Skip to content

Better as a single class

24

Comments

  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    There's also the 'more powerful' versus 'fun' argument. The latter is from the perspective of the player. I hate using potions and bothering with spells, so I let my NPC's do that (I don't want CHARNAME to be doing that). That is 100% personal preference and rules out Kensai->Mage, for instance. That isn't to say that Kens->Mage aren't super powerful, as much as it is to say that I wouldn't enjoy playing it out and would go back and re-roll/re-start. It's just me.
  • XannisXannis Member Posts: 12
    edited October 2013
    [quote]However if you want to ultimately be a fighter, I don't see much advantage in dualing. All options lose the benefit of fighter hp, strength and constitution bonuses.[/quote]

    Just a general note. Most dual classes start as a fighter and dual to something else. So, once they surpass their fighter level they regain their fighter HP and THACO. Exceptional STR, if rolled during fighter creation applys to the dual class both before and after it surpasses the fighter level. Fighter multi's can always roll for exceptional STR during character creation.

    There is also a tome in BG 1 for Str increase that will bump a PC with 18 anything to 19 for BG2.

    Fighters stop getting D10 + Con @ level 10. After that they only get 3HP per level regardless of Con. 13 and 7 are the most popular levels to dual a fighter. If you choose the 13 option to dual your HP vs a pure fighter is going to be very similar. If you choose the 7 option it's a little more of a gap but see my notes on HP pool and armor below.

    Dual's certainly do NOT lose any benefit from STR. Once they get their fighter levels back they get back their fighter THACO and all applicable STR bonuses to damage. They also keep all weapon specializations that were acquired before the dual.

    [quote]Mage > fighter gets some extra spells but can't cast them while using armor.[/quote]

    This is correct. However, an FM multi or dual with the right gear and spells can get way better AC than a fighter. Keep in mind that minus armor, FM duals and multi's can wear/use exactly the same gear.

    Spirit Armor is magical full plate and stacks with shields and rings/ammys and has a good duration.
    Blur adds another -4
    Improved invis adds another -4
    You can toss on protection from evil for another -2

    That's just the AC boosting spells. When you add in mirror image, stoneskin, protection from weapons, and the various spell defenses it's really not even close.

    My FM can solo the final Bodhi encounter without losing a single hit point.

    One of the problems with BG2 at high levels is Monster and PC THACO keeps going up...but AC doesn't keep going down. So eventually you reach a position where honestly your AC and to some extent your THACO doesn't matter. Whatever is swinging at you is going to hit you so spells like mirror image, stoneskin, and protection from weapons that mitigate damage give FM duals and multi's a huge leg up against straight fighters. By the same token, you reach a point where your THACO is high enough to hit anything reliably.


    [quote]Thief > fighter gets some thief skills but similar armor restrictions.[/quote]

    Which you can mitigate with good tactics. Your FT shouldn't be the first thing the enemy sees so he shouldn't really need heavy armor. He should also be pretty mobile to do hit and run attacks. He's more designed to be a skirmisher. My FT's/Stalkers always get the first boots of speed I come across.

    But I should also note that your FT can throw on heavy armor and go tank something. He just loses his thief abilities while he's wearing anything heavier than studded leather.

    [quote]Cleric > fighter is a possibility - no armor restrictions but do the cleric spells outweigh the lack of hp and exceptional strength?[/quote]

    Sort of like the FM discussions above. The HP gap between fighter multi and duals probably isn't as high as you think and starts to become superfluous at really high levels when what you really need is damage mitigation. Also, like FM's they get to keep any/all STR bonuses from their fighter class. In fact, with Draw Upon Holy Might they can get more STR than a fighter can unless the fighter is gulping potions.

    An FC will have Armor of Faith, Draw Upon Holy Might, Righteous Magic, Blade Barrier, magic defenses, summons, etc...

    I should also note that multi's get to pick from both class pools when it comes to HLA's and it's not exclusive. Meaning when my FM multi gains a mage level I can pick a fighter HLA if I want.

    Anyway, in BG 1 I don't think multi's and duals were grossly overpowered vs singles because many of the spells I listed above have a duration somehow tied to caster level. Lower levels paired with a lower spell slot count meant my FM could out tank my fighters easy in BG 1 for specific fights but he didn't have much staying power. He'd have to rest pretty often.

    That changed pretty rapidly in BG 2. Especially since you can store spells in sequencers, rest, and then cast those spells individually without losing the stored spells in the sequencer.
    Post edited by Xannis on
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    edited October 2013

    SionIV said:

    1.) Avenger
    2.) Bounty hunter
    3.) Specialist mage

    Pretty sure those are all worse than dual class alternatives. Some examples:

    1.) Berserker->Druid
    2.) Kensai->Thief
    3.) Kensai->Mage

    You picked kits that have innate scaling to higher levels than you'd usually dual at, but that doesn't make those kits any good. If you want to play those kits because of a personal preference that's fine, but if you go by personal preference then there's no need for a discussion - just do what you like.
    1.) The avenger druid is great, and by far the most useful druid you can play. So having an avenger druid gives you a more powerful divine caster than having a fighter/druid, and in certain parties you much rather have a powerful druid than a pseudo powerful druid and an alright fighter.

    2.) The bounty hunter has some very powerful special traps, which are much more useful than a Kensai/Thief. A bounty hunter can solo things like SCS insane Celestial fury fight thanks to the maze traps, while a kensai/Fighter would get destroyed. Alesia did show us how powerful a bounty hunter can be in her no-reload game.

    3.) A specialist mage got more spells than a Kensai-Mage and the fact is that the mage with more spells and arcane power is the more powerful one.

    [Edited] :

    @Xannis a little correction, blur is -3 AC and +1 saving throws.
    vladpen
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    @SionIV: Being able to dish out a fighter's damage is almost always better than more utility. There is a reason people tend to dual out of fighters so much, it's the best base for consistent, no-questions-asked damage output. Raw damage is the best answer to the majority of situations, and a much speedier substitute for utility tricks. Mods or no mods, being able to just plow through stuff without breaking a sweat almost always is the most efficient way to do things.

    This is especially true for a mage, by the way. You don't want to use spells to do the damage (outside of AoE) because they are slow and clunky; you want to stand there clubbing things to death while your spells get rid of defenses, or make you nigh-invulnerable, or enhance your clubbing-things-to-death abilities. Also, since resting carries almost no penalty whatsoever in BG2 the benefit of having a specialist's extra spell slots is very rarely relevant.

    Experience has taught me, though, that I can't repeat this often enough: this is an objective assessment, using objectively measurable indicators such as damage output or resilience. I'm not saying anything about people wanting to play specific classes for reasons outside of that, which for most will be the actually important arguments. But, since everyone is so different in how they look at that, I'm sticking to objectivity.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    @Lord_Tansheron While I agree that Kensai/Mage is objectively "better" than just about everything else, all things considered, I don't equate being objective with looking at overall power only. Unrestricted powergaming generally points to some kind of fighter/mage as being the strongest class, hardly a surprise, but unless you're specifically aiming for overall power I think it's better to compare a kit with other class combinations that do roughly the same thing. It's useful to compare, for example, Assassin, Fighter/Thief and Kensai/Thief for the role of best backstabber. It's not helpful to throw in Kensai/Mage into the mix even if it's a "better" class because it's a completely different beast, and excluding it doesn't mean we're not being objective. The problem with comparing overall power all the time is that you're limiting yourself to one category only, and you're going to get the same answer every time.

    Bounty Hunters, for example, rely on traps and have their own niche as no other class does quite the same thing. Even if a fighter/mage is objectively "better" overall, a bounty hunter is objectively the best trapper and for that reason worth keeping solo, if you want a trapper. On the other hand, if you're considering whether to take a Bounty Hunter or something else for the last slot in your team, then it can be useful to consider a fighter/mage. For the purposes of discussions like this I think you obtain more insight by exploring categories in which these solo kits excel, not rehashing "fighter/mage > all".

    Anyways, I read the OP's question differently from you. I think he's asking "which kit works better solo than as part of a dual/multi", not "which single-classed kit is better than Kensai/Mage".
    vladpen
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    @nano: That is exactly what I did. I compared Avenger to Berserker->Druid, Bounty Hunter to Kensai->Thief, and Specialist Mage to Kensai->Mage. I even mentioned explicitly that I assume the respective class to be given in the scenario, i.e. comparing only within the kits of a class, and not between classes. That's really what the OP's question was about anyway.

    Not sure where you are getting your notions from, I specifically made sure not to go cross-class in my original reply.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    Corvino said:

    There are quite a few classes that cannot dual or multi (Bard and kits, Paladin and kits, Sorcerer and kits, Monk and kits) that are still very worthwhile even from a powergaming perspective.

    From a roleplaying perspective, you lose nothing by taking the same class through the whole saga. I've played paladins, an unkitted fighter (I was young) and a swashbuckler to the end of ToB as well as multiclasses without finding it difficult or unrewarding.

    I've only just started using multiclasses other than Fighter/Thief and they are definitely powerful. But it depends what you want your main character to be, and if they need to be a one-man-army to do it.

    how is sorcerer in powergaming? every powergaming party has fighter/mages in combinations not sorcerers

  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 418
    edited October 2013
    zur312 said:

    Corvino said:

    There are quite a few classes that cannot dual or multi (Bard and kits, Paladin and kits, Sorcerer and kits, Monk and kits) that are still very worthwhile even from a powergaming perspective.

    From a roleplaying perspective, you lose nothing by taking the same class through the whole saga. I've played paladins, an unkitted fighter (I was young) and a swashbuckler to the end of ToB as well as multiclasses without finding it difficult or unrewarding.

    I've only just started using multiclasses other than Fighter/Thief and they are definitely powerful. But it depends what you want your main character to be, and if they need to be a one-man-army to do it.

    how is sorcerer in powergaming? every powergaming party has fighter/mages in combinations not sorcerers

    With the right spell choices sorcerers can pull some sweet BS that mages just can't hope to do without resting after every fight. Things like cast chain contingency in thick of a fight and have it fire off 3 horrid wiltings on see enemy... or using a wizard eye to scout and a chain contingency to fire 3 project images that each unload your arsenal of spells. These are things mages can only duplicate in a limited fashion and can't truly abuse the way sorcerers can without resting after every fight.

    A sorcerer is a fairly awesome (and superior to a mage IMO) choice for soloing the entire series with if you pick the right spells. Where mages must prepare their spells before hand and if they use up a specific spell thats it till they rest, the sorcerer has his entirely repertoire at his finger tips as long as he has casts left that level of spells.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    i think this thread would be so much better if it was
    "what is the best party of single classes - no dual no multiclassing"
  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 418
    zur312 said:

    i think this thread would be so much better if it was
    "what is the best party of single classes - no dual no multiclassing"

    I think such a party could vary based on taste. A min/maxer would have to break it down on which would be "the best".

    If I went with an entirely pre-created single classed party I'd have:

    Sorcerer (with or without kit) - Artillery arcane spellcaster
    Inquistor - Melee, dispels, true sight, Carsomyr
    Swashbuckler - essentially a fighter/thief, decent melee with thieving skills, use any item
    Blade - essentially a fighter/mage, decent melee and mage spells, use any item
    Priest of Lathander - divine spells, decent melee presence using self buffs and kit buffs
    Fighter (no kit) - While kensai is awesome, without dualing I would prefer being able to use whatever gear I want and still have grand mastery so I would stick with a plain old fighter.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    People tend to be blinded by options. 90% of the spells and abilities in the game are superfluous. All you need is a weapon, and stuff to make sure that weapon hits your target, hits it hard, and hits it enough times before you die. The rest is flavor.
    Wolk
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    Nic_Mercy said:

    zur312 said:

    i think this thread would be so much better if it was
    "what is the best party of single classes - no dual no multiclassing"

    I think such a party could vary based on taste. A min/maxer would have to break it down on which would be "the best".

    If I went with an entirely pre-created single classed party I'd have:

    Sorcerer (with or without kit) - Artillery arcane spellcaster
    Inquistor - Melee, dispels, true sight, Carsomyr
    Swashbuckler - essentially a fighter/thief, decent melee with thieving skills, use any item
    Blade - essentially a fighter/mage, decent melee and mage spells, use any item
    Priest of Lathander - divine spells, decent melee presence using self buffs and kit buffs
    Fighter (no kit) - While kensai is awesome, without dualing I would prefer being able to use whatever gear I want and still have grand mastery so I would stick with a plain old fighter.
    not really an option if you can compare mages specialist wild mages sorcerers you will get the good one even if sorc vs wild is kind of debatable
    etc. for example you will won't take pure fighter or pure thief to party ;)
    Wandering_Minstrel
  • fighter_mage_thieffighter_mage_thief Member Posts: 262
    I prefer unmixed classes too.

    I even like the pure thief because of the rapid level gains and the fact that you can master more skills.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    ok pure thief with all those points would be probably very beneficial to the party
  • XannisXannis Member Posts: 12
    Nic_Mercy said:

    zur312 said:

    i think this thread would be so much better if it was
    "what is the best party of single classes - no dual no multiclassing"

    I think such a party could vary based on taste. A min/maxer would have to break it down on which would be "the best".

    If I went with an entirely pre-created single classed party I'd have:

    Fighter (no kit) - While kensai is awesome, without dualing I would prefer being able to use whatever gear I want and still have grand mastery so I would stick with a plain old fighter.
    No reason not to have a 'zerker kit for a fighter if we're talking no dualing. They can use any gear a vanilla fighter can and can do 5 pips in any melee weapon you want. Just can't specialize/grand mastery in ranged weapons but that's silly for a fighter anyway with Archers being an option.
    Nic_Mercy
  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 418
    Xannis said:

    Nic_Mercy said:

    zur312 said:

    i think this thread would be so much better if it was
    "what is the best party of single classes - no dual no multiclassing"

    I think such a party could vary based on taste. A min/maxer would have to break it down on which would be "the best".

    If I went with an entirely pre-created single classed party I'd have:

    Fighter (no kit) - While kensai is awesome, without dualing I would prefer being able to use whatever gear I want and still have grand mastery so I would stick with a plain old fighter.
    No reason not to have a 'zerker kit for a fighter if we're talking no dualing. They can use any gear a vanilla fighter can and can do 5 pips in any melee weapon you want. Just can't specialize/grand mastery in ranged weapons but that's silly for a fighter anyway with Archers being an option.
    I had considered that after I posted and you're right that would prolly make the most sense.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    @Lord_Tansheron Well, if you agree with me on philosophy I guess I just don't understand how your choices are good comparisons. The whole point of avenger is to have a druid with better casting capabilities, and the whole point of bounty hunter is to get a thief with special utility traps, and I don't see how adding a fighter class to either of them accomplishes the same thing.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    @nano: My point is that those utilities are irrelevant. Having them gives you more abilities, but that doesn't make you stronger than a dual-class. Tricks are not worth the sacrifice of fighter damage output, because 90% of the time you could have just stomped the enemy into the ground straight up instead of wasting time fiddling around with Avenger spells or Bounty Hunter traps.

    Again, it's totally cool if you want to play Avenger or BH and play around with their skills, but objectively speaking those skills just aren't worth the sacrifice of not being dual-class.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    @Lord_Tansheron Even if damage is an acceptable substitute for utility, the whole point of picking something like BH is because you *want* the utility, not because you want more damage - otherwise you would have picked a more damage oriented kit like assassin or a fighter/thief. A good comparison would be a combo that offers similar amounts of utility over a pure thief, not one that trades all of it for more damage. I think you're assuming too much here - if the whole point is to maximize kill speed then we end up with kensai/mages for everyone again.
    vladpen
  • wampawampa Member Posts: 68
    edited October 2013
    SionIV said:


    2.) The bounty hunter has some very powerful special traps, which are much more useful than a Kensai/Thief. A bounty hunter can solo things like SCS insane Celestial fury fight thanks to the maze traps, while a kensai/Fighter would get destroyed. Alesia did show us how powerful a bounty hunter can be in her no-reload game.

    Yes.

    @Lord_Tansheron - I definitely see where you're coming from. Fighters are generally good at getting out damage fast, so dualing from them to provide characters who don't have natural combat ability with some extra HP and guaranteed damage output is a common tactic. It's a good tactic, even - saves the spell slots for the "real problems."

    But provide me with a moment to talk the glory of Maze Traps. They ignore magic resistance and saving throws. Maze, the level 8 spell, requires being up close and personal. Maze Traps can be thrown across a room and are themselves ranged. So a level 21 Bounty hunter, instead of being able to hit things easily like a Kensai/Fighter dual, effectively gets 5 uses of a rather nasty level 8.5 spell per day.

    To use the example Sion mentioned, I direct your attention to Alesia. She was doing a solo no-reload trilogy run. On Insanity. With SCS2 installed. And she utterly crushed one of the tougher party fights in SoA using Maze traps. A Solo Kensai/Thief could run over a pack of hobgoblins or gnolls more easily and more quickly, absolutely. But solo the Guarded Compound or Twisted Rune on SCS2 + Insane difficulty- and getting there without having ever had to reload? I have some doubts. Tactical tools can matter a lot more than a few points of AC or THACO.


    magpieSionIVchickenhedvladpen
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    edited October 2013
    nano said:

    if the whole point is to maximize kill speed then we end up with kensai/mages for everyone again.

    not really in powergaming parties there is room for other characters that are NOT kensai/mage

    for example berserker/cleric and inquisitor are really good in those
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    edited October 2013

    @SionIV: Being able to dish out a fighter's damage is almost always better than more utility. There is a reason people tend to dual out of fighters so much, it's the best base for consistent, no-questions-asked damage output. Raw damage is the best answer to the majority of situations, and a much speedier substitute for utility tricks. Mods or no mods, being able to just plow through stuff without breaking a sweat almost always is the most efficient way to do things.

    This is especially true for a mage, by the way. You don't want to use spells to do the damage (outside of AoE) because they are slow and clunky; you want to stand there clubbing things to death while your spells get rid of defenses, or make you nigh-invulnerable, or enhance your clubbing-things-to-death abilities. Also, since resting carries almost no penalty whatsoever in BG2 the benefit of having a specialist's extra spell slots is very rarely relevant.

    Experience has taught me, though, that I can't repeat this often enough: this is an objective assessment, using objectively measurable indicators such as damage output or resilience. I'm not saying anything about people wanting to play specific classes for reasons outside of that, which for most will be the actually important arguments. But, since everyone is so different in how they look at that, I'm sticking to objectivity.

    The sorcerer and wild mage will always be more powerful than the kensai/mage and win him in a fight, just because they got more arcane power and in the end that is all that matter.

    And as i mentioned earlier, the utility of the bounty hunters trap would let him/her survive through a no-reload SCS insane trilogy playthrough, while a kensai/Thief would never have made it that far.
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    SionIV said:

    @SionIV: Being able to dish out a fighter's damage is almost always better than more utility. There is a reason people tend to dual out of fighters so much, it's the best base for consistent, no-questions-asked damage output. Raw damage is the best answer to the majority of situations, and a much speedier substitute for utility tricks. Mods or no mods, being able to just plow through stuff without breaking a sweat almost always is the most efficient way to do things.

    This is especially true for a mage, by the way. You don't want to use spells to do the damage (outside of AoE) because they are slow and clunky; you want to stand there clubbing things to death while your spells get rid of defenses, or make you nigh-invulnerable, or enhance your clubbing-things-to-death abilities. Also, since resting carries almost no penalty whatsoever in BG2 the benefit of having a specialist's extra spell slots is very rarely relevant.

    Experience has taught me, though, that I can't repeat this often enough: this is an objective assessment, using objectively measurable indicators such as damage output or resilience. I'm not saying anything about people wanting to play specific classes for reasons outside of that, which for most will be the actually important arguments. But, since everyone is so different in how they look at that, I'm sticking to objectivity.

    The sorcerer and wild mage will always be more powerful than the kensai/mage and win him in a fight, just because they got more arcane power and in the end that is all that matter.
    you are the only one who think that they have not more power they will not win at max level they will not at low level and they would probably not win even with exp some exp advantage when trying to level kensai
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    edited October 2013
    zur312 said:

    SionIV said:

    @SionIV: Being able to dish out a fighter's damage is almost always better than more utility. There is a reason people tend to dual out of fighters so much, it's the best base for consistent, no-questions-asked damage output. Raw damage is the best answer to the majority of situations, and a much speedier substitute for utility tricks. Mods or no mods, being able to just plow through stuff without breaking a sweat almost always is the most efficient way to do things.

    This is especially true for a mage, by the way. You don't want to use spells to do the damage (outside of AoE) because they are slow and clunky; you want to stand there clubbing things to death while your spells get rid of defenses, or make you nigh-invulnerable, or enhance your clubbing-things-to-death abilities. Also, since resting carries almost no penalty whatsoever in BG2 the benefit of having a specialist's extra spell slots is very rarely relevant.

    Experience has taught me, though, that I can't repeat this often enough: this is an objective assessment, using objectively measurable indicators such as damage output or resilience. I'm not saying anything about people wanting to play specific classes for reasons outside of that, which for most will be the actually important arguments. But, since everyone is so different in how they look at that, I'm sticking to objectivity.

    The sorcerer and wild mage will always be more powerful than the kensai/mage and win him in a fight, just because they got more arcane power and in the end that is all that matter.
    you are the only one who think that they have not more power they will not win at max level they will not at low level and they would probably not win even with exp some exp advantage when trying to level kensai
    No i'm just against this whole wave of hype that got up many years ago about the Kensai/mage. They are powerful but this idea that they are the most amazing thing since ketchup just doesn't stand true.

    1.) Kensai is incredible weak on itself.
    2.) It's a very painful journey to get back after dual classing, especially if you do it at 13 for that ½ APR
    3.) They aren't the most powerful, a sorcerer or wild mage is more powerful.

    Low level? Sorcerer is more powerful because the kensai hasn't dual classed yet.
    Mid level? The Sorcerer is more powerful because the kensai is low level mage.
    High level? The Sorcerer is more powerful because he is higher level and got more spells.

    I like the Kensai as a class and it's silly that arcane magic is so powerful. I'm just so tired of people thinking the Kensai/Mage is the best thing ever.

    I would pick a Berserker/Mage over a Kensai/Mage anyday because the rage is much more helpful and gives utility to a mage which he has much more need of than more damage.

    A conjurer would be more powerful as well through the entire game and got more spells end game. Not to mention he can use the Robe of Vecna which a Kensai/Mage can't. Doesn't matter if you got 10 APR and amazing damage if you can't hit the enemy, and you can't dispel him either.
  • magpiemagpie Member Posts: 79
    edited October 2013

    Tricks are not worth the sacrifice of fighter damage output, because 90% of the time you could have just stomped the enemy into the ground straight up instead of wasting time fiddling around with Avenger spells or Bounty Hunter traps

    I think you seriously underestimate the maze trap. Have you ever played around with it? A throwable (bounty hunter traps are thrown) no-save mass maze is insane. The point is that this isn't just a `trick'. It offers a different way to play that will be worse in some situations, and better in others. BH excels in avoiding high-risk encounters that might end a hardcore run with some bad luck. For example, just throw a maze trap across the room, pepper the area with normal traps and hide and wait. Clear up the stragglers.

    The question was `which class is worth keeping single?'. The BH, with its unique ability, is an excellent example. You can't easily get what the BH has to offer when you dual or multi.
    SionIVchickenhedvladpen
  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    edited October 2013
    Alesia_BH said:

    Hi all. I just wanted to quickly note that my bounty hunter's No Reload Challenge run was on core rather than insane. It was completed with SCS and Ascension installed.

    On the old Bioware forums she completed the Ascension Solo Challenge on hard. Insane strikes me as feasible- perhaps in no reload play with enough experimentation.

    While I'm here, I'll also note that if the context under consideration is solo no reload play with SCS and Ascension and the metric of comparison is the probability of success, then the kensai duals are less than compelling due to the kensai kit's comparatively unfavorable risk profile in the BG1 SCS endgame amongst other considerations. If forced to choose between a kensai->thief and a halfling bounty hunter, I'd select the halfling bounty hunter without hesitation. Comparing a berserker->thief to a halfling bounty hunter is a closer call. I'm not inclined to render a judgement at the moment since I haven't tried a berserker->thief.

    Anyhoo. Enjoy the discussion everyone!

    Best,

    A.

    Aaah we got a celebrity! *Teases*

    Thank you for your insight on this Alesia.

    [Edited] : And i would like to mention that a No-reload game is actually the perfect game to see which of two classes or combinations are more efficient or "powerful". Because it takes into consideration the whole game, and not just a reload fest until you hit end game and level 20 where you beat everything with a stick +13.
    chickenhed
  • badbromancebadbromance Member Posts: 238
    I was tossing up between a few different classes for a new play through (Cleric/thief, Cavalier or BH) and I just made up my mind!
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    SionIV said:

    zur312 said:

    SionIV said:

    @SionIV: Being able to dish out a fighter's damage is almost always better than more utility. There is a reason people tend to dual out of fighters so much, it's the best base for consistent, no-questions-asked damage output. Raw damage is the best answer to the majority of situations, and a much speedier substitute for utility tricks. Mods or no mods, being able to just plow through stuff without breaking a sweat almost always is the most efficient way to do things.

    This is especially true for a mage, by the way. You don't want to use spells to do the damage (outside of AoE) because they are slow and clunky; you want to stand there clubbing things to death while your spells get rid of defenses, or make you nigh-invulnerable, or enhance your clubbing-things-to-death abilities. Also, since resting carries almost no penalty whatsoever in BG2 the benefit of having a specialist's extra spell slots is very rarely relevant.

    Experience has taught me, though, that I can't repeat this often enough: this is an objective assessment, using objectively measurable indicators such as damage output or resilience. I'm not saying anything about people wanting to play specific classes for reasons outside of that, which for most will be the actually important arguments. But, since everyone is so different in how they look at that, I'm sticking to objectivity.

    The sorcerer and wild mage will always be more powerful than the kensai/mage and win him in a fight, just because they got more arcane power and in the end that is all that matter.
    you are the only one who think that they have not more power they will not win at max level they will not at low level and they would probably not win even with exp some exp advantage when trying to level kensai
    No i'm just against this whole wave of hype that got up many years ago about the Kensai/mage. They are powerful but this idea that they are the most amazing thing since ketchup just doesn't stand true.

    1.) Kensai is incredible weak on itself.
    2.) It's a very painful journey to get back after dual classing, especially if you do it at 13 for that ½ APR
    3.) They aren't the most powerful, a sorcerer or wild mage is more powerful.

    Low level? Sorcerer is more powerful because the kensai hasn't dual classed yet.
    Mid level? The Sorcerer is more powerful because the kensai is low level mage.
    High level? The Sorcerer is more powerful because he is higher level and got more spells.

    I like the Kensai as a class and it's silly that arcane magic is so powerful. I'm just so tired of people thinking the Kensai/Mage is the best thing ever.

    I would pick a Berserker/Mage over a Kensai/Mage anyday because the rage is much more helpful and gives utility to a mage which he has much more need of than more damage.

    A conjurer would be more powerful as well through the entire game and got more spells end game. Not to mention he can use the Robe of Vecna which a Kensai/Mage can't. Doesn't matter if you got 10 APR and amazing damage if you can't hit the enemy, and you can't dispel him either.
    which a Kensai/Mage can't yes he can
    Doesn't matter if you got 10 APR and amazing damage if you can't hit the enemy, and you can't dispel him either. - i agree but he is a mage so he can dispell

    2nd level kensai vs 2nd level mage who would win?

    kensai7/mage8 vs level 9 sorc dunno if sorc would manage to do anything
    the difference is only 64k exp and that will go till max level and kensai only in this 64k gap would be at lower level

    kensai7 is really easy to dual only 64k exp

    i agree on berserker/mage he is probably stronger

    and i am not talking about kensai/mage coz of kensai/mage but any fighter/mage is better than sorc or other solo arcane caster
  • Alesia_BHAlesia_BH Member Posts: 759
    SionIV said:


    Aaah we got a celebrity! *Teases*

    That's kind of you to say. But if there's one thing I hate more than an insult it's a compliment.

    (I'm joking here of course, but it's also sort of true: Insults I can handle, compliments make me oddly uncomfortable.)

    FYI: There is a chance that I'll be spending more time here in the future. I and the other No Reload Challenge participants have privately discussed relocating. For the time being we have decided (unanimously) to remain at Bioware, but we also agreed to reconsider the question at a later date.
    SionIV said:

    Thank you for your insight on this Alesia.

    You're most welcome. Do feel free to stop by the Bioware forums from time to time.

    Best,

    A.
    JuliusBorisov
Sign In or Register to comment.