.
On a different note, I've gone and quickly tested the whole Cleric->Fighter idea. I must say, I am not impressed. Not only do you lose HP, it also seems that the spells you want to be using don't actually work how you think they do. Apparently "caster level" is determined as the level of the class that has the spell; dualing at lvl5 Cleric means that your Armor of Faith is a mere 10% reduction, and your DuHM only grants a +2 bonus. Even your kit-specific spell only lasts 30 seconds. It also makes your Dispel Magic practically useless. Compared to whatever else you'd be instead, I don't think it's a combination I'd want to go for.
lvl7 dual seems very weak in BG2. You are practically lvl9 when you finish the starting dungeon, and HP is a godsend later in the game. Losing what, 10% of your total HP seems a steep price for how little effort it takes to get to 9 as fighter and 10 in the new class. You also gain an extra proficiency point, which can be relevant if you say dual to mage, who gain very little points.
On a different note, I've gone and quickly tested the whole Cleric->Fighter idea. I must say, I am not impressed. Not only do you lose HP, it also seems that the spells you want to be using don't actually work how you think they do. Apparently "caster level" is determined as the level of the class that has the spell; dualing at lvl5 Cleric means that your Armor of Faith is a mere 10% reduction, and your DuHM only grants a +2 bonus. Even your kit-specific spell only lasts 30 seconds. It also makes your Dispel Magic practically useless. Compared to whatever else you'd be instead, I don't think it's a combination I'd want to go for.
is it really that big a deal though?
Let's say with max hp and 18 con you're a fighter that duals to thief at lvl 9 that At level 10 thief you get 8 more hp. You've got a max total of 132 hp at level 10.
If you dual from fighter at level 7 to thief you get a hd roll at lvl 10 unlike fighters so they actually end up with a potential total of 122 hp.
is 10 hp really that big a deal?
The same scenario with a cleric (who only gets 9 hd) instead of thief dual class ends up with 120 which is funny cause its less than the thief dual he he. But 12 hp is hardly a noteworthy loss.
The same scenario with a mage (who gets a hd at lvl 10) instead of thief dual class ends up with 116 hp which is a much more significant loss than the thief dual but is missing 16 hp still really that big a deal? I honestly don't think it is.
The convenience factor of getting your fighter skills back asap is worth missing a pittance of hp IMO. Level 9 to me isn't noteworthy. Level 13 however is because you're getting more potential apr which is something you can't really make up for elsewhere.
Keep in mind the difference between those hp totals can vary based on con. If your con is below 18 the gap shrinks. If that fighter9 to thief10 in my first example had a 16 con his max potential hp is 116, the fighter 7 to thief 10 has a max potential of 108, the fighter 7 to cleric 10 has a max potential of 106, and the fighter 7 to mage 10 has a max potential of 102. As you can see its the fighter con bonus that makes the biggest difference in the totals and thats assuming you HAVE an 18 con on every character you make for dual classing.
If you're not shooting for max potential apr then the slight loss in hp from dualing at 7 (that you'll probably not even miss the further into the game you go) might be worth getting my fighter skills back sooner to some folks. I'm one of them!
I think I agree with you on the 9 vs. 13 part, but 7 vs. 9 I am still leaning towards the higher level. While those few HP points aren't a huge deal, neither are the 2 extra levels you need to grind out. We're talking what, an hour of play time extra? Potentially less? I would do that for the proficiency point alone, given how annoying it can be to max out everything you want properly. It's especially important if you plan on using Crom Faeyr, as there are really no good war hammers to use until you get it and you are more or less forced to pick something else first.
Another factor that should be mentioned (though it does not apply to everyone) is the Dungeon-Be-Gone mod. With it, you practically start with lvl9 right off the bat, making dualing at that level much more convenient.
Still, you may have a point. Especially when dualing to cleric, the HP difference is quite small (even assuming 18 CON at least, with possible bonuses from BG1). When dualing to mage, though, it's noticeable given that that combination also wants the proficiency point the most and has the easiest time regaining levels due to scroll-scribing, I think lvl9 duals for mages is very attractive. For clerics and thieves, things are a bit less clear-cut. If you really find yourself troubled by those extra few levels so early in the game, then I suppose that's your choice; I still believe the sacrifice is worth it, considering how minor it is.
EDIT: One thing I forgot that makes me gravitate to 9 even more: both Berserker and Kensai (the best two fighter kits) gain an extra use of their respective special ability at lvl8.
I think I agree with you on the 9 vs. 13 part, but 7 vs. 9 I am still leaning towards the higher level. While those few HP points aren't a huge deal, neither are the 2 extra levels you need to grind out. We're talking what, an hour of play time extra? Potentially less? I would do that for the proficiency point alone, given how annoying it can be to max out everything you want properly. It's especially important if you plan on using Crom Faeyr, as there are really no good war hammers to use until you get it and you are more or less forced to pick something else first.
Another factor that should be mentioned (though it does not apply to everyone) is the Dungeon-Be-Gone mod. With it, you practically start with lvl9 right off the bat, making dualing at that level much more convenient.
Still, you may have a point. Especially when dualing to cleric, the HP difference is quite small (even assuming 18 CON at least, with possible bonuses from BG1). When dualing to mage, though, it's noticeable given that that combination also wants the proficiency point the most and has the easiest time regaining levels due to scroll-scribing, I think lvl9 duals for mages is very attractive. For clerics and thieves, things are a bit less clear-cut. If you really find yourself troubled by those extra few levels so early in the game, then I suppose that's your choice; I still believe the sacrifice is worth it, considering how minor it is.
Considering this topic is about min maxing your way is pretty much "better" than mine for the purpose of min maxing.
I just felt it worth noting for those who find waiting to get their first class abilities back annoying but who also don't like to cheese mass scroll scribing or quest reward hoarding that dualing at 7 in BG1 is a viable option while still providing a great deal of the benefits you get at lvl 9. 13 is still the best if you want to max your APR but it all depends on how min/maxed you wanna be and how much of the game you are willing to wait to achieve that uber potential.
For me I like going into BG2 with the annoying dual-classing done so I have my character the way I want from the get go.
I'll also leave off with a suggestion for people who don't like having their abilities locked out for a long time.
Use the console to level yourself to where your first class abilities unlock... do the level. Now console your xp to ZERO. Then you will gain xp exactly as you would have with the rest of the party and wont gain any extra levels or have to scroll cheese. You wont level for a VERY long time, but at least you'll have your character functional without the annoying transition period.
EDIT: Saw your edit... yea those kit based abilities have to be weighed in as well and I can see why that pushes you to 9. For a plain old fighter its no biggie but with a kit yea your way makes more sense.
Another quick note about the whole Cleric->Fighter dual (yeah it's been on my mind all day): you *cannot* use sharp weapons with this combination. That means that dual-wield is not a good choice as all the +APR weapons are sharp weapons; unfortunately, all the good 2h are sharp weapons, too, with the exception of Staff of the Ram+6. Granted, it's the highest damage 2h out there - but it's also unavailable until ToB.
@Lord_Tansheron : Thanks again for your informative and cogent posts. I think that your analysis of the Stworca party is on the mark. I've never used Anti-Paladin and can see why you wouldn't. I assume that the Priest of Talos dualed to Fighter is made to get a casting of Storm Shield -- which is a pretty nice buff -- but as you point out the low-level Cleric->??? duals don't have enough Cleric levels to make the buffs that become available more attractive than the alternatives you offer. (Still prefer a Sorcerer to an Archer for flexibility and efficient de-buffing & damage-dealing. Guess we should just agree to disagree on that one. Old man set in his ways.)
When to dual is an interesting question:
Kensai 7 // Berserker 7 [XP 64,000] HP: 7d10 Base THAC0: 14 THAC0: 9 // 11 Number of Attacks: 3/2 Saving Throws: 10/12/11/12/13 Proficiency Points: 6 Uses of Kai // Rage: 2 XP to Mage 8: 90,000 XP to Cleric 8: 110,000 XP to Thief 8: 70,000 XP to Druid 8: 60,000
Kensai 9 // Berserker 9 [XP 250,000] HP: 9d10 Base THAC0: 12 THAC0: 6 // 9 Number of Attacks: 3/2 Saving Throws: 8/10/9/9/11 Proficiency Points: 7 Uses of Kai // Rage: 3 XP to Mage 10: 250,000 XP to Cleric 10: 450,000 XP to Thief 10: 160,000 XP to Druid 10: 125,000
Kensai 13 // Berserker 13 [XP 1,250,000] HP: 9d10+12 Base THAC0: 8 THAC0: 1 // 5 Number of Attacks: 2 Saving Throws: 5/7/6/5/8 Proficiency Points: 8 Uses of Kai // Rage: 4 XP to Mage 14: 1,500,000 XP to Cleric 14: 1,350,000 XP to Thief 14: 880,000 XP to Druid 14: 1,500,000
(Note that the Kensai gains uses of Kai and the Berserker of Rage at Levels 1-5-9-13-17-21 ...)
In the long run, Level 13 has so much more going for it that it seems worth the hassle. Much better THAC0, for the Kensai in particular, more uses of Kai & Rage (double compared to Level 7), considerably better Saving Throws (overall the Fighter class seems superior here). Still, a tough call.
Another quick note about the whole Cleric->Fighter dual (yeah it's been on my mind all day): you *cannot* use sharp weapons with this combination. That means that dual-wield is not a good choice as all the +APR weapons are sharp weapons; unfortunately, all the good 2h are sharp weapons, too, with the exception of Staff of the Ram+6. Granted, it's the highest damage 2h out there - but it's also unavailable until ToB.
But don't you still get more apr dual wielding than not? I mean sure you wont be able to get the extra apr from an o-hand edged weapon but you'd still get the extra o-hand attack... and dual-wielding crom and FoA can't be all bad can it?
--------------- Attacks per Round (ApR) Grandmastery (GM) Dual-Wielding (DW) Main Hand (MH) Off Hand (OH) Gauntlets of Extraordinary Weapon Specialization (GoEWS) -- Can't be used by Kensai unless dualed to Thief (UAI) Special +1 ApR Weapons [Belm, Kundane, Scarlet Ninja-To] (SpWpn) -- Scarlet Ninja-To: Monks and Characters with UAI only
In the party Lord_Tansheron suggests there are two K13->M, wielding FoA+Belm and CromFaeyr+Kundane.
If he chose to use different MH weapons for them, a Priest of Talos or Lathander 10 (say, for 2 castings of Storm Shield or Boon of Lathander) or 11 (for Lvl 6 spells) or 12 (for +4 stats under DuHM)->Fighter might be a worthy addition to the party. That character should ultimately reach an ApR of: 2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + .5 (GoEWS) = 4.5 [3.5 MH + 1 OH] P.S. Priest of Lathander's "Boon of Lathander" additionally gives +1 ApR.
@Lord_Tansheron - Did you ever experiment with the Club of Detonation? How about Cleric->Fighter using that or some other good blunt weapon (Mace of Disruption, Skullcrusher, Storm Star, Runehammer, ...) with the Defender of Easthaven? A Cleric 12->Fighter XX can ultimately GM three weapon types and have 3 pips in DW. Also, one of your K->Ms could replace his MH weapon with, say, Foebane and give it to the C->F without a significant loss in DPS.
But don't you still get more apr dual wielding than not? I mean sure you wont be able to get the extra apr from an o-hand edged weapon but you'd still get the extra o-hand attack... and dual-wielding crom and FoA can't be all bad can it?
OH attacks are capped at 1 APR (2 under Improved Haste), and even with 3 pips in Two Weapon Fighting you receive -2 THAC0 for the OH. It's doable, but far from efficient. The difference between dual wield without an APR offhand and using a 2h weapon is not very big - particularly when Greater Whirlwind Attack is involved as well. The main reason why I don't like Clerics dual-wielding though is that there are no good offensive offhands for them; Defender of Easthaven is about as good as it gets.
If he chose to use different MH weapons for them, a Priest of Talos or Lathander 10 (say, for 2 castings of Storm Shield or Boon of Lathander) or 11 (for Lvl 6 spells) or 12 (for +4 stats under DuHM)->Fighter might be a worthy addition to the party. That character should ultimately reach an ApR of: 2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + .5 (GoEWS) = 4.5 [3.5 MH + 1 OH] P.S. Priest of Lathander's "Boon of Lathander" additionally gives +1 ApR.
@Lord_Tansheron - Did you ever experiment with the Club of Detonation? How about Cleric->Fighter using that or some other good blunt weapon (Mace of Disruption, Skullcrusher, Storm Star, Runehammer, ...) with the Defender of Easthaven? A Cleric 12->Fighter XX can ultimately GM three weapon types and have 3 pips in DW. Also, one of your K->Ms could replace his MH weapon with, say, Foebane and give it to the C->F without a significant loss in DPS.
This is a possibility. Boon at lvl >=10 is a real consideration, though weapon selection certainly plays another big role. Club of Detonation is a great weapon, damage-wise, but can be dangerous to use in certain situations (particularly when innocents are nearby). Shuffling weapons around is a tricky thing, as is the choice of who gets the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization. Assuming a base STR of 19 (Lum or BG1 Tome), the top five 1h weapons are (listed by average damage):
Crom and Angurvadal move around depending on the base STR of the character; up if <19, down if >19. Another weapon that is a worthy consideration is Celestial Fury; it only has 10 average damage and +3 enchantment (or 11/+5 if you use the ItemUpgrade mod) but it has a stun unless save on *every* hit, which trivializes some encounters (like the Chromatic Demon in WK).
The top three weapons are all blunt weapons, and as such can be used by a cleric combination; Crom Faeyr however is largely redundant on clerics, due to DuHM. I suppose the best choice for a Cleric would be Club of Detonation, as you want every last bit of APR for FoA.
But the main hand isn't much of an issue - the off hand is. Going further down the list of weapons, the next blunt weapon even worth considering is Storm Star, which doesn't really do much in the off hand. The only blunt weapon with decent buffs on it is Defender of Easthaven, and those buffs are purely defensive. Not a bad thing, mind you, but you have to consider what the alternative class would use.
Speaking of alternatives, I am slowly going back to considering Kensai->Thief; not because I want a thief, but because I want to use Scarlet Ninja-to. I was considering a pure Kensai with something like a 2h weapon + GWW, but it seems too fragile on its own, despite the great offensive capabilities. Compared to the Cleric->Fighter, you gain naturally high APR as well as the innate damage/hit bonuses of a Kensai and of course their Kai ability. You lose DuHM above all else - which does hurt. At level 12 it's already +4, and that is quite significant. I suppose you do gain UAI as well with the K->T but I'm not sure there even is anything worth using that a C->F couldn't use as well (besides SNT) so that's only a minor thing - as minor, perhaps, as the utility from the other cleric spells besides the combat buffs.
I think a Cleric of Lathander 12 -> Fighter might be worth investigating. 72 seconds duration on the buff, and a second use of it, practically translates into a permanent +1 APR for most fights. Lvl 12 for a cleric is also "only" 900.000xp, which is quite doable. Cleric of Talos, I think, is better for low level duals, but not for high ones. The immunities are handy, but ultimately worse than APR.
More to think about, and more to test! Thanks for the discussion, it's much appreciated and has opened up several new possibilities. Keep the ideas coming!
This thread has been a good read, and it's interesting to see how some views have changed over time.
Most interesting I thought was the comment that the most important thing was removing protections so that enemies can be hit, followed by the ability to deal damage quickly. Secondly that you want to maintain a strength throughout the game, not just powering up at one specific point.
Of course there are the many sub-demands, such as mods, speed, etc, all of which play into how a party might work (no re-load parties, for instance, would be massively different). However with the 'basics' in play, I would argue you probably want:
1: Fast and safe damage. 2: Consistent spell removal throughout the game.
On 1 there is obviously a move towards dual wielding and fighters, because they get the best consistent APR. However Archery is also very good, especially early game and against weaker groups, due to not having to run around and the range of arrow options available.
In addition to this I think a class that can backstab must also be considered. Despite the fact that it becomes useless in the late game it makes some early to mid game battles SIGNIFICANTLY easier. It can take out certain dangerous or annoying enemies in one hit, and it can get around Mage protections by killing before contingencies and the like kick in. Given that such mage battles are usually the only tricky ones, this helps a lot. Not having to waste spell slots on detect traps and knock is also much faster, allowing Mage utility in fights and less resting (granted, not a huge issue).
On 2 there is obviously the elephant in the room that is the inquisitor. As has been said time and again the natural abilities of that class are massive and fundamental to a powergaming party. If you do avoid that, however (either by modding the bonus or otherwise), I feel that you might look towards a Blade or Skald in a party. It can use the Scarlet Ninja-to, it can cast Dispel at a higher level than any other class in the game, and it can provide a useful party buff in the early and mid game with its song. Though it wont come close to a proper APR class, it does manage to provide enough utility and buffs to help a group churn through encounters, and can adapt to specific needs for more difficult ones. The Blade is also decent is combat for those times you just need to churn through.
In general I think this discussion has been a bit hijacked by some of the added mod fights, rather than the more common SCS or unmodded powergaming approach, which has tended to narrow the focus. Outside of these specific encounters you can get a faster and easier experience when you do include things like backstab, ranged weapons, and characters other than Kensai->Mage. They may not be quicker at specific points, but might be faster and more efficient overall (higher level duals aren't that bad, but not having to deal with many at all are pretty handy).
As has been said already, once the protections go down things die quickly - the difference between a Kensai and full APR doing that damage and another class doing it is not really that massive. Weapons and APR are the most significant factors.
On the topic of the Cleric, however, I agree. I don't think they add as much to the game when you are powergaming. You can get most of their utility with items and potions, and they don't do enough damage or removal in combat situations to really make a difference.
On the topic of group size I also agree: I wouldn't go past 5 PCs, because of the experience sharing, but also because it is more fluid in adding NPCs to the party for quests and rewards if you do it this way.
Finally one other points:
A true Powergaming party would drop and add members over the course of the game. An early game archer might get subbed for a K->M or other class halfway through SoA, etc.
Completely by the by, but I am trying out the following non-powergaming party:
The Stalker is VERY good early on, given the ability to start dual wielding out the gate with good proficiency support. It also has damaging backstabs supported by good THAC0 and strength bonuses. I expect it will weaken a fair bit as the game gets longer, but straight out of Candlekeep it does allow you to take on some things fairly easily. It can transition to ranged weapons when needed, though it wont ever touch the heights of the Archer, of course.
However with the 'basics' in play, I would argue you probably want:
1: Fast and safe damage. 2: Consistent spell removal throughout the game.
This is entirely correct, and sums things up nicely. It also explains why clerics and thieves aren't very good - they don't significantly contribute to these two points; and it illustrates why mages are so important, as they dominate point 2.
In addition to this I think a class that can backstab must also be considered. Despite the fact that it becomes useless in the late game it makes some early to mid game battles SIGNIFICANTLY easier. It can take out certain dangerous or annoying enemies in one hit, and it can get around Mage protections by killing before contingencies and the like kick in. Given that such mage battles are usually the only tricky ones, this helps a lot.
Backstab isn't bad per se, it's just that the classes that bring it are usually weaker than alternatives, even if you include backstab. Please also note that with SCSII (which at this point could be considered a standard for the majority of "powergaming" discussions) casters will be pre-buffed significantly, particularly with Stoneskin. Backstabing them before scripts go off is practically impossible (and that's a good thing). In addition, every truly dangerous enemy is actually immune to backstab and/or can see through invisibility: liches, beholders, dragons, golems, they all can't be backstabbed - and bosses, too, of course. Still, being able to dispatch an annoying enemy quickly is handy, I totally agree. It's just that the opportunity cost of being able to do so, i.e. being a thief/stalker, is usually too high. Note: I am currently investigating a Kensai->Thief again, which might be good enough to be included. Further data pending.
I feel that you might look towards a Blade or Skald in a party. It can use the Scarlet Ninja-to, it can cast Dispel at a higher level than any other class in the game, and it can provide a useful party buff in the early and mid game with its song. Though it wont come close to a proper APR class, it does manage to provide enough utility and buffs to help a group churn through encounters, and can adapt to specific needs for more difficult ones. The Blade is also decent is combat for those times you just need to churn through.
Being able to use SNT doesn't do too much without fighter APR/grandmastery I'm afraid. Losing 2 APR just to gain 1 isn't a good plan. The dispel advantage is slight, but present, as is the general utility of bards; not surprising, considering they are *the* utility class. Unfortunately, their damage output is quite lackluster compared to a fighter/mage combination (dual or multi), and their song (while helpful) comes at far too great a cost (the effective loss of an entire party member); of course, if you don't consider Mislead + Song an exploit (I do), things might be different... I still doubt it would make up for the loss in damage compared to the alternative, though.
In general I think this discussion has been a bit hijacked by some of the added mod fights, rather than the more common SCS or unmodded powergaming approach, which has tended to narrow the focus. Outside of these specific encounters you can get a faster and easier experience when you do include things like backstab, ranged weapons, and characters other than Kensai->Mage. They may not be quicker at specific points, but might be faster and more efficient overall (higher level duals aren't that bad, but not having to deal with many at all are pretty handy).
The reason for that focus is that powergaming finesse doesn't really come into effect properly unless you play at the extreme end of the spectrum. There is considerable leeway in the vanilla/lightly modded versions of the game, enough to enable "unconventional" setups with little to no detriment. You won't notice those extra 1/1.5 APR, for example, until you are fighting enemies with huge HP pools and damage outputs, where you actually may end up in a situation of surviving by the skin of your teeth.
That is a personal choice, however. You can play the game any way *you* like, and simply amend the conclusions of this discussion as befits your individual setup. Also, keep in mind that the goal of a "powergaming" discussion is optimization. We provide a theoretical baseline from which people can pick and choose whatever fits their preferences best. Things are often very hard to determine exactly for every situation, and quite in flux; that's why an active discussion is important, much more so than rigid doctrine and immutable statements.
The early vs. mid vs. end game focus problem is also a big part of that. It's practically impossible to optimize a party for 100% performance in *all* areas (and including BG1 adds a whole new dimension...). Switching party setups is certainly a possibility, but then you'd still run into issues of when to choose whom etc., adding yet more variables to an already bloated complexity. I think that personal preference also plays a big role here. For example, I personally find that my mid game takes up the most of my efforts, simply because I don't have all my tools yet; but if I switched priorities to make the mid game faceroll, I'd have a hard time at end game instead. Given that end game is far less forgiving and flexible in its solutions, I prefer to be strongest there - even if it means an extra ten reloads in mid game.
A curious setup, but I assume from your Candlekeep comment that you are talking BG1 here as well. It illustrates well my earlier point: it's very difficult to optimize for both games. Stalker seems like a curious choice; in what way is it superior to a fighter/thief combination (especially Kensai->Thief)? Keep in mind that the two weapon specizalization proficiency doesn't actually add a lot, except a little THAC0. Swashbuckler->Fighter is an old favorite of mine, and certainly a nice choice for a party thief. I also think that it's worse than Kensai->Thief, but it's interesting nonetheless. Swashbuckler->Mage however just seems very awkward; why would you choose a thief there? It has less HP than a fighter, its thieving skills are redundant with so many other party thieves (and Swash can't backstab anyway), and you're unlikely to dual at a level high enough for UAI. It just seems worse than a Fighter->Mage in every respect, especially Kensai->Mage. I covered Bards earlier, and the same arguments apply to the Blade. They might be worth considering if their Offensive Spin didn't preclude Improved Haste, but iirc it does, and is consequently a worse version of Kai. Thief/Illusionist? Thief again? You seem quite in love with them Again it seems an odd choice compared to the alternative Fighter/Illusionist, trading backstab ability for naturally high APR and HP. HP seems low in general for your party. My setups usually include fighter HP for every member, and I am already cutting it close against things like Horrid Wilting (which seems to be part of the opening triggers for just about every mage...). I suspect you are not playing on Insane difficulty, that would certainly explain your choices. Try it some day, it keeps you on your toes
One final note on Archers: I am starting to like them more and more. I was inititally a bit miffed by their diminishing powers towards the end of the game, but given how powerful you are there in general, I'll gladly take them along anyway and enjoy the slaughter they make of the early/mid game. The fact that you can get the two best ranged weapons within literally 30 minutes of play certainly helps! I also like how their role keeps changing: in early/mid SoA they are main damage dealers, making up the bulk of your party's kills. Then they shift to a sniping role, taking care of annoying distractions while the team focuses on the main enemy (Critical Strike helps a lot there - watch whole packs of lesser Beholders fall within seconds!), or using their utility ammunition to disrupt (e.g. Bolts of Lightning/Biting, Arrows of Dispelling). There are a few enemies where they become pretty useless, that's true, but I'm willing to live with that. I really underestimated them!
Yeah that group isn't to powergame, it's a thematic selection of half-thieves, most of whom also have magic.
I merely mentioned it as it has reminded me that the stalker is pretty great early on. It's certainly not as powerful as other setups.
Also you can backstab a few mages before pre-casts kick in if you sneak up to them. If they're dead when combat starts then the precasts don't fire. Also a weapon that has a damage over time effect can disrupt through that.
On HP, yes it's a little lower. However if you don't play max HP (which I don't, as I think it's not in the spirit of the game or its systems) it's not as large a gap.
I also think that lower HP across the board raises the power of mages and ranged damage generally, to an extent, which would probably influence your rating of various classes.
Power gaming for mods is distinct to power gaming for the original game as they fundamentally change a number of things beyond mere difficulty. They might be clearly harder, yes, but the way in which they are harder is also different. What is most efficient under one mod might be less so under another.
*** It seems that a fair bit of this discussion has been going with the assumption that you have max HP and true grandmastery enabled, neither of which I would suggest are in the most difficult options of the base game, both of which push the power levels of fighters clear of other classes - especially when used with a dual class.
So it's hard to universalise the discussion. Though of course that is no reason to stop!
***
Editing this, so as to not chain post:
Swash->Fighter as opposed to Kensai->Thief is an interesting comparison. The S->F has the following going for it in my view:
1. Duals at a lower level (faster to reclaim, less downtime). 2. Can wear gauntlets, bracers, armor and ranged weapons for most of the game, not just after UAI. 3. Better THAC0 4. Earlier Thief skills. 5. Slightly better AC 8. Fighter HLAs 9. Better saves for more of the game
On the other side, the K->T has:
1. Backstabs 2. Kai 3. Better Damage 4. UAI (eventually) & other Rogue HLAs 5. More Thief skills (eventually)
If I calculate correctly at 3.5mil experience:
S->F would be 10/21 and have 81 (ave) HP, -2 THAC0, 3 AC bonus, +2 damage, saves of 3/5/4/4/6, 2 attacks, 15 proficiency points, and 250 thief skills.
K->T would be 13/20 and have 107 (ave) HP, 4 THAC0, 2 AC bonus, +4 damage, saves of 5/6/6/5/8, 2 attacks, 15 proficiency points, and 500 thief skills.
At 7mil it would change like this:
S->F is 10/35 and moves to 123 HP and 19 profs. K->T is 13/36 and moves to 119 HP saves of 5/4/6/5/5 and 19 profs and even more skill points.
What else am I missing?
Of those it's only really UAI that would push me towards K->T. The better damage and backstabs later in the game aren't as big as they would be if you had them early, and the dual class downtime and THAC0 and equipment disadvantages would be significant for a fair bit of the game.
In general I think this discussion has been a bit hijacked by some of the added mod fights, rather than the more common SCS or unmodded powergaming approach, which has tended to narrow the focus. Outside of these specific encounters you can get a faster and easier experience when you do include things like backstab, ranged weapons, and characters other than Kensai->Mage. They may not be quicker at specific points, but might be faster and more efficient overall (higher level duals aren't that bad, but not having to deal with many at all are pretty handy).
The reason for that focus is that powergaming finesse doesn't really come into effect properly unless you play at the extreme end of the spectrum. There is considerable leeway in the vanilla/lightly modded versions of the game, enough to enable "unconventional" setups with little to no detriment. You won't notice those extra 1/1.5 APR, for example, until you are fighting enemies with huge HP pools and damage outputs, where you actually may end up in a situation of surviving by the skin of your teeth.
As a point of interest, SCS mostly aims to be inside that "considerable leeway" space - at least for the most part, it's intended to be doable with a reasonably-balanced six-person party without too many fine requirements on the makeup of that party. I don't/didn't want it to be so hard that it prevents you taking a given NPC who you like for story reasons. (Of course, it's very customisable, and towards the extreme end - more extreme than I play myself - that probably stops being true.)
@DavidW: And it does that very well! Thank you so much for giving it to us!! But powergaming isn't about possibility - it's about efficiency; not "can it be done", but "how can it be done *best*". SCS certainly doesn't preclude you from picking whatever you like. It's totally possible to finish the game with pretty much any setup, and it's great that that's the case. Still, that doesn't stop us "powergamers" from finding the optimal setup, the way to do it best, fastest, most efficiently. In fact, it makes that optimization process even more exciting and fun! The vanilla version can be quite one-dimensional at times, facing the many new options and complexities of SCS is what makes optimization a thing in the first place
It seems that a fair bit of this discussion has been going with the assumption that you have max HP and true grandmastery enabled, neither of which I would suggest are in the most difficult options of the base game, both of which push the power levels of fighters clear of other classes - especially when used with a dual class.
Max HP should not affect class power, as the relative average HP values between classes remain the same. As for enemy HP, it should perhaps be noted that spells are also extended to scale beyond lvl20 to compensate (for both enemies and party, of course). The higher HP pools across the board simply prolong fights, and make decisions more impactful. With roll-based HP, RNG plays an even greater role than it already does, and I'm not sure I see the upside of that.
As for grandmastery, it was discussed before and we assume "true" grandmastery in the way of granting a total of 1 APR at 5 pips; there's also the more controversial 3/2 APR one available via mods, but I consider that to be a misinterpretation.
Fighters are ahead of many classes, that is true, but that isn't necessarily due to mod settings but due to game mechanics. Fighters are designed to be the best weapon-based class (with the exception of Archers for bows/xbows), and weapons reach extraordinary levels of power in late BG2 and ToB. The better the weapons, the better APR scaling - which is the main advantage of being a fighter. HP is another thing that becomes disproportionately more important as the game progresses. One reason is the high amount of incidental magic damage; you are pelted with Horrid Wiltings and spell triggers left and right, and cannot rely on combat control to direct those to the "proper" characters (i.e. "tanks"). Another reason is the diminishing power of AC. In BG1 party AC and enemy THAC0 progress at nearly the same rate, making it a fairly important stat. In BG2 however AC progression tapers off fairly quickly, while enemy THAC0s continue to improve to ludicrous levels. As a consequence, AC becomes less valuable, and being able to soak more damage becomes more important.
Mods and difficulty influence these factors insofar as they make things more difficult in general, meaning you will want to optimize more strictly. That's why fighters are so good - they offer the best values at both extremes, offense and defense. When things get hard, every little bit counts - not because of the nature of those little bits, but because things get hard.
As for your K->T vs. S->F analysis, I think it was spot-on. The discussion would be much more interesting if you could make a Fighter->Swashbuckler... But the way it is, K->T simply takes the cake; UAI (and thus SNT) alone would probably be enough of a reason. That is, by the way, why I once made a Swashbuckler 24->Fighter high-level dual. It was fun, but it took an ungodly amount of time to regain the levels, and in the end I think a K9->T or even a K13->T would have done better.
@DavidW: And it does that very well! Thank you so much for giving it to us!! But powergaming isn't about possibility - it's about efficiency; not "can it be done", but "how can it be done *best*". SCS certainly doesn't preclude you from picking whatever you like.
Understood - and don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with powergaming as a fun exercise in its own right (and with doing things like playing SCS on insane as a means of testing the exercise).
Well, if you have max HP then a warrior rolls 10s instead of an average 5. Thieves roll 6s instead of an average 3. As a percentage it doesn't change, but it does make the gaps larger in sheer value. It also makes it more of a 'don't get hit' game, which is rather different to the type where you need to be able soak up the rng.
As for if its more fun and challenging as opposed to more of a dice game - that's anther topic!
Well, if you have max HP then a warrior rolls 10s instead of an average 5. Thieves roll 6s instead of an average 3. As a percentage it doesn't change, but it does make the gaps larger in sheer value. It also makes it more of a 'don't get hit' game, which is rather different to the type where you need to be able soak up the rng.
As for if its more fun and challenging as opposed to more of a dice game - that's anther topic!
You're right. Still, even with random rolls I doubt it would affect your decision in terms of class choice - it just makes things more random as you play it. Whether you enjoy that or not is a personal choice to be sure, but I don't think it affects the theoretical baseline significantly enough to change the paradigm.
Comments
Perhaps it's because I don't like to rest that much, so my mages need to ration their spells fairly carefully. But even when they do get going, spell damage seems fairly weak (because most spells get a save for half damage) compared to melee damage. 20d6 is only 35 damage assuming the save is made - that's a couple of hits for a fighter.
Now granted I could use contingency + triple wilting every fight (and then lie down for 8 hours sleep) but I always found this pretty cheesy (personal opinion I know) as contingency was never like this in P&P (check out the P&P cast time and try using that in a fight...).
The damage spells aren't very useful aside from AoE scenarios, but the buffs and dispels are. More than useful, they may even be considered mandatory for the higher difficulty mods.
Of course that doesn't mean that pure casters aren't "viable", it just means they're worse than multi/dual combos.
and my LP is kind of irrelevant at the moment i think
i have HLAs in underdark and there is nothing they can do to me : (
my party outleveled the content and i don't know what to do
As I expected, missing a thief was no problem whatsoever. Locks can be forced/Knocked, traps can be brute-forced or avoided with absolutely no effort. The only part where traps were somewhat annoying was the Demon Wraith in Watcher's Keep, who is apparently scripted to lure you into them (particularly the permanent one which rapid-fires Fireballs). It wasn't anything that couldn't be dealt with otherwise, though.
Ranger/Cleric has been a positive experience, though it is noticeably weaker in damage output than a fighter dual during early/mid game. GWW helps compensate a bit, but requires more work. Where it does shine, though, is defense. I thought Barbarian->Cleric was good because of damage resistance; I now know that resistance doesn't matter if you don't take damage at all, thanks to Iron Skins. Being able to tank things all day without even looking is a very handy thing to have! In the early game especially it makes short work of things like golem packs, which can be a pain otherwise, and is an overall damage reduction factor that makes life easier by a mile.
I was not particularly impressed with the other druid spells, though. Insects are largely useless because SCS scripts fire shields on pretty much every mage, and once you get to dispelling them you might just kill them outright. Also, casting with a front-liner can be annoying because of interrupts. I've also tried using Nature's Beauty a lot, as I've heard good things about it, but did not find it particularly effective. Anyone have some other suggestions as to what druid spells are actually useful?
Inquisitor remains the backbone of my setup, and is quickly rising to be one of the most powerful classes in the game in my eyes. The dispels and well as True Sight are simply too good; even with reduced power (I'm going with x1.5 this time) most mage battles are essentially dispel wars, and having and instant-cast AoE dispel is godsend in many ways. It's making me think it's TOO good even; so many fights are trivialized by it that I will consider leaving out the Inquisitor for my next run, simply because of Cheese Alert. I might try x1 too, but it still remains a free instant lvl0 dispel, which is amazing in and of itself. All the reduced power does, really, is force you to take things slower and skip certain areas (Liches) until you are a bit higher level, or rely on RNG.
Carsomyr is another big reason, as it not only dispels as well (and completely annihilates Stoneskin), but also hits like a truck against many enemies. It is also fairly easy to get, as Firkraag is not a particularly challenging boss even at midgame.
Kensai->Mage remains strong as ever. With a 4-person party, I had little difficulty regaining levels, though I did start off with 3 and added the 4th (2nd K->M) later, so it started out with more XP. Even so, I had regained both classes well before the Asylum, without doing WK or all the sidequest areas (no Eyeless, no Temple Ruins iirc). There is little to say about this combination that hasn't been said already, they remain the most powerful characters in the game for sure.
One other thing I noticed is that having a R/C and Inquisitor, i.e. two fighter-types without GM capability, allowed me to vary up my weapon selection considerably. While my K->Ms were sticking to their preferred choices, I could switch around the other two characters' setups considerably. This for example allows me to transform half my team into ranged damage dealers, which helps tremendously against certain enemies. Against improved Fire Giants, for example, you can just kite them with a stoneskinned K->M and kill them with ranged weapons, never having to deal with their troublesome abilities. I should have noticed that earlier, really, and literally facepalmed when I did... ¬_¬
What remains? I think I've gotten fairly close to an optimal setup now. 4-person thiefless seems the way to go, as you level noticeably faster, while still retaining flexibility. The one part I'm unsure of is the cleric still. R/C really is basically Iron-Skins-on-a-stick and little else; I'm not sure it's necessary, though undoubtedly handy. The question remains whether it wouldn't be better to go for a dual instead, though I'm not even sure what the extra cleric levels would give me; Grandmastery is certainly nice, as is Berserker Rage, but it comes at the cost of losing fighter HLAs. Given that a Cleric can never cap APR anyway, GWW might actually be a necessity - which means dual class. The alternative would be Fighter/Cleric, essentially trading Iron Skins for 0.5 APR and some damage. Whether that is a trade worth making... I might be inclined to think it is not, especially since APR become less relevant the more GWW uses you have.
I might try something more exotic for my next playthrough, to bridge the time before BG2:EE hits and forces me to re-evaluate everything. I'm sure that the new classes/kits that are likely to come will make things much more interesting, so maybe I'll just skip the powergaming and have some fun. Don't know!
Not much to say on the class setup, except that I'm re-evaluating the role of the cleric now. I paid careful attention as to what I do with it, and I found that I use *very* few of the spells. My #1 cleric spell used was Iron Skins, followed by #2 Protection from Evil 10' Radius and... well, #3 Draw upon Holy Might. Next came Righteous Magic and Remove Fear, and then a whole bunch of nothing. So in essence, all I use are self-buffs, and PfE/RF. PfE is a nice spell to have, but only a very minor bonus. PF can just as well be cast by mages, and I only used the cleric because of convenience (mages were busy casting IH during pre-buff time). Of course, both DuHM and RM are very good spells - I'm just not sure they are good enough to warrant the inclusion of a cleric.
I always thought of clerics as buffers mainly, but when you think about it, there aren't all that many buffs you want to cast. Chaotic Commands is certainly the best one, but it competes in its slot with both RM and IS, which means I basically never cast it in my game ever. Everything it protects against can be played around in other ways, and really the only time where it is even a hot consideration is when fighting Mind Flayers (since you apparently can't dispel their psionic stun, except with Remove Paralysis). Confusion happens fairly rarely in my games; mages usually have more dangerous things to cast than Chaos (and are a prime target anyway), and the only creatures that routinely confuse are Umber Hulks and Myconids, both of which are complete pushovers.
The other buffs include elemental protections, which you can easily replicate with potions/scrolls for the two or three times in the entire game you actually need them; minor bonuses such as Bless; and Negative Plane Protection. That one is handy against all the vampires, but any time you face them you can pretty easily "tank" them with whoever has the Amulet of Power, or upgraded Azureedge/Mace of Disruption. Even if one breaks loose, a hit or two isn't the end of the world. You can handle the final Irenicus battle in much the same way, just have the amulet/weapon ready to equip when you are about to take draining hits.
But wait, you might say, what about *healing*? Yeah, well, what about it? Healing with a cleric is extremely inefficient mid-combat. You not only have to get close to the target and survive through the lengthy cast, but the only heal really worth casting is Heal - a lvl 6 spell (assuming you mod away the complete OP-ness of Greater Restoration). Healing is best done with potions and the Rod of Resurrection, both of which are instant, or by not taking excessive damage before the fight is over. I find myself healing mid-combat quite rarely past the mid game, as by then I have all the defensive and offensive tools I need to negate most incoming damage, or at least manage it. No heal will save you from a lich pelting you with Dragon's Breath, Comet, or Horrid Wilting. Even against a failed CC-save, heals can only do so much; a stunned character will be hit so easily that you can't heal them up fast enough for the damage they take.
Out of combat healing on the other hand is completely irrelevant in BG2. If the damage is substantial, your cleric won't be enough to heal you up anyway. If you can rest, then it doesn't matter if you rest for 8 hours or 8 days (the pretty much only exception being Ust Natha).
So, with that in mind, I'm going to start a new playthrough now with a party both cleric- and thief-less. Well, for the most part; I've decided to give the Archer another try. Analysis of the data from my previous attempt made me think - while late-game efficiency tapers off, even at the end my Archer remained a top contender in the number of overall kills. The wide variety of available ammo also makes it quite flexible when dealing with different sorts of enemies, particularly after someone pointed out to me that there is in fact a considerable amount of Arrows of Dispelling available.
This is the setup I am going to try now:
Inquisitor
Kensai 13->Mage
Kensai 13->Mage
Archer
Weapons-wise, this leaves me in a bit of a weird spot. The inquisitor can change weapons around easily (due to only spending 2 pips each), but I still can't get a +APR weapon for her. Those will go to the Kensais, paired with the two most damaging weapons in the game, Crom Faeyr and Flail of Ages. I've grown to love Crom Faeyr, by the way; I must say I severely underestimated the importance of 25 STR, and its impact on overall performance. It comes very close to FoA in damage, and I do mean *very* - on paper, it can surpass it slightly (assuming 18/xx base STR), but FoA's large elemental component is very good. Both are also blunt weapons, the best damage type. The Archer will, of course, use Xbows and Shortbows, for Light Crossbow of Speed, Tuigan Bow, Firetooth, and Shortbow of Gesen - the former being for damage output, the latter for enemies that are difficult to hit.
I know I said I was going to drop the Inquisitor, but I just don't know for what. True Sight is incredibly useful throughout the game, and surviving early game without the Dispel Magic can be quite annoying and involve a lot of running away/waiting for buffs to expire, which I'm not sure is a good alternative. Besides, without UAI I don't have room for another dual-wielder anyway, and there are few 2h weapons that come close to Carsomyr in power.
As always, input and ideas are appreciated! Particularly regarding my evaluation of clerics, and possible substitutions for the Inquisitor.
Thanks for the thought-provoking posts. I tried your first 4-man party [Inquisitor, K->M, K->M, R-C] and had a lot of trouble without a strong arcane caster for so long. No Haste, no Skull Trap, etc. The early Suna Seni fight, for example, was a real pain. Stunned, panicked, soon dead -- even if the Inquisitor gets off a Dispel Magic. Maybe I'm just too set in having a Sorcerer in all my parties.
I understand the strategic decision for emphasizing DPS. Still, I think that the ability to summon (multiple) powerful allies makes a Sorcerer moderately effective even as a DPS character. Add to that AoE spells and repeated de-buffing to aid your K-Ms while they attack. After all, if the K->Ms are de-buffing, they aren't getting high DPS.
As for the Cleric, I have completed the game [Ascension, SCSII, Tactics, aTweaks, etc.] without a Cleric several times. The Berserker13->Cleric is a very powerful and versatile character, which I have also used on many occasions. A Berserker13->Cleric using DuHM + Berserker Rage + Chaotic Commands is extremely effective as a DPS character.
I have also played the game a couple of times without a Thief. Still, a Fighter-Thief [Dwarf], though "squishy," has a great deal going for it, as we've discussed before.
Right now I'm trying a 3-man party: Sorcerer, Mage-Thief [Jan->Imoen], and ultimately Sarevok [Barbarian] -- a Children of Bhaal Party. Going well so far but am dreading taking on the aTweaks demons in the Planar Sphere at a relatively low level.
Personally, I'd replace the Archer in your new party with a Sorcerer, but that's probably my prejudices talking. How about: Sorcerer, K13->M, K13->M, F-T [UAI for Carsomyr or Scarlet Ninja-To]. The Sorcerer can gain True Sight at L12 and have Dispel Magic from the beginning.
As you have mentioned elsewhere, Kensai13->Sorcerer or Swashbuckler10->Sorcerer would make great members of a dream team. Maybe BG2EE will be moddable in such a way.
So many possibilities, so little time.
I agree that some of the early fights, particularly the ambushes, can be annoying to deal with. However, that's just a matter of practice and priorities: TS immediately to un-stealth the rogue, and move into proper positions to snipe the mage asap. Sometimes you get unlucky and a failed CC save pins you down, but most of the time you can eliminate the mage fairly quickly and after that it's gg. Also: learn to love, and I mean LOVE Oil of Speed at early game!
Sorcerer was certainly a consideration, but I stand by my point that its damage output simply cannot compete. While it's nice to have a versatile caster early on, that's pretty much the time it will be best. Without a reliable source of damage, all the buffs and debuffs simply don't do enough. Summons are one solution, but they are laughably weak in comparison with player characters. They are distractions and meat-shields if anything, but not a source of good damage.
Also keep in mind that dualing at 13 requires extensive metagaming; mass-scribing and saving quest turn-ins for example, make it much less of a hassle to go through that downtime period. Also, you are far from useless either before or after - you can plan your route through the quests and fights in a way that you don't require a mage until you have one (e.g. skipping liches). Once you dual, your mages aren't useless either - with scrolls and clever xp usage, you can basically start them at lvl 7 or higher right away, and that's enough for many useful spells (like Haste).
I do agree that it requires jumping through some hoops; but then again, you only need what, 1.125.000xp to reactivate your old class? I finished SoA at over 8.000.000xp total per character, so I think that's not a terribly large fraction you have to deal with "reduced" power.
Your suggestion of K-M², F/T and Sorcerer seems interesting. F/T could actually be an answer to several issues (good user of SNT+Carsomyr), but I'm not sure I like trading solid damage and survival as well as the TS/Dispel utility for a pure spellcaster. I just don't see a Sorcerer do much at endgame - what do you do against all the tough, magic resistant enemies that seem to crop out everywhere? Beholders, liches, dragons, drow, they all seem like unpleasant obstacles. Sure there's stuff you can do, but raw damage does it better in most cases - all you need is a few dispels. For example, I killed Demogorgon within 10 seconds - once his defenses are down, you just slaughter him with melee damage. A Sorcerer wouldn't be able to help much there, no amount of hasted summons will match a buffed PC, and Demo's resistances against magic are very high (90 magic, 100 fire/ice/electricity, 50 cold). Spells simply take too much time - which is another thing that the Inquisitor excels at, as their TS/Dispel are both instant.
Perhaps I'm biased towards endgame, perhaps you aren't used to different (= mage-less) early game; I'm not sure. I think I will give Sorcerer another try soon, though, as the appeal of early high-level magic is certainly something worth considering. I just don't know what to do with my Time Stop time if I can't go and murder everything with my attacks :P
Comment: A high-level Sorcerer equipped with the Robe of Vecna & Amulet of Power can cast Project Image and Improved Alacrity, buff, use Farsight and Dimension Door to navigate the map and empty his spellbook repeatedly. His Time Stop will kick in slightly sooner than those of the Kensai-Mages so he can tear down the magical defenses and resistances of Beholders, Liches, Dragons, & Drow (possibly killing them outright) to help the K->Ms be most efficient when their Time Stops kick in. I find the high level Sorcerer (and its Project Image) in my party to be by far its most valuable member -- even when just standing back under Improved Alacrity and hitting enemies swiftly with one appropriate spell after another. And often throwing in a Planetar.
A link (which you are probably already familiar with) to Stworca's Guide to Tactical Mods.
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/threads/guide-to-tactical-mods-spoilers.116063/
A link to Stworca's (AKA Tad30s) YouTube channel where you can find videos of his party engaged in the most difficult battles in BG2 with Difficulty Mods.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Tad30s/videos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stworca's Usual Party [**My comments]
1. Sorcerer (Elf)
2. Cleric of Talos dualed ASAP to Fighter (Human - Dual Wield)
3. Weimer's Anti-Paladin or Inquisitor
**The former is particularly good because it can get Grandmastery.
Any warrior is good for dual wielding except a Wizard Slayer.
I recommend a Berserker to tank enemies that use Imprisonment.
4. Weimer's Generic Archer or Wizard Slayer dualed to Thief ASAP (Human)
**The Wizard Slayer 7 -> Thief takes advantage of the "Ranged Weapons disrupt Magic" component of BG2 Tweaks.
The remaining slots are changed with each playthrough (or left empty).
5. Swashbuckler dualed to Cleric (Human)
6. Another 2H Paladin / Anti-Paladin
OR Weimer's Generic Archer, Blade, Viconia, Valen
I don't use Rangers, Druids, Monks, Kensai, Barbarians, Assassins etc. But that does not mean that those classes or kits are weak. I never use two Sorcerers/Mages (Bards are limited to Lvl 6 spells). One is enough to beat all enemies who should be beaten with magic, and having 5 physical DPS characters makes short work of enemies who are resistant to magic. Having a second arcane spellcaster will greatly reduce the difficulty of most encounters (not having one will increase it).
- If you want any of your characters to stay single class ... Create him as a Cleric and dual right after the game starts. Why?
1. Armor of Faith! Damage reduction is the key to later fights, cause enemy can wipe your whole party with just one spell if you fail its save (Horrid Wiltings for 100 is a good example) This 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25% (which is always added to your regular resistances) may be lifesaving.
2. Sanctuary (free time to prebuff in the middle of hell), Doom (handy saving throws debuff), and DuHM (bonus to all melee stats).
3. Resist Fire/Cold. (Cold is useful only against Adalon, but 80% of all non-physical damage is fire including many HLAs).
4. Level 3 spells:
- Dispel Magic
- Protection from Fire (100% to normal and 80% to magical)
- Zone of Sweet Air (for my gameplay in later encounters its not necessary, but its always good to have in emergencies).
It is absolutely true that a Sorcerer can just go around and cast cast cast, killing everyone and anyone. However, that's not the point; it's not about whether it's *possible* to kill stuff, it's about how you do it *best*, i.e. most efficiently.
Can a Sorcerer kill Demogorgon? Absolutely. Without taking damage, too. But will it be done in 10 seconds? No. The debuffing and general spell casting will take much longer, even with Robe of Vecna/Amulet of Power. Time Stop in particular is a bit of an illusion of efficiency (assuming fights where the mobs aren't immune, i.e. not Demogorgon); it is an amazing defensive spell because it completely negates all enemy action, but it also greatly diminishes offensive output because it eliminates your other party members for the duration.
You have to keep overall throughput in mind at all times. That's the whole reason you have a party! Enemies don't "scale" with part size, and so more people directly translates into more damage. Going back on that through Time Stop is not efficient - unless the enemies would fight back significantly, and thereby reduce your damage output.
Time Stop aside, though, spell damage output in general is simply not competitive unless there are large numbers of enemies to be fought at the same time. If you can pelt 5+ mobs with Horrid Wiltings, then sure, go ahead and cast! If you are fighting one big boss and their two cronies (or something along those lines) then chances are spells won't do too much. Even some of the highest single-target damage spells like Dragon's Breath or Comet don't beat buffed melees. A DB might do 120 damage in one round - a melee does that in half the time, without chance of interrupt, and all day every day forever.
That is not to say, of course, that magic doesn't have its place - even offensive spell damage. It most certainly does. There is no question about the power and efficiency of mages in BG2/ToB, which is why I run so many in the first place. I just firmly believe that they should be based on fighter duals at all times, simply because of the damage output. I do not believe that a pure caster like a Sorcerer has significant benefits over a dual, because increased casting proficiency does not make up for a lack of sustained, easy-to-use physical damage for the vast majority of the game.
That being said, you do bring up some interesting ideas. The Cleric->Fighter route in particular seems interesting. Still, I do have a few questions:
#1 is AoF worth the sacrifice in HP? You lose substantial HP if you skip low fighter levels, particularly with high CON. Those HP also mitigate damage, in a way, and do so without needing to be cast or being at risk of being dispelled
#2 Needing Sanctuary to buff up mid-fight seems like an issue of poor planning. With meta knowledge or proper micromanagement, you shouldn't need it.
#3 Resist spells are handy, but only really needed for a few specific encounters (e.g. various dragons). You can cover that with scrolls and potions, or even rings in the case of fire resistance. And just how many cleric levels do you plan on getting? 3rd level spells need you to be lvl5, that's half your fighter HP gone.
#4 DuHM is the big one. That spell is super-useful, and it may be enough of an argument. I'll have to do some testing.
As for the others, let me just tell you that the Anti-Paladin is nothing short of the cheesiest pile of cheese you will ever find. Forget Kensai->Mage, AP->Mage walks all over them. It's an Inquisitor with built-in Carsomyr that has Grandmastery and can dual-class - yeah, totally fair. The Inquisitor is already borderline, Anti-Paladin is nothing short of ridiculous. I consider it a fun addition for a bit of RP and light-hearted god-mode play, but it has no place in a "serious" discussion. The same goes for Solaufein's sword, by the way; the character is cool, the fights the mod adds are fun and challenging, but the weapon he gets is the most overpowered pile of cheese (for those who don't know it: it's a +5 weapon with +1 APR, dealing extra magical damage on hit, and granting *permanent* Luck, Free Action, Chaotic Commands, Draw upon Holy Might, Armor of Faith, and Death Ward. Yeah. Um. Right...)
Generic Archer on the other hand is actually fairly okay. It's a Ranger Archer that trades divine spells for dual-classing, which is certainly something to consider. Not sure why you would dual it to thief and not mage, though; if anything, chaining Energy Blades with Called Shot seems like a plan. But to be honest, I don't like dualing Archers at all; ranged weapons are already behind in damage, so you need the scaling bonuses to compensate.
The Wizard Slayer was discussed at length before, and even as a thief dual it doesn't change the fact that once your hits are connecting with the mage, you are already winning; and besides, scripted spells (of which the most difficult mods have many) and contingencies are unaffected by the casting failure.
Much of what I criticize about Stworca's guide I have already covered in this thread, but I think the recap was worth it even at the risk of redundancy. Keep in mind that it's a 4-year old work, and much of my own testing and experimentation was made with his (and others, like UserUnfriendly) analyses in mind.
I think their main mistake is that they still operate under the (understandable) assumption that you need the cleric-mage-thief trifecta in every party in some way, and that a party of six is the best way to go. I'm realizing more and more that these are not necessarily optimal assumptions, and that brute-force offense couple with high HP can just steamroll over most parts of the game, without a need for utility. When you think about it, utility mostly applies in situations where you are faced with something unexpected - but that shouldn't happen. The degree of meta knowledge and the static nature of the encounters let you plan ahead almost 100%. There should be nothing happening that you did not account for, and most of it is a repetition/reshuffling of the same general effects (CC - damage - defense).
Before I go, one more thought that I am currently evaluating. I have always been a proponent of the lvl13 dual for my Kensai->Mages (and other fighter duals), given how important APR is for damage output. However, I am now rethinking that position. Sacrificing 1/2 APR if you dual at lvl9 instead may not be as bad a plan as I initially thought. Given that many fights are dispel-wars and not pure dps races, the APR may not be as relevant as more mage spells - and sooner regaining of the class. Early/mid game is a consideration, and has become more of one once I realized with my latest playthrough that you are basically invincible after 5.000.000xp or so. That means I can shift some focus to the early/mid game, and the difference between lvl9 and lvl13 is quite substantial (1 MILLION xp!!). I know I'm eating crow here, but that's part of any discussion. Those of you who have been butting heads with me over the issue, rejoice, you may very well have been right!
I guess I'll have more testing to do! And as always, keep the comments coming and the discussion going. Any input is appreciated greatly, no matter how small!
On a different note, I've gone and quickly tested the whole Cleric->Fighter idea. I must say, I am not impressed. Not only do you lose HP, it also seems that the spells you want to be using don't actually work how you think they do. Apparently "caster level" is determined as the level of the class that has the spell; dualing at lvl5 Cleric means that your Armor of Faith is a mere 10% reduction, and your DuHM only grants a +2 bonus. Even your kit-specific spell only lasts 30 seconds. It also makes your Dispel Magic practically useless. Compared to whatever else you'd be instead, I don't think it's a combination I'd want to go for.
is it really that big a deal though?
Let's say with max hp and 18 con you're a fighter that duals to thief at lvl 9 that At level 10 thief you get 8 more hp. You've got a max total of 132 hp at level 10.
If you dual from fighter at level 7 to thief you get a hd roll at lvl 10 unlike fighters so they actually end up with a potential total of 122 hp.
is 10 hp really that big a deal?
The same scenario with a cleric (who only gets 9 hd) instead of thief dual class ends up with 120 which is funny cause its less than the thief dual he he. But 12 hp is hardly a noteworthy loss.
The same scenario with a mage (who gets a hd at lvl 10) instead of thief dual class ends up with 116 hp which is a much more significant loss than the thief dual but is missing 16 hp still really that big a deal? I honestly don't think it is.
The convenience factor of getting your fighter skills back asap is worth missing a pittance of hp IMO. Level 9 to me isn't noteworthy. Level 13 however is because you're getting more potential apr which is something you can't really make up for elsewhere.
Keep in mind the difference between those hp totals can vary based on con. If your con is below 18 the gap shrinks. If that fighter9 to thief10 in my first example had a 16 con his max potential hp is 116, the fighter 7 to thief 10 has a max potential of 108, the fighter 7 to cleric 10 has a max potential of 106, and the fighter 7 to mage 10 has a max potential of 102. As you can see its the fighter con bonus that makes the biggest difference in the totals and thats assuming you HAVE an 18 con on every character you make for dual classing.
If you're not shooting for max potential apr then the slight loss in hp from dualing at 7 (that you'll probably not even miss the further into the game you go) might be worth getting my fighter skills back sooner to some folks. I'm one of them!
Another factor that should be mentioned (though it does not apply to everyone) is the Dungeon-Be-Gone mod. With it, you practically start with lvl9 right off the bat, making dualing at that level much more convenient.
Still, you may have a point. Especially when dualing to cleric, the HP difference is quite small (even assuming 18 CON at least, with possible bonuses from BG1). When dualing to mage, though, it's noticeable given that that combination also wants the proficiency point the most and has the easiest time regaining levels due to scroll-scribing, I think lvl9 duals for mages is very attractive. For clerics and thieves, things are a bit less clear-cut. If you really find yourself troubled by those extra few levels so early in the game, then I suppose that's your choice; I still believe the sacrifice is worth it, considering how minor it is.
EDIT: One thing I forgot that makes me gravitate to 9 even more: both Berserker and Kensai (the best two fighter kits) gain an extra use of their respective special ability at lvl8.
I just felt it worth noting for those who find waiting to get their first class abilities back annoying but who also don't like to cheese mass scroll scribing or quest reward hoarding that dualing at 7 in BG1 is a viable option while still providing a great deal of the benefits you get at lvl 9. 13 is still the best if you want to max your APR but it all depends on how min/maxed you wanna be and how much of the game you are willing to wait to achieve that uber potential.
For me I like going into BG2 with the annoying dual-classing done so I have my character the way I want from the get go.
I'll also leave off with a suggestion for people who don't like having their abilities locked out for a long time.
Use the console to level yourself to where your first class abilities unlock... do the level. Now console your xp to ZERO. Then you will gain xp exactly as you would have with the rest of the party and wont gain any extra levels or have to scroll cheese. You wont level for a VERY long time, but at least you'll have your character functional without the annoying transition period.
EDIT: Saw your edit... yea those kit based abilities have to be weighed in as well and I can see why that pushes you to 9. For a plain old fighter its no biggie but with a kit yea your way makes more sense.
When to dual is an interesting question:
Kensai 7 // Berserker 7 [XP 64,000]
HP: 7d10
Base THAC0: 14
THAC0: 9 // 11
Number of Attacks: 3/2
Saving Throws: 10/12/11/12/13
Proficiency Points: 6
Uses of Kai // Rage: 2
XP to Mage 8: 90,000
XP to Cleric 8: 110,000
XP to Thief 8: 70,000
XP to Druid 8: 60,000
Kensai 9 // Berserker 9 [XP 250,000]
HP: 9d10
Base THAC0: 12
THAC0: 6 // 9
Number of Attacks: 3/2
Saving Throws: 8/10/9/9/11
Proficiency Points: 7
Uses of Kai // Rage: 3
XP to Mage 10: 250,000
XP to Cleric 10: 450,000
XP to Thief 10: 160,000
XP to Druid 10: 125,000
Kensai 13 // Berserker 13 [XP 1,250,000]
HP: 9d10+12
Base THAC0: 8
THAC0: 1 // 5
Number of Attacks: 2
Saving Throws: 5/7/6/5/8
Proficiency Points: 8
Uses of Kai // Rage: 4
XP to Mage 14: 1,500,000
XP to Cleric 14: 1,350,000
XP to Thief 14: 880,000
XP to Druid 14: 1,500,000
(Note that the Kensai gains uses of Kai and the Berserker of Rage at Levels 1-5-9-13-17-21 ...)
In the long run, Level 13 has so much more going for it that it seems worth the hassle.
Much better THAC0, for the Kensai in particular, more uses of Kai & Rage (double compared to Level 7), considerably better Saving Throws (overall the Fighter class seems superior here). Still, a tough call.
Attacks per Round (ApR)
Grandmastery (GM)
Dual-Wielding (DW)
Main Hand (MH)
Off Hand (OH)
Gauntlets of Extraordinary Weapon Specialization (GoEWS)
-- Can't be used by Kensai unless dualed to Thief (UAI)
Special +1 ApR Weapons [Belm, Kundane, Scarlet Ninja-To] (SpWpn)
-- Scarlet Ninja-To: Monks and Characters with UAI only
2H Weapon - Wpn&Shield Max ApR (Ignoring Improved Haste and Whirlwind HLAs)
1.5 (L7 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + .5 (GoEWS) = 3
2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + .5 (GoEWS) = 3.5
Dual Wield *No SpWpn-OH Max ApR (Ignoring Improved Haste and Whirlwind HLAs)
1.5 (L7 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + .5 (GoEWS) = 4 [3 MH +1 OH]
2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + .5 (GoEWS) = 4.5 [3.5 MH +1 OH]
Dual Wield *SpWpn-OH Max ApR (Ignoring Improved Haste and Whirlwind HLAs)
1.5 (L7 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + 1 (SpWpn-OH) + .5 (GoEWS) = 5 [4 MH + 1 OH]
2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + 1 (SpWpn-OH) = 5 [4 MH + 1 OH]
---------------
In the party Lord_Tansheron suggests there are two K13->M, wielding FoA+Belm and CromFaeyr+Kundane.
If he chose to use different MH weapons for them, a Priest of Talos or Lathander 10 (say, for 2 castings of Storm Shield or Boon of Lathander) or 11 (for Lvl 6 spells) or 12 (for +4 stats under DuHM)->Fighter might be a worthy addition to the party. That character should ultimately reach an ApR of:
2 (L13 Fighter) + 1 (GM) + 1 (DW) + .5 (GoEWS) = 4.5 [3.5 MH + 1 OH]
P.S. Priest of Lathander's "Boon of Lathander" additionally gives +1 ApR.
@Lord_Tansheron - Did you ever experiment with the Club of Detonation? How about Cleric->Fighter using that or some other good blunt weapon (Mace of Disruption, Skullcrusher, Storm Star, Runehammer, ...) with the Defender of Easthaven? A Cleric 12->Fighter XX can ultimately GM three weapon types and have 3 pips in DW. Also, one of your K->Ms could replace his MH weapon with, say, Foebane and give it to the C->F without a significant loss in DPS.
20: Crom Faeyr - 17-23 (2d4+3+5+7)
19.5: FoA+5 - 17-22 (1d6+6+2+2+2+2+2)
18.5: Club of Detonation+5 - 16-21 (1d6+5+5+(15/3))
16: Angurvadal+5 - 11-21 (1d8+5+1d4+1+3)
14: Foebane+5 - 11-17 (2d4+5+4)
Crom and Angurvadal move around depending on the base STR of the character; up if <19, down if >19. Another weapon that is a worthy consideration is Celestial Fury; it only has 10 average damage and +3 enchantment (or 11/+5 if you use the ItemUpgrade mod) but it has a stun unless save on *every* hit, which trivializes some encounters (like the Chromatic Demon in WK).
The top three weapons are all blunt weapons, and as such can be used by a cleric combination; Crom Faeyr however is largely redundant on clerics, due to DuHM. I suppose the best choice for a Cleric would be Club of Detonation, as you want every last bit of APR for FoA.
But the main hand isn't much of an issue - the off hand is. Going further down the list of weapons, the next blunt weapon even worth considering is Storm Star, which doesn't really do much in the off hand. The only blunt weapon with decent buffs on it is Defender of Easthaven, and those buffs are purely defensive. Not a bad thing, mind you, but you have to consider what the alternative class would use.
Speaking of alternatives, I am slowly going back to considering Kensai->Thief; not because I want a thief, but because I want to use Scarlet Ninja-to. I was considering a pure Kensai with something like a 2h weapon + GWW, but it seems too fragile on its own, despite the great offensive capabilities. Compared to the Cleric->Fighter, you gain naturally high APR as well as the innate damage/hit bonuses of a Kensai and of course their Kai ability. You lose DuHM above all else - which does hurt. At level 12 it's already +4, and that is quite significant. I suppose you do gain UAI as well with the K->T but I'm not sure there even is anything worth using that a C->F couldn't use as well (besides SNT) so that's only a minor thing - as minor, perhaps, as the utility from the other cleric spells besides the combat buffs.
I think a Cleric of Lathander 12 -> Fighter might be worth investigating. 72 seconds duration on the buff, and a second use of it, practically translates into a permanent +1 APR for most fights. Lvl 12 for a cleric is also "only" 900.000xp, which is quite doable. Cleric of Talos, I think, is better for low level duals, but not for high ones. The immunities are handy, but ultimately worse than APR.
More to think about, and more to test! Thanks for the discussion, it's much appreciated and has opened up several new possibilities. Keep the ideas coming!
Most interesting I thought was the comment that the most important thing was removing protections so that enemies can be hit, followed by the ability to deal damage quickly. Secondly that you want to maintain a strength throughout the game, not just powering up at one specific point.
Of course there are the many sub-demands, such as mods, speed, etc, all of which play into how a party might work (no re-load parties, for instance, would be massively different). However with the 'basics' in play, I would argue you probably want:
1: Fast and safe damage.
2: Consistent spell removal throughout the game.
On 1 there is obviously a move towards dual wielding and fighters, because they get the best consistent APR. However Archery is also very good, especially early game and against weaker groups, due to not having to run around and the range of arrow options available.
In addition to this I think a class that can backstab must also be considered. Despite the fact that it becomes useless in the late game it makes some early to mid game battles SIGNIFICANTLY easier. It can take out certain dangerous or annoying enemies in one hit, and it can get around Mage protections by killing before contingencies and the like kick in. Given that such mage battles are usually the only tricky ones, this helps a lot. Not having to waste spell slots on detect traps and knock is also much faster, allowing Mage utility in fights and less resting (granted, not a huge issue).
On 2 there is obviously the elephant in the room that is the inquisitor. As has been said time and again the natural abilities of that class are massive and fundamental to a powergaming party. If you do avoid that, however (either by modding the bonus or otherwise), I feel that you might look towards a Blade or Skald in a party. It can use the Scarlet Ninja-to, it can cast Dispel at a higher level than any other class in the game, and it can provide a useful party buff in the early and mid game with its song. Though it wont come close to a proper APR class, it does manage to provide enough utility and buffs to help a group churn through encounters, and can adapt to specific needs for more difficult ones. The Blade is also decent is combat for those times you just need to churn through.
In general I think this discussion has been a bit hijacked by some of the added mod fights, rather than the more common SCS or unmodded powergaming approach, which has tended to narrow the focus. Outside of these specific encounters you can get a faster and easier experience when you do include things like backstab, ranged weapons, and characters other than Kensai->Mage. They may not be quicker at specific points, but might be faster and more efficient overall (higher level duals aren't that bad, but not having to deal with many at all are pretty handy).
As has been said already, once the protections go down things die quickly - the difference between a Kensai and full APR doing that damage and another class doing it is not really that massive. Weapons and APR are the most significant factors.
On the topic of the Cleric, however, I agree. I don't think they add as much to the game when you are powergaming. You can get most of their utility with items and potions, and they don't do enough damage or removal in combat situations to really make a difference.
On the topic of group size I also agree: I wouldn't go past 5 PCs, because of the experience sharing, but also because it is more fluid in adding NPCs to the party for quests and rewards if you do it this way.
Finally one other points:
A true Powergaming party would drop and add members over the course of the game. An early game archer might get subbed for a K->M or other class halfway through SoA, etc.
Completely by the by, but I am trying out the following non-powergaming party:
Stalker
Swash->War
Swash->Mage
Blade
T/Illusionist
The Stalker is VERY good early on, given the ability to start dual wielding out the gate with good proficiency support. It also has damaging backstabs supported by good THAC0 and strength bonuses. I expect it will weaken a fair bit as the game gets longer, but straight out of Candlekeep it does allow you to take on some things fairly easily. It can transition to ranged weapons when needed, though it wont ever touch the heights of the Archer, of course.
That is a personal choice, however. You can play the game any way *you* like, and simply amend the conclusions of this discussion as befits your individual setup. Also, keep in mind that the goal of a "powergaming" discussion is optimization. We provide a theoretical baseline from which people can pick and choose whatever fits their preferences best. Things are often very hard to determine exactly for every situation, and quite in flux; that's why an active discussion is important, much more so than rigid doctrine and immutable statements.
The early vs. mid vs. end game focus problem is also a big part of that. It's practically impossible to optimize a party for 100% performance in *all* areas (and including BG1 adds a whole new dimension...). Switching party setups is certainly a possibility, but then you'd still run into issues of when to choose whom etc., adding yet more variables to an already bloated complexity. I think that personal preference also plays a big role here. For example, I personally find that my mid game takes up the most of my efforts, simply because I don't have all my tools yet; but if I switched priorities to make the mid game faceroll, I'd have a hard time at end game instead. Given that end game is far less forgiving and flexible in its solutions, I prefer to be strongest there - even if it means an extra ten reloads in mid game. A curious setup, but I assume from your Candlekeep comment that you are talking BG1 here as well. It illustrates well my earlier point: it's very difficult to optimize for both games. Stalker seems like a curious choice; in what way is it superior to a fighter/thief combination (especially Kensai->Thief)? Keep in mind that the two weapon specizalization proficiency doesn't actually add a lot, except a little THAC0.
Swashbuckler->Fighter is an old favorite of mine, and certainly a nice choice for a party thief. I also think that it's worse than Kensai->Thief, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Swashbuckler->Mage however just seems very awkward; why would you choose a thief there? It has less HP than a fighter, its thieving skills are redundant with so many other party thieves (and Swash can't backstab anyway), and you're unlikely to dual at a level high enough for UAI. It just seems worse than a Fighter->Mage in every respect, especially Kensai->Mage.
I covered Bards earlier, and the same arguments apply to the Blade. They might be worth considering if their Offensive Spin didn't preclude Improved Haste, but iirc it does, and is consequently a worse version of Kai.
Thief/Illusionist? Thief again? You seem quite in love with them
HP seems low in general for your party. My setups usually include fighter HP for every member, and I am already cutting it close against things like Horrid Wilting (which seems to be part of the opening triggers for just about every mage...). I suspect you are not playing on Insane difficulty, that would certainly explain your choices. Try it some day, it keeps you on your toes
One final note on Archers: I am starting to like them more and more. I was inititally a bit miffed by their diminishing powers towards the end of the game, but given how powerful you are there in general, I'll gladly take them along anyway and enjoy the slaughter they make of the early/mid game. The fact that you can get the two best ranged weapons within literally 30 minutes of play certainly helps! I also like how their role keeps changing: in early/mid SoA they are main damage dealers, making up the bulk of your party's kills. Then they shift to a sniping role, taking care of annoying distractions while the team focuses on the main enemy (Critical Strike helps a lot there - watch whole packs of lesser Beholders fall within seconds!), or using their utility ammunition to disrupt (e.g. Bolts of Lightning/Biting, Arrows of Dispelling). There are a few enemies where they become pretty useless, that's true, but I'm willing to live with that. I really underestimated them!
I merely mentioned it as it has reminded me that the stalker is pretty great early on. It's certainly not as powerful as other setups.
Also you can backstab a few mages before pre-casts kick in if you sneak up to them. If they're dead when combat starts then the precasts don't fire. Also a weapon that has a damage over time effect can disrupt through that.
On HP, yes it's a little lower. However if you don't play max HP (which I don't, as I think it's not in the spirit of the game or its systems) it's not as large a gap.
I also think that lower HP across the board raises the power of mages and ranged damage generally, to an extent, which would probably influence your rating of various classes.
Power gaming for mods is distinct to power gaming for the original game as they fundamentally change a number of things beyond mere difficulty. They might be clearly harder, yes, but the way in which they are harder is also different. What is most efficient under one mod might be less so under another.
***
It seems that a fair bit of this discussion has been going with the assumption that you have max HP and true grandmastery enabled, neither of which I would suggest are in the most difficult options of the base game, both of which push the power levels of fighters clear of other classes - especially when used with a dual class.
So it's hard to universalise the discussion. Though of course that is no reason to stop!
***
Editing this, so as to not chain post:
Swash->Fighter as opposed to Kensai->Thief is an interesting comparison. The S->F has the following going for it in my view:
1. Duals at a lower level (faster to reclaim, less downtime).
2. Can wear gauntlets, bracers, armor and ranged weapons for most of the game, not just after UAI.
3. Better THAC0
4. Earlier Thief skills.
5. Slightly better AC
8. Fighter HLAs
9. Better saves for more of the game
On the other side, the K->T has:
1. Backstabs
2. Kai
3. Better Damage
4. UAI (eventually) & other Rogue HLAs
5. More Thief skills (eventually)
If I calculate correctly at 3.5mil experience:
S->F would be 10/21 and have 81 (ave) HP, -2 THAC0, 3 AC bonus, +2 damage, saves of 3/5/4/4/6, 2 attacks, 15 proficiency points, and 250 thief skills.
K->T would be 13/20 and have 107 (ave) HP, 4 THAC0, 2 AC bonus, +4 damage, saves of 5/6/6/5/8, 2 attacks, 15 proficiency points, and 500 thief skills.
At 7mil it would change like this:
S->F is 10/35 and moves to 123 HP and 19 profs.
K->T is 13/36 and moves to 119 HP saves of 5/4/6/5/5 and 19 profs and even more skill points.
What else am I missing?
Of those it's only really UAI that would push me towards K->T. The better damage and backstabs later in the game aren't as big as they would be if you had them early, and the dual class downtime and THAC0 and equipment disadvantages would be significant for a fair bit of the game.
As for grandmastery, it was discussed before and we assume "true" grandmastery in the way of granting a total of 1 APR at 5 pips; there's also the more controversial 3/2 APR one available via mods, but I consider that to be a misinterpretation.
Fighters are ahead of many classes, that is true, but that isn't necessarily due to mod settings but due to game mechanics. Fighters are designed to be the best weapon-based class (with the exception of Archers for bows/xbows), and weapons reach extraordinary levels of power in late BG2 and ToB. The better the weapons, the better APR scaling - which is the main advantage of being a fighter.
HP is another thing that becomes disproportionately more important as the game progresses. One reason is the high amount of incidental magic damage; you are pelted with Horrid Wiltings and spell triggers left and right, and cannot rely on combat control to direct those to the "proper" characters (i.e. "tanks"). Another reason is the diminishing power of AC. In BG1 party AC and enemy THAC0 progress at nearly the same rate, making it a fairly important stat. In BG2 however AC progression tapers off fairly quickly, while enemy THAC0s continue to improve to ludicrous levels. As a consequence, AC becomes less valuable, and being able to soak more damage becomes more important.
Mods and difficulty influence these factors insofar as they make things more difficult in general, meaning you will want to optimize more strictly. That's why fighters are so good - they offer the best values at both extremes, offense and defense. When things get hard, every little bit counts - not because of the nature of those little bits, but because things get hard.
As for your K->T vs. S->F analysis, I think it was spot-on. The discussion would be much more interesting if you could make a Fighter->Swashbuckler... But the way it is, K->T simply takes the cake; UAI (and thus SNT) alone would probably be enough of a reason. That is, by the way, why I once made a Swashbuckler 24->Fighter high-level dual. It was fun, but it took an ungodly amount of time to regain the levels, and in the end I think a K9->T or even a K13->T would have done better.
As for if its more fun and challenging as opposed to more of a dice game - that's anther topic!