Minsc is my tank. Always has been, always will be. I put him in the best armor I can get for him, full plate ASAP, let him carry a shield and use a bastard sword at first if necessary sometimes, and concentrate healing on him until he levels up enough/gets good enough armor that he doesn't really need it any more.
He uses a lot of healing potions at first, but it all works out in the end. The damage he can do in melee is just too good to use him any other way.
That said he really isn't a ranger, he's a berserker. Either the 2 handed style is wasted on him or the 2-weapon style is wasted on him. At L1 he should be one or the other - a 2-handed sword berserker or a 2-weapon style ranger. I like that I have EE Keeper to Make It So these days.
I think Minsc is a better tank for two main reasons; first is his strength. He gets excellent plusses to hit and damage from that strength, and using his two handed sword he does significant damage. He has FAR more hitting power than Khalid. In the "best defense is a good offense" school of tactics Minsc will reduce opponents to chunks long before Khalid, and consequently will take fewer hits. The second thing is morale. Khalid is more prone to panic when injured. That can really make a mess of your planned tactics when one one of your tanks runs off screaming.
But that said, many players do like Khalid as a tank. Its usually what I use him for, until I forget him in a house in Neshkel somewhere...
Khalid's cowardice cannot be overstated, and it's prevalent in Kagain who is widely regarded as the best tank in the game. Bolstering them up with Bard song or spells, would make them better at their jobs then Minsc or Dorn.
I agree with the general consensus that Khalid is better at taking hits than Minsc, but that that means nothing if you don't have the damage behind him to actually kill enemies. Minsc and Khalid actually make a great team in this respect, since Khalid can get the enemies' attention and Minsc can walk up behind Khalid and whack the enemies with his long-reach greatsword. Minsc is an alright tank on his own, though, so if you've only got room for one fighter, go for him (and maybe use a cleric to help tank). But if you can spare the room for both they work well together indeed.
As for morale, I've never had an issue, with Khalid or anyone. I think I read somewhere that it's purely a function of their default AI scripts, and that if you change those or turn off AI it stops happening. I might be crazy, though, since I can't find the source of that info now. That said, I also always put a high-charisma character in the first slot, which I've read does affect morale. So it's one of those or the other. :P
Well without giving away spoilers, all I can tell you is that a high CON is a very difficult stat to boost. STR and DEX, not so much. With Khalid's specialty training and the write magic, he can do way more damage than Minsc and remain just as good at tanking as he always is.
@Lateralus Unfortunately Khalid keeps running away. Plus I can't stand his whiny Porky Pig voice.
I have NEVER, in 14 years, seen Khalid chunk a single enemy; Minsc, wearing the Gloves of Dexterity, pretty well chunks everybody he hits when he's wielding a great sword. With the Ankheg armor I found somewhere in a field, "Destroyer of the HIlls" girdle (+4 vs. blunt weapons, so no help there against swords), and the ring of protection +1, (plus those gloves) Minsc is currently much better protected in the early game than any game I've ever played before, so he's doing EXCEPTIONALLY well for me this go-round.
As for Khalid, the only way to keep him from running off unexpectedly is to keep him back using a bow. Maybe it's just been my bad luck, but I can't imagine trying to tank him, he's too unreliable. I get rid of him and Jaheira both as soon as I possibly can. Plus, I just plain don't much like either one of them.
@Lateralus Unfortunately Khalid keeps running away. Plus I can't stand his whiny Porky Pig voice.
I have NEVER, in 14 years, seen Khalid chunk a single enemy; Minsc, wearing the Gloves of Dexterity, pretty well chunks everybody he hits when he's wielding a great sword. With the Ankheg armor I found somewhere in a field, "Destroyer of the HIlls" girdle (+4 vs. blunt weapons, so no help there against swords), and the ring of protection +1, (plus those gloves) Minsc is currently much better protected in the early game than any game I've ever played before, so he's doing EXCEPTIONALLY well for me this go-round.
As for Khalid, the only way to keep him from running off unexpectedly is to keep him back using a bow. Maybe it's just been my bad luck, but I can't imagine trying to tank him, he's too unreliable. I get rid of him and Jaheira both as soon as I possibly can. Plus, I just plain don't much like either one of them.
I don't bring Khalid around either, but with the right items Khalid can have a higher strength on top of 4 ranks in a weapon.
Some of you are arguing, while talking about completely different things: 1. Compared one-on-one MInsc would probably do better, since even though it takes less time to kill him, he kills proportionately faster. While Khalid would be reduced to ashes the time he kills something. In this sense, Minsc would be a better "tank", since he would take less damage before the end of the fight (which would be longer in Khalid's case) 2. But, if you have both, and you are about to decide who to tank with and who to use just to deal damage, the damage-per-second stays the same, while damage-taken-per-second is lower with Khalid in front. Also, if the fight is a longer one, he might stay alive, while Minsc would maybe die on you.
So, let's say, you have the canon party, minus Khalid and Minsc. If you could only take one of them, you might consider Minsc, since you would destroy enemies more quickly, therefore getting less damage in one fight. If you are having both of them though, it's obvious you choose Khalid for that role, since you get both guys dps, no matter who tanks.
And let's not get items into this... For gloves you can give Minsc the Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise instead of the Ogre Strenght, which benefits him more, giving him greater dmg potential, then Khalid's. With Gloves of Dexterity he can get to the same amount of base AC, while still doing great damage. There are many items, as @atcDave said: loooot of variables. But if someone wants to crunch all the numbers in all the possible situations, well, go ahead and be my guest.
Minor detail: with smaller enemies, in some situations, when both are in party, Minsc could still be a better choice, since usually it's the tank, who deals out the damage first (before the damage-dealer melee companion), he chunks small enemies like Zombies and Xvarts before they would get to hit anyone...
The OP also wrote about using the one who does not tank as an archer. Well, with Minsc's strenght potential, I would certainly use him to deal righteous wrath with the +2 and +3 swords in the game... (So to give a verdict: IMO it's better to use Khalid as tank and Minsc as a melee damage dealer warrior, if both are in the party. If you want to choose who to put into your party, well, thats a different matter, but I think I would choose Khalid)
PS: sorry for the lot of commas, in my language we just use them so much more often, I just keep using them many times in English without noticing...
Some of you are arguing, while talking about completely different things: 1. Compared one-on-one MInsc would probably do better, since even though it takes less time to kill him, he kills proportionately faster. While Khalid would be reduced to ashes the time he kills something. In this sense, Minsc would be a better "tank", since he would take less damage before the end of the fight (which would be longer in Khalid's case) 2. But, if you have both, and you are about to decide who to tank with and who to use just to deal damage, the damage-per-second stays the same, while damage-taken-per-second is lower with Khalid in front. Also, if the fight is a longer one, he might stay alive, while Minsc would maybe die on you.
So, let's say, you have the canon party, minus Khalid and Minsc. If you could only take one of them, you might consider Minsc, since you would destroy enemies more quickly, therefore getting less damage in one fight. If you are having both of them though, it's obvious you choose Khalid for that role, since you get both guys dps, no matter who tanks.
And let's not get items into this... For gloves you can give Minsc the Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise instead of the Ogre Strenght, which benefits him more, giving him greater dmg potential, then Khalid's. With Gloves of Dexterity he can get to the same amount of base AC, while still doing great damage. There are many items, as @atcDave said: loooot of variables. But if someone wants to crunch all the numbers in all the possible situations, well, go ahead and be my guest.
Minor detail: with smaller enemies, in some situations, when both are in party, Minsc could still be a better choice, since usually it's the tank, who deals out the damage first (before the damage-dealer melee companion), he chunks small enemies like Zombies and Xvarts before they would get to hit anyone...
The OP also wrote about using the one who does not tank as an archer. Well, with Minsc's strenght potential, I would certainly use him to deal righteous wrath with the +2 and +3 swords in the game... (So to give a verdict: IMO it's better to use Khalid as tank and Minsc as a melee damage dealer warrior, if both are in the party. If you want to choose who to put into your party, well, thats a different matter, but I think I would choose Khalid)
PS: sorry for the lot of commas, in my language we just use them so much more often, I just keep using them many times in English without noticing...
(The weapon proficiensy tables are taken from BGEE)
Not only does Khalid have +2 more Thac0 but he also has +1 more Damage. So as a beatstick without any tomes Khalid will be able to deal more damage than minsc. This while having better Constitution AND dexterity.
2.) It's so easy to get high strength in this game which is the reason that Minsc fantastic strength score kind of gets wasted. It's much harder (Only tomes in BG1 and DuHM) to get improved Constitution. Your priest and mage can buff up your whole team with +Strength spells, and you get the gauntlets of ogre power later on which is +1 more in Damage AND Thac0 than minscs original score.
This has been an interesting debate. About 30 (ingame) days and 17k xp (per character) into BG 1 EE, I feel better qualified to comment myself...
The reason I initially asked the question of whether I should use Minsc or Khalid as my front-line fighter/tank, was because I wanted as many archers as possible for the early game, so given that I do not want to abuse the game mechanics and switch bows for sword-and-shield during every battle, it was a case of one of them wielding sword-and-shield and the other one a bow.
Something that has not been mentioned in this debate, which I think is relevant, is the apparent differences in difficulty between BG 1 Vanilla and BG 1 EE, as well as a few other differences that I have noticed. (Note that I played both games at default difficulty)
1) I have been too lazy to make a note of numbers, but I am pretty sure that characters gain hp much faster in EE compared to Vanilla. My BG 1 EE party is around lv 5 at the moment, most of them have 40+ hp, whilst Khalid already has 65. At the same stage in Vanilla, I am pretty sure that my party was around 20-30 hp, with perhaps only Khalid on 40+. This has huge consequences for survivability. I remember distinctly that in my Vanilla run, I had huge problems with the assassins near the exit of the Nashkel Mines. A single lightning attack 1-shot Minsc and crippled Khalid.
In my EE run, Minsc got hit with the same lightning attack once, and sure it was painful, but he survived, and after chugging down a healing potion, was able to get back into the fight, which was actually pretty easy.
The reduced lethality of incoming damage means that it is less dangerous for Minsc to get into close combat, and he can survive well enough to dish out some damage with his immense strength. It also reduces the need for a dedicated tank to weather incoming damage in the first place.
2) I am pretty sure morale plays a bigger role in BG 1 EE than Vanilla. Khalid was my primary tank for most of my Vanilla run up to around 30k xp. He rarely lost his bottle on me except when 'Horror'd'. In my EE run, he regularly breaks when seriously injured, significantly reducing his reliability as a tank.
Given these two above points, my EE party is actually far less reliant on archery, and thus a dedicated tank, for survival, as I am quite happy to throw my Fighter/Mage PC, Khalid and Minsc into combat most of the time, and expect them to do quite well. The 'OMG it's a wolf! run fer your lives!' stage of the game is much shorter in EE compared to Vanilla.
This has been an interesting debate. About 30 (ingame) days and 17k xp (per character) into BG 1 EE, I feel better qualified to comment myself...
The reason I initially asked the question of whether I should use Minsc or Khalid as my front-line fighter/tank, was because I wanted as many archers as possible for the early game, so given that I do not want to abuse the game mechanics and switch bows for sword-and-shield during every battle, it was a case of one of them wielding sword-and-shield and the other one a bow.
Something that has not been mentioned in this debate, which I think is relevant, is the apparent differences in difficulty between BG 1 Vanilla and BG 1 EE, as well as a few other differences that I have noticed. (Note that I played both games at default difficulty)
1) I have been too lazy to make a note of numbers, but I am pretty sure that characters gain hp much faster in EE compared to Vanilla. My BG 1 EE party is around lv 5 at the moment, most of them have 40+ hp, whilst Khalid already has 65. At the same stage in Vanilla, I am pretty sure that my party was around 20-30 hp, with perhaps only Khalid on 40+. This has huge consequences for survivability. I remember distinctly that in my Vanilla run, I had huge problems with the assassins near the exit of the Nashkel Mines. A single lightning attack 1-shot Minsc and crippled Khalid.
In my EE run, Minsc got hit with the same lightning attack once, and sure it was painful, but he survived, and after chugging down a healing potion, was able to get back into the fight, which was actually pretty easy.
The reduced lethality of incoming damage means that it is less dangerous for Minsc to get into close combat, and he can survive well enough to dish out some damage with his immense strength. It also reduces the need for a dedicated tank to weather incoming damage in the first place.
2) I am pretty sure morale plays a bigger role in BG 1 EE than Vanilla. Khalid was my primary tank for most of my Vanilla run up to around 30k xp. He rarely lost his bottle on me except when 'Horror'd'. In my EE run, he regularly breaks when seriously injured, significantly reducing his reliability as a tank.
Given these two above points, my EE party is actually far less reliant on archery, and thus a dedicated tank, for survival, as I am quite happy to throw my Fighter/Mage PC, Khalid and Minsc into combat most of the time, and expect them to do quite well. The 'OMG it's a wolf! run fer your lives!' stage of the game is much shorter in EE compared to Vanilla.
In case you weren't aware BG1 vanilla didn't have max HP level up as an option. Levelling up always involved a random roll. BG2 (and BGEE) introduced it as part of the normal and easiest difficulty settings (not core).
In case you weren't aware BG1 vanilla didn't have max HP level up as an option. Levelling up always involved a random roll. BG2 (and BGEE) introduced it as part of the normal and easiest difficulty settings (not core).
No I was not aware. I guess that explains it. Overall my EE experience has been significantly easier than Vanilla. Sure I am more experienced this time, but there's also far fewer '1-shot and you're dead/crippled' situations.
Oh another difference I forgot to even mention... The 'waylaid' random encounters are far more forgiving in EE compared to Vanilla.
In Vanilla I got wiped out on my first run-through by an ambush just outside of the FAI that involved Worgs and Hobgoblins. Pretty terrifying for a lv 1 party with 8 hp... Even later on, my lv2 or 3 party was crippled (I had to reload) by a bandit attack, with Dynaheir and Imoen dying quickly to a hail of arrows fired from all directions.
In EE, those early ambushes were like against 1 wolf, or two Hobgoblins... On the one occasion when I thought I was screwed, Dorn came to the rescue, lol.
In case you weren't aware BG1 vanilla didn't have max HP level up as an option. Levelling up always involved a random roll. BG2 (and BGEE) introduced it as part of the normal and easiest difficulty settings (not core).
No I was not aware. I guess that explains it. Overall my EE experience has been significantly easier than Vanilla. Sure I am more experienced this time, but there's also far fewer '1-shot and you're dead/crippled' situations.
Oh another difference I forgot to even mention... The 'waylaid' random encounters are far more forgiving in EE compared to Vanilla.
In Vanilla I got wiped out on my first run-through by an ambush just outside of the FAI that involved Worgs and Hobgoblins. Pretty terrifying for a lv 1 party with 8 hp... Even later on, my lv2 or 3 party was crippled (I had to reload) by a bandit attack, with Dynaheir and Imoen dying quickly to a hail of arrows fired from all directions.
In EE, those early ambushes were like against 1 wolf, or two Hobgoblins... On the one occasion when I thought I was screwed, Dorn came to the rescue, lol.
Yea the waylaid encounters are pitiful in BGEE. At least compared to the original.
Ambushes are pretty weak, have to agree with that...
@SionIV True, as I said, I didn't crunch the numbers. Seems like he's not so bad in that as I thought. I've just seen that in a party where both of them were there Minsc generally dealt more damage, prob because for a long time Khalid doesn't have the gauntlets. But Minsc still has the two-handed style bonus +1 damage and 5% better crit chance, not to mention the bigger dmg 2-handed swords deal.
Also, if we are talking about tanking, I would give them the Gauntlets of Dexterity instead. Both benefit greatly from it, and thus Khalids better DEX score doesn't matter anymore. The shield is the bigger win here when talking about tanking capabilities.
But yeah, I also think that Khalid is better most of the times, as a tank. Except when he panics or speaks Minsc is still better for damaging I think, most of the time, and Khalid's tanking potential should not be wasted by converting him into a damage oriented NPC.
For your main tank you need the best possible AC, which includes full plate mail and the best shield, which is mandatory. With a two handed weapon you lose at least -2 AC from shield, which is a lot.
Just think about sending Minsc against a pack of Black Talon elites. He will be slaughtered before he even reaches them, let alone deal any damage with his two handed sword.
I think there is terminology confusion that might be sending this argument in circles: In MMO parlance, a tank is someone who a) draws the attention of monsters (aggro) and b) absorbs damage. Honestly, I think "turtle" would be a better term for this, but I digress... In other frames, a tank is simply a front line fighter.
So, if you are using MMO terminology, being able to deal more damage is a bonus but not critical to the tank's role. If the rules allowed it, a tank would dual-wield shields...
So, since they have the same Dex and can wield the same weapons and armor, Khalid gets the edge as an MMO tank because of his DEX and CON bonuses. That being said, I agree that his low morale limits his usefulness in this role. I'd need to crank the math to min-max this, but my instinct tells me that with D&D's all or nothing concept of armor class & damage, better AC is more valuable than more HP. In that case, Kivan's extra point of DEX might make more of a difference than the Khalid's HP bonus.
All that being said, the concept of Aggro in IE doesn't really exist, so the role of an MMO tank is really limited. Either the AI doesn't care and attacks the nearest, or it is smart enough to ignore your tank and go for the squishy DPS in the back. So the IE strategy is more and more and more DPS: dead monsters deal no damage.
So, for front line DPS, Minsc gets the edge for higher strength. Khalid is a good second choice if you can boost his strength.
For back line DPS, Khalid gets a slight edge for the prof slot in Bows, and well...could you honestly put Minsc in the back of the party with a bow? Yet there are much better back-line DPS choices.
TL;DR: define what you mean by "Tank" before you continue, or this thread is going to continue in circles.
Cervant thank you for providing that definition. I've never played an MMO and am not interested. And I found this wordage bizarre to say the least. I consider a tank any melee fighter (as opposed to an archer), how "good" or "bad" they are is the combination of several factors related to their overall effectiveness.
And this definition makes perfect sense to me. As a war gamer and history nut, I'm very interested in armored warfare throughout history. In the mid twentieth century several conventions came into use for describing different sorts of tanks. A "balanced" design, is one where the armor is considered effective against the tank's own gun (an American Sherman or Russian T-34 is a good example of this). An infantry tank carries heavier armor at the cost of speed (a British Matilda or French Char B being good examples). A cruiser tank sacrifices armor for speed (like the British Crusader). A Tank Destroyer sacrifices armor for a bigger gun (like an American Hellcat or a German Hetzer). So in those terms I might call Ajantis balanced, Minsc a Tank Destroyer, and Khalid an Infantry Tank.
If we consider a standard BG1 party with 4+ characters, most of the kills in the game will be scored with ranged weapons. I assume that the standard tactic in BG1 will be the tank attracting enemies' attention or running towards the archers to make them switch to melee, while the back row pelts the enemy with missiles. And speaking of ranged weapons, a good archer can deal more damage per round than Minsc with his two handed sword. In general archers hits faster and with a lower THAC0 than melee characters. With high buffs from spells and potions, melee damage becomes better and it is a more reliable method to take out bosses, but most of the time the fights with the common enemies will be carried unbuffed, and there the archery outclasses melee.
I recall morale works basically like this: each character has a threshold, and when he is badly hurt or when other party members are getting killed, a check is made to see if he breaks the morale. Khalid has a low threshold, so at level 1 he gets hit to near death very often, which breaks his morale. But once he gets several levels, he no longer suffer from this since it takes a lot of hits (and careless) to bring him to near death.
@SionIV knows the actual gaming definition of "tank" is the problem, here. Tanking is Constitution (for HP, and for shorties Saving Throws) and Dexterity (for AC) based, it's that simple. Strength does not enter the "tank" picture at all. Strength does not make a character less likely to take a hit. And the whole "well the enemies will die fast so it won't matter" theory is BS, because there are going to be times where you want your tank to face an opponent who they may be unable to hit for a time one way or the other, and you simply need them to, you know, tank, and take the damage that would otherwise be pointed at someone else.
Well Quartz I completely reject this definition of tank, no matter how wide spread it might be. A tank with no consideration of its main gun is just an APC. Tanks are complicated and involved armored fighting vehicles with multiple issues affecting quality and effectiveness. In exactly the same way a melee fighter can be more or less effective in multiple different ways. So it is completely reasonable to discuss and analyze the armor and defensive capabilities. But it is ridiculous to dismiss offensive capabilities from the discussion. The whole package is part of the discussion.
From an individual standpoint, yes you have to consider the whole picture, however the Tank/DPS/Healer paradigm that started with WoW is a party min/max strategy. Rather than having each character be balanced, the idea is to have each overspecialize to maximize party effectiveness.
I will agree, @atcDave that "Tank" is a stupid name for that role.
From an individual standpoint, yes you have to consider the whole picture, however the Tank/DPS/Healer paradigm that started with WoW is a party min/max strategy. Rather than having each character be balanced, the idea is to have each overspecialize to maximize party effectiveness.
I will agree, @atcDave that "Tank" is a stupid name for that role.
Actually Cerevant your comment helps me a lot; now I have a clue where this convention comes from! It makes it easier for me to pointedly say I'm not using the WoW convention for BG. Just as we often comment we're not using a 3E convention in this 2E based game.
From an individual standpoint, yes you have to consider the whole picture, however the Tank/DPS/Healer paradigm that started with WoW is a party min/max strategy. Rather than having each character be balanced, the idea is to have each overspecialize to maximize party effectiveness.
I will agree, @atcDave that "Tank" is a stupid name for that role.
Actually Cerevant your comment helps me a lot; now I have a clue where this convention comes from! It makes it easier for me to pointedly say I'm not using the WoW convention for BG. Just as we often comment we're not using a 3E convention in this 2E based game.
You are being incredibly stubborn. I agree it's a stupid definition but now that we've explained it to you can you at least *try* to be on the same page as us instead of just telling us how worthless the definition is and how you and this game are above it? You're a fish swimming up the stream, here, and all it does is make the rest of us more confused and annoyed, really.
From an individual standpoint, yes you have to consider the whole picture, however the Tank/DPS/Healer paradigm that started with WoW is a party min/max strategy. Rather than having each character be balanced, the idea is to have each overspecialize to maximize party effectiveness.
I will agree, @atcDave that "Tank" is a stupid name for that role.
Actually Cerevant your comment helps me a lot; now I have a clue where this convention comes from! It makes it easier for me to pointedly say I'm not using the WoW convention for BG. Just as we often comment we're not using a 3E convention in this 2E based game.
You are being incredibly stubborn. I agree it's a stupid definition but now that we've explained it to you can you at least *try* to be on the same page as us instead of just telling us how worthless the definition is and how you and this game are above it? You're a fish swimming up the stream, here, and all it does is make the rest of us more confused and annoyed, really.
Um, I have gamers and a group I actually speak and converse with. We have used such terminology of our own for 30 years. I am not interested in conforming to a new definition that doesn't mean anything to my 40 and 50 year olds.
So of course I'm stubborn. I'm also at complete peace with the idea my metaphor works better with the real world prototype than this new definition does. Kids these days...
Okay now an hour later, I'm a little less annoyed, so I'll try this again. I don't accept a "new" definition of "tank" that makes no sense in plain English. This is a "..it all depends on what 'is' is" sort of argument. Saying Khalid is a "better" tank than Minsc, as long as I know the new code word for what a tank is; makes as much sense to me as saying Tata makes a better car than Toyota, as long as I accept some new definition of "car". Some new game system (if its less than 30 years old, it's new! Because new is a relative term not an objective one) makes a non-sensical redefinition of a term to use in a metaphorical sense and I'm expected to "get it"? And now I'm stubborn because after two pages of commentary someone finally explains where this newly redefined term is coming from and I'm a little cranky about that?
For the record, I truly do appreciate that Cerevent finally took the time to explain. But I'm annoyed by the idea that this becomes "better" word usage than a more appropriate metaphor does.
Good Lord. I seem to remember you being one of the more reasonable members of this website, and now you're being obtuse, as well. This forum has gone so downhill it's actually painful to watch.
@atcDave, I've really appreciated your advice since I've started using this forum as a total noob to the world of D&D and BG. I also agree that 'Tank' is really a very bad word to describe what is essentially an 'Anvil' in the good o' 'Hammer and Anvil' analogy for military strategy. However, although the term is perhaps 'new', it has more or less become established in modern gaming terminology to refer to something that specialises in survivability. There's all sorts of things like that in games and indeed real life that we just gotta accept and live with, and it's a bit futile to fight against the tide.
@Quartz, I am pretty new here so I don't know what the forum was like before, but what I've found was a very welcoming, enthusiastic and helpful community. I have yet to ask a question that was not answered promptly and to my satisfaction. Any forum is bound to generate debate and disagreements, I see no problem with that.
Comments
He uses a lot of healing potions at first, but it all works out in the end. The damage he can do in melee is just too good to use him any other way.
That said he really isn't a ranger, he's a berserker. Either the 2 handed style is wasted on him or the 2-weapon style is wasted on him. At L1 he should be one or the other - a 2-handed sword berserker or a 2-weapon style ranger. I like that I have EE Keeper to Make It So these days.
Well without giving away spoilers, all I can tell you is that a high CON is a very difficult stat to boost. STR and DEX, not so much. With Khalid's specialty training and the write magic, he can do way more damage than Minsc and remain just as good at tanking as he always is.
Unfortunately Khalid keeps running away. Plus I can't stand his whiny Porky Pig voice.
I have NEVER, in 14 years, seen Khalid chunk a single enemy; Minsc, wearing the Gloves of Dexterity, pretty well chunks everybody he hits when he's wielding a great sword. With the Ankheg armor I found somewhere in a field, "Destroyer of the HIlls" girdle (+4 vs. blunt weapons, so no help there against swords), and the ring of protection +1, (plus those gloves) Minsc is currently much better protected in the early game than any game I've ever played before, so he's doing EXCEPTIONALLY well for me this go-round.
As for Khalid, the only way to keep him from running off unexpectedly is to keep him back using a bow. Maybe it's just been my bad luck, but I can't imagine trying to tank him, he's too unreliable. I get rid of him and Jaheira both as soon as I possibly can. Plus, I just plain don't much like either one of them.
I don't bring Khalid around either, but with the right items Khalid can have a higher strength on top of 4 ranks in a weapon.
1. Compared one-on-one MInsc would probably do better, since even though it takes less time to kill him, he kills proportionately faster. While Khalid would be reduced to ashes the time he kills something. In this sense, Minsc would be a better "tank", since he would take less damage before the end of the fight (which would be longer in Khalid's case)
2. But, if you have both, and you are about to decide who to tank with and who to use just to deal damage, the damage-per-second stays the same, while damage-taken-per-second is lower with Khalid in front. Also, if the fight is a longer one, he might stay alive, while Minsc would maybe die on you.
So, let's say, you have the canon party, minus Khalid and Minsc. If you could only take one of them, you might consider Minsc, since you would destroy enemies more quickly, therefore getting less damage in one fight.
If you are having both of them though, it's obvious you choose Khalid for that role, since you get both guys dps, no matter who tanks.
And let's not get items into this... For gloves you can give Minsc the Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise instead of the Ogre Strenght, which benefits him more, giving him greater dmg potential, then Khalid's. With Gloves of Dexterity he can get to the same amount of base AC, while still doing great damage. There are many items, as @atcDave said: loooot of variables. But if someone wants to crunch all the numbers in all the possible situations, well, go ahead and be my guest.
Minor detail: with smaller enemies, in some situations, when both are in party, Minsc could still be a better choice, since usually it's the tank, who deals out the damage first (before the damage-dealer melee companion), he chunks small enemies like Zombies and Xvarts before they would get to hit anyone...
The OP also wrote about using the one who does not tank as an archer. Well, with Minsc's strenght potential, I would certainly use him to deal righteous wrath with the +2 and +3 swords in the game... (So to give a verdict: IMO it's better to use Khalid as tank and Minsc as a melee damage dealer warrior, if both are in the party. If you want to choose who to put into your party, well, thats a different matter, but I think I would choose Khalid)
PS: sorry for the lot of commas, in my language we just use them so much more often, I just keep using them many times in English without noticing...
Minsc :
Strength : 19/93 (+2 Thac0 +5 Damage)
Specialization : 2* (+1 Thac0 +2 Damage)
Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise (+1 Thac0 +2 Damage)
Total : +4 Thac0 +9 Damage
Khalid :
Strength : 18/100 (+3 Thac0 +6 Damage
Specialization : *4 (+3 Thac0 +4 Damage)
Total : +6 Thac0 +10 Damage
(The weapon proficiensy tables are taken from BGEE)
Not only does Khalid have +2 more Thac0 but he also has +1 more Damage. So as a beatstick without any tomes Khalid will be able to deal more damage than minsc. This while having better Constitution AND dexterity.
2.) It's so easy to get high strength in this game which is the reason that Minsc fantastic strength score kind of gets wasted. It's much harder (Only tomes in BG1 and DuHM) to get improved Constitution. Your priest and mage can buff up your whole team with +Strength spells, and you get the gauntlets of ogre power later on which is +1 more in Damage AND Thac0 than minscs original score.
The reason I initially asked the question of whether I should use Minsc or Khalid as my front-line fighter/tank, was because I wanted as many archers as possible for the early game, so given that I do not want to abuse the game mechanics and switch bows for sword-and-shield during every battle, it was a case of one of them wielding sword-and-shield and the other one a bow.
Something that has not been mentioned in this debate, which I think is relevant, is the apparent differences in difficulty between BG 1 Vanilla and BG 1 EE, as well as a few other differences that I have noticed. (Note that I played both games at default difficulty)
1) I have been too lazy to make a note of numbers, but I am pretty sure that characters gain hp much faster in EE compared to Vanilla. My BG 1 EE party is around lv 5 at the moment, most of them have 40+ hp, whilst Khalid already has 65. At the same stage in Vanilla, I am pretty sure that my party was around 20-30 hp, with perhaps only Khalid on 40+. This has huge consequences for survivability. I remember distinctly that in my Vanilla run, I had huge problems with the assassins near the exit of the Nashkel Mines. A single lightning attack 1-shot Minsc and crippled Khalid.
In my EE run, Minsc got hit with the same lightning attack once, and sure it was painful, but he survived, and after chugging down a healing potion, was able to get back into the fight, which was actually pretty easy.
The reduced lethality of incoming damage means that it is less dangerous for Minsc to get into close combat, and he can survive well enough to dish out some damage with his immense strength. It also reduces the need for a dedicated tank to weather incoming damage in the first place.
2) I am pretty sure morale plays a bigger role in BG 1 EE than Vanilla. Khalid was my primary tank for most of my Vanilla run up to around 30k xp. He rarely lost his bottle on me except when 'Horror'd'. In my EE run, he regularly breaks when seriously injured, significantly reducing his reliability as a tank.
Given these two above points, my EE party is actually far less reliant on archery, and thus a dedicated tank, for survival, as I am quite happy to throw my Fighter/Mage PC, Khalid and Minsc into combat most of the time, and expect them to do quite well. The 'OMG it's a wolf! run fer your lives!' stage of the game is much shorter in EE compared to Vanilla.
Oh another difference I forgot to even mention... The 'waylaid' random encounters are far more forgiving in EE compared to Vanilla.
In Vanilla I got wiped out on my first run-through by an ambush just outside of the FAI that involved Worgs and Hobgoblins. Pretty terrifying for a lv 1 party with 8 hp... Even later on, my lv2 or 3 party was crippled (I had to reload) by a bandit attack, with Dynaheir and Imoen dying quickly to a hail of arrows fired from all directions.
In EE, those early ambushes were like against 1 wolf, or two Hobgoblins... On the one occasion when I thought I was screwed, Dorn came to the rescue, lol.
1.) Maximum Health
2.) Kits you normally wouldn't be able to get
And you won't end up with those 10 bandit ambushes that shoot you down in two seconds.
@SionIV True, as I said, I didn't crunch the numbers. Seems like he's not so bad in that as I thought. I've just seen that in a party where both of them were there Minsc generally dealt more damage, prob because for a long time Khalid doesn't have the gauntlets. But Minsc still has the two-handed style bonus +1 damage and 5% better crit chance, not to mention the bigger dmg 2-handed swords deal.
Also, if we are talking about tanking, I would give them the Gauntlets of Dexterity instead. Both benefit greatly from it, and thus Khalids better DEX score doesn't matter anymore. The shield is the bigger win here when talking about tanking capabilities.
But yeah, I also think that Khalid is better most of the times, as a tank. Except when he panics or speaks
Just think about sending Minsc against a pack of Black Talon elites. He will be slaughtered before he even reaches them, let alone deal any damage with his two handed sword.
In MMO parlance, a tank is someone who a) draws the attention of monsters (aggro) and b) absorbs damage. Honestly, I think "turtle" would be a better term for this, but I digress...
In other frames, a tank is simply a front line fighter.
So, if you are using MMO terminology, being able to deal more damage is a bonus but not critical to the tank's role. If the rules allowed it, a tank would dual-wield shields...
So, since they have the same Dex and can wield the same weapons and armor, Khalid gets the edge as an MMO tank because of his DEX and CON bonuses. That being said, I agree that his low morale limits his usefulness in this role. I'd need to crank the math to min-max this, but my instinct tells me that with D&D's all or nothing concept of armor class & damage, better AC is more valuable than more HP. In that case, Kivan's extra point of DEX might make more of a difference than the Khalid's HP bonus.
All that being said, the concept of Aggro in IE doesn't really exist, so the role of an MMO tank is really limited. Either the AI doesn't care and attacks the nearest, or it is smart enough to ignore your tank and go for the squishy DPS in the back. So the IE strategy is more and more and more DPS: dead monsters deal no damage.
So, for front line DPS, Minsc gets the edge for higher strength. Khalid is a good second choice if you can boost his strength.
For back line DPS, Khalid gets a slight edge for the prof slot in Bows, and well...could you honestly put Minsc in the back of the party with a bow? Yet there are much better back-line DPS choices.
TL;DR: define what you mean by "Tank" before you continue, or this thread is going to continue in circles.
And this definition makes perfect sense to me. As a war gamer and history nut, I'm very interested in armored warfare throughout history. In the mid twentieth century several conventions came into use for describing different sorts of tanks. A "balanced" design, is one where the armor is considered effective against the tank's own gun (an American Sherman or Russian T-34 is a good example of this). An infantry tank carries heavier armor at the cost of speed (a British Matilda or French Char B being good examples). A cruiser tank sacrifices armor for speed (like the British Crusader). A Tank Destroyer sacrifices armor for a bigger gun (like an American Hellcat or a German Hetzer).
So in those terms I might call Ajantis balanced, Minsc a Tank Destroyer, and Khalid an Infantry Tank.
I just never take morale into account too much anymore.
Tank =/= DPS dealer.
So it is completely reasonable to discuss and analyze the armor and defensive capabilities. But it is ridiculous to dismiss offensive capabilities from the discussion. The whole package is part of the discussion.
I will agree, @atcDave that "Tank" is a stupid name for that role.
So of course I'm stubborn. I'm also at complete peace with the idea my metaphor works better with the real world prototype than this new definition does. Kids these days...
Okay now an hour later, I'm a little less annoyed, so I'll try this again.
I don't accept a "new" definition of "tank" that makes no sense in plain English. This is a "..it all depends on what 'is' is" sort of argument.
Saying Khalid is a "better" tank than Minsc, as long as I know the new code word for what a tank is; makes as much sense to me as saying Tata makes a better car than Toyota, as long as I accept some new definition of "car".
Some new game system (if its less than 30 years old, it's new! Because new is a relative term not an objective one) makes a non-sensical redefinition of a term to use in a metaphorical sense and I'm expected to "get it"?
And now I'm stubborn because after two pages of commentary someone finally explains where this newly redefined term is coming from and I'm a little cranky about that?
For the record, I truly do appreciate that Cerevent finally took the time to explain. But I'm annoyed by the idea that this becomes "better" word usage than a more appropriate metaphor does.
@atcDave, I've really appreciated your advice since I've started using this forum as a total noob to the world of D&D and BG. I also agree that 'Tank' is really a very bad word to describe what is essentially an 'Anvil' in the good o' 'Hammer and Anvil' analogy for military strategy. However, although the term is perhaps 'new', it has more or less become established in modern gaming terminology to refer to something that specialises in survivability. There's all sorts of things like that in games and indeed real life that we just gotta accept and live with, and it's a bit futile to fight against the tide.
@Quartz, I am pretty new here so I don't know what the forum was like before, but what I've found was a very welcoming, enthusiastic and helpful community. I have yet to ask a question that was not answered promptly and to my satisfaction. Any forum is bound to generate debate and disagreements, I see no problem with that.
Live and let live.